A Final Warning: What Happens When Governments No Longer Need You

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Unchain the Human is a radical, pro-human, anti-system manifesto that argues humanity has been systematically separated from its natural birthrights—land, water, food, shelter, knowledge, and freedom—by the artificial constructs of government, property, and law. Using the metaphor of a squirrel (who lives freely, gathering what nature provides without permission), the manifesto contrasts the natural state of being with the tightly controlled, permission-based existence modern humans endure.

Key Points:​

• Governments as Barriers:
  All forms of government—regardless of ideology—are depicted as entities that block access to the Earth’s natural abundance, turning birthrights into commodities, licenses, and debts.
• Artificial Scarcity:
  Resources like food, water, and shelter are artificially made scarce by being tied to land, which is always under government or elite control. Survival outside the system is made illegal.
• The Monopoly Game Analogy:
  Society is compared to a rigged Monopoly game: the government owns the board, prints the money, writes the rules, and decides who wins. True independence is impossible.
• Legal System as Control, Not Justice:
  The law is described as subjective, manipulable, and designed to serve power rather than truth or fairness. Innocents are routinely punished, and justice is a tool for compliance, not liberation.
• The Theft of Knowledge:
  Schools are criticized for suppressing natural intelligence and curiosity, producing compliant workers rather than independent thinkers.
• Historical Perspective:
  The manifesto traces the loss of freedom from ancient communal living to the rise of property, borders, and centralized power, showing how every step increased dependency and control.
• Natural Law vs. Artificial Law:
  The manifesto calls for a return to natural law—where harm is real and tangible, not defined by arbitrary rules or imagined intent.

Philosophical and Practical Implications​

• Radical Decentralization:
  The text advocates for reclaiming direct access to resources, self-sufficiency, and mutual aid—echoing anarchist, primitivist, and communalist traditions.
• Skepticism of Authority:
  All forms of authority—government, legal systems, even educational institutions—are viewed with suspicion, as they serve to perpetuate dependency and extract wealth or labor.
• Emphasis on Real Needs:
  The manifesto distinguishes between true needs (food, water, shelter, freedom) and manufactured desires (consumer goods, status, symbolic freedoms).
• Critique of Modern “Freedom”:
  Modern freedoms are described as illusions—symbolic gestures that distract from the fact that survival itself is conditional on compliance.

Strengths of the Manifesto​

• Clear, Provocative Metaphors:
  The use of the squirrel as a symbol of natural freedom is vivid and effective.
• Historical and Anthropological References:
  The text is well-sourced, referencing anthropologists, economists, and legal scholars to support its arguments.
• Uncompromising Clarity:
  The manifesto does not hedge its critique; it is direct, passionate, and unapologetic.

Unchain the Human is a passionate call to recognize and resist the artificial chains of modern society. It urges readers to see through the illusions of property, law, and money, and to reclaim the birthrights that belong to all living beings. Whether one agrees with every point or not, the manifesto is a powerful invitation to question, imagine, and strive for a freer, more honest relationship with the Earth and with each other.

Read Entire Manifesto here: https://open.substack.com/pub/willi...n=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

 

[Invisible Man]

Unchain the Human is a radical, pro-human, anti-system manifesto that argues humanity has been systematically separated from its natural birthrights—land, water, food, shelter, knowledge, and freedom—by the artificial constructs of government, property, and law.

Of those six items (land, water, food, shelter, knowledge, and freedom), only freedom is a natural birthright. All others can only be acquired by labor.

Go ahead and use a metaphor of a squirrel. Squirrels know nothing of leisure or luxury. They spend every second of their lives fighting for their survival. The only ways the lives of any squirrels today have improved in the slightest bit from the lives of squirrels 5,000 years ago are if they have benefitted from the excess of food and resources that humans have left over after their expansions of these things.

Resources like food, water, and shelter are artificially made scarce by being tied to land.

