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.
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?
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.
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”.