The proof of culpability for vaccine-related deaths

Covid vaccination mandates were intended to cause people to take the vaccine contrary to their free choice. The vaccine is known to kill a percentage of people. Therefore, a percentage of vaccine-related deaths are mandated - a mandated killing by arbitrary selection. Those who mandated vaccines are culpable for arbitrary killing.

Have you noticed that Dan Andrews did not fall down any stairs for quite some time? He must be doing a ‘good’ job. The last fall must have cleared his doubts.

The most notorious ‘sovereign citizen’ on the planet is ‘sorry’ for being an intergenerational parasite. Fine, just give us back our gold (plus interest) and give up all Crown ownership claims in Australia.

How to love your enemies.

The early hominin were not aware of their own faces until they conceived of the face of another and thus began to conceive of themselves in terms of another. At that point in the evolution there emerged the Anthopos - the ‘likeness of me’. This reflexive turn was the beginning of self-awareness, which is nevertheless only indirect, mediated by the essential ‘likeness’ of another. Self-awareness is a conceptual synthesis of others from the first-person perspective, a mental act of internalising the human kind as my-Self in a situation. The more faithfully we internalise humanity as the potential for conscious choice, the more conscious we become. For this reason, we cannot dehumanise or un-Self any wrongdoer without losing the awareness of a part of the Self and thus degrade our consciousness.

The innumerate Karl does not understand that banks make more money under low interest rates, because they create more money (as credit) when credit is cheaper, and they still charge the same rate-differential. The entire credit system is fraudulent, extracting wealth from the economy by inflating the money supply and charging interest on it.

Normal has an Open chat-channel, where anyone can post. You can connect here: https://t.iss.one/+9Y43XfEvdXNjMjU1

Privacy, anonymity and secrecy protect us from the wrongdoings of others, but these also limits the scope of social participation, so it is up to us to determine the right balance of these variables.

The primary reason for landowners not to rent their properties but rather use them for Airbnb or even just leave empty, is the near-prohibitive risk associated with excessive tenant rights. If landlords cannot evict problem tenants, if rent payments may be suspended/deferred by the government for a year and evictions banned, few will be willing to accept the risk. And the expert who claims to proposes a solution is actually asking for the problem to be made more severe. “We need no forced evictions, and capping rent increases so its more realistic. It's unrealistic for households to sustain increases.”

According to the Economist “Using powers conferred by martial law, the government [of Ukraine] has banned all men aged 18-60 from leaving the country. Instead they must report for duty at a military recruitment office.” Even if Ukraine had clear conscience in every other respect (which is very much not the case), THIS law alone, demanding non-military people to kill against their will, makes Ukraine a criminal, immoral state and therefore deserving to be defeated. This outcome is likely planned, as I argued on several occasions before, but only once most Ukrainians are fed into the mincer and Ukraine largely depopulated. My impression, based on circumstantial evidence, is that Russia is covertly collaborating with NATO to de-nationalise and re-engineer the bread-basket of Europe, which also happens to be the strategic ‘pivot’ location of the world island, largely controlling the flows of energy, resources and food between Europe and Asia. At the end of this process I expect Ukraine to be much smaller, likely losing 50% of its territory, chiefly to Russia and Poland (a reward for playing their part in the scheme) and the remaining territory under direct control of the US. https://www.economist.com/europe/the-strange-role-of-conscription-in-ukraines-war/21808446

Covid vaccines proved that You Can Die of Hypochondria.

“Make Oil, Not War”. J. Lennon

An unusually interesting article from News.com: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/us-is-preparing-australia-to-go-to-war-against-china-claims-former-diplomat/news-story/33cc01cd8b99c721ae5c792da5948e70 That this is published now is a guarantee that it will not happen the way it is said it ‘might’ happen. The most interesting factors are of course not discussed, neither affirmed nor denied, which is a strong evidence that those unsaid factors are in fact dominant: 1) senile Biden is not a sign of weakness but rather of extreme confidence and competence of the US intelligence/military, acting as if they were a foolish empire in decline but behind the curtain of the doddering President, gender pronouns and drag story time is the iron will and the absolute technological superiority of the Empire; 2) the continuous technology and intelligence transfer from the USA to Russia and China to sustain the “appearance” of their military might (despite both countries being organisationally still in the Middle Ages).

Thoughts on spontaneous clarity/insights.

By ‘thought’ I mean any conscious apprehension of meaning. Ideas of perception, self, other, inside, outside, world, body, thing/object, feeling, are indeed ‘ideas’, meaningful objects of thought. By invoking them we are thinking about them. In being aware of experiencing what they signify we are also apprehending their meaning (we are thinking about them). We cannot evade thought, and any reference to objects or states that are non-thought are merely distinctions in thought, thinking about thoughts and creating a hierarchy of meanings. On this view, everything there is for consciousness is thought, and postulating the ‘origin’ of thought as either internal or external is still entirely within the omnipresent domain of thought. Nevertheless, consciousness is organised according to levels of meaning, and it is meaningful only because it is internally differentiated (a meaningful idea consists in its difference/contrast from everything else: the law of identity). Crucially, differences of ideas also require differentiation of the loci of consciousness, as internal ‘socialisation’ of multiple points of view and quasi-autonomous ‘minds’, which are fluid in their (individualised) meaning content. Consciousness can exist as an integrated, higher-order idea only as a multiplicity.

