Certain words and their definitions are important at this juncture in our history.
Abrogate – to abolish or annul by formal means; to repeal; put aside; cancel; revoke; rescind; nullify: to annul or repeal a law or pass legislation that contradicts the prior law. Abrogate also applies to revoking or withdrawing conditions of a contract.
Acquiesce – to assent tacitly; submit or comply silently or without protest. From Latin acquiēscere: to remain at rest, agree without protest.
Arrogate – to claim presumptuously; to assume without right:
see arrogance.
Comply – To act in accordance with another’s command, request, rule, or wish: see complicit, compliance.
Mary – Metaphysical meaning (fr. Heb.) – contradiction; rebellious outcry; bitter complaint; bitterness; myrrh; bitter waters.
Tacit – refers to something done or made in silence, as in Tacit Agreement. Implied by or inferred from actions or statements: [Latin: tacitus, silent, past participle of tacēre, to be silent.]
A tacit agreement is manifested by the fact that no contradiction or objection is made and is thus inferred from the situation and the circumstances. A tacit contract is one in which it may be inferred from the conduct of the parties, that they intended to enter into a contract.
Under Protest – Acting in accordance with someone’s rules, commands, or wishes while asserting an objection to the obligation. Complying with an obligation while asserting an objection to the obligation.
An Example to illustrate how these words might be used in context.
The following represents an example of how these words could be used, in an effort to clarify their meaning contextually.
“Mary considered the often-repeated explanation that the order to wear masks under certain proscribed conditions was ‘designed to keep everyone safe‘ to be fatuous. However, she complied with the Government mandate under protest, while vigorously expressing her objection, disagreement, and disapproval. She knew that If she just acquiesced to this edict, her silence could be legally interpreted as tacit agreement with the injunction.”
“She maintained that government officials, acting under the stimulus of ‘guidance’ from certain unelected health officers, were abrogating her sovereign individual rights. This countermanding was done under the pretext that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had rendered her God-given rights ‘conditional’, and that she was now situated under the concurrent jurisdiction of a Corporation.”
“In fact, Government officials were simply arrogating to themselves the prerogative to alter, revoke, or revise individual rights – by fiat. They claimed their authority to do this was the “Notwithstanding” clause, which had been stealthily inserted into the Charter.
The Charter was designed in this way to give people the impression that Government actually granted individual rights, as opposed to guaranteeing to defend rights that already existed unconditionally.“
“This meant that Governments could legally rescind Mary’s individual rights, whenever their global controllers deemed it necessary. With respect to the masks mandate, this action took the form of preplanned States of Emergency, perpetually extended on flimsy pretexts. Taking their cue from the CCP, local governments enforced compliance through contact tracing, social credit, severe fines, and in some cases, lengthy prison sentences.
These restrictions were also supported through propaganda and fake news, spread by a complicit social and mainstream media. “
Social shaming by naive virtue signallers, foolishly considering that compliance to their own subjugation made them morally superior, gave additional momentum to these draconian mandates.”