A call for non-consent

 

There is always a presumption, in everything we do as it is all contract. Presumption leads to proposal which leads to consent and action. Governments go from presumption to action and we feel powerless when we do not agree with the action taken as if somehow, the proposal and consent steps are outside our sphere of control. This could not be further from reality and requires no protest nor violence. It is a chess game of the mind, it all starts and ends in the mind, but at some point, it needs to become an act. Our relationship with the government is not unidirectional by any stretch of the imagination, it still follows all these steps. The main problem is that the two steps in between the idea and the action taken by governments are omitted as if they are implied to be there but no one ever talks about them.

The proposal is transmitted through the media, making sure everybody knows about the proposed action to be taken. This proposal is usually mixed with a lot of fear in order to keep people in a state of confusion, never knowing what could really happen to them and their families if they dare to question the proposal. The media (influencers, celebrities, newspapers, experts, etc) are paid to make sure that it is not just fear of government and the enforcers of government’s coercion and threats that scares you, but ostracization by your peers for not agreeing with the mainstream discourse. You will be labelled a terrorist for daring to question an authority that by the way, only has the force of “the law” because you gave your consent to it. But you will be a terrorist, and the real terror that you will be spreading will be to terrorise this supposed ‘authority’ as you would potentially help unleash the same power from within other people’s minds and souls.

But there is always going to be people that do not want to take the reigns of their lives, fear still dominates them. Therefore, the ‘consent’, (which is usually tacit or implied because there is no contract at all between the people and the governments) is a fear-induced consent. Is that really consent? Would you consider that somebody who is being blackmailed, threatened or coerced by the mob is actually giving free and informed consent coming from his/her own conscience and free-will? I’d say no, this is far from the definition of what consent really is. The problem with giving this type of consent in my opinion, is that it makes one an accomplice of the fear-inducing monsters because the monster is first and foremost reproduced in people’s minds.

In conclusion, remove presumptions from your own mind by, for example, apophatically discerning between what is assumed to be true and what is true, that is the first step. Understand really their proposals, only you have the power to discern from information received and to make your consent to be an informed one; really do your due diligence and investigate all sources of information and not just the propaganda ones. Decide then, where is the power of your consent going to be directed to, and you’ll know how to act or how to choose to not act at all.

Theresa May: 

"The way we police in the UK, is by consent"