Herd Immunity?

Herd Immunity?

Does not exist.

It was invented to explain something nobody understood (in statistical analysis of epidemics and pandemics). And, to serve as argument (among several) in favor of mass vaccination. The logic is as follows. During an epidemic, a threshold is reached where those who have recovered form a shield protecting those outside this area. There’s one obvious problem when it’s used to promote mass vaccination. If a threshold is reached, then mass vaccination is not required, only a few need be vaccinated (the shield nucleus), and this opposes the very idea of mass vaccination. Yet, herd immunity is an argument used to promote mass vaccination.

There is something which exists: Cross-immunity.

I used to think that when I got infected and recovered, I’d have developed immunity to what infected me. This would be called specific immunity. I now think that there’s no such thing as specific immunity. If there was, I’d be continously sick from the variants created in my own body from the initial infection (and from the variants thereof, and so forth ad nauseam). So, the only kind of immunity is cross-immunity. This explains an apparent paradox I outline below.

In tightly knit groups, such as 7th Day Adventists, members of this group benefit healthwise in various metrics, i.e. longevity, rates of diseases, etc. Conversely, these same tightly knit groups see a higher rate of (viral) variants. How is that possible? Cross-immunity.

Martin Levac 20:24 4/13/2021

Rules For Thee (But Not For Me)

Rules For Thee (But Not For Me)

Loi sur la Santé Publique, article 5:

“Public health actions must be directed at protecting, maintaining or enhancing the health status and well-being of the general population and shall not focus on individuals except insofar as such actions are taken for the benefit of the community as a whole or a group of individuals.”

The full logic below.

Every individual in a particular group can be punished so long as it’s intended to benefit this group, some other group, or the general population.

In what manner does the punishment of all members of a group benefit this same group? There is an obvious manner where a group benefits from the punishment of another group. We call it discrimination, and it’s illegal by way of the Constitution and Charter. Effectively, article 5 of the Loi sur la Santé Publique establishes that discrimination is legal if “such actions are taken for the benefit of the community as a whole or a group of individuals” where such actions are “directed at protecting, mantaining or enhancing the health status and well-being of the general population”.

But here’s the big fat giant problem with this.

The “general population” is a group whose members can all be punished “for the benefit of the community as a whole or a group of individuals”. So, nobody benefits, except “a group of individuals”. Who is this group of individuals who benefits from the punishment of the general population?

Rules For Thee (But Not For Me)

Martin Levac 12:02 4/9/2021

Open letter to my brother and sister citizens of Canada and the world

Open letter to my brother and sister citizens of Canada and the world;

I am anonymously writing to you today as the Premier of our province said something that should terrify every single right-minded person of British Columbia if not the world in light of more than 20 European countries who have suspended vaccination roll-outs as of March 15th. And to compound fears I am listening to our mainstream media radio stations (specifically CKNW 980 in British Columbia) crank up the propaganda machine into overdrive on this subject. I would write to my MLA, MP, to the Premier’s office or to the Prime Minister’s office about the concerns I am communicating in this letter but I do not believe it would be seen by anyone if not fall upon deaf ears. Hence I am writing to you the people directly – to everyone within my sphere of influence who might happen to read this letter.

Premier John Horgan has just stated that he supports the concept of a vaccine passport, and since that declaration I’ve heard the media push this narrative virtually 24/7 and I fear that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I am imploring you to reach out to all within your own sphere of influence and convince them that we need to mobilize and oppose the concept of a vaccine passport at all costs even if to the extreme of national insurrection if necessary. Please reach out to the people in your family, in your constituency, to media members, to other municipalities, provinces, and countries and get the message out about the evil that is being considered throughout nations worldwide.

Anyone who has studied totalitarian regimes throughout history, who has lived in a communist ruled country, who is a student of the bible or who has even read the George Orwell novel 1984 would understand how draconian the concept of a vaccine passport is. This is quite literally the mark of the beast.

The concept of forced vaccinations violates fundamental protections provided by Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms never mind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms. It violates an individual’s right to life, right to liberty and right to security of the person. Violating these rights could never be in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice as there is no possibility a rational person can conclude that a vaccine passport could achieve consensus amongst a fully educated general public unless there were massive government and media manipulation and coercion of the population.

With a vaccine passport – who gets to decide what the individual must put into his or her body? An elected official? An unelected health officer? Does it even matter once the individual has that choice taken away from him?

With regards to a COVID-19 passport how many shots will a person be required to take now or to take in the future when the authority so chooses to re-evaluate? One shot? Two shots? Within what period? Can the number of shots be extended to periodic shots? Once a year? Over how many years? Once a month? Over how many months? Can they dictate that a person must do this for the rest of his or her life?

And will the government be able to keep changing their prescriptions? What procedures? What brands? Does it ever end? And who decides on these parameters? And when and how often are the decision makers allowed to change their minds?

