Individual Sovereignty 101

I apologise if this is seen as a duplicate; but it was diverging from the original thread's topic to a degree anyway, and I felt it was sufficiently important to warrant its' own thread.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

"We thought it was important to increase the visibility of the threat with state and local law enforcement," he said.

The irony is, that they are getting law enforcement involved, when there is no crime, and there never can be a crime associated with this. They are going to need to extend the definition of crime, to literally include life itself. You can't enforce feasibly things like the prevention of people wanting to use other things as legal currency; all you can do is start randomly killing a (very small, ultimately) percentage of the people who try.

Nothing like really scared cops listening to some one sound even remotely close to this boogeyman they call the "sovereign citizens" - which is itself an oxymoronic phrase if ever there was one - and being heavily armed escalating the very violence the FBI warned them about.

Um, no. Constitutionalists will likely become violent, yes. Real sovereigns, on the other hand (which are something very different) won't. The sovereignty movement recognises that even the Constitution itself is a scam. The War of Independence was funded by the same source on both sides. The cabal founded America themselves. Watch Ben Stewart's movie, Ungrip; it's a case study of someone who followed sovereign thinking to the ultimate logical extreme.

A Constitutionalist is someone who derives whatever individual sovereignty they may have, from that document. A genuinely sovereign individual, on the other hand, is someone whose sovereignty is derived from the fact that Nature itself, and individual natural organisms, must be sovereign (that is, have the ability to adhere to the dictates of their life processes without restriction) if life is to continue to exist at all.

That is what the New World Order fundamentally is. It is quite literally a war against all carbon based life.

There is no Constitution of any country, anywhere, that does not reduce back down to a multiparty contract, which is hence not legally binding on anybody who was not a direct party to it. Nobody currently living was a signatory to the American Constitution; other than, perhaps, those who have taken an oath (verbal contract) to either defend or otherwise adhere to it.

Law enforcement personnel now will find more reason to break the law in the name of protecting a nation based upon the rule of law.

The reality is, that there is no such thing as the law that they enforce. The only thing any cop enforces is a bunch of statutes. Said statutes are considered binding upon the proxy corporation that you are given as a result of your birth certificate; and it is that proxy corporation that is the citizen of a country, (which actually means that it is a subsidiary of a corporation, which in turn is all national governments are) NOT you as a biological human being. The feds might rail and scream about this, but other than killing people, there is literally nothing they can do about it. The only thing they can do is pass more statutes (maybe even trying to make it a crime to even name yourself as sovereign) which again, in real legal terms, do not amount to the proverbial hill of beans.

The other thing to be aware of, is that even the legal basis of the agreement between your proxy and the national corporation is shaky. I haven't consciously or voluntarily agreed to be bound by virtually any law that the Australian government has passed; that I am bound by said laws is nothing other than a purely de facto assumption, which is not backed up by anything other than the government's ability to either shoot me or put me in jail if I refuse. In other words, in legal terms, that is actually illegitimate; because no contract is considered binding unless the individual enters into it willingly.

Government authority, then, is derived from two sources:-

a] Fraud; defined as their ability to convince you that they have a legitimate justification for governing you, such as either maintaining peace or order, or by protecting you from whatever fictional bogeymen they invent to use as rationale. This can be considered the carrot, or soft approach, and it is therefore the one that they prefer to use, as it is safer for them.

b] Force. This translates directly into physical violence. "Do as we say, or we'll put you in jail. Do as we say, or we'll shoot you. Do as we say, or we'll pull you out of your car, taze you, unlawfully arrest you, and then bash and/or torture you while in custody." This is the measure that is increasingly being used, because the fraud tactic is gradually becoming increasingly less effective.

It is vitally important to understand here, that governments have no legitimate legal or moral justification for the employment of violence; and this is true no matter what they say. One of the main purposes of common law was to prevent or deter violence. The employment of violence in order to deter it, is an inherently irrational, and psychopathic argument.

The only power government has over you, is a direct derivative of the fear of death.

In case I missed it, what would you call a person that IMHO follows what I call the rule of "nature" leave me the f*** alone to live my life. If you threaten me for an invalid reason from within my comfortable space limit, that anything I chose to do to defend myself is justifable under the law of nature.
Don't play with fire and you won't get burned?
Nice post btw very informitive. I have never been one to back down from a bully.

Originally posted by punisher2012
In case I missed it, what would you call a person that IMHO follows what I call the rule of "nature" leave me the f*** alone to live my life. If you threaten me for an invalid reason from within my comfortable space limit, that anything I chose to do to defend myself is justifable under the law of nature.

I feel as though sovereignty is really as close as we have to an ism that describes that; although truthfully, something else I'm also learning, is that isms in general probably need to be done away with.