The snippet is from the manifesto of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation. Any kind of “holy mandate” tribal-nationalism is classified as Right Wing extremism, as racial supremacism - a core feature of nazi ideology. They also claim to be your rulers. Beware. https://web.archive.org/web/20230616232942/http://ostf.weebly.com/ostf-declaration-of-sovereignty-and-nationhood.html
Another ban, for posting the following in response to the recent lost appeal against vaccine mandates in NSW:
‘No lawyer as yet has argued that vaccine mandates violate the right to life by requiring employees to participate in an activity where a small percentage of them are expected to die as a result of their mandated participation; or that CHO general directives are Ultra Vires because even the parliament does not have the constitutional authority to make us do anything without passing a law to that specific effect by a majority vote of both houses. https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/628’
Now why would a champion of your rights and freedoms, a lawyer purporting to defend you from vaccine mandates, do such a thing?
‘No lawyer as yet has argued that vaccine mandates violate the right to life by requiring employees to participate in an activity where a small percentage of them are expected to die as a result of their mandated participation; or that CHO general directives are Ultra Vires because even the parliament does not have the constitutional authority to make us do anything without passing a law to that specific effect by a majority vote of both houses. https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/628’
Now why would a champion of your rights and freedoms, a lawyer purporting to defend you from vaccine mandates, do such a thing?
Forwarded from Beach
NCIRS and NSW Health - Falsehoods of the NSW Delta Outbreak.pdf
677.7 KB
NCIRS and NSW Health – Falsehoods of the NSW Delta Outbreak
A comprehensive deconstruction of the falsehoods created and propagandised by the NCIRS and NSW Health report on the NSW Delta outbreak.
In any other industry, or for any other scenario, this report would be withdrawn and the authors extensively counselled.
It is clear that impartiality was not the driver of the NCIRS/NSW Health report; rather an opportunity to fit the numbers to the predetermined narrative.
And if the main stream media actually cared about upholding their civil duty, and their special place in society and legal protections, they would investigate these egregious falsehoods and demand answers of Hazzard and Chant.
Clearly this would be at odds with the narrative being peddled, the need to stigmatise the vaccine-free, and the coercion to vaccinate.
A comprehensive deconstruction of the falsehoods created and propagandised by the NCIRS and NSW Health report on the NSW Delta outbreak.
In any other industry, or for any other scenario, this report would be withdrawn and the authors extensively counselled.
It is clear that impartiality was not the driver of the NCIRS/NSW Health report; rather an opportunity to fit the numbers to the predetermined narrative.
And if the main stream media actually cared about upholding their civil duty, and their special place in society and legal protections, they would investigate these egregious falsehoods and demand answers of Hazzard and Chant.
Clearly this would be at odds with the narrative being peddled, the need to stigmatise the vaccine-free, and the coercion to vaccinate.
We know that Covid vaccines kill a small percentage of healthy people, and it cannot be medically predicted who will die as a direct result of Covid vaccination. This is a sufficient medical reason for doctors to give medical exemptions to anyone, within the rules established by AHPRA.
The global supply chain crisis is entering a new stage. Note how nobody is talking about the simplest, most obvious solution: changing the regulations to allow diesel vehicles to operate without Urea additive, for as long as the Emergency persists. Vehicles can be easily retuned to run without it, and the only reason urea is used is because it is required by law to control emissions. Also, the world is not using any more urea this year than it did in 2019 (probably much less, due to Covid restrictions), so the supply shortage is also manufactured; the production is intentionally limited and supplies are withheld to achieve precisely this outcome. The lack of discussion about these facts is the strongest evidence to date that our Government and Mass Media are colluding with China, and are intentionally working to destroy the supply chain, or at least to create more panic. Never attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by malice.
These are not ‘slips of the tongue’. This is a consciousness filter.
“I appreciate greatly the work done by all the premiers and chief ministers and seeing those national vaccination rates get to where they are. We've got one more state to get through that gate as it's a bit like, you know, getting the sheep through the gate and into the run and we’ve got one more state to get through and we're looking forward to that happening in the next few days.” Scott Morrison, PM.
What happens at the end of the “run”?
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-dummoyne-nsw
“I appreciate greatly the work done by all the premiers and chief ministers and seeing those national vaccination rates get to where they are. We've got one more state to get through that gate as it's a bit like, you know, getting the sheep through the gate and into the run and we’ve got one more state to get through and we're looking forward to that happening in the next few days.” Scott Morrison, PM.
What happens at the end of the “run”?
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-dummoyne-nsw
The greatest resource on Earth is human will, human action. Whoever moves the will of the masses, rules the Earth. Everything that strongly motivates the masses to move, to re-act, is likely intentional. Nevertheless, ‘doing nothing’ can also be a movement of the will, a provocation of passivity.
Gaslighting is the primary strategy of political psychopaths and fascists. They don’t argue with evidence but presume that their target group is unquestionably morally wrong, defective, and accuse that group of precisely the psychological traits that the psychopath himself manifests. This is a spontaneous form of diversion from their own psychopathology, which is also a manifestation of the same psychopathology; unrestrained Freudian projection. We should never blindly trust experts, because some of them (perhaps most of them) are psychopaths.
Forwarded from Normal (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.
That is a good place to start.
- 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.
That is a good place to start.
My email to Vice Chancellor of Griffith University (QLD) 12.12.2021
Dear Prof. Evans,
I am a philosopher of ethics with my current research-focus on vaccine mandates. I have recently published in the BMJ on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026. It came to my attention that Griffith University will impose mandatory vaccination policy for staff and students in 2022, with the option to regularly undergo antigen testing instead of vaccination. The option to undergo testing, which is then also a mandated medical procedure, mitigates but does not negate the coercive effect of the vaccination mandate, where the following ethical issues arise:
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 this 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
Vice Chancellor’s response 13.12.2021:
Dear Michael
Thank you for your feedback.
