COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 and the Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) Bill 2023 SUBMISSION Nr 7 is evidence that the mandates violate the right to life: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=08499f08-e9d7-458d-bd14-9b68a6c590bf&subId=734962
The hearings of the Inquiry into Covid-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 have begun, but my submission is still not “processed”, after being “lost” in their spam folder, despite being the only person in this country (actually, in the world) who presented a case against the ethical permissibility of all vaccine mandates in a top medical journal. It would be scandalous if the most qualified person to oppose the government policy in question were denied voice in this inquiry, especially after having demonstrated their moral and legal culpability associated with vaccine mandates. Am I that scary? https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?hearingid=30842 This is my submission: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/submission-to-the-inquiry-into-covid
The individual capacity for freedom is limited by inconsistent beliefs, which, to various degrees, make the individual incapable of consistently realising his intentions. Moreover, most people do not even care about their freedom of thought, preferring to assimilate second-hand ideologies instead of thinking from fundamental principles. The biggest obstacle to individual freedom is not the political system but the lack of individual integrity.
Political systems are human creations, or rather, symptoms of our deficiencies as rational beings. I argue that the only problem to be solved is to improve our capacity to reason/think consistently, because common meaning can be generated only by reasoning and communicating with one another on societal level, ideally on global level. By communicating across all cultural boundaries we learn that all human values and choices are subject to the same fundamental rules of meaning/sense, which do not allow contradiction. All conflicts and disagreements can be reduced to an error of reasoning, and can be overcome by rational beings.
One practical obstacle to cultivating common meaning is posed by people who either deny that humanity is bound by common laws of meaning/sense, or lack the will to reason consistently (they prefer to be told what to do). The standard remedy to this obstacle, the most direct lesson in logic, is suffering, and this is typically fulfilled by opressive political systems. Where the laws of sense are violated, suffering and murder inevitably follow.
One practical obstacle to cultivating common meaning is posed by people who either deny that humanity is bound by common laws of meaning/sense, or lack the will to reason consistently (they prefer to be told what to do). The standard remedy to this obstacle, the most direct lesson in logic, is suffering, and this is typically fulfilled by opressive political systems. Where the laws of sense are violated, suffering and murder inevitably follow.
Email to Anthony Albanese, PM of Australia (06.05.2023)
Dear Prime minister,
I am an indigenous person whose ancestors walked the Earth some 200 million years ago, before Australia became a continent. My ancestors, the First People, are the true original owners of the Earth on account of their earliest exclusive possession of the landmass that includes the present day continent of Australia. I hereby claim original ownership over this entire continent on behalf of my people. Since all living humans are descendants of the First People, my ancestors, I provisionally include all permanent residents of Australia as co-claimants, including You. I respect the right of anyone to deny our shared original ownership and thus relinquish the associated ownership rights.
I call on You to denounce the false claims made by some tribal corporations that they alone are the first people and the original owners of this landmass or any part thereof.
Sincerely,
Dear Prime minister,
I am an indigenous person whose ancestors walked the Earth some 200 million years ago, before Australia became a continent. My ancestors, the First People, are the true original owners of the Earth on account of their earliest exclusive possession of the landmass that includes the present day continent of Australia. I hereby claim original ownership over this entire continent on behalf of my people. Since all living humans are descendants of the First People, my ancestors, I provisionally include all permanent residents of Australia as co-claimants, including You. I respect the right of anyone to deny our shared original ownership and thus relinquish the associated ownership rights.
I call on You to denounce the false claims made by some tribal corporations that they alone are the first people and the original owners of this landmass or any part thereof.
Sincerely,
A common characteristic of pagan/polytheistic cults is that their gods quarrelled, cheated, fought and abused one another. Human subjects of such gods were stuck with contradictory ideals, with bad role models, and their moral conduct could not possibly be better than that of their gods.