Those resources are scarce, and they are tied to land. There's nothing artificial about that. Do you want food, water, and shelter? Well then somebody, either yourself or someone else on your behalf, has to expend labor to acquire them. This has been the condition of all humans who have ever existed, with or without the institution of the state in place. It is also the condition of squirrels. And access to these resources can be, and has been, increased for humans by way of their having expended labor to make improvements to land, which inherently entail some concept of property rights (whether that be through state-based laws or not). It is thanks to the immensely increased access to all of these things that humans have brought about that we now live in a world where people can be so unhitched from history and reality as to believe that any of these things aren't scarce and are natural rights that ought to be freely available to all apart from expenditures of labor.

 

[acptulsa]

Go ahead and use a metaphor of a squirrel.

Never known one to pay for land or water.

 

[Invisible Man]

Never known one to pay for land or water.

Nope. And how's that working out for them?

 

[acptulsa]

Nope. And how's that working out for them?

They're probably more numerous than ever before.

 

[Invisible Man]

They're probably more numerous than ever before.

Ever before, like back in the olden days when squirrels did pay for land and water?

 

[Swordsmyth]

argues humanity has been systematically separated from its natural birthrights—land, water, food, shelter, knowledge, and freedom—by the artificial constructs of government, property

Commie lunacy detected.

 

[acptulsa]

Commie lunacy detected.

Looked in a mirror again? You know that never ends well.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

​

1. Are Land, Water, Food, Shelter, and Knowledge Only Acquired by Labor?
Objective truth:

• 
  
• Land, water, food, shelter, and knowledge are physical realities produced by the Earth, not by human labor.
• 
  
• Labor is required to access or transform these resources, not to create their existence.
• 
  
• In the natural world, these elements exist independently of human effort. For example, rivers flow, fruit grows, and caves provide shelter whether or not humans are present

Birthright vs. Labor:

• 
  
• A birthright is something one is entitled to by virtue of existence—like the air we breathe or the sun that shines.
• 
  
• In nature, every creature is born with access to land, water, food, and shelter—provided by the environment, not by a legal or economic system.
• 
  
• Labor is required to gather, adapt, or defend these resources, but not to make them exist.
• 
  
• Knowledge is also a birthright: all animals, including humans, are born with instinctual or inherited knowledge, and the capacity to learn from their environment and elders.

2. The Squirrel Metaphor: What It Reveals​

• 
  
• Squirrels are not given leisure or luxury—but they are not denied access to land, water, food, or shelter by another squirrel or by a system.
• 
  
• A squirrel is born into a world where trees, streams, and nuts exist. It must work to gather food and build a nest, but no authority fences off the forest, taxes its acorns, or demands rent for its tree.
• 
  
• The squirrel’s “birthright” is unmediated access to the resources its environment provides. Its labor is for survival, not for permission or to pay a system.

If a squirrel had to pay for every nut, rent its tree, or get a permit to drink from a stream, it would not survive. The same is true for humans in a natural state.

3. Scarcity: Natural vs. Artificial​

• 
  
• Natural scarcity: Some resources are limited (e.g., only so many nuts or fresh water in a drought).
• 
  
• Artificial scarcity: When access is restricted by rules, ownership, or systems that fence off resources and require payment, licenses, or compliance to use them.
• 
  
• In most of human history, land and water were shared communally or accessed freely by those present.
• 
  
• Modern states and property laws create artificial scarcity by making it illegal to live, hunt, fish, or build shelter on land without permission—even when resources are physically abundant.

Resource	Exists in Nature?	Requires Labor to Access?	Can Be Made Artificially Scarce?
Land	Yes	Sometimes	Yes (by ownership, fencing, laws)
Water	Yes	Sometimes	Yes (by rights, permits, pricing)
Food	Yes	Sometimes	Yes (by property, regulation)
Shelter	Yes (caves, trees)	Sometimes	Yes (by zoning, permits)
Knowledge	Yes (instinct, learning)	Yes (learning)	Yes (by restricting education)
Freedom	Yes (in nature)	Sometimes	Yes (by law, coercion)

4. Labor and Property: Human and Squirrel Comparison​

• 
  
• Labor is necessary for survival—for both squirrels and humans.
• 
  
• But labor in nature is not the same as labor under artificial scarcity:
  • 
    
  • In nature: Labor is about gathering what exists.
  • 
    
  • In society: Labor is often about paying for permission to access what has been fenced off.
• 
  
• Property rights are a human invention. Squirrels do not “own” trees; they use what they find.
• 
  
• Human “improvements” to land can increase productivity, but they do not create the land, water, or sun itself.

