What kind of disinformation is a problem
National governments and the mass media assert, without argument, that online misinformation and disinformation by citizens is a ‘problem’ that ought to be fixed. I do not think it is a problem; little people always believed a lot of nonsense, and they still do, but they do not have sufficient control over the flow of information to have a meaningful propaganda effect, not unless WEF and our governments want to promote a specific, false point of view for propaganda purposes. On the other hand, governments and their media outlets have an effective monopoly on the flow of information, so the only misinformation and disinformation that troubles me is when it comes from these ‘authoritative’ sources, from government ‘experts’ and the mass media. The only disinformation that is ever a problem is state propaganda, which includes the idea that little people speaking nonsense requires state censorship.
National governments and the mass media assert, without argument, that online misinformation and disinformation by citizens is a ‘problem’ that ought to be fixed. I do not think it is a problem; little people always believed a lot of nonsense, and they still do, but they do not have sufficient control over the flow of information to have a meaningful propaganda effect, not unless WEF and our governments want to promote a specific, false point of view for propaganda purposes. On the other hand, governments and their media outlets have an effective monopoly on the flow of information, so the only misinformation and disinformation that troubles me is when it comes from these ‘authoritative’ sources, from government ‘experts’ and the mass media. The only disinformation that is ever a problem is state propaganda, which includes the idea that little people speaking nonsense requires state censorship.
I have substantially re-written my article on face masks to integrate some new ideas. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-face-of-humanity
Just as Communism has failed, because leaders of the party did not (privately) believe in it, so will medical tyranny and stakeholder capitalism, because the managerial class does not (privately) believe in it.
The following article examines the views of the Russian government on the issue of vaccine coercion. https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/putin-and-compulsory-vaccination
Edward Slavsquat
Putin & compulsory vaccination
What is the Russian president's stance on coercive injections? It's complicated.
Why do Doctors argue Science rather than Ethics?
I get the impression that doctors and medical associations who oppose Covid vaccine mandates are not particularly interested in fundamental ethical objections to all forms of medical coercion. The arguments I have formulated implicitly challenge not just Covid related mandates but all forms of discrimination against the unvaccinated, for any vaccine, and this may not sit right with them. Most doctors who oppose Covid vaccine mandates are probably supportive of other vaccine mandates, or would change their mind if Covid were ‘bad enough and vaccines a little safer and more effective’. This would explain why they prefer to argue Science - safety and efficacy - and not fundamental ethical principles. Doctors notoriously think in simplistic utilitarian terms, seeing their work as a string of Trolley Problems (‘whom do you save: this one child or those two old people? You have one minute to decide who lives or dies.’) This is part of their crude ideological conditioning in (industrial) medical schools. They are also possibly afraid, due their own past actions, inactions and endorsements of non-Covid vaccine coercion, of incriminating themselves. I know there are exceptions, but they are few.
I get the impression that doctors and medical associations who oppose Covid vaccine mandates are not particularly interested in fundamental ethical objections to all forms of medical coercion. The arguments I have formulated implicitly challenge not just Covid related mandates but all forms of discrimination against the unvaccinated, for any vaccine, and this may not sit right with them. Most doctors who oppose Covid vaccine mandates are probably supportive of other vaccine mandates, or would change their mind if Covid were ‘bad enough and vaccines a little safer and more effective’. This would explain why they prefer to argue Science - safety and efficacy - and not fundamental ethical principles. Doctors notoriously think in simplistic utilitarian terms, seeing their work as a string of Trolley Problems (‘whom do you save: this one child or those two old people? You have one minute to decide who lives or dies.’) This is part of their crude ideological conditioning in (industrial) medical schools. They are also possibly afraid, due their own past actions, inactions and endorsements of non-Covid vaccine coercion, of incriminating themselves. I know there are exceptions, but they are few.
This is a minor issue but being a philosopher it irks me: the phrase “your truth”, which is an oxymoron. Truth, by definition, is not individual property but something to which our individual points of view, our preferences and thoughts, are subject to and can be defeated by. It is something held in common, not individually. Truth is One for All. “My truth” is therefore nonsense, a return to the postmodernist commitment to radical subjectivism. A deeper problem with the phrase “my truth” is that it implies that ‘other truths’, even if they are opposite to mine, are equally valid, so if the government have their own truth then you lose, because you do not have a claim of being objectively, unequivocally right. I see this phrase gaining traction on TM, so I felt the need to address it. I wrote more on this here: https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/how-be-rational-about-being-right/
Cultural Analysis & Philosophy
How to be Rational about being Right
Lord (2017) has rigorously demonstrated that what we are rationally required to do is just what we Ought to do. This conclusion nonetheless begs the question as to what exactly counts as Rationalit…
Arguing medical science with the medical practitioner regulatory authority is about as hopeful as arguing religion with God. A simple argument from ethical principles is the only reasonable line of defence for disagreeing with regulatory diktats, because experts do not have authority over moral conscience.
Fundamental ethical arguments still missing. Where is he right to FREE medical consent, where is the right to life, where is the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of innate biological characteristics? Acquiescence to medical coercion would be wrong even if they were giving us placebo. https://amps.redunion.com.au/healthreformdeclaration
amps.redunion.com.au
Health Reform Declaration
Government gag orders imposed by AHPRA and National Boards mean Australian Health Professionals cannot debate evidence-based Science if it goes against the State-imposed narrative without the threat of investigation and disciplinary action.
