The Violation of Consent
It's an abuse of our most basic human rights disguised as for the greater good
If we reflect on all that’s taken place during the last two years and look at the trajectory of where it appears to be going, it becomes clear that this is not about a pandemic or public health.
If we get to the very heart of the matter, what we find is the theme of consent.
Around the world, the core value being violated is that of consent. Consent is the power of choice, your God-given right to participate in your life, to say yes or no.
This is your most basic human right.
The violation of consent isn’t always so obvious. There are both overt and covert forms of abuse.
The covert form is the more sophisticated model. From my perspective, the covert form is far more dangerous because of how well-disguised it is and how far it can go because of its hidden and insidious nature. The violations of consent are going to continue becoming more severe as time goes on unless we withdraw our consent and stop participating.
Abuse doesn’t start where it ends. The abuse always escalates. It involves a process of gradually increasing grooming over time. It takes years to groom public support and achieve a collective agreement upon the abuse of human rights.
The conversation to end the tyrannical mandates is about our human right to consent, or not.
This could be the topic that unites humans of all different political and ideological stances, and in some cases, it already is. We are starting to see people, from all walks of life and across the political spectrum, uniting through the values of individual sovereignty and bodily autonomy, on the right to say no.
No is a complete sentence.
Manipulators don’t like to hear the word no because it means they’re not getting what they want from someone else. When a person continues to insist on getting their way after you have set the boundary of no, that’s a red flag of abuse.
To oppose a person’s right to bodily autonomy is an attack on human rights.
From Human Rights Media:
Bodily autonomy is a right granted to every person to have the right to control what are the things to be or not done to their own bodies. When each person has full bodily autonomy, they’re not only empowered to decide things when it comes to their health and future – without constraints or any control by other people – they also have the support and resources that are needed to eloquently carry out all the decisions they would make.
To put it simply, the only person with the option to make a decision about their body is them—nobody else should be involved.
We are seeing many people, including public health officials and political leaders, completely dismiss this core human right. The sick irony is many of those same people were the ones on the frontlines of the my body, my choice campaign just a few years ago. It’s only my body, my choice when it agrees with their ideology.
Ideology and core values are not the same thing. This essay has a helpful explanation of the difference.
Core values are an approach to issues and are designed to be applied to any situation as a guide. Core values allows a leader to navigate issues in a prioritized way, considering nuances and thinking deeply.
An ideology is a set of rigid beliefs that can limit options and constrict decision making into the small box of dogma… Ideology does not allow compromise because it is understood as morally superior.
Unfortunately some people have unknowingly sacrificed their values due to the coercion and deception.
There are a lot of things we consent to without ever consenting to, due to the manufacturing of consent that’s taking place without our awareness.
None of us consented to having probable carcinogens like glyphosate sprayed on our food, but we buy food to eat without knowing what was used to grow it.
No one gets the opportunity to check boxes on tax forms to consent to the particular use of our hard-earned money, but we pay taxes that fund all kinds of things we probably wouldn’t consent to. Maybe we don’t want to fund endless wars and the bombing of innocent people living in war-torn areas, for example. Or maybe we think it’s ridiculous to spend tax dollars on distributing crack pipes, even in the name of racial equity.
None of us consented to our skies being sprayed with heavy metals and other toxic substances, but we are all breathing the air without knowing what we are breathing. By the way, this isn’t a conspiracy theory any more. Bill Gates and Harvard openly announced they’re doing this, for the public good of course, and in the name of climate crisis. NASA openly disclosed the science of geoengineering years ago, calling it “hacking the planet” while leaving the dirty work of implementation up to private interests and government policymakers. Harvard even dedicates a page to their geoengineering endeavor. What could possibly go wrong with this and affect even more than just the air we breathe? We don’t know because we were never given informed consent.
Much of the agenda of manufacturing consent comes through the mass media, and now also social media, which are “effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function… without overt coercion”.
The social engineers tell us, without telling us directly, what they’re doing so they can pretend we knew all along and made our own decision to consent.
Completely unrelated, Fauci said in 2021, “It wouldn’t be the first time, if it happened, that a vaccine actually made things worse.”
Covert abusers want our voluntary consent.
They have a deceptive skill of driving people toward certain pre-determined solutions, while making them believe that it was their own idea.
Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi master propagandist, said that propaganda works best if the people being manipulated are confident that they’re acting of their own free will.
They’re not just violating human rights with the current medical dictatorship mandates. They’re also violating the natural laws of the universe.
Each of us has a God-given right to individual sovereignty.
Each of us has the right to chose to consent or not, without elements of deceit and coercion. Unfortunately there’s a lot of deception and coercion going on. This means we need to train our minds like mental ninjas so we don’t get tricked into giving away our power of consent.
Society has made some growth around the concept of sexual consent. Yet it’s important to understand that one’s right to consent is not merely limited to a sexual context.
The abusers in society want to convince us that we, individuals, must consent to sacrificing our bodily autonomy for the collective, and if not, then we are selfish, untrustworthy, bad people who aren’t worthy of being part of society. They use guilt-tripping, shaming and fear porn to promote self-immolation while disguising it as a noble and necessary sacrifice for society.
A lot of people consented to participate in this medical experiment due to the manufactured consent, and the covert violation of consent, that took place through coercion and emotional manipulation in the messaging.
Many people felt it would cause more pain to resist, much like a victim of marital rape. She might learn that it’s far more painful to put up resistance, as that only prolongs the pain so it’s easier just to let him get it over with. This eventually destroys a persons body, mind and soul.
In some cases, people were desperate for something that was otherwise being threatened or withheld from them, such as medical treatment or the ability to travel and see loved ones.
Some people believed this injectable was going to save their life because it was promoted as safe and effective, then they had horrible and debilitating averse effects or even lost their lives.
Many people were also manipulated into thinking that consenting to the experimental drug technology was the responsible thing to do for others, and if they didn’t do their part, then it’s their fault that society can’t go back to normal.
When the truth of this abuse becomes undeniable even by the mainstream media, the abusers will predictably wash themselves of all accountability for their acts of manipulation and coercion, while telling their victims that it was their choice to participate. It’s what abusers do in relationships as well. This is a very sick game.
Your body is your autonomous zone.
You have the right to decide what you put in your body and not, what you consent to and not. You even have the right to refuse medical treatment if you so choose.
This was the most important standard of human rights that came from the Nuremberg Code. It was written after WW2 because the Nazis did medical experiments on people without informed consent. They experimented, tortured, imprisoned and murdered specific groups of human beings... all in the name of "science".
Now looking back on history, we can see that it wasn't science. It was collective delusional psychosis and cult fanaticism that people were conditioned to accept as normal and for the good of the nation. The same is happening now, again.
As shocking as it seems in retrospect, the Nazis even brainwashed the doctors to comply with their ideology of racial hygiene.
This is why those who wrote the Nuremberg Code determined that the voluntary consent of the human being is absolutely essential. They elaborated on this concept:
"This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."
When we evaluate the aggressive marketing campaign of the experimental injectables, the denial of the massive amounts of averse reactions and deaths, the silencing of doctors and shaming of victims, the intent to hide the data for 75 years… there are so many red flags of coercion, fraud, deceit, force, duress and over-reaching. As more evidence comes out every day as time goes on, more of this nefarious violation of consent is becoming clear.
It is our personal choice, and personal responsibility, to consent or not to any medical treatment.
It is against the Nuremberg Code for humans to be forced, coerced, or deceived into any act involving the sanctity of one's body. This is a basic standard of ethics and human rights.
To dismiss the Nuremberg Code is to stand against human rights.
Remember this when you hear people smearing the Nuremberg Code and trying to say it doesn’t apply because this time, it’s about public health. Those people are naive about history and the repetitive playbook of tyrants disguising themselves as heroes of public health.
It is up to our choice as individuals.
The law of consent is related to self-determination, the freedom to control your body, mind and spirit. It is not a result of legislation but rather based on natural law, inherent rights that a human has by birthright.
Remember the power of your choice when you hear the social and political pressure (ie: bribing, shaming, blaming and guilt-tripping) to do something to your body that you are not okay with.
They aim to make you feel that you don’t have the right or the worthiness to make your own choice because your individuality is not valid when it comes to the greater good. You’re expected to sacrifice your own wellbeing for the collective.
Millions of people in history have been killed as a result of ideologies using the euphemism of the greater good.
Abusers expect their targets to sacrifice themselves in order to meet the abuser’s needs and whims. They have very creative and covert ways of tricking people into this because they need our consent, lest they resort to revealing their true evil nature through desperate force. And that’s not a good look… especially today when everyone has a camera on their phone.
Ayn Rand described self-sacrifice as the morality of an anti-life philosophy.
In the early 20th century, terms like covert narcissist didn’t exist. Yet Ayn Rand described in her novel, Atlas Shrugged, with an incredible richness and precision of language, exactly these personalities and their motives. She described them from the bottom to the top of the hierarchy in society. Through the storyline and character development, Rand revealed the morality and tactics of those who expect others to voluntarily consent to victimization.
Ayn Rand wrote about a fictional society of people who didn’t want to take responsibility in their lives. People wanted other people to decide and do for them so they could remain blameless over their choices and only invest the most minimal effort in life while waiting for someone else to rescue them.
Corrupt, mediocre and entitled looters were in power. Society was collapsing. It was a time of an endless, temporary, national emergency.
The few people who were still willing to take responsibility, were endlessly persecuted as sinners by the moochers in society, who at the same time condemned them for making money, yet also felt entitled to live off the efforts and resources of those who were creating something of value.
At another level, the corrupt looters in government were pocketing as much as they could, while creating unjust laws and absurd regulations, further exacerbating the destruction and collapse of the society.
They used euphemistic language and the name of equality to restrain the efforts of those in society who still had the willingness to accept responsibility and invest their sweat and blood in order to build something of value. The responsible and capable people were publicly shamed because the inept and mediocre in society felt inferior. The cardinal sin was to create or produce anything of value without sacrificing it all for others.
The looters and moochers constantly congratulated themselves about their moral superiority as they put on exaggerated and hypocritical displays of virtue-signaling.
The dystopian societal system demanded voluntary consent to victimization by means of weaponizing false guilt and fear. This went on for some time until a few brave people stood up upon being targeted.
They decided “to accept no unearned guilt”.
Ayn Rand described the sanction of the victim, whereby a person voluntarily (albeit as a result of distress due to the coercion, fraud and deceit of others) consents to being victimized by sacrificing oneself for the greed or need of another.
Some brave people decided to go peacefully on strike against the societal demands that they sacrifice themselves for the sake of martyrdom, the moral code of cannibalism. They peacefully chose to stop participating in a society that was trying to destroy them, and instead they withdrew their consent from the corrupt, collapsing system.
From Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, Part 3, Chapter 1 Atlantis:
We do not seek to force our moral code upon them. They are free to believe what they please, but for once they will have to believe it and to exist without our help. Once and for all they will learn the meaning of their creed.
That creed has lasted for centuries, solely by the sanction of the victim, by means of the victims’ acceptance of punishment for breaking a code impossible to practice. But that code was intended to be broken. It’s a code that thrives not on those who observe it, but on those who don’t.
It’s a morality kept in existence, not by virtue of its saints but by the grave of its sinners. We’ve decided not to be sinners any longer. We’ve ceased breaking that moral code. We shall blast it out of existence forever, by the one method it can’t withstand, by obeying it. We are obeying it. We are complying. In dealing with our fellow men, we are observing their code of values to the letter, sparing them all the evils they denounce.
The mind is evil? So we have withdrawn the works of our minds from society, and not a single idea of ours is to be known or used by men. Ability is a selfish evil that leaves no chance to those who are less able? We have withdrawn from competition and left all chances open to incompetents.
We are giving men everything they’ve professed to want and to seek as virtue for centuries. Now let them see whether they want it.
[That] never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I’ve often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind… Their moral code has taught them to believe that it’s safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well that’s the virtue I’ve withdrawn.
So the great minds began to opt out of a society that hated them, advocated for their destruction and called them sinners. They created their own parallel society away from the looters and moochers, unsubscribed from the morality of cannibalism.
As a side note, it’s so interesting how you can’t mention Ayn Rand’s name on mainstream social media without people hurling smear campaigns and name-calling. Of course, upon asking, none of those people ever read any books by Rand. They just copy/paste the cookie cutter smear campaigns in order to dismiss the powerful insights that Rand exposes about our society. The amazing thing is how Rand saw where we were going 70 years ago.
One of the main characters in Atlas Shrugged, Henry Reardon, was married to a woman who was completely subscribed to the moral code of cannibalism. She was constantly putting her husband down, minimizing his hard work, shaming him for his success and tireless efforts to keep making his contribution to society. Reardon produced a form of metal that was needed to build strong bridges and railroads, forming an important backbone of infrastructure in the country. His efforts were continually thwarted by the government as the nation’s infrastructure was collapsing.
Throughout the book, as Reardon starts to understand what’s happening in society, he also begins to see the evil in his wife, mother and brother more clearly. Against their wishes, he refused to consent to being victimized by the system. When they realized he was going to vanish like the other men and women, that all his assets would be confiscated by the corrupt government as a punishment for this act of dissidence, and leaving his family penniless, Reardon finally saw their true evil colors exposed in a concerto of deliverance.
In a spectacular revelation, after standing by his values and refusing to consent to being further victimized through the act of self-immolation, Reardon finally understood his wife’s motivation all along.
From Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, Part 3: Chapter 6: The Concerto of Deliverance:
The lust that drives others to enslave an empire had become, in her limits, a passion for power over him. She had set out to break him, as if, unable to equal his virtue, she could surpass it by destroying it, as if the measure of his greatness would thus become the measure of hers, as if — he thought with a shudder — as if the vandal who smashed a statue were greater than the artist who had made it.
He remembered her hammering derision of his work… Her line of attack, which he had found so baffling, had been constant and clear — it was his self-esteem she had sought to destroy, knowing that a man who surrenders his value is at the mercy of anyone’s will; it was his moral purity she had struggled to breach, it was his confident rectitude she had wanted to shatter by means of the poison of guilt — as if, were he to collapse, his depravity would give her a right to hers.
For the same purpose and motive, for the same satisfaction, as others weave complex systems of philosophy to destroy generations, or establish dictatorships to destroy a country, so she, possessing no weapons except femininity, had made it her goal to destroy one man.
One of the most powerful lines in the book: “…a man who surrenders his value is at the mercy of anyone’s will…” This act of self-immolation requires our consent.
Our self-worth is not meant to be dependent on other people, on what they think of us or how they treat us. Self-worth means it comes from within the self and this is an important immunity to abuse and manipulation. That’s why abusers aim to destroy the target’s self-worth.
In that same scene, as Reardon was walking out the door for the last time, his wife played her final card and told him that she cheated on him. She imagined this knowledge would hurt him and destroy his sense of worthiness as a man. But she was wrong.
He stood listening like a scientist studying a subject of no personal relevance whatever. There, he thought, was the final abortion of the creed of collective interdependence, the creed of non-identity, non-property, non-fact: the belief that the moral stature of one is at the mercy of the action of another.
There is so much incisive wisdom in Rand’s book. It was published in 1957, yet appears more relevant now than ever in the dynamics taking place in society. It’s incredible she was able to see the intricacies of these covert abusive dynamics and describe the anti-life morality spreading like a plague in American society, in families and in interpersonal relationships, even back then.
Rand had left the communism of the East for the hope of free market capitalism in the West, yet what she found was disillusioning. She realized it wasn’t based on the free market at all, but rather some kind of crony capitalism and increasing government regulations cloaked in words like progress, equality and social reform that were eventually going to destroy everything of value in order to flatline everyone and everything while enriching themselves.
She already saw the same trends of self-immolation for the sake of equality and the collective good starting to sprout seeds in America.
These progressivist ideologies were actually starting to spread in the early 20th century. Wikipedia notes in the last paragraph, that progressivism included proponents of eugenics, which was justified in the name of public health.
Eugenics is a form of scientific racism, or what the Nazi’s called racial hygiene, intended to exclude certain people and groups from society and the gene pool. This is usually carried out through genocide.
Progressivism has become a favorite vehicle for the global technocracy to ride in on nowadays. The technocracy doesn’t actually have a political affiliation, in fact, it’s an apolitical economic system based on the science of social engineering (see the technocracy expert, Patrick Wood, for more info).
The technocrats are just using the progressive ideology and movement as a pawn to disguise their eugenics agenda in words like progress, equality, advancements in science and technology and social reform.
