We Must Dial Up Our Jabs Against the Tyrants

December 17th, 2023

Awake Goy

In their famous ‘Rumble in the Jungle’ bout, Muhammad Ali and George Foreman slugged it out for 7 rounds. For much of the fight, Ali conserved energy, covering up and deflecting the flurry of punches from Foreman. Eventually Foreman tired, Ali counter-attacked, and floored Foreman with a 5-punch combo in round 8. Game over.

I’ve previously compared the strategy of making submissions on proposed Bills, signing petitions, writing letters to editors and MPs etc etc to Ali’s tactic, which came to be known as Rope-a-dope. While the protesters write and march and post on social media, the objects of their protest might be lulled into thinking that the protesters are on the ropes, doing the best they can, to no effect.

In this analogy, each petition or submission is a harmless left ‘jab’ (no pun intended), and the aggressor is not only untroubled by it but also encouraged to keep pouring on the body blows. Meanwhile, the protesters are planning and rehearsing that 5-punch combo.

I don’t know what the 5-punch combo is, or will be, or even if such an act can be delivered. But I hold out hope that those on the ropes can stay on their feet long enough to work it out, to recover, rehearse, and launch the knockout combo.

But if that counter-attack is ever to eventuate, it can’t be brought into existence from nowhere. Jab, Jab, Jab ad infinitum can’t train the muscles to land the final left hook and a hard right straight to the face. At some point we have to try a 2-punch set. A jab and a right cross, say. If we get good at that, a 3-punch combination would be our next goal.

So the petitioner or the letter writer might be well advised to plan a 2-pronged protest when next submitting a statement on a proposed bill or exhorting their MP to vote against a given bill. Just for practice. For we’re all aware, and thoroughly sick of, the kind of stock responses from MPs who dismiss valid concerns with obfuscation, conflating issues for maximum ambiguity, and indulging in a patronising tone to boot. If we know it’s coming, after our initial left jab, what is our feint and right cross?

A current example from the issue of the amendments to the International Health Regulations and the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty might serve to illustrate the point.

Here’s a letter (an admirable, honest, heartfelt, and fair, but ultimately only annoying left jab) from a constituent in the NSW Federal seat of Mackellar:

To Dr Sophie Scamps & my State Senators,

I am writing to express my deep concern over the preservation of our individual freedoms and national sovereignty – which the proposed World Health Organisation Pandemic Treaty threatens.

The scope of the proposed WHO authority undermines our national sovereignty, raising significant concerns about the dilution of Australia’s rights to self-governance in health policy.

This would enable unelected, anonymous and unaccountable institutional bureaucrats to determine our health policy, medical practices and freedoms.

The proposed WHO powers and systems are a gross over-reach of power by an opaque and, again I emphasise, unaccountable and unelected body.

WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS SO-CALLED TREATY to undermine our democracy and national sovereignty.

Thank you for standing up for the rights of Australian citizens and the voice of democratic liberty.

Regards,

If you’ve ever written one of these letters yourself, as I have, you know what comes next. We expect a stock response, even a bit of gaslighting these days. And then we are left back at square one, back in our corner sitting on the stool while the ‘corner man’ cleans up the gash on our eye, rinses the mouthguard and says ‘“you’re doin’ great champ.” So we gird ourselves up, head back out, and look for another chance to try another little jab.

Here’s the response to the letter:

Dear [name redacted],

Sophie welcomes hearing all the concerns from the community and strives to represent its diversity of opinions. Your email indicates your level of anxiety, thank you for sharing it with Sophie. Please be assured there is an answer to this fear campaign.

We have fact checked the law and our constitution and have no doubts whatsoever that Australia’s sovereignty is not and can never be under threat by an outside entity. We are so fortunate in Australia to have representative government and our elected members are only responsible to us the people of Australia.

The explanation is at the link below.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/claims-of-a-who-globalist-takeover-are-out-of-this-world/

Please don’t hesitate to contact us any time.

Kind regards,

[Name redacted] Constituent Liason.

Ouch! Makes your blood boil, doesn’t it? “Your email indicates your level of anxiety…there’s an answer to this fear campaign…we’ve fact checked the law…no doubts whatsoever…”

But this time, we dodge the return punch and land a right cross, courtesy of the hard work and resources available at australiaexitsthewho:

Dear..< Senator/MP Name>

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the time you took to respond to me but, unfortunately, you did not address the matter that I raised.

The matter at hand is the FACT that the WHO is secretly negotiating proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations that would dramatically alter the status quo.

I am sharing this official WHO document with you AGAIN so that you can tell me what your specific position is on this document.

Do you support this, or do you oppose it?

https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr1/WGIHR_Compilation-en.pdf

Very specifically, I request that you state clearly whether you support or oppose each of these proposed amendments.

The proposed amendments would:

CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE WHO FROM ADVISORY TO MANDATORY: Change the overall nature of the World Health Organization from an advisory organization that merely makes recommendations to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally-binding. (Article 1 and Article 42)

POTENTIAL RATHER THAN ACTUAL EMERGENCIES: Greatly expand the scope of the International Health Regulations to include scenarios that merely have a “potential to impact public health.” (Article 2)

DISREGARD FOR DIGNITY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Seek to remove “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” (Article 3)

ALLOCATION PLAN: Give the Director General of the WHO control over the means of production through an “allocation plan for health products” to require developed states parties to supply pandemic response products as directed. (Article 13A)

MANDATORY MEDICAL TREATMENTS: Give the WHO the authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine and to implement contact tracing, quarantine and TREATMENT. (Article 18)

GLOBAL HEALTH CERTIFICATES: Institute a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format, including test certificates, vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, recovery certificates, passenger locator forms and a traveller’s health declaration. (Articles 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36 and 44 and Annexes 6 and 8)

LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY: Would empower the Emergency Committee to override decisions made by sovereign nations regarding health measures and would make the Emergency Committee’s decisions final. (Article 43)

UNSPECIFIED, POTENTIALLY ENORMOUS FINANCIAL COSTS: Redirect unspecified billions of dollars to the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex with no accountability. (Article 44A)

CENSORSHIP: Greatly expand the World Health Organization’s capacity to censor what they consider to be mis-information and dis-information. (Annex 1, page 36).

OBLIGATIONS OF DUTY TO COOPERATE: Creates an obligation to build, provide and maintain IHR infrastructure at points of entry. (Annex 10)

You must demand that these negotiations be stopped, and an investigation must conducted.

Until you speak out against these proposed amendments, I will be forced to assume that you support them.

SILENCE IS CONSENT

Sincerely,