The Failed State and Moral Improvement
Any argument that the State is illegitimate is moot; the alleged authority of the State is always illegitimate, just like the alleged authority of kings was always illegitimate. The premise of legitimacy is a mythic fulcrum of state power, nothing more. This does not mean that replacing the State or the King by force with something or someone else would improve human situation. I suggest that illegitimacies of society are reflected in the illegitimacy of the State. Crucially, even a legitimate State can be oppressive (by whatever standard people believe is ‘legitimate’), while an illegitimate tyrant can be the best and fairest manager of the nation. So perhaps it is not legitimacy that matters the most but something else.
When the State becomes too corrupt for people to endure, and there is little hope of a remedy emerging from state-approved processes, what is it that prevents people from replacing the State with something better? The most obvious answer is: the fear of violence, dispossessions, persecution. The next relevant question is: what makes the State so proficient at violence? I suggest the State has superior organisation that can utilise mostly stupid and some smart people towards common ends, who, despite being an overall minority, can project power more effectively than the disorganised majority. Nevertheless, the principles on which even a modern State is organised are amazingly simple, indeed primitive: top-down authority, a myth of legitimacy, the carrot (rewarding loyalty) and the stick (penalising dissent). When a corrupt State is occasionally overthrown by the majority, the new State is still premised on violence, fear and collusion, merely reproducing the old State-organisation with new, equally corruptible beneficiaries in place. Conversely, whenever ‘enemies of the state’ reach a meaningful organisational level, the State becomes less violent towards them and more willing to ‘negotiate’. Typically it does not matter how immoral, terroristic or criminal the enemies are; any State premised on violence and collusion will make deals and seek a new ballance of power if the challenger is also wiling to make a deal. Now imagine what you could accomplish if, instead of violence, you organised yourselves according to more sophisticated principles than those of the militarised welfare State.
The limiting factor for organisational sophistication is the development of society itself; that means YOU. For this reason I suggest that focussing on the development of society, prioritising rational deliberation and good faith for mutual understanding and common interest instead of manipulation and force is nowadays the optimal (perhaps the only) path for moral improvement of the State.
Any argument that the State is illegitimate is moot; the alleged authority of the State is always illegitimate, just like the alleged authority of kings was always illegitimate. The premise of legitimacy is a mythic fulcrum of state power, nothing more. This does not mean that replacing the State or the King by force with something or someone else would improve human situation. I suggest that illegitimacies of society are reflected in the illegitimacy of the State. Crucially, even a legitimate State can be oppressive (by whatever standard people believe is ‘legitimate’), while an illegitimate tyrant can be the best and fairest manager of the nation. So perhaps it is not legitimacy that matters the most but something else.
When the State becomes too corrupt for people to endure, and there is little hope of a remedy emerging from state-approved processes, what is it that prevents people from replacing the State with something better? The most obvious answer is: the fear of violence, dispossessions, persecution. The next relevant question is: what makes the State so proficient at violence? I suggest the State has superior organisation that can utilise mostly stupid and some smart people towards common ends, who, despite being an overall minority, can project power more effectively than the disorganised majority. Nevertheless, the principles on which even a modern State is organised are amazingly simple, indeed primitive: top-down authority, a myth of legitimacy, the carrot (rewarding loyalty) and the stick (penalising dissent). When a corrupt State is occasionally overthrown by the majority, the new State is still premised on violence, fear and collusion, merely reproducing the old State-organisation with new, equally corruptible beneficiaries in place. Conversely, whenever ‘enemies of the state’ reach a meaningful organisational level, the State becomes less violent towards them and more willing to ‘negotiate’. Typically it does not matter how immoral, terroristic or criminal the enemies are; any State premised on violence and collusion will make deals and seek a new ballance of power if the challenger is also wiling to make a deal. Now imagine what you could accomplish if, instead of violence, you organised yourselves according to more sophisticated principles than those of the militarised welfare State.
