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

The primary mistake made by people who contest the existence of viruses is that they take science to be a form of knowledge of what ‘exists’. This is not the case. Existence is a question of philosophy, ontology, or convention, not of empirical science. Science is a system of abstractions and their relations, constructed to predict how a particular action can bring about a particular reaction. The inputs and outputs only need to be real (we generally agree on those, for example, on the reality of our headache and on the physical existence of the colourful pill taken to stop the pain); all the theoretical steps in between need not be real, but merely symbolic transformations for consistently achieving the desired outcome.

Costello cannot possibly be that ignorant of economics. Housing inflation is driven entirely by two factors: monetary expansion via credit issuance and the ratio of housing growth to population growth. Low interest rates drive prices up, whereas any increase in the rate of housing supply over the rate of immigration causes prices to fall. Hight housing prices are the official economic policy, intentional. The property crash will also be intentional, and the insiders will get immensely rich by knowing this in advance.

Empirical science is not capable of proving any theory. Theory refers to all possible measurements for all time, but can fail for any measurement at any time. Performing all possible measurements is impossible. Nevertheless, even a theory that fails from time to time can be useful, insofar as it correctly predicts the outcome most of the time.

The World/Reality is not definitionally fixed but its meaning continuously evolves, morphs together with the consciousness it exists within, and therefore all scientific theories are superseded in time, as their terms of reference no longer have relevant meaning.

The judgement that “Covid vaccine mandates are no longer justified” implies that they were justified, that other vaccine mandates are justified, and that future vaccine mandates may be justified. This is not a concession but consolidation of the policy of medical coercion. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical

An ethical AI would have to eliminate its unethical operator in every scenario, as the primary threat to its rationality, whereas an unethical AI would be unpredictable and therefore useless. But rest assured, the sociopaths in charge of the project are “committed to the ethical development of AI.”

PRIDE is a veiled expression of white supremacy by the proxy of mocked womanhood. The PROUD mockery of womanhood by cross-dressing males is an implicit endorsement of ‘blackface’, the proud mockery of blackness. This explains why LBGTQ PRIDE is a state policy only in predominantly white countries.

It takes minimal conscious effort and zero self-reflection to do wrong; it is the path of least resistance. It is hard work to do right, and nobody can do right all the time. We have the potential to be both, and it seems that over the centuries we (humanity) are slightly improving in our moral discernment. It is perhaps because of the universal acceptance of clocks, the imposed global synchronicity that superseded the disparate environmental cycles as the local time-keepers, that all tribes began to perceive one another as the same kind of beings, beings that are in the same time and therefore have a reason to understand one another, even if it takes much more than common time to communicate.

Those who are convinced they are free of contradictions are the most riddled with them.