Utilitarians maintain that ‘the good’ is a quantifiable and cumulative property of the community, hence ‘the greater good’ is that which increases the aggregate worth for the community, irrespective of the possibility that some individuals may be worse off or even dead (like the total wealth of a nation increasing despite an associated increase in suicides). Their chief motto is: “the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.” A little dirty secret of Utilitarianism is that it is implicitly committed to judging races in terms of their aggregate or average utility, therefore a hierarchy of races determined according to their worth, therefore some races “ought” to be sacrificed or exploited for the benefit of others.

The key contradiction of utilitarianism is its commitment to the highest “good” as a property distinct from the value of conscious agency, while at the same time (inexplicably) subordinating this good to the preferences of arbitrarily selected conscious agents. In short, nonsense.

Who do the Greens really work for? They are either the lowest of the low or the fakest of the fake.

It is incredibly difficult to leave the tribe, transcend tribalism and consciously join humanity. The one who dares will be utterly alone, having to traverse the no-mans-land between cultural oppression of his native tribe and the prejudices and pretences of other tribes. It takes not only courage but determination and thick skin that few possess to become a human bridge and a mirror. The vultures of culture are still trying to put him in the tribal box, but this one (like Lionel Rose) is a champion of humanity.

Nations and traditional cultures insist (on pain of punitive violence) that whatever they hold to be “their values” ought to be respected, and that acting according to “their values” is prima facie morally right and rational. This is not true; “their values” may in themselves be morally wrong and irrational, and even if the core values happen to be right, their practical interpretation may still be wrong. In essence, it is a fallacy (‘begging the question’: violation of the law of identity for the premise and the conclusion) to claim that something is right because you believe it to be right.

“In the end, it doesn’t matter whether they’re trying to cudgel nickels from the discontented, or accepting some sort of pay day from a dark corner of Pharma. All leaders are suspect. Leadership is suspect. Groupthink is suspect. Why are we debating whether we should listen to this or that so-and-so? Isn’t that what got us into this mess? We’ve arrived at the central paradox of not-a-movement. We can’t be a movement (or even a “we”) because cognitive liberty is not a collective right. It is an individual one. If we conform our thoughts, even to the point of thinking, “well, that scientist has some conflicts in his background, but he’s on our side now, let’s just focus on the positive” we’ve fallen for it.” https://icthruit.substack.com/p/all-opposition-is-controlled

It is as if the authorities want us to know that Covid vaccines and the associated mandates caused unprecedented harm but also want to create the impression that they are hiding or denying those harms. It is as if they want people to know that elections are stolen, that anthropogenic climate change is a lie, that child abuse is ubiquitous among the powerful and rich, that state education is designed to corrupt the youth, that all the new laws are made in bad faith, that political corruption is everywhere, and that there is no hope for democracy to fix any of these problems. Almost as if the state wanted to publicly incriminate and discredit itself, as comprehensively as possible. How strange.

It is one thing to know that someone knows more than you, and another thing to know that they are honestly telling you what they know, and another thing again to know that they are right.

I submitted a ‘rapid response’ to a new paper in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics (thank you Beach for bringing this paper to my attention): https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-proportionality-principle-is

The hospital and the court refused to give the child the unvaccinated blood from available donors, putting the life of the child at risk by creating an avoidable delay and denying the right to free medical consent. Even if the choice of the parents had no medical advantage for the child, it certainly had no medical downside and therefore it was unreasonable and immoral to deny their medical preference.

Hypothesis: Covid was not a bio-weapon but an engineered, self-propagating cure for cancer, and the vaccine was engineered to prevent the cure from working on the majority of people and thus avert a population-wide increase of life-expectancy.

My ancestors, the original owners of the Earth.

The health authorities and politicians who supported lockdowns and vaccine mandates will be hunted down and prosecuted with the same intergenerational zeal as Nazi collaborators.

Conversation on the topic of tyrannical legislation being introduced in W.A.: https://t.iss.one/Aussie_News/30563

Everything is bursting at the seams, everywhere. Tension is building and likely will be released everywhere simultaneously, like a chain reaction. The time necessary for extreme endurance will likely be relatively short provided one has adequate health and the physical capacity to look after themselves, reason with others, work together, help someone else.

Email to Senator Malcolm Roberts (09.12.2022)

Dear Senator,

A new study in Nature looked at the attitudes of the Vaccinated towards the Unvaccinated, and vice versa. The study is interesting but a more informative study could be conducted. Would Senator Roberts be willing to reach our to academics in relevant disciplines to form a research team to conduct the proposed study. I would be interested in participating, if invited.
Conceptual Outline:

Covid pandemic and the associated public health response was possibly the biggest test of moral conscience in human history since WWII. The test would not work without the vaccine mandates and the associated exclusion and vilification of the unvaccinated, so in this sense the mandates were indispensable and our temporary exclusion worthwhile. If Covid vaccines were entirely optional there would be no clear moral challenge. Human responses to vaccine mandates can be categorised as follows: a) those who demanded medical coercion and the removal of human rights from the unvaccinated; b) those who tacitly acquiesced to medical coercion and the removal of human rights from the unvaccinated; c) those who submitted to medical coercion but disagreed with the removal of human rights from the unvaccinated; d) those who disagreed with the mandates but complied only due to existentially critical economic stress; e) those who absolutely refused to submit to medical coercion and rejected the mandates on principle. I would like to see the percentages for these categories, and for a much bigger sample of the population than the recent study.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05607-y

I expect that some research funding would be necessary to conduct a large survey in Australia, say 1 million participants, via professional survey organisations.

My response to article in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics was published: https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449.responses#the-proportionality-principle-is-the-wrong-ethical-standard-for-vaccine-mandates

Gender theory is officially over. Daily Mail concedes that an adult human male means “man”, without asking him how he identifies.

How did millions of different animal species including Homo sapiens manage to survive millions of years of evolution without inclusive sex education? If healthy sexual reproduction is that easy to accomplish then what is sexual education really for?