The old technocrats and their younger proteges like Trudeau are now using shocking language, promoting the exclusion of the unvaccinated from society. “They take up space and so we must make a choice, do we tolerate them?”
Are we to deduce that this is the new scientific racism, disguised as equality and public health? Do the globalist technocrats see the unvaccinated as a different race than those who took the experimental drug technology? Surely that has nothing to do with their advancements in the science of transhumanism, the merging of human and AI.
By 2030, “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy,” the World Economic Forum tells us. That sure sounds like flatlined equality among us peasants, while the globalist elite gather all the monopoly money and property for themselves until they own everything. Of course they sprinkle it with feel-good words like equality and assurances that, no worries, they’ll rent us what we need, including our underwear, but only if we earn it through compliance with the incoming social credit system of control.
Do you remember consenting to the Great Reset? Neither do I.
This dystopian future will be ours if we don’t withdraw our consent.
We’re already two years into the decade of transformation, in which the technocracy is being gradually imposed upon us as a pre-determined solution to the crisis.
Yet it requires our consent. And this is our human right. We have innate value, bodily autonomy and individual sovereignty. This is the part they don’t want us to realize.
They intend for us to feel like there’s no escape, that there is no option but compliance and dependence, that self-sacrifice is a necessary evil for the greater good. They will justify continually increasing levels of abuse against human rights under that same campaign template, which they will copy/paste from crisis to crisis of opportunity for their increased dominance of the world.
The individual AND the collective are important.
It’s not a question of or, but rather, and. The collective is formed by the individuals. When individuals are well, the collective is well. Therefore individual wellbeing is the foundation of societal wellbeing. It starts with the individual.
If society is sick, it’s because many individuals are not well.
The remedy is not found in collectivist ideologies and spiritual bypassing, but rather in the hearts and minds of individuals, who willingly take on the responsibility to pay attention to what we are consenting to, to withdraw our consent where we need to, to speak the truth, then to work on healing ourselves and transforming our personal lives. In doing this inner work, individuals start to thrive and naturally feel driven to contribute something of value to the collective.
When people aren’t well and instead are stuck in survival states, they don’t have the energy or ability to contribute to something beyond themselves, in fact, they become self-centric in order to survive. When individuals are desperate, they might even become parasitic on others and take, by force or coercion, what’s not theirs. This creates violations and win-lose situations.
The contribution that an integrated, thriving individual offers the collective is something given voluntarily, not through a violation of consent. This voluntarism of contribution, in turn, provides a sense of fulfillment to the individual. That creates a win-win situation.
As more of us individuals do the inner work to become more healthy and whole, our collective society will also reflect healing and wholeness.
In order to be whole and healthy, it’s our personal responsibility to clearly define our personal core values so that we are not imposed with a corrupt morality from outside coercion, threats or force.
If we are not clear about what matters to us as individuals, and what we ought to protect with our boundaries, all of that will be coerced and taken from us through our own unknowing participation in the social engineering process.
If we consent under social pressure to allow our conscience to be violated, our will to be forced, and our God-given individual sovereignty and worthiness to be stripped away from us, that is how the individual and collective human soul becomes cannibalized.
The power of choice, to consent or not, is our most basic human right.
If you’re struggling to remember this in the face of the ongoing violations of consent, you can write it on a sticky note and put it on your mirror so you see it every day and remind yourself of your inherent human value.
Thank you Meredith!
Thanks, Meredith, this is an excellent essay! Thanks for opening comments up again, also, I really like to read what others are thinking. It somehow adds to my sense of community. We are all in this together, in that way, and we are many.
I found myself taking notes as I read, something I rarely do, but there are many important points here.
Your thoughts about consent naturally brought to mind the last policies from our local school district that silence is consent when giving student vaccines or requiring face masks. Can silence ever be consent, really? At best, it's as you say, marital rape, or in this case, bureaucratic rape.
But, I was encouraged by your description of the Concerto of Deliverance. Pray, Dear God, that we are at that point. And then, that we go past it to what is required to eliminate the abuse and the abusers, collectively, properly.
Anyway, I enjoy your essays very much and am always excited when they show up in my feed. Thanks.