Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Tribalism is Self-defeating
An identity that is ideologically bound to the land, that includes the land as an integral part of ‘our people’, implies nativist supremacism, which is in principle anti-human and precludes universal ethics, and is therefore a priori wrong. It is trivially true that every human is a product of their ancestors and their cumulative experiences, but tribal cultures devalue the fact that we all share the same ancient ancestors, that we are all related, and instead carve out an arbitrary value-distinction in a particular time period and area; a negation of the common roots of humanity for the sake of tribal advantage over others. The injustice of tribalism is not so much the emphasis on bloodline in their becoming, but ignoring the fact that we are all of the same bloodline, and that the significance of bloodline is logically subordinate to the human capacity to generate meaning. The best thing that indigenous tribes can do to advance their agency is to abandon tribal ideology and embrace their human identity, as conscious rational beings capable of creating unbounded meaning with all other humans, by means of what we all have in common. You are all welcome.
An identity that is ideologically bound to the land, that includes the land as an integral part of ‘our people’, implies nativist supremacism, which is in principle anti-human and precludes universal ethics, and is therefore a priori wrong. It is trivially true that every human is a product of their ancestors and their cumulative experiences, but tribal cultures devalue the fact that we all share the same ancient ancestors, that we are all related, and instead carve out an arbitrary value-distinction in a particular time period and area; a negation of the common roots of humanity for the sake of tribal advantage over others. The injustice of tribalism is not so much the emphasis on bloodline in their becoming, but ignoring the fact that we are all of the same bloodline, and that the significance of bloodline is logically subordinate to the human capacity to generate meaning. The best thing that indigenous tribes can do to advance their agency is to abandon tribal ideology and embrace their human identity, as conscious rational beings capable of creating unbounded meaning with all other humans, by means of what we all have in common. You are all welcome.
Imagine you are born and raised inside a maze. The colony of humans inside it faces an existential crisis and are forced to find a solution. They explore the limits of the maze and find several exits. Which way do you run?
Final Results
15%
The first exit requires violent overthrow of another colony of the same size.
74%
The second exit will open only if all conflicts and disagreements within your colony are resolved.
11%
The third exit requires complete renunciation of propert rights and freedom.
If every genuine protestor went to a protest as an accredited journalist, only to watch and document but not to act as a protestor, then every fake protestor would be automatically exposed. The story would write itself. Observing, documenting and understanding how propaganda is made is more powerful than being used for propaganda. In fact, it is counter-propaganda.
Every medical doctor is free to cheat the vaccine mandate and issue a fake certificate just for themselves and their family, because they will obviously not inform on themselves. This set up is a huge moral hazard for doctors, giving them the choice to avoid the vaccine and pretend they are vaccinated, thus keep their licence to make money from medicine, while still poisoning everyone else. It is therefore impossible to determine how many doctors faked their own vaccine certificate. This is likely intentional, creating an opportunity for the in-crowd to save themselves from harm if they collaborate in the crime, with plausible deniability. Some chose otherwise: https://t.iss.one/c/1562876276/84332
In the future, any doctor who vaccinated others or promoted the vaccines, but their own blood does not have vaccine-induced antibodies, could be potentially proven guilty of crimes against humanity. The fact that they faked their own vaccination status proves that they believed the vaccines cause harm (guilty mind). Their blood will the evidence of their crime.
New Info. The maze is an experiment conducted by aliens. If you fail to exit, the colony is to be liquidated. If you do exit, the experiment will be repeated every year, for as long as the colony exists. Would you make a different choice knowing this?
Final Results
30%
The first exit requires violent overthrow of another colony of the same size.
64%
The second exit will open only if all conflicts and disagreements within your colony are resolved.
6%
The third exit requires complete renunciation of property rights and freedom.
Interpretation of the poll.
Option 1 (violent overthrow of a colony of the same size) has approximately 50% chance of failure. After 10 years (ten tests) you would have less than 0.1% of survival, assuming no casualties are incurred during fighting, which would deplete your colony’s fighting capacity. On the long run, this is physical extinction.
Option 3 is a path of diminishing agency. Without freedom and property rights your capacity for thought and action would atrophy, causing consciousness to fade away. On the long run, this is mental extinction.
This leaves us with Option 2, irrespective of how unlikely it is to succeed, because it does not guarantee extinction. It is true that this has never been accomplished in the history of humanity for whole communities, but it is also true that we have never been at the current level of conceptual development, understanding the rules according to which disagreements can be resolved in any communication community. In order to resolve all conflicts and disagreements would not require everyone in the colony to agree on all the facts in question, but to agree on the distinction between facts and assumptions. We can commit to different assumptions as working hypotheses without holding them to be the truth, accept that we do not yet know the truth, and thus avoid disagreements about the facts. If a decision needed to be made on the basis of incomplete knowledge, we could identify the practical purpose of the decision and then agree on the methodology for quantifying the performance of different choices for satisfying that purpose, just as we are doing here in terms of the odds of extinction. Resolution of disagreements could also be found by less sophisticated means, for example, lottery or voting. We have been working towards this end for a long time now, and we are getting better at it, even in the present climate of seemingly incoherent diversity. In daily life we agree on most things, even if we do not talk to one another, and we tend to figure out how to seamlessly cooperate in public; it is rather the disagreements that are exceptions and require careful explanation of the points we disagree about. We notice the disagreements more acutely because we are conditioned not to pay attention to what we already agree on, and we thus preserve both energy and mental focus for resolving disagreements. Moreover, we agree in our identification of what we disagree about, and thus we already demonstrate a meta-level of universal agreement. Since we agree on most things, what is preventing us from reaching agreement on some other things? I suggest that all present disagreements can be resolved at the meta-level by means of the distinction proposed above, between truths and hypotheses, facts and assumptions, values and value-commitments etc.
I am surprised that the percentage of voters for Option 1 has increased after the revelation that the test is to be conducted every year. I expected the participants to notice that this strategy, based on the implied probability of failure, amounts to a suicide if regularly repeated. At the same time, Option 2 becomes relatively more valuable under regular repetition, because once accomplished it remains an asset, a new skill-set combined with psychological readiness that does not require substantial revision in subsequent tests in order to pass them.
Option 1 (violent overthrow of a colony of the same size) has approximately 50% chance of failure. After 10 years (ten tests) you would have less than 0.1% of survival, assuming no casualties are incurred during fighting, which would deplete your colony’s fighting capacity. On the long run, this is physical extinction.
Option 3 is a path of diminishing agency. Without freedom and property rights your capacity for thought and action would atrophy, causing consciousness to fade away. On the long run, this is mental extinction.
This leaves us with Option 2, irrespective of how unlikely it is to succeed, because it does not guarantee extinction. It is true that this has never been accomplished in the history of humanity for whole communities, but it is also true that we have never been at the current level of conceptual development, understanding the rules according to which disagreements can be resolved in any communication community. In order to resolve all conflicts and disagreements would not require everyone in the colony to agree on all the facts in question, but to agree on the distinction between facts and assumptions. We can commit to different assumptions as working hypotheses without holding them to be the truth, accept that we do not yet know the truth, and thus avoid disagreements about the facts. If a decision needed to be made on the basis of incomplete knowledge, we could identify the practical purpose of the decision and then agree on the methodology for quantifying the performance of different choices for satisfying that purpose, just as we are doing here in terms of the odds of extinction. Resolution of disagreements could also be found by less sophisticated means, for example, lottery or voting. We have been working towards this end for a long time now, and we are getting better at it, even in the present climate of seemingly incoherent diversity. In daily life we agree on most things, even if we do not talk to one another, and we tend to figure out how to seamlessly cooperate in public; it is rather the disagreements that are exceptions and require careful explanation of the points we disagree about. We notice the disagreements more acutely because we are conditioned not to pay attention to what we already agree on, and we thus preserve both energy and mental focus for resolving disagreements. Moreover, we agree in our identification of what we disagree about, and thus we already demonstrate a meta-level of universal agreement. Since we agree on most things, what is preventing us from reaching agreement on some other things? I suggest that all present disagreements can be resolved at the meta-level by means of the distinction proposed above, between truths and hypotheses, facts and assumptions, values and value-commitments etc.
I am surprised that the percentage of voters for Option 1 has increased after the revelation that the test is to be conducted every year. I expected the participants to notice that this strategy, based on the implied probability of failure, amounts to a suicide if regularly repeated. At the same time, Option 2 becomes relatively more valuable under regular repetition, because once accomplished it remains an asset, a new skill-set combined with psychological readiness that does not require substantial revision in subsequent tests in order to pass them.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Humanity is the Ground of All Meaning
All your rights, all your values, including your value as a person, all meaning and sense, derive from your belonging to the Human kind: the kind of beings who possess reflexive conscousness vis-a-vis one another, and the capacity for rational thought, by means of which WE are able to collectively generate meaning. Humanity has the absolute priority over tribal, racial, cultural or ideological identity, because all these value-categories derive from and are conditional on being human, above all else. To ascribe any priority to your tribe, race, culture or ideology over the value of humanity is to negate the ground of these values, and thus to contradict and negate yourself. Tribalism, racialism, culturalism and ideologism all contradict themselves, negate themselves, refute their own priority, their moral status, their meaning and values. In order to be wholly yourself, to be a fully integrated being, to be fully human, absolutely valuable, of inviolable moral status, one must first abandon all contrary value commitments.
