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.
Forwarded from Normal
Welcome to Normal. A space for Normal Humans to deliberate on political issues and act together in common interest. Freedom will not come from above; it depends on rational deliberation and direct involvement in the political process. Join the Normals. Normality is maintained by Michael Kowalik, Philosopher, Ethicist.
Academic: https://philpeople.org/profiles/michael-kowalik
Blog: https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/
Donate: https://ko-fi.com/L4L76DED
Academic: https://philpeople.org/profiles/michael-kowalik
Blog: https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/
Donate: https://ko-fi.com/L4L76DED
philpeople.org
Michael Kowalik - PhilPeople
Browse Michael Kowalik's philosophical publications and stay up to date with their professional activities in philosophy.
There is only one true law: the metaphysical structure of being which is also the objective moral law. Those who adhere to it, become more conscious, more human, more Real; those who go against it turn into animals and ultimately to stone.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
The Weight of the Vote.
If you vote, you agree to authorise someone else to order you around, in the hope that this largely unknown to you person will order everyone else to do what you want them to do.
If you refuse to vote, other people may still choose someone largely unknown to them to order you around, but the situation is now morally different; you did not authorise anyone to order others around in the hope that they will be forced to do what you want them to do.
People sometimes do bad things, and it is morally permissible to prevent people doing bad things to you. Therefore, it may be morally permissible to authorise someone to order people around insofar as the exercise of authority is limited to preventing people doing bad things to others.
On the other hand, if we authorise someone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things, but we do not possess the knowledge of what ‘bad things’ objectively are, then it may not be morally permissible or rational to authorise someone to order people around on those indeterminate grounds.
Furthermore, if we authorise someone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things, but we do not have the authority to prevent that someone from doing bad things themselves, then it may not be morally permissible or rational to authorise anyone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things.
If the only legitimate authority is to do what is objectively right, then voting is at best superfluous, because every person already has the moral authority to do what is morally right, and no authority, under any circumstances, to do what is morally wrong. We must therefore understand voting (for representation) as an attempt to legitimise what is morally wrong.
If you vote, you agree to authorise someone else to order you around, in the hope that this largely unknown to you person will order everyone else to do what you want them to do.
If you refuse to vote, other people may still choose someone largely unknown to them to order you around, but the situation is now morally different; you did not authorise anyone to order others around in the hope that they will be forced to do what you want them to do.
People sometimes do bad things, and it is morally permissible to prevent people doing bad things to you. Therefore, it may be morally permissible to authorise someone to order people around insofar as the exercise of authority is limited to preventing people doing bad things to others.
On the other hand, if we authorise someone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things, but we do not possess the knowledge of what ‘bad things’ objectively are, then it may not be morally permissible or rational to authorise someone to order people around on those indeterminate grounds.
Furthermore, if we authorise someone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things, but we do not have the authority to prevent that someone from doing bad things themselves, then it may not be morally permissible or rational to authorise anyone to order everyone around to stop people doing bad things.
If the only legitimate authority is to do what is objectively right, then voting is at best superfluous, because every person already has the moral authority to do what is morally right, and no authority, under any circumstances, to do what is morally wrong. We must therefore understand voting (for representation) as an attempt to legitimise what is morally wrong.
The Election
I am not registered to vote. I refuse to delegate my speck of sovereignty for collective re-presentation, which would create a legal basis for political authority over me, in a society where collective understanding on objective terms is not yet possible. The truth is not decided by votes, nor can a moral wrong be made right by the prejudice of the majority. I am not part of that collective, I will not agree to disagree, I am not that kind of equal. I will let the equal ones choose their own rulers, and those rulers will know they have no legitimate claim of authority over me, despite having power over me, but every time power is illegitimately used it diminishes itself, it negates itself, reveals itself as an aberration, contrary to the metaphysical order of being. The only meaningful, reflexive mode of social engagement is to speak for oneself, act on one’s own moral authority, without mediation or representation. Moral sovereignty cannot be delegated or re-presented.
I am not registered to vote. I refuse to delegate my speck of sovereignty for collective re-presentation, which would create a legal basis for political authority over me, in a society where collective understanding on objective terms is not yet possible. The truth is not decided by votes, nor can a moral wrong be made right by the prejudice of the majority. I am not part of that collective, I will not agree to disagree, I am not that kind of equal. I will let the equal ones choose their own rulers, and those rulers will know they have no legitimate claim of authority over me, despite having power over me, but every time power is illegitimately used it diminishes itself, it negates itself, reveals itself as an aberration, contrary to the metaphysical order of being. The only meaningful, reflexive mode of social engagement is to speak for oneself, act on one’s own moral authority, without mediation or representation. Moral sovereignty cannot be delegated or re-presented.
There is something odd happening at the intersection of economics and friendship in the working class Australia. People are happy to pay top dollar to strangers for various services, but expect their friends to work for less than their fair worth. Shouldn’t we pay a little extra than the market price to our friends, because we love them, because we vicariously rejoice in their prosperity and wellbeing? Corporations seem to understand that it is good practice to pay extra to your friends, to preferred suppliers, even if you can get a better deal somewhere else, because friendship, loyalty, commitment and reliability have value that money can’t buy.
