John Zube

An Anthology of

Wisdom & Common Sense

On the personal and social changes required to achieve
freedom, peace, justice, enlightenment, progress & prosperity in our time

Index - N

(1973 - 2012)



NACHT, MAX: Supposed to have written on "autonome Rechtsgemeinschaften" (autonomous protective associations), according to Ulrich von Beckerath. But 47 years later I have still not seen any of his writings, far less any panarchist writings by him. Can anyone point them out to me? - J.Z. - I believe that here B.'s memory, for once, let him down and he mixed up Max Nacht with Max Nettlau. - J.Z., 1.9.04. - B. was already in his seventies, when he wrote that and had lost his library in the war and had only been able to partly reassemble in the after-war years those titles he had lost when his library, accumulated over decades, had been destroyed in an air raid on Berlin, in November 1943. - J.Z., 20.10.11.

NAISBITT, JOHN: Megatrends, Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives, Futura Macdonald & Co, London & Sydney, 1982, 1984, JZL. - You will not find anything e.g. on individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy, microfiche self-publishing, private space research or life extension in it but at least he reported upon secession from central banking on page 98: "The pull of decentralization extends to the nation's most conservative industry, banking, where some local banks are pulling out of the Federal Reserve System, an unthinkable move until recently." - Generally he says on America, in the same page: "We reject the notion that we are a homogeneous nation. America is diversity itself. Politically, we have evolved into a human conglomeration that is too varied for central government. Culturally, we seem to have lost the desire for centralized institutions of any kind." - When I read it I jotted down: "Panarchies are network 'States'". - J.Z., 1.6.85. – DIVERSITY, AMERICA, FREE BANKING, DECENTRALIZATION, HOMOGENEITY, CENTRALIZATION

- - PANCOMMUNITIES - - PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS - - PERSONAL LAW & PERSONAL LAW SYSTEMS - -PLURAL SOCIETY - - PLURALISM, CONSISTENT - - POLITICAL PROTESTANTISM (A term, suitable for panarchism, which was used by Samuel Adams, 1722-1803, in an Oration in Philadelphia, in August 1776.) - - POLITICIANS AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS WITHOUT TERRITORIAL MONOPOLIES - - POLYARCHY (Just one thing to clarify: The term Polyarchy was first used, to my knowledge, by the political scientist Robert A. Dahl who wrote a book "Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition" in 1972. - Bellis, 11.9.05. – But GPdB conceived it independently and has developed it much further. – J.Z., 28.12.11.) - - PRIVATIZATION OF GOVERNMENTS - - PROGRESSIVE PLURALISM - - PROPRIETARY COMMUNITIES, COMBINED WITH PERSONAL LAW - - PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATIONS - - RADICALISM OF ANY WANTED DEGREE, FOR ALL, UNDER EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY BUT ONLY FOR VOLUNTEERS (However, panarchism provides options also for non-radicals, even conservatives and reactionaries, all doing only their own things for or to themselves. Many of these aspects are only like facets on a multifaceted and very large diamond. – J.Z., 28.12.11. - - RELEASE OF ALL CREATIVE ENERGIES. (Leonard E. Read) (Via a framework suitable for this purpose. – J.Z., 28.12.11.) - - RESPECTISM & PERSONALISM (To escape the prejudice which the opponents of a polity based on individual personal right sought to impart by representing it as a disordered egoism, now that the term Liberal had become debased, in its turn, such terms as Personalism and Respectism {indicating the same respect for the rights of others as of one’s own} were later proposed by various other groups of Individualists.” - HUTCHINSON HARRIS, S., The Doctrine of Personal Right, Barcelona, 1935, 299. - - RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT: the right of private judgment, in matters of conscience.” – Samuel Adams, 1722-1803, oration at Philadelphia, August 1776. – Political, economic and social affairs can and should also become a matter of conscience. – J.Z., 9.1.99, 7.6.12.) - - SANCTUARIES FOR SOCIAL IMAGINATION (We must create sanctuaries for social imagination." - Alvin Toffler, Future Shock, 1970. - Quoted by M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.331. – One might also speak of non-territorial asylums for dissenters. However, sanctuaries and asylums are still all too much connected to territorial notions rather than personal law practices. – J.Z., 28.12.11.) - - SELF-CHOSEN CONSTITUTIONS, LAWS, ADMINISTRATIONS & JURISDICTIONS, EXTERRITORIALLY REALIZED FOR ALL VOLUNTEERS. - - SELF-CONTROL, IN EVERY SPHERE - - SELF-DETERMINATION, EXTERRITORIALLY REALIZED - - SELF-DISCIPLINE THROUGH EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEER COMMUNITIES, COMBINED WITH NEW INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND IDEAL MILITIA FORCES FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES - - SELF-GOVERNMENT, EXTERRITORIAL, NON-GEOGRAPHICAL, A-TERRITORIAL (Bellis) - - SELF-HELP IN ALL SPHERES. - - SELF-HELP IN EVERY SPHERE - - SELFISHNESS & ALSO ALTRUISM, ONLY FOR VOLUNTEERS, EXTERRITORIALLY REALIZED - - SELF-LIBERATION VIA INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM & EXTERRITORIAL VOLUNTEER COMMUNITIES - - SELF-MANAGEMENT IN ALL SPHERES, EXTERRITORIALLY REALIZED - - SELF-OWNERSHIP - - SELF-RELIANCE IN EVERY SPHERE, EVEN THE PUBLIC ONES, FOR INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR VOLUNTEER COMMUNITIES - - SELF-RESPONSIBILITY IN EVERY SPHERE - - SELF-RULE, GENUINE, RATHER THAN REPRESENTATIVE - - SOCIETIES & STATES BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS ONLY - - SOF OR COF OF THE BERBERS (Only a biarchy!) - - STATES WITHIN STATES, ALL ONLY EXTERRITORIAL AND FOR VOLUNTEERS - - TERRITORIALISTS (Unsuitable name for Jewish autonomists within the Czarist Empire.) - - TO EACH HIS OWN! (The old Latin definition of justice: "Suum cuique".) - - TOLERANCE EXTENDED TO THE UTMOST IN THE SPHERE OF ACTION & ASSOCIATIONS - FOR ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE - - TOLERANCE MAXIMIZED - FOR ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE - - TRIBALISM IN THE FORM OF EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS VOLUNTEER COMMUNITIES - - TRUE SELF-DETERMINATION - - TRULY LIMITED GOVERNMENTS - - UNFORCED ASSOCIATIONISM, EXTERRITORIALLY REALIZED, IN ALL SPHERES - - UTOPIANISM, EXTERRITORIAL - - UTOPIAS FOR ALL VOLUNTEERS, UNDER PERSONAL LAWS - - VIRTUAL CANTONS. (Long, Roderick T.: On "Virtual Cantons", Free Nations Foundation article: 4pp, from FORMULATIONS, FNF, Autumn 93: 332, in PP 1689-1693.) - - VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIALLY REALIZED - - VOLUNTARIZATION OF GOVERNANCE, COMMUNITIES AND SOCIETIES, - J.Z., 7.6.12. - VOLUNTARY & EXTERRITORIAL DECENTRALIZATION & FEDERALISM - - VOLUNTARY APARTHEID PLUS VOLUNTARY INTEGRATION, BOTH EXTERRITORIALLY REALIZED - - VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS IN EVERY SPHERE - - VOLUNTARY COMMUNITIES, EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS - - VOLUNTARY  COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, SOCIETIES & COMMUNITIES ONLY, ALL NON-GEOGRAPHICAL - - VOLUNTARY COOPERATION - - VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENTS - - VOLUNTARY SEGREGATION COMBINED WITH VOLUNTARY INTEGRATION, ALL ONLY FOR THEIR FAITHFUL - - VOLUNTARY SOCIALISM (It includes the rightful and positive effects of free market relationships for those, who do appreciate them, not only as realized e.g. in productive as well as in consumer cooperatives. – J.Z., 28.12.11.) - VOLUNTARY STATES, EXTERRITORIALLY REALIZED - - VOLUNTARY TAXATION (It already does largely imply voluntary relationships in all other spheres as well. – J.Z., 28.12.11.) - - VOLUNTARYISM - - VOTING, FREE, EXTENDED TO STATE & SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP - - WEB OF GROUP AFFILIATIONS (R. Bendix, in his English translation of G. Simmel, The Web of group affiliations. Mentioned in David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, page 120. - It's one of the "thousand" names for panarchism, which are, alas, still not fully listed. - - WITHDRAWING FROM THE STATE. - - ZERO-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE REALIZED VIA EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL VOLUNTARY COMMUNITIES. - On my own I cannot complete this list! - J.Z., 20.10.11. - - Probably, I have not even included all of the terms expressed in this long “alphabet soup”. - Once you ponder these and related terms entered by you and others in the future, you will soon come to see the meaning of panarchism and how it sends its “tendrils” into almost any aspect of politics, economics and social relations, as sorting and cleansing agents to achieve, finally, a genuine social science. – J.Z., 28.12.11. - See: RELATED TERMS & IDEAS & compare also entries under SHORT DEFINITIONS & EXPLANATIONS.

NASIM, SUSA: Capitulary Regime of Turkey: Its History, Origin & Nature, John Hopkins Univ., 1933. Reproduction of this edition, by AMS Pr. $ 31.

NATHANBANJA, LUANG: Extra-territoriality in Siam, Bangkok, BANGKOK DAILY MAIL, 1924. VIII, 344, bibl. (Sydney Univ.) - I have him also listed as: NATHABANJA, LUANG and do not know as yet which version is right. - J.Z., 20.10.11.

NATION BUILDING & PANARCHISMa large number of the leaders of new nations, who are egged on by an almost endless procession of ‘nation-building’ political scientists, and ‘missions’ composed by international ‘experts’ of unbelievable dreariness and overweening self-confidence. (*) At least the older type of missionary stayed for more than five weeks in a country before thinking that he could prescribe a solution to national problems. - - Now this is a false view of the situation, as some governments are beginning to discover. The very attempt, made by a government, to achieve national unity is often seen by minority groups as constituting a threat to their existence or to their way of life. (**) Thus by following a dynamic policy of national (***) unification, a state may well bring upon itself that very disintegration which it was the purpose of the policy to avoid. … But so far as distinct associations and multiple loyalties exist within a single political entity (****) it behooves the government to recognize their existence and allow (*****) these groups as much freedom to arrange their own affairs as is compatible with peace and order.” (******) – David Nicholls, The Pluralist State, chapter Conclusion, p.121. - - (*) Although these “scientists” know and appreciate nothing else but territorial political institutions, bureaucracy, compulsory taxation and other forms of financial and monetary despotism and anti-economic interventionism! - - (**) Federations that would allow all minorities to secede and recognize exterritorial autonomy for their voluntary communities, would be quite another matter. But they are, mostly, not even discussed by most political “scientists” in their conferences and seminars and not at all by the top politicians in their “summit conferences”. - - (***) territorial! - - (****) This is already an unjustified and territorialist assumption. - - (*****) Who gave them that right? Another territorialist false premise. – (******) Who is to define what constitutes peace and order in these cases? – It is rather the local citizens who should arrange for their local governance, society or community and the local governments for their regional or State organizations and the States for their Federations than the other way around, which still amounts to the modern territorial equivalent to centralized or monarchical absolutism. - If they are confined to arrange only their own affairs under exterritorial autonomy or personal law, then this is already the best condition for achieving peace and order. – However, at least Karl Renner, an Austrian politician, in the first half of the 19th century, proposed a kind of non-territorial federalism and a few years ago a conference by political scientists was conducted on this, as Gian Piero de Bellis pointed out to me. – J.Z., 26.1.08, 24.2.09, 7.6.12. - DIS., PANARCHISM, NON-TERRITORIAL FEDERALISM

NATION STATE: Man is compelled to belong to organisms too vast to be human but too narrow to be universal. These are the nations, the States, the Modern Societies, all at grips with one another and as ruthless with those they claim to defend as with those they wish to destroy.” – Welling, probably Woody Welling, and in THE CONNECTION. Date? Number? – States and nations were so far not “organisms”, naturally grown and based upon individual and minority group consent, but rather enforced and wrongful territorial collectives, based upon conquests, or legalized repression in form of majority despotism. Their governmental pretences or popular beliefs about them should be distinguished from their realities. – J.Z., 24.2.09, 7.6.12. – TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM.

NATION STATE: Perhaps, future generations, pondering on these facts, would consider our personal freedom under the nation state on the [as on? – J.Z.] par with that of the serfs under the feudal system, that is very limited indeed.” - Gian Pietro de Bellis, in his new, 2002 book manuscript on Polyarchy, 2002. - FEUDALISM & SERFDOM, STATE, TERRITORIALISM

NATION STATE: Since the very nature of the nation-state is its call for total ‘service’ and its ability to make war in its own interest, obviously no free society can long survive the rigors of nation-statehood.” – Reeves/Hess, The End of the Draft, p.154/55.

NATION STATE: The anarchist – although he believes that man is good – says that whether man is, in fact, good or evil, the nation-state is an abomination.” – Karl Hess, interview by PLAYBOY, 7/76. - - It is a bloodthirsty "God", which continues to demand huge blood-, income-, work- and property-sacrifices from us and obedience to the rituals of its tens of thousands of wrongful and irrational laws. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - MAN, GOOD, EVIL, STATE, ANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM

NATION STATE: The later Proudhon believed that the nation State was such a threat to individual liberty that only constitutional safeguards could protect the citizen from losing all his rights. …” Stewart Edwards, Proudhon, p.28. – In which country have constitutional safeguards of the conventional kind preserved freedom sufficiently against the political and territorial power-mongers? At least a comprehensive declaration of individual rights and liberties, an ideal and autonomous militia of volunteers for their protection, the right of individual and groups of dissenters to secede and organize themselves under personal laws in full exterritorial autonomy, many economic rights, especially monetary and financial freedom rights, must be included in all constitutions. Compulsory taxation must be abolished and also the decision-making monopoly on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties. – J.Z., 24.2.09, 7.6.12. – CONSTITUTIONALISM?

NATION STATE: The Nation state is … bound to make war.” - Reeves/Hess, The End of the Draft, p.154. – With few exceptions, e.g. Switzerland, Sweden and the mini-states. Even the Swiss and Swedes had many wars before they finally learned their lesson. - The miniature States are merely too powerless to conduct a war. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - WAR, TERRITORIALISM, POWER, WARFARE STATE

NATION STATE: The nation state is the limit to the size of the pack within which killing is murder.” – Gorer – However, it is not short at all of other crimes with victims, which it legalizes and even enforces, thereby supporting itself. E.g. taxation and monetary despotism. - WAR, MURDER, WARFARE STATE, TERRITORIALISM

NATION STATE: The people have been asked so often to die for the national state. It is just possible that now the people may ask the national state to die, for the people.” - Reeves/Hess, The End of the Draft, p.43. - AN END TO TERRITORIALISM!

NATION STATE: The State is concentric, but the individual is eccentric.” - R. A. Wilson, Masks of the Illuminati, p.40. - The State is a centralistic, territorial and unnatural imposition. A false, or misleading statist secular "God", demanding its kind of obedience, worship and sacrifices. - Only the individual is real, natural and, potentially, as a free person, self-managing. However, individuals to become more effective, in division of labor and free exchange, can and need to associate in numerous ways - but this should always be done voluntarily and leaving the individual and group secessionist option open to all of them, except those, who had committed crimes with victims. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM, CENTRALISM, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

NATION STATE: They have become places to provoke and organize the final holocaust: Mutual annihilation by ABC mass murder devices. – J.Z., 31.12.99. - TERRITORIALISM & NUCLEAR STRENGTH

NATION STATES NET: This just popped up this morning. Apparently is some kind of game (like "Risk"?) in which you create governments. For some reason or the other, this entry exceeds the right hand border and is correspondingly cut off. I tried, in vain, to fix it. – Somehow, much against my intention, I must have slipped into the auto-format option and that option does not clearly offer a secession from it, either. -  The auto-correct “option” is also imperialistic! - John. Only when viewed under OUTLINE does its size conform itself to the other paragraphs.- - - Now there is a panarchist nation. I like the reference to Rothbard associated with it. - Dwight Johnson, 10.12.11.

NATION-STATE: we shall be called upon to invent wholly new political forms (*) or ‘containers’ to bring a semblance of order to the world – a world in which the nation-state has become, for many purposes, a dangerous anachronism. (**) - Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave, Pan Books & Collins, 1980/81. - - (*) Or to rediscover, develop and apply suitable old and proven ones. - - (**) There are already several States that are, obviously, “nations” of immigrants from dozens to hundreds of nations or tribes, and this within the history of modern times. If one goes far enough back, then all present territorial nations are really also nations of immigrants, more or less mixed with native tribes, if any already existed there. – There are only very few supposedly pure-blooded natives left, e.g. on some of the Andaman Islands. – Underlining by me. - J.Z., 24.9.07. - TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

