I propose the following new legislation: The Countering of Official Disinformation, Misinformation and Propaganda Bill. The proposed law aims to criminalise and impose jail terms of up to 20 years, and the forfeiture of private assets in excess of 1 million AUD, and the loss of any taxpayer funded parliamentary pensions, on any politician making claims that are contrary to scientific evidence or otherwise misleading that have or are likely to have caused widespread economic disadvantage, harm to health, or cause deaths of Australian citizens. Similar offences for media companies apply to the directors of the company and carry additional pecuniary penalties and compensations proportional to the harm caused. The law is to apply retrospectively. I propose that the first prosecution should focus on Health Ministers and Chief Health Officers who misrepresented Covid Deaths, coded according to the WHO guidelines that did not differentiate between deaths OF covid and deaths with Covid being only a contributing factor, or included coincidental covid infections at the time of death; or the health officials who have cited fraudulent research and ignored the evidence of safety to prohibit the use of Ivermectin for Covid; or the officials who misrepresented a handful (3) observational studies as the ‘best science’ on face masks while ignoring (15) high quality randomised controlled studies showing that face masks have no statistically significant effect on the spread of respiratory viruses in the general population, and failed to consider the evidence from developmental psychology on the harmful effect of face masks worn by adults on children, for criminal misinformation that cost lives, caused widespread trauma and suffering, and unprecedented economic harm to the Australian economy. If the following Bill has support, then my Bill should pass without any objections. https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/fletcher/media-release/new-disinformation-laws
Putin worked for the KGB for 16 years, mostly embedded with STASI. He then served as the head of FSB, the successor agency of KGB. It is a huge leap of faith to assume that despite his training as an intelligence operative, decades of ideological indoctrination and complicity in the crimes of the Soviet Regime, he is now the saviour. If something sounds too good to be true then it often is, but sometimes reality is indeed stranger than fiction, so I don’t know. Time will tell.
The Land, Explosives and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2019 QLD makes Land Tiltle Certificates legally void.
It came to my attention that Queenslanders can no longer prove ownership of their real estate by means of a Land Title certificate, even if they have one. All land noscript certificates were cancelled by the above act. The new Section 215 in the Land Title Act 1994 states:
215
Certificates of noscript cease to be instruments
(1) On the commencement, a certificate of noscript—
(a) ceases to be an instrument under this Act; and
(b) ceases to be evidence, conclusive or otherwise, of the indefeasible noscript for the lot for which it was issued.
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/asmade/act-2019-007#sec.247
The above amendment takes all the evidential power away from landowners and gives it to the State. The State could hypothetically alter your records, illegally, or a hacker could, and you have no way of proving ownership unless your ownership rights were reinstated by a Court. Equally significant is the fact that this amendment also allows the State to prevent you from selling or buying property unless you comply with additional terms related to digital identity certification, which could possibly be further restricted on the basis of your vaccination status, for example. Moreover, the State could unilaterally sequester/expropriate your real estate in case of Public Debt default and transfer your noscript to the Creditors.
It came to my attention that Queenslanders can no longer prove ownership of their real estate by means of a Land Title certificate, even if they have one. All land noscript certificates were cancelled by the above act. The new Section 215 in the Land Title Act 1994 states:
215
Certificates of noscript cease to be instruments
(1) On the commencement, a certificate of noscript—
(a) ceases to be an instrument under this Act; and
(b) ceases to be evidence, conclusive or otherwise, of the indefeasible noscript for the lot for which it was issued.
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/asmade/act-2019-007#sec.247
The above amendment takes all the evidential power away from landowners and gives it to the State. The State could hypothetically alter your records, illegally, or a hacker could, and you have no way of proving ownership unless your ownership rights were reinstated by a Court. Equally significant is the fact that this amendment also allows the State to prevent you from selling or buying property unless you comply with additional terms related to digital identity certification, which could possibly be further restricted on the basis of your vaccination status, for example. Moreover, the State could unilaterally sequester/expropriate your real estate in case of Public Debt default and transfer your noscript to the Creditors.
I highly recommend Vinu Arumughan’s blog/newsletter. https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/fraudulent-drug-safety-studies-have
Substack
Fraudulent drug safety studies have destroyed medicine; "Safety" researchers ignore lot-to-lot variation but in reality 100X difference…
Latest example is study fraudulently claiming no association between COVID-19 vaccines and Bell's palsy. Fraudulent studies are lucrative. Researchers collect millions from Pharma as FDA aids/abets.
