I Am Not The People, And Neither Are You


It is the greatest of fallacies; indeed it might be the greatest public relations stunt ever conceived. It cannot be defined. It cannot be touched or spoken to. It cannot be seen. It has no substance.

And yet we as individuals identify ourselves as it with perfectly unhindered irrationality, while at the same time never being able to grasp its totality of non-existence. It is used to describe every last one of us, even when it singles out one of us to bully and plunder. It represents the basis of the entire structure of power over us, while at the same time somehow being us. And the power of it has created the most impressive false dialectic ever conceived in the history of the world.

Monarchies and dictatorships are surely envious of it, for even the most violent of militarized tyrannies cannot match the shear driving force of the consent of it. And all who oppose it have learned that no power in the world, including an act of God, seems to be able to stop it.

So just what is it?

It is the ambiguous title of “the People.”

In its most surreal application, the People is most often used to cause a lack of tangible responsibility for the actions of the People. Like the Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde model, the men and women that make up the citizenry of government can simply blame the government for everything done in the People’s name, even though it was supposedly done with the consent of the governed. For the government, the men and women that make up that legislature and Executive branch can simply blame the citizenry for giving their consent as the governed People, never admitting that their own actions (which are often despite the actual People’s will) were anything but the will of the People.

Either way, it seems, no one is ever to blame for the actions of the People because the People simply does not exist.

Does the People cast a shadow? Can the People be touched or seen? Can the People actually only speak with one voice, considering it supposedly equates to all the citizens in the nation? Can the elected officials somehow be the People despite the rest of the People just because those People voted for the legislators to be the voice of the People?

Just who, in the end, do you suppose is taking responsibility as the actual People? Is it the president? Is he the People when He decides to act as the People without actually consulting the People? Is the entire citizenry of People thus responsible as a collective People for the actions of the president acting as the People?

–=–
The People vs. The People
–=–

I can just imagine it… where all parties claiming to be the People actually go into arbitration so as to decide just who is in actuality responsible for the actions of government. It would be more devious than a divorce case, more televised than the O.J. Simpson case, and more flippant than a cat in a hot tub.

The common People would claim that the government committed a crime. The government would then counter-claim that the People voted for government, and therefore the crime was in the name of the People. But, so argues the attorney for the voting People, government is acting without consulting the People in its actions. To which government’s Attorney General retorts that the People gave consent for the government to act as the People in all things political, which really means that government is the spirit of the People. Nay, nay, says the common People’s representative, for the People have voiced in private and have called and sent petitions to these re-presentations of the People in government and spoken their individual opinions of government’s actions, and a majority of the People do not approve of government’s actions while acting as the People. And still in stalemate defiance, the government would claim that while the People certainly have the right to individually voice their personal opinions under the doctrine of “free speech”, says the Attorney General for the United States (i.e. the People), the People (government) is certainly not required in any way to consider the People’s (any citizen’s) individual opinions on the actions of government (the People)…

And at this point, Judge Judy slams her gavel down in Talmudic entropy and declares a mistrial due to irreconcilable differences in sameness.

And when the opinions of the case are written into case law, it would read that no distinction could be established in either separating the government from the People or the People from government, and that no individual citizen could claim to be the People, for all the People cannot be manifest in just one common person. Finally, it is the courts opinion that no individual or group of persons can claim to be the actual full body of People, because the People is a plural title for a singular body politic called the People. Therefore, only government can call itself the People, despite the fact that government is merely a fiction of law with no substance, and so the People cannot in fact sue the government for the government is in fact and in title actually the People.

Final decision: the case cannot exist because the People cannot sue the People. The government cannot sue itself. The People, therefore, must submit to the will of the People.

Here exists the hand of the People,
claiming to exist despite its non-existence,
presenting its own representation.

–=–
Say What?
–=–

If the above is confusing for you, ask yourself a few questions….

Are you a People? Is there any way that the word People can be a singular term that refers to only one man or woman?

Is government a People? Inasmuch as Walmart is a corporation, and the entire staff, board, CEO, shareholders, and owners could loosely be called a People, then yes.

Is government the People? How can government be all of us People if we are not voting for the actions or laws created by the small group of People in government?

Sure, we vote for which persons will inhabit government, but those People never ask permission from the rest of the People who voted for them when they pass laws on the People’s behalf. But if the government (the People) is able to put the responsibility of its actions on the entirety of all the People, then is it any wonder that the People never punish the People in government for crimes against the People?

Trying to figure out just what the People is at this point is like looking at an infinite, self-similar fractal. The beginning and the ending of just what the People is can never be truly be ascertained. And just when you think you have it figured out, you realize the paradox that its true quantitative power is that it is an equation with no solution – an impossible perfection of the political corruption of natural reason and logic.

 

Don’t get lost

–=–

How can such a nonsensical word as the People have been foisted upon the masses of men, who self-identify as both an individual sentient being and a fictional plural construct? How can hundreds of millions of men be convinced that they are not men but legally a single hive-minded political term known as the People? And from that experiential belief, how were so many strong-willed men able to be convinced that We, the People is the creator of all things and all laws, and that even though they are supposedly one of the People, the People can somehow single one of the individual People out and sue, fine, tax, punish, imprison, and even put to death that individual all in the name of that great god called We, the People? Amazingly, even as individual sentient beings, we still consider and address ourselves not as our selves, but as the whole People. I am We. We am I.

And therein lies the greatest word magic and trickery ever spell-cast. For by saying I am We, the People, a man is really saying I am of government. I am a fictional representation of myself. I am an individual fictional person and one of the fictional People at the same time? I am not man. I have no voice. I am totally controllable. I am a creation of government

Literally, my will is the People’s will, and so therefore the People’s will tells me my will, whether I like it or not, and whether the People them-selves like it or not. Cause there are no real People, just a bunch of subjects called persons. It’s all just a fiction. Just a name. A big lie.

–=–
Maxim’s Of Law:
–=–

“The creator controls.”

“A thing similar is not exactly the same.”

“One who wills a thing to be or to be done cannot complain of that thing as an injury.”

“He who consents cannot receive an injury.”

“Consent removes or obviates a mistake.”

“The agreement of the parties overcomes or prevails against the law.”

“Agreement takes the place of the law: the express understanding of parties supercedes such understanding as the law would imply.”

“No one can sue in the name of another.”

“It is immaterial whether a man gives his assent by words or by acts and deeds.”

“A fiction is a rule of law that assumes something which is or may be false as true.”

“Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist.”

“Whoever does anything by the command of a judge (magistrate/We, the People as god) is not reckoned to have done it with an evil intent, because it is necessary to obey.”

“Where a person does an act by command of one exercising judicial (magistrative) authority, the law will not suppose that he acted from any wrongful or improper motive, because it was his bounded duty to obey.”

 –=–

Why can’t anyone get in trouble by the law for crimes against humanity? Because People aren’t men! A man acting in person as one of the People has the permission of the People to do what the People tell the person to do on behalf of the People. In other words, if the People are sovereign, and a sovereign knows no law above it, then the People have no real law when acting as the sovereign We, the People, and pretend to operate their crimes under the law of the People! This is the simulacra and simulation of the People and of government. The People is a copy with no (living) original. The government is similar to the law but not the law; a simulation of God. This is the fractal reality of a great and powerful lie, the underlying law being truly that of anything goes.

Who, what, where, when, and how is the People?
Will the real People please stand up?

–=–

People is a fiction of law. The law, however, assumes that the fiction (People) is non-fiction (Mankind), and that therefore the fiction is true in the eyes of the law. The law says that all of mankind are a single People. Man acting as persons of the People (government) are acting in another name (in the name of the People), and so man acting in the name of or as the People can certainly not sue the government, for the government is the People, and the People cannot sue the People itself, and so this makes somehow a functional paradox we call justice.

The People cannot really complain to government, which claims to be doing the will of the People, because again the People cannot complain about the People. They are the same thing. One single body politic. On individual thing. E pluibus unum. One world order is merely a one world People of the same world government (the People). Individual nations are called “state’s” of the United Nations, and the member nations will just be the new People of the One World Nation. For ultimately, in a global government, the People that is the United States will only be considered one individual person in the United Nations.

