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
Forwarded from Edward Slavsquat
In times like these, it’s highly advisable to throw your computer out the window, pour yourself a cup of chacha, and seek out the warnings of the great bloggers of the past.
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/the-final-hideous-triumph-over-the
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/the-final-hideous-triumph-over-the
Edward Slavsquat
The final hideous triumph over the human spirit
We've been here before, friends
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Second-Order Propaganda
The opposite of an obviously false narrative is not the truth, but another false narrative prepared for those who pride themselves in being aware and better informed than the “sleeping masses”. This seems to be the primary vector of modern propaganda, a kind of reverse psychology, preying on your ego, self-conceit. They tell you a lie knowing that you will figure out that they are lying (everyone already knows they are lying most of the time), but they will also plant the seed of an equally false counter-narrative, and this counter-narrative is their primary objective. How else could they deceive people who already do not trust them, do not support them…
The opposite of an obviously false narrative is not the truth, but another false narrative prepared for those who pride themselves in being aware and better informed than the “sleeping masses”. This seems to be the primary vector of modern propaganda, a kind of reverse psychology, preying on your ego, self-conceit. They tell you a lie knowing that you will figure out that they are lying (everyone already knows they are lying most of the time), but they will also plant the seed of an equally false counter-narrative, and this counter-narrative is their primary objective. How else could they deceive people who already do not trust them, do not support them…
Nobody wins the war with lies, because truth is the only possible victory ; falsity is self-defeating.
Liars are not leaders, but misleaders. Deceitful politicians are a threat to national security because without truthful leadership the group lacks moral integrity, becomes self-destructive and politically weak.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but the immune system can already recognise cancer cells, if Nagalese (the substance emitted by cancer cells to evade the immune system) is neutralised. There are products on the market that aim to do just that. What other cancers will the vaccine cause? https://nutripath.com.au/product/nagalase-blood-sst-test-code-7011/
This modern age, the age of Humanity, the age of reason, is indeed very “young” but not yet “free” from the bondage of tribalism. Human ‘reconciliation’ and ‘tribalism’ are mutually exclusive notions.
The intrinsic value of all human beings, valuable in virtue of being an instance of consciousness capable of rational thought and therefore of meaningful communication, is somewhat glossed over by the symbol of divine human origin as the source of value. There is a very pragmatic, realist dimension to this ‘intrinsic value’, which simultaneously tells us something essential about human constitution and about the idea of God.
In the human dimension, consciousness is not monadic in its constitution but socially reflexive, in the sense that we cannot be conscious as a Self without engaging with Other instances of consciousness as beings of the same kind. We must communicate in order to generate meaning, any meaning, even to conceive of ourselves a something distinct and meaningful. So the ‘divinity’ of other conscious beings symbolises the existential (ontological) dependency that we share, reflexively, as beings of the same kind. The operative symbol here, which is probably older than ‘God’, is Anthropos: one who is alike, of human likeness, human face (consider this in relation to mandatory masking).
In relation to ‘God’, the said ontological dependency on social reflexivity suggests that God is also a social being, inseparable from us and always necessarily in a reflexive relation with us: being “made in the image of God” is very much like being “one who is alike”. It is not a new idea (going back at least to Kant) that God is an “ideal person”, but I think “the ideal of personhood” is an even better fit. Whenever we act in the social dimension we aim for an ideal which is signified by ‘God’, we aim to be an ideal person in order to get the perfect outcome, but we typically fail to a degree. We can never be perfect, but we can strive towards that ideal, and being “with” Logos is the condition of our progress; Logos as the structure (logic) of meaning/word as being/reality.
In the human dimension, consciousness is not monadic in its constitution but socially reflexive, in the sense that we cannot be conscious as a Self without engaging with Other instances of consciousness as beings of the same kind. We must communicate in order to generate meaning, any meaning, even to conceive of ourselves a something distinct and meaningful. So the ‘divinity’ of other conscious beings symbolises the existential (ontological) dependency that we share, reflexively, as beings of the same kind. The operative symbol here, which is probably older than ‘God’, is Anthropos: one who is alike, of human likeness, human face (consider this in relation to mandatory masking).
In relation to ‘God’, the said ontological dependency on social reflexivity suggests that God is also a social being, inseparable from us and always necessarily in a reflexive relation with us: being “made in the image of God” is very much like being “one who is alike”. It is not a new idea (going back at least to Kant) that God is an “ideal person”, but I think “the ideal of personhood” is an even better fit. Whenever we act in the social dimension we aim for an ideal which is signified by ‘God’, we aim to be an ideal person in order to get the perfect outcome, but we typically fail to a degree. We can never be perfect, but we can strive towards that ideal, and being “with” Logos is the condition of our progress; Logos as the structure (logic) of meaning/word as being/reality.
Nature is the content of consciousness, its object, whereas consciousness is both the container and the transcendental condition of nature as something meaningful, therefore as anything at all. Nature is thus the opposite of consciousness, the opposite of Human (rational consciousness). The ‘natural world’ is the externalised record of the contingencies arising in the evolution of meaning. It is the context of conscious interaction, of common referents, but common only in virtue of the shared consciousness and (irreflexively) subordinate to it.
