This religious fanatic claims that humans are born evil and that only his religion can save us, which dictates accepting a special injection (in fact, an unlimited number of injections) that kills a percentage of people but is otherwise believed to protect the faithful majority from an invisible evil. If you do not accept his religious dogma then you are evil.

Is Ethics one of the terms of reference? Was it ethical to kill a minority for the alleged benefit of the majority? As far as I know I am the only ‘expert’ who has raised this fundamental objection. Until this disagreement is publicly resolved there is no moral framework for assessing right vs wrong in matters of life and death. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/submission-to-the-inquiry-into-covid

Those who believe that human lives can be lawfully sacrificed for the benefit of the majority are obligated to tell us the value of human life. If human lives do not have absolute value, each as worthy as all others, then they have a price. How much is a life worth?

A YES to nativist supremacism is the cornerstone of Nazi ideology. European (“Aryan”) neo-Nazis and their local propagandists want your ideological endorsement by the proxy of Aboriginal Australians. The Indigenous Voice also legitimises the indigenous claim of the “Aryan race” over Europe. A Nazi would vote NO to the Voice only if they think it does not go far enough. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-government-regarding

I responded to Paul Offit’s post in which he shames vaccine refusal and defends vaccine mandates. I wonder whether he will engage. Feel free to give my response a ‘like’ on substack to bump it up in the list of comments; it will make it more difficult to ignore. https://open.substack.com/pub/pauloffit/p/the-freedom-to-harm?r=ufez2&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=39949027

The idea that the government gives a damn about the environment is preposterous in light of the reckless and irrational use of herbicides. Annual reported sales exceed $3 billion. ‘Sustainability’ is a fraud. https://apvma.gov.au/node/109701

Questions for Commonwealth Government Covid-19 Response Inquiry

In 2022 I contacted several regulatory agencies (SIRA, Australian Government Department of Health, Mr Gavrielatos at Safe Work NSW, Australian Medical Association, and Safe Work Australia) with two questions relating to a possible conflict between Covid-19 vaccine mandates and workplace safety. I have received only generic responses; not one agency or person contacted has explicitly answered my two questions, which were formulated as follows:

1. Do you acknowledge that Covid vaccination occasionally causes death of healthy people, even if the overall outcome benefits most people?

2. If yes, do you acknowledge that when an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where a percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

Will the Expert Panel answer these questions?

Any public “protests” against the Voice and nativist supremacism can at this stage only help the supremacists, who already lost their case by all measures. “Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake”. As such, all protests by the NO camp must be suppressed and the organisers excommunicated 😉. It is imperative to give the YES camp as much rope as they are willing to take, hysterically support their rallies, make them go harder; they are the most effective at discrediting themselves.

Lies are always presented as truth-telling, otherwise they could not deceive.

Using victimhood to gain sympathy is not generative but parasitic. Since victimhood is a currency that rapidly devaluates and eventually turns to disgust, politics and mass media require a constant supply of fresh victims to keep your mind on a leash.

Victimhood is still an expression of the desire to exploit others, which is also mediocrity.

The hypocrisy of minds cultivated on Dostoyevsky and Kant pontificating about the beauty and wisdom of prehistoric tribal rites: are they unaware of the conditions of their own judgement or are they lying?

A YES to nativist supremacism is the cornerstone of Nazi ideology. European (“Aryan”) neo-Nazis and their local propagandists want your ideological endorsement by the proxy of Aboriginal Australians. The Indigenous Voice also legitimises the indigenous claim of the “Aryan race” over Europe. A Nazi would vote NO to the Voice only if they think it does not go far enough.

BREAKING NEWS: Pope urges Aboriginal Australians against treating non-indigenous Australians as invaders.

The objection that African migration is intended to replace the indigenous European population with Africans implies at least one of the following: a) that African races are inferior, a kind of human pollution (therefore racism); b) that natives have superior rights to non-natives (nativist supremacism = Nazism). Both objections are factually and ethically wrong. A reasonable argument against mass migration can be made on the basis of economic/property rights (unjust access to the value developed by the effort and taxation of people in a particular area), on the basis of social and political instability due to cultural/ideological conflict, to prevent brain-drain and labour-drain of the countries of origin (making those countries even poorer and more unstable), out of respect for human dignity and moral accountability (in rescuing people from their cultural failures one implies that they are not sufficiently rational to manage their own affairs and therefore not fully human). Arguments that focus on race, ethnicity, religious identity or the place of origin can only undermine the legitimate criticism of disruptive, weaponised migration.

Any kind of fame nowadays must be understood as theatre, scripted and paid for by the social programmers. This includes both the heroes and the villains, the fall guys and the victors, but the common property of all promoted characters is the shallowness of discourse and the ideological polarisation without rational resolution.

BREAKING NEWS: Recent horrific attacks spark a nationwide debate… each state premier has attacked and killed more people during Covid “emergency” than all the Rottweilers over the last 100 years. Should state government be banned in Australia? But are state governments solely to blame?

Traditional cultures stabilise social relations not by means of reason but by means of socially enforced compliance with the established dogma. When different traditional cultures are made to coexist in the same space, their conflict is irreconcilable within the traditional framework and can be managed only through violence/force (which is mutually damaging) or through rational deliberation. The latter possibility requires a fundamental change of attitude, from moral conviction to rational introspection and public justification. Objective ethics becomes indispensable as an antidote to oppression and violence.

The Categorical Imperative in Personal Relations

The Categorical Imperative was formulated by Kant as follows: "treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." (Kant 1785: 429)

The formula employs the term "humanity" ("in the person"), not 'the person' per se, let alone 'every person', and I think this is a crucial distinction. On this literal reading it is 'humanity' (conscious rational agency) that matters the most, is the highest value that we must never use merely as a means to any other end; not the will or consent of the person we are interacting with. If the person in question acts against 'humanity', attacks what we have fundamentally in common, acts wrongly, then we are obliged to treat humanity (in the general sense) as an end, not the preferences or perceived interests of that person. Another way, we are obligated to treat an individual as an end only indirectly, insofar as that individual embodies the property of humanity, at which point we sustain the reflexive relation that underpins consciousness itself. In practice this principle may coincide with the golden rule, doing to others as you would have them do to you, which consists in engaging in good faith and pursuing mutual understanding. If a person acts in bad faith, is not interested in mutual understanding but only wants us to submit to their will, then the task of the moral agent is to preserve one's own rational agency against this irreflexive, dehumanising challenge, without denying the possibility that that irrational interlocutor may yet reestablish humanity in themselves.

Vaccine Mandates are Contrary to the Categorical Imperative

Vaccine mandates severely harm and kill a minority for the alleged benefit of the majority, treating humans like dispensable livestock, devaluing the innate human constitution and the rational agency of all humans. The mandates also imply that humanity is inherently wrong/defective and must be medically modified, by coercion, based on the value judgement of some people (not a reflexive relation of human to human via human). This is not treating humanity as an end, but as a means to normative domination of some people over all others.