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.
Unless you pay your doctor more than she is paid by the Pharmamafia, unless your doctor is more afraid of you than she is afraid of the Pharmamafia, she is not your doctor; she is their doctor, and you are the sucker.
Second-Order Propaganda
The opposite of an obviously false narrative is not the truth, but another false narrative prepared for those who pride themselves in being aware and better informed than the “sleeping masses”. This seems to be the primary vector of modern propaganda, a kind of reverse psychology, preying on your ego, self-conceit. They tell you a lie knowing that you will figure out that they are lying (everyone already knows they are lying most of the time), but they will also plant the seed of an equally false counter-narrative, and this counter-narrative is their primary objective. How else could they deceive people who already do not trust them, do not support them…
The opposite of an obviously false narrative is not the truth, but another false narrative prepared for those who pride themselves in being aware and better informed than the “sleeping masses”. This seems to be the primary vector of modern propaganda, a kind of reverse psychology, preying on your ego, self-conceit. They tell you a lie knowing that you will figure out that they are lying (everyone already knows they are lying most of the time), but they will also plant the seed of an equally false counter-narrative, and this counter-narrative is their primary objective. How else could they deceive people who already do not trust them, do not support them…
The alleged “removal” of vaccine mandates in S.A. is a public relations scam. The unvaccinated are still legally penalised, treated differently, therefore vaccine mandates remain, but were only modified. They are trying to trick you to believe that these are not mandates, but if you return to work under these conditions you are still acquiescing to medical coercion and the loss of the right to free medical consent, not just for yourself but for your children and future generations.