Consent: how important is it to colonizing regimes?

General Cornwallis: “The fact that your naval forces are devastating our fortresses with cannon fire is not the reason that I am surrendering. I am doing it because I agree with you that a 3% tax on tea is outrageous and unjust.”

“Consent: how is this idea important?” I propose that understanding the idea of consent can be important in “releasing our grip on the doctrines that have been fed to us.”

Example: the army of the Empire of Pure Holiness invades the island of the Primitive Savages. The leaders of the army want the Primitive Savages to “consent” to a treaty of surrendering 95% of the island to the Empire.

So, Kalen is the general of the army and he interviews several of the Primitive Savages and notices that I seem really naive, so he identifies me as the “legitimate chief” of the Primitive Savages. Nicky, who is an independent anti-imperialism activist, protests that the Primitive Savages do not have a tradition of chiefhoods who have the authority to enter contracts on behalf of the entire rest of the population of Primitive Savages.

Naturally, Kalen completely ignores her protests, then gets me to sign a treaty in which I agree to represent the whole tribe in “selling” 95% of the island to the Empire in exchange for 20 light sabers and 2 x-wing fighters (which none of us have any clue how to use). I sign the treaty, then Kalen hires Ben to assassinate me before I tell Hillary Clinton about the various forms of bribery and blackmail and deceit that Kalen used to trick me in to signing the treaty. (Kalen had specifically said that he just wanted my autograph because he is a HUGE fan of my music.)

Then Kalen hires Brett to publish a slightly more glorious version of the above story to the masses. Later, Debb and David and Gretchen andJena will all be hired as public school indoctrination specialists to present Brett’s version of Kalen’s glorious liberation of the Primitive Savages from the evil tyranny of their notorious warlord, Chief Fibonacci. Young students will be rewarded for blindly repeating the doctrines contained in Brett’s curriculum.

“True or False: Chief Fibonacci was an illiterate villain who CONSENTED to sell most of the island to the Empire and we know that he was not forced to do so because right there at the bottom of the surrender treaty it was clearly written that the nearby presence of Kalen’s army of 1,000 X-wing fighters and 10,000 Jedi Knights was NOT a factor in the Chief’s decision to do what was clearly BEST for his people.”

(Note to Star Wars fans: I know that the Empire is not the side that has the Jedi Knights. This is not about accuracy here. The point is that if Brett’s curriculum says that something is true, then it is true because he is the High Priest of the Ministry of Intellectual Liberation.)


Now, where did the above story come from? I copied it out of an ancient text that I found buried in the dessert. (Not in the desert… In the dessert.)

Also, another factor might have been that Nicky wrote this in another thread:

“a cow doesn’t consent to provide milk for humans. It’s not whether the milk came from an animal (human or bovine) but whether the animal chose. It’s easy to poke fun at vegans because you have thousands of supporters who are also profiting off of the exploitation of animals, but at the end of the day it’s just you and your conscience.”

So, I raise the question of how important consent is. Also, what is the origin (and function) of a “conscience?” How is that related to “consent?”

If I consent to 3 different things, isn’t it possible that there are different degrees of duress / social pressure? Like in one case I conceive of something myself and then go present that idea to lots of other people as an offer to engage in a transaction, so perhaps there is no question of consent there. I simply offer an exchange with an explicit price (exchange rate).

In another case, I “consent” to pay a fine (for not buying government-approved health insurance) because I am being threatened with arrest and imprisonment if I do not “consent.” In another case, Hillary Clinton herself puts a gun to the head of one of my grandkids and shoots a bullet through the skull, then puts her gun up to the head of another of my grandkids and says “I would really appreciate your cooperation, Chief Fibonacci, in providing your signature on that piece of paper because I am a huge fan of your music.”

Eventually, back to what Nicky wrote, I replied the following to Nicky, which she might not have seen:

I personally think that the consent issue is not very important. If I was the grandparent of an infant, I would value that child drinking healthy human breastmilk.

Whether the [breastmilk] “donor” consented after being bribed with $100 or without any formal bribery, I might not care. Maybe I use blackmail to get the milk. Maybe I send in some government soldiers to collect 30% of the milk produced by all the human resources in my kingdom.

If my cat kills a lizard without the consent of the lizard, I also would have no issue with that. Maybe the cat eats the lizard. Maybe the cat just kills the lizard and ignores the dead body and leaves it there on the back porch for me to step on.

Even if the lizard gives consent to be killed and then left on the back porch uneaten, I did not give consent for that. So, I posted a sign that clearly states “cats are forbidden to leave dead corpses on this porch.”

(My lawyer advised me that next time I make a sign, do not leave any loopholes of ambiguity about live corpses. Just say “corpses.”)

So, what if I put up a sign on my gate that says “any government officer or deputy that passes to the north of this gate is consenting to the following contractual terms: you are requesting that I shoot you?” What if a deputy is blind or it is dark? Does their “consent” still legally bind them?

Court officers conduct magic social rituals to INVENT the idea of consent. They even say “that individual did not give LEGAL consent because _____.” Like… even if a person insists that they did give consent, the court may say “but they did not have the LEGAL capacity to give consent.”

Recently, I gave Kalen consent to eat 5 servings of Ben’s wild rice. Ben said “dude, what the fuck? JR cannot give you consent, Kalen, because that was not his fucking wild rice. You WILL pay me for that!”

Kalen then said “Oh okay, so how much do I owe JR for eating his wild rice?”

Ben calmly and politely said “It is MY wild rice, you fucking libertardian!”

But… what did the local warlord at the Superior Court of Supreme Justice say???

What if court officers say “that contract was not legal because _____.” Courts invent contractual obligations and rule some contracts “void” (never legally binding) and some “valid” (which means that the soldiers of the court can be hired to enforce that contract).

Brett, as you know it is your job to make all of the above very confusing so that the instructors of Kalen’s public school indoctrination rituals will know which “truths” to program in to the minds of the impressionable youth. Also, if Kalen is not satisfied with the quality and speed at which you produce propaganda, he will unleash Ben on you… or, even worse, Hillary “I thought I told you to keep your mouth SHUT” Clinton.

JR heads back to the topic of “whether it is a violation of vegan ideology to consume breast milk from a woman who gives it by consent:”

I just learned from Joe Rogan that I should only take maple syrup from maple trees that have signed a consent form plus have photo ID to prove that they are at least 18 years old (or 14 in Japan).

Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn Otherwise, their consent is not legal and so my conscience would be vewy vewy guilty.

Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr · Edited
Kalen Beattie
Kalen Beattie The word, “legal”, is certainly one of the holiest of all words, it is almost as logical and moral as the word, “Vegan”, but Vegan takes the cake, provided that cake is dairy-free (including human breast milk free) or any other types of cruelty-flavored foods.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn well… as long as the breast milk is taken from a human over the age of 18 so that they can LEGALLY consent to the transaction.

J R Fibonacci Hunn
J R Fibonacci Hunn I should inquire around with some vegan mothers as to whether they would consent to sell their own breast milk to other vegan women to drink. For $10 an ounce? For $10,000 an ounce? Everyone has their price, right?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: