Well - they do have a point - as much point as the Secessionist States seceding from the Union.... a Union entered into voluntarily can be broken...... and one entered into by one side involuntarily from birth is open to discussion at the very least.

So - what about that ceding of sovereignty here?  That is a big issue and is never openly discussed around the dreaded round table with all 'stakeholders' given a fair chance and equal footing, just like every other important issue - but is left instead to a set of pat phrases to be bandied about at whim by 'activists'.

True government comes from a mandate of the masses, willingly given and fully informed! We're a semi-autonomous, quasi-anarchic egalitarian assemblage of rules-bound free individuals who vote every three years on our elected representatives, who then sit down and natter out the best way forward, and if we disagree with them we can write to them or vote them out next time around, or even refuse to abide by their dictates under the guiding principle that 'an unjust law – (or decision or policy for that matter) – is no law - (or decision or policy for that matter) - at all'!

You see the difference?  'We' choose to be rules-bound - these Sovereign Citoyennes refuse to be....... s'all about.............. (rolling thunder for dividie).................. Personal Sovereignty.... innit?

It was nice when the 3rd video guy called out politely 'are we free to go now?'

A sovereign has the right to walk over other people on the footpath. If they fail to do so, their sovereignty is terminated.

'Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown'. Putin's guard has 340,000 troops and he keeps his crown under his pillow.

It is heading towards the chaos of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Gaza. Muhammad makes them a bit worse.

Who is then more unjust than he who utters a lie against Allah and (he who) gives the lie to the truth when it comes to him; is there not in hell an abode for the unbelievers?  And on the day of resurrection you shall see those who lied against Allah; their faces shall be blackened.

There is something deeply satisfying watching people like this getting arrested and squealing like a pig.

Obey the law.  If it's good enough to demand of minorities then these entitled white folk should do the same.

If not, they get the same.

THe local movement here is quite sad.

The Corporation of Australia under maritime law means they don't have to be bound by our laws.

Hilarious.

But on a serious note, they waste so much resources from law enforcement to the courts, it's a disgrace.

They've never once had a win, other than begging for money for their legal defence funds or grifting people trying to teach them how to beat the system.

Cookers gonna cook.

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 6^th, 2024 at 4:11pm:


Indeed, it is.

When I first discovered the videos, I watched about 10 of them in a row.

In all my life, I've never seen such idiots.

And all for nothing - they achieve absolutely nothing, except ruining their own lives.

Hil.  Arious.

I watched the first 3 clips and was astonished at the patience of that Aussie cop. I'd like to say something hopeful about Aussie cops being generally nicer than US cops but we've some right arseholes here.

Still, the contrast was dramatic.

And while we're on the subject, anyone remember this guy?

Setanta wrote on Jun 6^th, 2024 at 10:03pm:


I'll have to look again.

I've only ever seen white folk go down the cooker path to this extreme.

This one has a happy ending:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 7^th, 2024 at 9:36pm:


It was the best outcome possible.

Everyone wins.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2024 at 6:19pm:



Any "point" made by a delusional individual freedom ideologue  (aka a "sovereign citizen") is based on  -  a delusion re individual sovereignty, so should be approached with extreme caution.   

Quote:


Er - sovereignty of government is not subject to voluntary acceptance by individual citizens of the country.

Quote:


Your error: black activists aren't claiming to be 'sovereign citizens' ( the topic of this thread), they are claiming sovereignty for the 'black nation' (sic).   

Quote:


"True government" can only exist via rule of law, to avoid anarchy. 

Quote:


Get back to us when you can show an electorate which is "fully informed" .....

Quote:


Refuted above.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 7:01pm:


I will start by saying I can't see the video as it has an age rating and I do not have a youtube account. I'd like to be enlighten why a video that shows a mentally handicapped person shot by police should gladden Gregg's heart so much.

I'm curious.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 8:14pm:


As I said, I can't watch the video, I'll have to take your word on pulling a gun. So mentally handicapped people that reach for a weapon should be shot and you will celebrate it? I thought you were against the DP.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 7:11am:


Good point; but the topic is sovereign citizens, not criminal low-life or tragic retards driven by their reptilian brains whom the world is better off without.

Whereas Graps praises 'high class' sovereign citizens who merely have contempt for rule of law...which is why he didn't attempt to  refute my post.

And of course apart from low life crims and retards, there are people who are oppressed by vicious mainstream neoliberal economic systems and poltical orthodoxies,  and are forced onto welfare dependency.

Hence a complex situation re law enforcement, especially given some cops are no doubt wanna be Genghis Khan 'tough on crime' thugs, and notably in the US where every citizen is "sovereign" and can buy a gun if he has the money.   

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 11:34am:


A confused narrative to be expected from a delusional 'sovereign citizen' -  of which every US citizen can claim the "right" (via the obsolete 2nd ammendment.

Fortunately , PM John Howard wasn't a 'sovereign citizen' and he saved Oz from the gun-death chaos in the US, even though crims are just as prevalent in Oz.    

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 12:20pm:


The US constitution itself - or rather the obsolete 2nd amendment - aids and abets all the sovereign citizen ideologues.

Result: the greatest gun-death violence of any 1st world country.

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 12:44pm:


No, they have a licence with conditions issued by sovereign government.

Do try to keep up.


Quote:


See how the delusional 'sovereign citizen's' mind works - totally confusing himself with contradictory nonsense which he somehow thinks is logic.   

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 7:11am:


He got the death penalty for being a dick. Not worth the paper work.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 11:57am:

'they have a licence with conditions issued by sovereign government.'

You say US citizens are sovereign by the 2nd Amendment of the government. Oz government is sovereign and gives gun licences. So sovereign citizens depend on sovereign government to not depend on government. Then an Oz car licence from the government creates sovereign citizens.
John Howard was against guns so he wasn't sovereign. Guns are for sovereign citizens with government licences or US government Amendment.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 3:17pm:



I couldn't tell from the video if he was reaching for a gun.
I did see a gun on the floor of the car.
The important footage of the video was all cut out.
I will assume that the coroner will investigate it thoroughly.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 2:53pm:


It's a bit silly insane to claim you're a Sovereign Citizen.

Full stop.

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 3:54pm:


I want to see an uncensored video of the circumstance. If the alleged perp was holding a firearm of some sort, he was likely justified in getting shot.

chimera wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 2:54pm:


Comprehension diffulties (or low IQ)?

I said sovereignty is exercized by government, not indivduals.

You are making the classic fallacy of composition, confusing the 'sovereingty' of each individual in a nation, with  all the individuals in a nation who are represented by the sovereign government.

Please rewrite your garbled nonsense, highlighted above.

Quote:


Correct.

Quote:


Once again I have shown above (ie fallacy of composition) why you write such garbled nonsense. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 11:57am:

tgd: '1. Citizens  (not sovereign)  are subject to laws issued by the sovereign government,  including laws re free speech'.

You say citizens are sovereign via the government constitution and so are not sovereign by the government.

chimera wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 4:03pm:


No I don't; what we can see is useful idiots like you reveal the idiocy (and illegality) of the sovereign citizen  delusion.  (Note the singular, which drives home the point as already noted, but which went straight over your head).

But not over head of this Tasmanian independent MP who was invited to a 'sovereign citizens' meeting:

(microsoft news)

Tasmanian MP Craig Garland speaks at 'sovereign citizens' event, but says he's 'not a subscriber to any alternative reality'

Tasmanian independent MP Craig Garland spoke at an event on the weekend that featured multiple 'sovereign citizens' — one of whom plans to create a parallel society — but says he had "no idea" who most of them were.

Mr Garland said he will accept speaking invitations "anywhere, anytime", and that the event was attended by many of his supporters.

The event, in the north-west Tasmanian town of Ulverstone, was called 'Unity in Community', similar to the main slogan of the group 'My Place Australia', which is "putting the unity back in community", and aims to set up a "self-governing" association outside of Australian law.

But event organiser Shayne 'Cush' Allison said he came up with the event name himself, and it was "just a coincidence" that it was shared with My Place.
My Place's facilitator, Darren Bergwerf, attended and spoke at the weekend event.

Other speakers included a man who failed to have his Devonport council rates dismissed in court on constitutional grounds, and a speaker who argues the Australian Constitution is invalid and citizens have given "no implied consent".

Sovereign citizens believe Australian laws and institutions are not valid, and subscribe to the conspiracy that a global "cabal" is plotting to remove ordinary citizen's freedoms, but Mr Allison disputed the term "sovereign citizens".

The rhetoric of sovereign citizens has been routinely rejected by Australian courts and described by judges as "gibberish", "incomprehensible" and vexatious, and cases have resulted in financial penalties and potential loss of assets.

Mr Garland said he attended the event on Saturday afternoon, briefly listened to a speech, then gave his own talk on his "political journey" to about 100 attendees.

"I can't comment on who the other speakers were, I just looked around the room and there were quite a few people there who voted for me," he said.

"There were a lot of familiar faces, and there wasn't any radical element there that I could see that much.

"I'll attend anywhere, anytime I'm asked to talk."

Mr Garland said that 'sovereign citizen' concepts weren't raised with him, but there were discussions about "food security".

He said he did not share sovereign citizen views.

"I'm not a subscriber to any alternative reality," Mr Garland said.

When asked if his attendance could give the other speakers an increased audience, and help to legitimise their views, Mr Garland said "we live in a democracy with freedom of speech"**.

Mr Garland was first elected to the House of Assembly earlier this year on the back of strong preference flows in the north-west seat of Braddon, where he lives as a fisherman campaigning against fish farms and the Robbins Island wind farm.

**Yes, even  blind neanderthal fools  like chimera who reject the possibility of an international rules based system are free to spout "gibberish" - as noted by judges in Australian courts who routinely come face to face with these 'sovereign citizen' fools.



 

Mr Garland's case is interesting:

Mr Garland was first elected to the House of Assembly earlier this year on the back of strong preference flows in the north-west seat of Braddon, where he lives as a fisherman campaigning against fish farms and the Robbins Island wind farm.

iow, he wants nature to be left as is, with no fish farms or wind farms which might impede his fishing catch.

But he is intelligent enough not to take the delusional 'sovereign  citizen' route, trying to fight in the courts, and is now enjoying a highly paid job as an MP.

The conflict betweeen private (solo)  and commercial fishing  will need to be sorted in the relevant courts.

And the conflict over wind farm placement will need to be sorted by government ( plus courts if necessary in individual cases).

I understand electricity can be transmitted by high voltage DC lines over thousands of kms  with low energy losses,  and then reconverted to AC closer to the point of consumption.

If that's the case, Oz should build all the PV and wind farms it needs, in its vast central deserts, and lay the transmission cables underground. We have the equipment and know how to do it, and the currency-issuing government's Treasury ( the Oz treasury)  can fund it without the government resorting to taxes and/or borrowing to pay for it. 

Not at all - in our form of democracy, as opposed to some 'democracies' - our people are sovereign and possess the right to disempower government when it is wrong.

However, to be a 'sovereign citizen' in the context that these people do, one is saying that he/she is refusing to abide by the rules commonly accepted by the whole - while still demanding the right to accept all the benefits of the society in which that person(s) swims (swim) like a fish.

This, of course - has a direct link with those currently doing the rounds who are claiming 'sovereignty' to some past empire while still expecting to receive full benefits of this nation... it follows directly from such a stance that those individuals are not citizens of this state and thus cannot take advantage of the benefits of being citizens of this state, such as voting, sustenance, or even residence.

With privileges come responsibilities - that is the nub of the matter.

'sovereign citizen' -  of which every US citizen can claim the "right" (via the obsolete 2nd ammendment.'
'The US constitution itself - or rather the obsolete 2nd amendment - aids and abets all the sovereign citizen ideologues.'

What has the guns got to do with their claim?

As sovereign people we offer limited acceptance of the right of government to do things on our behalf... but whenever there is a chain of abuses and impositions and exclusions - it is the right... it is the duty... of the people to remove such government, by any means necessary.

What we - the people as sovereign - do not possess is unlimited right to do as we wish, but are, instead, bound by the rules of civilised behaviour.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 6:07pm:


Moving you further in the direction of chimera's idiocy - "gibbersih" according to judges in Oz courts of law:

"As sovereign people" (your words)..... of whom each has his own opinion on what the law should be.

Restating your same argument in different words won't save you.

"We offer limited acceptance, etc.": no "we" don't, we fight in fraudulent elections (and shoot one-another in many countries) to try to get our own idea of law up, while the rich laugh all the way to the bank.   

Quote:


Same old error : "the people" -  who are divided by fraudulent flat-earth economics which keeps  the rich laughing all the way to the bank.   

Quote:


You misunderstand the meaning of "the people are sovereign" , which means the people who are governed by their sovereign government.

Individuals can't make laws, governments can. 

George Washington gave people guns which made them sovereign citizens. George was slightly insane and was greatly divided. He didn't say that.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 6:43pm:


The individual doesn't make law, the individuals chosen to fill government positions in the legislature and courts make law. There is no such thing as a 'sovereign individual/citizen', sovereignty resides with government.

Quote:


Showing why "democracy is the worst form of government"; you simply can't refute any of the points made, and resort to your asinine comment above ("made no argument") - and you think you deserve a 'right' to vote....

Fact is 50%+1 of the people (not "we the people")  will decide in a 'democratic' election which laws are legislated.   The losers will have to wait until they can  try again at the next election, by which time the elected governement will have shown itself to be incompetent.

Modi (as did Obama a decade before)  actually had total control of Congress at the start of their reigns, but they failed to deliver for their supporters, hence lost support at the next election.  Repeat and rinse endlessly, politicians love it, and you blindly blame the government rather than the system which prevents governments from eliminating unemployment, improving public services, and ensuring housing for all. Sunak will get his just deserts soon, and the French are forced to choose the fool Macron again. 

Losers.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 12:39pm:

tgd :'SCOTUS actually ruled that only people who were attached to "militias" had the right to bear arms ...so much for 'sovereign citizens'.

Where does any sovereign citizen claim the ideology through the 2nd Amend? Now you contradict your first statement.

However, China's government repeats nonsense to make it more factual.  No sanity, just repetition.

So crossing out the comment that you contradict yourself proves you don't contradict?

'All the current pro-gun, delusional 'sovereign citizen' ideologues in the US claim it'.
Where? You feel that saying anything becomes fact because you say it?  That's seriously insane.

People under the constitution by definiton are not sovereign citizens. Where do sovereign citizens claim their right due to the 2nd Amend? Why do you contradict youself and say the 2nd Amend doesn't give that right?

Thegreatdivide says she's against sov cits but has the same mind-bending word twists. And they both seem to repeat nonsense endlessly to make it factual.  She's invented a new sov cit theory about gun rights, which makes me suspicious.  Mao said power comes from guns, 1927.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 12:22pm:

That's sovereignty. When the elected term in office expires, who has sovereignty? The government needs to be created anew by citizens. (can you work out the difference between them and 'sovereign citizens'?)

chimera : 'However, China's government repeats nonsense to make it more factual. 
thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 12:22pm:

Its fishermen went to sea and own it as far as Borneo. China owns it. China owns it.

chimera wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 5:16pm:


Our city is sacked. May you know it! May you know it!”
Ugarit circa 1200BC.

chimera wrote on Jun 11^th, 2024 at 1:42pm:


'Sovereign citizens' don't regard the concept as "mind bending",  though they are equally as delusional as you re the sovereignty of governments.

Quote:


Your low IQ confirmed: in 1927, Mao was working to  establish government for the prosperity of the Chinese nation which at the time was ravaged by the absolute poverty of over 90% of the population - not to maintain the prosperity of neanderthal, self-interested "freedom or death" individuals who refuse to submit to rule of law.



   

chimera wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 5:16pm:
 

Exactly: "we the citizens come together to create the sovereign government of the US... for the common welfare... "

Quote:


(...proving there ARE such things as dumb questions...):

The care-taker government, until the election results are confirmed.

Quote:


Your error: you are confusing the processes/machinery of sovereign government with the citizens who choose the particular governing party (determined by majority vote in the case of multi-party democracies). 

Sovereignty resides in government, not in the disparate citizens and particular parties which can be turfed out at the next election.

Hence the rest of your post is GIGO....except your final observation, namely:

"China's fishermen  fishermen went to sea and own it as far as Borneo. China owns it."

Again, your fallacy of composition: some, not all of China's "fishermen", claimed sovereignty of the SCS for China, not for their "sovereign"(sic) selves.

Indeed nations claimed sovereignty according to historical adventures and circumstances

But that belongs to pre 1946 history when "might is right" ruled the waves (hence "Britannia rules the waves"...before it no longer did).

Hence the need for an international rules-based order, to avoid endless wars.   

See the blind "freedom or death" chimera twisting and turning.....

chimera wrote on Jun 13^th, 2024 at 2:25pm:


So here we have it: we see how the reptilian brain cripples the cortex brain: chimera can't even acknowledge the answer to his dumb question "When the elected term in office expires, who has sovereignty?"

The reptilian brain in all its blind, primitive force, lately displayed by Netanyahu when he accuses the UN of being "evil".

The human condition...and the child slaughtering goes on.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 11:57am:



You have made no argument - a union entered into voluntarily may be broken at the will of a party.  If I join a club I can resign from it  - if I join a political party - I can quit.

At least you agree that OUR self-proclaimed 'sovereign citizens' who say they are not part of Australia should be given their own separate space, as a courtesy and a nod to their having been the First Invaders.

It's wrong because it came from your anti-democratic CCP mind-twist. And your self-contradicting dogma, based on insults.

Those who have never surrendered sovereignty to another or former 'power' cannot be citizens of this state unless they accept citizenship of this state.  As long as they claim suzereignty under any other state exclusively they can receive no benefits from Australia.

Backpackers just wandering through do not receive benefits... ergo - those who claim to belong to some former empire equally hold no right to receive benefits.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2024 at 8:13pm:


That's brilliant

There's someone I know I'd love to show it to

but I'm afraid they're so far down that rabbit hole that it would be a waste of time

and I'd be in for a monumental rant and abuse.

None the less it's sort of like what I've told them before about this nonsense.

Gnads wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 8:43pm:


Yes, once they've gone down the rabbit hole there's no coming back.

They would just say that everything in the video is wrong. The lawyers are wrong.

You can't reason with these people.


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

I'd like one of these cops to ask these morons to look at the gear lever in their car and ask them what position they put it in when they want to travel - 'Drive' or 'Travel'?

Morons.

Arrrgh - could buy yez a dozen of 'em fer a sovereign!!

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 11:46am:


I was ignoring you, not replying to you, MR Strauss *- following the crowd, you see - not 'refuting' anything you say - not worth the trouble when people make nonsensical points' over and over by simply refusing reality.

https://www.tiktok.com/@memenheimer/video/7265434361531731246

Did it occur to you that they were talking about something more important than you?

Check out this Aussie SovCit.

Insane, or just a sht-stirrer/attention whore?

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jul 12^th, 2024 at 2:56pm:


1. Your errors revealed straight away:  "the people as sovereign," does NOT lead to  "each individual is sovereign".

Note: Even King John ("the Crown") was forced to admit the limits of HIS individual  "sovereignty", even though he WAS "sovereign"  ("the Crown"....) 

See your error now?

2.  It has EVERTHING to do with "THIS sovereign citizen thing";  see King John signing the Magna Charter.

Quote:


Your error: the people in the aggregate, represented by their government is sovereign, no one individual is sovereign under rule of law established by government.

(No need to refer to G&S, their characters are no doubt as confused as you). 

Quote:


But you are still stuck with the fact self-interested individuals divide c. 50-50, in 'democratic elections', to elect parties with supposedly different policies which supposedly benefit the individuals who elect those opposing parties. 

The real problem is voters expect politicians to make  beneficial  changes in their lives, but newly elected governments can't raise the necessary funds without increasing taxes and debt.

Exhibit 1: Poor Liz Truss: when she tried to REDUCE taxes she was forced out - not by the electorate, but by the state's money lenders who believed the UK government would not be able to repay its loans to those same money-lenders, if taxes were reduced.

Now Starmer is already back-tracking: the promise to reduce child poverty will "have to wait", because "the nation is broke", and he promised not to raise taxes...

All becauuse of deplorable lies of the current financial/central bank orthodoxy, which have you hooked, line-and-sinker.

Quote:


Robodebt was a disastrous money-pinching exercise, forced on government by its lenders to 'balance the budget", as noted above.

Quote:


You are describing the experiences of  democratic governments which are forced to rely on funding by private money lenders.

(Speaking of "creating out of thin air", that's how money is created, and it's a power which  should also reside in government (to purchase what is available for purchase) as well as a power reserved for private money lenders, as at present).

Quote:


Not so so fast, hairy legs (...to borrow a phrase) ....but yes, generosity is a wonderful thing.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 12^th, 2024 at 12:57pm:


I'd like to hear others' opinions.

Do you think this guy has mental health issues, or does he just get off causing trouble?

These SovCits are weird dudes.