Can actual false-flag tricks on alleged ones save the Planet of the Apes from totally falling apart?
Contributed by: Y.Yamamoto
On October 16, 1793, Marie Antoinette was executed by Guillotine. She was just one of those 16,594 people killed with the same beheading machine at the birth of the French Republic.
So is there any difference except that the YouTube thing hadn't arrived yet 220 years ago?
Albert Camus (1913-60)
I rebel—therefore we* exist.
From L’Homme Révolté (The Rebel) by Albert Camus
* The "we" can be a typo.
1972 killing of 11 Israeli Olympians in Munich
In this war the Palestinians’ only weapon is terrorism. It is a terrible weapon but the oppressed poor have no others.
Jean-Paul Sartre on the Munich killing
Where shall I begin?
It's a little too hard to admit after blogging for more than ten years that there still lies almost an unbridgeable chasm between us.
I'm under the impression that the gap has widened one step further since I touched off the series of arguments over the modern nation-statehood.
Obviously I should have realized that it's crying for the moon to expect the ability to take a fresh think at a fundamental issue like this one from you Americans who have neither Asian wisdom nor Cartesian tradition ("Cogito, ergo sum") nor Sartrean discipline ("We are our choices," or "Man is condemned to be free.") All you can do is to shuffle information on an ear-to-mouth basis and approve or disapprove someone else's ideas without really internalizing them.
When you self-complacent dissidents in the U.S. discuss an issue, it's always someone else's problem; you never talk about your own problem simply because you can identify none. That's why you are unable to have a life-size view of yourselves. As a result you always talk big while acting very small.
For one thing, you often refuse to admit you are part of America. That may be true. Even so you can't deny America is an integral and inseparable part of yourself.
I don't know what it's like to be in the fairyland where you live. But I'm afraid you have great difficulty understanding the real implication of the mathematical thought of Luca Pacioli. He theorized 521 years ago that in the real world it's highly improbable that you owe others practically nothing while others owe you a lot. At any rate you can't deny the presence of the past even if you haven't read the book written by Rupert Sheldrake. As I always maintain, what should be questioned, instead, is the presence of the future.
You are like my biological sons who are helplessly immature 46- and 47-year-olds. They have grown into thinking-disabled conformists because my second ex-wife, whose father was a small-time yakuza gangster dealing in illegal drugs, indoctrinated them day in, day out since our divorce to pay respect to everyone but their biological father. Whenever they repeat the same complaint that their intellectually demanding father has messed up their lives, I say, "I'm awfully sorry for that; I should never have fathered you guys. It's the greatest mea culpa of my life to have brought you into existence." They can't help but blush, but don't know what to say. They just glare at me with sullen eyes of 9-year-old kids.
I'm not very sure if I can pull myself together again to face your terrorism of words. Examples of your verbal terrorism include refuting my deliberate statement about the failed nation-states such as Japan and the U.S. as an "irrational hyperbole," or insisting that the bloodshed involved in America's Independence War and the genocidal acts your country has committed in Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. was well-intended whereas the brutality entailed in the founding of the Islamic State does not have a rightful cause - all without giving a single rational reason. I hope, however, you'll understand I'm not talking about cyber-bullying here. This website is not meant for old kids, i.e. those who are afflicted with premature senility.
Now it seems all I can do until the time comes is to think aloud in this world's most unoptimized website. What else can I do when people I'm talking to don't take my serious arguments seriously?
Initially I was going to discuss Albert Camus who is touted as "one of the greatest writers of the 20th century" immediately following my recent post that dealt with the class war in the cultist-dominated world because the French author seems to be a role model for contemporary Americans with his cheap philosophy about absurdité (the meaninglessness of man's life.)
Camus was born in Algeria to a not-so-wealthy French family, but throughout his short life, he never dreamed of abandoning the privilege of being a second-generation colonist. Exactly like him, you see no contradiction in habitually slamming your home country while cherry-picking its juicy elements, be it a livelihood assistance, a disability pension, a medical subsidy, a tax relief, or any other tangible and intangible benefits.
But on second thought, I said to myself it would be another waste of time to go on without asking you to stop to think, instead of stop thinking, over the points I'd already made on the subject. Now I must ask you to allow me to get back to where I started.
