Forwarded from Sanjeev Sabhlok PUBLIC CHANNEL (Sanjeev Sabhlok)
I have learnt more about mankind over the past two years then I did with all my experience in readings of 60 years.
We should not assume that they are stupid. We should always assume that we are stupid and try to make contextual (meta-)sense of the absurd. The only explanation that for now comes to mind is that Covid response was intended to be absurd. Is there a lesson in that? What does this teach us about ourselves in relation to one another and to the objective reality?
The logic of pandemic directives is akin to the “safety protocol” of a concentration camp, enforced in order to minimize any interference with the smooth functioning of the death-machine, where corpses dropping in wrong places would no longer carry themselves of their own hopeful will to their final destination. Prisoners in this scenario are not a mere substance, not just human material, but parts of a machine: living parts, that work for their own efficient exploitation and subsequent disposal. Their bodies move along the process line and enforce the ruling protocol onto one another, continuously pulling one another back into line, into the machinic process which could not continue without their energetic assistance.
Unvaccinated teachers, unvaccinated doctors and unvaccinated policemen have demonstrated that they have moral conscience that cannot be overridden by immoral government orders. They are not blind followers of dictators but are capable of thinking for themselves, and for that reason they can be trusted to act ethically, to teach ethically, to treat patients ethically, to fight crime ethically. These are the kind of people we need to build a new, ethical society.
At this point in history the only hope for humanity is for the colluding, cowardly, obedient, double vaccinated and self-defaced masses to turn on their rulers. For this to happen they must still suffer more, which is to say we ourselves must be willing to suffer more, to gladly endure. Our suffering has purpose, meaning, it is an act of integrity, whereas their suffering is their moral failure - a passive, nonsensical suffering, which is meaningless apart from the revelation of the cowardice and collusion that made it possible, and yet this senselessness will be the engine of change. Nothing is more unbearable than meaningless suffering, as Nietzsche said.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
On Reconciliation
Reconciliation is possible only by means of one, core global culture, one set of consistent principles for All of humanity; not cultural relativism, which perpetuates cross-cultural contradictions and irreconcilable conflicts about values and norms. Human unity, which is to say Global Reconciliation, can be accomplished only through refutation and rejection of both Indigenous and modern ideologies, not their glorification. Incidentally, one global culture already exists, it existed for millenia; Aristotle has formalised its scope as the ‘laws of thought’, the fundamental principles of meaning/sense without which language, thought or communication could not exist. The capacity to consistently formulate and convey meaning is the essence of humanity.
To seek Reconciliation and Rights ‘for your tribe’ is to set yourself apart from humanity, and so to contradict your capacity for inter-tribal reconciliation on the basis of our shared humanity. We either co-exist as humans, as conscious rational beings, and so we are already reconciled, or we set ourselves apart under racial and tribal identities, in which case there is no common basis for reconciliation apart from coming against the point of the spear.
Reconciliation is possible only by means of one, core global culture, one set of consistent principles for All of humanity; not cultural relativism, which perpetuates cross-cultural contradictions and irreconcilable conflicts about values and norms. Human unity, which is to say Global Reconciliation, can be accomplished only through refutation and rejection of both Indigenous and modern ideologies, not their glorification. Incidentally, one global culture already exists, it existed for millenia; Aristotle has formalised its scope as the ‘laws of thought’, the fundamental principles of meaning/sense without which language, thought or communication could not exist. The capacity to consistently formulate and convey meaning is the essence of humanity.
To seek Reconciliation and Rights ‘for your tribe’ is to set yourself apart from humanity, and so to contradict your capacity for inter-tribal reconciliation on the basis of our shared humanity. We either co-exist as humans, as conscious rational beings, and so we are already reconciled, or we set ourselves apart under racial and tribal identities, in which case there is no common basis for reconciliation apart from coming against the point of the spear.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Face masks are also psychologically damaging even to those who are not themselves wearing one. I have discussed the underlying phenomenological mechanism here: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3840787
Ssrn
An Ontological Argument against Mandatory Face-Masks
Face-coverings were widely mandated during the Covid-19 pandemic, on the assumption that they limit the spread of respiratory viruses and are therefore likely t
Media Bias in Medical Ethics: Censorship of Silence.
A paper by Prof. Massie published in the Medical Journal of Australia, in which he argues that it is ethical to vaccinate children as young as 12 against their parents wishes, is getting enthusiastic media coverage (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.51372). I remind Prof. Massie that using false or misleading assertions about “proven” safety and benefits of Covid vaccines amounts to emotional coercion or manipulation, which is contrary to the principle of free and informed medical consent. It also remains to be proven whether a particular minor is emotionally and intellectually capable of giving informed consent with respect to any medical intervention, especially in the face of the interests of medical industry and their agents. The incapacity to give informed consent is precisely why we have the social category of “minor”.
Meanwhile, my paper published in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics, arguing that it is unethical to discriminate against the unvaccinated or to use coercion or manipulation to vaccinate, was covered by exactly ZERO news sources. Not even the associated media release was picked up by any news network: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/01/discrimination-on-the-basis-of-vaccination-status-is-inherently-wrong/ On top of that, the paper was removed/censored by ResearchGate from their platform.
A paper by Prof. Massie published in the Medical Journal of Australia, in which he argues that it is ethical to vaccinate children as young as 12 against their parents wishes, is getting enthusiastic media coverage (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.51372). I remind Prof. Massie that using false or misleading assertions about “proven” safety and benefits of Covid vaccines amounts to emotional coercion or manipulation, which is contrary to the principle of free and informed medical consent. It also remains to be proven whether a particular minor is emotionally and intellectually capable of giving informed consent with respect to any medical intervention, especially in the face of the interests of medical industry and their agents. The incapacity to give informed consent is precisely why we have the social category of “minor”.
Meanwhile, my paper published in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics, arguing that it is unethical to discriminate against the unvaccinated or to use coercion or manipulation to vaccinate, was covered by exactly ZERO news sources. Not even the associated media release was picked up by any news network: https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/01/discrimination-on-the-basis-of-vaccination-status-is-inherently-wrong/ On top of that, the paper was removed/censored by ResearchGate from their platform.
How to be an ethical patient
When you require routine medical care, I suggest asking to be seen by an unvaccinated doctor, and not by someone who is unvaccinated on the basis of a medical exemption but out of principle. How could you feel safe with a doctor who acquiesced to medical coercion? Why would you put your wellbeing into the hands of a doctor who denied you the right to free medical consent? How could you ever trust a doctor who took away the right to free medical consent from their own children and from future generations? Without that fundamental right they will have no rights at all, because every other right can be circumvented by medical coercion. Have you ever seen what governments throughout history did to people?
When you require routine medical care, I suggest asking to be seen by an unvaccinated doctor, and not by someone who is unvaccinated on the basis of a medical exemption but out of principle. How could you feel safe with a doctor who acquiesced to medical coercion? Why would you put your wellbeing into the hands of a doctor who denied you the right to free medical consent? How could you ever trust a doctor who took away the right to free medical consent from their own children and from future generations? Without that fundamental right they will have no rights at all, because every other right can be circumvented by medical coercion. Have you ever seen what governments throughout history did to people?
The government (all governments) lied about Covid deaths from the start, by misrepresenting a non-standard measure of ‘deaths with Covid’ as ‘deaths of Covid’. The government (all governments) continue to lie and insist they are not lying (despite their own official documents proving that they lie about Covid deaths). Why would you trust anything they say after that?
Where to from here?
Where does the government get the authority to govern you if you do not consent to be governed ‘by them’, because you have no trust or respect left ‘for them’? So why are governments all around the world working so hard to discredit themselves, to destroy any remnant of public trust in their institutions? There are 2 logical possibilities that I can think of: A) they want us to rebel in order to consent to a new (revolutionary) form of government, B) they want us to accept that most will not rebel no matter what the government will do to us, that we would accept an evil government before having no government at all.
Consequences of A:
If we all rebel we would still need to maintain social structure, therefore pro-actively contract with one another, and develop means of contract enforcement, ie, a new mechanism of governance. But the absence of government does not entail absence of organised power, which undermines the capacity to contract on equitable terms. For example, how can a hungry, unemployed individual contract with Westfarmers or Amazon? They can only become a slave. The same applies to democratic elections held in times of anarchy, which are also a form of contract about ideas and promises, and these can only come from those who hold the most power to present themselves as guardians of public order. So, this scenario seems to lead towards corporatocracy.
Consequences of B:
If we do not rebel but acquiesce to absurdity and the rule by decree, then the same ultimate outcome is achieved, but grudgingly, without enthusiasm, like slaves, which is possibly a poor outcome for management who desire productive efficiency and control. Enthusiasm, being always somewhat delusional, is easier to direct than passive aggression and disillusionment, but disillusionment involves introspection, learning, searching for more, for transcendence, but also vulnerable to turn into burst of delusional enthusiasm about hopes, or a destructive frenzy.
So what do you think? Which option offers better long term promise for humanity?
Where does the government get the authority to govern you if you do not consent to be governed ‘by them’, because you have no trust or respect left ‘for them’? So why are governments all around the world working so hard to discredit themselves, to destroy any remnant of public trust in their institutions? There are 2 logical possibilities that I can think of: A) they want us to rebel in order to consent to a new (revolutionary) form of government, B) they want us to accept that most will not rebel no matter what the government will do to us, that we would accept an evil government before having no government at all.
