Colonisation and the Colonised

It is an arbitrary value judgement to regard cultural colonisation as morally wrong and the preservation of native cultures as morally right. All conceptual progress and cultural evolution was accomplished via disruption of land-bound communities that became culturally inert and therefore conceptually oppressive, stuck in conceptually irreconcilable dead ends. Colonisation stimulated conceptual development and transcendence, incrementally advancing towards human integration as a universal kind of rational beings, beyond tribal identity. In this light it were the colonised cultures that impeded universal humanity and universal morality, obstinately irrational and conceptually fallow and therefore posed an obstacle to human reflexivity based on conscious, rational agency. It is only through colonisation that universal humanity became a meaningful idea, a new possibility of universal belonging, and the price to pay is the same for everyone: to reject their cultural conditioning and group identity and embrace what we all have in common.

Nothing provokes a compensatory response like the overt disrespect directed at someone’s perceived identity. The propagandised devaluation of Australia Day must be understood as intended to re-energise nationalism, especially white nationalism. Without this provocation, Australia Day would become just another meaningless public holiday for drinking meaningless lives away, like Queens Birthday. Nationalistic identity is absolutely necessary for waging war, and war is useful for discharging the animal energy of the population by pitting it against the same energy in another nation, in a reasonably controlled (and profitable) manner.

Summary of the ICJ Order in South Africa v Israel re provisional measures pursuant to the Genocide Convention. Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that this is not all part of a script with pre-determined outcomes. Under this assumption, the Order is probably as balanced and delicate as it could be to have any persuasive effect on Israel’s moral awareness, taking into account the irreconcilable sentiments on both sides of the conflict. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-sum-01-00-en.pdf

The existence of fake opposition is perfectly compatible with the existence of fake official position.

The use of human shields to achieve military objectives is prohibited by international law, because it instrumentally puts non-combatants/civilians in harm’s way. Instrumental targeting of human shields to achieve military objectives is therefore also prohibited, for the same reason.

The argument that a country under attack by an adversary using human shields has the right to kill those human shields in order to defend its innocent civilians implies that their own citizens have priority in regard to the right to life over the innocent human shields, which is racial or ethnic or nationalistic supremacism. It also implies that the right to life is not a human right but a privilege of the victor, might is right, therefore the law of the jungle, therefore neither moral law nor humanity matters, therefore the party making the argument are savages.

The problem with the trolley problem is that it divides 6 individuals into two groups and then implies that these groups have (unequal) moral status as groups, not (equal) moral status as individuals. This is wrong. The correct moral approach to the problem is to consider all involved individuals as possessing equal rights. No person among the six individuals involved has a better moral entitlement to being saved than the person on the side track, and every person has the moral entitlement not to be intentionally killed for the benefit of another. Moral duties and prohibitions derive from the moral status of the person and are not negated, diminished or amplified by the multiplicity of persons.

Hypothesis: Does age segregated schooling hold children back from optimal development, essentially reducing their skills to the lowest common denominator, which may be below their natural competence? It seems that age-peer influence in the development process is counterproductive to the development of sophisticated skills, prioritising ‘fitting-in’ with the low competence group over best role models and instruction.

BREAKING NEWS: The Victorian Parliament has passed the Inclusion and Diversity Amendment (Provisions for Marriage) Bill 2024. Every new marriage is now required by law to include 50% females and 50% males. Non-diverse marriage applications will no longer be accepted. The Inclusion and Diversity watchdog has welcomed the decision, emphasising that growing up in a diverse family consisting of a mother and a father is a fundamental human right of all children.

Promises, promises… For a long time I was sure that ‘something has to give’, that society is too decadent and disconnected from reality to sustain itself for another year, but it is evidently true, as Maynard Keynes said, that “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”

Since when do Royals advertise their private medical histories in real time? Since never.

If Australia were not colonised, would anyone want to live here, provided they had experienced life in other countries?

There are two contradictory narratives that the government uses, depending on whom they are trying to fool: a) Australia was built by migrants (when they want to weaponise migration); b) Australia was stolen by migrants (when they want to weaponise resentment). Mass immigration amounts to spitting in the faces of Aboriginals; acknowledging the original owners amounts to spitting in the faces of migrants.

One must be capable of ‘intending’ to kill before one may be at all persuaded to kill intentionally, and only this intentional aspect makes someone a willing killer. The ease with which people can be persuaded to kill, and the difficulty in persuading others, may be a relevant (moral status? value?) distinction to the ruling power. One could indeed imagine the individuals drunk on power to dish out the judgement reserved for God: “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” Still, just a hypothesis, but something feels intuitively right about it, taking all the psychic chatter into account.

I watched only a random few minutes of the Putin interview, but one comment particularly struck me. I paraphrase: <Musk is a smart guy, so we must reason with him, come to understanding.> This implies that if someone is not smart then reasoning is pointless and we cannot come to understanding, therefore other means would apply. This may of course be just an awkward expression, but every expression has its basis in the mind, and sometimes expresses more than a careful expression was meant to reveal. No slip of the tongue is symbolically meaningless, but this is just a curiosity that I do not count as evidence of anything.

Notes on the Carlson-Putin interview. Lenin has put a self-destruct mechanism in the design of the Soviet Union. Putin doesn’t understand why. Soviet Union was made to collapse from within, to send a message of good will to the rest of the world, make friends, be included, after being betrayed so many times before. Is betrayed again, but they didn’t see it coming so they lost the union for nothing. Ukraine was on path to have a pro western government anyway, but CIA started the coup anyway, causing many deaths and suffering. Putin does not understand why. Putin does not understand why the West is always betraying Russia, but continues to agree to deals that get betrayed again. Putin confirms with the CIA that they are doing it, but does not ask why, what do they want. Putin does not understand. NATO imposes sanctions on Russia that really help Russia to grow but harm Europe. Putin doesn’t understand. CIA blows up Nordstream to Germany, Germany allows this and pays more. Putin does not understand why.

It is not 'if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide' but 'if you did nothing wrong, you have no reason to lie'. So why do politicians and the corporate media lie so much?

Putin made a pun during the interview that everyone seems to have misinterpreted. In accusing Carlson of blowing up Nordstream, and then saying “not you personally, but the CIA” he meant ‘the CIA did it and You Are a CIA operative.’ He didn’t say ‘you, the Americans did it’ but ‘you, the CIA did it’.

BREAKING NEWS: The People’s Republic of China has unveiled a new national flag design, to replace the original, “politically outdated” flag.