In October I was pleasantly surprised when I learned the people of Catalonia are still seeking independence from Spain. Among other things I was struck by the fact that they are NOT protesting against anything in particular like their parents and grandparents did against the Franco regime. A majority of the 7.5 million Catalans just refuse to get assimilated into the Kingdom of Spain.
In fact secession-minded Catalans don't seem to know themselves exactly where they are heading. That indicates it's something really unprecedented that underlies their unwavering aspiration for self-determination. As someone put it on the eve of the legally nonbinding "public consultation," all we know is that it must be something to be defined as a nation without a state they are seeking so enthusiastically.
On that premise, we can tell these people with unparalleled self-esteem and creative attitudes are going to separate the Siamese twins which are almost inoperable.
I've repeatedly said in this website, a creative mind creates itself when innate spontaneity meets acquired discipline in one person or one society. And it is evident from their creative attitudes toward life and spirit of exploring new things that the cultural climate in Catalonia is such that it facilitates and encourages the merger of the two contradictory attributes. Their goal does not seem unrealistically ambitious at all as stunted people in the U.S. tend to believe.
Their quest for a nation without a state prompted me to take a fresh think at the question about how specifically founding principles have brought a nation (a group of people) and a state (a system to govern them) together in the West since the late-18th century. I felt it would make little sense to discuss the viability of a stateless nation without knowing the answers to this fundamental question.
Before doing so, I asked myself: "What's the thing called a principle in the first place?" My answer: A principle is one thing and a political ideology or religious dogma is quite another. It's something more fundamental on which to take a fresh and creative think at things to identify real questions rather than find answers to given questions. That is why what the Americans still call the Founding Principles remained more or less valid and workable political ideologies for more than one hundred years until they were outgrown by the reality of the 20th century.
The phantom haunting the Planet of the Apes for almost 240 years
With all this in mind, I quickly revisited John Locke (1632-1704). It might have been Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Voltaire, if I'd thought a greater number of newer countries have modeled themselves after France. But actually that is not the case. Most developing countries seem to have automatically chosen Locke's philosophical rubbish about "the natural rights to life, liberty and property" as their founding principles over the Continental ideas of Enlightenment.
And what did I get from my predominantly American audience in response to my post?
NONE AT ALL.
The moment I mentioned the name of their guru, they all pretended they hadn't heard me. Not a single person gave me a feedback in that respect, either online or offline, to defend the national mantra against the challenge from an obscure Japanese blogger.
Now it's evident that this is exactly where American individuals have stopped thinking like human beings. They have enshrined the 3.25-century-old baloney as a sacred cow for so long that it now has turned into the underbelly of America's value system.
As a matter of fact you have been indoctrinated since your childhood never to question the Founding Principles as if they were indisputable axioms. You have been strongly discouraged, if not prohibited, from questioning why the empty-headed Englishman, alone, should be given the special privilege to ascribe the particular set of rights to us human beings.
If you still believe these rights are particularly inherent to humanity, why don't you ask an animal-rights activist if he agrees with you? He will certainly answer in the negative.
Or better yet, ask me the same question.
I will tell you, like I have in the last several years, that through my firsthand experience with these tax-collecting robbers in the Yokohama City Hall I've learned anyone can assert any right he wants to exercise, be it the right to kill or the right to steal.
When talking about rights and principles, I don't think conceptual understanding is enough; it's also important to visualize them because they mean nothing unless you can share them with others in one way or the other at the end of the day.
To that end you should forget about Locke's Tabula Rasa, i.e. Blank Slate, because actually it's full of shit from the beginning and to the end. In other words, it's something like a chèque en blanc (blank check) which will never be honored.
Personally I love Henri Bergson's embroidery analogy. He might have analogized man's principle as a box filled with emptiness or nothingness, i.e. "free will" in Bergsonian terminology. But in fact his Creative Evolution wasn't written to discuss the link between the nation and the state.
Instead I would describe a founding principle as a beam of light which is nothing until it's recognized against a shade it casts. This would better explain why the principles of the rogue country named the USA are so empty as to need violence to make themselves visible. Let's be reminded that Mencius said: "Evil exists to glorify the good." In other words the good exists only when there is evil. The act of "terrorism" is much more than just a blowback.
Let's face it:
Violence is nested at the very core of the founding principles of any modern nation-state in the West.
Recent examples include Malala Yousafzai (NOTE 1) and Charlie Hebdo (NOTE 2.)
