The SovereignLife Blog

Arthur Silber continues his analysis on the significance of WikiLeaks in his blog posting:  A World Without Obedience And Authority

Further to the Wikileaks comments previously posted … Arthur Silber writes a provocative essay on the subject of obedience, how it arises in our culture and how it is transferred from parents to other authority figures in adulthood.

Silber avers that obedience is all about laws and rules – and the need to obey them for obedience’s sake. It’s an interesting post and his plea to “break the goddamn rules” strikes a chord. You can read it HERE.

Wikileaks has done it again – rubbed our political masters up the wrong way – by releasing thousands of pages of classified info on the war in Afghanistan. I want to applaud Julian Assange and his historically significant project. The more I think about it, the more I see it as a manifestation of that famous line in the movie “V”: People shouldn’t be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

When I first saw “V” I loved the idea behind that statement, but realised that people mostly do fear their governments. However, the Wikileaks project is showing the way – that it is governments that really need to fear their people.

What Julian Assange is doing is to use the internet in the way it should be used – to bring that which is “secret” into the open, and to make people aware of what it going on. He is using the internet as a radical freedom tool – to raise people’s consciousness as to what is really happening in the world.

One of the most powerful weapons in the government propaganda arsenal is the ability to control information. One bit of information the military wanted to control in Afghanistan was the fact that the Taliban appeared to have ground to air missiles, and used them to bring down some helicopters.

Instead of reporting this truth, it was considered counterproductive to the war effort – in that it may lead the public to connect such a fact to the events leading so the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan – precisely because of the same missiles in the past.

It is in such ways that the news is “managed” in order to keep us in the dark. If we know too much, too many gory details, then we may rise up and seriously protest against the prosecution of this and other wars.

I say “bring on Wikileaks, and bravo Julian Assange”.

P.S. As this article suggests, Wikileaks is the world’s first stateless news organisation. But will the warmongers manage to turn such leaks to their own advantage? Chris Floyd thinks so. Fred Reid has some additional things to say about why the Pentagon hates Wikileaks.

Addendum: This interesting article by Andrew Fowler is worth a read.

David Galland asks, “What if, I wonder, the whole modern construct of what passes for making the right moves in an advanced society is plain wrong?”

Government Mules

Nick Clegg, the UK’s Deputy Prime Minister in the new Coalition government, has unveiled his promised citizen’s initiative – to roll back unpopular laws by asking for suggestions as to which ones to get rid of.

On the face of it, this is a brilliant idea, if such a campaign actually achieves its goals. It’s also a world-first I believe.

The optimist in me sees this as a positive response to the obvious continued “bloatation” of government – and perhaps a forerunner of more to come. Certainly, if the government acts on the more serious of the “cut laws” suggestions, and is able to press the “civil” service into public service, then perhaps it will turn politics around and start a wave of similar initiatives in other countries.

The pessimist in me sees this as potential window dressing to bolster support for a government that is being forced to do very unpopular things – like cutting spending, benefits and boondoggles.

Time will tell.

Meantime, it will be interesting to see what comments are posted on this new website (comments are there already) – and you might like to follow along:

HM Government – Your Freedom

P.S. I noted one posted suggestion I certainly agree with, to stop the US government from snooping on the bank accounts of European individuals.

Hardly a week goes by without my receiving an email from someone asking my advice or opinion on the steps required to achieve “sovereignty”. Such enquiries usually emanate from the USA, where there is a “sovereignty” movement.

However, there is a distinct difference between the basic tenets of the sovereignty movement and the concept of being a sovereign individual – although I can understand the confusion due to the use of the word “sovereign”.

There is a line of thought which believes a person can “opt out” of being a subject to the laws of a nation and declare sovereignty. This is to be achieved by following certain protocols and removing oneself from legal jurisdiction of the state.

I’m no expert in this theory and strategy, other than noting it relies on interpretation of various arcane laws or constitutional principles – whether you are a “person” or not, whether your name is printed in CAPITALS or not etc., and other difficult-to-get-your-head-around concepts and legal mazes.

I want to say, for the record, that I’m not convinced of the practicality of such a strategy – because, in the end, it relies on the state conceding such a position or declaration and literally leaving you alone.

In my experience states don’t “leave you alone”, particularly if you stand up and challenge them in some way. Like Irwin Schiff (father of Peter Schiff), who spent years in jail as a tax protester/evader. I’m certain he had good “legal” arguments as to why he was not required to pay income tax, but at the end of the day the government had the guns and put him away.

The obvious reason for the failure of his strategy was that he was challenging the status quo – demanding that he not pay tax, in a situation where the government must have his money in order to survive.

If there was any practical benefit in declaring oneself outside the tax system, then millions would do it, not just a few dedicated souls. But, just ask yourself the question - “Would any state tolerate a situation where thousands upon thousands (or even millions) of its own citizens used the “law” to remove themselves from the tax system?”

Of course not! They would simply change to law so there are no loopholes. The basic principle to understand when it comes to the government is that it enjoys the monopoly of “legal” force, and can do what it wants with you – if it so desires.

To me, it is impossible to assert any sovereignty over oneself while still in “prison”. And by that I mean you cannot avoid the state while remaining “in” the state. The very concept of sovereignty, when applied to living in a place where such sovereignty doesn’t exist, is bound to get you into trouble in the end.

On the other hand, I use the term “Sovereign Individual” as it was originally used in the book by the same name – “The Sovereign Individual”, by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg. And this strategy involves removing yourself from the jurisdiction that is “enslaving” you. In other words, there is only one foolproof way of not paying tax to your government, and that is to cease being a resident for taxpaying purposes. And this involves leaving the country (or in the case of Americans, leaving the country and giving up citizenship).

The basic idea of being a Sovereign Individual involves using what has been termed the 3, 5 or 6 flag strategy – where you make use of different jurisdictions to achieve your desired ends. You consider the whole world your “home” and set yourself up as an international citizen by way of using these “flags” to your own advantage.

Happy July 4th to all my US readers. But remember to take the time to consider the implications of American Independence Day. It celebrates independence from Great Britain and the King. But more accurately it is an historical example of the right of, and fight for, secession – as Thomas J. DiLorenzo points out in his essay – Happy Secession Day

It’s obvious that those who take it upon themselves to “govern” us don’t want us to know stuff – especially stuff that runs counter to their own schemes and grand designs.

I’m not sure why most of us put up with this crap, but we do.

Reminds me of watching a movie in Malaysia last year. The movie was rated R18 (for 18 years old and over). It was called “Lust, Caution” – a film from China set in pre-communist Shanghai. After sitting through it, I wondered why it had an R18 certificate – seeing as I could not discern anything warranting such a rating.

It was only after the movie, when I read a few reviews online, that I realised various scenes had been cut – sex scenes. I had been cheated! Of course, I wasn’t surprised because Malaysia is an Islamic country and censorship of “words” and “scenes” is rife.

But seriously, what made me angry was the idea behind censorship – that someone, somewhere is watching such movies and making decisions as to what other people should be allowed to watch. It wasn’t enough to restrict the film to over-18 year olds, but adding insult to injury, to remove the very scenes that perhaps suggested an over 18 rating in the first place!

Of course censorship of sex is one thing – and not my main concern. What is much more disturbing is censorship of information that our “leaders” don’t want us to know. We see this in any war. As soon as war breaks out, the media blackout follows – like night follows day. And soon we are watching “managed” news – news that has been filtered via the censor. For as they say, “truth is the first casualty of war”.

We saw this again recently, when Israeli commandos attacked the aid flotilla on its way to Gaza. I knew what to expect, and sure enough it happened. Even before landing on board the aid ships all communications had been blocked – so no one could actually report what was happening. Then, once aboard, the commandos literally stole all the passengers mobile phones, cameras and computers (and they still haven’t been returned) – in order to ensure no images of what was happening got out.

The next stage of this news management was to issue the “sanitised” version – those pictures doctored and altered by the aggressors.

Typical stuff. Always happens. Always will.

But once in a while, someone comes along – like Julian Assange of WikiLeaks who is what is termed a “whistleblower” – someone who takes a serious interest in exposing the information our leaders would prefer we didn’t know.

In an different way, General McChrystal has fallen on his sword for speaking out of turn – for letting slip the mantle of “certainty” and “agreement” that governments like to impose on their various agendas.

You see, the war in Afghanistan is going badly. In fact it’s a mess. But no government can admit it. And no one is allowed to suggest otherwise, especially someone from within government (military).

Whistleblowing is the cardinal sin.

Butler Shaffer has some interesting things to say about this in his article: Making it McChrystal Clear

P.S. As an interesting aside to the McChrystal affair, I recommend reading Paul Craig Robert’s commentary – Is Petraeus McChrystal’s Replacement or Obama’s?

I first read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged in 1982. The book threw me into an anxiety attack after reading it. Why? Because it challenged all my previous beliefs and assumptions and presented me with a stark choice. Either she was right in the essence of her morality, or she was wrong. There was no middle ground.

If anyone has never read her works, or is not familiar with her morality and resultant political viewpoints, I certainly recommend viewing this terrific three-part interview of her by Mike Wallace – back in 1959.

There is something quite prophetic about it – in the way she points to exactly the situation in which America now finds itself – which may explain why, after so many years, people are reading her works again.

If you’re intrigued by her ideas, then I certainly recommend you go to the “source” and read Ayn Rand herself – and not rely on the opinions and interpretations of those who claim to speak for her.

Smart, rich people are leaving the US, and Ron Holland knows why.