Health

Ontological Sufficiency

posted by keeb January 19, 2022

Ontological deficiency is the great plague of our times. 

Keeb

‘Are you a doctor?’ is always cited when discussing health. I can tell you after wasting 300 grand on Harley Street specialists they are not as imperious as they appear. There are many good doctors in the world, which is undeniable, but a great majority cannot think beyond their training or income source. It used to irritate me greatly when I informed these good doctors of the latest papers and then handed them money for the consultation. What constitutes medical training is the most logical question to next ask? We will come back to this. 

I have personally spent 10 years studying the body and 10 years before that well-being, but I have no certification therefore my opinion means nothing. I am not here to persuade you. I am here to protect my sovereignty, my wish to wait; based on evidence others probably have not seen. This sovereignty is my decision and mine alone and yet I and so many others find it under threat. Sadly, most people are not able to defend their sovereignty. This gives rise to resentment towards those who may not necessarily comply in the same way. Usually, there is a dependency somewhere in a person’s life that forces consent by means of attrition. In Australia that is the ability to work. For Novak Djokovic that will be his ability to compete. Put your head above the parapet with a view that might be perfectly logical and what faces you is social exclusion, derision and ostracization. Despite my good health, I am reduced to a second-class citizen, with fewer rights, fewer freedoms, less access. Yet the data is far from conclusive; our solutions are at best short term. A big data analysis from Canada of 145 Countries, on the worldwide Bayesian causal impact analysis of vaccine administration on deaths and cases associated with COVID-19 shows the statistically significant and overwhelmingly positive causal impact after vaccine deployment on the dependent variables of total deaths and total cases per million. That the graph is upward in the wrong direction should be highly worrisome for policymakers. And there are a number of these studies. However newspeak, censorship, and self-policing prevent their discussion.  

Allopathic medicine has dominated for 100-years, and it is firmly entrenched. Have a read of Rockefeller’s Medicine Men for example to understand how money and profit have overlayed allopathic philosophy on public health and medical training. Such books abound but most people are not interested. While allopathic science has great merit, it also reveals glaring holes in personal well-being in the areas of diet, nutrition, exercise, super-fooding, fasting, irrigation; which do far more for longevity than any petrochemical drug might provide. Non-allopathic health movements have deliberately been de-platformed in recent years. Many good doctors can no longer speak out. The only medical licence available is an allopathic one. Therefore asking, ‘Are you a doctor?’ is deliberately reductive. Discussion is framed.    

What demonstrates knowledge of health? I take my leave as much from those who demonstrate health as those who ably discuss it. What it is to ‘be health’ requires a most unusual level of grit, determination and fortitude. This is sadly lacking within many of our great scientific minds. It skews their epistemology because ontologically they are deficient. Ontological deficiency is the great plague of our times. Don’t look up (that awful attempt at parody) exists precisely because of this.

To be a super-fit; to physically embody health at its maximum and where the proof is in the pudding brushing off covid like a twig is what is going to end this Covidiot Covidien nightmare. Zero Covid policies should be for 3 months maximum, not last 2 years. Just look at what has happened to the mental health of Australia. Zero Covid is completely useless with something is as infectious as Omicron. Vaccines are for the vulnerable; not necessarily for the young, fit and healthy (unless they want it). Other sensible stuff we can do but there is no need to be neurotic. We are neurotic because we do not have confidence in our health. Why is that? Think it through. Do something. Take it back. Be ontologically sufficient. Sensitivity and health are not separate. That many might not know what this means speaks volumes. This is more responsible than anything else. It is your response to the call to being. It is the correct philosophy. Then you do not become a vector. You brush stuff off. Use the tools out there if you want, but don’t impose. Why do people impose?  

There will always be keyboard warriors throwing their popcorn at the screen. Not necessarily being liked by your neighbour is part of clear philosophy. Clear philosophy is always separate from the crowd. Understand that for many what underwrites their frustration is resentment at being forced by the system, forced by their peers; a displacement of power made manifest in the urge to scold, whip and scapegoat others. For some there is inner contempt, reaction to their antipathy towards the Self. They know deep down they took a shortcut. For some there is genuine relief, at least they have some protection. And good for them. Freedom is the right to choose. Deep down we all know health is the most important of virtues. Without it we have nothing. If you are not healthy by means of your habits or indolence, you are not thinking clearly. It is in the body, in bliss, that real philosophy presides. Excellence is supreme health and sensitivity. Athleticism is only a small part of it. There must also be the ending of ambition. This is philosophy room 101. 

