It's Not About Consensus

It is About Control. Seriously That is What it is.

Welcome my friends, as we travel once again into the breach of misinformation, disinformation and how the establishment is using tried and true methodologies to seek compliance and conformity, where they are trying to go with it, why America is a problem for their plans, and how this American problem is exacerbated by the upcoming ruling on Roe v. Wade (The problem here isn’t what you think or even what the useful idiots taking to the streets think).

First, let’s talk about expert consensus.  It doesn’t matter if the issue is climate change, gun control, COVID, or anything else, the very first thing the media will report is the expert consensus.  It doesn’t matter if the issue is only 24 hours old and there hasn’t really been time to study it, the media will report that there is a consensus among experts, and then every media outlet will parrot the exact same thing.  This goes back to the work of Dr. Solomon Asch, where he found if he had one unwitting subject on a panel of actors and presented a question where the panel was instructed to agree on an answer that was wrong and the subject knew to be wrong over 60 percent of the time the subject would agree with the consensus (here).  As a result, the media, government, and corporate interests, that own both the government and the media, know that if they can get an expert consensus, no matter how obviously wrong, in the public consciousness, the majority of people will agree.  The worst part is once a person has agreed, especially if they knew or suspected the answer was wrong, that person will do nearly anything to rationalize the answer to be right.  If you have ever presented hard facts in a discussion on social media just to have them disregarded for a supposition or feeling you have seen this effect play out in real time.

The only flaw in the Asch experiment came in when even one trusted ally or true partner, either an actual participant or an actor, that answered correctly against the majority consensus reduced the participant acceptance rate of the false consensus from over 60% to around 5%.  This is why so many voices must be silenced, from climate gate revelations in 2009 and 2011 (here and here) (Of course the media and academia, when presented with first party documents and emails, found nothing wrong,  where almost all independent investigations did),  to scientists whose findings differ from the consensus like Dr. Malone, Jessica Rose, and others when it comes to COVID.  This extends to people like Joe Rogan, who without endorsing the message, gives any subversive opinion a fair hearing.  It all must be shut down.  This is because the more people who receive the information, the greater risk to the free 60% compliance gained by the expert consensus.

The next step is to apply a nudge, as outlined in the Nudge Theory research from the University of Chicago by behavioral economist Richard Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein (here).  This says that a minor positive reinforcement for desired action results in a favorable or desirable decision (favorable or desirable for who is questionable) when a subject is on the fence.  Not masking after the jab could be seen as an nudge. There were no real prohibitions on the jabbed, they just still had to mask.  Making available public virtue signals like profile frames, profile stickers, and ‘I did a perceived good thing’ tokens could all be seen as a nudge (There is no way to prove you earned them, but they are available if you did).  That lets you show the world how good a person you are by listening to the “experts”.

Then, when all else fails, demonization of the other.  This doesn’t have to be based in real facts, only on the fact that the other questions the approved narrative.  We see this with titles bestowed on dissidents, like: climate deniers, anti-vaxers, and other dehumanizing monikers.  We have seen both calls for and actual violence (here, here, here, and here).  We have seen it in the demonization of people who opposed experimental medical treatment for COVID with ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated.’  These accusations were tossed out, even while the data was showing exactly the opposite, with over 80% of all new cases coming from the vaccinated community (here) and, as time wears on, some excellent work is being done to show how the vaccines have killed at least 500,000 Americans (here).  As the evidence mounts, things like the fact that the vaccine does shed and can cause problems for those who are around the vaccinated (here).

This information cannot be tolerated, so it must be decried as misinformation or false information, and regardless of the methodology, accuracy, or science that supports it must be discredited (here).  We have reached a point where facts don’t matter, real, valid information supports the narrative, and false misinformation opposes the narrative and what is actually true doesn’t matter.  To chill opposition speech and defend the narrative, the Biden Administration has launched a new department inside of Homeland Security (The American Stasi) called The Disinformation Governance Board that is headed by Nina Jankowicz, who has sided with misinformation on everything from the Hunter Biden laptop to Lab Leak Theory (here).  The only possible reason for such a blatantly unconstitutional organization to exist is to chill speech that contradicts the story those in power want told.

At this point it is clear, as much as they try, that Big Tech Meta (Facebook), Google, and Twitter cannot stop information counter to the narrative from getting out.  Their efforts have led to a few consequences.  First, an entire ecosystem of alternate social media sites: MeWe, Rumble, Truth Social, and others.  Second, the rise in prominence of alt-media that still tries to report honestly, such as Tim Pool, Lew Rockwell, The Epoch Times, Zero Hedge, and a ton of others. Third, it has gutted the credibility of almost all mainstream sources, as well as their circulation or viewership.  It is most clearly indicated by the abject failure of CNN’s attempt at a streaming service (here).  What this means, on a macro scale, is that the consensus is failing and the more times the narrative is shown to be false, especially after the nudge and the threat phase, the more alternative voices will be seen as the one friend\ally that reduces automatic acceptance of the narrative from over 60% to around 5%, destroying the legitimacy of control.  Now, as all else has failed, we get a new agency to act under color of law with the presumed ability to force all platforms in line with the “TRUTH” and the truth is whatever the ministry says is true.

