The Sovereignty Series - A 'State' of Mind

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

A State of Mind

Being Sovereign within Your Inner Space

The Sovereignty Series


Cognitive Dissonance



To subscribe to 'Dispatches', a periodic newsletter from Cognitive Dissonance and TwoIceFloes Creations, please click here. 


The first installment of "The Sovereignty Series - You Can't Make Me" may be found here.


As I begin to openly discuss the concept of personal sovereignty I am discovering, as I often do with terms and concepts preloaded with divergent meaning and political overtones, that there are plenty of opinions but not much clear thinking, about personal sovereignty. Please note the bold emphasis placed squarely on the word ‘personal’.

There are those who claim there is no such thing as ‘personal’ sovereignty, that the proper term should be personal empowerment. And it is clear that most widely accepted definitions of ‘sovereignty’ would agree with that premise because they often refer to ‘government’ or ‘an independent state’ in conjunction with ‘sovereignty’. Here are some examples of online dictionary definitions that tend to agree with this ‘belief’.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines sov·er·eign·ty as………

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.

2. Royal rank, authority, or power.

3. Complete independence and self-government.

4. A territory existing as an independent state.

Random House chimes in with….

1. the quality or state of being sovereign.

2. the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royalty.

3. supreme and independent power or authority in a state.

4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative.

5. a sovereign state, community, or political unit.

I could go on, but it is plain to see the general ‘consensus’ is that ‘sovereignty’ is the near exclusive domain of kings, dictators, governmental ‘states’ and political entities who claim independence and self rule. Of course, by this definition, if ‘sovereignty’ is not recognized or affirmed by others, particularly much larger and more powerful ‘others’, then sovereignty even on the state level ain’t worth a hill of beans.

Thus sovereignty is defined and codified in International Law, the rules by which those who are admitted to the Big Boys Club play nice with each other (at least as ‘nice’ as psychopaths can) in pretty much the same manner different organized crime ‘families’ have a code of conduct by which they attempt to coexist while ruling their respective corners of the universe.


Castle - A State of Mind


Then there is the ‘Personal Sovereignty’ movement (for lack of a better term) that purports to anyone who will listen that the US is not a country, but in fact a corporation, and we citizens are simply individually numbered taxpaying cogs (semi ‘free’ indentured servants/slaves other say) mentally, physically and emotionally entangled and encumbered by Admiralty Law, everyday ‘law’ entirely contrary to old English common law, licensing, taxation in a thousand forms both hidden and in plain view and, perhaps most frighteningly, unaccountable administrative bureaucrats.

Actually I am not unsympathetic to the ‘Personal Sovereignty’ efforts in the least. There is much that I agree with when it comes to this line of reasoning. After all, ‘rules’ and ‘law’ exist simply to condition the mind so that the body may follow. They are a control mechanism that is disguised as reasonable, even beneficial, to those who are being controlled. My quibble with this movement is in the declaration and execution of personal sovereignty well before the individual mindset has been fully formed and embodied.

One thing seems clear to me. The ‘belief’ in what constitutes sovereignty is skewed towards those who presently hold power and away from those who supposedly empower the powerful. While it might seem contrary for the powerful (aka the powers that be) to enable and support others who presently hold power since they might just be rivals one day, this supposition only holds water if we believe the interests of the powerful aren’t aligned.

Because sovereignty on a ‘national’ or ‘country’ scale only works if other sovereign nations recognize each others’ sovereignty, it’s actually a giant case of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. A little more to the right please.

My question is simple enough. If power, legitimacy, the ‘right’ to rule, whatever it is called and however it is justified, all flows from the people to the top as it is claimed in modern sovereignty theory, supposedly via the ‘democratic’ process of ‘free’ elections, thus the ‘sovereigns’ declaring themselves a representative of the people, or in the case of despots, abject terror that your head will be removed if you don’t support the ‘sovereign’, then what ‘power’ exactly is actually creating the claimed sovereignty?

Is it my implied consent, which is supposedly captured by the act of my ‘voting’? What if I don’t vote or I voted for the other guy? Might it be my tax dollars, which I wouldn’t actually pay if I didn’t agree with my leadership? Most likely not since my taxes are collected at the point of an implied gun with no choice on my part required. How about my adoration supplied on bent knee, which is compelled of me at the end of a despot’s gun? What exactly of mine and yours is actually being transferred to support the sovereign, to legitimize its use of power in my name?


King and Queen Chess Pieces


This is where it all gets a little fuzzy in the more detailed articles, explanations and dissertations about ‘sovereign’ and ‘sovereignty’ that I’ve perused online. It almost seems like black magic is employed, where spells are cast by witching cabals that are designed to corral the very essence of our inner energy, and then redirects it towards those special entities entitled to rule the roost and wear the crown.

OK, enough sarcasm from me. But the last paragraph is not as farfetched as it may seem or sound. We are all susceptible to, and influenced by, ritualistic behavior of all sorts, so to rule out ‘black magic’ in any way, shape or form might be just as silly as it would be for others to even consider it. Considering all the influences exerted upon ‘us’ humans, including subliminal programming, propaganda, advertising, the money meme, nationalism, herd behavior and so on, it is not as farfetched as it may seem to at least consider if we can just get past our preconceived notions and prejudices.

I bring that up simply to press home a point. The general consensus among those who claim sovereignty, the popular belief among those who are ruled, and certainly widely disseminated definitions and descriptions all point to sovereignty being predominately a physical attribute held by a political entity that may or may not be derived from those who live within the boundaries of that political entity or ‘state’.

In my first installment of The Sovereignty Series – You Can’t Make Me! I discussed how one of the ways ‘we’, ultimately meaning our personal sovereignty, are hijacked is through our language, and that we enable this hijacking by self victimization via the words, phrases and altered meanings of our language. We only have ourselves to blame for playing their game on their field by their rules.

In that article I left a comment that stated plainly and frankly my view regarding personal sovereignty and where it all begins. I said, Personal sovereignty is a ‘State’ of Mind long before it is a state of being.” Too often we think of personal defense via weapons, financial flexibility and independence by way of diversified asset stashes and physical precious metals or even physical isolation in the form of a self sufficient homestead tens, even hundreds, of miles from ‘civilization’ as required ingredients that ‘create’ or endow personal sovereignty.

There is no doubt that any and all of those attributes will go a long way towards our ability to secure our physical being. And just like the political ‘state’ whose sovereignty isn’t recognized by more powerful ‘others’, if you or I are denied our physical/financial freedom it is extremely difficult to assert our physical personal sovereignty with any semblance of credibility. Thus I will not argue that it isn’t highly desirable to acquire the tools that enable our physical/financial freedom and flexibility.


Secure Borders


But our “State of Mind” makes all the difference regardless of our personal war chest, isolation, financial assets or lack thereof. If our mind and spirit are still shackled by the ‘slave’ state of mind, the day to day practice of personal sovereignty is for all intents and purposes completely foreign to us and entirely beyond our grasp.

While I will dig deeper into the various “State of Mind” attributes of a individual sovereign in later chapters of “The Sovereignty Series”, of paramount importance to creating this mindset is to begin taking personal responsibility for all our thoughts, actions and interactions regardless of whether we feel we are ‘in control’ of the underlying circumstances or not. 

If we are to declare that we are sovereign, then ultimately the ‘buck’ starts and stops here. Being sovereign implies that we answer to no one, though it is obvious that one person surround by one thousand hostiles is severely constrained. But true personal sovereignty is constrained only of the physical being, while the “State of Mind” can only be constrained by us.

While Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela (to name just two) were physically incarcerated for years, decades in Mandela’s case, these individuals practiced personal sovereignty by continuing to think and ‘be’ sovereign, both in mind and spirit. Based upon their public writings they accepted full responsibility for their ‘constrained’ situation, and worked tirelessly while in prison to build upon and expand their efforts to help free the minds of others they had encouraged to be sovereign.  

While ‘sovereignty’ is often conflated with a political entity within physical boundaries, oftentimes because such a ‘sovereign’ has a greater ability to exercise physical cohesion and mount defensive positions, personal sovereignty, while not affording each of us an equal opportunity to exercise physical security, offers us much greater prospect of implementing the personally sovereign “State of Mind”. 



Cognitive Dissonance is unlike anything you will find on the web, a truly unique destination. There you will find distinctive Premium Members only articles as well as discussions on wellness and health, homesteading, spirituality & philosophy and most importantly ‘safe’ forums not found anywhere else. Come by for a peek and stay a while.


Colorful Cartoon Image of Brain

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
beaglebog's picture

The "sovereign state of mind" is nowhere better illustrated than by this quote, which I nicked from WRSA.



"I have more principled reasons for my stand on owning firearms, and I don’t care one whit in the world for the Second Amendment. It means nothing to me.

My rights have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, and when it dawns on people that it has finally been erased — the principal danger of all political premises posed as “social contracts” — my rights will still validly exist, even if I die defending them.

I own firearms because I have a right to private property.

That is the First Thing."

– Billy Beck



Isn't that just a wonderful statement?

Cognitive Dissonance's picture


I had never heard of either Billy Beck or his quote until now. But it does seem his head is screwed on nice and tight.

i-dog's picture

10/10 CD.

Hopefully, you'll convert "just one child" to a fully rational view of their place in the world.

However, I see from some of the comments that you've still got quite some way to go with some who claim to be "adults" (including two knee-jerkers who voted you a "1" before my vote).

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Thank you i-dog. It does seem that I trigger a few people now and then.

Radical Marijuana's picture

With a handle like "Cognitive Dissonance" it is not surprising that everything I read under that byline seems to me to be too psychological, while insufficiently ecological. (That is a pretty universal criticism that I tend to have regarding almost all authors.) I regard the ecological as being supraconscious, and that it exists in ways which are just as real as the subconcious. I regard the selection pressures which drive evolutionary ecologies to be just as real as any other physical pressures. I regard those as the source of the frequencies of the kinds of psychology that people tend to manifest. My pet approach is to attempt to use unitary mechanisms, rather than facile dichotomies, especially since I think there are NO fundamental dichotomies, and so, I regard all assertions of the existence of fundamental dichotomies to be false.

I regard sovereignty as being based on the power to rob, with the power to kill being the ultimate form of the power to rob. Sovereign states developed through the history of warfare, selecting for those groups which could survive through those conflicts generating the War Kings, which founded what we now regard, after thousands of years of history, and many generations of people, as being the sovereign powers of states. State power is based on the ability to rob, and to back that up with the ability to kill. The language of the state has mostly been the series of state religions, which now has the faith-based fiat monetary systems as the current dominate state religion, backed up by the sovereign powers of the states.

Everyone has some power to rob and to kill. That power can be assembled and channeled, as it has been via the history of warfare, understood and operated through the ideas of militarism, which is the supreme ideology, because the death controls are the central controls within the real human ecology. Upon that history was built the monetary system, as a combined money/murder system. The theories of states is that everyone's power to rob and kill is assembled into the state, in one way or another, operating through one "ism" or another, under one "ocracy" or another, which have tended to be the various state religions of the past, which were mostly based on the psychotic bullshit of the biggest bullies, which beat everyone else into tacit agreement to, or willing adoption of that kind of state religion, under whatever fancy "ism" or "ocracy" happened to be that fashion of the times.

