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.

Not a home but a glorified shipping container. What happens to people who live in tiny houses or shipping containers? More shipping containers and sheds are installed on the same lot to extend their living space, because no family can live comfortably in a shipping container, or in a one bedroom apartment; they need storage space, they need living space. This is ghettoisation. You get less for more per square meter

Digital ID is not my identity; it is their identity. A face-scan or fingerprints are not my identity; it is their identity. This is how they identify themselves to me.

The assertion that legal tender is a liability of the central bank (and therefore the central bank has the right to control its use) is fraudulent non-sense. Legal tender is a liability only for those who generate and own the underlying value (goods and services) that legal tender is mandated to represent. Legal tender is either a form of taxation, if created by the state, or plain theft, if created by commercial banks (which is nowadays the case for 97% of savings held by the population).

HYPOTHESIS: The deal between US, Hamas and Israel was negotiated and agreed on prior to October 7, and included broad collaboration on October 7 and the agreement to completely destroy Gaza in exchange for a full rebuilt as a smart city-state: New Palestine. Hamas was offered the universal recognition of the state of New Palestine, modern infrastructure and first-world standard of living, massive US investment, subject to implementation of biometric identity with security controls across both New Palestine and Israel, operated by a third party (US, UN, Qatar?), and Israel was offered security guarantee associated with the same biometric system, plus some major perks (possibly major trade deals and exclusive investments on its territory, related to computing and AI, or perhaps even a nod to annex the West Bank). We will see what happens, but this is my impression so far.

Reality is Negotiable, according to the Law

Reality is negotiable; it consists of ideas that continuously evolve, therefore do not endure as identities but arise as unique instances of sense, in logical continuity from the antecedent instances of sense. Only that which does not change in its meaning can be said to endure from moment to moment, therefore to exist: the law of sense presupposed by the logical continuity of meaning. This is the Only law, the only authority; any other formulation of law or authority is contrary to the structure of being. https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWTT

A few years back kids with mental health issues who didn’t hurt anyone were shot dead by cops just for brandishing a knife in a public place and refusing to drop it when yelled at at gun point. They called it ‘suicide by cop’. It appears that cops are now instructed to stand down, look the other way, let the crisis escalate, give the teenage gangs enough rope, let a few shoppers bleed to death, let the perpetrators out again the following day, knowing that they are violent psychopaths beyond any hope of rehabilitation. I am sure that the ruling power has important reasons for doing this. https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/crime/melbournes-youth-crime-crisis-laid-bare-in-three-words/news-story/9ffb681fea9b6cedef924296141a30cf

There is one critical error in the linked analysis, in addition to its premature commitment to a conclusion, as there are other possible motives for the propaganda-use of absurdity, including educational applications. The critical error is the misidentification of what counts for abstraction and what counts for reality: ‘lived experience’ is an abstraction, and objective reality consists solely in the distinction between consistency and contradiction. Non-contradiction is the sole standard of objectivity, to which ‘lived experience’ is subject to and according to which it can be refuted as non-sense. ‘Lived experience’ is like speaking a language, identifying words (which in this case are the identifiable phenomena) and interpreting the structure of the expression (which in this case is the perceived situation). We can both speak a language, or interpret phenomena in the broader context of experience we call ‘reality’, inconsistently; it is only thought conceptual reflection/analysis, which occurs on the superficial level automatically, that contradictions and therefore the limits of sense/objectivity/reality can be discerned. Taking objectivity for abstraction, and abstraction for objectivity, may be the underlying cause of the general susceptibility to manipulation and propaganda. https://open.substack.com/pub/howard366646/p/helpful-steps-towards-understanding

It is not profitable to even convert empty high-rise buildings to residential. Does not sounds like a ‘supply’ crisis. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/12/converting-empty-office-blocks-apartments-appears-over

Conspiracy is the essence of corrupt institutions

Institutional corruption necessitates institutional conspiracy to conceal the corruption and evade liability. Systemic corruption necessitates systemic conspiracy, and all existing political systems are inherently corrupt with respect to their claims of institutional authority and the associated (fraudulent) monetary system. As such, there are no ‘conspiracies’ (plural) but only one systemic conspiracy via which the corrupt system preserves itself, which involves ever more lies to explain the past lies and the ever increasing demand to accept absurdity.

‘Philosophers’ who do not study the basics of meaning, who are not constantly evaluating whether their thoughts and words comply with the laws of sense, are not doing philosophy but either poetry (which is rare) or, more commonly, something akin to modern art (dadaism).

It is not correct to say that a sound is ‘neither yellow nor not-yellow’. This would imply that the visual category ‘colour’ applies to sounds, and there is a term in that category that is not-yellow and not-not-yellow, therefore not-yellow and yellow, therefore contradiction. It is correct to say that the category ‘colour’ does not apply to sounds, therefore the terms ‘yellow’ and/or ‘not-yellow’ cannot be used to characterise sounds (if meant in the usual, literal sense).