“Trust the experts” is logically equivalent to the famous Q dictum: “trust the plan”. Almost as if the same people are behind both of these articulations of ‘the same’.

Based on the following analysis, at current interest rates, the price of real estate must still drop by 18.3% (nationally) for the stock of housing awaiting sale to clear. This is assuming that the stock remains the same as at the beginning of the year, but whereas some will be able to delay selling, the higher interest rates will compel others to sell due to unsustainable pressure on their budget. https://www.realestate.com.au/news/covid-made-people-forget-latest-reserve-bank-rate-hike-creates-new-dilemma-for-home-buyers/

Why is Antisemitism so prevalent in the Freedom Movement

The “freedom movement” has adopted an apocalyptic Christian rhetoric, asserting that humanity is currently in a ‘spiritual war’ against the forces of evil. By symbolically contextualising the Great Reset as a conflict between the sacrificial Baal cult of ancient Israel (a narrative that is abundantly catered to by the leading cultural institutions and governments to a degree that is almost comedic) Vs. Jesus (crucified by Jews), the figureheads of the freedom movement implicitly cultivate the association that the enemy is “the Jew”. The warlike religious rhetoric is also a commitment to religious animosity, designating an absolute impasse (God/Jesus vs Satan/Baal) that can be solved only by force, instead of resorting to rational deliberation to resolve human disagreements. In this sense, antisemitism is an integral part of the symbolic narrative promulgated by the freedom movement, and this is likely to be its undoing. Anyone who uses religion to support their political views, inviting you to participate in a Holy War, is not part of the solution, and certainly not about freedom.

Many people believe that the ‘one eyed covered’ gesture used in entertainment advertising means that all these artists or celebrities are Masons, iIlluminati, Satanists etc. A more likely interpretation is that this is just marketing, playing on the curiosity, boredom and anxiety of the masses to hint at a deeper narrative, a global conspiracy. Much more exciting, isn’t it? Attention is money. But there is a deeper, symbolic level of interpretation that can be suggested. The one eye also means the one eye of the audience; fixated, amblyopic, unable to see laterally, hypnotised by Their message. They may also be just mocking YOU for fun. Man is a Mirror.

It is easier for people to believe that a politician or a media personality is a fool who ’slipped up’ and gave away some evil conspiracy, some big secret, than to accept that it is you who is being fooled, led by your nose towards a predetermined re-action. The same politicians and media personalities never slip up and tell you anything incriminating about their own tax affairs, just saying.

Mass media cheering Ukrainian war crimes. They do this for a reason, reverse psychology, and judging by the comments the public opinion is already turning. I suspect that following the present strategy of depopulation, killing off males, the partitioning of Ukraine is on the cards. Then, perhaps, the partitioning of Russia.

Email Response to the Queensland Human Rights Commissioner (06.10.2022)

(My first email: https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/1846)

I have received a response from QHRC, in which the Commissioner expresses concern with how the vaccine mandates affect human rights. The Comissioner writes: “The Commission is involved in matters currently before court which relate to vaccine mandates. This is one of the most appropriate vehicles for examining the human rights compatibility of these measures, as courts have the ability to seek and assess evidence and to make a ruling on the compatibility or otherwise of the mandates, which the Commission does not legally have the power to do.” I responded as follows:

Dear Commissioner,

Thank you for your response. I understand the statutory constraints you are working under. Like you, I am professionally impartial on this issue, drawing conclusions only on the basis of logical necessity from commonly accepted premises.

I have two technical suggestions to offer, if I may, regarding the wording of the section noscriptd “Why isn’t mandatory vaccination a breach of my human rights?” https://www.qhrc.qld.gov.au/your-rights/covid-19-and-human-rights/vaccination-and-your-rights

1. In order not to presume a legal conclusion, I suggest changing the noscript of the section to ‘Why mandatory vaccination is not necessarily a breach of my human rights?’ OR ‘Is mandatory vaccination a breach of my human rights?’

2. In the opening paragraph, the list of relevant human rights affected by vaccine mandates is missing ‘the right to life’. I suggest including this right in the list, since some people are known to have died as a result of the vaccines. Vaccine mandates, by applying significant economic and social-opportunity coercion to vaccinate, are expected to cause a percentage of vaccine-related deaths.

Utilitarianism is defeated by individual dissent

Before utility can provide a meaningful measure of net value of action, we must first know the full scope of all relevant kinds of utility, but we cannot know them. This is primarily because there are infinite possibilities of conceiving and quantifying value, and no objective measure to verify them, apart from universal consensus. If there is just one objector, no utilitarian standard is possible.

The right to life is omitted in the list of rights affected by vaccine mandates, but included in the list of rights the government must defend by means of vaccine mandates. What a curious oversight. https://www.qhrc.qld.gov.au/your-rights/covid-19-and-human-rights/vaccination-and-your-rights

Professor Julie Ponesse seems like a lovely person, but is not doing a great job acknowledging the authorship of the ethical arguments she is using (first in her book and now in the article), which are sometimes reproduced word for word or slightly reworded from my vaccine ethics paper. Not a big deal, just feels a little unfair. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-real-reason-vaccine-mandates-are-wrong/

Greg Hunt is omitting a key word in his reply. Should read like this: “a health practitioner is not able to provide medical treatment without the patient's free and informed consent.” People are informed alright, that they will lose their job and possibly their house if they don’t submit to the medical procedure. https://news.1rj.ru/str/Aussie_News/24616

Mandating ‘safe vaccines’ is like mandating ‘safe limb amputations’. Both are demanding that the healthy and normal body you were born with must now be irreversibly modified in order to be considered socially acceptable, healthy and normal.

Nobody owes you protection at their own expense. Nobody owes you protection from nature. Nobody owes you protection from your fears. Nobody owes you protection, period.

A metaphor for the “healthcare system” hitting you with “safe & effective”.

It was once argued that science has immunity to moral refutation. This is intuitively true, since IS (scientific facts) and OUGHT (moral imperative) are different logical types; that something IS does not tell us what OUGHT to be, or vice versa. But whereas there is no real controversy in this relationship, the opposite relationship is implied by the same reasons: moral truths have immunity to scientific refutation, provided they can be demonstrated. Alex Barber, correctly identifies this requirement, but apparently fails to acknowledge that a priori logical evidence is always stronger (because it amounts to a definitive proof) than empirical evidence (which is always indefinite, subject to possible future refutation by more empirical evidence). Also, I am not aware of a single instance of anyone seriously arguing that empirical evidence can be morally wrong, so the first sentence in Alex’s article sets up a strawman. https://philpapers.org/rec/BARSIT-3

The history of the world paints a picture of evil always exerting energy to suppress the good, not of the good trying to defeat evil. The struggle is one sided, perhaps because the good is one and immutable, whereas evil is unstable, indefinite, not integrated, of many contradictory guises. The historical trend is quite clear: evil is running out of options, losing ground, whereas the good is undiminished and unmoved, like God whom nothing moves.