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

Greater Good is a Euphemism for the Utility of Evil

To do Good is to act in any way that is not ‘contrary to the structure of being’, which is Evil. Good and Evil are a binary moral property of intentional action. Things and states are neither good nor evil in the moral sense; when we call a thing ‘good’, we mean that it is valuable in the utilitarian sense, which is a matter of degree, useful to our purpose, not that it is the binary opposite of Evil. The idea of Greater Good conflates the utilitarian sense of Good with the moral sense, in order to falsely justify Evil as a necessary condition of the Good.

A massive piece of research that will take me a while to digest: https://richardpoe.substack.com/p/how-the-british-invented-communism

Once any form of racial supremacism is accepted, a more extreme form will emerge and seek to be normalised. Supremacism can never be appeased or reconciled with. The end is always the same.

"A free society is regarded as one that does not engage, on principle, in attempting to control what people find meaningful, and a totalitarian society is regarded as one that does, on principle, attempt such control." Polanyi, Michael, and Harry Prosch. "Meaning". The University of Chicago Press 1975, p182.

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

Tribalism is the foundation of nativist supremacism, the essence of Nazi ideology, which emerges when tribal norms are challenged by other cultures. The tribal mindset is primitive insofar as it is not aware (or refuses to accept) that there is a higher level of social connection and affinity than familial relations, race, tradition or culture. At that higher level, which is the meta-structure of meaning itself, reducible to the laws of sense, the universal conditions on the basis of which meaning can be generated by reflexive, social relations independent of culture or genetics, there is humanity as such, and humanism (understood in the Kantian sense) as the antithesis of tribalism. Modern history can be reduced to the conflict between these two forces, one dying a natural death but still unleashing its inherent commitment to violence as the ultimate arbiter of values and facts, and the other learning how to mitigate this primordial irrationalism without negating its own commitment to humanity by becoming violent itself.

Those who invoke human rights to defend their tribal interests are contradicting themselves. By prioritising “my people” they devalue humanity, and thus negate the logical basis of human rights. There is no “my people”; there are only People and Animals, and every Hominin has the capacity to choose where to belong. We choose humanity by not making unconditional demands or declaring “my truth”, but by reasoning and deliberating with all others to rationally resolve any disagreements from commonly accepted premises. A commitment to humanity is a commitment to create common meaning and this cannot be done by holding onto “your truth” or “your people”. Unless you renounce your tribe as the essence of your identity and stand alone as a human, you are not yet willing to understand other humans, and you will not find peace.

The Earth Universe was originally stolen from my ancestors. Then, I realised that we all have the same ancestors, and the Universe belongs to all of us (or to none).

It is as if the banks are themselves trying to cause a bank run. Since all cash in existence covers only 3% of bank deposits, a bank run would force conversion of the remaining 97% of deposits into “digital cash”.