And once the government legislates forced consent will they stop at just a COVID-19 vaccine? What other vaccines will we be forced to take now or at some point in the future? And does the government stop at vaccines? What other medications will we be forced to take in the future against our will? Hormones? Steroids? Psychotropics? Nanotechnologies?

What other foreign objects might we be forced to implant into our beings in the future? Will the next thing be microchips to track our every move and monitor every person we talk to? A microchip to monitor the bloodwork, hormones, and other workings within what was once our sovereign body?

Who ultimately gets to decide what is best for ourselves if we’re not allowed to do it for ourselves?

How much will we have to trust that we don’t get injected with a bad batch? Or worse – how much do we have to trust that these medications aren’t poisons used against us intentionally? Sweden, Denmark, Latvia, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Ireland, Thailand, Norway, Iceland, Congo and Bulgaria have all recently suspended AstraZeneca vaccine rollouts due to deaths and blood clot incidents being reported directly after patients have received the shot. And yet Canada is still moving along with an AstraZeneca roll out here?

If a person believes that a vaccine is in fact a poison and chooses to not take it do they get blacklisted? Are they forced to wear a black button to identify to the world they are a “hazard” now. Will every piece of identification a person possesses now tell the world that they are “dirty”, “toxic”, and “unsafe”? It has been proven that cancel culture is a powerful force in today’s society and clearly a vaccine passport could be weaponized.

The Nazis were very successful in convincing the German population that Jews were dirty and diseased. Don’t think for one second that using a vaccine passport isn’t doing the same thing only institutionalizing and documenting who they determine is “diseased”.

Up until today our medical records were nobody’s business but our own and our doctor’s. Fully confidential. What our government is proposing now is the first step to opening up our medical records for the entire world to see if we want to function in our daily lives.

And what limitations and punishments are to be meted out to those that choose not to take the vaccine? Horgan (supposedly) only supports issuing vaccine passports simply for international travel. For now. So if he gets his way could that mean that a Canadian’s Constitutional right to leave the country and come back home would also now be subject to punishment if not detention if they don’t vaccinate. And do we want all other countries to reciprocate this action and force Canadians to have to vaccinate in order to enter into their countries?

And then what is next? Will they ban a person from large public gatherings or face repercussions? And who defines what a “large” gathering is? When is a large gathering really a small gathering? A family gathering? A two-person gathering?

And next will they ban an unvaccinated person from using government services? Will the government withhold entitlements, payments, benefits and support? Ban them from running for elected office? Ban them from voting? Ban them from working with any organization? Ban them from working period?

When will the government ban an unvaccinated person from existence?

People have already weaponized cancel culture to great effect and censorship. People get fired from their jobs or forced to resign solely on the basis of an unproven allegation. The scenarios above are not a stretch.

When and where does it end once Pandora’s evil box has been opened? DO ANY OF YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS OR DO YOU JUST PARROT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA KEEP TELLING YOU WHAT YOU MUST DO? Somehow I get the sense that even asking these questions will get me blacklisted in today’s cancel culture as critical thinking and critical debate doesn’t appear to have a place in today’s society. Hence the anonymous letter.

Once we allow the government to push that door ajar an inch the floodgates will be difficult to close. They will always take that inch, and then another inch, and then another. And know that governments never go backwards once a person has given up a freedom. We’ve even seen this over the course of this past year.

The idea that our national and provincial leaders are even floating vaccine passports to the public should ring alarm bells for every citizen in this country. By simply daring to float this concept these people are proving they do not respect a person’s sovereign ownership of one’s own body. Make no mistake: they are floating this concept to see if the public resists and if they don’t they will push it further.

These people do not have the best interests of you the individual at heart. Rather they outwardly champion the well-being of the “collective” in its totality and will strip away our sovereign right as human beings to determine what we can put, or more importantly, stop what can be put into our own bodies in order to supposedly protect “the common good”.

This concept is so vile and controlling it almost makes one wonder if a more sinister agenda is being pushed upon us. Note that the federal government is also floating the idea of granting municipalities the ability to ban firearm ownership within its boundaries. Is it coincidental that these two concepts are being floated at the same time?

Question: When is a conspiracy theory no longer a conspiracy theory?

Answer: When its not. But if you wait for it to be proven its too late to act then.

As a population we have already conceded a multitude of freedoms to our authoritarians and have not complained about it: closed borders, forced lockdowns, voluntary house arrest, forced behaviours, massive papering of our currency through government debt (hyperinflation to come), and the voluntary destruction of our economy all due to a COVID-19 pandemic that most of us have never seen evidence of existing outside of government doctored “covid death” statistics which are mostly deaths due to other causes, and reported PCR test statistics that we’ve now been told may have false positives of up to 90+%. Whether this pandemic exists or not however is a different topic for a different discussion.

