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.
“Whenever a state exists that is likely to activate, or itself to have been activated by, the baD, there is a fear of dictatorship—a recent example is the often expressed fear that the Welfare State will lead to a tyrannical interference with liberty—the seizure of power by Communists, bureaucrats, etc. One of the most common calls in this situation is for a return to a belief in God, and indeed it will be surprising if in the small therapeutic group some member does not make this very plea. It expresses the desire to avoid the concrete embodiment of leadership in an actual member of the group. If I leave things to develop, many remedies will be proposed; revolt against the chosen leader, a claim that treatment should be available for all and that one person should not monopolize, and so on. In effect practically all the solutions adumbrated are recognizable as closely similar to procedures tried throughout history. What is not so easy to describe is what it is against which the group is seeking to protect itself.” W.R.Bion, 1966
The term ‘herd animal’, often used by psychologists and sociologists in reference to humanity, is a profound misrepresentation of what makes us human. Being a conscious Self is not conditional on the formation of crowds or even basic aggregation, but on social reflexivity (mutual mirroring) that occurs irrespective of social aggregation. This mirroring occurs to a lesser degree when we are aggregated as physical crowds than when we are communicating one on one, and can also be executed internally (in imagination) for extended periods of time. Moreover, the uniquely human feature of reflexive consciousness is the opposite of (non-reflexive) animality, so neither ‘herd’ nor ‘animal’ fits the constitutive formula of a Self whose existence is meaningful.
Tradition and Culture is not a substitute for Morality
Nazis were ultra-traditionalists, defending the ‘original’ Germanic folk-lore from external influences and from the influence of modernity. The fact that they were traditionalists evidently did not endow them with the kind of moral conscience that would preclude their crimes against humanity. Their excessive attachment to culture/tradition created an extreme psychological dependency and anxiety, which was in turn assimilated by the majority of Germans. Each felt they would literally cease to exist without their traditional culture, their folk-lore being perceived as the sole substance of their existence. When this level of dependency is established, one feels justified in attacking every challenge to the ‘purity’ of cultural convictions, and every new-comer, every resident professing a different culture is perceived as an existential threat, a cultural enemy that must be eliminated. The key point here is that tradition is not necessarily moral or rational, and when uncritically internalised as the basis of one’s identity that supersedes our common identity as humans (conscious rational beings) it is a straight path to genocide. The only middle ground between traditionalism and cultural change is rational discernment, the ability to evaluate ideas on their logical merits, instead of habit and attachment.
Nazis were ultra-traditionalists, defending the ‘original’ Germanic folk-lore from external influences and from the influence of modernity. The fact that they were traditionalists evidently did not endow them with the kind of moral conscience that would preclude their crimes against humanity. Their excessive attachment to culture/tradition created an extreme psychological dependency and anxiety, which was in turn assimilated by the majority of Germans. Each felt they would literally cease to exist without their traditional culture, their folk-lore being perceived as the sole substance of their existence. When this level of dependency is established, one feels justified in attacking every challenge to the ‘purity’ of cultural convictions, and every new-comer, every resident professing a different culture is perceived as an existential threat, a cultural enemy that must be eliminated. The key point here is that tradition is not necessarily moral or rational, and when uncritically internalised as the basis of one’s identity that supersedes our common identity as humans (conscious rational beings) it is a straight path to genocide. The only middle ground between traditionalism and cultural change is rational discernment, the ability to evaluate ideas on their logical merits, instead of habit and attachment.
This story reminds of Bion giving up his authority as an expert in order to stop others idolising him, and only then genuine human interaction, based on rational agency rather than appearances, was possible. https://www.kidspot.com.au/news/toxic-message-teachers-and-parents-are-cancelling-90s-classic-the-rainbow-fish/news-story/b98f0a1959a90917abde0cd57c2760d3
Theodore Adorno argued that concepts are deficient because they are not identical with the objects of experience. It is not clear why this renders them deficient, but rather implies deficiency of the expectation that Concepts and Objects ‘ought to be’ identical. My answer to the question of this non-identity is that Objects are not singular concepts but a synthesis of multiple concepts, including the abstract concepts of change and difference that renders every object of experience both spatially and temporally unique. The object is nothing in excess of the concepts (meanings) in terms of which we experience them as meaningful appearances. On this view, Adorno’s idea that there is a ‘gap’ between concepts and objects is false.
It is logically impossible for consciousness to arise without meaningful socialisation, without being a part of a communication community where meanings are mirrored by beings of the same kind. Consciousness cannot be ‘discovered’, it can only be collectively evolved (https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWODO). Crucially, a lower degree (inferior) reflexive consciousness could not possibly recognise a higher degree (superior) reflexive consciousness; the less cannot contain the more, it can only mirror itself. Projective anthropomorphism is quite common, because humans are naturally predisposed to respond to any features that mirror human features as if they were also associated with reflexive consciousness. Our need to connect is so strong that we may invent ‘conscious’ entities to connect to. When this happens, we should consider the possibility that we are lacking sufficiently reflexive/meaningful human connections to satisfy this fundamental need.
The chief psychological motif of aristocracy and royalty is procreation/breeding; as a group-entity it can preserve itself only through heredity/lineage. This invokes two primary anxieties that are prevalent in this group: about its sexual potency and the messianic hope linked to genetic superiority. It is therefore no surprise that apart from its obsession with sexuality, the aristocracy views humanity via the same lens it views itself: their obsession with familial eugenics.
Emotions are not intentional actions, not something we do to communicate or express ourselves; they happen to us and we witness them happening to us, and others may witness us experiencing them. In that sense emotions are not ‘ours’, because it is not ‘us’ communicating or expressing ourselves.