Now don’t be confused, for it is easy to fall into the fractal trap of this word porn. A diehard “We, the People” person that just can’t imagine not being regarded as a plural and thus actually be responsible for his own actions despite the People he identifies himself as, and therefore as a real non-dependent man, is no longer able to blame government or his mistaken identity he calls the People for his or her own inaction; somehow blaming all other People as opposed to himself while simultaneously believing that he is indeed one of the People which he himself blames. Damn People!

Whoa there!

Seriously, before the fractal gets way out of hand (Mandelbrot would be so proud), let’s make sure that this whole diatribe isn’t just some modern abstract from a fractal crack-head’s dream…

Let’s see what this word People means in the legal books:

PEOPLE, noun [Latin populus.]1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. 2. The vulgar; the mass of illiterate persons. The knowing artist may judge better than the people 3. The commonalty, as distinct from men of rank. Myself shall mount the rostrum in his favor, And strive to gain his pardon from the people 4. Persons of a particular class; a part of a nation or community; as country people 5. Persons in general; any persons indefinitely; like on in French, and man in Saxon. 6. A collection or community of animals. The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer. Proverbs 30:25. 7. When people signified a separate nation or tribe, it has the plural number. Thou must prophesy again before many peoples. Revelation 10:11. 8. In Scripture, fathers or kindred. Genesis 25:8. 9. The Gentiles. –To him shall the gathering of the people be. Genesis 49:10. – verb transitive  – To stock with inhabitants. Emigrants from Europe have peopled the United States. (–Webster’s 1828)

PEOPLEA state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacityThe aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state… In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors… In neutrality laws, a government recognized by the United States. The word “people” may have various signification according to the connection in which it is used. When we speak of the rights of the people, or of the government of the people by law, or of the people as a non-political aggregate, we mean all the inhabitants of the state or nation, without distinction an to sex, age, or otherwise. But when reference is made to the people as the repository of sovereignty, or as the source of governmental power, or to popular government, we are in fact speaking of that select and limited class of citizens to whom the constitution accords the elective franchise and the right of participation in the offices of government. (–Black’s 4rth Edition)

PEOPLE – Ordinarily, the entire body of the inhabitants of a State. In a political sense, that portion of the inhabitants who are intrusted with political power; the qualified voters. The words “the people” must be determined by the connection. In some cases they refer to the qualified voters, in others to the state in its sovereign capacity. The United States government proceeds directly, from the people; is “ordained and established” in the name of the people. It is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.” Under our system, the “people,” who in England are called “subjects,” constitute the sovereign. The simple word “people”  is sometimes applied to a nation or foreign power. When the constitution of a State directs that processes shall run in the name of the State, a process in the name of the “people” will be held deficient, notwithstanding the form be statutory.” See Citizen; Country; Government; Lex, Salus, etc.; Magistrate; Nation; Sovereignty; State, Welfare. (–W.C. Anderson 1889)

–=–

Ever wonder why a petition never seems to work? That’s because a petition is not created by all the People, but only by some persons. Persons are not the People. In other words, a petition may be considered as legal evidence, but not as the will of the People. The People is a legal concept that the People can’t seem to access, though We are supposedly the People.

PETITION – A written address, embodying an application or prayer from the person or persons preferring it, to the power, body, or person to whom it is presented, for the exercise of his or their authority in the redress of some wrong, or the grant of some favor, privilege, or license.

PRAYERThe request contained in a bill in equity that the court will grant the process, aid, or relief which the complainant desires. Also, by extension, the term is applied to that part of the bill which contains this request.

PRAYER – chancery pleadings. That part of a bill which asks for relief. 2. The skill of the solicitor is to be exercised in framing this part of the bill. An accurate specification of the matters to be decreed in complicated cases, requires great discernment and experience; it is varied as the case is made out, concluding always with a prayer of general relief, at the discretion of the court.

–=–

We pray to the court, because the court is the god, an other word for magistrate, which is another word for government as the People. The court represents We, the People against us, either wholly or as individuals or corporations. We as individuals or groups, associations, or corporations are never addressing the court as the People, it is the Court that is addressing us as the People, because government is the People. It is impossible for the People to sue the court because the court is the People. The court offers the opinion of the People. All we can do is pray to that magi-god in a black robe for remedy. The word prayer has been modernly re-named into “pleading.” The People need not plead, for the court is the People.

–=–
The Chicken Or The Egg?
–=–

I’m not sure how many other ways I can say this, but it should be clear that I, you, we, and us is not the People. It’s a physical impossibility, which is part of the strategy of control. The government knows that the People can never be together in one room, acting as its true self – all the millions of actual voters. It’s a gloriously impossible feat. And that’s why the legal god that has been named the We, the People as a representation of the People is so powerful and seemingly immutable.

The only last fallacy to be consumed in the fire of this fractal debtor’s hell is to dispel the notion that the People created the government. Here again, the romantic patriotic view is that the People all voted for the constitution. Of course this is a verifiable untruth. Very few of the People could vote, because they weren’t good enough to vote due to blood, status, lack of land-holdings, and of course color. The People who created the constitution were clear on this 3/5ths of a point, which makes it humorous to see a patriotic “negro” man eager to wave the flag.

While it is accurate to say that the group of Free-masonic men who signed the constitution were certainly a specific, proper noun group of People, it is not accurate to say that they were all the People of the entire nation, any more than it is accurate to say that the legislature actually represents the will of every person in the United States as the People. It is more accurate to say that the individual states as body politics’ were the things that made up the People, and not the men within acting as citizens, slaves, and voluntary or involuntary servants. The People, as defined above, are the states of the nation and therefore is the nation itself. That’s not real People, that’s just an incorporated thing. An idol. A god.

How could there have been a People if there was no nation? Was there a specific day that all men became the People? They certainly weren’t natural born at the time they became the People. Could the People of a nation exist before the nation was created? Obviously, if none of us out here can represent the People in court, then we are not really the People.

If government disappeared tomorrow, there would be no place for the People to legally appear as a legal body. For the People only exist as and in a fictional jurisdiction. Government creates and becomes the People, and the creator controls.

And so I end this puzzling commentary with one last question…

When are you going to quit denying the beauty and wonder of your uniqueness and individuality, quit denying your personal responsibility, and quit letting evil men commit atrocious crimes against all the men and creatures of the Earth in your name – in the name of the god of We, the People?

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, January 15th, 2015

Leave a comment

21 Comments

  1. MikeV

     /  January 15, 2015

    LOL the Constitution addresses “People”, “people”, “Citizens” and “citizens” so who exactly are you???
    Clint, I’m following the trail of “US National” this is a distinction on the passport vs US Citizen, basically original American Citizen pre 14th, you can be a constitutional state citizen or US National without being a Federal US citizen , this is a political status and determins federal jurisdiction, for instance IRS is federal jurisdiction they own you through political US Citizen status (federal), if declared state citizen or US National your not in federal jurisdiction. Basically this is dejure American/state citizen vs defacto Federal citizen.
    Have you researched any of this? I just landed on a ton of info + a book, after searching about the passport for a while trying to dump the driver licence and ID (mine expired about a year ago now).

    Reply
  2. Bruce

     /  January 16, 2015

    Very interesting post, only now my head is spinning. So, apparently, (We) The People, as in “the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors,” performed the magic act which formally imbued “the United States of America” with the powers to use lethal force to make us observe the niceties of their statutory “acts.”

    Of course, there is that other wrinkle, the consideration that “The Congress” is also the government for the bailiwick of Washington, D.C., a jurisdiction with severely impaired governance. The “laws” of this odd-duck administrative system now also seem to adhere to federal districts understood to extend over the territories of the supposedly sovereign 50 States. And federal “agencies” or “departments” can decree regulations that federal “officers” can enforce with guns and lapdog courts over The People. I hope there will be time to jam for the exam.

    Reply
    • Each observation is just part of the endless fractal. Don’t get caught up in one part, one definition of a thing which cannot be defined because it does not exist, or else you are just creating belief, doctrine. Doctrine is shallow acceptance of part of the fractal as representative of the infinite whole. This is why I don’t accept religion, or the Bible, at face value. Talk about fractals…

      Reply
      • The word of God is ineffable… doesn’t that mean it can’t be effed with? I think so. Religion defines God for you. Consider the word define… the prefix de- signifies; separate… opposite… away, down or removed from. And fine means pure, of highest quality…
        unadulterated. Anything you put a label on you devalue. Perhaps this is the why Jesus, when asked if he was the son of God, replied… “I am that i am”. He was saying “don’t de-fine me”.

        The word for God according to the Latin Etymology and King James Bible dictionaries is DEUS. De-us. Again, we have the prefix de- which means to take away from… and what is us? Religion takes us away from ourselves, and it appears to do so quite deliberately, since the only other word listed under God is Zeus.

        Reply
      • Paul

         /  May 13, 2015

        “This is why I don’t accept religion, or the Bible, at face value.”

        Hi Clint, I was curious about this statement. The qualifier “at face value” It seems to imply that you “may” accept religion and/or the Bible in some other capacity. I am wondering what that might be. I am not sure what you mean by your qualifier, or “religion”…or the “Bible” for that matter! Therefore I am not sure in what capacity, if any, that you may accept the Bible.

        “Religion” is a slippery word that I try to stay away from unless it is specifically defined, and as such I do not necessarily accept “religion”. If I had to lean towards a definition, I would say that religion is to follow the tenets of a belief system legalistically. As such, in New Testament, we see Jesus going against these types of people.

        My purpose is curiosity and conversation. Thank you.

        Reply
        • Greetings Paul… You are on my wavelength. I found that I could not read nor understand the Bible without knowing the king’s language, which is legalese. Now it makes perfect, rational, logical, and absolute sense. Religions are designed as corporations to support the state, for the state cannot exist without the foundation of moral law, which is considered as God’s law. One cannot exist without the other. The scriptures without religious denomination stand alone, and are what many of the principles of law (maxims of law) are taken from. The scriptures out-date the writing of the Bible, for scripture only means ancient knowledge, for which there are many sources. By “face-value” I mean that the stories are timeless, not historical. The characters are personified in anthropomorphism, just as Plato and many other writers utilized. The names have legal meanings, and represent different status and standing of man. So face-value means I only read the Bible in figurative terms, legal terms, not as a story about history and historical peoples. Christ is the story of every man, most of which will never walk that path in nature and under God’s natural law. I’ve researched this deeply and am incorporating it into my book.

          From the legal government’s perspective, religion is defined by courts as “man’s relation to divinity.” If ones relation to God (nature) is through a corporation, then his law also comes not from God but from that corporation. The scriptures stand in opposition to all corporate churches and states, and for that matter any fictional person, title, name, and surety.

          Thanks for the question…

          -Clint-

          Reply
  3. MikeV

     /  January 16, 2015

    Well I don’t think we need to get into the fact that the founders were full blown flaming Masons so in that context think about how “esoteric” the Constitution actually is ? 200+ years of case law attempting to decode its meaning. Not to mention the real “people” had jack to do with the document and in fact were scammed by the founders when it was the general belief that there was only going to be an edit of the “Articles” not a brand new document signed in a meeting that the “people” were never party to, the Constitution was adopted so there for who created it? Well basically those that dictated terms in the Treaty of Paris. People need to research the anti-federalists these were the “people” also and knew shady sh!t was going down with the founder clowns.
    Every section of statute has clear defined terms, terms that can morph from one section to the next in order to conform to its context or intent BUT there is NO section of terms defined for the Constitution. So the real issue with “People” is its true definition in its current context at that moment being utilized which is never disclosed. (If they want “People” to mean group of dogs in one section it shall be law.) “People” in the Constitution were the signers of the document , it was a contract establishing the corporate USA and our founders were the original “People” or board of directors, notice also “Posterity” all caps this is a proper term and I just realized being in the Co. fiction it is possibly referring to the future board members or “People” not there kids or us. Now on a state level the “People” may in fact have meant the actual people of the state. But in the context of the Constitution the general people are by no means the proper “People”. I don’t really see much of actual “We the People” being spouted by government itself only 99% of the public living in yankee-doodle land that believe this county was created for them the “People”, if you think about it the general masses are simply the “Public” the public pool of citizens governed by the “Public” officials, general this or public that but not much mention of “People” from actual officials except yes in specific court proceedings when they are representing the “People” ,when yes in fact they are the “People” meaning themselves the government.

    Reply
    • Here again is the fractal. The word “founders” should not be applied to those masonic men, because we are supposed to believe that the constitution was created by the People. So the People are the founders, and yet only these men signed the constitution even after it says We, the People created it. Good lies are like tubes, you can go through the lie and out the other side and never see reality, but still believe the vision presented within the tunnel as a lie.

