FDA has 'full confidence' in Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine trials data despite the explosive report alleging falsified trials data 🤷‍♀️... The investors do not have ‘full confidence’.

Someone posted this, apparently in earnest:

“The original tribals of this land have offered us a life line to eradicate the fictitious queen of Australia (only exists on paper) and to reinstate the tribal elders at the top of the hierarchy, where all acts are reviewed by them.”

The tribal mindset has no grasp of equality, it is discriminatory in its essence, contrary to pan-humanist moral consciousness. Tribalism is the problem of humanity, not a solution. The laws of reason are the only basis of unity for all rational beings, which just means Humanity.

The kind of equality I am referring to is the equal moral status of all people. Tribalism is committed to the interests of the tribe above all else, not to humanity in principle. The idea that natives, or those tribes who lived longer/longest in some place, have higher moral or political status than other people, is the essence of Nazism. It is also entirely irrational and self-defeating, since all human values derive from humanity, which is conscious rational agency, not from a tribe. The claim that aboriginal people lived “in harmony with nature” (which is already a value judgment with no possibility of validation) and for tens of thousands of years, is a red herring. It is not an argument in favour of special rights, nor is it necessarily a compliment. Harmony with nature implies cultural stasis, over-adaptation to a particular cultural or environmental set of conditions. This is the animal state, primitive state; primitive because it is unconscious of the metaphysical conditions of its own conscious existence and values. Humanity is essentially in conflict with nature, its metaphysical transcendence precisely through reason, through thought, which is the opposite of nature and animality. Reason is not optional for humans, it is not a choice, because it is the essence of thought, the essence of being human: the rules that you use unconsciously when you speak, the rules of meaning and sense. Only very recently in human history we have become conscious of this connection, beginning with Aristotle. Every path other than rationality leads to irreconcilable conflict and therefore to violence, it does not allow for consistent resolution of conflicts about values and facts. Intercultural violence and devaluation of the Other is therefore the ruling principle of all indigenous cultures, its essence. Rationality is open to everyone, irrespective of tribal ancestry or race, because it meets the Other not on the animal/natural level but on the metaphysical level that all human beings share, even if most are not explicitly aware of this common property. Return to indigenous, tribal principles is the path to hell, while rationality offers the possibility of universal transcendence of our animal vessel in favour of metaphysical unity.

The comment I quoted from aboriginal elders is proposing that elders of some tribe should be the kings of all other tribes. They call themselves First, Original, ergo, nativist prioritarianism. This is ideologically analogous to Nazism, contrary to humanity as a unifying principle, and therefore contrary to human morality.

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.

SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair

The study demonstrates “that the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair.”

https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/viruses/viruses-13-02056/article_deploy/viruses-13-02056-v2.pdf

Likemindedness is a conceptual prison, an escape from autonomous thought. Thinking entails dissent, offence, disagreement. Our only commonality as human beings is the capacity to rationally engage with disagreement. Thinking rationally is painful, dangerous, but necessary to conscious existence. The pursuit of likemindedness is self-erasure, a fading away, a sweet trance of metaphysical euthanasia, a falling asleep.

If you ever wondered what you would do under the Nazi or the Soviet regimes, whether you would comply, tacitly collude, directly assist, or resist... now you know.

Medical coercion, if allowed, can be used to subvert all rights, including the right to life. Those who deny all rights, deny humanity, and therefore deny themselves and negate their judgment. It is a self-defeating paradigm.

Who owns the land.

The public land of the Australian continent is owned not by the government but by the people, by you, by all citizens collectively, including the Aboriginal people. This kind of ownership is called national sovereignty, collective sovereignty, the commonwealth, which also includes the Aboriginal people. The idea that the Aboriginal people can take away the land from the government is legal nonsense; it only means that they want to take away Your sovereignty, and Your land, all for themselves, and in addition to having effectively lost your self-ownership you will also be required to pay a race-tax or rent to live on your own property, or worse. The stupidity of this idea being presented as a solution to the Great Reset is astounding. It is the Great Reset!