Even if one accepts the existence of a COVID-19 pandemic a vaccine passport should never be contemplated. The creation of this passport puts the future of humankind at risk to the whims of a ruling elite who at best may be looking after our best interests but do so at the risk of making a tragic mistake which could unwittingly cost us all of our lives, or at worst put us at the mercy of the soulless and evil power mongers who throughout world history again and again manage to rear their ugly heads to sacrifice their chattel – their chattel who in other words are “we the people” – for their own depraved ideals.

Am I overreacting? Not one iota. Nations have gone to war to protect their freedoms over lessor grievances than what appears to be our governments’ next proposal. At least those nations that recognized the danger they were facing.

People often ask how is it that the German citizen allowed Nazis to exterminate millions of Jews, Poles and Russians in their own backyards without so much as a public outcry never mind pushback? The answer is simple and it’s the same reason most people aren’t pushing back now. Media programming has lead to ignorance and complacency of the population and has also cultivated a collective fear in every individual – the fear of being ostracized by people for speaking out or otherwise be cancelled.

(and to relate to what I said above – even as I write this letter I’m loathe to communicate my thoughts to you out of fear of being ridiculed for giving credence to “conspiracy theories”…hence why I write to you anonymously)

The German people didn’t speak out due to that fear of ridicule which further lead to fear of repercussion by the authoritarian regime – there was a ruling power in place who believed that their ideology trumped that of all else and they believed they knew what was better for the people than the people themselves. The Nazi regime fully believed they had the moral authority to sacrifice millions of people so long as it were, supposedly, better for the collective good. As did the Stalin regime. As did Pol Pot’s. As did Chairman Mao’s.

How can a people let their freedoms go to the point where hundreds of millions of people are sacrificed for the “greater good”?? The answer is they allowed what we’re allowing our government to do right now.

And how do we know this is happening?

As of the writing of this letter there are now at least 12 countries that have immediately paused the rollout of all vaccinations due to the deaths of people who have taken the AstraZeneca vaccine in the past few weeks. Blood clotting due to the vaccine. Clearly we have no idea what the long-term effects of these vaccines are. With the other brand of vaccines – Moderna and Pfizer – are people really that comfortable with the concept of injecting mRNA strand technology that mimicks HIV and SARS genetic coding that alters our own DNA coding? Or rather are people simply just ignorant, uninformed and have absolutely no idea what it is that the government is having injected into our bodies?

And consider this – our government leaders are now floating the idea of FORCING us to take these vaccines as other countries are suspending their rollouts.

It shouldn’t even matter whether these vaccines were deemed “safe” by some faceless, nameless unelected authority in the government bureaucracy. Even if the “vaccines” were a placebo the right of an individual to veto what goes into his or her own body must be protected at all costs – this must be done to protect all of mankind. A regime cannot become more communist and totalitarian than to force people to inject what they believe could be a poison into their bodies against their will or else be black-marked and ostracized from society.

To my fellow citizens. I implore you to take these pleadings and concerns seriously. I can promise you I won’t be the only person with these concerns when they’re put into this context, and I can promise you that I’m not the only one who believes that the existing ruling parties in the federal and provincial governments believe that they “know” what’s better for “us” than we do to the point where they will eventually force their will upon us.

Please take action on this and stop this madness. Do not be afraid to speak out against the government and media narrative. It is time to stamp this out now.

If you agree with this letter then forward it to everyone you know; friends, family, co-workers, everyone you love and everyone you hate – everyone in your contact list. If you must send it anonymously like I have still do so but please send it.

I beg you.

With all my love, hope and prayers,

R.


My name below the author’s. These words above are mine as well now.

Martin Levac


Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/mfgiuw/open_letter_to_my_brother_and_sister_citizens_of/

Copied in full without any omission or modification.

Irony – Paradox

Irony – Paradox

Irony is defined as an outcome which contradicts the prediction. Paradox is defined as a state of things which contradicts the held belief.

There’s an idea going around that purports to bring people together. It’s been made into law, and corporate policy, in some instances. The acronym is DIE, or diversity, inclusion and equity. The goal is to create diversity in traits such as gender and race, by including individuals who have those traits in groups which usually don’t have such individuals. So for example, women is one such desirable trait, black skin is another, and so forth. The stated intent is to improve various outcomes such as productivity and creativity for example, i.e. novel ideas and solutions. The understood mechanism is that diversity (in those traits) among a group will cause this group to generate more diverse (and presumed “better”) ideas by virtue of the diverse traits. Put simply, diverse is better than same, with regard to traits.

The primary method and effect is that one trait in particular is excluded – white, male. The implication, nay the stated premise, is that white men are bad, therefore white men are bad at generating novel ideas and solutions. Never mind that this premise is directly in opposition to the idea which says that it’s the diversity in traits which leads to novel ideas and solutions, not specific traits, and is directly in opposition to all three aspects which is diversity, inclusion and equity. If we exclude individuals based on a particular trait – white, male – then we fail to adhere to diversity, inclusion and equity. But I digress.

