Consensus, consent, and the cost of dissent
Published: Sat, 07/05/25
However, on this occasion I was being expected to concur with a belief which seems to be unproven. Gore’s film was released 19 years ago and it is clear that he massively exaggerated what was coming in the way of catastrophe. I pointed out that ‘climate change’ over time is just normal. In the short term we call it weather, in the longer term there are periods of warm weather, and times when it is colder. CO2 is actually good for plants and the planet is currently greener than it has ever been. Of course I care about the environment, I live here too and I am concerned that my daughter (and perhaps my grand children) will have a decent world to live in long after I’m dead and buried. However, I don’t see the justification for ‘de-carbonisation’ or ‘net-zero’ which will basically destroy civilisation while making a few billionaires even richer from the subsidies on ‘alternative technologies’.
The minister was genuinely shocked that I could even question the standard environmentalist ideology. Her main argument from then on was; ‘but what about the consensus?’ And, that is actually the interesting question.
This post is not about environmentalism. Yes, of course we should look after the planet and minimise pollution, but whether the answer is covering farmland with solar panels, filling the North sea with windmills, and forcing people to drive vehicles dependent upon lithium ion batteries is the answer needs to be properly debated.
On a conscious level consensus is the basis of civilised society. This weekend my brother and sister in law are visiting and we had some options for activities on Saturday. We could go to the Yorkshire Air Museum, or the Railway Museum, or a ‘Well Being’ event where I could take part in a Tai Chi demonstration. Or maybe something else altogether. We came to a consensus that we would go to the Well Being event.
The words ‘consensus’ and ‘consent’ are very similar and yesterday evening we got a consent from all parties to visit a particular place. A church will work as long as there is a consensus between enough people to make up a congregation and they consent to take part in regular worship. The same goes for any other organisation. However, consensus for its own sake is silly at best, and a powerful form of social control which colludes in mass murder at worse.
For example. The funny part about the discussion with the minister is that last winter there was a major leak at the manse (Methodist term for Vicarage) and I was called to see if I could do something about it. The minister and her partner had formed a consensus that the heating system had sprung a leak and a heating engineer would be needed the next day. It seemed more likely to me that the pipe to the outside tap had frozen up and the expanded ice had popped the joint on the pipe. I was right and as soon as I had isolated the tap the flooding stopped. It would not have mattered how many people joined in the consensus that the heating system was leaking, that would not have changed the fact that it was the outside tap that was at fault. When I get called out as a handyman to solve a problem it isn’t my job to agree with a ‘consensus’. I am there to work out what the actual problem is and either solve it myself, or at least
suggest the right person to do the job if it is beyond my capabilities. No one who solves real world problems can ever say that a consensus will come up with the right solution. A safe criminal conviction is one where 12 good men and women have come to a consensus about guilt, and yet we still need courts of appeal.
Large scale consensus is fabricated for the benefit of the rich and powerful. You can call the process psychology, marketing, politics, education, entertainment, or propaganda, it all comes down to the same basic format. A narrative is presented, ‘authority’ figures and ‘trusted’ media (such as the BBC) support the narrative, those who do not support the narrative are criticised and ridiculed, and once the narrative is established it just becomes ‘the truth’, whether convenient or not. Once you understand the process by which consensus, and thus consent, is created you can decide for yourself what you believe.
Most of the time I am careful about when I challenge a consensus, it usually causes more trouble than it is worth. However, sometimes it is a matter personal integrity not to go along with a fabricated narrative so I just take the risk and live with the consequences.
Consensus will break down in its own good time anyway. The big news story in the past couple of weeks has been that at least a dozen performers at the Glastonbury music festival openly sharing variations on a Free Palestine theme. The working class hero who has got the most attention is Bob Vylan who led the audience in a chant expressing disapproval of the ‘most moral army in the world’. The result has been cancelled concerts, withdrawn travel visas, and (I believe) being dropped like a hot potato by his agent. Bob must be doing something right and the fabricated consensus that a certain Middle Eastern colonial project can do no wrong is crumbling rapidly.
Regards
Graham
PS Catlin Johnstone’s take on Glastonbury, well worth a look as always https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2025/07/04/the-empire-has-accidentally-caused-the-rebirth-of-real-counterculture-in-the-west/
PPS I was always told that Stav is fundamentally about seeing reality and I like to think that it has helped me along that path. If reality is your thing then you might enjoy Stavcamp in September https://www.stavcamp.org/
Graham Butcher
21 Beaver Road
Beverley East Yorkshire HU17 0QN
UNITED KINGDOM
To unsubscribe or change subscriber options, visit:
https://www.aweber.com/z/r/?ThisIsATestEmail