The limiting factor for organisational sophistication is the development of society itself; that means YOU. For this reason I suggest that focussing on the development of society, prioritising rational deliberation and good faith for mutual understanding and common interest instead of manipulation and force is nowadays the optimal (perhaps the only) path for moral improvement of the State.
Nativist supremacism (First Nations, Original People, Native Title, Indigenous Voice) is as serious threat to humanity as vaccine mandates. These two are nowadays the pinnacle of moral and political corruption; a global return to Nazi ideology and a covert abrogation of human rights, respectively. https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/629
Telegram
Normal
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…
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Males who are cross-dressing or pretending to be women are mocking women, degrade womanhood, and also implicitly endorse similar forms of racial mockery, for example, ‘blackface’. We have the moral obligation to defend women (and other races) from being mocked and degraded. Moreover, when a male is not only pretending but also demands (or someone else demands on his behalf) to be recognised as a woman, he is not only mocking women but discriminating against and denying their gender identity determined by being females. This also applies in reverse, to females claiming to be men. You have the right to defend your gender identity but also a moral obligation to protect children from being radicalised with the bigoted transgender ideology. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/gender-identity-on-trial
Join NORMAL
Join NORMAL
When a male feels the unbearable compulsion to identify as a female, I am not denying his feelings; I am only denying the irrational expectation that others must deny their own identity to accomodate his feelings.
Some people argue that those who oppose certain government policies ought to put their differences aside and unite to solve the common problem. This view takes us in the right direction but is still only half-hearted; all of humanity (including the government) ought to put our differences aside and work together to solve common problems, including the problem of disagreement about policies. If the former proposition is realistic, then the latter proposition is realistic too, so why stop half-way and still end up in a fight?
Digital Idenity is not YOUR identity
There is no “true” identity apart from just being oneself. Everything is alway only identical to itself (the Law of Identity), and any additional feature (like a number, microchip, tattoo etc is necessarily not you), nor is any part or feature of your body (like fingerprints or a retina scan) your identity. What the authors of the linked page are trying to assert is that there is a human right to assume a false identity, which is a very strange proposition. In short, a Digital or biometric ID is a false identity, a fundamental lie, a violation of the law of identity, therefore nonsense.
https://id2020.org/digital-identity
There is no “true” identity apart from just being oneself. Everything is alway only identical to itself (the Law of Identity), and any additional feature (like a number, microchip, tattoo etc is necessarily not you), nor is any part or feature of your body (like fingerprints or a retina scan) your identity. What the authors of the linked page are trying to assert is that there is a human right to assume a false identity, which is a very strange proposition. In short, a Digital or biometric ID is a false identity, a fundamental lie, a violation of the law of identity, therefore nonsense.
https://id2020.org/digital-identity
Human rights are universal birthrights. Making them conditional on altering your inborn constitution denies your birthrights, therefore violates human rights.
Cash is an insurance policy against cyber-crime and digital systems malfunction. During natural disasters cash is typically the only possible means of payment.
Those who agreed with vaccination mandates also agreed, by implication, to be one day legally euthanised, fair and square, for the benefit of the majority, or if the legislators would decide that it would serve the “greater good”. I hope those who supported the mandates, or looked the other way, understand the deal they took.
Distrust of Authority is Intellectual Humility
Distrusting the authorities and their experts is the most humble intellectual position one can take. You do not claim to know that the government is good, you do not claim to know that the experts are right, you don’t know that, and you know that you don’t know, you admit the limits of your knowledge and the vastness of your ignorance. On the other hand, those who trust the government, those who believe the experts, who repeat the official assertions they cannot possibly know to be true, are dangerously conceited and unhinged, delusional and false, they are political extremists and ideological fanatics, a force of tyranny and evil, the greatest threat to national security and the epitome of inhumanity.
