Just watched Four Corners about 'sovereign citizens' - interesting.

I will lead you into discussion here ...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-18/sovereign-citizen-movement-law-court-four-corners/105655100

I will hold my views until I see what you - my learned and unlearned colleagues - think of this.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-18/sovereign-citizen-movement-law-court-four-corners/105655100

Very interesting topic. I just read the above link today.

It’s a long term strategy that they are employing and our judges and politicians are running very scared.

Imagine if the people we pay had to do as the taxpayers directed!

I can appreciate their fear

“David Heilpern recalls the first time he encountered pseudolaw arguments in his courtroom.

"A smattering of people came before me talking what I thought was an entirely different legal language, which was along the lines of, 'I am not that person. You must capitalise my name, you have no authority. You didn't take an oath over right to a jury,' and sort of a mishmash of what we now know as sovereign citizen approaches," he says.

"I just was quite staggered and surprised. Where has this come from?"

“ ABC


Of course he was shocked, how dare the people of Australia who pay his wages dare question his absolute authority!

Because in  reality, he has none?

There’s a lot of our so called public servants that are not serving the public, nor handling our public funds/taxes well and need to be held accountable.

Interesting.. very interesting.

Sophia wrote on Aug 18^th, 2025 at 10:48pm:

There’s a lot of our so called public servants that are not serving the public, nor handling our public funds/taxes well and need to be held accountable.

As a citizen, i'm required ['by law'] to attend to vote, in State elections and Federal elections.

Why so ???

Is electing bureaucrats and 'representatives' of such importance [to anyone but, bureaucrats and 'representatives'] ?

If after doing so, i am then continually reminded, that i can be trusted, with no [or very little lawful] civic authority myself ?

The bureaucrats and 'representatives' we have elected, we are assured, will manage [well] the important affairs of the nation,
on our behalf.

But do they [....manage the affairs of our nation well] ?


.


Many of our bureaucrats and our 'representatives'....work in resplendent 'work' residences and many, in palatial offices.....

Many of our bureaucrats and our 'representatives' are appointed, their own servants, to feed, to furnish all of their 'official' needs, organising official travel itineraries.

Many of them also have armed officers to protect them, from threats.


And, then, how goes...their management of the important affairs of this nation, ....on our behalf ?

WE SEE......
Members of criminal gangs REGULARLY murder citizens in our cities and in our suburbs.

This nation is awash with illicit, and deadly, psychotropic ['party'] drugs.

Murderers walk our cities and suburbs, many, being armed with prohibited firearms.

This, to me, sounds like a nation, where our governmental institutions have abdicated responsibility,
for maintaining the proper management, AND PEACE AND SAFETY, in the communities of our nation.

And yet.......our bureaucrats and our 'representatives' seem to 'have no want' [or is it no competence ?], to properly serve and protect.......those persons [law abiding citizens of this nation] whom our bureaucrats and our 'representatives' claim, to responsibly 'represent' and serve [in the authority of the 'State'].

.

Just for one issue, in Australia today.....why do our elected  bureaucrats and our 'representatives' refuse to permanently remove, violent criminals from our communities ?


WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.....
De-bar and replace the soft-cock judges.

Introduce and pass, 'serious offender laws' [in our parliaments]......e.g. after a second [serious offence] conviction, the next sentence becomes an 'iron-clad' 20 years 'inside'.

Build more prisons, to 'accommodate' violent career criminals......and to be able to permanently remove them from our cities and in our suburbs and towns.


.


Yadda said somewhere....

Quote:

I come back to my argument about the wisdom, of assuming, in this PC world, that it is ok for 'sheep' and 'wolves' to share the same 'meadow'. The opinion of many, is that it is OK. I disagree. I say that 'sheep' and 'wolves' need to be separated.

'Wolves' in the 'meadow' are not going to respect the right of 'sheep'.....to not be accosted or killed, by the 'wolves'.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 18^th, 2025 at 9:24pm:

Just watched Four Corners about 'sovereign citizens' - interesting. I will lead you into discussion here ... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-18/sovereign-citizen-movement-law-court-four-corners/105655100 I will hold my views until I see what you - my learned and unlearned colleagues - think of this.

Without looking at your link(which all I'll do later) everything I've seen by individuals who have called themselves sovereign citizens is about running foul of the law.

i.e. driving unregistered vehicles, driving unlicensed, being caught shoplifting, failing to provide a sample for alcohol/drug testing, refusing to give any sort of ID etc, etc

They make statements like- "I do not consent", "I am or As a living man/woman" - I'm not driving this vehicle I'm travelling" - claiming that Police work for them and attempt to give them orders or even say "I'm arresting you" etc, etc, etc,

Those 3 crazy Trains from Wieambilla who shot those coppers were in that Sovereign Citizens mindset as well as being former religious nuts.

So everyone I've seen speaking about it has either been a smartarse taunting police or someone trying to stall off being punished for breaking traffic regulations or laws.

Have a look -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUMENVPlhs

Wiki-

Quote:

The sovereign citizen movement (sometimes abbreviated as SovCits) is a loose group of anti-government activists, conspiracy theorists, vexatious litigants, tax protesters and financial scammers found mainly in English-speaking common law countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Sovereign citizens have their own pseudolegal belief system based on misinterpretations of common law, and claim not to be subject to any government statutes unless they consent to them.

So yeah nah to Sovereign Citizens BS. I've had a brush with it a little too close to home.

The increasing rise in Flat Earthers around also belongs in this category of nutters.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWQmytV-LEk

Sovereign citizens... Monty Python's People's Front of Judea meets Scientology.

Gnads wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 7:40am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 18th, 2025 at 9:24pm: Just watched Four Corners about 'sovereign citizens' - interesting. I will lead you into discussion here ... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-18/sovereign-citizen-movement-law-court-four-corners/105655100 I will hold my views until I see what you - my learned and unlearned colleagues - think of this. Without looking at your link(which all I'll do later) everything I've seen by individuals who have called themselves sovereign citizens is about running foul of the law. i.e. driving unregistered vehicles, driving unlicensed, being caught shoplifting, failing to provide a sample for alcohol/drug testing, refusing to give any sort of ID etc, etc They make statements like- "I do not consent", "I am or As a living man/woman" - I'm not driving this vehicle I'm travelling" - claiming that Police work for them and attempt to give them orders or even say "I'm arresting you" etc, etc, etc, Those 3 crazy Trains from Wieambilla who shot those coppers were in that Sovereign Citizens mindset as well as being former religious nuts. So everyone I've seen speaking about it has either been a smartarse taunting police or someone trying to stall off being punished for breaking traffic regulations or laws. Have a look - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUMENVPlhs Wiki- Quote: The sovereign citizen movement (sometimes abbreviated as SovCits) is a loose group of anti-government activists, conspiracy theorists, vexatious litigants, tax protesters and financial scammers found mainly in English-speaking common law countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Sovereign citizens have their own pseudolegal belief system based on misinterpretations of common law, and claim not to be subject to any government statutes unless they consent to them. So yeah nah to Sovereign Citizens BS. I've had a brush with it a little too close to home. The increasing rise in Flat Earthers around also belongs in this category of nutters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWQmytV-LEk

Sure, there’s erring humans in just one group only?
And no politicians take advantage of thinking they are above the law?

I’ve too seen the irresponsible spoilers taking advantage of the sovcits with what they are trying to do is make those in power and unjust be more accountable. Remember those quips born from authitarian injustices such as “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”
It irks me when anyone acts outside of responsibility. Government, coppers, or a few from SovCits etc etc etc tends to make up tar them all with the same brush.

Did you know, you can cash in your birth certificate for the birth weight in gold?
Hence another quote “worth your weight in gold”

Sophia wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 8:45am:

And no politicians take advantage of thinking they are above the law?

There's a difference between politicians thinking they're above the law and 'sovereign citizens' stating categorically that the law does not apply to them.

As one bloke on the Four Corners report said: 'Sovereign citizen' is an oxymoron ".

He's right... a sovereign is not a citizen... the sovereign, being the font of all law, is (technically) not bound by it... This was the argument of King Charles I to the Parliamentarians, "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful authority".

Saddam Hussein tried the same argument.

Just thinking about how many of us really know our rights?

Recently, a homeless man killed a pregnant woman and her partner, cutting his head off.
Police apprehended him and the judge let him out without being charged because the cop must’ve forgotten to read him his rights.

I’m asking… were the deceased allowed to exercise their rights to live?

And those machete attacks… yet more and more happenings… caught and let out on bail 60 times.

Where are our rights to defend ourselves?
Where are our absolute rights to being safe, in shopping centres and especially in our own homes for crying out loud!

We complain, nothing is done. We are powerless?
Yet sovcits try to make these judges accountable.
The voice for us.
That’s why I’m not against them.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 8:54am:

Sophia wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 8:45am: And no politicians take advantage of thinking they are above the law? There's a difference between politicians thinking they're above the law and 'sovereign citizens' stating categorically that the law does not apply to them. As one bloke on the Four Corners report said: 'Sovereign citizen' is an oxymoron ". He's right... a sovereign is not a citizen... the sovereign, being the font of all law, is (technically) not bound by it... This was the argument of King Charles I to the Parliamentarians, "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful authority". Saddam Hussein tried the same argument.

I’m certain many, whether in a group or public service or whatever, break laws every day.
Being primitive and not respecting boundaries is uncalled for.
I’m all for making them accountable.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 8:54am:

He's right... a sovereign is not a citizen... the sovereign, being the font of all law, is (technically) not bound by it... This was the argument of King Charles I to the Parliamentarians, "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful authority".

The (rump) Parliament executed Charles I anyway, arguing that the man, Charles Stuart, was not a sovereign; he was the man holding the office of sovereign who had breached his duty to keep the sovereign's peace by making war on his subjects.

