The only legitimate basis of private property is our own creative effort, which can then be traded for exclusive occupancy of a parcel of an otherwise shared resource that can be subsequently gifted or traded to another. The idea of ownership on the basis of occupancy involves a logical fallacy, presupposing what remains to be proven.
BREAKING NEWS: The One World Corporation has announce the release of THREADS, a new social censorship and propaganda platform where you can communicate anything except what the One World Corporation does not want you to think about, just like every other social censorship and propaganda platform. You are free to disagree about things that don’t matter. Feel free to post the following paper to test our response times to misinformation: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240
On Religious Resentment
In order to find a religion blameworthy it is not sufficient to point out bad examples of human action, but show that the religion is essentially at fault, the cause, by logical analysis, otherwise there is confounding of possible causes of bad behaviour. Even then a logical distinction must be made between philosophy of religion, criticism of specific claims/beliefs, and the criticism of people who profess the said religion but not necessarily profess those specific claims/beliefs. I realised some time ago that every person interprets religion according to their moral conscience, and since all scriptures in all religions are at least in part contradictory and ostensibly hateful (if taken at face value) there is also room for moral choice in every religion, almost as if the scriptures were designed to offer a test of moral conscience. Every religion and dogmatic tradition is deficient, and it is up to individuals to choose the correct moral interpretation if they are not yet ready or free to abandon the chains of imposed tradition. To blame one religion is to blame them all, but ultimately each individual is responsible for making the choice between right and wrong.
The weaponisation of migration to force dis-assimilation in Europe is not an act of Islam; it is an act of atheistic agents of the global capital seeking to incite and exploit religious disagreements. This is the primary reason why one must not fall into the trap of religious animosity and resentment. We must talk, reason, come to rational understanding, despite the fact that it is not possible to come to agreement with everyone, especially if they are paid to disagree to the bitter end, chaos agents. There are always some who will understand, who want to understand, who are not corrupt.
In order to find a religion blameworthy it is not sufficient to point out bad examples of human action, but show that the religion is essentially at fault, the cause, by logical analysis, otherwise there is confounding of possible causes of bad behaviour. Even then a logical distinction must be made between philosophy of religion, criticism of specific claims/beliefs, and the criticism of people who profess the said religion but not necessarily profess those specific claims/beliefs. I realised some time ago that every person interprets religion according to their moral conscience, and since all scriptures in all religions are at least in part contradictory and ostensibly hateful (if taken at face value) there is also room for moral choice in every religion, almost as if the scriptures were designed to offer a test of moral conscience. Every religion and dogmatic tradition is deficient, and it is up to individuals to choose the correct moral interpretation if they are not yet ready or free to abandon the chains of imposed tradition. To blame one religion is to blame them all, but ultimately each individual is responsible for making the choice between right and wrong.
The weaponisation of migration to force dis-assimilation in Europe is not an act of Islam; it is an act of atheistic agents of the global capital seeking to incite and exploit religious disagreements. This is the primary reason why one must not fall into the trap of religious animosity and resentment. We must talk, reason, come to rational understanding, despite the fact that it is not possible to come to agreement with everyone, especially if they are paid to disagree to the bitter end, chaos agents. There are always some who will understand, who want to understand, who are not corrupt.
This mock poster produced by aboriginal activist Gary Foley in the 70’s still captures the psychology of the overt mystification and (the essentially racist, pretentious and self-aggrandising) fawning over aboriginality among the post-Protestant and neo-pagan middle class. Gary, despite being a clever guy, still misses the fundamental moral problem with the Voice; he endorses tribal separatism and nativist supremacism, a self-defeating position. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12273553/Gary-Foley-NAIDOC-Week-Indigenous-activist-uses-1970s-buy-beer-poster-attack-Voice.html
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
A list of non-protest type activities that could be effective in raising public awareness about the the moral cost of vaccine mandates:
A) a marathon in memory of the victims of vaccine mandates;
B) a bicycle race across Australia in memory of the human right to free medical consent;
C) a chess tournament for the cure against medical tyranny;
D) a children’s drawing/painting competition in the honour of those who did not acquiesce to the removal of the right to free medical consent from their children and future generations.
A) a marathon in memory of the victims of vaccine mandates;
B) a bicycle race across Australia in memory of the human right to free medical consent;
C) a chess tournament for the cure against medical tyranny;
D) a children’s drawing/painting competition in the honour of those who did not acquiesce to the removal of the right to free medical consent from their children and future generations.