NATION-WIDE TERRITORIAL PRISONS: THE MODERN STATES OR COUNTRIES OR PEOPLES: No one can move freely enough as long as he remains bound, in chains or incarcerated in nation-wide territorial prisons, under more or less absolute territorial and authoritarian rulers, with some minority or even majority support. - Minorities and majorities have only the right to rule over themselves and any aggressors against them, as far as this is necessary, but not over any peaceful dissenters doing their own things merely to or for themselves. - - So far not even religious liberty or religious tolerance is fully recognized everywhere, although it has made its peaceful case in many countries already for centuries. - E.g., in Ireland we still have a limited religious war, because both sides are unwilling to sufficiently tolerate the other side and always want territorial privileges for their own over members of the other faith. Both still managed to combine religious intolerance with political intolerance and have not learnt to become tolerant towards different economic and social systems, either. - - This situation is even worse e.g. in countries and among people like the territorialist Israelis or Zionists and the various territorialist Palestinians and other Arabs. This in spite of the fact that both have also a long and honorable tradition of a-territorial autonomy, although it was never widely and consistently enough applied in every respect and quite secure. - However, once full a-territorial autonomy for all who want it for themselves, is sincerely and clearly offered, as an alternative, has been sufficient contemplated and discussed it and then realized  for all the diverse groups desiring it for themselves, their traditions, ideals, beliefs and confictions, as well as for all those, who disagree with them, then and only then will their mutual antagonism soon become reduced to quite bearable proportions, if it will not disappear altogether, at least gradually. – Then they would, certainly, no longer have any justification, excuse or moral motive for terrorist acts against each other. They would be free to do their own things among themselves, although not territorially – but in what they consider to be their country and not only that, but in all other countries, all over the world. The wind would be taken out of the sails of their mutual hatreds and suspicions. They would, rather, become permanently becalmed and more or less stuck only on the inherent problems involved in their own ideas, institutions, systems, convictions and faiths, without any ready scapegoats available for them – except themselves, but always with the individual option to give up trying to make bad ideas and theories work well enough and make a new start for themselves, alone or with like-minded people. - - Let even Nazis, Soviets, Maoists, Castro followers etc. have their own communities of volunteers, to do their own things to themselves. That might suffice to teach at least the teachable among them, perhaps only after many more years of failures. - Let its fanciers have their proletarian dictatorship, supposedly by and over themselves, instead of by party functionaries, over proletarians and others, favoring only dysfunctional and counter-productive systems, apart from repressive and murderous ones (towards outsiders). If they murder, rob or exploit only themselves – who else should care about this? Let them have their self-criticism and “cleansing” actions and their show trials and concentration camps even – but always only over those unwilling to reject their faith and membership in their church. - - Let the Welfare State believers have it – for themselves, at their expense and risk. - - Let the modern liberals have the “benefits” of their “liberalism”, as long as they want them, at their own cost. - - Let the classical liberals have the benefits of their limited interpretation of laissez faire, mainly in economics only. - - Let the various radical libertarians, market-anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, universal laissez faire advocates – have their choice, for themselves, to their own advantage and risk, without forcing any dissenter to participate in their free societies, free trade, free exchange, self-ownership, self-determination and consumer sovereignty relationships. - - Let the various other kinds of anarchists, of every shade and color, have their preferred systems – but only for themselves, without any unjustified claims towards those, who strongly disagree with them, especially on economic and social matters. - - Let the protectionists of all kinds have their systems for themselves – exclusively at their own expense and risk, while the free traders have, among themselves only, all the benefits of free trade among themselves. - - Let all the land reformers and monetary reformers have their own experiments among themselves, without forcing their preferred systems upon anyone else. - - Then, and only then, can we expect the desired degrees of freedom, justice, security, prosperity, progress and enlightenment etc. for all, in every case in accordance with quite free individual choices, and as long as they want to persist with them. Only then will we, finally, have enough good will towards all men and then and only thus will we finally come to have peace on earth, a lasting and just one, with ever improving conditions and opportunities for everyone willing to make a mental or a physical effort to improve his personal, economic, social and political conditions. - - With continued territorial aggression, domination, occupation, exploitation and propagandist mis-education only further troubles can be assured. With “live- and-let-live” frameworks in every sphere and personal choices, genuine self-government, self-management and self-responsibility will come within the reach of every adult, rational and non-criminal person, i.e. all those prepared to subscribe the minimum moral and ethical self-restraints and self-control required towards the genuine and equal rights and liberties of all other persons, who do not agree with him and do not belong to his own association (while his own community might not respect and realize, internally, all these rights and liberties). In others, who do, quite rightfully and self-responsibly, claim them for themselves, in full, they ought to be fully respected by all others. E.g.: The monogamists, in their communities, should respect the rights of polygamists in their communities – and vice versa. - - If that respect is not granted to basic rights and liberties of others, then the full liberties and rights, understood and appreciated at least by some, a sufficient number of people, will also provide them with the maximum incentives and opportunities to defend them effectively, even against remaining major territorial powers. The single protestor against infringements of his basic rights might still be hanged, shot or imprisoned for life etc. But a relatively few determined and consistent adherents to all genuine individual rights and liberties could become almost irresistible. Compare the story of Cromwell’s “Ironsides”, as reported by Thomas Babington Macaulay and also somewhat practised by the Swiss “Eidgenossenschaften”. - - This I do firmly believe and also that, point by point, I could show some practical steps towards realizing the defensive and liberating potentials of genuine panarchists or people who are tolerant even in the political, economic and social sphere. - - It is possible, practical and even profitable in most cases to act otherwise than territorially. That has been demonstrated often and for long enough in history. This is even the only quite free, just and genuinely social way. Only territorial systems have always failed to solve major problems and are bound to continue to do so. They and their “principles”, dogmas, false assumptions and conclusions, , ideas, beliefs, processes, legislation, regulations and institutions, are the major cause and not a possible solution for most of our remaining and solvable major problems. Without them, these problems could and would soon be solved, by some voluntary experimenters, among themselves, and from their successful experiments their solutions, discoveries or innovations would soon spread over most of the world, voluntarily accepted by others. Often blueprints for such solutions do already exist, even experiences with at least their part-realization do mostly exist. A complete ideas archive and talent registry would soon bring them to light and market them optimally. However, those rejecting them, because they would prefer their remaining problems to these cures, should remain quite free to do so. - - To each his own doctor and his preferred medicine – even if this kills him or makes him more sick than he was before or does not provide him with anything else than new delusions and problems. - - Any kind of self-responsible activism for any kind of sufficiently rational activist. (E.g.: Anyone on a roof-top, indiscriminately shooting at cars or pedestrians, can hardly be considered rational and self-responsible.) - J.Z., n.d. & 29.12.11, 7.6.12.

NATION: And the idea of the nation is one of the most powerful anaesthetics that man has ever invented. Under the influence of its fumes the whole people can carry out its systematic program of the most virulent self-seeking without being in the least aware of its moral perversion – in fact, feeling dangerously resentful when it is pointed out.” – Rabindranath Tagore, Nationalism, New York, 1917, p. 57, quoted in: Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.252. - Quoted also in Lysander Spooner, No Treason, VI, Shiveley’s introduction, p. 4, (40?) Works I. – Also in Boyd C. Shafer: Nationalism, Myth and Reality, N.Y., 1955, 215. - - The whole nation is rarely ever involved. Often it may be only a small minority – but a very powerful one. – J.Z., 25.1.08. - Moreover, the worst tend to get into its top positions and remain there for all too long - even under "democratic checks and balances", which exclude individual and group secessions, exterritorial autonomy alternatives for volunteers, a complete declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties, and full self-defence options, including an ideal militia of volunteers for nothing but the protection of genuine individual rights and liberties - to the extent that they are already claimed by communities of volunteers. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATE, NATIONALISM, DIS.

NATION: The nation is not the cause but the result of the state. It is the state which creates the nation, not the nation the state. Indeed, from this point of view there exists between people and nation the same distinction as between society and the state.” – Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, 200. – It is also a question of voluntarism vs. compulsion and of exterritorial autonomy vs. territorial domination. – J.Z., 25.1.08. - & STATE, PEOPLE & SOCIETY, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, DIS.

NATION: The nation, on the other hand, is the artificial result of the struggle for political power, just as nationalism has never been anything but the political religion of the modern state.” - Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.201. – TERRITORIALISM, STATE, POWER, STATISM, DIS.

NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS: To the extent that they do not enjoy any privileges or subsidies from governments and, apart from their confinement to providing only a limited range of consumer goods and services, they are already somewhat exterritorially organized but not yet completely autonomous, as they could and should be. I would expect at least some of them to transform themselves completely into panarchies of various kinds. – J.Z., 14.1.99.

NATIONAL AFFAIRS: There are no national affairs and national aims – just ambitions territorial politicians and their false pretences, empty promises and nonb-working but enforced and also all too expensive “solutions”, all their wrongful aims and powers. – J.Z., Nov. 92, 24.1.08, 7.6.12. - NATIONAL AIMS

NATIONAL ANIMOSITIES: No one can grasp America as a whole.” – Chad Walsh, From Utopia to Nightmare, p.128. - However, territorial politicians and power addicts do keep grasping for this power - under all kinds of false pretences and promises. They never deliver anything worth the taxes they charge. - But they are good at ignoring or suppressing genuine individual rights and liberties and in producing mass extermination devices or anti-people "weapons". - Against tyrannicide, as a much less blood-thirsty alternative, they have, usually, a kind of tacit "gentlemen's agreement", because that might be applied against themselves. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, ANTI-AMERICANISM, ENEMIES, NATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS? POWER MONGERS, POLITICIANS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, DICTATORS, RULERS, NWT.

NATIONAL CORPORATIONS: To the extent that they do not enjoy any privileges or subsidies from governments and, apart from their confinement to providing only a limited range of consumer goods and services, they are already somewhat exterritorially organized but not yet completely autonomous, as they could and should be. I would expect at least some of them to transform themselves completely into panarchies of various kinds. – J.Z., 14.1.99. - & INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS, MULTINATIONALS

NATIONAL CULTURE: there is no national culture; in fact, there are only cultures developing from a dazzling plurality of contributions from individuals in near or far away places and from current or far remote times. - Gian Pietro de Bellis, in his new, 2002 book manuscript on Polyarchy, 2002. - DIS., TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NATIONAL DEBT: Is it "our" national debt? It is your own debt and that of people, who, like you, agree to the issue of national debt certificates, i.e., to investments in nationalized tax slaves? As a nationalized tax slave, I am under no moral obligation to pay that imposed debt or any imposed taxes. - Full emancipation means also: voluntary taxation and voluntary State membership as well as personal instead of territorial constitutions, laws and jurisdictions. - J.Z., 5.8.91, 27.8.02. - TAX SLAVERY, INVESTMENT IN TAX SLAVES, Q., PUBLIC DEBT?

NATIONAL DEBT: Regarding the repudiation of the national debt, taken up in your name but without your individual consent, and obviously infringing your individual sovereignty, an individualized repudiation, valid only for yourself, do work towards the freedom to opt out or secede from any territorial government or State and to associate with like-minded people, under full exterritorial autonomy. – Only then, in such a voluntary community, could you still be rightfully charged with your share in the public debts of any voluntary community to which you formerly belonged and which was taken up during the time of your membership, even after you had seceded from it. Practically, this could be expressed in the number and value of your shares or bonds in that community, which you had to subscribe to during your membership. Part of these you might have to surrender to cover the public debts occurred while you were a voluntary member, as a contractual condition of your membership. – J.Z., 18.5.05, 31.10.07. – Today, in all territorial States, one could argue that no one is obliged to contribute to the payment of the national debt, because it amounts to an investment in tax slaves and almost no one was explicitly a voluntary member in territorial States, simply because he was never given the choice, unless he is an immigrant. But the immigrants could argue that they were only given the choice of a lesser evil. – J.Z., 22.2.09. - PUBLIC DEBTS, INDIVIDUAL REPUDIATION, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARY TAXATION VS. COMPULSORY TAXATION

NATIONAL ECONOMIES: Territorial governments are turning national economies into national disaster areas. They will continue to do so until governments become completely separated from the economy i.e., deprived of all their economic powers. – J.Z., 12.12.92. – Probably the best way to do so would be to confining them to exterritorial autonomy over their volunteers only. This could be done, in some cases, best and only indirectly and gradually, through corresponding governments in exile. Then these, too, would have to compete with all other communities, which offer more freedom rights to their members and even with those, which realized full economic freedom for their members. Imagine the attraction of a community without e.g. compulsory taxes. And with full employment for all old and new members. – J.Z., 24.1.08, 7.6.12. - TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, ANTI-ECONOMIC INTERVENTIONISM, WELFARE STATE, MONETARY & FINANCIAL DESPOTISM, PROTECTIONISM VS. FULL ECONOMIC LIBERTY

NATIONAL ECONOMY: National economics or national economic policies amount, usually, only to nation-wide crimes. – Only e.g. Free Trade would partly abolish them and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers would do so generally. – Protectionism, compulsory taxation and monetary despotism are only parts of this crime. - J.Z., 14.11.76, 23.1.08. They, too, can be rightfully practised only among their voluntary victims. – J.Z., 7.6.12.

NATIONAL ECONOMY: National economies and national taxation and government spending programs are the opposite of genuinely economic policies. – J.Z., 23.1. 08. – STATE SOCIALISM, CENTRAL & COERCIVE PLANNING, COMMUNISM, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, COERCIVE COLLECTIVISM, DIRIGISM

NATIONAL ECONOMY: The jackboot economy! The politician’s, bureaucrat’s, judges and policeman’s economy, with producers and consumers as their suppressed and exploited victims and at their mercy, unless they can afford to buy a degree of freedom and exemptions from this territorial protection racket. – J.Z., 27.7.93, 24.1.08.

NATIONAL ECONOMY: There is no national economy but only nation-wide anti-economics or neo comics, to use terms coined by Dr. H. G. Pearce, Sydney, who was both, a Georgist and a Laissez Faire advocate. – J.Z., 19.8.75.

NATIONAL FREEDOM: National freedom isn’t individual freedom. On the contrary! – J.Z., 29.8.96. - VS. INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

NATIONAL FREEDOM: Though the concept of national freedom is analogous to that of individual freedom, it is not the same … it has often provided the pretext for ruthless restrictions of individual liberty of the members of minorities.” – Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty. – Because it was wrongly and unnecessarily tied to territorialism. – Free choice for individuals, whether statists or freedom lovers, among all kinds of exterritorially autonomous communities, offered like free or cooperative enterprises or utopias to all their potential customers or members. – J.Z., 6.4.89, 26.1.08. - & PANARCHISM

NATIONAL GUILT ASSUMPTION: We must think of people not as a conglomerate mass, not conveniently, indiscriminately, as a faceless nation: we must always remembers that a nation is made of millions of little human beings, just as we are, and to talk about national sin and guilt and wickedness is to be willfully blind, unjust and un-Christian …” - Alistair McLean, The Last Frontier, p.202. - & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY NOTIONS, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE: National independence and national sovereignty are not good and rightful enough substitutes for individual independence and individual sovereignty. On the contrary, they tend to reduce rather than increase individual rights and liberties and put more or less arbitrary, prejudiced and self-interested rule by politicians and bureaucrats in their place, with a strong tendency towards exploitation, despotism, absolutism and even totalitarianism. – J.Z., 2.6.94, 7.6.12. - NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY VS. INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONAL INTEREST: For any action to be in the national interest, it has to be in the rational interest of or benefit every individual in the community. If it isn’t, the claim is false. It usually is.” – John Curvers, THE LIBERTARIAN NEWSLETTER, 1976, No. 2. - PUBLIC INTEREST, COMMON GOOD

NATIONAL INTEREST: Foreign policies are not built on abstractions. They are the result of practical conceptions of the national interest.” - Charles Evans Hughes once noted when he was Secretary of State, They keyword of course is practical. Like the flag, the national interest can mean many different things to different people. The term in itself is the classical abstraction. It has virtually no inherent meaning. It acquires meaning only through interpretation. Those who play the role of interpreting the national interest are the priests of the modern state. Their values, their analysis of events, and their faith in the future determines what is deemed to be in the nation’s interest and how it is to respond to the world political environment.” – Richard J. Barnet, in the anthology “Outside Looking In”, p. 313. - FOREIGN POLICY, REALPOLITIK VS. MORALITY & PRINCIPLES, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, POLITICIANS, POWER ADDICTS, TERRITORIALISM, LEADERSHIP

NATIONAL INTEREST: The alleged community of national interests does not exist in any country; it is nothing more than a representation of false facts in the interest of small minorities.” - Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.264.

NATIONAL INTEREST: the fallacy that the Federal Government is all wise and acts only in the “national interest”, when in fact it operates only for the benefit of those in government – mainly the big bureaucracies.” – Lang Hancock, 1975. – BUREAUCRACY, THE ESTABLISHMENT, TERRITORIALISM, POWER, GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC SERVANTS, REPRESENTATION, POLITICIANS

NATIONAL INTEREST: the national interest must include the interests of the individual and not be limited to the self-interest of the ruling group or any other organization exercising power on behalf of a sectional interest.” – H. R. H. Prince Philip, in QUADRANT, 1/78. – Has anyone combined all the pro-freedom remarks of him as yet? In a quick Google search I get 420,000 entries. Among their first 10 pages I found the following promising references: 1.),_Duke_of_Edinburgh  Selected Speeches – 1948–55 (1957); Selected Speeches – 1956–59 (1960); ...

2.) HRH Prince Philip Duke Edinburgh SELECTED SPEECHES 1957 in Books, Nonfiction | eBay. – A least they and other such references could serve as resources for such a publication. - If someone undertook this work, he would, probably, get his approval. I do not agree with other remarks of his that I have read but then I disagree with almost all anarchists and libertarians at least on some points and they with me. – To me he is the most interesting of all the living royals – according to such occasional remarks published in the mass media. - J.Z., 7.6.12.

NATIONAL INTEREST: The requirement of the “national interest”? If there is such a thing as a “national interest” achieved by sacrificing the interests of individual citizens, then Louis XIV acquitted himself superlatively. The greater part of his extravagance was not “selfish”: he did build France up into a major international power – and wrecked her economy.” – Ayn Rand, Let Us Alone! - in: “The Ayn Rand Column”, revised edition, 1998, p 25/26, Second Renaissance Books, New Milford, Connecticut, - VS. THE INTERESTS OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS

NATIONAL INTEREST: The supreme national interest lies always in the protection of individual rights and liberties, never in the aims, policies, treaties and actions of the official suppressors, oppressors, legislators, and other official territorial controllers and “regulators” of these rights and liberties. – J.Z., 6.7.91,. 26.1.08, 7.6.12.

NATIONAL INTEREST: What is usually advanced as being in the national or public interest is really against them – at least until all nations are constituted only of volunteers and this requires the reduction of collective, centralized, coercive territorial monopolies to exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities under personal laws. – J.Z., 18.1.99, 24.1.08. - PUBLIC INTEREST & PANARCHISM

NATIONAL ISSUES: It’s surprising how many ‘national issues”, problems that “cry out” for government intervention, wouldn’t even exist if there were not governments.” – Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom, p.97. – (After having been exposed to English since 1942, I am still in doubt whether it should be no or not in such cases. Perhaps, H. B. was, too. - J.Z., 10.1.11.) - STATISM, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, NATIONAL PROBLEMS

NATIONAL LAND MONOPOLY CLAIMS: National land holdings and national land grabs (conquests and occupations) remain a problem, causing oppression, terrorism, civil wars and wars, poverty and hunger. Compared with them “exterritorialism” (exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities) is a good road to peace, freedom, justice, enlightenment, and prosperity. - There is no just, sound and lasting territorial solution to territorial problems. Nevertheless, almost all people, writers, political “scientists” and politicians assume that oneself and others can be free, fully free, only under territorial institutions and laws, no matter how often such attempts have led and are leading to oppression and massacres of dissenters and different ethnic groups. - This intolerant and despotic approach was, in most countries, discarded in the sphere of religion, after decades of bloody struggles, but it is still and unquestioningly adopted by the vast majority, even of intellectuals, for political, economic and social laws, systems and institutions. - I would like to see it publicly questioned and discussed - in our supposedly free and unprejudiced press and other mass media. - If it were given the same space as the territorial non-solutions are given, then the case for exterritorial autonomy for volunteers would, sooner or later and almost inevitably win this discussion against territorial sovereignty imposed upon all dissenters and minorities in a country. - The inviolability of borders means the violability of the borders around free individuals. - J.Z., in a letter to THE AUSTRALIAN, 29.4.93, revised 04, 10.1.11. – TERRITORIALISM, LAND MONOPOLY, THE PUBLIC RATHER THAN THE PRIVATE ONES. “TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY”

NATIONAL LIBERATION EFFORTS: Nationalities are not liberated by confining them to territories, deportation zones, reservations, ghettos and internment or refugee centers or by any new territorial divisions. Even achieving the status of national domination in a territory, for a minority group that was formerly suppressed there, does not achieve national liberation. Any leash has two ends. It does not establish a “mutual convenience relationship”. [Term coined by Don Werkheiser. At least the Labadie Collection preserved his numerous writings, although, apparently, only on paper. His unfinished magnum opus book comes, probably, close to panarchism, as his short earlier essays on voluntary associations did. – Who will get around to put the best of his libertarian output online, or onto a disc, with the permission of this library and his heirs?] - J.Z., 21.6.92, 14.1.93, 7.6.12.

NATIONAL LIBERATION: Nationalities are not liberated by confining them to territories, deportation zones, reservations, ghettos and internment or refugee centers or by any old or new territorial divisions. Even achieving the status of national domination in a territory, for a minority group that was formerly suppressed there, does not achieve national liberation. Any leash has two ends. It does not establish a mutual convenience relationship. - Are e.g. Israelis free and secure after they achieved territorial domination? - J.Z., 21.6.92, 14.1.93, 10.1.11. - PEACE, SECURITY, FREEDOM

NATIONAL LIBERATION: We talk of ‘national liberation’ when we really mean the supplanting by terrorism of one elite by another.” – Stephen Haseler, QUADRANT, 7/77. – Compare “FREEDOM FIGHTERS”, NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATE

NATIONAL LIBERTY: national liberty without individual liberty is pure fraud.” – Leopold Kohr, Weniger Staat, S.64. (Less State.) - VS. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

NATIONAL MINORITIES: From PP 1, 1/1964, plan No.4, was again reproduced on page 2, in ON PANARCHY II, in PP 506.