I am contemplating the idea that the historical progression from nativism to nationalism to nazism is just a modern reinvention of Serfdom. “Serfdom was the status of many peasants under feudalism… It was a condition of debt bondage and indentured servitude with similarities to and differences from slavery… Unlike slaves, serfs could not be bought, sold, or traded individually but together with the land.” In essence, Serfs ‘belonged to the land’, whereas Freemen were not bound to the land. Nowadays, nativism, nationalism and nazism are ideologies that still bind the working class to the land, who imagine they are free, but they are paying taxes to service faux debt to whoever happens to be the top creditor of the nation. If every country in the world is in debt, then who is the creditor?
Every day, every time I feel emotionally moved by some news item, story, comment, I remind myself: Don’t get sucked in, fool! Every conflict, every tragedy, every absurdity, every sensation, can be used to move you in a particular direction. Just a tiny step, a gentle nudge is enough for every story that affects you because the supply of stories is endless, and thousands of nudges and baby steps will ultimately move you a mile, or at best make you run in circles. So don’t get sucked in, calm down, take a step back and watch the map, watch the game-board. Nobody out there is your friend, and nobody out there is your enemy, until you make them so, and then You too are a pawn in the game, and your objectivity is lost. The only winning move is not to play.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Who Owns You?
Have you ever considered why the government borrows money at interest to cover any shortfall in its budget, instead of just printing the same amount, interest free to the public? Can the government be trusted to borrow unlimited money, created by the banks, at interest (to be paid by you), but the Parliament cannot be trusted to authorise creation of the same amount of money interest free?
This is a great question to ask all those defenders of your freedom who are so so anti-establishment. Great way to unmask their true allegiance and know who is just controlled opposition. And this rabbit hole goes much deeper: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3737447
Have you ever considered why the government borrows money at interest to cover any shortfall in its budget, instead of just printing the same amount, interest free to the public? Can the government be trusted to borrow unlimited money, created by the banks, at interest (to be paid by you), but the Parliament cannot be trusted to authorise creation of the same amount of money interest free?
This is a great question to ask all those defenders of your freedom who are so so anti-establishment. Great way to unmask their true allegiance and know who is just controlled opposition. And this rabbit hole goes much deeper: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3737447
Ssrn
A Monetary Case for Value-added Negative Tax
I address the most fundamental yet routinely ignored issue in economics: that of distributive impact of the monetary system on the real economy. By reexamining
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
My submission to “Public hearings regarding a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response” (World Health Organisation) 13.04.2022
https://inb.who.int/home/written-submissions
I am a philosopher of ethics and an expert on vaccine mandates: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240
I submit, on the following grounds, that the new international instrument must explicitly prohibit any discrimination on the basis of vaccination status.
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.
2. Discrimination against the unvaccinated denies the right to free medical consent. This must not be allowed under any circumstances, because without the right to free medical consent we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion.
3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. Discrimination against the unvaccinated amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of the targeted individuals are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. It may be objected that viruses also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with viruses 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.
I believe we agree that the right to life must not be violated, in which case vaccine mandates are inconsistent with the fundamental moral commitments of The WHO.
https://inb.who.int/home/written-submissions
I am a philosopher of ethics and an expert on vaccine mandates: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240
I submit, on the following grounds, that the new international instrument must explicitly prohibit any discrimination on the basis of vaccination status.
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.
2. Discrimination against the unvaccinated denies the right to free medical consent. This must not be allowed under any circumstances, because without the right to free medical consent we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion.
3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. Discrimination against the unvaccinated amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of the targeted individuals are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. It may be objected that viruses also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with viruses 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.
I believe we agree that the right to life must not be violated, in which case vaccine mandates are inconsistent with the fundamental moral commitments of The WHO.
Why write off good debt via hyperinflation? The creditors want to be paid, therefore hyperinflation is generally not in their interest, whereas deflation amplifies the exchange value of their financial assets. For this reason I expect monetary contraction and price deflation comparable to the Great Depression rather than hyperinflation.
“I’m from the LGBTI community but I’ve never felt more discriminated against in my life than I have in the past year since vaccines were introduced.” Says the person interviewed in this article. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/unvaccinated-australians-question-why-they-are-still-unable-to-work-due-to-unfair-mandates/news-story/8b22ad83e645f7974201fcf3675fdeb8
This is true (even a broken clock is sometimes right). Refusing to wear a mask is an issue of preserving the socially reflexive human relations. The face is the essence of personhood vis-a-vis one another, and personhood vis-a-vis one another is the essence of humanity. Face masks dehumanise. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3840787
Forwarded from Normal Chat
It is not your job to convince anyone else that they are wrong; it is their own challenge to overcome falsity. The world is made only of the truth, not of falsity, and everything that stands for falsity will perish.