In October 2021, the Victorian parliament has passed a motion to prohibit unvaccinated MPs from attending the parliament, thereby imposing a new condition on exercising the legislative authority on members the Assembly. This may have been contrary to s34 of the Constituion Act 1975, according to which only one condition must be satisfied to exercise the legislative authority as a member of the Assembly: “The Assembly shall consist of members who shall be representatives of and be elected by the electors of the respective districts.” Conditional exclusion from exercising the legislative authority in the Assembly is logically equivalent to being conditionally excluded from the Assembly. If the motion had indeed the effect of conditionally reconstituting the Assembly and thus implicitly modifying s34, then, in light of s18(1B), for the relevant change to be lawful it would require not just a majority vote of both houses but a referendum. S18(3): “Any Bill dealing with any of the matters specified in subsection (1B) which has not been approved in accordance with that subsection is void.” If a Bill would be void on this basis then, by implication, any parliamentary motion with the same effect would also be void. (The same argument can be constructed in relation to the effect of the rule on the Legislative Council)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-15/unvaccinated-victorian-mps-barred-from-entering-parliament/100541136

Validity of vaccine mandates is exclusively an ethical issue, not a medical issue, not a scientific issue; the mandates would be just as unacceptable even if the vaccines were fully approved and fully prevented transmission. Scientific arguments against the mandates imply, falsely, that medical mandates would be acceptable under some empirical conditions. Any scientific argument disputing the efficacy and safety of vaccines must not make the claim that the mandates are ‘therefore’ unacceptable (this would be an equivocation between utility and ethics, ultimately serving the utilitarian agenda). Https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical

Anthropogenic Global Warming. From the Deception about Consensus to Total Refutation.

The claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that human emissions are the primary cause of global warming derives from the work of John Cook 2013, linked below. Cook calculated this number by excluding 66% of climate scientists who did not state their position on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). For the remaining 34%, he considered 3 criteria: a) explicit endorsement that humans are the primary cause of climate change in recent times, b) unqualified endorsement of AGW, meaning that humans contribute something/anything to warming but are not necessarily the primary cause of climate change c) implicit endorsement of some human contribution to climate change. He then lumps all these criteria together and claims that 97% of the 34% agree on AGW theory. He fails to clarity in the conclusions that AGW in that context means even very slight contribution to warming; not that 97% agree that humans are the Primary driver of the recent warming. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

The real problem with Cooks work is revealed only in his second study, in which Cook performs a sleight of hand and substitutes his earlier, weak definition of AGW consensus, that humans contribute anything to global warming but are not necessarily the dominant cause, with the strongest IPCC definition: “Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century'”. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

From this point onwards IPCC has adopted Cooks “evidence” in support of their different definition, and so the fallacy of 97% consensus on IPCC position was born. All this is apart from the fact that consensus about beliefs is not evidence of facts about the objective reality.

Since Humlum 2013 we know beyond any doubt that human emissions of CO2 are not the primary driver of global temperature. Humlum et al. have shown, by analysing the official climate data-sets, that the rate of change of global temperature shows zero sensitivity to the rate of change of CO2 concentration, which precludes the possibility of CO2 driving the global temperature.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

Humlum’s study has attracted aggressive criticism for his largely speculative, alternative explanation of climate change, but nobody has even attempted to refute his primary conclusion, that the rate of global warming does not increase in response to an increased rate of CO2 emissions, which is a necessary feature of (strong) anthropogenic climate change as defined by IPCC.

Not one controlled study on masks ever conducted has shown a statistically significant benefit of masks in preventing transmission of respiratory viruses in the general population. The current study looks at mask mandates in schools and the conclusions are the same, again. Mask advice is medical disinformation, anti-science. https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2022/08/23/archdischild-2022-324172

If God created Man then the A.I. designers are certainly trying to return the compliment. An A.I. driven supercomputer is their new vision of god, and, according to WEF prophecy, everything “planted outside of [this] god will wither and die” (meaning, everyone who does not pledge allegiance to this new god), except the new version of Lucifer of course, the rebel mind of free humanity.

