The crucial difference that is not emphasised is that those Aboriginal Australians who are politically and economically successful have relinquished the bonds of tribal tradition and embraced modern education, whereas those who adhere to tribal norms, or are lost in the nihilistic space between tradition and their rejection of modernity, are impoverished, unheard and alienated. I suggest that this alienation is a result of the indigenous culture itself, lacking the systematisation of meaning and the grounding of reason that the rest of humanity takes for granted. Tribal idiosyncrasies are incompatible with modernity and with the concept of universal humanity. It is tribalism itself that must be cured.
This is what Nativist Supremacism is essentially about; Nazi ideology. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-government-regarding
"The more skillfully the language of goodness is assumed, the greater the depravity”. https://substack.com/@janniklindquist/note/c-21332363
Tribalism is the attitude of loyalty on the basis of blood ties that ascribes higher moral status to members of the tribe than to other people. The tribal mindset considers wrongful acts done by members of the tribe to outsiders as less wrong or less deserving of restitution than the same acts done to members of the tribe by outsiders. Tribalism is affirmed by a stronger positive emphasis on identification with the tribe than with humanity.
The Rational Limits of Indigenous Rights
According to the U.N., people "are regarded as indigenous on account of descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries". https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/workshop_data_background.doc
The argument that all humans are indigenous people, with an equal claim on all of the Earth, neatly fits the above definition. Our common ancestors lived on Earth before any nations were formed, which includes all regions that were subsequently colonised. We also share a global culture, a common rationality, that makes us the same kind of people. All humans have the right not to be excluded from or limited in use of any territory in favour of specific races or ethnicities who falsely assert their exclusive, racial indigeneity and deny it of others.
According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, "indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples", not better, not more entitled, not more valuable or more important. The Declaration also affirms that "all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin, racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust", which is in conflict with the premise that a particular indigenous identity is entitled to special rights, special respect, special opportunities or privileged treatment. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples-1
According to the U.N., people "are regarded as indigenous on account of descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries". https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/workshop_data_background.doc
The argument that all humans are indigenous people, with an equal claim on all of the Earth, neatly fits the above definition. Our common ancestors lived on Earth before any nations were formed, which includes all regions that were subsequently colonised. We also share a global culture, a common rationality, that makes us the same kind of people. All humans have the right not to be excluded from or limited in use of any territory in favour of specific races or ethnicities who falsely assert their exclusive, racial indigeneity and deny it of others.
According to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, "indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples", not better, not more entitled, not more valuable or more important. The Declaration also affirms that "all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin, racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust", which is in conflict with the premise that a particular indigenous identity is entitled to special rights, special respect, special opportunities or privileged treatment. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples-1
humanrights.gov.au
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and good faith in the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by States in accordance with the Charter,
Jeff Schmidt, the author of “Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-Battering System that Shapes their Lives”, initiates an anti-discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, alleging that Affirmative Action (lower standards of academic performance for black and latino students) discriminates against black and latino students by relinquishing the departments responsibility to educate them as well as white and asian students. In short, Affirmative Action reinforces rather than alleviates the racial inequalities in education.
"The low goals make it as easy as possible for officials to say that schools are meeting their goals. That helps hide their failure to make students proficient in English and math and allows them to avoid serious consequences for that failure.
Note that private schools in D.C. comply with civil rights laws and do not have lower academic achievement goals for their black students. Black children who cannot afford private-school tuition deserve to attend public schools that are free of racial discrimination in academic achievement goals."
The practical intent of Affirmative Action is not to improve education of black students but "minimize the chance that the authorities will face consequences for failing to educate black students."
https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/dc-government-does-not-require-schools
"The low goals make it as easy as possible for officials to say that schools are meeting their goals. That helps hide their failure to make students proficient in English and math and allows them to avoid serious consequences for that failure.
Note that private schools in D.C. comply with civil rights laws and do not have lower academic achievement goals for their black students. Black children who cannot afford private-school tuition deserve to attend public schools that are free of racial discrimination in academic achievement goals."
