Beware of those who claim to ‘fight for your freedom’ or ‘defend your rights’ but have not touched on the core reasons why vaccine mandates are wrong. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/email-to-australian-human-rights

The alleged conflict between “selfish” and “altruistic” motivations is a fallacy. There can be no such conflict because “altruistic” motivation is logically impossible; everything we intend to do is necessarily motivated by self-interest, otherwise it would not be motivating and we would not do it. The only relevant distinction that makes self-interested action either morally right or wrong is whether we are rational in its implementation. Rationality dictates that self-interest can be reliably served only by taking into account the interests of others and seeing oneself as a moral being among beings of the same kind, which may at times have the ‘appearance’ of altruism.

Those who assert that ethical behaviour can be improved by conditioning people to abandon self-interest imply that ethical behaviour is contrary to self-interest, therefore harmful to self, which raises the question why would anyone want to inflict harm on every individual? Morality must be reducible to self-interest or it would not be rational to be moral, therefore wrong to be moral, therefore immoral to be moral, therefore nonsense.

The above statement did not age well:) Take a deep look at those “best and brightest”; emptiness cannot see itself. https://www.behaviourworksaustralia.org/blog/this-is-massive-open-online-and-about-change

Stalinist Ethics: If you do not want to die for the benefit of the collective, you lack ‘solidarity’, you are ‘unethical’, so we have the moral duty to make you do it.

How did they know in the Middle Ages that there was a pandemic if nobody tested? Would we know that there was a Covid pandemic if nobody tested? Is then testing (for a pandemic) a form of disinformation?

Those who change themselves to match a particular identity prove thereby that they do not possess an intrinsic identity, that there is no integrated Self to action the change in the first place. The organism does not become ‘itself’ through this change, but only changes the mask of the metaphysical fragmentation that is nominally associated with it in lieu of the Self.

From W.R. Bion “Experiences in Groups” 1967. Bion is regarded as one of the 4 greatest psychologists of all time (Freud, Jung, Bion, Klein) I will venture to make an even stronger claim than Bion’s: All people who are attracted to power have mental illness and ought to be treated accordingly.

What are we to do?

Do we need a government to have human rights? If not, then how do we maintain human rights? Can we ask those who support vaccine mandates, for example, whether they want to have the right to free medical consent, the right to refuse any medical intervention they do not feel right about without being discriminated against, and see whether we can come to agreement? Perhaps they will be persuaded by living through the consequences of giving up that human right? If we all agreed on the fundamental rights, those rights would not be opposed by anyone and would not need institutional defenders. Similarly, do women need feminism to have equal rights? Surely not; women and men could possibly come to agreement on human rights (because both women and men are, after all, human). When we deal with the problem of human disagreement by forming factions that seek to limit one another’s power, the disagreement is perpetuated rather than resolved. In a sense, factionalism prioritises our differences over what we have in common. The only basis for solving human disagreements is our common humanity, not our differences. We also think of governments/politicians as a faction that is notoriously in disagreement with the general population whom they purport to represent. And yet we continue to depend on governments for solutions to our problems and disagreements. We think similarly about corporations, and we continue to depend on their products and services. So how can we go about solving human disagreements when we know we cannot depend on any faction to do it for us, and that factionalism stands in the way of a solution? It is perhaps worthwhile to point out that by expecting the solution to come from me (or any other individual), one would also be committing to factionalism based on dependency.

Remember how black people just wanted equal rights; the right to sit on the bus and be allowed into shops? A few decades later they are discriminated against by their political representatives if they do not support racial riots, complain about black crime, or reject BLM communism. Remember how gay people just wanted equal rights; to be able to keep their job even if their boss did not like gays? A few decades later they are discriminated against by their political representatives if they do not support child dancers in gay strip clubs, males in female showers, or sexual mutilation of children with mental disorders. It is clear that someone is forcing them to accept more than they bargained for, as if it were a punishment for wanting equal rights in the first place. Beware of those who claim to fight ‘on your behalf’; the concept of ‘on your behalf’ was always your ultimate enemy. Was this supposed to be some kind of a lesson?

Mass media love when people make claims about medical facts. They can just call in the ‘experts’ to ‘debunk’ your claims, or just call it ‘fake news’. The general public only needs reassurance to continue believing the experts, they don't care about evidence. On the other hand, a simple, intuitively appealing ethical argument is terrifying to the experts because they cannot dismiss it as ‘fake news’. Ethics is not a question of empirical facts but something we all already know, it is part of the collective unconscious, which cannot be deceived.

Tribalism is Self-defeating

An identity that is ideologically bound to the land, that includes the land as an integral part of ‘our people’, implies nativist supremacism, which is in principle anti-human and precludes universal ethics, and is therefore a priori wrong. It is trivially true that every human is a product of their ancestors and their cumulative experiences, but tribal cultures devalue the fact that we all share the same ancient ancestors, that we are all related, and instead carve out an arbitrary value-distinction in a particular time period and area; a negation of the common roots of humanity for the sake of tribal advantage over others. The injustice of tribalism is not so much the emphasis on bloodline in their becoming, but ignoring the fact that we are all of the same bloodline, and that the significance of bloodline is logically subordinate to the human capacity to generate meaning. The best thing that indigenous tribes can do to advance their agency is to abandon tribal ideology and embrace their human identity, as conscious rational beings capable of creating unbounded meaning with all other humans, by means of what we all have in common. You are all welcome.

In the future, any doctor who vaccinated others or promoted the vaccines, but their own blood does not have vaccine-induced antibodies, could be potentially proven guilty of crimes against humanity. The fact that they faked their own vaccination status proves that they believed the vaccines cause harm (guilty mind). Their blood will the evidence of their crime.