Djokovic...A man of the people or just another controlled person?

[Itsa]

39 minutes ago, SuperstarNeilC said:

Are you taking the piss?

All grand slam matches are best of 5 sets

Anyone winning in straight sets will win with three sixes unless it goes to a tie break in which case it will be a seven.

 

Serious question by the way. Or do you think someone winning a tennis match in straight sets is satanic?

 

But look I'm not saying the whole Djokovic thing isn't some kind of psy-op I don't know but this is just retarded.

 

[Grumpy Owl]

Novak Djokovic: Tennis star deported after losing Australia visa battle

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-60014059

 

Quote

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison welcomed "the decision to keep our borders strong and keep Australians safe".

 

Bet he's really pleased with himself. Has he actually explained how this 'keeps Australians safe'?

 

 

[SuperstarNeilC]

From Wikipedia:

 

In his 2013 autobiography, Serve to Win, he wrote of a "researcher" who directed "anger, fear, hostility" at a glass of water, which turned "slightly green" after a few days, while also directing "love, joy" at another glass of water, which remained "bright and crystal clear" in the same period. In 2020, Djokovic spoke of his knowledge of "some people" using "prayer" and "gratitude" to "turn the most toxic food, or maybe most polluted water into the most healing water." He also said that "scientists [have] proven" that "molecules in the water react to our emotions" and speech.

 

////  ////  ////  ////

 

Djokovic has been reported to meditate for up to an hour a day at the Buddhist Buddhapadipa Temple in Wimbledon as he appreciates the natural setting and serenity, and is close to monks in the complex. He has spoken of the positive power of meditation.

Edited January 16, 2022 by SuperstarNeilC

[SuperstarNeilC]

Djokovic is familiar with the work of David Icke 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/2125429/troubled-novak-djokovic-seeking-help-from-spiritual-guru-to-stem-slump-in-form/

[Saved]

Whatever his motive/s - they are irrelevant.

 

A precedent has been set in such a way that anybody in the world with access to a radio or television or newspaper will know that this precedent has been set.

 

No vax = No entry

 

Now that this precedent has been set before the watching world, other countries will follow suit. Just as every goalpost has moved throughout the entire charade, the definition of fully vaxed will continue to move in unison so that nobody will be able to move about at any time. This might even be refined down to local regions within every country - borders within borders.

 

The frog is very much still in the pot.

[Grumpy Owl]

48 minutes ago, Saved said:

Whatever his motive/s - they are irrelevant.

 

A precedent has been set in such a way that anybody in the world with access to a radio or television or newspaper will know that this precedent has been set.

 

No vax = No entry

 

Now that this precedent has been set before the watching world, other countries will follow suit. Just as every goalpost has moved throughout the entire charade, the definition of fully vaxed will continue to move in unison so that nobody will be able to move about at any time. This might even be refined down to local regions within every country - borders within borders.

 

I agree.

 

Which leads me to the topic of this thread, and the missing third option, namely that of "unwitting pawn".

 

From all that I can gather, it would seem to me like Mr Djokovic may well have been 'set up', so that he can be made an example of.

 

If they can do this to a very high-profile sports star, they'll have no problem doing the same to us little people.

 

What needs to be brought into question is to why Australia has this policy in the first place. It can't be based on scientific data, as data has already shown that 'anyone can spread it (the virus)' regardless of whether being vaccinated or not. So in my opinion, the policy is unreasonable and without scientific justification.

 

An unvaccinated person entering another country is not a "public health risk", though I'm pretty sure TPTB in Australia would very much like to paint this picture of the 'unjabbed' as being 'unclean and dirty'.

[Amused To Death]

3 hours ago, SuperstarNeilC said:

 

You can do this to any tennis player though, because every set goes to 6 and most the top guys win most games in 3 straight sets (666) until the later parts of the tournament, when the competition gets harder.

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

15 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

If they can do this to a very high-profile sports star, they'll have no problem doing the same to us little people.

Another thing. You'd normally expect a show of solidarity from his fellow pros and from Aussie tennis fans in general. Has any tennis pro walked out of the competition in protest? Have tennis fans turned their backs on the competition? If they haven't, that tells you a lot. A combined player/fan boycott would wreck the tournament and leave the government in an untenable position. So what gives?

[Firebird]

3 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

Novak Djokovic: Tennis star deported after losing Australia visa battle

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-60014059

 

 

Bet he's really pleased with himself. Has he actually explained how this 'keeps Australians safe'?

 

 

 

It's to make a point I suppose. They can't have someone making his own choice ruin the programme.

[Firebird]

37 minutes ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

Another thing. You'd normally expect a show of solidarity from his fellow pros and from Aussie tennis fans in general. Has any tennis pro walked out of the competition in protest? Have tennis fans turned their backs on the competition? If they haven't, that tells you a lot. A combined player/fan boycott would wreck the tournament and leave the government in an untenable position. So what gives?

