One of the most crucial concepts to understand when evaluating the age in which we live - and the extent to which various high-profile events may be scripted and staged - is this:

The manufacture of consent.

The term was first coined by political scientist, Walter Lippmann, in 1922, in his book, Public Opinion. In this tome, Lippmann argued that reality is too complex for average people to understand, and hence, in order to keep society stable, people's thoughts and behaviour must be managed and controlled via a cultural elite and the mass media.

Lippmann described the public as a "bewildered herd" who rely on narrative control from the media to make sense of their sociopolitical and cultural environment, and to guide their behaviour accordingly.

In essence, Lippmann argued that the best way to control people is for them to have no idea they're being controlled, but to believe their thoughts and subsequent actions are guided by their own free will. In this way, they have offered their consent to whatever it is the elites wish them to believe or do.

This is obviously a far more effective weapon of control against a population than brute force, because when a person or population is exposed to overt force, they tend to rebel and fight back. When, however, they think they've made cultural or political decisions themselves, they not only don't fight against the imposed agendas, but will (often ferociously) fight to defend what they believe are their own freely-formed beliefs and choices.

Hence, the concept of the manufacture of consent has been widely applied in Western democracies in the century since Walter Lippmann coined the term, with author Noam Chomsky explaining in his own eponymous 1988 book that mainstream media vehicles:

"are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion".

Hence, the purpose of the media - and its ubiquitous saturation across the modern world - is not to simply report newsworthy events or to keep citizens well-informed, it is to manage, manipulate, and mislead the populace, in the way that most serves ruling class interests.

Yet they stop short of using overt force, and this is the liberating key to understanding where we are at the current time and what our real power is.

We live in a consent-based system and "they" require ours to go ahead with their plans.

This is why you were able to decline the covid vaccine, and didn't have armed guards coming to your house and pinning you down to inject you.

It's why it was possible to never wear a mask, or take a test, or obey lockdown rules, and not be thrown in prison for disobeying.

It's why you can say what you like on social media without being apprehended by the police.

Nobody was ever forced to inject, or mask, or test, and nobody has been forced to self-censor online: instead, what devious cultural elites do is manufacture consent so that people inflict these things on themselves.

The number one way they do this - the number one weapon of control of all governments everywhere - is by manufacturing fear.

If you don't get the vaccine, you'll kill your loved ones. You won't be allowed to travel. You'll lose your job.

If you don't wear a mask, you could kill dozens of strangers. You'll get fined. You won't be allowed to participate in society.

If you speak your mind on social media, or anywhere in public, the police will be informed. They'll apprehend you. You might even go to prison.

None of these things are true, but they are various messages that have been proliferated by the mass media - mainstream and alternative alike - to attempt to manage your behaviour by fomenting fear to manipulate your consent.

Everyone who believes, for instance, the stories of these "free speech arrests" that periodically do the rounds on social media, responds by becoming more cautious, less outspoken, and refraining from saying things too critical of the establishment "in case they get arrested".

The establishment didn't have to force you to self-censor. They didn't need to go to all the trouble of passing new laws or even banning you from a platform. They got you to do it to yourself, manufacturing your consent through fabrication and fear, and that's what they do all the time.

At the moment, we're supposed to be petrified of being murdered in our homes by deranged political rivals, like poor old Ann Widdecombe, assassinated for her outspoken beliefs, which again has the effect of scaring people out of speaking their minds: because "look at what happened to Ann. I'd better tone it down a bit from now on, there are too many nutters out there".

Again, nobody's forced you to self-censor, but you've done it by choice. You've consented.

Equally, when the next General Election comes round, all these dramatic, shocking, headline news events (and we can expect more of them) purporting to prove to us what a terrible threat Reform and its supporters are to the status quo, manufacture public consent for the Reform government.

The establishment does not install its desired administration through brutish and unsophisticated deception such as shredding / adding votes. Because to do that would remove the consent element, and we do live in a consent based system.

So, instead, they manipulate the electorate to vote in the desired way, as they are currently doing with all these endless publicity stunts for Reform.

As I've covered before, the system will always offer you two alternate, but ultimately complimentary, narratives: the official story and the official conspiracy theory.

In "covid", the official story was that covid was a real novel virus and very dangerous. The official conspiracy theory was that it was a lab leak and the danger had been exaggerated.

Hence, by pushing and controlling two seemingly competing but actually complimentary narratives - complimentary since they both agree covid existed and caused illness - the system gives the illusion of disagreement and discourse taking place, whilst controlling both sides, and obscuring the real truth - that there was no covid. The whole thing was a psychological operation.

Moving on to Ann Widdecombe, we have the official story - she was bludgeoned to death by the usual "lone wolf weirdo", and then the official conspiracy theory, that he's a patsy and this was some sort of state hit.

This keeps 'normies' and 'conspiracists' arguing amongst themselves, but continually reinforces the central and most important part of the narrative - that Ann was murdered.

It's far more likely that she wasn't, and that this seasoned actor and performer who had starred in multiple reality TV shows and pantomimes, simply agreed to have her character killed off for political purposes, whilst the woman playing the Widdecombe character is simply given a new identity and whisked off to a new life. She's an actor, it's not hard for such people to convincingly change their appearance, and even ordinary people successfully undergo identity transformations in witness protection programmes.

Additionally, and as I covered in a previous article, if a real murder had taken place (whoever the culprit), there is no possibility the media would have released so much intricate detail about the investigation, and identifying details of the suspect, to the press and public before a trial. The media is prohibited from exposing the kind of details that could prevent the accused from getting a fair trial, and the police don't provide breathless minute-by-minute updates of real murder investigations to tabloid news editors.

The likely conclusion, then, is that this staged event is being presented via the press to the public as real because the establishment needs you need to offer your consent to believing in the official Widdecombe narrative (whether you believe the "lone wolf" or "state hit" version) so you can be manipulated accordingly. So you feel persecuted and in danger for your beliefs. So you self-censor. So you vote Reform.

(Interestingly, Walter Lippmann, who we met at the beginning of this essay, was a 'Reform' Jew.)

Nothing high-profile in the news is ever there simply "to keep you informed". It's always there to manipulate you in some way, and, in particular, to manufacture your consent for something.

The establishment obviously can't rely on the right events happening at the right times to enable them to "opportunistically exploit" them, as some suggest, so they just stage them instead, where they have complete control over the narrative and the performers. "Crisis actors", as they're known, and there are whole agencies that specialise in this particular type of theatre.

Although I do not uncritically endorse the woman (far from it), political insider Naomi Wolf was spot on when she said: "we have entered an era in which it is not crazy to assess news events to see if they're real or not real… In fact, it's kind of crazy not to."

David Icke (same disclaimer applies) once said, the first thing we should be asking about any high-profile news event, is, "who benefits"?

But he is wrong. The first question we should be asking is:

"Is this real?"

Once we realise that a very high proportion of high-profile news items are not, the relentless quest of the predator class to manipulate our compliance - to manufacture our consent - for their ever-more devious schemes, is lost.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.