Transhumanism: The paradigm behind vaccine mandates and gender ideology
Last month, I covered the news of West Australian police officer Ben Falconer’s vaccine mandate challenge loss in the Supreme Court. I also interviewed Irish comedy writer turned women’s rights activist
while he was Down Under touring his book with the Free Speech Union of Australia.On the face of it, these two are worlds apart. Ben campaigns for choice in vaccination. Graham campaigns against gender ideology and for women’s sex-based rights.
But they have two things in common. One is censorship. The other is transhumanism.
The censorship aspect is obvious. Both men have been cast as pariahs by media and institutions and have lost livelihoods for stating their principled beliefs (though they are seen as heroes in their small activist circles).
But why are both of these topics, which seem fairly unrelated apart perhaps from the big pharma/medical industrial complex profiteering angle, subject to such fierce censorship?
I asked Graham this question and I’ll share his thoughts in the full interview write up, which I plan to publish in the coming weeks (progress is slow due to an unusually high number of big stories and investigations over the past fortnight and the week ahead, as well as another important project I’m working on in the background).
But here I will share my thoughts, as I have been mulling on the overlap between the issues of gender ideology and vaccination policy. I think a major influencing factor is transhumanism.
I’ll explain, using Ben’s case as example.
Ben argued that WA police have a right to bodily integrity in the workplace. However, WA law says that if it’s an emergency, they do not. Accordingly, the Court decided that the Police Commissioner’s order that police officers must undergo vaccination as a condition of work was ‘lawful.’
Earlier this year, the Queensland Supreme Court ruled that the Queensland Police Commissioner’s direction for mandatory Covid vaccination was ‘unlawful’ under the Human Rights Act, but only because the Police Commissioner had not gone through all the necessary box ticking exercises before implementing the mandate. In his decision, Justice Glenn Martin said that impinging on human rights was justified given the emergency, if only it had been done in the right way.
Other vaccine mandate related cases in Australia have similarly been won on technicalities, where the plaintiff has challenged not the mandate, but the way the mandate was implemented. The case of teacher Diane Dawking for example, or the recent win of data analyst Xin Yin Ooi (whose story I hope to cover soon!). Where cases have challenged the mandates head on, they generally lose, as in the high-profile case of Kassam vs. Hazzard.1
So you see that, in Australia, our laws allow the state to civilly conscript the bodies of citizens to undergo vaccination (even if experimental and without proper safety data) in any circumstance where the state decides it is warranted, in exchange for the continuance of civil and human rights.
This applies all the time, by the way, not just in emergencies. Under Australia’s No Jab, No Pay/No Play legislation, family assistance payments and access to childcare services are withheld from parents of children who are not vaccinated according to the National Immunisation Program schedule.
These laws didn’t appear out of nowhere. Some people apparently thought they were a good idea. What upstream cultural influences influenced the thinking of the people who created such laws in the first place?
The underlying belief, written into law, is that citizens are deficient or unfit without the intervention of a state-mandated medical procedure.
Our culture has undergone a profound paradigm shift from thinking of the natural human state as the default, to a transhumanist conception where the human subject must undergo medical intervention - be it vaccination, sex reassignment surgery or otherwise - in order to achieve default status.
The transhumanist default state is sometimes described as the ‘true’ self (as in the case of gender and sex transitioners), or in terms indicating the person’s fitness to participate in society and the economy (e.g.: ‘fully vaxxed’.) The natural human state is deficient, or even dangerous within this paradigm.
Furthermore, interventions such as cross sex hormones, sex reassignment surgery and mandated vaccination don’t interfere with the integrity of the human subject, or merely better them. Rather, the interventions complete the person. This is an important distinction.
This is why our law makers and judiciary find it reasonable and justified to violate the human right of bodily integrity as regards vaccination policy. This is why they have created laws that allow men to identify as literal women (and vice versa), or that prohibit parents and professionals from encouraging gender questioning children to hold off on ‘gender affirming care’ (a euphemism for a range of interventions including chest binders, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and eventually, surgeries).
Subscribers, please feel free to riff with further thoughts if any come to mind as you read this, and I look forward to sharing my Graham Linehan interview with you soon!
To support my work, share, subscribe, and/or make a one-off contribution to DDU via my Kofi account. Thanks!
A recent notable exception is the case of Victorian Police employee Simon Shears, who successfully challenged disciplinary action brought against him over his vaccination status.
I know that it is difficult to find empathy for those that ultimately control our lives and cause our current level of suffering.
Yes, they most likely were born into great wealth but they do suffer. They were unlikely ever loved and it is highly likely that they were sexually and mentally abused.
It is my belief that they are subjecting humanity to these tortures because that is what they have experienced themselves and are envious of good people that can feel and express love.
At heart they want to die... And deny anyone, or for that matter any thing the opportunity to live.
There is no forgiveness that will save them, but I believe that it is in understanding their childhood trauma, and not hating them, then I might not become as them, in their future that they are trying to reflect on us.
Its interesting that you have written this as I have been thinking about the transhuman angle recently. It would seem the roll out of the mRNA so called vaccines was a step used to acclimatise people to the idea of genetic modification. An effort to normalise the use of genetic modification with the population.
On Graham Linehan, I heard an interview with him where he talked about how his cancellation had affected him. Anyone who objected to the vaccines or the vaccine mandates could relate to what he said. He discussed the hurt he felt when friends and colleagues turned their backs on him. He also talked about media portrayals of him and how he couldn't believe they could get away with telling outright lies about his actions and words. This is the same experience those who questioned covid or vaccines experienced when they were portrayed as delusional and ill informed. Many people lost friends, colleagues and opportunities. He discussed how none of these people later apologised or let him know they now realised he was right. They just moved on.
Regarding emergencies, my reading of the legislation in WA was that it was really written with short term events in mind, such as fires or floods. There is some justification in situations like this to limit peoples movements etc. However the legislation was completely misused during Covid. How do we define an Emergency, or is an Emergency just whenever the government says it is?