Every once in a while, someone appreciates, rather than denigrates, my efforts to lower the opportunity costs for American political dissidents. Constructive criticism is always good, but what is not productive are miscreants who say things like, “I’ll listen to him any day over reading your stupid site,” just because I bother to document the abuses Ron Paul has heaped upon his own supporters. Fortunately, such does not appear to be the case here, for even those who are not dissidents can appreciate good work when they see it.
Apparently, Only on Paper has gotten an honorable mention on Quatloos recently. For those of you that don’t know, Quatloos is known as the “Cyber Museum of Scams & Frauds” and is also described as “A public educational website covering a wide variety of financial scams & frauds including wacky ‘prime bank’ frauds, exotic foreign currency scams, offshore investment frauds, tax scams, ‘Pure Trust’ structures and more.” The first poster says:
“I came across a blog a few days ago that I thought was quite interesting – ‘The Last Bastille’ (https://thelastbastille.wordpress.com/). It’s run by three individuals who’s political and economic perspective is probably best described as radical. And, interestingly, they take an extremely dim view of the Sovereign/Freeman world, and do a pretty nice job shredding its concepts.”
Technically, there are three other guys besides me, but that is a side note (just check the About page). It’s rather funny to me that I’m now officially considered “radical.” Does that stem from the fact that I said goodbye to the left-right paradigm a long time ago? In any case, I appreciate their comment that I did “a pretty nice job shredding” the sovereigns & company. The same forum board member then preceded to link to each of my book reports regarding Title 4 Flag Says You’re Schwag, What Does Accepted for Value Mean?, Good to be King (even though Michael Badnarick claims to be a sovereign citizen, the thrust of his book is ostensibly about the federal Constitution, and he only mentioned the Uniform Commercial Code once, so his book was pretty tame regarding sovereign citizenship, relative to, say, The Global Sovereign’s Handbook), Standing Under Freedom, Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception, Freedom is More Than Just a 7-Letter Word, and How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash-Confiscatory Agency Known to Man.
The last thing this same poster says is:
“It’s interesting to see this kind of on-the-point analysis from the ‘other side of the hill’. I also very much like their breakdown in the first linked article of the Freeman/Sovereign world into five general concept groups.”
Like I told Randy Mack almost two years ago, ever since I got started in the alternative media back around 2007 or so, I’ve had people tell me they really dig my analytical abilities, yet it’s not like I’m uniquely talented, necessarily, but it’s because I had a good education at home. Moving on, I had no idea that I’m from the “other side of the hill;” is that a veiled implication that I’m over the hill? No matter…when I was a kid, I always wanted to grow up and “be like the big people,” that way I could run away from my family of origin, which, as I’ve described before, is exactly what I eventually did, praise Bob (I have a sneaking suspicion God wouldn’t mind, now would he?). The sovereigns & company have as many flavors of their differing quasi-religious sects that I couldn’t avoid but pigeonhole them into five categories, because it was the only way I could even begin to make sense of each of their respective doctrines (and yes, I am implying by my language here that the sovereigns & company are inherently superstitious, because their magical thinking assumes that words on pieces of paper can somehow protect them from criminals and tyrants, but ah, such a suspension of disbelief is temporarily necessary when one even tries to understand for what passes as “the law” in this day and age).
Another commenter chimed in, and if anything, his comments are more detailed and intriguing (at least, to me anyway). He first says:
“I’ve worked my way through the articles and I agree that the writer, while definitely not a pro-capitalist type (little hints like the phrase ‘the corporate whore media’) does a very good job of analyzing the various Freeman arguments. A more literate style than most too.”
Again, while I sincerely thank you for appreciating my literary skills, which my late mother taught me, I think you are making an incorrect assumption about me when you declare that I am “definitely not a pro-capitalist type.” First, it is common within the alternative media to refer to the mainstream media with similar pejorative terminology mainly because they are our competition, as well as the fact they have historically lied out their ass because the government told them to (as a way of compensating their overlords for the undue “protection” the government affords them, thus trying to shove the rest of us out from being able to compete with them; thank Eris for the Internet!). Secondly, I mentioned in my literature review of Why Freegan? that the corporatocracy is not the agora, because it possesses the legal sanction from the State to privatize gains while also socializing losses, especially thanks to the 14th Amendment, which was used to give corporations the status of being an artificial person following the War for Southern Independence, thereby making it ridiculously easy for its empty suits to benefit from undue government privilege. If you want an example of creatures of the Establishment cowardly divesting themselves of any personal responsibility (besides the Standing Army, of course, usually for reasons of “officer safety”), then I would like to point the finger at the multinational corporations and even more than a few regional chain stores.
Next, this same commenter goes on to say that:
“He seems to focus on Menard, and not favourably. Not kind to Mary Elizabeth Croft either. It is unusual to get a freeman or fellow traveler who can intelligently analyze arguments rather than just spout them out as fact. The author makes one point over and over; that almost all of the Freeman arguments rely on unsupported bald statements rather than evidence. Same thing I’ve seen in court where they ramble on and on about secret trusts, natural men vs. persons, and unilateral contracts without providing any evidentiary base to support their pleadings. They seem to think that just telling the judge that they have a secret government trust for $100,000,000 is evidence enough to get the court to force the government to cough up.”
You’re right, I was pretty harsh toward Menard, Croft, Van Hove, Godsent, and Chapman alike. While I would dispute that I would be a “fellow traveler” to the sovereigns & company, the fact that even he could recognize that it’s normal for people, even within the alternative media, to “spout them out as fact” instead of first “intelligently analyz[ing] arguments,” suggests that American political dissidents, collectively speaking regarding what seems to be the majority here, are in much worse shit than they thought, because they don’t think! And yes, I was repetitive that “almost all of the Freeman arguments rely on unsupported bald statements rather than evidence,” because I’ve run into individuals, in private conversations, who uselessly debated with me for hours because they asserted than I “hadn’t done my research,” whenever I either demonstrated the inviability of the sovereigns’ position, or showed that they were wrong (such as using the Federal Style Manual and those two federal court cases to debunk the STRAWMAN hypothesis). In many ways, I intended for Only on Paper to be my final position on their bad interpretations of what they think the law says, clearly and precisely enumerating what exactly the points of contention are, which unfortunately is virtually everything they spout. That is why I introduced the article by mentioning the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation within the alternative media.
All in all, I appreciate those two commenters from Quatloos taking to time to read Only on Paper, and presumably, the supportive book reports I wrote. For me personally, writing Only on Paper was a way to bring closure to this subject that actually began when I originally watched The Anti-Terrorist, who otherwise still has good things to offer, but I fear he lost his integrity when he was charging ₤500 per person for a weekend seminar on what the UCC allegedly said, especially with regard to its applicability in Britain.
Speaking of reaching closure, I would to extend a heartfelt thank you to Ben Lowry, who was the first man whom I believe was originally a proponent of the sovereigns & company, but then turned against them when he realized they were spouting gross misinformation. If you need to reach closure too, then watch Lowry’s two vlogs where he denounces them, first “Why Statutes are Lawful, and Why Common Law Jurisdiction Doesn’t Exist” and then “Stay Away from the Freeman-on-the-Land Theories.” Should Only on Paper not bring you enough of a sense of closure, then those two videos of Lowry’s will do the trick.