My opinion on vaccines.

Vaccines are irreversible, biotechnological enhancements intended for healthy people that could never occur naturally (more on this below) and therefore not healthcare (or healthy) but transhumanism. Transhumanism is in principle unhealthy, because it aims to alter the species-typical characterises on which the medical standard of human health is based. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/30/is-transhumanism-a-health-problem/

Apart from the above, a typical vaccine consists of the target antigen/protein and an adjuvant (intended to activate the immune system to the target antigen), plus some non-target antigens - proteins retained as impurities from the manufacturing process. Any injection through the skin stimulates at least two distinct immune responses: IgE (anti-partistic) and IgG (antibodies that fight the target pathogen). IgE sensitisation can be induced by trace amounts of the antigen and typically lasts for life; IgG is relatively short lived and is induced only by higher doses of the antigen. IgE never occurs naturally to respiratory viruses, because it is an anti-parasitic, allergic immune response evolved for insect bites (injections are like insect bites). In the case of natural infection with a respiratory antigen you typically develop IgG antibodies plus T-cells (which extend the capacity to generate IgG). After receiving a vaccine that includes the same antigen, you get IgE + IgG; that is, allergic sensitisation to the viral protein (and to any other protein in the vaccine) plus some short lived IgG immunity that has to counter both the allergy and the virus itself, at the same time. These two contradictory reactions ensure that vaccines can never achieve as good immunity as a natural infection, and may also induce allergic sensitivity to any non-target antigens, including the possibility of auto-immunity. Injectable vaccines are inherently dangerous; bad medicine.

This paper includes a reasonably comprehensive bibliography on IgE sensitisation: https://www.longdom.org/open-access/evidence-that-food-proteins-in-vaccines-cause-the-development-of-foodallergies-and-its-implications-for-vaccine-policy-2329-6631-1000137.pdf

If the government is taking away the fundamental freedoms that make life meaningful, that make personhood possible, then we are already at war - a war against humanity. A mass murder has already been perpetrated, is ongoing, claiming more victims every day. The government is not the sole perpetrator of this crime; the news networks, the corporations who implement the criminal mandates, and the employees who enforce those mandates on others, are all complicit. Having “kids to feed” or “a mortgage to pay off” are not valid excuses for participating in a crime against humanity.

Tens of millions of people are suddenly unvaccinated. With the push of a button they are suddenly untermenschen again. How fokking funny is that :)

The crimeminister has just announced that “we will have to adjust our concept of what constitutes fully vaccinated”. You will need three now! You were warned over and over. So if you are only double jabbed, you are not jabbed any more!!! Waking up yet??

Subscribe for updates: t.me/greatreject

The idea that writing letters in terms of MY WILL has special authority was never true, and could never be true. The job of the parliamentarian is to represent the people, and this implies doing what is Morally Right on their behalf. This is the only objective source of ALL authority. If 90% of the people demanded their representative do something that is morally wrong, that representative would still be morally obligated to oppose their demand, because doing what is morally wrong would not be in the objective interest of those people (even if they don’t understand the implications). The phrase MY WILL is at best superfluous (a person who makes a morally right choice is, by necessity, acting in the best interest of the people and expresses their true will), otherwise it is false; a person who demands a moral wrong is unwittingly opposing the objective interest of the people and their own true will, they are simply irrational, their demands are self-negating and should be ignored. So in principle, every politician on the planet ought to serve the objective interest of all of humanity by doing only what is morally right, even if they nominally represent only a small group.

Anti-Colonialism

Anti-colonialism is based on the premise that Tribe A has committed a moral wrong against Tribe B, but both colonialism and anti-colonialism are equally motivated by the tribal mindset, and only take opposite sides in a conflict of tribal interests. Both sides fail to see that tribalism itself is the problem, that it is self-defeating and morally wrong, irrespective of which side one would take, because it implicitly degrades one’s own rational agency by devaluing the rational agency in another. The rational position is to abandon tribalism and stand as a human, as an individuation of rational consciousness, open to deliberating rationally with any other rational being. Our common interest lies in the rational agency itself, which is the source of all value. We can be conscious selves only by means of perceiving the other as a being of the same conscious, rational kind, and by sabotaging our conscious kind in its manifestation as the other we become less conscious, less real ourselves. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3737433

Nobody should be comfortable with the loss of the right to free medical consent. By accepting ANY vaccine under these conditions constitutes acquiescence to this loss, by means of which every other human right can be taken away, subverted, even the right to life, and this is the future that the vaccinated are handing over to all children. We have the moral duty to give our children at least as many rights as we have enjoyed when growing up, or we do not deserve life.

Do not get distracted by the fact that Covid vaccines are poison; this is a secondary issue. Stay focussed on the primary objective, which is to defend the right to free medical consent - a moral imperative that would be just as valid even if Covid vaccines had no side effects. Once you lose that one right, you have indirectly lost all other rights, because even the right to life can be subverted by medical coercion.

Fake anything is not good. Fake vaccine certification does not help us in dealing with the problem of medical tyranny and mass surveillance but it actually assists it. A fake certificate still allows for implementation of the certification system by merely concealing the problem. It also creates a pretext for mandating more invasive markers of compliance, such us DNA or facial recognition based certification. On all counts this is not a good idea; we should stand courageously as humans defending our healthy, innate biological characteristics and opposing the loss of free medical consent. You cant do that by pretending to comply. We must be prepared to suffer for what is right, or we have lost already.

Adem Somyurek is opposing only the Current form of the pandemic Bill; he wants more checks and balances on tyranny. He does not oppose the rule by decree in principle. I have contacted Adem some time ago about the logical and therefore legal absurdity of such powers, explaining that they constitute a delegation of non-existent authority and are therefore Ultra Vires. I asked him to sponsor my petition, but he did not respond. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374

“One must know how to wash himself with dirty water in order to stay clean among men.” Zarathustra

I have contacted Scott Morrison nearly one year ago, with a pre-print of my BMJ paper (https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/10/20/medethics-2020-107026), explaining why vaccinate mandates are contrary to the established ethical norms, and discriminate on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. I have received only some PR blurb in response, copied in comments.

The myth of indigenous sustainability

It is often claimed by advocates of Sustainability that indigenous tribal cultures were models of sustainability. This is a strange claim considering that the kind of lifestyle practiced by indigenous cultures would absolutely decimate the environment and cause a rapid population die-off if adopted at today’s population density. In short, primitive hunter-gatherer or early semi-agrarian cultures could sustain a far lower population density than the modern society, and if its only claim to sustainability is that fewer people could survive then the comparison is misleading. Their culture was less sustainable and therefore a smaller population was sustained.

Here is a little fantasy. If our rulers really wanted to accomplish complete totalitarian control with minimum resistance, they would not be telling us about the great reset, and about hundred other things they are doing. For example, they could have made the vaccines safer, even use some kind of placebo, and more people would be happy to take them. Things would just happen and we would have to accept them, with fewer arguments against the vaccines, or starve. Therefore it seems they want us to rebel. Why, perhaps because humanity needs shocks in order to progress spiritually and psychologically; persistent comfort is the killer of human spirit. At the same time, the vaccines are there to capture the latent, irredeemable fascists into the Matrix, but those who have moral integrity, courage, and are capable of rational evaluation of circumstances, will be the only ones allowed freedom, because they can be trusted to use it wisely, for GOOD.

Looks like Adem has been reading my emails after all.