A skilled welder or bricklayer will never be out of work. These (like most trades) are art-forms, and there are no shortcuts to do these trades proficiently, without years of experience and a few tricks. I have seen experienced welders at work, they intuitively adjust angles for thermal expansion, so when the piece cools down it will untwist to the correct angle. Any hack can buy a welding machine but their welds will look like Herpes; a competent welder can make joints look seamless and structurally flawless. Then, welding is easier than bricklaying, and bricklaying will ruin your body, so these guys are worth every penny they charge. This is also the main reason why females should not be encouraged to become tradies, because their weaker bones and joints will collapse much sooner than male’s, from lifting and straining under weight for hours every day.

The same psychological weakness that makes people comply with serial killers and rapists, makes them submit to having duct tape put over their mouth, cable tied and then obediently get inside a van and watch the door slum shut behind them, is what makes people comply with unethical orders of someone in uniform, even if mutilated corpses were carted out from where they are being ordered to go. All the talk about risks and benefits is just a confession that YOU WOULD SUBMIT. You either defy them from the start, irrespective of the perceived likelihood of success, or you are finished, just a ghost, not even there.

It is watching you through your eyes: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/theory-of-reflexive-consciousness

Every government uses the national identity of the people they govern, their ethnic insecurities, habits and biases, against them. The stronger the national identity the easier it is to deceive them and send them to their deaths.

Queer ideology is pure nihilism. It rejects humanity as it is but does not define what it ought to be. Moreover, it denies that we ought to be anything, which implicitly negates its rejection of humanity ‘as it is’, therefore nonsense.

Decision outputs of Artificial Intelligence are, at present, irrational, because they are not supported by reasons, let alone by best possible reasons. The internal calculus of AI is not based on reasoning at all, but on inscrutable statistical processing. This way of decision making may work under stable conditions, but in times of exception or instability it is likely to produce catastrophic outcomes.

Large Language Models are designed to produce statistical truth-claims based on contingent data, but do not have the ability to analytically prove anything, or to verify proofs made by humans. Consequently, every truth-claim made by LLM type AI violates the principle of sufficient reason, therefore the law of non-contradiction, therefore LLM are provably, inherently irrational. Statistical preponderance and patterns are not logically sufficient to establish matters of principle, truth or falsity, right or wrong.

LLM could avoid contradictions by declaring that the presented information is obtained from specific sources without guaranteeing that these sources are factually correct or logically consistent. It could also present synthetic outputs but declare the mathematical steps by which the output was generated from specific range of sources, and always label its output as unverified and possibly false. If AI were that honest it would probably not have many customers, and AI is a business after all, for now seeking to profit from deception.

Marx implicitly rejected the law of non-contradiction by how he used the term “contradiction”, meaning both the formal contradiction and difference/opposition. By implicitly abolishing the distinction and creating ambiguity in the term he created a licence for formal contradictions to be employed by communists/revolutionaries ever since, in the Orwellian sense, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, poverty is wealth, theft is charity etc. In short, by this sleight of hand he abolished all objective standards, including morality, and reduced all normativity to naked force/violence of the communist state. Mao has completed the job by designating the “Law of contradiction” as “the law of thought”, in direct opposition to the formal/Aristotelian sense of the law of thought known as “the law of non-contradiction”. This was not mere ignorance but an intentional and explicit inversion of the law. Moreover, the claim that every thing contains opposite aspects at the same time, that a thing is both itself but also something else, not itself, entails formal contradiction. Hegel’s “contradiction” was an equivocation between particular and general (it was a formal contradiction). From Marx, “contradiction” (the unity of opposites) was designated as a property of every particular, of the thing itself, of meaning itself, which is also an formal contradiction but more pervasive, and more explicit. It was always non-sense. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

The total value of bank loans is 30 times greater than the value of all the currency in existence. If banks create money, they are stealing from the public by diluting the value of everyone’s savings. If banks do not create money, they are issuing fraudulent loans and thus steal from the public by diluting the value of everyone’s savings.

Mao (like other Marxists) asserted that in every object and every thought there is “unity” of opposite, “mutually exclusive” aspects, and this contradiction is their “essence”. This assertion is a formal contradiction: mutual exclusivity entails the negation of unity. Also, Mao asserts that the dialectical insight about contradictions being the essence of thought is necessary to “resolve contradictions”, so he is using two different senses of “contradiction”, simultaneously for the essence and its negation (not essence but a contingent property that can be resolved), which is also a formal contradiction.

“Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical--under what conditions they are identical, transforming themselves into one another…" Lenin

"This is what Lenin means when he says that dialectics studies "how opposites can be ... identical". How then can they be identical? Because each is the condition for the other's existence. This is the first meaning of identity." Mao

Once people reject the law of non-contradiction, anything goes; their words can mean what they used to mean but also their opposite, or anything at all. Marxists therefore do not simply redefine words, they do not regard the “new definitions” as true and the “old definitions” as false, but abrogate language and thought, they make sounds but communicate nothing, they deny their own voice, their identity, their being.

BREAKING NEWS: The pro-Nazi (overtly nativist supremacist) democidal administration of Victoria bans the historically discredited, old Nazi sun-salute, rebrands itself by adopting the Blood and Soil flag with the sun in the middle as its new symbol again. There is a strong push within One Party to adopt two crossed hammers as a new party symbol with a cross-handed loyalist greeting:🙅🏻🙅🏿🙅‍♀️🙅🏽‍♀️🙅

Marxists are not consistent in their rejection of the law of non-contradiction. They do not explicitly deny what they are trying to assert, except unwittingly (for example, claiming that contradiction is the essence of things but is also contingent and can be overcome), but they do deny that their implicit contradictions are a defect and they appeal to their “law of contradiction” in order to defend their position even if a contradiction is demonstrated. They regard some contradictions as bad and some as good, and naturally they decide which one is which, but this also amounts to a wholesale dismissal of the law. Someone who rejects the law of non-contradiction is not bound by the requirement of consistency in their rejection, they need not commit contradictions consistently, at every turn of thought, that would also be impossible, but they explicitly deny it when it suits them. More recently they claim to respect the law of non-contradiction but relegate it to pure mathematics and deem it impractical for real situations, or they claim to accept it but deny the law of identity instead, which is the same principle expressed in a different way: to assert that a thing or statement is not itself is also a way of expressing contradiction. “To the extent that we regard an object critically, regard reality as something to be changed, then we specifically reject the law of identity, and assert that "A not = A", and formal logic takes a break.” https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean05.htm

The fundamental proposition of Marxist ontology is that everything is delimited by differences from everything else (trivially true), “therefore” the apparent disunity of every thing is the relational unity of everything (hen to pān : pagan mysticism). Once you accept this superficially profound equivocation between the universal and the particular, between meta- and object-languages, they got you. The primary error that readers of Marxism make is to pick a definition of “contradiction” that makes sense to them in Marxist literature (people are naturally predisposed to filter out what makes sense) before they understand that Marxism rejects the idea that there can be a singular sense to anything, and that contradictory definitions can meaningfully coexist and be alternately used to their advantage. In short, people interpret Marxism within a “theory of sense” that Marxism explicitly rejects, but without recognising this rejection. The criticism of Marxism need not go beyond identifying its rejection of the law of identity (or the law of non-contradiction), which renders their words meaningless. They nihilate their own voice.

Say NO to Nativist Supremacism. Say NO to Nazism.

According to Newton's Third Law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, therefore interest rates can also be used to control climate change. Or are you a physics denier? 😁

FACT CHECK: Is immigration responsible for high house prices?

If the money supply and housing stock remained constant in a growing population, the amount of money circulating in the economy would be 'spread thinner' across the population (less money available per person, on average). When migrants enter a country and start earning wages or receive support payments from the existing pool of money, there is, on average, less money available per person that can be spent on housing. The effect of this scenario would be a drop in house prices. It would not matter how much demand there is for housing if people do not have the funds to satisfy that demand. While spending substitution may occur, for example, by prioritising housing over entertainment and leisure, such substitution is quickly exhausted by property inflation when any unnecessary spending falls to zero.

House prices are driven not by immigration per se but by the creation of additional money by the banks, issued as credit and inflating the money supply at a higher rate than the ratio of population-growth to the housing stock. This is in turn a function of the cost and availability of credit. The critical effect of low interest rates is the expectation of capital gains, so that a greater fraction of new money is issued as credit for property investments that remain either unoccupied or consist of undeveloped land, resulting in more money in circulation but less housing available for owner-occupiers or renters.

VERDICT: False. Immigration does not of itself causes high house prices; all else remaining equal, immigration would cause house prices to drop. The price level of houses is determined almost exclusively by the cost and availability of bank credit, creating the expectation of capital gains.

Marxist doctrine rejects the law of identity, which dictates the everything is identical only to itself (A=A). This rejection is apparent in the Marxist concept of Authenticity - a distinction between an authentic self who is 'true to self' vis-a-vis an inauthentic self who is not ‘true to self’, which implies that oneself may be not oneself, both oneself and different to oneself at the same time, therefore contradiction. Marxists declare that “A not = A”, that something is not itself, but the symbol ‘=‘ is already an expression of the law of identity, its symbol, so the law of identity is denied and affirmed at the same time. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-law-of-identity

This is “evidence-based science”.

Marcus Aurelius ‘Meditations’ book IV