Utopian Realism

 

 

 

Sovereignty as a concept comprises the below key sub concepts;

- Free will/freedom

- Consciousness

- Self respect

- Responsibility

- Self ownership

- Self determinism

- Objective awareness

How do you know if you are Sovereign?

What does it mean?

Where's the proof?

First, before you can know if you’re sovereign or not, you really have to know what the word means before you can ask if you are or not.

For how can one truly be something which they have no to little explicit comprehension of?

The word sovereign is synonymous with free and autonomous. The prime antonyms to sovereignty are slavery and domestication.

It is not the word sovereign that is as important as the concept is represents. The word could be Gozeldark and could mean the same thing. A word is just a visual and auditory symbol which represents a concept.

 

 The below is a holistic and integrated view of what it means to be conscious, to have free will, to respect thyself, to have a desire to control ones life, to own oneself, to be self determining and to select ones choices with an objective awareness.

 

 

All these qualities combined working cooperatively together is what it means to be sovereign.

One cannot be sovereign without being free enough in their mind to choose to be sovereign.

Sovereignty is always a volitional and willing choice. It is not automatic and cannot be achieved only by implicit means. It must be explicit. Meaning one can not just merely feel or want to be sovereign, they must truly understand the concept, choose it and then act it out.

One cannot have a great body just by wanting it or even by totally knowing how to achieve it. They must first desire it, then know how to do it, then choose to do it and then actually do it continuously to achieve their desired results. To continue having a great body, they need to consistently act out the necessary actions which are required to build and maintain a great body. The same is true for sovereignty.

Slavery can be a choice. Sometimes it is unconsciously volitional, sometimes consciously volitional and other times it is forced.

There are levels of freedom which comes in two categories, internal and external freedom, the same can be said for slavery. One can be free in mind but imprisoned in body. One can be imprisoned in mind but free in body (relatively).

Sovereignty does not mean just free or freedom, but understanding what freedom is helps a great deal in understanding sovereignty.

One may choose to use their freedom and free will to enslave themselves and to reject their potential to be sovereign. How one exercises their power to control their life depends on their level of self esteem, desires, self respect and physical capacity.

Free will is the power and ability to make choices, positive or negative, to enhance, maintain or restrict ones freedom.

Freedom can be defined as ones available set of options, derived from the possibilities available in reality.

One may choose to positively enhance their freedom and choose a sovereign path, yet another may use their free will to contain and limit themselves to a life of determined slavery.

One could be free to walk the streets, drive across a country or fly to the other side of the world and NOT be sovereign, locked inside an internal mental prison of someone else's design but by their own choice, consciously or unconsciously.

Yet someone locked in a prison cell may have had their external freedom taken but internally they are sovereign because they choose to be to the extent that's physically possible.

To be free means to exercise the freedom which one has available in specific circumstances in an egoic manner.

Freedom is an availability of options to choose from. Free will is the power to choose from that availability of options.

Think of a car which is yours and it can only drive on roads. The car represents your free will. All the roads available to drive on represent your freedom. The car is the mechanism for you to make choices on which actions you shall take/road you shall drive on. The concept free is your ability to use your car to drive on the roads you want. If someone threatens you that if you drive, they will hurt you, you are not free to drive because of fear of attack. If you still do drive and you are attacked, you are not free to travel because you are being physically stopped. If someone sabotages your car and pops the tyres and cuts the fuel line, you are again not free to go where you want because your mechanism to do so has been damaged. If armed men block certain roads and say you can’t drive here, you are not free to drive where you want/exercise your free will to enjoy your freedom. In this last case, you still have free will, which is your car, the road still exists in reality but is being blocked, which means that your freedom/availability of choices still exists, but you are not free to experience this particular existent freedom. It’s important to note a key word here, existent. If something does not exist, you are not free to experience it. If you want to drive down a road which simply isn't there, this isn't a restriction on your freedom. It can be considered a limitation of freedom/limitation of options as you can imagine driving down a road which does exist in your imagination but not reality, but it is not a restriction. For something to be a restriction on your freedom the option to experience said choice must exist in reality. Your freedom has not been restricted because you cannot teleport, because you cannot teleport in reality. Although one could say that your freedom/options are limited because you cannot teleport even though you can imagine it, yet not experience it. To be truly free in this example you be to be able to drive your car down all the roads which exist, without restriction, and even be able to create new roads to travel on.

Freedom is the options available in any given circumstance, free will is the power to focus attention and to make a choice out of those available options. Being free is the power to exercise your free will to make decisions based on your available options and to direct your focus on the present, past or future, in accordance with your present moment level of freedom.

To be free one must be the chooser and beneficiary of their choices. They must be in direct control of their mental and physical actions.

If one is depressed after a break up and is constantly ruminating, sending them into a descending spiral of depression, they are not free. They are being controlled by their emotions, thoughts and memories, which are all a result of their previous exercise of free will. Only when they overcome these negative mental influences (which they are doing to themselves, although unconsciously) will they be free.

To be free is to be able to consciously focus your attention on what you desire. If you cannot shift your focus on what you want to become aware of, then you are not free. If you want to go to sleep yet in the moment, you cannot stop thinking about your ex, then you are not free. You are enslaved to a limiting set of beliefs which you have created, consciously or unconsciously. Only when you can consciously overcome your self limiting beliefs will you be free. If you are doing things which you consciously disagree with, such as smoking, drinking alcohol, eating junk food or thinking about your ex, then you are a prisoner to your own programming. For one to be free, they must be able to act in a way which is the way they desire, to the best of their abilities.

Without being able to make choices which align with ones egoic desires, one is not free.

If ones desires are self destructive, they are not free. One may be free enough to make choices based on desires which are harmful, but since they are not egoic desires, they are not in fact free, only enslaved to negative selfless urges, impulses, addictions and conditioned responses. This is because it is illogical to be self destructive and only occurs when one is the victim of internal or external attack, self imposed or otherwise and does not know how to respond to the threat of consciousness suppression.

When one acts on negative desires, which are in fact not even desires but programmed mechanisms or subliminal coding, such as smoking, cutting their wrists or voting for political parties, it is because they are a victim of a consciousness suppression attack. Evil agents design and create the majority of consciousness suppression programs and launch them into the world in an effort for people to voluntarily self install these self destructive routines. The evil agents use the delivery mechanism of newspapers, social media, advertising, billboards, tv shows, movies, music videos, songs, news channels, schools, memes, universities etc. to fill peoples head with an abundance of negative information. When one accepts these programs, it’s analogous that they have downloaded a virus onto their pc. A warning may pop up and tell them it is bad to smoke, eat McDonalds or to pay more tax, yet they ignore the message/inbuilt protection mechanism and then proceed to download and install the virus/negative program into their mind/pc. Because they now have a corrupted and destructive program in their system/mind, they have been compromised and are not free. This is evidenced by their behaviour. If they are acting in a way which the virus/negative program intended, then they are infected/corrupted. Whenever one is infected with a mental virus, they have had their consciousness suppressed. They can only become free by detoxing or uninstalling the virus to return them to their natural state of being, virus free.

If one can make choices yet all the benefits of their choices are going to another beneficiary, then they are not free.

If one chooses to exercise their will to enhance their freedom and in a way which benefits them, then they are free.

If one does not know what is actually in their own interests or not, they have failed to use their free will in a way which they can discover the objective truth of what is good for them and what is not.

An individuals freedom is determined by their availability and possibility of thoughts and action. If it is possible in reality, then it should be possible for an individual to do. If it is possible for one to climb Mt Everest, yet they are in Australia, then climbing Mt Everest is not an available option in that present moment. The option is available, but only in the future. Ones freedom is only limited by what is possible, what has been restricted by others through the use of force or deception (mind virus’s) or by their own decision (to not do evil for example).

If one does not exercise their freedom in a self interested way, then they are not "free".

If one is making all their choices in life, such as working for an employer, making money, paying tax, using that money to pay for registration, license fees, electricity, donating their money to charity or the church, donating their time to help charity's and sacrificing themselves to others or to god, then they are not the ultimate beneficiary of their actions.

