"Even if we did achieve what we wanted with a very small state, we'd just be resetting the clock back to 1776, and it would roll forward exactly the same way again."
One of his essays is titled "The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives."
I don't like the word "society" here very much because it's based on a false assumption that a society should remain viable when it's separated from the state.
In order for a society to rid itself of a state, it has to be as cohesive as it can be. I don't mean a monolithic society under a totalitarian regime. What's really at issue here is how to achieve the highest level of cohesion among unshackled people so as to thwart any external system from hijacking them. In this context I think the Catalans are more accurate when they define their goal as a stateless nation.
Needless to say, I don't give a damn about who'll win the quadrennial farce currently going on in the U.S. But when the former Hewlett-Packard CEO was caught in a crossfire from every direction for her history of laying off 18,000-30,000 employees of her company, I, as a retired businessman, sympathized with this woman no matter how her face is "demented like a Halloween mask." But at the same time I thought it was the final confirmation that the American people will never learn it's not a government's responsibility to create jobs out of thin air.
This also indicated that as Molyneux seems to agree, the notion of a small government is nothing but an illusion as Cyril Northcote Parkinson already warned almost six decades ago.
As to how to achieve the goal, Molyneux takes it for granted, without giving any specific reason, that violence has to be avoided at any cost. He writes: "We cannot build on peace on blood. We are still so addicted to this lie. We have this fantasy that we honor the dead by adding to their number. What we need to do is remember that these bodies bury us. This ocean of blood that we create through the fantasy that violence brings virtue drowns us, drowns our children, drowns our future, drowns the world."
Hopefully Molyneux is right. Yet I hesitate to subscribe to his prescription based on a heavenly assumption. He argues that what he calls DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations) should be put in place across the board. The greatest sticking point here is that not once has history seen an ancient regime peacefully hand over its power to a new one. It's true Russia's October Revolution itself was practically bloodless but the bloodshed from subsequent events more than made up for it.
As I've repeatedly argued on this website, it's a shame that the American people always play dumb about the historical fact that the independence war against Great Britain claimed tens of thousands of lives and since then their country has withstood all the challenge against their empire only on the heaps of the corpses of other peoples.
By the same token, French President François Hollande should keep in mind that almost one million people had to be killed for the noble cause of liberté, égalité and fraternité. Among other things, he shouldn't forget these victims included 16,549 people who were beheaded in the same way Western hostages were butchered by the Islamic State more than 2 centuries later.
At any rate I think it's about time intelligent people like Molyneux should have emancipated themselves from the fairytale about Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Deep inside everyone knows they couldn't have achieved what they are thought to have achieved without capitalizing on someone else's violence. Equally important, their achievements have invariably resulted in an aggravated chain of violence including the crucifixion of these martyrs.
The peaceful transition to a stateless nation may well prove to be yet another pipe dream as a small-government state already has. But nevertheless you can't rule it out because it still remains to be seen if the 7.5 million Catalans can eventually find a peaceful way to accomplish their unconstitutional aspiration for a stateless nation. As to the fate of Okinawa, its secession from Japan is much more unlikely because the process of its cultural assimilation seems to have progressed too far to reverse it. Worse, the islanders are doubly shackled.
It seems to me that if there still is another workable alternative, we'll see it when someone who isn't an imbecile like Mark Zuckerberg brings forward an unprecedented sociopolitical model fully leveraging an enabling web-based technology, which is, in fact, already there.
Molyneux also advocates "deFOOing." His coined word means leaving an obligatory relationship with someone from the same family of origin. This is quite natural because you can initiate a fundamental change in the relationship between a state and a nation only when you have freed yourself from old bondage.
Actually there's nothing particularly new in Molyneux's idea. Cuckoos, pandas, rabbits, and many other species have long practiced deFOOing.
For my part, two incidents of de-wedding cost me a fortune, literally and figuratively. DeFOOing I subsequently required from my two biological sons also cost me dearly. And yet, as a matter of principle, I have nothing against his idea.
It seems Molyneux published these essays well before Ron Paul's advocacy of the American Revolution revealed itself as yet another scam. Chances are that he has already taken back or modified these arguments. But as is evident from his words quoted at the top of this post, he may still remain a prisoner of the America-centric way of thinking which is essentially based on John Locke's philosophical rubbish about natural rights to "life, liberty and property." As long as he seems to believe history is undo-able or even redoable, we are largely divided over answers.
Voltaire once wrote, "Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers." The most important thing to me, therefore, is that Molyneux and I share essentially the same question: exactly what brings together, or fails to bring together the nation, i.e. the people, and the state, i.e. the system to govern them. I am not sure yet if we have a common ground on which to deepen our thoughts on the most relevant issue at hand.
Since 2012, I have been discussing (or trying to discuss, to be more precise) the same question about the viability of the nation-state with my predominantly American audience, mainly from Henri Bergson's perspective of "Creative Evolution."
But every time I took up the issue, they instantly resorted to a cheap guerrilla tactic which was as gimmicky as Zeno's infinite dichotomy. It seemed impossible for me to make these guys engage in a mature discussion because they have been irreversibly indoctrinated since their early childhood to believe in America's Founding Principles as a set of indisputable axioms.
Quite naturally I ended up talking about education. I said that indoctrination or counter-indoctrination should never be intended in school and family education, and at least in the nonvocational setup, education should focus solely on training for practice of principled and creative thinking.
My heretical view of education also fell on deaf ears. Now I had to admit the chasm between my target audience and me is almost unbridgeable. These people "think" they are doing the thinking while actually they are not. A psychopath, almost by definition, does not doubt his sanity for a split second. Likewise how can you use your brain when you don't know what exactly it is for man to think like man?
On November 13, the day of the Paris multi-site attacks, no sooner had the news come out than thousands and thousands of truth-seeking idiots reflexively flooded the web with all-too-familiar words such as "false flag," "hoax" and "psyop." This once again reminded me of an American individual who regularly visited my website until March from Arkansas, the 3rd poorest state, i.e. the 3rd most parasitic state of America.
In fact he is handicapped physically, and most probably mentally as well. This makes him heavily dependent on the nanny-state programs all funded by poor taxpayers such as disability pension and tax relief. He wouldn't last a single day without these benefits.
Because of, rather than despite his inability to go self-reliant, he had developed a fanatic inclination toward dissident groups. For one thing he was under the strong influence of a conspiracy cult started by a female guru who likes to call herself Dr. Judy Wood. Her book titled "Where did the towers go?" was his bible.
In her book as voluminous as 485 pages, his guru attributed 9/11 to unnamed villains who made an experimental use of the "Directed Energy" technology developed by Nikola Tesla, et al. in the early 1900s.
It's important to know while Wood wanted to say the National Institute of Standards and Technology had attempted to cover up the conspiracy behind 9/11, she shared with the very NIST the same stupid assumption that the trivial event which claimed no more than 2,000-plus lives had changed the world forever, and thus needed an extensive and intensive investigation worldwide.
In the acknowledgment pages at the end of her book, there are three lists of high-ranking apostles and other disciples separated by their hierarchical status in the organization. And you can find the initials of this Arkansan as RT in the lowest class called "Other angels among us."
I always took utmost precaution when dealing with his secondhand conspiracy theory because I thought it would be counterproductive to hurt him personally. Most of the time my response was like this:
"Maybe you are right. But so what? It's not only useless but also harmful to keep talking about what has been done in the past as if it's still undo-able. And just name a single event in history that was NOT a conspiracy. Then I will be willing to discuss 9/11 more seriously."
Yet he thought my counterargument was a totally unacceptable blasphemy to Dr. Wood's oracle.
Now that I was very sure that in effect a reciprocal deal has been tacitly struck between the establishment and the anti-establishment in the U.S., I pointed out in March that these conspiracy theorists are also carrying a false flag themselves.
The Arkansan angel instantly exploded like a mentally-retarded child would have done over his own inability to effectively counter an argument he didn't like. After calling me names until he'd exhausted his almost inexhaustible vocabulary for ranting, he declared he would never again visit this website.
I wasn't surprised. What really surprised me was the fact that some other people, who were avowed patriots, if not fanatical ones, and had even tried hard to avoid a direct confrontation with the fanatic, now voiced exactly the same strong displeasure with my post.
At first I said to myself:
"What a coincidence."
Then on second thought, I suspected perhaps it was the final confirmation that patriots and dissidents in the U.S. were the two wings of the same dying bird. But still I wasn't really comfortable with the worn-out bird analogy.
Finally I realized it would all add up if I draw a parallel between the failed nation-state named the United States and conjoined twins which are almost inoperable.
