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

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.

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

Face masks dehumanise. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-face-of-humanity

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.

If the referendum fails, a big fat NO to nativist supremacism should be put in the Constitution, for the sake of clarity. A NO is not a MAYBE, but a NO.

A racial “non-discrimination” clause that includes an exception for racial discrimination in favour of one race:)

Supremacism is a universal tribal trait; concepts of universal ‘humanity’ and ‘human equality’ do not make any sense to those who are still tribal at heart.

Here is a wild hypothesis: the Voice referendum was always expected to fail, is meant to fail, only so that the majority will vote with relief, likely in the next year, for the ‘constitutional recognition’ alone. Recognition of seperate “First Nations” is all they need, but they chose to go too far to ensure that recognition will pass like a knife through butter. It will feel like a fair compromise.

This is how unjust laws, protecting a specific demographic at the expense of other innocent people, always backfire and cause even greater harm to the vulnerable demographic. You simply cannot buy the common good by means of targeted injustice.

Aboriginal supremacists are apparently allowed to claim ANY land that is unused or not used in accordance with the gazetted purpose, not even because it is culturally significant but because it is compensation for the land that was allegedly “stolen”, and all of the continent was “stolen”. This is a very strange concept of “theft”, where you have equal right to use public land, same as everyone else (the public), but want it just for your race. Compensation for equality, because equality is “theft”. Under s10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is surely invalid, because its practical effect is discrimination on the basis of race or the place of origin. https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/recompense-for-loss-aboriginal-land-council-defends-claim-for-100-million-balmoral-beach-reserve/news-story/5f7941c24f7ecc2498ee690000e28f54

I wonder where do the “other banks” borrow from to cover for the same reduction in savings.

Savings balances are a liability of the bank, not an asset that can be lent out, and there is no asset-side to the bank deposits transferred from other people, except an occasional deposit in cash. Banks do not borrow the money they “lend”, but create new money as “credit”. When new credit is issued, this customer’s “debt” becomes an asset for the bank (bank is owed this amount), while the money deposited to the customer’s account is a liability of the bank (bank owes this newly created amount to the customer). When the customer transfers the newly created amount when buying a house, some other customer of the bank comes to be owed this amount by the bank. The transfer does not create an additional asset, it merely shuffles the same liability of the bank from customer to customer. On the systemic scale, banks offset any inter-bank deposits against one another, and this averages over time to roughly Zero mutual liabilities. In short, the volume of credit that each bank issues matches the volume of deposits it attracts to itself, completing the scam. The system works as one bank, a cartel, creating money at the expense of everyone’s savings (inflation) and “lending” this stolen purchasing power back to the people they stole from.