Gnosticism is not a particular set of beliefs; rather, it is a learned philosophy concerning the ethical relationship between authoritative power and its constituency
This. "When one adopts the robes of orthodoxy, of course, every other tenet of philosophy, knowledge, belief, law, science, or ethics will seem a contrathetic parasite to one’s authority or ability to fleece the herd for their money, allegiance, and abuse. Gnostics don’t form churches, cults, or seek money—and that, dear reader, is indeed a sin to those who do crave such trappings."
Wonderfully communicated.
Or, in my admittedly coarse parlance, the assholes always claim that anyone who is not as interested in control as are they is an asshole. Classic bait and switch. Unfortunately, it works.
Just this morning, I heard a (typically) liberal Hollywood mouthpiece whine loudly about how SCOTUS had become the haven of "right wing extremists" and set to push America into open authoritarianism. Of course, she was not talking about the ruling you mention---which, as you accurately note, makes censorship legal, if you do it properly! Somehow, she missed it. #SameCrapDifferentDay
I enjoyed the boldness of the essay, in moving from the philosophical to the real and back. It will take another reading to allow the synthesis you offer to sink in. I find nothing to disagree with in your assessments. Thank you. .
Regarding the "sophistication litmus test", I would like to add one more point about its insidiousness. In basic form, it allows outsourcing to ostensibly "private" agencies to launder the rights violations the authorities intend to impose. But in the case of the mass violations of informed consent that the world has recently witnessed, another aspect was outsourcing to _other government agencies_ which could, in perverse legal reasoning, be said to be "innocent of responsibility". Legally, "approved" equals "licensed" equals "permissible to use the magic words 'safe and effective'". The FDA is the agency with jurisdiction over all these magic words. (To be sure, the words are not to be conflated with actually _being_ safe and effective, but I'm just focusing here on the legal gymnastics). In this case, the option of outsourcing use of these magic words directly to the private entities - i.e. the pharma companies, would have blatantly violated the law. So they had the CDC and Veterans Affairs conspicuously claim that the legally experimental genetic vaccines were "safe and effective", presumably on the unstated legal argument that the prohibition on the use of these words only applied to marketing by private companies. Then private employers (such as my own, in June 2021) could write up vaccine-mandate policies which asserted that _the CDC says_ that the vaccines are "safe and effective". To ensure lawyers writing these policies that they're clients would be in no legal jeopardy as a consequence, the EEOC wrote up guidelines for such policies, in a footnote explicitly saying that the "FDA approach" (i.e. the prohibition on using the magic words with respect to unapproved products) was not within their jurisdiction or competence. Of course, the FDA didn't just tolerate these shenanigans. It obviously was a party to this division of labor for purposes of rights-extinguishing.
I love it. 'the option of outsourcing magic words directly to private entities in order to tender them immunity in the deployment of tyranny' - Tyranny by Proxy. Brilliant.
The judgement in Murthy, Surgeon General, et al. v. Missouri et al., which I take at face value as reported here, contrasts with a recent judgement by the Supreme Court of Queensland (Australia), but perhaps only in the context of Human Rights:
“It is not necessary for an identifiable individual to be affected in order for a human right to be engaged so as to trigger the obligations imposed on public entities by s 58(1) [of the Human Rights Act 2019]. A potential effect on the rights of a class of persons is sufficient.” Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 2) [2020] QSC at 292.
The above reasoning, which is incidentally true a priori, must also apply to vaccine mandates:
The ‘right to life’ entails that humans ‘may not’ be arbitrarily deprived of life. If a person is coerced to accept conditions under which they ‘may’ be arbitrarily deprived of life, that person's ‘right’ to life is thereby denied, therefore violated. Considering that vaccines are known to kill a percentage of people, vaccine mandates amount to coercing people to accept conditions under which any person may be arbitrarily deprived of life, thus denying their individual right to life.
This. "When one adopts the robes of orthodoxy, of course, every other tenet of philosophy, knowledge, belief, law, science, or ethics will seem a contrathetic parasite to one’s authority or ability to fleece the herd for their money, allegiance, and abuse. Gnostics don’t form churches, cults, or seek money—and that, dear reader, is indeed a sin to those who do crave such trappings."
Wonderfully communicated.
Or, in my admittedly coarse parlance, the assholes always claim that anyone who is not as interested in control as are they is an asshole. Classic bait and switch. Unfortunately, it works.
Just this morning, I heard a (typically) liberal Hollywood mouthpiece whine loudly about how SCOTUS had become the haven of "right wing extremists" and set to push America into open authoritarianism. Of course, she was not talking about the ruling you mention---which, as you accurately note, makes censorship legal, if you do it properly! Somehow, she missed it. #SameCrapDifferentDay
Great piece. Thanks for sharing.
I enjoyed the boldness of the essay, in moving from the philosophical to the real and back. It will take another reading to allow the synthesis you offer to sink in. I find nothing to disagree with in your assessments. Thank you. .
Regarding the "sophistication litmus test", I would like to add one more point about its insidiousness. In basic form, it allows outsourcing to ostensibly "private" agencies to launder the rights violations the authorities intend to impose. But in the case of the mass violations of informed consent that the world has recently witnessed, another aspect was outsourcing to _other government agencies_ which could, in perverse legal reasoning, be said to be "innocent of responsibility". Legally, "approved" equals "licensed" equals "permissible to use the magic words 'safe and effective'". The FDA is the agency with jurisdiction over all these magic words. (To be sure, the words are not to be conflated with actually _being_ safe and effective, but I'm just focusing here on the legal gymnastics). In this case, the option of outsourcing use of these magic words directly to the private entities - i.e. the pharma companies, would have blatantly violated the law. So they had the CDC and Veterans Affairs conspicuously claim that the legally experimental genetic vaccines were "safe and effective", presumably on the unstated legal argument that the prohibition on the use of these words only applied to marketing by private companies. Then private employers (such as my own, in June 2021) could write up vaccine-mandate policies which asserted that _the CDC says_ that the vaccines are "safe and effective". To ensure lawyers writing these policies that they're clients would be in no legal jeopardy as a consequence, the EEOC wrote up guidelines for such policies, in a footnote explicitly saying that the "FDA approach" (i.e. the prohibition on using the magic words with respect to unapproved products) was not within their jurisdiction or competence. Of course, the FDA didn't just tolerate these shenanigans. It obviously was a party to this division of labor for purposes of rights-extinguishing.
I love it. 'the option of outsourcing magic words directly to private entities in order to tender them immunity in the deployment of tyranny' - Tyranny by Proxy. Brilliant.
The judgement in Murthy, Surgeon General, et al. v. Missouri et al., which I take at face value as reported here, contrasts with a recent judgement by the Supreme Court of Queensland (Australia), but perhaps only in the context of Human Rights:
“It is not necessary for an identifiable individual to be affected in order for a human right to be engaged so as to trigger the obligations imposed on public entities by s 58(1) [of the Human Rights Act 2019]. A potential effect on the rights of a class of persons is sufficient.” Innes v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No 2) [2020] QSC at 292.
The above reasoning, which is incidentally true a priori, must also apply to vaccine mandates:
The ‘right to life’ entails that humans ‘may not’ be arbitrarily deprived of life. If a person is coerced to accept conditions under which they ‘may’ be arbitrarily deprived of life, that person's ‘right’ to life is thereby denied, therefore violated. Considering that vaccines are known to kill a percentage of people, vaccine mandates amount to coercing people to accept conditions under which any person may be arbitrarily deprived of life, thus denying their individual right to life.
Well framed and stated Michael.