They can’t make the control of your words law; they can only subvert your faith in the value of difficult conversation.

Brad Flutey
Oct 11

This is someone who speaks with a forked tongue; we have recorded subversive activists behaving in the same way in some of our huis.

I’ve been an activist for around ten years; the disunity among activists is frustrating but valuable. Through this, I have learnt to control my speech by choice, not force, and I don’t regret it. Unfortunately, the intellectual I admire thinks little of activism. Of which is contradictory; he is, after all, a more competent activist. Jordan Peterson is one of the most intelligent defenders of Liberty, and he competently advocates for the pursuit of the Sovereign Individual. If he is not an activist, then I’m not a man, I don’t believe in physical reality, and I identify as something else because what I feel is more real than reality.

If I did the above and identified as something not in line with reality, there may be two reasons; this physical reality is unbearable, i.e. going to hell. Or, my awareness has shifted outside the bounds of physical reality, and I align with whatever feels comfortable for my spirit. I don’t have that problem or that gift; I know who I am, mind, body, and spirit, and being an activist is one of those things. Therefore, Peterson is likely for competent, productive, and moral activists.

Make sure you don’t miss the opportunity to listen to or meet this man. It’s not every day that the champion of moral objectivism comes to your neighbourhood. (Right-Click to get your ticket)

I think we are heading toward hell, and there are perfectly sane and moral people who do not identify with their physical manifestation. I’m not overly negative; we usually overcome the trainwreck we are becoming and trend off in a better direction. We just need to realise that no one has the authority to remove the dissenting voice, especially not this government.

Furthermore, they don’t have the authority, the claim of right, the constitutional jurisdiction, moral fortitude, or lawful standing to police your speech. (Police=Policy Enforcement)

If you want to overcome thy enemy, first you must know thy enemy. Get your copy here.

The loophole that men and women in the know use to escape the illegitimate jurisdiction of the Crown is lawfully and legally sound. The Crown has no Constitutional standing without express consent; they are nothing more than an implied trust that doesn’t meet its obligations to the beneficiaries. It is not a signee to Te Tiriti, the Treaty, or He Whakaputanga; they are nothing more than a criminal Ponzi scheme that has now been caught with their pants down. So, what keeps their veiled threats relevant? The consent of order-followers.

Please note; moral relativism is not intelligence; it’s laziness.

Order followers are our brothers and sisters; however, they’re on autopilot. They behave like non-player-characters (NPCs) infected by an apathy that makes them believe the deluded preposition that the many are powerless against the organised and criminal few. If we let apathy allow us to consent away our right to speak freely, we will never get it right. So, to all those who analysed Jacinda Ardern’s proposal; that criminals should be allowed to wage war on free speech with tools, add this analysis to the mix.

They announce her as the minister of all our most compromised ministerial profiles. Check that; there is a heap more falling apart than just child poverty reduction and National security; her mates oversee the other capitulations. The first act of her speech is to butcher a rehearsed Te Reo greeting. She doesn’t just murder it with her pretentious lingo; she slaughters it by calling it Te Reo Maori. Had she called it Te Reo o Maori, she would have referred to Te Reo as ‘the word of white prey’. Remember that most of our prey are our slaves, and no one knows nor should care who the first people were that landed on the fish and canoe of Maui. All that matters is that we share the values of those who classify as native and those who migrate here to share our native worldview.

Many would likely choose to assume that ma and ori refer to other definitions. However, those who read a whole awful lot know that word warfare or slavery through hidden word definitions, has been around for a long time.

 

Our worldview is to show respect to all and pursue what is truthful over what is convenient; if it is not, it is because foreign worldviews are subverting our worldview and our words.

Her opening statement should have stuck in her mouth; had the coronavirus disease been a concern for the health and safety of our land, we’d know. Why? Because drafting a Health and Safety response that ignores the hazard (SARS-CoV-2) and fails to address the new brand for cold and flu symptoms (COVID-19) would have resulted in far more deaths had coronavirus disease (the risk) been dangerous. So next time the “government” tells you to fear a new deadly virus, and you believe it, get online and buy yourself one of these masks.

 
At least you’ll be protected from the hazard; looking stupid and unprotected from a hypothetical hazard is not advised.

This is what you’d look like if you wanted to precisely protect people from your “COVID-19” symptoms because you’re incapable of using a hanky.

Her next spiel is a plea to global tyrants to look at the acceptance that resulted from their lazy and callous behaviour. That these sorts of measures would be useful in their attempt to make slavery the solution to climate change – a questionable crisis that helps us avoid addressing the real problem. The damage human trauma responses do to life’s ability to self-regulate. A trauma most likely caused by implied consent slavery under the guise of hypothetically pursuing improvement for the collective. Only a fool would assume that removing the truth or express conditions of an agreement or relationship would improve said agreement or relationship. Dishonesty is the core reason most relationships break down; whether they are trustee and beneficiary relationships or relationships between man and woman.

She then mentions those who question the direction of the corrupt collective of clubs and cults. Claiming these clubs and cults create the law through belief-based company rules, not through the pure process of robust argument, proof, and the acknowledgement that one merely pursues the truth instead of claiming they are the single source. What makes this next part hilarious is the camera capture of the result of this disastrous social experiment. A group of masked New Zealand troglodytes huddled together with PPE that does not protect them from the unidentified hazard. All acted out in a room of international peers who have quietly moved on from their agenda-drenched Ponzi scheme and onto the next act in this mass Truman Show.

The War in Ukraine is a war that everyone has an opinion on, even though they’ve never been there. Is Putin a hero against Ukrainian Nazis and the Deep State? Probably not, but are the politicians who claim Putin is a criminal the pot calling the kettle black? This is a clear example of directing people’s attention away from the problems at home, problems caused by the Deep State’s dishonesty and corruption. Ironically, these problems are caused by their clear dismissal of a rules-based system they created and cannot follow. To watch one who claimed to be a Liberator turned Health Tyrant, condemn a man after she had just finished waging a psychological war on her own people, is baffling.

Ignoring the Lange distraction of the 80s as the use of nuclear weapons is not only retarded, but downright insane. Using an apparent moral standpoint to launch a campaign against those who oppose the globalist direction is entirely disingenuous. Nuclear weapons exist; should we use them? Hell no but calling for them not to be invented when they have been is childish. Yet, it’s likely that stating the obvious was only a point made so she could introduce a “new” concept – word warfare. Except it’s not new, word warfare is the first form of warfare, and it’s used by politicians and their “rules-based” system regularly. Should we need a defence for free speech against politicians who frequently abuse Te Reo (the word)? Probably not, but we’ll do it anyway, just because we can, and we’ll do it quickly. Or rather, Jordan Peterson will!

What Jacinda proposes cannot be rolled out by those who stand on podiums and break their own rules. Allowing them to create rules for us while they take advantage of widely unknown Common Law and Rules of Equity loopholes is entirely disingenuous. If Democracy is a conversation and those who make rules for their opposition avoid conversation with a reasonable opposition, then they are not the representatives of Democracy; they are the representatives of Tyranny.

For almost a month, our “Deplorables” peacefully camped on public land, waiting to get a conversation with “democratic politicians”. They refused and instead waged psychological and physical warfare on all of us.

 

 

 

🔄 Counterspin
NZs Media Revolution
Facts & Evidence based
Not a pay to say platform
www.counterspinmedia.com