NATIONAL POLICIES: My thought is that if we mange our smaller, more intimate affairs on right principles then, as a matter of course, we shall manage our great, national affairs on right principles.” – John Leitch, Man to Man, p.140. - In both cases, those of central or federal governments and that of States or local governments, the supposedly sound foundation, taken for granted, is territorialism, with all its wrongs and flaws! – On this unsound foundation we can only, somewhat, and this quite insufficiently, manage local and small affairs. All the large government programs, measures and “solutions” are in a mess and will remain so under territorialism and this quite inevitably so.  [Essentially, they are all State-socialistic and despotic. – J.Z., 7.6.12.] – Genuine solutions can be expected only from sovereign individuals and their voluntary and exterritorially quite autonomous groups, e.g. from governments in exile with their different platforms, and all only for the volunteers they have now and hope to gain in the future. - J.Z., 23.1.08. – Are there national affairs or only territorialist interventions that mismanage whole populations and countries? – J.Z., 24.2.09. SIZE, BIGNESS, CENTRALIZATION, DECENTRALIZATION, OPTIMUM SIZE, STATISM, WELFARE STATE, WARFARE STATE, Q.

NATIONAL RESOURCES: Private ownership of “national resources” puts them to national use as well, doesn’t it? (If not, we’d better ask the Government to grab all our national resources. By the way, are you a national resource? Watch out!)” – Terry Arthur, 95 % Is Crap, p.130. The alternative of “open coops” for natural resources remains still to be publicly and widely enough discussed. – J.Z., 23.1.08. – NATIONALIZATION, STATE SOCIALISM, DIS., PEOPLE AS PROPERTY, LAND MONOPOLY, PLANNING, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONAL SECURITY: National security as usually defined, i.e., territorially, and practised, is among the greatest threats to rightly and rationally defined common interests of whole populations. – J.Z., 16.4.95, 24.1.08. - No serious attempt was made so far by any government to increase country-wide security through the sufficient publication of quite rightful war and peace aims only and by already realizing them on the own side. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - NWT, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATE, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, SECRET ALLIES, HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION, DES., DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, MILITIA

NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION: For we mean not mere “national self-determination”, a metaphorical cloak for the tyranny of some over others, but individual liberty for all the peoples of the world.” – Roy A. Childs, Jr., Liberty Against Power, Fox & Wilkes, San Francisco, 1994, p.12. – National self-determination, too, must become confined to exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers. Only the territorial and pretended “national” self-determination or compulsory “unification” must be done away with, while the liberty of individuals and groups to choose for themselves a condition radical freedom or of voluntary slavery and of anything in-between must become respected - as another aspect of individual choice: freedom to be as free or unfree as one wants to be. Perhaps there is no better long-term cure for the statist condition and subordination urge than allowing people to suffer under it, but only as much and long as they can and want to put up with. – J.Z., 5.10.07, 10.1.11, 7.6.23. - PANARCHISM, STATISM, VOLUNTARISM

NATIONAL SERVICE: National Service” means national servitude towards the new feudal lord, the nation, mostly quite wrongly or insufficiently “represented” by a territorial parliament and executive. – J.Z., n.d., & 28.2.09. – CONSCRIPTION, COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE, SELECTIVE SERVICE, TERRITORIALISM, REPRESENTATION.

NATIONAL SERVITUDE: End national servitude.” – Button slogan. – In e.g. conscription, taxation and subordination to territorial rulers. – J.Z., 26.1.08. - CONSCRIPTION

NATIONAL SOCIALISM, PANARCHIST ASPECTS: National Socialism, although one of the worst totalitarian ideologies, did also have some exterritorial notions and practices: “Volksgenossen: Heim ins Reich” - with Germans still considered to be Germans after living for many generations and also naturalized in foreign countries. Under it, the Tyrol Landsturm, still electing its leaders, was serving as occupation force in Norway. The Nazis used censorship and terror precisely because they knew that most Germans are quite different from the "Arian ideal German” and would rather make up their own minds and go their own and different ways. Thus they put so much stress on their assertion: “One people. One empire. One leader!” (Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Fuehrer!) Under the imposed conditions few dared to contradict in public and to resist the regime. - J.Z., 17.9.04.

NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY: National sovereignty is not substitute for individual sovereignty and voluntary self-government institutions or non-governmental societies and communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 25.8.98, 24.1.08. - VS. INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY: Unity spleen in the face of diversity and individual rights and liberties. Intolerance - politically and territorially organized. - Individual secessionism and quite voluntary as well as exterritorially autonomous associationism could be our best break-out means to escape the territorial nation State prisons. Emigration means largely only breaking into or being transferred to another nation-wide State prison. - J.Z. 26.7.92, 8.1.93, 10.1.11, 7.6.12. - UNIFORMITY, LAWS, JURISDICTION, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONAL STRENGTH: National strength, in form of territorial statism, means, largely, individual enslavement spread nation-wide. – J.Z., 14.9.82, 28.1.08. - … means, largely, suppression of individual rights and liberties for dissenting individuals and minorities. – J.Z., 7.6.12.

NATIONAL STRENGTH: The way to national strength, was not through centralizing power, but by giving it back to the people.” – Jim Fryar, speaking for the local Progress Party, THE GYMPIE TIMES, Tuesday, August 10 (16?) 1977. Genuine self-government, self-determination, self-management, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy! - Only communities and societies of volunteers can be rightfully called "a people" or "peoples". - J.Z., 10.1.11.– CENTRALIZATION, PEOPLE, VOLUNTARISM

NATIONAL TERRITORIALISM: Rather than still more territorial and national independence declarations, we need individual and minority independence declarations, and the establishment of corresponding alternative institutions, all on the basis of voluntarism and full exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, none confined to any territory. – J.Z., 5.8.92, 24.1.08, 7.6.12. - & COLLECTIVIST INDEPENDENCE VS. INDIVIDUAL INDEPENDENCE & INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, WARFARE STATE

NATIONAL UNITY: National unity is one of the greatest and most dangerous fictions. It can be realized only exterritorially among like-minded volunteers, never territorially, for any large territory, because of the reality of natural diversity among human beings even in “one” supposedly existing single nation or people. – J.Z., 27.1.08, 7.6.12.

NATIONAL UNITY: No unified state has thus far opened new outlooks to cultural aspirations, but has always led to the degradation of all higher cultural forms. … national unity has never yet established the freedom of a people, but has always merely reduced its implicit slavery to a definite norm, which is then proclaimed as freedom.” - Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.426.

NATIONALISM & NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: How much longer can we afford to remain “united” and yet separated into territorial nation state? J.Z., 1/75, after reading the editorial remark in ANALOG 8/74: “How much longer can we afford to remain separated into nation states?” – We do already largely survive only by exchanging our products for those of other countries. – Tourism has become the world’s largest industry. Music, arts and writings are already largely shared world-wide. Do we have to remain organized into targets for mass extermination devices and as victims for collective responsibility notions based upon the wrongs committed by some people, but mainly our territorial governments, as our all too powerful, unwise, prejudiced and irrational main decision-makers? – J.Z., 24.1.08. – TERRITORIALISM, COSMOPOLITANISM, BORDERS, FRONTIERS, PASSPORTS, NATION-WIDE PENS FOR HUMAN BEINGS, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY OF TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY,

NATIONALISM & PANARCHISM: Voluntary vs. compulsory nationalism. Exterritorial vs. coercive nationalism. Liberating vs. oppressive nationalism. Nationalism without majority despotism. Nationalism for all minorities. - J.Z., n.d.

NATIONALISM & PATRIOTISM: One nation is formed at the expense of another.” – quoted as an Italian proverb by Proudhon, in C. S. Edwards, Proudhon, p.190. - Usually at the expense and risk of several genuine communities and societies, as the abolition of compulsory membership or subjugation and its replacement by individual choices would soon reveal, especially when these choices include personal law and full exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z. 10.1.11. - DIS.

NATIONALISM & PATRIOTISM: Patriotism is the passion of fools and the most foolish of passions.” – Arthur Schopenhauer, The American Freeman. – in G. Seldes, The Great Quotations. – Especially in all its territorial, coercive and monopolistic statist forms, laws and claims. - J.Z., 10.1.11, 7.6.12. - FOOLISHNESS, PASSION

NATIONALISM & PATRIOTISM: There is nothing patriotic or noble about allowing yourself to become a slave just to keep others company.” – From an advertisement in REASON, Oct. 74, for a “New Country” attempt. - Territorial subordination is usually compulsory, not an individual choice. We still have degrees of tax slavery, military slavery, territorial slavery, education slavery and sexual slavery and there are still some all too intolerant and even terrorist religious sectarians. - We are not yet free to divorce ourselves and seceded from any of them and live under self-chosen personal law systems. - J.Z., 10.1.11.

NATIONALISM, TERRITORIAL, WAR & PEACE, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & PANARCHISM: It is not true that our "nation" is endangered but that the very existence of our "nation", in exclusive, territorial and coercive form, endangers US and OTHERS. – “Nothing but what is voluntary is deserving the name of national". – Caroline Chisholm, 1808 – 1877, The A.B.C. of colonization: In a series of letters, No.1. - What is voluntary does rarely make enemies and it can be defended much easier and with much more justification. – J.Z., 1986, 2004. – I just found out that it has been digitized by Google and is offered free in an  e-edition. However, I was unable to download it, since I am not signed in and was not given the option to sign in! – J.Z., 7.6.12. - DIS.

NATIONALISM, TERRITORIAL: The nationalistic, racial, political, religious and other ideological hierarchies, now enforced over whole territories, must become a matter for individual choice or disassociation. - J.Z., 3.4.89.                       

NATIONALISM: (God) save us from economic nationalism run mad.” – Mr. C. R. Kelly, MP for Wakefield, S. A., GOOD GOVERNMENT, 2/71. Neither a god nor a territorial government will do so. It's a self-help job, requiring all freedom options, step by step chosen by individuals for themselves. - J.Z., 10.1.11. – PROTECTIONISM VS. FREE TRADE & OPEN BORDERS, FREE IMMIGRATION & PATRIOTISM, DIS., NATIONAL ECONOMY, CENTRAL PLANNING, DIRIGISM, CENTRALISM, TERRITORIALISM, PROTECTIONISM


NATIONALISM: A Scot’s mother, praying for her son during the Napoleonic Wars, was reminded, that many a French mother was praying as fervently for French Victory. (*) She said: “Do ye think th’Almighty would be understandin’ siccan gibberish?” – A. Andrews Quotations, p. 72. –. - - (*) Usually they only pray for the survival of their own beloved. – J.Z., 27.1.08. – PATRIOTISM, IGNORANCE & RELIGION, JOKES, GOD, FOREIGN LANGUAGES

NATIONALISM: A silly cock crowing on its own dung hill.” – Richard Aldington. – And our national representatives and “leaders” treat us like shit, too or, at best, as their property, to be used or abused according to their discretion. – J.Z., 24.2.09. - The less people appreciate individuals and their genuine rights and liberties, the more they are adherents to territorial nationalism. - J.Z., 10.1.11.

NATIONALISM: A whole population, very diverse, subjected to territorial taxation, laws, bureaucracy and institutions not of their own free individual choice, under local, state or federal powers, “represented” by “representatives” that do not really represent all of them and who often act against the real common interests. Seen thus, territorial nations and nationalism are merely propaganda fictions, false pretences, at best based upon popular errors and prejudices, really only for the benefit of those in the saddle, in the top leadership positions. – Voluntary taxation, and voluntarism regarding all government spending, together with freedom for individuals and communities of volunteers to secede from them would reveal how hollow their false pretences and slogans are and how few people fully agree with their policies and measures. Already the relatively small membership in its political parties does indicate how unpopular the supposedly popular democratic territorial governments really are. – J.Z., 30.7.98, 24.1.08. - ONE NATION UNDER ONE LAW, EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, NATIONAL “UNITY”, REPRESENTATION, TERRITORIALISM, PARTIES

NATIONALISM: According to R.J. Rummel, “Lenin's rapacious agricultural policies 1918-1923 created a famine that killed by starvation and associated diseases about 7,300,000 people. Half of these victims comprise democide, the other half are the unintentional victims of failed policies.” R.J. Rummel also writes that “From 1900 to 1923, Turkish dictators murdered about 2,100,000 Armenians.” See for both quotes and his references. This is “free national development”, early 20th century Soviet and Turkish style. – TERRITORIALISM Different right hand margin, once again.

NATIONALISM: Advancing the novel thesis that nationalism stands basically opposed to culture, Rocker argued that the nation is not a natural growth arising from the social actions of a people but a whole artificial one which is in effect imposed upon them by a political minority. “The nation is not the cause, but the result, of the state,” as Rocker put it. – Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.478. – STATE & NATION-BUILDING, PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: All these people have fought for the right to national independence; there is not one that is not denying the right to national independence. If every Britain has its Ireland, every Ireland has its Ulster.” - Norman Angell, Human Nature and the Peace Problem, 1925, p.63. – Why stop at territorial divisions? We do not consider them to be significant in economics, in religion, in philosophy, in literature, in art, architectures, technology, science, biology and ideology. Nor in movies, music, poetry. Why should these or other human aspects and relations or organizations be confined to a territorial “bed of Procrustes”? – J.Z., 22.2.09. - INDEPENDENCE, TERRITORIALISM, DIS. Q., TERRITORIALISM, BORDERS, FRONTIERS

NATIONALISM: All this was a cause of deep offence to the people of the country. They regarded their country as a temple, and all strangers as impure.” – Winwood Reade, The Martyrdom of Man, p.35. - That applies even to small internal territorial monopoly claims. In Saxonia, East Germany, still after WW II, the boys of one village considered the girls of that village as their "property" and ganged up on any boy of another village in the neighborhood, wooing a girl from the own village, all of which they claimed as their own. To me that indicated how primitive and dated these notions and feelings are. - J.Z., 10.1.11. & PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: Although nationalism unites inwardly, it is outwardly dividing, dehumanizing human beings as aliens or foreigners. We have had two world wars to prove it.” – Donald L. Barnes, THE HERALD, Dec. 19th, 1973. - & PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: Among the religions that will be cast aside or profoundly altered is nationalism, a creed that has ruined many civilizations.” - Frederick C. Thayer, An End to Hierarchy! An End to Competition! Organizing the Politics and Economics of Survival. – New Viewpoints, N.Y. 1973, p.123. - Only territorial nationalism is to be discarded. As voluntary and exterritorial nationalism it is harmless and can be continued as long as some people, for want of any better ideas, still go on liking it. It also embraces the myth of the chosen people, because that gives the individual member a feeling of value which otherwise he has no good reason to have. – J.Z., 26.3.09. – RELIGIONS, FAITHS, BELIEFS, MYTHS, COLLECTIVIST VALUE NOTION, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: Any territorial domination by any majority or minority is not a liberation for the minority or the majority or for the other minorities, which do remain thus suppressed. – J.Z., 1.7.92, 25.1.08, 10.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM, MAJORITY, LIBERATION

NATIONALISM: Aristotle advised Alexander to deal with the Greeks as a leader and with the Persians as a master. – But Alexander rejected the advice, certainly for practical reasons, and perhaps also for idealistic reasons. He “acted in the spirit of the policy afterwards enunciated by Eratosthenes [an Alexandrian scholar of the next century] who, ‘refusing to agree with men who divided mankind into Greeks and barbarians … declared that it was better to divide men simply into the good and bad.’” - Walter Lippmann, The Public Philosophy, A Mentor Book, 1955, p.82. – It is still better to let people make their own and individual divisions – into the kind of voluntary communities they like for themselves, as long as they do not claim any territorial monopoly for them. – J.Z., 11.9.08. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, TERRITORIALISM, GOOD & BAD INDIVIDUALS, CHAUVINISM

NATIONALISM: As present headlines demonstrate once again, small scale territorial nationalism (apart from long established mini-states and some neutral States like Switzerland and Sweden), can be locally just as brutal, murderous, destructive and wrong as were and are large scale States, empires and federations. Not the size of territorial States but the intolerant beliefs and intolerant actions of the population seem to be decisive and the inherent intolerance of territorialism, of collective sovereignty institutions and of collective responsibility notions, combined with ignorance of and disinterest in the full range of individual rights and liberties. In some respects larger States are even more tolerant, as long as their subjects largely obey their laws and pay their taxes. – Local majorities in smaller States, especially new ones, can be more intolerant - unless there exists already a long standing tradition of tolerance. - J.Z., 1.7.92, 24.1.08. - SIZE OF TERRITORIAL STATES

NATIONALISM: As the strongest form of social organization, national community throbs with threat and promise. (*) Even in its most sublime manifestation, when it assures all members of the community equality before the law, (**) nationalism carries the danger of destructiveness.” – Silvert, Man’s Power, p.128. - - (*) Its compulsory territorial membership and subordination has little to do with society & much with coercion and monopoly. It is wrong to describe it as a genuine community or society. – (**) Still leaving the great divide between law makers and the subjects of laws. - J.Z., 24.1.08.

NATIONALISM: Australia is not one nation. It is about 150 different “nationalities”, ethnic, cultural, racial groups, not to speak of the thousands of religious, anti-religious and ideological ones, to which people voluntarily adhere, without any constitutional, legal, juridical or police compulsion. All can or do peacefully coexist to the extent that its territorial governments do not favor one or the other group among them or repress the autonomy of one or the other. All its diverse voluntary groups have the right to full exterritorial autonomy – if they wish to practise it. Not even democracy or a “limited” government can be rightly imposed upon them territorially. All such impositions attempts are not obligatory for peaceful individuals and groups of volunteers. – The territorial unifiers are only entitled to ask for voluntary subscribers to their associations, not for the continuance of a territorial monopoly they already possess or aspire to. However, at present all of the population are forcefully subjected to territorial governments, their legislation and institutions, at the federal, state and local government levels, which extort from their subjects more in involuntary tribute payments than absolute kings ever did before. - J.Z., 29.7.98, 24.1.08, 24.1.09, 10.1.11. - ONE NATION, ONE STATE, ONE LEADER? PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: begin to question … the difference between a great nation and a free people.” – Reeves/Hess: The End of the Draft, p.32. - & PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: Besides, individuality greatly outweighs nationality and in any given human being deserves a thousand times more consideration. National character, since it has to do with the crowd, will never be anything fairly to boast about. It is rather that human limitation, perversity and baseness appear in every country in a different form, and we call this the national character. Disgusted by one of them, we praise another until this, too, has earned our disgust. Every nation speaks scornfully of every other – and they are all right.” – Arthur Schopenhauer, quoted in: Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.439. - VS. INDIVIDUALISM, CROWDS VS. INDIVIDUALS

NATIONALISM: BOUNDARY, n. In political geography, an imaginary line between two nations, separating the imaginary rights of one from the imaginary rights of the other.” – Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary. – Only the territorial, collectivist, legislated and imposed "rights", claims, privileges and "liberties" are imaginary. - Alas, even anarchists and libertarians have not yet shown enough knowledge or imagination to finally compile an ideal declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties. Thus we got avalanches of "positive" and imposed territorial legislation instead. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - FRONTIERS, BORDERS, BOUNDARIES, ENEMIES, NATIONAL RIGHTS., PATRIOTISM TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: But every country has its madmen. Some countries have more than others. And when you give such men a licence to kill they are not always particular about the way they kill. But, I’m afraid, that the rest of their fellow countrymen remain human beings.” - Eric Ambler, Journey into Fear, in a Heineman/Octopus, 1978 edition of his stories, p.199. - COUNTRIES, POPULATIONS, MADMEN IN POWER, LEADERSHIP, RULERS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, CHANCELLORS, GOVERNMENTS, DESPOTISM, TYRANNY, TERRITORIALISM, INTOLERANCE, MASS MURDERERS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, INDIVIDUAL VS. COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NATIONALISM: But today, in an age threatened with nuclear war, overpopulation, and resource depletion, nationalism worsens our most dangerous problems.” – Ben Bova, ANALOG, 8/74. – He should have said: territorial nationalism. – J.Z., 1/75. – Is the “age” threatened with nuclear war or are we? On resource depletion and population he is or was as ignorant as, alas, all too many science fiction writers still are. – J.Z., 27.1.08. - For enlightenment on Bova's remaining popular errors and prejudices I refer to the writings of Julian L. Simon. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - PATRIOTISM, DIS.

NATIONALISM: damn these ‘nations’ … where but on old Earth would people subdivide their planet and think the subdivisions meant anything.” – ANALOG 5/78, p. 83. - Differences are meaningful only for volunteers and they should remain individual choices, finished by individual secessionism and then replaced by new and other individual free choices and associationism, under personal law. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - & PATRIOTISM, TERRITORIALISM, BORDERS, FRONTIERS, STATES, STATISM, GOVERNMENTS

NATIONALISM: Did the ancient murderous religions ever require as many human sacrifices and sacrifices of blood, limbs, labor and wealth as the modern statist, territorial and nationalistic religions do, in the Moloch cult of the territorial State? – J.Z., 28.12.93, 24.1.08. - RELIGIONS & HUMAN SACRIFICES, Q.

NATIONALISM: Do not expect nations to take the initiative in imposing restrictions upon themselves.” – Alexander Hamilton. – Nations are mere abstracts. The power-holders, who pretend to represent a “nation”, do not like any restrictions upon their power addiction and power urges. – J.Z., 27.1.08. - & PATRIOTISM, DIS.

NATIONALISM: Earth is my country, my nation, the human race, mankind, is my people and I am my own government or free society – together with like-minded volunteers, all content with full exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. – J.Z., 23.10.93. - SELF-GOVERNMENT, MANKIND, COSMOPOLITANISM, INDEPENDENCE, PANARCHISM

NATIONALISM: Even marriages that are love matches, quite voluntarily engaged in, do often last only for a few years instead of a life-time. They frequently lead to separations, divorces and marriages with other partners, sometimes to something that might be classed as serial polygamy. Yet we expect compulsory and coercive lifetime partnerships with millions of other people, most of them quite unknown to us and a few quite abhorrent to us, to last for our lifetime, without love or friendship or close work or business relationships, sports and hobby relationships and this while being dominated by a few powerful people and the floods of laws they have passed. And this subordination and inmate-ship is supposed to make us happy or content, grateful, obedient and well off, regardless of how many of our rights and liberties remain repressed and how much we are exploited via coercively levied tributes. A happy territorial “nation” or “people” is much more utopian than a happy and lifelong marriage. At least from marriages we can part via separation and divorce. We have no equivalent right (secession and voluntary and exterritorially autonomous re-association with others) for our state or nation-membership, while remaining in our the country we were born in. At best we are allowed to leave and are accepted in other countries - somewhat better. The voluntary marriage and divorce system and re-marriage system or “free love” or that of de-facto marriages has still to be introduced regarding whole political, economic and social systems, although it should already be implied in freedom of contract and freedom of association. – J.Z., 10.7.86, 10.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM, CITIZENSHIP, LOYALTY, OBEDIENCE, SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, EMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION, MARRIAGES, SEPARATION, DIVORCE

NATIONALISM: Every national border in Europe marks the place where two gangs of bandits got too exhausted to kill each other anymore and signed a treaty. Patriotism is the delusion that one of these gangs of bandits is better than all the others.” – R. A. Wilson, The Earth Will Shake, p.100. - BORDERS, FRONTIERS, WARS, LEADERSHIP, POLITICIANS, PATRIOTISM, STATES, GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM, INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, WARFARE STATES

NATIONALISM: For hundreds of years, people have lived under the yoke of huge nation-states that kill, tax, loot and destroy in a relentless attempt to control and exploit everybody and everything.” – Editorial in LIBERTARIAN ANALYSIS, Winter 1970, p.2. - They must become reduced to their volunteers and exterritorial autonomy with personal laws only. Thus they would remain harmful only to their remaining volunteers and these would tend to learn from free competition with other such societies and communities. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - NATION STATES, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: For what precise and definite object are all the citizens today to be stamped, like the coinage, with the same image? … On what basis would they be cast in the same mold? And who will posses the mold? A terrible question, which should give us pause. Who will posses the mold? … Is it not simpler to break this fatal mold and honestly proclaim freedom?” – Bastiat, in G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.249. – To each individual and to each community of volunteers the own mold! – J.Z., 24.2.09. - PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, MINORITY AUTONOMY, NATIONAL AIMS, UNIFORMITY VS. FREEDOM. Q., STATE, LEADERSHIP, UNITY, UNIFORMITY, EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, Q.

NATIONALISM: Globalism as well as world federalism, and nationalism or patriotism should be as voluntary and individualized as our shopping preferences are. Consumer sovereignty and free enterprise offers in everything – except e.g. mass murder devices. But under full freedom who would want them? People would be free to mind their own business in every respect and would not have to be afraid of becoming territorially over-powered by other beliefs, people, customs, traditions, laws, ideologies. Each group would be free to do its own things, for or to itself, but each member of each group would be free to change his or her membership and allegiance. – J.Z., 24.2.09, 10.1.11.

NATIONALISM: he believes that the customs of this tribe are the laws of nature.” - Robert Heinlein, Requiem, 208. - As a matter of free individual choice, rather than collectively or territorially imposed choices, they are, for we are all products of nature, regardless of our differences. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - FAITH, BELIEFS, CUSTOMS, TRADITIONS, LAWS, INTOLERANCE, SUPERIORITY COMPLEX, NATURAL LAW, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICE

NATIONALISM: He loves his country best who strives to make it best.” – R. G. Ingersoll, Speech in New York, May 29, 1882. – Best by what standard? – J.Z., 25.1.08. - By whose standard? People should no longer try to improve or reform "their" whole territorial country (people no being property) but, rather, whatever society or community of volunteers they want to belong to, established or have joined and this always only at their own expense and risk. No matter how flawed, prejudiced and spleeny their ideas are, their right to thus make their own mistakes, among themselves, should be fully realized. No more territorial impositions of supposedly well mean reforms, laws, constitutions and jurisdictions. Competition and free choice for individuals in every sphere. Persona laws rather than territorial ones. - Profit and loss options in this sphere as well! - J.Z., 10.1.11. - PATRIOTISM, LOVE OF ONE’S COUNTRY & PEOPLE, TERRITORIALISM, LAWS, CHOICE, VOLUNTARISM

NATIONALISM: he was compelled to believe that all the religions of the world were so many geographical insanities.” – Robert Owen in his discussion with Rev. J. H. Roebuck at Manchester. – Replace “religions” with nationalistic beliefs and statist ideologies. 1.11.86. At least for religions we have largely come, largely, away from territorialism and its intolerance. However, faiths in political, economic and social systems, territorially imposed, is still rampant and has all too many victims. – Nevertheless, we still we do not class these impositions and persecutions with e.g. despotism or the Inquisition and do not demand freedom for peaceful dissenters to secede and do their own thins for or to themselves, in their own communities of volunteers, in the equivalent organizations to those of religious liberty or religious tolerance. – J.Z., 25.1.08, 10.1.11. - & RELIGION, TERRITORIALISM, INTOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM

NATIONALISM: Hess proclaimed if we did not have nation states, Hitler would have been a mere bully in his neighborhood, and Nixon would have been a little pest.” – NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, 65, 13. March 87. - on Karl Hess. - NATION STATES, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: How was he to know, in this area, if the man was Greek, Macedonian or Bulgar? As he recalled, the nationalities blended into each other at this point to such a degree that even borders made precious little difference.” - Mack Reynolds, Time of War, IF SF, Nov. 65. - The borders make all the difference for those aware of their minority differences and aspirations and subjected to whoever rules territorially nevertheless. Let them sort themselves out - with each group of volunteers, which they prefer for themselves, ruling itself, regardless of the other associations and organizations of s in the same area. - It works for religious differences, for sports, hobbies, crafts, arts, choice of professions and trades, technological and scientific preferences and associations. Only the territorial outlawing of individual choices for political, economic and social systems, all only for their own volunteers, causes troubles. In all other spheres we have already avoided troubles by allowing individual sovereignty. It works, everywhere, well enough. It would work there, too, if only we allowed it to. Harmony and mutual tolerance aren't impossible. They are merely territorially outlawed. - J.Z. - n.d. & 10.1.11. - MINORITY AUTONOMY, BALKAN, PANARCHISM, HARMONY, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

NATIONALISM: I am not opinionated in favor of any territorial government. – J.Z., 10.4.87. – Well, some mini-states and neutral States excepted. The few mini-States are hardly larger than some private real estates in Australia. – But even they are still far from the ideals they could and should be, as mere communities of volunteers, not confined to any territory and yet fully exterritorially autonomous. - Full experimental freedom, at the own risk and expense, for all, in all spheres! - J.Z., 25.1.08, 10.1.11. - & TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, GOVERNMENTS

NATIONALISM: I am, you are, we are all Australians and we are, mostly, proud to be Australians.” - Source? However, how can one be proud to be as unfree as Australians still are by now? – J.Z., 6.4.94. As a nation of immigrants we, through our supposed representatives, have introduced immigration restrictions and deported people or put them into concentration camps. For our governments do not know how to cope with unemployment and so further immigrants are unpopular. Should we be proud of this ignorance and this response to it, too? – J.Z., 24.1.08. - Should we be proud of our tax-slavery, our imposed territorial uniformity, our monetary despotism, with its inflations, deflations, stagflations and involuntary mass unemployment and recurring crises? - J.Z., 10.1.11. – If we had no other distinctions or achievements than being Australian nationals – should we be really proud of THAT? – J.Z., 28.12.11. - DIS., Q.

NATIONALISM: I have never understood why one’s affections must be confined, as once with women, to a single country.” – J. K. Galbraith, A Life In Our Times, 1881. – I never thought I would have any reason to quote him! – J.Z., 26.1.08. – Why should one have to love only one woman or one man or one country? Or the particular economic, social and political system that is now territorially imposed upon us? – Free choice and voluntarism in everything! - For those, who do prefer it for themselves! - J.Z., 24.2.09, 10.1.11. - & WOMEN, MONOGAMY, MARRIAGE, POLYGAMY, PANARCHISM, COSMOPOLITANISM, PERSONAL LAW, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM

NATIONALISM: I look on all men as my fellow-citizens, and would embrace a Pole as I would a Frenchman, subordinating this national tie to the common and universal one. … Nature has given us to the world free and unfettered; we imprison ourselves in certain narrow districts. …” - Michael Montaign, in Paul Eldridge: Montaigne. - And their territorially imposed political, economic and social systems! - J.Z., 10.1.11. - & PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: I love my country far too much to be a nationalist.” – Unknown - And I despise too many of its laws and too many of its people to wish to remain in a territorial association with them, subject to their votes and all too little chance to distance myself from them by my collectivist territorial vote, which I do not with to impose upon them, either. Individual choice and experimental freedom, complete voluntarism, under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy for all except criminals and aggressors! I could live with that and so could they. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - PATRIOTISM, TERRITORIALISM, LOVE OF COUNTRY

NATIONALISM: I want to work only for the benefit of my own “nation”, my own sovereign self. – J.Z., 10/73. – And this at the same time for the benefit of all my trading partners - through free exchange with all other sovereign individuals and all other voluntary associations. – J.Z., 24.1.08. - VS. INDIVIDUALISM & INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SELF-OWNERSHIP

NATIONALISM: If it breaks up a nation-state or an empire, I’m for it.” – Mike Marotta, LIBERTARIAN CONNECTION, March 6, 1972. - However, territorial nationalism on a smaller scale does not always make it rightful and benevolent. Territorialism is, inherently, imperialistic on any scale - that goes beyond private or cooperative real estate. With its abolition imperialism disappears completely. Freely competing societies and communities of volunteers would remain, - nation-wide or even world-wide, in all their desired varieties. - J.Z., 10.1.11.

NATIONALISM: If the American desires the greatness and prosperity of the States before all nations, and the Englishman desires the same for his nation, and the Russian, Turk, Dutchman, Abyssinian, Venezuelan, Boer, Armenian, :Pole, Czech, each have a similar desire; if all are convinced that these desires ought not to be concealed and suppressed, but, on the contrary, are something to be proud of, and to be encouraged in oneself and in others; and if (*) one’s country’s greatness and prosperity can be obtained only at the expense of another, or at times of many other countries and nations – then how can war not be?” – Tolstoi, On Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence, 106. – (*) it is believed that – J.Z. - & PATRIOTISM, WAR, PEACE, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES, PROTECTIONISM VS. FREE TRADE.

NATIONALISM: If the human race is to survive then we must subordinate national pride to internationalist thinking. A nation has its place in the international order (*), but when it puts its own interests over those of the international order then this becomes dangerous. („Wenn die menschliche Rasse ueberleben soll, muessen wir den Nationalstolz dem internationalen Denken unterordnen. Eine Nation hat ihren Platz in der internationalen Ordnung, aber wenn sie ihre eigenen Interessen ueber die der menschlichen Gemeinschaft stellt, wird es gefaehrlich.“) – Sarvepalli Radkrishnan, Rede anlaesslich der Verleihung des Friedenspreises des Deutschen Buchhandels, am 22.10.1961 in Frankfurt am Main. - - (*) Yes, but not in the form of a territorial monopoly. – J.Z., 25.1.08. – Practised with a territorial monopoly claim it only leads to numerous disorders. – J.Z., 24.2.09. - PRIDE, ARROGANCE, SPECIAL INTERESTS, INTERNATIONAL LAW, TERRITORIALISM, TERRITORIAL EXPANSION, CONQUESTS, SPHERES OF POWER, DIS.

NATIONALISM: Ignorant of and disinterested in better ideas, the nationalists champion territorial nationalism and, finally became slaves and enslavers under the banner of territorial unity and nationalism. - J.Z., 28.2.89, 3.4.89, 10.1.11. – J.Z. – I always disliked how tame elephants have been used and abused to capture and also enslave wild elephants. – J.Z., 28.2.09. - PANARCHISM, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT & INDEPENDENCE

NATIONALISM: Ignorant of better ideas, nationalists became slaves and enslavers under the banner of territorial unity and nationalism. - J.Z., 28.2.89, 3.4.89.

NATIONALISM: It is not true that our "nation" is endangered but that the very existence of our "nation", in exclusive, territorial and coercive form, endangers US and OTHERS.  - “Nothing but what is voluntary is deserving of the name of national, according to Caroline Chisholm. (*) What is voluntary does rarely make enemies and it can be defended much easier and with much more justification. – J.Z., 1986, 2004. – (*) The A.B.C. of colonization: In a series of letters, by Mrs. Chisholm. No.I. - Google has put it online, as I found out only today. – J.Z., 29.12.11. – But I was unable to download it, not being signed in already and was not given the sign-in option, either, in several attempts. – Perhaps you are more lucky with them. - J.Z., 7.6.12. - TERRITORIAL, WAR & PEACE, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, CAROLINE CHISHOLM, 1898-1877.

NATIONALISM: It is of the utmost significance that modern nationalism does not spring from love towards one’s own country or one’s own people. On the contrary, it has its roots in the ambitious plans of a minority lusting for dictatorship and determined to impose upon the people a certain form of the state, even though this be entirely contrary to the will of the majority. Blind belief in the magic power of a national dictatorship is to replace for man the love of home and the feeling of the spiritual culture of his time; love of fellow man is to be crushed by “the greatness of the state”, for which individuals are to serve as fodder.” – Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.243. - Under monetary despotism and territorialism, which makes it possible, it often springs mainly from fear of unemployment and fear of foreign competitors, leading to immigration restrictions, protectionism and hatred of foreigners. - J.Z., n.d. & 10.1.11.

NATIONALISM: It is remarkable that jealousy of individual property in land often goes along with very exaggerated doctrines of tribal or national property in land. We are told that John, James, and Williams ought not to possess part of the earth’s surface because it belongs to all men; but it is held that Egyptians, Nicaraguans, or Indians have such right to the territory which they occupy, that they may bar the avenues of commerce and civilization if they choose, and that it is wrong to override their prejudices or expropriate their land … the notion that the race owns the earth has practical meaning … for the latter class of cases.” – W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe To Each Other, p.45. – TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION, NATIONAL LAND TENURE, LAND MONOPOLY, LAND RIGHTS ONLY FOR NATIVES? NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE, & PATRIOTISM, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: know that at one time the world was divided into warring nations, and before that into fiercely patriotic States; and before that human beings owed their loyalties to towns? Will we always have such fools to contend with? Well-meaning fools, who understand nothing of political, social or vital economy, and are perpetually victims of their own and undisciplined desires and emotional incoherencies.” – A. E. Van Vogt, The Proxy Intelligence, p.132. - ECONOMICS, PROTECTIONISM, TERRITORIALISM, FOOLISHNESS, PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: Madness among individuals is rare but among groups, parties, peoples and times it is the rule.“ – (Der Irrsinn ist bei Einzelnen etwas Seltenes - , aber bei Gruppen, Parteien, Voelkern, Zeiten die Regel.) – Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Boese, 4, 156. (Beyond Good & Evil.) – Let individual and reasonable people opt out from the masses, to do their own things, but also let fools be foolish at their own expense and risk. Thus enlightenment and rehabilitation will become speeded up. – J.Z., 22.7.86, 25.1.08. – An English translation by someone else: “In individuals, insanity is rare, but in group, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule.” – F. W. Nietzsche: Beyond Good & Evil, 1886. – Thus individuals ought to remain free and choosy about their national association. – J.Z., 10.7.86. - & PANARCHISM, MOBS, MASSES, MASS PSYCHOLOGY, MAJORITY, PARTIES, PEOPLES, MADNESS, IRRATIONALITY, TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVISM, PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM

NATIONALISM: men pitching about rudderless, not knowing where to turn, fall into the trap of nationalism, the doctrine that, in the absence of right, we might just as well respect might.” – R. V. Sampson, The Discovery of Peace, p.69. – MIGHT, RIGHT, POWER, PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: Modern nationalism is based on defending land, not people.” – Marc Eric Ely Chaitlin, THE CONNECTION 140, p.74. - How valuable is a country filled with radioactive dust? – Should we be grateful if our great mis-leaders survive, in the safest bunkers? - J.Z., 25.1.08. – It is rather based upon protecting the ruling government than its subjects. – J.Z., 24.2.09. - & TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, GOVERNMENTS VS. PEOPLE, DEFENCE WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS

NATIONALISM: Morally, the territorial type of nationalism was never justified. Historically it is a relatively modern development: "Among the Romans the censor was an inspector of public morals, but the public morals of modern nations will not bear inspection!”‑ Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary. "The new creed is nationalism, the doctrine which expresses and contains the self-adulation of the power unit, the nation state, its sacred absolute authority." - Gregory Raines in: "GOOD GOVERNMENT", June 72. - There are totalitarian traits even in democracies: "… In effect, a government at war tells its people: 'Forget that you are workers fighting against fellow workers; that you are students fighting against fellow students; that you are Christians fighting against fellow Christians. Remember only that you are Britishers or Germans, or Japanese. That is your supreme allegiance'." ‑ W. Macmahon Ball in the anthology: "Paths to Peace", compiled by Victor Wallace. - - "Nationalism means nothing anyhow. Take the British: In France a Briton is perfidious, in America he's a silly ass with a monocle, in Italy a gaunt, cold‑blooded aristocrat, in Germany a bony pipe-sucking child starver." ‑ Eric Knight, "This Above All", p.121, World Distributors, London. - - The world will not see peace until we have abolished the collectivism and coercion inherent in all existing nationalist movements and institutions and have reduced the nationalists to voluntaristic communities, which, as such, could have all the autonomy they desire. - Caroline Chisholm was right where she said: " Nothing but what is voluntary is deserving the name of national.” The A.B.C. of colonization: In a series of letters, by Mrs. Chisholm. No.I, 1850. - Google has put it online, as I found out only today. – J.Z., 29.12.11. But today I tried to download it, in vain. J.Z., 7.6.12. - Once nationality becomes as voluntaristic and individualistic as church membership ‑ it will become as harmless. - - Geographically defined nations are by their very definition nuclear targets. Thus we can no longer afford to be organized in this way. - Voluntary and exterritorially autonomous nationalism, according to any person's free and individual choice, is the answer. This reorganization would do away with all the war-promoting tendencies of territorial nationalism. - If some nations would not want to accept certain members, then the newcomers would still have no cause to resort to war, for they would remain free to set up similar nations without this exclusiveness, anywhere but without any monopoly claims to the whole territory in which they come to live and work. It would all be a question of private contracts with private owners, who might belong to different panarchies. – From: J.Z., An ABC Against Nuclear War. - VOLUNTARY VERSUS TERRITORIAL NATIONALISM

NATIONALISM: Most kinds of nationalism tend to be also a kind of State socialism, national socialism or State capitalism, at least in many spheres, not only that of the post office, jurisdiction, legislation, administration and defence and central banking. Especially when approved by the majority, they tend to exploit or suppress some peaceful and productive minorities, at least the anarchists and libertarians of various colors and shades. – J.Z., 24.9.87, 26.1.08, 10.1.11.

