To devalue the humanity of others by pursuing self-interest at the expense of others, amounts to self-dehumanisation. This is essentially a Kantian thesis: if we do not respect the humanity of others to the same degree that we respect our own humanity, we negate the value of the human kind, but by doing so we also negate our own value, as members of that kind.

Compliance with an unethical law, even by means of a mandated exemption, entails affirmation of the legitimacy of that law, unless done under protest and forced to comply. To comply with a proposition is to affirm the proposition: the legal term for this is tacit or performative acquiescence.

For as long as humanity existed there were mass murderers and tyrants. When ‘righteous violence’ was used to defeat them it only made space for new mass murders and tyrants to take their place. After thousands of years of ‘righteous violence’, mass murderers and tyrants still rule, but many people think that ‘righteous violence’ is the solution to this problem.

Nothing cheapens women more than the proposition that anyone can be a woman.

Being ready does not mean having a plan, but having a foundation that will not be shaken by anything unexpected. Reality will always surprise you.

Those who claim that morality is impossible without religion unwittingly confess that they themselves lack moral conscience and must be told what is right or wrong. Conversely, if morality is independent of religion then what is religion for?

If the majority of citizens in a democratic state voted in a referendum to adopt Nativist Supremacism, the core features of Nazi ideology, as a state doctrine, would Nazism become legitimate again, or would it still be morally wrong and therefore unlawful? Then why are we forced to have this referendum?

A ‘how to’ guide to using reverse psychology to realise unpopular UN agenda items. You get VIC Forests to abuse their own guidelines, make a mess in the old growth forests, log sensitive sites. This is expected to create public outrage and get a radical reaction from environmental activists who otherwise have nothing else to live for apart from smoking pot. Now they have a moral purpose, they too can be heroes of the revolution. You put a couple of competent organisers to get these potheads to coherently work together, blockade the same logging sites at the right time. This drives up the cost of logging and the entire operation can be made to look unprofitable and wasteful. The activists will work for free and organise fundraisers for implementing your covert agenda, at no cost to you. You keep this going on for, say, a decade. After this priming you know the activist generated a lot of grass roots support for your project to end all forest exploitation, then you pull the cord, shut down the entire ‘unprofitale’ industry, and blame it all on the activists, who will celebrate their ‘victory’. No skin off your nose. If you’re a budding dictator you can try this yourself. https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/native-timber-logging-to-be-brought-to-an-end-in-victoria/news-story/6e014f2fb05dfa552b0659c757f20879

Victorians are punished for their compliance with unethical mandates and lockdowns. Those who collude with sociopathic leaders are typically the first victims of the regime.

What an insult to real aboriginal people to imply that fake-tan-Stan is just like Them. Are Aboriginal people being replaced?

““Freedom is therapeutic.”” https://rmachine.substack.com/p/leaving-psychiatry-chap-12-possibility

The problem with psychiatry (and with medical practice in general) is that doctors are themselves regarded as nothing mote than well-adjusted psychiatric patients, who are also captives of the asylum. Doctors are not free to transgress the invisible walls of the medical model they are held within, and any attempt to do so invariably results in their re-education (“therapy”), and, failing that, they become just one of the patients, coerced back within the walls of the asylum, deemed mentally unfit for their special patient privileges. The core diagnostic premise (from the sociopathic standpoint) is that only a ‘crazy’ person would risk their wages of some half a million $ per year by challenging the model that takes such good care of them. By the same token, taking the money to stay in the asylum proves their belonging in the asylum and that they are, in fact, not morally competent human beings capable of freedom.

The most interesting aspect of this story is that Frank is evidently the designated face for the controlled release of anything contrary to the official position on Covid/vax. The release is controlled insofar as nothing new is released, only that which can no longer be effectively concealed. I contacted Frank twice by email, but it seems the arguments I am presenting do not yet qualify for controlled release. Frank is apparently not allowed to talk to me.

Beyond Native vs Alien

“It is a deeply human trait to identify with a homeland or a home tribe, to differentiate ‘us’ from ‘them’ and to vilify outsiders as enemies (Culotta, 2012; Davis, 2009), but whether this innate tendency to draw boundaries between in-groups and out-groups and then to discriminate across them is helpful or harmful when applied to other species is questionable. The incendiary allegation is that the concept of nativeness itself ‘really amounts to a form of racism, almost an ecological fascism’ (Trudgill, 2001, p. 680), and that pro-native policies are xenophobic, redolent of Nazi horticulture (Brown & Sax, 2004, 2005; Coates, 2011, 2015; Gröning & Wolschke-Bulmahn, 2003; Katz, 2014; Peretti, 1998; Theodoropoulos, 2003). In environmental discourses, human and biotic communities are conflated in myriad ways, especially in relation to the intertwined and co-rooted ideas of nature, native and nation (Head & Muir, 2004; Smith, 2011; Warren, 2011). All three rely heavily on the fiction that these concepts are given, not constructed (Biermann, 2016), and all have close linkages with identity (Fall, 2014a; Olwig, 2003). As Antonsich (2020) shows, ideas of nativeness and alienness have developed in conjunction with the nationalization of nature and the naturalization of nation, with consequent conflation of ecological and political nationalistic narratives. Framing alien species as immigrants has been a common metaphor since Elton (1958), and there are undeniable rhetorical parallels and cultural/psychological entanglements between anti-immigrant and anti-alien species discourses, each being framed in terms of native purity being contaminated by illegitimate newcomers (Caluya, 2014; Frank, 2019; Inglis, 2020; Stanescu & Cummings, 2017b; Subramaniam, 2017). Such parallel arguments against alien people and non-human alien species are mutually reinforcing (Sinclair & Pringle, 2017). Explicit comparisons between ‘foreign’ species and ‘othered’ humans are not only commonplace but have become integral to biopolitical governance, exemplified by President Bush’s relocation of staff responsible for invasive species management to the Department for Homeland Security after the 9/11 attacks on the USA (Steer, 2015) and Australia’s ‘Safeguarding Australia’ policy which aims to protect the nation from terrorism, crime, invasive diseases and pests (Caluya, 2014). Branding invasive species as security threats to the ‘pure’ homeland (e.g. Simberloff et al., 2020) reinforces the nativist foreigner-as-threat imagery which pervades the invasion biology literature (Fall, 2014b; Katz, 2014; O’Brien, 2006; Subramaniam, 2017). The selection of the date of European colonization as the defining temporal threshold of nativeness (e.g. 1492 in the USA, 1788 in Australia) embodies a further subtle form of racism by implicitly classing indigenous peoples as sub-human, belonging to wild nature not human civilization (Head, 2012).” https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1140055153

Context. Probably the most powerful statement against fascism ever produced. https://vimeo.com/groups/565619/videos/281984569

Does he really believe that nativist, racial supremacism, the cornerstone of Nazi ideology, is morally defensible or is this just another moral test of the population? Or is it reverse psychology, trying to frame Aboriginals as racial supremacists?