Use of propaganda, excessive censorship, or any hidden element in the control structure makes ‘consent’ meaningless
For consent to be meaningful, the population has to have easily the ability to gain a clear picture of how the control system works. Even if there is a working voting system and an easy way for the population to communicate their desires and for this to be manifested in the voting system, this is the case.
Standards for a control system (such as a state or country)
- How the control system works, including it’s network of influence such as allies and creditors, should be extremely clear to the population.
- State – sponsored propaganda should not be used at all
- News outlets with large reach and influence over the population should stand up to investigative scrutiny, and held accountable for gross inaccuracies and collaboration with the state to mislead the public
- State sponsored education should withstand investigative scrutiny. Gross and frequent inaccuracies, use of propaganda or indoctrination renders consent to be governed meaningless
- Religious, philosophical and spiritual beliefs, (including atheism) cannot form a primary basis for a system of control in a manner to discourage, censor or suppress others. This is still the case if such belief happens to be factually correct
- Any censoring of information or expression should be able to withstand scrutiny over it’s benefits to the population. For example, censoring explicit sexual content from daytime television or setting a precedent against outright abuse would probably be considered reasonable, but censoring information because it is critical to the state would not.
Standards we should hold ourselves to
Movements attempting to make some change in the world need to be held accountable as well, including this one. If we are to make a change in the world, we need to have higher standards than the existing system! However, do we all need to have 100% accuracy? Not necessarily. However, movements that propose a specific worldview with little scope for debate, or worse, outright censorship, definately need to be questioned.
Whatever your worldview is, part of it is almost certainly wrong. This includes myself, and anyone else in the future working on this project. No single viewpoint should be seen as an arbiter for truth. This is one of the reasons I have designed the Rebel Warrior Movement to encourage clear and open communication between various groups of people. Campaigns proposing a specific world view are warmly welcome to work with the Rebel Warrior Movement, but shouldn’t expect to be treated as if their worldview is correct.
I have a research methodology that isn’t perfect, but one I am comfortable with. I have not found a single belief system or ideology to be objectively 100% correct. This includes scientific and academic culture, political leanings, spiritual and religious beliefs, conspiricy cultures, philosophical and ideologies or anything else. Aspects of the above that are objectively correct can usually be seen from other perspectives as well, sometimes better.
If you think your worldview is definitely correct, you are probably wrong. If ‘misinformation’ causes discomfort, that is a strong indication of being insecure about your worldview. Personally, I enjoy working with someone with whom I disagree with on many points, but who doesn’t believe they are right all the time and are intellectually flexible and curious. I don’t have much time for someone who shares my worldview quite closely, but is rigid and uptight about it.
- Campaigners should be comfortable working with others from a different perspective, and their desire end result should look desirable for those with different beliefs and perspectives.
- Campaigners should not be aiming to restrict information flow – this includes calling for the censorship of information they deem to be ‘untrue’, or shaming and ridiculing people who they don’t agree with
- Calling people or groups of people out on abuse, misconduct, corruption and so forth is something we need to encourage. We should do this with as much compassion as possible. Promoting blanket statements about groups of people (including other activist groups) that cannot be verified to be true is itself a form of abuse, so expect to be called out on it