NATIONALISM: My country right or wrong: if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right.” – Carl Schurz: Speech in the Senate, Jan. 17, 1872. – Cf. STEVEN DECATUR, ante, 1816. - Can one set a territorial State right while leaving it as a territorial power? – J.Z., 24.1.08. – Q., COUNTRY, POPULATION, POWER, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: My country, right or wrong!”? – It’s not my country or my government, or my people, to the extent that they are wrong and, nevertheless, continue to pretend to also represent me and to bind me and other dissenters to their laws, policies and institutions, while they do not permit me and others to secede from them. – J.Z., 24.11.99, 24.1.08, 7.6.12. - DIS. – INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM: PANARCHISM UNDER PERSONAL LAWS OR FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL VOLUNTARY COMMUNITIES

NATIONALISM: National agreement” is a contradiction in terms and also one of the great and dangerous fictions. – They are binding only for those who did sign them or would have been prepared to sign them. – J.Z., 10.6.98, 24.1.08. - NATIONAL AGREEMENTS, INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

NATIONALISM: National land monopoly claims have led and are leading to the greatest crimes. – J.Z., 15.8.93. - TERRITORIALISM & LAND MONOPOLY

NATIONALISM: National States are a social invention of the past three centuries.” PEACE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS JOURNALS, entry 28936. – Rather an anti-social invention. – J.Z., 24.2.09 - & PATRIOTISM, STATES, TERRITORIALISM.

NATIONALISM: National territorial claims are as criminal as are the exclusive turf claims of the Mafia and other organized crime groups. – J.Z., 10.8.96, 24.1.08. - TERRITORIALISM & TURF OF CRIMINALS

NATIONALISM: Nationalism and any other faith or ideology can also be practised tolerantly, freely and efficiently without exclusive possession of any territory. On the contrary: The exclusive territorial claims bring many difficulties that could and should be avoided. They maximize rather than minimize resistance to them and render the achievement of real self-government, self-determination or self-management in many cases impossible or may delay it for decades to centuries. Thus, in desperation, some members of national, religious, social, ethnic or ideological minorities, unaware of their exterritorial and rightful possibilities in their opinion, are, in their opinion, "driven" towards terrorist actions. - J.Z., 11.12.03, 7.6.12. - Most terrorist movements would soon collapse if most of the members were given the option of exterritorial autonomy for themselves and if, at last, a world-wide enlightenment campaign were started and carried out against the principle and practice of "collective responsibility". - This immoral “principle” and practice is still all too much embodied in most religions and their “holy” books, also in all too much of the thoughtlessness and poverty of rightful ideas which passes as public opinion or governmental education. – J.Z., 7.6.12. - Nationalism does not require the exclusive possession of a territory to achieve self-government. Voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy are possible in this sphere as well! Tolerance for all tolerant groups, communities and societies! Panarchism! - J.Z., 17.9.04, 10.1.11. - DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF A TERRITORY TO ACHIEVE SELF-GOVERNMENT. -


NATIONALISM: nationalism has been the prime cause of aggression.” – Workers Party, platform draft, 1975. – Territorial nationalism – yes. Exterritorial nationalism – no. – After so many centuries of wars we should finally show some interest in what really causes war (territorialism, monetary & financial despotism, protectionism, conscription, compulsory taxation, public debts) and what can cause peace, namely, exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers, none of them confined to any particular territory on this planet. – J.Z., 27.1.08, 10.1.11, 7.6.12. – & PATRIOTISM, PEACE, WAR, AGGRESSION, TERRITORIALISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, COSMOPOLITANISM, VOLUNTARISM

NATIONALISM: Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” - Albert Einstein, 1879-1955, to George Sylvester Viereck, 1921, quoted in: Bernard Berenson, 1865-1959, Lore and Maurice Cowan, compilers, The Wit of the Jews, Leslie Frewin, London, 1970, p.30. – The disease consists mainly only in territorial nationalism. The nationalism of communities of volunteers only, confined to exterritorial autonomy and personal laws, is rightful and harmless, might even be beneficial for its members and trading partners. E.g., the term “Made in Germany”, first possibly imposed as a method to encourage an international boycott of German goods, became a sign for quality and boosted exports. It also appealed to German nationalism and pride. Did it do anything wrong? Compare it with the stupid and short-sighted slogan: “Buy Australian!”, as if quality and price did not matter and as if imports did not lead to corresponding exports. – J.Z., 24.1.08. – His remark is true for territorial nationalism. Not for cultural and language or ideological preferences of individuals and societies of volunteers. – J.Z., 22.2.09.

NATIONALISM: Nationalism is compulsory Apartheid on an international scale. – J.Z., 9.10.88. - & APARTHEID

NATIONALISM: Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. “Patriotism” is its cult.” – Erich Fromm, The Sane Society, 1955, p.3. – Patriotism may merely be the attempt to help make one’s nation not worse but as good or even better than other nations. Then it is a positive incentive and force for progress and enlightenment. – Then it need not lead to protectionism or a nuclear arms race or any other mere power struggle. - J.Z., 25.1.08. - However, the full forces for progress and enlightenment will only become realized under full exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, which would be the equivalent of experimental freedom in the natural sciences or the application of the principle and practice of religious liberty to the social sciences. How much longer will we have to wait for this chance? - J.Z., 10.1.11. - DIS., Q.

NATIONALISM: Nationalism is the country-wide and even international equivalent to parochialism. – J.Z., August 88. – It limits and confines our horizons all too much. – J.Z., 25.1.08. - It also impoverishes and endangers us in its territorial form. - J.Z., 11.1.10. - NATIONALISM IS ALSO PAROCHIALISM, COSMOPOLITANISM, MANKIND

NATIONALISM: Nationalism leads to moral ruin because it denies universality, denies the existence of a single God, denies the value of the human being as a human being; and because at the same time, it affirms exclusiveness, encourages vanity, pride and self-satisfaction, stimulates hatred and proclaims the necessity and the rightness of war.” – Aldous Huxley, Science, Liberty and Peace, p.34. - Territorial nationalism produces Warfare States even when the same religion or mix of religions exists on both sides of a frontier. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - & PATRIOTISM, TERRITORIALISM, COMPULSORY MONOPOLISM, DIS.

NATIONALISM: Nationalism lives only as an ideology of hate, envy, and thirst for power; …” - Leszek Kolakowski, ENCOUNTER, 12/78, p.84. - Exceptions: Sweden and Switzerland, to a large degree and also the few mini-States. - My friend Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969, distinguished between nationalism and patriotism, ascribing only genuine progress aspirations to patriotism and mere domination and expansion attempts to nationalism. - He also aimed at abolishing territorialism for both and its replacement by voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy. - J.Z., 11.1.10.

NATIONALISM: nationalism produces a queer myopia. The African chief said: “If I steal another man’s wife, that is good. If he steals mine, that is bad.” – Henry Meulen, THE INDIVIDUALIST, 4/75. – JOKES, PATRIOTISM, PEOPLE AS PROPERTY VS. SELF-OWNERSHIP & INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, MORALITY

NATIONALISM: Nationalism should be recognized to be the sentimental but extremely dangerous nonsense that it is. I most emphatically do not advocate a conventional Religious Revival, but what I do urge is that people recognized, more widely than they do now, that they are primarily responsible to their own consciences, irrespective of their particular traditions of wisdom, if any, upon which they draw to supplement the fruits of their own experience.” – Abrabanel – I wish he had the “conscience” aspect more concretely expressed, e.g. via a proposal for an improved declaration of genuine individual rights and liberties. We need more blueprints for liberty rather than general calls for something better or progress or self-improvement or responsibility. – The territorialist pretences and assertions of nationalism would be shown up as largely false - once all dissenters are free to secede from any “nation” State and to peacefully compete or simply coexist with its remaining members, then all volunteers, on the basis of full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 24.1.08. - CONSCIENCE, TRADITIONS, INDIVIDUALISM

NATIONALISM: nationalism, the most important cohesive element in modern society, …” - Silvert, Man’s Power, p.50. – As long as its subjects or victims are not free to secede from it, forming their own and genuine societies and communities of volunteers, under full exterritorial autonomy, nationalism should not be wrongly described as a cohesive element but, rather, as a coercive one. Any territorial statism has little if anything to do with any free society. For man, seen from a cosmopolitan point of view, it is the greatest divisive element, one that can and is being exploited by various power addicts. – Once individuals and groups will be free to secede from territorial coercers, their differences will be not larger but they will no longer be greater threats to peace and free exchange than are e.g. the differences between golfers and cricketers, soccer and tennis fans, painters and poets, musicians and writers. – Territorial nationalism is rather used as a cover to hide our differences. - J.Z., 24.1.08, 7.6.12. - DIS.

NATIONALISM: Nationalism: denial of the similarities between one people and its neighbors, of the possible superiority of other people.” – Thomas Szasz, Heresies, p.78.

NATIONALISM: Nationalities are not liberated by confining them to any limited territory. Deportation zones, reserves and ghettos are not centers of liberty but resemble prisons or concentration camps much more. Even the usual territorial national domination of one particular national, religious, racial, ethnic or ideological group or community, whether it constitutes a majority or minority, over all the others in a territory does, obviously, not amount to genuine and full liberation for all people in a country, not even the domineering group. Any leash has two ends. – J.Z., 21.6.92, 24.1.08. 7.6.12. - LIBERATION & PANARCHISM

NATIONALISM: Nationwide thinking, nationwide planning and nationwide action are the three great essentials to prevent (*) nationwide crises for future generations to struggle through.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt, speech, New York City, April 24, 1936. – (*) Rather, to create! – J.Z., 28.10.85. – People as ignorant and prejudiced still have the chance to become and to remain presidents of great or small territorial nations for all too long. – J.Z., 24.1.08. - NEW DEAL, STATE SOCIALISM, WELFARE STATE, CENTRAL PLANNING & DIRECTION, PRESIDENTS, PREJUDICES, VOTING, DIS., LEADERSHIP

NATIONALISM: Never was patriot yet, but was a fool.” – John Dryden, 1631-1700, Andrews Quotes, 335. - The worst example for it that comes to my mind, was the newspaper report of people in Pakistan dancing in the street upon hearing that their territorial government had also acquired nuclear mass murder devices. They seemed to be able to forget that not only neighbouring peoples but they themselves were the targets of these "weapons". - J.Z., 10.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM, FOOLISHNESS, PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: No exclusive national territory has any foundation in morality or economics or necessity. A sufficiently developed culture and civilization, and, most importantly, peace, freedom and justice for all, in accordance with the own and varied individual standards and aims, can only be achieved without territorialism. – J.Z., 2.10.93, 24.1.08, 10.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: No man can be a patriot on an empty stomach.” – W. C. Brann, The Iconoclast, in George Seldes, The Great Quotations. - Territorial nationalism does often produce all too much emptiness in millions of stomachs. - The poorest people are often the most nationalistic ones. Rich people are often quite cosmopolitan. As such and as jetsetters the whole planet is their oyster. They are welcome almost everywhere at least as tourists, investors and entrepreneurs, unless complete territorial foolishness blocks or endangers that option, too. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - & PATRIOTISM, PROTECTIONISM, MONETARY DESPOTISM, ANTI-CAPITALISM, DIS.

NATIONALISM: No man has the right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has the right to say to his country – this far shalt thou go and no further.” – C. S. Parnell, 1846-1891, quoted in A. Andrews Quotations, p.314 – This can be taken two ways: Either as a reference for expanded territorial borders or for the abolition of all of them. – Marching "nations" tend to be warlike or masses of conscripted, aggressive and invasive, at least upon command, given by those remaining back in the safest bunkers. Migrants come as peaceful individuals and families, simply seeking better contract options for themselves. - J.Z., n.d. & 10.1.11, 7.6.12. - PATRIOTISM, BOUNDARIES, BORDERS, FRONTIERS, FREE MIGRATION.

NATIONALISM: No national literature, philosophy or science has sufficient knowledge and wisdom on its own. Only world literature, world philosophy, and world science can satisfy our requirements. – J.Z., 25.9.93. – However, a world State or a world federation could satisfy us even less than any present State, federation or local government could. It would be as useless, wrongful and harmful as the biggest ABC mass murder devices are. – All national and world-wide organizations and other associations and communities should be confined to their own volunteers and their own personal laws and institutions. - J.Z., 24.1.08. - VS. COSMOPOLITANISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

NATIONALISM: No real science fictioner can be a “100% American”; we’re too aware that the human race is a larger cause.” – John W. Campbell in: The John W. Campbell Letters, vol. 1, 1985. Eds.: Perry A. Chapdelaine, Sr., et al., AC Projects Inc., ISBN 0-931150-16-7, p. 378. - - And that of all reasonable beings is a much larger one still. – J.Z., 28.9.07. - HUMAN RACE, AMERICANS, COSMOPOLITANISM, HUMANISM, ALIENS, SCIENCE FICTION FANS

NATIONALISM: Nothing but what is voluntary is deserving the name of national.” – Australian pioneer woman, Caroline Chisholm, 1808-1877,The A.B.C. of colonization: In a series of letters”, No.I, 1850.  - Google has put it online, as I found out only today. – J.Z., 29.12.11. - & PATRIOTISM, VOLUNTARISM

NATIONALISM: Nothing is more egotistical than nationalism, nothing more scrupulous than the desire for unified government.” – Proudhon, in S. Edwards, Proudhon, p.190. - Unscrupulous! - J.Z., 10.1.11. - & PATRIOTISM, DIS., TERRITORIAL POWER MONGERS

NATIONALISM: Nuclear nationalism is genocidal and suicidal madness. – J.Z., n.d. - PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: One is a Nationalist’, says Professor Corradini, one of the prophets of Italian sacro egoismo, while waiting to be able to become an Imperialist.’ He prophesies that in twenty years ‘all Italy will be Imperialist’. – Quoted by Mr. T. L. Stoddard in an article on the Italian Nationalism, in the FORUM, Sept. 1915.” - Norman Angell, Human Nature and the Peace Problem, 1925, p.17/18. - IMPERIALISM, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: One is trained to think of himself as a member of his nation just as one is trained to think of himself as a member of a church. “National states are political church organizations; the so-called national consciousness is not born in man, but trained into him. It is a religious concept; one is a German, a Frenchman, an Italian, just as one is a Catholic, a Protestant, or a Jew.” Those who actively advance the cause of the nation know exactly what they are doing when they cultivate the belief among the people that the citizen has a duty to the state that is similar to his duty to God, Rocker charged.” - Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.478/79. - Individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, are sins, obscenities or the ultimate threat in the eyes of the statist territorialists. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - & PATRIOTISM, RELIGION, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVISM

NATIONALISM: One of the childhood diseases of mankind.” – J.Z., 14.2.87- Did I read and partly remember this remark? I do not know. – J.Z., 25.1.08. . – Compare: “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” – Albert Einstein, to George Sylvester Viereck, 1921.

NATIONALISM: One of the great attractions of patriotism – it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and to cheat, Bully and cheat, what’s more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous.” – Aldous Huxley, Eyeless in Gaza, 1936. - & PATRIOTISM, CHAUVINISM, TERRITORIALISM, POWER URGE OR POWER WORSHIP

NATIONALISM: Only if, when and to the extent that it is right - is it my country or my government. And how often and how extensively does that occur? – J.Z., 1.10.92, 24.1.08. - COUNTRY

NATIONALISM: Our country is the world – our countrymen are all mankind.” – William Lloyd Garrison, Motto of the LIBERATOR, quoted in George Seldes, The Great Quotations. – I would rather voluntarily and exterritorially segregate myself from many to most of the existing people. Maybe, under full experimental freedom, their great-grandchildren will be improvements upon them. But most people of the present world population are merely the products of territorial statism, as far as the environmental influences go. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - COSMOPOLITANISM, MANKIND PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: Our country is wherever we are well off.” – John Milton, 1608-1674, Letter to Peter Heimbach, Aug. 15, 1666. (Cf. Aristophanes, ante, 408, B.C.) –– Who is “we?”? Even in the poorest countries some people are rich, with riches rightly or wrongly acquired. The personal wealth might be acquired through fraud, robberies, monopolies etc. As an unqualified standard this is not good enough. – J.Z., 25.1.08. - Compare: The country of every man is that one where he lives best. – Aristophanes, ex Ponto, I, c. 5. – Under territorialism even in the wealthiest countries large bodies of involuntarily poor people do remain. - Moreover, their immigration barriers are up! Largely because their rulers do not know how to deal with unemployment. They and the supposed "employers" see them largely only as mouths to be fed, not as minds and hands that should be free enough to support themselves by honest and productive labor, under full economic freedom, in which all their genuine individual rights and liberties are realized. The territorial "Welfare States" do produce and perpetuate a lot of involuntary poverty. - The millions of involuntarily unemployed people are a vast and "unexploited" resource - for themselves and for all others. - J.Z., 10.1.11. - & WEALTH, COSMOPOLITANISM, COUNTRY, DIS., UNEMPLOYMENT, IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS, POVERTY

NATIONALISM: Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, but – our country, right or wrong!” – Stephen Decatur, 1816, quoted in C. Bingham, Men & Affairs, 316. - - Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.” – Carl Schurz, 1829-1906, Speech in the Senate, Jan. 17, 1872. (Cf. Stephen Decatur, ante, 1816.) - & PATRIOTISM, DIS.

NATIONALISM: Our patriotism is to the human race, … This is no longer a matter of nation, religion or hemisphere. It is a matter of species survival.” – The War Book, ed. by James Sallis, p.80. - PATRIOTISM, RELIGION, SURVIVAL, WAR, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, TERRITORIALISM, COSMOPOLITANISM

NATIONALISM: Our true nationality is mankind.” – H. G. Wells, The Outline of History, - Quoted in George Seldes, The Great Quotation. – & PATRIOTISM, COSMOPOLITANISM, WORLD CITIZENSHIP, MANKIND.

NATIONALISM: Panarchism, voluntarism, exterritorial autonomy and tolerance for peaceful coexistence between very diverse communities of volunteers, none of them with a territorial monopoly. Even globalism and anti-globalism or local customs, traditions and laws could then prevail – but for their volunteers only. – J.Z., 24.2.09, 10.1.11.

NATIONALISM: Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched.” – Guy de Maupassant, My Uncle Sasthenes. – in G. Seldes, The Great Quotations. – Only if it leads to hatred, disregard and suppression or aggression. It may lead merely to proud and high productivity and other progress in free competition with other peoples, e.g. in the arts and in sports. One can try to be better than other people, without wanting to dominate, conquer or exploit them. - This is a very superficial view of wars, which have many different causes, the main one being territorialism and all that it implies. – J.Z., 25.1.08, 10.1.11, 7.6.12. - DIS.& PATRIOTISM, WARS & RELIGIONS, WARFARE STATES, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: Patriotism is a lively sense of responsibility. Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on the its own dunghill.” – Richard Aldington, 1892-1962, The Colonel’s Daughter, 1931. – Andrews Quotes 235. - & PATRIOTISM, RESPONSIBILITY, JOKES

NATIONALISM: Patriotism is a pernicious psychopathic form of idiocy.” – George Bernard Shaw, L’Esprit Français, Paris, – in G. Seldes, The Great Quotations. - & PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: Patriotism is a survival of barbarism.” – Tolstoi, on Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence, 109. - & PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles.” George Jean Nathan, Testament of a Critic, – in G. Seldes, The Great Quotations. - - It does not mean a genuine love for all the inhabitants of a territory. – J.Z., 27.1.08. – How nationalistic is the person who loves only the country itself and not all or most of its population? – J.Z., 24.2.09. - & PATRIOTISM, TERRITORIALISM, Q.

