A good example of poor logic that passes for “philosophy” these days. The authors argue, in essence, that if your right of medical consent violates their “right” of consent to acts of nature, then you should comply with their non-consent to your non-consent, because something something science. The paper commits to an infinitely regressive formula of consent, according to which every person has the right not to consent to every other person’s non-consent, which is nonsense. On this view, if humanity poses a health risk to me, and I do not consent to that risk, then humans do not have the right to exist, because ME, but, by the same logic, I also do not have the right to exist and can be exterminated to minimise the risk to others. https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phac005
“Died suddenly” is not a subversive concept but a meme intentionally propagated by the corporate media, plastered all over the news, leaving the dots for you to “connect”. They want you to think it, they want you to believe it. The question is WHY?
Forwarded from Alex
Imagine living the rest of your life ‘knowing’ you’re a ticking time bomb. That’s what makes it easier for me to forgive the people who treated the unvaccinated as lepers. We might have done it tough for a short while, but it’s nothing compared to the harsh lesson that they will have to endure for the rest of their lives. Why - all part of the fake awakening. They want people to connect the dots. The media are reporting on every single death, health condition of even the lowest profile actors and athletes. They want everyone (collectively) to come to the conclusion that the vaccines have caused this. SADS is also another concept that they have intentionally plastered everywhere.
A question for those tribal separatists who think that Putin will save them: how many sovereign tribal nations are there in Russia?
Another question for those tribal separatists who think that Iran will save them: how does Iran normally execute political protestors?
In a totalitarian state only an “extremist” demands evidence of the official “truth” instead of enthusiastically accepting it upon proclamation.
The most irrational aspect of every nation, ethnicity, tribe or identity group is their culture. Once you strip away the culture, down to bare humanity, all people can be reasoned with.
Hypothesis: There is no ‘conflict’ in Ukraine, but a collaborative effort between NATO and Russia to de-nationalise and re-engineer the food-basket of Europe.
Some ideological structures are intentionally built to collapse. The energy of the collapse can then be used as the spring-board for radical charge.
Some doctors complain that they are not allowed to give independent advice on the question of vaccines and for this reason are prevented from facilitating informed consent (on pain of losing their registration). They claim to be in a moral bind. This is not true; the bind can be resolved by simply stating to every patient who inquires about vaccines that the doctor “is not allowed to give independent advice on the question of vaccines”.
Ethical reasons to refuse vaccinated blood (even if it were proven medically safe):
1. Vaccinated blood comes from people who were coerced into vaccination by mandates that violated the right to life, denied free medical consent, and discriminated against healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. By accepting vaccinated blood (provided unvaccinated donors are available) we would be acquiescing to these human rights violations.
2. Coercing patients to accept vaccinated blood denies free medical consent and constitutes a violation of bodily integrity (an assault). Suspending the parental rights of those who exercise the right to make equally safe medical choices for their child is an aggravated violation of the right to free medical consent and of bodily integrity of a child.
Since the above violations became the new standard of medical care, all humans (including those who support vaccination) are ethically obligated to refuse vaccinated blood and support the right to choose unvaccinated blood until the unethical practice is ended.
1. Vaccinated blood comes from people who were coerced into vaccination by mandates that violated the right to life, denied free medical consent, and discriminated against healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. By accepting vaccinated blood (provided unvaccinated donors are available) we would be acquiescing to these human rights violations.
2. Coercing patients to accept vaccinated blood denies free medical consent and constitutes a violation of bodily integrity (an assault). Suspending the parental rights of those who exercise the right to make equally safe medical choices for their child is an aggravated violation of the right to free medical consent and of bodily integrity of a child.
Since the above violations became the new standard of medical care, all humans (including those who support vaccination) are ethically obligated to refuse vaccinated blood and support the right to choose unvaccinated blood until the unethical practice is ended.
My response to the joint statement of the principles of public health posted by Aaron Kheriaty at https://aaronkheriaty.substack.com/p/ethical-principles-of-public-health.
The concept of “public health” is an inherently dangerous, utilitarian construct, so extreme caution is required in how it is interpreted. Most doctors are completely unaware of the associated moral hazard.