Conjoined here means that they cannot kill each other no matter how they hate each other. Paradoxical though it may seem, this is the real reason behind the frequent but isolated occurrences of pointless shooting rampage everywhere in the U.S. Their favorite topic of the Second Amendment is nothing but a red herring.
If there still is a way to differentiate the Conjoined Twins of America and its satellite nation Japan, while the Americans can't kill one another despite the irreconcilable antagonism among them, the self-destructive people in this haunted nation even needn't kill one another. You needn't kill the dead. That is why the latter didn't think about using the once-in-a-millennium opportunity to execute the Divine Emperor themselves at the end of the war. Not only that, they also pleaded for Douglas MacArthur's mercy on Hirohito's life.
We will never see another assassination of U.S. President until the poorer states, e.g. Arkansas, are jettisoned as a result of the possible Civil War II. Only at that time, a parasitic angel representing abandoned states will come forward to play the same role John Wilkes Booth did with Abraham Lincoln.
Maybe this is too wild an expectation. But I don't care. In order to avoid further wasting my time with impossibly America-centric, egocentric, thinking-disabled and self-complacent people, now I'm redirecting my attention to other countries and regions where peoples address the fundamental question about the fate of the nation-statehood more seriously. Since I have very little to add to what I've said about Catalonia and Okinawa at this moment, my primary concern is Russia.
Here I'm not particularly talking about the Russian Republic. I'm focusing on "a greater Russia." To me any country where the East Slavic population accounts for the majority falls on this category. The current demarcations artificially determined between existing nation-states by the America-centric "international law" are no longer at issue. The area that concerns me most, therefore, includes Ukraine and some other former Soviet republics.
You may ask: "Why Russia?" The reason I single her out is because few other nations underwent the fundamental change of the entire polity on its own, i.e. from within, more than once in the last 100 years. You tend to belittle these turbulent years the Russians have gone through, by saying that in 1917, these ignorant peasants were duped amid the wartime chaos into the October Revolution by a "German spy" named Vladimir Ilyich Lenin who was allegedly supported by some Wall Street bankers and London financiers, and 74 years later they came to their senses when it belatedly dawned on them that "Freemasons' idea" which is normally referred to as "Marxism" hadn't worked either at home or overseas.
Most Americans and Western Europeans are too ignorant and arrogant to notice the Russians, alone, have lived out to the fullest the fate of the obsolete idea of the modern nation-state. These self-styled historians untiringly keep second-guessing because they can never look at history in the making.
Here I'm only talking about the people. Polities and regimes are not my concern anymore.
If I were to compare, nonetheless, the Russian head of state against their U.S. counterpart, all I could say is this:
Vladimir Putin certainly eclipses his American counterpart who some have dubbed "the Black Kenyan Monkey in the White House," both as the leader of the country and as a human being.
It is true that there is a certain similarity on the surface between the two. Just like the BKM has cozy relationship with the Military Industrial Complex that he has inherited from his predecessors, Putin devotes himself to the Russian Mafia along the way Boris Yeltsin paved for the former KGB spy.
If you want to know the reason the Russian President by far outshines the ape, nonetheless, it's simply because his people aren't as brainless and spineless as their American counterparts. Let's be reminded that amid his 2012 campaign, Ron Paul repeatedly stressed that "any government is a reflection of the people, not the other way around."
It's not the poor monkey but the American voters that really deserve the defamation. On the contrary, not a few Russian people have challenged the legitimacy of the Putin dynasty just like the Australian journalist named Julian Paul Assange did with the U.S. administration.
Just to name a few, Anna Politkovskaya, former Novaya Gazeta reporter, unflinchingly criticized Putin's war on the Chechens, and Alexander Litvinenko, former FSB officer, made various allegations against Putin's wrongdoings ranging from his covert backing of al-Qaeda to his habitual behavior of pedophilia. Politkovskaya was gunned down and Litvinenko was poisoned to death with Polonium-210, both in 2006. And in all likelihood hundreds of other personae non gratae have been assassinated to date.
Ironical though it may seem, this is the reason why Putin looks much more competent and alert than the president of the country some have already labeled "the Planet of the Apes."
