We, The "Unwanted" People...

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Golem XIV via Golem XIV's Thoughts blog,

The fact that the phrase sounds antique should warn us of the scale of our folly. We have lost, given away, pawned the power we once claimed. We have ceased to be who we once were. Or at least who we claimed and hoped to be – The People. Now who are we? The Consumer?  The Unemployed. The Unwanted?  ”We, the Unwanted” does not have the same ring about it does it? And yet that is what we are fast becoming. It is time to chose. Sit in front of your television or computer screen and let it sooth you, until one day you too find you have have become one of the unheard, unlamented, Unwanted. Or reach out to others and grasp hold.

It is surely time that we re-assert what the phrase “We, The People” once meant. It is suybolic I know. But symbols are powerful. And the powerful fear them.

For too long now we have been supine, docile and cowed. There have been sputterings of resolve when a million people took to the streets to oppose the War in Iraq. But the rulers of the day ignored us and ‘the people’ simply went home vaguely disquieted, perhaps a little hurt at being ignored but mainly just confused as to what to do next – if anything.

For decades now we have let others have the initiative, let others define what was acceptable and legitimate. When it was never their position to do so. This must stop.

Once, a certain people declared, “No taxation without representation.” It was and still is a simple idea. You may not tax me unless you represent my interests. Only those with my interests in mind may ask me for taxes. Today that definitiion of democracy has withered and been quietly replaced by another similar sounding but actually radically different version – I would say perversion – of democracy. Today we are taxed by people who represent every interest but ours. They are still representatives but not of our interests. Democracy has now become a kind of opera – more and more lavish in direct proportion to its separation from ordinary people and their lives.  Every four or five years we get to chose between two teams who represent some interest which is not ours. They may represent the interests of bankers, or global corporations, or militarists and the industrial complex which gets rich from their adventures, or some other grouping within the machinery of the State, or the intersts of a powerful global 1% – whatever interest they serve it is never yours and mine. For those who will clamour and say the Democrats or Labour or La Gauche represent the interests of the labour unions, WAKE UP!  It’s been decades since that was even partially true. Labour under Blair and Brown was Thatcherism by another name and ignored a million people who said very clearly and en masse, that the Bush/Blair war was unjust, illegal and unwanted. The Democrats under Obama followed the same financial and economic ideology as Bush, even chosing the same people to run things, and was as warlike and arrogant as well. Change? Tell it to a moron. He might believe you.

Democracy is broken. No one represents us. We are allowed only to chose between different teams of The Entitled who, once chosen, ignore us completely. The whole idea of a mandate has mutated. Once that idea meant that a government could do what it had said it would do when it was trying to win our votes. Beyond those things, it had to consider ‘The People’.  Today all parties consider that being elected means to be handed absolute power to do whatever they feel like doing, whatever they can ram through the tattered remains of accountability and oversight.

Elected dictatorship in installments is what we have today.  And when each installment, no matter the different names and colours of the teams, is almost indistinguishable from the last, what is representative democracy if not a street parade of oversized cartoon characters and their pantomimed arguments. Are we not amused?

If we do not speak up soon we will find when we finally do, nothing is heard but grunting and bleating. We are, to borrow a phrase from the brilliant Roberto Callaso, already walking through a vast slaughter house. And those who run it have no good intent.

It is past time when we must revivify what We the People means. We must stop reacting like frightened animals and take the initiative.We cannot allow those who presume to rule over us to continue to tell us what ‘must’ be done and to over-rule all debate by  insisting ‘there is no alternative.’ We must state what We the People will accept and what we won’t, what we regard as legitimate and what is not. It is for us to decide these things not them. It may seem like just words and on one level of course it is. But it was only words when it was said the first time. What those words did the first time and can do again, is to stop our rulers’ proclamations always being against a blank and passive background. Simply by declaring what We will and won’t tolerate or accept we force their proclamations to appear as what they are – aggressive, partisan and debateable.

You might say that it will still be just words and that blood would still have to be spilt upon the ground before their point had force. Which may be true. But still, simply by re-stating that there IS a “We the People” we take a stand, and are heard.


