The old adage of rule by consent is true on many levels. In one sense, disillusioned and disaffected peoples across the Western world lament what is widely perceived as an increasingly failed society. Out of control government, corporate and individual debt, high costs of living, open borders and draconian crack downs on speech and expression are common gripes with the state of Western society by citizens who have voted for almost the entirety of their adult lives. ‘I didn’t vote for this!’ is the refrain. Unfortunately, this is a clear delusion encased in reality. They had did indeed voted for what has been done to their countries and the deplorable erosion of general quality of life. They had in fact, given their consent to be ruled in such as way.
Participation in political process is giving consent in a number of ways. The ballot box is the principal means of given one’s consent to the political process, even if it is for wrong reasons, like the ‘grievance vote’ or a protest vote against the other, less desired team, acknowledging that neither side of politics has any intention of reversing the inevitable slide into failed state status.
Participation in the process, and thereby granting consent, is also through engagement with political commentary, influencer following or regular consumption of rants and gripes of the preferred political pundit or talking head. This, too, is another layer of deception whereby one’s consent is given to the political process through eyeball engagement and taking a side. Little thought is given to sheer volume of evidence the process is contrived, controlled and in absolutely no way genuine or organic. Laws are written by lawmakers. Politicians are actors reading scripts long pre-prepared for them. They are not thought leaders or leaders of men in any sense as their role is to perform the ‘Act’, creating ‘bills’ to extract wealth from our bonded estates. Taking a side with one’s favourite online personality, whether left, right, ‘centrist’ or ‘third position’ (alt-right or National Socialist), the consent is still granted.
Revelations that the SPLC funded alt-right and far right influencers is a good illustration of how far the political pundits are controlled, contrived and ‘brought to you by…’ type inorganic psychological operations. The so-called CIA inspired ‘Operation Mockingbird’, the decades long program of manipulating public opinion through media personalities is a long-established tradition of non-authentic news and information designed to consolidate delusions of the political process so that programs of mass mind control and social engineering can take place over decades, manipulating the mass populations to accept social change to their own detriment. ‘Obligation to accept refugees’ for example, where the outcomes of violence, rape, murder, organised crime and high welfare dependency are the consequences with little to no discernable benefits to the native or founding stock (gentile European) populations who ultimately shoulder the liabilities. This illustrates that across the Western world, populations consented to a policies that were destructive, highly inflationary and burdensome financially and emotionally.
Whether by Operation Mockingbird, 5th Generation Warfare or funding of subversive NGO’s funding political personalities, the delusions are set in place for the consumers to absorb and, in doing so, give consent to their manipulations. As the Maxim of Law states, Let he who would be deceived, be deceived. In other words, it is on you if you fall for their deceptions and manipulations. If you take sides, invest intellectually and emotionally in your preferred influencer or talking head, you are buying in to whatever program they are placed to draw you in to.
Revelation of the method, predictive programming, etc, are well established knowledge of many, yet understanding the phenomena still seems to offer no defence to populations of the Western world against falling for the deceptions of the political process. Generations have perceived the disclosures of the hidden hand of power as the little man pulling levers behind the curtain, ye the understanding of this revelation of method failed at large to translate into healthy skepticism of the political process, and questions concerning the legitimacy of a system of government and political control that is based on lies and deceptions.
Failing to take proper notice of the shadowy international powers controlling governments and media thus confirms giving consent to the process. All that is left is learning to live with the consequences and complaining that society is not what it used to be. The correct response should have been to develop healthy skeptical attitudes, acknowledging that neither politicians nor media are authentic, genuine and committed to truth. There is a view that shadowy international powers reveal their methods through media as a form of karmic transfer, absolving themselves of blame for their treacherous, deceitful actions where corrective, defensive action is not taken once you have been informed. In other words, if you are too stupid, lazy or cowardice to acknowledge and act accordingly to their revealed deceptions, then you deserve your enslavement and the consequences that entails.
The key takeaway from understanding the above, is that it is only by consent, witting or otherwise, that people become jailors of their own imprisonment. Removing consent means removing oneself from the process, and in particular the process of psychological, emotional and mental manipulation of media figures, or at least reserving the right to remain fully skeptical of narratives and personalities alike. For example, flat earth verses globe earth debate traps people into camps of division where the people align themselves with a perceived truth that they personally have no way of proving. What both sides can understand, however, that sources of authority, such as scientists, experts and public or private institutions are most often compromised, bought-out or straight out lying and deceiving the people with well-funded psychological operations. Taking a side, once again, is giving consent.
For the people of the Western world to have any hope of addressing the decline of society and deterioration of quality and standards of living, they must deal with their deceptions. They must take as a given that personalities presented are there simply for narrative enforcement with the aim of extracting consent. Addressing the deceptions then lends support to the weaponisation of truth to seek authenticity and accountability from political leaders and media personalities. One cannot demand truth if one remains entrapped in the delusions.