Fashion is the most effective form of obedience-conditioning for humans. It blends obedience with vanity.
When murder is presented in the language of war, people do not ask 'who is the murderer' but 'what was the nationality, race or religion that did it'. The reciprocal crimes are soon reduced to a token by means of which we are tricked to choose one of the politically generalised sides, to support the 'lesser' evil, but evil nonetheless (the trolley problem). By making this choice we also judge the innocent as collectively guilty, and some of the guilty as collectively innocent (an implicit contradiction).
Morality relates to individual actions, not to group identity. A wrong action is always wrong, for every person, irrespective of circumstances. If we choose to think in the language of morality, as opposed to the language of war, it no longer matters who is Palestinian or Israeli, Jew or Arab, man or woman, white or brown, migrant or native; they are all human, and some humans do evil things. They themselves may think in the language of war, but you do not have to.
Morality relates to individual actions, not to group identity. A wrong action is always wrong, for every person, irrespective of circumstances. If we choose to think in the language of morality, as opposed to the language of war, it no longer matters who is Palestinian or Israeli, Jew or Arab, man or woman, white or brown, migrant or native; they are all human, and some humans do evil things. They themselves may think in the language of war, but you do not have to.
When we speak about institutions, their policies and systems, we are speaking about abstract entities, not about persons. Institutions can be right or wrong in the logical sense, but they are not moral agents; only the individuals comprising them are moral agents. When we denounce institutional policies and systems for being irrational we cannot infer that every member of the institution is logically wrong by association, let alone morally wrong: a category mistake. The moral buck stops with individual action, which may include tacit acquiescence to the moral wrongs of others acting in our name.
On Strategy
An effective strategy depends on having a) a clear idea of what outcomes would constitute mission-success (the primary aim of the strategy) and b) realistic, practically achievable aims. It follows that strategic subversion can target either of these foundations: a) promoting vagueness, irrelevance, disagreement or obfuscation of the strategic aims (appeals to emotion and promoting of histrionic leaders are classical subversion strategies); b) promoting strategic aims that are irrelevant, nebulous or contradictory.
In the realm of politics and law, constructive transformations of the systemic totality cannot be reduced to a single, realistic aim. Ideas such as unity, love, fairness, justice, freedom, equality etc. are vague and practically meaningless abstractions (therefore subversive to constructive effort). The strategic focus, while necessarily subject to principles, must be on specific, temporary limited tasks with measurable outcomes. For example, to defeat vaccine mandates may require a series of tasks, each depending on the successful accomplishment of the prior task, beginning from the basic (drawing attention to specific contradictions in the offending policy) to the systemic (legal precedent or legislation). It is impossible to intentionally accomplish constructive, systemic outcomes without completing basic tasks at the conceptual level. Basic tasks cannot be combined; they must be executed one by one, each in their own basic category of meaning, otherwise they work against one another (for example, arguing logical consistency, legality and empirical evidence all at once equivocates between categories and dilutes their basic relevance).
An effective strategy depends on having a) a clear idea of what outcomes would constitute mission-success (the primary aim of the strategy) and b) realistic, practically achievable aims. It follows that strategic subversion can target either of these foundations: a) promoting vagueness, irrelevance, disagreement or obfuscation of the strategic aims (appeals to emotion and promoting of histrionic leaders are classical subversion strategies); b) promoting strategic aims that are irrelevant, nebulous or contradictory.
In the realm of politics and law, constructive transformations of the systemic totality cannot be reduced to a single, realistic aim. Ideas such as unity, love, fairness, justice, freedom, equality etc. are vague and practically meaningless abstractions (therefore subversive to constructive effort). The strategic focus, while necessarily subject to principles, must be on specific, temporary limited tasks with measurable outcomes. For example, to defeat vaccine mandates may require a series of tasks, each depending on the successful accomplishment of the prior task, beginning from the basic (drawing attention to specific contradictions in the offending policy) to the systemic (legal precedent or legislation). It is impossible to intentionally accomplish constructive, systemic outcomes without completing basic tasks at the conceptual level. Basic tasks cannot be combined; they must be executed one by one, each in their own basic category of meaning, otherwise they work against one another (for example, arguing logical consistency, legality and empirical evidence all at once equivocates between categories and dilutes their basic relevance).
It would not make sense for a playwright to meticulously compose only the leading act for an epic, adversarial drama; the script would not make any sense without incorporating a properly dramatised re-action. If you accept that Covid was a scripted performance acted out by government actors then it necessarily follows that the ‘freedom movement’ is a scripted performance acted out by selected antagonists. Moreover, it would be immensely risky to leave half of a real-world drama to chance; anything could happen, the script could be derailed by meddlers from the audience, important people could get killed, therefore the acts of the antagonists had to be as meticulously controlled as the leading act. Anything less would be reckless and, in its own way, ‘unethical’.
I am collecting examples of any media personality associated with the medical freedom movement, anywhere in the world, stating that ‘vaccine mandates violate the right to life’. Please provide links/citations/crickets in the comments.
The apparent role of the Freedom Movement is to increase the noise to signal ratio with respect to effective action against climate change vaccine mandates.
Regarding the Inquiry into COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 and the Fair Work Amendment (Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Discrimination) Bill 2023, the Committee report does not even mention/acknowledge the submitted argument that mandates for vaccines that kill a percentage of people violate the right to life. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/RB000100/toc_pdf/COVID-19VaccinationStatus(PreventionofDiscrimination)Bill2022andtheFairWorkAmendment(ProhibitingCOVID-19VaccineDiscrimination)Bill2023.pdf
A workplace that mandates that a percentage of employees must die from vaccines for the benefit of others is not a safe workplace. The community does not have the right to kill innocent people to achieve a higher standard of health, even if a higher standard is achievable by killing innocent people. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/submission-to-the-inquiry-into-covid
Michael Kowalik’s Newsletter
Submission to the Inquiry into COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 and the Fair Work Amendment…
I am a philosopher/ethicist, previously published on the question of vaccine mandates and associated discrimination in peer reviewed literature. I submit that discrimination on the basis of Covid-19 vaccination status ought to be prohibited on the following…
He who cannot not be a tyrant, who cannot not be a murderer, who cannot not be a liar, who cannot stop the habit of violence, lying or greed, is no longer a conscious Self, no longer there even to itself, but a blind force of nature playing itself out as violence, lying or greed.
'Peace' is when governments cooperate in killing their own citizens with vaccine mandates.
'War' is when governments cooperate in killing each other’s citizens with bombs.
'War' is when governments cooperate in killing each other’s citizens with bombs.
Every person has the moral authority to do what is morally right, and no authority, under any circumstances, to do what is morally wrong. We must therefore understand the legal system as an attempt to formalise what is morally right, and this moral right is the only logical basis of authority; authority cannot be a product of the authoritative system (begging the question). The idea of having the authority to do what is objectively wrong is absurd, contradictory in its essence.
The ‘ruling power’ does not matter to consciousness, like an earthquake does not matter to consciousness.
Forwarded from Normal Chat
“Is deriving a right from a natural state a logical fallacy? How can we move from something being natural to it being right? It would seem to beg the question or be an appeal to nature fallacy.”
As a matter of principle, it does not follow from how something is constituted that it ought to be that way (a fallacy), but this is not quite the context of the question: "rights are possessed by all humans by virtue of being human." The intended meaning of 'natural' in Locke is not just 'how' something is but how it 'essentially' is, and if the essence is uniquely valuable then it already contains an Ought. Another way, if the essence of being human is to value rational agency then we ought not to act in a way that contradicts what we essentially value, or we would be destroying ourselves. The possibilities of how this contradiction can arise in action can then be inversely formulated as human rights; to violate a human right is to act in a way that contradicts what we essentially value. This is not how Locke argued but this is one way in which the essence can ground what ought to be done, not just because it ‘is’ that way, but because it is essentially normative. Conversely, values that are not essential but contingent are not normative because they can be rejected without consequences or inconsistency, amounting to a change of preferences.