In other words, the person of the sovereign is not above the law and cannot exempt himself from the consequences of breaking the law.

'Sovereign citizens' breach the law when they breach the peace, by which we all rely on law to uphold. In that context, 'sovereign citizens' could be treated as treasonous.

Daves2017 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2025 at 10:33pm:

“David Heilpern recalls the first time he encountered pseudolaw arguments in his courtroom. "A smattering of people came before me talking what I thought was an entirely different legal language, which was along the lines of, 'I am not that person. You must capitalise my name, you have no authority. You didn't take an oath over right to a jury,' and sort of a mishmash of what we now know as sovereign citizen approaches," he says. "I just was quite staggered and surprised. Where has this come from?" “ ABC Of course he was shocked, how dare the people of Australia who pay his wages dare question his absolute authority! Because in  reality, he has none?

He has the authority to lock them. And probably did.

And 'Sovereign Citizens' establishing a judiciary through which they 'convict' a sitting Australian Prime Minister...

If we're going to play hard with law, it could be argued that they're attempting to subvert the Australian judiciary, which could probably have them convicted and sentenced to hefty jail terms...

Of course, if it came down to the wire, given that they're likely weak as piss, they'd probably argue that it was theatre... art... and not intended to be taken seriously.

Extremely dangerous, mentally ill morons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNQSq43uQOc

"I'm not driving, I'm travelling."

Yep - you're travelling in the back of a cop car on the way to jail   ;D

The sovereign citizen movement is a loose group of anti-government activists, conspiracy theorists, vexatious litigants, tax protesters and financial scammers found mainly in English-speaking common law countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.

I’m not a sovereign citizen but my cat is….

Daves2017 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 10:20am:

I’m not a sovereign citizen but my cat is….

yep... you'd be right about the cat... being ignorant of law.

While the people mentioned in the article are at the extreme end of the scale and I don't agree with much of their position, I can see where they are coming from in general. Successive governments have been eroding more and more of the freedoms we have taken for granted and have enacted policies that show they are well out of touch with the mainstream citizens.   The current Labor federal government has been particularly active with this and naturally people are fighting back.

The problem will be if the government does not listen and the people are forced to take more extreme measures  to get their attention.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 8:54am:

Sophia wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 8:45am: And no politicians take advantage of thinking they are above the law? There's a difference between politicians thinking they're above the law and 'sovereign citizens' stating categorically that the law does not apply to them. As one bloke on the Four Corners report said: 'Sovereign citizen' is an oxymoron ". He's right... a sovereign is not a citizen... the sovereign, being the font of all law, is (technically) not bound by it... This was the argument of King Charles I to the Parliamentarians, "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful authority". Saddam Hussein tried the same argument.

So... just for the saying ... there are just laws and unjust laws...

"The Latin phrase for "an unjust law is no law at all" is "lex iniusta non est lex". This phrase is attributed to St. Augustine and is a key concept in natural law theory. It suggests that laws must align with morality and justice to be considered legitimate and worthy of obedience".

How then is the citizen to determine what is just and what is unjust - and still be held to the standard that 'befehlen ist befehlen' is not an adequate defence?  Should every citizen abide by every law regardless of its moral quality - or should some laws be rejected...... in this case, beginning with the law that says we must all accept suzerainty under an accepted order built without our permission.

I think that is the kernel of the matter... is a person absolutely obliged to abide by the sovereignty of a social order which he/she did not create or vote for or in any way facilitate .... and which may contain laws over which that person had no input but which that person considers immoral or plain wrong?

Were the opponents of Nazism in Germany 'sovereign citizens' who refused to be controlled by what they viewed as an unjust social order?  Were the Confederate States 'sovereign states' with the absolute right to withdraw from the Union ... and if so... does that same right extend to any citizen who wishes to withdraw from the Union with the existing state?  Can a person or a region secede without permission from the central body purely on the basis of majority of votes in that region?  To what extent can the compliance of the populace be enforced, even when they refuse to comply?  Where do the powers of the state stop and those of the people begin?

These are curly questions for the future direction of democracy.... and underlying this issue of 'sovereign citizenship' is the very real issue of a growing and increasingly savage discontent with the management by state bodies of people and country...

I remind you again of Richard J Barnet's "Intervention and Revolution" - and remind you that in that Four Corners episode it was stated that much of this 'sovereign citizenship' push came from the feeling that real change was too slow or non-existent - leading to insurrection - and that is one of the main causes of insurrection Barnet lays out.

I advise you all to read the book...  Chapter 3 - The Roots of Revolution ..... which I did way back in the late 1960's.

"The power of the Province government stops at the village gates." - Vietnamese saying.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 1:13pm:

"The Latin phrase for "an unjust law is no law at all" is "lex iniusta non est lex". This phrase is attributed to St. Augustine and is a key concept in natural law theory. It suggests that laws must align with morality and justice to be considered legitimate and worthy of obedience". How then is the citizen to determine what is just and what is unjust - and still be held to the standard that 'befehlen ist befehlen' is not an adequate defence?  Should every citizen abide by every law regardless of its moral quality - or should some laws be rejected......

Like all grand narratives of Augustine's kind, they're dangerous...

The US Declaration of Independence asserts that the people have the right to overthrow a tyrannical government.. Try that in the US today!

And nevermind that it went on to fabricate reasons for overthrowing the British government.

And double nevermind that the American rebels had less than a third of the people's support.

And when the southern states asserted their claimed right to secede from the Union...

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:09pm:

And when the southern states asserted their claimed right to secede from the Union...

Might have gotten away with it if they had not fired the first shot at Ft Sumter.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:05pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 1:13pm: "The Latin phrase for "an unjust law is no law at all" is "lex iniusta non est lex". This phrase is attributed to St. Augustine and is a key concept in natural law theory. It suggests that laws must align with morality and justice to be considered legitimate and worthy of obedience". How then is the citizen to determine what is just and what is unjust - and still be held to the standard that 'befehlen ist befehlen' is not an adequate defence?  Should every citizen abide by every law regardless of its moral quality - or should some laws be rejected...... Like all grand narratives of Augustine's kind, they're dangerous... The US Declaration of Independence asserts that the people have the right to overthrow a tyrannical government.. Try that in the US today! And nevermind that it went on to fabricate reasons for overthrowing the British government. And double nevermind that the American rebels had less than a third of the people's support.

And yet the principle holds sound.... then the question becomes - is an unsuccessful revolution a just or an unjust one?

It is clear that human nature rejects tyranny - and the individual is clearly upheld in that US revolution and in that quote from Vietnam... across the world ... so clearly this is a universal approach ...

Everywhere where tyranny has attempted to hold sway, there has been a background of refusal to tolerate it ... and eventually tyranny fails.... many would argue that The Arab Spring was a ground roots movement towards democratisation .... not necessarily our form of democracy, but 'power sharing with the people' ... that it failed due to being hijacked by religious extremists and also due to repression from governments in the Muslim world does not show if it was a just cause or an unjust cause... and its basic push WAS for democratisation and more power to the people ... a clear example.

Now what we see is tyrannical regimes being opposed within their own countries by those who reject that approach... with some old despots, such as in Iran - being replaced by a group of ostensibly religious based despots.... roving that in those places the quest for power is not just or moral other than by the twisted interpretations of those handed power.

Now look around you at Australia....

Aussie wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:25pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 2:09pm: And when the southern states asserted their claimed right to secede from the Union... Might have gotten away with it if they had not fired the first shot at Ft Sumter.

Should've just walked away from the Union and declared secession instead of making it a war...

"Why the North has FIFTY cannon factories - the South only has two!"

"That makes no difference to a Southron gentleman, suh!"

"I'm afraid it's going to make a great deal of difference to a great number of Southern gentlemen, sir!"

Snide Note:-  Ah so - assertion of a need for fairness, justice and morality in laws is contentious now.... even 'dangerous' .... who'd 've thunk that?

Dangerous to whom, suh?  A despotic government?  Dangerous to the hegemony of the established 'city hall' of our judiciary, legislatures, and public services as Ian - sorry - Dave - pointed out from that magistrate's position on Four Corners?  Fairness, justice and morality in lawmaking cannot be dangerous to the populace .... indeed the law itself requires that it treat all equally and fairly ... so it can only be dangerous to a self-appointed ruling elite bent on despotism and tyranny.

Perhaps the root cause of this pursuit of secession by individuals from that control of that ruling elite is what this 'sovereign citizenship' is all about...  we have Aboriginal groups stating that they are somehow 'sovereign'... we have Islamites saying the same ... and a host of others... so is it then only the White European majority who hold no such 'right' to declare sovereignty away from a despotic government as they see it to be?  Every other group can declare that they are a state within a state - meaning they enjoy the privileges of belonging but not the burdens of belonging - except those who are deemed guilty of 'colonialism' and therefore must pay for it all?

Can you not see why those people would therefore seek an avenue away from that form of discriminatory despotism?

https://i.imgflip.com/1gveif.jpg

Aussie wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:25pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 2:09pm: And when the southern states asserted their claimed right to secede from the Union... Might have gotten away with it if they had not fired the first shot at Ft Sumter.

Not likely... Lincoln would have found another way of luring the South to fire the first shot.

Lincoln wanted the North to be the victim of Southern aggression.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:29pm:

And yet the principle holds sound.... then the question becomes - is an unsuccessful revolution a just or an unjust one? It is clear that human nature rejects tyranny - and the individual is clearly upheld in that US revolution and in that quote from Vietnam... across the world ... so clearly this is a universal approach ... Everywhere where tyranny has attempted to hold sway, there has been a background of refusal to tolerate it ... and eventually tyranny fails.... many would argue that The Arab Spring was a ground roots movement towards democratisation .... not necessarily our form of democracy, but 'power sharing with the people' ... that it failed due to being hijacked by religious extremists and also due to repression from governments in the Muslim world does not show if it was a just cause or an unjust cause... and its basic push WAS for democratisation and more power to the people ... a clear example.

It's the way of the world... just revolutions are when the revolutionaries are victorious, and unjust usurpations and coups are for the defeated revolutionaries' causes.

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood won a democratic election, so... not a good example.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 18^th, 2025 at 9:24pm:

Just watched Four Corners about 'sovereign citizens' - interesting. I will lead you into discussion here ... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-18/sovereign-citizen-movement-law-court-four-corners/105655100 I will hold my views until I see what you - my learned and unlearned colleagues - think of this.

From 1st principles:

Sovereignty is required by the sovereign power, to legitimize creation of law delineating rules governing behaviours of self-interested individuals.

Therefore the idea of a sovereign citizen - with each individual being a law unto himself- is an oxymoron.

Looking forward to your "learned response"....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 2:25pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 2:09pm: And when the southern states asserted their claimed right to secede from the Union... Might have gotten away with it if they had not fired the first shot at Ft Sumter. Should've just walked away from the Union and declared secession instead of making it a war... "Why the North has FIFTY cannon factories - the South only has two!" "That makes no difference to a Southron gentleman, suh!" "I'm afraid it's going to make a great deal of difference to a great number of Southern gentlemen, sir!"

Lincoln decreed that secession was not an option that an individual state could take... that it required approval by a majority of states.

Ever the lawyer, Lincoln argued that individuals could secede from a state by leaving that state... or secede from the Union by leaving 'these United States'... a state, however, could not unilaterally up and leave the Union.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 18^th, 2025 at 9:24pm:

Just watched Four Corners about 'sovereign citizens' - interesting. I will lead you into discussion here ... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-18/sovereign-citizen-movement-law-court-four-corners/105655100 I will hold my views until I see what you - my learned and unlearned colleagues - think of this.

From 1st principles:

Sovereignty is required by the sovereign power, to legitimize creation of law delineating rules governing behaviours of self-interested individuals.

Therefore the idea of a sovereign citizen - with each individual being a law unto himself- is an oxymoron.

Looking forward to your "learned response"....

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:58pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 18th, 2025 at 9:24pm: Just watched Four Corners about 'sovereign citizens' - interesting. I will lead you into discussion here ... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-18/sovereign-citizen-movement-law-court-four-corners/105655100 I will hold my views until I see what you - my learned and unlearned colleagues - think of this. From 1st principles: Sovereignty is required by the sovereign power, to legitimize creation of law delineating rules governing behaviours of self-interested individuals. (1) Therefore the idea of a sovereign individual - with each individual being a law unto himself- is an oxymoron. (2) Looking forward to your "learned response"....

(1) Ah so - you are saying that in order to retain its hegemony, an established government - whatever its colour - must be handed sovereignty over all in the land?  Circular reasoning. A government has that power and therefore must not be challenged under any circumstances.** Kind of evading the point there, aren't we?  The POINT is what appears to be some refusing that concept and declaring personal individual secession.

(2) An individual declaration of secession is not an oxymororn - it is a reflection of the human unwillingness to accept and tolerate tyranny - as that individual sees it.  That person may well be wrong.... but always remember that one person being right constitutes a majority of one.... though I doubt anyone could argue that the way our country is going downhill in its application and use of law and its handling of equalities does not give cause for some action by concerned individuals and groups.

That is indeed the essence of the democratic way, and it is a RIGHT to oppose wrongful government.


** ......  ** tweaks his cheek** you little closet Fascist, you ...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 2:25pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 2:09pm: And when the southern states asserted their claimed right to secede from the Union... Might have gotten away with it if they had not fired the first shot at Ft Sumter. Should've just walked away from the Union and declared secession instead of making it a war...

It's already been explained to you: a citizen can leave a state, or indeed the United State,  but an entire state can't exit the Union ( and where would it go, exactly?  - without a vote of the Union.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 1:13pm:

Where do the powers of the state stop and those of the people begin?

This….

---

I ask, do we the people, vote for the right thing to be done by us, to believe their pre-election promises of which many would turn out to be false?
Do we vote to be screwed over with extra taxes we didn’t want?
Do we?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 3:06pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 2:58pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 18th, 2025 at 9:24pm: Just watched Four Corners about 'sovereign citizens' - interesting. I will lead you into discussion here ... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-18/sovereign-citizen-movement-law-court-four-corners/105655100 I will hold my views until I see what you - my learned and unlearned colleagues - think of this. From 1st principles: Sovereignty is required by the sovereign power, to legitimize creation of law delineating rules governing behaviours of self-interested individuals. (1) Therefore the idea of a sovereign individual - with each individual being a law unto himself- is an oxymoron. (2) Looking forward to your "learned response".... (1) Ah so - you are saying that in order to retain its hegemony,...

Error #1:

Sovereignty resides in the state, represesnted by the government; though  the sovereign power can be overthrown and replaced by another if a group of citizens can force a change to another sovereign power.   


Quote:

an established government - whatever its colour - must be handed sovereignty over all in the land?

Error #2: Yes, that's what a sovereign power is, ie, the legitimate source of laws for all citizens in the state;  eg you  (correctly) object to the notion of aboriginal sovereignty in Oz...

You are free to leave Oz,  of course..


Quote:

Circular reasoning. A government has that power and therefore must not be challenged under any circumstances. ** Kind of evading the point there, aren't we?  The POINT is what appears to be some refusing that concept and declaring personal individual secession.

Error #3:

Sovereign individuals - an oxymoron, as well as a Libertarian wet dream - can't secede from the sovereign law-making power - which would result in anarchy, but  they can leave.   


Quote:

(2) An individual declaration of secession is not an oxymororn - it is a reflection of the human unwillingness to accept and tolerate tyranny - as that individual sees it.  That person may well be wrong.... but always remember that one person being right constitutes a majority of one.... though I doubt anyone could argue that the way our country is going downhill in its application and use of law and its handling of equalities does not give cause for some action by concerned individuals and groups.

Too many errors now:

1.  "An individual declaration of secession is not an oxymororn" - but it's illegal.

2.  Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder: some individual Israelis who are currently in government think OT law overrules international law....and they are  determined to see the state commit genocide (like Hamas).

3. One person who is right  - a majority of one according to you (another oxymoron) - is extremely rare, implying everyone else is wrong.

4. Concern about the "country going downhill" is indeed widespread; in my view it's the fault of the current neoclassical economic orthodoxy which pits taxpayer against taxpayer - which Albo doesn't want to confront at the present  'productivity' talk-fest.

"it's the economy, stupid".

Now - about sovereignty, you think individuals should possess it, but only the sovereign CAN possess it, otherwise anarchy beckons - as you and I disagree over why "the country is going downhill", and how to fix it...


Quote:

That is indeed the essence of the democratic way, and it is a RIGHT to oppose wrongful government.

More  errors: the 'democratic way' is determined by a vote close to 50%+1, meaning the other 49% are in effect disenfranched until the next election, when  most of them are likely to remain disenfranchised (eg those  on Job Seeker); and "wrongful government" - and the remedy -  again is in the eye of the beholder.

Sophia wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 3:33pm:

I ask, do we the people, vote for the right thing to be done by us, to believe their pre-election promises of which many would turn out to be false? Do we vote to be screwed over with extra taxes we didn’t want? Do we?

Except for rich people who can look after themselves, we all want government to oversee  provision of housing, education and jobs for all, but we all want lower taxes - including rich people...

See the US for social division writ large, and entrenched poverty in Oz because the government  - so it is said - needs 'taxpayer money'.

It's a vicious conundrum which makes studying MMT desirable.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:54pm:

It's the way of the world... just revolutions are when the revolutionaries are victorious, and unjust usurpations and coups are for the defeated revolutionaries' causes.

In any conflict, who is on the side of right ?

Who is justified in his use of violence, to fight for his rights ?

Human history shows us, that all men seem to have the same opinion.......



"Right is only in question between equals, and while the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must."
- Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) Greek Historian

Sophia wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 3:33pm:

I ask, do we the people, vote for the right thing to be done by us, to believe their pre-election promises of which many would turn out to be false? Do we vote to be screwed over with extra taxes we didn’t want? Do we?

You vote, you vote.  You do that, and you go home, have a cup of tea, turn on the TV to wait to see how many agree with you.

If you are in the minority, better luck next time, or rev out that military in your back yard and start shooting.

Declaring that back yard as a sovereign state will get you SFA.

Yadda wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 4:17pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 2:54pm: It's the way of the world... just revolutions are when the revolutionaries are victorious, and unjust usurpations and coups are for the defeated revolutionaries' causes. In any conflict, who is on the side of right ? Who is justified in his use of violence, to fight for his rights ? Human history shows us, that all men seem to have the same opinion....... "Right is only in question between equals, and while the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) Greek Historian

Jayzuz!!!!

The winner of any War gets to write its history.

FFS!

Aussie wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 4:50pm:

Sophia wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 3:33pm: I ask, do we the people, vote for the right thing to be done by us, to believe their pre-election promises of which many would turn out to be false? Do we vote to be screwed over with extra taxes we didn’t want? Do we? You vote, you vote.  You do that, and you go home, have a cup of tea, turn on the TV to wait to see how many agree with you. If you are in the minority, better luck next time, or rev out that military in your back yard and start shooting. Declaring that back yard as a sovereign state will get you SFA.

And it's interesting how they exercise their 'sovereign rights'... by refusing to pay bills, or get a driver's licence, or pay fines, or pay rates...

They use Australian roads, but... take advantage of sewerage systems when they take a sh!t, are happy when water comes out of a tap, when they turn a switch, a light comes on...

If they were assaulted, would they call the cops?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 4:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 4:50pm: Sophia wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 3:33pm: I ask, do we the people, vote for the right thing to be done by us, to believe their pre-election promises of which many would turn out to be false? Do we vote to be screwed over with extra taxes we didn’t want? Do we? You vote, you vote.  You do that, and you go home, have a cup of tea, turn on the TV to wait to see how many agree with you. If you are in the minority, better luck next time, or rev out that military in your back yard and start shooting. Declaring that back yard as a sovereign state will get you SFA. And it's interesting how they exercise their 'sovereign rights'... by refusing to pay bills, or get a driver's licence, or pay fines, or pay rates... They use Australian roads, but... take advantage of sewerage systems when they take a sh!t, are happy when water comes out of a tap, when they turn a switch, a light comes on... If they were assaulted, would they call the cops?

Indeed.

But, I'd at least acknowledge any bastard who just went off grid, stayed on his own turf, and was completely self sufficient therein.....utterly totally self sufficient for the whole works and jerks.

Aussie wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 5:01pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 4:55pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 4:50pm: Sophia wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 3:33pm: I ask, do we the people, vote for the right thing to be done by us, to believe their pre-election promises of which many would turn out to be false? Do we vote to be screwed over with extra taxes we didn’t want? Do we? You vote, you vote.  You do that, and you go home, have a cup of tea, turn on the TV to wait to see how many agree with you. If you are in the minority, better luck next time, or rev out that military in your back yard and start shooting. Declaring that back yard as a sovereign state will get you SFA. And it's interesting how they exercise their 'sovereign rights'... by refusing to pay bills, or get a driver's licence, or pay fines, or pay rates... They use Australian roads, but... take advantage of sewerage systems when they take a sh!t, are happy when water comes out of a tap, when they turn a switch, a light comes on... If they were assaulted, would they call the cops? Indeed. But, I'd at least acknowledge any bastard who just went off grid, stayed on his own turf, and was completely self sufficient therein.....utterly totally self sufficient for the whole works and jerks.

Would you be OK with him if he sold meth to kids and ran guns out of his off-grid property?

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 4:05pm:

More  errors: the 'democratic way' is determined by a vote close to 50%+1, meaning the other 49% are in effect disenfranched until the next election, when  most of them are likely to remain disenfranchised (eg those  on Job Seeker); and "wrongful government" - and the remedy -  again is in the eye of the beholder.

#1  Only with the informed consent of the people through a fair electoral system.

#2  Any citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to break away from the rule of the established cartel  (sic) is entitled to do so.  Imposition of consequences proves what I argued with a professor of peace studies at UNE - that government itself is founded on exertion of control = violence.  He disagreed - but progress in the study of violence now disproves him. The DEGREE to which a government seeks to exert that control has no relevance to the principle.

#3  That rule still applies.

#4  So you now willingly accept that poor governance creates the environment in which individuals may seek to im pose their personal sovereignty separate from that of the state.  Since, in this country, we are not Communo-fascists JUST YET ....... any individual may choose that course.  The difficulty lies - as someone said earlier by saying that people choosing this route are generally trying to escape legal liabilities - in imposing that as a right in the face of the clear exercise of overwhelming power by the state = violence by the state to secure compliance.

#5 So you now totally accept that Labor with a primary vote of 34.7% has no right to hold government, and that 65.3% are disenfranchised.  There is hope for you yet.

The question now becomes Grappler Theorem # whatever from 30 years ago - Who should hold power in the democratic state (we can't speak for yours, little pink)?  The apparatus of the state or the people to whom the state owes service and obedience under OUR form of democracy?  The Eternal Civil War Between Government and People - Phase IV - the question of whether or not elected government holds any Divine Right to impose at whim or will.

Not a single mistake there, laddie.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 5:03pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 5:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 4:55pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 4:50pm: Sophia wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 3:33pm: I ask, do we the people, vote for the right thing to be done by us, to believe their pre-election promises of which many would turn out to be false? Do we vote to be screwed over with extra taxes we didn’t want? Do we? You vote, you vote.  You do that, and you go home, have a cup of tea, turn on the TV to wait to see how many agree with you. If you are in the minority, better luck next time, or rev out that military in your back yard and start shooting. Declaring that back yard as a sovereign state will get you SFA. And it's interesting how they exercise their 'sovereign rights'... by refusing to pay bills, or get a driver's licence, or pay fines, or pay rates... They use Australian roads, but... take advantage of sewerage systems when they take a sh!t, are happy when water comes out of a tap, when they turn a switch, a light comes on... If they were assaulted, would they call the cops? Indeed. But, I'd at least acknowledge any bastard who just went off grid, stayed on his own turf, and was completely self sufficient therein.....utterly totally self sufficient for the whole works and jerks. Would you be OK with him if he sold meth to kids and ran guns out of his off-grid property?

Nope........he stays in his sand pit.

Aussie wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 6:03pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 5:03pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 5:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 4:55pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 4:50pm: Sophia wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 3:33pm: I ask, do we the people, vote for the right thing to be done by us, to believe their pre-election promises of which many would turn out to be false? Do we vote to be screwed over with extra taxes we didn’t want? Do we? You vote, you vote.  You do that, and you go home, have a cup of tea, turn on the TV to wait to see how many agree with you. If you are in the minority, better luck next time, or rev out that military in your back yard and start shooting. Declaring that back yard as a sovereign state will get you SFA. And it's interesting how they exercise their 'sovereign rights'... by refusing to pay bills, or get a driver's licence, or pay fines, or pay rates... They use Australian roads, but... take advantage of sewerage systems when they take a sh!t, are happy when water comes out of a tap, when they turn a switch, a light comes on... If they were assaulted, would they call the cops? Indeed. But, I'd at least acknowledge any bastard who just went off grid, stayed on his own turf, and was completely self sufficient therein.....utterly totally self sufficient for the whole works and jerks. Would you be OK with him if he sold meth to kids and ran guns out of his off-grid property? Nope........he stays in his sand pit.

But... but... but... he done be a genuine sovereign citizen! Them laws don't apply!

Aussie wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 6:03pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 5:03pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 5:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 4:55pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 4:50pm: Sophia wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 3:33pm: I ask, do we the people, vote for the right thing to be done by us, to believe their pre-election promises of which many would turn out to be false? Do we vote to be screwed over with extra taxes we didn’t want? Do we? You vote, you vote.  You do that, and you go home, have a cup of tea, turn on the TV to wait to see how many agree with you. If you are in the minority, better luck next time, or rev out that military in your back yard and start shooting. Declaring that back yard as a sovereign state will get you SFA. And it's interesting how they exercise their 'sovereign rights'... by refusing to pay bills, or get a driver's licence, or pay fines, or pay rates... They use Australian roads, but... take advantage of sewerage systems when they take a sh!t, are happy when water comes out of a tap, when they turn a switch, a light comes on... If they were assaulted, would they call the cops? Indeed. But, I'd at least acknowledge any bastard who just went off grid, stayed on his own turf, and was completely self sufficient therein.....utterly totally self sufficient for the whole works and jerks. Would you be OK with him if he sold meth to kids and ran guns out of his off-grid property? Nope........he stays in his sand pit.

As a sovereign individual - he would therefore be fair game for any aggrieved person... as such that individual declared war on this nation - war of drugs backed by firearms...  one shot - one kill...

I sincerely hope that these people get the mental health care they need.

For their sake, and for ours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_f5GFvspdc

These are very, very, very ill people.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 7:00pm:

I sincerely hope that these people get the mental health care they need. For their sake, and for ours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_f5GFvspdc These are very, very, very ill people.

That's what they say about all freedom fighters!

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 7:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 7:00pm: I sincerely hope that these people get the mental health care they need. For their sake, and for ours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_f5GFvspdc These are very, very, very ill people. That's what they say about all freedom fighters!

They're not freedom fighters.

They're very confused, ignorant people with severe mental health issues.

They need help.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 7:19pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 7:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 7:00pm: I sincerely hope that these people get the mental health care they need. For their sake, and for ours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_f5GFvspdc These are very, very, very ill people. That's what they say about all freedom fighters! They're not freedom fighters. They're very confused, ignorant people with severe mental health issues. They need help.

Lot of that going around - you don't object to those though!!

My position is that they have a point - not a very strong one, but a point - and it is a reflection of the deep underlying unease about the direction of the Country and of the West at this time.

Like blokes who reckon they'd be better off getting the privileges of being sheilas, these kinds are simply looking for a rock to base their person on...   a quest for their own space.... something to stand for .... some path for their valour like dorks who support Hamas and stuff ... somewhere to be what Tracey Chapman said - to BE someone...

So they stand on a forlorn rock in the midst of the raging seas (sic) and say 'upon this rock I stand - and at least I stand somewhere!'

It's a sad reflection on the disintegration of the modern psyche in modern society.... a search for heroism in a time of zeroes .... but they DO have a point about how far the State is entitled to intrude and dictate ..... YOU should know that.

Just let the Old Master guide you out of the darkness..

And if someone does something illegal to them they’ll run to the Courts and police for protection.

Weirdos.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 10:36pm:

And if someone does something illegal to them they’ll run to the Courts and police for protection. Weirdos.

Yes - the point being that what are basic rights are in need of full upholding in our modern society - and the intrusions of the state in attempting to impose total control over the populace instead of serving it as they should - means many are beginning to find some alternative ground on which to stand... and the disintegration of our society and culture continues under oppressive governments of deluded fools.

We here in Australia are at risk of becoming massively over-regulated - and thus having initiative and fair play stifled.......... these people are a manifestation of an attempt to alter that - by taking what they see as a stand for absolute independence.

