Table of Contents
Richard Kelly
Richard Kelly is a retired business analyst, married with three adult children and one dog and devastated by the way his home city of Melbourne was laid waste. Convinced justice will be served one day.
In their famous ‘Rumble in the Jungle’ bout, Muhammad Ali and George Foreman slugged it out for seven rounds. For much of the fight, Ali conserved energy, covering up and deflecting the flurry of punches from Foreman. Eventually Foreman tired, Ali counterattacked and floored Foreman with a five-punch combo in round eight. 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 five-punch combo.
I don’t know what the five-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 counterattack 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 two-punch set. A jab and a right cross, say. If we get good at that, a three-punch combination would be our next goal.
So the petitioner or the letter writer might be well advised to plan a two-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 have 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?
Click to access 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:
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,
We might still cop a left hook to the eye again, opening it up. But at the end of the round, we can hear the trainer say “Attaboy!”
Keep punching. And planning the five-punch combo.
Republished from the author’s Substack.
