Here is a great rebuttal by Nathaniel Branden to the theory of psychological determinism that is worth a read:

Free will - Nathanial Branden

Psychological determinism denies the existence of freedom or volition in human consciousness. It holds that every desire action and thought is determined by forces beyond our control. It holds that in relation to our actions, decisions, values, and conclusions; man is ultimately and essentially passive. That human beings are essentially a reactor to internal and external pressures. Those pressures determine the course of our actions, and the content of our convictions. Just as physical forces determine the course of every particle of dust in the universe. It holds that in any given situation or moment only “Once choice” is psychologically possible to us. The inevitable result of all the antecedent forces infringing upon us, just as only one action is possible to the speck of dust.

Determinism holds that humans have no actual power of choice, no actual freedom or self responsibility. according to this view we have no more actual volition than a stone.
We are merely confronted with more complex alternatives, and are manipulated by more complex forces.

The deterministic concept of “mind” entails a crucial contradiction. specifically, an epistemological contradiction.
It is, and can be shown to be upon analysis, a self refuting or self invalidating theory.
A contradiction in any variety of determinism (and there are many) whether the alleged determining forces be physical, psychological environmental or divine, it wouldn’t matter if you hold that man is determined by the gods, or his genes, or his upbringing or a socio-economic environment, or background or position; this contradiction is common to ALL of them.

Consider the following: The determinist concept of mind maintains that whether a man thinks or not, whether he takes cognizance of the facts of reality or not, whether he hold facts above his feelings, or feelings above the facts or not, all are determined by forces outside his control. In any given moment or situation, his method of mental functioning is the inevitable product of an endless chain of antecedent forces. He has no choice in the matter. That which a man does declare the advocates of determinism, he HAD to do. That which he believes, he HAD to believe. If he focuses his mind, he HAD too. If he evades the effort of focusing, he HAD too. If he is guided solely by reason, he HAD to be. If he is ruled instead by feeling or whim, he HAD to be. He couldn’t help it. No one can help anything. Such is the determinist thesis.
But if this were true, NO KNOWLEDGE WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO MAN as shall be shown.

No theory could claim greater plausibility than any other. Including the theory of psychological determinism. Why? It is most essential to understand this issue.

First of all, remember that man is neither omniscient nor infallible. This means A: that he must work to achieve his knowledge. And B: that the mere presence of an idea inside his mind, does not prove that the idea is true. Many ideas may enter his mind which are false. But if a man believes what he has to believe, if he is not free to test his beliefs against reality, and to validate or reject them, if the actions and content of his mind are determined by factors that may or may not have anything to do with reason logic and reality, then he can never know if his conclusions are true or false. Knowledge is the correct identification of the facts of reality. And in order for man to know that the contents of his mind constitute knowledge, in order for him to know that he has identified the facts of reality correctly - he requires a means of testing his conclusions. The means is the process of reasoning and of testing his conclusions against reality and checking for contradictions.

It is thus that he validates his conclusions. This validation is possible ONLY if his capacity to judge is free. That is - non conditional given a normal brain state. But if his capacity to judge is not free, there is no way for man to discriminate between his beliefs and those a raving lunatic. But then how do the advocates  of determinism acquire  their knowledge? What is its validation? Determinist’s are conspicuously silent on this point. If the advocates of determinism insist that their choice to think and their acceptance of reason is conditional, dependant on factors outside their control, which means that they are NOT free to test their beliefs against the facts of reality, then they cannot claim to know that their theory is true. They can only report that they feel helpless to believe otherwise. Nor can they claim that their theory is “highly probable”. they can only acknowledge the inner compulsion that forbids them to doubt that it is highly probable. Some advocates of determinism evidently sensed this epistemological dilemma, have sought to escape it by asserting that although they are determined to believe what they believe, the factor determining them is logic. But by what means do they know this? Their beliefs are no more subject to their control than a lunatics beliefs. They and the lunatic are equally the pawn of deterministic forces. Both are incapable of judging their judgements.

Here is an interesting note: One of the defining characteristics of psychosis is
LOSS OF VOLITIONAL CONTROL OVER RATIONAL JUDGEMENT.
But according to determinism, that is mans normal metaphysical state! There is no escape from determinism’s epistemological state.
A mind that is not free to test and validate its conclusions, a mind who’s judgement is not free can have no way to tell the logical from the illogical, no way to ascertain that which compels and motivates it, no right to claim knowledge of any kind. such a mind is disqualified for such appraisals by its very nature. The very concept of logic is only possible to a volitional consciousness. An automatic consciousness would have no need of it, and could not even conceive of it.

The concepts of logic, thought, and knowledge are not applicable to machines. A machine does not reason. It performs the actions its builder sets it to perform and those actions alone. If it is set to register that 2 + 2 = 4 it does so. If it is set to register that 2 + 2 = 5 it does so…
it has no power to correct thje orders and information given. If self correctors are built into it, it performs the prescribed actions of self correction and no others. If the self correctors are set incorrectly, it cannot correct itself. It cannot make any independent self-generated contribution to its performance. If man, who is clearly not “set” invariably to be right, and were merely a super complex machine engineered by his heredity and operated by his environment, pushed - pulled - shaped and molded by his genes and his toilet training, his parental upbringing and his cultural history, then no premise reached by him could claim objectivity or truth: INCLUDING THE PREMISE THAT MAN IS MERELY A MACHINE.

https://www.michaeltsarion.com/phoney-feminism.html

Get more from dwtruthwarrior in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.”

Richard Horton:

“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”
“Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue… flagrant conflicts of interest…”

Peter C. Gøtzsche:

“The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don’t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs.”
“Their business model fulfils the criteria for organised crime, according to US law.”

Fiona Godlee:

“Industry is the largest funder of pharmaceutical trials, and the funder with what we can only call an irreducible conflict of interest.”

Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.:

Pediatrician and author of Confessions of a Medical Heretic (1979)

“I do not believe in Modern Medicine. I am a medical heretic. My aim in this book is to persuade you to become a heretic, too.”

“I believe that despite all the super technology and elite bedside manner that’s supposed to make you feel about as well cared for as an astronaut on the way to the moon, the greatest danger to your health is the doctor who practices Modern Medicine.”

“I believe that Modern Medicine’s treatments for disease are seldom effective, and that they’re often more dangerous than the diseases they’re designed to treat.”

“I believe that more than ninety percent of Modern Medicine could disappear from the face of the earth — doctors, hospitals, drugs, and equipment — and the effect on our health would be immediate and beneficial.”

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease.”

“Modern Medicine can’t survive without our faith, because Modern Medicine is neither an art nor a science. It’s a religion.”

“Cult: A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g., isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressure, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.”

-Louis Jolyon West

The four core questions that started this investigation:

1. Do vaccines ever cause injuries and/or deaths?

2. Do vaccine manufacturers have liability protection?

3. Are there any conflicts of interest in the medical sciences with big multinationals?

4. How big is the pharma lobby?
   
   Direct Answers with Facts

   • Yes – vaccines can cause rare injuries and deaths. Official systems acknowledge this (anaphylaxis, myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccines, TTS after J&J, GBS, etc.). The U.S. Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) has paid out roughly $5+ billion across thousands of compensated claims since 1988, including death claims.

   • Yes – manufacturers have strong liability protection. The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act created the VICP (no-fault system). COVID vaccines received additional PREP Act immunity + the more restrictive CICP.

   • Yes – documented conflicts of interest exist between pharmaceutical companies, researchers, journals, and regulators (industry funding of trials, revolving doors, journal reprint revenue).

   • The pharma lobby is among the largest in the U.S. and heavily active in the EU – hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually in the U.S. alone, cumulative multi-billion totals over decades.
     
     
     Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Get more from dwtruthwarrior in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

No masters above, no slaves below.

“Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: ‘I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.’ An individualist… recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.” He says: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine.”

The human mind is individual. Thinking, production, and values are individual acts. But this enables superior cooperation: trade, contracts, friendship, and civil society based on consent, not sacrifice or tribal mandate. Civilization is “the progress toward a society of privacy… the process of setting man free from men.” Forced tribal/public existence is the mark of regression.

Voluntary Association Creates Real Cohesion

Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy in America that individualistic America thrived precisely because of its “art of association.” Free, independent people form churches, businesses, charities, militias, and communities far more dynamically than top-down collectives. In democratic (individualist-leaning) societies, citizens learn to cooperate voluntarily because no one can coerce them—creating genuine social capital, not resentful obedience.

‘cohesive’ collectivism demands sacrifice to the group, which atomizes people morally by pitting them against their own self-interest and reason. True individualism unites us through voluntary trade, rights, and shared values of productivity and freedom, the exact foundation that made the West superior and attractive. Collectivist cultures conquer when we abandon our principles, not when we uphold them. History’s winners are the societies that freed the individual mind. Let’s defend that, not imitate our enemies’ weaknesses.

Get more from dwtruthwarrior in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Read more

Get more from dwtruthwarrior in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Read more