The Black and Red flag is a common Nazi symbol, signifying the connection between ‘blood/race and soil/land’ (analogous to Aboriginal interpretation of the same colours, in identical arrangement), and is still in use by contemporary neo-Nazis. 

“Red and black are the colours of the Bandera Wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. The flag symbolizes blood and soil, and was adopted by that organization in 1941, along with an explicitly totalitarian program. The black-and-red banner is a symbol intimately connected with the most radical Ukrainian right-wing tradition,” Per Anders Rudling, a historian of nationalism: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/chrystia-freelands-deep-seated-ties-to-ukranian-nationalists-reveal-a-double-standard 

See also https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/ukrainian-far-right-party-upstages-fifa-with-visit-to-zurich-headquarters

The next exhibit is a black and red flag, bearing the logo and initials of the NSB (National-Socialist Movement) in the centre. "The colours black and red were the favourite colours of the NSB. The same two colours were popular with the National Socialists in Germany and represent their Blut und Boden theories." https://trc-leiden.nl/collection/?trc=&zoek=2020.3726&cat=&subcat=&g=&s=24&f=0&id=%2041431

It is notable that the specific orientation of the Nazi swastika is an ancient symbol of the sun (https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/how-why-sanskrit-symbol-become-nazi-swastika-svastika/), and is still interpreted as such by resurgent Nazi movements: “with our thought and soul given to the black and red banners, with our thought and soul given to the memory of our great Leader, we raise our right hand up, we salute the Sun…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(Greece)


3. Permanent Exclusion and Collective Imputation of Guilt on Migrants, Past, Present and Future

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 said 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, arbitrarily discriminatory on the basis of race or origin, inconsiderate of differences between non-indigenous histories, and therefore also supremacist.


4. 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

I hope this communication will help you understand the moral problem and correct the misguided endorsements of nativism.

I was informed in response to the above discussion that there is a flipside to the problem of nativism: invasive migration. On one side you have social stability being disrupted by mass immigration with supremacist ambitions and propensity for violence; on the other side you have migrants being denied equality forever, irrespective of how they behave, because the natives declare themselves superior. The problem is actually the same on both sides: it is tribal supremacism, either as a migrant or as a native, and both are equally wrong. Nativist supremacism is wrong for reasons explained above, with a strong historical precedent, but the problem can be extended to any in-group identity. The moral wrong of migrant supremacy does not negate the moral wrong of nativist supremacy; they are both moral problems. The solution lies in the middle.
Being immersed from birth in a culture/tradition results in a great ‘sense’ of familiarity, but it is not coextensive with the capacity to generate meaning. Echoing the same behaviours for thousands of years may feel like a profound connection, but it is only involuntary conditioning; even animals can do it. The distinguishing property of rational consciousness over animality is the capacity to begin from incompatible states of conditioning, develop a common language, resolve irrational/inconsistent elements by utilising the universal laws of logic, and generate common meaning.
The most irrational aspect of every nation, ethnicity, tribe or identity group is their culture. Once you strip away the culture, down to bare humanity, all people can be reasoned with.

There is a profound difference between the kind of human unity I am advocating, accomplished by communication and creation of common meaning, exercised in good faith and without ideological impediments (this is actually an objective condition of consciousness, always already in place but merely denied by our irrational impulses and dependencies), and the kind of unity of obedient drones that social engineers may seek to accomplish by deception and force. Culture is an impediment to both, because it is an imposed dependency, not a moral choice of the individual. Conformity is always irrational and immoral, because it delegates the authority to think and make moral choices to others. The desire to impose conformity is itself a supremacist ideology, but also an expression of the fight/flight instinct. Social engineers seek to control others only because they need it to control their own anxiety. Rational, moral humans are inherently free, and have the courage to be free, to take full responsibility for our individual moral choices, and only this freedom truly unites us as a kind, and only this is a source of our moral status as humans.