The best idealized theory we currently have is that of a constitutional democracy, operating through the rule of law. However, those ideals have almost nothing to do with the way that the real world works, due to the real history which morphed the War Kings into the Fraud Kings. Thereby, the people's power to operate their public money supply has been almost totally privatized, and that privatization amplified to astronomical sizes throughout every other social institution, to the degree that the funding of those institutions can capture control over those institutions.

The theory of democracy requires that everyone be educated, in order that they can be competent citizens. The reality is that almost everyone has been brainwashed to believe in the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories, and therefore, most of the people can be fooled most of the time, since most of the people are not competent citizens, but rather incompetent political idiots, due to the degrees that they have not only been brainwashed to believe in the bullies' bullshit, but also conditioned to want to believe in that bullshit.

Therefore, we now live inside of a fake democracy, which is a false front for a runaway fascist plutocracy juggernaut. All kinds of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, now dominate and direct the ways that the sovereign powers are actually deployed. Beyond the obvious ways that the Fraud Kings, the bankers, have been able to apply the methods of organized crime to the political processes, in order to legalize them having the privilege of making the public money supply out of nothing, as debts, which legalized counterfeiting fraud the government enforces, there is the bigger legal framework, with legalized lies such as that corporations are "persons" which have not only the rights and freedoms that flesh and blood human beings do, but actually have more of those, since human beings must get old and die, while corporations can continue for much longer.

It is inside that context, of the legalized lies in the general legal codes, that manifest the various conflicts between the old common law of the land, based on the commons sense of human beings, versus commercial law, or admiralty law, etc., which are based on legal fictions taking over almost everything, and becoming predominant. The deeper history has been the bullshit about Privatizing God, then rationalizing privatizing the environment, which has all been on a psychotic tear through history, with social polarization and destruction of the natural world being the actual outcomes of the triumphs of the biggest bullies' bullshit being able to control what civilizations actually did. Through that process, the organized systems of lies and robbery that used to be what the War Kings operated segued into the organized systems of lies and robbery that the Fraud Kings, and the corporations that grew up around those Fraud Kings, operated. However, I find that most people who somewhat crack the legal code of that history of the development of legal systems tend to mistakenly believe that they have discovered some level of truth, rather than have merely discovered another level of lies.

After all, meanwhile, within that context nothing truly changed, although technologies amplified those systems to become trillions of times bigger, and the magnitude of those phenomena are still growing BIGGER all the time, so far. The laws of man were always based on the ability to back up lies with violence. The biggest bullies have always promoted their kind of bullshit to conceal that, in order to justify themselves. However, there was never anything but different groups of people, with different systems of organized lies, operating robberies. The biggest bullies started with their assertions about having Privatized God, and have continued to do that more and more for thousands of years, in ways which were increasingly psychotic, because it was always actually one energy, flowing through one environment.

In that context, most of the popularized notions about "personal sovereignty" I find to be too superficial, which can only be better understood by attempting to reference the psychological understanding of those notions back to the environmental realities in which they actually operated, and emerged out of. To the degree that any organism is subtracted from its environment, then it is controlled by its transactions with that environment. People can not be free to live without air, water, food, and shelter, etc., and thus, they can be controlled by those, which is what the biggest bullies have been specializing in doing for thousands of years, as the first technology was the domestication of animals, as was first applied by the human animals to themselves.

Generally speaking, the "personal sovereignty" movements deliberately ignore the laws of nature, such as that energy can not be created out of nothing, and that there is no getting of selection for nothing, because they want to promote some kinds of magical notions about "freedom." There is no freedom without a force. There is no right without a remedy. Most of the floating notions about "freedom" or "liberty" tend to deliberately ignore the principles of the conservation of energy, and preservation of information, or to indulge in still understanding those basic concepts backwards. Since we live in a world which is almost totally dominated by the biggest bullies' bullshit, most of the controlled opposition to that still uses the same language, and therefore, still understands things backwards, because they are still taking the biggest bullies' Bizarro Mirror World language for granted, since they grew up within some version of that, taking it for granted.

The ways that the biggest bullies' bullshit dominate the language that we use, and therefore, the ways that we think, are what I regard this article by Cognitive Dissonance as mostly being about, and it is right enough, within that frame of reference. However, the human realities are still the flow of systems of organizes lies, operating organized robberies, and there is never anything else but that. Human beings, and human societies, are special cases of the manifestation of general energy systems, manifesting evolutionary ecologies. All of our psychology exists within that context, and mostly our psychology is an infinitesimal fragment of infinitely bigger realms of both the subconscious, and the supraconscious, with our consciousness, and its particular, peculiar, psychology being a tiny fragment of that overall flow of energy/information.

Sovereignty is always de facto. De jure "sovereignty" is always bullshit, including when proposed as "personal sovereignty" as contrasted to the state sovereignty. The state emerged through the history of warfare, to be selected by surviving through that environment of conflicts. The powers of the state are based on robbery, backed by killing those who resist being robbed. However, the processes of subtraction are never absolute, and therefore, the processes of robbery are never finished. There is always some dynamic equilibria between the different systems of organized lies, operating robberies. The notions about "personal sovereignty" I perceive as an expression of those on-going dynamic equilibria.

The state apparatus enables it to rob, in order to pay for the robbery, and to pay for killing those who resist that robbery. Every system operates as an entropic pump, on every different level. There is nothing else beyond that. The state systems are actually forms of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, who have the power to legalize their own lies, and to back those up with legalized violence, as a de facto matter, because nobody else can stop them.

