Or Without Title – a detour
This week, I intended to write ‘WIthout Title – part two.’ I hoped to resolve the two quotes in the postscript to part one and to reply in some detail to the points al made in his great comment. Alas, a slight detour has arisen. I am not sure if this detour will resolve these things. You will know this is happening if those quotes appear at some point in the essay.
It may have been better to complete part one before taking the detour, but alas, my curiosity has lead me astray.
Caveat: When I quote from contract law, or common law, or use principles that are found in natural law, it is not because I am making these into authorities, it is because they illustrate the points that I wish to make. The reader must make up his own mind if the argument holds
Murray Rothbard described the anarchist thinker Etienne de la Boetie as puzzled:
To him, the great mystery of politics was obedience to rulers. Why in the world do people agree to be looted and otherwise oppressed by government overlords? It is not just fear, Boetie explains in the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, for our consent is required. And that consent can be non-violently withdrawn.https://mises.org/library/politics-obedience-discourse-voluntary-servitude
I have some deep problems with the character known as Murray Rothbard. He seems to appear at all points of anarchist thought to corral it into the framework of the chosen people. In his introduction to de la Boetie’s work, he places the framework within his own explanation of ‘consent.’ In the quoted edition, Rothbard’s introduction has the word consent 33 times. But all of these are Rothbard’s interpretation of de la Boeite, and not one from the author’s pen (taking into account translation.)
At a first glance many anarchists would give assent to the sentiments expressed by Rothbard. But a sleight of hand has taken place. A popular current in the ACT realm is folks withdrawing their consent from the system. Personally, I have declared that I do not consent, but I have never withdrawn my consent. Why?
Because I never consented to a damn thing, and anyone that says I did is a liar and is either wittingly or unwittingly working to support the system of control.
The idea that man needs to withdraw his consent is seen across the ACT realm in law research; in the common law courts solution that has sprung up all over the place; in the gnostic teachers who claim that man needs to spiritually withdraw consent from his soul contracts by various spiritual methods. One can even buy withdrawal of consent cards from various common law courts.
But I say no withdrawal of consent is required. Because no one can say consent was ever given: either under the government’s own system, or under any sane system of thought.
The idea of withdrawing one’s consent is quite different from understanding that there was never such consent in the first place.
In his introduction to the pamphlet, Rothbard constantly puts words into de la Boetie’s mouth. He discusses“de la Boétie’s insight about power necessarily resting on popular consent; for then the remedy to power is simply to withdraw that consent.” He includes a reference for this where de la Boetie actually says: “Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.”
Rothbard is slithering in through the backdoor the idea government is built on the consent of the people, and withdrawal of consent is necessary. De la Beotie is quite correct that if people resolved to serve no more they would be free. But the ideas of consent and withdrawal of consent are something quite different.
In my research I have found this idea all over the place.
The Rothbardian ancaps are full of it. e.g. https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/withdrawing-consent-means-more-than-it-may-seem/
I found it in the more conspiratorial wing of the Natural Law folks.
And in the more new-agey natural law types. This is a good example.
On a free-will planet, everything is presented as an offer to contract and it is always up to each of us to consent or to withdraw consent. Silence is acquiescence. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in the Age of Information.https://www.natureofhealing.org/freedom-exists-natural-law/
This last quote in particular I find particularly grating. Most of why you will find out as we go, but in particular, the idea that this is a free-will planet will be touched on in the postscript.
I should say that withdrawal of consent is a common phrase so when people use it they may not have thought through exactly what it means. And so uttering the phrase without intending all I am saying does not mean that you are a servant of the system. But the most recent quote above is a good example of the usage that I want to address, but for all I know, they just haven’t thought about it hard enough.
Consent is a term used in contract law. Before going onwards, I suggest the reader reads this short description of the six principles of contract law as it will help you to understand the rest of the article. https://peacefulpath.com.au/six-principles-of-contract-law/
It is a very short and succinct description. In case the link goes down I have uploaded a pdf version here:
There is so much that I would like to go into about each of the 6 points and they all apply to my argument. For the sake of brevity, I am going to stick to point 5. Genuine Consent. A contract cannot be valid or legally binding unless genuine consent is given. Those that suggest that one should withdraw one’s consent are getting one to agree that genuine consent was once given.
