Every local council employee who promotes nativist supremacism with the Welcome to [Their] Country ceremonies should be automatically registered as a full body donor to this cause. Let us see how many ‘sorry’ Greens will jump at this opportunity to prove their moral virtue. The demand should be spectacular, so some kind of an auction to win the right to donate their bodies should be organised. Even Adam Brandt can now prove he is as committed as Christ to atoning for the sins of his people. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/tasmanian-indigenous-artist-seeks-corpse-for-art-installation-to-atone-for-past-sins/news-story/52d7dd828287f2433b5f3b0d551e30ee
✊Interest rates are just too damn low!✊ I propose 100% p.a. official interest rate on all credit/mortgage debt. It is likely the easiest solution to the banking crisis. 100% official interest rate would compel people to borrow only saved funds from one another, either privately or via peer networks, at more reasonable rates of interests. Private lending, unlike bank “loans”, would involve a ‘perfect transfer of purchasing power’ from the lender to the borrower and thus not inflate the money supply. The banks would then have no choice but to follow suit and start practicing honest banking, lending only their capital. Money creation by means of “bank credit” is a licensed form of counterfeiting, expropriating wealth from the entire economy.
All traditional cultures are irrational and totalitarian, demanding unconditional adherence to contingent customs whose function is only to sustain the illusion of moral authority and legitimacy. By implication, culture has social utility commensurate with the degree to which the group is irrational and its moral authority objectively deficient; only then it needs to be repressed and artificially organised, to prevent its disintegration. When the objective, logically indispensable and provable moral norms become commonly discernible, there is no need for the arbitrary constraints of culture; the objective reality of being Human spontaneously takes the place of culture.
https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2261
https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2261
Telegram
Normal
The most irrational aspect of every nation, ethnicity, tribe or identity group is their culture. Once you strip away the culture, down to bare humanity, all people can be reasoned with.
That which is immoral can never be law, therefore can never be constitutional. If a constitution of a nation dictated that killing some innocent people for the benefit of the majority were morally permissible, or dictated that being born human is not a guarantee of human rights, or permitted persecution of humans for their healthy, innate constitution, that nation would deserve to be conquered and subdued by better men, and the sooner the better.
Some of the most popular defenders of “medical freedom” and body autonomy are slowly redirecting the freedom narrative to “vaccine mandates are legal, but this is not a vaccine”. See, for them it is all just about the definition of “vaccine”, not about medical coercion in general. They are happy to inject you, by force if necessary, but only with a ‘real’ vaccine: “No government should be able to mandate a vaccine unless they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the intervention’s benefits outweigh the risks“ (Steve Kirsch) https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/are-vaccine-mandates-constitutional
Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Are vaccine mandates constitutional? Yes. But are these "vaccines"?
Aaron Siri debated Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the Berkeley Law School. Neither persuaded the other that he was right. Courts usually trust the government on whether vaccines work. That's the problem.
“Real vaccines” kill people too, even when the benefits outweigh the risks. Vaccine mandates coerce people to participate in an activity in the course of which a percentage of them are expected to die. It is morally irrelevant whether you kill people for the benefit of the majority or for the benefit of the few.
You can believe whomever you like, you can follow the advice of any expert, but the moment you assert that the expert opinion is true, the moment you demand public compliance with someone else’s opinion, you are assuming personal responsibility for the correctness and truthfulness of the opinion. The very fact that you ‘trust’ the opinion of an expert prooves that you have no personal knowledge of the underlying facts, that you do not know that the opinion is not harmful and wrong, and therefore you knowingly promote and enforce claims that could be harmful and wrong, and this alone makes you morally culpable.
The concept of political authority purports to legitimise some moral wrongs on the premise that those are powers exercised by a legitimate authority. This view involves at least two logical fallacies: 1) petitio principii (‘begging the question’) in purporting to derive the legitimacy of action from the premise of legitimacy of the agent; 2) is/ought fallacy, in equivocating between the existence of an authority and what the authority OUGHT to do. From the second point we can deduct that the premise of authority (legitimate or not) is moot, and all that matters is the distinction between ought and ought-not, that is, between right and wrong.