NOTE 1: The impudent Pakistani chick was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just for parroting the empty promise of human rights, which the gunman didn't like. (I didn't either.)
NOTE 2: When the Islamist "terrorists" stormed into the offices of Paris-based satirical magazine, millions of Frenchmen were reminded for the first time since 1789 that their tricolor flag represented the supposedly lofty ideas about liberté (freedom), égalité (equality) and fraternité (brotherhood.) On the part of the United States, and the United Kingdom to a lesser degree, another millions of truth-seekers instantly started to spread on the web their false-flag "theories" that the bloody incident was a hoax staged by the Mossad, the CIA and MI6. It's not just that I'm not interested in knowing if their allegation is fully substantiated, but I found it really sickening because this was yet another Ignoratio Elenchi. Now it's too obvious that these rotten American souls are using the false-flag tactic themselves. In the last paragraphs of this post, I'll come back to this point to elaborate on my take on their modus operandi. Incidentally I personally empathize with the Charlie Hebdo gunmen whether or not they were carrying a false flag because when you criticize someone's faith, you should never do it in a satirical way. Unless you are ready to articulate your counterargument seriously, you should be prepared to get killed. Don't play with serious words from serious people.
In November I uploaded a post dealing with the result of Okinawa's gubernatorial election because I'm still interested in knowing what would happen when Japan was split up into a stateless nation and a nation-less state.
In that piece, I reiterated what I wrote in my aborted book seven years ago: Japan is nothing but a vast illusion shared by the 127.3 million "people." Now the same thing can be said of the USA, or any other country to a varying degree, because when the link between the nation and the state is missing, it's reduced to a mere optical phenomenon.
Quite naturally most of you found my deliberate statement not only ridiculous but also outrageous.
Although a very small number of people agreed to my view, I suspect they "thought" it was yet another salty analogy. But in fact I was not analogizing.
It can't be helped. I know your IQ is much higher than mine but with your unprincipled reading habit, you have never taken a fresh think at what exactly man's imagination or illusion is.
Amid Nazi's occupation of Paris, Jean-Paul Sartre authored a book The Imaginary: A Phenomenological Psychology of the Imagination to prepare himself and his audience for the subsequent essay titled Being and Nothingness. Thanks to my lifetime philosophy teacher (he has never been my guru,) I know what you don't know about the two different states of man's being.
It is true that I used to think what Laurie Anne Freeman termed Japan's information cartel was a serious issue. But in recent years, especially since the 3/11 disaster, I've learned criticizing the media's behavior is like saying, "The blue sky is blue." It's not only useless but also harmful to repeat the same truism over and over as if there could be the blue sky that isn't blue.
At least since the birth of the first nation-state, the media have always played a pivotal role in bringing the nation and the state together by helping the two entities share the same principles. The tools for communication have changed from the newspaper to the radio to the television to the Internet, and the principles have been constantly hollowed out. But the media's role has remained unchanged.
In that context it's really laughable to see the big battalions of self-styled, learning-disabled dissidents keep criticizing the media for habitually lying.
I can't agree more if they don't opportunistically exclude from their blacklist non-mainstream media, e.g. social media, and all printed mediums. In fact, though, I know they are also lying because they can't live a day without relying on the mediums they favor.
Just ask them a stupid question like: "What is the difference between an illusion and the reality?" Their answer will also be stupid: "An illusion is something that isn't real." The next question: "Then what exactly is the reality?" The answer: "The reality is something that isn't an illusion."
This left me wondering about the real reason you smart dissidents in the U.S. keep slamming the media so enthusiastically. But when I was re-reading Camus' The Rebel, it flashed on me that the only way to explain their obsessive-compulsive behavior is to assume they have tacitly struck a reciprocal deal with the establishment. That is why the entire game is rigged in the U.S. today.
On the part of the establishment everyone knows the mirage-like nation-state can no longer be supported by conformists because they are also a gaseous thing, and that it's only dissidents who can turn illusions into reality by repeating their anti-establishment nonsense over and over.
On the other hand, the motive that drives self-proclaimed dissidents into their feigned resistance is twofold. Like Albert Camus, they badly need the current regime to withstand their ineffectual resistance because otherwise they would be at a loss over what to do for the rest of their empty lives, and more importantly how to make their living which is heavily dependent on the nanny-state measures.