All your rights, all your values, including your value as a person, all meaning and sense, derive from your belonging to the Human kind: the kind of beings who possess reflexive conscousness vis-a-vis one another, and the capacity for rational thought, by means of which WE are able to collectively generate meaning. Humanity has the absolute priority over tribal, racial, cultural or ideological identity, because all these value-categories derive from and are conditional on being human, above all else. To ascribe any priority to your tribe, race, culture or ideology over the value of humanity is to negate the ground of these values, and thus to contradict and negate yourself. Tribalism, racialism, culturalism and ideologism all contradict themselves, negate themselves, refute their own priority, their moral status, their meaning and values. In order to be wholly yourself, to be a fully integrated being, to be fully human, absolutely valuable, of inviolable moral status, one must first abandon all contrary value commitments.
Forwarded from Normal Chat
What is Ethics?
Ethics in the most rudimentary sense is concerned with the distinction between Right and Wrong actions with respect to other beings of the same kind, or what we call the social dimension. Social experience has taught early hominids what actions result in better social outcomes, which were probably geared to group survival. These practical insights were progressively formalised as customs, laws and religion. Our modern institutions were build on the prevailing ethical principles, not only because these were socially internalised as the shared moral conscience, but because we became aware that the integrity of the social dimension, which is sustained by ethics, is inseparable from the conditions of social constructs such as meaning and culture. Rational ethics is necessarily grounded in what all rational agents value about themselves: the uniquely human capacity to bestow worth on things, actions and ideas. In order for this capacity to be consistently expressed at the social level we must respect it not only in ourselves but in everyone else. A meaningful existence is necessarily an ethical existence, and the degree of meaning is commensurate with the degree of ethical consistency of the individual and the society.
In essence, we must act ethically to preserve not only the integrity of the social dimension but also a meaningful existence as individuals.
Ethics in the most rudimentary sense is concerned with the distinction between Right and Wrong actions with respect to other beings of the same kind, or what we call the social dimension. Social experience has taught early hominids what actions result in better social outcomes, which were probably geared to group survival. These practical insights were progressively formalised as customs, laws and religion. Our modern institutions were build on the prevailing ethical principles, not only because these were socially internalised as the shared moral conscience, but because we became aware that the integrity of the social dimension, which is sustained by ethics, is inseparable from the conditions of social constructs such as meaning and culture. Rational ethics is necessarily grounded in what all rational agents value about themselves: the uniquely human capacity to bestow worth on things, actions and ideas. In order for this capacity to be consistently expressed at the social level we must respect it not only in ourselves but in everyone else. A meaningful existence is necessarily an ethical existence, and the degree of meaning is commensurate with the degree of ethical consistency of the individual and the society.
In essence, we must act ethically to preserve not only the integrity of the social dimension but also a meaningful existence as individuals.
“Preoccupation with fight-flight leads the group to ignore other activities […]. [This] basic assumption of the group conflicts very sharply with the idea of a group met together to do a creative job..” Bion
The pursuit of tribal sovereignty, the focus on racial or gender discrimination, preservation of tradition, are all fight-flight responses reflecting the (absurd) basic assumption that the primary purpose of the group is to preserve the group, rather than do anything creative as a group. Tribalism is nowadays a form of paralysis of the creative potential of the group, which causes a vicious circle of weakening, leading to more anxiety about the group’s preservation, leading to a stronger fight-flight response, leading to more paralysis, leading to further weakening, and ultimately to destitution, in-fighting and self-destruction.
The pursuit of tribal sovereignty, the focus on racial or gender discrimination, preservation of tradition, are all fight-flight responses reflecting the (absurd) basic assumption that the primary purpose of the group is to preserve the group, rather than do anything creative as a group. Tribalism is nowadays a form of paralysis of the creative potential of the group, which causes a vicious circle of weakening, leading to more anxiety about the group’s preservation, leading to a stronger fight-flight response, leading to more paralysis, leading to further weakening, and ultimately to destitution, in-fighting and self-destruction.
“… leaders who neither fight nor run away are not easily understood.” Bion
Land is an existentially crucial public resource that no group has a better right than others to monopolise on racial/cultural grounds. The distinction between private property rights vs public land is relatively new, seeking to prevent conflicts about access and use of this limited resource on the basis of human equality under law. This precludes any claims of ownership predating this system, which are not based on human equality, are universally overlapping and contradictory, therefore indefensible.
Asking the military to intervene in the political process is literally asking for a military coup. If the military felt this was justified they would have done it irrespective of what you think. If they military feels this is a bad idea they will not be swayed by your suggestion. A request of this kind purports to give legitimacy to a temporary military dictatorship, and should be prudently interpreted as designed to facilitate this outcome, and then you are guaranteed to get much more than you asked for. Who will you ask for help then? A foreign army to invade and “liberate” you from your stupidity, for a hefty price?