 

This takes courage and a lot of people don't have it.

[Saved]

47 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

I agree.

 

Which leads me to the topic of this thread, and the missing third option, namely that of "unwitting pawn".

 

From all that I can gather, it would seem to me like Mr Djokovic may well have been 'set up', so that he can be made an example of.

 

If they can do this to a very high-profile sports star, they'll have no problem doing the same to us little people.

 

What needs to be brought into question is to why Australia has this policy in the first place. It can't be based on scientific data, as data has already shown that 'anyone can spread it (the virus)' regardless of whether being vaccinated or not. So in my opinion, the policy is unreasonable and without scientific justification.

 

An unvaccinated person entering another country is not a "public health risk", though I'm pretty sure TPTB in Australia would very much like to paint this picture of the 'unjabbed' as being 'unclean and dirty'.

Indeed.

 

From the perspective and from the words of those following the science and making the rules on the back of it. In this case, the Australian PM:

 

Fact One - Every person not jabbed (that can be) has had every opportunity to do so.

 

Fact Two - Having the jab does not stop you from getting Covid or spreading Covid.

 

Fact Three - Having the jab ONLY lessens the risk of serious illness or death when contracting Covid.

 

If people could only just hold those three facts together in one block of information they would see that the following fact is missing information.

 

Fact Four - Not being jabbed is a public health risk.

 

If we are to take the first three facts as truth then regarding the fourth fact, the only people at danger of contracting Covid (with more serious symptoms) are the unvaccinated. Therefore, the only people to whom the unvaccinated are a public health risk are other unvaccinated people. But we then go back to Fact One and see that anybody who can be jabbed but has refused, has chosen their path. 

 

In short, the unvaccinated have absolutely no affect or influence on the health of anybody except their own kind - by definition of the PM's own facts. The fact that he omits information from Fact Four is not lost on us. It is, however, lost on the masses who cannot hold together even the first three facts long enough to see the deception in Fact Four.

 

Their minds are melted, confused, by an endless diet of double-speak.

 

[Brad the lad]

52 minutes ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

Another thing. You'd normally expect a show of solidarity from his fellow pros and from Aussie tennis fans in general. Has any tennis pro walked out of the competition in protest? Have tennis fans turned their backs on the competition? If they haven't, that tells you a lot. A combined player/fan boycott would wreck the tournament and leave the government in an untenable position. So what gives?

 

 Most people don't even give a shit about their own sons and daughters. When it comes to the problems of others it's obviously even less.

Average Joe cares more about the white BMW payments and the next holiday more then their off spring's health. Everyone of them clowns will be the first to shout their mouth about how they would die for their kids as well.

 

[Grumpy Owl]

11 minutes ago, Saved said:

Indeed.

 

From the perspective and from the words of those following the science and making the rules on the back of it. In this case, the Australian PM:

 

Fact One - Every person not jabbed (that can be) has had every opportunity to do so.

 

Fact Two - Having the jab does not stop you from getting Covid or spreading Covid.

 

Fact Three - Having the jab ONLY lessens the risk of serious illness or death when contracting Covid.

 

If people could only just hold those three facts together in one block of information they would see that the following fact is missing information.

 

Fact Four - Not being jabbed is a public health risk.

 

If we are to take the first three facts as truth then regarding the fourth fact, the only people at danger of contracting Covid (with more serious symptoms) are the unvaccinated. Therefore, the only people to whom the unvaccinated are a public health risk are other unvaccinated people. But we then go back to Fact One and see that anybody who can be jabbed but has refused, has chosen their path. 

 

In short, the unvaccinated have absolutely no affect or influence on the health of anybody except their own kind - by definition of the PM's own facts. The fact that he omits information from Fact Four is not lost on us. It is, however, lost on the masses who cannot hold together even the first three facts long enough to see the deception in Fact Four.

 

Their minds are melted, confused, by an endless diet of double-speak.

 

 

Yet people are only focused on the 'fact' that Djokovic had his visa cancelled and has now been deported 'because he didn't follow the rules', as well as the Australian government didn't want him to become some kind of 'poster boy' for the 'anti-vaxxers'.

 

Most people are overlooking or simply not questioning why the Australian government has this illogical policy in place at all.

 

Because it has nothing to do with 'public health'.

[jjjamson]

Djokovic's deportation is almost certainly illegal. According to the immigration minister, the deportation is based upon: his “ongoing presence in Australia may foster… disregard for the precautionary requirements."

 

Note the language--the immigration minister does not use the term LAW, and he does not say "required by LAW." Instead, he refers to "requirements."