Consent can only be withdrawn if it was given in the first place.
Genuine consent is the term used in contract law but the word genuine is really redundant.
Genuine consent can only be give if there was no:
- Undue influence
- Mistake as to the terms and identity of the person.
- Duress; Duress is defined as ‘actual or threatened violence
- Unconscionable conduct; Unconscionable conduct also deals with transactions between dominant and weaker parties; it therefore overlaps with duress and undue influence;
Under the system’s own contract law was never any genuine consent. The contract is null & void. There was never any contract. Anyone that suggests that government functions on consent, or that I someonehow agreed to any of this is a liar. The most one can say is that it illegitimately claims so.
It is a fantasy to say that there was ever consent or ever a valid contract, implied or otherwise.
If one withdraws one’s consent it means that one is saying that previously one did consent. To withdraw consent means that consent was once given but is now rescinded. It means that nothing that the lying, deceitful, coercive, abusive bastards ever did until that point was a crime. It was just a voluntary agreement that one party now seeks to rescind. One starts to see why these ideas are pushed: that man consented to this somehow and that he needs to withdraw his consent.
Legitimacy is ascribed to the illegitimate. The still born bollocks of the controllers is given life.
Note: I am not saying that it is wrong to declare that one does not consent.
Many will argue that through Man’s actions, and by not objecting until now, he has given implicit consent and this must be withdrawn. A far better man than me, Lysander Spooner, has destroyed this argument from every angle. (And once again the chosen Rothbard appeared to corral this argument.) https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/lysander-spooner-no-treason.lt.pdf
Adapting Spooner slightly, Man finds himself environed by a government that threatens him, that steals from him, attacks, imprisons, and kills those that go against its will. That threatens weighty punishments against him if he does not give up his freedom to the government. Much of this may be bluster and bravado, but Man sees enough of this happening in the real world to be unsure if or when the threats will become real. As Original Simulant has pointed out, government may be a fiction, but courts, judges, and prisons are real.
That a man does not stand up to this may be cowardice, it may be indifference, it may be ignorance, it may even be that he does actually ‘consent’ in some perverse way. It is at best acquiescence and at worst submission, and probably one leading to the other. But this is not genuine consent. It is nonsense to say that the government, or the system, or reality needs or wants our consent. It looks to me more like it needs or wants acquiescence and submission. Just like that old bastard Yahweh who pretended that dealt in covenants.
More so, Man is not born into this world as an adult. He grows up in a world of duress, misrepresentation, undue influence, & deception which trains him to comply even when there is no overt threat. And none of this can be used to claim that those subject to the governments and its agents have freely and genuinely consented to any of this, nor that they have voluntarily contracted to their slavery.
Sometimes the prefix ‘implicit’ is added to consent. The prefix seems to add a meaning like – one’s actions acting as giving formal verbal or written consent. An example might be, if a man parks his car in a private car park, with appropriate signage, then in his act of parking his car he is giving implied consent to be charged money. So I am not denying implicit consent, but implicit consent does not magically escape genuineness of consent. And if the consent was not genuine, then there was no consent. There is nothing to withdraw.
As an aside, the rise of the opt-in assumptions regarding stuff like organ donation a good example of how the government really works in these regards. Referring back to the 6 principles of contract law and in particular – agreement, consideration, intention. But this is how these criminals really work and everything else is a fantasy to uphold the pretence that they are not criminals. End of Aside.
I think this section from Wikipedia aptly describes the overall point. And note, when I quote such things it illuminates the point I wish to make not because I am submitting to common law. The text is a bit small so I have included the link and picked out the most important parts.
- “While consent may involve submission, submission itself does not necessarily imply consent.”
- “[S]ubmission to a compelling force, or as a result of being put in fear, is not consent…
- …since it has been proven that non-resistance or compliance with an attacker’s request is a way to protect oneself from additional and more often severe abuse.
- “Genuine and continuing fear of such harm” or abuse…is a significant factor in determining whether the attacker committed a “felonious and forcible act against the will and consent of the prosecuting witness.”
A rape victim does not need to find her attacker and explain to him that she now withdraws her consent. This implies that she consented, which would mean that she was not raped, but is now post facto pretending that she was! Nonsense.
