I want to ‘panic buy’ 2 million barrels of diesel, but I have nowhere to store it. Does anyone have a spare storage facility I could use? Where do ‘panic buyers’ store their fuels? My two panic buying jerry cans are already full, but I need them for the lawnmower.

The desire to control others is rooted in anxiety, which entails that government and wealth are inherently pathological obsessions. Both obsessions presuppose denial of natural justice, of natural law, and constitute an attempt to cheat God. The natural law is inescapable, inseparable from ‘being’; it enforces itself.

Government/politics and business/wealth are manifestations of metal illness.

It makes sense to use a narrative decoy when engaging in domestic sabotage (by some other means). This is especially important for maintaining psychological stability of the useful idiots who work for various Gov departments that participate in emergency management. They all need a story to tell themselves and their families, a story simple enough to understand but too complex to refute without professional risk.

Those who identify as something that they are not, deny their own existence.

Government/State is a mental illness; a paranoid, psychotic fixation on coercively controlling the behaviour of others. It attracts the most mentally disordered individuals, seeking to collectively normalise their antisocial tendencies. Their words have no meaning.

I avoid having opinions. Political narratives are not ‘knowable’ except as something given for us to believe. When a general inference is possible, I may share it, but the conclusion may seem unrelated. Political contingencies feed into the reasoning, but any objective conclusion must exclude the narrative contingencies. An objective argument works for any contingency.

The use of biometric information without explicit consent of the owner is theft. You can claim ownership of your labour or sue for injury only because you own your body. Nobody has a better claim of ownership over your body than you. Assert your ownership.

You are not allowed to just squander your life. Squandering of a life uses up valuable energy and resources, makes a mess, generates pollution, and someone has to pay for all that being managed. If your rulers detect that you are squandering your life they will immediately repossess your life as ‘abandoned property’, use your waste for their own profit.

There is no such thing as ‘National interest’, only private interest. Any appeal to institutional value is only a cover for private interests.

Does everyone consciously analyse information in their imagination, constructs mental arguments, and experiences thought as an internal monologue, or does this only apply to some people?

Looks like I will no longer be selling my book via CIA Amazon:)

It is unclear how the comprehension of language could be the same for people who think in language vs those who do not. How do they know what words mean if words do not correspond to their thoughts?

Consciousness has created life for a purpose: to perfect itself. Are you perfecting consciousness, or are you chasing dead ends?

I used to be a very sociable animal when my ideas of self, truth and reality were as incoherent as those of others. As these ideas were reflected on and progressively revised, meaningful communication became impossible beyond transactional conventions, as if we were no longer in the same world. It is impossible to maintain reflexive (social) relations with anything that is recognised as incoherent, without harming oneself. They became profane, toxic. I also realised that they cannot be helped by direct intervention.

Social relations among the profane are purely transactional, not generative. Their empathy, compassion, humour, criticism, advise, bonding.... is a trade. Cops, politicians, public speakers, authors, media personalities are highly trained in transactional dynamics. Their audience accepts the deal.

You have a face, but the face is not identity. You have DNA, but DNA is not identity. Reflexive consciousness is identity, an ‘I’.

The law cannot be consistently ‘made’ or ‘legislated’ by anyone. The law can only be proven, derived from fundamental principles. The law is built into being. Lawmaking is contrary to the law.

‘Truth’ is a vague, meta-logical concept; it is not, and never was, a theorem.

Multi-valued logics are based on the equivocation between ‘specific-contingency vs the negation of specific-contingency’ and contingency vs necessity in general. In the classical example, the statement that asserts necessity “A sea battle will be fought tomorrow” is interpreted as TRUE for the contingency that a sea battle is fought tomorrow, but these are not equivalent: a statement of necessity (P→Q) is not validated by any contingency (Q). This is a classical fallacy ‘of the converse’! A consistent interpretation is that the statement is FALSE (or better, Non-Sense), because it asserts logical necessity (P→Q) for something that is not logically necessary: ¬(P→Q). Similarly, “A sea battle will NOT be fought tomorrow” (P→¬Q) would also be Non-Sense but it is not the opposite of ¬(P→Q). The internal negation attaches to a specific contingency (Q), replacing it with another contingency (not-Q), which is not equivalent to a negation of necessity/implication. Converting the implication to conjunction, ¬(P and Q) is obviously not the opposite of (P and ¬Q): the forms are mutually consistent. In essence, statement about necessity (P→Q) are necessarily bivalent, and statements about contingency (Q or ¬Q) are necessarily bivalent, but statements about necessity are not equivalent or opposite or interchangeable with statements about contingency. Colloquial confounding of the two types gave rise to non-sense, such as multi-valued logics. The image is from here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disjunction/