At the opposite end of the hierarchy of meanings is the natural world. Nature, including the inorganic physical world, is, in a sense, a manifestation of the ‘collective unconscious’, the totality/complexity of meanings that consciousness has progressively externalised as having the relational integrity of a World. Behind this process is the procedural ideal (ideal agency, or Logos) that guided its creation via the rules of discernment of possible vs impossible, real vs unreal, true vs false, in every manifestation of rational consciousness. As such, the world is meaning, every real part of which is meaningful and necessary to sustain the integrity of the whole, which in turn makes the whole existentially conditional on rational consciousness. Logos (as the principle of sense) is above and before the world, it is also in the world as the embodied rational consciousness, and it is the world as its meaningful appearance/experience.

It seems possible to apprehend sections of the immense complexity of the ‘collective unconscious’ as spontaneous insights, moments of clarity, which manifest (meaningfully) as if from the birds-eye view, without all the ungraspable complexity but only as a unified impression of an image. Perhaps the total image is accessible at all times, but it is so familiar that we are habituated not to ‘see’ it, like fish in water, and the only times we experience extraordinary insights is when circumstances and emotions emphasise/focalise only a relevant section of the total image (by obscuring everything else).

(I intentionally avoided the term ‘intuition’ due to its colloquial vagueness, often used to signify our biases, guesses or preferences rather than genuine insights. As a general rule, based partly on experience, if there is an urge to interpret/describe a moment of clarity, then it is not clarity, not a genuine insight. Moments of clarity are epistemically complete, and nothing needs to be added, represented or interpreted.)

Why are all the ‘independent’ central banks all over the world doing the same thing, for the last 10 years, as if they were not independent at all?

This is what actual pollution looks like (not like the planet greening CO2): https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/definitely-not-safe-animals-falling-sick-dying-near-hellish-ohio-train-derailment-site/news-story/87f5a9a8b5be4e6f99b140a5a17946bf

If this story is accurate, TGA should be taken to court for failing to perform their statutory duty and for misleading the public. https://gerardrennick.com.au/tga-cover-up-child-deaths

My Second Letter to Russell Broadbent (14.02.2023)

Thank you for speaking on behalf of the unvaccinated. I am an ethicist (published in the BMJ on the question of vaccine mandates) and I want to share with you my strongest arguments against the mandates.

Summary of the three strongest arguments against the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates and why any medical procedure imposed by coercion must be refused.

1. Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow our unrestricted participation in society, which amounts to discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. This devaluation of the innate human constitution is not only universally dehumanising, but it perverts the very concept of human rights; discrimination against the unvaccinated implies that our innate human constitution is no longer a guarantee of full human rights. The present argument is fully developed here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240.

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, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion. Crucially, by accepting any medical treatment imposed by coercion we would be acquiescing to the taking away of the right to free medical consent not only from ourselves but from our children and from future generations, and we do not have the right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is always unethical, even if the mandated intervention were a placebo.*

3. Vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive 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 infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine 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 the targeted population are expected to die as a result of this coercive treatment. By refusing to accept mandated vaccines we take an ethical stance in defence of the right to life.

An earlier version of these arguments were formally submitted to the Inquiry into Public Health Amendment Bill 2021 (No 2) ACT and subsequently published here.

I have also contacted several regulatory agencies (SIRA, Australian Government Department of Health, Mr Gavrielatos at Safe Work NSW, Australian Medical Association, and Safe Work Australia) with two questions relating to a possible conflict between Covid-19 vaccine mandates and workplace safety. I have received only generic responses; not one agency or person contacted has explicitly answered my two questions, which were formulated as follows:

1. Do you acknowledge that Covid vaccination occasionally causes death of healthy people, even if the overall outcome benefits most people?

2. If yes, do you acknowledge that when an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

Would you be willing to present these questions to the health minister?

According to doctors this is her choice, completely voluntary, no coercion whatsoever (just like rape). Any doctor who exercises medical coercion should be instantly deregistered.

If the effectiveness of vaccines does not make vaccine mandates ethical, then the ineffectiveness of vaccines is the wrong argument against the mandates.

When public officials justify the requirement to be vaccinated against Covid they typically appeal to safety but do not acknowledge the mounting evidence that the vaccine is more harmful than no vaccine. This is an obvious problem with their justification. The fact that they ignore the evidence of widespread harm suggests that they want you to get stuck on this point, get frustrated and angry about the absurdity of their omission. Most people who oppose Covid vaccine mandates think this is just about Covid vaccines, about the current discrimination, but the public officials are apparently playing a long game here. They want you to focus on the ‘defectiveness’ of the vaccine as THE reason for the mandates being wrong, so when an effective vaccine is one day mandated you we will have no grounds to object to it. The hypothetical ‘really effective vaccine’ will be presumably for a much more serious threat, a real lethal threat that you will see your loved ones (children?) die from, and the future mandates will face little opposition because you will see it as effective, but it may be the actual ‘weapon’, the one they were preparing you for all along. My argument is that ‘effectiveness’ is ethicaly irrelevant, that it must be stressed as irrelevant. What matters is that 1) the natural human constitution, the way we are born must not be discriminated against, because this is the basis of human rights; 2) no life can be taken away for the benefit of others; 3) the right to free medical consent is the strongest protection from crimes against humanity and must be defended at all cost. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical