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

There is one interest we all have in common, which is an intrinsic aspect of rational consciousness: the commitment to realise our intentions. The capacity to realise our intentions is conditional on the consistency or ‘integrity’ of the meaning-content that describes the shared world and who we are within it. An integrated system of meaning facilitates successful realisation of intentions, but the systemic consistency of meaning is not an individual achievement; it is developed by communication in good faith with other beings of the same (rational) kind.

Dear Senator Roberts,

Could you please ask AHPRA (or the Health minister) the following questions:

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.

When ethical principles are lost, the laws logic not taught at schools but denied, remembering the past is no longer informative but becomes a meaningless habit. Reclaim the principles and then history will have meaning again.

The government is systematically inciting tribal separatism and indigenous supremacism. There are at least two plausible motives behind this: a) to make everyone despise aboriginal people and look the other way when this manufactured national security threat will be brutally “managed”, b) to actually break up the country into weak, tribal mini-states. Any other possibilities?

By nominating ONE “representative/ambassador” for ALL aboriginal tribes they only need to blackmail/coerce/bribe one person, not all of them, while maintaining the illusion of legitimacy. This patsy “representative” can then be thrown to the betrayed tribes to devour. Fighting against indigenous supremacism and tribal separatism is therefore in the existential interest of Aboriginal people themselves.