In the overarching debate over public orders related to the presumed pandemic, this idea dominates the discourse. It’s us and them, the DIE people vs the white men. One particular aspect is selfishness – “don’t be selfish”. If you have a Twitter account, you probably got several emails from Twitter with the title “Don’t be selfish”. If you’ve participated in public discussions over freedom protests, especially recently, you’ve read several identical tweets which merely blame this presumed selfishness for cases and a more lengthy lockdown – “you’re the superspreaders, you’re the reason we’re in this mess, you’re the reason for the lockdowns, cases, grandma killers, etc”. This is to say white men are deemed to be selfish and that’s one reason they’re bad, or white men are bad therefore they must also be selfish.

So, where’s the irony, what’s the paradox?

The protests, if you’ve watched clips of them or even participated, are made up of all kinds of individuals who have all kinds of traits. The protests are a prime example of diversity, inclusion and equity. All ages, all skin colors, all creeds and beliefs, all professions, all genders, all traits are represented and present at these protests.

In the overarching idea about diversity, inclusion and equity, there’s opposition to the freedom protests by way of selfishness. Yet the protests themselves show diversity, inclusion and equity in a way that no law, no corporate policy, indeed no sanitary tyranny could dream of creating. None, at these protests, set out to create this diversity, inclusion and equity outright, but that’s what we got anyways. The diversity, inclusion and equity is spontaneous, manifest and intrinsic. But more to the point, it’s in direct opposition to the idea a priori, by way of selfishness. Selfishness leads to diversity, inclusion and equity. Whodathunkit.

So basically, if we set out to create diversity, inclusion and equity in law and corporate policy, we’ll create it alright, but as an opposition to some other aspect of our campaign. If that was our goal, congratulations, we’ve done it.

But why?

Freedom is an individual trait. It’s primarily selfish. If we attack freedom(s) by way of law or corporate policy or sanitary tyranny, we end up with freedom protests, a collective act driven by a selfish trait common to all humans.

Martin Levac 03:51 3/21/2021

How Do You Get Somebody To Do Anything?

When he gets paid to do nothing.

Bill C-273: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-273/first-reading

An Act to establish a national strategy for a guaranteed basic income


Here’s how this works.

I make things, I provide services. I get paid. Then I use that pay to buy stuff others make, services others provide, trade with other people for things I don’t make, for services I don’t provide. In order to do all that, I learn a trade, I acquire competence. In order to do that, I must have support from others, primarily while I’m still a child growing up into an adult, at which point I will become able to put this competence to good use.

Who makes the things, who provides the services that I get? I do. Each of us do. Everything we see is made by somebody who gets paid to make it.

Or

I make nothing, I provide no service. I get paid. Then I use that pay to buy stuff others make, services others provide, trade with other people for things I don’t make, for services I don’t provide. In order to do that, I ask for my pay, I get paid. In order to do that, I acquire the competence for that, so I learn to speak at least the words “give me my pay, please”, and “how much for this?”, and learn at least to recognize the words to that effect, i.e. “this costs this many dollars”, and I learn basic math but this is not essential since the transaction is done by computer not by me writing stuff in a book.

Who makes the things, who provides the services that I get? I don’t. Nobody does. Everything we see is made by somebody who isn’t part of this system of getting paid to do nothing. Because.

Who makes anything when everybody gets paid to do nothing?


Here’s how this works in the longer term.

I make things, I provide services. I get paid. In order to do all that, I acquire competence to make things, to provide services. Competence, for myself and each who participate, is developed and maintained by the incentive to get paid, to then use this pay to buy stuff others make.

Or

I make nothing, I provide no service. I get paid. No competence is developed or maintained by anybody, except that competence specifically related to asking for one’s pay, etc. There’s no incentive.


Seen the movie Idiocracy?

Ok.

Read the book The Gulag Archipelago?

Ok.

Ever gone without food for any length of time, unintentionally?

Ok.

Who makes the food you eat, when everybody gets paid to do nothing?

Ok.

Ever heard the name Holodomor?

Ok.


How do you get somebody to do anything when he gets paid to do nothing?

Starvation.


Once people starve, they do our bidding. They’ll “work for food”. The shoemaker, the tailor, the grocer, the police officer, the judge, the lawyer, the engineer, plumber, electrician, carpenter, doctor, nurse, pharmacist, scientist, dentist, banker, accountant, mechanic, street cleaner, garbage collector, teacher, psychologist, midwife, clerk, driver, pilot, soldier, the farmer, all will work for food.

All will do our bidding and only our bidding. The pay isn’t the pay anymore, it’s food. That’s the hard currency. Do what we say or starve. Do what we say, even if you don’t want to do what we say, then you’ll get to eat. Do what we say, even when we say “don’t give food to this guy”, or you’re the one who will starve next.