5. Improvements, Abundance, and the Reality of Modern Scarcity​

• 
  
• Human labor has increased the efficiency of food, water, and shelter production, but also increased the barriers to direct access.
• 
  
• Today, billions are denied basic needs not because the Earth is empty, but because access is controlled by ownership, fees, and laws.
• 
  
• The claim that “only freedom is a birthright” ignores the objective reality that all creatures are born into a world of resources provided by nature.
• 
  
• The difference is that, for most of history, humans (like squirrels) could access these directly; now, they are born into systems where access is conditional.

6. Objective Truth: Summary​

• 
  
• Land, water, food, shelter, and knowledge are natural birthrights in the sense that they exist for all creatures, and access to them is essential for survival.
• 
  
• Labor is required to gather or adapt these resources, but not to create them.
• 
  
• Artificial scarcity is real: Modern systems restrict access to resources that would otherwise be available, making survival conditional on compliance, payment, or permission.
• 
  
• The squirrel metaphor illustrates that nature’s birthright is unmediated access, not guaranteed comfort or abundance.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

argues humanity has been systematically separated from its natural birthrights—land, water, food, shelter, knowledge, and freedom—by the artificial constructs of government, property

Commie lunacy detected.

Labeling the idea that humanity has been separated from its birthrights as “commie lunacy” ignores both history and objective reality. This argument isn’t about communism or any political ideology—it’s about the observable fact that, for most of human history, people accessed land, water, food, and shelter directly from nature, just as every animal does.

 

[TheTexan]

Squirrel tastes a lot like chicken. Goes good with Cajun seasoning

 

[Invisible Man]

• 
  
• Squirrels are not given leisure or luxury—but they are not denied access to land, water, food, or shelter by another squirrel or by a system.

This is false. Squirrels are territorial. They build dreys that they don't allow other squirrels into, and they mark territories with scents and will fight other squirrels to keep them out.

It's true that the state interferes with natural land ownership with the result that land is kept from people who ought to be able to use it and given to people who have no right to it. But this doesn't mean that land ownership itself is incompatible with natural law. If I improve some land with something I built or crops I planted, then I have an exclusive right to those improvements, and consequently that land, including the right to sell the improvements and the land they occupy, all of which I acquired through labor, to others in exchange for something else that they acquired through labor. I also have a right to put a fence around that land.

Now, do I have a right to go out and find some unowned land and claim however much I want of it as my own to be my personal hunting grounds and put a fence up around it? No. Nor does any king or state have a right to do that either. And the market for land ownership has been corrupted by land that was initially acquired by unjust means like that and subsequently changed owners by grant or sale. Correcting this problem might be a complex issue. But waving it away with a refusal to acknowledge any land ownership is not the answer.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

This is false. Squirrels are territorial. They build dreys that they don't allow other squirrels into, and they mark territories with scents and will fight other squirrels to keep them out.

It's true that the state interferes with natural land ownership with the result that land is kept from people who ought to be able to use it and given to people who have no right to it. But this doesn't mean that land ownership itself is incompatible with natural law. If I improve some land with something I built or crops I planted, then I have an exclusive right to those improvements, and consequently that land, including the right to sell the improvements and the land they occupy, all of which I acquired through labor, to others in exchange for something else that they acquired through labor. I also have a right to put a fence around that land.

Now, do I have a right to go out and find some unowned land and claim however much I want of it as my own to be my personal hunting grounds and put a fence up around it? No. Nor does any king or state have a right to do that either. And the market for land ownership has been corrupted by land that was initially acquired by unjust means like that and subsequently changed owners by grant or sale. Correcting this problem might be a complex issue. But waving it away with a refusal to acknowledge any land ownership is not the answer.