NATIONALISM: Patriotism is slavery.” – “Tolstoi on Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence”, p.79. - - I would add: “loved”, to make it: “Patriotism is slavery – loved.” – J.Z., 73. - & PATRIOTISM, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTALISM, STATISM

NATIONALISM: Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” – Dr. Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784, in Boswell’s Life of Johnson, April 7, 1775,  quoted in G. Seldes, The Great Quotations. – “In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.” – Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914. – Andrews Quotes, 335. - & PATRIOTISM, DIS.

NATIONALISM: Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.” – Oscar Wilde (in conversation). – in G. Seldes, The Great Quotations. – It is not necessarily vicious but can be quite ruthless, especially when operating righteously on the supposed principle of “collective responsibility”, e.g. of subjects for the crimes of their rulers or of people of one skin color for crimes of other people of that color. – Think especially of the air raids from WW II onwards and of nuclear mass murder devices. – J.Z., 27.1.08, 7.6.12. - & PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.” – George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950. – Andrews Quotes, p.335. - & PATRIOTISM, JOKES.

NATIONALISM: Patriotism varies, from a noble devotion to a moral insanity.” – William R. Inge, in G. Seldes, The Great Quotations. - PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: People are all too ready to fight “for” “their” country, regardless of what “their” country is for or against, or, rather, which way its leaders mislead it. – Nationalism means readiness to do something destructive and murderous under the pretence that it would be good for your country. – Patriotism means to do something creative and constructive, knowing that it will benefit your country and all the world. – J.Z., 19.7.87, 7.6.12.

NATIONALISM: Power worship is presently sectarianized along nationalistic lines. The hope of its devotees is a single ritual for all peoples, a centralized church, a universal hierarchy; only in that way can the vestiges of the heresy of freedom be eradicated. In the meantime each nation guards its orthodoxy.” – Chodorov, Out of Step, p.182. - TERRITORIALISM & WORLD-STATISM OR WORLD FEDERALISM

NATIONALISM: Race and nationality are catchwords for which rulers find that their subjects are willing to fight, as they fought for what they called religion 400 years ago.” – William R. Inge, quoted in George Seldes, The Great Quotations. - & PATRIOTISM, WAR, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NATIONALISM: Seeing how much we or our supposed representatives have messed up our “fates”, when acting collectively legally and territorially, there is no reason for us to be proud “to belong” to any particular nation or ethnic, religious, ideological or religious group. – J.Z., 2.12.88, 25.1.08.

NATIONALISM: Settled by the people of all nations, all nations may claim her for their own. You cannot spill a drop of American blood without spilling the blood of the world. … We are not a nation, so much as a world.” - Herman Melville Redburn: His First Voyage, 1849. p.90. – And now the older immigrants or their descendants restrict the inflow of new immigrants! They haven’t, sufficiently, understood what makes them well off and thus could effectively not export these freedom ideas and practices to the rest of the world. – J.Z., 11.10.07. - Or even apply them to themselves - J.Z., 10.1.11. – We are all related to each other, in most cases, often unaware of this because of time and space separations. – J.Z., 7.6.12. -  INTERNATIONALISM, AMERICANISM, HUMAN BEINGS, MAN, COSMOPOLITANISM, HUMAN BROTHERHOOD

NATIONALISM: since patriotism is necessarily equated with necrophilia, in that the loyal citizen is expected to rejoice every time his government comes up with a newer gadget for mass-producing corpses. …” - Poul Anderson, Conquests, p.70. - PATRIOTISM & NECROPHILIA, PRIDE IN MASS MURDER DEVICES, NUCLEAR WAR PREPARATIONS, NWT, WARFARE STATES,

NATIONALISM: Such ambitions, aims and practices “… meant only the growth of taxes.” – Harold J. Laski, page 12 of his introduction to “A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants”. - TERRITORIAL NATION STATES

NATIONALISM: superficial (*) divisions of people into nations and creeds (**) – meaningless divisions based not on comprehension of reality and truth, but on prejudice, myth, wishful thinking, and unreason.” – James P. Hogan, Endgame Enigma, p.272. - (*) territorial - (**) And how often have these creeds been changed, even coercively? – Not to speak of coercive border changes. - J.Z., 25.1.08. - TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: Territorial nationalism can now trigger extreme stupidities and crimes, like nuclear war. Thus we cannot afford it any longer. It has to become reduced to the self-government of various voluntary communities and societies or even “competing governments”, with all confined to their volunteers, their personal laws and exterritorial autonomy only, i.e., to panarchism or polyarchism. – Within these limits they can “shine” as much as they can. – J.Z., 1.10.85, 25.1.08, 10.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, PANARCHISM

NATIONALISM: Territorial nationalism is a mental disease with the most violent and wrongful consequences. – At times it is also a very infections and fast spreading disease, an epidemic, against which only very few are immune. Alas, it lasts usually all too long – for its survivors. – J.Z., 24.11.99, 7.6.12.

NATIONALISM: Territorial nationalism, i.e. the relatively new State religion, turns relatively peaceful and productive people into territorial oppressors, exploiters and killers, in democracies as well as in dictatorships, in normal times as well as during revolutions, civil and international wars. - J.Z., 10.9.92, 4.1.93. – With the confinement of States, societies and communities to volunteers and exterritorial autonomy only their territorial powers and abuses would disappear. – J.Z., 24.1.08, 28.2.09. - & PANARCHISM

NATIONALISM: that most influential of latter-day paganism. …” - Abrabanel. – What is wrong with paganism, to the extent that it does not demand human sacrifices or other senseless rituals? – J.Z., 24.1.08. – Territorial States demand enormous sacrifices – and even enforce them. – J.Z., 24.2.09. – PAGANISM, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, VS. PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

NATIONALISM: The abolition of the external State must be preceded by the decay of the nations which breathe life and vigor into that clumsy monster.” – Victor Yarros, quoted in Bliss, Encyclopedia of Social Reform. – Only territorial nations have to become abolished. Those based upon volunteers, personal law and exterritorial autonomy should be free to be continued indefinitely by their members. They are harmless and ethical association, even when while others do not share their beliefs, convictions or opinions and do not appreciate their institutions and laws. – J.Z., 27.1.08, 10.1.11. – STATE, ANARCHISM, PATRIOTISM, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

NATIONALISM: The Austrian poet Franz Grillparzer, to be sure, said his famous words about development going from humanitarianism through nationalism, toward bestialism.” – Source? – At what stage, when and were, had we truly reached humanitarianism? – J.Z., 27.1.08. – PATRIOTISM, Q., DIS., TERRITORIALISM, NWT.

NATIONALISM: The battle in which these specimens are engaged is almost planet-wide. It appears to us that they have carefully divided the planet into imaginary units, and groupings of these units are systematically endeavoring to destroy one another. … the groupings are temporary.” – John Morressy, The Empanty and the Savages, OMNI, July 79, p. 116. – & PATRIOTISM. WAR, BORDERS, FRONTIERS, BOUNDARIES, STATES, NATIONS, WAR, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: The cheapest sort of pride is national pride; for if a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise, he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellow-men.” – Arthur Schopenhauer, Position, 1851. - & NATIONAL PRIDE, PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: The Citizen of the World. … Such a one, my friend, is an honour to human nature; he makes no private distinctions of party; all that are stamped with the divine image of their Creator are friends to him; he is a native of the world; and the emperor of China may be proud that he has such countrymen.” – Oliver Goldsmith, The Citizen of the World, 62. – One can be too indiscriminate with one’s choice of friends. E.g.: Should one be too friendly with fools, criminals, bullies, cannibals, totalitarians, tyrants or madmen? – J.Z., 25.1.08, 7.6.12. – World citizenship or world federalism does not require a single world State or world federation. It could have several ones of each and also several non-statist word-wide societies or communities - just as it has in the sphere of religion. For instance, each ideology could have its world-wide society of volunteers, not subject to any other ideologies. – J.Z., 24.2.09. - VS. COSMOPOLITANISM, NATIVE OF THE WORLD, NATIVE OF EARTH, WORLD CITIZENSHIP, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, MUTUAL TOLERANCE

NATIONALISM: The control of international trade is characteristic of tendencies toward both nationalism and socialism. … There is nothing extraordinary in this, since nationalism inevitably leads to socialism, and socialism to nationalism. Practically every socialist regime has to be nationalistic, and vice versa: in either case what is involved is simply a form of totalitarianism.” – Ballvé, Economics, p.89. - & STATE SOCIALISM, PROTECTIONISM VS. FREE TRADE, TOTALITARIANISM, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: The country of every man is that one where he lives best.” – Aristophanes, ex Ponto, I, c. 5. – And that country may still be only a lesser evil, because it is still dominated by a territorial government. – J.Z., 24.2.09. - COUNTRY, PATRIOTISM, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: The direct use of force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources and diverse ends that it is rarely employed save by small children and great nations.'' - David D. Friedman, Law's Order. – Children often fight about one toy - while each of them has, often, literally hundreds of others. So do nations that are misguided by power-mad, ignorant and prejudiced rulers, unaware of or disinterested in numerous freedom options. Great nations are not great when they let themselves be led by nincompoops, or anyone else, by their noses and when they are imagining that they constitute a single nation with a collective national purpose. Large-scale territorial powers make people, i.e. individuals, small and powerless, often even more so than do local governments. - J.Z., 29.10.02. - Most “reasons” or “motives” for wars are just as poor as those of children who fight. – J.Z., 3.1.08. - - I can only agree with D. F: “Nations”, i.e. that many to most of a population, do, sometimes, behave just as irrationally, unjustly and violently as small children. – Or, often, just the thoughtless and unthinking and highly emotional “mass-psychology” of masses or mobs is involved, often most strongly expressed by their “great” leaders, much in touch, in this respect, with the irrational masses. – The picture of Pakistanis dancing in the street, upon the news that their government, too, did now have mass murder devices, has not left my mind. – Apparently, they did not see themselves as potential targets for such devices, although they are obviously anti-people “weapons” rather than tyrannicide arms. - J.Z., 5.1.08. - The large territorial governments often do not bother you about small details – but local governments often do. They are meddlers even in small details of our lives. – All territorial governments are far removed from genuine self-government. - J.Z., 24.2.09, 7.6.12. - & FORCE, TERRITORIALISM, JOKES, WAR, INTERVENTIONISM, AGGRESSION, INVASION, CONQUESTS, WARS, LIMITED RESOURCES, FORCE, COERCION, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, SELF-GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: The folly of forcing peoples together who would rather live apart.” – Ken Martin, THE NEW CONSERVATIVE, Oct. 68. - & PATRIOTISM, “NATIONAL UNITY”, “NATION-BUILDING”, TERRITORIALISM, COUNTRIES, PEOPLES

NATIONALISM: The French woman says: I am a woman and a Parisienne, and nothing foreign to me appears altogether human.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1903-1882. – A. Andrews Quotations, p. 180. & PATRIOTISM & FOREIGNERS, JOKES

NATIONALISM: The gross forms of nationalist self-determination uproot, bludgeon and kill thousands and millions of the common people who have no concept of nationalism save their family, no concept or government save taxes and military service, and no concept of military glory and power save their own death and injury.” – Jack Robinson, in FREEDOM, anarchist weekly, 1.3.75. – & PATRIOTISM, WAR, TAXES, CONSCRIPTION, GLORY

NATIONALISM: The idea that portions of the planet must be appropriated for the exclusive use of a community of people calling themselves a nation has persisted for many millennia, an idea perpetuated no doubt by the fact that the fastest means of transport was the horse.” – F. J. Branagan, GOOD GOVERNMENT, 2/71. – & PATRIOTISM, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NATIONALISM: The large territorial nation State usually goes beyond moral and common sense, rights, reasons, liberties, at the leadership level as well as that of its subject-citizens, turning even some “democratic” governments into nuclear “powers” for mass murders and mass destruction. – J.Z., 3.11.99, 24.1.08.

NATIONALISM: The less justified man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.” – Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, p.23. - RACISM, RELIGION, HOLY CAUSE, IDEOLOGY

NATIONALISM: The most pervasive form of semantic stupidity consists of confusing the local (tribal) reality map with the all of reality.” – Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminati Papers, p.136. - TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: the nation, all, man nothing.” – Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.178. & PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: The nation, being in effect a licensed predatory concern, is not bound by the decencies of that code of law and morals that governs private conduct.” – Thorstein Veblen, Absentee Ownership, I, 1923. – I am not sure whether he meant that as a criticism or as an excuse for territorial nationalism. - J.Z., 10.7.86, 24.1.08.

NATIONALISM: The national government’s broken down, ain’t – hasn’t it? – Not exactly. It has just stopped mattering, that is all.” – Poul Anderson, Brain Wave, p.62. – Constructively it has never really mattered. Wrongfully and destructively it still does. – J.Z., 13.10.78, 7.6.12. - GOVERNMENT

NATIONALISM: The nationalistic, racial, political, religious and other ideological hierarchies, now enforced over whole territories, must become a matter for individual choice or disassociation. - J.Z., 3.4.89. – TERRITORIALISM, HIERARCHIES, PANARCHISM

NATIONALISM: The new creed is nationalism, the doctrine which expresses and contains the self-adulation of the power unit, the nation state, its sacred absolute authority.” – Gregory Haines, in GOOD GOVERNMENT, June 72. - & PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: The new territorial nations will lead to even more wars and civil wars, revolutions, riots, terrorism and unrest – unless all their members and subjects become free to opt out and rule themselves under personal law and full exterritorial autonomy, i.e., under their own kinds of constitution, legislation, jurisdiction, policing and other institutions. – Shopping centers should also offer political, economic and social system membership as consumer services to be purchased or subscribed to. – Consumer sovereignty and free enterprise, freedom of contract and free markets also in this respect. - J.Z., 26.8.91, 24.1.08. - & SELF-RULE, SELF-GOVERNMENT, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, OPTING OUT, CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY TOWARDS GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. TERRITORIALISM & ITS AUTHORITARIANISM & DESPOTISM, EVEN IN DEMOCRACIES, VOLUNTARY TAXATION VIA COMPULSORY TAXATION

NATIONALISM: the planet is divided into a number of watertight compartments composed of individuals who deny entry to individuals from other ‘compartments’ and in many cases even deny their fellow citizens the right to emigrate to foreign ‘compartments’. – This partitioning of the planet inevitably creates the further evil of ‘national security’ or ‘defence of the realm’ by force, as a basic function of government and those who rebel against such a system are branded as anarchists in the sense that such an appellation implies chaos, but can anyone conjure up anything more chaotic than the system engendered by present day governments? – F. J. Branagan, GOOD GOVERNMENT, 2/71. - & PATRIOTISM, SECURITY, DEFENCE, IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS, TERRITORIALISM, BORDERS, BOUNDARIES, FRONTIERS, CHAOS, DISORDER, CRISES, DISTURBANCES, UNREST, STRIFE, STRUGGLES

NATIONALISM: The problems of territorial nationalism outweigh whatever advantages it may have. – J.Z., 1/75. – After reading: “the problems of nationalism now outweigh the advantages.” – Ben Bova in ANALOG, 8/74.

NATIONALISM: The proper means of increasing the love we bear our native country is to reside some time in a foreign one.” – William Shenstone, 1714-1761. – Andrews Quotes, 335. – PATRIOTISM, TRAVELING ABROAD, FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

NATIONALISM: the relations between States during all eras of so-called Nationalism is essentially one of hostility between predators.” – L. Labadie, What Is Man’s Destiny? - & PATRIOTISM, ENEMIES, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NATIONALISM: The release from the bonds of nationalism will not be achieved through congresses and arbitration treaties but through economic interests.” – (Die Entfesselung aus den Banden des Nationalismus aber wird nicht sowohl durch Kongresse und Schiedsvertraege geschehen als durch wirtschaftliche Verstaendigung.) - Rathenau, Kritik der Zeit. - Special economic interests have the tendency to become raised and favored again and again. I would rather expect irrational and extremist nationalism, in its various forms to cease, gradually, once it is confined to volunteers, and thus separated from all involuntary subjects, i.e., once all kinds of dissenters are free to secede from territorially organized nationalism and statism and to form their own kinds of voluntary communities, none of them confined to any territory and all of them exterritorially autonomous. Then we would get all kinds of voluntary integration and voluntary segregation and also all other kinds of desired varieties of free human societies. Only e.g. coercive integration and coercive segregation would be ended. – E.g.: Free trade will only become secured when individuals can freely chose it for themselves, while protectionist would still remain free to impose it upon themselves. - J.Z., 25.1.08, 7.6.12.

NATIONALISM: The same sense of chauvinism is there, and a roiling muck of nationalistic fantasies.” – Dean A. Koontz: A Darkness in My Soul, Daw Books, N.Y., 1972, p.77. - & CHAUVINISM, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.” – Thomas Jefferson, in A. Andrews Quotations, p.231. – As if all countries would not greatly benefit thereby. – J.Z., 27.1.08. - PATRIOTISM, TRADE, PROFIT, SELFISHNESS, DIS., FREE TRADE VS. PROTECTIONISM

NATIONALISM: The Sensual and the Dark rebel in vain, // Slaves by their own compulsion! A mad game // They burst their manacles and wear the name // Of freedom, graven on a heavier chain!” – Bastiat, quoted in G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p.172. - & PATRIOTISM, NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE

NATIONALISM: The silent colossal National Lie that is the support and confederate of all the tyrannies and shams and inequalities and unfairness that afflict the peoples – that is the one to throw bricks and sermons at.” – Mark Twain, 1835-1910, in Andrews Quotes, 253. - & PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: The son of Martin Borman, Hitler's private secretary and power monger, was written up in GOOD WEEKEND, 5.2.05 and reported a question to his father and his father's reply: "What exactly is national socialism?" - "National socialism is the will of the Fuehrer. Full stop." – A pretty good indication of the “intellectual” level of most Nazis. – J.Z., 7.6.12. - STATISM, HITLER, LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLE, OBEDIENCE, SUBORDINATION, NATIONAL SOCIALISM, RULERS, DESPOTISM, TYRANNY

NATIONALISM: The triumph of culture is to overpower nationalism.” – Emerson, Uncollected Lectures: Table-Talk. – Regarding music, art, raw materials and international trade, we are already to a large extent internationalists and exterritorialists. – J.Z., 24.2.09, 10.1.11. - & PATRIOTISM VS. CULTURE, GLOBALISM, MANKIND

NATIONALISM: the War to End War has produced a hundred narrow economic nationalisms, each of them full of the germs of future wars.” – Ernest Benn, Honest Doubt, p.147. – Pre-existing nationalism, territorialism, protectionism, taxation and monetary despotism as well as the decision-making monopoly on war and peace are among the many factors that made this war and its consequences possible. – J.Z., 24.1.08. - ECONOMICS, PROTECTIONISM, WAR

NATIONALISM: The world is parcelled out into some fifty-odd administrative units, calling themselves nations. In each of these nations there is a state religion – namely the worship of the nation regarded as the supreme value, or God.” – Aldous Huxley, Science, Liberty and Peace, p.34. – By now there are, I believe, over 200 of these wrongful States and the world is, probably, in a worse state still – as a result. Just consider the remaining stockpiles of “modern” and “scientific” mass murder devices. – J.Z., 7.6.12. - & PATRIOTISM, RELIGION, STATE RELIGION, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: There are people who don’t believe this. Some of these people are just bad. They steal. Some of these people are “nationalistic” and think it’s okay to take things from other people if they live more than a peach toss away or speak another language or have a different religion or look funny.” - P. J. O’Rourke, Eat the Rich, A Treatise on Economics, Picador, 1998, p.237. - NOT BELIEVING IN FREE MARKETS & IN GENUINE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

NATIONALISM: There is a hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags will not wave in a vacuum; our present tribal conflicts cannot be sustained in the hostile environment of space. Whether we like it or not, our children will find new loyalties when they set foot on the moon, on Mars, or the satellites of the giant planets. – Arthur C. Clarke, ANALOG, 7/79. – I am not so sure of that - since most of Science Fiction describes merely world-wide territorialism on whole planets, for a single political system. - J.Z., 10.1.11.  – Consistent libertarian SF is still all too rare and I have never seen a complete listing of it. – J.Z., 7.6.12. - & PATRIOTISM, FLAGS, SPACE, UNIVERSE, SOLAR SYSTEM, PLANETS, LIBERTARIAN SCIENCE FICTION.