The practical intent of Affirmative Action is not to improve education of black students but "minimize the chance that the authorities will face consequences for failing to educate black students."
https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/dc-government-does-not-require-schools
Denis’s Substack
D.C. government does not require schools to educate black students as well as white students
Author Jeff Schmidt explains to Biden administration why lower academic standards for black students constitute racial discrimination, files civil rights complaint
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Land is an existentially crucial public resource that no group has a better right than others to monopolise on racial/cultural grounds. The distinction between private property rights vs public land is relatively new, seeking to prevent conflicts about access and use of this limited resource on the basis of human equality under law. This precludes any claims of ownership predating this system, which are not based on human equality, are universally overlapping and contradictory, therefore indefensible.
Excerpts are from the current Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Australia). The protected rights include the right “of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public.” (per 5(f) of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination)
The Voice implies recognition of a seperate nation
Any state or federal law dictating exclusion, restrictions or conditions on the use of public land under the premise of native title or native heritage is, by force of section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, unlawful and void. Similarly, any racial restrictions or conditions imposed on the use of private land under the premise of native heritage are, by force of the same section, unlawful and void.
This is possibly why they are trying to change the Constitution, to recognise a separate, racially homogenous and autonomous Nation that will be able to discriminate on the basis of race under the guise of citizenship.
Any state or federal law dictating exclusion, restrictions or conditions on the use of public land under the premise of native title or native heritage is, by force of section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, unlawful and void. Similarly, any racial restrictions or conditions imposed on the use of private land under the premise of native heritage are, by force of the same section, unlawful and void.
This is possibly why they are trying to change the Constitution, to recognise a separate, racially homogenous and autonomous Nation that will be able to discriminate on the basis of race under the guise of citizenship.
The distinction between ‘public good’ and ‘private good’ is false, a category mistake between utility and morality. In the moral sense there is only ‘good/right’ and ‘bad/wrong’, and it is the same for everyone.
A formal response to my paper “ethics of vaccine refusal” was published at BMJ. https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2023/07/28/jme-2023-109426
Journal of Medical Ethics
Compulsory vaccination protects autonomy
In a recent article in this journal, Kowalik argues that compulsory vaccination unjustifiably infringes on the autonomy of vaccine refusers. While accepting Kowalik’s central premises, we argue that, when appropriately expanded in scope, autonomy considerations…
My Response to the above article.
I thank the authors for critically engaging with my paper “Ethics of vaccine refusal”.
I agree that personal autonomy does not of itself invalidate medical mandates.
I note that I did not conclude that vaccine mandates are wrong just because they violate body autonomy of vaccine refusers. Rather, ‘mandatory vaccination, immunity passports, or any other form of discrimination on the basis of the vaccination status are defeasible not because they limit basic freedoms and rights but because they discriminate against (and thus devalue) the innate constitution of all human beings.’ Moreover, the premise that vaccine mandates are justified by the value of human autonomy is logically inconsistent: ‘We must, first of all, value our kind ’as it is’ in order to bestow worth on what we ‘ought to become’, and to pursue any ontological transformation by devaluing the innate constitution of other members of the kind would, paradoxically, negate the value of our own judgement.’ It seems the authors interpret the healthy, innate human constitution, which includes our immune system - an act of nature that determines our objective identity - as an act of social coercion, which I contend is a category mistake.
For the sake of clarity, I summarise the three strongest arguments against the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates:
1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow our unrestricted participation in society, which amounts to discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. This devaluation of the innate human constitution is not only universally dehumanising, but it perverts the very concept of human rights; discrimination against the unvaccinated implies that being born human is no longer a guarantee of full human rights.
2. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no guaranteed rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion. Crucially, by accepting any medical treatment imposed by coercion we would be acquiescing to the taking away of the right to free medical consent not only from ourselves but from our children and from future generations, and we do not have the moral right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is therefore always unethical, even if the mandated intervention were a placebo.
3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is economically coerced to participate in an activity where a percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of the mandated activity. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the prospective benefit of the majority. Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of the targeted population are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. By refusing to acquiesce to mandated vaccines we take an ethical stance in defence of the right to life.
I thank the authors for critically engaging with my paper “Ethics of vaccine refusal”.
I agree that personal autonomy does not of itself invalidate medical mandates.