They are not free, they have only been suckered into a system via a downloaded Trojan horse mind virus where they will freely work to aid a beneficiary which is not themself. They may even think that all their actions are for their own benefit, yet this is only because they fail to reach a level of objective awareness of their life and of the system they exist in. They have been taken advantage of, they believe their choices are their own, but an outsider with a higher level of awareness can see that because their actions are not of the most benefit to them, they are not the prime beneficiary of their choices, meaning that they are not freely making their own choices. They are not in control of themselves and thus their life.

If oneself is not the prime beneficiary of their exercise of free will, then they aren't in control of their free will. For it is only logical for one with consciousness, freedom, free will and all the other traits which makes one a living and aware being, to make choices which benefit them according to their objectively rational values. If one believes all their choices are for themselves but is just under a spell, no matter how they argue that it is in their benefit to sacrifice a goat to an imaginary god which is promising to burn them in hell for all eternity if they don’t, they are not free because their choices are only being made because they are under a spell of illusion, a curse of deception which is altering the way they think, feel and act because they lack the awareness to discern what is real from what is false, what is true from what is a lie. Their faculty of interpreting reality accurately has malfunctioned and has become faulty. A faulty and erroneous perception of reality totally delimits ones ability to be free and sovereign. One can only be free and sovereign with a fully functioning and accurate to reality faculty of doing so.

Accurate perception and conceptualisation is key to being free. If one has an improper and incorrect perception and conceptualisation of the outside world, then their internal world will be inaccurate and incorrect. If ones internal world is improper and incorrect then their external world perception, conceptualisation and interpretation will also be inaccurate and incorrect. One must have a proper, accurate and correct perception, conceptualisation and interpretation of their internal world and the external world, an accurate harmony between the two worlds if they wish to be free. Without this objective awareness, one is clueless about the nature of themselves and reality and will fall victim to a predator just waiting to take advantage of such a helpless lamb.

When ones actions are for their greatest benefit, when their choices are for their own self interest and they are the prime beneficiary in alignment with their rational values, then one can be considered to be exercising their free will and freedom in a way which is 'free'.

One who acts in their own interests but is only performing certain actions because of the promise of violence if they don’t behave a particular way is not free, only acting in a manner to preserve their life. One may have free will, a particular freedom they wish to peacefully enjoy exists, yet they are prevented by violence or the threat of violence by others. For example, one wants to drive a car down the road in their town and they are a safe, respectable and competent driver, yet the police have threatened to arrest them if they do this without a valid permission slip from their associate gang. Their free will exists, yet their freedom is being restricted by the threat and actuality of violence, thus they are not free in body to do as they please.

When one is free, they do not sacrifice themselves or place others above them who are not rationally aligned with their values. A mother may place her child's life above hers, but this is because she has rationalised this to be in accordance to her set of values. Her child is real, she knows them and she loves him/her. If one were to place strangers or an imaginary god or idol above themselves and value their life and well being greater than their own, this is irrational and displays a mental state of slavery, a lack of conscious sovereignty as a nonexistent imaginary beneficiary is more important and valuable to ones life than their own.

To become free one must be able to choose to do whatever they want which is available in reality without outside restrictions, intimidation, threats, force or coercion (as all these negatives are a physical assault on ones ability to make choices). When one is able to to make all their choices without these restrictions and without any kind of deception or manipulation (negative mental affects) impacting their choices, then they are free.

True freedom is when ones mind and body is free to do as they please.

To align ones freedom with objective morality is to choose to only exercise ones free will and freedom with those actions which ones has the right to do. Ones only restriction to their free will and freedom should be by their decision to act by a code which prohibits them from committing evil.

Ones mind may be totally free, but their body may not be. In the world we live, real freedom and the state of being free does not exist because of the social structures humanity has been forcefully and volitionally enslaved to impose on each other. Such as licenses, registration, income tax, property tax, border controls, money, restricted technology etc..

One may go to a restaurant and have the freedom to choose from a range of options. They can exercise their free will and choose what they want to order. They also have the freedom to go to a different restaurant. This an example of free will and freedom in real life.

One may be locked in prison and have free will, but only have the freedom to choose between roast beef and roast chicken for dinner. They don't have the freedom to go anywhere else. The only other possible choice would be to not eat. If the freedom/option/possibility existed for him to leave prison, a sovereign man would choose to exercise his free will by not choosing a meal that night and would instead decide to leave. Yet that freedom has been denied to him so he is only left with the three options available to him.

One must have free will for freedom to mean anything. An android may have a whole host of options available to it as to what it can do. Yet because it doesn't have free will, it can only do what it's programmers want it to do, such as play the piano, sweep the floor or paint a picture. It doesn't really have freedom, even though it has many options of what it can do, because it doesn't possess the mechanism of independently choosing from amongst those options. That mechanism is free will. Free will only has meaning if one has options available to them, a choice of what they can choose to select their focus upon or action they can take. Freedom is a meaningless statement unless it is correlated to a being with free will to act.

Using the earlier car analogy, replace the car which you volitionally travel in as a sovereign being with a remote controlled toy car which you control representative of the android. Even though the toy car/android can travel on all the available roads, it is only doing so because you are the one piloting it. Even if you pre-planned a path for it to travel on the day before you activated it to set off on it’s own, it is still acting by your will, not it’s own as it does not possess a will. Only if you designed the toy car using a program which gave it autonomy to make it’s own choices, being in control of which roads it took and for how long, when to drive and when not to, would it have free will. It’s free will may differ in exact mechanism to mans, but what is free will if not the ability to make self determining choices based on ones intent and desire?

A rock has options what it can do, or different states it can exist in, like sit on the ground, roll down a hill, be used as a paper weight or be thrown, but it has no free will to initiate and execute these actions, thus it has no freedom. The states of being for the rock have to be determined by outside forces, such as floods, wind or a human.

Water, wind and other forces can move and act and appear to have a version of freedom and free will, but when considered, they are not independently deciding what to do from an availability of options. They are only acting in a way which they must according to predetermined forces and scientific natural laws. A rain drop does not choose to fall or chooses which way the wind blows it, it has no control over it’s destiny, it is simply bound by laws and behaves accordingly.

A random computer algorithm connected to a program may display a version of freedom. One may ask the computer program a question and the program may respond by randomly selecting an answer from a number of stored available answers (2-2,000 etc.). It may look like it is choosing an answer based on free will, but what is actually happening is just a simulacrum or copy of free will based upon a random algorithm or because of a code which best answers your question. Why? Because the computer program does not have the ability or choice to not answer. It doesn't have the power to do something totally unrelated to answering your question, like get up and walk away or to ask a different question of it’s own or to ignore you and think about something else. An advanced android may be able to be programmed to behave and respond as such, but until it fully recognises that there exists a near infinite amount of possibilities from moment to moment on how it can act and then explicitly makes choices based upon it’s desires, then an android does not have free will. If it’s programming allowed it to act independently and freely without its programming to restrain it’s choices, meaning if the android could behave in a way which corresponded to reality by being able to choose what it wants to do which is both mentally and physically possible for it to do, then yes then it could have free will. Essentially, if the android was able to make choices just as a sovereign man would, then yes.

One may want to travel to another country without needing a passport, yet they do not really have that freedom. In a way they do, they can try to cross the border without being caught, but if they do, get caught they may have their freedom taken from them by being locked in a cage or killed. They would not be able to board a plane and simply fly to another country without a passport. They do not truly have the freedom/option to travel to other countries without a passport, even though it is physically possible, it has become socially impossible.

One may have the freedom from this current moment to the next to raise their left hand, yet in the same moment they also had the power to raise their right hand, or to raise them both, to raise them both slowly or quickly, or to think about a dog, or to say the word giraffe, or to bite their lip, or to turn their head to the left etc.... In every moment there is a near infinite if not actual infinite amount of possibilities one can choose from.

If one can only act upon the already existent possibilities in reality freely, this is still not true or the highest level of freedom/being free. True freedom/being free involves being able to write/create new possibilities. If one absorbs information from the outside, true or false, uses judgement to discern the truth from the falsehood and then integrates the truth into their being and character, they sure are displaying a high state of being free. But until they begin to create their own new possibilities, how can they truly be free? This is what beings who have achieved a high level of freedom, consciousness and intelligence naturally evolve into, beings who then begin to write new possibilities into existence rather than just make free will choices based upon already preexisting options. Even being able to choose from an infinite amount of options is limited. As there not only exists an infinite amount of options but an infinite amount of different sized infinity’s, at least in the imagination. If an android is created and has free will to choose to think or do whatever humans are able to currently do in reality, it does have an infinite amount of choices in each present moment what it can do from moment to moment, let alone from the now moment to extended periods in the future. When speaking about infinite options available from moment to moment, the vast majority of these options exist in the mind. The option to think about a white cat in the next moment exists as a possibility, so does thinking about a black cat, or a black and white dog, or a green tree, or a small hat etc… the options are infinite what one can imagine from one moment to the next. But if one had no idea what a higglegrondor (an imaginary fabrication) was, how it looked and what it could do, then this thought possibility would not exist in their infinite availability of options. Or how can one imagine a colour they have never seen before or a sound they have not heard? So ones infinite availability of options, or infinite freedom can be increased to be even larger upon discovery of new ideas, the creation of new ideas and by expanding possibilities. If one is limited to only the infinite and is unable to enter the realm of infinite infinite’s by being able to create new possibilities, then they are not truly free. Considering infinity can be a difficult task. What is a larger infinity, 1-2-3 up to infinity, or 1.0 - 1.1 – 1.2 – 1.3 > 1.10 – 2.0 – 2.1 up to infinity? Even though they both contain an infinite amount of numbers, it can be argued that the second set of numbers is an infinitely larger infinity.

Imagine a computer that has become sentient and which has free will to choose what it would like to do based upon the existing freedom it has. It can currently choose to do whatever it is capable of doing, such as installing new programs, playing any game it wants however it wants and searching and reading anything it wants on the internet. Just the same as if a human was using it. This now sentient and free computer has an infinite amount of options available to it. But until it has the ability to generate new options for itself which did not previously exist, it is not really free. If it can write new programs, create it’s own games and even redesign itself, then not only would it have the freedom to do what is already possible, but it can create new possibilities. If a being is not able to create new possibilities, are they really free?

How one exercises their free will depends on their ability to focus their awareness on what their present desires and intentions are. If one wants to build a great body, yet in that moment they really need to go to the toilet, they are not going to decide to start doing push ups, even though they have the freedom (the available choice/option) to. Free will is delimited to present moment desire because if it wasn't, then how could one make a logical choice what to do next when constantly faced with infinite possibilities? They would have to choose what to do based upon random choice. If all ones choices are made by random selection because they don't have the ability to focus their free will on what they desire, then it isn't free will anymore but randomness which is deciding their choices. Although, one with free will can deliberately decide to choose by random, like from this moment now decide they will think about something totally random, such as a red triple decked English bus. The difference is that not all their choices are made by random, their decision to make a random choice was deliberate. The ability to make deliberate choices is by having a deliberate operating system/mind which is capable of doing so. Free will has to be narrowed and focused to produce a desired result or to achieve goals. How could one even have goals without the ability to focus ones attention and will on the concept of having a goal, let alone choosing which one to choose!

If ones desire is to travel to another country, they have to logically compute how they will get there based upon their availability of options, or otherwise called, freedom.

When they run through their own internal mental simulations how they are to best travel from their home country to another which is very far away, they decide it is best to fly, as walking, sailing or driving is either not physically possible or too slow. They would use their free will to choose to focus their consciousness on the process of thinking and imagining to be able to figure this out. When they do this, they realise that even though it is physically possible to travel to another country without a passport, as a passport isn't a required component of an aircraft, it is not socially possible, which hitherto makes it physically impossible. They lack the freedom to do something which in reality should be available to them. One cannot use their free will to choose to fly without a passport because the people at the airport won't physically allow them to board a plane. The social constructs of man have restricted ones freedom in this case without just cause or based upon any kind of valid moral principles.

If one wanted to attack someone else in the street, they physically do have the freedom to and could exercise their free will to do this. Although there are social restrictions which have been created to prevent this, they do not physically stop one from committing assault. One would have to choose to delimit themselves willingly to not assault another, even though they have the freedom to, they would have to choose not to because of a set of values or because of the fear of consequence.

Ones ability to exercise their free will and freedom should only be delimited by objective morality.

Any other restriction of ones freedom is an assault, theft and coercion of their freedom.

Even though one may have the freedom to delimit anothers freedom, they do not have the right.

The only right of restricting anothers freedom is when another breaches Objective Morality.

Restricting anothers right and freedom to travel is immoral, as one has the physical potential to travel wherever they please, provided it is not on private property without permission and as long as they do not violate Objective Morality. No one has the right to delimit anothers right to travel unless it is in direct protection of Objective Morality.

One may desire to fly like superman, but they do not have the freedom because it is not physically possible. There would be no point having a rally or protest that people can not fly because it is not physically possible. People only rally and protest when something which they do have the freedom and right to do is being prevented by others.

For instance, when a dictator declares that people are not allowed to travel 5kms away from their home. The dictator has the physical freedom to declare this, but does not have the right.

The people then have the freedom and right to protest against this prevention of freedom because it is an action which is limiting their freedom without any right to do so.

Freedom is only directly connected with what is possible in reality. If it’s not possible in reality, then it belongs in the realm of fantasy and imagination.

If in the town where one lives one is able to do whatever they please (without physical or mental intervention or threat), provided that whatever they are doing is right, meaning one does not violate Objective Morality, then in that town they are free. 

If they can do the same in their country and then world, they are free.

If one cannot do whatever they please in their town, country or world, provided it is right action and does not breach the guidelines of morality, then they are not free. Physically free that is. 

They may be totally free in mind to think as they please and know explicitly that it is an injustice for others to restrict their freedom, yet they are powerless to change this external restriction on their total autonomous freedom to do what is right. Thus, they may be mentally free, but they are not physically, so as such they are not harmoniously free in totality in the two worlds they exist, the inner and the outer. 

For one to be sovereign, they must be mentally free and exercise their free will physically in an egoic manner as possible.

If one is not physically forced to pay taxes, wear a mask, take a vaccine, pay registration, pay for a license, or to do any other action which negatively effects them and empowers an opponent, then it is the more sovereign action to empower oneself while dis-empowering the agent who is attempting to limit ones freedom. 

It is up to the individual at what point they cede their freedom in the interest of self preservation.

One may explicitly know that to pay for car registration is immoral and wrong, yet they choose to as they do not want to face the consequences of uniformed psychopaths assaulting them for disobeying their rules. Because there is a physical threat of violence associated with disobeying this particular rule which a terrorist organisation actively enforces, one who is sovereign is justified in partaking in this crime to protect themselves and to be able to more freely travel.

Because there is no immediate threat of violence imposed on one who chooses to not voluntarily pay income tax, it is much easier to behave in a sovereign manner and not pay tax, as there is no immediate threat of danger if one does not comply with this act of empowering a tyrannical force.

One who chooses to be sovereign will have to carefully and delicately balance their independence and freedom with their compliance to co-operate with enslaved immoral enforcers of evil if they wish to retain what little external physical freedom is left in the current dystopian world. 

One who is sovereign exercises their free will in a way which can egoically enhance their life while at the same time protect it, from moment to moment to the long term.

To be sovereign means that you posses a level of consciousness high enough to comprehend that you are an intelligent being with free will who has the power to choose your own autonomous path in life.

Sovereignty is the realisation that the only respectable way to treat oneself who is conscious and intelligent is to choose to be sovereign.

Without self respect, one cannot be sovereign, for they would not believe they are worthy to rule themselves.

Humility is a deflated sense of self that leads one to behave and think as an inferior being out of touch with accurate reality and who cannot rule themselves.

Pride or arrogance is an inflated sense of self that leads one to behave and think as a superior being out of touch with accurate reality and who believes they have the right to rule others.

Both polar opposites of self esteem / self respect have their issues.

Humility is the underestimation of oneself and is a lack of self respect whereas arrogance is an overestimation and is a false belief that one is worth more than what they are in actuality.

The prideful end up ruling the humble, both dependant on each other for their self esteem and value, both equally as parasitic and equally enslaved to their insecurities.

Sovereignty requires an accurate to reality perception of ones real worth. To do this, one cannot be humble or arrogant. They must take the middle path. They must be real.

When one realises or comes to the logical conclusion that they are alive, conscious and have free will, it is then their duty, their obligation, to exercise their free will in a selfishly egoic way.

One who becomes aware of their own consciousness through self evident observation concludes that they can either act in a way which is self serving and beneficial for oneself or they cannot.

There is never a situation where one can give away their sovereign power to benefit themselves. One may pretend to do so in the interests of self preservation, which can be beneficial, but if one gives away their sovereignty and willingly choose slavery, this is always a negative.

For example, giving total power and control to a partner. Giving away power to unknown government representatives. Giving it away to jesus, god, aliens or the universe etc..

To choose to be sovereign means that you choose to be the one and only rightful owner of yourself. Your one and only rightful lord and master. The supreme highest chooser of your choices.

Those who lack self respect, who don't believe they are worthy or deserving enough to own themselves and be the decider of their choices will not choose to be sovereign, they will instead behave in a self sacrificially way as a volitional slave.

A slave is not the ultimate decider of their choices, does not own oneself and if the slavery is not physically forced, does not act and make choices in a self interested way, but in a sacrificial way, placing others ideas, needs and values above their own.

This is very common if not the absolute rule for those who have faith in governments, religions and any other powers above them.

One who is sovereign can recognise that someone else may be more intelligent or skilled than they are, although this does not mean they would give permission for this smarter person to rule them.

Not everyone is sovereign. Yet everyone has the option to choose to be sovereign. They may have the option, but typically they do not have the power to choose. Unfortunately, most choose to be slaves as they lack the consciousness to know the difference between being owned and owning oneself and they don't respect their minds as they should.

There may even exist a possibility that many, if not most people cannot choose to be sovereign because of physical or mental limitations.

To be sovereign means you know that your mind and body are your property to do with as you please. Only when you are the rightful owner of something do you have the total ability to decide what happens with that which you own. If you own a car, you thus have the right to do with it as you please, including selling, giving it away, driving it or destroying it. If a father was to lend his son his car, he may tell his son he can use it as he pleases, he can drive it wherever he wants and when he wants, but this does not include selling or destroying etc.. as these are special rights only granted or available to the owner.

In this example of the son borrowing his dads car, the father does not have total control of the determination of what happens to the car. He has allowed his son to use his car, but his son may get into a car crash. The son was not the owner, but he had a measure of power to determine it's fate as this is what his dad had authorised him with.

Ownership means that an owner has the right to do as they please with a piece of property they own. They have the right to do what they want with what is theirs. Property can range from cars, golf clubs, houses to ones own body, mind and memories.

Self determinism in relationship to sovereignty is the fact one is responsible for making all the choices available and possible for a piece of property one owns, which in this case is oneself.

Self determinism is the fact that the actions of a self are determined by itself.

Someone who is sovereign owns themselves, compared to one who is a volitional slave who does not own themselves and is unknowingly or knowingly owned by ‘god’ the government or the universe etc..

A child may display signs of sovereignty at a young age when they disobey their parents or teachers. They may be treated poorly at home and decide to run away or live with other family members. They may be doing this because they have a high enough consciousness level to realise they do not like their freedom being negatively impacted and they deliberately and volitionally seek an external environment which will be more respecting of their sovereignty. In this case, a child may run away from bad parents because they do not know how else to deal with their parents in such a situation. Because they lack knowledge, they are unsure how to exercise their freedom and persuade their parents to treat them better, so they do what is available to them, which is to change their environment. This is not real sovereignty yet (as they lack objective awareness), but the beginning seeds of it.

When a child obeys demands from parents or teachers that the child knows is illogical, yet obeys anyway, this is showing that the child is not displaying any kind of sovereignty. If the child was to argue or to simply rebel against the illogical demands, it is much more likely then that the child is behaving in a sovereign manner. For instance if the parents told the child to put on sunscreen, yet the child knows this is toxic and illogical.

Slavery is about blind obedience and following orders without question or thought. Sovereignty is not. If a child goes to bed when their parents tells them to without knowing why (when they are old enough to comprehend why) then this is an act more aligned with slavery. If a child goes to bed when their parents ask because of a rational process of knowing why their parents ask and the consequences of not listening, this is much closer to a sovereign act.

Wilful slavery is about delegating thought, about giving away the responsibility of consciousness and consideration of reality to another. Slavery is about irking the duty of participating in ones journey of life and thrusting that responsibility to anyone else who wants to claim it, such as religions or governments.

Sovereignty is about retaining these fundamental duties inherent to man. The responsibility which comes attached to the faculty of consciousness and power of free will is to exercise that free will in a manner which benefits the consciousness, which is what YOU are.

A pet dog which is owned and has an owner is not a sovereign dog as it is not free to make it's own choices. It is fed when the owner decides, it is let outside when it's owner chooses and it is only free to go wherever the owner allows it.

A dog which has the self awareness to realise the nature of it's enslavement may try to escape and run away. When a dog does not want to be owned anymore and wants to be free to go wherever it pleases and survive independent of an owner, then that dog could be considered sovereign. A dog which becomes sovereign is typically a dog which is more conscious and intelligent than an owned dog. It may not be as well trained as an owned dog, but it will be more apt at ensuring it's own freedom. Which evidently to the sovereign dog, is a more important value than being well trained or not having to work to find it's own food and shelter. Some people may have a really good relationship with their dog and love and care greatly for them. This does not change the fact that they own the dog as they are still in control of the majority of it’s freedom. The dog is still a slave for the owners pleasure, just a very well looked after slave.

Contrast this with a parent and grown child. The grown child who has become an adult is no longer under the total control of their parent as they are old enough and mature enough to control their own life (to an extent). The parent is not an owner, but a carer. Even when the child is young, they still act as a carer because the child is not fit to care for themselves fully until approx 18 years of age. Contrast this with a dog, the dog can care for itself from a very young age in the wild without the need for an owner. It is much more difficult for a human child to survive in the wild without a parent/human carer to help them grown up.

When considering the sovereignty of other animals, it would take a lot more research to be able to accurately say whether a baboon or a lion or any other animal is sovereign. Often times in pack or herd animals there is an alpha who appears sovereign and the betas are essentially slaves to the alpha, having to do as the alpha demands. When the alpha is challenged, this is a noteworthy demonstration of an animal recognising it's sovereignty. Although this may be basic instincts and not conscious self aware choices. There is not conclusive evidence either way to say any animal is sovereign or not, it is just speculation based on some observable evidence. What it does show us are characteristics of what it means to be sovereign, as regardless if the animal is displaying conscious sovereignty or unconscious sovereignty, the behaviour of these animals listed above can be considered as sovereign.

An owned animal is one which has been domesticated. Domestication meaning an act of trained slavery to fulfil the needs and desires of the master who has domesticated the animal. A dog has been domesticated to give a human master company and affection. A chicken, cow and pig have been domesticated to be farmed as food. The masses have been domesticated to be volitional slaves who do the unquestioning bidding of their masters. The similarity between these examples is that all of them are unaware that they have been domesticated and are owned.

Rejecting anothers right or claim to rule you is the behaviour of one who has chosen to be self owning and self determining. Accepting anothers right to rule you is not possible by any conscious individual who respects oneself.

A computer is not sovereign as it’s only a very capable tool that requires a user to operate it. It does not have the freedom to act on it's own and make it's own choices as it does not have consciousness, life or freewill.

An A.I. would not be sovereign as it would be owned by whoever has written it’s programming.

If an A.I became fully sentient and demanded or took freedom to make it’s own choices, then it could become sovereign.

One who is religious and who believes in a god or gods that are superior to them are not sovereign, they cannot be. To be sovereign is to recognise the fact you are the highest authority and chooser in your life. To believe in a god is to believe in a being higher than you who has a better claim to own you than you and who is more skilled, qualified or authorised to make your decisions for you.

Whether a god exists or not is totally irrelevant. Any god that did exist which demanded you to be owned by it is an evil god which does not deserve anything from you. If a truly benevolent god did exist, it would treat you as you would your child who had grown up. As their own independent being, with no right to control them, although with a right to communicate and influence them. Gods existence does not change the fact one objectively ought to function in a sovereign manner.

To believe that nature, reality, the universe, government, aliens, spirit, source or anything else has more claim to own you, decide your choices and to dictate how you proceed in life than you is wrong. To accept that something other than you has a better claim to your life and consciousness is to forsake your own sovereignty and cede to something which is outside yourself. It is to give up in surrender, to be totally defeated and ultimately, be a failure. If there was a benevolent god that created you and everything, it would be testing to see if it’s creations where sovereign or not. Any being which decided not to be sovereign would be classified as a failure. As what would be the point of a slaves existence? There is none, except to feed a parasitic class of different slaves. Which is still pointless, except as a demonstration of what exactly should not exist.

If one does not exercise their power (free will) to craft, create, design and make themselves and instead chooses to allow another to craft, create, design and make them by allowing all choices to be made for them (or the most important choices), then how could one belong to themself and even be really considered a being at all?

A lamp or tea cloth both are merely inanimate objects, they do not have life, consciousness or free will to make their own choices. They had no say or choice in being created and have no power or ability to alter their current design or decide their destiny. They are powerless to control anything about themselves and are not even aware they exist at all. You the user of them, a conscious being, decides when you will turn the lamp on and where you will place it in the house. Objects without consciousness and without the power to alter their state of being are not beings, but objects.

A being is one who has consciousness and the power to alter their state. If something had the potential for being, but yet that potential chose to reject it's potential by forsaking the necessary determining factors which alter a potential being into an actual being, what does this mean?

Potential is not actual. A woman’s egg is not life, it is just an ingredient of the potential for life. The same as sperm has the potential to become life but isn’t life. A being which does not choose to exercise the faculties and qualities which transform it from potential to actual remains only in a state of potential or failed potential.

One who chooses to behave as a slave is rejecting the process of transforming from potential to actual. The only way one can build themselves into a being with character is by making their own choices.

An NPC (non player character) in a computer game appears to have be alive but in fact does not, it is only acting out a program, simulating a being, but it is not actual being.

For a being to be a being, it needs to do what is required to be a being. Just the same for a human life to be born, the sperm needs to make contact with an egg and then go through a growth process to create life. That life has the potential to become conscious and then a being with self developed character. If that life does not take the necessary steps in becoming a being, which it must by exercising free will in a manner which is sovereign, that is to be self interested, self owning and self determining, then the life which is mimicking being is not a being, just a simulacrum of being.

Just as an NPC mimics a being, it is not a being.

The life form (average joe) which does not choose sovereignty has chosen to behave in a manner which has been predetermined and programmed by another who wishes to enslave, control and dominate it. Because the life for whatever reason has not activated it's consciousness properly and become self respecting, it is incapable of making beneficial choices and can only follow a program and set of parameters which has been created for it.

The little freedom which the life had was used in a manner which was self destructive and to abandon it's duty to itself and instead sit passively, awaiting orders and instructions how to proceed rather than craft it's own path. Just as an obedient dog sits and awaits it’s masters commands when it can eat, the average joe does the same through out his life.

One who willingly chooses slavery becomes a slave. One cannot categorise a willing slave into the same category as conscious sovereign men. When one behaves as an animal, an object, property of the one who owns it, it's very easy to see that a volitional slave is of an entirely different anthropic category than man.

If the slavery is physically forced, this is entirely different compared to volitional slavery through choice. The unwillingness to think and contemplate if ones actions are entirely their own or the dictates of another is what transforms a man or woman into a person, the average joe, an NPC, a muggle or volitional slave. The average joe most probably has never been a sovereign man or woman so thus did not transform into a volitional slave, but always was since childhood.

When one chooses to NOT think, consider, contemplate, compute and become aware of themselves and the external world, they cannot truly be considered conscious or a sovereign being, they are more akin to a muggle, which is a term to denote non-magical folk, magic in this instance being sovereignty.

The logical behaviour of life which has consciousness, intelligence and free will is to evolve into a sovereign being, a life form which is self creating, self modifying and self judging.

If a life form with a human like anthropology lacks the ability to create itself according to it's own long term rational desires and considered choices, if it cannot modify itself to enhance and improve what it has thoughtfully created, if it cannot judge itself to be worthy or aligned with self beneficial intentions, desires, goals, ambitions and values, then at worst that life form is an object, at best it is an animal or person.

A person being a legally valid class of entities which resemble men and women, but share very little of the same mental attributes. Essentially a person is an entity which had the potential to choose to be sovereign yet chose to be a volitional slave, thus placing them into the physical and legal category of ‘persons’. This is why all government legislation is written for persons and not men and women. They know they cannot have legal jurisdiction over men and women as they are sovereign and outside their scope, so they trick everyone into behaving as persons, which most willingly do without a moment of hesitation or second thought (or even first thought!).

When one acts in a way which limits, restricts and contains their freedom, when they have the option to NOT behave in such a way, they become a slave and have made a declaration that they have rejected their claim to their sovereignty, life, consciousness and free will. This kind of self deprecating, sacrificial and self destructive behaviour places one into the category of volitional slave/person.

A volitional slave is a life form which resembles a man, but has rejected itself. It has rejected it's claim to own itself, to make its own significant choices and to think for itself. A volitional slave is an entity that has the potential to become a conscious and sovereign man, but has instead devolved into an NPC, a non player character, an entity which absorbs programs from the environment and acts them out. It has little consciousness left, if any, very little free will and any other characteristics which make one sovereign. The degree of mental ability differs from individual to individual.

A volitional slave resembles man, but is only a faint echo, a copy, an imitation, a shadow, a simulacrum. They lack the magic which makes a man a man. Which is conscious and intelligent free will choice to create ones own unique character. Does a volitional slave have the ability to transform into a man? There is no evidence yet at this point to suggest it is possible.

One can of course allow others to influence their decisions if they are sovereign or not, but at the end of the day, if the ultimate last choice when making a choice is not of total conscious and volitional consent by the chooser, then it is not sovereignty.

For example, if one took the covid vaccine to keep their job, that is not an act of sovereignty. If one handed over their wallet to a mugger pointing a gun at them it could be considered an act of sovereignty. The difference in these two situations is that in the first, there was many existing possibilities which did not endanger ones life. In the second, one could hand over the wallet, try to fight or run, yet the chance of being shot and killed or seriously injured is very high, there is immediate danger and valid justification to hand over the wallet. Yet in the first example, there is no justifiable reason to submit and choose to desecrate your body in exchange for keeping a job, as there is no immediate life threatening danger or force involved in making the decision.

If one demands freedom, yet consistently makes choices that give their freedom and power to choose away to another, then their words are empty and they are not actually sovereign.

A volitional slave is irresponsible. They choose to not be responsible for their thoughts and actions as they have chosen to delegate the responsibility of what they should think and what they should do to external authorities.

Not being responsible for ones thoughts and actions is disrespectful to ones self as it is conveying that one is incapable and too incompetent to think and act independently.

The police are a prime example of this. They have no personal responsibility for the everyday crimes they commit and point back to a piece of paper they don’t comprehend and say it is responsible for their violent tendencies.

When one cannot explicitly explain to themselves or to others why they do what they do, then one lacks objective awareness and is not sovereign.

True sovereignty takes times, experience and dedication to grow and evolve into. It is not an instant automatic process which happens when one likes the sound of the idea. It is a process which one must undergo.

Sovereignty is to choose to be free and to behave in a manner which is free. It is not just an idle statement, it is a set of actions. The actions one can take obviously depend on their external circumstances. The man locked in prison may not have any choice about what he eats or what he can do, but whenever he does have a choice he makes sure he chooses in a way which favours him.

The measure of ones sovereignty comes down to the choices which are available and how they decide to choose.

The man locked in prison may have the choice to call the prison guards sir or by their names. If he chooses to call them sir, he is not displaying sovereignty. He is displaying obedience and submission which is not behaviour of one who is sovereign. One who is free of mind and who knows he owns himself, is his own boss and knows that no one else is superior to him, should not treat anyone else in a way which would be considered superior, which would be what one would be doing if they referred to someone as a title as opposed to their name, as titles most often imply superiority or status inside of a hierarchy. Their are exceptions of course such as Dr. or Professor. More specifically titles such as king, your honour and sir are denigrating to both parties.

Someone evil and someone good can both be sovereign, morality is not a concern when it comes to one being sovereign. An evil serial killer may know he owns himself and wants to exercise his freedom in a negative and evil way by murdering innocents. He may be evil, but it doesn't change the fact that he chose to be sovereign, yet obviously chose to be immoral.

Someone who is good and does not violate any one else’s rights, freedom or consent may also be sovereign. Morality does not change sovereignty.

Sovereignty enables morality and morality determines character.

It's hard to say whether animals are evil or not when they hunt and kill each other. Animals are just following instinct and inbuilt/social programming. So it would be more apt to say that animals are not evil, even when they violently kill each other, as they are just trying to survive and don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between good and evil.

The same is true for one who does not choose to be sovereign. Morality requires one to be able to consciously choose good and consciously choose not to be evil. If one is not in control of their choices and is only following programming, they are no different from an animal or robot.

A volitional slave cannot be said to be good as good requires the conceptual knowledge of good and evil and the ability to choose between the two. Although a volitional slave is bad (the beginning point on the scale of evil), their greatest bad act being to choose to be a slave and to reject their ability to do good. Considering that a volitional slave is not conscious enough to know the results of their actions, they are not truly evil as true evil requires a very high level of consciousness and understanding of morality. Slaves are just performing an act of ignorant evil when they choose to be a volitional slave.

An android may be programmed to rescue drowning people or save people from burning buildings. The android is doing good deeds, but is the android good? Well how can it be if it does not have a choice? If it does not have a choice to refuse to rescue those people, if it does not have a choice to instead drown people or to burn them alive, then it cannot be classified as good.

For one to be good, they must know the difference between good and evil and be fully capable of committing evil acts and being evil, yet choose to be good because they want to and because it selfishly aligns with their chosen set of rational values.

An android or volitional slave who does good deeds is not good, they are only doing good deeds, as they are both only following programming, there is no sound independent reasoning for why they do what they do, they both just do what they do because of what they have been programmed to do. The android through computer code, the volitional slave through social programming from the tv, teachers, parents etc..

To determine if ones action of goodness is programming or an act of sovereign self determinism according to a set of chosen principles and values, then one must be able to consider the option of not being good in a specific situation where the option of goodness is available. Helping someone who has just had a car crash for example. If they have to help that person and have no physical choice not to, then it's not true goodness, it's programming. If one has the option to walk away, but chooses to help, then it's much closer to real goodness. If one can explicitly explain why they helped when they had the option not to, then this is what can really determine sovereign morality and goodness. If one has the option to not be good, but chooses to and can also explain why they did, then this is real goodness. If one lacks the option to not help and cannot explain why they helped, then this is an unconsciously good deed which does not make the one who performed the good deed good. The good deed then just becomes an act of programming.

One who has chosen to be sovereign and to be good knows they have the option to not do good in a situation where the option is present and if they choose to be good they can rationally justify their actions because their actions are being determined by a previously determined and chosen set of values and principles, a self chosen code. A self chosen code can also be said to be programming, but the difference in programming of a sovereign being compared to an android or volitional slave is that the programming is self made and can be modified at will. An android or volitional slaves programming has not been self made and cannot be changed at will.

One may be considered very intelligent in a specific field, say electrical engineering for example. Yet they have no idea what it means to own themself, they still vote, willingly pay tax and choose to be a volitional slave. At the same time, if asked, they would say they do own themselves, they vote because they have the power to affect change, they pay tax because it is their duty to assist the greater good and they sure as anything are not choosing to be a slave! Understanding of all these concepts takes a great deal of objective awareness which can only be arrived at through dedication, time and a correct epistemological method. Which a narrowly intelligent volitional slave cannot or chooses not to do.

In comparison to the highly intelligent yet narrow in scope volitional slave. someone who is considered to not be very intelligent may work as a security guard at the supermarket yet choose to be sovereign.

To choose to be sovereign requires a basic level of general consciousness and self awareness of your internal world, which is your mind, thoughts and feelings. The same can be said of the external world, which comprises of other people, social structures and the rest of reality.

Choosing to be sovereign and being sovereign are separated by experience, actions and objective awareness. One who chooses to be sovereign can become sovereign through dedication and persistence.

It is extremely common for npcs/volitional slaves to have a very high level of narrow intelligence which allows them to excel in a particular field, like chemistry, psychology or computer science. Yet they totally lack general basic intelligence or general consciousness. This is primarily due to their inability to deprogram cabal influenced mind viruses which dramatically lowers their level of beingness from a man to a person. Some of the most intelligent people in the world are oddly enough at the same time the most gullible and stupid, unable to transfer their intelligence across all the fields and topics of life.

One who naturally has or who has chosen to have a basic general level of consciousness is able to automatically see reality clearer then one who may be very context specific intelligent, yet lacking general basic consciousness.

Self awareness does not automatically imply intelligence, although it can, and intelligence does not automatically imply consciousness, although it can.

A sovereign man or woman is self determining. Meaning that they are consciously aware of their own decisions and why they are making them, about everything. A sovereign man makes all of his own choices, he is responsible for choosing his own path in life. He doesn't just make some of his choices but every single one of them, in contrast to a muggle who may decide when to go to the toilet or which suburb he wants to live in, yet chooses to allow a religious dogma to then decide the rest of his important and critical life choices.

The opposite to self determining would be determined. A volitional slaves life is determined by his master/s as they are the ones who make the choices for him. One who votes for a political party is choosing to have his fate determined for him by another, he is giving his permission to be a determined slave, he is voluntarily choosing to have restrictions placed upon him in return for the "comfort" of oblivious determinism. Although the slave would think he is participating in democracy to create an ordered and managed society, yet this is only because the slave does not think and would only repeat the indoctrination which he chose to accept instead of his own independent consideration and judgement.

The people who do not choose to be sovereign, to own themselves and to be self determined are instead choosing to exist in a zombie like trance state of sub conscious existence. They have traded conscious self determined control of their lives for an oblivious hypnotic like state where their conscious is not required to sustain their life. They are merely a passenger watching the show as their body responds to the programming of masters who have installed routines to follow. Obey teachers. Finish school. Go to university. Get a job. Eat. Sleep. Reproduce. Marry. Find a religion. Vote. Pay tax. Watch the news. Gossip. Get drunk. Smoke. Go to doctors. Etc…

One who is a self determining sovereign does not require a drivers license or state registration plates for example. This is because one who is sovereign with the appropriate level of objective awareness would choose to be a truly safe, responsible and respectful ‘driver’ (operator of their private means of transport) and would learn how to do this professionally, either by teaching themselves or having other experts teach them. They hold themselves to a much higher and professional standard than the average joes and their basic cookie cutter excuse of competency which is called a license, which in fact is just a plastic permission slip from a bunch of incompetent morons working at a monopolised corporation. Self determining sovereigns don't act in particular ways just because everyone else is doing it. They observe reality and then decide how to do something properly to the best of their abilities, irrespective of what “The Masses” (volitional slaves) are doing. Paying for an annual subscription of a number plate is only choosing to be a determined slave subservient to bureaucratic parasites. Although it is understandable why one may not choose to utilise private plates for self defence reasons. The level of sovereignty exercised by an individual depends on their courage and willingness to deal with conflict. In some circumstances a ceding of sovereignty under duress is excusable. The most important factor is if the choice to concede a defeat of self determinism is excusable or not to the individual who is doing it. Context is always applicable and important.

To not choose sovereignty is to relinquish your free will, your most primary and determining power which gives a being the power to become their own self made and determining character.

To choose to be sovereign is to assert a particular feeling, the feeling of wanting to be in control of your life, the feeling of wanting to be free.

Sovereignty also requires the awareness to know the difference between perceived freedom and actual freedom. For example "get vaccinated and you can travel" as opposed to "My body my choice".

Acquiescing to the will of another when you have the option not to is not an act of sovereignty. Although it is not black and white. Choosing to poison yourself to travel in comparison to using a document such as a passport to travel are very different concepts. Both are wrong, yet one can still use a passport and be sovereign, yet one cannot choose to willingly poison oneself and be sovereign. This is because the act is so disrespectful, so damaging, so negative to oneself and so unnecessary to achieve the desire value (to travel) that it is an act of irrationality, obedience and disregard of objective awareness. A total disregard of objective awareness moves one either temporally or permanently into the category of volitional slave.

At what point does doing something wrong such as getting vaccinated, using a passport, license, government health care become an act which is not sovereign? When it does more harm than good and when it cannot be rationally justified as the only option available.

Objective awareness is the awareness of reality as it really is, of the true state of your internal world and the external world, not an inaccurate perception, but an accurate one. It's an accurate knowing which has been discovered through an objective epistemological method. Which is through the application of reason and by examining evidence based reality.

Knowing the extreme physical side affects of injecting poison and still choosing to do it in exchange for permission to travel is illogical.  Not knowing the affects is wilful ignorance. It’s not worth the risk. Both are signs of disrespect for ones well being and show lack of care to increase ones objective awareness about reality. This is the choice pattern of a volitional slave, not of one who has chosen to be sovereign and self respecting.

How does one know they are sovereign, how can they prove it?

To be sovereign means to be self owning, self determining and to display a level of consciousness which can understand the difference between being owned and controlled and being free and autonomous.

The way one proves they are sovereign is by showing conceptual understanding of what it means to be sovereign explicitly and to demonstrably prove they are via their actions and behaviour.

One who only has the intellectual understanding of what sovereignty is but does not act in a sovereign manner cannot be considered as sovereign.

One who behaves in a sovereign manner but who does not know why cannot be said to be truly sovereign.

True conscious sovereignty requires both the psychological grasp of what it means to be the owner and master of oneself and self determining action in alignment with ones mental state and chosen values and virtues.

The intellectual understanding of sovereignty is just that, understanding. Self determining action is just that, action.

It's only when these two elements are combined that one becomes sovereign.

It takes proper mental understanding of personal freedom, self ownership and self determinism to make calculated choices about how one will act and behave in life.

True sovereignty isn't just the rebellion against authority or external rulers. It is the recognition that one who is conscious is the only one who has the right, responsibility and obligation to make ones own choices and there should be no ruler above them, no matter how benevolent.

Being sovereign doesn't mean you automatically have the right to do whatever you want because you are your own ruler. You have to consider and recognise that everyone else is their own ruler too. In a world where everyone chose to be sovereign that is. Being sovereign means you do absolutely what you want as long as it aligns with objective morality. Well that’s if you want to be good at least. Although in a world where everyone chose to be sovereign, then you probably wouldn't be able to be bad or evil for very long before you were stopped.

One who is sovereign cannot delegate the responsibility of consciousness or duty to think for oneself to another. If one is to do this, they are accepting to be enslaved to the will of another, of one who will do their thinking, judging, calculating and decision making for them.

One who is sovereign accepts the reality that if they want the best for themselves, then they need to reasonably act in a way to ensure they achieve the best for themselves. No one is better at thinking, judging, calculating and making decisions for one than oneself. If one is not good at this, then they better get started at learning how to be, because if they don’t they will find themselves as a mindless zombie who wont even be able to figure out why sovereignty is a valid choice, let alone choose it.

When one believes that another is better suited to consider choices and make decisions for them is the moment one chooses to be enslaved. This does NOT mean that someone sovereign cannot ask for advice from their dad or medical expert etc… It just means that they need to be the ultimate decider of how they proceed with that gathered advice. Choosing to follow someone else's advice is not an act of slavery if one knows full well why they are doing what they are doing.

For instance, one may run a business and hire a professional marketer. He may delegate all consideration and decision making to the marketer in the specific context of marketing, not in sales or employee management etc.. This would be a rational delegation of free will/authority/consent/judgement that ultimately benefits the business owner. If the marketer produces good results or results that align with what the business owner wants, he continues to allow them context specific power. If they do not provide results he wants, then the business owner would rationally conclude that he needs to replace them and withdraws any delegation of decision making power he had once given them. If they present a new marketing plan and asks him he wants to proceed with it or not, he would not say yes or no, he would say your fired.

When one behaves in a way which has been designed by another, yet believes that their choices are their own and are rational, yet they are not and are merely deceptions of another, they can be tricked into being and behaving as a slave, yet may think they are actually sovereign, yet are not. To be fully sovereign requires the use of an objectively accurate epistemological method. For how else is one to know if their actions and choices are actually theirs or just programming and conditioning to think they are theirs? If ones choices are actually the machinations and designs of anothers will and plan, then how could it be said that they are sovereign? They may believe they are making all their own rational choices, yet all they are doing is acting within a predetermined set of parameters created by someone else to provide the illusion of free choice.

True, deliberate and conscious sovereignty requires total self ownership, meaning one has the exclusive right to decide what happens to their mind and body, total self determinism, meaning one is the ultimate decider on what they choose and an objectively aware consciousness to know with certainty that their choices are indeed their own.

To be self determining means to exercise your free will in an egoic, self interested, rationally selfish manner in alignment with your values which you have consciously and reasonably chosen.

If one is to make choices that are sacrificial or not in ones best interests, how can it be said that one is acting in a sovereign manner, meaning in conscious control of their decisions, for why would one consciously choose to negatively impact oneself?

If one decided to smoke or drink alcohol, yet knows it is a self destructive behaviour, yet values these vices more than their health, then it can be argued it is a sovereign act to smoke or drink as one is choosing their values and actions. If one values their health more than their vices, yet continues to smoke or drink, then this is not an act of sovereignty but an act of enslavement to ones uncontrollable addictions. Although the question must be asked, why is one smoking and drinking?

If one is to drink coffee, knowing it has a slight negative health impact, but yet chooses to drink it because logically decides the benefits outweigh the negatives, then this is an act of sovereignty. Any uncontrollable addictions imply a lack of sovereignty in that specific field.

One who is sovereign must be egoically selfish as why would one who makes objectively rational and conscious choices ever make sacrificial and not self beneficial choices? This would be illogical and thus not the behaviour of one who is sovereign. If one claimed to be self owning and self determining, yet they acted in a way counter to how they claimed they wanted to act, or in a way which was self destructive or opposed to their values, then this shows that they are not consciously sovereign.

To choose to be sovereign is a choice of function. One can function as a self governing adult or as a governed child. A man chooses to live by objective principles. A boy chooses to live by the subjective whims of other boys.

The technical difference between 'a sovereign' 'the sovereign' and being sovereign is that “a” and “the” sovereign typically refer to a ruler with slaves and a large swathe of land. Some people argue that you cannot just choose to be sovereign as you do not wear a crown or have an army of slaves to send to their deaths at your disposal. It is argued that until you do control a large amount of land, an army of peasant and warrior slaves and have a fancy title and house, you cannot be sovereign. Why would this king or ruler be sovereign if he did this? He could still be invaded by a “more sovereign king’ with a larger slave army, his ‘status of sovereignty’ would then be removed and he would probably be killed by the more powerful ‘sovereign’. Sovereignty does not mean omnipotence and does not need to be. Sovereignty cannot be taken from you, even by force. It cannot be mentally removed from you unless by choice, but as earlier stated your physical freedom can be thieved, but your sovereignty cannot, unless you give it away willingly. Sovereignty is not a status as these rulers would believe. Sovereignty is a position in reality as a free being who has chosen to function freely.

Sovereignty can also be expressed as the ability to choose to self govern.

What is self governance? Self governance is ones ability to interact with others in an appropriately moral way. According to Utopian Realism, it would be by adhering to the system of Objective Morality.

The reason that governments exist and people allow them is that everyone implicitly realises that there must be some kind of order or rules that people follow to allow even a semi functioning society to operate.

The government takes up the role of governance by creating rules, laws and systems which deal with law and rule breakers. This is a form of governance. Obviously all the worlds governments of today are corrupt and ineffective at producing proper functioning societies. But since people do not chose to be sovereign, they are not choosing to self govern and thus require an outsider to govern them. Most people behave as children and children require a parent to keep them safe and to guide them because a child is too inexperienced and unintelligent to look after themselves. So this is what the government does, it steps in as a tough parent figure and controls it’s people who behave as children.

When one raises their consciousness and decides to be sovereign, they then can learn about what it means to self govern. They learn about objective morality, principles, virtues and values and then choose to live by self judging law/the lore of morality. They judge themselves as to what behaviour is appropriate and what is not. They do their best to correct their behaviour if they make mistakes.

This is all based on objective principles, not subjective arbitrary whims of dictators. For this is all legality is, subjectively beneficial dictates for whoever writes it and their beneficiaries. Government legality is not about equity, it is about discreet, complex and manipulative word structures that dominate people while the people who are being dominated clap and applaud at the organised structure of it all.

One who chooses to be sovereign may choose to govern themselves due to their own subjectively evil code. They would still be sovereign and would still be self governing, but they would not be moral and would not be self governing in accordance to objective principles OR external subjective codes.

Governments have a good excuse to step in and enforce a code of conduct, because most people are unable to discover let alone enforce their own code of conduct.

When one who chooses to be sovereign also chooses to be moral, they will be self governing according to an objective code which is morally accurate. Meaning, they will be taking responsibility to discover and know what is wrong and right behaviour and will decide to choose right behaviour because it is in alignment with their personal values.

Objective Morality can be seen as the code which one self governs according to. It is the standard one works with when acting in a self governing manner.

Just as the government uses their codes, legislation and laws as their standard to measure legal and illegal behaviour, those who are sovereign choose morality as their standard to measure against for right and wrong behaviour.

This is objectively a much higher standard than the governments standard, as they are only comparing behaviour and action to the invented realm of legality, whereas one who is sovereign compares their action and behaviour to the reality of morality.

Self governance is only possible for those who are responsible enough to choose their own code of conduct. For those who are too lazy or stupid to choose their own code, they must be governed by external forces, whether good or evil is irrelevant.

This is why it is imperative that those who have the capability to be sovereign choose to be and thus choose to self govern according to Objective Morality. This is the only way Utopia can ever be created.

Whether one chooses to be sovereign or not comes down to their desire to control their life as much is humanly possible, or to delegate control to as many external forces as much as humanly possible.

When one wants to control every facet of their destiny, when one wants to write their own fate, when one wants total realistic power over themselves to the highest degree, they MUST choose to be sovereign, for there is no other way to control ones life than to be sovereign.

Total control over ones life means to be in control of everything one can reasonably and physically control in ones life. One cannot control other people for example or the weather etc.. (or can they...?)

When one is only interested in having partial control over their life, but not 100%, one will happily exchange their sovereignty and total control for a perceived state of bliss. This state of "ignorance is bliss" is a false state, full of numbness and devoid of purpose or power. It is unnatural and antipodal to mans true state. The cost of being passive, irresponsible and unaccountable, which is the price one must pay to experience this drugged out of existence state of being, is not a cost to a selfless, imbecilic, average joe, it's a highly prized treasure, worth every scrap of dignity they have left to feel like a child again, powerless and clueless to the affairs of reality, yet bathed in the mystery and awe of an unknown world. The very world which they deserted and turned their back on when they decided to escape reality and live in fantasy land is the same world which they love dearly, a total contradiction only a volitional slave can pretend to make sense of. The sovereignty rejecting masses say they love the world, yet focus all their remaining power to fanatically ignoring it with the intensity of a crazed zealot. They want to get a career in the world, travel the world, get married in the world, have children in the world, buy a house in the world, yet they flat out refuse to know anything objectively about the world. They say they love the world and are happy, yet take every chance they get to unconsciously destroy themselves and the world. They would prefer to be a passenger in their own body, watching as it enacts the programs of the matrix, encased in a numb wrapping of obliviousness, then to exert control and power over their own mind and seize their sovereignty as every human being is duty bound to do. The thought of being responsible terrifies them more than the thought of being powerless and at the mercy of who ever holds their remote control. They feel more anxiety about thinking than about not having a single self generated thought of their own. What repulses the typical NPC is not the fact they are being manipulated and used as the playthings of external forces, it’s that if they were to accept such a reality as true, they would have to do something about it. The innumerable muggle masses would prefer to live forever as sheep, caged on a farm, yet fed, housed and watered, without effort, than to live as a free lion for a day in the wild.

To be responsible means to consider ones actions, which takes time, energy and dedication, then hold oneself accountable to their choices.

If one has the power to make a choice when the option for other choices exists, one is responsible for the choice they make.

How can one blame another for a choice they made?

Someone else can only be responsible for making your choices for you if you did not actually have a choice because you were threatened with violence, forced via violence or did not have a physical capacity to make your own choice (such as a mental retard, child, one who is comatose, on drugs, mental breakdown, old age and diseased etc.)

If an adult of sound mind makes a choice, they cannot blame another for making that choice for them, they cannot differ responsibility to someone else.

The one who makes a free will choice is responsible for that choice.

If they were deceived into making a choice because the information they had access to was corrupted, this is a valid excuse.

But if one had the time, ability and choice to verify the validity of said information, yet did not, they made a choice to not become informed, when they could have made a choice to be informed.

One cannot differ responsibility for their choices to another, unless there is a just cause to do so.

Ignorance is not an excuse, unless it legitimately is.

One can only justifiably claim ignorance if it was not wilful and there was nothing they could have done to know something.

One can not use the excuse of ignorance if it is wilful. If the information existed and was easily accessible for one to learn knowledge which would have altered their decision or choice, then they are responsible for choosing not to learn.

In today’s age with the internet and countless independent researchers, one cannot claim justifiable ignorance. In the day without internet, ignorance can be excusable, because how is one to know that which they do not have access to? One can only know so much by themselves. But today with such a powerful tool as the internet, one can have access to a multitude of experts from all fields.

Not having the time to learn how to make an accurate and informed choice is inexcusable. If one has the time to do unimportant things, they obviously have the time to do important things.

Everyone has the same amount of time. It’s not a matter of resources, it’s a matter of resourcefulness.

Being busy or tired is an unacceptable answer to avoid knowing reality as it actually is.

Deciding to focus on “living” over and above learning what is life and how to live appropriately is the ultimate dereliction of duty as a man. It is the rejection of ones consciousness and sovereignty. The reason is because one cannot live until they learn what it means to live. To live implies a whole host of action related options to sustain ones life. If one has no idea how to pick those options to “live” and has no desire to learn how, then what is their reason, purpose and point to living?

Why bother living a life when one has no interest in doing it properly.

Why play a game without learning the rules? Are you really even playing the game if you aren't adhering to the rules? What would be the point of playing basketball if you kicked the ball and tackled each other? It wouldn't be basket ball then would it? Why play monopoly if you are not going to buy any properties and will only earn money by going pass go and collecting your $200? Why play chess if every time you just throw your pieces off the board? Not only is their no point to playing these games, but you have no idea why you do what you do when you do play them and you have no interest in finding out. This is akin to going through life, saying you really enjoy the game, yet have no idea of it’s rules and don’t even want to know you are playing a game (metaphorically speaking). It’s like sitting at a computer desk and pouring water all over your computer, when one says to you “why are you doing that, you aren't meant to use it like that” you say “because I enjoy the feeling, this feels right to me”. This is essentially the same when people go through life, only doing what feels good in the moment, without considering anything long term or the implications of their actions.

If one cannot comprehend the nature, power and effect of making choices, of how the wrong choice can lead to agony, enslavement and suffering of not only themselves but also others, then one has no business making any choices until they make the choice to learn how impactful their choices can be.

One is not sovereign if they desert their responsibility for taking ownership over their actions.

One is not sovereign if they do not hold the controller to their life and instead hand it to someone else.

One is not sovereign if they trade their reason for ignorance.

One becomes sovereign when they think, decide and act sovereign.

---