‘Suffering’ is a secondary value-judgement associated with the primary judgement of purposeless, meaningless pain. It has an intrinsic element of self-pity and is therefore not equivalent to ‘pain’, let alone to animal (non-human) pain. Making the value-judgement of ‘suffering’ about animal pain is a category mistake and naive anthropomorphism.

Logic is the only antidote to misinformation, not censorship.

The only way to defeat misinformation is to have a good grasp of the fundamental laws of logic. There are more than 100 recognised logical fallacies, but they are all reducible to just 3 laws: the law of non-contradiction (two opposite claims cannot be true at the same time and in the same respect, or, no claim can be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect), the law of excluded middle (a claim can be either true or false with no intermediate possibility), and the law of identity (everything is identical ONLY to itself, or, no two things are identical in every respect). The 3 laws are in fact just different articulations of the same One law of logical sense/meaning, and one could simply rely on non-contradiction to reach the same conclusions. These laws are not taught at schools, apart from University courses in philosophy or law; institutional dogmatism and the fallacy of ‘trusted sources’ are taught instead, under the guise of “critical thinking”. I have made significant effort to persuade the Australian department of education and the affiliated curriculum committee in to integrate these fundamental laws of logic into the national curriculum across all levels of eduction, as one of so called ‘cross-curriculum’ priorities. I received no encouraging response, possibly because the people responsible for designing the national curriculum are themselves ignorant of logic and are terrified of it. Understanding of the laws of logic makes you powerful, able to identify and defeat lies; the lack of such understanding makes you weak and psychologically dependent - a slave.

If your government really cared about misinformation then the laws of logic would be a cross-curriculum priority in primary and secondary schools. They do not teach logic, therefore they do not care about misinformation, therefore ‘misinformation’ is just an pretext for normalising surveillance and censorship.

Many people seem to believe that doctors wear masks during surgery to protect the patient. This is rather laughable. Doctors (chiefly surgeons and dentists) wear surgical masks to protect themselves from body-fluid splatter coming from the operated patient. While there is a lot of controversy around the question of benefits vs risks of masks during surgery, high quality pre-covid studies have shown that masks worn by surgeons actually increase the risk of postoperative wound infections in patients. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1853618/

The Election

I am not registered to vote. I refuse to delegate my speck of sovereignty for collective re-presentation, which would create a legal basis for political authority over me, in a society where collective understanding on objective terms is not yet possible. The truth is not decided by votes, nor can a moral wrong be made right by the prejudice of the majority. I am not part of that collective, I will not agree to disagree, I am not that kind of equal. I will let the equal ones choose their own rulers, and those rulers will know they have no legitimate claim of authority over me, despite having power over me, but every time power is illegitimately used it diminishes itself, it negates itself, reveals itself as an aberration, contrary to the metaphysical order of being. The only meaningful, reflexive mode of social engagement is to speak for oneself, act on one’s own moral authority, without mediation or representation. Moral sovereignty cannot be delegated or re-presented.

I expect Dan Andrews to “win” the Victorian election, precisely because this would humiliate Victorians the most. Dan’s stage persona is so exquisitely vile and morally perverse, a kafkaesque caricature of the anti-human. The populist theatre needs an emotive caricature in order to disgust, entertain, captivate, move, provoke, possibly even cure.

Those who reject the law of non-contradiction contradict themselves by speaking (an act that presupposes a common standard of meaning and truth). They are committing the ultimate transgression against existence, choosing the most hopeless form of nihilism. They are not just ‘mistaken’ within the framework of reason but reject reason as a principle, therefore reject humanity, all meaning, all truth and all being. Any interaction with them is hopeless; they speak but communicate nothing, they listen but understand nothing.

Correct #auspol #ukraine #senatorrennick #senatorgerardrennick #gerardrennick

Instead of the Ministry of Truth I propose the Ministry of Sense. The Ministry of Sense, instead of censoring ‘misinformation’, occupies itself with refuting nonsense. It analyses beliefs to determine whether they contain contradictory premises and are therefore nonsense, with formal logical proofs presented for anyone to formally challenge.

Email to Senator Rennick (07.11.2022)

Dear Senator Rennick,

Will you be attending the senate estimates session related to health policy, scheduled for 8-10 November? I hope you are willing to raise the questions I suggested previously (copied below) with the health minister.


Questions for the health minister:

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 a work-related activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of the mandated procedure?

Regards,

Michael Kowalik

Alex Jones is a crisis actor?! What about Dan Andrews?

She qualifies to work for Dan Andrews, perhaps as the health minister:)

Voltaire had an apt denoscription of what we've been experiencing and will continue to experience so long as we allow injustice and manipulation of the mind to prevail: "Formerly there were those who said: You believe things that are incomprehensible, inconsistent, impossible because we have commanded you to believe them; go then and do what is injust because we command it. Such people show admirable reasoning. Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. If the God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world.". Source.

‘Public debt’ is a euphemism for an essentially fraudulent wealth transfer from the general population to the global financial elite. Instead of inflating the money supply interest free, by printing the required money, Government allows the bankers to inflate the money supply by issuing credit (falsely called ‘loans’) and then forces the population to pay interest to them. Specifically, when the government borrows from the rich, it reduces the pool of money available to borrowers (creates excess demand for money) which in turn forces the borrowers to obtain equivalent credit from the banks, which inflates the money supply. The effect of this arrangement is more inflationary than the government printing the required amount, because additional credit must be issued to cover the interest, which is then offset by taxation.

Email to Senator Antic (10.11.2022)
Subject: Estimates questions to AHPRAs Mr Martin Fletcher

Dear Senator Antic,

I watched your examination of Martin Fletcher on the question of AHPRA’s position statement.

I thought the questions could have been more targeted in order to prevent evasion or denial. For example:

1. Does AHPRAs position statement prohibit medical practitioners from disagreeing with the view that covid vaccines are “safe and effective”, or expressing ethical objections to vaccination mandates?

2. If AHPRA prohibits doctors expressing disagreement with vaccination mandates, which include coercive measures such as the loss of employment, does AHPRA accept that some people are expected to die as a result of the mandated procedure?

3. If Yes, then does AHPRA believe that killing some innocent people for the prospective benefit of the majority is consistent with medical ethics?

These are all YES or NO questions, formulated in such a way that either Yes or No would be incriminating for AHPRA.

I am happy to help you formulate any questioning strategy in the future.

Regards,

Michael Kowalik