Let’s suppose you’re charged with a crime, but you are innocent. Despite your innocence the court was able to ‘prove’ you were guilty and a jury of your ‘peers’ agreed with the evidence presented and unanimously returned a guilty verdict. Does the fact that the judicial system was able to win a conviction against you change the fact that you are innocent? Obviously the answer is ‘No’, though that does not alter the reality that you are now doing time.
Or let’s say you received an IRS notice that you owe $15,000 in back taxes. You and your accountant engage in a long running back and forth battle with the IRS where you repeatedly show the ‘agent’ that all your business and personal deductions are standard, reasonable and customary. In fact you refer to IRS publications, recent tax court decisions and tax ‘experts’ that all agree with your position, and yet the IRS agent does not back down.
After talking with an attorney you understand that to fight the IRS in court would cost more than the $15,000 they claim is owed, so you reluctantly ‘agree’ to settle the ‘overdue’ amount for $10,000. Does this change the fact that you are correct and what you just experienced was an IRS shakedown? Once again the obvious answer is ‘No’, though that doesn’t replenish your bank account now that you are lighter in the wallet by $10,000 plus substantial accountant and legal fees.
Being a small fish in a big pond is nothing new to you and me. We all understand that there are limits to our ability to fight off those who are more powerful than us regardless of how ‘correct’ or ‘right’ we might be. While this knowledge may lead us to carefully consider which battles we engage in or under what circumstances we may consider legal action, it doesn’t materially change our view of who or what we are. Nor should it.
There are those who strenuously argue against the concept of personal sovereignty, saying among other things that since one cannot withstand the assaults of the much larger sharks, our sovereignty is never ‘perfected’ (my word, not theirs) and thus my supposition or premise of ‘personal sovereignty’ is invalid to begin with.
In other words, since I cannot hope to withstand even a relatively minor physical assault by a big dog ‘sovereign’ such as the USA, and are in fact surrounded by said ‘sovereign’, that I do not meet the defined conditions of sovereignty. Essentially I am being told that because I cannot ‘secure’ my borders, since I do not ‘control’ my sovereign territory, that I cannot claim myself sovereign.
On the surface this appears to be a valid argument provided I agree that the common usage and definition of ‘sovereignty’ is the ‘standard’ I am trying to meet. However, such is not the case as I put forth in my prior three articles on this subject. Since my sovereignty springs from within myself, and is solely mine to keep or give away as I choose, I would argue that even though I reject the reigning powers’ definition of sovereignty, in fact I still meet the ‘control of borders’ requirement.
Can my ‘borders’ be physically overrun by a hostile individual, political entity or an individual acting as the agent of the political entity? Of course it can occur, and regularly does, based upon what I see and read in the daily news. When this happens to nations that are invaded, Iraq for example, there is no doubt that the nation who was successfully attacked has lost its ability to control its borders and rule the roost, let alone self govern other than to the extent allowed by the invader/occupier.
Does that mean that Iraq never was a sovereign entity because it could be, and was, invaded and overrun? Of course not. The real question is if the same applies to my personal sovereignty simply because I have been robbed, beaten, detained or jailed. While my physical ‘being’ has been constrained, my mind and spirit remain completely free unless I decide this is not the case. No one can ‘make me’ think or say anything unless I decide to think or do so.
Something conveniently ignored or forgotten is that just as we (mere peon) sovereign individuals are electronically spied upon in all manner of ways and forms, so are the so called ‘true’ sovereign nations of the world. Commercial, political and military espionage, both electronic and physical ‘inside-the-border’ spying, occurs constantly among ‘friends’ and enemies. Since the sovereign nation’s ‘borders’ are routinely violated, are they actually secure? Once again the obvious answer is ‘No’, yet this doesn’t seem to violate any nation’s sense of sovereignty.