But it doesn’t happen immediately. We don’t see it right away. Slowly, progressively, we see bits here and there. Then we see more bits more frequently. Then we’re right in the middle of it. Then we’re the one who is asked, nay ordered, to not give food to this guy, or we’re the one who will starve next.


Now consider several other things we’ve already seen. Mandatory mask. Social distance. Lockdown. Curfew. Quarantine. And now we’re talking about a vaccine passport, where if we don’t get vaccinated, we can’t do stuff, we can’t go places. This Bill C-273 doesn’t stand alone, it’s part of a larger system. A system where nobody does anything unless expressly ordered to do it. A system where nobody does what they want, and instead does somebody else’s bidding and only his bidding, whatever that may be, or else we’re the one starving next.

So, who’s the culprit, who’s doing this? I am. You are. We’re doing this. And we’re doing it wilfully. If only he’d worn the mask, he wouldn’t have gotten a fine, wouldn’t have gotten arrested, wouldn’t have gotten beat up by store clerks at Canadian Tire. If only people would just follow the public health orders, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

If only.

If only we do somebody else’s bidding, then we can eat.


I’m not sure which way to decide. I could go full cynical and decide that yeah, I’ll go with Bill C-273 all the way just to see if my prediction, the logic of it, materializes that way, and then in the end I’ll just say “I told you so”. Or I could decide something a bit less cynical, a bit more reasonable, a bit more practical. I mean, who knows, I’m not an expert on these things, maybe I’m wrong about it. Maybe somebody figured it out, figured out how to get somebody to do anything when he gets paid to do nothing, and this solution is not starvation.

Martin Levac 20:53 2/25/2021

First Do No Harm – Ethics Challenge – Solution

First Do No Harm – Ethics Challenge – Solution

I wrote the following in a discussion on reddit on criticism of Canada’s response to the presumed pandemic. I post it here because I think it’s a strong candidate for a solution to what I think is a common ethics challenge.

I’m not a medical doctor nor a surgeon. I’m just some guy on the internet.


Consider the following. A man is dying. To save his life, his leg must be amputated. What’s the correct choice?

Answer given was “first do no harm, therefore first do not amputate” (paraphrased, see link to full discussion at the end of this post).

Incorrect, but it’s complicated to explain why. The correct choice is:

We ask the dying man what he wants.

By deciding not to amputate of our own initiative, we destroy the man’s right to choose to amputate, and take this right as our own instead. Since we now have this right, we amputate the dying man’s leg to save his life, regardless of what this man wants.

The right to choose is not ours, it’s his. So we ask him what he wants. First do no harm is the acknowledgement that we do not have the right to choose.

In the event the dying man is unable to choose, unconscious or something, now it’s the obligation to act according to the principle of the lesser of two evils. We amputate his leg to save his life. He lost a leg, but lives. The alternative is that he keeps his leg, but dies.

Once we amputate his leg in that way, it gets more complicated. Rights and responsibility cannot be dissociated. They always go together. This means since we took upon ourselves the right to choose, because the dying man was unable to choose, we also took upon ourselves the personal responsibility of that choice. The dying man, now alive minus one leg, can sue us on that basis. However, it’s unlikely that we get punished, if we’ve done our due dilligence to determine if indeed the dying man would certainly die if the leg was not amputated.

That ethics challenge is a true pickle. Also, it’s a very unlikely scenario. We can save a dying man’s life and leg, more often than not. The point of this ethics challenge is to illustrate where our right to amputate comes from – not from us, but from the dying man. It also illustrates that personal responsibility, in spite of that obligation to act according to the principle of the lesser of two evils, does not disappear simply because we’re now under that obligation to act. Accordingly, it also illustrates that we must indeed do our due dilligence.

Extend this challenge to an elected representative, who is deemed to speak in our name with our consent – we voted for him. Even if we didn’t vote for this particular representative, he still speaks in our name with our consent. This is an integral part of fundamental democratic principles. The true pickle here is whether we consented to be compelled by this representative to do things we don’t want for our own good – lockdown, etc. It’s similar to a dying man who is unable to choose, unconscious or something, but with one difference – we are fully able to choose what we want for ourselves.

That pickle can be solved in a couple ways. One, he decrees that we’re all incompetent, meaning that he can now act under the obligation to act according to the principle of the lesser of two evils. However, doing this also disqualifies him, so the decree must include an exemption for him so that he retains the right to choose. This creates a wholly undesirable situation. It’s called rules for thee but not for me.

Or two, he declares a popular vote so that each and all decide for themselves. While this sounds sensible, it’s still not optimal. Those who oppose being compelled, if they lose that popular vote, will be compelled, thereby breaching the principle of a priori competence. Those who agree with being compelled, aren’t in fact compelled – they choose willfully. Again, rules for thee but not for me.

