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.”
'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.”
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 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
philpapers.org
Michael Kowalik, Abortion & Phenomenology - PhilPapers
Phenomenology offers a unique perspective on abortion that avoids the pitfalls associated with arguments from human rights, religious belief, or morality. Instead, and without negating the possibility that abortion may be ...
Forwarded from Michael Kowalik
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.
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.
If you want to correctly identify who is to “win” the Australian elections, consider which party/candidate has the capacity to humiliate you the most. This one is the “winner”.
Forwarded from Normal Chat
The appeal to the “real world” is a covert value judgement, implying that whoever does not think in utilitarian terms is delusional, engaging not with the real world but with the world of fantasy, and therefore at best irrelevant, if not simply wrong. Sometimes this may of course be true, but the appeal to the “real world” is not an argument against a position but an arbitrary dismissal of that position, without argument.
The truth can sometimes be discerned by comparing the lies of all three sides to a conflict.
Forwarded from Michael Kowalik
If you were willing to take away the right to free medical consent from your children and future generations because you were afraid of germ, you don’t get to call yourself pro-choice.
“The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies.[ 3 , 6 , 57 ] We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence.” https://surgicalneurologyint.com/surgicalint-articles/covid-update-what-is-the-truth/
It is said that God punishes stupid people by giving them what they want. It seems the Great Reset is using the same strategy.
So the real inflation is 12%. The only way out is to suspend any foreign acquisitions of property and shrink the AUD money supply, which will (and should) correct the property bubble. Meanwhile, the UAP wants to pump more money into the system by forcing the interest rates to stay low, by law, which could have only two outcomes: a) banks would refuse to issue credit, causing depression and a total economic collapse, literal famine, or b) hyperinflation, and a total economic collapse, literal famine. Either way, the other disingenuous policy of UAP to “pay off debt” would not be possible.
The double meaning of My Body, My Choice.
The phrase ‘My Body, My Choice’ has different meanings in relation to abortion (suggesting the right to undergo a medical procedure) and vaccination (maintaining the right to free medical consent).
Medical coercion is unacceptable in any case, be it vaccines or abortion. Nobody should be coerced to take a vaccine, and nobody should be coerced to have an abortion. The right to free medical consent does not entail the right to undergo a specific medical procedure.
The phrase ‘My Body, My Choice’ has different meanings in relation to abortion (suggesting the right to undergo a medical procedure) and vaccination (maintaining the right to free medical consent).
Medical coercion is unacceptable in any case, be it vaccines or abortion. Nobody should be coerced to take a vaccine, and nobody should be coerced to have an abortion. The right to free medical consent does not entail the right to undergo a specific medical procedure.
Of course I don’t trust doctors in any situation, but whereas I have no choice when I break a leg to rely on help from the corrupt medical monopoly, I still have a choice in the case of a potentially lethal injection. Morgan implies that just because doctors can fix broken limbs we should automatically consent to every medical intervention. Here is a true story. A migrant teenager, who still spoke broken English, goes to a doctor complaining about bloating and indigestion. Parents are working overtime at some factory, and they trust Australian doctors. The doctor does not investigate the possibility of food allergies, does not consider the change of diet from natural foods that the kid eaten his whole life to the additive and preservative laced foods from Coles. Instead, the Dr sends the kid for “some tests” at the hospital. The test involves eating radioactive eggs so the doctor can look at the food moving through the digestive system. The purpose of the test is unclear, but the kid trusts Australian doctors
Your doctor does not know, and has no capacity to know, what is in the vial he wants to inject you with. This alone is bad faith.