 

Their federal (supreme?) court ruled it was not in the "public interest" apparently to overturn the immigration minister's decision."

 

So, basically, he was deported because he did violate any law of any kind. This law abidingness somehow "threatened" disregard for non existent laws. 

 

Edited January 16, 2022 by jjjamson

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

52 minutes ago, Firebird said:

 

This takes courage and a lot of people don't have it.

We're talking about rich professional athletes. Collectively, they have a lot of clout. Is the Australian Open that important that they won't stand behind one of the biggest names in their sport who is being unjustly maligned?

[Grumpy Owl]

4 minutes ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

We're talking about rich professional athletes. Collectively, they have a lot of clout. Is the Australian Open that important that they won't stand behind one of the biggest names in their sport who is being unjustly maligned?

 

With one of the 'favourites' out of contention, others might feel they have a chance of 'winning' and grabbing the attention/accolades instead. (and prize money)

 

Don't forget, professional sports stars and athletes can be just as selfish as the rest of us.

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

33 minutes ago, Brad the lad said:

 

 Most people don't even give a shit about their own sons and daughters. When it comes to the problems of others it's obviously even less.

Average Joe cares more about the white BMW payments and the next holiday more then their off spring's health. Everyone of them clowns will be the first to shout their mouth about how they would die for their kids as well.

 

It is what society has become. Acquisitive so as to look good on the outside whilst their kids are watching porn, taking drugs, and getting abused by paedos.

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

Just now, Grumpy Owl said:

 

With one of the 'favourites' out of contention, others might feel they have a chance of 'winning' and grabbing the attention/accolades instead. (and prize money)

 

Don't forget, professional sports stars and athletes can be just as selfish as the rest of us.

In a nutshell. Selfish. Remember the old cry 'one out all out!' Just an echo of the past now.

[Firebird]

22 hours ago, SuperstarNeilC said:

He is sponsored by Lacoste with its reptilian symbol 

 

 

 

It's a crocodile!

Are all reptile animals bad now?

 

[Firebird]

41 minutes ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

We're talking about rich professional athletes. Collectively, they have a lot of clout. Is the Australian Open that important that they won't stand behind one of the biggest names in their sport who is being unjustly maligned?

 

Lack of courage but also fear. And belief in the narrative.

[Nemuri Kyoshiro]

Just now, Firebird said:

 

Lack of courage but also fear. And belief in the narrative.

I suppose so. The last category seems to me to be the one most likely.

[Macnamara]

 think Djokovich won a moral victory; he has shown the world the fascist face of the australian government

[Grumpy Owl]

Regarding the 'one-eye imagery' that has been posted in this thread, see also:

 

While I don't doubt that there are many that understand the significance of this 'one-eye imagery', also consider that there are those who will just turn up to some random photo-shoot, and just do what the photographer tells them to do, "just pose like this" etc.

 

They may have no idea what is happening, "its what the photographer requested, and it turned out alright".

 

I recall we had the same with ex-Stone Roses frontman Ian Brown, where some decided to try and discredit him because of old photoshoots he took part in when part of The Stone Roses, where he had one eye covered.

 

Now, I'm not saying that Djokovic is innocent, but I just ask people to consider that 'historic photoshoots' could be used in order to try and discredit people and 'muddy waters' further along in the future.

[Brad the lad]

3 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

Regarding the 'one-eye imagery' that has been posted in this thread, see also:

 

While I don't doubt that there are many that understand the significance of this 'one-eye imagery', also consider that there are those who will just turn up to some random photo-shoot, and just do what the photographer tells them to do, "just pose like this" etc.

 

They may have no idea what is happening, "its what the photographer requested, and it turned out alright".

 

I recall we had the same with ex-Stone Roses frontman Ian Brown, where some decided to try and discredit him because of old photoshoots he took part in when part of The Stone Roses, where he had one eye covered.

 

Now, I'm not saying that Djokovic is innocent, but I just ask people to consider that 'historic photoshoots' could be used in order to try and discredit people and 'muddy waters' further along in the future.

 

I agree and Ian Brown is a true warrior ( I have zero doubt of that). I did mention in my earlier post about Djokovic and that he may have just been naive at the photo shoots.

I do hope he is making a stand and if he is then that can only be good in times of bad. If I'm wrong about anyone I will always admit it and apologize. Time will tell still on this one for me. I live by my emotions and even on the forum I get a feeling of who is coming from a good place and who is not (that's without ever even seeing them).

The jury is still out for me and I hope he proves true to himself.

[Anti Facts Sir]

There's a photo of him (presumably from this weekend) in the back of a vehicle with a face muzzle on. Either he's actually clueless, trying to pretend to go along with "some of it", or else it's symbolic (I have been silenced/gagged).

 

Take ya pick.