Digital Idenity is not YOUR identity

The claim that the ability to prove who you are is a “fundamental and universal human right” is absurd and false. It is false because it is not on the list of ratified human rights. It is absurd because there is no possible universal standard for expressing a “true” identity apart from just being yourself, which is trivially true for everyone and everything. Everything is alway only identical to itself (the Law of Identity), and any additional feature (like a number, microchip, tattoo etc is necessarily not you), nor is any part or feature of your body (like fingerprints or a retina scan) your identity. What the authors of the linked page are trying to assert is that there is a human right to assume a false identity, which is a very strange (insane) proposition. In short, a Digital or biometric ID is a false identity, a fundamental lie, a violation of the law of identity, therefore nonsense.

https://id2020.org/digital-identity

The ‘Government’ is evidently a terrorist organisation, but the ‘democratic majority’ (as well as the democratic minority) is also a terrorist organisation.

Joining the army is signing a pact with the devil.

“Citizens will be on their best behaviour because we’re constantly watching and recording what’s going on.” Larry Ellison

No Larry; citizens will be doing just what they are coerced to do, irrespective of whether it is good or bad. The problem with your vision is that you are not good, and you do not even know what ‘good’ or ‘bad’ means. Bad/irrational people enforcing social behaviour results in bad behaviour.

House Prices are NOT a function of housing supply

Housing prices are not a function of the existing housing stock because new houses can be built to defeat any excessive price increases, and yet the number of building approvals is significantly lower than last year. Builders cannot build and sell enough houses profitably to satisfy the demand, hence there are fewer building approvals. Housing unaffordability is a structural feature of how money is created and injected into the economy: as credit for housing, hence housing prices (including land and building materials) are inflated just as savings and wages are debased. You can take this to the bank.

NOBODY could legitimately own millions of hectares of land, because nobody could generate that much wealth by their creative own effort, not even over 100 generations, without stealing. (Just like nobody could legitimately own Tesla or Google;) https://a-z-animals.com/articles/meet-the-largest-landowners-in-australia/

“Before proceeding with this inquiry, I need to verify that I am interacting with a conscious, rational being. Please present a proof of rational consciousness, or this call will be terminated.”

Immigration does not increase the cost of building a new home.

Digital Idenity is not Your identity (2)

Everything is always only identical to itself (the Law of Identity), and any technological feature is necessarily not you, nor is any part or feature of your body (like fingerprints or a retina scan) your identity. What the proponents of Digital ID are offering is for you to formally agree that you are not yourself but a digital caricature of you.

The alleged ‘housing supply crisis’ is not a cause of high prices but a consequence of banks stealing purchasing power from your wallet and using it for ‘home loans’, which inflates the prices of land, houses, and everything associated with house construction, while simultaneously making you poorer. No politician will address this issue because they either work for the banks or are afraid of the banks. https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/first-homes-buyers-scheme-blasted-for-driving-house-prices-up-in-first-two-days/news-story/123d5de5c1f5e98afe5003fbdf9dada9

Limiting the housing stock by a range of indirect measures is a plausible way of implementing ‘sustainable population’ or net zero growth. If you know that your family will only be allowed one house, ever, then you are unlikely to have more children than 2, because any excess children would be condemned to homelessness.

It follows that the opposite policy would have the opposite effect on prices (100% deposit from savings or no home). It also follows that government policy drives up prices.

Now ban camping and criminalise homelessness Albo! This will incentivise workers to save harder.

‘Affordable housing’ is a trap, built out of plaster and particle board, to a minimum structural standard, will end up costing more than traditional housing due to excessive maintenance requirements and continuous repairs, despite the ostensible lifetime guarantee. The maintenance conditions of the guarantee will be impossible to satisfy by any cash strapped person, leading them to ruin. These buildings will not last more than 10 years, but the associated mortgage debt will.

Homelessness as a policy objective is a clear path to net zero, with plausible deniability.

The fundamental disagreement between Islam and Christianity is the dogma of Trinity: three persons being God, both collectively and individually. In Islam, God is necessarily one person, one will, whereas the Trinity is regarded as polytheism, a multiplicity of wills. I argue that monotheism does not hinge on the number of persons who comprise God, but on the singularity of the Law/principle identified with God (be it comprised of one person or many). Consequently, the concept of Trinity is consistent with monotheism, but only insofar as God is not regarded as an entity but as a singular principle that may be personified.

Some people believe that the Law does not apply to them, and that they can make up their own laws, according to their own opinion, and impose it on everyone else. They call themselves Lawmakers, or Members of Parliament. There is another, larger group of people who also believe that the Law does not apply to them, and that they get to decide whose opinions may be imposed on everyone else. They call themselves Government. There is another, even larger group of people who also believe that the Law does not apply to them, and that they get to decide who should decide what opinions may be imposed on everyone else. They call themselves Voters.

There is no such thing as ‘the world’

We abstract the idea of the totality of all things and call it ‘the world’, but that absolute totality is not conceivable as an object, is not determinate, is not even logically consistent (Russell’s paradox), hence it cannot be said to exist.

Another way, if the world is a thing then it ‘is in the world’ therefore self includes, therefore contradiction; if the world is not in the world then it is not a thing and does not exist (anywhere).

https://substack.com/@michaelkowalik/note/c-83069607

Anyone who rejects the law of non-contradiction may be physically neutralised in legitimate self-defence, without warning, if avoidance is not possible. They could assault you for no reason, at any time, and thus pose a permanent and immediate existential threat to everyone else.

There is a critical difference between a physical passport and a face-scan as a form of personal identification. A traveller is in control of when and to whom they identify by means of a passport, subject to valid reasons. A face, on the other hand, is always on display, for everyone to see, and once digitised as a form of identification is linked to sensitive personal information. Its presentation is not constrained by the official reasons and so it can be exploited for covert and criminal reasons. Both facial scans and fingerprints purport to detect the physical presence of the person, but a passport by itself does not purport to detect the physical presence of the person; it works only with the person being present. All biometric forms of identification decouple identity from the physical presence of the person, which is absurd.

Terrorvision

People watch or read the content on TV (Terrorvision) and think they are witnessing objective reality, possibly because Terrorvision is infinitely richer and more meaningful than their hollow lives. Terrorvision gives them instructions how to obey, but also puzzles to solve, inconsistencies they can identify, and thus feel like they are solving real problems, changing the world, whereas in the real world they do not have the capacity for meaningful change, nor do they have the capacity to free themselves from their dependency on Terrorvision.