Sovereign Citizens
 

What do y'all think of this;

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...reign-citizens

These Sovereign Citizens consider themselves "Patriots", fighting for our "Freedom". I think they're little more than gun-toting Anarchist a-holes and a direct threat to our freedom.

To my mind, there is such a thing as "too much freedom" and that's when civilization breaks down, everyone starts doing just as they damn well please and every day simply becomes a fight to survive.

Dave

"Sovereign citizens do not represent an anarchist group, nor are they a militia, although they sometimes use or buy illegal weapons. Rather, they operate as individuals without established leadership and only come together in loosely affiliated groups to train, help each other with paperwork, or socialize and talk about their ideology. They may refer to themselves as “constitutionalists” or “freemen,” which is not necessarily a connection to a specific group, but, rather, an indication that they are free from government control."

However, doesn't some of this sound familiar?

Like maybe the movement has grown bigger than the FBI lets on, since 2011?

Dave

More;

http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/scm.html?xpicked=4

Dave

So it has finally come up at last in regard to the Bundy nonsense?

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Like the Davidians in that they see themselves as the few, the proud, standing against the 'satanic' forces. Unlike them in not being into following a charismatic leader, that I know of. Though one might come along some time....

Your mentioning it is what piqued my interest. Although I had heard of this once a long time ago, it slipped my mind so I hadn't made the connection. Back then, I probably just dismissed them as a handful of nutbags that we needn't worry about too much. (Timothy McVeigh notwithstanding.) However, despite what the FBI says, just looking at the description and reading a bit farther it doesn't take much to see that the lunacy has spread. And spread more than we might think.

There have been all sorts of incidents not reported in the media. For instance, who here knew about the armed attacks on law enforcement?

Dave

The phrase 'sovereign citizen' makes no sense. 'Citizen' is a status defined in the legal context of a tribe or nation, and so is a status created by a group. Citizens have rights and duties defined by the group, and are subject to the leadership and legal authority of the group. A sovereign, by contrast, is subject to nothing and no one. So the two are logically incompatible.

To clarify. The basic ideology has spread. Not necessarily the violent tactics (yet), but the downright irrational hatred of government and law enforcement has definitely spread.

I notice the social media has cleaned it up some, but for a while there FaceBook was filling up with Patriotic sounding groups that when closely examined were really nothing more than vitriol spewing anti-everything cesspools.

Dave

Especially with the internet, seditionist ideas can spread quickly with no real structure or hierarchy. You don't have to attend any meetings, pay any dues or follow any "leaders". You can read someones thoughts and become simpatico without ever knowing that persons real name. Does the creation of a Zeitgeist or a meme necessary require a strong "leader" or can it simply spring forth from people sharing thoughts, then attract strong leaders?

Think about it.

Maybe "Sovereign Resident" would make more sense? But, really the name means nothing. It's the actions that matter, whatever they call themselves.

Dave

People readily follow 'opinion leaders' who cue them on what 'people like us' believe and say.

Identity groups can and do kick people out for saying the wrong things, or not saying the right things. This can have severe status and income consequences. I'm not just talking extremist groups now. I'm talking all sorts of groups.

'Mainstream reporter,' for example, is an identity as well as a job, but violate the rules of the identity and the job is at risk.

The rules are made by a loose consensus among people of reputation in the group.

This is ordinary and everywhere. But leaders of political/ideological movements often try to make more intentional and aggressive use of these social dynamics, with varying success.

Can there not be leaderless movements that never really coalesce into a political organization but nonetheless have an impact upon society? A poisonous (or not) idea that spreads and changes they way large numbers of people think and act?

Dave

Certainly, though such 'movements' will nonetheless have more articulate/respected members who function as informal 'opinion leaders.'

In the old days, respected newspaper columnists often had 'opinion leader' roles, which they exercised with a good amount of independence. More and more, though, they seem, with the decline of the financial strength of newspapers, to have become more vulnerable to the influence of well-funded PR efforts, to the point in many cases of becoming mere mouthpieces in orchestrated 'talking-point' schemes.

Except now, it's moved to the internet and any idiot can set up a page that can be viewed by the public, free of charge.

That's my point. In the "old days" it basically had to be, at the very least, a "respected journalist" serving as an "opinion leader". Now, it can be any looney tune with an I-Pad. Look at some of the clowns who simply set up their own website and became "opinion leaders" reaching thousands (Millions?) of dedicated readers every day.

In the old days, there was a degree of difficulty in reaching a substantial audience. It was an analog world, wherein a nutcase had to find a sympathetic, established media outlet willing to distribute his rubbish, or travel the country, set up a tent and make rousing speeches to reach anyone.

None of this is necessary anymore, not in the digital world.

Dave

All that matters here is the definition.

sov·er·eign noun \ˈsä-v(ə-)rən, -vərn also ˈsə-\

one possessing or held to possess supreme power or authority


They see themselves as imbued by their creator with supreme privilege. I don't know if this phrase is used all across the fruited plain all that much, but here in Chicago, one of the worst things one fella could say to another fella is "...what are you, some kinda privileged fucking character?" "Sovereign Citizens" are the ultimate privileged characters.

With the Internet, anybody can reach dozens. Reaching millions is a little harder.