All legal frameworks are the same in their fundamental, moral aspect: right vs wrong. Even a formally defective, inefficient legal system has the same ultimate commitment, and should achieve the same moral outcome as a ‘perfect’ system, provided it is used in good faith. What we see is perhaps the evidence that the system is used in bad faith in regard to vaccine mandates, and therefore no longer a legitimate authority in regard to justice, but only a violent impostor.

The primary object of Science is power, not truth. Power is of course a category of truth, a meta-language, and lower categories of truth (object-languages: physics, chemistry, events) are certainly involved, but only instrumentally; they are not strictly or necessarily the Truth in the purely logical sense of the term but true only in the practical sense of facilitating a social or technological effect.

Only someone utterly deluded would believe that the government has the interest of Aboriginal people at heart, and wants to divest its own power. This is so obviously a set up to cause popular resentment against Aboriginals, possibly to manufacture consent for their ethnic cleansing, and simultaneously a means to divert the growing anger for the crimes committed by the government under the pandemic emergency powers. Tyrants need a scapegoat, a human sacrifice to appease the raging (and soon to be starving) masses. This is also a test of the moral character of the Aboriginal people, given enough rope, and the consequences of a wrong moral choice could be existential.

Black Power is morally no different from White Power: crude, irrational, racist, repugnant. By endorsing the former one implicitly endorses the latter. After all the theatrics she willingly took the prescribed Oath of Allegiance to the Coloniser Queen, so now she is officially an agent of the coloniser. Aboriginal people should be very concerned about this impostor speaking in their name. “Senator Thorpe was reprimanded and, smirking, eventually recited the oath correctly and was sworn into parliament.” This proves she lacks moral conviction: a sellout and a traitor.

People who use the phrase “powerful women”👆as a marker of virtue, are equating ethics with power, and thereby imply that conquerors, tyrants and despots are always morally right.

Nativist Prioritarianism #

Some narratives are too socially damaging to be simply ignored. It is important to identify the implications and consequences of Nativist Supremacism, the core feature of Nazi ideology, which underpins the concepts of First Nations, Original People, the native noscript, and tribal sovereignty. The underlying toxicity needs to be unpacked and contextualised, so that people have the right vocabulary and understanding to deal with the associated social pressure and resentment. Those who live in Australia face this narrative and are forced to choose (to collude or to dissent) on daily basis. When they do dissent they need to be able to defend their position with more than “it is divisive”. If they fail this, they will become more resentful, and the narrative of resentment will still succeed in its aim. My approach is not merely to defeat the narrative of resentment but to replace it with a higher order sense of unity: All humans share the same ancient ancestors, we are all related, we are all the original owners of the Earth. Reason unites us.

How to become more Human:

- accept that you do not belong anywhere,
- assume that there are no likeminded people,
(you just have not realised your disagreements yet),
- acknowledge that you have no tribe,
- accept that you are probably wrong about most things,
- but you need others to make sense of it all.

That is a good place to start.

An authoritarian citizen lives in a state of self-willed unfreedom. Being intentionally unfree, a citizen is not a fully moral agent but to a significant degree an instrument of the ruling minority. This state is therefore susceptible to eventual capture and weaponisation by immoral, anti-human government, which necessitates crimes against humanity and a societal collapse. For a society to develop permanently, without being destined to collapse in a social catastrophe, the authoritarian mindset must first be cured. Precisely this insight occurred to Wilhelm Reich, a self-declared revolutionary Freudo-Marxist, but it also resonates with the views of young Henry Kissinger. Philip Reiff describes the underlying idea as follows:

“Man was like a prisoner, so long confined that he no longer wanted his freedom. But, once willed, freedom would suddenly break out. First, the individual must learn to break out of himself. Here was a therapy that would change the world - but only by changing the self. In Reich, these strands of socialism turn around a curious messianic belief in therapy, forming a doctrine of salvation” (from “The triumph of the therapeutic: uses of faith after Freud”)

An excellent representation of why ‘utilitarian ethics’ is wrong. Source: https://news.1rj.ru/str/jamiemcintyre/4965

My email to Senator Rennick, dated 23 NOV 2021.

Dear Senator,

I am a philosopher of ethics with my current research-focus on vaccine mandates. I have recently published an academic paper on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026.

I have contacted several regulatory agencies (SIRA, Australian Government Department of Health, Mr Gavrielatos at SafeWork NSW, Australian Medical Association, and today Safe Work Australia) with some basic, ethically and legally relevant questions about a possible conflict between Covid-19 vaccine mandates and workplace safety. I have received only generic responses; not one agency or person contacted has explicitly answered my two questions, which were formulated as follows:

1. Do you acknowledge that Covid vaccination occasionally causes death of healthy people, even if the overall outcome benefits most people?

2. If yes, do you acknowledge that when an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

I find it extremely concerning that the agencies responsible for workplace safety and health of Australian people are tacitly refusing to answer such fundamental and legally critical questions about workplace safety. Would you be willing to apply some pressure to get these questions explicitly addressed by the Commonwealth government?

Can you assist in this matter?



I also want to take this opportunity to share with you a summary of the key ethical issues associated with vaccine mandates in general.

1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race.

2. Covid vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is being economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of their mandatory participation. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that Covid-19 also kills people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the alleged benefit of the majority.

3. Medical consent must be free - not coerced - in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of a valid medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion.

I also object to the assertion made by several state premiers and other politicians that the people who are discriminated against are “unvaccinated by choice”. Apart from the fact that social and economic opportunity coercion removes our free choice in this matter, being unvaccinated is fundamentally not a choice; we were born that way. The premise of being “unvaccinated by choice” is as absurd as “having two hands by choice”. The right to preserve our innate characteristics without being discriminated against is paramount.

