Category Archives: Cogs New Series

The Sovereignty Series – A State of Mind

Being Sovereign within Your Inner Space

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.

A State of Mind Castle - Clean

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 - Clean 1

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 posted on Zero Hedge 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.

Physical Borders - Clean

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

Border Fence - Clean

The Sovereignty Series – You Can’t Make Me!

You Can't Make Me!

Self Victimization through Personal Speech Patterns

The Sovereignty Series

We’ve all heard of word association tests administered by the psychiatric profession which are used to determine our unconscious psychological makeup. The same goes for various other tests, such as the Rorschach test, that are (supposedly) designed to detect underlying thought disorder and overall personality characteristics.

I have often spoken about the hijacking of language to control and manipulate people, both as individuals and as the collective herd. George Orwell’s classic “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is a wonderful examination of the concept of language hijacking. I suggest that regardless of whether you have read “1984” or not, that you do so again in light of what we all see coming round the bend.

I tend to cringe whenever I use the word ‘hijack’ because it implies that our language has been forcibly taken from us, transformed into a weapon to be used against us, and then placed back in our hands disguised as an everyday tool of essential living. Even if the process I just described is actually what happened (in practice it’s more evolution than blunt force trauma) in order for the hijacking to be effective it still requires our consent and willingness to utilize and embrace the weaponized language.

So let’s try something a little different here. Instead of a word association test I would like to try a phrase association test with you. And I’ll bet that even if you tried you could not stop yourself from inserting a word into the blank at the end of the following phrase.

“You make me so <……….>.”

The lists of words you may have inserted into the <blank> are wide and varied. As well if I were to structure the sentence differently, such as “Sometimes you make me…..” or “Every time you do that you make me…..” the list may grow even longer. Sometimes we even declare that “It makes me so……” thereby giving inanimate objects or situations control over us. If you give it some thought you can come up with all kinds of variations.

The one commonality among most, if not all, of the words we place after ‘make me’ are words or possibly phrases that describe emotions, usually strong (triggering) emotions. In keeping with the theme of hijacking a language in order to control or manipulate, one of the techniques used is to distort the meaning of words or phrases in such a way as to promote a ‘victim’ mentality.

Other examples of victim phrases are “You can’t fight city hall” or “There’s nothing we can do to change the situation”, both classics because what we really mean when we say those things is that since we can’t change everything immediately why even try. This is what non sovereign entities say to each other and to their masters. We beg for permission from the ‘authorities’ to do what we as true sovereigns would never consider asking permission to do. This ‘conditioning’ begins with the language we use to speak and thus to think.

So my question here is simple. Since when is someone else responsible, as in “You make me…,” for our emotional ‘State of Mind’? Think about that for a few seconds before you respond because I would be willing to bet that your initial response, the one that quickly rolls off your mental or physical tongue, would itself be a triggered response rather than a logical and rational answer.

Now before you say, “Well, that’s just something we say. It doesn’t mean anything.” I beg to differ. Just watch two people verbally fight, or even just argue, and count the number of times one assigns the other blame for their own emotional state. If there is any emotional attachment between the parties, or the confrontation is emotionally triggering, blame will likely be assigned to the other. That’s the beauty of left/right politics as a control mechanism, to promote triggering emotions in order to divide and pacify a population.


We are all guilty of this, including myself. Just ask Mrs. Cog. To counter this tendency I try to remain mindful of what I am saying at all times, especially when I’m feeling emotional or I’m triggered by something someone else said. For me one of the signs that I‘ve been triggered is when I won’t let the other person finish speaking or I’m just waiting for my turn to speak rather than actually listening to what they are saying.

I attempt to counter this in the same why I try to avoid using the words ‘I believe’. Often when I use that term I am simply regurgitating some doctrine or thought bubble that is commonly used among those I associate with. Or it is a label I can quickly assume or wear that enables the view I wish to express to be quickly or easily understood. What I should be saying is that ‘I think’ or ‘My opinion is’. Doing so changes the dynamic of my thoughts and speech because now I am expressing my own ‘State of Mind’ rather than repeating someone else’s.

One of the things that drives Mrs. Cog crazy, especially when we are having ‘words’, is that I sometimes reject her assignment of blame. She’s even turned the tables on me a few times to her everlasting amusement. More often though, whether or not we are having words, I try to slow down and think about what I am saying. If I force myself to take full and exclusive ownership of my emotional state by avoiding the “You make me…” statements, not only must I phrase my words differently, but I must think differently about not just whom I’m talking to or what I’m talking about, but I must also think differently about myself.

By accusing someone else of being responsible for my emotional outbursts I am in essence avoiding responsibility for my own actions. By blaming others for my ‘State of Mind’ I’m assigning myself to the ‘role’ of victim status. If it weren’t for you I wouldn’t be in this ‘State of Mind’. So you fix yourself and I’ll be all better. That is one of the definitions of a victim, someone who has no control over their ‘self’, who has had the control of their body and/or mind taken from them, often by force or deceit. Only in this case, because I self assign myself as victim, it is entirely by my consent that I am a victim.

While that assessment might sound simplistic and even childish, I contend that there are few conversations/arguments more childish than two or more adults blaming each other for their own (dysfunctional) emotional state. If you don’t believe me, just spend an hour or so in a public park or gathering place where young children are playing. You will hear little fights erupt now and then and if you are honest with yourself you will see the parallels between what is said on the playground and what is said in the heat of an argument with a friend, spouse or other loved one.

So……..are you ready to take the Cognitive Dissonance challenge? For one entire week starting from this moment let ‘us’ attempt to be mindful at all times, not just when we are emotionally triggered or in the middle of conflict or confrontation, but at all times, of the language we use that sheds us of personal responsibility for our own emotional ‘State of Mind’.

I suspect that at some point during our little experiment we will begin to recognize other words, phrases or mannerisms we regularly use that also directly or indirectly absolve ourselves of personal ‘blame’ or ‘responsibility’ for all manner of things. No one can ‘make you’ do, feel or say anything without your consent and the first consent we quickly (and often without conscious thought) give up/away is when someone else triggers our own inner emotional dysfunction.

The ultimate goal of this thought experiment is to elevate our awareness, our mindfulness, and our inner presence in order to begin to reclaim our own personal sovereignty. In my opinion (see, I didn’t say ‘I believe’) we cannot even begin to assert our own personal sovereignty if we can’t even accept responsibility for our own (emotional) State of Mind.


Cognitive Dissonance