Distrusting the authorities and their experts is the most humble intellectual position one can take. You do not claim to know that the government is good, you do not claim to know that the experts are right, you don’t know that, and you know that you don’t know, you admit the limits of your knowledge and the vastness of your ignorance. On the other hand, those who trust the government, those who believe the experts, who repeat the official assertions they cannot possibly know to be true, are dangerously conceited and unhinged, delusional and false, they are political extremists and ideological fanatics, a force of tyranny and evil, the greatest threat to national security and the epitome of inhumanity.
A hypothetical scenario. 100 people made me their chief and gave me one dollar each, and I then give you $2 towards the cost of your food. Do I now have authority over you, so that you have to obey me (on behalf of the 100 people who gave me money)? What about a different scenario, where 10 million people made me their chief, and each gave me $5000, and I then spent some of this money to build roads and pay $2000 towards your healthcare, do I now have the right to punish you if you disobey my orders (made on behalf of the 10 million people who obey me and give me money)? Clearly, authority requires more than just taking and giving, let alone making demands and punishing people for disobedience. So what is this crucial ingredient that transforms power into authority?
A note on the Bible
Someone has asked me today whether I believe the biblical story of Jesus is historically true. I suggest that the question is irrelevant to the significance of the text. If the Bible is a moral or spiritual lesson, a teaching, then it must stand on its own textual merits, irrespective of whether it is historically accurate or fictional. Moreover, on my reading, the text does not endorse ‘belief’ but ‘faith’, ‘good faith’, understood as the attitude of openness to the unknown, openness to new understanding and to the possibility of being mistaken, which is contrary to the state of certitude that is typically associated with the term ‘belief’. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/transcendental-theology-for-non-believers
Someone has asked me today whether I believe the biblical story of Jesus is historically true. I suggest that the question is irrelevant to the significance of the text. If the Bible is a moral or spiritual lesson, a teaching, then it must stand on its own textual merits, irrespective of whether it is historically accurate or fictional. Moreover, on my reading, the text does not endorse ‘belief’ but ‘faith’, ‘good faith’, understood as the attitude of openness to the unknown, openness to new understanding and to the possibility of being mistaken, which is contrary to the state of certitude that is typically associated with the term ‘belief’. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/transcendental-theology-for-non-believers
The political minority is never the primary target of propaganda; that’s not what propaganda is for. A rational dissenter is never despised by the ruling power; on the contrary, the power respects competent and consistent opposition. The doubter and the critic is never the lowest life-form in the political food chain; the obedient, gullible, unthinking majority is the ‘plankton’ on which the Power feeds and must carefully manage in order to sustain self.
Never in history were humans as united, as familiar and as understanding as we are today. We are told the opposite, but the alleged ‘fragmentation’ of the world is superficial, driven by false advertising and over-focalisation of sub-cultural trivialities. Beneath these appearances we have evolved a global language, a global sense of humanity, a global ethic, a universal sub-culture of sense vs nonsense, a capacity to understand one another and resolve disagreements according to common, intuitively affirmed rules of discourse. We are witnessing the natural death of tribalism and the emergence of universal connection of a kind never experienced before, of meaning that is not received but consciously created by us: OUR meaning.
Many people believe it more rational to trust the TV than to doubt the government.
The first slave who demanded to be treated differently got lynched. 4439 more slaves got lynched before the system of slavery collapsed and all slaves were treated differently.
Vaccine refusal is 95% effective at preventing Covid deaths and should be mandated as the primary, safe and effective intervention in the global fight against Covid. It is also expected that vaccine refusal will protect the public from future variants. Be socially responsible and always practice vaccine refusal.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Validity of vaccine mandates is exclusively an ethical issue, not a medical issue, not a scientific issue; the mandates would be just as unacceptable even if the vaccines were fully approved and fully prevented transmission. Scientific arguments against the mandates imply, falsely, that medical mandates would be acceptable under some empirical conditions. Any scientific argument disputing the efficacy and safety of vaccines must not make the claim that the mandates are ‘therefore’ unacceptable (this would be an equivocation between utility and ethics, ultimately serving the utilitarian agenda). Https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical