How to love your enemies.

The early hominin were not aware of their own faces until they conceived of the face of another and thus began to conceive of themselves in terms of another. At that point in the evolution there emerged the Anthopos - the ‘likeness of me’. This reflexive turn was the beginning of self-awareness, which is nevertheless only indirect, mediated by the essential ‘likeness’ of another. Self-awareness is a conceptual synthesis of others from the first-person perspective, a mental act of internalising the human kind as my-Self in a situation. The more faithfully we internalise humanity as the potential for conscious choice, the more conscious we become. For this reason, we cannot dehumanise or un-Self any wrongdoer without losing the awareness of a part of the Self, which may further degrade our consciousness.

Does anyone feel comfortable with a democidal government of moral rodents ‘understanding’ your health issues?

I reserve the right to disassociate myself from any ID; this ID is not me, nothing but me is me.

Digital Idenity is not YOUR identity

The claim that the ability to prove who you are is a “fundamental and universal human right” is absurd and false. It is false because it is not on the list of ratified human rights. It is absurd because there is no possible universal standard for expressing a “true” identity apart from just being yourself, which is trivially true for everyone and everything. 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 (insane) 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

Charles III is by far the most successful Sovereign Citizen alive, and the biggest inspiration to budding sovereign citizens everywhere;)

The following paper at first reads like a parody, but then the author slowly brings the reader to his side. I like the narrative tension. The argument is all the more interesting in the current ‘cultural/media’ climate, where we are told that sexuality is at least in part subjective, which leaves the door open to regarding any violation of bodily autonomy as a sexual violation. At the same time one wonders whether there is something psychologically and culturally unique to sexuality that does not fit the proposed analogy of the needle. Nevertheless, the author seems to argue that this distinction is morally irrelevant, and the comparison to sexual harassment was only used to make a point about bodily integrity. https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/1/231

BREAKING NEWS: Daniel Andrews, the Premier of Victoria, has affirmed Labour’s commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals by mandating that by 2030 all Victorian households will transition to a new, ultra-sustainable heating technology. Residents will soon be required to heat their dwellings by rubbing their hands together really fast. “Our sustainable development policy prioritises not only sustainability but also affordability. We will support Victorian families by making rubbing your hands together completely free,” sensationally announced the Premier.

Free speech consists in having equal access to the contemporaneous means of public communication, irrespective of the content of speech. Based on this definition, universal free speech is impossible, since political/corporate power is associated with privileged access to the means of public communication, rendering everyone else’s speech systemically restricted. In addition to any systemic asymmetries, public speech may be further restricted by means of targeted censorship. Freedom of speech is ultimately about power, and whenever it is granted to the little people by the ruling faction it is only to advance its own interests.

Speech is meaningful and valuable only if it is used for communication, and to the degree that it can be used for communication. The degree of access to the means of public communication is then the only limiting factor of the value of speech and the only logically consistent measure of the ‘freedom of speech’. Every other measure so far presented (the right to be heard, the number of words spoken per minute in an empty room etc) results in absurdity.

No amount of wealth can free your mind. It can only amplify your delusions.

The hearings of the Inquiry into Covid-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 have begun, but my submission is still not “processed”, after being “lost” in their spam folder, despite being the only person in this country (actually, in the world) who presented a case against the ethical permissibility of all vaccine mandates in a top medical journal. It would be scandalous if the most qualified person to oppose the government policy in question were denied voice in this inquiry, especially after having demonstrated their moral and legal culpability associated with vaccine mandates. Am I that scary? https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?hearingid=30842 This is my submission: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/submission-to-the-inquiry-into-covid

Political systems are human creations, or rather, symptoms of our deficiencies as rational beings. I argue that the only problem to be solved is to improve our capacity to reason/think consistently, because common meaning can be generated only by reasoning and communicating with one another on societal level, ideally on global level. By communicating across all cultural boundaries we learn that all human values and choices are subject to the same fundamental rules of meaning/sense, which do not allow contradiction. All conflicts and disagreements can be reduced to an error of reasoning, and can be overcome by rational beings.

One practical obstacle to cultivating common meaning is posed by people who either deny that humanity is bound by common laws of meaning/sense, or lack the will to reason consistently (they prefer to be told what to do). The standard remedy to this obstacle, the most direct lesson in logic, is suffering, and this is typically fulfilled by opressive political systems. Where the laws of sense are violated, suffering and murder inevitably follow.

Email to Anthony Albanese, PM of Australia (06.05.2023)

Dear Prime minister,

I am an indigenous person whose ancestors walked the Earth some 200 million years ago, before Australia became a continent. My ancestors, the First People, are the true original owners of the Earth on account of their earliest exclusive possession of the landmass that includes the present day continent of Australia. I hereby claim original ownership over this entire continent on behalf of my people. Since all living humans are descendants of the First People, my ancestors, I provisionally include all permanent residents of Australia as co-claimants, including You. I respect the right of anyone to deny our shared original ownership and thus relinquish the associated ownership rights.

I call on You to denounce the false claims made by some tribal corporations that they alone are the first people and the original owners of this landmass or any part thereof.

Sincerely,

A common characteristic of pagan/polytheistic cults is that their gods quarrelled, cheated, fought and abused one another. Human subjects of such gods were stuck with contradictory ideals, with bad role models, and their moral conduct could not possibly be better than that of their gods.

In Norse/Germanic paganism the top gods were violent, tempestuous and intemperate, gods of war (those tribes were literally idolising conflict and murder). The essence of their value system seems to be animal survival and domination through violence, with no transcendental principle to be discerned. They had no concept of humanity, no ideas about the principles of sense, meaning, consciousness. Their paganism was primitive in every sense, irrational and self-defeating, and the only reason it is promoted today is because it is inseparable from Nazi ideology. Nazism was impossible without mystifying the connection between ‘blood and soil’, and paganism offered them this ideological excuse to dehumanise other races ‘on their ancestral soil’. Nativist supremacism is not possible without animistic commitments. What they failed to understand is that the value of humanity resides in rational agency, which is independent of ‘bloodline’ and contrary to tribalism. Paganism and subsequently Nazism denied the conditions of their own capacity to generate meaning and bestow value, and this implicitly denied even their own values.

On Ethno-Traditionalism

Some influencers of the ‘freedom movement’ are advocating the idea that global fascism can be defeated only by a return to a culturally homogenous nationhood ruled by traditions inherited from the ancient tribes of that area. Let us forget for now about the implications of “blood & soil” ideology, or ‘nativist supremacism’, which is a complex subject in its own right. They seem to forget that just two years ago, perhaps still now, the majority of their own ethno-tribe, their own family, would have them forcibly vaccinated, masked and locked up in a concentration camp if they did not comply with the arbitrary and harmful orders of the day. No, your ethno-tribe will not have your back if you start to think rationally and therefore autonomusly. Are those ethno-traditionalist influencers also not aware that the overwhelming majority of their tribe does not give a damn about traditions anymore? They just want affordable bread and reliable services, including social media where they can conveniently post their ‘opinions’ about covidiots, or whatever is the current thing they are told to talk about. In any case, traditions were always only about crowd control, allowing every fool to live their life without thinking, because they knew what was expected of them, and obedience to these rules was the only standard of right vs wrong; no moral conscience required. Try to exit this ideological enclosure because you found something ‘wrong’ with it and see how quickly they will dispatch with you. But what happens when traditions are lost? Without tradition you have two choices: 1) obey the rulling power unquestioningly, which is absurd, or 2) think, about almost everything, and make a moral decision at every step, which is hard work. Can you see what just happened? Because the traditions are mostly lost, cultural homogeneity undermined, things became scary and no longer make sense, some people started to think, trying to work things out. Even the proponents of tribal ethno-nationalism started to think instead of just hailing their tribal gods of war and mindlessly practicing the rites of fertility in the great circe of life. It is predictable that the first reaction would be fight/flight, wanting to UNDO all the bad changes and go back to some mythical safe-place where the gods of war kept their ancient tribe healthy, harmonious and happy, and nobody would dare to have a wrong idea because the village chieftain would chop off their head. When they will realise that this vision is just a sanitised illusion, just a fear-reaction, they will think again, will try to work things out a little deeper, perhaps relinquish some of the old assumptions and think of something entirely new. This is a good thing.

The compliant majority is still complying, not yet thinking. They are adhering to the pattern of their traditional thought-regime even after giving up their traditions. People cannot realise they are captives of a thought-regime, let alone be freed from a thought-regime, until they realise that the invisible regime is itself the cause of pain, or plainly absurd. They need more time.

Another hilarious, and tragic, piece by a self-hating marxist who happens to be an exceptional writer: https://samkriss.substack.com/p/in-englands-dreaming