This should be the end of his political career, but it won’t. It shows how selective and perverse is the establishment’s use of the charge of ‘antisemitism’. The same establishment celebrates the core elements of Nazi ideology professed by the Indigenous sovereignty movement, in particular, nativist supremacism. https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2388
Let us analyse the symbolism of Perrottet wearing a Nazi uniform to a 21st birthday party.
Birthday is a celebration of birth, breading, bloodline, therefore of eugenics.
Party in his context is obviously the Nazi Party.
Number 21 is evidently the sum of the day, month and year of the terrorist attack on the WTC: 11+9+1=21
Therefore, Perrottet celebrated eugenics through acts of terrorism aimed at destroying the world trade, on behalf of the Nazi party.
This is clearly an impeachable offence;)
Birthday is a celebration of birth, breading, bloodline, therefore of eugenics.
Party in his context is obviously the Nazi Party.
Number 21 is evidently the sum of the day, month and year of the terrorist attack on the WTC: 11+9+1=21
Therefore, Perrottet celebrated eugenics through acts of terrorism aimed at destroying the world trade, on behalf of the Nazi party.
This is clearly an impeachable offence;)
When the State uses propaganda, ambiguity, disinformation, secrecy or emotional nudging to gain acquiescence to specific political outcomes (instead of relying on logical argumentation supported by full disclosure of the relevant information), it automatically contradicts the purpose of democracy and negates its democratic mandate. A secretive state, a deceptive state, a manipulative state, is not a democratic state but a totalitarian one operating under the guise of democracy.
There is so much hypocrisy in the response to this event. Mass media celebrate Hollywood actors who wear Nazi uniform to entertain us. They promote core elements of Nazi ideology when it suits their strategic objectives: people & place (formerly Blood & Soil), nativist supremacism, Holy mandate tribal nationalism, ‘original’ people. They send weapons to Nazi units in Ukraine, endorse the racial/genetic purity clause in the Constitution of Ukraine, then gaslight the public and assert that it is YOU who must be re-educated.
Pay attention to how they spin the narrative to dilute the responsibility and misdirect. The Premier of NSW revealed himself as a Nazi sympathiser, but instead of holding him accountable they ‘forgive’ the offender but blame the society (all of YOU, who do not dress in Nazi uniforms) for not being educated enough to teach an ‘intelligent young man’ like the Premier to avoid incriminating himself like that. Their conclusion: the offender need not be re-educated; everyone else needs to be re-educated.
Who is ready to start discussing Kissinger/Bion, as per the pinned post?
Do not teach Critical Thinking, but rational thinking.
The term “critical thinking”, which is used liberally in education, is distinct from rational or logical thinking, which are rarely if ever mentioned in the curricula. Critical thinking is an instrument of propaganda, geared to indoctrinate students with critical attitude towards anything deemed non-reputable; to reject any argument or information arising from anywhere apart from trusted/official sources. Conflating the validity of the source with the validity of the information is of course a logical error, a category mistake. Similarly, finding a fault with a person or institution does not automatically invalidate their argument. I watched a video by an emeritus professor of psychology trying to explain what “critical thinking” is and why it is “good”, which amounted mostly to clumsy circular reasoning that “critical thinking” is “good thinking” and helps you being “effective”. It was almost comedic how she was struggling to justify this term without using either “rational” or “logic” in her explanation. There are over 100 recognised logical fallacies (look them up), but all are reducible to just three laws, which are in fact just different articulations of the same law (you could use non-contradiction as the one law with no detriment to your reasoning): the law of non-contraction, excluded-middle and the law of identity (I wrote several essays on these on my Substack). You do not need to understand formal notation to make sense of this, as you are already applying all these laws intuitively; you were born with the capacity to apply them, but bad choices, bad habits can progressively degrade the clarity of your discernment. Irrationality is not innate but a cumulative effect of irrational choices without facing their consequences.
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/is-it-rational-to-trust-the-experts
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/derivation-of-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-from-the-law-of-non-contradiction
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-law-of-identity
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-law-of-excluded-middle
The term “critical thinking”, which is used liberally in education, is distinct from rational or logical thinking, which are rarely if ever mentioned in the curricula. Critical thinking is an instrument of propaganda, geared to indoctrinate students with critical attitude towards anything deemed non-reputable; to reject any argument or information arising from anywhere apart from trusted/official sources. Conflating the validity of the source with the validity of the information is of course a logical error, a category mistake. Similarly, finding a fault with a person or institution does not automatically invalidate their argument. I watched a video by an emeritus professor of psychology trying to explain what “critical thinking” is and why it is “good”, which amounted mostly to clumsy circular reasoning that “critical thinking” is “good thinking” and helps you being “effective”. It was almost comedic how she was struggling to justify this term without using either “rational” or “logic” in her explanation. There are over 100 recognised logical fallacies (look them up), but all are reducible to just three laws, which are in fact just different articulations of the same law (you could use non-contradiction as the one law with no detriment to your reasoning): the law of non-contraction, excluded-middle and the law of identity (I wrote several essays on these on my Substack). You do not need to understand formal notation to make sense of this, as you are already applying all these laws intuitively; you were born with the capacity to apply them, but bad choices, bad habits can progressively degrade the clarity of your discernment. Irrationality is not innate but a cumulative effect of irrational choices without facing their consequences.
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/is-it-rational-to-trust-the-experts
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/derivation-of-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-from-the-law-of-non-contradiction
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-law-of-identity
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-law-of-excluded-middle
Michael Kowalik’s Newsletter
Is it rational to trust the experts?
(No)