Sovereign Citizens: A few inconvenient home-truths for the centre-right

Written by: (Contributed) on September 3 , 2025

(Above; This Adelaide man, since arrested, felt that March for Australia participants would accept his hero-worship of alleged cop-killer Dezi Freeman.)

The present manhunt for Dezi Bird Freeman, has once again, provided publicity about the so-called Sovereign Citizens movement. A recent Weekend Australian feature spread, for example, used nearly 300 hundred column centimetres about the movement, complete with factual errors and downright misleading information and disinformation. (1) But then, that was to be expected; the article, along with numerous others in mainstream media, did not address the real nature of the movement, its origins and development. Inconvenient home-truths would be revealed.

Delving on-line using search-engines has revealed the movement and its advocates appear to work continual overtime, producing outrageous conspiracy theories for their own kind. The evidence is not difficult to establish. Questions, therefore, arise about the why mainstream media have chosen to ignore some very basic facts about Sovereign Citizenship. Just whose interests are they serving?

The Sovereign Citizens movement first became vocal in the 1970s, although its origins lay in the 1950s. It fed on dissatisfaction and discontent with economic issues. Its advocates were, and remain, largely fringe-dwelling individuals, with a strong emphasis upon firearms and militias.

It is not coincidental that the timing of the origins and developments of the movement coincide with the rise of the Chicago School of Economics in the 1950s and its second generation of economists, including Milton Friedman (1912-2006) in the 1970s. The adherence to free-market economics and the standpoint that people are best left to fend for themselves with as little government regulation as possible, was seized upon by figures such as Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. The free-market libertarianism and economic rationalist position which was pushed included Thatcher stating, 'there is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families'.

No definition of families was provided however dysfunctional they may well be to ordinary people. The case of the Train family, responsible for the Wieambilla killings of police officers, is but one example; it contained dysfunctional sexual relations. The warrant that police were attempting to serve on Freeman, likewise, concerned an investigation into under age sexual activity, raising serious questions about family considerations.

The economic philosophy actively pushed the totality of individualism, which was adopted by the Sovereign Citizens movement and its poorly informed malcontents experiencing a low-level of social integration: they deny established authority patterns and systems of control for the regulation of the mass of the population of whole countries. There is no social responsibility in any pattern of behaviour, including sexual relationships. Those who choose to reject social norms and conventions and social benchmarks and yardsticks, however, open the likelihood of problems with facing moral and ethical issues. The fact that many of the advocates of the movement are little other than criminals with a pathological hatred of Police, for obvious reasons, is not coincidental.

Thatcher, likewise, saw no difficulties with her dealings with former Chilean president Augusto Pinochet despite being legally implicated in international drug-trafficking and charges of murder, torture and hostage-taking. (2) Political expediency would appear to have taken priority over moral and ethical considerations for Thatcher and her cronies. Pinochet, following a lengthy investigation, for example, was subsequently found to possess 125 secret US bank accounts using different names and containing over $100 million. (3) Following his arrest in London, Thatcher, nevertheless, also authorised fund-raising in order to pay for Pinochet's legal expenses; a total of over $5 million was raised in his support. (4)

Sovereign citizens were confronted with dilemmas from the outset.

The question of order and stability inside the collective whole for the mass of the population arose as a serious matter of consideration. They, therefore, opted to push Common Law as a means of resolving civil issues arising, as opposed to Criminal Law, which was regarded as a restriction upon individual freedoms.

It also remains important to consider how the Sovereign Citizens movement arose in the US largely amongst white supremacists and far-right political groups. There is little ambiguity. It spread largely into the English-speaking countries of the Five Eyes elite intelligence organisation and British Commonwealth. And there is no shortage of reliable information linking intelligence services with the far-right. (5) In fact, the whole Sovereign Citizens movement possesses characteristics of a typical front-type organisation designed for clandestine operations, from the previous to the present Cold War. (6)

Agendas would appear to have been adapted throughout their history; Sovereign Citizens appear to be able to cover their tracks quite effectively, raising questions about those within their midst who remain hidden from public scrutiny and in influential positions. The foot soldiers of the movement appear oblivious and misguided people; whether the leadership is like-minded is highly questionable.

It is also important to note, for example, how the movement has adapted to social trends: in the 1970s it was closely associated with moves for eventual globalisation and the advocacy of de-regulation, privatisation and liberalisation. Now the US is experiencing problems with declining levels of GDP growth and the challenge from China, moves by those associated with the Trump administration to continually challenge the legal system with their spurious MAGA campaign carry an all-too common ring of Sovereign Citizen standpoints.

And Trump is their man.

In conclusion, the Sovereign Citizens movement is best viewed as one of the most extreme forms of economic rationalism. Its advocates are trying to seize back what they perceive as having lost; they seek to overcome isolation and powerlessness and the state power of the corporate sector. Behind their crackpot conspiracy theories they collude on-line to identify targets for retribution. Those wearing uniforms are only too conspicuous, as has been well shown, once again, this time in Victoria.

Those responsible for the economic malaise from which Sovereign Citizenship arose, however, remain hidden amongst the thousands, if not millions, of words of commentary spewed into mainstream media coverage. The 'respectability' of the centre-right is clearly at stake. They really do have something to hide after creating the conditions for the political fall-out of an economic rationalist philosophy, including all which that entailed.

A few basic home-truths do not go amiss when dealing with such people!

The silence with which they respond is also noteworthy.

1. See: Smoking out the 'Sov-Cit' cult, The Weekend Australian, 30/31 August 2025.
2. See: Thatcher takes tea with old ally, The Guardian Weekly, 4 April 1999; and, Revealed: Pinochet drug link, The Observer (London), 10 December 2000; and, Allies raise $5 million to back Pinochet, Australian, 12 February 1999.
3. Pinochet had 125 US bank accounts, Australian, 17 March 2005; and, And finally, The Weekend Sydney Morning Herald, 18/19 March 2006.
4. Australian, op.cit., 12 February 1999.
5. See: NATO Secret Armies, Daniele Ganser, 2005; and, Psychological Operations – Civil Affairs, The Division in Battle, Organisation and Tactics, Military Board, Canberra, 1 June 1966, Sections 16 and 17, pp. 49-51; and, Declassified US Intelligence Report, The Beast Re-Awakens, Martin Lee, (London, 1997), page 189; and, The CIA and the cult of intelligence, Victor Marchetti and John D, Marks, (London, 1976).
6. See: Instructions for the coordination and control of the Navy's clandestine intelligence collection program, Top Secret, Washington, 7 December 1965, Declassified, 13 July 1990, pp. 3-7.