NATIONALISM: There is nationalism and nationalism. The word nevertheless has a bad connotation. It would be preferable to find another for a new nationalism which is not aggressive, which connotates [connotes?- J.Z.] only auto-determination, the right to conduct one’s own business in peace. We could use the word “canton” (district), the basic local unit of the Swiss confederation; since many new nationalists use Switzerland as a model of decentralized structure this would not be inappropriate, but it seems somehow contrived. I prefer something more closely related to the old word, a term more identifiable with the force of a nation. What about “nationism’, “Nationist”? – Michael Zwerin, A Case for the Balkanization of Practically Everyone, p.42. - - Should we forget about the bloody infighting in the Balkans, because there, too, territorial separatism cannot be carried far enough, not more so than it can be in the sphere of religion. - In a Los Angeles Libertarian Dinner Club meeting which I attended, ca. 1990/91, when discussing South African ideas about decentralization on the Swiss canton model, the question was raised: What about one person cantons? The speaker and the audience were very sympathetic to that suggestion but details were not discussed. From this individual sovereignty and individual secession notion to multiple person “cantons”, all of volunteers only, not of them claiming any cantonal or other territorial monopoly, all claiming only exterritorial autonomy, not only in one or all cantons but all over the world, for all their own voluntary members, is but one step. Alas, not enough people have taken it as yet. – J.Z., 26.1.08. Compare the writings of R. Long on “virtual cantons”. J.Z., 224.2.09. – Zwerin, with the term “Practically Everyone”, might have meant this kind of exterritorial autonomy, individual sovereignty, consumer sovereignty and individualism. – J.Z., 7.6.12. - NEW NATIONALISM, DECENTRALIZATION, CANTONS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PANARCHISM & POLYARCHISM

NATIONALISM: There is something terrible about a great man when fools are proud of him.” – Goethe. (Es ist etwas Schreckliches um einen grossen Mann, auf den sich die Dummen was zugute tun.) – The fools are proud of them and no longer indifferent towards them – after the great men have been generally recognized for their greatness. – J.Z., n.d. - & PATRIOTISM, LEADERSHIP, GREAT MEN & FOOLS

NATIONALISM: This planet is for the use of all and the result of the denial of this premise is the division of mankind into races and nations with its consequent superstitions arising from the superiorities, hatreds, jealousies, loyalties, patriotism, and sycophancies.” - F. J. Branagan, - & PATRIOTISM GOOD GOVERNMENT, 2/71. – TERRITORIALISM, LAND MONOPOLY

NATIONALISM: This world will not see peace until we have abolished the collectivism and coercion involved in all existing nationalist movements and have reduced the nationalists to voluntary groupings which as such have all the autonomy they desire but no territorial monopoly. – J.Z., n.d. & 7.6.12. - PATRIOTISM VS. PANARCHISM & POLYARCHISM, PEACE

NATIONALISM: Throughout recorded history, men have been told that they have no right to live their own lives but must surrender their minds and bodies to emperors, kings, mythical deities, priests, witch doctors, tribes, communities and nation-states.” – Stan Lehr and Louis Rossetto Jr., THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, Jan. 10, 1971. – It is high time for a radical change, in this and many other respects, but introduced only by and for volunteers, finally freed to do so. – J.Z., 7.6.12. - & PATRIOTISM, OBEDIENCE, LOYALTY, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONALISM: To be a worshipper of one of the fifty-odd national Molochs is, necessarily and automatically, to be a crusader against the worshippers of all the other national Molochs.” – Aldous Huxley, Science, Liberty and Peace, 34. - & PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.” - Edmund Burke. – Never mind if a country is ugly, as long as it has no wrongful and irrational laws against individual rights and liberties. Then even its deserts can be made to bloom. – J.Z., 24.2.09. - PATRIOTISM, COUNTRY

NATIONALISM: To me, it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography.” - George Santayana, 1863-1952, Andrews Quotes, 335.– Sent also by C. B. – I don’t mind having my supposedly existing soul controlled, for I don’t have any. But I do mind if my individual rights and liberties, including freedom to act and experiment, under full exterritorial autonomy, are constitutionally, legally and juridically infringed. – J.Z., 7.6.12. - FRONTIERS, BORDERS, CHAUVINISM, TERRITORIALISM, CENTRALIZATION, STATISM, POLITICAL POWER, PATRIOTISM, GEOGRAPHY

NATIONALISM: To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it a peace.” - Tacitus, Complete Works, edited by Moses Hadas, p.596. - In other versions or authors I have read: “They make a desert and call it peace.” - Most of North Africa, in historical times, was once a rather fertile country - but frequent wars and civil wars, in which farmers and their families were murdered, irrigation dams and channels were destroyed, crops burned, fruit trees chopped down and farms destroyed, and whole tribes exterminated, under "collective responsibility" notions, turned much of it into desert areas and they have remained deserts to our days. This kind of warfare is still on record, e.g., in the Old Testament and “scorched earth” "policies" happened even in our times. It was also practised by Mussolini's hoods against his opponents and their agricultural coops in Italy, just because they were mostly run by his political opponents. ABC mass murder and mass destruction devices are just the modern versions of such "warfare" and "strength". - J.Z., 25.1.02, 24.2.09. - EMPIRES, GREATNESS, PEACE, WAR, TAXATION, GOVERNMENT, WARS & MAN-MADE DESERTS.

NATIONALISM: To see the earth as it truly is, is to see ourselves as riders on the earth together.” – Archibald MacLeish, after Apollo 8. – READER’S DIGEST, June 78, 31. – & PATRIOTISM, SPACESHIP EARTH, PLANETARY VIEW, COSMOPOLITANISM, MANKIND

NATIONALISM: unthinking patriotism, child of habit and not of reason, which mistakes government for liberty, and law for justice.” – Wendell Phillips: Orations, Speeches, Lectures and Letters, published 1863. – Quoted in G. Seldes, The Great Quotations. – & PATRIOTISM, LAWS, STATISM, GOVERNMENT, LIBERTY, JUSTICE.

NATIONALISM: Voluntary vs. compulsory nationalism. Exterritorial vs. coercive nationalism. Liberating vs. oppressive nationalism. Nationalism without majority despotism. Nationalism for all minorities. - & PANARCHISM

NATIONALISM: War is a national bad temper.” – Lawrence Meynel, The Man No One Knew, Collins, London, 1951. - It is rather the result of the bad character, ambition and temper of the ruling territorial power addicts and decision-makers. The vast majority of the population gets no say on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties. How can this wrongful and irrational condition remain overlooked for so long? - J.Z., 10.1.11. - & PATRIOTISM, WAR

NATIONALISM: War never leaves where it found a nation.” – Edmund Burke, Letters on a Regicide Peace, No. 1. – Rather: War is founded upon territorial nations. Where a territorial nation is founded war never leaves – at least not civil war, whether open or camouflaged. – J.Z., 3.7.82. - It usually finds it motivated by territorialism and authoritarianism and leaves it as such, but also diminished and impoverished. – Territorial monopoly claims by diverse groups for the exclusive possession of the same territory lead inevitably to clashes between these groups. – Just like two farmers would fight, when both claim the same land, or two cattle men or two sheep herders. - J.Z., 27.1.08. - & PATRIOTISM, WAR, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES, CIVIL WAR, AUTHORITARIANISM

NATIONALISM: We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribe; the record may seem superficial, but it is indelible. You cannot educate a man wholly out of the superstitious fears which were implanted in his imagination, no matter how utterly his reason may reject them.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1809-1894. - Well, at least a few cosmopolitans and panarchists do exist already, who do not share the territorialist bias. - Enlightenment will spread and can even become accelerated. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - TRIBALISM, TERRITORIALISM, FEARS OR STRANGERS, PREJUDICES, DIS., ENLIGHTENMENT

NATIONALISM: We must stop talking about the American Dream and start listening to the dreams of Americans.” – G. R. Askew, quoted in The Peter Plan by L. J. Peter, p.189. – In all countries and populations many different ideals are held at the same time and all of them can and should be pursued tolerantly and exterritorially among their volunteers. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - & PATRIOTISM, AMERICAN DREAM, INDIVIDUALISTIC OR & TERRITORIAL? VOLUNTARISM, AMERICANISM

NATIONALISM: We speak of national interests, national capital, national spheres of interest, national honor, and national spirit; but we forget that behind all this there are hidden merely the selfish interests of power-loving politicians and money loving business men for whom the nation is a convenient cover to hide their personal greed and their schemes for political power from the eyes of the world.” - Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.253. - It is, instead, the genuine individual rights and liberties that do or should matter to us. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM, HUMAN RIGHTS, NATURAL RIGHTS, NATURAL LAW, PROTECTIONISM, WELFARE STATE, POLITICIANS, POWER ADDICTS.

NATIONALISM: What is the use of a disarmament or a World Economic Conference so long as the people of each nation are deliberately encouraged by their leaders to indulge in orgies of group-solidarity based on and combined with self-congratulation and contemptuous hatred for foreigners?” – Quoted by Aldous Huxley, Brave New World …, chapter Appreciation, p.436.

NATIONALISM: What kind of truth is it, which has these mountains as a boundary and is a lie beyond them? - Montaigne, Apology for Raimond de Sebonde, in Essays (1580-88). - BORDERS, FRONTIERS, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, TRUTHS, MORALITY, LAWS, PRINCIPLES, RIGHTS, LIBERTIES

NATIONALISM: What rascals we should be if we did for ourselves what we do for our country.” – Cavour, quoted in C. Bingham, Men & Affairs, p.316. – The term “for our country” is a cover term for “to our country” and “to our population”. – J.Z., 23.1.08. – Also: “to other countries” and “to other populations”. – J.Z., 24.2.09. - Compare: “Right or wrong – my country!” & PATRIOTISM

NATIONALISM: When a dog barks at the moon, then it is religion; but when he barks at strangers, it is patriotism.” – David Starr Jordan: Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, – in G. Seldes, The Great Quotations. - & PATRIOTISM & RELIGION, JOKES

NATIONALISM: When even marriages between merely two persons fail, in spite of originally sexual and other mutual attractions, how can territorial nations succeed and this permanently, for generations? – Separation and divorce option keep the disasters of unhappy marriages within some tolerable bounds. There are so far no such safeguards for nations. They remain stuck within their prescribed territorial framework that at best will satisfy only the majority – which itself has its factions. Even if one is free to emigrate and immigrate, other territorial nations States do have their own kinds of territorialist chains, although they might be softer and less numerous. – J.Z., 10.7.86, 25.1.08, 7.6.12. - TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM & MARRIAGES

NATIONALISM: Where Liberty dwells, there is my country.” – Benjamin Franklin, Letter to B. Vaughan, March 14, 1783. – More accurately, he should have said: Where at least some liberty exists, there is my country. – Where liberty dwells, there is my country.” – John Milton, 1654. – Someone added: Where it is suppressed, there is mine. – According to this last quote no one has any country as yet. – J.Z., 24.2.09. - J.Z., 24.2.09. - PATRIOTISM & LIBERTY, DIS.

NATIONALISM: Where liberty is, there is my country!” – (Ubi libertas ibi patria.) – The personal motto of James Otis. – And since no full liberty exists as yet anywhere, none of the freedom lovers really has any country for himself and like-minded people, so far. Anyhow, we have also to recognize the right of the sheep or sheeple to remain in their condition voluntarily, as long as they want to. But their votes and the opinions of their herdsmen should not be allowed to territorially lay down the law for all others. Personal laws & systems, self-chosen, rather than territorially imposed ones! – J.Z., 24.1.08. - Where there is no liberty, there is mine. – replied someone. - Thomas Paine? – In which country have its people really and fully established liberty, so far? – Should we be satisfied with only a fraction of all individual liberties and rights? - J.Z., 24.2.09. - MY COUNTRY, PATRIOTISM, PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM, Q.

NATIONALISM: Why do people speak of great men in terms of nationality? Great Germans, great Englishmen? Goethe always protested against being called a German poet. Great men are simply men.” – Albert Einstein, Article in the New York Times, 1926. – Not simply or simple men but great men of and for the whole world, based on real achievements rather than great powers and their abuse. – J.Z., 24.1.08. - Great men belong to the world, to mankind, to the human race, not to any particular large territorial division of it. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - COSMOPOLITANISM

NATIONALISM: With regard to nation or collectivity, let every man act as his needs and conscience dictate – but if in the process he loses himself, his own soul, whatever he does will be worthless.” – Hermann Hesse, Zarathustra’s Return, 1919. - It would have been more sensible to speak of his individual rights and liberties than of his soul. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - & PATRIOTISM, DIS.

NATIONALISM: with taxation at its present level the State is probably the largest shareholder in theundertaking.”(*) -  Ernest Benn, This Soft Age, 101. - (*) In any business, factory or other enterprise. – It even extracts rich dividends or “revenue”, tributes or extortion funds  without having invested anything. Instead it has imposed costly obstacles, that reduce productivity. - J.Z., 24.2.08, 7.6.12. – The whole picture of all restrictions and prohibitions is so vast that no single mind can fully encompass all of them and all of their disastrous consequences. No more so than anyone can still read and comprehend all of the flood of statist laws in a country. – J.Z., 24.1.08. – Turn all territorial States into mere diverse share companies or coops or corporations, societies or communities, all only for their volunteers! – To gain the support for this idea, we should, perhaps, first of all propose this for all large corporations, especially the multi-nationals. – That would immediately lead to voluntary taxation and free trade for their members. No present territorial government is willing to offer that much in freedom and rights to its subjects. - J.Z., 24.2.09, 7.6.12. - PRIVATE SHARE COMPANIES, EXPROPRIATION, TAXATION, FREE ENTERPRISE, PANARCHISM – START UP OPTIONS

NATIONALISM: You belong to your country as you belong to your own mother.” – E. E. Hale: The Man Without a Country, 1863. - - All children, who do survive their childhood, do grow up some day and become self-supporting and independent decision-makers. Then they are no longer to be considered as the property or as being under guardianship by their parents. – So why should whole populations or nations become the wards of the State? Anyhow, politicians and bureaucrats make bad parents and bad educators and set very bad examples. (Don’t steal! Governments don’t like competition!”)Where are the “successes” of governmental paternalism? – Criminals are the “successes of statist paternalism. It produces also all too many ignorant and prejudiced people, with its compulsory governmental “education” or, rather, mis-education or indoctrination, when it comes to the “social sciences”. Do most people still believe in “Big Brother”? - J.Z., 25.1.08. - DIS., PANARCHISM, DIS., INDEPENDENCE, SELF-GOVERNMENT, FREEDOM, INDIVIDUALISM, PEOPLE, SUBJECTS. , TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY CLAIM, PEOPLE CONSIDERED AS PROPERTY OF THE STATE OR, RATHER, ITS GOVERNMENT

NATIONALISM: You can't be a Real Country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer.” - Frank Zappa – Even with regard to beers – many beer drinkers have become internationalists and let their individual taste buds decide, regardless of the locality or country where the beer was produced. – J.Z., 22.2.09, 7.6.12. - JOKES, TERRITORIALISM, NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE

NATIONALISM: You’ll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race.” – George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950, O’Flaherty, O’Flaherty, V.C., – in G. Seldes, The Great Quotations. – What is true for territorial nationalism is not necessarily true for patriotism confined to exterritorial autonomy and volunteers. – J.Z., 27.1.08, 11.1.11. – & PATRIOTISM, WAR, PEACE, CIVIL WAR, REVOLUTIONS & PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM.

NATIONALITY & CULTURE: Identity is also imposed upon individuals by a system of cultural indoctrination, when the ruling clique forces on everybody the acceptance of the same language and laws. As a matter of fact, the national identity is essentially a manufactured identity, obtained by crushing local cultures, rather than a real common bond joining people living next to each other.” - Gian Pietro de Bellis, in his 2002 book manuscript on Polyarchy, 2002.

NATIONALITY: I am a citizen, not of Athens or Greece, but of the world.” – Socrates, 469-399 B.C., quoted in Plutarch, De Exilia. – Hyman Quotations, p.375. - CITIZENSHIP, WORLD CITIZENSHIP, COSMOPOLITANISM

NATIONALITY: Nationality becomes something obnoxious when the words roots and identity are attached to it with mystically charged implications.” - Gian Pietro de Bellis, in his 2002 book manuscript on Polyarchy, 2002.

NATIONALITY: Nationality is not and should not be something a person finds imposed upon him at his birth unless it is simply a birth note stating the place and time the event happened. Nothing more.” - Gian Pietro de Bellis, in his 2002 book manuscript on Polyarchy, 2002. - Territorial borders were not imposed according to genetic distinctions between individuals. It is only the natural borders around individuals, their genuine rights and liberties, which do really count or should matter to us. - J.Z., 11.1.11, 7.6.23. - DIS., BIRTH

NATIONALITY: The person is not a tree attached to the soil by order of a nation state. The freedom of anybody, as a world citizen, to move and settle anywhere on the earth, should not be limited other than by logistic matters or personal wishes.” - Gian Pietro de Bellis, in his 2002 book manuscript on Polyarchy, 2002. - TERRITORIALISM, STATE, FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT, IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS, FREE MIGRATION

NATIONALITY: The term nationality, in its etymology, simply means that a person is born (natus) in a certain place. Nothing more, nothing less, and certainly nothing to fight or die about.” - Gian Pietro de Bellis, in his 2002 book manuscript on Polyarchy, 2002. - CITIZENSHIP, FATHERLAND, MOTHERLAND

NATIONALITY: Under the nation state, a person from birth to death is put under a category (English, French, Italian, etc.) from which it is not easy to escape. This ascribed imposed label is like the branding of cattle by the owner, to keep and control it within a fence (fixed borders).” - Gian Pietro de Bellis, in his 2002 book manuscript on Polyarchy, 2002. – PEOPLE AS PROPERTY

NATIONALITY: Wherever intellect speaks, nationality and race vanish like mist before the wind, and it would be a senseless undertaking to try to judge a social idea, a religion or a scientific theory by its national content or according to the racial characteristics of its leaders.” - Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.459 - & RACE IN THE EYES OF INTELLECTS

NATIONALIZATION: A government that nationalizes efficient industries producing for the world market and then mismanages them, not only hurts the interests of its own people but also those of other nations living in a world community. - - These international conflicts are inherent in the system of interventionism and socialism (*) and cannot be solved unless the systems themselves are abolished. The principles of national welfare as conceived by our progressive planners conflict with the principles of international cooperation and division of production.” – Hans F. Sennholz, quoted in Free Man’s Almanach, for December 7. – (*) State socialism! – J.Z.