The legitimate scope of “public health” is limited to policies that aim to promote the health of human individuals and should not be interpreted as the ‘health of the public’ in any collectivised sense. The public is not a person, not a being, and crucially, the public does not have rights or value in its own right; only individuals that comprise “the public” do. This distinction is crucial to prevent utilitarian abuses of human rights and health of some people in the interest of the majority.
In view of this clarification, the most fundamental principle of public health (which is not included in Aaron Kheriaty’s statement) is that public health policies must not, under any circumstances, intentionally or by negligence cause some individuals to be worse off (ie. less healthy, or dead). The analogy here is to the principle of “common good”, extending to anything that benefits everyone and therefore does not cause anyone to be worse off (which would undermine the premise of commonality of the good).
If anyone is in contact with Aaron, or a paid subscriber on his Substack, feel free to share my response with him.
The concept of “public health” is an inherently dangerous, utilitarian construct, so extreme caution is required in how it is interpreted. Most doctors are completely unaware of the associated moral hazard.
The legitimate scope of “public health” is limited to policies that aim to promote the health of human individuals and should not be interpreted as the ‘health of the public’ in any collectivised sense. The public is not a person, not a being, and crucially, the public does not have rights or value in its own right; only individuals that comprise “the public” do. This distinction is crucial to prevent utilitarian abuses of human rights and health of some people in the interest of the majority.
In view of this clarification, the most fundamental principle of public health (which is not included in Aaron Kheriaty’s statement) is that public health policies must not, under any circumstances, intentionally or by negligence cause some individuals to be worse off (ie. less healthy, or dead). The analogy here is to the principle of “common good”, extending to anything that benefits everyone and therefore does not cause anyone to be worse off (which would undermine the premise of commonality of the good).
If anyone is in contact with Aaron, or a paid subscriber on his Substack, feel free to share my response with him.
Human Flourishing
Ethical Principles of Public Health
Along with valued colleagues at the Hillsdale Academy for Science and Freedom, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and the Brownstone Institute, I recently published these essential principles.
You know you live in a totalitarian society when the term ‘alleged’ is no longer used in relation to designated suspects.
When people in positions of power violate human rights, devalue humanity, dehumanise or kill, they unwittingly engage in self-harm, act contrary to self-interest. It is therefore not reasonable, let alone necessary, to ‘fight’ the morally corrupt governments (which is of itself a moral hazard) but rather to help them understand that they are acting contrary to self-interest. The metaphysical consequences of wrong moral choices are inescapable, for everyone. https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWODO
philpapers.org
Michael Kowalik, Ontological-Transcendental Defence of Metanormative Realism - PhilPapers
If there is something (P) that every possible agent is committed to value, and certain actions or attitudes either enhance or diminish P, then normative claims about a range of intentional ...
People who do not require objective evidence to formulate their convictions are epistemic extremists, and can be weaponised for extremist ends.
The Concept of Sovereignty
Sovereignty is a property that can be held only collectively, not individually, because individuality is not ontologically self-sufficient. It follows that there can be no “sovereign” monarchs (all Kings and Queens are impostors). On a deeper analysis, considering that every instance of consciousness is existentially determined by its relating to all other instances of rational consciousness, sovereignty does not even belong to nations but to all of humanity, which renders the political notion of sovereignty trivial. Sovereignty is then reducible to rational agency per se, which is necessarily characterised by moral autonomy of the Self with respect to negotiating the ontological dependency that binds all of humanity together, as a multiplicity of reflexively interrelating Selves. Our moral choices may advance our rational agency, by correctly navigating the conditions of mutual dependency (the Right moral choice is ultimately and necessarily in self-interest), or degrade our rational agency by misunderstanding or abusing those conditions (the Wrong moral choice is contrary to self-interest).
Sovereignty is a property that can be held only collectively, not individually, because individuality is not ontologically self-sufficient. It follows that there can be no “sovereign” monarchs (all Kings and Queens are impostors). On a deeper analysis, considering that every instance of consciousness is existentially determined by its relating to all other instances of rational consciousness, sovereignty does not even belong to nations but to all of humanity, which renders the political notion of sovereignty trivial. Sovereignty is then reducible to rational agency per se, which is necessarily characterised by moral autonomy of the Self with respect to negotiating the ontological dependency that binds all of humanity together, as a multiplicity of reflexively interrelating Selves. Our moral choices may advance our rational agency, by correctly navigating the conditions of mutual dependency (the Right moral choice is ultimately and necessarily in self-interest), or degrade our rational agency by misunderstanding or abusing those conditions (the Wrong moral choice is contrary to self-interest).
On ‘being professional’.
People who join a “service” where they are required to follow orders are renunciating their moral conscience, which is of itself a moral wrong. Most young recruits are of course not aware of this bargain, but before they can gain the necessary insights they are conditioned into morally-blind obedience. I recall a discussion I had many years ago with a relatively young military officer. His sole standard regarding killing was that if an individual is ‘supposed to die’, then the killing is right (mission accomplished) and if the individual ‘is not supposed to die’, the the killing is wrong (mission failure). Similarly, in business, his only moral standard was ‘I will do anything that is not illegal’. This meant ‘being professional’. The officer has demonstrated a comprehensive renunciation of moral autonomy, a dependency on the moral judgement of others, but was unaware (neither was I at the time) that this was already a moral choice of his own, a renunciation of moral agency, therefore of his own moral status. The relevant difference between a regular traffic cop and a military death squad is then just a degree of conditioning to ‘being professional’; a poor moral bargain.
People who join a “service” where they are required to follow orders are renunciating their moral conscience, which is of itself a moral wrong. Most young recruits are of course not aware of this bargain, but before they can gain the necessary insights they are conditioned into morally-blind obedience. I recall a discussion I had many years ago with a relatively young military officer. His sole standard regarding killing was that if an individual is ‘supposed to die’, then the killing is right (mission accomplished) and if the individual ‘is not supposed to die’, the the killing is wrong (mission failure). Similarly, in business, his only moral standard was ‘I will do anything that is not illegal’. This meant ‘being professional’. The officer has demonstrated a comprehensive renunciation of moral autonomy, a dependency on the moral judgement of others, but was unaware (neither was I at the time) that this was already a moral choice of his own, a renunciation of moral agency, therefore of his own moral status. The relevant difference between a regular traffic cop and a military death squad is then just a degree of conditioning to ‘being professional’; a poor moral bargain.
Anonymous tip-off:
I would like to report a dangerous “sovereign citizen” who goes by the name Charles the Third. He and his followers have amassed a substantial cache of weapons, including nuclear weapons, biological and chemical production facilities that could be covertly weaponised against the public. This sovereign citizen controls a global network of military, para-military and spy organisations, typically identifying themselves with the term “Royal”, by means of which he interferes in democratic elections and extorts public wealth. His predecessors in the same “sovereign” movement are known to have committed massacres (most notably in India and Germany, although the list of their crimes is virtually inexhaustible). I hope you will make the investigation of this POI your highest priority, as he poses a Gobal threat.
I would like to report a dangerous “sovereign citizen” who goes by the name Charles the Third. He and his followers have amassed a substantial cache of weapons, including nuclear weapons, biological and chemical production facilities that could be covertly weaponised against the public. This sovereign citizen controls a global network of military, para-military and spy organisations, typically identifying themselves with the term “Royal”, by means of which he interferes in democratic elections and extorts public wealth. His predecessors in the same “sovereign” movement are known to have committed massacres (most notably in India and Germany, although the list of their crimes is virtually inexhaustible). I hope you will make the investigation of this POI your highest priority, as he poses a Gobal threat.
An artist’s impression of the origins of Right Wing Extremism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYU87QNjPw
YouTube
Monty Python - Repressed Citizen
The Repressed Citizen skit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
I do not own any of this material it's all courtesy of Monty Python at www.youtube.com/MontyPython .
I only upload these videos because i'm tired of all the shitty quality ones on youtube.
I do not own any of this material it's all courtesy of Monty Python at www.youtube.com/MontyPython .
I only upload these videos because i'm tired of all the shitty quality ones on youtube.