Remember, doctors were indemnified from being liable for killing their patients with Covid vaccines “to provide further assurance and confidence to patients […] in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.” ‘This is for your safety’. Makes sense? https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/covid-19-indemnity-scheme-to-protect-health-professionals-and-patients
Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care
COVID-19 indemnity scheme to protect health professionals and patients
The Australian Government is establishing a COVID-19 Vaccine Claim Scheme to provide further assurance and confidence to patients and health professionals in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
Nothing can indemnify doctors from collusion in crimes against humanity.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
The ‘current thing’ therapy for the totalitarian personality disorder. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/23/style/cannibalism-tv-shows-movies-books.html
When someone claims to be fighting ‘for your freedoms’ but does not defend your right to free medical consent in all circumstances, including ALL vaccines, or does not defend your right to life by denouncing coercion or pressure to undergo any medical procedure where a percentage of people are likely to die as a result of the procedure, then they are not really fighting for your freedoms.
Acquiescence to medical coercion, even if the mandated procedure were medically harmless, creates a precedent for the next mandated procedure, which may be harmful either by negligence or by design. Once this door is open, anything goes.
This letter from AMPS does not fill me with confidence in the medical profession; on the contrary. Even those doctors who dissent from AHPRA’s dictatorial position on independent medical advice, are still ignoring the elephant in the room: the taking away of the right to FREE medical consent by means of medical mandates, and the violation of the right to life by coercing people to undergo a medical procedure where a small percentage of people are expected to die as a direct result of the procedure. Do better AMPS, you know the rules. http://npaq-8630368.hs-sites.com/covid-19-an-update-of-evidence-based-information
Letter to AMPS (14.08.2022)
Dear Jeyanthi and AMPS,
I just came across the letter from AMPS to “The Australian Colleges and Associations of Medicine, Health, and Science, and All Australian Federal, State, and Territory Senators and Members of Parliament”.
This effort does not fill me with confidence in the medical profession. On the contrary, it tells me that even those doctors who dissent from AHPRA’s dictatorial position on independent medical advice are still ignoring the elephant in the room: the taking away of the right to FREE medical consent by means of medical mandates, and the violation of the right to life by coercing people to undergo a medical procedure where a small percentage of otherwise healthy people are expected to die as a direct result of that procedure.
Do better AMPS, you know the rules.
I have outlined all the relevant ethical arguments on my new Substack page, for those who want to take an ethical rather than utilitarian (risk vs benefits) approach to vaccine mandates. Please take a look below and I hope that based on this input you will formulate a stronger position, in line with fundamental principles. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com
I note that AMPS is a professional association centred on Doctor’s Rights, so I do understand that your job is not about serving the interests of the general population. I nevertheless suggest that by taking a broader ethical stance against medical coercion you would gain trust FOR the profession you represent and thus yourselves become trustworthy and respectable as a professional institution.
On a side note, arguing medical science against the medical practitioner regulatory authority is about as hopeful as arguing religion against God. A simple argument from ethical principles is the only reasonable line of defence for disagreeing with regulatory diktats, because experts do not have authority over moral conscience.
Good luck,
Michael Kowalik
Dear Jeyanthi and AMPS,
I just came across the letter from AMPS to “The Australian Colleges and Associations of Medicine, Health, and Science, and All Australian Federal, State, and Territory Senators and Members of Parliament”.
This effort does not fill me with confidence in the medical profession. On the contrary, it tells me that even those doctors who dissent from AHPRA’s dictatorial position on independent medical advice are still ignoring the elephant in the room: the taking away of the right to FREE medical consent by means of medical mandates, and the violation of the right to life by coercing people to undergo a medical procedure where a small percentage of otherwise healthy people are expected to die as a direct result of that procedure.
Do better AMPS, you know the rules.
I have outlined all the relevant ethical arguments on my new Substack page, for those who want to take an ethical rather than utilitarian (risk vs benefits) approach to vaccine mandates. Please take a look below and I hope that based on this input you will formulate a stronger position, in line with fundamental principles. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com
I note that AMPS is a professional association centred on Doctor’s Rights, so I do understand that your job is not about serving the interests of the general population. I nevertheless suggest that by taking a broader ethical stance against medical coercion you would gain trust FOR the profession you represent and thus yourselves become trustworthy and respectable as a professional institution.
On a side note, arguing medical science against the medical practitioner regulatory authority is about as hopeful as arguing religion against God. A simple argument from ethical principles is the only reasonable line of defence for disagreeing with regulatory diktats, because experts do not have authority over moral conscience.
Good luck,
Michael Kowalik
Pagan fascism has “reimagined” itself from the Blood & Soil motif to a new, modernised and juicy, more inclusive vision: Psyche & Soil. Watch the carrot; follow the stick.
Remember how the prominent rebel doctors were claiming that by the end of 2021 most people would be dead from ADE? Remember how almost every month someone on your favourite fear porn channel shared “secret intel” that medical martial law is coming next month, permanent lockdown etc. Not even an apology or admission of being wrong, just moving along as if nothing happened. And people are still believing these channels, and sharing the next made up story. The names of the rebel youtube doctors are escaping me now, but the video channels like Stew Peters, Highwire, Zeee Media have about as much credibility as Alex Jones, and there are hundreds of less popular clones sharing the same stories. Don’t be a sucker.
If Martial Law were ever implemented, nothing could be done by the civilian population apart from going into hibernation, playing dead. Modern military has the absolute upper hand, but martial law cannot be sustained for a long time, it paralyses the economy, it kills public confidence, and these are necessary to sustain the State and the military as well. The fear of suffering is more effective at controlling the population than the suffering itself, which once realised loses its function as a psychological control mechanism. Actual suffering is liberating from the trauma of suspense, from the prolonged fear of suffering, and this in turn gives rise to fearless courage. The ruling power cannot afford to make this radical move in vain because it would ultimately diminish their own power. The “rumours of war” are the war, for your mind.