If you carry a pail of water from the river, you own the pail of water—not the river. If you plant crops in a field, you own the harvest—not the land. You use the field as long as you are actively using or defending it. If you craft a wagon from a tree or build a home from trees, you own the wagon or the home—but not the forest or the land your home sits on.


Right of survivorship would be that when you die or leave your cabin, or any product of your labor, you can leave it to someone of your choice—but only so long as they can use or defend it. If they abandon it, it’s open for the next person to use.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

This isn’t about off-grid fantasies or clinging to modern comforts. It’s simple: adapt or be eliminated. If humanity doesn’t reconnect with nature and regain real access to life-sustaining resources, we won’t survive. AI and automation are making human labor obsolete. UBI is a mirage—governments won’t bankroll billions forever, and companies won’t make goods for people who can’t pay. Survival isn’t about preserving what we’re used to; it’s about changing before we’re replaced. Soon, working for money will be history. And if you’re still clinging to property rights, remember: when you can’t pay the taxes, your so-called property goes right back to the landlord.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Labeling the idea that humanity has been separated from its birthrights as “commie lunacy” ignores both history and objective reality. This argument isn’t about communism or any political ideology—it’s about the observable fact that, for most of human history, people accessed land, water, food, and shelter directly from nature, just as every animal does.

Commies often mix some truth into their lunacy, but you are better off finding that truth elsewhere.

This idiot openly labels himself a communist loon by attacking the concept of property, bothering to pay any attention to the rest of it only risks information food poisoning.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Commies often mix some truth into their lunacy, but you are better off finding that truth elsewhere.

This idiot openly labels himself a communist loon by attacking the concept of property, bothering to pay any attention to the rest of it only risks information food poisoning.

A thief that sells his stolen goods with a bill of sale, deed, or receipt does not negate the stolen property or legitimize the sale. Maybe your problem is thinking this is supposed to make sense from a legal or status quo perspective when it is more about survival of humanity.

 

[ARealConservative]

If you carry a pail of water from the river, you own the pail of water—not the river. If you plant crops in a field, you own the harvest—not the land. You use the field as long as you are actively using or defending it. If you craft a wagon from a tree or build a home from trees, you own the wagon or the home—but not the forest or the land your home sits on.


Right of survivorship would be that when you die or leave your cabin, or any product of your labor, you can leave it to someone of your choice—but only so long as they can use or defend it. If they abandon it, it’s open for the next person to use.

squirrels pee on land to mark it as there's when not actively using it

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

squirrels pee on land to mark it as there's when not actively using it

The point isn’t whether squirrels “own” land by marking it. Squirrels (and all animals) can build a nest, gather food, and drink water without paying or asking permission. Humans are the only species forced to pay and obey just to survive. Try living off the land anywhere—you’ll be fined or arrested. The debate isn’t about territory, it’s about freedom and access to life’s essentials. The system makes us dependent and controls everything we need. Just look at Gaza—when the system cuts off resources, people suffer. If AI and automation make most work obsolete, do you really trust the government to provide for you?

 

[ARealConservative]

The point isn’t whether squirrels “own” land by marking it. Squirrels (and all animals) can build a nest, gather food, and drink water without paying or asking permission. Humans are the only species forced to pay and obey just to survive. Try living off the land anywhere—you’ll be fined or arrested. The debate isn’t about territory, it’s about freedom and access to life’s essentials. The system makes us dependent and controls everything we need. Just look at Gaza—when the system cuts off resources, people suffer. If AI and automation make most work obsolete, do you really trust the government to provide for you?

I get that you desperately want this analogy to have legs, but it doesn't

I don't envy the plight of squirrels where they have to fight to maintain a small piece of property with their life on a nightly basis

That isn't a better way

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

I get that you desperately want this analogy to have legs, but it doesn't

I don't envy the plight of squirrels where they have to fight to maintain a small piece of property with their life on a nightly basis

That isn't a better way

In 500 years, the squirrel will still be a squirrel, living as it always has. Will humans still have any real rights—or will we be extinct, having traded freedom for the illusion of control?