I am sure the ruling power has good reasons to tell the little people about Epstein and how corrupt the ruling power is.

Double-negation has the sense of negating (opposing) the negation: p ≡ ¬(¬p). To deny double-negation-elimination (the opposite of the opposite of p is just p) is to deny the sense of negation. Negation is essential to thought, hence to deny double-negation elimination is to deny thought. Another way: to negate/oppose the negative is to affirm, or else the concept of negation/opposition is inconsistent.

Edit: if I reject the premise that ¬(¬p) does not imply p, then to reject my rejection does not imply an affirmation of ‘¬(¬p) does not imply p’, therefore implies nothing relevant; it is not a counter-argument but a non-sequitur.

To deny that not(not-p) is p, implies that it is not p and it is not not-p, therefore is z and not-z, where z=not-p, therefore contradiction.

Evidence-based is nonsense

Any assertion of ‘evidence’ is a confession of the incapacity to prove. If you cannot prove what you assert, then you are absolutely ignorant, utterly dependent on forces that you do not even conceive of and cannot control. Whatever you cannot prove (that it cannot be otherwise, or else contradiction) is pure subjectivity, it is made up, even if you can persuade others to believe in it. Evidence is mythology, epistemically irrelevant. Life is mythology.

The laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity in plain English:

Nothing both is and is not, [non-contradiction]
neither is nor is not, [excluded middle]
or is what it is not. [identity]

All three forms have the same underlying sense:

not(is and not-is)
not(not-is and not(not-is)), therefore not(not-is and is)
not(is that and is not that), therefore not(is and not-is)

Another way:

The opposites do not make up a whole.
The opposites of the opposites do not make up a whole,
The opposites are not a whole.

All three forms reduce to: the opposites cannot be unified.

The 'three laws' are just one law

The foundation of your enslavement is the idea that being is independent of meaning, that it is something given, already determined, rather than created as an idea and ritualised by mass persuasion. Belief is slavery.

Science is never settled primarily because politics in science is never settled.

Aliens are logically impossible. Extraterrestrial ‘life’ is logically impossible. Anyone in the Gov claiming the knowledge of aliens is lying. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-alien-life-forms-are-impossible

All the celebrity tech CEOs are just PR representatives of the ruling power, fulfilling its strategic aims. Nothing they publicly say is their original thought, but a corporate script they are given to recite.

Someone with an IQ of 150 is far more proficient at persuasively defending their delusions than a person of an average IQ. The majority is thus passively persuaded to act as if the delusions of the intellectual elite were ‘common sense’.

The government (a terrorist organisation that controls your area) will give you instructions in case of critical emergency. Psst… aliens are logically impossible.

The conclusion that follows from the premises is always ‘baked into’ the premises. This is just what implication means, and the function of proof is to make that which is implicitly ‘baked in’, explicit.

The distinction/non-identity of countable units is preserved by the difference of their identification/position in the set, and thus does not require different symbols to express their count: 1+1+1 has the sense of p+q+r, where each term is a distinct unity, therefore 1p+1q+1r. When algebraic addition is concerned with the count of the terms of the unit-class (arithmetic), the differentiating terms are omitted and only the count of units is retained, hence 1+1+1, or {1, 1, 1}, which is defined as 3. All algebraic addition reduces to the unit-class.

Unity is irreducible, a fundamental property of identity, therefore sense. Every instance of consciousness is a unity.

The proposition p→(¬p→q) [*2.24, and its equivalent at *2.21 of Principia Mathematica] is formally correct, but it cannot be consistently interpreted as ‘from contradiction anything follows’, or that ‘contradiction implies any proposition’, because with contradiction being asserted as a premise one violates the law of non-contradiction, and the connective ‘implies’ loses its sense (it cannot be consistently interpreted to mean anything in particular). From contradiction nothing follows; contradiction has no synthetic sense (non-sense/null) and is the end of logical evaluation. By definition of implication, the above form is equivalent to p→¬(¬p∧¬q), therefore ¬(p∧¬p∧¬q), therefore (p∧¬p)→q, or (/)→q, which is equivalent to (/)→(/). Any instance of non-sense (/) is equivalent to every instance of non-sense: it is just non-sense (/). Another way, it does not make sense to say that ‘contradiction «implies» anything’, as this statement itself implies contradiction.

Measles is healthy, actually.

Human health cannot be decoupled from the endemic viral challenges under which it evolved. Prevention of the natural interaction with the virome must be considered contrary to health and likely to have severe evolutionary consequences, whereas endemic infections, being statistically normal, are by definition healthy.

Is the Great Reset cancelled, or are they still doing it?

Nothing escapes the law. If something escapes, it only proves that it is not ‘the law’.

Every reasonable person ought to know that to irreversibly alter the immune system of a healthy person is not healthcare but plain harm. To do so knowing that the healthy patient is coerced to submit to the harmful procedure (therefore not freely consenting) is irredeemably culpable. It is no excuse that the administering doctor wanted to save their lucrative career, or believed that causing universal harm is for the greater good. Every doctor who administered vaccines under a government mandate is culpable.

Doctors seem incompetent and irrational only because we are conditioned to believe that their job is to heal you and make you live longer. They are perfectly competent at doing their actual job.

There is no such thing as ‘hoarding fuel’. Petroleum is a commodity and anyone can invest in it as much as they like, take any degree of financial risk they like, speculate on future pricing, win or lose. The idea of rationing fuel (which may be the primary intention behind the “war with Iran”) is contrary to free-market principles. It is the pricing mechanism itself that determines the level of consumption.