2 votes

Faces of Anarchy

Physiognomy, the art or science of deducing a person's nature and temperament by his facial appearance, has a long history. Since the time of the Greek philosophers and probably much earlier, man has contemplated the faces of his fellows and has attempted to codify these observations and impressions in the form of scientific formulae. The Secretum Secretorum, or "Secret of Secrets" formerly attributed to Aristotle, informs the reader, for example, of the various indications made by shapes of noses, ears turned inward or outward, scars, etc.

This sort of investigation reached its apogee with the hucksterism and quackery of phrenology, which was justly discredited after a few decades, but it has recently reemerged as a legitimate area of investigation in experimental psychology and genetics; studies have shown that our first impressions often have a basis in fact. For example, our subjective judgments of "kind faces" and "aggressive faces" in men correspond to an individual's level of testosterone, and in double-blind studies, we are able to accurately predict which man is a murderer, or which CEO leads a company that is producing greater profits. The Economist ran an article on several years ago on some of this research, but other examples abound, both in the scholarly journals and in popular science magazines.

Since science itself blesses our investigation by telling us that our first instincts, if not always right, at least are worthy of some attention and may be rooted in fact, we may find some profit in examining the faces of the activists in the sovereign citizen movement. The Sovereign Citizen movement has been hotly contested on these fora, and, as I have little acquaintance with the matter, a first impression from the faces may be a good starting point. We should, of course, be cognizant of the fact that many of these are booking photos taken upon arrest, and we should moreover extend the due measure of charity to the subjects of these photographs, as they were likely deprived of their cosmetics upon arrest and may be less well-groomed than ordinary.

While viewing, let us ask ourselves, "Do these men seem like worthy leaders?" and, "Do these men appear reasonable and of sound mind?"

Robert Bayliss

Ed Parenteau

Richard Ulloa

David Allen Brutsche

The answer to these questions is a resounding "no." The faces speak for themselves: these are defectives. They are schizoids or, at best, well-meaning imbeciles, who get themselves into trouble and are not worthy of the attention of those who seriously want to challenge the ruling establishment. Some of the so-called Sovereign Citizens are likely imbeciles who have been prepped by the Feds; stupidity and credulousness are desirable traits for those who want some malleable and reliable material with which to fashion spies or agents-provocateurs.

Side note:

The "Secret of Secrets" mentioned in the first paragraph is an interesting text with a long, international history and an even more sensationalized purported history.

The text's history is explored here in this book by Stephen James Williams:

It was translated into English at a relatively early stage, and a middle English translation was edited and published for the Early English Text Society in the 1970s:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Everyone is a sovereign:

Everyone is a sovereign.
We are a Constitutional Republic:

"Under this form of government, individual freedom and responsibility are maximized. The individual is sovereign and his rights are sacrosanct. Individuals are free to act without permission, but must never impose without consent. Everyone has an equal right to compete in the marketplace, succeed or fail on their own, and pursue their own happiness restrained only by the rights of others to do the same. Republics reject as a danger to liberty the public interest doctrine espoused in democracies, because, as John Adams articulated, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."- Benedict D LaRosa

Sounds like Anarchy to me. True Liberty has no Ruling Class.

Live in Liberty
Tom Rankin

Thing about sovereigns I've noticed

is there's an inverse relationship between the time they spend explaining and my level of confusion. In other words the more they explain it the less I understand this gossamer-thin series of stands that are somehow supposed to form a cohesive hole.

If your whole logical argument comes down to punctuation and capitalization in some arcane version of Black's I'd say you are on shaky ground.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.


anyone can say that about anything. ;)

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

well, this is dumb

What's your favorite philosophy? Let me go find a hobo that feels similarly, which I can pretty much guarantee I can do, and I will debunk your pet philosophy by posting the hobo's picture.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus


I agree with you entirely. In every movement predicated upon the rejection of status quo, there will be crazies and other sorts of defectives (for lack of a better word) who are natural outliers and will gravitate due to their resentment, not only of authority, but normalcy. It has been true for every genuinely revolutionary or populist movement in history, and the suitable response is to cut the dead weight and distance ourselves from them. It is not without reason that Lenin characterized a certain class of opponents as "useful idiots." (Although the exact quote is proving difficult to track down, it is attributed to Lenin in various books and may be a spurious quote.)

In Marxist theory, there is actually a whole class of miscreants who are seen as suffering alongside the rest of the proletariat but not useful for revolution, the Lumpenproletarier. They are vagabonds and criminals, pickpockets and gamblers. And although they may "have a beef" with the establishment, they are not a suitable base for changing society and institutions because they are now inherently beyond and outside the underclass. They are victims, and their actions, however dramatic, can only serve to perpetuate and bolster the ruling class.

This is, more or less, where this class of anarchists fall. They are a social sort of excrement, ill-behaved, dangerous, and perhaps even genetically sick. Their political views are scarcely distinguishable from psychopathology and are infected with strange magical thinking: if you say the right incantation before the court, its authority will vanish, and you will walk free. If you renounce your citizenship, you can drive without a driver's license.

Well, these people are not good for us. They are, as I said, dead weight. When you're taking water, as our little ship is, they must be thrown overboard.

Great comment! The last 2

Great comment! The last 2 paragraphs may be "subject to debate," but as you know, I would fall on your side of the debate. I tend to like anarchists as being more interesting than socialists, and more prevalent than monarchists or 'aristocrat-ists,' but once you find yourself swimming in that sea, you have to draw some lines in the school. If for nothing else, for modesty's sake.

The funny thing is

The first and third guy actually look fine to me. The last one looks a little aggressive, but for all we know he's just pissed about being in jail.

Are you kidding me?

How did this thread get 5 upvotes? Some anarchists look weird in their mugshots so anarchism is debunked and its advocates are loons? This is one of the absurd posts I've seen on this forum, and that's saying something.

Anarchism- Not debunked

I made no attempt to debunk or even discuss the ideas underpinning anarchism. My effort is much humbler. I only seek to convey my impression that Sovereign Citizens as practicing anarchists attempting to take on intricacies of the legal system are "weirdos" (in popular parlance) and not worth our time. There are, of course, many types of anarchist, like the "barista type" or the now-endangered "IWW union member type," currently restricted to a few nonagenarian examples in nursing facilities.

The Internet affords a great deal of anonymity, which is often a very good thing, since it allows us to discuss matters without much fear of personal reprisal. That said, it does have a down-side: ideas that would be subject to ridicule, because the advocates are so ridiculous, are ignored. Far from being judged on their merit, many ideas escape the quick judgment that would result from their being uttered by such crazed maniacs in person.

Well now

"This is one of the absurd posts I've seen on this forum, and that's saying something."
Not saying much, anyway.
To me, the post tells me one of two things. That the typical sov cit is a degenerate retard, or, that the FBI seeks out and sets up actual retards as fall guys and patsies for its contrived sov cit criminal plots.
I think both are true, not mutually exclusive; where the overlap reaches its boundary is anyone's guess.
That your own ideological commitments are marred by association with such social detritus is indeed a burden you must bear. But it does not in any way detract from the OP's research and tentative conclusions.



Verily, it was the iconoclast philosopher of the late nineteenth century, F Nietzsche, who first drew attention to the peculiar appearance of Socrates, in connection with the antique conception of Socrates' appearance as that of a 'typical criminal' and what amounts to 'the original troll' of antiquity.

To wit,

By birth, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebeian. We are told, and can see in sculptures of him, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted in some way. Or it appears as declining development. The anthropological criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo [monstrous in appearance, monstrous in spirit]. But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would be consistent with the famous judgment of the physiognomist that so offended the friends of Socrates. This foreigner told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum — that he harbored in himself all the worst vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!"

I would strongly suggest reading the rest:

If you are such a fan of Nietzsche,

and since you love to pimp the morality of religion, I implore you to read what Nietzsche had to say about master morality and slave morality.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Please don't tempt me, Ms.

Please don't tempt me, Ms. Ucation. I've already recommended on these fora ch. 10 'What Is Noble' (Beyond Good and Evil) and the three essays of The Genealogy of Morals, for such as are interested.

I am of the conviction that it was my own recommendation which familiarized you with the subject, and, though forgotten, prompted you to make this comment to me, of all people.

All the same, thanks for the reply. How you been, brother?

egapele's picture

You guys

are always talking to each other.

*at each other.

*at each other.

egapele's picture


very educational for the rest of us. :)

Keep it up