Merck’s Covid vaccine manufacturing site routinely contaminated with human feaces and urine (whistleblower).
“Fecal matter had been found on sterile garments and on the floor of controlled areas; a urine-filled glove had been tied up and placed in a trash container in a critical production area; technicians had been caught on video dancing in clean room suites, thus sending potentially dangerous particulates into the air. The allegations suggested a manufacturing plant that was out of control, and that prioritized production at the expense of patient safety.”
“… supervisor not only denied his request for help, but blocked him from pursuing an adequate investigation, even after he was able to corroborate key aspects of the whistleblower’s allegations. That obstruction put the public at risk, he contended.
Vanity Fair confirmed this account of Menachem’s Merck inspection, and events inside Team Biologics, through interviews with four current or former FDA employees, including Menachem, a detailed review of documents, and an analysis of Team Biologics inspection data. One person with knowledge of the Merck investigation described it as “malfeasance” by the FDA.”
“Claiming that the FDA was failing to properly regulate vaccine- and biologics-manufacturing plants, Menachem alleged that after inspections at Merck, and three other manufacturing plants, his supervisor and other FDA compliance officials improperly downgraded his findings and allowed the facilities to escape regulatory enforcement.”
“The agency had refused to send backup to a North Carolina manufacturing plant to help him question a confidential informant who’d alleged grave public health abuses. When it came to taking away his computer, the agency moved like a well-oiled machine.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/12/fda-covid-vaccine-plant-inspectors
“Fecal matter had been found on sterile garments and on the floor of controlled areas; a urine-filled glove had been tied up and placed in a trash container in a critical production area; technicians had been caught on video dancing in clean room suites, thus sending potentially dangerous particulates into the air. The allegations suggested a manufacturing plant that was out of control, and that prioritized production at the expense of patient safety.”
“… supervisor not only denied his request for help, but blocked him from pursuing an adequate investigation, even after he was able to corroborate key aspects of the whistleblower’s allegations. That obstruction put the public at risk, he contended.
Vanity Fair confirmed this account of Menachem’s Merck inspection, and events inside Team Biologics, through interviews with four current or former FDA employees, including Menachem, a detailed review of documents, and an analysis of Team Biologics inspection data. One person with knowledge of the Merck investigation described it as “malfeasance” by the FDA.”
“Claiming that the FDA was failing to properly regulate vaccine- and biologics-manufacturing plants, Menachem alleged that after inspections at Merck, and three other manufacturing plants, his supervisor and other FDA compliance officials improperly downgraded his findings and allowed the facilities to escape regulatory enforcement.”
“The agency had refused to send backup to a North Carolina manufacturing plant to help him question a confidential informant who’d alleged grave public health abuses. When it came to taking away his computer, the agency moved like a well-oiled machine.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/12/fda-covid-vaccine-plant-inspectors
Vanity Fair
The COVID Vaccines Are Approaching. Is the FDA Ready to Inspect the Plants Where They’re Made?
The agency’s Team Biologics inspects the facilities that make vaccines and blood products for U.S. patients. One whistleblower—and other insiders—paints a troubling picture of the daunting challenges the elite unit, made up of just 14 investigators, has faced…
TGA response to FOI request to disclose the number of Covid vaccine related deaths awaiting coronial investigation
“Please be advised that there are over 200 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination that had a fatal outcome that the TGA is aware have been referred to a coroner.“ Dated Wed, 23 Mar 2022
“Please be advised that there are over 200 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination that had a fatal outcome that the TGA is aware have been referred to a coroner.“ Dated Wed, 23 Mar 2022
Forwarded from Michael Kowalik
The pandemic convention proposed by the WHO would amount to a delegation of legislative authority of the Parliament of the state to a transnational body. This would probably be illegal under national constitution of any sovereign state, because the delegated authority exceeds the procedural authority of the parliament itself, and the parliament cannot delegate powers it does not possess (the legal concept of ultra Vires). The parliament is constitutionally bound to make laws in a particular way, usually by a majority vote of its members. So if the WHO could dictate actions outside of this process, it would always be illegal. There are only two ways to make that happen legally: a) the parliament would have to conduct a majority vote on every specific WHO directive b) state constitution would need to be changed to essentially transfer sovereignty over health issues to the WHO. I have used this argument here, in regard to emergency powers: https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/34
Telegram
Normal
The argument underpinning my petition to the Parliament of Victoria to repeal Emergency Powers:
The principle of Ultra Vires was succinctly formulated by Justice Griffith in Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth, HCA 50 (26 April 1904): “... if the authority…
The principle of Ultra Vires was succinctly formulated by Justice Griffith in Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth, HCA 50 (26 April 1904): “... if the authority…
If ‘Cops for Covid Truth’ want to win their case in WA, their lawyers will not repeat the mistake of debating the efficacy of vaccines. This is irrelevant. Strange how lawyers don’t want to use the most fundamental, straight forward, logical arguments I have disseminated to their figureheads including Serene and several others over a year ago, and posted on their channels. https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/1064
Telegram
Normal
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…
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…
How to become immune to propaganda and psychological operations
1. Never reuse the new idioms and catch phrases used by the media. Whatever issue is discussed, try to conceptualise it in your own words, be more denoscriptive rather than accepting the given phrases at face value. It is not essential to express the underlying ideas in the “right way” (there may be no right way), but only differently.