Breaking News: The Prime Minister of Australia has announced at the job summit that each of the 195,000 permanent migrants expected to arrive this year will be given a job in traffic management (lollipop person), in an effort to sustain the permanent road-works economy, under the Labour Party initiative “FROM POTHOLES TO PROSPERITY” (P2P;)

The true ‘agents of change’ always emerge from the revolutionary fringe, from among the insubordinate, the subversive and the rebellious, therefore to sponsor and guide the revolutionary zeitgeist is of incommensurably more strategic value to a modern empire than to control the already compliant, unthinking masses. I would not expect anything less from a proficient intelligence apparatus than to lead the revolution, on their terms. Put yourself in their shoes, the shoes of the Emperor; what would you do?

“I think, therefore I am” is a proof of rational consciousness, but “I think that AI thinks” is a fundamentally different relation to “I think” being thought by AI: non-reflexive vis-a-vis reflexive, where only the latter relation denotes rational consciousness.

https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2018/03/10/the-ontological-limits-of-artificial-intelligence/

My response to an article on ‘sense data’. Everything we are aware of is a ‘mental state’: typically, some primary idea of an object we are focussed on, which is conceptually related in space and time (also ideas, organising ideas) to countless other ideas. This state of ideas changes and accommodates change itself as an organising idea to maintain the integrity of relations among ideas. Some ideas are integrated in a particular, persistent way. We call them physical objects, and tomato is an example of these. We can recognise a tomato precisely because we know what a tomato is like, what kind of lower level ideas (properties) an object “tomato” has. We have developed all these ideas over millions of years by interacting with beings of the same kind, together with the central idea, the source and locus of ideas: the conscious self. So when we see a tomato we are aware of an actual tomato, a physical tomato, a true object, meaning a tomato integrated in the context/realm of ideas shared and similarly integrated by all other beings of the same kind (conscious, rational agents like me). The result of this shared integration is not an individual action but an accrued social effort older than we have a record of, and this makes it for all practical purposes independent of individual mental manipulation; we are subordinate to this realm in order to ‘make sense’ of anything and to be a ‘self’. From this shared context of restricted individual influence to physical means vis a vis the capacity for relatively free conceptual manipulation (thought) we have collectively derived ideas like mind, thought, brain, sense data, perception, atoms and of course what kind of properties make up a ‘real’ tomato. https://fakenous.substack.com/p/sense-data/

This should be a mandatory disclosure notice on every vaccine dose.

Peace is “offensive” only to hate.

Diversity for the masses, but only ‘old boys’ where it matters: https://www.erieri.com/blog/post/top-10-highest-paid-ceos-in-banking-and-finance

The elimination of private property rights is a poor strategy for controlling the population. When you “own nothing” you have nothing to lose, and people who have nothing to lose are uncontrollable, dangerous to centralised power. Legal protection of private property rights was probably the most effective tool ever devised for controlling populations, except that it was never fully adhered to at the top levels of the wealth pyramid. Modern banking is based on violating property rights of others via an imperfect transfer of purchasing power, allowing banks to charge interest on the purchasing power that was not derived from their own capital but expropriated by inflating the money-tokens held by all other economic agents.

Supply of housing can NEVER be a problem. If there is demand, houses will be built. If some stand empty, no problem, more houses will be built for paying customers. This would also be good for the economy. The problem is affordability, which is determined entirely by the credit conditions set by the banking system and the interest rates. When interest rates are high there is more incentive (and easier) to save before buying, while property prices are kept relatively low to income. Banks and central banks have created a bubble; nothing else is a problem, and they know it. Old people downsize anyway, because it is hard work to maintain a large property, and then they die.

All traditional cultures are repressive, demanding adherence to contingent customs whose function is to sustain the illusion of moral authority as the organising principle of social order. By implication, culture has social utility commensurate with the degree to which moral authority of the group is deficient. The critical question: what are the objective criteria of moral authority?

A universal standard of morality must be based on the most basic normative property that all humans have in common: the immutable laws of meaning/sense. In this context we must begin the analysis of objective morality indirectly, not by asking what is moral, which is inescapably tainted by our own cultural conditioning, but what is rational, and thus pursue rational morality. In more practical terms, we must work to identify and dismiss any beliefs that are not logically consistent (lead to contradiction), and refine social norms on the basis of systemic consistency and objective grounding. Confusion and disagreement about values and norms that is now sweeping the world due to radical influences of various ideological formations compels us to deliberate towards a universal moral standard, because hiding from one another behind culturally impervious borders is no longer a viable solution to moral disagreement.