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.

McGowan implies that all humans are born as terrorists and their healthy natural state is an instrument of urban terror. He hates humans for being born that way. McGowan is an extremist.

Victorians. Have you signed the following petition yet? The underlying argument is that governance by decree, be it Emergency Powers or the Pandemic Act, is unconstitutional, unlawful and void, because even the parliament cannot order the public to do anything without first passing a law to that precise effect by a majority vote of both houses. If the parliament does not possess such authority then it cannot delegate it. They know that what they are doing is illegal, but we must show them that we also know. Sign and Share: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374

Every meaningful state of mind finds its source in the reflexive self-other-self relation. Whatever state is projected at us becomes our own state if we would reflect it back at the other, because by doing so we validate it, make it real. Mass psychosis is contagious unless consciously resisted, but in order to effectively resist it one must correctly identify the projected state as psychosis, which requires the operation of rational thought that is quicker than emotion, and typically emotion is quicker than thought, therefore most people are susceptible to psychosis.

Collective re-presentation entails vicarious agency, vicarious power, vicarious ownership. In short, nonsense.

Can you imagine an organisation that is capable of planning and implementing the biggest psychological operation in the history of humanity, capable of subjugating every government, controlling mass media and corporations, but lacking the foresight to organise multiple vectors of popular controlled opposition ahead of their operation?

My email to Pauline Hanson dated 18 Nov 2021.

Dear Pauline,

I am a philosopher of ethics with my current research-focus on vaccine mandates. I have published a paper in the BMJ on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026. I have already shared this paper with you.

I have contacted several regulatory agencies (SIRA, Australian Government Department of Health, Mr Gavrielatos at SafeWork NSW, Australian Medical Association, and today Safe Work Australia) with some basic, ethically and legally relevant questions about a possible conflict between Covid-19 vaccine mandates and workplace safety. I have received only generic responses; not one agency or person contacted has explicitly answered my two questions, which were formulated as follows:

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 an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

I find it extremely concerning that the agencies responsible for workplace safety and health of Australian people are tacitly refusing to answer such fundamental and legally critical questions about workplace safety. Would you be willing to apply some pressure to get these questions explicitly addressed by the Commonwealth government?

Can you assist?

Regards,
Michael Kowalik

The truth is One; possibilities of error are infinite. Just because you discover a lie does not protect you from falling for countless other lies in your effort to contextualise that one lie. Misinformation is rife, creating anxiety, which causes you to jump to conclusions not because they are right but only because you are trying to escape from the state of anxiety. If you see anything online that disturbs you emotionally, this should be a red flag that you are being manipulated, deceived. Stop. Ask yourself what evidence is there to support the allegations. Every real event will allow for multiple modes of verification, so the lack of corroborating evidence is already an evidence of deception. If you are in an emotionally aroused state your rational capacities do not function well. Also, some events may be true but intended only to provoke anxiety. Without managing your anxiety you cannot discover the truth, and all those talking heads who speak with emotion, with excited, terrified voices, making shocking claims without the possibility of objective verification, are either themselves in a state of psychosis or are trying to cause psychosis in you.

To have INTEGRITY does not mean ‘to act according to your convictions’, but to do what is right, which may require questioning and abandoning your convictions. There is another sense to the word integrity that is relevant here; to be an integrated being, whole, undivided, of consistent constitution. A fully integrated being is bound to do what is right, whereas a dis-integrated being makes moral and practical errors without realising they are errors. The path of integrity is not just a momentary choice but a lifetime of effort. “We discover the right path by the paths that stray from it”, and every wrong path leads to self-destruction.

My email to Senator Rennick, dated 23 NOV 2021.

Dear Senator,

I am a philosopher of ethics with my current research-focus on vaccine mandates. I have recently published an academic paper on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026.

I have contacted several regulatory agencies (SIRA, Australian Government Department of Health, Mr Gavrielatos at SafeWork NSW, Australian Medical Association, and today Safe Work Australia) with some basic, ethically and legally relevant questions about a possible conflict between Covid-19 vaccine mandates and workplace safety. I have received only generic responses; not one agency or person contacted has explicitly answered my two questions, which were formulated as follows:

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 an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

I find it extremely concerning that the agencies responsible for workplace safety and health of Australian people are tacitly refusing to answer such fundamental and legally critical questions about workplace safety. Would you be willing to apply some pressure to get these questions explicitly addressed by the Commonwealth government?

Can you assist in this matter?



I also want to take this opportunity to share with you a summary of the key ethical issues associated with vaccine mandates in general.

1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race.

2. Covid vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is being economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of their mandatory participation. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that Covid-19 also kills people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is not mandated, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the alleged benefit of the majority.

3. Medical consent must be free - not coerced - in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of a valid medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion.

I also object to the assertion made by several state premiers and other politicians that the people who are discriminated against are “unvaccinated by choice”. Apart from the fact that social and economic opportunity coercion removes our free choice in this matter, being unvaccinated is fundamentally not a choice; we were born that way. The premise of being “unvaccinated by choice” is as absurd as “having two hands by choice”. The right to preserve our innate characteristics without being discriminated against is paramount.

Regards,

Michael Kowalik

How to become more Human:

- accept that you do not belong anywhere,
- assume that there are no likeminded people,
(you just have not realised your disagreements yet),
- acknowledge that you have no tribe,
- accept that you are probably wrong about most things,
- but you need others to make sense of it all.

This is a good place to start.

Sovereignty of the State derives from sovereignty of the people. We are all sovereign, we are all collectively the original owners of the Earth, and nobody has any better claim on sovereignty than anyone else.