Have I missed any instance where any of the leading influencers of the freedom movement argued that vaccine mandates violate the right to life? (not just that Covid vaccines kill some people, which even the TGA admits)

A modern dictator’s guide to counterinsurgency

The most secure way of neutralising the commoners’ resistance to progressive state policies is to create a reality-TV series called “the freedom movement” (or something positive sounding and empowering like that). A cast of charismatic organisers/rebels/mavericks from different walks of life are the main protagonists. They gain prominence in the pilot episode, each performing a simple act of resistance captured on video. Speaking the language of the people they deliver a daily dose of “the Revolution” right to your sofa, each with a high energy vlog of platitudes to motivate you to stay on it and “just trust me, we are making a huge difference”. From time to time the organisers will stage a festive meetup in a public place to give you the sense of full, realistic immersion in the series (this is a crucial element of reality-TV and what the audience loves the most). These meetups should be realistically called “protests” and contain surprise, hyper-real performances by affiliated artists. Some suggestions for the embedded performances: a thrilling visit from the “riot squad” in full gear, an occasional violent “arrest” of one of the protagonists, a discovery and capture of a “real” firearm on one of the “protesters”, an accidental run-in with ANTIFA, and the all time favourite: “the burning of the Parliament House”.

It was once understood, correctly, that “the [real] revolution will not be televised”. The task of the dictator is therefore to ensure that “the Revolution” is televised, vlogged, delivered right to your door, the information channels saturated with everything “revolutionary”, the drama and bloodshed of “true resistance” fed directly to your screen. The polarity of Good and Evil must be absolute, and the audience made to oscillate between hopeless terror and “nothing can stop us now”, driven to daily catharsis. Live-out the real revolution in reality-TV. “Oh! What a Difference.” ✊

Join NORMAL

Street protests are a blunt and dangerous tool that can succeed only under specific conditions: when the protesters express the will of the majority. When they occur too early, before the time is right, before the majority has suffered enough, street protests are an instrument of control that serves the ruling power. You were incited to protest AGAINST the will of the majority, seduced to fund hopless class actions and cases, because nothing demoralises like futile effort. Your energy and motivation were tactically exhausted by a smarter, better resourced adversary, so that when the time will be right you will be spent, without hope or energy, your spirit broken. A wiser strategy would be to patiently endure and feel the pulse of the majority, be wiling to suffer more than the majority until THEIR spirit of collusion is broken. You could never win against the majority with the blunt tool of street protests, you were led up the garden path.

Street protests and bad legal arguments were allowed and given airtime because they were useful to the ruling power, but this strategy also revealed a vulnerability. That which was consistently ignored, not publicly addressed even with contempt and criticism, is what the ruling power is the most afraid of, cannot openly attack since any attempt to confront it could be fatal to the illusion of legitimacy, could shift the majority against it. We know what it is.

https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical

BREAKING NEWS: The World Health Organisation has issued a new education guidance, described as an "evidence-based framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities and specialists", advising that toddlers should experience the effect of common narcotics in age-appropriate amounts, understand the difference between pleasurable and un-pleasurable use of psychoactive substances, and develop the attitude that “My body belongs to me” (except in the case of vaccines). "Education about narcotics, sex and pleasure starts from birth" said the WHO spokesperson, adding that children aged four and under should be taught about "the enjoyment and pleasure of narcotics when touching one's own body, watching pornography, or while engaging in early childhood masturbation";)

Very few doctors can discern and are willing to acknowledge the bigger picture, principled rather than utilitarian, of medical ethics. This is one of them. He deserves support. https://rmachine.substack.com/p/why-we-lost-before-we-started

So good: https://rmachine.substack.com/p/leaving-psychiatry-chapter-11-liberty

Religious Freedom

There is a fundamental problem with arguments against vaccine mandates that appeal to religious discrimination. It is immoral and hypocritical for religious people to try to save themselves and throw everyone else under the bus. By implication, the entire sphere of legally guaranteed religious freedom is morally suspect. If a person thinks that something is objectively harmful then why protect only their religious community from it. It would make sense to justify to everyone why something is objectively wrong for everyone, and if you cannot justify it then it is unclear why your conviction should be respected. It is not enough to say that you subjectively believe that X is wrong; if your moral judgement extends to others then it commits you to justify your conviction in terms what we all have in common.

If you are aware that others also believe that the vaccine is harmful to them, or that medical coercion is abhorrent to them and to humanity, and you only care to find a loophole for yourself, you betray humanity, but by doing so you also betray your own humanity. All major religions have failed a basic moral test, and the metaphysical consequences of this fundamental error are inescapable.

To devalue the humanity of others by pursuing self-interest at the expense of others, amounts to self-dehumanisation. This is essentially a Kantian thesis: if we do not respect the humanity of others to the same degree that we respect our own humanity, we negate the value of the human kind, but by doing so we also negate our own value, as members of that kind.

Compliance with an unethical law, even by means of a mandated exemption, entails affirmation of the legitimacy of that law, unless done under protest and forced to comply. To comply with a proposition is to affirm the proposition: the legal term for this is tacit or performative acquiescence.

For as long as humanity existed there were mass murderers and tyrants. When ‘righteous violence’ was used to defeat them it only made space for new mass murders and tyrants to take their place. After thousands of years of ‘righteous violence’, mass murderers and tyrants still rule, but many people think that ‘righteous violence’ is the solution to this problem.

Nothing cheapens women more than the proposition that anyone can be a woman.

Being ready does not mean having a plan, but having a foundation that will not be shaken by anything unexpected. Reality will always surprise you.

Those who claim that morality is impossible without religion unwittingly confess that they themselves lack moral conscience and must be told what is right or wrong. Conversely, if morality is independent of religion then what is religion for?

If the majority of citizens in a democratic state voted in a referendum to adopt Nativist Supremacism, the core features of Nazi ideology, as a state doctrine, would Nazism become legitimate again, or would it still be morally wrong and therefore unlawful? Then why are we forced to have this referendum?

A ‘how to’ guide to using reverse psychology to realise unpopular UN agenda items. You get VIC Forests to abuse their own guidelines, make a mess in the old growth forests, log sensitive sites. This is expected to create public outrage and get a radical reaction from environmental activists who otherwise have nothing else to live for apart from smoking pot. Now they have a moral purpose, they too can be heroes of the revolution. You put a couple of competent organisers to get these potheads to coherently work together, blockade the same logging sites at the right time. This drives up the cost of logging and the entire operation can be made to look unprofitable and wasteful. The activists will work for free and organise fundraisers for implementing your covert agenda, at no cost to you. You keep this going on for, say, a decade. After this priming you know the activist generated a lot of grass roots support for your project to end all forest exploitation, then you pull the cord, shut down the entire ‘unprofitale’ industry, and blame it all on the activists, who will celebrate their ‘victory’. No skin off your nose. If you’re a budding dictator you can try this yourself. https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/native-timber-logging-to-be-brought-to-an-end-in-victoria/news-story/6e014f2fb05dfa552b0659c757f20879

Victorians are punished for their compliance with unethical mandates and lockdowns. Those who collude with sociopathic leaders are typically the first victims of the regime.