This is not an easy decision to make and we realise it is one where people have strong views. Throughout the pandemic, Griffith University has been guided by the principle of taking all reasonable measures to reduce the risk of members of our community becoming ill.
While vaccines do not completely eliminate the risk of contracting COVID-19, the scientific evidence is clear that people who are vaccinated are much less likely to both contract COVID themselves and pass it on to others. This policy therefore is one of a range of measures to keep Griffith as safe a place as possible to study and work.
Allowing a testing regime as an alternative to vaccination creates an option for staff and students who are not able or willing to be vaccinated. Under this policy, no-one will be required to be vaccinated but everyone will be required to take steps to help protect the health and safety of others.
I am sorry that you do not agree with the stance that we have taken.
Kind regards
Office of the Vice Chancellor and President
See comments for my response.
Dear Prof. Evans,
I am a philosopher of ethics with my current research-focus on vaccine mandates. I have recently published in the BMJ on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026. It came to my attention that Griffith University will impose mandatory vaccination policy for staff and students in 2022, with the option to regularly undergo antigen testing instead of vaccination. The option to undergo testing, which is then also a mandated medical procedure, mitigates but does not negate the coercive effect of the vaccination mandate, where the following ethical issues arise:
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 this 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
Vice Chancellor’s response 13.12.2021:
Dear Michael
Thank you for your feedback.
This is not an easy decision to make and we realise it is one where people have strong views. Throughout the pandemic, Griffith University has been guided by the principle of taking all reasonable measures to reduce the risk of members of our community becoming ill.
While vaccines do not completely eliminate the risk of contracting COVID-19, the scientific evidence is clear that people who are vaccinated are much less likely to both contract COVID themselves and pass it on to others. This policy therefore is one of a range of measures to keep Griffith as safe a place as possible to study and work.
Allowing a testing regime as an alternative to vaccination creates an option for staff and students who are not able or willing to be vaccinated. Under this policy, no-one will be required to be vaccinated but everyone will be required to take steps to help protect the health and safety of others.
I am sorry that you do not agree with the stance that we have taken.
Kind regards
Office of the Vice Chancellor and President
See comments for my response.
My email to the President of National Tertirary Education Union (14.12.2021)
Dear Alison Barnes,
I am a philosopher of ethics and an expert on vaccine mandates. I have recently published in the BMJ on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026. It came to my attention that several Universities intend to impose mandatory vaccination for staff and students in 2022, with the option to regularly undergo antigen testing instead of vaccination (this option will only be available in some courses). The requirement to undergo testing, which is also a medical procedure, mitigates but does not negate the coercive effect of the vaccination mandate, where the following ethical and, by implication, legal issue arises:
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 economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’. 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 prospectve benefit of the majority.
In summary, any discrimination against the unvaccinated (or a privileged treatment of the vaccinated) amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of students and employees are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. I believe we agree that the right to life must not be violated, in which case the policy is inconsistent with the fundamental moral commitments of tertiary institutions in this country. I also anticipate that Covid vaccination mandates will have serious legal consequences in the near future.
Regards,
Michael Kowalik
Dear Alison Barnes,
I am a philosopher of ethics and an expert on vaccine mandates. I have recently published in the BMJ on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026. It came to my attention that several Universities intend to impose mandatory vaccination for staff and students in 2022, with the option to regularly undergo antigen testing instead of vaccination (this option will only be available in some courses). The requirement to undergo testing, which is also a medical procedure, mitigates but does not negate the coercive effect of the vaccination mandate, where the following ethical and, by implication, legal issue arises:
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 economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’. 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 prospectve benefit of the majority.
In summary, any discrimination against the unvaccinated (or a privileged treatment of the vaccinated) amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of students and employees are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. I believe we agree that the right to life must not be violated, in which case the policy is inconsistent with the fundamental moral commitments of tertiary institutions in this country. I also anticipate that Covid vaccination mandates will have serious legal consequences in the near future.
Regards,
Michael Kowalik
My Email to Vice-Chancellor of La Trobe University (14.12.2021)
Dear Prof. Dewar,
I am a philosopher of ethics and an expert on vaccine mandates. I have recently published in the BMJ on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026. I understand that La Trobe University has imposed mandatory vaccination for employees and students.
I want to bring to your attention the following ethical and, by implication, legal issues associated with vaccine mandates:
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. 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 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.
3. 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 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 the mandated activity. 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 prospective benefit of the majority.
Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated (or a privileged treatment of the vaccinated) amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of students and employees are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. I believe we agree that the right to life must not be violated, in which case the policy is inconsistent with the fundamental moral commitments of La Trobe University. I also anticipate that Covid vaccination mandates will have serious legal consequences in the near future.
Regards,
Michael Kowalik
Dear Prof. Dewar,
I am a philosopher of ethics and an expert on vaccine mandates. I have recently published in the BMJ on this topic: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/02/25/medethics-2020-107026. I understand that La Trobe University has imposed mandatory vaccination for employees and students.
I want to bring to your attention the following ethical and, by implication, legal issues associated with vaccine mandates:
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. 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 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.
3. 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 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 the mandated activity. 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 prospective benefit of the majority.
Critically, any discrimination against the unvaccinated (or a privileged treatment of the vaccinated) amounts to a violation of the right to life, because a small percentage of students and employees are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. I believe we agree that the right to life must not be violated, in which case the policy is inconsistent with the fundamental moral commitments of La Trobe University. I also anticipate that Covid vaccination mandates will have serious legal consequences in the near future.
Regards,
Michael Kowalik