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.

What an insult to real aboriginal people to imply that fake-tan-Stan is just like Them. Are Aboriginal people being replaced?

““Freedom is therapeutic.”” https://rmachine.substack.com/p/leaving-psychiatry-chap-12-possibility

The problem with psychiatry (and with medical practice in general) is that doctors are themselves regarded as nothing mote than well-adjusted psychiatric patients, who are also captives of the asylum. Doctors are not free to transgress the invisible walls of the medical model they are held within, and any attempt to do so invariably results in their re-education (“therapy”), and, failing that, they become just one of the patients, coerced back within the walls of the asylum, deemed mentally unfit for their special patient privileges. The core diagnostic premise (from the sociopathic standpoint) is that only a ‘crazy’ person would risk their wages of some half a million $ per year by challenging the model that takes such good care of them. By the same token, taking the money to stay in the asylum proves their belonging in the asylum and that they are, in fact, not morally competent human beings capable of freedom.