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
www.marxists.org
Formal Logic and Dialectics
Introduction to the reading of Hegel's Logic, with a critique of formal logic and its place in dialectics
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.
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.
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
Michael Kowalik’s Newsletter
The Law of Identity
The classical law of identity is commonly interpreted as ∀x(x=x), meaning that everything is identical to itself (Britannica). I argue that this formula does not adequately express the principle as described by Aristotle, that everything is identical Only…
‘Evidence-based’ does not mean ‘rational’ or ‘morally right’.
A proposition has meaning only insofar as the words used to express it have meaning. To accept a contradictory proposition as merely an idiom signifying non-contradictory meaning implies a rejection of the meaning of words, therefore contradiction.
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
A court case related to the burning of the Old Parliament House is proceeding now. https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/trial-of-accused-ringleaders-of-old-parliament-house-fire-begins/news-story/43065721c38df6a3cdeab49f01abbfd3
The “catch” is no back pay and they will insist you were morally wrong. No, you were right all along, and you should not shy away from stating your reasons for defying medical coercion. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical
For humanity to become more logically consistent we must pay more attention to consistency of language and to the fundamental laws of sense. Inconsistent use of language and ignorance of the laws of sense guarantee absurd, destructive policies and systems.
Why do we even have to vote on whether nativist supremacism is a good idea? Doesn't our shared disdain for Nazi ideology already answer the referendum question? Or is it some kind of a moral test?
We all agree about equal rights for all races, tribes and ethnicities. Special rights are not equal rights. Special land rights are not equal rights. Special representation to parliament is not equal rights. Special acknowledgements of race at every public event is not equal rights. The best possible rights are equal rights; all other options lead to disaster.
Several decades ago children were operating machinery in factories, with skills and awareness of a professional adult. A teenager in those days could be a foreman or a fully qualified mechanic. Nowadays, most teenagers are moving around in a mental haze, half asleep, barely aware of what is happening around them, clumsy, lacking physical intuition, unable to read and synchronise with skilled adults, and the common excuse is that they are "just children", or their parents may simply shrug their shoulders and utter "those teenagers", as if it were a comprehensive justification of the hazy mental state. What then is the difference that made one generation mentally sharp, intuitively skilled, aware and attentive, while the current generation dopey and clumsy? It seems that the biggest factor are the different expectations that applied to these generations. Kids are evidently capable of a far higher standard of performance than what is expected of them nowadays, and these low expectations and parental/teacher excuses condition kids to live down to those expectations, to be impotent and dependent.