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.

If alien contact would ever occur, it will be a fraud: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-alien-life-forms-are-impossible

“A new study comparing the biodiversity of wild mammals in Europe 8,000 years ago with the present has found that more species have been gained than lost on the continent.” https://phys.org/news/2022-11-biodiversity-europe-mammals-rich-years.html

Risk of Biometric Identity

One of the biggest problems with biometric identification (apart from untrustworthiness of those who would manage the identification system) is the belief that it cannot be counterfeited. If the identity test based on the iris, face or finger data points could be passed by artificial means, it would be virtually impossible to prove that whatever was done under your identity was not you. When this technical risk is combined with the criminal potential of the authorities who would store and manage your digital identity, being best positioned to make illicit use of it, the downside of this technology becomes insurmountable. In short, the technology would allow the authorities or the affiliated corporations to frame you for any crime without the possibility of meaningful defence. The most insecure aspect of this technology is the ‘authority’ itself. The traditional, analogue system based on multiple points of reference under no centralised authority is largely immune to this vulnerability, giving more power to the inherently weak individual and less power to the inherently powerful corporations - a fairer and ultimately more secure system.

On Being Offended

The idea of ‘feeling offended’ is very strange to me. I understand that when people say they ‘are offended’ they feel somehow diminished by the words or actions of another. It is not just that someone makes a derogatory or unwelcome statement about them, but that the person’s self-esteem is negatively affected by that statement. Even a true statement can be experienced as offensive. I have never experienced being offended and I struggle to understand how anyone could feel that way. When someone makes a derogatory, unwelcome, unfair or even defamatory statement about me, it is only a subjective opinion about me but an objective statement about the state or character of the speaker. If anyone is diminished by an unfair statement it is the speaker himself. Irrationality or unfairness of the speaker has no bearing whatsoever on my self-esteem. Am I misunderstanding what “feeling ofended” means? What does it feel like?

The definition of ‘offended’: “resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult.” Why would anyone feel like that about a deficiency or failure of another? It doesn’t make sense. Feeling offended therefore strikes me as a personality defect of the person who gets offended.

Perhaps offence sensitivity comes on a spectrum with increasingly divergent limits, and when extreme sensitivity is persistently emphasised as “offence” then the lower limit feels like it never was an offence at all, but something entirely different, logically incompatible with the new extreme.

Response from Auditor-General NSW to my submission re SafeWork Audit (https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/2104): “The Audit Office does not have the mandate to intervene in decisions made by audited entities, nor to direct them to take a particular course of action. We are also unable to question the merits of Government policy objectives under section 27B of the Government Sector Audit Act 1983. The scope of our work is limited to what we can observe and report on within the financial reporting and auditing framework we work within. The information you shared regarding SafeWork NSW has been provided to the audit team and will be considered as the team develops the detailed scope of the audit. The focus areas for this audit are yet to be determined. At this stage, we plan to commence this audit in early 2023.”