Those systems actually emerged out of the history of warfare, which was always organized crime on a large scale. The paradoxical ways that success in warfare depended upon deceits were the driving reasons why the biggest bullies' bullshit tends to be diametrically the opposite to an accurate description of reality. The biggest bullies' bullshit world view dominated almost everything, ubiquitously and pervasively, including during the development of the history of science, which is why the philosophy of science is just as full of bullshit as every other human endeavour, and why real radical revolution should begin as an intellectual scientific revolution in the philosophy of science.

In my view, that is the place where changing one's mind is the most important. In my view, when one does that, then it tends to be the case that the concepts in postmodernizing science reconverge back towards ancient mysticism: energy is spirit. It is in that way that we should understand the war against consciousness that the biggest bullies have been waging, in order to promote the kinds of bullshit social stories that benefited them in the short-term. I think that engaging better in the war for consciousness is honourable and necessary, because, in the longer term, the degree to which the bullies succeed in promoting their bullshit, such as through a fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting system, which is the currently dominate state religion, is bad for everyone, including the ruling classes too. The biggest bullies' bullshit social stories, and thus, their kinds of war against consciousness, to brainwash people to believe in lies, and behave according to their beliefs in lies, may be good for those bullies in the short-term, but are bad for everyone, including those bullies too, in the longer term.

Given the degree to which the biggest bullies' bullshit already dominates the real world, such as through the current monetary system, personal sovereignty assertions are some sliding scale of attempts to resist those triumphant frauds, which flowed from the arrogant assertions about having Privatized God, through to all of the other ways that the environment was regarded as being privatized, with the privatization of the public money supply being the most important of the current crazy privatizations, which are killing society as a whole, as well as the natural world, since they are fundamentally false ways to regard the world.

At present, we are tangled up and trapped within the paradoxical ways that the best organized systems of lies, operating robberies, were able to get away with reversing the meaning of everything, by constructing an almost totally Bizarro Mirror World, based on the biggest bullies' bullshit world view, full of false fundamental dichotomies, and related impossible ideals. The realities that everyone has some power to rob, and power to kill, have been transformed by the bullies' bullshit into being somehow that only those bullies have the power to rob, and the power to kill, while nobody else does, because those bullies have some bullshit ways to rationalize and justify their powers, as being from God, or whatever other level of rationalization or justification those bullies may promote as their favourite bullshit from time to time, in different places.

However, what I find typical is that people who somewhat wake up to the real facts regarding what the biggest bullies are actually doing then still tend to promote a reactionary revolution, based on the utterly impossible ideals that there should be nobody who engages in organized lies operating robberies, when that is the only way that human beings could ever actually exist in the real world.

Various kinds of assertions of personal sovereignty make more sense the more that the ideals of a constitutional democracy, operating through the rule of law, becomes a cruel joke in the real world, which is increasingly the ways things are now, due to the triumphs of the Fraud Kings and the corporations that have grown up around those Fraud Kings, which effectively control the powers of the state, so that the powers to rob, and power to kill to back that up, have more and more become effectively privatized. However, at the same time, I am not now aware of any better theory than that, since everyone has some power to rob, and to kill to back up that robbery, a constitutional democracy operating through the rule of law is still the best possible ideal to work towards assembling and channeling that power to rob and kill, although, clearly, the actual tragic trajectory that we are on is towards our politics being based fooling enough of the people, enough of the time, since most people have been rendered so foolish. At present, the vast majority of people do not even begin to understand that the monetary system has become an insane state religion, since the vast majority of people have been conditioned to not want to understand.

Given that reality, I tend to think that our collective degree of Cognitive Dissonance is necessarily headed through a serious series of psychotic breakdowns, as part of the "learning experience" that we can most probably expect in the foreseeable future. Within that context, so far, I regard most of the "personal sovereignty" movements as only contributing to the crazy collapses into chaos, rather than providing any genuinely better ways to organized systems of lies, operating robberies. I do not think that we get enough out of better psychology unless that is understood inside of better ecology.

A genuinely better psychology should go through profound paradigm shifts in the philosophy of science. After such a series of intellectual scientific revolutions, then we could better integrate psychology within ecology. However, it is not a coincidence that doing that tends to totally reverse everything that the biggest bullies' bullshit world view promotes, which includes reversing most of the notions that the "personal sovereignty" movements still cling to.

Optimusprime's picture

One of your best, RM!  Query--can humans photosynthesize?  I think you know where I am going with this...


Radical Marijuana's picture

Thanks, Optimusprime.

Humans that could control their own DNA code could do almost anything, if they could survive themselves doing that? One of the typical points that I make is that the current era of human evolution can not be compared to anything else previously in known human history. The only thing in the history of the evolution of life that compares to what human beings have stumbled into due to developing things like nuclear physics and molecular biology was the development of PHOTOSYNTHESIS, billions of year ago, which process is being scientifically deconstructed and reconstructed at the present time.

Photosynthesis drove real radical revolution in life:

Lynn Margulis' endosymbiotic evolution theories.

About the 4 minute mark of part 2 of that video:

She discusses the real cases of particular marine worms, etc., that, when they run out of food, transform into operating as a plant, because its normal food becomes part of its body, instead of being digested, and that trait of symbiosis is passed on to its offspring, as long as there is enough light, but not enough other kinds of food available.  Therefore, those are animals that can change into becoming plants, by incorporating the ability to do photosynthesize into their bodies, as their answer to "Query--can humans photosynthesize?"

In general, Lynn Margulis was one of the very few, very lucky people, who lived through all three stages typical of paradigm shifts in sciences, to see her theories proven correct, rather than being ignored or ridiculed.

For an overview of those kinds of notions:

Darwin’s Blind Spot by Frank Ryan:

Symbiosis is about predation and parasitism and, even in its mutualistic form, it is about tough bargaining and hard compromising, with each partner’s survival depending on the outcome.