We live in a world where many irrational beliefs are more greatly protected than tried and tested empiricism on biological health. That is, mental constructions are considered more real than what is actual, one’s own sense of vitality, beatitude and well-being. If you cannot trust that what can you trust? Yet it is in the other we have been groomed to trust. 

There is a dreadful epistemological skew that permeates through our entire socioeconomic superstructure; our systems of law, health, economics and politics. Profit is a most irrational mental construct when it comes to health. It is not biologically mandated in any shape or form. This construct is why allopathic medicine dominates. Ontological sensitivity on the other hand is biologically mandated but there is no money to be made. We will continue in this mess, looking for scapegoats, whipping boys and all the rest of it to placate our antipathy.   

Outwardly no institution should profit from a disaster. Then the incentive to lie, cherry-pick and game the situation is removed. That this is not even on the table goes to show how far removed we are from clear thinking. 

Instead we look to displace our anger, blame and shirk responsibility. Look at what we have become, psychologically. Here are some extracts.  


Whipping Boy For Australians by Dan Wootton

The vicious attitude from local politicians and most Aussies shows the real dangers of a Zero Covid policy.

As I’ve been warning since 2020, it makes society nasty and inward looking – millions of paranoid residents now suspiciously regard international arrivals, even those with Australian passports – even sometimes their own relatives – as plague rats, determined to spread ‘deadly’ Covid Down Under.

Vaccination mandates have been accepted by most of the Australian media and politicians as an unquestionable necessity, with those who choose to remain unjabbed worthy of being alienated from society and individually shamed.

The growing outrage from honest Aussies fighting for liberty and freedom has been largely censored by the mainstream media, with massive protests given short shrift and anyone who dares lift their head above the parapet dismissed as an irresponsible anti-vaxxer.

Djokovic had followed all the rules, closely negotiating with tennis authorities in a bid to prove his natural Covid infection within the past six months meant it would still be possible to enter unvaccinated.

But that was never going to be good enough for a country which has seen its moral compass turned upside down thanks to a hysterical and over the top response to a virus.

The treatment of Djokovic was about local politics, not public health or the safety of Australians.

In reality, the most devastating thing for public health in Australia has been two years of some of the most draconian and ultimately failed lockdowns in the world, including the near total closure of the international borders, illegally banning citizens trapped overseas for much of that time.

Such a policy meant, until the inevitable Omicron outbreak, there was virtually no natural immunity, so Covid is now predictably ripping through society, as it was always going to.

An Aussie friend of mine recently went camping with 60 friends – all double vaccinated – to a beach town. All 60 were infected with Omicron.

But rather than question the complete collapse of a failed Zero Covid policy that has wrought so much long-term damage on Australia, it’s much easier for political leaders and the media to try and blame someone like Djokovic, who goes against the Covid orthodoxy.

It is going to take at least a decade to roll back the psychological damage of authoritarian Australia in the Covid-19 era.


The Scapegoating of Novak Djokovic by Simon Evans

Unvaccinated, Djokovic has twice caught the thing, both times shrugging it off like a shoulder twinge in the fourth set. He last tested positive in mid-December, whereupon he did the One Bad Thing that does stick, albeit hardly extraditable, and talked to a journalist. 

He is now brimming with more antibodies than the most triple-boosted of his competitors. That he is now clear is uncontroversial. His internment made sure of that much, at least, albeit to no one’s ultimate advantage. The temperance movement is throwing out an empty bottle.

Many people who might usually a) despise Morrison’s brand of populist machismo, and b) deplore the quashing of legal verdicts by posturing autocratic politicians in election year, are quite happy, it seems, to see the Australian PM lift the cup on this occasion. Quashing vaccine heresy now trumps most other considerations – we have at least learned that.

The grumbling nature of the final verdict – that the ban was upheld on ‘health and good order’ grounds – might however linger, unpleasantly, in the air. It suggests that Djokovic was being refused a visa at least partly on similar grounds as might a David Icke or a Tommy Robinson – because there was a whiff of the troublemaker about him. Because he was a threat to the moral purity of the people, rather than their respiratory systems, and to the placidity of the public square. He was thought by Hawke to be capable of fanning ‘anti-vaccination sentiment’. This, despite Djokovic never having uttered anything approaching ‘anti-vax’ sentiment, beyond admitting his own preference for remaining unjabbed, and his rather quaint adherence to some homoeopathy-adjacent eye-wash generally more popular in the Brighton Lanes than on the Pro-Circuit. 

As Twitter might put it: 

‘Djokovic: Remains unvaccinated, catches Covid, fails to die.
Australian government: “Oh my God, will this anti-vaccine sentiment never end?!”’

It is ever more inconveniently clear that the present, dominant iteration of the virus presents very little threat to healthy young people. It caused Novak about as much distress, it would appear, as eating a sausage two days past its best-before date would cause an otherwise healthy Alsatian. In that regard, even on public-decency grounds, his deportation is more like preventing Elvis Presley being filmed from the waist down, than barring a visit from Identity Evropa. Serbia should cast him in a remake of Footloose. 

Australian chief justice James Allsop himself emphasised, seemingly through gritted teeth, that in upholding the cancellation of Djokovic’s visa, the court’s decision was based entirely on whether the immigration minister had the legal right to do what he had done, rather than on the ‘wisdom or merits’ of that decision. That suggests to me the principle, if not this case, is still up for debate. I hope so.

One thing we certainly seem to have learned, if it had escaped us until now, is just how raw the bones of humanity are. And not just Australian humanity, either.

The sheer, undigested joy, the unmistakably bilious, pinched, grim satisfaction taken on social media, relishing Djokovic’s woes, have made it clear that sending him home is the very least a lot of people wanted to see. Strung up by his ankle from a decent-sized boab tree would have been more like it, really, so that his dangling form might present a pleasing silhouette against an iconic desert sunset, and a warning to any other jackal or coyote minded to try its luck. That’s how we treat anti-vaxxers ’round these parts, boy.


Australian authorities finally deported Novak Djokovic by Ulysses Alvarez Laviada

Djokovic has now become the scapegoat for all the anger that leftists feel for those who are millionaires and who have personal philosophies and beliefs that are not to their liking.

Djokovic is one of those examples where the Public Relation (PR) that supports him outside the realm of sport is carrion fodder for all the liberal-progressive political correctness who when something or someone does not conform to the political-scientific objectivity of their beliefs they rush to apply their cancel culture at the push of a “wise” button that educate us about what is supposed to be a decent “holistic” behavior for an athlete.

The Australian laws were ambiguous enough to leave it to the discretion of the judges whether Djokovic entered Australia or not. This is a widespread tactic of all liberal-progressive governments, including the United States. 

If you create sufficiently ambiguous laws then the law can act with impunity according to the moods of the judges and the adhoc behaviour of those affected by those laws.


Novak Djokovic lists charity donations to fix reputation by Jacquelin Magnay

Novak Djokovic has fought back to reinvigorate his public reputation in the ongoing legal battle with Australian authorities, revealing he has given $1 million to the Australian Open junior tennis program and a spate of multimillion dollar Covid-19 related donations.

The recent trial by press omits some glaring facts:
At 10 years old he was in a bunker with bombs dropping above his head. His view of the world is therefore different to yours. What underlies that view may indeed be perfectly rational. His mental resilience, grit and determination are an example for many and have made him a great athlete.

His position on Covid is far from how it is portrayed…..

  • He gave 1.000.000 euros to Italian hospitals for C19 
  • He gave 1.000.000 euros to Serbian hospitals for C19 
  • He donated money to Spain for c19 
  • Donated money to Australia to fight forest fires 
  • Donated funds to underprivileged kids at Melbourne city mission 
  • Bought a CT scanner for Belgrade hospital “Dragisa Mišović” 
  • Rented a private plane to transport a girl with a rare disease for treatment in the US 
  • Gave $1,000,000 to Australian Open for Juniors 
  • He gave 500,000 euros to fight the floods in Serbia 
  • He donated 110,000 euros to fight the floods in Bosnia and Croatia 
  • Raised $1,500,000 for flood-damaged kindergartens 
  • He gave millions of euros for the education of poor children of thirteen years. 
  • He paid for the winter training of 15 Serbian tennis players.
  • He supported protesters worried about Australian mining company Rio Tinto’s $2.5bn lithium mining plans
  • He offered Lorenz Musetti a ride on his private turf so he wouldn’t miss Wimbledon or school tests 
  • Fighting for the interests of players across the establishment. Only Krygios came out to defend him. Such cowardice.
  • He is a role model for his healthy lifestyle and nutrition
  • He is a role model for his character and mental endurance 
  • He is a role model by his hard work and self-discipline 
  • Every tournament plays against its opponent and the audience, usually the villain.  
  • He dominated the field both against Nadal and against Federer, playing his entire career in Nadal and Federer era. 

He hasn’t let himself be intimidated and sticks to his beliefs about what is good for his body.

The circus now continues with Roland Garros making noises about his exclusion. These tournaments are no longer open if they exclude and if they exclude they become irrelevant, just as the Australian Open is now.

You may also like