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

Any statement implying that indigenous people have a superior social status or value compared to other citizens is an expression of nativist supremacism, a core feature of Nazi ideology. It is not possible to transcend tribal or racial resentment without acknowledging that All humans share the same ancient ancestors, that we are all related, that we are all the original owners of the Earth. Reason unites us. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-government-regarding

A smart ruling class installs individuals of a minority race in the most prominent administrative positions, knowing that the majority will blame the race of the administrators instead of the ruling class for any abusive policies.

By revealing contradictions in the ideologies that support tribalism and simultaneously emphasising humanity as a universal kind, united by the capacity to reason, we can bring humanity closer together irrespective of any programmes that seek to divide us. It is crucial to critique only the ideology, not the tribe or race who profess it, not to alienate the people but refute the ideology that infected their minds. In essence, the goal is to cure people of a kind of affliction.

The capacity to reason, to make sense and generate meaning with others, entails our belonging in every human domain. Conversely, our contradictions, the non-sense we carry within us, subverts and diminishes our belonging. The most common category of non-sense is associated with violations of the principle of sufficient reason, which is the case with Every ideology.
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/derivation-of-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-from-the-law-of-non-contradiction
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-structure-of-knowledge

The purveyors of non-sense are in conflict with Logos, with the structure of reality itself, therefore already lost. Let them have their last dance.

The current purpose of PRIDE seems to be to castrate gay people. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12228733/ANDREW-DOYLE-growing-Prides-rainbow-flag-shining-beacon-tolerance.html

The ideology of affirmative action arbitrarily divides humanity into identity groups according to race, gender, sexual orientation, based on their historical suffering/oppression. The fact that aristocracy/royalty of every race universally oppressed and exploited ALL other people of their own race or anyone else as far as they could, which is the most historically entrenched and universal form of oppression, is entirely absent from the inclusion/diversity/affirmation discourse, as if African dictators and kings were just as oppressed as the African cobalt miners. If all of the recorded history were taken into account instead of cherry-picked experiences by a particular group in a particular place and time, while ignoring other oppressed groups in all other places who may share the racial characteristics with whom the current group deems to be the ‘racial oppressors’ then the amount of past suffering and injustices would be equal for all possible racial categories. All races were abused and exploited to the limits of survival, regarded as entirely dispensable by the select few members of their own race, who claimed a god given right to treat other humans as property. Racial supremacists of the diversity and inclusion ilk insist that Congolese suffered more than, say the Irish or the Slavs, chiefly on account of the colour of their skin, which is of course absurd, but it also implies that accrued suffering is a kind of universal currency, a claim on the property and rights of others in the present, which is as absurd as all their other assumptions.

A friendly reminder to racial or tribal supremacists about international law: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial

A government that is willing to kill its own citizens, people of the same religion, ethnicity or culture for the sake of pharmaceutical profits, certainly does not give a damn about your religion, ethnicity or culture. Your cultural or racial identity is the leash they have you on. The stronger your sense of group-identity the shorter the leash. A state may designate another nation as your enemy, teach you how to fear them, despise them, feed you lies about them to sustain this polarisation, and their own government will feed them lies about you. You will not be allowed to make peace. Racial and cultural hatred is an international business model, a franchise owned by your government, and your group-identity is their intellectual property, crafted by symbolic conditioning and psychological manipulation. They own your ethno-religious-national identity, they always have. You were never free.

People who reject their own body because of their sex, set a self-defeating standard of intolerance.

I have argued (and informally proven) that the brain does not and could not ‘generate’ consciousness. Rather, consciousness is a property of a reflexive multiplicity of individuals, each expressing the same, collectively maintained and mutually dependent state of consciousness. The brain is an idea that consciousness generated to explain itself, to make sense of itself. The brain exists in the mind, as an image of itself. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02120-8 The relevant section is titled 'logic of coexistence': https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWODO

I have argued that it is impossible to create consciousness by creating a brain outside of the process of biological evolution and embodied socialisation. Reflexive consciousness is not an individual property but a distributed property of a species/kind, and only in this social ‘cloud’ the sense of individuality exists, as a constitutive element of the reflexive consciousness of a species. The concepts that describe the physical world (including the concept of the human body) are believed to be encoded in the physical structure of each individual body, but those may be also relevantly encoded in the species as a whole, therefore never wholly determined by the constitution of the individual. This would reflect the social/distributed structure of meaning itself, which is the reality we are in. It is possible that only via continuous communication of some extra sensory kind, possibly biophotonic, this final harmonisation of consciousness and self-individuation ‘in the Same world’ is accomplished. While this hypothesis is empirically unproven it still serves as a metaphor for the purely logical requirements of self-conscousness, which is impossible apart from a community of beings of the same ontological kind, to provide each individual with a mirror in which to identify itself, as discussed in the section on consciousness here: philpapers.org/rec/KOWODO

Any statement implying that indigenous people have a superior social status or value compared to other citizens is an expression of nativist supremacism, a core feature of Nazi ideology. It is not possible to transcend tribal or racial resentment without acknowledging that All humans share the same ancient ancestors, that we are all related, that we are all the original owners of the Earth. Reason unites us. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-government-regarding

Sources of Authority

There are only two possible sources of authority: 1) consent of the ruled (can be implied or performative), 2) objective moral norms (for example, you see someone being murdered and you step in to overpower the killer). These two sources are not equi-valent. (2) always supersedes (1), so that even when you consented to political representation the mandate is not absolute; your consent is conditional on the representative’s adherence to the objective moral norms. Another way, something that is objectively wrong can never be a valid law or otherwise mandated. The challenge is of course to demonstrate, or better, formally prove, that a particular action or order is objectively wrong. This can be accomplished in at least 3 ways: a) by proving an inconsistency of moral commitments of the representative; b) by proving inconsistency of action or order with the mutually accepted norms; c) by proving that an action is a priori wrong or illogical.