Compliance with vaccine mandates is a blood bond, a collective crime of acquiescence to the removal of the right to free medical consent from our children and future generations, and if this moral wrong is to be normalised for the future generations then those who teach children must be themselves guilty but in denial, must be complicit but believe that what they did was right, so that they themselves will want to normalise their crime to evade the realisation of guilt and the associated liability.

This alleged plan neatly fits the hypothesis that both EU and Russia want to exterminate ultra-nationalists in Ukraine (incite them to suicide by Putin), because the ultimate agenda is to split Ukraine in half: the western part to be reunited with Poland (and so automatically becomes a part of EU), while the eastern side becomes Russia. Sounds like EU and Russia made a secret deal, because Ukrainian nationalists stood in the way of creating the ultimate economic union, combining the technology and management of the EU with Russia’s resources. And the key to the puzzle is again supplied by Henry Kissinger: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

Persuasive Action (Vaccine Mandates)

Consider formally asking your Employer/Institution/University/MP what steps have they taken to eliminate the risk of harm posed by their acquiescence to the removal of the right to free medical consent from their employees/members/students/constituents.

If the relevant institution has mandated vaccines on their own initiative, you could reword accordingly, for example: ‘I understand that the University requires that all employees and students must be vaccinated against Covid-19 to access the University facilities/sites. What steps have you taken to eliminate the risk of harm posed by your removal of the right to free medical consent from your students and employees?’

Hypothesis: Voter Fraud is a persuasive tool designed to facilitate popular acceptance of Digital ID. They will make sure that the biggest perverts, traitors and scoundrels (who are carefully selected for their aberrant tendencies to humiliate you) will keep winning by voter fraud, until you submit. After that, votes will no longer matter; their sole legal function will be is to document your consent to delegate your speck of sovereignty to the rulers, and thus justify their authority over you (‘for the greater good’).

In times of great change humans tend to impulsively react rather than act consciously towards a rational aim. We fear losing our bearing, our conceptually fixed points of reference that gave us the stability of value and meaning. Our propensity to be traumatised by radical change and to react impulsively to this perceived existential threat (it is an existential threat to our self-image constructed in terms of the normalised past) makes us susceptible to manipulation, because it motivates us to act now, to fight or to run, to respond as if we were drowning, rather than calmly observe and understand the unfolding change. A robust response to radical change must also involve observing and trying to understand the aspects of ourselves that are threatened by the change. Why are they threatened? Why should things that happen externally threaten what we are to ourselves, the integrity of our Self. Are those aspects perhaps deficient, defective, aliens to us; imaginary appendages that did not belong to us in the first place but we took them for our own, because we were conceited, deluded, mistaken, lazy, therefore already lacking self-integration. A Sage one said: that which endures though change is real, that which is subject change is not. Without a permanent part of the Self there would be no continuity of our being, and without continuity of being there would be no being, because being is conceivable only in time, as something that lasts over a duration. We must therefore be clear, discover which aspect of ourselves is permanent, the thread on which all the changing aspects of being are still attributed to the same Self. In times of stability and order only a handful of Sages were motivated to pursue this challenge, but times of great change force all of us to see ourselves for what we are, if we are anything at all. On the other side of a painful process of transformation we might just be grateful for that opportunity. That which is permanent need neither fight nor run.

Discrimination against “trans” (male) athletes in female sports is justified and necessary for females to be able to safely compete in sports at all. Sports Categories are meant to discriminate, in the right way. The inclusion of “trans” athletes in female sports is discrimination against females.

I don’t care what metaphysical, religious beliefs people have. The only standard that matters to me is whether their actions and reasons for action are rational.

There is only one true logic, the logic of sense vs nonsense. This logic is inherent to humanity, the principle that makes us human, and we are all capable of it. We obey it whenever we think, we affirm one logic even when we explicitly deny it, but nobody is adhering to it perfectly. The underlying rules of thought were first discovered and formalised by Aristotle. Non-western traditions were not conscious of the rules of sense but exercised them only ad-hoc, partly intuitively, partly by trial and error, and consequently all traditional systems built on this incomplete understanding contain fundamental errors, literal non-sense, which is to say, many apparent truth-claims in these traditions actually mean nothing, which in turn may explain the philosophises of non-thought, zen, maya, true self, moksha… all which which are practices of negation of meaning. God/Logos is one because truth is one, because Logic is one. This emerging awareness was no doubt the primary cause of monotheism, which of itself was a revolutionary shift in human consciousness.

The West is a state of mind, not a place, not a tribe, not a race; it has begun, more or less with Socrates but became fully demarcated only with Aristotle, whose discoveries in logic have achieved philosophical maturity only with the humanist ethics of Kant. The West was a cultural revolution like no other in human history. We may now be at the threshold of another revolution, involving the integration of logic/Logos with spirituality.

René Magritte “The True Colours” (circa 2021)

This will drive the prices proportionally higher, so people will pay the same in inflation adjusted money and the only change will be that government will be effectively your landlord, forever, and they will set the terms, subject to change without notice. If the interest rates would then go up, you will still end up owning nothing…

You cant make houses more affordable by inflating the currency. It amounts to chasing your own tail.

“Some experts fear that the chemical could be absorbed through children's skin, causing long-term health issues.
'Children can actually absorb enough methanol through their skin to be toxic,' said Dr Gregory Poland, an infectious diseases doctor at the Mayo Clinic, to the Globe. 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 15 cases of methanol poisoning associated with the use of hand sanitizer in Arizona and New Mexico last year.
Four of the patients died, and three had permanent damage to their vision.”

From W.R. Bion “Experiences in Groups” 1967. Bion is regarded as one of the 4 greatest psychologists of all time (Freud, Jung, Bion, Klein) I will venture to make an even stronger claim than Bion’s: All people who are attracted to power have mental illness and ought to be treated accordingly.

Fear has a limit.

The politics of fear, otherwise known as terrorism, is a strategy aiming to traumatise a more numerous and nominally more powerful demographic in order to achieve domination. Fear has a sensitisation limit beyond which it no longer works; it no longer weakens the opponent but makes him fearless. Moreover, whereas terrorism dehumanises the terrorist, the terrorised who becomes immune to fear does not bear the same moral liability, which in turn makes the terrorised both morally and strategically superior to the terrorist. The consequence is of course that terrorists, irrespective of their intelligence and tactical sophistication, ultimately lose. Modern governments seem to be acutely aware of this risk. They want to use fear because it galvanises power and endows an unmatched degree of mass control, but they are careful to pull back just in time, try to ‘make friends’ again with the victim, before the psychological reversal can occur. This calculated behaviour is the hallmark of psychopathy, which is characterised by instinctive awareness of the point at which the predator begins to lose control over their prey.

The US Supreme Court overturning the 50yo precedent that abortion is a legal right is too well timed with the debate on vaccine mandates to be just a coincidence. This is no doubt an intentional exercise, a lesson in logic, a crash course in political consciousness. There are of course fundamental differences between the right to free medical consent and the right to abortion on demand, but these are beyond the cognitive resolution of the unthinking followers of the manufactured trends and talking points of the day. https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWAP

There can be no immunity for crimes against humanity. No parliament has this degree of authority.

The West has two meanings: a) A philosophical/cultural sphere that has emerged on the basis of Greek philosophy, and b) a geo-political area. The West in the first sense (which is not limited to the geo-political “west” but permeates to various degrees all countries, is the only force capable of achieving human unity, a panhumanist system of understanding, because it is the only cultural sphere that has consciously understood and transcended, through rational deliberation, its own tribalism and racism. Every other culture is still inherently tribal, still racist, still irrational, and not even aware of their own racism or that that THEIR racism and tribalism is something worth transcending. Saying that, there seems to be some abhorrent, anti-western (in the philosophical sense) force in the geo-political ‘west” which is attempting to sabotage the panhumanist philosophy of the West, and thus disrupt human unity and understanding. I don’t quite understand its motivation, but the West is under attack from within, and many westerners are certainly colluding with this force of destruction, but this should not be misunderstood as what the West (a) is or stands for. Ultimately the West (a) will win because irrationality, nonsense, lies are not generative but self-nihilating. Lies and immorality can never win, because they are contrary to the very structure of being. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3737433

All ‘Trolley Problems’ are Wrong

A Trolley Problem is a kind of ethical dilemma where a person is asked to choose between saving several lives at the expense of fewer lives, or saving fewer lives at the expense of more lives. This kind of problems are based on several assumptions, including: 1) that the person making the decision has complete control of the situation, 2) the person making the decision can accurately predict the outcomes, 3) there are only two possible outcomes. All these assumptions are provably false, but a further assumption is the morally critical one: 4) the intention of the agent in question is artificially limited to a false dichotomy: allowing many deaths to occur vs. intentionally causing fewer deaths. This one point makes all trolley problems disigenious, a moral trap that is essentially trying to convince people to do what is morally wrong (kill an innocent human being for the sake of others, ie human sacrifice). The crucial alternative that the trolley problem ignores is that the moral agent can intend to save all humans in the trolleys. Moreover, it assumes that the moral agent must make a decision (that the decision is already a moral responsibility of the agent); it remains to be demonstrated that we have the moral responsibility to save anyone from anything that we have not caused ourselves (I call this view the ‘moral omnipotence fallacy’). If ‘moral omnipotence’ were true then surgeons should never play golf but remain at the hospital at all times, just in case they were needed to operate on some unfortunate victim of road trauma. In fact, they should work tirelessly just for food, water and a basic shelter. Ironically, the trolley problem is typically used by trauma doctors to convince others that the decisions they ‘had to make to save lives’ were right. One famous Australian doctor tried to use this kind of fallacious argument to convince me that vaccine mandates are not morally wrong, but all he did was implicitly admit that he actually killed someone in his care (by witholding essential medical care) in order to save someone younger. It was my impression that he expected me to sympathise with and be humbled by the difficulty of the moral choices that “real” doctors face, in the “real world”. I told him this ‘would be’ an intentional murder, ‘if’ the patient were already in his care, unless of course doctors have no duty of care whatsoever and can go home at any time, even in the middle of an operation... My overall experience is that medical doctors, even the most celebrated ones, are not very rational, or moral.

It is often superficially assumed that spirituality and rationality are mutually exclusive, contradictory forces. This is false. Spirituality based on non-sense is not spirituality at all, but ‘spiritualism’ (idolatry/mysticism/delusion), and if sense is needed for a true spirituality (for it to have any transcendental meaning at all) then it is inseparable from the laws of sense (from rationality). Some of the greatest spiritual leaders of the East were intensely rational, even if nobody is ever perfectly rational.