Humanity is the Ground of All Meaning

All your rights, all your values, including your value as a person, all meaning and sense, derive from your belonging to the Human kind: the kind of beings who possess reflexive conscousness vis-a-vis one another, and the capacity for rational thought, by means of which WE are able to collectively generate meaning. Humanity has the absolute priority over tribal, racial, cultural or ideological identity, because all these value-categories derive from and are conditional on being human, above all else. To ascribe any priority to your tribe, race, culture or ideology over the value of humanity is to negate the ground of these values, and thus to contradict and negate yourself. Tribalism, racialism, culturalism and ideologism all contradict themselves, negate themselves, refute their own priority, their moral status, their meaning and values. In order to be wholly yourself, to be a fully integrated being, to be fully human, absolutely valuable, of inviolable moral status, one must first abandon all contrary value commitments.

BREAKING NEWS: The efficacy of strategic collaboration between NATO and Russia has greatly improved over the past week. Ukraine is currently being depopulated at the rate approaching 1000 males per day. The massive deployment of military police to various regions of Ukraine signals an impending total mobilisation (mass abduction of males of any age conducted at gunpoint for the purpose of cannon fodder), to give every Ukrainian the opportunity to become a legitimate military target for the Russian flame throwers, conventional artillery and missiles. Human rights groups raise privacy and gender-equality concerns.

The NATO-Russia “conflict” turns the old adage into a farce: with enemies like these who needs friends.

If cultural knowledge were the secret of survival then we ought to accept that bacterial cultures survived longer than humans because of their superior culture. This is actually not that far from the truth, except that culture is not ‘knowledge’ but conditioning, and when the conditions change it becomes a lethal liability. Culture is also a source of irreconcilable conflict, leading to extermination by other cultures, which has incidentally promoted the evolution of a special property of humankind: humans (who survived despite of their culture) have the capacity for rational thought, for discerning sense from nonsense, which allowed us to periodically transcend our conditioning. https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2893

Rogan, Musk want RFK to debate Covid vaccine safety with Hotez. They will not discuss the elephant in the room: the intentional killing of the few for the alleged benefit of the majority, by coercing them to submit to a procedure that was expected to kill some people. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical

They want to “close the gap” between cultural preferences of races and genders, because these divisions cut through your home but do not affect the class-hierarchy. They do not want to “close the gap” between the ruling class and the slave class, and least off all the gap in education between your children and their children.

The Victorian government seems to be violating their own law, now that they were notified about the meaning of the black and red flag and the ideological equivalence between the Nazi “blood & soil” doctrine and the locally endorsed, nativist “people & place” doctrine (but they also ought to have reasonably known): https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-government-regarding

All those supposed Nazis we have recently seen on the streets of Melbourne doing the Nazi sun-salute are acting strangely even for Nazis. The Nazi ideology is centred on the 'blood & soil' doctrine, according to which their 'original' race cannot exists apart from their ancestral, original land, but this bunch is in a land far away chasing drag queens instead. A Nazi who is not defending their ancestral land from non-original people makes as much sense as a communist who does not care about seizing the means of production. I suspect the job of these uncharacteristically acting Nazis may be related to the nativist supremacist Voice referendum, preparing an act of racial violence to create an emotional reaction favouring the Yes vote. You didn't think that Albanese will just roll over for you; he is playing a long game here and the strongest cards will be played last (not necessarily by him but in support of his nativist agenda). If Albanese wins, if the Voice wins, then Nazis everywhere win a massive ideological endorsement by the Australian people, and they know it.

I expect that in the future any information-system corrupted by generative AI will be worthless, once the customers realise that the information it spits out is untraceable and nobody is liable for its errors.

Has anyone else noticed government officials referring to Aboriginal language as “Language” (proper noun), and to English language as “English”?

Why not go to Zero? Why deny political voice to toddlers? If you can tick boxes you can surely vote, but if you want political choices being based on maturity and experience then I suggest limiting voting to people 50+ years old. Also, anyone who idolises indigenous cultures is committed to the elders (1-2% of the population) making all the decisions.

“Reality” has meaning only insofar as it is independent of individual choice or preferences; it is the realm of being that our choices and preferences are subject to, either validated or refuted by. When a male says that he “really” is a woman, just because he “chooses” or “prefers” to be a woman, he contradicts the sense of reality, denies reality in principle, which implicitly invalidates her assertion.

The LBGTQ transgender doctrine discriminates against and invalidates the identity of those whose gender and gender expression are based on the innate sense of difference from the opposite sex. This can be demonstrated as follows: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/gender-identity-on-trial