Would you treat them unequally?  Would you refuse them legal protections at the same time as two tier law enforcement is becoming the norm for Aborigines?  Would you refuse them the same 'right' as Aborigines to live in and make use of every good aspect of OUR culture and society, while demanding the right to be different and indeed - sovereign in their own right?

Where does that kind of madness end?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the same applies to 'land claims' and other rubbish.  I could claim half of settled Australia.... and I'm of European etc descent - but my ancestors have walked on and lived on and used huge parts of it.  Why am I denied the right to make 'land claims'?

Where does it end?  With all being sovereign and anarchy being the rule?  NO!  It ends with everyone either being treated equally or more and more people splitting off to find their True Way of handling life, culture and society - and while ever some are allowed to run a different race, those people have the exact same entitlement under law.  The end result WILL inevitably be civil war.

As aquascoot would say - this is not a disaster - this is an opportunity to hold up the horses, take a good look at the state of the stage coach - and FIX IT.  These people are giving the lead - either paint your wagon right or we go our own way.

So it's either fix that wagon or continue on the downward path of more and more disintegration of our society and culture.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 7:19pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 7:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 7:00pm: I sincerely hope that these people get the mental health care they need. For their sake, and for ours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_f5GFvspdc These are very, very, very ill people. That's what they say about all freedom fighters! They're not freedom fighters. They're very confused, ignorant people with severe mental health issues. They need help.

A call to arms for Crappler

Thing is, not that he'll ever see it, he rants daily on here about putting people in gulags for similar principles.

Lost on him. Utterly.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 10:36pm:

And if someone does something illegal to them they’ll run to the Courts and police for protection. Weirdos.

That's EXACTLY right!

Very confused, very sick people.

I used to enjoy the SovCit compilations where they get dragged out of their cars, not just for the schadenfreude but for the comments section too.

The very same people who've defended the extrajudicial killings of minorities byt the police, by saying "they should have just complied" suddenly fall over themselves to cheer on a SovCit for not complying and "standing up against the man."

It's telling, really. The level of privilege in play is obvious. You don't see many minorities trying SovCit tactics against the police, because they know full well it won't end with a chuckle and a night in lockup, it could end with a coroner's report.

But now the enjoyment's gone, because it's dawned on me that I'm basically just laughing at retards. It's the same empty feeling you get when you mock MAGA types, you realise you're not punching up at some clever villain, you're just watching dim-witted zealots humiliate themselves in public.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Aug 20^th, 2025 at 10:26am:

I used to enjoy the SovCit compilations where they get dragged out of their cars, not just for the schadenfreude but for the comments section too. The very same people who've defended the extrajudicial killings of minorities byt the police, by saying "they should have just complied" suddenly fall over themselves to cheer on a SovCit for not complying and "standing up against the man." It's telling, really. The level of privilege in play is obvious. You don't see many minorities trying SovCit tactics against the police, because they know full well it won't end with a chuckle and a night in lockup, it could end with a coroner's report. But now the enjoyment's gone, because it's dawned on me that I'm basically just laughing at retards. It's the same empty feeling you get when you mock MAGA types, you realise you're not punching up at some clever villain, you're just watching dim-witted zealots humiliate themselves in public.

As i said, Crappler is on here daily gloating about his various proposed gulags for those amongst us who do not assimilate to his standards.

But we know what that i all about ... same with their perpetual whining about women ... it' not about him.

He is, after all, the most aggrieved. What aggrievance he doesn't personally own is only recognizable by him when it is the domain of others like him.


Anything not like him? Gulag.

White and entitled? Sign Crapler up.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Aug 20^th, 2025 at 10:26am:

I used to enjoy the SovCit compilations where they get dragged out of their cars, not just for the schadenfreude but for the comments section too. The very same people who've defended the extrajudicial killings of minorities byt the police, by saying "they should have just complied" suddenly fall over themselves to cheer on a SovCit for not complying and "standing up against the man." It's telling, really. The level of privilege in play is obvious. You don't see many minorities trying SovCit tactics against the police, because they know full well it won't end with a chuckle and a night in lockup, it could end with a coroner's report. But now the enjoyment's gone, because it's dawned on me that I'm basically just laughing at retards. It's the same empty feeling you get when you mock MAGA types, you realise you're not punching up at some clever villain, you're just watching dim-witted zealots humiliate themselves in public.

I love the ones from the UK and Australia who cite US law when they're pulled over by the police.

True window lickers.

I wonder how they’ll run the Armed Services.

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2025 at 9:17am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 7:19pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 7:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 7:00pm: I sincerely hope that these people get the mental health care they need. For their sake, and for ours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_f5GFvspdc These are very, very, very ill people. That's what they say about all freedom fighters! They're not freedom fighters. They're very confused, ignorant people with severe mental health issues. They need help. A call to arms for Crappler Thing is, not that he'll ever see it, he rants daily on here about putting people in gulags for similar principles. Lost on him. Utterly.

Do you always find it so difficult to follow an intelligent discussion?

No gulags - those are homelands for the Abos who want to 'do things their way' and be 'sovereign citizens', 'hang on to their 'sovereignty' etc - and it is voluntary on the proviso that those who do not wish to Homeland themselves abide by all of our rules out here in Realityland.  then the Homelanders get those who are recalcitrant petty criminals and such, troublemakers - to set right their 'tribal ways'.... that'll fix 'em ..

As for Gon'Mo - that's for serious criminals who really need to be isolated from humanity, but you'd rather mother them into being good citizens, ay?

You really are slow, aren't you?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Aug 20^th, 2025 at 10:26am:

I used to enjoy the SovCit compilations where they get dragged out of their cars, not just for the schadenfreude but for the comments section too. The very same people who've defended the extrajudicial killings of minorities byt the police, by saying "they should have just complied" suddenly fall over themselves to cheer on a SovCit for not complying and "standing up against the man." It's telling, really. The level of privilege in play is obvious. You don't see many minorities trying SovCit tactics against the police, because they know full well it won't end with a chuckle and a night in lockup, it could end with a coroner's report. But now the enjoyment's gone, because it's dawned on me that I'm basically just laughing at retards. It's the same empty feeling you get when you mock MAGA types, you realise you're not punching up at some clever villain, you're just watching dim-witted zealots humiliate themselves in public.

Hilarious - the window removal was a pair of 'sovereign Abos' .... one of your fantasy minorities - and the Queensland cop killers were part Abo and driveling over their 'sovereignty' and 'oppression.

There are no 'extrajudicial killings' here - people who assault police and others and are killed in the line of duty did it to themselves ... mostly by assuming they had some divine right to oppose 'oppression' and the Wharte Man and his ways, and were magically wearing a Ghost Shirt or similar and thought they were invincible as well as above the law.  Should they be given a medal for being fearless freedom fighters and martyrs or something?

You're as stupid as mothra.  You both out of the same stable?

It's evolved from just "random" incidents. It's becoming more organized and thus the "authorities" are growing concerned-

"Sheriffs serving
When SPAWA's court or grand jury delivers a judgment, it is the duty of their common law sheriffs to serve the resulting orders to the relevant parties.

With clipboard and documents in hand a group of sheriffs approach the offices of Western Australia's land titles authority, Landgate. The documents concern mortgages held by farmers.

Two women and a man walk on a footpath wearing a uniform and holding papers and a clipboard.
SPAWA sheriffs prepare to serve orders at WA's land titles authority. (Four Corners: Mark Hiney)

"We've had up to 40 or 50 jurors vote unanimously on these orders around Australia," Donna Hopkinson says.

When asked about the outcomes she hopes to achieve, she says: "Farmers get their farms back."

Some time later, Donna emerges smiling. Landgate took the documents.

"Just taking them and accepting them and having them lodged and put on file I think is a good win.""


" ABC   

I believe it's a direction people are taking due to the near total distrust of our politicians.

The COVID lockdowns were the last straw for many people.

The inability of government to govern for the people rather than for themselves is being called out at a very grass roots level and support seems to be growing.

The politicians and judges and no doubt religious leaders are mortified that their total control is being challenged.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 6:09pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 6:03pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 5:03pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 5:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 4:55pm: Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 4:50pm: Sophia wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 3:33pm: I ask, do we the people, vote for the right thing to be done by us, to believe their pre-election promises of which many would turn out to be false? Do we vote to be screwed over with extra taxes we didn’t want? Do we? You vote, you vote.  You do that, and you go home, have a cup of tea, turn on the TV to wait to see how many agree with you. If you are in the minority, better luck next time, or rev out that military in your back yard and start shooting. Declaring that back yard as a sovereign state will get you SFA. And it's interesting how they exercise their 'sovereign rights'... by refusing to pay bills, or get a driver's licence, or pay fines, or pay rates... They use Australian roads, but... take advantage of sewerage systems when they take a sh!t, are happy when water comes out of a tap, when they turn a switch, a light comes on... If they were assaulted, would they call the cops? Indeed. But, I'd at least acknowledge any bastard who just went off grid, stayed on his own turf, and was completely self sufficient therein.....utterly totally self sufficient for the whole works and jerks. Would you be OK with him if he sold meth to kids and ran guns out of his off-grid property? Nope........he stays in his sand pit. But... but... but... he done be a genuine sovereign citizen! Them laws don't apply!

When he is playing in my sand pit.....my rules.

mothra wrote on Aug 20^th, 2025 at 10:48am:

As i said, Crappler is on here daily gloating about his various proposed gulags for those amongst us who do not assimilate to his standards. But we know what that i all about ... same with their perpetual whining about women ... it' not about him. He is, after all, the most aggrieved. What aggrievance he doesn't personally own is only recognizable by him when it is the domain of others like him. Anything not like him? Gulag. White and entitled? Sign Crapler up.