The surest path for Aboriginal people (and everyone else) to improve the conditions of their existence is modern education (logic, literature and world history) and maximum engagement with the intellectual currents of humanity, globally, but tribalism and tribal lore stands in the way, perpetuating an identity based on resentment and self-exclusion. Tribal identity is a cage for the mind, preventing Aboriginal children from fully embracing their human identity, as conscious rational beings capable of creating unbounded meaning with all other humans, by means of what we all have in common.
The awareness of contradiction forces us to make a choice between one of the mutually inconsistent propositions, otherwise our capacity for consistently realising intentions would be diminished. Conscious agency is commensurate with the capacity to detect contradictions in our thought process.
The core difference between materialism/paganism and idealism/monotheism is that the former is committed to the view that rational consciousness has physical/biological roots, whereas the latter maintains that both consciousness and the physical/biological reality are an expression of the same fundamental metaphysical principle. Only one of these views can be true. The problem for materialists/pagans is to explain the primacy of ‘nature’ over the 'idea' of nature (which is all we ever think about when we talk about 'nature'). The problem for idealists/monotheists is to consistently define the metaphysical principle of existence and explain how it 'causes' physical existence and consciousness.
The proposition that Digital Cash can be used to block citizens from buying ‘less desirable’ items is a euphemism for Digital Cash being used to block ‘less desirable’ citizens from buying items.
The pursuit of decolonisation is at best meaningless, at worst self-defeating, a tribal vanity project. We are all human, and to be ‘colonised’ by other humans does not change the fact that both the ‘colonised’ and the ‘coloniser’ are still human, rational beings who possess the capacity to deliberate and generate common meaning. Colonisation brings us together, transgresses the tribal boundaries, challenges our inconsistent cultural conditionings, and relativises insular traditions, compelling both the colonisers and the colonised to deliberate, to come to terms, and thus to affirm our common humanity as the sole source of meaning.
Feelings are not intentional actions but involuntary experiences that 'happen to us'. They are not 'ours' in the sense that intentions are ours, they do not originate from the agency of the Self but from something Other. The call to "express your feelings" is therefore a misnomer, an invitation to take ownership of these involuntary states as if they were intentional actions, which amounts to saying that we should partially abandon our agency, act more involuntarily, and thus be more determined by something Other than our conscious agency, that is, to submit to external influences.
Oral traditions do not constitute knowledge, of which there are only two kinds: 1) a priori, 2) truths of the record. Oral traditions lack the objective record against which the subjective testimonies could be objectively verified, and are therefore prone to subjective distortion and collective confabulation (telling stories). A truth that cannot be objectively verified is unknowable. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-structure-of-knowledge
Gender reassignment surgery is genital mutilation. It is wrong to normalise, endorse, let alone facilitate it, even if someone were to demand it.
Most people seem unaware of the logical distinction between a general principle and how the principle makes one feel. The moment a conversation shifts from the former to the latter, the subject has changed; it is no longer a discussion about the meaning held in common but about 'me'. There is nothing wrong with talking about you, it can be therapeutic for the speaker, but it is generally less interesting and less relevant to others than a discussion about what we have in common. This partly explains why people who want to talk about their feelings are expected to pay $200 per hour to do so in a professional setting, whereas people who are able to consistently talk about general principles in a professional setting are typically paid.
Video-talks are not just a waste of time but mental pollution. The better ones can be condensed to a single paragraph of original, useful information, but most cannot be summarised at all because they contain no useful information; just banter, gossip, histrionics and speculation. It is easier to monetise the absence of meaningful content in a video-talk than in text, and this probably explains why video talks are so popular. It is mostly just low effort, C-grade standup comedy that is not even funny, purporting to serve some moral cause. There are perhaps a handful of speakers in the world (for example, J. Peterson, S. Zizek) who have the capacity to use this medium non-parasitically, constructively, only because they have extraordinarily high verbal intelligence and virtually inexhaustible capacity for original thought that can be instantly accessed.
As I predicted, fake Nazis (using Nazi and white supremacist symbolism without commitment to the core principles of Nazi ideology) are used to attack proponents of actual Nazi ideology in a new guise (Aboriginal nativist supremacists) to create symbolic disassociation from the past and effectively re-brand Nazism for the general public. Clever marketing for discredited ideas. Nazi ideology always was an indigenous rights movement, and idolised indigeneity (racial ‘originality’) as a matter of principle, irrespective of race. https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2928