I note that I did not conclude that vaccine mandates are wrong just because they violate body autonomy of vaccine refusers. Rather, ‘mandatory vaccination, immunity passports, or any other form of discrimination on the basis of the vaccination status are defeasible not because they limit basic freedoms and rights but because they discriminate against (and thus devalue) the innate constitution of all human beings.’ Moreover, the premise that vaccine mandates are justified by the value of human autonomy is logically inconsistent: ‘We must, first of all, value our kind ’as it is’ in order to bestow worth on what we ‘ought to become’, and to pursue any ontological transformation by devaluing the innate constitution of other members of the kind would, paradoxically, negate the value of our own judgement.’ It seems the authors interpret the healthy, innate human constitution, which includes our immune system - an act of nature that determines our objective identity - as an act of social coercion, which I contend is a category mistake.
For the sake of clarity, I summarise the three strongest arguments against the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates:
1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow our unrestricted participation in society, which amounts to discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. This devaluation of the innate human constitution is not only universally dehumanising, but it perverts the very concept of human rights; discrimination against the unvaccinated implies that being born human is no longer a guarantee of full human rights.
2. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no guaranteed rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion. Crucially, by accepting any medical treatment imposed by coercion we would be acquiescing to the taking away of the right to free medical consent not only from ourselves but from our children and from future generations, and we do not have the moral right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is therefore always unethical, even if the mandated intervention were a placebo.
3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is economically coerced to participate in an activity where a percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of the mandated activity. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the prospective benefit of the majority. Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of the targeted population are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. By refusing to acquiesce to mandated vaccines we take an ethical stance in defence of the right to life.
Journal of Medical Ethics
Compulsory vaccination protects autonomy
In a recent article in this journal, Kowalik argues that compulsory vaccination unjustifiably infringes on the autonomy of vaccine refusers. While accepting Kowalik’s central premises, we argue that, when appropriately expanded in scope, autonomy considerations…
Proponents of medical mandates negate the value of self-ownership, an essential property of rational agency, implicitly negating their own judgement.
Medical mandates imply that the human body is unacceptable as it is, inherently unhealthy, which implies that the objective standard of human health is itself unhealthy, therefore medical mandates are healthy because they are unhealthy, therefore nonsense.
The premise that indigenous tribes have not ceded their sovereignty is at best moot. Australia is a sovereign nation and Aboriginal people are emphatically included in this collective sovereignty, not deprived of it. Also, by claiming the entitlement to services, protection, benefits and rights funded through taxation of a larger nation, all beneficiaries affirm that they belong to that nation, are citizens of that nation, and their former tribal sovereignty is voluntarily ceded for the sake of partaking in the sovereignty of that larger nation. Conversely, if tribal sovereignty was not ceded then the relevant entitlements were claimed through deception by foreign nationals and are liable to be reclaimed.
‘Opinion’ is an affirmation of a belief that you do not know to be true.
The authority to judge cannot exceed the authority of the normative structure of reality itself, or it would be contrary to sense, arbitrary, inherently unjust. Lex iniusta non est lex. A competent, just court acts in authority only insofar as it engages in consistent, a priori reasoning.
Truth: a proposition (being a multiple of common meanings expressed in relation to one another) that is logically consistent and cannot be contradicted by any other true proposition.
Reality: the meaning-content of true propositions about causes and effects.
These two definitions go together; the former is logically incomplete without the latter, and the latter without the former. When considered in isolation both definitions can accomodate internally consistent but mutually contradictory subsets of propositions. When truth and reality are considered together we can determine which subset is true and what is real. Truth is necessarily consistent with everything that involuntarily affects us, whereas falsity is necessarily inconsistent with it. We can thus distinguish any consistent but false propositions from true propositions by virtue of consistency with the involuntary effects we experience.
Reality: the meaning-content of true propositions about causes and effects.
These two definitions go together; the former is logically incomplete without the latter, and the latter without the former. When considered in isolation both definitions can accomodate internally consistent but mutually contradictory subsets of propositions. When truth and reality are considered together we can determine which subset is true and what is real. Truth is necessarily consistent with everything that involuntarily affects us, whereas falsity is necessarily inconsistent with it. We can thus distinguish any consistent but false propositions from true propositions by virtue of consistency with the involuntary effects we experience.
It is ironic that the self-proclaimed anti-Nazis and Antifa choose to use the same blood&soil colours as Nazis did: black and red. Are they all NAB employees or something;)