Or three, neither of the above. Instead, ask each and all what each and all needs to get through this as they each and all see fit. This is optimal. We don’t get into a rules for thee but not for me situation. We don’t breach the principle of a priori competence. Resources are distributed according to need, and this need is determined by each and all, not by some central authority. It can be made into a robust plan, rather than some half-assed corner-of-the-table hopeful-wishful maybe-it-will-work kinda thing (as is obviously the case here and now). We do not invoke the greater good (some die so that others live), we invoke the common good (each and all benefit more than they are harmed). It mirrors what each and all already do normally, so there’s little or no disruption of everyday life.

In other words, we ask the dying man what he wants.

Martin Levac 11:53 1/22/2021


Personal Responsibility

Personal Responsibility

Is the act of taking on the burden of the consequences of one’s actions, regardless of the reason for these actions, be it from one’s own desire and wish, or from another’s desire and wish such as by an order given by a superior or by a privilege given by way of one’s station and duty.

It is also the act of taking on the burden of righting a wrong, of repairing the broken, of building anew, of using one’s skill and means to do, as per the principle of the lesser of two evils or the common good (not the greater good, that’s a different principle altogether, see link* at bottom, Master of My Own Thoughts – 2 “Second Principle”).

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is what gives us this personal responsibility, in both the above definitions. It does this through an opposition between freedoms and self-preservation. Each of us can do (or not do, as per express exceptions) as we please so long as self-preservation (of all parties) is not infringed or destroyed. Self-preservation is a question of fact, therefore freedoms must also be a question of fact and not merely some belief or ideal. Otherwise this opposition is unjust a priori.

The Canadian Charter begins with:

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”

And immediately sets forth the following principle in article 1:

“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Today and for several months almost a year Quebec and other Canadian provinces are under a state of public health emergency as per the Public Health Act article 118 in Quebec for example. Article 123 of that same law is what defines the powers that can be given, to “prescribe reasonable limits by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Article 123 sets forth the following (reasonable?) limits:

“Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary…” “(8) Order any other measure necessary to protect the health of the population.”

(8) is the only line that need be cited here because it effectively includes all other measures allowed in (1) to (7) and beyond. “Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary” means exactly that, all provisions to the contrary, including those in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including article 1 of that same Charter, including the preamble of this same Charter. Article 123 of the Public Health Act stands as the law above all other law.

There’s a paradoxical logic to this. If, by democratic principles, we adopt a law such as the Public Health Act which contains this article 123 which makes it stand as the law above all other law, does that still adhere to those same democratic principles?

The Sniff Test

If a law destroys its foundation by way of its application, it is intrinsically inapplicable, null and void. What is the foundation of the Public Health Act? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the foundation of all other law. And the Public Health Act is explicitly intrinsically inapplicable by its article 123. As a side note, any and all other law which contains a similar provision as article 123 is also intrinsically inapplicable, null and void.

To The Main Point of This Post

What rules the actions of those who obey the orders given? There’s a hierarchy to democracy, I wrote about that a while ago in another post**. The Judiciary is subordinate to the Legislature, the Legislature is subordinate to the people, the people are sovereign (subordinate to themselves). The Judiciary and the Legislature are the means by which the people subordinate themselves. For the purpose of this main point, the Legislature rules over the Judiciary by way of lawmaking, not by direct control. Lawmaking is the act of “prescribing reasonable limits by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Also for the purpose of this main point, the police is the force branch (i.e. law enforcement) of both the Legislature and the Judiciary, subordinate to both accordingly, again not directly but by way of lawmaking and jurisprudence. While exceptions are possible, they must still adhere to the Canadian Charter.

So, what rules the actions of a police officer in the performance of his duty? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, those “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Not the order given by a superior, especially not one given by an elected representative acting through direct control of the Judiciary or of the police force.

You are a police officer. You enforce the law. Do you obey the rule of law, therefore the orders of your immediate superior who are presumed to obey the rule of law? Or do you obey the order given by a person who, by way of the application of a law which destroys its foundation, destroys any pretense to his authority to give such order? Do you obey the order given by one who has given himself the absolute authority to give any and all orders as per article 123(8) of the Public Health Act “notwithstanding any provision to the contrary”? Do you obey the order which states that you must disregard the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Do you obey the order given by a person who, by all measures, has shown the only skill of getting elected, i.e. he’s more popular?

If you obey the order given by such a person, then you do not obey the rule of law, you do not enforce the law, you are not a police officer. Though you may still dress like one, you may still believe you are a police officer, you no longer abide by the fundamental principle from which is derived your authority to enforce the law.

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”

“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Show me where it says that Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of Quebec prime minister Francois Legault, the minister or the director of health and the rule of their decrees.

Show me.

