In order to understand the 'sovereign citizen' concept a person first needs to look at basic psychology. 

If two strangers meet in a place with no other people, and one of the two immediately approaches and shoots/stabs the other, most people would agree that an offense against the oldest human laws has been committed.

But if two people meet a stranger in a place with no other people, and the two shoot/stab the one there is a different dynamic. As before most people would agree that an offense has been committed, but the two offenders would have the seeds of a diseased empire, and they would ignore the offense, it would be invisible to them.

If the two then became three, on and on until they no longer had to shoot/stab challengers then you would have what is sometimes referred to as a 'beast' or 'group creature' which would find justification for its crimes within itself, a nonsensical opportunistic 'justification' which stands only on the 'logic' of the gun.

Modern melting pots are largely made up of these group creatures which operate under the assumption that as long as they keep loyal to the beast then they will eventually have its power.


A Utah young man was stopped by police for a traffic infraction. 

He very clearly is making philosophical arguments and shows no signs of any 'dangerousness' by any standard. Police then shoot him and drag his body out of the car, and handcuff him. If he had known beforehand how police would react he could have defended himself. Others should learn what he didn't know.


Note the comments in this video . There are people on both sides, but those who show admiration/respect are generally showing it for the dead fellow not for the police.

A person can go through the comments on videos about that fellow 

and get a sense of why media outlets in the United States have been under pressure to remove comments sections from their sites.

That person evidently was abusive to his wife and she chose to stay with him til that day, either for financial or psychological reasons.

On the day in question he was abusive and she left after he fell asleep. After she left she called police who snuck around his house attempting to surprise him.

The best solution to that issue probably involves reducing the financial pressure some women might have as a pressure to stay in such a relationship.

What the police actually do though is entirely the result of their eagerness to satisfy what they perceive as the will of the bureaucratic authorities above them. They did not sneak around because they had some value, they snuck around because their job gave them an opportunity to live out adolescent motives that they could not get away with except as part of an armed group.


Here is a video that shows somebody being asked for their id. Because the person is not cooperative he is accused of 'assault and battery on a police officer'. 


This page will list some factual points regarding sovereign citizenry.

1) Here is a woman claiming police do not know when a situation with a sovereign citizen will "escalate". Her 'expertise' is derived entirely from her willingness to support those with physical power over her.

She will support literally any group which has physical power over her, and will never grow beyond that until she has the experience, however brief, of living in a free area. She is a very good example of a person who has been prevented from even knowing that there is such a thing as 'personal liberty', and people who have power over her of course do not want her to learn that personal liberties exist. 

A person who is a 'sovereign citizen' has no interest in forcing themself on anybody.

Any government can operate either at the will of the governed, or it can operate through simple force.

It requires a lot of careful thought to construct government in a way that aligns with the will of the governed, in other words to 'govern with the consent of the governed' so that is seldom done. Rule by force is very simple so that is usually the way government authority works in most countries.

Ruling by force requires a threshold level of obedience among the population. In other words you cannot rule by force alone if 90% of the population does not go along. That leads to 'incentivized obedience'. People who tow the line of authorities are given perks by those authorities to continue extending their support to authorities.

Most people have heard of drapetomania. 

Slavery was the control of one part of the population by another part, and its legitimacy came through the simple circular fact that it was "'authorized' by authorities", and those authorities had enough power to draw in other people whose security is derived from being controlled by others with more power.

Other forms of security are generally illegal in countries like the United States. You either join the gang or you lose the right to security. Not a survivable situation for many people in all directions.

Any country can start with basic laws that boil down to 'do not use force against others except as a defensive last resort'. But most industrialized countries have core power groups which have inaccurately extended that legal basis to a mind boggling array of regulations meant to ensure obedience to specific power groups.

2) An interesting video that says "law enforcement officers are at the most risk when dealing with sovereign citizens", then 'proves' that statement by saying "In 2014 there was a study done by the University of enforcement officers considered sovereign citizens their greatest threat".

Most high school students can spot the faulty logic there, college students would call it 'a thinking error' or 'a classic logical fallacy'. 

3) An interesting video by a self proclaimed 'doctor of something' who understands that pandering to power is practical, but he is not willing to do anything other than pander. 

He uses a lot of non facts as facts, but his basic point is clear, a person needs to obey those who have the most physical power. Left unsaid is that those who abuse others under that dynamic are eliminated when it becomes practical.

That video is better than most on that subject, but a person can see that 'Dr Grande' clearly feels he does not have liberty to speak. He is aware of the climate in the United States and knows that his overall argument must be framed as being 'obedient' to police.

4) The basic 'legal' foundation of sovereignty i.e., 'legal' in a universal sense not a local sense, is that a person should not be compelled to participate in something they are not interested in participating in.

The obvious 'local' question is to what extent the 'authority' of a powerful group can enforce its laws on others against their will, using obedient lesser authority people, such as police.

And the other side is whether a person should be compelled to obey the entirety of an artificial authority if they want access to any aspect which is associated with an authority group they do not belong to and have no interest in joining.

For example if a person does not use roads built within a framework related to the 'authority', does not use utilities etc, does not use schools or businesses within the realm of what those subordinate to that authority consider 'theirs', can the authority's followers pursue them and force them to pay tribute to the various regulations? Or if a person uses one part of the infrastructure which an authority claims, such as the water supply, are they fully obligated to the authority which they have no interest in?

In the United States there is literally no physical place where a person can go, even temporarily, where those with the 'authority' mentality will suspend their authority beliefs willingly, so the question is moot.

A person cannot go, for example, to some secret room in their house where saying something illegal suddenly is not illegal, or where they can use an illegal substance without concern for the force of the 'authority' that declares it illegal, there is no 'wilderness' where a person can own a vehicle that does not have the proper paperwork.

In fact one of the ways lesser members of authoritarian societies 'get power' is to aggressively eliminate any healthy space within which non obedient people might grow.

This then leads to a predictable path which can be deduced based on psychological studies done by CG Jung and others with regard to the effects of preventing people and populations from having any healthy space.

Countries like North Korea, which are also authority based, do still have vast areas outside the reach of these authorities, generally rural areas with limited economies. The United States has no such areas. There are many 'law enforcers', almost certainly a majority of them, which spend most of their 'enforcement' effort on new ways to eliminate any space or territory which might be used in a way that does not glorify the authority they derive power from.

Notice in the first video at the top the young man has literally no right to any space, despite his offense being trivial and 'local', while police give themselves the right to the space he occupies, and feel that they are immune not only from local law but from universally accepted 'laws' or norms of behavior.

Should people follow traffic and vehicle laws in public areas? It's a good idea to do so.

Should police attack those who don't? Most police believe their authority figures have authorized them to do that.

Should those who use incidents like that to further their professional ambitions, e.g. as police officers, be commended, in other words should people pretend that the use of force was proper? That's for any individual to decide in their own belief system.

Within that context the police, as a group, can confabulate an elaborate fiction in which they are heroes defending some vague but 'important' value which their 'authorities' have authorized them to use as a sort of wildcard to keep power in their group.

A person would say it looks like some unhealthy children have formed a gang and are eliminating their superior peers, very similar to, for example, the anti education campaigns in Pol Pot's Cambodia and many other countries.

the Khmer Rouge were against education in principle and preferred to rule over illiterate people 

The 'authorities' never escape in a place like the United States. Because they are trained to eliminate people like Chase Allen who could lead others in a better direction, they spend their lives pretending to create something that doesn't exist by destroying what should exist.

5) There are many different kinds of individuals which are called 'sovereign citizens'.

The basic 'sovereign' philosophy is libertarianism i.e., do not intrude on others, and carefully sabotage those individuals who do intrude, with the 'sabotage' being according to laws which are 'less local'. It is an individual philosophy that does not work as a gang philosophy. So a person who has that understanding can enable an understanding of it in another person, but if those two people then try to construct a dogma or form a group they are no longer real sovereigns, they are now gangsters.

A good example of the sovereign idea can be seen in the interaction of different species. When a person sees a creature from a different species that person instinctively recognizes that the creature does not need anything from the person, for example the creature has its own life and does not need the person to take control over it.

A smarter person, or species, will generally try to work symbiotically with other people, or species, and failing at that will generally try to cause the least harm to the other person or species. That would be one who recognizes the 'sovereignty' or independence of creatures from other species.

Slower people, or children, generally learn this in a developmental way, unless they spend their lives within the authority of a group and thus are prevented from that developmental step.

Those group creatures trapped within an authority, for example the police in that video, will never get independence, sovereignty, unless they leave the group, which few ever will. Like a baby stuck to its mother they have everything they need and no interest nor awareness of anything else.

6) What is the origin of the 'sovereign individual' concept?

In a consolidated tribal society i.e., a stable tribe with adequate space, there is full sovereignty for all people to such an extent that it is not even visible.

When a melting pot consumes a tribal society the first step is to eliminate sovereignty for those who are conquered until they are fully assimilated, consumed. You cannot capture a wolf and then put it in your house and pretend it has your local rules. First you have to eliminate it's space then control it until it no longer has health.

As a melting pot grows into an empire there is no real sovereignty left for anybody except the weak pseudo sovereignty that comes from having artificial authority and control over others.

An unfortunate irony is that the final step in the death of the tribe is a wave of 'good intentioned people' who are willing to give all sorts of benefits to the conquered groups, except space on which they can survive. 

Australia, like the United States, can only survive by eliminating any sovereign space its victims might find, and forcing the delusion that the land of sovereign indigenous people is, in fact, a corporate property under the stewardship of the conqueror.

7) The conflict between a group of government gangsters and a group of 'sovereigns' boils down to who has rights to an individual's personal space.

Groups of sovereigns generally recognize that their own constructed authorities, often based on archaic contracts, are silly. But they also realize that the flimsiness of their constructs is not as unstable as that of the authorities they challenge. So in cases like the vehicle stop above, a 'sovereign' is saying that his flimsy arguments are stronger than their flimsy arguments. He is right, and that leaves authorities the choice of either discussing and surrendering to the truth or imprisoning/killing him.

Modern melting pots try to force their populations to project their 'space' onto something which is regulated, then the authorities claim authority over that regulated object. Cars are common examples, but the same is done with houses. A house, in a melting potted person, is an extension of personal space, and, like a car, any individual's specific projections onto that object have specific content.

Here is an example of a group of police trying to enforce their control over the house of a person they have some disagreement with. 

There are a lot of things that a person can deduce from that video about how this specific melting pot works.

Those police officers obviously do not want what they are doing later done to them by others, and they believe they have found the perfect shield. In other words they feel that as long as they are loyal to the vague 'authority of government' or 'authority of the melting pot' they are protected from accountability for any misconduct.

As a group those police form a sort of 'beast' but the 'beast' follows natural rules which are not under their control. Sort of like a person can use a car, but if a person imagines that they have authority over the physics of internal combustion eventually they will lose. In this case the 'beast' or 'group creature' the police are building around themselves is best defined in modern political terms as 'a gang that coerces' or 'a government of authority figures that operates against the will of those without that authority'.

The corresponding 'shadow' beast is much more natural and powerful, for example the fellow who killed several police officers in one of the videos above. He was not really acting as an individual, any more than the police attacking him were, but most people recognize that his authority was far more legitimate than that of a group of men paid to pretend they were helping his wife.

Notice in that last video, and in the vast majority of interactions between independent people and 'police', the police officers are using coercion to force a person into their physical control, something which is universally recognized as giving the victim an implicit right to use deadly force.

People seldom kill police officers who overstep, whether for practical reasons i.e., expected retaliation, or politeness, or other reasons. But in the United States specifically it is almost certain that economic conditions will lead to further militarization of police, and at some point the only thing that might prevent a person from defending themself against overstepping cops would be patience and/or politeness, neither of which are likely to be abundant as economies fall.

In Progress