I’ve ignored him and his issues for a while now, only to cross paths again today and it’s clear nothing has changed.

His insecurities still drive him to punch down on women, trans people, and, out of nowhere, Indigenous Australians, as if lashing out at others will somehow soothe the trauma of his own inadequacies.

Why bother with self-reflection or personal growth when it’s easier to try and drag others down, convincing yourself you’re superior without having to put in the work.

It’s ignorance wrapped in laziness, the kind of pitiful self-preservation masquerading as strength.

Same old same old...

ProudKangaroo wrote on Aug 20^th, 2025 at 1:40pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 20th, 2025 at 10:48am: As i said, Crappler is on here daily gloating about his various proposed gulags for those amongst us who do not assimilate to his standards. But we know what that i all about ... same with their perpetual whining about women ... it' not about him. He is, after all, the most aggrieved. What aggrievance he doesn't personally own is only recognizable by him when it is the domain of others like him. Anything not like him? Gulag. White and entitled? Sign Crapler up. I’ve ignored him and his issues for a while now, only to cross paths again today and it’s clear nothing has changed. His insecurities still drive him to punch down on women, trans people, and, out of nowhere, Indigenous Australians, as if lashing out at others will somehow soothe the trauma of his own inadequacies. Why bother with self-reflection or personal growth when it’s easier to try and drag others down, convincing yourself you’re superior without having to put in the work. It’s ignorance wrapped in laziness, the kind of pitiful self-preservation masquerading as strength. Same old same old...

I knew this would be good - this pair trying to sustain a reasoned argument without hurling insult - then crying when they get it back.

** dreams of the day when Australia has its own gulags .... interesting idea you lot have there - bit different from the Abo-demanded Homeland and the NEED for a deep prison for the deep criminals etc... but don't let that stand in the way of your mindless argument and punching down on whartey - where would YOU put these gulags YOU whne about constantly - I only discuss a viable Two State Solution in accordance with Abo demands, and the housing of criminals .... I offer them their own totally owned Homeland to do as they choose without us ... and offer a fine criminal institution for the really bad ones... and you all go off the rails again ... must be brain damage from the number of times Abos have beaten you up forcing you to make peace with them or fight, and the number of times Measters and Africaaners have home invaded you and traumatised your kids with machetes or guns or knives or something ... has to be some reason for the mental confusion you carry**

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 20^th, 2025 at 2:38pm:

I knew this would be good - this pair trying to sustain a reasoned argument without hurling insult - then crying when they get it back.

You almost get as triggered as Frank whenever you're called out.

Why is it that the loudest whingers about "weak men" always turn out to be the ones with the thinnest skin?

It's the same kind of projection you see from those who insist that being gay is "just a choice", not realising they're actually confessing that they've felt those urges themselves but decided to suppress them. In doing so, they out themselves as firmly wedged in the closet, all while pretending it's everyone else with the problem.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Aug 20^th, 2025 at 3:59pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 20th, 2025 at 2:38pm: I knew this would be good - this pair trying to sustain a reasoned argument without hurling insult - then crying when they get it back. You almost get as triggered as Frank whenever you're called out. Why is it that the loudest whingers about "weak men" always turn out to be the ones with the thinnest skin? It's the same kind of projection you see from those who insist that being gay is "just a choice", not realising they're actually confessing that they've felt those urges themselves but decided to suppress them. In doing so, they out themselves as firmly wedged in the closet, all while pretending it's everyone else with the problem.

Sure triggered you and mothra - thanks for the laugh.... now toddle off - the adults are holding a serious discussion of what this phenomenon is all about - and if you have nothing to add to the conversation - don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Now then - where were we - oh yes - these 'sovereign citizens' (and I include Abo activists, creeps,  and all other rat racers in that) are expressing the winter of their discontent about the way they see our society, culture and country going - to find some 'path for their valour' ... some rock to which they can cling in the raging storms of modern life ... somewhere they can say they ARE something .... and have - like mothra and skanka - failed to actually think it through and see that the solutions lie not in perpetuating open warfare with the rest of society  ...... but in 'warring' legitimately against the ruling elite cliques who are destroying all of those thing .... our society, culture and country.... using the electoral and political processes (the twain shall never meet until we force it on them).

It's clear to me that some here, lacking the intellectual capacity, are only here to try to disrupt discussion of real issues - almost as if they are paid employees of the current entrenched disruptors... elected and otherwise...... the Old Guard trying desperately to hold back the needed tides of REAL change (the lack of which is what is driving these 'sovereign citizens' to their position) ....and either not realising they are the REAL 'conservatives' desperately holding on to a lost past, or they know it and are intent on their own supremacy and that of their kind.

Like Albo - lunatics which ever way you see it.

Snide note:-  Ah - I see you are a poof trying out that old worn-out line.. how very neo-conservative in reality of you.

It’s a shame good topics turn into personal attacks.

I’d love to hear both motha and  kangaroo thoughts on sovereignty and sovereign citizenship rather than personal insults.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 20^th, 2025 at 6:09pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Aug 20th, 2025 at 3:59pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 20th, 2025 at 2:38pm: I knew this would be good - this pair trying to sustain a reasoned argument without hurling insult - then crying when they get it back. You almost get as triggered as Frank whenever you're called out. Why is it that the loudest whingers about "weak men" always turn out to be the ones with the thinnest skin? It's the same kind of projection you see from those who insist that being gay is "just a choice", not realising they're actually confessing that they've felt those urges themselves but decided to suppress them. In doing so, they out themselves as firmly wedged in the closet, all while pretending it's everyone else with the problem. Sure triggered you and mothra - thanks for the laugh.... now toddle off - the adults are holding a serious discussion of what this phenomenon is all about - and if you have nothing to add to the conversation - don't let the door hit you on the way out. Now then - where were we - oh yes - these 'sovereign citizens' (and I include Abo activists, creeps,  and all other rat racers in that) are expressing the winter of their discontent about the way they see our society, culture and country going - to find some 'path for their valour' ... some rock to which they can cling in the raging storms of modern life ... somewhere they can say they ARE something .... and have - like mothra and skanka - failed to actually think it through and see that the solutions lie not in perpetuating open warfare with the rest of society  ...... but in 'warring' legitimately against the ruling elite cliques who are destroying all of those thing .... our society, culture and country.... using the electoral and political processes (the twain shall never meet until we force it on them). It's clear to me that some here, lacking the intellectual capacity, are only here to try to disrupt discussion of real issues - almost as if they are paid employees of the current entrenched disruptors... elected and otherwise...... the Old Guard trying desperately to hold back the needed tides of REAL change (the lack of which is what is driving these 'sovereign citizens' to their position) ....and either not realising they are the REAL 'conservatives' desperately holding on to a lost past, or they know it and are intent on their own supremacy and that of their kind. Like Albo - lunatics which ever way you see it. Snide note:-  Ah - I see you are a poof trying out that old worn-out line.. how very neo-conservative in reality of you.

But hey - that's only my opinion - last time I looked we were still entitled to our opinion... or would you rather cut that out as well?  Oooh - you cunning New Nazis... you are so sneaky - surely nobody can keep up with you in your demands that 'your way' be the only way.... delusional behaviour that... if your kind don black suits and masks and hoodies and march against defenceless women and girls - that's OK by you... how DARE they oppose your right to invade their toilets, dressing rooms and sports and everything else at your whim?  And if you march in the same laughable costume for BLM or Antifa and black 'rights' and Hamas .. what are we, the normal people, supposed to do?  Run and hide from assholes like you?

Bait laid, assholes - come on in ...... hope the REAL Neo-Nazis get you one day.....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 20^th, 2025 at 9:12pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 20th, 2025 at 6:09pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Aug 20th, 2025 at 3:59pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 20th, 2025 at 2:38pm: I knew this would be good - this pair trying to sustain a reasoned argument without hurling insult - then crying when they get it back. You almost get as triggered as Frank whenever you're called out. Why is it that the loudest whingers about "weak men" always turn out to be the ones with the thinnest skin? It's the same kind of projection you see from those who insist that being gay is "just a choice", not realising they're actually confessing that they've felt those urges themselves but decided to suppress them. In doing so, they out themselves as firmly wedged in the closet, all while pretending it's everyone else with the problem. Sure triggered you and mothra - thanks for the laugh.... now toddle off - the adults are holding a serious discussion of what this phenomenon is all about - and if you have nothing to add to the conversation - don't let the door hit you on the way out. Now then - where were we - oh yes - these 'sovereign citizens' (and I include Abo activists, creeps,  and all other rat racers in that) are expressing the winter of their discontent about the way they see our society, culture and country going - to find some 'path for their valour' ... some rock to which they can cling in the raging storms of modern life ... somewhere they can say they ARE something .... and have - like mothra and skanka - failed to actually think it through and see that the solutions lie not in perpetuating open warfare with the rest of society  ...... but in 'warring' legitimately against the ruling elite cliques who are destroying all of those thing .... our society, culture and country.... using the electoral and political processes (the twain shall never meet until we force it on them). It's clear to me that some here, lacking the intellectual capacity, are only here to try to disrupt discussion of real issues - almost as if they are paid employees of the current entrenched disruptors... elected and otherwise...... the Old Guard trying desperately to hold back the needed tides of REAL change (the lack of which is what is driving these 'sovereign citizens' to their position) ....and either not realising they are the REAL 'conservatives' desperately holding on to a lost past, or they know it and are intent on their own supremacy and that of their kind. Like Albo - lunatics which ever way you see it. Snide note:-  Ah - I see you are a poof trying out that old worn-out line.. how very neo-conservative in reality of you. But hey - that's only my opinion - last time I looked we were still entitled to our opinion... or would you rather cut that out as well?  Oooh - you cunning New Nazis... you are so sneaky - surely nobody can keep up with you in your demands that 'your way' be the only way.... delusional behaviour that... if your kind don black suits and masks and hoodies and march against defenceless women and girls - that's OK by you... how DARE they oppose your right to invade their toilets, dressing rooms and sports and everything else at your whim?  And if you march in the same laughable costume for BLM or Antifa and black 'rights' and Hamas .. what are we, the normal people, supposed to do?  Run and hide from assholes like you? Bait laid, assholes - come on in ...... hope the REAL Neo-Nazis get you one day.....