So here is my suggestion, for what it might be worth – What matters is that we state what WE will and won’t accept, what WE do and do not recognize as legitimate. What matters is how many of us sign. It does not matter that we may not all agree or that we may have differing lists. What matters is that they are not so different, that we can all stand together, and all take back what is ours – the power to DECIDE for ourselves what powers we lend and what powers we do NOT.

We the People:


Will not accept taxation for the purpose of paying off, even temporarily, private banking or other financial debts.


We will not accept the rulings of international arbitration panels on which our interests are not represented and which are convened on the basis of Bilateral Investment Treaties about which we were not consulted.


We will do not recognize the right of bond holders of ANY standing to be given seniority over the tax payers and people of a nation. We will NOT bail them out.


We reserve the sovereign right to decide in the event of another finacial crisis, who does not get paid, whose wealth is anulled. It is not for the unelected market and its experts to tell us.


We, the people do not accept the right or authority of private or unnaccountable State organizations to collect, hold or use private data gathered by any means that the law and courts have not specifically and publically granted.


We do not accept the legitimacy of any private law enforcement body.


We do not accept that there is any justification for secret or unaccountable bodies to hold any power over us. We simply do not recognize they have any legitimacy.


We will not tolerate military actions taken in secret without any parliamenary and public accountabilbity and permission.


We reserve the absolute right to hold to public and legal account any leader who takes actions which disregard the above. No elected official is above the law and no leader has the power to aquit those the courts have proceeded against.


No organization is above or outside the law.


We the People do not accept that any organization is too big to prosecute or too big to fail. Any organization that becomes so or remains so depsite this clear instruction, and then fails, forfeits its entire worth to the public purse at a post bankruptcy price.

I offer this as a start only. Others will no doubt be better informed and able to formulate a far clearer, better and sharper declaration.

If they do, I would like to sign it and offer it to as many others as technology will permit me to reach, for them to consider signing. The internet gives us this chance, to put up a document that any number of ordinary people can chose to sign. People might wish to have a seperate version for each Nation. Or, in a global world, perhaps we need to remain together as the global 99%. What matters is that enough of us sign so we can really say with a single voice – WE THE PEOPLE serve you notice that we are back!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
zorba THE GREEK's picture

Down with TBTF banks, up with people

fnord88's picture

It should read: "We, the 3% of the population who actually give a shit about freedom, liberty, honor or truth.........."



"We, the 97%, who are in love with our igadgets, and will start to care about liberty as we are shipped to a FEMA camp....."

SafelyGraze's picture

good timing to post this just after the post about how many homeless there are

when the individual state/county/municipal governments require FRN's from people who own property, those people then have an affirmative obligation to go procure FRN's

and thus begins the death spiral


Renfield's picture

This is why no citizens will be free as long as their government gets to enforce a 'property tax'. (Or 'council rates', 'land rates', 'contribution', 'levy', or any other form of acknowledgement that govvy owns your fully-purchased land, and not you.)

The day the landowners of any country started paying rent to their respective governments, is the very same day they became landless, whether or not they had the basic smarts to know it. I'm just waiting now to hear of gov deciding that some property owner represents an 'enemy', takes away her land, and gives it wholesale to their criminal cronies. I bet even then, their neighbours will huddle behind their doors, keep their heads down and their tongues still, and pray that gov doesn't decide it can use their land as well.

CH1's picture

I am fully sympathetic with this article, but why not make it easy (and more effective) by simply dropping out of their corrupt system and building better ways to live.

It's time to stop pretending that their slave system can be fixed.

Renfield's picture

CH1, genuinely curious: how do people generally solve the land problem, when dropping out? By which I mean, if you rent, you are subject to a landlord. If you 'own', you are subject to a) banksters and b) gov, in that order.

Squatting seems risky, unless done in a nearly-uninhabited wilderness where you would essentially have to live like the Unibomber. This is the only question I have not been able to resolve in my own mind, about bugging out. Everything else seems straightforward if difficult.

I agree that they can't be fixed. Roll on the collapse.

CH1's picture

There are a hundred ways of separating, no single one of which (so far as I know) is complete.

Find one way to separate, and DO IT. (Too many empty talkers out there.) Then add another, and then a third. Pretty soon, the areas of interaction will be fairly small.

SafelyGraze's picture

it's an interesting thought experiment: a significant chunk of productive population in a state decide, en masse, to say no thank you about property.

but then you realize that the fema camps and the private prisons and the soylent compost bins and the batter-the-homeless trainees are already in place, so that sort of takes the fun out of it


CH1's picture

Then lay down and die.

kurt's picture

please, please let this be the last word

BobRocket's picture

Renfield, you ask a genuinely good question.


Given that you aren't going to live forever, and the land was here for thousands of years bofore you were were born, and the land in all likelyhood will be here for thousands of years after you die.


In what context do you say you 'own' this land ?


Renfield, get a grip.

Renfield's picture

To be clear: I say I 'own' the land in the context of property law and government. Hence, if I purchase land from a vendor, I claim all legal rights of ownership attaching to such land.

If a landowner, having purchased her land free and clear, then legally cedes taxing power over such land to a government, then such landowner's possession of 'her' land now relies on her continual payment of taxes regardless of purchase. (aka, 'rent') That landowner has just ceded ownership of her land to the government because that land can be taken away if gov decides the citizen hasn't paid enough taxes. (And this can easily be expanded into other reasons.) The landowner has also implicitly agreed that the government is now an interested party, on that particular land, even if the government never had a hand in the transaction or property before.

As to the big philosophical context, sure, nobody 'owns' anything except what you can enforce, but I'm not talking about that. I hope this makes it clear now.

SafelyGraze's picture


tempered, thoughtful response


BobRocket's picture


I say 'I 'own' the land'


And you do...


And to all the others who live in the vicinity, you say 'I can make this land productive', if given exclusive access and planning permisssio from the unbiased locals.



new game's picture

all sounds good until sheriff joe shows up and few deputies to remove you randy weaver style.

better to find a property with lowest taxation and do your thing and never complain as you are now "one of them"

doing your thing is simple-mind your business, live free and keep it simple. i know as i had forty with cabin and never saw a sherrif for 8 years. complained about my taxes and got them reduced due to mistake or shall i say an asumption. as far as getting my back taxes for overcharge, ha, simple, move on, and that is exactly what i was told, even though there was a process to get them back. realized i had pushed it to the point that i wasn't "one of them" that gets on the sheriffs short list to drive by and look closer.

Crow Wing Co. MN same as the rest and we are talking 768/yr. they are no long the servants, they are the master and that goes back to representation without input. sheeple let this happen with their stupid votes for education tarrifs endlessly(for the fucking childern meme). i'm with you in thought but just not realistic - think tinneman sq...the fucking tank rolls!


DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Well, there's always Costa Rica...  If you have $250,000 or a decent income, they will welcome you.  Good food, fishing, monkeys...

"Quepos, Costa Rica"



DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Hey!  Ya found me! 

Ha ha ha!  + un millon!



He has good advice & a sense of humor...  But, his advice is sound.  Peru is our "Plan B" because I have great in-laws there.

I am on vacation with a bunch of gringos (& Cesar up from Peru).

RafterManFMJ's picture

I've been thinking about moving in with Jim Willie; perhaps I could clean his pool and be his editor.

new game's picture

my brother has a condo for sale with ocean view for around 100k.

considered it but to far to travel-airline tickets spendy too.

BobRocket's picture

CH1 #JustStop


Yes, It's the economy stupid, if you stop then it stops.


Consumer == Controller


So what world do you want ?


Demand == Supply



CH1's picture

Stopping is good, but we want to thrive too, which is why I say "build better."

One of the avatars here says "long black markets," to which I would add PMs, Bitcoin, barter, offshore corps, cybercorps, local currencies, and all the other tools for interacting voluntarily.

Rulership is barbaric, and it's time for us to move past it.

LocalBoy's picture

Exactly, CH.... treat it like a bad dream.....wake up live without it. Cant do it all overnite but start somewhere and go somewhere with it.

Our power is making their power irrelevant.

I like your style 

El Vaquero's picture

You will never be able to fully separate from this system as long as it is in tact.  You can only minimize your participation.  The fact that a kid was arrested for wearing an NRA t-shirt should tell you that people will flip the fuck out over little things and try to shove their will up your ass. 

RSDallas's picture

CH,  you are either uninformed or in support of our current ideolog in our government system.  Dropping out is exactly what they want and what they are succeeding at.  Our great Nation is deteriating before our very eyes because too many people have already dropped out.


BLOTTO's picture

I know it sad to think as this is my home, but imo, i don't think they give a shit about us over here on this side of the pond in North America. We were just a new experiment on a new land. A place to create new religions (Mormons, Witnesses), try out different ideologies, make a new working class, a new breed -a new consumer, etc...

Our 300+ year history is no match for place(s) with 1,000 of years of history and where ruling stuff was born.


The real rub is there over in the middle east where civilization started and ancient occult shit exists...it doesnt matter whether or not you believe it - they (our controllers) do.

Harbanger's picture

"The day the landowners of any country started paying rent to their respective governments, is the very same day they became landless,"


That's a little idealistic.  Nice in theory but property taxes in the United States originated during colonial times.  It's more American than Apple pie.

Renfield's picture

I was wondering when that got started in the U.S. Well, I'm not calling the colonial Americans stupid, but just because they did something doesn't really make it a good idea or change its logic for me. (I am not now and have never been an American, although I kinda wish I could say I was 'libertarian' sometimes.)

I can't fathom 'voting' to pass any kind of property or income lordship tribute ('tax'?), but there are certainly many generations of people with (I am told) normal intelligence who seem to find this a very reasonable thing. Which is probably a big reason that I've never been a fan of 'democracy' either. Those who find such taxes reasonable, let THEM pay them.

When you give them taxation power, you give them confiscation power too, because no real law exists without enforcement. Hence, those who agree to a regime of property taxation, have in principle already lost their ownership of that property. QED

El Vaquero's picture

American as Apple pie or not, property taxes are still unethical. 

Anusocracy's picture

Anything involuntary is.

It is a statement of the fact that one person or group is superior to another person or group.

Part and parcel of the animal world, not the human world.

DontGive's picture

Perhaps we could all stomach it, if only the property owners we're allowed to vote (once again).

Serenity Now's picture


Can you back that up with anything?  Not being confrontational, just interested.  It seems odd that a country based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which was originally worded "property") would start out with property taxes.  We didn't have income taxes at first, either.

Now, if you are referring to the stamp tax, then I concede your point.  That kicked off a little revolution if I recall correctly.  :)

Just looking for clarification.  I like your posts.

Sean7k's picture

"Conceived in Liberty" Book One by Murray Rothbard. Colonies were essentially concessions given by the King. The managers of these concessions paid fees to the King for the opportunity and were allowed to tax the colonists in a number of ways to recover and prosper from the colonies. 


Frankie Carbone's picture

Non sequitor.

How does the length of existence of an abominable practice in and of itself justify that practice?

new game's picture

folks, all this disco chit chat needs some clarity-the mutha fuker is out of control. period.

thousands of tenacles from the same federal squid. and we haven't got to the state and local squids.

once they tap the plebs they start turning on themselve for tax(look to france). i'm suprised the revolution doesn't break out there next, or greece or italy???. sufice to say, we got a long way to go, bail ins, much higher taxes with moar redistribution before the only solution will avail itself-violence of the first order-death for liberty/ or death alive in some form of slavery. choice is coming soon.

Umh's picture

Do you think those Japanese who were sent to internment camps ever got their property back?

aleph0's picture

"in love with our igadgets"


Mike ruppert .. excellent statements :



Starts off with ..... "So many people are so fucking in love with technology; and they're idiots"


Part 1 is a must watch as well .

Rafferty's picture

You're right.  Most unfortunate, but you're right.  That's why Lenin's dictum 'worse is better' still holds true.

snodgrass's picture

Blah blah blah. All these people do is talk. They know Americans are a bunch of lazy fat slobs who do nothing but talk. So go ahead and indulge yourselves with your "witty" remarks while you do nothing but type on your computers.

Renfield's picture

<<No organization is above or outside the law.>>

No organisation *OR PERSON* is above or outside the law.

You should put something in there about corporations not being confused with people, defined as "human persons" only.

