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

All the celebrity tech CEOs are just PR representatives of the ruling power, fulfilling its strategic aims. Nothing they publicly say is their original thought, but a corporate noscript they are given to recite.

Someone with an IQ of 150 is far more proficient at persuasively defending their delusions than a person of an average IQ. The majority is thus passively persuaded to act as if the delusions of the intellectual elite were ‘common sense’.

The government (a terrorist organisation that controls your area) will give you instructions in case of critical emergency. Psst… aliens are logically impossible.

The conclusion that follows from the premises is always ‘baked into’ the premises. This is just what implication means, and the function of proof is to make that which is implicitly ‘baked in’, explicit.

The distinction/non-identity of countable units is preserved by the difference of their identification/position in the set, and thus does not require different symbols to express their count: 1+1+1 has the sense of p+q+r, where each term is a distinct unity, therefore 1p+1q+1r. When algebraic addition is concerned with the count of the terms of the unit-class (arithmetic), the differentiating terms are omitted and only the count of units is retained, hence 1+1+1, or {1, 1, 1}, which is defined as 3. All algebraic addition reduces to the unit-class.

Unity is irreducible, a fundamental property of identity, therefore sense. Every instance of consciousness is a unity.

The proposition p→(¬p→q) [*2.24, and its equivalent at *2.21 of Principia Mathematica] is formally correct, but it cannot be consistently interpreted as ‘from contradiction anything follows’, or that ‘contradiction implies any proposition’, because with the contradiction being asserted, the connective ‘implies/follows’ loses its sense. From contradiction nothing follows; contradiction has no sense (non-sense/null) and is the end of the logical evaluation. By definition of implication, the above form is equivalent to p→¬(¬p∧¬q), therefore ¬(p∧¬p∧¬q), therefore (p∧¬p)→q, or (/)→q, which is equivalent to (/). Any instance of non-sense (/) is equivalent to every instance of non-sense: it is just non-sense (/). Another way, it does not makes sense to say that ‘contradiction «implies», as this statement itself implies contradiction.

Measles is healthy, actually.

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.