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.

Instead of ‘A particular ethnicity did terrible things’, it is better to say ‘some people of a particular ethnicity did terrible things’. It is a category mistake to use race/ethnicity/religion to signify ‘some people’ of that race/ethnicity/religion who did terrible things. This equivocation can be used to disparage every ethnicity in the world, by considering only the bad deeds once done by some people, and simultaneously idolise the same ethnicities, by considering only the good deeds once done by some other people, therefore contradiction. When criticising people we must not claim too much, or we make ourselves liable for the same treatment. So forget about the Germans, White people, Black people, Somalians, Muslims, the Jews, and be more specific, apply the standard of evidence of a crime to the guilty individuals. The guilty individuals may indeed have an interest in inciting the racial rhetoric, which allows them to hide behind their race and dilute personal responsibility. On the other hand, when criticising religion or culture on philosophical grounds, we are not talking about individuals at all, but about ideology, about interpretation of experience and religious noscripture, which on all sides is always replete with errors of reasoning, and may vary vastly within the same demographic according to the character of each person.

What an exquisite insult to Victorians, what a crafty slap in the face by the Opposition who meekly gave away your right to free medical consent. Instead of defending fundamental human rights they offer you $2 bus fare:) Why not also throw in some candy and a free ginger beer to make you feel better?

My response to Matthew Guy;)

Dear Matt,

What an exquisite insult to Victorians, what a crafty slap in the face disguised as a gift. Instead of defending fundamental human rights you offer $2 bus fare. Why not also throw in some candy and a free ginger beer to make Victorians feel better? On the other hand, this insult is not undeserved, since most Victorians not only meekly obeyed, but openly colluded in collective abuse, demanded to take away the right to free medical consent from their own children and future generations; they dehumanised themselves with face masks, stayed holed in like rats because they were ordered to and celebrated their own abuse as a ‘proportionate response’. Their moral conscience also failed to alert them that murder is never “proportionate”. They knew that vaccines kill some people, and that the vaccine mandates would cause some people to be killed.

Whichever staffer of yours came up with this idea, I would happily buy him or her a beer. Evil genius.

Michael

I have noticed a curious trend (among some critics of the Reset, who should know better) in the use of the word “empowered”. People are now using “empowered” instead of “allowed”, making it appear as if being allowed something (like home birth, for example) is some kind of gift, a victory of sorts, more power, but in reality it is just a permission that can be revoked at any time by the only REAL power, the power that ALLOWS (or “empowers”). It was clear for quite some time that “empowerment” is a euphemism employed in the service of global fascism, slaves are indeed empowered to perform certain tasks or enjoy certain freedoms by their master, but it was not clear how unaware of this fact are those who claim to oppose this kind of fascism.

Business as usual 🤝 [source: Interfax]

The Liberals still do not understand that vaccine mandates are unethical and violate the right to life irrespective of the circumstances or the professional context. If they allow this violation of fundamental rights under some conditions, then they are leaving the door open for these to be violated under any conditions. Medical mandates are either right or wrong; if the Liberals believe that medical mandates are wrong then these have no place in our society, and if they believe that medical mandates are right than the Liberal opposition to the existing mandates is just a matter of cherry picking and not principled.

The Liberals are fully endorsing the scientific fraud of anthropogenic climate change. They just disagree about the implementation strategy. In short, like Labour, they lack principles. People without the clarity of principle cannot be trusted with anything.

Under no circumstances should CBDC be allowed to mix with the broad money supply. CBDC must not have the status of retail currency, but function only as an token for settling debts between commercial banks and the central bank. https://www.bis.org/about/bisih/topics/cbdc/rosalind.htm

The problem is not the government printing money. That would be a good source of revenue and eliminate the need for income taxation. The problem is that governments have abrogated this power and gave it away to private banks, for private profit. https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/1912

BREAKING NEWS: A Reuters poll shows 97% of German citizens support reunification of Germany and Russia. Several individuals were arrested for attempting to demolish the Wall;)

While the authorities and mass media are scrambling for a scapegoat to blame for the unjustifiable vaccine mandates, do not forget that the mandates would be just as unethical even if the vaccine were 100% effective at preventing transmission. They are all guilty. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical