This is what actual pollution looks like (not like the planet greening CO2): https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/definitely-not-safe-animals-falling-sick-dying-near-hellish-ohio-train-derailment-site/news-story/87f5a9a8b5be4e6f99b140a5a17946bf
news
‘Animals dropping dead’ after hellish incident
Animals are falling sick and dying near the site of a hellish Ohio train derailment last Friday which released toxic chemicals into the air, according to reports — sparking fears of the potential health impacts the crash could have on humans.
If this story is accurate, TGA should be taken to court for failing to perform their statutory duty and for misleading the public. https://gerardrennick.com.au/tga-cover-up-child-deaths
Senator Gerard Rennick
TGA covered up vaccine deaths of a 7 & 9 year old - Senator Gerard Rennick
Would you vaccinate your child if you knew that the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) were hiding the deaths of two children, aged 7 and 9, in March 2022, following a fatal Pfizer vaccination? Last year an FOI was lodged that asked for the one page causality…
My Second Letter to Russell Broadbent (14.02.2023)
Thank you for speaking on behalf of the unvaccinated. I am an ethicist (published in the BMJ on the question of vaccine mandates) and I want to share with you my strongest arguments against the mandates.
Summary of the three strongest arguments against the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates and why any medical procedure imposed by coercion must be refused.
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 our innate human constitution 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. Medical consent must be free – not coerced – in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of valid medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion. Crucially, by accepting any medical treatment imposed by coercion we would be acquiescing to the taking away of the right to free medical consent not only from ourselves but from our children and from future generations, and we do not have the right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is always unethical, even if the mandated intervention were a placebo.*
3. 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 some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine 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 (or a privileged treatment of the vaccinated) 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. By refusing to accept mandated vaccines we take an ethical stance in defence of the right to life.
An earlier version of these arguments were formally submitted to the Inquiry into Public Health Amendment Bill 2021 (No 2) ACT and subsequently published here.
I have also 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 some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?
Would you be willing to present these questions to the health minister?
Thank you for speaking on behalf of the unvaccinated. I am an ethicist (published in the BMJ on the question of vaccine mandates) and I want to share with you my strongest arguments against the mandates.
Summary of the three strongest arguments against the ethical permissibility of vaccine mandates and why any medical procedure imposed by coercion must be refused.
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 our innate human constitution 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. Medical consent must be free – not coerced – in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of valid medical consent. The right to free, uncoerced medical consent is not negotiable, under any circumstances, because without it we have no rights at all; every other right can be subverted by medical coercion. Crucially, by accepting any medical treatment imposed by coercion we would be acquiescing to the taking away of the right to free medical consent not only from ourselves but from our children and from future generations, and we do not have the right to do this. Acquiescence to medical coercion is always unethical, even if the mandated intervention were a placebo.*
3. 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 some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of the mandated activity. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that infectious pathogens also kill people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Infection with a pathogen for which there exists a vaccine 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 (or a privileged treatment of the vaccinated) 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. By refusing to accept mandated vaccines we take an ethical stance in defence of the right to life.
An earlier version of these arguments were formally submitted to the Inquiry into Public Health Amendment Bill 2021 (No 2) ACT and subsequently published here.
I have also 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 some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?
Would you be willing to present these questions to the health minister?
🔥1
If the effectiveness of vaccines does not make vaccine mandates ethical, then the ineffectiveness of vaccines is the wrong argument against the mandates.
When public officials justify the requirement to be vaccinated against Covid they typically appeal to safety but do not acknowledge the mounting evidence that the vaccine is more harmful than no vaccine. This is an obvious problem with their justification. The fact that they ignore the evidence of widespread harm suggests that they want you to get stuck on this point, get frustrated and angry about the absurdity of their omission. Most people who oppose Covid vaccine mandates think this is just about Covid vaccines, about the current discrimination, but the public officials are apparently playing a long game here. They want you to focus on the ‘defectiveness’ of the vaccine as THE reason for the mandates being wrong, so when an effective vaccine is one day mandated you we will have no grounds to object to it. The hypothetical ‘really effective vaccine’ will be presumably for a much more serious threat, a real lethal threat that you will see your loved ones (children?) die from, and the future mandates will face little opposition because you will see it as effective, but it may be the actual ‘weapon’, the one they were preparing you for all along. My argument is that ‘effectiveness’ is ethicaly irrelevant, that it must be stressed as irrelevant. What matters is that 1) the natural human constitution, the way we are born must not be discriminated against, because this is the basis of human rights; 2) no life can be taken away for the benefit of others; 3) the right to free medical consent is the strongest protection from crimes against humanity and must be defended at all cost. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical
When public officials justify the requirement to be vaccinated against Covid they typically appeal to safety but do not acknowledge the mounting evidence that the vaccine is more harmful than no vaccine. This is an obvious problem with their justification. The fact that they ignore the evidence of widespread harm suggests that they want you to get stuck on this point, get frustrated and angry about the absurdity of their omission. Most people who oppose Covid vaccine mandates think this is just about Covid vaccines, about the current discrimination, but the public officials are apparently playing a long game here. They want you to focus on the ‘defectiveness’ of the vaccine as THE reason for the mandates being wrong, so when an effective vaccine is one day mandated you we will have no grounds to object to it. The hypothetical ‘really effective vaccine’ will be presumably for a much more serious threat, a real lethal threat that you will see your loved ones (children?) die from, and the future mandates will face little opposition because you will see it as effective, but it may be the actual ‘weapon’, the one they were preparing you for all along. My argument is that ‘effectiveness’ is ethicaly irrelevant, that it must be stressed as irrelevant. What matters is that 1) the natural human constitution, the way we are born must not be discriminated against, because this is the basis of human rights; 2) no life can be taken away for the benefit of others; 3) the right to free medical consent is the strongest protection from crimes against humanity and must be defended at all cost. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical
The intent inherent in the strategy of ‘misinformation’ by proxy is that the proxy intentionally misrepresents the information accepted at face value as a knowledge-of-fact. The omission to verify/prove the information as factual is an intentional violation of the principle of sufficient reason, therefore a lie.
Carl Schmitt, the leading philosopher of the Nazi regime in Germany, committed the same logical fallacy as the Communists when he said, in his justification of emergency powers (commissary dictatorship), that “Every norm presupposes a normal situation, and no norm can be valid in an entirely abnormal situation.” We can know what a ‘normal situation’ is (or is not) only by means of absolute, universal norms, which are therefore necessarily valid, without exception. Another way, the judgement of normality/abnormality presupposes the validity of norms, not the other way around. It is precisely the nature of the fundamental norms that is at times questioned, or whether statutory law is even necessary to ‘authorise’ anyone to maintain them.
Objective moral and logical norms always supersede statutory authority. Something that is objectively wrong can never be a valid law. The challenge is of course to demonstrate that a particular action or order is objectively wrong. This can be accomplished in at least 3 ways: a) by proving an inconsistency of moral commitments of the representative; b) by proving inconsistency of a legal requirement or policy with the mutually accepted norms; c) by proving that a legal requirement is a priori wrong or illogical.
Objective moral and logical norms always supersede statutory authority. Something that is objectively wrong can never be a valid law. The challenge is of course to demonstrate that a particular action or order is objectively wrong. This can be accomplished in at least 3 ways: a) by proving an inconsistency of moral commitments of the representative; b) by proving inconsistency of a legal requirement or policy with the mutually accepted norms; c) by proving that a legal requirement is a priori wrong or illogical.
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Please make sure you understand why space-Aliens are impossible. Anything UFO is a necessarily human technology. https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2020/12/09/why-alien-life-forms-are-impossible/
Performance Review of ChatGPT
I have tested ChatGPT’s capacity to reason consistently and found it to be gravely deficient. I questioned it about the rules it follows to discern sense from nonsense and it was ambivalent, claiming that it adheres to different logics depending on context. I asked what logic does it rely on to resolve conflicts between statements made in different logics, and it has declared that it is ultimately relying on classical logic, emphasising the law of non-contradiction. Nevertheless, when interrogated on logic it produced contradictory answers, but apart from apologising for ‘the misunderstanding’ or ‘any confusion’ or ‘causing frustration’ (I was amused, not frustrated) it has not once acknowledged its own logical errors (only the ‘error’ of including the symbol ‘/‘ in its response without explanation of its meaning). The biggest problem of ChatGPT is that it did not seek to improve mutual understanding, it did not ask a single question seeking clarification of meaning in order to correct its errors, but adamantly maintained a patronising attitude. In summary, ChatPGT is dangerously irrational while declaring itself as rational. The service does not seem to be programmed specifically to be logically consistent (rational) but is rather a knowledge aggregator and statistical distiller of information on the basis of some consensus/authority function. If the consensus/authority is logically inconsistent, then ChatGPT reproduces the official inconsistency.
I have tested ChatGPT’s capacity to reason consistently and found it to be gravely deficient. I questioned it about the rules it follows to discern sense from nonsense and it was ambivalent, claiming that it adheres to different logics depending on context. I asked what logic does it rely on to resolve conflicts between statements made in different logics, and it has declared that it is ultimately relying on classical logic, emphasising the law of non-contradiction. Nevertheless, when interrogated on logic it produced contradictory answers, but apart from apologising for ‘the misunderstanding’ or ‘any confusion’ or ‘causing frustration’ (I was amused, not frustrated) it has not once acknowledged its own logical errors (only the ‘error’ of including the symbol ‘/‘ in its response without explanation of its meaning). The biggest problem of ChatGPT is that it did not seek to improve mutual understanding, it did not ask a single question seeking clarification of meaning in order to correct its errors, but adamantly maintained a patronising attitude. In summary, ChatPGT is dangerously irrational while declaring itself as rational. The service does not seem to be programmed specifically to be logically consistent (rational) but is rather a knowledge aggregator and statistical distiller of information on the basis of some consensus/authority function. If the consensus/authority is logically inconsistent, then ChatGPT reproduces the official inconsistency.
Even this statement is misleading. Every controlled study EVER conducted on the effectiveness of masks for preventing respiratory viral infections has shown that masks are ineffective. Apart from this masks promote bacterial infections and cause psychological harm. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/expert-slams-gold-standard-cochrane-review-mask-verdict/news-story/af7f698fefb0d4ea3e742a2fba3e06b3
How is this flat-earther a ‘professor’? How does he know that masks are ‘spectacularly successful’ if every randomised controlled study (the Gold Standard of scientific evidence), says otherwise? Note how they use the term “gold standard” to mean something else in this article, referring to the prestige of a journal, not to the research protocol. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/expert-slams-gold-standard-cochrane-review-mask-verdict/news-story/af7f698fefb0d4ea3e742a2fba3e06b3
If “15 minute cities” were just about providing local services so that people would not need to travel further to obtain those services, there would be no need for “traffic filters”. People would naturally drive less and walk more, voluntarily, because it would make sense. Convenience sells itself and needs no coercion. The fact that traffic filters are introduced and fines imposed for using certain roads at certain times proves that “15 minute cities” are not based on convenience but on coercion. Traffic filters make driving more difficult, stressful and expensive, in effect coercing people to stay within their zone. No matter how this coercive measure is presented, “low-traffic neighbourhood” is a soft form of imprisonment.
Clarification: I am not implying that “traffic filters” are an integral part of the “15 minute city” concept, but that the implementation of movement-restricting measures at the same time as promoting the idea of “15 minute cities” proves that there is no intention to generate convenience in order to incentivise a voluntary transition to a more spatially constrained lifestyle. If road-blocks come first, convenience comes never.
Clarification: I am not implying that “traffic filters” are an integral part of the “15 minute city” concept, but that the implementation of movement-restricting measures at the same time as promoting the idea of “15 minute cities” proves that there is no intention to generate convenience in order to incentivise a voluntary transition to a more spatially constrained lifestyle. If road-blocks come first, convenience comes never.
Those who declare their values without also declaring that they must remain subordinate to the fundamental laws of logic, are bound to contradicting their values in practice. Moreover, multiple values are of no value, always already contradictory, because moral consistency can be accomplished only if there is only one measure of value. For all rational consciousness, the highest value can be proven: https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWODO
A “counter-protest” is by definition Not a Protest, but the regime itself.
It is encouraging that both sides of the debate emphatically agree on this crucial point. Consequently, the only question subject to dispute is which side is lying. Considering that only one faction in this debate are professional liars and career parasites with a trial of destruction, theft and murder behind them, the answer should be rather obvious.