Facial Recognition Profiling Begins at School.

Did your kids have their school photos taken this year? Did you read the terms and conditions under which these photos are taken? Do you know what happens to those high resolution digital image files after you purchase your prints? Are they deleted or someone gets to keep them? Who owns this data? If you did not check these details then your child is probably already on a facial recognition database. I have investigated this and one major company which is contracted to take photos in many public and private schools retains all photos indefinitely, “just in case you would want another copy anytime in the future”. Moreover, when contacted they refused to agree to delete photos if ordered to do so; your agreement to have your photos taken without the contract including explicit provisions prohibiting data retention (to which they refused to agree) appears to gives them artistic ownership. And this is legal, and if you do not read the fine print and see what is missing then you are part of the problem.

https://www.oaic.gov.au/updates/news-and-media/clearview-ai-breached-australians-privacy

My submission emailed to the senate inquiry into COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 and the Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) Bill 2023 was neither acknowledged by the committee nor included in the list of accepted submissions. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/submission-to-the-inquiry-into-covid

The Australian parliament ignores the arguments it cannot refute. https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2721

Profound historical changes that occurred without the use of force: humanist ethics, emergence of the global moral conscience, human understanding of the universe, logic, maths. These changes occurred imperceptibly on day to day basis, but are noticeable over centuries. The rapid changes that are based on the power of the gun are fleeting, defeated by new exercises of the power of the gun, which amounts to no lasting change, just the same old animal violence. The change that comes out of the barrel of the gun is not the right kind of change, not even true change.

Incompetence is a perfect cover for corruption and conspiracy, and for this reason every predictable effect of a policy must be considered as intentional and the individuals in change of the policy criminally culpable.

I take faith and belief to be opposite attitudes. If one believes (has conviction) what one wishes to be true, then one is closed, at least partially, to being persuaded by evidence or argument to the contrary. In personal relations a person who believes that X is true will resist being persuaded by another person’s arguments that X is false, and as such converses all along ‘in bad faith’, or without faith in the other person’s capacity to reason, which is precisely their personhood, the basis of their moral status and worth.

The Meaning of 1

One/unity (1) is the basic numerical concept of identity and the most basic example of the law of identity - one of three fundamental laws of logic which states that everything is identical only to itself and different from everything else. All other numbers are multiples/sets or fractions of that identity-type; for example, number 4 represents a Basic set of units, which may be instances of the same identity-type, with a certain size {1,1,1,1}. The law of identity dictates a distinction between specific identity (this One) and identity-type (any One). For example, the ‘apple’ identity-type that all specific apples belong to is also a specific identity in its own right, but only as a type (an identity/unity of a higher order), which is different from indemnities/unities that belong to it (first order identities). By making the type-distinction, the consistency/sense is maintained in relation to the identity of each unit, uniquely positioned and counted in a Basic set, and the identity of ‘1’ as a symbol for any unit belonging to the Basic set, or for the unity/count of basic sets.

BREAKING NEWS: Time Magazine is named one of the most honest and factual political magazines in the world by Anton Albanese: ‘A symbol of hope and inspiration to all sovereign logicians, who believe only they get to decide which laws of logic apply to them’.

How “censorship” ought to be defined to take account of social collusion.

I propose that he kind of silencing of public speech perpetrated by ideological proxies who themselves desire to silence argumnets and points of view contrary to the official dogma, also ought to be classified as government censorship. Every totalitarian or corrupt system relies on intentional, systemic collusion by corporate agents with the government, so these two types of agents cannot be logically uncoupled. Even in a perfectly democratic society the government is an agent of the people, elected by the people, majority of whom will see the actions of the State as fulfilling their own intentions and serving their interests, so the private, corporate and government dimensions cannot be meaningfully disentangled if they appear to acquiesce to one another’s discriminatory actions, especially in regard to silencing those who object to the official dogma, which for the ruling majority is the common dogma. In this latter case the government may be engaged in censorship by merely acquiescing to the unjust actions by the power who elected and endorses the unjust government.

Does free speech contribute to racism?

There is no evidence or good reason to believe that free speech, as a matter of principle, contributes more to racism than official/controlled speech. There is also no evidence that free speech falsely convinces people more than official/controlled speech. Nevertheless, in the case of racist propaganda and radicalised blame the problem is not just the false attribution of certain wrongs to a race, but the inhibition and disruption that such speech causes to free speech. When people of certain race are attacked and vilified on a platform they may be in effect silenced from presenting their rational arguments and points of view out of fear. Racial vilification creates a psychological impediment to free speech, and is therefore contrary to free speech.

If there ever was any doubt what ideology does the ruling majority in Ukraine identify with: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-738940

A hilarious conversation with GPT-4 by a philosophy professor: https://justinehsmith.substack.com/p/my-dinners-with-gpt-4

A violent, unarmed individual is dangerous but is as vulnerable to defensive violence as the victim is to offensive violence. A violent mob attacking a person is so disproportionate that it should be invariably regarded as an attempted murder (a lethal weapon used with the intention to kill), leaving the victim entirely at the mercy of the mob’s primitive instinct.

Does a nation whose 90% of adult population meekly acquiesced to the taking away of the right to free medical consent from their own children and future generations deserve to retain property rights, let alone their ownership privileges associated with citizenship? Or should they be replaced by new citizens, hopefully with a more developed moral conscience? All this aside, the kind of people who can be coerced to give up their right to bodily integrity can be just as easily coerced to give up their country too, so the question is purely academic. The deal is done.

One of the biggest lies of the medical cartel is that some diseases are “incurable”. No, it only means that your doctor is not competent enough, not sufficiently knowledgeable and committed to cure it. “Incurable” is a confession by the medical establishment about itself, and says absolutely nothing about the disease.

Universal human rights presuppose the concept of common humanity, independent of culture, ethnicity or race, and a universal standard of reason to allow for their consistent, universal translation and interpretation. Human rights are not divisible; they apply to all of humanity and, by definition, are not attributable on the basis of belonging to any sub-group. Consequently, the concepts of indigenous rights, trans rights, woman’s rights, man’s rights, are inherently not human rights but contrary to them and logically inconsistent, implying that universal human rights are relevantly dependent on sub-group identity and therefore not universal. Also, those who deny universal laws or logic implicitly deny universal human rights.

“But technical knowledge will be of no avail to a soul that has lost its meaning.” https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/prove-your-humanity