2. When someone else would reuse the media catch phrases, ask them to explain what they mean; they don’t know, your task is only to reveal their ignorance. This is particularly important when engaging with government departments. For example, a public school may appeal to inclusion and diversity. Ask them what they mean by that; what is supposed to be included and is there anything that ought to be excluded, and if anything ought to be excluded then how can you just call it “inclusiveness”, isn’t that misleading?
3. Whenever you come to believe a proposition, profess some value or principle, challenge yourself to mentally defend the opposite view. Consider evidence from both sides of the debate. Playing a daily game of chess against yourself can help you establish this routine.
1. Never reuse the new idioms and catch phrases used by the media. Whatever issue is discussed, try to conceptualise it in your own words, be more denoscriptive rather than accepting the given phrases at face value. It is not essential to express the underlying ideas in the “right way” (there may be no right way), but only differently.
2. When someone else would reuse the media catch phrases, ask them to explain what they mean; they don’t know, your task is only to reveal their ignorance. This is particularly important when engaging with government departments. For example, a public school may appeal to inclusion and diversity. Ask them what they mean by that; what is supposed to be included and is there anything that ought to be excluded, and if anything ought to be excluded then how can you just call it “inclusiveness”, isn’t that misleading?
3. Whenever you come to believe a proposition, profess some value or principle, challenge yourself to mentally defend the opposite view. Consider evidence from both sides of the debate. Playing a daily game of chess against yourself can help you establish this routine.
The ultimate test of moral character
I know of only one reliable test of the moral character of people: how they would react when you disagree with their beliefs. I have traveled and lived in many countries, and the pattern is roughly the same everywhere; people are generous and kind if you fawn over their culture and customs, but if you would raise any objections or express disagreement with their beliefs, then claws, spears and pitchforks come out. Nothing confesses the lack of moral character more then the refusal to deliberate, the unwavering conviction that you are in possession the truth and anyone who disagrees is not to be reasoned with because they are ‘sick in the head’.
The only means that humanity possesses to peacefully resolve disagreements is via rational deliberation, where both sides try to understand one another and together evaluate the reasons for and against a particular view, not aiming to defeat the other and defend one’s belief at any cost, but to discover the truth of the matter, and overcome error. The enemy is then not the person expressing a controversial view, but error itself. I call this attitude ‘Good Faith’, which incidentally coincides with the ancient usage of the Greek word ‘Pistis’, nowadays translated as ‘Faith’, or worse, misrepresented as ‘Belief’. The laws of Reason are the only pacifier, and everything else ultimately leads to murder. It is therefore more than a figment of religious imagination to equate God with Logos. Only Logos leads to Love, and everything contrary to Logos leads to suffering and ultimately destroys itself.
I know of only one reliable test of the moral character of people: how they would react when you disagree with their beliefs. I have traveled and lived in many countries, and the pattern is roughly the same everywhere; people are generous and kind if you fawn over their culture and customs, but if you would raise any objections or express disagreement with their beliefs, then claws, spears and pitchforks come out. Nothing confesses the lack of moral character more then the refusal to deliberate, the unwavering conviction that you are in possession the truth and anyone who disagrees is not to be reasoned with because they are ‘sick in the head’.
The only means that humanity possesses to peacefully resolve disagreements is via rational deliberation, where both sides try to understand one another and together evaluate the reasons for and against a particular view, not aiming to defeat the other and defend one’s belief at any cost, but to discover the truth of the matter, and overcome error. The enemy is then not the person expressing a controversial view, but error itself. I call this attitude ‘Good Faith’, which incidentally coincides with the ancient usage of the Greek word ‘Pistis’, nowadays translated as ‘Faith’, or worse, misrepresented as ‘Belief’. The laws of Reason are the only pacifier, and everything else ultimately leads to murder. It is therefore more than a figment of religious imagination to equate God with Logos. Only Logos leads to Love, and everything contrary to Logos leads to suffering and ultimately destroys itself.
Free energy oxymoron
Free energy, or perpetual motion, requires the Universe to be bigger than itself, because the input must be greater than the infinite (free) output, due to inefficiency of any emergency-conversion system. It also implies that the source of energy (X) is not depleted in any amount after it has given-off a quantity of energy: X-a=X, where a is not zero. But this is absurd, therefore free energy, or perpetual motion devices, are impossible. The idea is akin to the Universe reaching infinite temperature by itself, or creating something out of nothing, which violates the law of non-contradiction. https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/proof-that-emergence-of-something-out-of-nothing-is-impossible/
Another, perhaps a simpler way to prove the point is that ‘free energy’ violates the fundamental laws of sense, it is an oxymoron, like an ‘infinite container’ (a container is defined by its limits, by a closed boundary that ‘contains’ something, so without limits it is not a container). Energy is a relation, a difference between state A and state B, and every relation requires limits that define the relata; the infinite does not have limits and therefore does not relate to anything, which is to say, it is not compatible with the meaning of ‘energy’.
Free energy, or perpetual motion, requires the Universe to be bigger than itself, because the input must be greater than the infinite (free) output, due to inefficiency of any emergency-conversion system. It also implies that the source of energy (X) is not depleted in any amount after it has given-off a quantity of energy: X-a=X, where a is not zero. But this is absurd, therefore free energy, or perpetual motion devices, are impossible. The idea is akin to the Universe reaching infinite temperature by itself, or creating something out of nothing, which violates the law of non-contradiction. https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/proof-that-emergence-of-something-out-of-nothing-is-impossible/
Another, perhaps a simpler way to prove the point is that ‘free energy’ violates the fundamental laws of sense, it is an oxymoron, like an ‘infinite container’ (a container is defined by its limits, by a closed boundary that ‘contains’ something, so without limits it is not a container). Energy is a relation, a difference between state A and state B, and every relation requires limits that define the relata; the infinite does not have limits and therefore does not relate to anything, which is to say, it is not compatible with the meaning of ‘energy’.
Cultural Analysis & Philosophy
Proof that Emergence of Something out of Nothing is Impossible
A growing number of physicists working in the area of quantum cosmology express the view, to the dismay of some philosophers, that it is possible to create something out of nothing, although the ‘n…
People who are concerned about the prospect of nuclear war should not get excited about the idea of free energy devices, because it would pose a threat infinitely greater than nuclear weapons. In fact, it is cognitive dissonance to condemn the former and hope for the latter.
How to identify emerging Nazi movements
Some people think that Nazis must love Deutschland and the Aryan people, as if the same ideology applied to any other race or tribe would be morally different. If we separate the essence of Nazi ideology from any particular race, the following ideological features remain: a) nativist prioritarianism - the idea that the natives have absolute priority and inherently better rights than citizens of any other tribe or race (non-natives); b) The idea that races/tribes belong and have a sacred relationship to the land, so that nobody else can legitimately belong there. Although points a) and b) of themselves entail racial supremacism within the native environment, Nazis may promote c) some additional, more explicit marker of racial supremacy, some mythological or mystified biological feature that non-natives do not possess. This both amplifies and psychologically justifies the discriminatory demarcation and dehumanisation of non-natives.
Some people think that Nazis must love Deutschland and the Aryan people, as if the same ideology applied to any other race or tribe would be morally different. If we separate the essence of Nazi ideology from any particular race, the following ideological features remain: a) nativist prioritarianism - the idea that the natives have absolute priority and inherently better rights than citizens of any other tribe or race (non-natives); b) The idea that races/tribes belong and have a sacred relationship to the land, so that nobody else can legitimately belong there. Although points a) and b) of themselves entail racial supremacism within the native environment, Nazis may promote c) some additional, more explicit marker of racial supremacy, some mythological or mystified biological feature that non-natives do not possess. This both amplifies and psychologically justifies the discriminatory demarcation and dehumanisation of non-natives.