Wednesday, December 28, 2011

I Hereby Secede

Secession is a topic that seems to increasingly pop up in conversation, discussion, and written opinion. I believe that more people every day are seeing state secession as a viable and even necessary action to counteract increasing personal oppression, stolen liberties, and monetary incompetence and thievery by the United States Government. According to the Declaration of Independence, when such conditions become intolerable for the people, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

But why wait for your state to secede? In the meantime, why not make a personal declaration of secession? Below is my idea of what a personal declaration would look like. I encourage others to make this same declaration and add or subtract any statements you deem relevant. Or write your own. Make copies and distribute to friends and relatives, encouraging them to do likewise. By all means, send copies to your Congress critters and other ruling tyrants. Convey the message that you no longer willingly submit to their arbitrary rules, and the theft and violence committed against you personally and against others in your name.

Some will dismiss such a declaration as merely symbolic, lacking any legitimate authority. By how does it contain any less authority than a state and constitution created by others a couple centuries before you were born? Here is my declaration:

I, Roger Young, a sovereign, free-born individual, and a child of God/Nature, do hereby declare my personal secession from the political entity known as the “United States of America.“ Though reason tells me that this entity has no inherent legitimacy toward ruling my life (as this arrangement was not created by me, nor obtained my consent), I find it necessary to declare such a separation.

By this act of secession, I hereby withdraw any present and future consent toward being ruled by this authoritarian organization. Any laws, edicts, regulations, executive orders, or demands issued by this organization will be ignored as so much verbal static emanating from tyrants lacking any legitimate authority.

By this act of secession, I declare I will no longer consent to being described as a willing citizen or subject, collectively enslaved under the rule of the “United States Government,” nor its permanently ensconced ruling class. I hereby refuse to be labeled a participant of, nor a collaborator with, the criminal actions executed by those individuals declaring to be representatives, employees, or agents of the “United States Government.” Such actions include waging war and stealing the property and wealth of other individuals. Any such actions declared to “be in my name” or “for my benefit or protection” will be considered blatantly fraudulent. I will hereby consider myself only as a sovereign individual residing on the North American continent, responsible only for the actions I commit as an individual.

By this act of secession, I will no longer be a party to the collectivist “we” used to describe those residing within the geographical boundaries claimed by some as the “United States of America.” I will no longer be subject to the responsibilities, agreements, debts, or liabilities, claimed by that institution and “shared” by its subjects

By this act of secession, I will no longer consider my body subject to the rules and regulations of that entity known as the “United States Government.” Any attempt to restrict my consumption of any food or drug will be branded as illegitimate and ignored Any attempt to actively apply such restrictions by this entity will be considered an act of violence and dealt with accordingly in a peaceful, though effective and persuasive, manner.

By this act of secession, I will no longer consider my physical, property (tangible or intangible) subject to any “laws” or regulations put forth by the entity known as the “United States Government.” Any taking or taxing of such property will be considered theft and will be dealt with accordingly in a peaceful, though effective and persuasive, manner.

By this act of secession, I will no longer deem any restrictions, regulations, or limits on the use of my labor as legitimate, nor the taking or taxing of the fruits of such activity. The interference in the voluntary, contractual associations and agreements that involve my personal labor will not be tolerated. Such agreements and contracts will be considered sacrosanct and immune to the dictates and interventions from that entity known as the “United States Government.”

By this act of secession, I will no longer maintain any allegiance or loyalty to the political abstraction named “The United States of America.” I will not recognize its “boundaries” as legitimate nor use their existence as a regulator or hindrance toward interacting with those individuals who reside outside said “boundaries.” I will also declare no aggressive intentions toward destruction or take-over of this entity. I will also by this act declare no immediate allegiance or loyalty to any other present or future political abstraction.

By this act of secession, I hereby declare absolutely no reverence or respect for that political entity known as the “United States of America” nor its self-declared ruling body known as the “United States Government.” I will from this time forward view both with suspicion and as dangerous predators, preying on the lives, fortunes, and liberties of free individuals.

By this act of secession, I will not automatically obey any illegitimate “laws” or orders, not previously mentioned, put forth by that entity known as the “United States Government.” Any perceived obedience by me will be the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.

Any state agents sent forth by the “United States Government” to contact me will be dealt the equivalent respect and kindness that is shown toward me by such agents. Any perceived obedience by me will be the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity and its agents exhibiting superior firepower.

By this act of secession, I will not tolerate, as a free-living, free-thinking, peaceful individual, any violent, unjustified attacks on other such individuals and private organizations or their property by this entity known as the “United States Government.” I will utilize all available time, talents, and resources available to me to expose and ridicule those agents of the “United States Government” that initiate such attacks. I will also help and support any active, peaceful countermeasures to help prevent or overturn any such violent, aggressive actions against sovereign lives and property.