Of course, great pain can be inflicted upon my person in order to coerce and compel me to do what ‘they’ want. While I can be compelled to relinquish my sovereignty temporarily or permanently, either physically or mentally, this does not mean they have my consent. Once again, the comparison to a sovereign ‘nation’ applies. Iraq was invaded and ‘occupied’ for years and it was generally accepted that Iraq was not sovereign until it was ‘allowed’ once again to self determine, secure its borders, and thus resume being sovereign. Did Iraq consent to the invasion and occupation?
This is where the concept of personal sovereignty as I define it is lost upon many individuals who, while they may claim otherwise, maintain some sort of dependency and/or belief upon outside ‘forces’ to define who and what they are. A significant part of the psychological warfare inflicted upon us is the ingrained from birth ‘belief’ that true power and sovereignty is created and applied externally. This is an enabling lie proffered by our masters to allow us to live easier with the disturbing truth that we are essentially slaves and possess the slave mentality.
I do not claim to have achieved total and absolute ‘personal sovereignty’ nor would I be so arrogant as to think I will soon. To reach that goal requires of us to follow as much a process of subtraction as of addition. Without being insulting to myself and any other person reading this piece, the slave mentality conditioned into us and our ancestors for centuries will not be scrubbed clean in a few weeks, months or even years. Great time and effort must be invested into rooting out all thought threads, ‘beliefs’ (common and individual) and dependencies while replacing them with more centered sovereign orientated thinking.
This is more a process of removal, revitalization and rebuilding than an instant-on flip of a switch. At some point in the lives of all of us our mindset becomes quite static, lethargic, and even catatonic. The result is we rely more and more upon group think and preconceived notions of what and how things should be. Why should we think critically when group think is so accepted and comfortable? Because of this, portions of our worldview must be removed, often slowly in order to minimize disorientation, before new concepts and understandings can be adopted and incorporated into our everyday thinking.
Everything changes once we begin to think and act as sovereign individuals. We have all experienced similar mindset changes, where a decision or realization is made and suddenly the world looks and feels very different. Often it is because we wish to be more proactive in our lives, even if only on an inner psychological level. The key to this process is not to expect perfection, particularly in the early stages, but rather a much more reasonable and sustainable progress. We move the mountain one wheelbarrow at a time.
I would like to point out that sovereignty on a country or nation basis is also a learning process and not an instant-on event. In fact, many so called ‘second and third world’ countries (and several ‘first’ world countries as well) are little more than ‘democratic’ dictatorships barely hidden under the cover of self rule by the ‘citizens’ held hostage within its borders.
The idea that countries such as these would be considered sovereign is amazing to me. Then again, in the ‘scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’ world of power and politics, and with the powerful supporting each other in order to support and ‘legitimize’ themselves, I really shouldn’t be surprised to witness hypocrisy at any and every level. While we Americans love to trumpet the belief that we were enlightened from the moment of the ‘birth’ of our nation, in fact this was hardly the case.
I suspect the reason the wealthy and powerful who currently control the financial mechanisms that essentially dominate the world will not admit that their sovereignty ultimately is derived from my/our sovereignty is because to do so is to admit they ‘need’ us to empower them. Interestingly they do so indirectly by creating laws that supposedly ‘empower’ us, but this is done solely in order to defraud us into shifting or sharing our sovereignty with them. This contradicts their claim to sovereign power by way of their superior intellect, business prowess, hereditary entitlement, military strength, political power, majority consensus or whatever cock and bull story they can pull out of their hat.
My sovereignty is derived by right of birth as a human being which is the vessel of my consciousness. From this moment forward I choose to reclaim my sovereignty, however slow the process may be. It was fraudulently taken from me when I was too young and immature to understand the nature or implications of the implied consent ‘contract’ I supposedly agreed to.
Unlike so many others who ‘see’ (personal) sovereignty as the product or outcome of external force applied or repelled, and that this sovereignty is created or exchanged by way of the consent of the people, coerced or not, I am withdrawing my consent or agreement in order to reclaim my right to exercise my own sovereignty in the same manner that I am withdrawing my consent to the Ponzi and the financial control system.