As Russia experts such as Alex Pravda, Edward Lucas, Alexander Nekrassov and Andrew Wood seem to agree in the second video embedded at the bottom of this piece, the volcano named the Russian Republic along with its satellite countries will remain dormant for another decade or two because of the disabling social fatigue from the century filled with incessant violence. But my premonition is that its people will wake up and say they can't take it anymore well before the inevitable explosion of the American Empire which will trigger the implosion of the United States through Civil War II.
Once again, I have long graduated from political argument because it always ends up in an empty ideological contention. Not only that but I've also made it a rule not to discuss a faceless people as you always do.
In my mid- to late-teens I was hooked on the Russian people through their music, especially Igor Stravinsky and Sergei Prokofiev, their literature, especially Mikhail Lermontov and Fyodor Dostoevsky, and their movies that all leveraged the rich tradition of Eisenstein's innovative cinematography and the Stanislavsky method.
For the first few years, Joseph Stalin was still alive but my attachment to the Russians had very little to do with the ideology. It was purely an emotional resonance with the Russians.
When it comes to the ideology, it's when I was already in my early 20s that I read The Capital: Critique of Political Economy, at least its first two volumes. Since then I've been of the opinion that Karl Marx is the first thinker, and perhaps the second last only next to Jean-Paul Sartre, who unraveled exactly what man's economic activity is all about beyond the point where his mere subsistence has been secured.
But every time I quoted Marx on my blog, the Arkansan angel never failed to say: "I haven't read a single page of Marx. And yet I'm sure you are mistaken because he was a Freemason." His way of "thinking" is typically American.
Equally important, I've also loved their language. When I was a sophomore, I learned it as the third foreign language. Instantly I fell for the language primarily because of its sounds and rhythms. I think especially its pleasant rhythms can be attributed to the fact that Russian is a language even more "high-context" than Japanese. For one thing, a common noun always inflects from nominative to genitive to objective. For another, it has no definite or indefinite article. Moreover, there are no such ambiguous tenses such as present perfect or past perfect. Everything is understood with a very small number of words. The only downside of the simplicity is that it may sometimes constitute inaccurate communication.
You may not believe it, but when renewing my old affection for the Russians, I've spent an estimated 150 hours in the last couple of months watching on YouTube 10 movies and 160 episodes from 20 serial TV dramas with the English subtitles always turned on. I think my severe sleep disorder helped me much in staying awake for such a long time.
The serial dramas included semi-documentaries titled "World War I" (53 minutes x 8,) "World War II" (45 minutes x 18) and "The Korean War" (53 minutes x 4.) What was the most impressive about these semi-documentaries is that not once have the Russians seemed to be willingly fighting a gruesome battle. Simply it's wrong if you think most Russians are brutal people who don't hesitate to see the white snow stained all over with the blood from the enemies' throats they slashed with their knives.
Not a few soldiers and partisans fought it out despite the fact that their parents and siblings had been executed by the likes of Cheka and NKVD. Even a great number of high-ranking generals had to fight the immediate enemies with a gun pointed at their back. In short most of them were stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.
This is something beyond imagination of the Americans because to these self-appointed policemen of the world, taking part in warfare has always meant voluntarily, if not willingly, going on an overseas expedition to fix someone else's problem. The last thing they would understand is that the preservation of the nation-statehood which was already on the verge of falling apart everywhere was what the two World Wars were fought for.
In that respect it's a pity that ignoramuses such as Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman took it for granted America's founding principles based on John Locke's philosophical rubbish hadn't been superseded by the works such as "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (Friedrich Engels, 1884) and "The State and Revolution" (Vladimir Lenin, 1917,) and would prevail in the never-ending American century where member countries of the U.N. would swim together until they sink together.
For a different reason, the Japanese can never really understand what was going on in Russia, or anywhere else for that matter.
They are misunderstood themselves to have been extremely belligerent people in the past. Today they are known to be pacifists. Actually they boast that not a single drop of Japanese blood has been shed in warfare and not a single enemy has been killed by a Japanese soldier since the end of the Pacific War. And yet the fact of the matter remains that in the last 10 years its aggregate defense expenditure has topped 47.9 trillion yen (US$ 400 billion at the current exchange rate.) I suggest that you shouldn't waste your time to figure out how to characterize these eerie people.
But never fail to notice that even in the Great Patriotic War, not a single Russian soldier carried out a suicide attack shouting out, "Long live Stalin."
