305
Comments (22)
sorted by:
19
Qanaut 19 points ago +19 / -0
1
Mavdick96 1 point ago +1 / -0

That cat headbanging is the vibe.

16
ShmellyTunaMelt1 16 points ago +16 / -0

keking already at the optics of the commies literally trying to kill truth.

5
Joys1Daughter 5 points ago +5 / -0

Oh yes...(((they))) can't bear to lose control.

I love to think of them in a Panic...everything they have carefully crafted worldwide to control us is crumbling before there very eyes.

WINNING. BIGLY.

8
ShmellyTunaMelt1 8 points ago +8 / -0

does this mean he isn't coming back?

17
SharpCookie 17 points ago +18 / -1

I don't get the impression the two have to be related, but I was just thinking about the timeline, it's going fully live in early 2022.

This jhartz post goes over why he thinks the military won't react until after 1/20/2022, a year after the inauguration:

https://greatawakening.win/p/13zg9ZWTFC/hello-patriots-i-took-some-time-/

This is the specific section I'm referring to:

The DOD Law of War Manual (11.3) explains that GC code applies to both the belligerent occupier and the occupied territory(USA). After one year the GC obligation expires for the occupied territory. Remember China and Biden took control on 1/20/2021. One year will be 1/20/2022. After that date our military has the legal authority to take our country back, this is when 11.3 goes in to effect.

I was thinking that Trump's website would be for when declass gets rolling, or when info like Epstein's co-conspritors, Clinton Foundation and human trafficking, when that news starts pouring out.

Those two things seem like interesting intersecting points to me right now.

9
thinkingcritically 9 points ago +10 / -1

After that date our military has the legal authority to take our country back

I haven't done a deep dive into the LoWM but surely it doesn't say that the occupied territory(USA) is obligated to be submissive to the belligerent occupier(Chyna et al) for an entire year, and cannot counter or defend itself against the aggressor until that time has elapsed?

Like saying that if I control the hill and you take the hill from me today, rules state that I cannot attempt to retake the hill from you for a year. Who would agree to such rules of engagement?? Might the military wait till 1/20/22 to act? Maybe, but not because they are restrained from doing so sooner. Just think'n.

5
Vatican_Assassin 5 points ago +5 / -0

When you lose your hill you are supposed to ask the world to come take it back for you, and if they don’t respond in a year you can do it yourself.

I think it offers a year as a chance to solve the dispute diplomatically.

4
ThatOtherOne 4 points ago +4 / -0

but, what if the hill is being excavated and will be uninhabitable in a years time?

5
rahu77 5 points ago +5 / -0

The occupying force can't just start killing folks in mass or intentionally bankrupt the occupried territory without triggering 11.3 as well.

Part of the push to hide the truth about the vaccines being linked to a mass die off event. SEE FOLKS ARE TAKING IT VOLUNTARRILY. If they were forced to go door to door physically jabbing people, that may have triggered 11.3.

If there's an armed insurrection from the people, I think then the UN peacekeepers could get brought in, The 250,000 chinese blue helmets, hence the gaslighting from the left trying to provke the right.

3
ThatOtherOne 3 points ago +3 / -0

I see. What if the occupying force allows illegals to occupy said hill making it uninhabitable for the legals?

2
AdAstra_PerAspera 2 points ago +2 / -0

Kick em out I guess.

1
rahu77 1 point ago +1 / -0

Starts to get real tricky because there would have to be a clear danger to the public.

Right now they are the replacement labor for when larger portions start falling to the vax and the humans being trafficked for profit. I'm sure there's OpFor mixed in, like a bunch of those Taliban that walked off the US base, they seem kinda sus.

2
SharpCookie 2 points ago +3 / -1

Jhartz goes over that in his post, but the GC in the quote I used refers to the Geneva Convention Articles, and 11.3 in the LoWM is titled:

11.3 END OF OCCUPATION AND DURATION OF GC OBLIGATIONS

GC referring to the Geneva Convention Articles

1
OneOff 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think it gives the un the chance they are salivating at, to fill our streets with blue helmets. If we react before the year instead of trying to ask nicely and "diplomatically."

Either way it's stupid. Just more legal jargon to make things harder. Instead of what should happen naturally.

4
ShmellyTunaMelt1 4 points ago +4 / -0

whoa. thanks, makes sense in irregular warfare during a counterinsurgency.

3
slokill 3 points ago +3 / -0

I understand the timeline but I also think it's stupid. If this was a shooting war we're not going to sit around for a year. GW attacked on a Christmas Eve. We wouldn't give the enemy 5 min respite. As Patton would say...Go,Go, Go!!!

But it's not a shooting war so we wait.

3
ThePopcornTape 3 points ago +3 / -0

I can hear the shills now.

"Of COURSE he named it after Pravda! Pravda is Russian for..."

3
LBTrumplican2 3 points ago +3 / -0

gettr wrecked

3
nadlersskidmark 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yesssss. In the words of Borat - “I excite!”

3
Qanaut 3 points ago +3 / -0

Very nice!

1
JonathanE 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not available to pre-orderin my region..booo!