None of us are born free, due to the system we perpetuate. We're all birthed into slavery, whether we comprehend such or not.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau ― the author of the above citation ― was obviously duped, like most of us. Rousseau felt we were liberated at our respective inceptions. Such stated, he understood the preponderance of the population believe they're free, when in reality, they're slaves.
Have you ever wondered what those within government use as their excuse for bossing you around?
When was the last time you questioned: "Why am I listening to this shit stain in the White House? Why am I allowing this raging cunt ― folks are calling a president ― to transform my life into a struggle to keep from being exterminated?"
Do you query from whence these giant heads on TV derive the "right" to control you, even though they don't know who you are?
Most won't entertain the above, since the majority of folks blindly follow this system, never considering it may have been created without their best interests in mind.
If somebody you don't know told you repeatedly how to conduct every aspect of your life, would you comply?
Sounds like a silly question, since we're all gonna answer, "No." Such stated, most of us allow our entire existences to be controlled by people we've never met.
It's bizarre, when reduced to basics. You don't know this thing called Trump, and didn't know that thing called Obama. Prior generations didn't know the Bushes, Carter, Reagan, Roosevelt, Wilson, nor Washington. They only saw each of them in 2-D form.
Hell, one of the above was only a damned drawing! Still, the populace credulously allowed these creatures to "lead" them.
Begs the question: "Why do we permit some hairy axe wounds ― we'd crosscheck off a cliff, if we met them in different circumstances ― to direct our lives? If whatever Trump is wasn't named Trump, and there was no such position as president, would you do what the dude told you?
Again, the answer would be, "No." Trump would just be some arrogant slum lord looking to steal your money…which is all he is now.
Then, why do we comply to decrees delivered by two-dimensional faces on a screen?
Known as the social contract, most have no idea what it is, even though we've allowed it to steal our lives.
Would you believe what government claims authorizes it to control us is an idea as weak as Oprah's cries to end the monetary system?
That's right. Akin to the other shit folks believe in ― money, The Bible, the U.S. Constitution, etc. ― our basis for belief in bureaucracy is anemic.
Written in 1762 by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract outlines why we follow government. The same government that demands we do our best to destroy ourselves, as well as the planet. This book claims citizens implicitly abdicate their freedoms ― without knowledge of doing such ― so that some esoteric "social order" can be maintained. **
** The Social Contract
That's it. That's the basis for why you forfeit your life, in exchange for servitude, perpetual anxiety, and abuse.
None of this is explained to the public. It isn't outlined to us we're even adhering to the social contract, let alone the fact our innate abilities will be stolen, by doing such.
The word tacit means "comprehension, without having to be stated."
In Rousseau's book, it's tacit we agree to abide by the rule of government. Problem is, none of us have agreed. None of us have signed the U.S. Constitution ― the contract government wrote ― the way one would sign any other contract.
Those referring to themselves as bureaucracy have conveniently pretended to "own" what they call the "United States." They then make the claim that, because you've chosen to live on "their property," you've conceded to be ruled by them.
As proven in my previous works, nobody "owns" anything! Such is validated by the fact none of us take our "possessions" with us, when we depart our physical forms. Hence, how can this ideology ― that's named itself the U.S. government ― be an exception to this truth?
"This is all just a pathetic smokescreen to conceal the fact that my actual words, and my actual views, are in the form of dissent. And my actual words of, 'I don't consent to this' are supposed to be somehow overridden by this mystical, tacit consent that I didn't even know I was engaging in, by the mere fact of standing in some place.
This is a ridiculous argument that's advanced by people who simply want to wield power, and then after the fact, they come up with this crummy rationalization to try to make it seem as if I really want to be ruled. I implicitly crave being ruled. I implicitly consented to being ruled.
I don't implicitly do any of this. I explicitly say, 'No, I do not consent to this.' "
"Ted, I just assumed you wanted the sunroof option with the car, so I took the liberty of adding $5,000 to the price of your vehicle. I didn't ask your permission, but it's okay, because I'll be stealing installments out of your income for the rest of your life."
How do you think Ted would respond to the above?
