ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: doi.org/10.54208/1000/0006 5
enemy, mean pseudolaw operates as an “adjuvant”
(Netolitzky, 2021), a factor that aggravates the interface
between two already opposed and conflicting systems.
The adjuvant effect of pseudolaw is not so much the
objective of pseudolaw, as a near inevitable consequence
when pseudolaw ideas are introduced into an existing
conflict or dispute.
Pseudolaw also tempers and modifies the form of
government/dissident conflict, since pseudolaw
operates as a “conflict of laws.” Many pseudolaw
users are political/social revolutionaries and/or
reactionaries. Pseudolaw shifts the forum of conflict
away from a “war of guns,” to a “war of laws” (Netolitzky,
2023e, VII(D)(2-3)), and, indeed, there are numerous
instances where pseudolaw adherents have attempted
to radically rework legal and social systems by arguing
that courts should impose their version of law (e.g., in
Canada, Netolitzky &Warman, 2020). The potential
for broad-based violence grounded in pseudolaw is
most plausible when the “war of laws” has failed, and
revolutionaries wielding pseudolaw conclude that not
only are conventional authorities “outlaws,” but also
the courts and legal apparatus are equally corrupted
and controlled by the dark tyrannical hidden hands
(Netolitzky, 2023e, VII(D)(2)). If so, then only force
can restore the “true Common Law.”
D. Pseudolaw Operates in a Two-Part System: Law
Virus and Anti-Authority Host
Pseudolaw is politically agnostic, since pseudolaw
does not change or create ideologies (Netolitzky,
2021). Rather, pseudolaw, as an adjuvant, modifies the
behaviour and activity of those who adopt pseudolaw’s
replacement legal system as a tool to obtain their
particular objectives. Pseudolaw is a means to many
potential ends (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 171-178). Thus,
pseudolaw is encountered in the wild as half of a
two-part system (Netolitzky, 2018d, pp. 1080-1081).
Pseudolaw provides the (not) law that is then employed
by an infected host population. Pseudolaw’s hosts are
many and varied (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 171-178).
Pseudolaw activities and groups often receive the
“Sovereign Citizen” label. That practice is unfortunate,
because that label conflates two separate subcomponents
(Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 719-801). Pseudolaw is a
mimetic virus, a memeplex of law and story (Netolitzky,
2021). As previously described, pseudolaw purports
to provide a mechanism to obtain extraordinary, but
illusionary, authority. The Sovereign Citizens are a
discrete example of a dissident population that engaged
pseudolaw, and, since historically pseudolaw gestated
within this population, much writing links pseudolaw
to Sovereign Citizen ideology and history. Sovereign
Citizens are roughly describable as US right-wing,
conservative, anti-authority counterrevolutionaries,
who seek to restore the US to a non-existent imaginary
historical state where Federal government authority
was much less than at present (Berlet &Sunshine,
2019 Harris, 2005). Historically, Sovereign Citizens
were often racist, white, fundamentalist Christians, and
predominantly rural (Bell, 2016 Berlet &Sunshine,
2019 Harris, 2005 Mallek, 2016 Sarteschi, 2020, pp.
1-6).
When pseudolaw expanded outside its original
Sovereign Citizen incubator, pseudolaw left behind
most of the political beliefs and objectives of the
Sovereign Citizen movement. What did remain was
pseudolaw’s general anti-authority function. For
example, in Canada pseudolaw circa 2000 ended up
infecting a predominantly criminal population of
marijuana advocates, drug producers, and traffickers:
the “Freemen-on-the Land” (Netolitzky, 2016a, pp.
624-627 Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 818-820. To the degree
the Freemen were political, they were leftist egalitarian
neohippies with pretentious anti corporate and anti-
globalist affiliations. Calling Freemen “Sovereign
Citizens” actively confused and distorted public
discussion and commentary on the political and threat
characteristics of the Freemen, but that nevertheless
did occur, particularly since US commentators simply
grouped all pseudolaw users under the Sovereign
Citizen banner, and declared that these were all right-
wing extremists (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 165-166). In
truth, US Sovereign Citizens and Canadian Freemen-
on-the-Land could hardly have been more different,
as anti-authority populations go (Netolitzky, 2021, pp.
180-183).
This failure to appreciate that social manifestations
of pseudolaw have two parts--a conserved and
stereotypical false law scheme, hosted by highly
variable anti-authority host populations--meant two
very distinct cultures were grouped together, with no
factual basis (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 180-183). Similarly,
enemy, mean pseudolaw operates as an “adjuvant”
(Netolitzky, 2021), a factor that aggravates the interface
between two already opposed and conflicting systems.
The adjuvant effect of pseudolaw is not so much the
objective of pseudolaw, as a near inevitable consequence
when pseudolaw ideas are introduced into an existing
conflict or dispute.
Pseudolaw also tempers and modifies the form of
government/dissident conflict, since pseudolaw
operates as a “conflict of laws.” Many pseudolaw
users are political/social revolutionaries and/or
reactionaries. Pseudolaw shifts the forum of conflict
away from a “war of guns,” to a “war of laws” (Netolitzky,
2023e, VII(D)(2-3)), and, indeed, there are numerous
instances where pseudolaw adherents have attempted
to radically rework legal and social systems by arguing
that courts should impose their version of law (e.g., in
Canada, Netolitzky &Warman, 2020). The potential
for broad-based violence grounded in pseudolaw is
most plausible when the “war of laws” has failed, and
revolutionaries wielding pseudolaw conclude that not
only are conventional authorities “outlaws,” but also
the courts and legal apparatus are equally corrupted
and controlled by the dark tyrannical hidden hands
(Netolitzky, 2023e, VII(D)(2)). If so, then only force
can restore the “true Common Law.”
D. Pseudolaw Operates in a Two-Part System: Law
Virus and Anti-Authority Host
Pseudolaw is politically agnostic, since pseudolaw
does not change or create ideologies (Netolitzky,
2021). Rather, pseudolaw, as an adjuvant, modifies the
behaviour and activity of those who adopt pseudolaw’s
replacement legal system as a tool to obtain their
particular objectives. Pseudolaw is a means to many
potential ends (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 171-178). Thus,
pseudolaw is encountered in the wild as half of a
two-part system (Netolitzky, 2018d, pp. 1080-1081).
Pseudolaw provides the (not) law that is then employed
by an infected host population. Pseudolaw’s hosts are
many and varied (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 171-178).
Pseudolaw activities and groups often receive the
“Sovereign Citizen” label. That practice is unfortunate,
because that label conflates two separate subcomponents
(Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 719-801). Pseudolaw is a
mimetic virus, a memeplex of law and story (Netolitzky,
2021). As previously described, pseudolaw purports
to provide a mechanism to obtain extraordinary, but
illusionary, authority. The Sovereign Citizens are a
discrete example of a dissident population that engaged
pseudolaw, and, since historically pseudolaw gestated
within this population, much writing links pseudolaw
to Sovereign Citizen ideology and history. Sovereign
Citizens are roughly describable as US right-wing,
conservative, anti-authority counterrevolutionaries,
who seek to restore the US to a non-existent imaginary
historical state where Federal government authority
was much less than at present (Berlet &Sunshine,
2019 Harris, 2005). Historically, Sovereign Citizens
were often racist, white, fundamentalist Christians, and
predominantly rural (Bell, 2016 Berlet &Sunshine,
2019 Harris, 2005 Mallek, 2016 Sarteschi, 2020, pp.
1-6).
When pseudolaw expanded outside its original
Sovereign Citizen incubator, pseudolaw left behind
most of the political beliefs and objectives of the
Sovereign Citizen movement. What did remain was
pseudolaw’s general anti-authority function. For
example, in Canada pseudolaw circa 2000 ended up
infecting a predominantly criminal population of
marijuana advocates, drug producers, and traffickers:
the “Freemen-on-the Land” (Netolitzky, 2016a, pp.
624-627 Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 818-820. To the degree
the Freemen were political, they were leftist egalitarian
neohippies with pretentious anti corporate and anti-
globalist affiliations. Calling Freemen “Sovereign
Citizens” actively confused and distorted public
discussion and commentary on the political and threat
characteristics of the Freemen, but that nevertheless
did occur, particularly since US commentators simply
grouped all pseudolaw users under the Sovereign
Citizen banner, and declared that these were all right-
wing extremists (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 165-166). In
truth, US Sovereign Citizens and Canadian Freemen-
on-the-Land could hardly have been more different,
as anti-authority populations go (Netolitzky, 2021, pp.
180-183).
This failure to appreciate that social manifestations
of pseudolaw have two parts--a conserved and
stereotypical false law scheme, hosted by highly
variable anti-authority host populations--meant two
very distinct cultures were grouped together, with no
factual basis (Netolitzky, 2021, pp. 180-183). Similarly,
