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.

Consider the following scenario. You have no money and your friend has no money, so you agree to sign a contract stating that you owe them $100 and they sign an identical contract stating that they owe you $100. Clearly the debts cancel one another, resulting in zero net debt, but the effect of the contracts is that you can show one of them to someone else, proving that your friend owes you $100, and pay with this ‘asset’ instead of cash. That someone else may give you $100 worth of veggies because they know you have no other way of paying and they also need money. The problem with this arrangement is that new funds were created out of nothing and everyone else’s money became less valuable by precisely this new amount, so there is a hidden theft occurring, by taking a tiny amount of purchasing power from everyone else. This is how banks operate when they issue credit, but their dishonesty has another level; they charge you a higher interest rate than the rate they are willing to pay you, they require you to pledge your house as collateral for your side of the contract but they do not pledge collateral for theirs, and they do it on national scale, with everyone who needs money, and only they are allowed to do it.

An alternative formulation of the law of non-contradiction

The classical formulations of the law are:
1) 'a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same respect'
2) 'the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect’

The first version is grounded in the concept of truth, which can only be defined by appealing to consistency with all other true propositions, anchored in the evolved, existentially integrated meanings with which we describe our physical reality and causal relations.

The second definition is grounded in what consciousness can meaningfully attribute to the same identity: it is impossible to mentally integrate a ‘thing’ as a definite something without this law.

I propose a third definition of the law of non-contradiction:

3) Mutually exclusive meanings cannot be expressed in the same thought, nor can they be simultaneously intended for action.

It is impossible to think a thought that both affirms and denies the same meaning, or, a hypothetical thought that affirms and denies the same meaning has no meaning, therefore is not a thought but two successive or independent thoughts of which one must be denied for the other to be meaningful.

When people do not understand that the purchasing power of their savings grows hand in hand with the economic output, they cannot discern any personal loss when their purchasing power stays the same during economic growth, and the extra value is covertly captured by the banks. Banks steal the deflationary effect of economic growth, the inevitable common enrichment. The most pervasive theft in human history is concealed by the absence of change, which appears fair to those who do not understand where the purchasing power of money comes from.

A reminder: My position on the Voice referendum is a NO.

- I'm not interested in the merit of this proposal

- I'm opposed to any other issue getting priority over basic FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND SPEECH in Australia.

First include FREEDOM in the Constitution of Australia.

The obsession with protecting native animals and plants from ‘non-native’ species is not supported by rational justification. It is a supremacist ideology, stemming from pagan superstitions about natural balance and the ‘divine’ right of belonging.

The Trolley Problem doctors want you to believe they are faced with:

1) A train is speeding along the tracks. You see that 5 people are lying on the tracks ahead of it, bound to be killed unless you pull the lever to redirect the train to another track. You notice that one person is lying on the other track. These are the only two options. Do you pull the lever or not?

The Trolley Problem as doctors apply it:

2) A train is speeding along the tracks. You see that 5 people are lying on the tracks ahead of it, bound to be killed unless you pull the lever to redirect the train to another track. You notice that one person is lying on the other track. These are the only two options. Do you pull the lever, or go play golf?