A terrorist act is an "an action or threat of action" which is intended to advance a political, religious or idealogical cause and coercing or influencing by intimidation, the government.. or intimidating the public..."
And an action can be one that "creates a serious risk to public health or safety". Or threatens a person's safety.
It's fairly easy to see that the 5 percent of Australian's who said no to an experimental substance would be seen as a threat to public safety (they blatantly said this). And it's also easy to see that an organisation which challenges the use of masks could be charged as a Terrorist organisation.
In light of this I foresee (and again this is my summation) if the WHO IHR recommendations go ahead in their current form that any measures implemented by the Director General of the WHO, under the guise of a potential global health threat, will need to be adhered to and if you don't you may be prosecuted as a terrorist.
In plain language if you don't agree with being forced to inject substances in to yours or your children's bodies, be surveilled, be tested, wear face coverings, be isolated in detention centres or at home, remove your backyard garden, kill your animals, use whatever measures are demanded on your farm, you will be seen as a serious risk to public health.
I'm concerned that any organisation who speaks out or questions the methods being implemented by the WHO can be seen as a "terrorist organisation" under the legislation as it covers an organisation who fosters, advocates, assists regarding anything that is a "public health risk".
Everyone who questions the corporate/ government spun narrative is cast as far right or dangerous to public health. I looked up anti GMO groups NZ (trying to find a specific Anti GMO group) and there are pages of links to articles outlining how anti GMO advocates are dangerous as they are standing in the way of food tech which will save the climate and feed the world. The farmers protesting all around the world are being demonised as far right, or susceptible to far right influences. I noticed the rhetoric where as soon as people started protesting in Melbourne during lock downs, the far right was being reported on in media. It's intentional and it's used to dehumanise. I did an interview on this topic and your article, and seeing the playbook being rolled out on to any group that stands up, has made me want to circle back to this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2nVceOMu9M&t=6s
It's really important that you're paying attention to how they're constructing and perpetuating the narrative Warren.
Thanks for the supporting material. "advance a political, religious or idealogical cause", that is astoundingly broad. It is fairly easy to see how a threat can be conjured from mere failure to conform to what has now been well proven as an assault on humanity.
I have been saying for some time that should the IHR changes go through and a person fails to wear their mask, stay home or take the next Frankenstein shot then the police will be at their door.
This point of yours is well made: "Everyone who questions the corporate/ government spun narrative is cast as far right or dangerous to public health".
That is why I wrote this article. It was obvious all men are being painted as potential threats. I have more material on the way Craig Kelly is being portrayed which is quite illustrative of the approach to this. A significant concern of mine is how blunt and unsophisticated this debate is. Kelly is not important so much as the way he is portrayed. With all that is going on, how can they pretend Kelly or even Trump is responsible for it?
Roose's framing shifts none too subtly to include this group and now this one and then retreats to the broad terrorist narrative. Gentle asides include people who express concern about the transgender attack on our children and then those who resist the vax. The whole saga relies on our ignorance and complacency. This is nothing to be complacent about.
Pulling out a couple of points from your article. Re the transgender concerns and the people (mostly women) protesting re biological men in women's spaces and the violence they are subjected to. This man killed a lesbian couple and their son, he identifies as a woman and was put in a woman's prison. https://nypost.com/2023/06/26/fury-as-trans-woman-who-murdered-three-is-sent-to-female-prison-after-hate-crime/ Women protested this decision and they were set on by mobs and pepper sprayed and hurt. The police were fully aware that this was likely to happen and stayed away. Here is Lierre Kieth discussing the violence and what women are being subjected to.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G9Uy8C-9qQ What's the bet Josh would never touch this issue?
Yes, Kate, my guess is the points you raise are outside his concern. I have had women say to me "Where are the men standing up to challenge this transgender psyop?" It is an attack on all of us. This is a critical issue for men to take on.
What we need to embrace into our paradigm of how the world works is:
--- they're always trying to create Divide and Conquer situations in order to control us better
--- murders and other deaths are staged ALL THE TIME in this and other endeavours
--- underneath the propaganda they tell us the truth with nonsensicalities and other signals known as Revelation of the Method aka Hidden in Plain Sight
This is the sort of story we can call "Button-Pressing Bullshit" (I just coined that term right now).
