https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-vaccines-scientific-proof-lethality/5767711
Let me be clear. Scientific proof is not needed. Scientific investigation into the sickness and deaths from injection is welcome to offer a view into “why.”Scientific proof is not needed to know the outcomes are as they are and as they shall continue to be. Nor is science needed to explain how dots connect.
Inject and die suddenly, or get very sick, and or die slowly
And frankly, science is not necessary to explain humanity. https://simoneweilcenter.org/publications/2021/11/28/christianitys-abandonment-of-the-future-nicholas-berdyaev-on-philosophy-prophecy-and-eschatology
Philosophy does a far better service than science. Annoyed by the tendency for some philosophers and philosophical schools to treat philosophy as a science, Berdyaev reclaimed the rightful creative province of this art:
Philosophy is an art rather than a science. Philosophy is a special art, differing in principle from poetry, music, or painting—it is the art of knowing. Philosophy is art because it is creation. Philosophy is art because it predicates a calling and a special gift from above, because the personality of its creator is impressed upon it, no less than on music or poetry…. Philosophy is the art of knowing in freedom by creating ideas which resist the given world and necessity and penetrate into the ultimate essence of the world. We cannot make art dependent upon science, creativeness upon adaptation, freedom upon necessity.[1]
As an art, then, philosophy like all arts is characterized by acts of intuition, “the sine qua non of philosophy” (Solitude and Society, 1934).[2] As intuitive act, philosophy for Berdyaev is simultaneously a revelatory act. Because it is a revelatory act, philosophy, need not be restricted in its freedom by a claustrophobic obedience to rationality as in the Scholastic tradition and its modern iterations in Idealism and Positivism. Revelation transforms philosophy.[3] Nevertheless, the philosopher cannot simply surrender to atavistic acceptance of religious claims—for then he would no longer be a philosopher: “The philosopher’s tragedy has its origin in the attempt to restrict his pursuit of knowledge by the invocation of Divine Grace or by the appeal to the universal character of natural necessity.”[4] In his occupation of a μεταξύ (metaxu: mediation, or bridge) between religion and science, the philosopher finds himself in conflict with both, yet participates in the milieux they explore.
Nevertheless, for Berdyaev, philosophy is at its core a religious striving, a striving with ontology, a struggle with God, despite atheistic, materialist, or rationalistic claims to the contrary. “It is quite useless for philosophy to disguise its true nature,” he writes in Freedom and the Spirit (1927), “for it is always positively or negatively religious.”[5] Similar to (French philosopher) Pierre Hadot, for Berdyaev philosophy is a spiritual exercise; but, even more does he emphasize its reality as spiritual activity: “In the creative, knowing act of philosophy there is an upsurge towards another being, another world, daring to approach the ultimate mystery.”[6] Furthermore, intellection is itself (or should be) a creative act in search of Being, though not “simply the illumination of Being, it is the light itself in the innermost depths of Being. In fact, knowledge is immanent in Being, rather than Being in knowledge.”[7]
Against this active eschatology the defining feature of passive eschatology has everything to do with the ways in which technology and mechanization transfigure (or, more accurately, disfigure) man as their innovations and methods are blindly and uncritically welcomed and incorporated into human life. This movement thoroughly compromises the being of man: “We face the question, is that being to whom the future belongs to be called man, as previously, or something other?” [5] Given the subsequent colonization of the human person by Covid injections, in utero genetic engineering, hormone treatments, and plastic surgery—just for starters—Berdyaev was more than prescient.
Post-Modern Westerners are like human lemmings driven by relentless propaganda and brute force firing, shaming, and police enforcing insanity. We have too great a faith in the idol. After the 18th century “scientism” replaced God as explanation for everything. We have too much faith in the State as an “honest broker.” And clearly far too much faith in Big Pharma being oriented towards human wellness. And the same for doctors.
Agamben’s interventions during the Covid-19 disaster represent his absolute resistance to any expression of state power. As he sees it, any exercise of power by the state in the name of preserving life has the effect of reducing persons to the status of bare life, of extending the regime of biosecurity through the announcement of a state of exception. Authorities take advantage of any occasion – something like a pandemic, for instance – to increase control over life. This is the only danger that they recognize.
The theory of biopower originates with Foucault in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it is Agamben who really brings it to prominence almost two decades later. For Foucault, we live in the aftermath of a fundamental transformation in the way that power operates. In his lecture series at the Collège de France entitled Society Must Be Defended, Foucault announces the shift from a regime of sovereignty to one of biopower. Sovereignty rules through prohibitions but leaves subjects alone if they don’t transgress these limits, while biopower rules through insinuating itself into every aspect of a subject’s life. Under the regime of biopower, no one is ever left alone for even the briefest moment.
Agamben focuses on the state as the site from which biopower deploys itself. He sees sovereignty as an essential foundation for the expression of biopower. In Homo Sacer, he articulates this link between sovereignty and biopower, a link that challenges Foucault’s conception of a radical transformation from one into the other. Agamben states, “the inclusion of bare life in the political realm constitutes the original – if concealed – nucleus of sovereign power. It can even be said that the production of a biopolitical body is the original activity of sovereign power.” Sovereignty here is essential to the productivity of biopower. But the problem remains the same as it is for Foucault. Politics becomes concerned with life and thereby impinges on our ability to simply live.
