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’swill) 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 Peoplesimply 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 consultingthe 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 Peoplecannot 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.
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 Peoplearen’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 Peopleare 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 ofthe 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 otherPeople as opposed to himself while simultaneously believing that he is indeed one of the People which he himself blames. Damn People!
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)
PEOPLE – A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity… The 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.
PRAYER – The 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 (
–Thursday, January 15th, 2015