As I observe, the other part of the reason is because they are people who have somehow failed to make the most of their lives because of the absence of creative mind. (Camus avowed his hedonism publicly, but if you carefully read The Myth of Sisyphus or The Stranger, you will notice it was fake.) Their failure in enjoying their own lives has left them with an inconsolable resentment toward life.
This way the establishment and anti-establishment have formed an ideal coalition.
Finally let me quickly talk about the most despicable type of dissidents: truth-seekers.
Every known ethnic group has an inclination, to a varying degree, toward superstitious self-perception, such as "We are a chosen people," "We are an abandoned people," "We are descendants of the Sun Goddess," etc. Maybe the Jews and the Japanese are a little more susceptible to such an idea than other peoples. But an illusion is an illusion.
If I remember it correctly, Sartre quoted Richard Wright in his Anti-Semite and Jew (1945) as saying something like, "There's no such thing as an issue with blacks. The only thing I see here in the U.S. is the issue with whites." Sartre was not particularly pro-Zionist, nor anti-Semite. He simply wanted to point out that it's always a strong feeling, e.g. hatred or inferiority complex, other peoples may harbor against the tribe in question that turns a mere illusion into a solid reality as if in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Essentially the same thing is meant when I say, "A conspiracy theory is an integral part of the conspiracy," or "A conspiracy theorist is the conspirator himself." Since there's no such thing as man's deed which is NOT a conspiracy, they have to single out one media-salient incident after another such as NYC's 9/11 or Paris' 1/7 to cook up something that is particularly entertaining and passable as a conspiracy.
Actual false-flag tricks on presumed ones really help, rather than rebuke, the "predominantly-Jewish" establishment by distracting super-credulous people from the past and current atrocities in Algeria, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and now the ISIL. This is why we smell an imperialist stench from the dying Empire every time a truth-seeking ape tells us his invented story.
When you are beheaded by the terrorist named the Grim Reaper at the end of your life, you will realize, for the first time, that you wasted your whole life working on alibi exercises for not taking a creative think at things and acting accordingly. Your last words will be: "I should have known my own life was an ultimate conspiracy."
Except for the odor from across the Pacific, it is none of my business anymore no matter how many tons of viscous pus spills over from the false link of the United States of America. I belong somewhere else.
Japan is a peculiar nation-state. It has no founding principles from the beginning because it wasn't created by a human being. It just emerged out of nowhere sometime between 660 BC and 712 AD. It's no accident that its "state" part is almost identical to the American system now.
But the other part, i.e. the people, is a little more agreeable than its American counterpart because it has been taught to put harmony before any principle. Very few people assert their "inalienable and inviolable rights" like American egomaniacs, unless so instigated by the state, because most Asian wisdom tells us the human-rights thing is nothing but an illusion. Modesty and the sense of duty always prevail here - for better rather than for worse.
Up until recently, I was obsessed with the idea that I should be well-prepared for the last moment. But when my friend Dr. Shiono told me during a brief triage session that it's perhaps a matter of time my atrial fibrillation develops into fatal cerebral infarction, it flashed on me that wrapping up a life isn't packing up for a long journey.
Hopefully I will be able to release the next post in a week or two in which I'll touch on the limited influence Albert Camus had on me during the first several years of my adulthood so I can further deepen this line of argument before I go.
POSTSCRIPT 2, June 6, 2016:
A re-look at this 16-month-old post from the low-angle view has somehow prompted me to wrap up the discussion by responding to the online comments on my most important piece of 2015.
Diogenes, the poor Arkansas angel, whose real name is Randall Tillotson, would soon make a scene on my followup post dated March 31 to prove himself an idiot or liar, or both. It was a piece of cake for me to shut him up. But it wasn't that easy with the other online regular whose handle is Samwidge.
Unlike Diogenes, he is a very intelligent man. At least he is not particularly forgetful. But just like the immortal cyborg, or a phoenix, called more deferentially, he knows the art of resurrection. I know nothing about his miraculous recipe for rebirth except he has a skill to forget what he's said or heard a conversation ago. He may call it tolerance or moderateness, but evidently it's something else because these virtues never go along with perseverance.
Now it's dawning on me that we can possibly learn a magical power from Samwidge, which might eventually save the fragile status quo from giving way to a new world, and all we have to do to that end might be to keep dancing to the waltz from the good old days.
The defense mechanism of a system is undefeatable until the time is ripe. . ·