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.

If you want to morally persuade a tyrant, it does not suffice to assert that tyranny is wrong, or that you suffer, or that there is inequality, or that it is unjust, or that you are oppressed, or indigenous, or disabled or poor. You have to convince the tyrant that oppressing a powerless “worm” like you is contrary to their self-interest. This is the part that most political philosophers omit.

A reminder what vaccine mandates are all about: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical

It is not necessary to know the law in order to discern what is morally right, but it is necessary to know what is morally right in order to discern when the law is morally wrong.

The biggest mass-murderers in history were closet utilitarians; they wanted to bring about a ‘better world’ by exterminating those who stood in the way.

Children are natural philosophers. All humans are born with an inquisitive mind, wanting to understand WHY and HOW, demanding a proof of every claim of knowledge and every assertion of a principle. Then our parents say “don’t ask so many questions” and “that’s just how it is, just because, so stop asking stupid questions and wash your hands”. Then the school system beats any remaining philosophical inclinations out of the children: “This and this alone shall be the truth, the holy truth, and we will punish you and destroy your life if you refuse to believe it”. Then the government and their experts declare, to any persistent questioner: “we do not have to explain ourselves to you, we do not have to answer your questions, we are the Authority, we are the experts, you must believe us or we will destroy your life”. At the same time the school system and the government create their own breed of philosopher-apes who endlessly debate the form of the holy truth, but never question the authority to reward their obedience by taxing the value generated by others.