“The Green Lobster.”

Mentionable groups so as to the claim of being under disability, the occupancy of my home was just too much:

  • The SAS (Special Air Service)
  • The Police (Victoria Police)
  • The Parliament of Australia
  • The Judge (2010) (Excerpt.)
  • The Neighbour (V.P. Officer)

The question is, who is leading them astray? With such occupancy of Australia, these Australian entities of greater authority have a massive potential to cause trauma and stress, even serious mental illness, to many. But, with the recent surprise of the SAS Australia TV series being broadcast country-wide, is there too much emphasis on training and not enough on “humanity” in a country where one bad step could cost you your life? A medical opinion granted to many of the doctors who have studied the outback and it’s hazards places the same amount of emphasis on safety and leniency.

Training in places like this and  combining survival with people’s youth, such as training in the Australian Special Air Services combines many battles with an above-average every day career. As seen on TV much of the training is vigorous and very rough on the body, supposing that the alternating factor of working as an emergency services officer and training as one can blend together to help someone heal enough along the way to get through the harm, undone.

Sleeping there, eating there and living there daily at the training base may be enjoyable for many but are others forced through this as a response to their awareness of the training? Has Australia gone too far this time, in it’s efforts to broadcast the struggles of many soldiers going through PTSD on their training sites and, is Australia guilty of this grief?

With the police force being known for it’s unauthorised brutality in some stances, I would recall the event where I watched someone injuring their head during the green-screen debut of SAS Australia. I had just injured mine, prior.

I could say that many of the Australian police officers around the country would feel just as offended and “brutal” about the nature of some of the documentary’s footage and filming, however I could note that the police force in Australia is already quite forceful. Lest to say that there is a notepad of infringements assigned to each officer for their job duties, there is also a heavy burden regarding what to do and how to feel about it. Are these people really left being humans or, are they simply police officers at the end of the line, working in real living families? What do they do to other families?

The police can be known to cause all kinds of grief with people around Australia daily and their ethics can be seen parading down the street, in the shoes of another. How is it so possible and so plausible, yet so unfair, to grieve the duty that you do and still cause such stress, trauma or elsewise pain in other living people? Should they really have the right?

I’d say so, because they are sometimes working in dangerous fields. But yet so, so if they can, then why do we complain? At the thought of this stress kind of “caving in” around the point of getting healthier again, I once heard the voice of the Australian Prime Minister grieving the chance that I had to strike back just like this. “Shit,” he said, “I’ve got to stop him.”

The major concern here with this is the strategy it provides to corruption, especially in the hands of certain politicians. Saying this is heavy is one thing but, the burden of seeing a common judge and it’s audience or a common neighbour, who turned out to be a police officer, vandalised or corrupted against is fallacy. These structured careers are family-oriented and they are meant to be sanctioned, safely for the assurance of it’s career’s endurance and it’s people’s endurance.

A secondary concern would be the health and safety, let alone the integrity of the ethics of many people in the medicinal industry who offer their time to help, in drastically unknown or confusing careers where there are realms of information about real living people, passing you by all the time. These health care professionals are innocent by standard and they are go-to people for the public to pass by, but insulting these people is let alone one thing that humanity cannot do, where risking these people’s sanity or their integral ethics is an unhealthy thing to do. I pose to you that the integrity of these ethics and the doctors or nursing staff themselves are worse-off in a similar way because of the groups outlined in this forum of argument.

I think this forms a theorem about health and safety in this country of Australia. That could be a part of the health and safety act including legislation figure 110-118 for example. These are like dictionary notes about health and safety.J.A.
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 No. 137, 2011 as amended   From <https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013C00253>(EG.)

Where in parting with science for a minute we find these arguments of theorem, I associate to it a “green lobster.” This means in some ways a conspiracy act, however in scientific terms this health and safety act surrounds workplace conspiracy or at least, contravention so as to it. A green lobster is however an act outside these regulations where specifically, as a joke it was once told, the menu at the Canberra Hotel was once changed for a guest who had to eat from the “green plate” instead of the normal one, because it would cause Australia to be different but, this is not the way to change anything. Especially not in this country, with the traditional owners of this land watching carefully.

The impeachment of care was once given designated officiality and authority over the country, so the story goes and the rare evidence of this is usually held at court, where in the countryside that I live in and at there is a layman’s truth. That is sold to the government by authors and they keep the books that they write, because they kept all the old ones too!

That’s a bit of an impeachment, but it’s not too caring in it’s usual method of approach to the medical opinion noted. The conspiracy is written that for any impeachment [treason] against the country’s law, a person should or would be punished and this is not so. It is also said that punishment can’t be right in this country, by the traditional owners. And that’s not quite so, anymore. I think that’s the right way around, but the glitch in the conspiracy is that is can be worded this way: Anyone who sits here might get served green lobster. That is, if they choose it – there is also a lot of normal food on the menu. But what that promotes is the ignorance of the audience of the menu; the ignorance of Australia.

Therefore promoting this might be illegal, as this stance puts forward. Is that so? Maybe we might all find out, if just…

Example 1.

“We banned the use of guns and made amnesty available.” (Pre-dated.)


Example 2.

“If the use of guns was made necessary, the Eureka flag could be used and the totemic people of old Australia could be living.” This is because it would be psychic, not psychedelic or otherwise a ban. (Psychic.)

We might find out if that was all so and there are so many more and many examples of this, but if I say so myself then where was the cheese? You would need a Masters Degree in Intelligence just to solve it – Not for me!

By Jesse Almarker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: