Excerpts are from the current Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Australia). The protected rights include the right “of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public.” (per 5(f) of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination)
The Voice implies recognition of a seperate nation
Any state or federal law dictating exclusion, restrictions or conditions on the use of public land under the premise of native title or native heritage is, by force of section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, unlawful and void. Similarly, any racial restrictions or conditions imposed on the use of private land under the premise of native heritage are, by force of the same section, unlawful and void.
This is possibly why they are trying to change the Constitution, to recognise a separate, racially homogenous and autonomous Nation that will be able to discriminate on the basis of race under the guise of citizenship.
Any state or federal law dictating exclusion, restrictions or conditions on the use of public land under the premise of native title or native heritage is, by force of section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, unlawful and void. Similarly, any racial restrictions or conditions imposed on the use of private land under the premise of native heritage are, by force of the same section, unlawful and void.
This is possibly why they are trying to change the Constitution, to recognise a separate, racially homogenous and autonomous Nation that will be able to discriminate on the basis of race under the guise of citizenship.
The distinction between ‘public good’ and ‘private good’ is false, a category mistake between utility and morality. In the moral sense there is only ‘good/right’ and ‘bad/wrong’, and it is the same for everyone.
A formal response to my paper “ethics of vaccine refusal” was published at BMJ. https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2023/07/28/jme-2023-109426
Journal of Medical Ethics
Compulsory vaccination protects autonomy
In a recent article in this journal, Kowalik argues that compulsory vaccination unjustifiably infringes on the autonomy of vaccine refusers. While accepting Kowalik’s central premises, we argue that, when appropriately expanded in scope, autonomy considerations…
My Response to the above article.
I thank the authors for critically engaging with my paper “Ethics of vaccine refusal”.
I agree that personal autonomy does not of itself invalidate medical mandates.
I note that I did not conclude that vaccine mandates are wrong just because they violate body autonomy of vaccine refusers. Rather, ‘mandatory vaccination, immunity passports, or any other form of discrimination on the basis of the vaccination status are defeasible not because they limit basic freedoms and rights but because they discriminate against (and thus devalue) the innate constitution of all human beings.’ Moreover, the premise that vaccine mandates are justified by the value of human autonomy is logically inconsistent: ‘We must, first of all, value our kind ’as it is’ in order to bestow worth on what we ‘ought to become’, and to pursue any ontological transformation by devaluing the innate constitution of other members of the kind would, paradoxically, negate the value of our own judgement.’ It seems the authors interpret the healthy, innate human constitution, which includes our immune system - an act of nature that determines our objective identity - as an act of social coercion, which I contend is a category mistake.
For the sake of clarity, I summarise the three strongest arguments against the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates:
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 being born human is no longer a guarantee of full human rights.
2. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no guaranteed 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 moral right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is therefore 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 a percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of the mandated activity. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen 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 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 acquiesce to mandated vaccines we take an ethical stance in defence of the right to life.
I thank the authors for critically engaging with my paper “Ethics of vaccine refusal”.
I agree that personal autonomy does not of itself invalidate medical mandates.
I note that I did not conclude that vaccine mandates are wrong just because they violate body autonomy of vaccine refusers. Rather, ‘mandatory vaccination, immunity passports, or any other form of discrimination on the basis of the vaccination status are defeasible not because they limit basic freedoms and rights but because they discriminate against (and thus devalue) the innate constitution of all human beings.’ Moreover, the premise that vaccine mandates are justified by the value of human autonomy is logically inconsistent: ‘We must, first of all, value our kind ’as it is’ in order to bestow worth on what we ‘ought to become’, and to pursue any ontological transformation by devaluing the innate constitution of other members of the kind would, paradoxically, negate the value of our own judgement.’ It seems the authors interpret the healthy, innate human constitution, which includes our immune system - an act of nature that determines our objective identity - as an act of social coercion, which I contend is a category mistake.
For the sake of clarity, I summarise the three strongest arguments against the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates:
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 being born human is no longer a guarantee of full human rights.
2. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no guaranteed 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 moral right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is therefore 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 a percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of the mandated activity. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen 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 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 acquiesce to mandated vaccines we take an ethical stance in defence of the right to life.
Journal of Medical Ethics
Compulsory vaccination protects autonomy
In a recent article in this journal, Kowalik argues that compulsory vaccination unjustifiably infringes on the autonomy of vaccine refusers. While accepting Kowalik’s central premises, we argue that, when appropriately expanded in scope, autonomy considerations…
Proponents of medical mandates negate the value of self-ownership, an essential property of rational agency, implicitly negating their own judgement.
Medical mandates imply that the human body is unacceptable as it is, inherently unhealthy, which implies that the objective standard of human health is itself unhealthy, therefore medical mandates are healthy because they are unhealthy, therefore nonsense.
The premise that indigenous tribes have not ceded their sovereignty is at best moot. Australia is a sovereign nation and Aboriginal people are emphatically included in this collective sovereignty, not deprived of it. Also, by claiming the entitlement to services, protection, benefits and rights funded through taxation of a larger nation, all beneficiaries affirm that they belong to that nation, are citizens of that nation, and their former tribal sovereignty is voluntarily ceded for the sake of partaking in the sovereignty of that larger nation. Conversely, if tribal sovereignty was not ceded then the relevant entitlements were claimed through deception by foreign nationals and are liable to be reclaimed.
‘Opinion’ is an affirmation of a belief that you do not know to be true.
The authority to judge cannot exceed the authority of the normative structure of reality itself, or it would be contrary to sense, arbitrary, inherently unjust. Lex iniusta non est lex. A competent, just court acts in authority only insofar as it engages in consistent, a priori reasoning.
Truth: a proposition (being a multiple of common meanings expressed in relation to one another) that is logically consistent and cannot be contradicted by any other true proposition.
Reality: the meaning-content of true propositions about causes and effects.
These two definitions go together; the former is logically incomplete without the latter, and the latter without the former. When considered in isolation both definitions can accomodate internally consistent but mutually contradictory subsets of propositions. When truth and reality are considered together we can determine which subset is true and what is real. Truth is necessarily consistent with everything that involuntarily affects us, whereas falsity is necessarily inconsistent with it. We can thus distinguish any consistent but false propositions from true propositions by virtue of consistency with the involuntary effects we experience.
Reality: the meaning-content of true propositions about causes and effects.
These two definitions go together; the former is logically incomplete without the latter, and the latter without the former. When considered in isolation both definitions can accomodate internally consistent but mutually contradictory subsets of propositions. When truth and reality are considered together we can determine which subset is true and what is real. Truth is necessarily consistent with everything that involuntarily affects us, whereas falsity is necessarily inconsistent with it. We can thus distinguish any consistent but false propositions from true propositions by virtue of consistency with the involuntary effects we experience.
It is ironic that the self-proclaimed anti-Nazis and Antifa choose to use the same blood&soil colours as Nazis did: black and red. Are they all NAB employees or something;)
Recuperation of Détournement
The fact that 'white people' with a trace of Aboriginal ancestry can identify as Aboriginal, but 'black people' with a trace of non-Aboriginal ancestry are never identified as 'white' proves that the overt policy of nativist supremacism is just a cover for white supremacism, pursuing the conceptual erasure of Aboriginal race, diluting it with 'whiteness' to the point where aboriginality is transformed into a virtual token of white privilege that is commensurate with the lack of integrity of those who choose to adopt it.
The fact that 'white people' with a trace of Aboriginal ancestry can identify as Aboriginal, but 'black people' with a trace of non-Aboriginal ancestry are never identified as 'white' proves that the overt policy of nativist supremacism is just a cover for white supremacism, pursuing the conceptual erasure of Aboriginal race, diluting it with 'whiteness' to the point where aboriginality is transformed into a virtual token of white privilege that is commensurate with the lack of integrity of those who choose to adopt it.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Become a destroyer of narratives, an arsonist in the house of idols, an apostate of consensus, a blasphemer in the church of collusion, a pirate on the sea of false conscience, a Cyclops among the cross-eyed midgets of culture.
When a corporation declares ‘Our Values’ but omits Rationality (the fundamental laws of meaning) and Self Interest, their values are meaningless or false, open to unlimited abuse. If a corporation would declare Rationality and Self Interest as their values, nothing more would need to be added as everything that is right follows from these two. Rational self-interest dictates respecting the interests of others.
People are becoming uglier and the experts are baffled why: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/face-body/why-people-are-becoming-less-attractive-according-to-facial-analyst/news-story/ec5f456f4398fb4ccefde0ddf9376337
It looks like the government is using reverse psychology to condition kids to despise everything Aboriginal. White supremacism in disguise. The optimal path for social cohesion is equality under law, not racial prioritisation. Section 9 of Racial Discrimination Act 1975 states: "It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."
Assuming 3% p.a. interest rate over 1200 years of British monarchy, the “King” owes £2.5 quadrillion for every £1 stolen/extorted in the first year of their Royal rule. This is 50 times more than all the money in the world. The biggest scam in the history of humanity for sure.
Forwarded from Senator Gerard Rennick
My repose to article “Compulsory vaccination protects autonomy”: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/my-repose-to-article-compulsory-vaccination
Michael Kowalik’s Newsletter
My repose to article “Compulsory vaccination protects autonomy”
(Journal of Medical Ethics)