Implied consent may be a murky world. But even here there are some things which are clear. If there is duress, ‘actual or threatened violence’ then there is not implicit consent, no matter what one’s actions may suggest. And more so, when one has lived for a long time in an environment where threatened violent coercion is the norm, then even without explicit threats, it is reasonable to assume that this goes with all pronouncements from the government.
Charles Tilly is close when he says that government is a coercion-wielding organization. But does the man subject to its coercion ever really know what this organization is? No. Spooner is correct once again:
One may say, well you never protested when you could have. One may call this cowardice, and really it is, but cowardice does not amount to any form of genuine consent. It is just cowardice. I don’t like cowardice, and the cowardice of man enables this criminality, but this does not make it into genuine consent.
One could add here misrepresentation and unconscionable conduct. O, how I yearn for the day that the good men did finally get together, and stood up to this band of brigands, thugs, kidnappers, extortionists, confidence tricksters, murderers, and abusers. But that most do not, and probably will not, does not amount to consent. No more, than if a girl was kept prisoner and raped daily from her childhood, would her silence on the matter and seeming acceptance & acquiescence, suggest that she consented to her abuse. Even if it continued into adulthood. O, how I would rejoice if one day she slit his throat for his diabolical acts. But if she never brings herself to do so, the evil bastard that did it would remain the evil criminal he is, and she will never have consented even if she now submits without complaint. This would all apply even if no rape took place, but it was threatened or implied if she ever left home.
One day she may decide to voice her non-consent. To bellow out loud that she does not consent. That she never did consent. That she was a damned child when this man started subjecting her to regular attack. To find her voice to say no, regardless of what that evil bastard does to her. But she has no need to withdraw consent, and none was ever given.
And then there are the hoaxes that are run in this shit show. What are these but misrepresentation that makes any supposed contract null and void? Why so? If there is misrepresentation then no one can be said to have given their consent, even implied. Most reading this will find it quite obvious that the MSM is part of the system of control. They are agents for the system acting as if it has a contract to do what it does. Most will have seen the images it pumps out about what can happen to those that protest. Whether these are real or fake, they amount to undue influence, misrepresentation and unconscionalble conduct.
And some of the leading sceptics in the ACT realm do seem to think that the fakery and hoaxery of TPWRTS i.e. their misrepresentation, excuses their crimes. Or at least that is what it seems to me they are saying.
There is much more I could say about it but I think the reader can make many more inferences for themselves.
For me, it is not surprising that the representative of the chosen people chose to interpret de la Boetie in this way. Contracts are just the secular terminology for a covenant. And the withdrawal of consent could be viewed as a confession of sins. The parent of the new chosen child forcibly contracts the baby to Yahweh. They mark this event with the mutilation of the child’s penis. And this covenant supposedly travels onwards from Abraham to his ongoing progeny. The goyim have their equivalent in the birth certificate and their fantasies that being born in a particular land confirms their implied consent to the bullshit system, or that not leaving that land does so.
But Yahweh is an evil bastard who rules his people through all the things I have described.
Bollocks and and ten thousand fold bollocks.
I have declared that I do not consent to this bullshit system. But I am not withdrawing my consent. How can I withdraw consent that I never gave? No, it is that I have ceased to fear the symbolic knife at my throat. I am declaring that I never consented in any way to any of this and my earlier submission makes not one jot of difference. And anyone who tries to tell me that I did so and fuck right off.
One might ask the question, who stands the gain most by convincing the slave that he consented, or by convincing the rape victim that they gave implicit consent, or by convincing the child that it is their fault that they were beaten? The answer should be obvious. The criminals.
This essay began as a separate work to be titled ‘who is to blame?’ Then it became the explanation for the puzzlement of de la Boetie. By the end, it may morph into a spiritual explanation of all that I have described. And the detour will have connect back to the main path.
The puzzlement of de la Boetie.
I try to avoid definite statements about what I am. But I think it would be reasonable for others to place me amongst the ranks of the anarchists. However, when one looks at the leading figures of anarchist thought, one finds the usual motley crew of chosen people, aristocrats & freemasons. Quelle fucking Suprise. Rothbard- a chosen one; Proudhon – a freemason; de la Boetie – an aristocrat.