In Norse/Germanic paganism the top gods were violent, tempestuous and intemperate, gods of war (those tribes were literally idolising conflict and murder). The essence of their value system seems to be animal survival and domination through violence, with no transcendental principle to be discerned. They had no concept of humanity, no ideas about the principles of sense, meaning, consciousness. Their paganism was primitive in every sense, irrational and self-defeating, and the only reason it is promoted today is because it is inseparable from Nazi ideology. Nazism was impossible without mystifying the connection between ‘blood and soil’, and paganism offered them this ideological excuse to dehumanise other races ‘on their ancestral soil’. Nativist supremacism is not possible without animistic commitments. What they failed to understand is that the value of humanity resides in rational agency, which is independent of ‘bloodline’ and contrary to tribalism. Paganism and subsequently Nazism denied the conditions of their own capacity to generate meaning and bestow value, and this implicitly denied even their own values.
On Ethno-Traditionalism
Some influencers of the ‘freedom movement’ are advocating the idea that global fascism can be defeated only by a return to a culturally homogenous nationhood ruled by traditions inherited from the ancient tribes of that area. Let us forget for now about the implications of “blood & soil” ideology, or ‘nativist supremacism’, which is a complex subject in its own right. They seem to forget that just two years ago, perhaps still now, the majority of their own ethno-tribe, their own family, would have them forcibly vaccinated, masked and locked up in a concentration camp if they did not comply with the arbitrary and harmful orders of the day. No, your ethno-tribe will not have your back if you start to think rationally and therefore autonomusly. Are those ethno-traditionalist influencers also not aware that the overwhelming majority of their tribe does not give a damn about traditions anymore? They just want affordable bread and reliable services, including social media where they can conveniently post their ‘opinions’ about covidiots, or whatever is the current thing they are told to talk about. In any case, traditions were always only about crowd control, allowing every fool to live their life without thinking, because they knew what was expected of them, and obedience to these rules was the only standard of right vs wrong; no moral conscience required. Try to exit this ideological enclosure because you found something ‘wrong’ with it and see how quickly they will dispatch with you. But what happens when traditions are lost? Without tradition you have two choices: 1) obey the rulling power unquestioningly, which is absurd, or 2) think, about almost everything, and make a moral decision at every step, which is hard work. Can you see what just happened? Because the traditions are mostly lost, cultural homogeneity undermined, things became scary and no longer make sense, some people started to think, trying to work things out. Even the proponents of tribal ethno-nationalism started to think instead of just hailing their tribal gods of war and mindlessly practicing the rites of fertility in the great circe of life. It is predictable that the first reaction would be fight/flight, wanting to UNDO all the bad changes and go back to some mythical safe-place where the gods of war kept their ancient tribe healthy, harmonious and happy, and nobody would dare to have a wrong idea because the village chieftain would chop off their head. When they will realise that this vision is just a sanitised illusion, just a fear-reaction, they will think again, will try to work things out a little deeper, perhaps relinquish some of the old assumptions and think of something entirely new. This is a good thing.
The compliant majority is still complying, not yet thinking. They are adhering to the pattern of their traditional thought-regime even after giving up their traditions. People cannot realise they are captives of a thought-regime, let alone be freed from a thought-regime, until they realise that the invisible regime is itself the cause of pain, or plainly absurd. They need more time.
Some influencers of the ‘freedom movement’ are advocating the idea that global fascism can be defeated only by a return to a culturally homogenous nationhood ruled by traditions inherited from the ancient tribes of that area. Let us forget for now about the implications of “blood & soil” ideology, or ‘nativist supremacism’, which is a complex subject in its own right. They seem to forget that just two years ago, perhaps still now, the majority of their own ethno-tribe, their own family, would have them forcibly vaccinated, masked and locked up in a concentration camp if they did not comply with the arbitrary and harmful orders of the day. No, your ethno-tribe will not have your back if you start to think rationally and therefore autonomusly. Are those ethno-traditionalist influencers also not aware that the overwhelming majority of their tribe does not give a damn about traditions anymore? They just want affordable bread and reliable services, including social media where they can conveniently post their ‘opinions’ about covidiots, or whatever is the current thing they are told to talk about. In any case, traditions were always only about crowd control, allowing every fool to live their life without thinking, because they knew what was expected of them, and obedience to these rules was the only standard of right vs wrong; no moral conscience required. Try to exit this ideological enclosure because you found something ‘wrong’ with it and see how quickly they will dispatch with you. But what happens when traditions are lost? Without tradition you have two choices: 1) obey the rulling power unquestioningly, which is absurd, or 2) think, about almost everything, and make a moral decision at every step, which is hard work. Can you see what just happened? Because the traditions are mostly lost, cultural homogeneity undermined, things became scary and no longer make sense, some people started to think, trying to work things out. Even the proponents of tribal ethno-nationalism started to think instead of just hailing their tribal gods of war and mindlessly practicing the rites of fertility in the great circe of life. It is predictable that the first reaction would be fight/flight, wanting to UNDO all the bad changes and go back to some mythical safe-place where the gods of war kept their ancient tribe healthy, harmonious and happy, and nobody would dare to have a wrong idea because the village chieftain would chop off their head. When they will realise that this vision is just a sanitised illusion, just a fear-reaction, they will think again, will try to work things out a little deeper, perhaps relinquish some of the old assumptions and think of something entirely new. This is a good thing.
The compliant majority is still complying, not yet thinking. They are adhering to the pattern of their traditional thought-regime even after giving up their traditions. People cannot realise they are captives of a thought-regime, let alone be freed from a thought-regime, until they realise that the invisible regime is itself the cause of pain, or plainly absurd. They need more time.
Another hilarious, and tragic, piece by a self-hating marxist who happens to be an exceptional writer: https://samkriss.substack.com/p/in-englands-dreaming
Substack
In England's dreaming
Lizards and black magic: a republican case for Charles
There is no escape from the ‘other’ side of humanity. They are our alter-ego, our own shadow.
A sovereign citizen who goes by the name Charles III ran from the journalists and refused to answer questions following his sentencing to 100 hours of community service at the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court.
A true story.
I recently ordered some injectable vitamin C, but I didn’t have any syringes. I also felt a bit uneasy about self-injecting (never done it before) so I procrastinated. Today I was driving past a drug injecting centre, and having all the ‘gear’ still in the car I realised they might give me a quick demo and some free syringes for home use. This was also a good opportunity to investigate what happens inside these injecting centres. I walked in, some guy in a blue tracksuit asked my for spare cash, about three times, but I ignored him, went straight up to a nurse and quietly explained the situation (the place felt a bit like a library, so my voice naturally assumed THAT tone). She says (in a normal voice) that they can’t help me. I say Why? (now also adjusting my voice to normal), it is only vitamin C. She tells me to go to my GP because their liability insurance does not cover “this kind of use”. The explanation sounded rather typical of the local government absurdities so I just nodded ok ok, fine, just please give me some syringes and I will somehow do it myself. The nurse again says “No, our liability insurance does not cover this kind of use… and you are holding up the customers, SIR!”. So I say, what if I had some heroin in the car and just needed some syringes. She looked at me sternly and said that I already told her what I really need those syringes for. I responded, what if I lied, because I was too embarrassed to tell you I use heroin. At this point she calls the security and I got instantly man handled by a huge Māori guy (I didnt even see him coming at me) and was not so gently forced out the front door. All the junkies looked at me as if I were some kind of criminal. A disheveled woman clutching an empty shopping trolley was shaking her head with disgust as I was limping away… What a day!
I recently ordered some injectable vitamin C, but I didn’t have any syringes. I also felt a bit uneasy about self-injecting (never done it before) so I procrastinated. Today I was driving past a drug injecting centre, and having all the ‘gear’ still in the car I realised they might give me a quick demo and some free syringes for home use. This was also a good opportunity to investigate what happens inside these injecting centres. I walked in, some guy in a blue tracksuit asked my for spare cash, about three times, but I ignored him, went straight up to a nurse and quietly explained the situation (the place felt a bit like a library, so my voice naturally assumed THAT tone). She says (in a normal voice) that they can’t help me. I say Why? (now also adjusting my voice to normal), it is only vitamin C. She tells me to go to my GP because their liability insurance does not cover “this kind of use”. The explanation sounded rather typical of the local government absurdities so I just nodded ok ok, fine, just please give me some syringes and I will somehow do it myself. The nurse again says “No, our liability insurance does not cover this kind of use… and you are holding up the customers, SIR!”. So I say, what if I had some heroin in the car and just needed some syringes. She looked at me sternly and said that I already told her what I really need those syringes for. I responded, what if I lied, because I was too embarrassed to tell you I use heroin. At this point she calls the security and I got instantly man handled by a huge Māori guy (I didnt even see him coming at me) and was not so gently forced out the front door. All the junkies looked at me as if I were some kind of criminal. A disheveled woman clutching an empty shopping trolley was shaking her head with disgust as I was limping away… What a day!
Nonsense cannot be ethical or moral. Any ‘moral code’ or ethical claim that contains a logical fallacy (contradicts itself) is nonsense, therefore wrong. The starting point for morality/ethics is consistent reasoning, not ‘the heart’, not tradition, not ideology, not obedience, not nature.
I suspect the experts agree that the majority cannot be reasoned with, cannot be morally ‘fixed’ but only ‘managed’. The events of the last few decades fit the Nietzschean dictum: “Whom you cannot teach how to fly, teach how to fall the quickest.” This won’t work either. The experts are evidently also just people who are yet to learn how to fly.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
My Email to Energy Network company regarding the introduction of a quarterly Meter Reading Fee.
I received your letter informing me that a meter reading fee will apply if a smart meter is not installed, implying that this fee covers an additional cost to your company associated with traditional meters.
In order to establish whether your financial claim reflects a genuine cost, I need additional information:
1. The actual purchase price of the additional “smart meter”.
2. The estimated installation cost of the additional “smart meter”.
3. The expected service-free lifespan of the proposed “smart meter”.
I bring to your attention that the extended scope of information that would be collected by a “smart meter” is owned by me and is subject to licensing. You have not attempted to negotiate a price for this near real-time, energy-lifestyle information to be made available to you. If you will make me an offer, I will be able to determine whether “smart meter” is the right choice for me.
I received your letter informing me that a meter reading fee will apply if a smart meter is not installed, implying that this fee covers an additional cost to your company associated with traditional meters.
In order to establish whether your financial claim reflects a genuine cost, I need additional information:
1. The actual purchase price of the additional “smart meter”.
2. The estimated installation cost of the additional “smart meter”.
3. The expected service-free lifespan of the proposed “smart meter”.
I bring to your attention that the extended scope of information that would be collected by a “smart meter” is owned by me and is subject to licensing. You have not attempted to negotiate a price for this near real-time, energy-lifestyle information to be made available to you. If you will make me an offer, I will be able to determine whether “smart meter” is the right choice for me.
Update on the manual meter reading fee (see above): The energy company has decided not to impose a charge on manual meter readings, and apologised for confusion and inconvenience caused by their previous letter.
There is a logical distinction between valuing health and valuing the necessary conditions of health - the necessary condition of value is not ‘therefore’ valuable, this is a common logical fallacy. philpapers.org/rec/KOWWII Disease is a necessary condition of the value of penicillin, but disease is not valuable because penicillin is valuable. So, we can value what we need nature for without valuing nature because of it, precisely because nature is also a source of disease and pain, and the cause of death.
philpapers.org
Michael Kowalik, When it is Not Logically Necessary for a Necessary Condition of Value to be Valuable - PhilPapers
The premise that it is logically necessary for a necessary condition of value to be valuable is sometimes used in metaethics in support of the claim that agency, or some constitutive ...
Negative inclusion is Exclusion.
To include the negation of something with that something, you only exclude that something, without including anything else in its place. For example, by including as women those who ‘contradict the premise that only females are women’ with those who ‘are women only because they are females’, you exclude females from women and end up with an empty category.
To include the negation of something with that something, you only exclude that something, without including anything else in its place. For example, by including as women those who ‘contradict the premise that only females are women’ with those who ‘are women only because they are females’, you exclude females from women and end up with an empty category.
If most people are substantially controllable under certain conditions, and those conditions can be produced by a leader, then most people are substantially not free to begin with. The degree to which people are controllable is not all or nothing; this is evidently a matter of degree and varies from person to person. On the other hand, since Humans are essentially moral beings (if we were not moral beings then our freedom would have no intrinsic value), we are not blameless for being controllable. And here lies a dilemma: we must either accept moral responsibility for our unfreedom, or we did not deserve freedom in the first place.