Enemy of the state? Is that what happened to punctuation in acronyms?

Like WHO? and WEF?

This trend of leaving out periods in acronyms is becoming more common. For example the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Economic Forum (WEF). It’s likely a shift towards a more modern, streamlined style.

Yet they are creating “words” that are not in any dictionary.

These “words” created from acronyms without fullstops (periods) are a type of initialism, which is when the letters of a phrase are pronounced individually.

While they might not be found in a traditional dictionary, they’ve become common parlance in certain circles, and their meanings aren’t always understood. It’s how language evolves to fit the needs and preferences of its users.

Another example is the removal of prepositional phrases in sentences, which removes any facts. It’s this trickery that enslaves ignorant people falling into fiction-grammar traps.

So what is the point of having grammar rules, if people do not comply with those rules?

Grammar Rules

Grammar rules serve as a framework to ensure clarity and consistency in communication. They provide a standard that helps everyone understand each other, especially in formal settings like academic or professional writing.

However, language is dynamic and constantly evolving. Informal communication, like spoken language or online messaging, tends to be more flexible and adaptable.

Think of grammar rules like traffic rules. In a busy city center, traffic rules ensure that cars move safely and efficiently. But in a quiet, rural area, cars might be able to navigate just fine without strict adherence to the rules.

Similarly, in informal settings, people might relax their use of grammar rules, but that doesn’t mean the rules are no longer useful or necessary.

Yet Government agencies are strict if you don’t obey their rules – so why is it acceptable for those agencies to disregard the laws of the land? Are they the Enemy of the state?

This is a more complex question, as it touches on issues of power dynamics and accountability.

Government agencies are indeed expected to follow the laws of the land, and individuals (should, but no longer do) have the right to hold them accountable if they don’t.

However, there are a few reasons why government agencies might deviate from established rules:

  • Ambiguity in the law: The laws are not clear-cut, and agencies sometimes use their judgment to interpret them.
  • Change in circumstances: In some cases, the existing rules might not adequately address new situations or technologies.
  • Lack of enforcement: If there’s no mechanism or will to enforce the rules, agencies think they are free to bend or break them.

Just because an agency breaks the rules doesn’t mean it’s right or acceptable.

One Rule For TPTB

There are very clear cut laws laid down in Corporations Act in Australia. We now have many “Government Agencies” who register with ACN/ABN yet fail to comply with ASIC/ACCC acts and statutes.

Government agencies in Australia registered as corporations are not complying with the ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission) and ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) acts and statutes.

This is a serious issue.

One rule for the powers that be (TPTB)- millions of laws for the plebs.

These regulations, allegedly in place to protect consumers, ensure fair competition, and maintain the integrity of the Australian market.

Even if you’re aware of specific instances of non-compliance, reporting these to the relevant authorities, such as ASIC or ACCC themselves, or even to your local Member of Parliament is pointless.

You’re reporting misconduct to the very entities that are failing to enforce the rules!

When organizations, including government agencies, change the rules to suit their own agendas without proper oversight and accountability… It indeed undermines the entire purpose of having rules in the first place.

Rules are meant to provide a level playing field, to protect the interests of all stakeholders, and to ensure fairness and transparency.

When rules can be arbitrarily changed, it leads to a lack of trust in the system, creating a sense of disenfranchisement among citizens.

It also paves the way for corruption and abuse of power. SO who is the true Enemy of the state

Smoke and Mirrors

There are no “strong, independent institutions” that can check and balance the power of those who make and enforce the rules…They’re all controlled by the government agencies.

Find out for yourself… Every report filed with ACCC or ASIC is ignored.

And the agencies know this. The corporations know this, the governments know this…

It’s a beautiful system of “smoke and mirrors”.

An exercise in propaganda to make the ordinary moms and dads feel “warm and fuzzy” believing that “the system” acts in their best interests.

When institutions that are supposed to act as checks and balances are themselves controlled by the government agencies they’re meant to oversee, it creates a situation where accountability is difficult to enforce.

So when reports to regulatory bodies like ACCC and ASIC are routinely ignored, and where the system seems to be set up to create an illusion of protection for ordinary citizens, we’re in trouble.

The fox guarding the hen house.

It’s a situation that leads to widespread disillusionment and disengagement from the political process.

A little too late, methinks?

With the passing of “Gag Laws” to limit or even ban freedom of speech, personal expression on social media… And being labelled as “enemy of the state” for expressing their views…

It’s a clear sign the space for democratic discourse is shrinking.

Not fitting the government “narrative”, with laws restricting freedom of speech and personal expression. Laws to stifle dissent, limit public debate, and shield those in power from criticism.

This leads to a climate of fear and self-censorship, which is harmful to any society.

The Good News

History is full of examples of people (Enemy of the state?) who have successfully resisted attempts to silence them.

And, all acts, statutes, codes, rules and regulations are written in fiction-babble, that contain no nouns. So they do not say what you think they say.

You have to able to prove it.

And that starts by learning how to syntax grammar.

Change is possible, but it often requires collective action and a willingness to stand up for one’s beliefs, even in the face of adversity.

If “not complying” means speaking out against unjust laws or policies, then some governments may indeed label such individuals as “enemies of the state”.
This label is often used as a way to delegitimize and marginalize those who challenge the status quo.
However, from a moral and ethical standpoint, speaking out against injustice and fighting for one’s rights are noble and necessary actions.
In a healthy democracy, individuals should be encouraged to voice their opinions, even if they’re critical of the government.
So while some governments may see non-compliance as a threat, history shows that it’s often these “enemies of the state” who are the catalysts for positive change.