One of the greatest movies ever made, not only because of the extraordinary cinematography, but because it intuitively explores the structure of meaning. If the Bible could be done as a movie, it would be Tarkovsky’s “Stalker”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuOnfQd-aTw
YouTube
Stalker | Trailer | New Release
This May at the Film Society, experience the mysteries and revelations of Andrei Tarkovsky’s 1979 science fiction masterpiece in a new digital restoration. Twenty years ago a falling object decimated a provincial Russian town, and those who later went near…
Letter to Frank Chung (news dot com dot au):
FYI
My paper questioning the ethics of vaccine mandates is the 4th most read paper in the BMJ journal of Medical Ethics, despite being behind a paywall for several months and having Zero news sources picking it up (in contrast to nearly 100 news sources picking up the articles endorsing vaccine mandates). https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240
The arguments stemming from the above work have been simplified for general audience and presented in my letter (16.08.2022) to the Australian Human Rights Commission:
Prof. Rosalind Croucher, President & Ms Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner (Australian Human Rights Commission)
Dear President and Commissioner of AHRC,
I am a philosopher of ethics and the leading voice in the academic debate questioning the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates. I recently published on this topic in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics (cited below). I submit that vaccine mandates, or any systemic discrimination against the unvaccinated, infringes on human rights, including the right to life. This conclusion is based on the following grounds:
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. This devaluation of the innate human constitution is not only universally dehumanising, but it perverts the very concept of human rights; discrimination against the unvaccinated implies that our innate human constitution is no longer a guarantee of full human rights. This point derives from my paper published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240.
2. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of free 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 (including the right to life) can be subverted by medical coercion. Free medical consent is the most fundamental protection from crimes against humanity being committed under the guise of healthcare (several instances of such abuses have occurred in this century).
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 amounts to a 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.
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
I suggest that we are facing a human rights emergency and the outlined issues call for immediate administrative action.
…
FYI
My paper questioning the ethics of vaccine mandates is the 4th most read paper in the BMJ journal of Medical Ethics, despite being behind a paywall for several months and having Zero news sources picking it up (in contrast to nearly 100 news sources picking up the articles endorsing vaccine mandates). https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240
The arguments stemming from the above work have been simplified for general audience and presented in my letter (16.08.2022) to the Australian Human Rights Commission:
Prof. Rosalind Croucher, President & Ms Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner (Australian Human Rights Commission)
Dear President and Commissioner of AHRC,
I am a philosopher of ethics and the leading voice in the academic debate questioning the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates. I recently published on this topic in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics (cited below). I submit that vaccine mandates, or any systemic discrimination against the unvaccinated, infringes on human rights, including the right to life. This conclusion is based on the following grounds:
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. This devaluation of the innate human constitution is not only universally dehumanising, but it perverts the very concept of human rights; discrimination against the unvaccinated implies that our innate human constitution is no longer a guarantee of full human rights. This point derives from my paper published here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240.
2. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of free 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 (including the right to life) can be subverted by medical coercion. Free medical consent is the most fundamental protection from crimes against humanity being committed under the guise of healthcare (several instances of such abuses have occurred in this century).
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 amounts to a 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.
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
I suggest that we are facing a human rights emergency and the outlined issues call for immediate administrative action.
…
I have also contacted several regulatory agencies (SIRA, Australian Government Department of Health, Mr Gavrielatos at Safe Work NSW, Australian Medical Association, Safe Work Australia), and asked for assistance from numerous politicians, 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?
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?
The government and corporations do not have sufficient social credit to qualify as the arbiters of social credit of others. In fact, their social credit score is ZERO, the worst of the worst.
What evidence do you rely on to justify your judgement that the experts are telling you the truth?
Humans who are the most qualified to claim privileges under Aboriginal identity and enticed to claim associated special rights should be the first to renounce it, precisely because of those privileges. Choose Humanity as your only tribe. With this one move the entire edifice of tribal resentment would collapse, globally.
The question of Original Ownership (or Native Title) can be addressed in two different ways:
1. The idea that people of a particular race own the land just because other people of the same race once lived there is absurd and immoral; it devalues humanity for racial advantage.
2. Even if the idea of Original Ownership were valid it would still have no practical effect, because all humans share the same ancient ancestors. Ancestors of the alleged original owners of Australia were descendants of every human’s ancestors, our common ancestors, who belonged to the Earth. We are all related. We are ALL the original owners of the Earth.
Those aboriginal people who do not believe that ‘their land’ was stolen, who do not believe they are owed anything on account of their race, who do not want to be either celebrated or pitied because of their race, who do not want to be generalised as a race or tribe but as morally responsible individuals with full human rights, I am with them. They are my hope and they should become more politically active against misrepresentation by their media-appointed leaders. If they do nothing, if they say nothing, they are tacitly acquiescing to the cultivation of resentment.
1. The idea that people of a particular race own the land just because other people of the same race once lived there is absurd and immoral; it devalues humanity for racial advantage.
2. Even if the idea of Original Ownership were valid it would still have no practical effect, because all humans share the same ancient ancestors. Ancestors of the alleged original owners of Australia were descendants of every human’s ancestors, our common ancestors, who belonged to the Earth. We are all related. We are ALL the original owners of the Earth.
Those aboriginal people who do not believe that ‘their land’ was stolen, who do not believe they are owed anything on account of their race, who do not want to be either celebrated or pitied because of their race, who do not want to be generalised as a race or tribe but as morally responsible individuals with full human rights, I am with them. They are my hope and they should become more politically active against misrepresentation by their media-appointed leaders. If they do nothing, if they say nothing, they are tacitly acquiescing to the cultivation of resentment.