How the Free Man on the Land Movement Pierced the Veil of Consent
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2025 8:57 am
The Unveiling of the Lie
How the Free Man on the Land Movement Pierced the Veil of Consent
Introduction: The Uncomfortable Question of Authority
Before the Free Man on the Land movement gained momentum and spread across the Western world, especially throughout the old British Empire, there was always a lingering doubt about the nature of our government. The claim from those in power was clear: they ruled by the "consent of the governed". The logic was simple: we have the government we accept, and since we participate in elections, it must be by consent. For many years, this premise was accepted because, well, how else could they be in power? But the Free Man on the Land movement revealed this claim to be a profound lie. By taking the government's own assertion and putting it to the ultimate test, we exposed a glaring irregularity that forever removed the presumption of our consent.
1. Accepting the Government's Claim
The brilliance of the movement was in its strategy: we didn't start by refuting the government’s claim; we started by assuming it to be true. The government claims it rules by the consent of the governed. Fine. Let’s take that claim at face value. If you, the government, are claiming you rule this way, that’s your official presumption. We simply used your own words against you to reveal the truth.
2. The Withdrawal of Individual Consent
The core action was simple yet powerful: individually, we withdrew our consent. If the system is truly based on consent, then the governed must have the ability to withdraw it. We served public notices to the authorities stating clearly: "I am individually withdrawing my consent and giving you notice publicly that I am doing so". The goal was to remove their presumption and prevent them from continuing to act on us as if we consented to be governed by them.
3. The Statement of Claim Process
The notices we filed were detailed and varied. Some were a page long, others stretched to a hundred. In these Statements of Claim, we laid out our understanding of the legal and historical situation. We often clarified terms, refusing to accept labels like "legal fiction" or "corporation" and insisting that we were a man or a woman. We would elaborate on our personal understanding of history, law, and the concept of consent itself.
4. The Challenge to Debate and Clarification
Crucially, our notices didn't just end with a unilateral declaration; they included an offer. We offered the government the opportunity to counterclaim. We invited them to clarify any points that may have been mistaken, erroneous, or misunderstood by the individual writing the notice. This was an invitation to engage in a good-faith dialogue and debate to explain their position.
5. The Universal Silence and Refusal to Engage
Here is where the lie became irrefutable: no one ever received a reply. I’m not aware of a single person who received a good-faith reply or any dialogue from the government officials. Whether the notices were sent in the context of a minor bicycle ticket or all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, the response was always the same: silence. They simply ignored the fact that it even happened.
6. The Abdication of the Claim
The government's universal silence acted as an abdication of their own position. If the governed cannot withdraw consent, then what meaning does the word "consent" even have? Their refusal to engage or clarify proved that their claim of governing by consent was not true. For a claim to be true, it must be provable and repeatable, and the information must be falsifiable. The government’s refusal to explain itself, to engage in debate, or to bring forward a reasonable position has left a massive question mark.
7. The Magic Spell of Legal Redefinition
We must also understand a fascinating concept regarding their world: the legal world is a "magic spell". Legally, they can redefine words. The government likes to redefine words in statutes and acts. They can take any English word, put quotations around it, and redefine it specifically for that act. For example, the word "person" may have several different definitions depending on the specific statute. This is why they can make things up as they go. But even within their own magical framework, their silence on the matter of consent is a deafening admission.
Conclusion: The Gift of Lost Presumption
The greatest gift the Free Man on the Land movement gave to everyone who came after us was the removal of the presumption that the government governs by way of consent of the governed. This assumption is now gone. It has been disproven as many times as we can think of, without any rebuttal or explanation from the agents of the government. The movement may have had to disappear, but it achieved its goal: it pierced the veil so that the truth could be revealed. There is no valid claim that the government governs by way of consent of the governed. We have tried, we have failed to get a response, and in that failure, we found the truth. The question that remains is not if they rule by consent, but what do we have now that we know they don't?