Sovereignty Project
Music by Jukedeck. Create your own at

In this article, we examine the Piled Shape of all civil structures, and layout the premise that our current structure, which follows an improper and grossly disproportionate allocation of political power is functionally obsolete, and that another structure, more favorable to the masses and with better utility will likely soon replace it. This is a lead up for our thesis solution to the dysfunctional system we have now. A thesis new civil structure follows in the next in our series.

A great tool for the analysis and understanding of a political system is it's geometric shape. In general, the shape represents, and determines how power flows in the civilization which 'packages' the system; it's civil structure.

To a large extent, the shape of civil structures follows the natural order. Our current structure, given us by the US constitution, is a grossly exaggerated Pyramid with a very concave vertical slope, and although it has been argued that it was not disproportionate, nor intended to be such in its inception, it certainly is that way today.

In our opinion, that grossly disproportionate shape has come about for several reasons as we will discuss, and that chief among them is that human nature tends to allow the accumulation of power in the hands of the few of whom the society has confidence. The confidence takes many forms, but in general, it is confidence in the ability for these 'political leaders' to enhance the personal lives of the people over what the same believe their lives would be without those leaders, or with other less favorable leaders. In our estimation, this is a very grave mistake as the belief and the reality are miles apart. It amounts to a form of idolatry, and the formation of the cults of personality. Politicians are worshiped as if they are somehow immune to the common temptations of men.

Having said all of that, it must be pointed..


Music by Jukedeck. Create your own at

What if We-The-People were to redesign our current civil structure which is the republic we call the USA; in other words we the American people of today designed and created a new system of governance for ourselves? And, in that new structure, what if We-The-People made and executed all the laws of the land? How different would it be from our current failing system created back in 1776? How different would our lives be?

All civil structures start with a system of laws. If we were to do so, we would be in charge of drafting and executing all laws of the land instead of the current legislature and executive branches. We would essentially be self-ruling; what a novel concept.

The current structure started with a group of states accepting what we know today as the US constitution. It is still considered the supreme law of the land. It also set out the structure of the government and decreed how laws would be made, executed, and enforced. With that in mind, would a new effort proceed along pretty much the same lines as before? Would we actually renew the mistakes of the previous system, or have we learned anything since then?

So if we, the politically endowed people of our nation, could toss out the existing system in it’s entirety, which would include the complete current registry of federal and state laws, and create a new set more suitable to our liking, what impact would that have on our country? Could you think of some laws we have now, that we might not tolerate? And, might there be some new ones you think are necessary which we currently lack?How about a few examples

Globalist and corporate influenced laws We-The-People might eliminate
— Federal laws which meddle in family, community, or state matters.
— State laws which meddle in family or community matters.
— Federal and state tax laws which take h..

The Sham Order
When the US Constitution was adopted,there were many states who were very wary of such a deal, so much so, that the first 10 amendments, called by the misnomer, ‘Bill of Rights’, were drafted during the convention, and added very soon after the adoption of the Constitution itself, to appease the holdouts. The moniker ‘Bill of Rights’ was word-crafted to influence how it is viewed. It should have been called the ‘Bill of Restrictions’, which is revealed when one reads it. It was a vain attempt to forestall the inevitable tyranny the accord would eventually realize.

If the intent of the constitution was so pure, why were they not included in the original? The ‘Bill of Restrictions’ was later added at the insistence of the skeptics because there were not sufficient restrictions on the power of government included in the original draft. That is by design of federalists, who wanted to ram the entire thing up the backside of a young American nation with a tenuous grip on central power, sans any restraint. That tells us something about the intent of the accord and the drafters. Although it is not widely discussed or debated today, you can bet that the constitution itself would likely have failed passage without some assurance of the amendments for restraint.

In any case, the delegates who were representatives of their respective sovereign people and states managed to leave our nation in the hands of so called ‘caretakers.’ That means they were supposed to be custodians of the interests of the sovereign people and the sovereign states which they had worked hard to establish.

Caretakers or Gatekeepers?
So what is the problem? It is that caretakers or, to be more precise, ‘conservators’, are not what the nation got. As we learned, it was called something relatively benign, ‘the federal government’, but it was something altogether different.

Regardless of wha..


When the US Constitution was written and adopted, the process was not unlike how politics is done today. There is a tendency for people to believe that somehow back in the ages of antiquity, in this case, the late 18th century, when the founders of the republic met to draft and adopt some sort of framework for what they intended to establish, it was a process driven by some sort of mythical pureness. It is assumed that these men were all above petty infighting and squabbles, and partisanship; that they were statesmen as we are told and that means they were somehow above all of that.

That idealized view is simply not the case. When they convened to start work on the framework that would finally emerge, they did not have a clear consensus view of what the final work would be. Many had some ideas, but they hardly all agreed on the fundamentals, much less the details. So, much like today, seriously compromised work resulted.

What all this means is that there was a lot of proposals which some loved and others hated, much deal making and compromise produced considerably less than what most anyone would consider ideal. To compensate for the shortcomings, flowery language was employed to soft-sell the flawed final drafts to those who were to approve it.

So, just like today, there was a significant amount of stupidity and outright corruption coded in the drafts, such that what emerged looked good on the surface, but it was nonetheless, very compromised. It was set up to create one crisis after another, which would eventually lead to pretty much the system we have today, IE hopelessly broken and corrupt.

Since then, the people of our nation have subsequently been programmed to look back into American history and see very little of that. However, we are unmistakenly beginning to see that corruption was there, and is still present in the constitutional system which created our current republic.

Read On...


What is a Sovereign Body?
It may come as a surprise to Americans to learn there is more than one political class in this nation, and most have no clue. To be precise, there are exactly two. There is the superior one which existed before the US Constitution was adopted and the inferior one which was fabricated afterward. The original political status is what Original-Americans enjoyed prior to our republic, and still do today.

The term ‘inferior’ is used to convey the lesser status in that it does not possess, nor bestow the same authority as the original. It did not come about by the mandate of those with the power to sanction such but was a sloppy attempt at power brokering to support a political agenda; an imposter, masquerading as the original. This second political class has cheapened, distorted, and degraded the entire idea of the sanctity of nationhood. It bestows virtually no power on the individual, only a false sense of entitlement.

The US Constitution was the mechanism by which the inferior class was contrived with the help of a little statecraft. Ironically, the superior political status called a ‘sovereign American’ is still enjoyed by a majority of us, but due to the massaging of the population through various programming for many decades, we are not really aware such exists. Indeed, the other one gets all the attention. To understand why, we need some background.

Like us, the founders of the Republic found themselves in a no-win situation. They also understood a profound and powerful principle and wrote about it in their manifesto… their declaration:

“…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”
— Declaration of Indepen..

Let's derive the word "Sovereign". It comes from two Latin roots:
1) 'Sover' or 'super' meaning 'above'; and

2) 'Regnum', which in French is pronounced 'Reign' as in "The king reigns supreme." Kings are lawgivers.

Putting this together it means Above + Law, or 'Above the Law.'

So as sovereign individuals, are we above the law? No, as individuals, although we are sovereign, we are still subject to the law. However, when we act as a sovereign-body, then yes, we are above the law. As such the law is established. It is always established by a sovereign-body be it a king, or a group of people such as the earliest founders of the nation, or the founders of the republic who gave us the constitution.

It is imperative that you understand this.

We were much better off before the US constitution was created, simply because we (Americans) answered to no king, no state, and no bureaucracy. Some will argue that from our earliest history, we have always been subjects of the British crown. This view is an indoctrination and a mental construct to implant a certain view of history into our minds. It is true that a large number of settlers from England held that view, however, there were even greater numbers of people from other parts of the world that would heartily disagree.

Just ask the native Americans, black slaves, the indentured Irish and Scots, even native Britons (Welsh) who came from Britain might disagree. How about asking the Dutch, Scandinavians, Germans, and French who ventured here, or the Spanish who were at war with Britain, if they considered themselves to be "colonists" or British subjects. All of these groups were present in America from the earliest days and their offspring constitute the nation today.

Then consider that ultimately when pressed on that question, a great number of Americans whose families were from England disagreed about that assertion when they rose up against the oppressive British King George. In light of these facts, that..


This is how we take America back!

Who owns America? Is it the elitist, globalists, and foreign interests… or is it We-The-People? We say it is We-The-People, so here is how we take America back.

Have you ever pondered, what can be done to fix our failing American civilization? In this video and blog series titled: Political Pecking Order, we will tell you how to take America back, and what part you will play.

If We-The-People own our nation, does that make our status management or are we merely subjects (peon, citizens, etc.)?

Who are We-The-People?

Why did our nation come into being, and for who does our nation exist? What is it’s purpose? Did it come into existence to serve the cabal of global elitists, or was it to exclusively serve the sovereign interests of the American people? We emphatically say it is the latter. Our nation exists exclusively to serve the interest of We-The-People, and apart from this, it has no reason to exist.

Are We-The-People above the law, and what power does that wield in helping us to take America back? We anger this question later in this series,

Are the US Constitution and the Government Obsolete?
When was our nation founded, and by who?

Are the US Constitution and our nation the same thing, or does the Constitution merely define the government?

Is the constitution still relevant today? How about our representative system of government? Is government still relevant or is it obsolete?

In any given civil structure, how does power flow, from the top down, or is it the other way around?
What is the political pecking order, and what does that mean?

In this video, part-1 of Political Pecking Order and others to follow, we not only examine these questions, but we answer them as well.

More about Sovereignty Project
On Facebook

On Bitchute


On YouTube


Created 4 years, 4 months ago.

7 videos

Category News & Politics

Sovereignty Project is about exploring new ideas which address the currently failing institutions of modern political structures. We are not a news site per se. Instead, the site is really purposed with exploring ideas and proposals, which provide a working platform for a new and improved form of civil structure, based on democratic process.

Sovereignty Project Organization
The Sovereignty Project is an open organization for like-minded individuals who would like to make a contribution to the development of our goals. We are primarily concerned with the American civilization and affirm that she is on a downward trajectory, well on to failure, and anticipate a partial to complete collapse in the civil structure in the short term.

We are dedicated to exploring a course of renewal, which is based on the recognition that the power of civilization emanates upward from the broad base of sovereign people, and that because the sovereign people are the originators of our civilization, it should ultimately, primarily serve their interests.

Republican Vs Democratic
Some would argue that the ideas expressed herein are those which constitute an unworkable morass of contradiction, and conflicting interests called ‘A Democracy’, as expressed in a mocking pun, “A democracy is an argument between 2 wolves and a sheep about what’s for dinner.” We reject that notion to point out that most of these arguments will come from those who defend and embrace ‘A Republic’ as the optimum structure for civil governance.

We would also point out that today there is very little difference between what is termed a democracy and a republic. A republic, in it’s purest form, is a modified democracy. The idea that a very tiny number of our population; approximately 546 so-called ‘representatives’ of the people’s interest constitutes a functioning system of governance is a farce.

We would point out that by whatever name it has been given, our great ‘republic’ was originally fashioned as a trust for elitist interests from inception and that it does now, and has always, operated as a trust. We further acknowledge that neither of these forms is remotely representative of the people’s interest.

Who owns our nation?
We advocate that the nation’s people ask and answer a series of simple questions about who owns our nation? That answer can be only one of two. It is either the heirs of the sovereign people who founded the nation in the early 17th century, or it is the entrenched interests currently residing in the nation’s capital, and their elitist global patrons.

Having affirmatively answered that question, they must then ask and answer what ownership means in terms of a civil policy structure which has such tremendous impact in our daily lives. We would further advocate that the sovereign-body of people put forward a broad and loud declaration of that ownership in order to re-establish a workable structure and to put on-notice, those who currently believe and act as though they are the sole arbiters of our civilization.

Changing Political Paradigm
The site is about our future. We recognize that our nation, along with virtually all civil structures throughout the globe, is on an unprecedented near-term trajectory toward revolutionary change. Such change is fueled by the rapid obsolescence of current forms of governance. We believe our nation is in crisis and headed down an irreversible course toward a financial reckoning, in which the current republic along with the welfare state, will both cease to exist.

We put forward the question; after the smoke clears, what form should our nation’s civil structure take?

Since we recognize that the power of civilization emanates upward, we would then ask; how can the sovereign-common seize the initiative, to form the nation which emerges; to ensure it is suited solely to the interests of the sovereign-body and is not geared to elitist institutions as is current?

Lastly, we put forward that although discussion is vital in envisioning the path, if we own our nation, it is even more necessary that we affirm that ownership. Therefore, an organization is vital to advocate, teach, and finally enact a new civil structure.

Thesis Solution not the Legacy of Failure
We offer and propose thesis solution and a discussion to those who would like to explore them, and follow up by considering the actions, prudent and necessary for moving forward. The site may be thought of as a town meeting or forum for consideration of solutions to the above-enumerated challenges.

These questions and their answers involve two perspective views based on:
1) The role of the Sovereign-Body of people, composed of those of our population who have endowed right, and qualification, in determining such issues.

2) The tremendous role advancing technology plays in the changing paradigm.

The ideas expressed in these two will play a major role in the outcome.