As a matter of principle, it does not follow from how something is constituted that it ought to be that way (a fallacy), but this is not quite the context of the question: "rights are possessed by all humans by virtue of being human." The intended meaning of 'natural' in Locke is not just 'how' something is but how it 'essentially' is, and if the essence is uniquely valuable then it already contains an Ought. Another way, if the essence of being human is to value rational agency then we ought not to act in a way that contradicts what we essentially value, or we would be destroying ourselves. The possibilities of how this contradiction can arise in action can then be inversely formulated as human rights; to violate a human right is to act in a way that contradicts what we essentially value. This is not how Locke argued but this is one way in which the essence can ground what ought to be done, not just because it ‘is’ that way, but because it is essentially normative. Conversely, values that are not essential but contingent are not normative because they can be rejected without consequences or inconsistency, amounting to a change of preferences.
If the weapon operator knows that civilians are going to be killed by the intended use of the weapon aimed at a military target, and the operator chooses to use the weapon nevertheless, then the operator is ‘deliberately targeting civilians’ as well as the legitimate military target. The reason for the use of the weapon does not negate the fact that civilians are deliberately targeted for that reason.
Spiritual consequences nowadays do not have the same social currency they had in the Middle Ages. This is probably the case because people still think about ‘spiritual consequences’ in medieval terms, Pfizer failed to conduct clinical trials of spiritual consequences, CERN is confusing spiritual consequences with physics, and philosophers are too busy explaining how spiritual consequences are actually the greater good, even if we have to kill a few people for the majority to agree with this judgment.
Explaining the spiritual consequences in symbolic, religious terms has lost its persuasive power. The language of spiritual consequences must be updated to be meaningful and persuasive in contemporary terms. Why should you not kill people even if you can legally get away with it? This needs to be explained better.
The media controversy around ceasefire vs no ceasefire is a psychological diversion from the ongoing crimes against humanity. Focussing on 'humanitarian ceasefire' - a short pause in fighting - while tolerating the systematic and deliberate killing of civilians as unfortunate but legal, is a way of legitimising war crimes while pretending to care.
Email to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Attn. Mr Volker Türk
Dear High Commissioner and the OHCHR,
I am a philosopher/ethicist, previously published on the question of vaccine mandates and associated discrimination in peer reviewed literature. I submit that discrimination on the basis of vaccination status violates fundamental human rights, including the right to life, on the following grounds:
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. The present argument is fully developed here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240.
2. 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. The community does not have the right to kill innocent people to achieve a higher standard of health, even if a higher standard is achievable by killing innocent people. Any widespread or systematic practice of deliberately killing innocent people for the benefit of the majority fits the definition of crimes against humanity.
I ask the OHCHR to issue official guidance on this question and adopt a resolution, taking into account the arguments presented above.
Sincerely,
Michael Kowalik
Attn. Mr Volker Türk
Dear High Commissioner and the OHCHR,
I am a philosopher/ethicist, previously published on the question of vaccine mandates and associated discrimination in peer reviewed literature. I submit that discrimination on the basis of vaccination status violates fundamental human rights, including the right to life, on the following grounds:
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. The present argument is fully developed here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/4/240.
2. 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. The community does not have the right to kill innocent people to achieve a higher standard of health, even if a higher standard is achievable by killing innocent people. Any widespread or systematic practice of deliberately killing innocent people for the benefit of the majority fits the definition of crimes against humanity.
I ask the OHCHR to issue official guidance on this question and adopt a resolution, taking into account the arguments presented above.
Sincerely,
Michael Kowalik