This is the power of brainwashing. The IQ clearly does not matter, it seems to be a function of a susceptible (suggestible) personality. In for a penny, in for a pound. Quite sad actually. https://www.newswars.com/cardiologist-who-vowed-not-to-cry-for-unvaccinated-deaths-dies-in-sleep-2-weeks-after-3rd-jab/

My recent email to Melina Bath MP:

Dear Melina,

I have introduced the following E-Petition to the Legislative Council, contesting the constitutional validity of Emergency Powers in Victoria. In essence, the delegation of emergency powers by any Act is void because it exceeds the procedural authority of the Parliament itself. The same legal/logical objection applies to the proposed pandemic laws that you are opposing. Would you be willing to sponsor my petition in addition to yours?

Grievance:
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that the Parliament of Victoria does not possess the constitutional authority to infringe on citizen freedoms without first passing a law to that effect by a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated. The delegation of emergency powers to limit citizen freedoms at the Government’s discretion should not be allowed.

Action:
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to remove all current COVID-19 emergency directives and restrictions and repeal all legislation that grants the Government emergency powers.

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374

I have also made a submission to SARC, arguing on the above grounds that the pandemic Bill inappropriately delegates legislative power and is therefore Ultra Vires and void. FYI:

Public Submission to The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee.

I am referring to the proposed PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING AMENDMENT (PANDEMIC MANAGEMENT) BILL 2021 (henceforth, ‘The Bill’).

Dear members of the Committee,

I ask you to consider the following logical proof that The Bill inappropriately delegates legislative power.

Summary:

The Parliament of Victoria does not possess the constitutional authority to infringe on citizen freedoms without first passing a law to that effect by a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated. Therefore, delegation of powers to limit citizen freedoms at the Government’s or Minister’s discretion is Ultra Vires.

In essence, the delegation of discretionary powers to infringe on citizen freedoms by any Act is void because it exceeds the procedural authority of the Parliament itself.

Analysis:

The principle of Ultra Vires was succinctly formulated by Justice Griffith in Sydney Municipal Council v Commonwealth, HCA 50 (26 April 1904): “... if the authority which assumes to create such a delegation does not itself possess the power, the delegation is void, since the spring cannot rise higher than its source.”

The legislative power in the State of Victoria is vested solely in the Parliament (s16, Constitution Act 1975), where the "Parliament" includes each House of the Parliament, the members of each House, the committees of each House and joint committees of both Houses (s94B.7). The only means of making legally binding restrictions on freedoms under the constitution is therefore by the majority vote of the Parliament.

The proposed Pandemic Management powers are essential a delegation of the constitutional authority to make legally binding restrictions on freedoms. If the delegation were not an extension of the legislative authority of the Parliment it would not have the force of law. Pandemic Management powers, once assumed, are exercised by the decree of the Minister.

The constitutional objection is that the Parliament does not have the authority to dispense with or bypass any element of the legislative process set in the Constitution (including the majority vote by both houses). The Parliament cannot delegate powers it does not itself possess, since a non-existent authority cannot be delegated; to affirm otherwise would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction, therefore a priori false.

More formally, if X is a specific Parlimentary authority that is identical to the delegated authority X, then X=X, but if the the original authority does not exist, then not-X=X, therefore contradiction. Or simply, I cannot give you something that does not exist.

Any Act of Parliament that would purport to delegate powers that exceed the procedural limits of the Parliament itself is therefore Ultra Vires and Void.

Response from Melina Bath MP:

Melina Bath MP has responded today. She suggests that I should sign her petition (https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/415) and did not accept my request for her to also sponsor my petition (https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374).

I have responded as follows:

Dear Melina,

Thank you for responding.

I cannot sign your petition (Nr. 402) because it implies (or can be convincingly construed to imply) that the proposed amendments would be lawful if passed. The argument I have presented to you in my previous email refutes this premise. I could sign your petition subject to one change in the wording:

I suggest substituting the current sentence “The Bill hands enormous power to the Premier of Victoria” with “The Bill purports to delegate enormous power to the Premier of Victoria, which is nevertheless beyond the powers of the Parliament to delegate.”

This is the crux of the matter, and unless addressed explicitly will always leave the door open to tyranny.