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.

The truth is in plain sight, no doubt intentionally. Those who are willingly deceived cannot be saved; nobody can be saved from error against their will.

By accepting any vaccine under the conditions of social or economic coercion amounts to giving up the right to free medical consent, without which every other human right can be taken away, even the right to life, and this is the future that the vaccinated are handing over to all children. We do not have the moral right to do that, therefore acquiescence to medical coercion is always unethical. This applies irrespective of whether you want to be vaccinated or not.

I have extended my petition to the Victorian Legislative Council until 21.01.22 Still no MP is willing to sponsor it, including those who disagree with the emergency powers and oppose the Pandemic Bill. The underlying argument is that governance by decree, be it Emergency Powers or the Pandemic Act, is always 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. The purpose of this petition is not to plead, but to tell them that we know, that pleading ignorance will not be a valid excuse when the time of legal accountability inevitably comes. They still have the chance to fix this, but there will be nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, for those who are stubbornly complicit in this crime. Victorians, Sign and Share: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374

Because emotion is not what YOU do, but what happens TO you. And yet, not everything that happens is bad.

Fear over infectious disease *IS* the Nazi play book. If you support a police state to control infectious disease you support Nazi like police state powers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297275/
"Jews were labeled disease carriers and a public health risk to justify the creation of ghettos."

"Baumslag, a pediatrician at Georgetown University School of Medicine with a master of public health degree, explains that she chose to focus on typhus because the disease was rampant and the epidemic was used as a weapon of mass destruction with the “silent complicity” of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)."

"Typhus prevention rituals, including shaving and gassing, were used under the subterfuge of providing health care. "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23774983/
"This research focused on human experiments dealing with: malaria, tuberculosis, petechial typhus, viral hepatitis, and those regarding sulphonamides as antimicrobial agents. "

The removal of people to quarantine camps is forced when it is exercised under the threat of force if a person would not come ‘willingly’.

Rats are leaving the ship.

Tribal morality is inherently tainted by the metaphysical distinction between “outside people” and “inside people”, two moral kinds. Crimes against humanity are invariably all symptoms of this primordial bug.

Reverse Catch-22

Let them sneer. Let them mock you, but don’t react. Their cheap reward will soon grow sour. Your exclusion, the difference, is your moral weapon. Once you remove the confrontation, the distraction, the underlying aberration become perceptible to them.

The treatment of indigenous people is a highly emotional issue in Australia. This emotional sensitivity was systemically cultivated for decades, and it permeates the education system and the public sector. It is also one of the primary narrative pathways/triggers for psychological operations during the Great Reset. For this reason, every crisis in this sphere should be regarded with emotional distance and evidential scepticism. Meanwhile, indigenous Australians have their own political agenda, their own tribal interests they have been cultivating for decades, and these too can be exploited to serve the Reset.