By this act of secession, I will no longer listen to any speeches, comments, or information communicated by that entity known as the “United States Government.” All such information will be instantly declared not credible and subject to verification and confirmation by reliable, non-state sources. Any verbal or written communication emanating from this entity will automatically be considered a lie until proven otherwise.

By this act of secession I remain open to the idea of being ruled by similar such entities, but such an action will occur only with unequivocal consent by me and legitimized by mutual contractual agreement.

By this act of secession, I do not make the arrogant assumption of speaking for other sovereign, free-born individuals. This declaration is relevant only to me and not to any other sovereign individuals known personally to me or related by birth. However, I encourage other like minded individuals to do the same. I encourage and even implore them to stand up for their lives, liberties and property. I passionately advise they throw off the yoke of bondage that inhibits, strangles, and even kills them, destroys and steals their wealth and property, and poisons the futures of all who seek to live unchained. No shedding of blood or violent extremism is necessary. Just take the time to officially declare withdrawal of your consent.

“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.”


Anonymous said...

Absolutely wonderful! I want to write my own to codify my "opting out of the State."

Enlightened Rogue said...

Great! Please forward it to me.

James said...

Wow, that takes courage to send a declaration of this madnitude to our local congressman. Everything in this is so right. I'd be interested in what our rogue federal government would say about this.

Enlightened Rogue said...

James- This statement probably exceeds the length requirement for a message to your ruling Congress critter. It probably would be “filed” quickly. The aide reading it would see the word “secede” and immediately think “white supremacist.” Realistically, it would probably only garner significant attention if the message came in a large volume.

Anonymous said...

Could you explain to me and your reader(s) what has been the outcome of any and all secession movements here in the United States?


Enlightened Rogue said...

State secession movements have been successful throughout the world. I see no reason why they can’t be successful here. Just because such movements haven’t been successful yet, doesn’t mean they never will. The coming economic collapse and ever increasing federal police state will not only make this action more and more attractive to the typical chump on the street, but absolutely necessary for survival. When people’s comfort zone (food in the frig and working TV cable) is finally breached, they’ll be looking for alternatives. In the meantime, aware individuals can initiate their own personal secession by withdrawing consent from those who claim to rule.

Sysche said...


H.D. Thoreau suggested just such a course of action.

Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves — the union between themselves and the State — and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do not they stand in the same relation to the State that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Union which have prevented them from resisting the State?

See also

Enlightened Rogue said...

Thanks for that Thoreau quote. If people secede from “the requisitions of the President” they’ll son realize that they have no need to consent to any other such governing arrangement.

Anonymous said...

Nice job. A friend of mine tipped me off to your site, and I like your statement especially in light of the New Year's Eve signing in the NDAA act.

Enlightened Rogue said...

Yes, I think the impending approval of NDAA is what finally inspired me to write this. Now, I see that the Fuehrer has signed it, he declares he has “serious reservations” about the indefinite detention provisions- which he insisted, by the way, be IN the legislation! For that, he is a lying, phony scumbag. Meanwhile, over on the right, Rand Paul expressed “concern” about that provision while debating the act in the House. “Concern?” Why not freakin’ OUTRAGE! He should have grabbed a megaphone, run down to the capitol rotunda and screamed his disgust for at least 12 hours non-stop. What a wimp.

Anonymous said...

What secession movements world wide have been successful?

Enlightened Rogue said...

The United States of America, the breakup of Czechoslovakia into, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, South Sudan, Chechnya, Pakistan, Belgium, Texas, Nicaragua, Taiwan, Eritrea, Ecuador Venezuela, Panama, Sicily, Singapore, the former independent republics swallowed up by the Soviet Union which then seceded, Portugal, Ireland, Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo. I’m sure there are others.

Elton Hammock said...

I seceded a couple of years ago only I did it without a written declaration - I did it quietly in my head (my family suspects that I'm a bit delusional). But now damnmit, I wish I'd had the presence of mind and guts to do it with the style and panache I see in this declaration - maybe my grown children would stop wondering why their dad seems so stubbornly obtuse in his shifted paradigm.

Great stuff - inspired and worth spreading.

Enlightened Rogue said...

Thanks, glad you were inspired.