Our goals may well be to evolve a better human and industrial ecologies that are consistent with natural ecologies, and those goals my be seen as the achievement of symbiosis and co-operation in which there appears to be more peace and love, however, the real means to do anything like that requires facing the facts about the fundamental forces of robbery, and attempting to better balance those real forces of robbery.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Congratulation! Yours is bigger than mine. Article that is, know. ;-)

ebear's picture

The guy definitely need an editor.  Also a more positive perspective. Way too much focus on death.

ebear's picture

LOL... too many notes!

The chick in red was digging it though.  If I were the producer, I'd have had her hold up a candle (no bic lighters in those days) or maybe throw her corset on the stage.

Good stuff!

Cabreado's picture

CD, the whole point of this place was to guarantee what you call "personal soveriegnty," in a context of a national soveriegnty.

Seems like a good plan.

Too much neglect of the Corruption that drove it to its knees.
Too much throwing the baby out with the very dirty bathwater.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

By "this place" are you referring to The United States or something else?

simplejustice's picture

Absolute truth,is God. I might not like what you have to say,but I would be willing to fight and die for your right to say it.

ebear's picture

Absolute relative to what?

Optimusprime's picture

"Absolute" MEANS not defined by relation!

ebear's picture

Picture your head.

Now picture what I just said flying right over it.


q99x2's picture

Hey I recognize that brain. Mine used to look like that. Now I swing from dangling neuronal connection to the next in search of the memory of where my F'n keys are. I have enough to worry about without having to be sovreign over something. Next thing ya know somebody would want to be charging me to be sovereign over what might be between my ears. The F'n telephone was ringing with an amber alert. Fuckers want me to be a policeman too. It's a dog eat dog world out there.

Reaper's picture

Sovereign is to chose to say "No" to another's command/demand. But, most people want to never grow up. They want a parent/ruler/king, who'll think for them and be responsible for what could go wrong.

Lay(s) is a transitive verb taking an object different, possibly, from the subject. (He lays himself down. I lay the gun down.) Lie(s) is an intransitive verb where the predicate describes the subject. (He lies down in the flowers.)

nmewn's picture

"My question is simple enough. If power, legitimacy, the ‘right’ to rule, whatever it is called and however it is justified, all flows from the people to the top as it is claimed in modern sovereignty theory, supposedly via the ‘democratic’ process of ‘free’ elections, thus the ‘sovereigns’ declaring themselves a representative of the people, or in the case of despots, abject terror that your head will be removed if you don’t support the ‘sovereign’, then what ‘power’ exactly is actually creating the claimed sovereignty?

Is it my implied consent...?"

It is your consent that allows them a claim OF sovereignty on our behalf, in the world of governments & kings.

In OUR world (the peoples world) we know each of us is a sovereign unto ourselves and only consent to the kings law with the hedge of trust. This (trust among us sovereigns) comes with the same sets of responsibilities for actions & conduct (and consequences) that are applied to kings & governments...or else the consent can be withdrawn at anytime.

For example, the tyrant loves to wave around his laws, that say if I will not submit to his tyranny then I am the criminal, not he. There is no doubt there is this contrived law of his and he is a tyrant...but is it valid once the trust of a consenting sovereign (me) has been broken by him? No, its not valid at all in any universe. Does not the same theory hold & apply to treaties among nation states, broken promises, broken contracts, among them that he has given his assent to in the past, then broken in the present?

Of course, its the same.

At the end of the day my friend Cog (and I mean this sincerely, I consider you a friend & a peaceful person unlike myself it is our consent and the forceful rescinding of our consent to be governed by tyrants that makes one a true sovereign.

logicalman's picture

If you didn't sign the contract, it doesn't apply to you.

If you did sign the contract but there was not full disclosure, it doesn't apply to you.

Have a look at Odious Debt and Unconscionable Contract.


nmewn's picture

Its a fair point, I never expected (nor was I ever told) that fellow sovereigns would use the power of the state to steal from me.

I renounce the contract.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

You were born a slave of slaves. No contract needed since you have no legal right to sign one anyway.

At least that's the (legal) theory anyway.

Kayman's picture

My experience has always been that- "you can be right but do you have the power (money) to assert that right ?"

The state will spend multiples of what you can spend to keep you contained.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Agreed. And that is the price one pays for asserting they are a sovereign within a much bigger and more powerful sovereign who doesn't recognize your sovereignty.

This is why it all begins with a State of Mind. Our personal sovereignty may never be 'perfected' in the eyes of the world. The questions to us is does that ultimately disqualify our sovereignty. Just because I am constrained doesn't make me less sovereign. It does limit what I may do as a sovereign. This is real world reality.

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

"At the end of the day my friend Cog (and I mean this sincerely, I consider you a friend & a peaceful person unlike myself it is our consent and the forceful rescinding of our consent to be governed by tyrants that makes one a true sovereign."

Have you been peeking at my future chapters of "The Sovereignty Series"?

<Dammit I told Mrs. Cog not to upload those to the Chem-trail cloud.>  :-)

blindman's picture

Alan Watts - Jesus, His Religion
"...inspiration always comes through a human vehicle. ..." a.w.
Alan Watts - The Spectrum of Love (complete)

Kayman's picture


As usual- elegant ponderings. 

And you can be a sovereign as you want so long as Mrs. Cog consents.

nmewn's picture

Its in the contract ;-)

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

I do everything Mrs. Cog tells advises me to do. :-)

<Yes Dear......just playing with da boyz on Zero Hedge. Ten moar minutes........pleeeeezzzzz.>

Bearwagon's picture

Uh, oh, Cog, let me chime in with a stern warning: Doing everything a woman asks you to do is one of the fastest ways to get rid of her forever. I could elaborate, but I think you should just ask the Mrs. .... if she wants a boy who does as she tells him - or a man who gives her what she needs, but would never, ever tell ...  ;-)

Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Mrs. Cog is kind enough to allow me to think I have an independent mind. In the spirit of rebellion I hold the line at washing behind my ears.  :-)

In practice we are both Type A personalities, so at times the sparks can fly. But because we are two very different individuals somehow it all works extremely well.

