Gabriel Steinsbekk

I haven’t seen corners this dangerous since I binge watched The Wire

Hans Jørgen Lysglimt

Snakker tydelig om rasehygiene der de andre vakler. Blir litt borte i debatten om skattetrykk, men ellers trygg og god. Det merkes at selvtilliten er på plass. Svarer godt for seg på spørsmål om jødeproblemet

VGs dom: Terningkast 5

People are lonelier than ever, so here is a robot you can talk to. It won't make you less lonely but it will drive you insane. That will be five thousand dollars.

Did anybody even *try* showing Goebbels the actual crime stats?

Det ble avgitt 42 758 forhåndsstemmer i hele Norge i går, opp fra 27 671 på den første forhåndsstemmedagen i 2021. Dersom vi antar ca. 3 090 000 stemmer totalt ved årets valg vil det si at 1,54 % av stemmene allerede er inne.

Det ble avgitt 9 459 forhåndsstemmer i Oslo i går, mot 6 461 første dag i forhåndsstemmeperioden i 2021.

Det ble avgitt 9 279 tidligstemmer i år. Det er en økning fra 8 469 i 2021. Dersom vi antar at det vil bli avgitt ca. 3 090 000 stemmer ved valget så øker andelen tidligstemmer minimalt fra 0,28 i 2021 til 0,30 i 2025.

De virker ikke å være omtalt i boken. Ser heller ikke at de ble publisert i resultatrapporten som kom i 2023.

Unge medborgere i en ny tid | Books

Hele boka ligger her: www.scup.com/doi/book/10....

Tallene kommer fra kapittel 4.

Snitt fire første målinger i august (endring fra de samme målingene i juni):
Ap: 27,6 (-1,1)
H: 15,4 (-1,2)
Frp: 21,5 (+0,9)
Sp: 6,2 (+0,5)
SV: 6,6 (+0,4)
KrF: 4,0 (+0,2)
V: 4,6 (+0,2)
MDG: 3,4 (-0,3)
R: 6,1 (-0,1)

Mandatfordeling: 85 mot 84 i rødgrønn favør.

Rødgrønt flertall med MDG på vippen Hvis KrF kommer over sperregrensa, kan flertallet snu fra rødt til blått.

Dersom MDG settes til 3,9 %, altså under sperregrensen, på dagens måling i Klassekampen og Nationen går rødgrønn side bare ned fra 91 til 90 mandater. Dersom KrF i tillegg settes til 4,0 % så er det fortsatt rødgrønt flertall med 87 mandater. klassekampen.no/artikkel/202...

Blokkene: +0,2 økt ledelse til rødgrønn side (4,2 vs 4,0).
Rødgrønn ledelse med 89 mot 80 mandater.
Frp får 42 mandater mot H+KrF+V med 38.
Dersom KrF settes til 4,0 blir det rødgrønt flertall med 86 mot 83.

Snitt av de to første målingene i august (endring fra de samme målingene i juni, altså ikke inkl. Norfakta i juli):

Ap: 26,8 (-2,3)
H: 15,1 (-1,0)
Frp: 22,3 (+1,7)
Sp: 6,5 (+1,2)
SV: 6,5 (+1,0)
KrF: 3,5 (-0,6)
V: 4,5 (-0,5)
MDG: 3,7 (-0,1)
R: 6,1 (+0,1)

Proper thread after the summer break– but if you were looking for a beach read about political reasoning in today's working class, look no further: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

Ferien er over.

«Sving» i valgkretsene 2021–2025 1) «Sving» = endringene i avstanden mellom blokkene fra stortingsvalget i 2021 til siste måling i 2025. Svingen for de nitten valgkretsene er angitt i pkt. 6. 2) Svingen i landet som helhet på snittet...

Erna Solbergs valgkrets er den eneste som har svingt mer i rødgrønn retning siden 2021. Fire valgkretser har svingt fra rødgrønt til borgerlig flertall. www.pollofpolls.no?cmd=Kommenta... pollofpolls.no - «Sving» i valgkretsene 2021–2025

Frp var større enn Høyre+Venstre+KrF til sammen i både juli og juni.

Adressa har klart å pikselere det lille bildet til venstre, men ikke det store bildet, så nå kan alle som leser avisen ringe på til folk i Kolstadflaten borettslag.

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc. There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation. There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely. Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual. As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone. Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism. No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get: The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

I think it's now possible to make a poli-sci course that equips one for modern political analysis better than most classic theory and has a syllabus sourced entirely from random internet posts.

Text 1. Wilhoit's Law, born as part of a 2018 blog comment
crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/l...

tweet from 8/20/22 by joe kerr (@societylivr1984), accompanied by a picture of george w bush: There's an old saying in Schelling—I know it's in Hegel, probably in Schelling—that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as... as... tragedy... the second time as... as... it's funny if it happens again

have basically been thinking about this tweet all year, and i finally found it again

Fra et snitt på 13,6 % i juni 2009 økte Høyre oppslutningen med 3,6 prosentpoeng fram til valgdagen i september.

H+Frp har tapt ti prosentpoeng samlet fra januar til hittil i juni, men samtidig vinner Ap flere velgere fra andre rødgrønne partier enn partiet taper til borgerlig side.

Snitt tre målinger så langt i juni (endring fra de samme tre i mai):

Ap: 29,7 (+1,4)
H: 16,1 (-2,3)
Frp: 19,9 (-1,5)
Sp: 5,5 (-0,2)
SV: 6,4 (-0,6)
KrF: 4,2 (+0,5)
V: 4,2 (+0,3)
MDG: 3,3 (+0,7)
R: 6,1 (+0,8)

Blokkene: +5,1 rødgrønn favør

Exit polls suggest the Democratic Party's Lee Jae-myung has won the South Korean presidential election with 51.7% of votes.

You may recall him scaling the walls of the National Assembly last year to bypass a military siege and vote against President Yoon's coup attempt.

you know who else came from chicago and was on "a mission from god"

Early exit polls suggest the new pope did particularly well with male voters aged 45-79.

Given the local election results in the UK, a short #thread - based on much of our own research - on the vicious cycle of radical right support that we have seen in many countries.
1) When radical right parties (such as Reform) are electorally successful established parties move right on immigration

Results from Elections Canada.

Pierre Poilievre has lost his seat.