Whether Etienne de la Boetie was a fictional character or not, he comes down to us as born ‘to an aristocratic family. His father was a royal official of the Perigord region and his mother was the sister of the president of the Bordeaux Parlement (assembly of lawyers). Orphaned at an early age, he was brought up by his uncle and namesake, the curate of Bouilbonnas, and received his law degree from the University of Orléans in 1553. His great and precocious ability earned La Boétie a royal appointment to the Bordeaux Parlement the following year, despite his being under the minimum age. There he pursued a distinguished career as judge and diplomatic negotiator until his untimely death in 1563, at the age of thirty-two.”
One thing I see everywhere – in religion, spirituality, new age, neo-gnosticism, the act ream – is that is it fundamentally the fault of the victims, and that one should not blame the cunts that run this shit show. I refer back to the earlier quote. Often this is not expressly said, but can only be detected if one thinks through what is not being said. Many who have heard me typing away on discord will be aware of my thoughts on the matter but I will expand upon these some more in the postscript if time permits.
A reminder of Rothbard’s words about de la Boetie’s thought:
To him, the great mystery of politics was obedience to rulers. Why in the world do people agree to be looted and otherwise oppressed by government overlords? It is not just fear, Boetie explains in the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, for our consent is required. And that consent can be non-violently withdrawn.
We have seen that consent is the word that Rothbard puts into de la Boetie’s mouth, and neither uses the covenantal ideology of the chosen people. But one can see why consent is inferred by Rothbard. Let us look further at the words of de la Boetie.
In the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, de la Boetie was puzzled by:
how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation!
I find it strange that as a man who received a royal appointment to parliament, de la Boeite thinks that even in a formally absolute monarchy, man suffers under a single tyrant. Admittedly, the official history suggests that de la Boetie penned this pamphlet before his appointment, but he was from the ruling class, and one must assume that de la Boetie was not so naive about how the system functions. Also, the pamphlet was published after his death so he had plenty of time to revise it.
I would suggest what de la Boetie says about a single tyrant also applies to the single tyrant of government, under which many petty tyrants pretend to be its representatives. In an absolute monarchy, the king claims to be the sole representative of this idea, known as the divine right to rule, but queerly all of his agents act agents of it through him.
I offer a little description of government: A fantastical tale that murders, thugs, brigands and robbers use to pretend that they are not murderers, thugs, brigands and robbers. If we remember the discussion about consent and duress, then we will start to get to a better understanding.
De la Boeties’s supposed puzzlement knows no bounds. Again, all that he says about a single tyrant in a monarchy, can equally apply to all such variants on the same system; be they a republic, a liberal democracy, and so on. In a liberal democracy, there are many such little men using the fantasy of government as a veil over their tyranny.
Too frequently this same little man [or men!] is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman! Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted? If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice?
De la Boeite claims that it cannot be cowardice at work, but indifference. Considering that after writing this essay, de la Boetie acted both in submission to the single tyrant – the cowardly and effeminate little man – what does this say about de la Boetie; cowardice or indifference? And if withdrawing consent is all that is needed, why did he not do so? And why did he not publish his work in his lifetime and why was it not published until after his death?
As always, there is much in de la Boetie’s work that I like. He does describe aspects of the control system very well. But I think the main purpose of his pamphlet, as is much anarchist thought from the motley crew, is the old sleight of hand. One is led along by the power of his thought, and before one knows it, one has assented to one’s slavery. Let us shorten the above quote to get to the heart of the matter. This will look at his argument as to why it is indifference – Rothbard’s (implicit?) consent – rather than cowardice.
“ But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice?”
De la Boetie argues that if a few allow themselves to be subject to such a tyrant, a single man, then one might call it cowardice. But if many do so then it indicates indifference. Firstly, I think I have established that it is naive to think that even in an absolute monarchy it is ever a single man one is facing. And secondly, it may be that they many can overpower the few, but each man feels himself to be an island. And to him, it is the many against him alone. Much of this is down to the very body and construct he finds himself in, but that is for another time. He may gather up comrades, but he will still feel like it is the many against him.
And so in this regard, I do not think that de la Boetie’s numerical arguments exclude cowardice. I know that I feel this operating in myself. I have already said that I don’t fear declaring my non-consent, but in truth, something inside me fears the ramifications if I go too far. It still feels like it is just me against a hoard of thugs and robbers. But I struggle against this fear.
