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?

It seems that my attempts at parody can barely stay ahead of reality: https://vancouversun.com/news/canada/safer-snorting-kits-b-c-high-school-cowichan-valley-school-district/wcm/cd05b42b-191c-4ca3-aaaa-46370a03cb76

According to Reconciliation Australia, the demand for "reconciliation" extends to all non-indigenous people. No distinction is made between non-indigenous entities that historically benefited the most from colonial exploitation vs settlers who were themselves chiefly exploited, between entities that committed crimes vs those who respected indigenous people as moral equals. The most glaring omission in this discourse is what do post-colonial migrants, many of whom escaped democidal regimes, have to reconcile about with indigenous people? The expectation to “reconcile” devalues and arbitrarily stigmatises all migrants and their descendants. The listed omissions suggest that the term "reconciliation" is a misnomer, used in bad faith; the implicit purpose of the exercise is too secure an inalienable, superior moral entitlement for the native race. This is inconsistent with the professed purpose of national unity and equality. "A reconciled Australia is one where our rights as First Australians are not just respected but championed in all the places that matter…" writes Kirstie Parker – Board Member, Reconciliation Australia. Mutual respect for human rights and reciprocity of moral obligations is not enough to satisfy "reconciliation"; a commitment to the priority of the native race and culture is demanded from every other race and culture. The stated criteria of reconciliation are self-centred, grandiose, arbitrarily discriminatory on the basis of race or origin, inconsiderate of differences between non-indigenous histories, and therefore supremacist.

The Black and Red flag is also a common nazi symbol, signifying the connection between ‘blood/race and soil/land’, and is still in use by Nazis today (look it up, our government sends them weapons). If the Nazi swastika is a symbol of the sun, then what is the meaning of the image of the Sun on a Nazi flag? It seems a fascist government is banning old symbols of Nazi ideology only to distract from their current endorsement of Nazi ideology.

Some contemporary theocratic regimes advocate the freedom of thought without the freedom of expression. Another way, they claim you have the right to think whatever you like, provided you do not express it publicly, or else off with your head. I argue that there is no freedom of thought without the freedom of expression, because thought is the domain of meaning, and meaning is ontologically social, sustained only though reciprocal communication. Social expression is a necessary condition of meaning, therefore of thought itself, and once expression is suppressed thought is indirectly neutralised too, rendered meaningless. The only relevant distinction is whether a particular expression is Right or Wrong, True or False, which must be rationally demonstrated. Authoritarian regimes are intellectually lazy, irrational in their essence, for failing to deliberate in good faith on the question of Right vs Wrong.

Please unselect your dogma before proceeding to the checkout

All dogma (a belief affirmed without proof) violates the principle of sufficient reason and therefore the law of non-contradiction, implicitly affirming the opposite of the ruling dogma as also true without a sufficient reason. A dogmatic regime can defend against its anti-thesis only through terror, and most regimes are comfortable with and proficient in using this primitive defence. Nevertheless, even if the general population is reliably suppressed, it is inevitable that an internal schism will eventually occur within the regime itself, violently ending the regime and replacing it with a different regime. During this internal conflict, the regime is left unprotected from the violence of the general population and can be wholly eliminated. It is then up to the population whether they will opt for another dogmatic regime, which will inevitably fail due to schism, or a rational society based on deliberation from fundamental principles, which can endure and prosper indefinitely. The lesson of history is that all dogmatic regimes fail. The lesson of logic is that all dogmatic regimes must fail.

No code escapes the fundamental laws of meaning/sense (non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity), which is the universal trans-code. Every code can be analysed internally, symbolically, without the need to assign any ’proper’ meaning to the symbols, and its contradictions revealed. On close inspection, all revolutionary pretences are revealed as self-negating and only help us to hone our own power of language and sense. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/gender-identity-on-trial