Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Become a destroyer of narratives, an arsonist in the house of idols, an apostate of consensus, a blasphemer in the church of collusion, a pirate on the sea of false conscience, a Cyclops among the cross-eyed midgets of culture.
When a corporation declares ‘Our Values’ but omits Rationality (the fundamental laws of meaning) and Self Interest, their values are meaningless or false, open to unlimited abuse. If a corporation would declare Rationality and Self Interest as their values, nothing more would need to be added as everything that is right follows from these two. Rational self-interest dictates respecting the interests of others.
People are becoming uglier and the experts are baffled why: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/face-body/why-people-are-becoming-less-attractive-according-to-facial-analyst/news-story/ec5f456f4398fb4ccefde0ddf9376337
It looks like the government is using reverse psychology to condition kids to despise everything Aboriginal. White supremacism in disguise. The optimal path for social cohesion is equality under law, not racial prioritisation. Section 9 of Racial Discrimination Act 1975 states: "It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."
Assuming 3% p.a. interest rate over 1200 years of British monarchy, the “King” owes £2.5 quadrillion for every £1 stolen/extorted in the first year of their Royal rule. This is 50 times more than all the money in the world. The biggest scam in the history of humanity for sure.
Forwarded from Senator Gerard Rennick
My repose to article “Compulsory vaccination protects autonomy”: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/my-repose-to-article-compulsory-vaccination
Michael Kowalik’s Newsletter
My repose to article “Compulsory vaccination protects autonomy”
(Journal of Medical Ethics)
Colonisation and the Colonised
It is an arbitrary value judgement to regard cultural colonisation as morally wrong and the preservation of native cultures as morally right. All conceptual progress and cultural evolution was accomplished via disruption of land-bound communities that became culturally inert and therefore conceptually oppressive, stuck in conceptually irreconcilable dead ends. Colonisation stimulated conceptual development and transcendence, incrementally advancing towards human integration as a universal kind of rational beings, beyond tribal identity. In this light it were the colonised cultures that impeded universal humanity and universal morality, obstinately irrational and conceptually fallow and therefore posed an obstacle to human reflexivity based on conscious, rational agency. It is only through colonisation that universal humanity became a meaningful idea, a new possibility of universal belonging, and the price to pay is the same for everyone: to reject their cultural conditioning and group identity and embrace what we all have in common.
It is an arbitrary value judgement to regard cultural colonisation as morally wrong and the preservation of native cultures as morally right. All conceptual progress and cultural evolution was accomplished via disruption of land-bound communities that became culturally inert and therefore conceptually oppressive, stuck in conceptually irreconcilable dead ends. Colonisation stimulated conceptual development and transcendence, incrementally advancing towards human integration as a universal kind of rational beings, beyond tribal identity. In this light it were the colonised cultures that impeded universal humanity and universal morality, obstinately irrational and conceptually fallow and therefore posed an obstacle to human reflexivity based on conscious, rational agency. It is only through colonisation that universal humanity became a meaningful idea, a new possibility of universal belonging, and the price to pay is the same for everyone: to reject their cultural conditioning and group identity and embrace what we all have in common.
When little people are granted privileges beyond their social rank or capacities, you can be sure they are being set up to take the fall.
Humans are getting better at deliberating, working on resolving disagreements, so even if perfect rationality is unachievable the more we try to understand the reasons for our disagreements the stronger and more consistent we become as a kind. Governments do not like it because it makes them less relevant and us more powerful.
If the interest rates will not keep rising in line with the international trend then AUD will fall, causing higher prices on all imports. If the interest rates will continue to rise, people will have less money to spend on imported goods but the AUD will be stronger, offsetting the cost. https://www.news.com.au/finance/markets/australian-markets/asx-200-suffers-biggest-upset-investors-scramble-after-fitch-downgrades-us-credit-rating/news-story/5e30d8b85f6a0bdf3996f3af54b413a4
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
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.
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.
Racial/nativist supremacism, contemporary feminism, LBGTI movement, all forms of group ‘victimhood’ that enjoy corporate sponsorship and marketing, COVID vaccine mandates, are based on this psychological strategy: https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html
Reacting to a controversy caused by a more powerful adversary, within the established framework and terms of reference, is not a defensive strategy; it is the offensive strategy used against you, it is being led, not controlling anything, but it only feels like doing something important (and that is why it works as a control strategy). The terms of reference must be changed, the game-board disrupted.
Fascism is an authoritarian ideology centred on the belief that the moral judgment of corporations and governments is, as a matter of principle, superior and more valid than the moral judgment of individuals.
Good to see that people are starting to rationally interpret this situation.
Left vs Right is a false dichotomy; there is only Right vs Wrong. The Left/Right distinction is essentially ideological and therefore irreconcilable, whereas the distinction of right vs wrong is subject to rational evaluation and can be objectively determined.