      Fun with fractals!

      Reply
  4. Beat Geissler

     /  January 17, 2015

    The term “We, the People” was and is merely an illusion to deceive the public on a believe-
    basis, that the “heard” has got something to “deceide” or “control”, and is a giant lie.
    Apart from that, the UNITED STATES, as a corporation, like all other corporations (“states”) of the earth, had and has possibly no “government” at all. That`s why it has a “President”
    he is the CEO, nothing more. To vote for this “Management” is like voting for a works-council aka staff-council. Cilly that is. And its all about religion (government= to govern the
    mental part of hu-mans). Its all about canon law. A criminal scene to the core.
    Thank you.
    B.G.
    P.S.
    Chomsky paraphrasing Walter Lippmann’s ideas about democracy
    Now there are two “functions” in a democracy: The specialized class, the responsible men, carry out the executive function, which means they do the thinking and planning and understand the common interests. Then, there is the bewildered herd, and they have a function in democracy too. Their function in a democracy, [Lippmann] said, is to be “spectators,” not participants in action. But they have more of a function r than that, because it’s a democracy. Occasionally they are allowed to lend their weight to one or another member of the specialized class. In other words, they’re allowed to say, “We want you to be our leader” or “We want you to be our leader.” That’s because it’s a democracy and not a totalitarian state. That’s called an election. But once they’ve lent their weight to one or another member of the specialized class they’re supposed to sink back and become spectators of action, but not participants. That’s in a properly functioning democracy.

    Reply
  5. That was a great post, although I am sure I need some time to really think about your points😉

    Reply
  6. As a fellow music lover, I thought you would enjoy The Piper at The Gates of Dawn.

    Reply
  7. If you get through Piper, then listen to Recovery.

    Reply
  8. “we pray to the court” – WOW! “it is the Court that is addressing us as the People, because government is the People. it is impossible for the People to sue the Court because the Court is the People. the Court offers the opinion of the People.” the court as king… “a simulation of God” – there you have it: a simulation of a simulation… fractal pietological reality, indeed. maybe you should go with “the People for the Pious”.
    brilliant posting, Clint. thanks a lot.

    Reply
  9. delquattro

     /  July 22, 2015

    We currently have a corporation posing as government through deception. UNITED STATES, Inc, and its subsidiaries, “State of _______” enforces its will against the people, using legalese, fraud, tacit procuration, intimidation, and force.
    As for me, I do not wish to be a U.S. citizen, I prefer to be the people, as a state national, and/or state citizen, which is also known, lawfully, as a Coloradoan.

    Reply
  10. sidney Smith

     /  August 5, 2015

    Supreme law of the land in America
    The Roman Empire became Holy roman empire the Catholic corporation since 548AD legal fiction, they don’t exist, illusion. Then they cannot own land by right of discovery or enter into any kind of treaties. The Holy Roman empire Inc. under control of the Banker’s and Lawyer’s for the Catholic Corporation (Federal Government Inc.) are now is here in the United States of America since 1492. The native American’s grant of Rights are from God as Delegation of Authority, power, jurisdiction a sovereign Law of one “we are all equal” is universal law, however, right’s for Indian’s are God given divine right’s and supreme law of the land as universal law. Therefore, Indian law is the supreme law of the land under natural law within Indian country liberty, life the pursuit of happiness are not legal fiction still have allodial title ownership of America and legal own United States America.

    Without prejudice
    Sidney Smith

    Reply
    • Paul

       /  August 10, 2015

      Hi Sidney,

      If God does not exist, there is no such thing as a right to land…it is illusion. If God exists, then there must be, in any regard to humans, something that delegates rights. The question is, is there such a delegation of rights? The mere fact that Indians exist does not actually mean anything, and is illusion, if there is no objective rights delegated. Are there such delegated rights? If rights and governments derive their rights from the people who agree to the rights, it is no more than simply opinion. Where do Indians, let alone anyone have right to land?

      Reply
  11. Your use of the Legal Name, makes one a Person in the fractal of the People. losethename.com

    Reply
  12. Reblogged this on deinvestiture.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: