Roger Mundy
Coalition to Govern America
August 1, 2014
There are some, especially in past years, who have suffered the disruption of their entire lives to “lawfully withdraw their consent” from the evil system; and who believed this was the performance of their duty to God. Such people can only be honored for their integrity and devotion. Their sacrifices have paid for some important insights into that matrix of deceits that is “the law”. Much is owed them for this. Unfortunately however, they are often victims themselves of what I call the “expatriation dialectic”.
The expatriation dialectic is often presented as an inescapable choice between two “lawful” options (thesis and antithesis) – either “give your consent” or “withdraw your consent” from the present evil system. This withdrawal of consent is a kind of voluntary political exile, and is believed to be a change of one’s “legal standing” or status. It is promoted as “freedom” from the evil system. And in limited ways it can be perceived as such for individuals. But is it “freedom” when “expats” (expatriots) are also warned to expect a potentially unending series of craftily worded letters, notices, . . . etc., from government agencies attempting to find a plausible basis for the presumption that you now or have actually always “given your consent”? Expats are warned that to all such attempts, the now “free” expat must always and without exception respond in the “proper” form and in the “proper” terms. Not responding guarantees a presumption of consent. In this computerized, automated age, there may be nothing to prevent hundreds(?), thousands(?), of agencies each issuing dozens(?), hundreds(?), of such paper harassments upon any one political expat. But this is just one of the weaknesses of the expatriation path to “freedom”.
Expatriation leaves the evil system in place to continually harass the expat himself. It leaves this system in possession of one’s country and countrymen. Expatriation is actually a tacit acknowledgement of a legitimacy in the evil system’s authority over everyone and everything with the conditional exception of the expat himself. Ultimately, the expat actually relies upon the “honor” of that system to obey its own rules. But there are many examples of that system dropping the pretense of “honor” to silence particularly annoying individuals.
Expatriation should never be seen as the “solution”. It is actually a defensive tactic for individuals. It should be understood as such and nothing more. Political expatriation can not by its very nature ever overcome the evil system. The expatriation dialectic can be understood as the choice between “submit” or “defensively flee”. In a figurative image – those that flee voluntarily go to the prison island of expats surrounded by the sea of maritime law that constantly attempts to erode “the land” they “stand” upon, under the myth that this is “freedom”.
The honorable men that paid so dearly for expatriation just a few years ago, may rejoice in seeing it so widely promoted and the relative ease it is to do now. But they ought to question why the great difference in so short a time. Was it public awareness? Or was it the likely possibility that mass expatriation did not fit the plan of the power brokers at the time when our honorable men went through their ordeals, but now it does. I am convinced that everything is now in readiness and expatriation fits in quite nicely.
One example of a “covert” expatriation dialectic that evidence suggests began in the early 1990’s and is in this author’s expose of The Restore America Plan (TRAP) found on this Govern America website. But perhaps what is more telling now is the recent expatriation of Superman himself before the UN. Superman originated as a well-funded and thinly disguised attempt to villianize Nikola Tesla. Tesla had posed a very real threat to the energy monopolists in America and the world. Has D.C. (District of Columbia?) Comics changed their stripes?
All dialectic manipulations begin by presenting two irreconcilable opposites, in the hope of producing a very predictable and stressful reaction. The expatriation dialectic of submit or flee is classic. Of course, there is a distinct third option that is neither submission nor flight. This third option happens to be the offensive that can “lawfully” overcome the entire evil system.
Instruction: When Public Servants Must Submit or Flee
The third option of “instruction” is to actively take the offensive against the evil system and the insulting idea that the people must submit or flee before the presumptions of those who call themselves “public servants”. A republic is where the people govern their public servants, no matter what “form” of government might be in place, and no matter what the priests (judges and lawyers) of the “cult of the law” might say, think or do.
If a republic is just, the public servant who is given these commands (instructions) must have the right of resignation. This is just because no one can be compelled to violate his own conscience, and none with integrity would do so. Resignation is “fleeing” from office that changes his “legal status” from public servant to private citizen. There is also a third option for public servants under a republic and that is to convince the constituency he serves to change their instructions.
It should be obvious that this is a complete change of active authority away from the fraudulent tyranny we are told by expats we must either submit to (give consent) or flee from (withdraw consent). In a republic it is the public servant that must submit to the instructions of the people, or get the people to change their instructions, or flee from that office of public servant.
Conclusion
In summation it should be understood that expatriation is a powerful defensive tactic that can have potentially far reaching effects for individuals. But it should be understood that it cannot overcome the evil system, and does not lead to “freedom”. The path of expatriation appears at this time to lead to a “legal status” that conforms well with the ongoing liquidation of America.