Regards,

Michael Kowalik

My Letter to Senator Malcolm Roberts (04.08.2022)

Dear Senator Roberts,

I am a philosopher of ethics and the leading voice in the academic debate questioning the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates. I recently published a paper on this topic in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026.

I have contacted several regulatory agencies (SIRA, Australian Government Department of Health, Mr Gavrielatos at Safe Work NSW, Australian Medical Association, and Safe Work Australia) with questions relating to a possible conflict between Covid-19 vaccine mandates and workplace safety. I have received only generic responses; not one agency or person contacted has explicitly answered my two questions, which were formulated as follows:

1. Do you acknowledge that Covid vaccination occasionally causes death of healthy people, even if the overall outcome benefits most people?

2. If yes, do you acknowledge that when an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

Would you be willing to present these questions during the parliamentary debate or via a suitable committee to the Commonwealth health minister?

If the minister would answer YES to point 1 (an officially acknowledged fact), then YES to point 2 necessarily follows, and this implies an acknowledgment that by mandating vaccination the minister ‘intends to violate the right to life of some people in the course of employment’.

In case the minister objected that Covid-19 also kills people (therefore the mandates are necessary to ‘save lives’), the logical response would be that these two categories of deaths are not legally and ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine 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. The latter category amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of the targeted population are expected to die as a direct result of this coercive treatment.

The above questions are intended as a strategy of political persuasion, by publicly identifying, in uncontroversial terms, the intent to violate the right to life and the associated liability.

Best wishes,

Michael Kowalik

If you want this👆to be actioned, feel free to send Malcolm Roberts (and Gerard Rennick) a message that you support my proposal. Let us make a group effort for once and see whether it will yield a meaningful outcome.

Despite several MPs like Craig Kelly, Malcolm Roberts, Gerard Rennick, Alex Antic making dissenting speeches in parliament, nothing has changed. All state governments still have emergency powers at their disposal (martial law on demand, unlimited term) and vaccine mandates (both government and privately imposed) are still enforced. Evidently, it is not enough to take the high moral ground but one must say exactly the right things to get the desired legal and political outcomes. This has not happened yet. Their utilitarian, piecemeal strategy has failed. Even if it will eventually succeed for Covid there will be new ‘plagues’ and new vaccines to deal with, and then all the current effort will be worth exactly nothing. The only way to win is to fight on the basis of fundamental principles.

If there is demand for anxiety-validating narratives, someone will provide this product.

My follow up email to senator Antic (05.08.2022)
alex @ alexantic . com . au

Subject: Vaccine mandates violate the right to life

Dear Senator Antic,

I am a philosopher of ethics and the leading voice in the academic debate questioning the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates. I recently published a paper on this topic in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics.

I have contacted several regulatory agencies (SIRA, Australian Government Department of Health, Mr Gavrielatos at Safe Work NSW, Australian Medical Association, and Safe Work Australia) with two questions relating to a possible conflict between Covid-19 vaccine mandates and workplace safety. I have received only generic responses; not one agency or person contacted has explicitly answered my two questions, which were formulated as follows:

1. Do you acknowledge that Covid vaccination occasionally causes death of healthy people, even if the overall outcome benefits most people?

2. If yes, do you acknowledge that when an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

Would you be willing to present these questions during the parliamentary debate or via a suitable committee to the Commonwealth health minister?

If the minister would answer YES to point 1 (an officially acknowledged fact), then YES to point 2 necessarily follows, and this implies an acknowledgment that by mandating vaccination the minister ‘intends to violate the right to life of some people in the course of employment’.

If the minister would object that Covid-19 also kills people, the logical response would be that these two categories of deaths are not legally and ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine 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. The latter category amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of the targeted population are expected to die as a direct result of this coercive treatment.

The above questions are intended as a strategy of political persuasion, by publicly identifying, in uncontroversial terms, the intent to violate the right to life and to cause the government to reflect on the associated liability.

Best wishes,

Michael Kowalik

Letter to Dr William Bay (08.08.2022)
qldpeoplesprotest @ gmail . com

Subject: Anti-Mandate Protest - Ethical Defence

Dear Dr Bay,

I am a philosopher/ethicist and the leading voice in the academic debate against the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates. I recently published a paper on this topic in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics.

I am aware of your situation and may be able to assist you in strengthening your defence strategy in the confrontation with AHPRA, by furnishing some powerful ethical objections to vaccine mandates. While some of your empirical claims may be strongly contested by AHPRA (on the basis of the opinion of ‘experts’), fundamental ethical arguments are not vulnerable to disagreements about empirical facts.

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 defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. By refusing to acquiesce to vaccine mandates we take an ethical stance against discrimination on the basis of innate characteristics of the human race. (This point derives from my paper published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240).

2. Medical consent must be free – not coerced – in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of valid medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion. Crucially, by accepting any mandated medical treatment imposed by coercion we would be acquiescing to the taking away of the right to free medical consent not just from ourselves but from our children and from future generations, and we do not have the right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is always unethical, even if the mandated intervention were a placebo.

3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine 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. Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated (or a privileged treatment of the vaccinated) amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of the targeted population are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. By refusing to accept mandated vaccines we take an ethical stance in defence of the right to life.

An earlier version of these arguments were formally submitted to the Inquiry into Public Health Amendment Bill 2021 (No 2) ACT and subsequently published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/04/26/medethics-2022-108229.responses#fundamental-values-are-not-defeated-by-utilitarian-calculus

If you think this would be helpful to your case, I am happy to assist.

Best wishes,

Michael Kowalik
Academic: https://philpeople.org/profiles/michael-kowalik
My Telegram channel: https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty

Good news. The office of Senator Antic has responded that he “may be able to raise these questions at the next Senate Estimates hearing”. See here for the details: https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/1747