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Good video. Are you aware of the following passage from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England which covers this and a Sovereigns obligations which arise from it:

For the avoidance of doubt, here are authorities for the lawfulness of the Barons actions, in 1215 and 2001:
“A metrical chronicle4 records the threat to depose the King, unless he fully amended the law and furnished undoubted guarantees for a lasting peace. On 5th May, the barons went through the ceremony of diffidatio, or formal renunciation of allegiance,1 a recognised feudal right, and not involving treason if justified by events and properly intimated to the overlord.2
Chronica de Mailros, sub anno 1215. 1. Blackstone, Great Charter, p. xiii, citing Annals of Dunstable (p. 43), says they were absolved at Wallingford by a Canon of Durham. 2. Cf. Adams, Origin, 181 n.; 306, 312; cf. also infra under c. 61. (“On 5 May, the barons, having chosen as their leader, Robert Fitzwalter, acclaimed by them as “Marshal of the Army of God and Holy Church,” performed the solemn feudal ceremony of diffidatio, or renunciation of their fealty and homage, a formality indispensable before vassals could, without infamy, wage war upon their feudal overlord. Absolved from their allegiance at Wallingford by a Canon of Durham, they marched on London, on the attitude of which all eyes now turned with solicitude. When the great city opened her gates to the insurgents, setting an example to be immediately followed by other towns, she practically made the attainment of the Great Charter secure. The Mayor of London thus takes an honoured place beside the Archbishop of Canterbury among the band of patriots to whose initiative England owes her Charter of Liberties. John, deserted on all sides, and with an Exchequer too empty for the effective employment of mercenary armies, agreed to a conference on the 11th day of June, a date afterwards postponed till the 15th of the same month.
It was on 15 June, then, in the year 1215, that the conference began between John, supported by a slender following of half-hearted magnates, upon the one side, and the mail-clad barons, backed by a multitude of determined and well-armed knights, upon the other. The conference lasted for eight days, from Monday of one week till Tuesday of the next. On Monday the 15th, John set seal to the demands presented to him by the barons, accepting every one of their forty-eight “Articles,” with the additional “Forma Securitatis” or executive clause, vesting in twenty-five of their number full authority to constrain King John by force to observe its provisions...”.

Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, with an Historical Introduction,by William Sharp McKechnie (Glasgow: Maclehose, 1914).

16. Here is confirmation from Blackstone’s Commentaries that “Right of War” sets lawful title to The Crown:
“THIS conquest then by William of Normandy was, like that of Canute before, a forcible transfer of the crown of England into a new family: but, the crown being so transferred, all the inherent properties of the crown were with it transferred also. For, the victory obtained at Hastings not being a victory over the nation collectively, but only over the person of Harold, the only right that the conqueror could pretend to acquire thereby, was the right to possess the crown of England, not to alter the nature of the government. And therefore, as the English laws still remained in force, he must necessarily take the crown subject to those laws, and with all it's inherent properties; the first and principal of which was it's descendibility. Here then we must drop our race of Saxon kings, at least for a while, and derive our descents from William the conqueror as from a new stock, who acquired by right of war (such as it is, yet still the dernier resort of kings) a strong and undisputed title to the inheritable crown of England...”.
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First : Chapter the Third : Of the King and His Title P 193.

Regards, John Hurst.

Enlightened Rogue said...

Thanks for sending, John. My view is a bit more philosophical and simplistic. It avoids the quagmire of legalese (a state creation) and gets right to the heart of any discussion of political government: By what authority does an individual or group of individuals claim mastery and rule over other individuals or groups of individuals (voluntary associations) other than their explicit, contractual consent? Answer: There is none. End of discussion.

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

"By what authority does an individual or group of individuals claim mastery and rule over other individuals or groups of individuals (voluntary associations) other than their explicit, contractual consent?....".

The answer is force or fraud, as it always has been. The RKBA addresses the first issue and the Common Law sets limits to the first and identifies the second. Magna Carta was a contract.

Common Law is not legalese. It comes from the consent of the people:

Regards, John Hurst.

Enlightened Rogue said...

“The answer is force or fraud.” Exactly, which is why that proclaimed authority is illegitimate. With all due respect, I don’t need any document to tell me that. It’s simple logic.

Magna Carta was a contract? With whom? Not with me as I was yet to be born. No offense to the document, but it was a petitioning of rulers (kings) who had no legitimate authority to begin with.

Sorry about the “legalese” reference, but your short, concise analysis is much more useful and understandable to a greater number of people than the commentary you posted earlier. Is much appreciated.

I’m all for common law, but enforced in private courts subject to the discipline of the market.

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

You owe it to yourself to put a bit of effort into understanding our shared history.

As it happens, the BBC have a series of programmes about the common law online at the moment:

Highly recommended because of its accuracy, which is unusual for the BBC. Regards, John Hurst.