This essay examines the problem that any philosophy of radical immanence faces when it proposes to found itself through a declaratory act: the contradiction between the form of foundation, which reproduces the structure of the Austinian performative with its conditions of felicity and its dependence on external authority, and the content of what it founds, which refuses all transcendence. The analysis proceeds by confrontation with three philosophical positions that address the same problem: Austin, whose theory of speech acts specifies why the force of the performative depends on institutional authorisation incompatible with immanence; Derrida, whose reading of the American Declaration of Independence identifies the retroactivity of the inaugural condition but remains within a semiological framework insufficient to specify the material mechanism; and Simondon, whose analysis of individuation provides the necessary specification, with divergence on the concept of the pre-individual. Spinoza supplies the ontological framework that dissolves the requirement of prior authorisation: potency requires no permission to produce effects. Hacking specifies the temporal structure: the inaugural condition is a deferred property, produced by the process of reorganisations the act sets in motion, recognisable only retrospectively. The result is a conception of philosophical foundation as an open material process: the manifesto founds, if it founds at all, in the time of encounters between the distinctions it inscribes and fields sufficiently tense to be disturbed by them.