See the bit at the end of article 123 of the Public Health Act:

“The Government, the Minister or another person may not be prosecuted by reason of an act performed in good faith in or in relation to the exercise of those powers.”

As a police officer, you are this “another person”. You may not be prosecuted by reason of an act performed in good faith in or in relation to the exercise of those powers. Effectively, you now act strictly on the basis of your capacity to use as much force as you are able, so long as you do so in good faith, so long as you merely say “I thought I was doing the right thing”. So long as you say “I was just following orders”. Or at least, that’s the idea of that provision. Or would you care to imagine that this provision means something else?

You are a police officer. You enforce the rule of law. But, as I’ve outlined well enough in this post, the rule of law no longer exists, thus you now act on the basis of your own moral compass, and only on your own moral compass. I pray, for all of our sake, that your own moral compass is robust indeed.


Ordinary Men: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ordinary-men-christopher-r-browning/1102811037

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

Quebec Public Health Act: http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/s-2.2

*Master of My Own Thoughts – 2: https://wannagitmyball.wordpress.com/2019/02/28/master-of-my-own-thoughts-2/

**Legislature – Judiciary: https://wannagitmyball.wordpress.com/2019/02/18/legislature-judiciary/


This is my prayer: https://wannagitmyball.wordpress.com/2020/08/04/this-is-my-prayer/

This Is My Prayer

I’m not religious. I don’t believe in God. I believe in this. This is my prayer.

Universe. Listen. Hear me.

Remind us that we are brothers.

Amen.


Martin Levac 21:52 1/10/2021

Presumption of Healthy or Sick?

Presumption of Healthy or Sick?

Presumption of healthy is what we used to have. We presumed that everybody who walked about, got together for dinner or to go see a movie, went to work, to school, played at the park, traveled abroad, etc, were healthy. This can be summarized as a principle:

Presumption of healthy, until proven otherwise.

When proven otherwise, this means we tell others not to get too close because “I think I’m coming down with something”, we call our boss and tell him “I can’t come to work this morning”, we established a robust system where when an employee is sick he takes sick days, we set up an entire industry which we call medicine. When proven otherwise, medicine takes all its value. Otherwise, medicine serves little or no purpose.

What we have now is the opposite principle:

Presumption of sick, until proven otherwise.

We wear a mask, keep our distance, isolate, confine, lock down, all because we presume that we’re sick regardless of evidence to the contrary. We feel good, we’re able and willing to go to work, we can play at the park or go to the beach, we can travel abroad just fine, we can get together for dinner without risk of making each other sick. None of that matters. In fact, the presumption of sick is precisely the idea that when we feel good and can do all those things, that’s when we’re sick, that’s when we’re a danger to others, that’s when others who feel good and can do all those things are a danger to ourselves.

Catastrophization

This is the phenonemon where we model the world worse than it actually is, and often model it as the worst version of it. With presumption of healthy, that’s not much of a problem although it is a serious problem nonetheless. But with presumption of sick, catastrophization becomes the worst form of itself since everybody is presumed sick, presumed to be more sick than they actually are, presumed to be as sick as they possibly can be, but most importantly, presumed to be the most dangerous to ourselves as is possible.

When we meet somebody who’s healthy and feels good, it’s obvious – he’s the one not wearing a mask, not keeping his distance, not isolating, not being confined, not being locked down, not abiding by the emergency orders. He’s the most dangerous of all. He’s dangerous to ourselves. He must be stopped. He must be compelled to do all those things which make us safe. He must be forced to wear a mask, forced to keep his distance, forced to isolate, forced to stay home, forced to force his kids to do the same, forced to do all that even when he’s in his own home. He’s too dangerous, he must be stopped for our sake. We can’t let him wander around like that, he’s typhoid Mary, the worst kind of that.

That is what catastrophization does when combined with presumption of sick.

On a side note, presumption of sick does two other things. First, it causes medicine to become more valuable (by everybody who would otherwise not need, or sell, any of that) and in turn allows medicine to become more profitable than would be otherwise warranted. With presumption of healthy, medicine has any value only when proven otherwise. Second, it causes the truly sick to be ignored and neglected in favor of all those oh-so dangerous, walking, talking, working, and playing healthy people.


Professor Jonathan Haidt speaks at UCCS about catastrophization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi499A4VsN8

The problem of observation as I interpret it, to explain the model of world vs the real world: https://wannagitmyball.wordpress.com/2020/07/16/the-problem-of-observation/

The statins scam, a precedent for medicating the healthy: https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/books-by-dr-malcolm-kendrick/the-great-cholesterol-con/

Professor Denis Rancourt paper, which includes analysis of neglect of truly sick people: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341832637_All-cause_mortality_during_COVID-19_No_plague_and_a_likely_signature_of_mass_homicide_by_government_response

Dr Vladimir Zelenko and the Zelenko protocol which he developed to treat Covid-19 effectively: https://www.vladimirzelenkomd.com/

I was inspired to write this post after watching Alexandra Henrion-Caude talking in a short video-conference clip I found on a Twitter feed, about the presumption of sick and its effect on both big pharma and the neglect of the truly sick. I can’t find that short clip again so if anybody knows what clip I’m refering to here, please post it in the comments. Thank you. It simply occurred to me that we’re dealing with catastrophization on a grand scale, precipitated by presumption of sick.