“Giorgio Agamben formulates a thought on the dialectics of the contemporary security state: on the one hand, it spreads fear and panic, while at the same time massively restricting freedom. This radically reverses the original security paradigm of the political.” https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/01/16/freedom-and-insecurity/
In addition -
From https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/anti-lockdown-theory-in-defence-of-giorgio-agamben/
According to Agamben, state sovereignty relies on a moment of exception – such as states of emergency. These are moments when the state suspends its own laws, without putting itself outside the law as such. Sovereignty rests on a claimed right to select which lives are meaningless “bare life” and which are lives worth living. This means death-camps like Auschwitz are the ‘nomos’ or basic law of the state. States of exception involve the exclusion of something from the fields of the law and of political value. Historically, this exclusion is limited to particular times (e.g. war) or places (e.g. concentration camps). Today, however, it’s spreading across social life. There is a zone of indistinction as to whose lives count. Everyone is potentially the enemy.
Agamben thus argues for resistance to states of exception – which always carry the danger of a Holocaust. The problems of sovereignty are ontological – relating to questions of being. They can only be solved by establishing a completely different way of being. What Agamben advocates instead, is a ‘coming community’ composed of ‘whatever-singularities’. This involves thinking people have value, whatever their attributes are – instead of dividing them up into worthwhile and bare lives. It is exemplified by mass gatherings/revolts such as Tiananmen Square, Tahrir Square, Gezi Park, Occupy, etc.
Agamben sees in the current lockdowns an extension of the ‘state of exception’. He is based in Italy, the first western country to introduce a lockdown and the first anywhere to lock down the whole country. The Italian government’s reaction went through three stages: a first stage of business-as-usual and minimising the crisis, a second stage of surreal doublethink, and a third stage of panic and lockdown. (This has been mirrored elsewhere). Agamben’s first piece, Contagion, was written during the second phase, when the government were giving mixed messages: draconian measures in Lombardy and Veneto, but also reassurances that the virus is not severe and attempts to keep the nearby Milanese economy running.
Already, Agamben argues that the ‘so-called’ epidemic was being used to spread an ‘inhuman’ discourse. This discourse focuses on viewing other people as contagious, i.e. dangerous, and separating from them. He says this is similar to the ways “terrorism” laws turn everyone into potential terrorists. But this time, it’s applied to people who don’t even have any malicious intent. This is an attack on relationships among human beings. ‘The neighbour’, in the Christian sense of loving thy neighbour, ‘has been abolished’. Such panicky measures both derive from and aim to provoke fear. They achieve what leaders have long wanted: stopping unmediated contact and cultural, political and educational discussion among people.
In The Coronavirus and the State of Exception, Agamben criticises the doublethink of this period. He describes the emergency measures as ‘frenzied, irrational and totally unjustified’. He repeats the claims of the Italian health authorities that coronavirus ’causes mild/moderate symptoms (a kind of flu) in 80 to 90% of cases’. This was to draw ire as the panic progressed, although the statistics on symptoms haven’t changed much. This means the emergency response is utterly disproportionate. When he wrote this, only Lombardy and Veneto were locked down. Agamben correctly predicted that the emergency would gradually extend to all Italy, since cases would arise elsewhere and the definition of affected areas was vague and broad.
It has happened for several reasons. Firstly, because states of emergency have become a normal practice of government. Governments simply defaulted to the responses they already take against “terrorism”, “riots”, refugees, and so on. “Terrorism” has been exhausted as an excuse for states of exception. So governments now invent epidemics out of ordinary health issues as a new pretext. Secondly, the panic reflects a social ‘state of fear’ which creates a ‘real need for collective states of panic’. This floating panic looks for an object – and the epidemic is an ideal pretext. It leads people to accept (or even demand) the very security measures governments provide. The latent panic was just hanging around waiting for the next crisis to latch onto.
In a third piece, Clarifications, as well as an interview around the same time, Agamben responds to hostile reactions to his earlier pieces. By this time, Italy has passed into the third phase, and approaches which relativise or minimise the virus have been rendered taboo. Agamben is thus under attack for calling it ‘just a flu’, as well as for opposing the lockdown. In reply, he emphasises, firstly, that he is not concerned mainly with assessing the seriousness of the disease itself. He is not a virologist or doctor. He was just quoting what the Italian officials were saying. Rather than the disease, he is concerned with the social responses. It’s not really all that important to his argument whether coronavirus is just a normal flu or something much worse. The latent panic can attach itself just as well to a serious epidemic as to a hyped one.
He also clarifies that the “invention” of an epidemic is a discursive phenomenon. It functions like a conspiracy, but it is not necessarily a deliberate conspiracy. A government can “invent” a discourse even if it’s hitched to a real issue. Governments usually exploit a real crisis, rather than cause it directly. He reaffirms that suspending life to protect it, like suppressing freedom to defend it, is the wrong path to take. The crisis is biopolitical, because it turns health into a ‘legal obligation’. By implication, health is treated as a duty, not a right.
https://ko-fi.com/thejournaloflingeringsanity