What is the objective of protest? Why was Monica Smit arrested?
When people tell you that you are being a conspiracy theorist for raising an alarm at the suppression of protests, you should pull up this short essay and read it to them.
I have titled this piece with a question: "what is the objective of protest?", because this is a question I am genuinely puzzled by. The answer seems to be a maze of contradictions and depends on one's personal prejudices and political beliefs. For those of us who are aligned with a protest movement, we see protest as being a principled act of the good and the true, to oppose injustice and tyranny (see the speech by Monica Smit above), however the same phenomenon may be be seen by some as the irresponsible acts of marginal, selfish thugs.
The usual understanding of protest is that it is about voicing your opinion, letting others and the government know how you think and feel on a certain topic. This is certainly part of the picture, but the history of protest over the ages shows us that protest is always a step in the direction of change. It may be change in the form of consolidation of power by an existing oligarchy, or it may be change in the form of social upheaval and even civil war. It can in some weird circumstances even be both of the above.
When a ruling elite bans protest they generally do so because they understand that protest is a stepping stone towards the overthrow of the current order and the loss of status of those in power. This has always been a strong reason why authoritarian regimes have banned even peaceful protest.
There are other situations in which vested interests actively encourage protests in order to steer public opinion in a certain direction which helps them consolidate power.
In the age of covid we have seen both types of protest - the sanctioned ones which further goals of the ruling elite, and the outlawed ones which challenge the elite's power. We have seen bizarre and irrational double standards emerge, where anti-lockdown protests are brutally suppressed while BLM and climate change protests are given the green light.
Nothing I've said so far is remarkable, but something has changed in public discourse since the implementation of "covid lockdowns" which were supposedly implemented for our safety. The big change is that some protests are now regarded as dangerous because they threaten public health.
The old rationale used by dictators of times past was that protest undermined peace and cohesion: protests in such authoritarian regimes were treated as subversive and anti-social. Post-covid, the reason for banning protest is that the act itself spreads disease and therefore is intrinsically harmful and must be suppressed and treated as a criminal act. At the same time, protests in support of racial injustice are allowed because underprivileged people are disproportionately affected by the pandemic and so their protest is ultimately for the greater good if it leads to greater equality in terms of health outcomes.
It is thus by a verbal sleight of hand that old style authoritarianism has been seamlessly replaced with bio-medical authoritarianism.
A counter argument to what I'm proposing here could be that the powers that be are only concerned with disease prevention, not the dissemination of ideas. You could argue that anti-vaxxers and anti-lockdown folk are still free to protest, but must do so in isolation from each other, for health reasons. You could argue that, but the argument may not hold up well. This is where it gets deeply concerning, for we are moving into a new stage of suppression of dissent where the expression of opinion can be seen as a threat to "public health" because it may encourage people to ignore or flout laws which have been established purportedly for our protection.
I provide below two examples, the first being the arrest of Monica Smit, founder of the advocacy group "Reignite Democracy Australia", the second being the control orders placed on Sydney-based Simeon Boikov, known on Youtube as the "Aussie Cossack".
ARREST OF MONICA SMIT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UhZ5x18x-c
CONTROL ORDERS PLACED ON SIMEON BOIKOV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjMZxk6zpMk
I put it to you that the reason these people have been targeted is because they threaten the authority of the ruling elite, not because they have spread disease. A sleight of hand has taken over public discourse and conflated these concepts. In the emerging bio-medical security state, challenging authority can be interpreted as a threat to public health. This has parallels in Soviet Russia and other revolutionary Marxist regimes where counter revolutionary thought was sometimes treated as a contagious mental disease. Society had to be protected and sanitised. Russian dissidents were put in psychiatric hospitals.
In the West, we are only about half way through the arc of suppression of dissent which would lead to something like Soviet Russia. As of today you can still express opinions which go against bio-medical dictates without being arrested, but there are caveats. For example, if you develop a large following you may well be arrested as happened to Smit or placed under onerous restrictions as happened to Boikov.
You can see from the fiery and passionate speech of February 2021 posted at the top of this story, that Monica Smit has been a thorn in the side of the powerful for quite some time. Her arrest was probably inevitable from this point.
So, in reality we are not far off from a situation where free speech on bio-medical issues is completely banned. It is likely in the near future that people who run websites which question the safety of vaccination will be targeted, and if that happens, arrests are inevitable.
Now, to return to my central question about the objective of protest, it's clear that protest is more than merely voicing your opinion. It is also an attempt to influence others and bring about changes in society.
Once you accept the above, you will recognise that in the current climate of bio-medical totalitariansm, the powers that be must inevitably go after all those who are able to influence others in ways that run counter to their objectives. This naturally goes way beyond suppressing protest and public assembly. It will potentially extend to the suppression and criminalisation of all bio-medical heresies, including anti-masking, anti-lockdown, anti-vaccination, pro-ivermectin information etc... Will it stop there, or will the same approach be applied to dissent on other topics deemed to be sensitive for public safety reasons? Time will surely tell.
The slippery slope we are on is long and steep, and we are still near the top.
I am very suspicious that the orchestrators of this communist "reset" are deliberately using some selected psychological types to provoke the kind of fear and resentment that will lead to social chaos "justifying" more and more repressive measures... likely including the calling in mercenary "international peace keepers" which has already been "legislatively" provided for. (Ordo ab Chao (order out of chaos) is a slogan of a very pervasive secretocracy. Let's take that to mean "create chaos so we can impose a "new" order).
The "police force" has long been an attractive career to rather fragile egotists who's ambition exceeds their mental and moral capacity. (Definitely many but not all). Such fragile personalities are easily goaded to consider themselves "superior" to the "rabble". Add to that dressing them up in imposing costumes, virtual anonymity as in being "just" enforcers of "law", and arm them to the teeth; unleashed egos dangerously rampaging with little or no restraint.
It has always been a civil offence, at least a "public nuisance" (disturbing people going about their lawful business), to be "going armed in public to cause fear" (I would add, to enforce unlawful demands (as in any protection racket)). Closely associated with that is the civil offence of "demanding with menace".
I give you the clue. I'm not going to try to explain the details... it'd take the rest of my life and no one would be interested anyway. Anyone who thinks that the idol of "democracy" will fix it just consider that we are reaping the "benefits" of "democracy" right now.
OK, I will add some speculation of my own to the mix. This is based on watching quite alot of footage and listening to many people.
I think that the whole law enforcement system is in a mess. I think that that there is a massive amount of dissent from within the police which can't be communicated due to loyalty and legal restraints on serving officers.
I think that the SOG (special operations group) has been deployed in Melbourne because these guys are trained and toughened in a military style - the guys in these divisions are required to lack empathy as part of their job.
Riot squads are also deployed both in Sydney and Melbourne - but this form of policing cannot be maintained for very long.
I think that there is massive division within the government also, which is being suppressed by leaders who have opted to double down on resistance rather than take the path of reconciliation.
I believe there are many within the government at state and federal level who disagree with the direction Australia is taking.
Unfortunately, the dissenters withn the NLP lack the courage of Craig Kelly. This is a mark of shame.
As for Victoria I think the same applies within the Labor government. We have a cohort of subservient yes men who are kept down by one very arrogant and self righteous bully.
The CHOs of every state are corrupt to the core and have said what they have been paid to say and have been paid well.
The whole country is a tinderbox now. Anything could happen. Also, nothing might happen.
I do believe that there will be a huge back down by the powers that be soon. They won't admit they are backing down. They will arrogantly call it a planned easing of restrictions and will concede NOTHING to the protesters.
We must hope that, at this point, the protests INCREASE. That needs to happen. If the protests fizzle out just because the government took it's boot off their chest for a few days then there will be worse to come.
What are they trying to achieve here?
I've seen so many videos where police are grouped together in huge numbers. Does this equate to one police officer from every station or is it nearly every police officer from the closest stations?
Because if it's the latter and at the same time if the police employees are reducing slightly due to the 5% that quit or are sacked for not getting jabbed, then doesn't that leave the police stations vulnerable with skeleton staff?
Aren't they worried the "far-right extremists" or the "bikies" we've been told for many years who hate the police (I guess that was all a lie) may form two separate groups? One group to draw the heavy police presence out to a public location and another group to rush/bombard a police station and steal all the weapons? Or do they think that the desperation of not being able to feed their children, etc. won't get that bad that people wouldn't consider this?...
They tackled the guy in with the orange vest as you would a suspected terrorist.
So, as always we must recognise the central role that media is playing in stirring up division within the society. It almost seems like they want us to be at each others' throats.
One thing I should note, after watching the video of the interview with Barnaby Joyce - he was set up by Leigh Sales with this loaded question:
"Are you prepared to show leadership and call out and condemn the violent nationalists, racists, anti-vaxxers, and far right extremists who have been part of the protests this week”
The wording here is carefully chosen. It could be interpreted in different ways. For example there may have been one or two violent nationalists in the crowd and one or two far right extremists. In saying "yeah absolutely" Joyce is not NECESSARILY condemning the entire group of protesters - but that is what the headlines on both Murdoch and ABC news reports suggest.
Geoff they are stigmatising these protesters as "far right" - a complete lie and a sinister new escalation of persecution against those who support FREEDOM.
Accusing such people of being "far right", or "extremist" is a green light to go after them using anti-terrorism laws. I believe that is already happening in Melbourne which is why we are seeing militarised police, some in green army fatigues, on the streets.
The WORST thing these tradies did was throw some beer cans at the door of the CFMEU - and that was clearly just a symbolic act borne out of frustration.
The political leaders in Australia are telling bald faced lies now, with the help of the media.
It is a disaster.
And this is the response from the federal government:
7:30 host Leigh Sales came out strong, wanting to know if Mr Joyce would stand up and denounce the far right protesters.
“You are one of the most prominent right wing politicians in the country. Are you prepared to show leadership and call out and condemn the violent nationalists, racists, anti-vaxxers, and far right extremists who have been part of the protests this week,” Sales asked in her first question.
“Absolutely,” Mr Joyce responded.
“It’s not about being left or right, it’s about doing the proper thing. This is sacred ground.
“To have people lounging around there, no matter what they think their issue is, swearing, littering, drinking. This is (a memorial) to represent tens of thousands of Australians,” he said.
“I understand their frustrations, we’ve all got those frustrations, we want this over. The best way to get back to a normal life as quickly as possible is get vaccinated as quickly as possible.”
Mr Joyce said it made no sense for a group of anti-vaxxers to be gathering together during a pandemic.
“We have to be able to have as small a group as possible who need the intensive care unit beds that will obviously be filled by people who have not been vaccinated,” he said.
“And people protesting to make it worse is not a logical thing.”
Barnaby slams ‘abhorrent’ protesters
Acting Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce has denounced the anti-vax and far-right extremists at this week’s protests at Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance.
news.com.auWe have no need at all to import the likes of revoltaire, paine, robberspierre, whitehorse and all that. The whole colony was founded with devotees of those perverts already in the driver's seat. It seems to me that the drafters of the Constitution were being careful to not propose anything to the Monarch and public that would impel those (mostly Irish) bishops to go consulting their philosophers and theologians which could incite indignation and/or rebellion. All good so far.
Perhaps with malice aforethought the ink wasn't even dry on the accepted Constitution (essentially just an agreed formula as to how "government" (civil authority) should work) when it was subjected to party politics as in manipulation from "behind the scene" coercion and ideology as opposed to a genuine representation of the people's concerns to the responsible authority.
Ho hum! The Rights of Man!
Show comments 11–15
Further to the above on a practical, parochial level the servants of an occult agenda presented as "government" have no lawful status according to the Constitution that was approved by the Monarch and accepted by the people in referendum. These agents of a secretive programme to install a "Novus Ordo Seculorum" have no lawful authority according to the agreed Constitution about how the civil authority should operate and according to what is usually called "Common Law". The totality of their "authority" comes from deception and psychological coercion by a compliant media and the menace and force employed by their goons in the "public service" wielding all sorts of punitive measures recently including publicised grievous bodily harm.
I propose these couple of letters as an example of how and why a monarchical system should be a defence against a secretocracy. We can hold the representatives of an ultimate civil authority to account; in this case, the representative of the Monarch can have his feet held to the fire; you can fix this. Anyhow, I hope this works.
19 September, 2021
Government House
Dunrossil Drive.Yarralumla ACT 2600
His Excellency General
The Honourable David Hurley AC DSC (Retd)
Dear Governor General
I am writing to you, the Governor General, the highest office holder in Australia, under God. You represent the best lawful hope to intervene into the absolute abuse of power that is being used by the Federal, State and Territory governments to commit genocide on the Australian people. The governments of Australia have abandoned the rule of law, using the fake pandemic to coerce the people of Australia with an experimental MRNA gene therapy.
The evidence is now overwhelming and undeniable that the covid-19 novel coronavirus has a survival rate consistent with the annual Influenza virus with an average survival rate of over 99.9 percent. Globally and domestically the evidence supports the fact that the purported vaccine is killing more people than the virus itself. Countries like Israel are recording record numbers of infections amongst fully vaccinated people and this is consistent with other countries with similar levels of vaccination.
The side effects of the vaccine are now being widely reported and can no longer be denied. These include, Blood clotting to the heart and brain, swelling of the heart, AIDS, Bells Palsy and the fact that every cancer ward in Australia is overflowing and beyond capacity. The number of doctors and nurses who will willingly and openly discuss what is happening in the health system is evidence that this once secure bastion of silence is coming apart and with it will come the opening of the eyes and minds of all Australian people.
YOU have the power to remove the lawless governments of Australia and replace them with a Governing council of decent people who will respect the rule of law and the wishes of the good people of Australia. I believe this is the best hope for a peaceful outcome and the introduction of a proper course of action to treat the Plandemic.
Let history record you as a man of honour, but rest assured that the good people of Australia will win this fight with or without you. We demand you to take action to save the Australian people from genocide.
Yours sincerely
(from the Australia Project) https://theaustraliaproject.org/Letters/llanding.h…
and:
WHERE WE GO ONE WE GO ALL
Ladies and Gentlemen of Australia,
My name is Riccardo Bosi and I am the National Leader of AustraliaOne.
In the coming days, weeks and months, disturbing rumours concerning the governance of our country will begin to circulate.
These rumours will appear to be so incredible, so unlikely and even so ludicrous that the only sensible response would appear to be to dismiss them out of hand.
Some of these rumours will, in time, indeed prove to be false.
Unfortunately, some will be true and be prima facie evidence of the despicable crimes of treason and sedition and some even morally worse by those at the highest levels of power in Australia.
During this time, it is imperative you monitor closely the responses of those who comprise the polity, the judiciary, the bureaucracy, the military, the constabulary, the corporations, the media, academia and religious organisations.
The case can already be made that many of these people are already attainted of treason but if any remain silent in the face of an obvious attack on Australian sovereignty, they will have signed their own death warrants.
Remember them.
From the Governor General and State Governors, through the parliament, through all the courts including the High Court, through the public service, through the Defence Force, through the Police Forces, the board rooms, the unions, the charities, the main stream media, the schools and universities and finally the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and lodges.
Remember their names and who they are.
Remember what they said and what they did not say.
Remember what they did and what they did not do.
Why and how has it come to this?
Simply put, for decades now, we have been deceived by those whom we trusted. Slowly the truth has been revealed by the tireless efforts of a few and this has been a most difficult task.
Some of you will have heard it said, “Sometimes you can’t tell people, you just have to show them” and to put that into the Australian vernacular, “Some people have to piss on the electric fence for themselves”.
Thankfully, enough of us are now awake to the lies and our numbers continue to grow faster every day.
So what should we do?
Firstly, be Calm. Know that we can and will, win this war.
Secondly, be United. No matter how many they send against us, they cannot defeat 25 million Australians who stand together as one and simply say in a clear, strong and unconquerable voice,
“No Consent”. “No Consent”. “No Consent”.
Thirdly, be Brave. Some of us might be hurt and some of us might die but if we truly seek liberty, we must win it for ourselves. Nothing worth winning is won cheaply.
2
Fourthly, be Good. We the people must win this war with non-violent non-cooperation because the manner of our victory is of foundational importance to the future of Australia as a nation-state.
We must win this war with such moral authority that we are able to win the peace that follows.
Finally, when all is done, the guilty will be punished. We will deal with the traitors in a lawful manner which, after the reprehensible, coordinated malfeasance and violence they have visited upon us, will be more than they deserve.
And we will do this because we, the common people of Australia are, and have always been so much more than the elites. We are better than they are. We have not and we will not sacrifice our decency and our humanity to win this war as they have done.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we are about the enter a period of history without precedent - a war for the world - and we, you and I are on the front line.
Be calm, be united, be brave and be good, and finally remember that we fight, as G.K. Chesterton wrote not because we hate what is in front of us but because we love what is behind us.
Thank you.
(from A1)
Many years ago when the "republic" debate was raging I had no love whatsoever for some pommy monarchy that had been the figurehead and mascot for all sorts of exploitation all over the World but I eventually concluded that the "Republicans" wanted to "get rid of" an authority that could say (not that it was remotely likely that they would) "you barstwards stop fark'n my people". It's still a possibility in that system but I think that there's no possibility that a political whore depending on popularity brokers could or would ever countenance such a thing.
The Australia Project
https://theaustraliaproject.org/Letters/llanding.htmlI dunno much about Eddy Burke but I guess we may have studied in similar schools.
"The Rights of Man" is a sly thin end of the wedge to inaugurate another kind of "Caesarism" that practically says "here are your rights that are only your rights because we give them". The old Latins had a saying "What Caesar giveth Caesar can taketh" which is a stark contrast to what Christ said on the matter which was roughly "Love God (as in seeking truth and virtue as a practical expression of it) and love your neighbour as yourself", or, as St 'Gus put it "Love God and do what you will in the light of that love". In other words you have the perfect right to do anything at all except to offend God or harm your neighbour. These 'Masons are nothing if not diabolically cunning.
Now, there is another kind of Caesarism on the block; it's what Aristotle called "the tyranny of the (manipulable) ignorant" sold as democracy. At least with some kind of monarchy there is some ONE who is ultimately responsible for the good governance of the society who can be approached with the concerns of the people. Such a monarch also has definable obligations in respect of his role and is also accountable to a higher authority in matters of morality, for example.
That essentially Christian version of civil authority started to come unstuck when kings are morally corrupt and their main advisors were their creditors. Nothing new under the Sun... getting rid of some ONE responsible has only produced an endless succession of lackeys who cannot be informed, reformed or actually do anything about restoring good order. There's much more to be said about all that but time and space are constraints.
So called "religious freedom" is a monstrous Furfy. What these turds really want is unrestricted liberty to propose and propagate any bull sh!t at all so that any opposition to the bs is able to be claimed to be an "infringement of religious liberty".
Nup, Tom Paine-in-the-arse was a cunning agent of perversity, only seeking the "liberty of egregious error".
If you have time and interest check Tom Aquinas' ruminations on civil authority, Geoff. I've not tried this link for a long time... I hope it works.
Thomas Aquinas: De Regno: English
https://isidore.co/aquinas/DeRegno.htmTom Paine was an out and out elitist who completely believed in the illuminist notion that a cadre of "enlightened" ones should determine what is "right" and "true" according to an ephemeral "need" or "convenience" of a situation or time. He was intimately involved in the French Revolution as well as the Yankee one that came out of the same witches cauldron. His vitriolic attacks on anything resembling Christianity made him so unpopular that only about 6 people showed up to his burial.
However, the Mafia and mania for Relativism have been trying to present his ideals as the epitome of "wise and good" ever since. I have never seen anything to suggest that his touted "one god" is not a Baphomet; the idol of Satanists, the ruler of the World who can bestow influence, wealth and pleasure on the adepts.
I'm pretty confident that Monica Smit is not a devotee of the same "enlightenment" but I'm not so confident of the ideals of the Cossack guy. 'Masonry has no compunction about pretences to achieve its aims.
Come now, Geoffy, philosophy (the search for knowledge and understanding of reality) must be rooted in "commonsense" that is, sure and certain, undeniable, base premises. The likes of Tom Paine just pluck an assumed premise out of thin air; the only criterion for "validity" is if it can lead to their desired "conclusion".
So what is the objective of protests? I suggest that it depends on whether you ask those that provoke the protests (i.e. the arbitrary "directives" of an hostile "government") or if you ask the "protesters" (objecting to the above).
In my opinion, the hostile (purveyors of perverse ideologies) need to provoke "protests" to justify an "intervention" by their goons to impose a (new) order according to some "enlightened" version of society and its purpose. Now that comes to the real business! Is there a transcendental nature and purpose to the existence of every human and society or is it all a random, meaningless nonsense with no cause or purpose? According to "Darwinism" might must be right. If that's the case there can be no excuse to oppose the "progress" of mightiness.
Protest occurs for one reason - The Governing entities are not acting in accordance with their employers, the people.
The problem with protest is it is a form of acknowledging that the Government is the authority figure as well as a form of begging that the Government have mercy and give in to the pleas of the protestors.
What came first, the Protestor or the Government which doesn't represent the people? The Government action is what creates the Protestor. What came first, the Government or the People?
Because the Government is the creator of the Protestor, the creator reigns supreme over what it creates. But the people created Government and therefore the people reign supreme over the Government. But people forget this. And it doesn't help when they follow the policies and relinquish their supreme reigns to the Government.
In an honest system, based in virtues, protests would be rare (if they were to exist at all).
Here's a video from Malcolm Roberts discussing the role of protest (I think someone else shared this on this site a week or so ago).
Side Note: I notice he has what may be a Common Law flag behind him and what also looks like the Quick & Garran Annotated Constitution on his bookshelf. Are they just there as part of his marketing campaign or does he believe in the Law of the Land?
Defence of the right to protest/Magna Carta
Would the Attorney-General like to take another run at explaining why parliaments in Australia are not in breach of the very principles that define our legal system, the Bible and the Magna Carta, reinforced by the much more recent United Nations charter on human rights? This is Australia in 2021. It's a disgrace. We need our freedoms back and we need an Attorney-General who understands the basics on which our freedoms are based. Transcript:
Malcolm RobertsHistory shows that such trends are always deceitful, sinister and ultimately murderous. There is no nice way of putting this. The path we are on now leads to civil war and potentially genocide.
The reason police took action against these two is because they are effective and because they are leaders.
If we accept the above, then it's a necessarily a political action and not a public health action.
Correct?