A question to begin understanding what’s happening:

Where are all the dead bodies and what did they actually die of?

Martin Levac 19:05 1/3/2021

FOR IMMEDIATE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT RESTRICTION

Informed Consent – Medical Experiment

Informed Consent – Medical Experiment

Read this in full: http://www.fsss.qc.ca/download/preshospitalier/arrt-2020-099.pdf

It is the 3rd December 2020 decree by Québec Minister of Health, Christian Dubé, enacted under the Public Health Act s2.2, article 123 here: http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cs/S-2.2

After you’ve read fully, you will understand that the decree stipulates in no uncertain terms that the actions authorized by the decree constitute a medical experiment. This is demonstrated by the fact that the substance authorized to be administered is, and for a time yet, being actively studied and is therefore not validated to be administered in the normal setting of medicine as practiced by medical professionals, let alone all other professionals also authorized by this decree.

The administration of this medication is an experiment by all definitions of that word. Accordingly, the test subject must provide informed consent, without any undue action by anybody to obtain said informed consent, be it force, coercion, deceit or otherwise, before an authorized person (listed in the above decree) administers the experimental medication unto the human test subject. It behooves then all persons so authorized to inform themselves first as to their personal responsibility, professional responsibility and liabity in the failure of obtaining such informed consent from the human test subject before proceeding with administration of the experimental medication and/or experimental medical treatment.

Informed Consent: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/science-research/science-advice-decision-making/research-ethics-board/requirements-informed-consent-documents.html

Take special care as it concerns age of consent, and age of assent for persons under the age of majority, particularly since the decree authorizes the administration unto human test subjects “at least 6 years of age”.

While the decree merely authorizes and does not explicitly compels nor mandates administration, it makes appear as if this authorization stands as legal support for actions that are otherwise prohibited in the context of absence of informed consent, or that even this is not in fact a medical experiment. It is a medical experiment, and informed consent cannot be circumvented, and personal and professional responsibility and liability apply to the full extent of the civil code and criminal code.

Furthermore, an idea began circulating about the possibility to mandate some proof of vaccination (or other similar obligation) in order to be allowed access to facilities or services. This constitutes coercion in light of the facilities or services being deemed essential such as medical care for example or even a grocerie store or basically any facility or service of any sort without exception (because all facilities and services are de facto essential in light of the right to earn a living and where such facilities and services are provided by one who exercises his right to earn a living). One may not be compelled to submit oneself to a medical treatment or medical experiment for any reason whatsoever. As I said, informed consent cannot be circumvented.

A look back at a recent attempt to do exactly that. Adamson Barbecue, where Adam Skelly was compelled to undergo a medical test as a condition for bail. That’s coercion to undergo a medical experiment – a viral/RT-PCR test. In this case, in my humble opinion, the judge himself is personally responsible and professionally responsible for, and liable for all damages from, this act by signing the court order for such. However, correct me if I’m wrong, the test so ordered was not in fact administered. It’s likely that only a court/judge can so order a medical test, but this likely has such a high evidentiary and legal and constitutional bar that a lower court/judge just can’t do it, no matter the Public Health Act authorizes a lower court/judge to do it.

Finally, a particular provision in the Public Health Act makes appear as if persons authorized in that manner cannot be prosecuted for acts done in good faith. That’s patently false because good faith is not a provision, it’s a principle of Law. Principles of Law cannot be codified in that manner, nor could they subsequently be abrogated by repealing the provision in question for example. Good faith is a matter of fact, not a matter of Law, is what I’m saying. The matter of fact in this instance are the acts themselves, and the consequences thereof, and the a priori knowledge of these acts and potential consequences such as the knowledge concerning informed consent and medical experiment and so forth.

Above all else, there’s the principle of Law which says that “none are presumed to ignore the Law”, or phrased differently “ignorance of the Law is not a defense”.

I am not a lawyer, but I can still advise earnestly in this manner.

Don’t be an idiot.

Martin Levac 21:26 12/4/2020

Skin In The Game

Skin In The Game

I don’t know how to write this. Take ownership of your local business as if it was your own. Because it is. Because you have skin in the game. Without this local business, you don’t eat, you don’t get dressed, you don’t fix your pipes and other stuff. That’s your skin in the game.

It’s obvious now that Adamson Barbecue is made an example to instill fear in others who would also resist.

Imagine a thousand Adamson Barbecues. A million. Game, set and match.

Martin Levac