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.

A simple truth.

The problem is in plain sight and most are still not seeing it for what it is. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-government-regarding

“Critical pedagogy regards the claims that students make in response to social-justice issues not as propositions to be assessed for their truth value, but as expressions of power that function to re-inscribe and perpetuate social inequalities.” But without the laws of sense that underpin truth-value our intentions become nonsensical and cannot be consistently realised, therefore powerless, which neutralises the expressed purpose of critical pedagogy. Another error of critical theory is the belief that just because it is impossible to have an objective viewpoint then all viewpoints are valid, but this overlooks the distinction between consistency and contradiction. A subjective viewpoint that is inconsistent is meaningless, therefore not a viewpoint but nonsense, therefore false, whereas a consistent viewpoint is meaningful and can be integrated with the viewpoints of others as a common idea. The socially constructed reality that critical theorists talk about is made of meaningful consistently integrated ideas, not just any subjective viewpoint. All language is based on logical consistency, and even though it is socially constructed it has a common, consistent function. Whether that function is subjective or objective is irrelevant; it is all we have to understand one another and to create meaning. I therefore do not worry about ‘the woke’ but only for them. They are powerless to do anything meaningful apart from hurting themselves.

The following note was written in response to Stephanie Brail, “a holistic health expert”.

Joe Hildebrand is implying here that, for example, Hitler was ‘always right’ to persecute Jews, because (or IF) the majority supported the ideology of Aryan Nazism and their totalitarian programme. This is of course absurd, a denial of moral principles to which human choices are subject to. Another way, human judgement cannot be subject to a moral principle if the moral principle is subject to human judgement. Joe is endorsing moral relativism, expresses support for nativist supremacism and waves the blood & soil flag. https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/growing-resistance-where-it-all-went-wrong-for-struggling-yes-campaign/news-story/95c4b9d5596e96f157c1d273068b19fe

The intelligence apparatus of a modern state (such as France) employs the most competent, brilliant individuals. Similarly, the WEF and the associated global think-tanks exude extraordinary competence and depth of analysis. It is no longer reasonable to assume that global events are spontaneous anomalies for which the intelligence apparatus was unprepared and failed to factor into its strategic planning. If a revolution/revolt were impending, it would be imperative for the state to preemptively lead it, in order to control the outcomes. A scripted pretext followed by scripted, intentionally amplified violence may be a government strategy to covertly address (or otherwise exploit) the problem of ethno-religious, migrant ghettoes, by focalising the social threat they pose and thus energising an ethno-nationalistic (nativist) backlash. Two possible aims come to mind, national or global, respectively: 1) to eliminate/criminalise all migrant ethno-enclaves and force assimilation (or expulsion); 2) split France into autonomous ethno-religious zones/states, accelerating national fragmentation, weakening, and subsequent dependency on global leadership.

This is not handing “back” since they already own it. Public land is owned by all Australians collectively, including aboriginal Australians. This is just taking away of public land from non-native Australians, with a $43 million cherry on top, also taken from the non-natives.

This is how subconscious imprinting works. The small print talks about the NO vote being ahead, which is a conversation with your ‘slow’ rational faculties, but the symbols in the background imprint the YES sentiment in your subconscious mind, via ‘fast’ emotive imagery. You may be scrolling and not even consciously register these symbols, but your subconscious sees it, and is influenced by it, priming you for the change of mind.

The themes of original ownership, First Nations and the indigenous Voice stem from a far right, racial-supremacist conspiracy theory based on the following false claims: a) that indigenous people are excluded/denied shared ownership of public land; b) that indigenous descent justifies higher moral status or social and political rights of the natives (including Royal titles); c) that all non-indigenous citizens are occupiers/trespassers on the indigenous rights; d) that the principle of equal rights for all citizens irrespective of origin, race or ethnicity amounts to racial persecution of the indigenous population (sometimes equated to 'genocide'). Conspiracy theories promoting racial resentment/guilt are a form of incitement to violent extremism and hate crimes, under the guise of self-defence and justice, by promoting a false belief of systemic, racially-motivated persecution and oppression. The said conspiracy theory echoes the nativist rhetoric of Aryan-supremacism and shares its 'blood & soil' symbolism. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-government-regarding

My submission to the Inquiry into COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 and the Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) Bill 2023 has been accepted and is now protected by parliamentary privilege.

https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=c1d7b3dc-5083-4293-925e-08c53588ea97&subId=744521