DerdyBulls's picture

This is where anarcho-capitalism breaks down: evil. In a sense, a very real one, we already have a "lawless" order in government and on wallstreet.

DerdyBulls's picture

But then there's the problem of "evil". It's present. It's reality. My version of reality does not change truth. Nor does anyone elses.

YHC-FTSE's picture

"then what ‘power’ exactly is actually creating the claimed sovereignty?"


That's a good question. And it reminds me of the discussions I had a few years ago on organizational theory. According to M.Weber, there are three distinct types of legitimate authority, legitimacy based on:

1. Rational grounds - for example based on legal and normative rules elevating someone to authority, say elections/exams

2. Traditional grounds - monarchs, (& known family names), "divine right" sort of nonsense.

3. Charismatic grounds - Weber writes, "Resting on devotion to specific and exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of a person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him (charismatic authority)". But it's easy to see that it can easily mean, populist and personality cults of anyone whose image is well known.


Like it or not, human beings are social animals. We rely on each other, we are much more powerful enitities in groups, and our biology and mental acuity are skewed towards living in groups - One of the quickest way to unhinge a person is by putting him in isolation. Those who reckon that living in complete isolation from the rest is the way to go conveniently forget the psychological trauma that will bring. Living independently of others, that is being beholden to no man, yes, but living completely alone is an infantile suicidal idea. No man is an island. You are not Ibiza. :)

By methods fair or foul, some will try to get to the top of the pile in any group to impose their "vision" of how that group should behave. The most remarkable thing is that the group will let him. Here, we run into another design fault in the average human: Obedience to Authority. Together with Solomon Asch's Conformity Experiments, the experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram on Obedience to Authority is an eye opener. Most people, it appears, will obey ANYONE in perceived authority upto and beyond the point of committing cold blooded murder. That should tell you a lot about the kind of stupid animals we really are, beneath the sophistication of the 21st century technological age.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that it is possible in some (Most) countries to pick out the loudest village idiot, stick a uniform (Or Armani suit) on him, a few medals and bullshit, then have some legitimate looking followers praising his virtues to put that village mong in the highest position of leadership.  Yep, it is that simple sometimes.


There's a flip side to those of us who bridle against the imposition of leaders. If you have ever been in a position of leadership yourself, you would know how difficult it is to relinquish command. However much those leaders confess to hating the drudgery and burden of leadership, the role and its perks can make some people lie, cheat, and kill to keep it. We see evidence of that everywhere - from the smallest organizations to the biggest countries. Very few people will voluntarily give up power once they have it. Perhaps the best way to judge a leader is by what he does with his life after he has left office. Most will stay within the circle of power and influence to carry on his legacy by proxy.


Anyway, "sovereign man", or whatever, it is indeed a state of mind. To me, it means the right to be stubborn against the group, to live my life as how I see fit. The caveat of course being as long as I do no harm to others. Sovereign individuals are perhaps, by their very nature, the most moral people in any group, because they are the ones most likely to have considered the rights and wrongs of that group to have decided on their course of independence. How do I live? I can't say I am a 100% sovereign individual in action - I am certainly not completely self-reliant, but I do admire those that are, and I certainly question authority and those who proclaim themselves over me at every opportunity.

For me, living side by side with friends and family who share my life is far more important than any political idea or conceptualised personal freedom. It is just a crying shame we have to contend with the insanity of those in "authority" on a daily basis instead of simply being allowed to enjoy our lives in peace.

Ghordius's picture

a second little historic excursion on the theme of personal sovereignty: jurisdiction and customs

now there is the old adage of "Custom being the true sovereign (King) of the land"

ancient peoples had many answers to how to be "just" in regard of widows and inheritance

ancient jews conscripted the brother of the deceased to ensure the widow had... sons to inherit. then the deceased's inheritance could only pass through the male line. Onan was "an abomination before the Lord" because he refused this duty (and probably pocketed his brother's inheritance, leaving the widow without sustenance)

Hindus had a different approach to this "widow's problem". they vastly preferred to see the grieving widow on the funeral pyre of her dead husband, a practice called Sati

when the British took over (imposition of British jurisdiction) they forbade this custom by law. for a brief period, they allowed Sati... and then hanged the families practicing it, claiming to respect both traditions, the old local and the new global ones

sovereignty is also chiefly about jurisdiction, customs and laws. own ones

remember this next time you claim that "justice has to be done" abroad. remember that when you start to apply your morals, your customs, your laws, your jurisdiction, your views on "how it ought to be" on other people(s), you are - for good or bad - engaging in imperialism. you are applying "globalism". which is against local sovereignty

another cognitive dissonance of many who follow liberal ideals (which are centered on individual freedom), claim "personal" sovereignty and moan about "globalism" at the same time. sometimes, the "globalist" is... You 

or your daughter protesting against "anti-gay propaganda" laws in foreign countries

Ghordius's picture

a little historic excursion on the theme of personal sovereignty. Ancient Romans had "it", among most other older cultures

if I was an ancient roman settling in the big farm next to you, you'd be witness on how I would apply this principle

my territory is mine, and sacrosanct. my will is law. my slaves, my children, my wife... to be disposed as I wish

my son giving me lip? call in my friends and hold council. custom calls for it, yet perhaps I'll put him to death even if I'm counselled otherwise

mine would of course have to follow my religious belief, then I'm the High Priest of my desmesne. my authority is absolute

my other son has bought himself from the slavery I sold him to and is back. new progressive customs forbid me to sell him more than three times, yet I think he learned his lesson. I'll withold judgment on this matter, for now, then I glimpse some reason behind this progress. If he is really that independent, then perhaps I should really set him free. he is, after all, the son of a free man

I am a truly sovereign man. now please excuse me, I have to go to the forum then the Republic to which I'm confederated needs my advice. perhaps we'll decide for war

(why are you calling the police?)