Before I get to why, the draft ruling of the court is so important and its importance has nothing to do with abortion. Let us do a thought experiment.  Please pick any major issue or problem. It can be COVID, health care, gun violence, climate change, or anything else.  The topic doesn’t matter at all.  Now, think of the solutions as advanced by the narrative.  Do any of the solutions empower the individual or do the solutions empower the state, while concentrating power and taking autonomy away from the people?  When I do this it seems that all approved solutions absolutely require the concentration of power at the highest levels, while striping agency from all lower levels and the people.  If you can think of any narrative approved solutions that don’t work that way, please mention them in the comments.  I would love to be wrong.  From my perspective, according to the media and federal government no problem can be solved at the individual, local, or state level.  To save us from just about everything we need Uncle Sam to do what he thinks is best, regardless of the consequences for the individuals affected.  This isn’t true, of course. It is all just a mass exercise in the Hegelian Dialectic (here), but it does make their support of multi-national corporations more profitable for those in government.  Seriously, folks get elected to congress or appointed to an executive branch. While they might be wealthy, they typically are not filthy rich multi-millionaires.  However, almost every single one is made a millionaire inside a decade in office, on an upper middle-class salary (here, here, here, here, here and here).  Sure they file financial statements and it's all on the up and up, just speaking fees, investments (that their laws affect), sometimes their spouses get amazing jobs on boards of companies, and the like.  However, it is so universal and there are so many cut outs for permissible ways to make side money as a member of congress, you know it is just payment for services rendered, no matter how it is covered up.

Now, on to why the draft ruling from the court is so dangerous (here). It isn’t that it would make all abortion illegal. The fact is that in over half the country, abortion would still be legal as it is now, and in parts it would still be legal but restricted, and in a minority of states it would be banned.  The danger of this ruling is that the court is basing its decision on the fact that there is no constitutional power for the court or federal government to regulate abortion at all.  This is dire news for those who seek to gather all power to the federal government.  If we have a sitting court where the majority of justices are willing to strike down what had essentially been long standing federal authority because it isn’t in the constitution, well that doesn’t bode well for a lot of things that are coming before the court.  There are 2A cases that, if the court goes full original intent, could seriously damage the gun control movement. There are cases about the government’s ability to mandate medical procedures (vaccines) and others.  A court that acknowledges the 10th amendment and its implicit limits to federal power is a dangerous thing to both the right and left wings of the ruling class.  Sure, they could defy the court, try to pack the court, or some other work around.  I don’t think they can.  The only thing they can do is fan the flames of leftist outrage and hope the allowed terrorism against justices puts them in their place (here).  At this point, after COVID, they have stretched not only the federal government’s credibility but its veneer of consent of the governed to the breaking point.

Even without a complicit court to rule in favor of the states, we saw with COVID that the states are still very independent and essentially cannot or will not be ruled by executive fiat from DC.  Look at Florida and it essentially ending state COVID in September 2020 (here) and all COVID in May 2021 (here).  While South Dakota never even acknowledged COVID with any regulation attempts and was one of six states to never issue stay at home orders (here).  On the whole, the US response to COVID was all over the place (here).  Much of the media reported that Trump allowed states to respond independently. What they don’t understand, or do and want to forget, is that we live in a republic and the only valid response per the constitution was to allow states to respond independently (here).  I don’t think that any federal edict would have been obeyed, enforceable, or survived the courts.

Now, we hear more and more every day about international compacts to bind government to the will of multinational organizations (here, here, and here) that are not accountable to any of the people of any of the nations they would bind to them.  COVID proved that in the drive for central power beyond national governments, America is a problem because too many people still value self-determination, even if they don’t really understand what they are doing.  If we ever wish to live in a free society or country again, we have to push for an organizational structure where each person is sovereign and the power of government decreases the further up and closer to centralization it gets.  As Americans, that means getting back to our roots where local, county, and city governments have the most authority, as they are the easiest to hold accountable with our vote or move from without totally uprooting our lives, followed by the state government, and then lastly the central government should only carry the least tiny fragment of power.  I say this because the only way to stay free is to keep government authority as diffuse and spread out as possible.  Do I think we can turn back the clock on government 161 years or even 109 years? In truth, I don’t know.  Should we try? Absolutely.  Is it worth fighting for if we have to and dying for if we have to? Again, absolutely.  While we are close to that point, we can still write letters, email, and place calls to government officials at all levels opposing any and all legislation that centralizes power and demand the repeal of legislation already on the books that centralizes it.  We should call for a withdrawal from all multi-national organizations, including NATO, The United Nations, World Bank, and the IMF.  These things can not survive without America’s support and funds.  We should also call for a repeal of the USA Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, and the dissolution of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  DHS has already given us our own Minitrue and is set up to more fully take on the role of Miniluv any time they want.

Proverbs 22:16-17 A person who gets ahead by oppressing the poor or by showering gifts on the rich will end in poverty. Listen to the words of the wise; apply your heart to my instruction.

God Bless you

-Sam

Update: After sending this to the Editor great news broke and it seems at least for now DS is pausing its push for a Minitru (here) and Nina Jankowicz AKA “Scary Poppins” (here) has resigned as its head.