Have to make it VERY SPECIFIC for judges who tend lately to be stupid about 'narrow' interpretation.

I would also suggest some strong enforcement penalties for breaking each law, but perhaps that is for another document. Maybe something about not even bothering to pass 'laws' without respective penalties.

ebworthen's picture

Just enforce The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Problem being this nation is now "Of the Banks, by the Banks, for the Banks."

The banks, in cooperation and collusion with corporations and bought politicians, enforce the debt serfdom of the populace.

The Gooch's picture

WTF is this drivel?

"Only those with my interests in mind may ask me for taxes."

We will do not chose!


stock trout's picture

At least this is an idea which is more than most who want change but offer nothing more than comments on blogs to affect it (including me). Yet history has proven in times like these that petitions or declarations like this one can only be signed in your blood and implemented with a gun. 

Al Gorerhythm's picture

Plenty of better Articles exist in that old scrap of paper called The Constitution and its supportive document The Declaration of Independence, which were produced by real people with real causes, worthy of fighting and dying for. Those causes haven't changed over the years and when they won their battles against international tyrants, they gathered together and encapsulated the essence of their grievences in writing and recorded the first national document recognising  the rights of the individual, articulating and enshrining their natural power of an individual over aristocrats who lusted for power, who know how to enslave individuals through nefarious means and schemes.

They wrote and compiled a means of governance which established the guidelines for government of the People, Those documents declared and recorded the means of keeping tyrants in all their guises out of the halls of national power circles. Their most powerful tool; "It's the Money, Dummy" clause, stated only gold and silver were to be used as money. This was the libertarian's cure all against them. Garlic to the vampire.

I think that people today need to understand that it was a Constitution written by living men for the purpose of enshrining their rights in their time. That said, I believe that their cause is as precient today and our grieviences are just history repeating but if you want what they had, then you are going to have to want it as badly as they did.

At this point it is a dead document because it is not being used as a governing standard by the nation's Representatives. That much is obvious. If you want to adopt the articles espoused in this posting, then may I suggest that you don't have to re-invent the wheel. If you want the Constitution to be a living document, then study it to see if it has any redeeming qualities that may suit our times. We need our own Constitution that is recognised by our representatives as the guidelines for their job description: Representative of We the People's as per our Constitution.&nbsp;</p><p>They won for you a Constitutional Republic, Sir, if still you want it.</p>

Sean7k's picture

I'm sure you mean well, but you are deluded and confused. The Articles of Confederation was our "ruling" document, that was abolished in a coup d' tat by the merchantilists to create a more central, powerful and ultimately tyrannical form of government. Just like all the others. 

Franklin wanted Washington declared King. Jefferson couldn't abuse the Constitution quickly enough, just ask the indians of Georgia. We declared  war on Britain, because we thought we could steal Canada and then profit from the land sales.

There are NO good governments, because governments are founded on law and laws are merely methods to control the masses. The Constitution failed because it is law and law is interpreted. When you eliminate law, you force thieves to commit acts of violence that can be neutralized. The law negates this possibility. You become propagandized that you gave "consent". 

It is in the rejection of laws, documents and authority that we find liberty. The liberty to choose our own money. To work a piece of land. To build a home. To raise our children and form our communities in a likeness that represents our values without demanding obedience through politicians and their puppeteers.

You can't fix tyranny, you can only choose to reject it, it all its' forms.

FreeMktFisherMN's picture

Democracy isn't desirable in the first place. There is no 'we the people'; there are only INDIVIDUALS who voluntarily share a common respect for private property and liberties wih which each individual is endowed by God Almighty. 

Democracy=mob rule. quid pro quo, aka,  vote for someone and he'll give you free shit. 

In anarcho capitalism each individual votes with his money and actions and everything is of voluntary nature; nothing done via force or coercion, as they are only legitimate actions when used in defense of life and property. 

Pareto's picture

Amen FMFMN..."nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." (Takings Clause - 5th Amendment)

Dr. Engali's picture

I just can not focus on an article, no matter how good,that refers to our country as a democracy instead of a representative republic. The country may have morphed into a democracy, but that is not how it was founded. All I see is democracy... democracy.... democracy. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it sure is annoying.