In the sphere of disinformation, the principle of sufficient reason is paramount.

The colluding, vaccinated, enmasked masses will have to prove their loyalty again, make another lifestyle sacrifice. And nothing will appease the Gods of the Reset as much as the “blanket ban on singing and dancing”. Obedience is Freedom.. to obey again.

Dr Zelenko believes that “we are on the verge of messianic redemption”. It seems that almost every figurehead of the “freedom movement” is now also a raving Evangelist, and very superficial at that. Why? Ironically, a few days ago Dr Zelenko was calling for the death penalty for the collaborators of the Reset. Both of these propositions are unsupported by any comprehensive philosophical argument or evidence, unrelated to what the good Dr specialises in. These are articles of faith, appeals to anger and hope, incitements to (Christian) group formation. In short, cheap populism. Why?

Facebook/Meta/Instagram have just admitted that they don’t have a problem with Hate Speech as such, but with hate that is not authorised by them. They use your hate when it suits them (populism).

"Donbass - 2016. Documentary Anne-Laure Bonnel (subnoscripts EN FR SPA ITA)"
(Put CC EN subnoscripts on)
https://youtu.be/b8j0tJsKltg

Technocrats tell us that machines will make most humans unemployable and redundant. This is a lie; the technocrats themselves, who own the machines, intend to make humans unemployable and redundant, by means of machines.

United States and Ukraine were the only two member states of the UN who recently voted AGAINST “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo‑Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”. https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/ga12396.doc.htm

Any volunteer assistance for natural disaster victims ultimately serves the Government. It allows them to be just as negligent and corrupt on the next occasion, because they know they can rely on human compassion to mitigate public anger and convert the energy of outrage into the energy of collective euphoria when we have the opportunity and power to save others, and they know it. Rescue missions, food drops, the human bond in a crisis, all result in a powerful form of sedation. Charity is a drug, a biochemical high, and the government needs you on it for them to keep getting away with murder.

No Duty of Care to Protect the Public from Natural or Systemic Risks

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that the government does not have the duty of care to protect people from harm due to natural or systemic phenomena, such as “climate change”. The implication is that the government does not have the duty of care to protect people from natural pathogens or other systemic health risks, removing the last leg of the rationale for discriminatory risk mitigation policies associated with Covid. In short, nobody is liable if an employee of customer would catch Covid, even if no risk mitigation policies were in place. https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/environment-minister-wins-major-climate-change-case/news-story/0cdc3a68d724e6ed94740de123b67291

Public officials responsible for vaccine mandates can be held personally liable for harm caused by vaccines.

A pubic official cannot be held personally liable for any harm caused in the exercise of their public duties unless it can be shown that they acted in bad faith (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/phawa2008222/s165cu.html). Bad faith in relation to vaccine mandates can be demonstrated on three counts:

A) discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race;

B) discrimination against the unvaccinated (or a privileged treatment of the vaccinated) amounted to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of the population were expected to die as a result of the vaccine;

C) the removal of the right to free medical consent indirectly removes all human rights; every other right can be circumvented by medical coercion.

I wonder whether the war in Ukraine was intended as a test of whether you have learned anything from the 2 year onslaught of easily verifiable lies, unjust discrimination and continuous psychological torture conducted by your government under the banner of Covid. If after this intensive course on practical ethics you would still believe the same culprits that a neo-Nazi regime with bio-warfare labs are the ‘good guys’, then perhaps your faith is sealed. You are unteachable and therefore irredeemable.

“Be true to yourself” is just a re-phrasing of Alister Crowley’s Thelema (“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”) Thelema stands in direct opposition to objective ethics, which can be expressed as ‘Do what is Right’. On a deeper level, “be true to yourself” is an attack on the essence of Humanity, on rational agency, which is social in its constitution and requires objective ethics to maintain itself. The law of Thelema is actually a logical fallacy, circular reasoning, non-sense: our subjective will cannot be subject to a law if that law is subject to our will. In short, Thelema is a rejection of all principles and laws, and therefore destruction of all meaning, self-destruction.

The war hypothesis can be stated as follows: persistent existential anxiety, grounded in violence and suffering, gave Homo sapiens a sufficiently focussed and sustained ‘attention’ to evolve consciousness and rational agency, and therefore the sense of reflexive, social Self. https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2022/03/17/the-war-hypothesis-a-work-of-fiction/

This is a really important: European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that general anti-COVID measures prohibiting events for a lengthy period were in breach of Article 11 of the Convention (freedom of assembly and association).