Now let me summarize how many Russians lost their lives in the Russo-Japanese War, the pre-revolution uprising of Moscow, the 2 revolutions, the subsequent civil war, Stalin's "Great Purge," the Battles of Khalkhin Gol and other skirmishes in Asia, the two World Wars and wars in the Korean Peninsula and Afghanistan. If my calculation is correct, the turbulent 20th century claimed 30-90 million Russian lives (See NOTE) if you exclude those who had to be murdered in order for Vladimir Putin to rise to power.
NOTE: Official statistics puts the number of people who were killed by Joseph Stalin at some 682,000, while some in the West estimate that actually 61 million were murdered by the dictator. They want to make it look like a Russia-particular problem that wasn't inherent to nation-states in general. I think the truth is somewhere in between.
In an installment of the series dealing with WWI, the background against which the melancholic march "Farewell of Slavianka" was composed by the leader of a military band named Vasily Agapkin is explained in detail. If you compare the video 3 below with marches composed by John Philip Sousa or Carl Teike, or the video 4 with Jule Styne's "It's been a long, long time," you may see what it was like for the Russians to have to go through all these bloody years.
And if you have some more time to spare, you may want to take a listen at the last video which is actually a Geisha version of the Slavianka song. I spent most of 1945 in a small village in Yamagata Prefecture, north-eastern part of the mainland Japan. Everyday I heard the very same record played over and over because the young daughter of the family that provided accommodation for us was practicing an exotic dance to the self-pitying tune. In those days, thousands of Kamikaze pilots and other Japanese soldiers were launching suicidal attacks with the famous war cry "Tenno Heika Banzai" (Long live the Emperor.)
The entire media is controlled by the Russian government as is true with the U.S., Japan and South Korea. So it's quite natural most Russian fictions have sickeningly syrupy happy endings as if in reality they weren't afflicted with the epidemic of alcoholism and abnormally short life expectancies.
And yet, some of the dramas I watched were touching in a way nonfictions wouldn't have impressed me so deeply although they were more often than not based on historical facts.
Mishka Yoponchik, Odessa gang turned Red Army officer
"Once Upon a Time" starring Evgeny Tkachuk as Yaponchik
More specifically, the following dramas are something you can't expect from uncreative filmmakers and TV producers in the U.S., Japan and South Korea.
"Armed Love" (43 minutes x 4)
"The Year of the Golden Fish" (1 hour and 47 minutes)
"The Bomb" (44 minutes x 8)
"Hunting the Gauleiter" (51 minutes x 10)
"Love for Love" (47 minutes x 4)
Among other fictitious stories, I found this series titled "Once Upon a Time in Odessa" (50 minutes x 12) most impressive.
This is "roughly" based on the turbulent life of a real man nicknamed Ми́шка Япо́нчик (Mikey the Jap.) He was the leader of a Jewish gang based in Odessa amid the waves of pogroms until the Bolshevik Revolution reached the city on the northwestern shore of the Black Sea. The "humane gangster" and his men joined forces with the communists but he was executed in 1919 because of his disobedience to the new regime.
Odessa, currently within the territories of Ukraine, is one of the cities I wish I had visited in my lifetime. I enjoyed myself watching these settings of seaside lanes, old-fashioned restaurants and quaint little towns in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood. It's sometimes too "roughly" based on history, e.g. in a Jew-owned nightclub, the band is playing "Bei mir bist du schön" which was actually composed more than ten years later.
But that doesn't really matter. The most important thing about these stories is that the way each Russian individual, fictitious or not, engages himself in history defies all the stereotypical perceptions the Westerners tend to harbor.
I was also impressed by the fact that I never failed to hear one of those characters in a drama saying to someone in trouble the particularly Russian line that goes:
Всё будет хорошо. (Everything will be alright.)
This must be very familiar to you if you have watched or read Anton Chekhov's play before. You never know exactly how it will turn out OK unless you are the author of the story. But it's not a lip service Americans are good at. It'll be alright simply because it ought to be alright in Russia where each individual citizen is the author of his/her own life.
For this very reason, I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians achieve, or at least attempt, a Copernican change in the way to bring the people and the system together in the not-too-distant future.
On the contrary if you have a Japanese friend, you must have noticed that you can't have a talk with him without hearing the killer sentence that goes: "It can't be helped (まあ仕方がないさ.) This is the real reason Japan will remain a cultural wasteland that serves as a irreplaceable graveyard for the Western civilization until the end of time.