Some of the most popular defenders of “medical freedom” and body autonomy are slowly redirecting the freedom narrative to “vaccine mandates are legal, but this is not a vaccine”. See, for them it is all just about the definition of “vaccine”, not about medical coercion in general. They are happy to inject you, by force if necessary, but only with a ‘real’ vaccine: “No government should be able to mandate a vaccine unless they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the intervention’s benefits outweigh the risks“ (Steve Kirsch) https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/are-vaccine-mandates-constitutional
Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Are vaccine mandates constitutional? Yes. But are these "vaccines"?
Aaron Siri debated Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the Berkeley Law School. Neither persuaded the other that he was right. Courts usually trust the government on whether vaccines work. That's the problem.
“Real vaccines” kill people too, even when the benefits outweigh the risks. Vaccine mandates coerce people to participate in an activity in the course of which a percentage of them are expected to die. It is morally irrelevant whether you kill people for the benefit of the majority or for the benefit of the few.
You can believe whomever you like, you can follow the advice of any expert, but the moment you assert that the expert opinion is true, the moment you demand public compliance with someone else’s opinion, you are assuming personal responsibility for the correctness and truthfulness of the opinion. The very fact that you ‘trust’ the opinion of an expert prooves that you have no personal knowledge of the underlying facts, that you do not know that the opinion is not harmful and wrong, and therefore you knowingly promote and enforce claims that could be harmful and wrong, and this alone makes you morally culpable.
The concept of political authority purports to legitimise some moral wrongs on the premise that those are powers exercised by a legitimate authority. This view involves at least two logical fallacies: 1) petitio principii (‘begging the question’) in purporting to derive the legitimacy of action from the premise of legitimacy of the agent; 2) is/ought fallacy, in equivocating between the existence of an authority and what the authority OUGHT to do. From the second point we can deduct that the premise of authority (legitimate or not) is moot, and all that matters is the distinction between ought and ought-not, that is, between right and wrong.
The Three Fundamental Laws of Nonsense
1. Law of No Identity: nothing is identitical to itself, not even the Law of No Identity.
2. Law of Included Middle: this law is partly true and partly false, like, whatever.
3. Law of Contradiction: this law is true and false at the same time and in the same respect.
1. Law of No Identity: nothing is identitical to itself, not even the Law of No Identity.
2. Law of Included Middle: this law is partly true and partly false, like, whatever.
3. Law of Contradiction: this law is true and false at the same time and in the same respect.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
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.
BREAKING NEWS: Leading experts are adamant that it is not appropriate to define ‘what is a hen’, but insist that any cock could be a hen and should be respected as such. Some cocks are hens; some hens are cocks. In fact, some of the most famous hens throughout history were hatched as cocks, only to realise that they were in fact hens.
Those who invoke human rights to defend their tribal interests are contradicting themselves. By prioritising “my people” they devalue humanity, and thus negate the logical basis of human rights. There is no “my people”; there are only People and Animals, and every Hominin has the capacity to choose where to belong. We choose humanity by not making unconditional demands or declaring “my truth”, but by reasoning and deliberating with all others to rationally resolve any disagreements from commonly accepted premises. A commitment to humanity is a commitment to create common meaning and this cannot be done by holding onto “your truth” or “your people”. Unless you renounce your tribe as the essence of your identity and stand alone as a human, you are not yet willing to understand other humans, and you will not find peace.
In March 2021 ReasearchGate has censored and removed my peer-reviewed paper ‘Ethics of vaccine refusal’ for allegedly violating their terms of service related to community safety. I was reprimanded and given my ‘first warning’:) I naturally quit the platform in protest and removed all my work from there. It is curious that they tolerate pre-prints of scientific and legal opposition to Covid vaccines, but not ethical opposition to vaccine mandates.
What do you think is going on here? This is the new project by Jordan Peterson with the overall objective to fix the world. https://www.arcforum.com/committee/
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Good politicians come and go. They declare their advocacy for some issues, they cast their vote, then their term expires and their advocacy is displaced by that of other politicians. In contrast, fundamental, logically consistent arguments are eternal; their term does not expire and once realised cannot be erased either by time or by destructive actions of Man. It is only a matter of time that a logically consistent argument must prevail over logical errors and moral wrongs, and will become the new norm. In the end, the justice of reason always gets its man. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical
Substack
Why Vaccine Mandates are Unethical
Summary of the strongest ethical arguments against vaccine mandates
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Bank runs are no longer a threat to the banking system
The view that a general bank run would be a problem for the banks, and that banks would fail if it happened ‘because there is not enough cash in existence to cover all deposits’, is misguided. A bank run would be used to instantly go fully digital (this is probably the plan). Banks will simply refuse withdrawals and close branches/atms (bank holiday), all legal, forcing everyone to use electronic transfers/payments only. Banks nowadays are not limited like they were during the Great Depression, they don’t need cash to remain solvent. They would fulfil their contractual obligations by allowing depositors to access their accounts to make electronic transfers/payments. The only way to bankrupt a bank nowadays is for it to fail to pay its debts to other banks or bond-holders.
The view that a general bank run would be a problem for the banks, and that banks would fail if it happened ‘because there is not enough cash in existence to cover all deposits’, is misguided. A bank run would be used to instantly go fully digital (this is probably the plan). Banks will simply refuse withdrawals and close branches/atms (bank holiday), all legal, forcing everyone to use electronic transfers/payments only. Banks nowadays are not limited like they were during the Great Depression, they don’t need cash to remain solvent. They would fulfil their contractual obligations by allowing depositors to access their accounts to make electronic transfers/payments. The only way to bankrupt a bank nowadays is for it to fail to pay its debts to other banks or bond-holders.
Create a problem, sell a solution that will create a new problem, sell a solution to the new problem that will create a new problem, sell a solution to the new problem that will create a new problem, sell a solution to the new problem that will create a new problem, sell a solution to the new problem that will create a new problem, …
SVB
Cash withdrawals were not critical in SVB failure. The bank could endure any pressure on its cash holdings by simply refusing to cash-out deposits and still fulfil any pay-on-demand requests by allowing only digital payments/transfers. It is certain that SVB failed not because of limited cash on hand (no bank has enough cash to cover more than 3% of their deposits) but due to electronic transfers to different banks. This has created new overnight payment obligation on SVB to other banks they could not offset with their diminishing assets or by borrowing more money from the FED (or anywhere else). The real bank run was electronic withdraws by other banks. All contemporary banks are inherently insolvent as individual entities and can function only as a cartel.
Cash withdrawals were not critical in SVB failure. The bank could endure any pressure on its cash holdings by simply refusing to cash-out deposits and still fulfil any pay-on-demand requests by allowing only digital payments/transfers. It is certain that SVB failed not because of limited cash on hand (no bank has enough cash to cover more than 3% of their deposits) but due to electronic transfers to different banks. This has created new overnight payment obligation on SVB to other banks they could not offset with their diminishing assets or by borrowing more money from the FED (or anywhere else). The real bank run was electronic withdraws by other banks. All contemporary banks are inherently insolvent as individual entities and can function only as a cartel.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Email to UN Women (04.04.2023)
In anticipation of the day of celebration of women I want to share with you an important logical and legal insight that may assist you in rationally, respectfully and ethically approaching any conflict of identity associated with womanhood.
Gender identity is typically defined as the personal sense of one’s own gender. I argue that this conception of gender identity, once generalised as a social principle, leads to legal contradictions. In summary, if your gender identity rests on certain premises, and if you must contradict those premises to recognise the gender identity of another, then anyone compelling you to do so would entail discrimination against your own gender identity, therefore contradiction.
Premise 1: Gender-identity of X consists in being a Woman in virtue of her sense of having a female body, different from a male body. Her deeply felt sense of being different from the male sex is part of her gender identity.
Premise 2: Gender-identity of Y consists in being a Woman with a male body (Transgender).
Consequence 1: For X to recognise Y (a male) as a Woman entails invalidation of X’s own gender identity. Specifically, X’s acceptance of Premise 2 would amount to denying her ‘deeply felt sense of difference from the male sex’ being part of her gender identity.
Consequence 2: For X to preserve X’s own gender identity necessitates invalidation of Y’s gender identity, because of X’s ‘deeply felt sense of difference from the male sex’ being part of her gender identity.
Informally, what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for Y is logically inconsistent with what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for X, which either invalidates the concept of womanhood (by violating the Law of Identity) or entails that one of the mutually inconsistent identities is false. Legal protection of the gender identity of one person (or any personal demands to that effect) may thus discriminate against the gender identity of another; the exercise of the law (or social principle) violates itself, which is absurd, therefore false.
I hope this will be of assistance going forward.
In anticipation of the day of celebration of women I want to share with you an important logical and legal insight that may assist you in rationally, respectfully and ethically approaching any conflict of identity associated with womanhood.
Gender identity is typically defined as the personal sense of one’s own gender. I argue that this conception of gender identity, once generalised as a social principle, leads to legal contradictions. In summary, if your gender identity rests on certain premises, and if you must contradict those premises to recognise the gender identity of another, then anyone compelling you to do so would entail discrimination against your own gender identity, therefore contradiction.
Premise 1: Gender-identity of X consists in being a Woman in virtue of her sense of having a female body, different from a male body. Her deeply felt sense of being different from the male sex is part of her gender identity.
Premise 2: Gender-identity of Y consists in being a Woman with a male body (Transgender).
Consequence 1: For X to recognise Y (a male) as a Woman entails invalidation of X’s own gender identity. Specifically, X’s acceptance of Premise 2 would amount to denying her ‘deeply felt sense of difference from the male sex’ being part of her gender identity.
Consequence 2: For X to preserve X’s own gender identity necessitates invalidation of Y’s gender identity, because of X’s ‘deeply felt sense of difference from the male sex’ being part of her gender identity.
Informally, what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for Y is logically inconsistent with what it ‘feels like to be a woman’ for X, which either invalidates the concept of womanhood (by violating the Law of Identity) or entails that one of the mutually inconsistent identities is false. Legal protection of the gender identity of one person (or any personal demands to that effect) may thus discriminate against the gender identity of another; the exercise of the law (or social principle) violates itself, which is absurd, therefore false.
I hope this will be of assistance going forward.
No bank ever does have the depositors money on hand, if that means cash, because all cash in existence is only 3% of all the money in bank accounts. The amount held in your bank account is itself “money”, so in this other sense the banks always has all your money on hand, by definition. Problems arise only if one bank cannot fully offset or otherwise cover the debt it has to other banks. When you transfer your money from bank A to bank B, bank A has an instant debt to bank B. If bank A at the end of the day owes more to bank B than bank B owes to bank A, bank A must borrow money from the market or the FED at overnight rates. In a crisis situation the market might not be willing to lend any more money to bank A, which results in a formal insolvency.
This is misinformation. A countrywide bank run is not possible because transfers from the failing banks have to go somewhere. Cash is no longer necessary to meet the pay-on-demand obligations to depositors, as digital payments can be and would be legally used where cash holdings are exhausted. In this game One bank ultimately wins - the strongest bank would consume everyone else by attracting all the depositors from the weaker banks, but this is also an unrealistic scenario. Several top banks operate to the same level of risk, work as a cartel, and they would find a new balance of payments way before a “countrywide bank run”.