Philosophers who post only articles, papers and books, and do not engage in conversation with their readers, reveal insecurity about their arguments. Intellectual proficiency on paper alone, without engaging with criticism, in isolation from the common man, is like teaching martial arts without allowing any challengers into your Dojo and without allowing the students to ask any questions. They are missing out on the unconscious wisdom of the mob, the best educator.

The primary function of identity politics is to distract the mob from the only privilege that matters: the hereditary wealth privilege.

BREAKING NEWS: The chairman of the WEF, prompted by Donald Trump’s suggestion that Palestinians ought to vacate the Gaza Strip for the sake of Build Back Better, has expressed great sadness for the suffering of the people of Gaza as well as for the trauma of the Israeli hostages and their families. He nevertheless reaffirmed WEF's long-standing position that Israel has the right to exist, as a Christian homeland;)

White Aboriginals are those who can convincingly opt out of Aboriginal identity. They have no skin in the game. They are not the same racial category as those who have no choice about their racial identity.

It is better to have no political representation at all than minority representation, which is always bound to lose and then cannot deny that it was given its due.

A person who depends on AI to stay relevant is already redundant.

Here’s a little something i jotted down last night, just before falling asleep, and forgot that I wrote it, until now:

Normal Party is a party of people who are always in the minority. Normal Party understands that it cannot rely on representative democracy to protect the minority from the moral wrongs of the majority. Normal Party is not represented, shall not be represented, and does not recognise the will of the majority as the standard of authority. The distinction between right and wrong does not depend on the will of the majority.

This is supposed to make just as much sense as you are able to make of it:)

It is conceivable that democracy is only nominally about the majority rule but is essentially a moral test: those who are willing to impose their preferences on others by the arbitrary standard of being in the majority are implicitly denying that preferences can be objectively right or wrong in their own right, thus negating the rationality of their choices and the authority of their own preferences. It then follows that this collective self-negation has representative priority over the negated preferences. If this is right then the abusive, humiliating, deceitful and exploitative governments are not a failure of democracy but express its proper function, provided it is applied only to those who vote.

But if Quantum Mechanics is a valid theory then the Quantum Express may follow both tracks at the same time. Only if the train collides with you will the range of possibilities collapse to just one track. What do you do?

Turning the slaves into minority share-holders was a brilliant move. They now agree to own just a minority part of their labour:)

The only difference between ‘human error’ and ‘sabotage’ is mens rea.

1. ‘Every X is Green and No X is Green’ is not a contradiction. It is possible for the two ascriptions to be consistent if there are no X’s. For example, ‘Every unicorn is Green and No unicorn is Green’ is consistent if there are no unicorns: Every=zero and No=zero and zero=None.

2. ‘Every X is Green and Not-Every X is Green’ is an explicit contradiction. Not-Every implies Some, and Some is not-None, which implies contradiction even if Every consists of None.

3. ‘Some X are Green and No X is Green’ is a contradiction, as it implies Some X and not-Some X, or not-None and None.

4. ‘Some X are Green and Some X are not-Green’ is not a contradiction, as different X’s can be different colours.

This distinction is identified in Aristotle‘s Prior Analytics (section 15), where he differentiates between ‘universal contraries’ (1) and ‘opposites’ (2,3). Only opposites can be used to construct a contradiction.

All Experts agree that their wellbeing is more important than your wellbeing, so please listen to the Experts;)

Tradition is habitual resistance to reasons that favour a change of habitual behaviour.

Most people on the planet love centralised power. They want it absolutely centralised, in the hands of God alone. They want God to be fully in charge of their lives, tell them what to do, show them the way, and all they want is to serve and obey. Technocrats are no doubt aware of this dominant instinct, they want to satisfy this instinct, by doing God’s work;)

If an alleged contradiction depends on whether something exists or not, it is not a contradiction: a contradictory statement is such that the same property is simultaneously affirmed and denied, and this opposition follows from the terms of the expression alone.
‘Every’ and ‘No’ are not strict opposites, they do not simultaneously affirm and deny the same property, and this was Aristotle’s argument for concluding that it is not a case of contradiction.
The opposite of Every is not-Every, therefore Some (not None). The opposite of No is not-None, therefore Some (not Every).
‘Every’ is negated if there is one or more counterexample; it does not require all possibilities to be counterexamples (No positive examples). ‘No’ is negated if there is one or more positive examples; it does not require all possibilities to be positive examples.

Not a bad reach for this note: https://substack.com/@michaelkowalik/note/c-90904407 These ideas are only now catching on with the broader community.

When commercial banks issue credit at interest, they are actually lending out YOUR money (by inflating the money supply, which amounts to extracting value from your wallet). They keep the interest earned and they never pay back the principal, so the money supply is continuously inflated. If the government issued the same amount of money instead of the banks issuing credit, this would amount to a universal wealth tax, with roughly the same value as the income tax. Your income tax liability is actually a wealth tax forgone by the State in favour of the banks and thus charged twice: first by inflation, then by extortion. They owe you money.

“Speaking Your truth” is a euphemism for Lying: misrepresenting your subjective beliefs as objective facts.

Has anyone here read my book, in full?

Vaccination is an irreversible, biotechnological augmentation intended for healthy people. Any biotechnological enhancement or augmentation intended for healthy people is not healthcare (or healthy) but transhumanism. Transhumanism is in principle unhealthy because it aims to alter the species-typical characterises which constitute the medical standard of human health. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/30/is-transhumanism-a-health-problem/