If we take a little look at the story things don't add up ... plus other signs:
--- Happened on 11/11 - well wouldn't you know? 11 Masonic number - 9/11, 9/11 (Allende coup). 22/11 JFK, Armistice 11:11:11 - whenever you see 11 and multiples, possible sign of staged event
--- We have to wonder why it took 7 years to sentence after conviction and why Dana was held in a county jail longterm considering her murder conviction
--- "Rivers shot her wife, Patricia Wright, 57, in the back and left breast" - strange way to shoot someone - in the back and then in the front.
--- The photograph of the woman on the bike actually looks like a woman and not Dana Rivers - notice the roundness of her arms (it's common in staged events to use photos of different people).
--- Photo caption: "She and one of the victims were in the same motorcycle gang" - Why isn't the name of the victim specified here but only further down?
--- "Knives and ammo" - rather casual reference to ammunition and what ammunition? Why not specified?
--- The person in the mug shot also looks like a woman to me and not a transgender person
--- "Activist Kara Dansky said she believed the killings were a “hate crime” and that the jury should have known Rivers was born male." Pull the other one. Of course, the jury would have known Rivers was transgender. Notice how it's said, "should have known" not "should have been informed".
--- Bottom line - there is no evidence or anything else that makes this story convincing.
Yes, often the thing they are trying to trigger us with is secondary to their true purpose. In other words, a distraction. James Lindsay explains that here https://youtu.be/dvgR2MHqucI?si=baad8eW1kmz-S28n
Thanks for your comment, Di. We are a country of sycophants. If all they did was ingratiate themselves to power and left us alone it would not be too bad but they are rewarded for abusing us.
Re Anti Terrorism. Australia's laws against terrorism are in Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Since 7/11 Australia has passed a multitude of Anti Terrorism laws. https://theconversation.com/australia-has-enacted-82-anti-terror-laws-since-2001-but-tough-laws-alone-cant-eliminate-terrorism-123521
Within the legislation there are a number of issues which have been raised regarding human rights and the vagueness of the terms applied. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/human-rights-guide-australias-counter-terrorism-laws
For example:
A terrorist act is an "an action or threat of action" which is intended to advance a political, religious or idealogical cause and coercing or influencing by intimidation, the government.. or intimidating the public..."
And an action can be one that "creates a serious risk to public health or safety". Or threatens a person's safety.
It's fairly easy to see that the 5 percent of Australian's who said no to an experimental substance would be seen as a threat to public safety (they blatantly said this). And it's also easy to see that an organisation which challenges the use of masks could be charged as a Terrorist organisation.
In light of this I foresee (and again this is my summation) if the WHO IHR recommendations go ahead in their current form that any measures implemented by the Director General of the WHO, under the guise of a potential global health threat, will need to be adhered to and if you don't you may be prosecuted as a terrorist.
In plain language if you don't agree with being forced to inject substances in to yours or your children's bodies, be surveilled, be tested, wear face coverings, be isolated in detention centres or at home, remove your backyard garden, kill your animals, use whatever measures are demanded on your farm, you will be seen as a serious risk to public health.
I'm concerned that any organisation who speaks out or questions the methods being implemented by the WHO can be seen as a "terrorist organisation" under the legislation as it covers an organisation who fosters, advocates, assists regarding anything that is a "public health risk".
Everyone who questions the corporate/ government spun narrative is cast as far right or dangerous to public health. I looked up anti GMO groups NZ (trying to find a specific Anti GMO group) and there are pages of links to articles outlining how anti GMO advocates are dangerous as they are standing in the way of food tech which will save the climate and feed the world. The farmers protesting all around the world are being demonised as far right, or susceptible to far right influences. I noticed the rhetoric where as soon as people started protesting in Melbourne during lock downs, the far right was being reported on in media. It's intentional and it's used to dehumanise. I did an interview on this topic and your article, and seeing the playbook being rolled out on to any group that stands up, has made me want to circle back to this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2nVceOMu9M&t=6s
It's really important that you're paying attention to how they're constructing and perpetuating the narrative Warren.
Thanks for the supporting material. "advance a political, religious or idealogical cause", that is astoundingly broad. It is fairly easy to see how a threat can be conjured from mere failure to conform to what has now been well proven as an assault on humanity.
I have been saying for some time that should the IHR changes go through and a person fails to wear their mask, stay home or take the next Frankenstein shot then the police will be at their door.
This point of yours is well made: "Everyone who questions the corporate/ government spun narrative is cast as far right or dangerous to public health".
That is why I wrote this article. It was obvious all men are being painted as potential threats. I have more material on the way Craig Kelly is being portrayed which is quite illustrative of the approach to this. A significant concern of mine is how blunt and unsophisticated this debate is. Kelly is not important so much as the way he is portrayed. With all that is going on, how can they pretend Kelly or even Trump is responsible for it?
Roose's framing shifts none too subtly to include this group and now this one and then retreats to the broad terrorist narrative. Gentle asides include people who express concern about the transgender attack on our children and then those who resist the vax. The whole saga relies on our ignorance and complacency. This is nothing to be complacent about.
Pulling out a couple of points from your article. Re the transgender concerns and the people (mostly women) protesting re biological men in women's spaces and the violence they are subjected to. This man killed a lesbian couple and their son, he identifies as a woman and was put in a woman's prison. https://nypost.com/2023/06/26/fury-as-trans-woman-who-murdered-three-is-sent-to-female-prison-after-hate-crime/ Women protested this decision and they were set on by mobs and pepper sprayed and hurt. The police were fully aware that this was likely to happen and stayed away. Here is Lierre Kieth discussing the violence and what women are being subjected to.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G9Uy8C-9qQ What's the bet Josh would never touch this issue?
Yes, Kate, my guess is the points you raise are outside his concern. I have had women say to me "Where are the men standing up to challenge this transgender psyop?" It is an attack on all of us. This is a critical issue for men to take on.
What we need to embrace into our paradigm of how the world works is:
--- they're always trying to create Divide and Conquer situations in order to control us better
--- murders and other deaths are staged ALL THE TIME in this and other endeavours
--- underneath the propaganda they tell us the truth with nonsensicalities and other signals known as Revelation of the Method aka Hidden in Plain Sight
This is the sort of story we can call "Button-Pressing Bullshit" (I just coined that term right now).
If we take a little look at the story things don't add up ... plus other signs:
--- Happened on 11/11 - well wouldn't you know? 11 Masonic number - 9/11, 9/11 (Allende coup). 22/11 JFK, Armistice 11:11:11 - whenever you see 11 and multiples, possible sign of staged event
--- We have to wonder why it took 7 years to sentence after conviction and why Dana was held in a county jail longterm considering her murder conviction
--- "Rivers shot her wife, Patricia Wright, 57, in the back and left breast" - strange way to shoot someone - in the back and then in the front.
--- The photograph of the woman on the bike actually looks like a woman and not Dana Rivers - notice the roundness of her arms (it's common in staged events to use photos of different people).
--- Photo caption: "She and one of the victims were in the same motorcycle gang" - Why isn't the name of the victim specified here but only further down?
--- "Knives and ammo" - rather casual reference to ammunition and what ammunition? Why not specified?
--- The person in the mug shot also looks like a woman to me and not a transgender person
--- "Activist Kara Dansky said she believed the killings were a “hate crime” and that the jury should have known Rivers was born male." Pull the other one. Of course, the jury would have known Rivers was transgender. Notice how it's said, "should have known" not "should have been informed".
--- Bottom line - there is no evidence or anything else that makes this story convincing.
Yes, often the thing they are trying to trigger us with is secondary to their true purpose. In other words, a distraction. James Lindsay explains that here https://youtu.be/dvgR2MHqucI?si=baad8eW1kmz-S28n
Thank you for this illuminating article. That character Roose is a piece of work, and it's frightening how many more are just like him.
Thanks for your comment, Di. We are a country of sycophants. If all they did was ingratiate themselves to power and left us alone it would not be too bad but they are rewarded for abusing us.