It is not good to have two or three politicians who speak out against tyranny; this is the perfect number the government needs to simultaneously legitimise tyranny, make freedom and human rights seem like a fringe theory, while giving the tyrannised opposition the illusion of representation. If you cannot have 50+ politicians on the side of humanity then it is better to have NONE, better to be oppressed without the illusion of representation. The kind of representation that is always bound to lose is an expression of the logic of dictatorship.
The fact that “white” Indigenous Australians are in positions of power while "black" Indigenous Australians are sidelined and spoken-for by these self-proclaimed leaders proves that the indigenous rights movement is a white supremacist idea.
There is no such thing as ‘collective agency’ or ‘group action’ for the greater good. Humanity does not go to jail when it is accused of ‘collectively’ killing some humans for the benefit of the majority; only those who use the pretext of ‘collective agency’ for killing others do. The victims did not kill themselves by ‘collective action’.
If you have certain rights on account of being human, they you also have the right to take them when they are denied to you, without asking for permission. The proof of those rights is you, your humanity.
If you are discriminated against in the provision or access to services, denied the right to work, denied the right to travel, only because of your innate human characteristics, then you are denied the right to equal treatment and equality before the law for being born that way. You were born with your immune system evolved to fight and adapt to disease, unvaccinated, and your inborn characteristics are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Nothing discredits authority more than disparaging an opponent who makes sense.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Questions for Lawyers.
Do you agree with the following statement:
1. If the vaccine mandates would cause some poeple who did not want to be vaccinated to die from the vaccine, then the mandates would violate their right to life.
If you agree, then the only possible point of contention is whether the mandates cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to die from the vaccine. It is not in dispute whether Covid vaccines kill a percentage of people, since this is acknowledged by the health authorities, so the above point of contention can be reduced to whether the mandates cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to be vaccinated. Do you agree with the following statement:
2. Vaccination mandates intentionally cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to be vaccinated.
If you answered YES to 1 and 2 then it necessarily follows that the mandates violate the right to life. This does not imply that those who created the mandates are therefore guilty of intentional killing; this secondary question is distinct from whether the effect of the mandates is contrary to the right to life. Any objections?
Do you agree with the following statement:
1. If the vaccine mandates would cause some poeple who did not want to be vaccinated to die from the vaccine, then the mandates would violate their right to life.
If you agree, then the only possible point of contention is whether the mandates cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to die from the vaccine. It is not in dispute whether Covid vaccines kill a percentage of people, since this is acknowledged by the health authorities, so the above point of contention can be reduced to whether the mandates cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to be vaccinated. Do you agree with the following statement:
2. Vaccination mandates intentionally cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to be vaccinated.
If you answered YES to 1 and 2 then it necessarily follows that the mandates violate the right to life. This does not imply that those who created the mandates are therefore guilty of intentional killing; this secondary question is distinct from whether the effect of the mandates is contrary to the right to life. Any objections?
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Every government uses the national identity of the people they govern, their ethnic insecurities, habits and biases, against them. The stronger the national identity the easier it is to deceive them and send them to their deaths.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
The ultimate test of moral conscience for all humans is to reject every group-identity and stand alone with other humans. Only then we become fully human. For some it will be like stepping off a cliff, for others it will be like flying. Humanity is one because rationality is one.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
When nations go to war, they typically perceive one another as the enemy. This is not right. A human is never the enemy of another human; it is only the inhuman that can be the enemy of a human. The task of objective morality is to reliably discern the human from the inhuman within ourselves.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
A government that is willing to kill its own citizens, people of the same religion, ethnicity or culture for the sake of pharmaceutical profits, certainly does not give a damn about your religion, ethnicity or culture. Your cultural or racial identity is the leash they have you on. The stronger your sense of group-identity the shorter the leash. A state may designate another nation as your enemy, teach you how to fear them, despise them, feed you lies about them to sustain this polarisation, and their own government will feed them lies about you. You will not be allowed to make peace. Racial and cultural hatred is an international business model, a franchise owned by your government, and your group-identity is their intellectual property, crafted by symbolic conditioning and psychological manipulation. They own your ethno-religious-national identity, they always have. You were never free.
By taking a side in an emotionally polarised, irrational conflict, we only amplify the polarisation and thus impede its resolution. The optimal mediation strategy is to focus on WHAT is the right outcome (no matter who is involved), not on WHO is right. The impersonal WHAT is not in conflict, is not emotionally involved, allowing the mediator to transcend the conflicted parties and appeal to the principle, whereas the WHO adds nothing to the WHAT.
If a patient cured is a customer lost, then a war ended is two customers lost.
When a massively polarising, shocking event occurs, we have the opportunity to practice emotional self-restraint. Our common tendency is to spontaneously react to convincing narratives and emotionally fix our loyalty to one side (as defined by the narrative). This is what psychological warfare aims to exploit; once we learn to resist being polarised by real events, we become immune to being polarised by manufactured illusions and deceptions too.
The degree of polarisation generated over the last few days is unprecedented, worse than at any time during Covid. This suggests that the system is energising humanity for unprecedented carnage.