Ghordius's picture

interesting article, excellent comment

let's start with a claim: claiming sovereignty is an act. of ultimate arrogance. a word that is derived from "arrogare", i.e. "to claim for oneself, assume"

in order to pull off this claim, power is needed. raw power, at least in the beginning. only after that recognition can follow. which is done by... others

and so the whole concept of sovereignty is rooted in groups of people. even the smallest baron with a castle needed a garrison, a couple of manors, a liege lord, alliances etc. etc. and the very castle was built because others wielding power were looming on the horizon

yet the very reason why so many dabble with the concept of sovereignty is because they are looking for freedom and/or security from an individualistic perspective

meanwhile, this very individualistic perspective is a product of history and culture, and is not shared uniformly in the world. in general, Old Worlders seek security in groups, for example. be them family, clan, tribe, organized religion or nation

the typical (sorry for that, it's the way I see it) Anglo-American Cousin dabbling with this concept of personal sovereignty is not that willing to relinquish his personal freedom. he is looking for moar personal freedom

yet the ways of sovereignty go through groups. and authority. and common, shared restraints. and bonds of all kinds, from positive feelings to laws to decrees to regulations. to which follow duty, and sacrifice for common goals. and applied power, i.e. force. to put it bluntly, the more you follow the sovereign path, the less personal freedom you'll have. you are exchanging it with... power and common goals

so yes, it is a state of mind. yet calling it "sovereign man" or "personal sovereignty" is an act of sublime cognitive dissonance, focusing on oneself and forgetting... all the others

logicalman's picture

I think anarchism is a better term, if you understand its true meaning (no leader) rather than the use of the word in the general populace.

The meaning of the word scares the crap out of all those who wish to 'lead' (parasitize).

The question I have asked many times is 'how does one human being obtain more rights than another'

The answer is, and always has been The Use of Force.


Bearwagon's picture

The general populace regularly mean "anomie" ( ), when they're talking of "anarchy". Few are those, who really have a clue ...

scrappy's picture

Check this out CD.

Press Release


Public Meeting for the Purpose of Constituting  for The Reinstatement
Of a Providence County Common Law Grand Jury



Whenever people are well-informed they can be trusted with their own government

- Thomas Jefferson

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT – We the People will be holding a meeting to Constitute for The Reinstatement of a Common Law Grand Jury here in Providence County at the East Providence Public Library 41 Grove Avenue East Providence, RI 02914,  on Saturday March 15th at 2:00 PM. There will be a 35 min Presentation starting at 2:00 PM and a vote by showing of hands will be at 2:35 PM.

All participants will then be invited to register for the Common Law Grand Jury.

Weaver  Memorial Library

 41 Grove Avenue
 East Providence, RI 02914


Florida is not far behind and will likely be second to be fully constituted.

RI has a shot at being third in the nation due to our small size.


Connecticut is scheduled for next Saturday 3/15 at 10am in Hartford. Rhode Island is scheduled for next Saturday 3/15 at 2pm in East Providence
Locations to be announced tomorrow.

  We will first concentrate on the Original 13 Colonies, then ----

  The rest of our Nation's 3142 Counties will be constituted.






    Amagnonx's picture

    Jury trial using common law usurps the banksters monopoly of law - it is by far the most powerful method of dealing with them, sounds good - hope the momentum grows on this idea.

    Cognitive Dissonance's picture

    Always interesting, if it is mentioned or even whispered about, how the judge will instruct the jury that "jury nullification" is not an option. Can't have the peons circumvent the state.

    Amagnonx's picture


    For me, the following declaration summarises my veiws regarding sovereignty.  This I made quite a while ago.



    Declaration of Sovereignty


    I, <Name> do solemnly declare that I am a sovereign human being, and shall not suffer any man, institution nor group to assume authority over me. I reserve the right to follow any man, or institution or group with whom I might agree, and whose guidance and leadership I might value, not subject to authority, but rather by free association determined by mutual consent.


    Being sovereign I claim as my inheritance all my private property and an equal portion of the 'common property'1 of the Earth.


    In order that I might enjoy legal protection, I willingly subject myself to Natural Law (The Law2) and those lawful Courts3 raised to adjudicate and enforce it. I shall uphold and observe The Law, adjudicate it at my own expense, and enforce it even at personal risk.


    I reserve the right to reject any debt or obligation that arises due to actions to which I did not consent.


    I shall engage in honest exchange, facilitated by honest means. I shall reject all unsound money, that whose value is not determined by the free market, that which may be counterfeit, and that whose use is enforced.


    I shall engage in the use of force and deception only in defense of property against unlawful claims or actions backed by force and/or deceit, or when executing the orders of a lawful Court.


    I shall conduct all my affairs and business both public and private in accord with The Law. The law requires an absence of all deceit and force, however to more perfectly fulfill The Law I shall additionally conduct all my dealings with compassion, tolerance and respect.


    I shall conduct my public affairs and business with full and transparent disclosure that no shadow of deceit might be implied.


    I shall conduct my private affairs and business privately, and I shall respect others privacy so as not to inflame the natural passions, nor gain unlawful advantage.