Your next door neighbor dumps dog shit and dirty diapers in your front yard, by the ton. You have no idea he's the culprit. As such, you don't confront him. Since you continue residing in your house, does this infer you're okay with his obvious disrespect for you? ****
In order to defend government, many will declare: "If you don't like the system here in the U.S., why don't you leave?"
Hence, the burden is placed upon those who wish to oppose hegemony.
Let's say the mafia moved into your city, assuming "control" over it. Would it seem just and logical, if you had to depart, as a result?!
Another argument promulgated by those defending the social contract goes something like the following: "If you're gonna enjoy the benefits government provides you, that'll be taken as tacit consent."
What fucking "benefits"?!? Those calling themselves government are nothing more than criminals. They've ordered you nuked on thousands of different occasions ― veiling these acts of war as "tests"! What "favors" could they bequeath you, after such heinous malice?!?
"Sorry we waged nuclear holocaust on you guys, and thus caused over 40 percent of you to contract cancer for billions of years to come, generation after generation. By the way, we're gonna steal from your every paycheck, so that you ― who are perfectly capable of building your own roads by yourselves ― can actually build your own roads by yourselves."
Those claiming to be government make the spurious predication they've constructed highways for us. The common masses built those thoroughfares! No president sweated his ass off in the Sun, operating a backhoe, or layin' asphalt!
Those within government allegedly protect us against foreign enemies. The Overview Effect disproves any specious beliefs in "nations," and therefore "foreign nations," or "foreigners." *****
If you'll recall, this phenomenon results when those we've dubbed "astronauts" travel off Earth, and gaze back upon the planet. In doing so, they quickly realize there are no boundaries, and thus no "countries."
Do "foreigners" steal money from your income on a regular basis? Nope. But those referring to themselves as government sure as fuck do.
Those professing to be bureaucracy don't "protect" us against anybody! Do politicians cross make-believe borders, and face mortar explosions from those they falsely designate our "adversaries"?
Of course not. The common populace ― in the form of hired killers; or soldiers ― engage in battle, while those within government sleep safely in mansions.
"It is not improbable that many, or most, of the worst of governments — although established by force and the few in the first place — come in time to be supported by a majority. But if they do, this majority is composed, in large part, of the most ignorant, superstitious, timid, dependent, servile, and corrupt portions of the people. Of those who have been overawed by the power, intelligence, wealth, and arrogance; of those who have been deceived by the frauds, and of those who have been corrupted by the inducements of the few who really constitute the government."
Rousseau asserts, without government, people revert to "natural order." In this pristine paradigm ― originally provided by nature ― folks are free. Without authority to "lead the way," the author of The Social Contract believes humans will destroy themselves, because it's his assertion they are innately malicious.
How does he know this? How can any of us know this, since all we've experienced ― since the birth of recorded history ― is compliance to authority?
How is tacit consent any different than the divine right of kings, or The Mandate of Heaven? ****** *******
All three simply claim some magical "right" to rule others. There's never tactile evidence validating these bogus edicts. It's the neighborhood bully doing his best to scare his peers; informing them he has authority to boss them around.
It isn't until the other little snot eaters realize there are 10 of them, and only one corpulent bitch boy, that they comprehend who's really in control. At that point, the group typically beat the balls off what equates to nothing more than one loud-mouthed fat fuck!
In The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau ― whether he comprehends such or not ― actually makes valid points against establishing government. He declares people should circumvent slavery at all costs. Such stated, by implementing hegemony, enslavement immediately commences.
Unless you can govern yourself, you're governed by someone else. That means you aren't free. If you aren't free, you're a slave.
Rousseau also promulgates it's impossible for people to be free, if governed by representative hegemony. That's what those we've placed in power purport we now have.
Bitches be callin' it a "representative democracy," since it became abundantly obvious our subjugation to this bureaucracy wasn't a government by the people. When the populace indicted the cockroaches ― doubling as our "leaders" ― regarding this, the term representative democracy was introduced into contemporary parlance. This, even though most had been referring to the fictitious region folks call "America," as solely a democracy for centuries.