It is true that many are indifferent. Or at least it certainly seems so. But we only know each other as fellow men that have been brought up amongst the constant threat of intimidation and bullying. Whether the indifferent ones would have been so, or even truly are, would require a deep dive in to the cognitive dissonance I see written across their faces.
I think this is important, because de la Boetie is saying that if cowardice and its long-term effects are ruled out, then it is solely indifference. And by excluding cowardice one is excluding the fear that comes from threats and violence. And the effects of the body that we find ourselves in.
A child who has suffered many years of abuse may appear to be indifferent, and this may be what his actions imply. I can imagine Rothbard interpreting this as consent.
As there is no formal consent given, one must interpret Rothbard’s consent as implied consent. And here we are again, dear reader. You consented to it. Once again the tyrants, the abusers, TPWRTS are excused. Because if you consented to this, then no blame whatsoever can be ascribed to them. And who do you think would want you to think this (I refer back to the rapist analogy), and why is it these chosen people, aristocrats, and freemasons all seem to have authored the most important works in this regard, and somehow slip it in through the back door.
And for me, no taxes I have paid, no birth certificate I have, no vote I have cast, no driving licence, no strawman I have assented to, no legal name I have used, no nothing, amounts to any genuine consent I have given to the criminals and their crimes against me.
I think I will get to this in the postscript but somehow man is tricked into reversing the hierarchy of blame and it all descends down to those at the bottom. The slave is really to blame, the rape victim is really to blame – ‘cos they asked for it, sorry, they consented.
Quelle fucking surprise.
I want to reiterate, that there is much in this de la Boetie’s pamphlet that is good and true, and illuminates the predicament that faces those who see these things. However, I am only focusing on what is relevant to the main theme of this article. I will, however, include his pamphlet’s closing paragraph:
“But to return to our subject, the thread of which I have unwittingly lost in this discussion: it has always happened that tyrants, in order to strengthen their power, have made every effort to train their people not only in obedience and servility toward themselves, but also in adoration. Therefore all that I have said up to the present concerning the means by which a more willing submission has been obtained applies to dictators in their relationship with the inferior and common classes. “
Yes, this is correct. Room 101 took place in the Ministry of love. But de la Boeite wants to call this a willing submission. Perhaps it is in a way. But I will leave the reader to consider all I have said so far. Perhaps all that is willed in this place, or with a body, is not done so freely. Perhaps also one might want to think over this standard description of undue influence:
Remember how O’Brien brings Winston to love Big Brother and the boot on his face. And this was not an isolated incident. Rather, the culmination of a lifetime of undue influence, monitoring, control, deception, manipulation, and everything I have already described. Physical torture, and psychological manipulation in the bowels of the Ministry of Love. Winston is left broken and with an unresolved mental tension which causes him further suffering. Finally, he must resolve the tension in the only way he has left. He ‘willingly‘ submits to loving Big Brother and his slavery.
The Party has its consent. With all the genuineness of 2 + 2 = 5.
I was intending to write a quite different essay. But in my preliminary reading, I stumbled across this section of Etienne de la Boetie’s Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. I have not quoted it until now but it is what made me realise that the essay I was writing was a detour from Without title part one. The emphasis is mine.
It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.
It is incredible how as soon as people becomes subject. This is all linked to my adaption of Schopenhauer’s transcendental idealism, that I haven’t yet fully explained.
I have little doubt that de la Boetie was not using ‘subject’ as I am. He is talking about more prosaic things -when a man becomes a subject to a king. But in his ignorance, he got close to understanding something of greater importance. But his words ‘so willingly’ show that he did not really understand. The addition of a ‘seemingly’ may have gotten him there.
I read it thus: As man becomes subject to a material world of objects, he falls into complete forgetfulness of his freedom, that he can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it. Spirits in a material world.
I don’t want to rehash what I have already said, or write to much about what is to come. But, there is something in man that is transcendental, something that transcends the material world he experiences. This is the experiencer. As it is transcendental to the world of space, time, cause & effect, his spirit is fundamentally free. But it has become a subject to a material world of objects. That is, the free spirit is experiencing within the bondage of space, time, cause & effect.
A quote from the introduction:
On a free-will planet, everything is presented as an offer to contract and it is always up to each of us to consent or to withdraw consent. Silence is acquiescence. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in the Age of Information.https://www.natureofhealing.org/freedom-exists-natural-law/
Once the free spirit enters into the material world, it becomes a subject to the world of objects. But more so, it wears an object of its own. A body subject to space, time, and causality. Even its thoughts are somewhat bound by these things as they are mental objects for his subject. This is where the supposed problem of free will comes in and why so few understands what it means and where it comes from. Even Schopenhauer misunderstood this.
Spirits in a material world. Man becoming a subject to a material world of objects, are other ways of expressing what the great Schopenhauer once said.
” ‘The world is my representation’: this is a truth valid with reference to every living and knowing being, although man alone can bring it into reflective, abstract consciousness. If he really does so, philosophical discernment has dawned on him. It then becomes clear and certain to him that he does not know a sun and an earth, but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels an earth; that the world around him is there only as representation, in other words, only in reference to another thing, namely that which represents, and this is himself.The World as WIll & Representation, Arthur Schopenhauer
I will leave the reader with the definition once more of government but with an addition: government – a fantastical story told by criminals so they can pretend not to be criminals, and believed by the victims so they can pretend that they are not being victimised.
If you do not want to have a victim mentality, then stop pretending.
And I suggest that the reader pays attention to those that seek to excuse these evil bastards by suggesting that you consented to any of this crap. The government certainly suggests that you did. And many have done good work exposing this. But there are some that try to sneak genuine consent in through the back door.
None of this means that they actually haven’t fallen into indifference, or they no longer care. None of this implies that I am happy with the cowardice of mankind and that they submit so readily. I am far from perfect in these things myself. None of this implies that I cannot see the pitiful and stupified state they are in, and I doubt that they will rebel. I am not even suggesting that the normies who go along with this level of abuse are not imputing guilt to themselves. I point the finger of blame firmly up the hierarchy of control, with it growing ever larger as it goes. But as the current event carries on, for me, blame and culpability are coming rapidly down the hierarchy of control. I detest the police for enforcing this and as far as I am concerned they are criminals using fantasy to excuse their criminality.
I will repeat this, despite it being impossible to prove genuine consent, those who at this point still defend this crap are bringing culpability and criminality on their head. And the super-normies that defend it are the worst of the bunch.
I don’t know if there is a judgment to this place. I don’t think mankind needs to withdraw its consent as it never gave any. But consent is just part of contract law and this place does not run on contracts. I do suspect that those that cannot bring themselves to stop loving Big Brother and excusing this shit show, may find themselves stuck in the world that is coming into view, consent or no consent. Lack of consent is only about the morality of it all. Abuse happens without consent, that is why it is a crime.
Again, despite what many in the ACT realm think, this place does not function according to contracts. If they think by not consenting they will not be subject to the crimes, then they are deluding themselves. The criminals pretend they are not criminals, and those subject to criminality pretend they are not. The system runs on criminality and not consent – contracts and consent are the stage show. If this is all correct then it is not rejecting soul contracts that will free one’s spirit, but something quite different.
Despite what de la Boetie got wrong, and Rothbard mangled even further, his closing paragraph contains a truth that can be more broadly applied to these spiritual ideas. The tyrants train the people in adoration. One can say all that I have said here and still love Big Brother. And many would rather do this than face up to the reality of the victimization that has gone on in this place, or to bend over backwards to excuse the criminality of the criminals.
The height of my spirituality is a giant fuck you to the system and this material world. Once I am done here I am GTFO and never coming back.
And I say that pointing blame at these fuckers is quite the opposite of a victim mentality. The true victim mentality is refusing to understand what has been done and excusing the bastards that run this system.
Part Two will be published soon. I will tackle duress, karma and the nonsense that is spoken about this subject in the ACT realm.
But for one final statement: I confess that I was subject to criminal fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation, duress in actual and threatened violence, & unconscionable conduct. In the face of this, I have been a coward, I have acquiesced and submitted.
But, I have not withdrawn my consent because I never gave it in the first place. I declare that I do not consent, and I never have consented to one damn thing that these criminals have done, and whilst they are running their system of duress and deception, it is impossible for me to do so. Anyone that claims I did so, or am doing so, is a liar.