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.

The Weight of the Vote.

If you vote, you agree to authorise someone else to order you around, in the hope that this largely unknown to you person will order everyone else to do what you want them to do.

If you refuse to vote, other people may still choose someone largely unknown to them to order you around, but the situation is now morally different; you did not authorise anyone to order others around in the hope that they will be forced to do what you want them to do.

People sometimes do bad things, and it is morally permissible to prevent people doing bad things to you. Therefore, it may be morally permissible to authorise someone to order people around insofar as the exercise of authority is limited to preventing people doing bad things to others.

On the other hand, if we authorise someone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things, but we do not possess the knowledge of what ‘bad things’ objectively are, then it may not be morally permissible or rational to authorise someone to order people around on those indeterminate grounds.

Furthermore, if we authorise someone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things, but we do not have the authority to prevent that someone from doing bad things themselves, then it may not be morally permissible or rational to authorise anyone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things.

If the only legitimate authority is to do what is objectively right, then voting is at best superfluous, because every person already has the moral authority to do what is morally right, and no authority, under any circumstances, to do what is morally wrong. We must therefore understand voting (for representation) as an attempt to legitimise what is morally wrong.

On the Legitimacy of Authority

No political system or process has the capacity to legitimise authority. Democracy is just a recent pretence at legitimising the rule of the majority over the minority, whereas the divine right of kings purported to legitimise the rule of minority over the majority. The only consistent, irrefutable source of authority is objective morality, that which is right according to the conditions of rational consciousness. Real authority cannot be owned or delegated by anyone to anyone; it is the logical structure of being that everyone is subject to. Anyone can embody it by consistently acting according to it. Those who embody authority may appear as if they themselves are the authority, but they are merely faithful servants of it. There are no legitimate rulers and never could be.

The reverse psychology of PRIDE is evidently working as intended. https://youtu.be/oKTnDPpe3Ao

It is morally imperative for Aboriginal people to speak out against nativist supremacism (the voice, original ownership, native title), the ideological foundation of Nazism, being imposed in their name. It won’t do to claim that nobody from the ABC came to ask you.

Deposits are a liability of the bank, not an asset (as the author of this article correctly points out), but he also claims the bank “keeps around 10% of deposits in hand” to pay out any cash withdrawals and use the rest to make loans, which is nonsense. You cannot lend your liabilities (it is what you owe, not what you have) or use your liabilities to pay your liabilities. Current Deposits are what the bank is contractually committed to pay you on demand, so if everyone demanded their money on the same day the bank promised to pay them all, but they cannot, which proves that modern banking is based on fraud. The truth is the banks create new money (which amounts to stealing from everyone’s purse) by ‘issuing credit’, they do not lend money they already have. 97% of money in existence (M3) is created by the banks.