Found in the wild

Jospeh Campbell and friends, the authors of this excellent book (excellent for reasons other than the central argument), thought that wise men can change humanity by changing the symbols that guide the masses. I consider this premise easily disproven: the cultural, unconscious forces that drive societies can be expressed under any symbol. Give a murderer the power of the Cross and he will use the cross to exterminate the unbelievers, doubters and dissenters of the dogma; give a terrorist the powerful slogans of anti-fascism, and he will terrorise you like a true fascist, under the guise of being a victim of fascism. Symbols mean nothing if they violate the rules of meaning, which are the ultimate law.

That civilians are intentionally killed for the alleged reason of destroying a “legitimate military target” does not negate the fact that civilians are intentionally killed for that reason, which implies that the “legitimate military target” is used as a reason for intentionally targeting civilians. Any instrumental explanation for the intentional killing of civilians is self-incriminating: an admission of guilt.

The claim that immigration drives up property prices “because more people competing for the same number of houses causes prices to rise” is based on a false premise; the supply of housing is not fixed. When the stock of houses available for sale exceeds the demand, new houses are built, which attracts investment because it is good business to build houses when there is demand. The primary factor in the price level of housing is the supply of money, which is created by commercial banks in the form of credit, mostly via mortgages, hence the lending policies for housing and the associated interest rates determine house prices. In addition, the cost of compliance adds to the cost of housing and can delay adjustments to their supply, which is also a matter of policy.

The hardcover version of my book via Ingram is out in the US and the UK. Some stores picked it up for their online catalogue but it appears they set prices as they see fit. I ordered 5 copies for sale if anyone wants it signed, but it will take 1-2 weeks before I will receive them. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1763717224/

Technically, a ‘conspiracy theory’ does not violate the laws of sense, it is just another theory, does not claim to be fact but a possible fact, whereas a flat denial of a conspiracy theory, without a valid argument, does violate the laws of sense.

I came across this person Cynthia Chung, who seems to have significant social media following. In this article she takes on what is known as the Nothfield experiments, mostly Bions work, so I engaged with her. What do you think? https://open.substack.com/pub/cynthiachung/p/a-republic-if-we-can-phoenix-it-bret?r=ufez2&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=72315573

Aristocracy does not need a leader because it is not reflexively conscious. Deterministic forces of nature have no autonomous will, therefore the notion of leadership as a means of mediating their subjective preferences does not apply. For the same reason, aristocracy does not care for truth or consistency; it dies unknowingly, it passes like the weather.

Remember that everything ‘in the news’ is a story, and when it is promulgated, then it is meant to affect you. Be careful how you react, because there are people and systems out there who can predict your reactions reasonably well. Stories that are ‘leaks’, awkward admissions, slips of the tongue, incriminating selfies, are the most persuasive, because they look like mistakes, oversights, but they are not. They want to be seen precisely as you see them.

Every ethnic/cultural population can be radicalised to commit crimes against humanity, to commit mass murder, engage in sadistic terror and torture on daily basis, do so openly, gloatingly, proudly, and believe that they are morally justified in doing so. Based on recent history, only about 20% of the population have the capacity to resist such conditioning, to question it, and an unknown small percentage is perhaps immune to it.

If you wish to buy an autographed Hardcover edition of my new book “Moral Ontology: a thesis on the interdependence of sense, integrity and agency”, follow this link (this offer is available to buyers in Australia only): https://buy.stripe.com/00geX1dB7fB6bvO9AD ($50 AUD including regular domestic delivery).

No amount of money can persuade a corrupt person to be an honest politician. Paying politicians ‘more’ does not alter their character or improve their integrity.

Utilitarian ethics faces what I call the Genocide Dilemma.

Is it more ethical/right (or less morally wrong) to kill 2 million people out of 4 million total population of a particular ethnicity, or kill 1 million people out of 1 million total population of a particular ethnicity? In the first instance, only half of the ethnicity is genocided, whereas in the second instance an entire ethnicity is exterminated. A committed utilitarian is obliged to choose which of these two measures of harm is objectively right, or accept that utilitarian ethics leads to contradictory conclusions.

The dilemma can be presented another way. Is it more ethical/right (or less morally wrong) to save 2 million people out of 4 million total population of a particular ethnicity by killing 1 million people out of 1 million total population of a particular ethnicity, or vice versa?

If harm (consequences) is the only measure of morality then our intentions can never be immoral, given that we can never know what the total, net consequences of any action will be in the infinite future. If morality can be judged only retrospectively or hypothetically, then it is irrelevant to our present actions.

Those who demand an apology for the harms of colonisation are implicitly committed to express gratitude for the benefits of colonisation. Nevertheless, expecting apologies from or showing gratitude to political ‘representatives’ (rather than those who did what the apologies and gratitude is about) is misdirection, false attribution, disinformation.

Political epistemology must account for possible conspiracies. In every apparent military or political conflict it is necessary to consider whether it is a real conflict or only the appearance of conflict, which would imply that the actual conflict is between those who appear to be in conflict and those to whom it appears to be a conflict.

The issue of transgender male inclusion in female change rooms has led to a wholesale degradation and legal erasure of womanhood, for the most part, because from the start women were not honest about it but, instead, capitalised on the opinions of female politicians and celebrities who appeared to be on their side but led them all up blind alleys while prattling about free speech. This was never a good enough explanation for exclusion, let alone the reason why naked females don’t like male bodies standing in the same shower. It seems that the actual reason for trans-exclusion is that naked females typically feel inexplicably uncomfortable, vulnerable, exploited and terrified in the forced presence of males, under their gaze, let alone in the forced presence of naked male bodies. Why is nobody saying it like it is?

Does the majority have an intrinsic authority over the minority? This is evidently not the accepted view, since some actions of the majority were historically judged as criminal and evil, despite not being against their democratic law. If the ‘democratic process’ of legitimisation is false then we are really subject to some other, unwritten law. What is the law? What makes it the law?

If the ‘authorities’ knew the difference between right and wrong, there would be no need for philosophers.