I think the biggest problem of constructive political change is exemplified in the question of how should we fix the political system that appears utterly dis-functional; the task is too big and too vague to be practically meaningful. We should not have an end-goal in mind (we cannot clearly imagine it yet and working systems are always too complex to explicitly comprehend) but set smaller, more practical tasks that lead in the right direction. It seems to me that we are doing it here, at this stage in an ad hoc manner, but something more structured is already evolving. So far we have sent some letters, refined our arguments/reasons for rationally defending the intellectual and ethical positions we hold. Now we are beginning to develop something of a group dynamic, making independent contributions and refining our interactions towards a more mature, sophisticated ‘system’. In a sense, we are already realising a system that we would like to live in, without yet being clear about the rules of this system; the result is partly unconscious but already somewhat sophisticated (and definitely more sophisticated than any other group on social media that I know of).
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
The snippet is from the manifesto of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation (aka David Cole). Any kind of “holy mandate” tribal-nationalism is classified as Right Wing extremism, as racial supremacism - a core feature of nazi ideology. They also claim to be your rulers. Beware.
Violence is the most unsophisticated and instinctive response to societal problems; it does not require serious reasoning, but only a cover story for the lowest common denominator: killing. We are here to do better because we can do better, while there is no shortage of those who are quick to fight because they have no better ideas. Violence is not a solution to anything, it is just a continuation of the same old mentality, the animal instinct dressed up in ideology, a waste of creative potential. We are better than that.
Daily Hypocrisy. A para-military unit loyal to a rich conspiracy theorist Sovereign Citizen (Charles III) attacks a poor conspiracy theorist Sovereign Citizen for refusing to recognise their preferred Sovereign Citizen’s “authority” over others:) https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2277
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Anonymous tip-off:
I would like to report a dangerous “sovereign citizen” who goes by the name Charles the Third. He and his followers have amassed a substantial cache of weapons, including nuclear weapons, biological and chemical production facilities that could be covertly weaponised against the public. This sovereign citizen controls a global network of military, para-military and spy organisations, typically identifying themselves with the term “Royal”, by means of which he interferes in democratic elections and extorts public wealth. His predecessors in the same “sovereign” movement are known to have committed massacres (most notably in India and Germany, although the list of their crimes is virtually inexhaustible). I hope you will make the investigation of this POI your highest priority, as he poses a Gobal threat.
I would like to report a dangerous “sovereign citizen” who goes by the name Charles the Third. He and his followers have amassed a substantial cache of weapons, including nuclear weapons, biological and chemical production facilities that could be covertly weaponised against the public. This sovereign citizen controls a global network of military, para-military and spy organisations, typically identifying themselves with the term “Royal”, by means of which he interferes in democratic elections and extorts public wealth. His predecessors in the same “sovereign” movement are known to have committed massacres (most notably in India and Germany, although the list of their crimes is virtually inexhaustible). I hope you will make the investigation of this POI your highest priority, as he poses a Gobal threat.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
The Concept of Sovereignty
Sovereignty is a property that can be held only collectively, not individually, because individuality is not ontologically self-sufficient. It follows that there can be no “sovereign” monarchs (all Kings and Queens are impostors). On a deeper analysis, considering that every instance of consciousness is existentially determined by its relating to all other instances of rational consciousness, sovereignty does not even belong to nations but to all of humanity, which renders the political notion of sovereignty trivial. Sovereignty is then reducible to rational agency per se, which is necessarily characterised by moral autonomy of the Self with respect to negotiating the ontological dependency that binds all of humanity together, as a multiplicity of reflexively interrelating Selves. Our moral choices may advance our rational agency, by correctly navigating the conditions of mutual dependency (the Right moral choice is ultimately and necessarily in self-interest), or degrade our rational agency by misunderstanding or abusing those conditions (the Wrong moral choice is contrary to self-interest).
Sovereignty is a property that can be held only collectively, not individually, because individuality is not ontologically self-sufficient. It follows that there can be no “sovereign” monarchs (all Kings and Queens are impostors). On a deeper analysis, considering that every instance of consciousness is existentially determined by its relating to all other instances of rational consciousness, sovereignty does not even belong to nations but to all of humanity, which renders the political notion of sovereignty trivial. Sovereignty is then reducible to rational agency per se, which is necessarily characterised by moral autonomy of the Self with respect to negotiating the ontological dependency that binds all of humanity together, as a multiplicity of reflexively interrelating Selves. Our moral choices may advance our rational agency, by correctly navigating the conditions of mutual dependency (the Right moral choice is ultimately and necessarily in self-interest), or degrade our rational agency by misunderstanding or abusing those conditions (the Wrong moral choice is contrary to self-interest).
I contest the view that the present political system is based on violence. Violence is of course used instrumentally, but its ultimate foundation seems to be the mindset of Dependency and the associated social Collusion.