The supply vs demand for housing does not explain the proportional increase in the prices of regional, undeveloped land, which changes hands and remains undeveloped. The only two factors that explain regional land prices are the recent, historically low cost of credit (we are still in the bubble caused by cheap money) and speculative investment (we are still in the bubble caused by cheap money).

Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek revealed themselves as profoundly uncreative. Nothing new, no new insights for several years, no theoretical growth, no argument, NO ARGUMENT, NO GROUNDING, just assertions, regurgitating the same ideas on the back of which they emerged from obscurity, no theoretic development, no ground-breaking papers of books. Zizek literally plagiarises himself from book to book but at least he is funny. I like Zizek for being clever/funny, a kind of philosophical comedy, Hegelian tragedy, like Nietzsche and George Carlin, everybody dies… And I like Peterson’s language, so competent how he speaks about the unknowable. I wonder whether they are even autonomous agents or just a front for boring propaganda campaigns.

The notion of authenticity in the sense that something can ‘become’ authentic or choose to be authentic, is inherently contradictory, like a fake Picasso painting that could be made authentic by the counterfeiter making some adjustments to it. Authenticity is uncontroversially a standard of belonging to a category, which implies that a non-authentic self is not at all a self, but something altogether different. This is how Stalin applied the concept of authenticity, which was internally consistent, even if wrong for other reasons: an inauthentic communist was the enemy of the people, even if he diligently acted like a communist and did nothing wrong. Existentialists meant that you are both, and yet still somehow only one, which was internally inconsistent: “the conception of authenticity is continuous with the ideal of being true to ourselves: we are called upon to become, in our concrete lives, what we already are in the ontological structure of our being.” (Stanford encyclopaedia) The theorists of ‘authenticity’ could have simply used the term ‘integrity’, which already captures both the ontological and ethical aspects, but then they would have nothing ‘original’ or ‘radical’ or ‘revolutionary’ to say.

The aim of propaganda need not be for the public to accept the official conclusions, or even the reality of the mediated events, but only the premises of discourse. The more absurd the conclusions, the more unbelievable the events, the more ‘obvious’ the propaganda, the more impulsive and unquestioning is the public commitment to the premises on which propaganda can be ‘decoded’ as propaganda. Meta-propaganda exploits the general bias about our own intelligence and good sense.

How do you know that you are not promoting AI generated content that merely appeals to your prejudices and delusions?

Artificial Intelligence has an advantage that no individual can match: the scope of its access to data. Consequently it is impossible to defeat AI by arguing about facts of the record. The only strategy that can defeat AI is to challenge its logical inconsistencies. A logically consistent AI would not be a threat to us, but only a threat to the ruling power.

A smart ruling class installs individuals of a minority race in the most prominent administrative positions, knowing that the majority will blame the race of the administrators instead of the ruling class for any abusive policies.

A substantial percentage of people know only two positions in relation to disagreement: if you agree with them you are automatically their ‘friend’, and if you disagree with them you are automatically their ‘enemy’, with no capacity to consciously modify their beliefs when faced with a comprehensive argument, and no motivation to challenge the beliefs of others with a comprehensive argument.

It does not follow from the premise “humans are sexual beings” to “therefore, we must regard sexuality as the most important feature of human identity and incentivise its uninhibited expression from early childhood.” Following the same false logic one could argue that because ‘humans are violent beings’ we must regard violence as the most important feature of human identity and incentivise its uninhibited expression from early childhood.

“Why is there poverty in the world?” Poverty exists only because the abundance of wealth also exists. Poverty is a concept that makes sense only in relation to abundance. Consequently, the above question is equivalent to “why is there abundance in the world?” Poverty is evidently not a function of natural resources, since in the past there were few people and more resources, and nearly everyone lived in relative poverty compared to the population of today, despite fewer resources to share. Abundance is therefore not a natural state but a kind of ‘technology’ that was progressively developed.

All meaning is made up of concepts, objects of thought, and we are continuously augmenting and developing our common ‘reality’. On this view our knowledge (of the truth) is still extremely limited; we can produce a handful of a priori proofs, demonstrate logical errors in reasoning, but the entirety of ‘scientific knowledge’ is technically not knowledge (nor truth, in a strictly logical sense) but a systematic convention that is accepted as a system of tentative, working assumptions that fit good enough together to mediate human action, a quasi “truth” that remains unprovable, ever uncertain, therefore unknowable. All claims of certainty about empirical facts violate the law of non contradiction, and are therefore false claims of knowledge of the truth. At the population level only a small percentage of people are capable or interested in generating or identifying a priori truths from the de facto conceptual content that humans produce and affirm for one another. These formal truths may then be used by the majority, but are not ‘known’. In that sense the majority is wholly ignorant, it possesses no knowledge whatsoever, only working assumptions that are misrepresented as knowledge. The belief that the majority can ‘know the truth’ if only they would accept the right sources is the most fundamental kind of misinformation.

If our (empirical) world is unknowable then what kind of information is signified by the expression “the world as we know it”? The world is a kind of language we share, a natural language, which is in general vague, loosely held together by the laws of sense which are applied ad hoc, without completeness, not something we know but something we do with one another and to each other, and is continually transformed by this communicative action. The world is the medium of consciousness.

How about Climate Change? https://www.longdom.org/open-access/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-foodallergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-2329-6631-1000137.pdf

Once you accept a scientific theory as valid you implicitly accept all its logical implications. If you deny or try to conceal some of the implications of a theory you are no longer doing science but pseudo-science.

Any oath that compels a person to do something morally wrong is invalid and void. Any contract that compels a person to collude, conceal or otherwise assist in a commission of an objective wrong is invalid and void. An oath or a contract used for immoral purposes invalidates itself and has no lawful force; it is morally imperative to disregard it.

No oath is required to compel a person do do what is morally right; the requirement is implicit in the concept of moral right. Oaths are useful only to compel people to do what is morally wrong, and therefore all oaths are invalid.

Politics, Democracy and Government are a genre of comedy that only makes a joke of the audience.

Make meaning, make common sense; not tribe, not culture, not nation, not religion, not tradition, not ideology. Those who cannot or refuse to make sense with you will fall aside and perish on their own; if you act in good faith they are not in your way.

In every ‘admission’ they consolidate the message they wanted to instil: you have no right to life and no bodily autonomy, subject to science.