Antivaxx group-think is not morally superior to pro-vaccination group-think

Bad reasoning is an incommensurably greater threat to humanity than vaccines. Those who oppose vaccines at the expense of good reasoning are therefore causing more harm than good. They are a liability no lesser than those who fanatically defend vaccines: they come from the same corrupt mindset, they are cut from the same cloth. Vaccines are just one way of doing harm, which can be avoided if harm is suspected, but bad reasoning that underpins dogmatism, gullibility and group-think is the most enduring, entrenched evil in this world. Those who form convictions without sound reasoning can be persuaded to commit any moral wrong.

This is a wake up call to home buyers in Australia. You are being systematically fleeced and sooner or later someone will end up holding the bag. This is inevitably coming to Aus, only a matter of time. https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/travel-stories/man-gives-up-on-homeownership-in-australia-buys-5000-house-in-japan/news-story/d96659dd14a7b1f52715139c2815c109

An average person who lived during the Stone Age would nowadays be diagnosed as a schizophrenic. Similarly, what nowadays is considered an average level of irrationality will in the future be considered a mental illness (assuming that humanity will keep evolving in rational capacities). https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/3930

When our primordial ancestors thought “I am” for the very first time, this original flash of reflexive consciousness must have felt otherworldly, like the voice of God.

When the slave-owners of the ancient world built roads and sea ports and markets and armaments, they did not do so for the benefit of the slaves but to maximise their own profit, to extract more value from the slaves. Similarly, the rulers of today “tax” you for the sake of roads and sea ports and markets and armaments for their own profit. The roads are not ‘for you’, they are not ‘yours’; you are just required to use them in the service of your master, according to the rules laid down by your master. If you stray off the road, disrupt the smooth functioning of their business, you get punished. Tax is an ownership claim over you.

Hypothesis. God never created the heaven and the earth, not the animals, not Man. All of these are just thoughts in the mind of God, and nothing apart from God exists. God is then necessarily not an individual mind but a multiplicity of minds, each mind sustained by the same thought being reflected by other minds and reflected for other minds: the thought of being Man that thinks the multiplicity of minds.

The rate of homelessness in Australia remained steady for as long as modern records exist, at around 0.5%. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/homelessness-and-homelessness-services . This is the percentage of people who are homeless no matter what, primarily for mental health reasons. Despite this easy to verify statistic, the newspapers insinuate that homelessness is now the result of housing supply shortage, which is evidently the current official lie (propaganda) they try to push whenever an opportunity arises, covering up for the real cause of housing unaffordability.

Mentally disordered human caricatures called ‘politicians’ are chosen to pretend to have authority for a joke. The joke is on the people who participate in democracy. Democracy is a joke because power always comes from the top, never from the bottom, because this is what top and bottom mean. As for legitimate authority, nobody with power even cares what that is, which is why they cannot evolve beyond the animal state of consciousness.

The concept of thought/mind is a relatively recent development, likely originating around the time of Buddha and early Greek philosophers. Prior to this development, thoughts would have felt invasive, like voices emanating from some metaphysical realm, attributed to spirits and gods because the hearer was not himself speaking. On the other hand, it is not self-evident that the uninvited thoughts that occur to us are ‘ours’ in the relevant sense of being intended, or being our expression. Many of the mental images and voices that arise in our mind are unexpected, sometimes unwelcome and disturbing. It may then be argued that, for the most part, the interpretation of thought as ‘voices of spirits, demons or gods’ is more consistent, which then raises the question of how to identify the entities allegedly involved. Is mass media a demon in your mind? Are the news networks your god? Are the celebrities you admire the spirits whose voices you hear?

It is not healthcare to medicate people who are healthy. It is the opposite of healthcare to biotechnologically modify a healthy immune system.

There are no human sources of authority. Authority is not something that comes from institutions or people, but consists in the fundamental principles that govern consciousness. When we act in accordance with the fundamental principles, we act with authority, and there is nothing more to it.

A healthy immune system is the best defence against infectious diseases. Natural recovery is the best cure.

An unhealthy immune system in not the best defence against infectious diseases. Unnatural recovery is not the best cure.

‘Truth’ cannot be consistently and non-trivially defined because the definition of truth must also be true, and so, infinite regress, therefore no completion possible, therefore truth implies no truth, therefore contradiction.

A trivial definition would be ‘perfect logical consistency of all meanings’, which evades inconsistency by definition, but is practically unachievable.

Without a consistent definition of truth, the common phrase ‘speaking the truth’ could be alluding to having the intention of making sense together, whereas ‘lying’ could mean having the intention of corrupting someone else capacity for making sense.

The sense of ‘truth’ is not logically necessary to the possibility of defining ‘truth’, hence mutually inconsistent definitions are possible, hence ‘truth’ cannot be defined consistently with the possibility of defining ‘truth’, except as ‘logical consistency’ itself.

The sense of ‘logical consistency’ (non-contradiction) is logically necessary to the possibility of defining ‘consistency’, hence mutually inconsistent definitions are not possible, hence ‘consistency’ can be defined consistently with the possibility of defining ‘consistency’.

The Law

The law is not decided by voting or by the judgment of the elected, but is intrinsic to consciousness and affirmed by all conscious beings in every movement of thought. The law is complete and simple: not(x and not-x), and nothing more.

False idols are identifiable by their contradictions.

People do not explicitly consider the law of non-contradiction when normally speaking or thinking. The commitment to non-contradiction is automatic, intrinsic to thinking and speaking.

When we learn to speak a language, we already learn to use it without contradiction. When we learn to identify objects or sensations we learn to identify them without contradiction. Understanding of non-contradiction happens at the object level of meaning: whatever we intend is just what we intend, whatever we perceive is just what we perceive, we cannot intend what we do not intend, cannot think what we do not think, or see what we do not see.

Even though non-contradiction is rarely explicitly considered at the meta-level, it is never violated at the primary level of thought. Contradictions arise in complex systems of ideas, because we never grasp them as one thought but only in fragments. Connecting fragments is then extended in time and this is when the automatic application of non-contradiction is easily corrupted.

What is ‘truth’ like?

When a person ‘believes’ something, they typically take that something to be ‘true’. What is the practical effect of ‘taking something to be true’? What happens in your mind when you ‘take something to be true’? What happens to our system of thoughts/ideas when we believe something? How is belief integrated with all other ideas we have? What is the effect on other ideas?

All cultures are irrational because they enforce contingent presuppositions as non-contingent universals, which validates the same ‘cultural’ process for the opposite values, therefore non-sense.

The 2nd amendment in the USA regulated the balance of power between the public and State. In the 18th century, both citizens and the State had the same weapons: primitive rifles. The original idea was that freedom depends on citizens possessing the same firepower as the state, to be able to defend itself against the tyranny of the State. Consequently, there are only two options that make sense in light of the original idea of securing freedom: every government should return to using muskets and destroy all other arms, or the citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, submarines, tactical bombers, hypersonic missiles. In fact, the State is obligated to make these affordable and accessible to any citizen, including instructions on how to use them, if it wants to use them also.