A YES to nativist supremacism is the cornerstone of Nazi ideology. European (“Aryan”) neo-Nazis and their local propagandists want your ideological endorsement by the proxy of Aboriginal Australians. The Indigenous Voice also legitimises the indigenous claim of the “Aryan race” over Europe. A Nazi would vote NO to the Voice only if they think it does not go far enough.

BREAKING NEWS: Pope urges Aboriginal Australians against treating non-indigenous Australians as invaders.

The objection that African migration is intended to replace the indigenous European population with Africans implies at least one of the following: a) that African races are inferior, a kind of human pollution (therefore racism); b) that natives have superior rights to non-natives (nativist supremacism = Nazism). Both objections are factually and ethically wrong. A reasonable argument against mass migration can be made on the basis of economic/property rights (unjust access to the value developed by the effort and taxation of people in a particular area), on the basis of social and political instability due to cultural/ideological conflict, to prevent brain-drain and labour-drain of the countries of origin (making those countries even poorer and more unstable), out of respect for human dignity and moral accountability (in rescuing people from their cultural failures one implies that they are not sufficiently rational to manage their own affairs and therefore not fully human). Arguments that focus on race, ethnicity, religious identity or the place of origin can only undermine the legitimate criticism of disruptive, weaponised migration.

Any kind of fame nowadays must be understood as theatre, scripted and paid for by the social programmers. This includes both the heroes and the villains, the fall guys and the victors, but the common property of all promoted characters is the shallowness of discourse and the ideological polarisation without rational resolution.

BREAKING NEWS: Recent horrific attacks spark a nationwide debate… each state premier has attacked and killed more people during Covid “emergency” than all the Rottweilers over the last 100 years. Should state government be banned in Australia? But are state governments solely to blame?

Traditional cultures stabilise social relations not by means of reason but by means of socially enforced compliance with the established dogma. When different traditional cultures are made to coexist in the same space, their conflict is irreconcilable within the traditional framework and can be managed only through violence/force (which is mutually damaging) or through rational deliberation. The latter possibility requires a fundamental change of attitude, from moral conviction to rational introspection and public justification. Objective ethics becomes indispensable as an antidote to oppression and violence.

The Categorical Imperative in Personal Relations

The Categorical Imperative was formulated by Kant as follows: "treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." (Kant 1785: 429)

The formula employs the term "humanity" ("in the person"), not 'the person' per se, let alone 'every person', and I think this is a crucial distinction. On this literal reading it is 'humanity' (conscious rational agency) that matters the most, is the highest value that we must never use merely as a means to any other end; not the will or consent of the person we are interacting with. If the person in question acts against 'humanity', attacks what we have fundamentally in common, acts wrongly, then we are obliged to treat humanity (in the general sense) as an end, not the preferences or perceived interests of that person. Another way, we are obligated to treat an individual as an end only indirectly, insofar as that individual embodies the property of humanity, at which point we sustain the reflexive relation that underpins consciousness itself. In practice this principle may coincide with the golden rule, doing to others as you would have them do to you, which consists in engaging in good faith and pursuing mutual understanding. If a person acts in bad faith, is not interested in mutual understanding but only wants us to submit to their will, then the task of the moral agent is to preserve one's own rational agency against this irreflexive, dehumanising challenge, without denying the possibility that that irrational interlocutor may yet reestablish humanity in themselves.

Vaccine Mandates are Contrary to the Categorical Imperative

Vaccine mandates severely harm and kill a minority for the alleged benefit of the majority, treating humans like dispensable livestock, devaluing the innate human constitution and the rational agency of all humans. The mandates also imply that humanity is inherently wrong/defective and must be medically modified, by coercion, based on the value judgement of some people (not a reflexive relation of human to human via human). This is not treating humanity as an end, but as a means to normative domination of some people over all others.

I want to see the transaction details and customer receipts for all that massive stage equipment, prints, banners, leaflets, decorations, t-shirts, transport etc used by the “independent, unofficial and grassroots” NO (Yeah Nah) rallies.

Disappointing, but this is what happens when the objectivity of ethics is denied and economics (costs/benefits) is posited as the only standard of right and wrong. Sanjeev forgot his own ethical reason for rejecting the mandates: “Governments are not authorised by law - by analogy - to burn down additional homes and kill unaffected people in order to save those who might be at risk of being engulfed in a bushfire.”

https://t.iss.one/sanjeevsabhlok/9341

It is utterly cruel, indeed criminal, to convince young women that they could safely enter most trades and work on par with males. Male tradies are mostly cripples by the age of 50, plagued by chronic pain and injuries from physical strain. Telling a 5 foot nothing, 45kg girl that she can be a diesel mechanic is just perverse. She could not even unscrew most bolts baked on in a diesel engine, and if she were insanely determined she would wreck her body in a few short years. Sure, there are exceptions, very few, but for most women this would be a death wish. Heavy lifting is a part of most trades, in awkward body positions. Some employers may hire a woman for show, and accept that others will have to do all the lifting for her, but this is fake, just pretence, and also sends a misleading message to others.

Even if some vaccines reduced the nominal mortality rate, that does not prove that they "saved lives". When a vaccine is not the most effective intervention available, and the best treatment is suppressed in order to sell that vaccine, then the nominally effective vaccine amounts to relative harm.

This is heading (unwittingly) in the right direction. If indigeneity is not a race then we all qualify; everyone is indigenous to somewhere, and the Voice and indigenous rights are rendered trivial, applicable to all, not a unique racial privilege. But then the wording of the constitutional alteration ought to be modified not to refer to any specific race but to all humans.