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.

Admitting a wrong on wrong premises and failing to admit the right premises is not a genuine admission, not in good faith, but a weasel attempt to consolidate and normalise the wrong. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical

The author is lamenting that murderers of aboriginal women and children in ‘vulnerable aboriginal communities’ are not brought to justice (which is of course a fair complaint) but it is often the same sources who complain about “too many” Aboriginal people in jails. You cannot have it both ways. There are good reasons to suspect that BLM always was a clever anti-black operation, pretending to support black people but in fact seeking their demise, complaining about the rates of incarceration which pressures (or colludes with) the State to look away when Aboriginal people are murdered in their own communities at 10 times the national average. https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/aug/15/how-many-first-nations-women-and-children-are-murdered-the-figures-are-shocking-and-yet-incomplete

One cannot be an ‘authentic’ communist unless one is a member of the proletariat, a blue collar worker, someone who generates material value that is susceptible to exploitation by the non-productive bourgeois. All academics, professionals, specialists are the bourgeois, the class exploiters of the proletariat, including those who identify as communists in order to facilitate this exploitation. The internal contradiction of communism is of course that it cannot be implemented without the administrative/managerial/commissar elite, which is still just the bourgeois.

The belief that ‘what’ the concept of the brain signifies (the object called “brain”) contains the concept of the brain that signifies itself, is logically circular and empty of meaning. We (conscious selves) conceive of the concept of the brain but this does not imply that its meaning is ‘in’ the brain. Concepts are not just information, but meaningful information. A computer can store complete design information about itself, but this does not make the computer meaningful to itself, let alone conscious. The ‘meaning’ of information is something extra that the information does not contain but must be ascribed from somewhere else.

In demanding to be regarded as a “woman”, Tickle discriminated against women whose gender identity is based on the biological/functional difference from the male sex. The court erred massively in this case on purely logical grounds. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/gender-identity-on-trial