Consequences of A:
If we all rebel we would still need to maintain social structure, therefore pro-actively contract with one another, and develop means of contract enforcement, ie, a new mechanism of governance. But the absence of government does not entail absence of organised power, which undermines the capacity to contract on equitable terms. For example, how can a hungry, unemployed individual contract with Westfarmers or Amazon? They can only become a slave. The same applies to democratic elections held in times of anarchy, which are also a form of contract about ideas and promises, and these can only come from those who hold the most power to present themselves as guardians of public order. So, this scenario seems to lead towards corporatocracy.
Consequences of B:
If we do not rebel but acquiesce to absurdity and the rule by decree, then the same ultimate outcome is achieved, but grudgingly, without enthusiasm, like slaves, which is possibly a poor outcome for management who desire productive efficiency and control. Enthusiasm, being always somewhat delusional, is easier to direct than passive aggression and disillusionment, but disillusionment involves introspection, learning, searching for more, for transcendence, but also vulnerable to turn into burst of delusional enthusiasm about hopes, or a destructive frenzy.
So what do you think? Which option offers better long term promise for humanity?
Vaccine mandates are a Devil’s bargain
Vaccine mandates are coercive conditions that are expected to result in a small percentage of healthy people dying from the vaccine. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated violates the right to life of some people; it is a legalised killing of a minority for the prospective benefit of the majority. There is of course a catch in this bargain: when you agree to take away the right to life from anyone else, you also implicitly take it away from yourself and from your own children, and perhaps the next government will sacrifice your child for the Greater Good, for the benefit of the majority. It is a devil’s bargain.
Vaccine mandates are coercive conditions that are expected to result in a small percentage of healthy people dying from the vaccine. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated violates the right to life of some people; it is a legalised killing of a minority for the prospective benefit of the majority. There is of course a catch in this bargain: when you agree to take away the right to life from anyone else, you also implicitly take it away from yourself and from your own children, and perhaps the next government will sacrifice your child for the Greater Good, for the benefit of the majority. It is a devil’s bargain.
The argument that Covid was never a real emergency is not a viable defence against tyranny
They lied about the severity of Covid, creating the illusion of a plague out of something on par with the flu and the common cold, but I consider this of secondary importance. Even if the pandemic were real, with unprecedented lethality, all the discriminatory actions of the government would still be unethical and illegal. And this is what concerns me the most. A real emergency, a catastrophe, would not change the fact that discrimination against the unvaccinated, vaccine passports or mandatory masks are morally wrong, for many reasons frequently discussed on this channel. If we would focus only on showing that Covid pandemic was not a real emergency, the next pandemic would still leaves us open to the same abuses.
If Australians have to suffer another 4 years of hell before they figure this out for themselves, then so be it. Suffering is a lesson. No use in saving people from suffering under the guise of a fake pandemic if they will endorse gulags when a real pandemic comes.
They lied about the severity of Covid, creating the illusion of a plague out of something on par with the flu and the common cold, but I consider this of secondary importance. Even if the pandemic were real, with unprecedented lethality, all the discriminatory actions of the government would still be unethical and illegal. And this is what concerns me the most. A real emergency, a catastrophe, would not change the fact that discrimination against the unvaccinated, vaccine passports or mandatory masks are morally wrong, for many reasons frequently discussed on this channel. If we would focus only on showing that Covid pandemic was not a real emergency, the next pandemic would still leaves us open to the same abuses.
If Australians have to suffer another 4 years of hell before they figure this out for themselves, then so be it. Suffering is a lesson. No use in saving people from suffering under the guise of a fake pandemic if they will endorse gulags when a real pandemic comes.
“Professor insists there is no ethical reason stopping doctors from aborting kids at any time post-birth without parental approval.”
The above headline is a parody of the argument made by Prof. Massie: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10446567/Covid-Australia-Aussie-children-legally-vaccinated-against-parents-wishes.html, but if we acquiesce to medical coercion, especially where death is a possible outcome (as is the case of Covid vaccine mandates), we open ourselves to any violation of rights, including the right to life, including the killing of your children, in the alleged interest of the greater good.
The above headline is a parody of the argument made by Prof. Massie: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10446567/Covid-Australia-Aussie-children-legally-vaccinated-against-parents-wishes.html, but if we acquiesce to medical coercion, especially where death is a possible outcome (as is the case of Covid vaccine mandates), we open ourselves to any violation of rights, including the right to life, including the killing of your children, in the alleged interest of the greater good.
News Corp is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel to push the narrative that most Canadians support vaccine mandates. This tweet by “Bubs”, cited by https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/canadian-truckies-in-freedom-convoy-over-mandatory-jab-rule/news-story/b0a3960c1d3439dbd757a4db01669df8 got the grand total of, wait for it... 4 LIKES.
Interesting, faith leaders are not required to be vaccinated, but they still enforce vaccination mandates on their staff, volunteers and contractors. Source: https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/covidsafe-religion-and-ceremonies-guidance