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

The doctrine of subjectively determined gender identity, exemplified by the slogan "trans-women are women", 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. In essence, proponents of 'gender theory' are implicitly invalidating the gender identity of most people by insisting that males can be women and females can be men. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/gender-identity-on-trial

How about this: should acting with the intent to be misidentified as a member of the opposite sex be a criminal offence? Should intercourse facilitated by concealing or misrepresenting one’s sex be regarded as rape?

There is a huge methodological problem with vaccine trials that affects even those that are saline controlled: failure to control for other vaccines received during the study period. Since many vaccines share the same ingredients, excipients and contaminants, receiving any other vaccine during the study period is a massive confounder, breaking the control. In short, no vaccine study ever was properly controlled. Also, no study compared longevity of vaccinated vs vaccine-free people.

https://substack.com/@amysukwan made a brilliant observation: “These movements [BLM etc] begin with a legitimate issue, i.e. overpolicing, the criminalization of everything, escalation of conflicts and the coverup of trigger happy officers causing unecessary deaths of people of all races. This is then subverted in a divide and conquer way: in the cases of both George Floyd and Michael Brown the reasons for the interaction and the death were shrouded in shades of grey. They could easily have chosen cases to highlight which much more clearly showed wrongful death, but that would get everybody on the same side.” We can apply the same logic to all major events since 2001, all were presented in shades of grey, having traces of conspiracy/coverup as well as evidence of a real crime, fake X but real Y, conflating elements of illusion and reality, motivating opposite camps to endlessly argue about the details, what was real, what was fake, what was intentional and what was accidental.

Nazi gremlins are at work on mistreaty, trying to steal the Earth, denying our common ancestry, denying racial equality under law, denying humanity: https://www.seek.com.au/job/68753316

“To accept preferential treatment on the basis of one's race - in employment, academe, the arts, the media - is to participate in racism. It does not 'close the gap', promote role-models or let you 'challenge the system from within'. Respect to this person. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-27/pholiaboriginality/4281772

The biggest threat to national security is currently the government.

Just nails it! This is what it's all about.

This is hilarious (and entirely unclear to whom the pronouns “his” and “she” refer to). Is the “sperm donor” a “she”? This is an English language fail.

Regarding the ‘Welcome to Sex’ controversy, which very much looks like an intentional provocation, with an expected emotional and possibly violent reaction, the ideal response would be political (pursuing new legislation to prevent such harmful publications being available to kids in the future) or legal (if a case can be made against it on the basis of the existing legislation).

Is ‘Welcome to Sex’ strategically related to ‘Welcome to Country’?

How it works: the banks extort from the State, and the State extorts from you to cover what the banks extort. So, in effect, the State is an intermediary who steals from you on behalf of the banks.

Looks like this will end badly for the authors and the publisher of this perverse book, as it should. There are also accusations that the book itself is constituting child exploitation material, which is illegal. https://www.kidspot.com.au/news/no-your-kids-shouldnt-send-nudes-even-with-their-faces-removed-heres-why/news-story/2cdf13b7bc9e332374ba528a72a36a4b

The doctrine of subjectively determined gender identity, exemplified by the slogan "trans-women are women", 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. In essence, proponents of 'gender theory' are implicitly invalidating the gender identity of most people by insisting that males can be women and females can be men. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/gender-identity-on-trial