You're just a troll, so starved for attention that you have to quote yourself to keep it going, haha.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 5:05pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 4:05pm: TGD wrote: More  errors: the 'democratic way' is determined by a vote close to 50%+1, meaning the other 49% are in effect disenfranched until the next election, when  most of them are likely to remain disenfranchised (eg those  on Job Seeker); and "wrongful government" - and the remedy -  again is in the eye of the beholder. Only with the informed consent of the people through a fair electoral system. There is no informed consent (ignorance and blind ideology - eg Murdoch's 'The Australian' - is too widespread) , and how is government via elections by (close to) 50%+1 fair? Quote:   Any citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to break away from the rule of the established cartel  (sic) is entitled to do so. You mean - entitled to break the law enacted by the elected government....which is an illegal act. Eg, in the UK, I loathe the British law which criminalizes  peaceful pro palestine protests, but the remedy is to change the law.   Jeremy Corbyn is starting a new party to do just that.  A bigger problem is rogue states like the US and Israel who defy international law on the basis of mythological OT Mosaic law). [quote] government itself is founded on exertion of control = violence.

Government - and sovereign law -  is required to avoid anarchy among self-interested individuals.  


Quote:

progress in the study of violence now disproves him. The DEGREE to which a government seeks to exert that control has no relevance to the principle.

Your error: goverment is necessary to implement rule of law, (from Magna Carta on),  and the machinery required to defend the law.  See above for means to change specific laws you object to: but sovereignty of law is a necessary  principal to avoid anarchy and imposition of 'might is right'.

Note: anarachy rules in the international arena, because there is no machinery to implement  international law.

[Hopefully Putin will agree to end the war if Zelensky agrees to give up majority Russian-speaking provinces of Ukraine, in return for US security guarantees...thus  skirting around the lack of internationa law. But Palestinians in Gaza are in danger of ethnic cleansing because the US believes  in the genocide-authorizing OT Jewish god].


Quote:

So you now willingly accept that poor governance creates the environment in which individuals may seek to impose their personal sovereignty separate from that of the state.

Yes, except that the term 'personal sovereignty' is an obfuscation of the proper term which is 'personal preferences'.  And you are still erroneously conflating "individuals" with "all individuals" ; if everyone agrees a specific law is oppressive, they will change the government next election (in a democracy).



Quote:

Since, in this country, we are not Communo-fascists JUST YET ....... any individual may choose that course.  The difficulty lies - as someone said earlier by saying that people choosing this route are generally trying to escape legal liabilities - in imposing that as a right in the face of the clear exercise of overwhelming power by the state = violence by the state to secure compliance.

As noted above, any individual may choose to express his preference; but rule of law is indeed paramount to avoid anarchy among self-interested individuals.


Quote:

So you now totally accept that Labor with a primary vote of 34.7% has no right to hold government, and that 65.3% are disenfranchised.  There is hope for you yet.

Hey, I'm the one pointing to the idiocy of government elected by (close to) 50%+1,  (the"worst form of government", said Churchill) as determined in Oz by our '2-party preferred' system ie Labor plus non-Coalition voters who added up to 65.3 %. [The UK's  '1st past the post' system  is even worse, hence Starmer's "massive" election victory is evaporating fast as Reeves is attempting to 'balance the budget'...].


Quote:

The question now becomes Grappler Theorem...

No it doesn't, as explained above: democratic elections are largely a sham in practice.   


Quote:

The apparatus of the state or the people to whom the state owes service and obedience under OUR form of democracy?

The contradictions of elections (close to) 50%+1 examined above; and you continue to conflate "the people" with (close to) 50%+1. 


Quote:

The Eternal Civil War Between Government and People - Phase IV - the question of whether or not elected government holds any Divine Right to impose at whim or will.

The "war" is actually between self-interested individuals who have relunctanly understood they must all accept rule of law to avoid anarchy. Do try to keep up. 


Quote:

Not a single mistake there, laddie.

....biting my tongue: not only are  individuals self-intereted before they are altruistic, they possess  different world views (ideologies).

And yet graps still believes in 'sovereign citizens'.   

You therefore prove the need for informed consent - even if many of the people neither understand the issues nor are simply not interested.

As informed consent grows, steadily more and more people will understand and realise the need to act.

Freeing The People from their chains of excessive government is a long and arduous task... and the major part of the first phase is educating them properly.

That is why some of us are here..

Your responses show clearly the real need for that education of The People.

I am DISCUSSING 'sovereign citizenship' - not supporting it... do try to keep up.

I was interested in Peccary's reasons for saying all 'sovereign citizens' are crazy...

Greg??  ARE they crazy in their own right - and why - or are they just another manifestation of the growing 'need' for so many to secure some 'place in the sun' in this modern age - by finding some oddball social creation to travel with?

If it is the latter - why do you think this is so?  WHY are so very many striving for a 'place in the sun' in our 'rich' and 'pampered' society by securing a lease on some oddball identity?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 21^st, 2025 at 5:18pm:

I was interested in Peccary's reasons for saying all 'sovereign citizens' are crazy...

You decide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8pH0hzUFs8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0vwQtAApb8

Thanks, compadre.  I'll look at those after the footy.  Now in my one Rugby match against New Zealand... not official ...

Here's one of these sovereign citizens giving the idea a bad name...

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/two-officers-killed-one-injured-in-shooting-in-porepunkah/vi-AA1Ld5bW?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=60261ec470274669f4c6c09f5a59b362&ei=6#details

"Two officers killed, one injured in shooting in Porepunkah
Two police officers have been killed and another was injured in a shooting at a rural property in Victoria's alpine region."

The guy identifies as a sovereign citizen... he's now on the run and being hunted....

Another one....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 26^th, 2025 at 7:11pm:

Here's one of these sovereign citizens giving the idea a bad name... https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/two-officers-killed-one-injured-in-shooting-in-porepunkah/vi-AA1Ld5bW?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=60261ec470274669f4c6c09f5a59b362&ei=6#details "Two officers killed, one injured in shooting in Porepunkah Two police officers have been killed and another was injured in a shooting at a rural property in Victoria's alpine region." The guy identifies as a sovereign citizen... he's now on the run and being hunted.... Another one....

Not a surprise given 'sovereign citizens' claim laws don't apply to them and claim law enforcement is a 'breach' of their 'sovereignty'.

So back to my original thesis - what is it that drives people to adopt that position... then add to that the coming 31/8 marches of discontent...

What are all the reasons for so many - starting with the loopy left, deciding to take over the country in one way or another?

This is really a big issue of government and governance... why is the winter of our discontent growing and growing and expanding more and more across social groups of all kinds, and why are some becoming outright violent and carrying weapons?

Add to that the punks out of control more and more and using weapons.....

Where did it all begin........ well - I know.... the causes are manifold - and many of them are in that poll on 31/8 marches....

Your turn.....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 26^th, 2025 at 7:28pm:

So back to my original thesis - what is it that drives people to adopt that position...

Are you excusing the committing of crimes?

Is domestic violence a result of women's lippines, you think?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 26^th, 2025 at 7:35pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 26th, 2025 at 7:28pm: So back to my original thesis - what is it that drives people to adopt that position... Are you excusing the committing of crimes? Is domestic violence a result of women's lippines, you think?

Something wrong with your mind, boy?  I'm raising questions on why this is occurring - and you go off on some strange mothra-like tangent..

English not your first language?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 26^th, 2025 at 8:25pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 26th, 2025 at 7:35pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 26th, 2025 at 7:28pm: So back to my original thesis - what is it that drives people to adopt that position... Are you excusing the committing of crimes? Is domestic violence a result of women's lippines, you think? Something wrong with your mind, boy?  I'm raising questions on why this is occurring - and you go off on some strange mothra-like tangent.. English not your first language?

Their mothers loved them too much... or not enough?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 26^th, 2025 at 8:29pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 26th, 2025 at 8:25pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 26th, 2025 at 7:35pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 26th, 2025 at 7:28pm: So back to my original thesis - what is it that drives people to adopt that position... Are you excusing the committing of crimes? Is domestic violence a result of women's lippines, you think? Something wrong with your mind, boy?  I'm raising questions on why this is occurring - and you go off on some strange mothra-like tangent.. English not your first language? Their mothers loved them too much... or not enough?

Could be - too much but in the wrong way?  Kids farmed out to strangers to be socialised and then being treated to everything to compensate?

You are thinking...

I took over with my 6 month old when his mother went back to making movies, and when she was away all day and came home, he literally turned his nose on her... she left him... and he wasn't happy.  Children are very thinking people ... they do have their ways and their real needs - and maybe those needs are not being met in our modern disintegrating society.

There are some deep and underlying reasons for the actions of many of all kinds and on all 'sides' ... as thinking human beings we need to sort those out and spread the word - not fight and argue among one another.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 26^th, 2025 at 9:58pm:

he literally turned his nose on her... she left him... and he wasn't happy.  Children are very thinking people ...

Not that they're thinking people... children have an instinctive terror of abandonment and, without the capacity to fully reason, that terror morphs into anger when they're reunited.

Jewish kids who were sent to Britain for their own safety by their parents all reported a sense of abandonment, and the younger they were, the more they felt it.

The lucky (very few) kids whose parents had survived and were eventually reunited with their parents, spoke of irrational feelings of anger at them for having sent them away.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 26^th, 2025 at 11:04pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 26th, 2025 at 9:58pm: he literally turned his nose on her... she left him... and he wasn't happy.  Children are very thinking people ... Not that they're thinking people... children have an instinctive terror of abandonment and, without the capacity to fully reason, that terror morphs into anger when they're reunited. Jewish kids who were sent to Britain for their own safety by their parents all reported a sense of abandonment, and the younger they were, the more they felt it. The lucky (very few) kids whose parents had survived and were eventually reunited with their parents, spoke of irrational feelings of anger at them for having sent them away.

Yes - but if you put that in the context of the 'boot-strapping' of the human mind and psyche - I call it 'thinking' and you call it purely instinctual.  When you see that thinking is based on the instinctual, you arrive at the position of seeing that people function from that basis in either the way of forming social ideas and concepts and 'mores and values' - or they do not.

You see that every day with the people you meet and see.  An astute person can see the 'path' on which people are 'walking'.  You must know yourself that you can see the difference between a clear junkie and a person who exists by the rules; between any outlier and the majority - who are often surprised that such people as the Outlier even exist.

The point here is that every single social structure of 'civilised man' is based on that basic instinctual thinking... rationalised by thought and discussion and open review of all ideas related to it.

The rational man says - 'do not kill' ... instinct says 'sometimes you must' - and not only that, but when the lines of 'civilised behaviour' are blurred or distorted or even non-existent (see Hamas and Gazans), an individual can and will see enemies deserving of death on any side at whim.

THAT is why we have civilisations built on a basic majority consent to controls, and not just left open to every whim of the person with the biggest fist.  At least that's the theory, and why you should see why I oppose those social structures that do rely on the biggest fist, or the loudest megaphone or whatever.

When in wonder - when in doubt - run in circles - scream and shout.

This is a very big issue.... far too big for a simple internet forum.

Sovereign Citizens are nutbags

Conspiracy theorists.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 27^th, 2025 at 12:51am:

Yes - but if you put that in the context of the 'boot-strapping' of the human mind and psyche - I call it 'thinking' and you call it purely instinctual.  When you see that thinking is based on the instinctual, you arrive at the position of seeing that people function from that basis in either the way of forming social ideas and concepts and 'mores and values' - or they do not.

Well... you're making light of good parenting and healthy role models, but it seems personality and character are largely a product of nature.

Having said that, the congenital predisposition towards psychopathy does not necessarily express itself when healthy, functional parents raise the 'psychopathic' child... Also, there's evidence of a link to high lead exposure and psychopathic/ abnormally aggressive behaviour.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 27^th, 2025 at 7:16am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 27th, 2025 at 12:51am: Yes - but if you put that in the context of the 'boot-strapping' of the human mind and psyche - I call it 'thinking' and you call it purely instinctual.  When you see that thinking is based on the instinctual, you arrive at the position of seeing that people function from that basis in either the way of forming social ideas and concepts and 'mores and values' - or they do not. Well... you're making light of good parenting and healthy role models, but it seems personality and character are largely a product of nature. Having said that, the congenital predisposition towards psychopathy does not necessarily express itself when healthy, functional parents raise the 'psychopathic' child... Also, there's evidence of a link to high lead exposure and psychopathic/ abnormally aggressive behaviour.

You are not following me - I am saying that our 'culture' as formalised comes from the fundamental instincts of any and every human being - and that - sadly in this world - some 'cultures remain very primitive in their thinking for countless reasons.  Nothing about 'parenting' - that comes in later in the discussion.

I agree - there is a pretty reliable set of data that indicates that 'schizophrenia' largely develops in adolescence, though I've observed, from having a schiz brother, that there are definitely early signs.  Lead - yes - there is a very serious history of that.

Good parenting and role models can work to ameliorate such things, true - so I have to wonder why it is that so many people go wrong these days... and that is why I am exploring the underlying ills of this country - to see what is happening to push people towards extremes all the time.

Australia has long had a sort of 'frontier' mentality - sort of a wild west approach to life - and that still goes on in many ways... but the difference these days is how very set people are becoming in their highly extreme thinking - such as that Freeman character down Victoria way and a lot of others from all walks, not just his - who think that they are victims of the state etc (they may be right in some ways, just not the way they think) and that the state is intent on persecuting them.

You know the types of groups I am talking about - some 'transgender' types who are often quite mentally unwell; some Aborigines who have been raised to fight for life via abuse and neglect and such; even a lot of your 'multi-cultural' types, coming from a 'kill or be killed' country, do this; and your average hodge-podge ancestry 'Westie' is much the same in assuming they are in some war zone with enemies all around them - gangs and 'other neighbourhoods' and such, and have a readiness to fight etc at the drop of a hat.

All of that is escalating at this time into higher and higher levels of violence....

I'm giving people a chance to discuss WHY this is happening...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 27^th, 2025 at 12:57pm:

You are not following me - I am saying that our 'culture' as formalised comes from the fundamental instincts of any and every human being - and that - sadly in this world - some 'cultures remain very primitive in their thinking for countless reasons.  Nothing about 'parenting' - that comes in later in the discussion.

Ok... But that's as redundant as saying that a clear day's sky is blue wherever you go.

Sophia wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 8:45am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 19th, 2025 at 7:40am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 18th, 2025 at 9:24pm: Just watched Four Corners about 'sovereign citizens' - interesting. I will lead you into discussion here ... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-18/sovereign-citizen-movement-law-court-four-corners/105655100 I will hold my views until I see what you - my learned and unlearned colleagues - think of this. Without looking at your link(which all I'll do later) everything I've seen by individuals who have called themselves sovereign citizens is about running foul of the law. i.e. driving unregistered vehicles, driving unlicensed, being caught shoplifting, failing to provide a sample for alcohol/drug testing, refusing to give any sort of ID etc, etc They make statements like- "I do not consent", "I am or As a living man/woman" - I'm not driving this vehicle I'm travelling" - claiming that Police work for them and attempt to give them orders or even say "I'm arresting you" etc, etc, etc, Those 3 crazy Trains from Wieambilla who shot those coppers were in that Sovereign Citizens mindset as well as being former religious nuts. So everyone I've seen speaking about it has either been a smartarse taunting police or someone trying to stall off being punished for breaking traffic regulations or laws. Have a look - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUMENVPlhs Wiki- Quote: The sovereign citizen movement (sometimes abbreviated as SovCits) is a loose group of anti-government activists, conspiracy theorists, vexatious litigants, tax protesters and financial scammers found mainly in English-speaking common law countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Sovereign citizens have their own pseudolegal belief system based on misinterpretations of common law, and claim not to be subject to any government statutes unless they consent to them. So yeah nah to Sovereign Citizens BS. I've had a brush with it a little too close to home. The increasing rise in Flat Earthers around also belongs in this category of nutters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWQmytV-LEk Sure, there’s erring humans in just one group only? And no politicians take advantage of thinking they are above the law? I’ve too seen the irresponsible spoilers taking advantage of the sovcits with what they are trying to do is make those in power and unjust be more accountable. Remember those quips born from authitarian injustices such as “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” It irks me when anyone acts outside of responsibility. Government, coppers, or a few from SovCits etc etc etc tends to make up tar them all with the same brush. Did you know, you can cash in your birth certificate for the birth weight in gold? Hence another quote “worth your weight in gold”

Where can you do that? If it were true everyone would be there cashing in. ;D

I don't know that Australia has any gold reserves in the country .... what we may have is held overseas.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 27^th, 2025 at 6:31am:

Sovereign Citizens are nutbags Conspiracy theorists.

Indeed.

They are mentally ill and potentially very dangerous.

This is a demonstrable fact.

Anyone who identifies as a SovCit should be on a register and closely monitored.

Any of yez watching ACA at the moment_ some guy is talking about SCs and mentioned that they are seeking meaning to their life... see how the Grappler Free University approach has now segued yez all from all these oddballs 'seeking a path for their valour' etc.....(for those of yez that bothered to read) ..through SCs as a specific issue (alongside transgenders and other oddballs like feminists and blacktivists and such) .. all the way to how these off the rail ideas and thoughts lead some into a fantasy world of conflict ... a world in which they see their life as a war with only one survivor - them or us....

The madness that has over-run the West MUST be addressed and curtailed - for the safety of all.  Once a society 'normalises' oddball things .......... (let that one hang in the air for a moment ... think about it) ..... it opens the door to 'acceptance' of all kinds of nutbag ideas from often very dangerous people.. while doing nothing to control the behaviour of those people..

---

“The essential question was always "Who are these fellows who give us orders? By what warrant? And how do we benefit and how does the world benefit? But they are doing no good to anyone, no real good even to themselves! This is not government and leadership; this is imposture. Why stand it?...Why stand it?”

― H.G. Wells, The Holy Terror

Or Ray Key - Electrician... when in his cups - "Who are these people?"  "Who are these people?"  "Who are they to tell us what to do?"

So you see - this thinking has been around for a long time now........ and Wells was a Socialist man... so are they all ... All Socialist Men... and Ray Key was an 'overseer' at the local prison farm... not a warder - an employee who came in to teach the inmates things..

Where does it begin?  Where does it end?  And if we but once let go of the ropes that tie us all to the lifeboat of OUR civilisation..... where do we end up?

This is a big question.. I do wish you would address it..

All this time I've been waiting for one or more of you to put your foot in the issues of 'sovereign citizenship' and 'sovereignty of the people' .... so your education could continue.... would've thought dividie would try that one on... he thinks sovereignty of the people in a true democracy is anarchy without the imposition by the state...