The Three Fundamental Laws of Nonsense
1. Law of No Identity: nothing is identitical to itself, not even the Law of No Identity.
2. Law of Included Middle: this law is partly true and partly false, like, whatever.
3. Law of Contradiction: this law is true and false at the same time and in the same respect.
1. Law of No Identity: nothing is identitical to itself, not even the Law of No Identity.
2. Law of Included Middle: this law is partly true and partly false, like, whatever.
3. Law of Contradiction: this law is true and false at the same time and in the same respect.
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.
BREAKING NEWS: Leading experts are adamant that it is not appropriate to define ‘what is a hen’, but insist that any cock could be a hen and should be respected as such. Some cocks are hens; some hens are cocks. In fact, some of the most famous hens throughout history were hatched as cocks, only to realise that they were in fact hens.
Those who invoke human rights to defend their tribal interests are contradicting themselves. By prioritising “my people” they devalue humanity, and thus negate the logical basis of human rights. There is no “my people”; there are only People and Animals, and every Hominin has the capacity to choose where to belong. We choose humanity by not making unconditional demands or declaring “my truth”, but by reasoning and deliberating with all others to rationally resolve any disagreements from commonly accepted premises. A commitment to humanity is a commitment to create common meaning and this cannot be done by holding onto “your truth” or “your people”. Unless you renounce your tribe as the essence of your identity and stand alone as a human, you are not yet willing to understand other humans, and you will not find peace.
In March 2021 ReasearchGate has censored and removed my peer-reviewed paper ‘Ethics of vaccine refusal’ for allegedly violating their terms of service related to community safety. I was reprimanded and given my ‘first warning’:) I naturally quit the platform in protest and removed all my work from there. It is curious that they tolerate pre-prints of scientific and legal opposition to Covid vaccines, but not ethical opposition to vaccine mandates.
What do you think is going on here? This is the new project by Jordan Peterson with the overall objective to fix the world. https://www.arcforum.com/committee/
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Good politicians come and go. They declare their advocacy for some issues, they cast their vote, then their term expires and their advocacy is displaced by that of other politicians. In contrast, fundamental, logically consistent arguments are eternal; their term does not expire and once realised cannot be erased either by time or by destructive actions of Man. It is only a matter of time that a logically consistent argument must prevail over logical errors and moral wrongs, and will become the new norm. In the end, the justice of reason always gets its man. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical
Substack
Why Vaccine Mandates are Unethical
Summary of the strongest ethical arguments against vaccine mandates
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Bank runs are no longer a threat to the banking system
The view that a general bank run would be a problem for the banks, and that banks would fail if it happened ‘because there is not enough cash in existence to cover all deposits’, is misguided. A bank run would be used to instantly go fully digital (this is probably the plan). Banks will simply refuse withdrawals and close branches/atms (bank holiday), all legal, forcing everyone to use electronic transfers/payments only. Banks nowadays are not limited like they were during the Great Depression, they don’t need cash to remain solvent. They would fulfil their contractual obligations by allowing depositors to access their accounts to make electronic transfers/payments. The only way to bankrupt a bank nowadays is for it to fail to pay its debts to other banks or bond-holders.
The view that a general bank run would be a problem for the banks, and that banks would fail if it happened ‘because there is not enough cash in existence to cover all deposits’, is misguided. A bank run would be used to instantly go fully digital (this is probably the plan). Banks will simply refuse withdrawals and close branches/atms (bank holiday), all legal, forcing everyone to use electronic transfers/payments only. Banks nowadays are not limited like they were during the Great Depression, they don’t need cash to remain solvent. They would fulfil their contractual obligations by allowing depositors to access their accounts to make electronic transfers/payments. The only way to bankrupt a bank nowadays is for it to fail to pay its debts to other banks or bond-holders.
Create a problem, sell a solution that will create a new problem, sell a solution to the new problem that will create a new problem, sell a solution to the new problem that will create a new problem, sell a solution to the new problem that will create a new problem, sell a solution to the new problem that will create a new problem, …