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

This is typical polarisation propaganda, inter-generational hate-mongering, and also a lie. Boomers and big business do not inflate the money supply, banks do. All consumption, on the other hand, has a deflationary effect; it supports the GDP, which is a counter-balance to money creation.

The statement 'cannot not do it' looks like an example of logical double-negation (formally, not-not-X), which should be equivalent to 'can do it', but this is obviously not correct. The negation occurs twice in the statement but each instance of 'not' relates to a different object. In 'cannot' the 'not' relates to 'can', to the ability to perform an action, whereas the second 'not' relates to 'do', the action itself (not-X, not-Y). As such, the statement has the meaning of 'has no capacity to resist doing it', which is evidently different from 'can do it' (X, Y) that indicates merely the capacity to 'do it' and says nothing about the capacity to 'not do it'.

It is in the commercial interest of the defence/military sector, including weapons manufacturers, to ensure that all war crimes are diligently prosecuted, to the full extend of the law. This is the only way that this industry can deem itself socially responsible or ‘ethical’ and maintain any form of public legitimacy. I understand their moral justification: if two groups of people are determined to kill one another then let them do it, give them enough rope, give them bazookas, and as long as they do not hurt anyone else it is only their stupidity and their loss. But if they do not play by the rules, if they injure, disposses or abuse non-combatants, those who do not intend to kill others or do not engage in hostilities, then giving them powerful weapons is causing more social harm. Let them fight with sticks and stones, like the savages that they are.

Imagine if all CEO’s, politicians and celebrities who claim to want world peace volunteered to be human shields on both sides of every armed conflict. War would become impossible. Skin in the game.

Warhol came up with easiest way to populate 15 minute digital prisons, by offering every subscriber 15 minutes of fame. Everyone would get their turn at instant stardom, with the entire mass hypnosis media apparatus deployed in their favour… for 15 minutes. 60% of the population would subscribe without even bothering to read the T&C’s, and they would be happy.

David Enoch is to my knowledge the most intellectually competent Israeli philosopher, someone I have a lot of respect for, despite disagreeing with him on a number of questions in moral philosophy. I will leave this article to speak for itself, except making one observation: like the laws of logic, the moral principles applicable to war are no different to the moral principles in all other circumstances; there can be no two moralities, no two different moral standards, hence the concept of a ‘very difficult to understand morality of war’ must be rejected. https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2023/11/10/david-enoch-argues-that-much-of-the-public-discourse-on-the-israel-hamas-conflict-is-depressingly-simplistic

‘I cannot talk to you while your tattoos are screaming at me.’

The True Purpose of War

War is only ostensibly directed at governments and their armies, but essentially it is always aimed at the civilian population. If the civilian population were excluded from the conflict and the generals left to fight it out in an isolated field, they would have nothing to fight about, no reason to guard the field. The booty, the goal of all war, is the right to exploit ‘their own’ civilian population.

Face masks dehumanise. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-face-of-humanity

Corporations do not want human employees, but human-looking programmable androids. Anything approximating human reasoning is contracted out to specialist providers, to competent consultants whose thinking is tailored to the ideas prioritised by the corporate board. Deep thinking in the subordinate structure is unmanageable; they don’t want you to question the fundamentals of their being, or infer what they need to deny in order to profit. For that reason they condition they staff with KPIs, performance reviews, continuous “improvement” in how to think, how to act and how to speak. When you become that act, and nothing besides, you are said to be “professional”, which is to say, a reliable conduit of their inconsistencies.

This is the rational way to respond to the conflict in Israel-Palestine: https://humanitynothatred.com/

“Humanity Not Hatred is a campaign organised by the The Together Initiative, the legal identity of The Together Coalition, a secular organisation whose mission is to build kinder, closer and more connected communities by bringing people together and bridging divides.” Lovely, but…

The Steering Committee of the Together Initiative includes the Archbishop of Canterbury (Chair), a former Director-General of the BBC, PwC UK’s Executive Board Member responsible for Clients and Markets, a Former Chief of General Staff of British Army, the Managing Director of Google UK & Ireland, the Chief Executive of The Scouts, Vice President for Europe Middle East and Africa at Facebook, and many other champions of equity, inclusivity and diversity. https://together.org.uk/steering-group-2/ It is so nice that the same class of people who run everything else also run human unity projects, stand for peaceful deliberation and human equality, not just war, economic exploitation and vaccine mandates;) The only thing I am not sure about is whether they run every political model in order to profit from whichever model happens to prevail (just like "climate science"), or are we supposed to ‘voluntarily’ choose their model of Human Unity (under their management).

I am collecting quotes of Dalai Lama, the Pope, Christian Orthodox, Muslim and Jewish spiritual leaders condemning vaccine mandates for violating the right to life or for discriminating against the innate biological characteristics of the human race, or for any reason whatsoever.

I started writing a book, i suspect, on the progression from logic to ethics to power over the conditions of existence. It might not end up being a book but I had to start, otherwise it would never become anything. I wrote a book before, spent several years working on it, almost full time, surviving on minimum income, and then I changed my mind and scrapped it, after having an epiphany that the core premise was wrong. I salvaged some parts of it here and there, but it was primarily a learning experience, and an exercise of humility. So there is no guarantee that anything will come of it, but I will be putting more time aside for working on this project and consequently have less time to respond to comments here, but I will try.

The most compliant will be rewarded with more compliance.

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.