In political systems that are functionally deficient (communism/socialism), political corruption is the means of supplementing the system and making it work on the existential level. It is the inescapable shadow of the system. In political systems that are functionally sufficient (capitalism/democracy), human corruption is integrated into the system itself, normalised, legitimised.

A potentially harmful medical intervention is justifiable when someone is sick (only insofar as it remedies the harm of the illness), but not when someone is healthy.

There are two ways of interpreting an arrow in the bullseye of a target: 1) someone accomplished a perfect shot into the target, 2) someone painted the target around the arrow. The fact that the universe is improbably ‘just right’ for the emergence of consciousness assumes (1), but we can alternatively interpret the outcome as (2), as the evidence that the universe was intentionally ‘fitted’ to consciousness, which implies that the universe emerged from or with consciousness, not independently of it. Only this second interpretation avoids the circular logic of positing ‘the world as we know it’ (meaningful only in the mind, a concept) as something that exists independently of the mind, but still as that concept.

The majority of people are functionally antisocial, insofar as they are unwilling or incapable of constructing consistent arguments to support their claims. Sociality is coextensive with meaning, with the capacity to cooperate to make common sense. The majority is content with asserting their convictions and do not care how those convictions could be derived from common premises. They are concerned only with finding prejudiced support for their own prejudices.

It appears that Sanjeev did not bother trying to understand the ontological foundations of my moral argument against vaccine mandates. By denying the objective distinction between Right and Wrong actions (which is the domain of morality and ethics) he implicitly invalidates his own position, which is also moral/ethical insofar as it asserts what ought to be the ‘correct/valid/true’ distinction between right and wrong actions (a judgment implicit in the generalised concept of “costs” vs “benefits”). https://t.iss.one/sanjeevsabhlok/11300

“The Australian Human Rights Commission is examining the human rights impacts of Australia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a chance for you to tell your story about what happened to you.” Until AHRC will acknowledge that the right to life was violated by vaccine mandates and publicly apologise for their failure to exercise jurisdiction when it mattered the most, they lack any moral or professional credibility. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/email-to-australian-human-rights

Hitchens's razor ("what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence") is a paradox (Hitchen’s paradox), since it is asserted without evidence. A rational refutation of any claim made without evidence must be supported by evidence, which is of course available. A consistent razor could be formulated as follows: any claim of knowledge asserted without evidence is false (and must be rejected) because it violates the law of non-contradiction (and thus negates itself). https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/derivation-of-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-from-the-law-of-non-contradiction

Governments: ‘we need more soldiers to kill one another and any non-combatants standing in the way’ in patriotically motivated defence of their local branches of our global banking cartel.

It is a folly to assume that doctors, activists or politicians who show sympathy or express agreement with your concerns have Your best interest at heart instead of Theirs. It is also a folly to assume that their idea of self interest is aligned with yours.

Public officials are, in general, not personally liable for causing harm if they acted within their authority and bad faith cannot be proven (i.e. intending to cause harm). This makes artificial intelligence, algorithms and incompetence such effective covers for systemic corruption. The system is evidently designed for systemic corruption.

Vaccine mandates discriminate against the innate biological characteristics of the human race, on global scale, and as such constitute the greatest crime against humanity ever attempted, targeting all of humanity.. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/discrimination-on-the-basis-of-vaccination

Hospitals imposing mask mandates on patients are in effect refusing to provide medical care to humans in their natural, innate state; patients are required to performatively denounce their innate constitution as a kind of illness, denounce their breath as a defect.

Perpetual expansion is not an essential feature of capitalism but of the banking system based on credit, in which interest can be paid only by means of more credit.

No progress was made against vaccine mandates in general. The legal and political debate was carefully limited by the ‘medical freedom movement’ to “does not prevent transmission and is not effective” and other Covid specific technicalities, which does nothing against future mandates that are bound to take coercion to the next level, fast and hard. People are now used to pandemic messaging, to compliance and to peer enforcement.

The Covid event made it clear that human rights conventions and legislation give no protection against fundamental rights abuses but are used solely to justify human rights violations. ‘We have to deface you, lock you down, medicate you without consent, discriminate against your innate constitution, even kill some of you… to protect others from the risk of illness. We are also entitled to kill as many children as necessary to destroy military targets nearby.’

The right to life does not entail the right to be saved from dying, let alone saved from the risk of dying, but only not to be intentionally deprived of life. It does not entail protection from the acts of nature but from the acts of governments and corporations.

No anti-vaccine-mandate politician in Australia dared or saw fit to ask the following two questions at the Senate Estimates. Why not?

Dear Senator,

I would like you to ask the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations the following questions at the Estimates:

1. Do you acknowledge that vaccines occasionally kill 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 a work-related activity where a percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

Still spreading lies under the guise of criticism.