The Parliament, by allowing any agency or person to exercise “emergency powers” that exceed the authority of the Parliament to legislate for that agency or person, is thereby renunciating its legislative authority, and consequently any delegated authority to any agency or person, including the emergency powers. By invoking emergency powers, the State abrogates itself. https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/2087

Control presupposes a definitive identity that can be subjected to control, or else there is nothing to control. Nothing is determinate of itself or in itself, but only by conscious acquiescence to a contingent determination of ‘what’ something is. Control is presupposed and consented to by the acquiescence to the terms of identification. Those who do not question identity, acquiescence to being determined by others.

There is no way that Substack would abandon compulsory age verification without getting an OK from the regulator. They went beyond what was required and then pulled back, which looks like a globally coordinated test of compliance. It was then never meant to last, just a provocation to measure the response.

Government/Parliament is the most corrupt entity possible: it consistently manifests the greatest potential for discrepancy between its official purpose vs the private intentions of its members.

Truth predicates (False/True) cannot be consistently combined with the sign of negation (Not), because False is a logical equivalent of negation, but is retained as something logically distinct from negation, therefore equivalent and not equivalent (contradiction). One has to choose the type of negation-operator: True/False and no other negation operator, or the negation operator but no truth predicates. Either is fine, but propositional logic routinely conflates the two and is thus formally inconsistent. Negation operator is notationally simpler than truth predicates.

If only 3000 years ago humans routinely misidentified voices in their minds as belonging to spirits and gods, because they did not yet have the concept of mind/thought, then we must ask what else we are misconceiving today as external/real when it is only our own mental state. Is the concept of reality still only a mistake of primitive consciousness…

Given that x=x, necessarily, then it does not make sense to say that a formula is valid ‘for all x’. There are no multiple x’s as this would violate the law of identity; there is always only one and the same x, necessarily. This applies irrespective of whether x is a member of a class or signifies a class: the class is identical to itself, and every member of the class is identical to itself, but no member of the class is identical to any other member, or to the class, or to anything else. If we wish to say that everything is identical to itself, we may define x as ‘any member of the universal class’ and then assert its identity, which already precludes exceptions. Alternatively, we may say that there is no member (x) of any class that does not satisfy identity. The quantifier ‘for all’ is logically inconsistent and functionally redundant.

Lockstep: “France moves to BAN social media for kids under 15 and smartphones in high schools starting September 2026”

There is only one, objective standard of “health”… Emergency medicine is mostly aligned with it, but general medical advice rarely is. Public health and preventive medicine are routinely contrary to health.

https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/30/is-transhumanism-a-health-problem/

Human health cannot be decoupled from the endemic viral challenges under which it evolved. Prevention of the natural interaction with the virome must be considered contrary to health and likely to have severe evolutionary consequences, whereas endemic infections, being statistically normal, are by definition healthy.

Science misrepresents the object of its study as something independent of theory, then it asserts the theory (an abstraction) as the knowledge of that object, which begs the question.

Science is semantically inconsistent at every step of its operation, and is qualitatively no different to the magic of the Stone Age shaman. It only ‘works’ if you already believe it.

The nominal past/history changes continuously, as a matter of logical necessity. There is no ‘true’ past, but only an idea of the etiology of the ‘present’ ideas, which we call ‘the past’ in an act of semantic inconsistency. https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWTT

Nobody needs a permission or a mandate to do what is right, nor can a mandate create the authority to do what is wrong.

Nothing can be inferred about the probability/risk for any specific individual from population-level statistical data, except if all individuals in the population are identical. Randomised controlled studies construct the abstraction of an ‘average individual’ and then apply that abstraction to different individuals, which is nonsense. Specifically, knowing that random selection from a given group has X probability of identifying an individual with a condition G does not imply that every individual in that group has X probability of developing G, or that all individuals have X probability of developing G. Medical doctors nevertheless routinely assert this nonsense.

I am sure the ruling power has good reasons to tell the little people about Epstein and how corrupt the ruling power is.

Double-negation has the sense of negating (opposing) the negation: p ≡ ¬(¬p). To deny double-negation-elimination (the opposite of the opposite of p is just p) is to deny the sense of negation. Negation is essential to thought, hence to deny double-negation elimination is to deny thought. Another way: to negate/oppose the negative is to affirm, or else the concept of negation/opposition is inconsistent.

Edit: if I reject the premise that ¬(¬p) does not imply p, then to reject my rejection does not imply an affirmation of ‘¬(¬p) does not imply p’, therefore implies nothing relevant; it is not a counter-argument but a non-sequitur.

To deny that not(not-p) is p, implies that it is not p and it is not not-p, therefore is z and not-z, where z=not-p, therefore contradiction.

Evidence-based is nonsense

Any assertion of ‘evidence’ is a confession of the incapacity to prove. If you cannot prove what you assert, then you are absolutely ignorant, utterly dependent on forces that you do not even conceive of and cannot control. Whatever you cannot prove (that it cannot be otherwise, or else contradiction) is pure subjectivity, it is made up, even if you can persuade others to believe in it. Evidence is mythology, epistemically irrelevant. Life is mythology.

The laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity in plain English:

Nothing both is and is not, [non-contradiction]
neither is nor is not, [excluded middle]
or is what it is not. [identity]

All three forms have the same underlying sense:

not(is and not-is)
not(not-is and not(not-is)), therefore not(not-is and is)
not(is that and is not that), therefore not(is and not-is)

Another way:

The opposites do not make up a whole.
The opposites of the opposites do not make up a whole,
The opposites are not a whole.

All three forms reduce to: the opposites cannot be unified.

The 'three laws' are just one law

The foundation of your enslavement is the idea that being is independent of meaning, that it is something given, already determined, rather than created as an idea and ritualised by mass persuasion. Belief is slavery.

Science is never settled primarily because politics in science is never settled.

Aliens are logically impossible. Extraterrestrial ‘life’ is logically impossible. Anyone in the Gov claiming the knowledge of aliens is lying. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-alien-life-forms-are-impossible