"The United States stands at the pinnacle of world power. This is a solemn moment for the American democracy. For with primacy in power is joined in awe-inspiring accountability for the future."
It's the "pancake theory," in regard to 9/11. NIST ― the government's "official investigation" of September 11th ― asserted such was what occurred during this false flag attack. If this had been valid, the floors of World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 would've collapsed upon each other, causing the edifices to crumble to the ground. Such would've left the supporting columns of both buildings still standing, after the destruction.
Once the public realized these pillars were conspicuously absent in the aftermath, and screamed such relentlessly, NIST came up with some other bullshit to explain their lie.
For centuries, it's been beaten into our skulls the "U.S." is a democracy. When increasingly more proles began asking how such was so ― if democracy means a government by the people, and none of us people are governing fuck all ― the sophistry kicked into overdrive. It was then the powers we've allowed to be rolled out a new line of fecal matter called a "representative democracy."
"Well, yeah. We haven't been lying to you disgusting plebeians. This is a democracy. It's a representative democracy, that's all."
Who the fuck are you representing, cock clown? Obviously not the people, if you're forcing them to pay for "health care," and when they can't afford such, you steal from them, in the form of a "penalty."
Although Rousseau's book dumps a monumental pile of steamin' shit on humanity, it does have some bright, shining moments. Case in point:
"If we take the term in the strict sense, there never has been a real democracy, and there never will be. It is against the natural order for the many to govern, and the few to be governed.
It is unimaginable that the people should remain continually assembled, to devote their time to public affairs, and it is clear that they cannot set up commissions for that purpose without the form of administration being changed.
In fact, I can confidently lay down as a principle that when the functions of government are shared by several tribunals, the less numerous — sooner or later — acquire the greatest authority."
As stated in my previous works, democracy ― government by the people ― is impossible. Only when folks are free ― and therefore without government ― can each and every one of them govern themselves.
If you have two parties, with two differing viewpoints, and claim both share a government by the people, you're wrong, and either ignorant or lying. One of those people will be governing, while the other will be governed. One of those people's needs will be met, while the other person will have to make concessions.
Thus, this second person won't be governing anything, while the first person governs everything. This would not be government by the people, but rather government by one person.
Only when people are free from government, can they govern themselves. That's freedom! The snake oil hegemony has been promoting as democracy, is a fallacy, and unattainable.
"It is easier to conquer than to rule."
― The Social Contract ººººº
ººººº The Social Contract
Make no mistake about it. Those you've allowed to control you are bustin' their asses to keep you incarcerated. It isn't easy caging over seven billion people, but it's that much more difficult keeping the pen door from breaking open.
Such stated, as long as you preserve the stupidity of the populace, the masses will do the majority of the work for you. They'll be the ones ensuring the lock on that paddock isn't picked. You'll still have time to enjoy the rotten fruits of your labor ― lounging about your summer homes, and getting your cock sucked in the backseat of your Bentleys.
Rousseau claims no regime lasts indefinitely. According to Jean-Jacques, nations ― like people ― grow old, and die. Akin to humans, countries enter various phases of deterioration, denoting what stage of life they're in.
Rousseau also declared "democracy" reaches its death throes when the number of those running it is reduced to the point it becomes an oligarchy. An oligarchy ― the many dominated by the few ― is what we have now. That's above and beyond the fact we also reside within a plutocracy, a corporatocracy, and ― in more enveloping context ― a kakistocracy.
"Make gifts of money, and you will not be long without chains. The word finance is a slavish word. […]
In a country that is truly free, the citizens do everything with their own arms, and nothing by means of money."
― The Social Contract ºººººº
ºººººº The Social Contract
I'll never stop screamin' it, because it's the truth, and the solution! If you wanna end this system of slavery in which we're imprisoned, eradicate the monetary system, and dispense everything freely and evenly.
How do you kill a snake? You cut off its head, thereby draining its blood. What's the essence that gives this nightmare life? Money. Destroy it, and you destroy the system.
It's because we don't say, "No!" to these deep-fried dildos that they continue doing whatever they want to us. They continue doing whatever we allow them to.