    I shall not shrink from public controversy or dispute, but rather I shall speak freely and openly on public matters. I shall inform and educate myself on legal and political topics that I should not cede the property of myself or others through ignorance. I shall participate in the function of law, that property might be justly preserved for all men, present and future.


    I shall defend my property, my family, my community from all unlawful claims or actions, and be available to enforce lawful orders of the Court, through whatever means. To this end I shall ensure that I am adequately armed, trained and prepared to engage in this defense in spite of personal risk. I shall do so to preserve the Law itself, and I shall not shrink from danger, nor from adversity while property remains in peril from unlawful actors.


    To preserve my property, I shall be self sufficient as reasonably possible, ensuring I have stored savings of food, water, energy, transport, items of trade and other basic supplies. In so doing I shall enhance my liberty, and avoid being ensnared by false debts and obligations.




    While the superscripts refer to other documents not posted here, I will yield some quick definitions.


    1. Common property is everything that is not contingent upon human beings, so all land, air, sunshine, living things and so on.  The actual definition and explanation is more complex - but this should suffice.


    2. 'Whosoever infinges the property (private and common) of another human being without their consent commits an unlawful act.'  That is the complete law - but methods and limitations for consent for the use of common property is necessary, and is handled in more detail in other documents.


    3. A Lawful Court is either a Tribunal (by mutual consent) or a jury trial (with careful provision to ensure an impartial jury). - the definition of Lawful Courts is detailed in other documents.




    Some other definitions;


    Private property includes all attributes contingent upon a human being, so it includes liberty, body, mind, speech, emotional state, public persona and so on - as well as the more obvious examples of labor and products of labor.


    Consent by definition cannot co-exist with the presence of force or deceit.


    Force is defined as violence or the threat of violence, threats of deprivation of liberty, intimidation and coercion.




    My intention is to provide an alternative structure for anyone interested, we all have different idea's about liberty, and possibly about justice - but I am sure there is a set of core values to which all men can agree - if we can, then we do not need a state.

    scrappy's picture

    Great thoughts.

    We still need to restore community / society / the commons.

    That takes cooperation, no man is an island.

    Let's get to work.

    Get involved.

    Let your voice be heard.

    We have to try.

    The National Liberty Alliance is Non Partison

     The National Liberty Alliance is really on the move so the point of my post is I agree with CD, and have decided to take control of my mind and really seek the truth in a meaningful way, beyond myself, and share as we all are in different states of awakening.

    Also friend, you should see what our organization is really about before you pass judgement on my feeble words.

    Here is the founders interview -

    Please consider putting aside your differences with others for this cause for us all.


    In Aristotle's treatises rhetoric was one of the three key elements of philosophy, along with logic and dialectic. These elements together create a system of persuasion based on knowledge instead of manipulation of emotion.

    Our Rhetoric has lead to action - motion.

    I thought it over.




    TrulyStupid's picture

    Just weighing in with a few of my favorite quotes from my favorite guy:

    For a sorcerer, reality, or the world we all know, is only a description that has been pounded into you from the moment you were born.
          The reality of our day-to-day life, then, consists of an endless flow of perceptual interpretations which we have learned to make in common.

    “Think about it: what weakens us is feeling offended by the deeds and misdeeds of our fellow men. Our self-importance requires that we spend most of our lives offended by someone.”
    ? Carlos Castaneda, Fire from Within

    “All paths are the same: they lead nowhere. ... Does this path have a heart? If it does, the path is good; if it doesn't, it is of no use. Both paths lead nowhere; but one has a heart, the other doesn't. One makes for a joyful journey; as long as you follow it, you are one with it. The other will make you curse your life. One makes you strong; the other weakens you.”
    ? Carlos Castaneda, The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge

    The tragedy of today’s man is not his social condition, but the lack of will to change himself.

    Sorcerers say that true rebellion, and humanity’s only way out as a species, is to stage a revolution against their own stupidity. As you can understand, this is solitary work.


    basho's picture

    The Pairs (Excerpt from the Dhammapada)
    We are what we think.
    All that we are arises with our thoughts.
    With our thoughts we make the world.
    Speak or act with an impure mind
    And trouble will follow you
    As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.
    We are what we think.
    All that we are arises with our thoughts.
    With our thoughts we make the world.
    Speak or act with a pure mind
    And happiness will follow you
    As your shadow, unshakable.
    "Look how he abused me and hurt me,
    How he threw me down and robbed me."
    Live with such thoughts and you live in hate.
    "Look how he abused me and hurt me,
    How he threw me down and robbed me."
    Abandon such thoughts, and live in love.
    In this world
    Hate never yet dispelled hate.
    Only love dispels hate.
    This is the law,
    Ancient and inexhaustible.

    proLiberty's picture

    The most important step is the very first, to view secular human government as a parasitic institution that justifies its existence on the human needs of safety, protection and an orderly society but in reality almost pays lip service to them in order to gain a position as a self-serving parasite.

    One part of this step is to realize that when human society accepts a certain level of moral code, it becomes capable of ordering itself without external force of government.

    Another step is to realize that government edicts carry a certain level of moral weight with some people. That is to say, when government declares something to be illegal, say drinking below the age of 21, some people think this is a moral principle rather than merely a violation of law. The converse of this is that some people find it easy to demand that government enshrine points of their personal moral code into law.

    Additionally, people fail to realize that government is a purely political animal. It makes economic decisions only as a means to advance political ends. This is why government must be kept out of business.

    TrulyStupid's picture

    The flaw lies with the people themselves and their lack of virtue... they will choose "security" over freedom every time and enable their sovereigns or "elected" officials. Witness the demise of Jefferson's liberal republic  and free enterprise, devolving to the authoritarian, monopoly capitalistic state we enjoy today. Liberalism is now called libertarianism and is universally reviled.