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7285299-9926890&filename=Judgment%20Communaut%C3%A9%20genevoise%20d%27action%20syndicale%20v.%20Switzerland%20-%20general%20anti-COVID%20measures%20prohibiting%20public%20events%20for%20a%20lengthy%20period.pdf

Why Vaccine Mandates are Unethical

Summary of the three strongest arguments against the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates and why any medical procedure imposed by coercion must be refused.

1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow our unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. This devaluation of the innate human constitution is not only universally dehumanising, but it perverts the very concept of human rights; discrimination against the unvaccinated implies that our innate human constitution is no longer a guarantee of full human rights. This point derives from my paper published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240.

2. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of free medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right (including the right to life) can be subverted by medical coercion. Free medical consent is the most fundamental protection from crimes against humanity being committed under the guise of healthcare (several instances of such abuses have occurred in this century).

3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the prospective benefit of the majority. Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated amounts to a violation of the right to life by coercing people to undergo a medical procedure where a small percentage of otherwise healthy people are expected to die as a direct result of that procedure.

I also object to the commonly made assertion that the people who do not comply with vaccine mandates are “unvaccinated by choice”. Apart from the fact that social and economic opportunity coercion removes our free choice in this matter, being unvaccinated is fundamentally not a choice; we were born this way. The premise of being “unvaccinated by choice” is as absurd as “having two hands by choice”. The right to preserve our innate characteristics without being discriminated against is paramount.

An earlier version of these arguments were formally submitted to the Inquiry into Public Health Amendment Bill 2021 (No 2) ACT and subsequently published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/26/medethics-2022-108229.responses#fundamental-values-are-not-defeated-by-utilitarian-calculus

Support my research: https://ko-fi.com/michaelkowalik

Join NORMAL

"By terror I mean the efficiency gained by eliminating, or threatening to eliminate, a player from the language game one shares with him. He is silenced or consents, not because he has been refuted, but because his ability to participate has been threatened." Lyotard, Jean Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. 1984

Lyotard, the original postmodernist, was right on many issues (as above), despite being fundamentally wrong about social ontology.

If a corporation wants to sell you a product or service to do X, you should always ask, ‘what else does it do?’

For example, if a photographer offers you prints of you photos at any time in the future, what else can they do with these digital files? Who owns the images? Oh, they didn’t tell you…

If a smart TV offers you the capacity to be controlled by your voice, what else can it do? Can it listen to your private conversations, to you having sex…? But they promised they wouldn’t, right?

If a smart meter can tell you how much power you are using at any time of the day, what else can it do? Who owns the data of your private usage patterns, of when you are home, and when you are not home? Oh, they didn’t tell you…

If a mobile phone can…

Your car…

Your fridge…

Your Bluetooth toothbrush…

But you did not even ask.

Rational people can understand one another, can communicate and create meaning, can work together in common interest. The greatest threat to humanity, to mutual understanding, is the belief that one side/nation/tribe/ideology is inherently in the right and is not obliged to rationally deliberate with and understand those who disagree.

“He dreamt that the whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia. All were to be destroyed except a very few chosen. Some new sorts of microbes were attacking the bodies of men, but these microbes were endowed with intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible. Whole villages, whole towns and peoples went mad from the infection. All were excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that he alone had the truth and was wretched looking at the others, beat himself on the breast, wept, and wrung his hands. They did not know how to judge and could not agree what to consider evil and what good; they did not know whom to blame, whom to justify. Men killed each other in a sort of senseless spite. They gathered together in armies against one another, but even on the march the armies would begin attacking each other, the ranks would be broken and the soldiers would fall on each other, stabbing and cutting, biting and devouring each other. The alarm bell was ringing all day long in the towns; men rushed together, but why they were summoned and who was summoning them no one knew. The most ordinary trades were abandoned, because every one proposed his own ideas, his own improvements, and they could not agree. The land too was abandoned. Men met in groups, agreed on something, swore to keep together, but at once began on something quite different from what they had proposed. They accused one another, fought and killed each other. There were conflagrations and famine. All men and all things were involved in destruction. The plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people, destined to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had these men, no one had heard their words and their voices.” From Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment”.