NATIONALIZATION: A man’s home may be his castle, but that does not keep the government from taking it.” – United States v. Hendler, 952 F2d 1364 (Fed Cir 1991) - CONFISCATION, UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN LEGISLATION, PROPERTY RIGHTS

NATIONALIZATION: any government that controlled the whole economic future of its subjects, thereby acquired an irresistible control over adverse criticism: the prudent man does not criticize the official on whom he depends for his employment and his whole economic future.” – Henry Meulen, THE INDIVIDUALIST, 2/77, p.5. – STATE SOCIALISM, CRITICISM, DEPENDENCY

NATIONALIZATION: As Gibbon majestically put it, “The spirit of monopolists is narrow, lazy and oppressive” and nationalised industries are all of that.” – Russell Lewis in Right Turn, p.55.

NATIONALIZATION: But what use is a machine without a master? A government could order machines around all day, till it was blue in the face, and nothing would happen. … A machine is operated by people. A machine is a man-made instrument, created by man, built by man, and without man it would cease to function. – The ‘means of production’ is you. Your brain, your hands, they make the world go round. ‘Government ownership and government control of the means or production’ means government ownership and control of you. - - Every GOVERNMENT CONTROL IS A PEOPLE CONTROL. ‘Socialism’ is just a nice word for it. …” - Mark Tier, THE AUSTRALIAN, 12.10.74. - - MEANS OF PRODUCTION, PEOPLE CONTROL, STATE SOCIALISM, TOTALITARIAN COMMUNISM, MARXISM.

NATIONALIZATION: Can anyone imagine”, Sumner asked, “that the masterfulness, the overbearing disposition, the greed of gain, and the ruthlessness of methods, which are the faults of the master of industry at his worst, would cease, when he was a functionary of the State, which had relieved him of risk and endowed him with authority? Can anyone imagine that politicians would no longer be corruptly fond of money, intriguing, and crafty when they were charged, not only with patronage and government contracts, but also with factories, stores, ships and railroads?” – Jonathan Marshall, W. G. Sumner, quoting Sumner, “Absurd Effort in War”, 206/7, J.L.S., Fall 79.

NATIONALIZATION: denies that State ownership can end in anything other than a bureaucratic despotism.” – Noam Chomsky, For Reasons of State, p.161.

NATIONALIZATION: Every nationalization means domination. The small influence of those dominated upon the ruling functionaries is not effective enough and in practice individuals as well as large groups are largely disfranchised thereby. – K.H.Z. Solneman, LERNZIEL ANARCHIE, Nr. 2, p. 17.

NATIONALIZATION: General nationalization means: mismanagement, misallocation of resources, waste, low incentives, low productivity. Many to most of all nationalized enterprises do not make a profit, do not cover their costs but run up losses and deficits instead. Who or what is to cover these losses? The few remaining private and profitable ones! Sometimes sale or consumption of pre-existing wealth, forced labor, confiscations in kind or delivery quotas imposed or inflation or government debts, operate for a while, at a low general standard of living. An extensive black market develops in which some free exchanges are still possible. Production of wealth declines, poverty spreads, except among those who are in charge of these messes, after they have caused them and too ignorant and prejudiced to be able to end them. – J.Z., 10.3.81. – Do not forgive them simply because they do not know what they are doing to us! – J.Z., 7.6.12.

NATIONALIZATION: Government does not really own anything except a formal title for control, while real control and exploitation are usurped or monopolistically appropriated by politicians, bureaucrats, unionists and other powerful lobbies, all active in their turn or sphere of interests to turn government “assets” into liabilities for the tax payers, while all of them are pretending to represent the public, the people, the common interest, the common good, when in reality they are, mainly only taking care of their own interests, at the expense of all others. – I dread the day when all old age security assets will be administered by former trade union officials. – They might waste them almost as badly as the Nazis did. - J.Z., 23.4.89, 26.1.08.

NATIONALIZATION: Government never has and never will administer any industry as efficiently as free enterprise.” – Gary Sturgess, GOLD COAST BULLETIN, 23.9.77. – In his conclusion he states: In 1972, in an egg glut, the Government recommended the dumping of 79 million eggs in the sea! - - More recently they’ve solved the problem of oversupply by ordering the slaughter of thousands of birds. … Besides incompetence, the Government has a tendency to outgrow rational proportions. In NSW there are 700 bureaucrats regulating 1000 poultry-men. – And the fairness of the Government regulation is illustrated by the quotas system operating at present in the Queensland milk industry where some producers are paid 89 c and others 29 c for the same (*) milk.” – Gary Sturgess, ibid. – (*) quantity of! – J.Z.

NATIONALIZATION: how would we like our groceries to be delivered by the same people who deliver our mail?” - Walter E. Williams, More Liberty Means Less Government. Our Founders Knew This Well, Hoover Institution Press, 1999, – p.219.

NATIONALIZATION: I do not believe in government ownership of anything which can with propriety be left in private hands, and in particular I should most strenuously object to government ownership of railroads.” – Theodore Roosevelt, Speech in Raleigh, N.C., Oct. 19, 1905. - Did he abolish the Post Office, replace the standing army of the US by a self-governing militia of citizen volunteers and protectionism by free trade? Did he introduce voluntary taxation and voluntary State membership? – He was another “Uncle Sam as Monopoly Man”. - J.Z., 24.1.08. – Either hold them to their words or ignore them or secede from them. They should be judged not by their words but by what they are doing to us or fail to do for us, simply by removing their legalized obstructions and monopolies, as well as those set up by their predecessors. – Promises of politicians: Do not trust any of them. Or only together with other and like-minded volunteers, all "true believers" or “sheeple”. - J.Z.,, 11.1.11, 7.6.12. - PRIVATE PROPERTY, DIS.

NATIONALIZATION: I remember that a wise friend of mine did usually say, "That which is everybody's business is nobody's business." - Izaak Walton, The Compleat Angler, I, 2. – Complete? – J.Z. - PUBLIC INTEREST, PUBLIC PROPERTY, RESPONSIBILITY, COMMONS

NATIONALIZATION: If brothels were nationalized instead of merely legalized, prostitution would inevitably die out.” – Brigit Batlow, letter to Daily Telegraph, 19.9.1979. – Sensible occupation forces saw to it that brothels were established in the occupied areas to at least reduce the incidence of rapes of local women by soldiers of the occupation forces. – J.Z., 27.4.09. Rapes increased national hatreds and these lead to still more hate and deaths on both sides. - Territorial governments can be temporarily effective aggressors and conquerors but are hardly ever quite rightful and effective defenders. - J.Z., 11.1.11, 7.6.12. – PROSTITUTION, DIS., JOKES

NATIONALIZATION: If no single person can own property, then, necessarily, no group of people can own property. An attribute not residing in the individual does not suddenly pop into existence by renaming him “a member of society”. Thus, in addition to the practical difficulties involved in collective ownership (like the fact that I may not take very kindly to the socialist nationalizing my farm, my house or my factory), the socialist, who condemns individual ownership, faces the hopeless ethical problem of negating the moral basis for all ownership.” – Dr. Duncan Yuille, Human Rights, a pamphlet written for the Workers Party of Australia, ca. 1975.

NATIONALIZATION: If there is no national property then the nation fares best. – J.Z., 6.12.76.

NATIONALIZATION: If you like the post office, you’ll love a nationalized oil company.” – Texas bumper sticker. – TIME, 21.4.80.

NATIONALIZATION: If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” – Milton Friedman , MONOPOLIES, FEDERAL POWERS, STATE SOCIALISM, PUBLIC SERVICES, SHORTAGES, JOKES

NATIONALIZATION: In a country in which the only employer is the State, opposition means a slow death by hunger. In the place of the old principle: “Whoever does not work will not get to eat”, we now have a new one: “Whoever does not obey will get nothing to eat.” – Trotzki. – Another version: In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle, who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.” – Trotsky, p.76 (of ???), quoted in Anthony Flew, The Politics of Procrustes, p.135. - As its military leader, Trotsky was once prepared to sacrifice 75% of the population of Russia for "the" Revolution! - J.Z., 11.1.11.

NATIONALIZATION: In nationalized industries, as in state welfare services, the public do not get a look-in: as consumers they are confronted with no alternative sources – of coal, postal services, rail travel, refuse removal, health services, schools; as workers they may face a monopoly employer; and as owners they have no choice but to finance capital investment and losses) through the tax treadmill. Does anyone believe the Post Office serves the public better than Marks and Spencer?” – Ralph Harris, 1985, p.15.

NATIONALIZATION: Is that the property of the people which gives the citizen no other right than to pay taxes to cover a deficit?” – – Bertrand de Jouvenel, Problems of Socialist England, London, The Batchworth Press, 1949, p.212. - PUBLIC PROPERTY, STATE ENTERPRISES, PRIVATE PROPERTY UNDER TAXATION? Q.

NATIONALIZATION: It is the task of Individualists to show that almost every extension of state control over industry leads to loss, which loss has to be made good by the taxpayer. High taxes make more and more industry unprofitable, enterprisers will then be unwilling to invest, and this will strengthen Labour’s conviction of the need for ‘a major extension of public ownership’.” – FINANCIAL TIMES, 14.9.76, quoted by Henry Meulen in THE INDIVIDUALIST, 10/76, p. 50.

NATIONALIZATION: It so happens that the permitting of competition will destroy ‘nationalization’.” – Antony Fisher: The Case for Freedom, p.52. - COMPETITION

NATIONALIZATION: Michael Polanyi was probably correct when he observed that a worker in a nationalized mine no more felt that he ’owned’ the mine than he felt that he owned the Royal Navy.” – David DeLeon, in H. J. Ehrlich et al, Reinventing Anarchy, p.317. – Ownership implies control. Almost everyone is aware of how little power of control lies in his single vote among millions. – Even the directors of share companies get away with allocating huge salaries and pensions to themselves, often quite disproportionate to the value of their services. - J.Z., 27.1.08. – OWNERSHIP, PRIVATE PROPERTY, CONTROL

NATIONALIZATION: National security has replaced patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel.” – Tom Morrison, San Francisco, Cal., in PLAYBOY, Sept. 73. – Maybe even the first. – J.Z.

NATIONALIZATION: Nationalization always lowers production.” – J. F. Revel, The Totalitarian Temptation, quoted by Joan Kennedy Taylor, in a review of Revel in LIBERTARIAN REVIEW, 11/77.

NATIONALIZATION: Nationalization has not brought the expected smile to the face of the worker.” – Sir Ernest Benn, The State the Enemy, from the inside cover. - A for me typical example. The kind of bookshop that was run by two people in West Germany was run by 12 to 20 employees in East Germany, I was told. Consequently, productivity and thereby wages and living standard had to be correspondingly lower under State Socialism or State capitalism. – China has an army of 46 million bureaucrats. But with regard to its population the percentage of these bureaucrats is still relatively low. But then China had managed, for a long time, to be ruled by one Mandarin for ca. 20 000 people. And even he was often paid by merchants not to rule over them. – Supposedly “free and democratic” States in the West have often a much higher percentage of bureaucrats. - J.Z., 24.1.08.

NATIONALIZATION: Nationalization should be called monopolization, bureaucratization or politicalization, for this is what happens under it. – J.Z., 26.2.07, 25.10.07.

NATIONALIZATION: Nationalization won’t necessarily mean the end of the world. We’ll just be much less free.” – Fletcher Byron (of Koppers Co.). – And much poorer, too, than we would otherwise be. – J.Z., 25.2.09. - SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 12/77.

NATIONALIZATION: Nationalization” is a Communist maneuver to take the power out of the hands of the people. “Ownership” through political nominees means nothing. Any business that is not a monopoly may be owned privately but control of it will lie with the public. If they do not like its services, it will go out of business or be forced to supply something that is wanted. – Antony Fisher: The Case for Freedom, p.43.

NATIONALIZATION: Nationalize the power companies.” - Well, let’s put it this way: Would you want your electricity to be delivered by the U.S. Postal Service?” – Arch Booth, 3/75, DIS., JOKES

NATIONALIZATION: nationalized industries represent a standing temptation for politicians to throw good money after bad, as can be seen from the colossal waste of taxpayers’ funds over the years in coal and railways.” – Russell Lewis, Right Turn, p.56. – “The clear conclusion must be that the less nationalization there is the better.” – Ibid, p.57.

NATIONALIZATION: Nobody now believes that a Government run enterprise is necessarily a worker’s paradise. On the contrary, it is more likely to be the opposite.” – Gough Whitlam, a former Labor Party Prime Minister of Australia. THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 27.11.76. – Quoted in Bob Howard & John Singleton, Rip Van Australia, 232. - But this insight did not cure him of his statism. – J.Z. – Nationalization is just another of the many wrongful, irrational and anti-economic aspects of territorialism. – J.Z., 29.12.11.

NATIONALIZATION: one lasting contribution of the Russian writer Solzhenitsyn, author of “The Gulag Archipelago”, will be found to have been made to the world in his assertion that things went wrong in Russia not with Stalin, nor even with Lenin, but with Karl Marx himself who first really set the world afire with the belief, totally erroneous, that the State, by nationalizing the “means of production” could rationalize economics and bring into the world the just society.” – Frank McEachren, PROGRESS, 6/77. – COMMUNISM, MARXISM, STATE SOCIALISM

NATIONALIZATION: One of the things the government can’t do is run anything. The only things our government runs are the post office and the railroads, and both of them are bankrupt. – Lee Iacocca - MUNICIPALIZATION, STATE SOCIALISM, GOVERNMENT, STATE SOCIALISM

NATIONALIZATION: Only a little careful thought is needed in order to understand clearly the complete powerlessness of the individual in the presence of the one employer and one owner of everything.  … (4) Because, it would divide the nation into two bitterly opposed classes - those who rule, and those who are ruled; and in endeavoring to remove by violent methods the inequalities of wealth, that exist between rich and poor, it would introduce into every part of life the worst form of inequality - the inequality that exists between those who force their own opinions and interests upon others and those upon whom such opinions and interests are forced - the inequality that exists between the compeller and the compelled.” - Auberon Herbert, A Voluntaryist Appeal. - - STATE SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, THE "CLASSLESS SOCIETY", EQUALITY & INEQUALITY, RULERS, COMPULSION, SUBJECTS

NATIONALIZATION: seeking subsidies and monopoly privileges which are the essential buttress of nationalized non-enterprises.” – Ralph Harris, 1985, p. 12. – PUBLIC SERVICES & DISSERVICES

NATIONALIZATION: The economic record of the nationalized industries judged by the return on capital invested is about one-third of that of private industry despite the periodic and massive writing-down of capital in the nationalised concerns.” – Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Goodbye to Nationalization, p.4. – PROFIT & LOSS

NATIONALIZATION: The fact that the industries were publicly owned did not thereby ensure that they would not act like and be subject to the temptations of monopolies throughout the ages.” – Sir Norman Chester, The Nationalisation of British Industry, 1945-51. - MONOPOLISM

NATIONALIZATION: The government, quite wrongfully, acts like a territorial landlord or even a cattle baron or feudal master and taxes and regulates us as if we were its private property. – J.Z.., 25.2.09.

NATIONALIZATION: the growth of nationalisation is damaging – it centralizes power in the state and it destroys outlets for individual ambition.” – Boyson, Goodbye to Nationalization, V.

NATIONALIZATION: The only safeguard is the scrutiny of parliament, which as we shall see later is inevitably intermittent, inefficient and post hoc.” - Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Goodbye to Nationalization, p.16. - PARLIAMENTARISM

NATIONALIZATION: the private capitalist normally serves the public far better than the government could if it took over his property.” – Henry Hazlitt, The Conquest of Poverty, p.211. Compare: “Everything the government does costs at least twice as much.” – PRIVATE VS. PUBLIC PROPERTY

NATIONALIZATION: The ultimate political danger. Despite this formidable tally of economic weaknesses, the most serious objection to nationalization is political. By adding economic to political power it leads to an increasing concentration of central authority. It is dangerous for democracy that so many millions of work-people are dependent on the government for their jobs. Indeed, if the socialist goal of complete nationalization of the economy were ever achieved, the only opposition could come from civil servants; they would be lucky to get away with being told to keep a civil tongue in their heads! In addition, the government would be the sole owner of all the media of communication, TV, radio, the newspapers, the publishers, the printers, the halls suitable for public meetings. Once competition in the market is suppressed, what chance would there be for effective dissent short of revolution? The spectacle of the countries of eastern Europe points to the ultimate danger.” – Russell Lewis in Dr. Rhodes Boyson, editors, Right Turn, p.56.

NATIONALIZATION: There are certainly a thousand books in circulation telling us all about the evils of capitalism. We have no lack of information as to the cheating that went on under a system of private enterprise. It might, however, now be remarked that while some private capitalists may have cheated one another, the government capitalist cheat everybody, and that the business of cheating has indeed been completely nationalized. …” - Sir Ernest Benn, The State the Enemy, p.94. - STATE SOCIALISM, STATE CAPITALISM, PRIVATE OR COOPERATIVE CAPITALISM, INTERVENTIONISM, COMMAND ECONOMY, CENTRAL PLANNING, BUREAUCRACY, DICTOCRACY, CORRUPTION

NATIONALIZATION: To-day we are getting an interesting effect from this theory that the boss works for himself only. The workers in the nationalized industries have been told that they are the bosses now. They are wasting no time in trying to cash in on the privileges they always thought the boss enjoyed, to the neglect of their services to the public.” - Antony Fisher: The Case for Freedom, p.39.

NATIONALIZATION: Universal experience attests that government establishments cannot keep pace with private enterprise in matters of business – (and the transmission of letters is a mere matter of business).” – Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of the Laws Prohibiting Private Mails.

NATIONALIZATION: Unrealistic pay increases are granted in the nationalized industries to both the labour force required and that which is surplus to requirements. The resultant losses of these basic industries are then described as the consequences of subsidies to the consumer.” – Prof. Ilersk, quoted in GOOD GOVERNMENT, 4/76.

NATIONALIZATION: We have a government-owned airline, railway and broadcasting system, to name a few, and daily we see them at work (or non-work, or make-work )” – From and advertisement for the Canadian OPTION in Laissez Faire Books, catalogue, May 74.

NATIONALIZATION: We know firsthand what happens when the state runs business.” – OPINION, Canadian Libertarian Magazine, quoted in LAISSEZ FAIRE BOOKS catalogue, May 74. – Whether that knowledge is applied or not is another matter. – J.Z.

NATIONALIZATION: When property consisted almost entirely of land and cattle and natural products there was a suspicion of a case for public ownership, but to-day when property and wealth are 95 per cent. brains and 5 per cent. nature, public ownership is the road to the end of our civilization. - - Before wealth or property can be owned it has to be made, and nobody will suggest that society can make anything. The making of wealth is beyond any question the exclusive function of the individual. …” (*) - Ernest Benn, Honest Doubt, p.220. – (*) And of individuals voluntarily and sensibly associated in productive teams. – J.Z., 8.6.12. - PUBLIC OWNERSHIP, LAND OWNERSHIP & WEALTH, INCENTIVES, FREE ENTERPRISES & PRODUCTIVE COOPERATIVES

NATIONALIZATION: Why should ONE boss be better than 100 000 or even millions to chose from or better than self-employment and self-management? – J.Z., 14.2.86, 24.1.08, 8.6.12. – Q., STATE SOCIALISM, MARXISM, COMMUNISM.

NATIONALIZATION: with few exceptions the financial return on investment has been consistently lower in each nationalized industry in every year over the past decade than the average for private industries. The return on investment … in nationalized industries has been running at about half that on investment in private companies.” – George Polanyi, Comparative Returns from Investment in Nationalized Industries, 1968, quoted in Ralph Harris and Arthur Seldon: Not From Benevolence, p.151. – PROFIT & LOSS

NATIONALIZATION: Workers in nationalised industries have tended to regard consumers as persons who have no option but to take the product and must pay the price fixed by the producer.” – R. Kelf-Cohen, 20 Years of Nationalization. – Nationalized enterprises, e.g., power plants and water works, play favorites to their consumers, too, at the expense of the general taxpayer. The kind of things that they cannot produce is market services and market goods at market prices and optimal consumer and producer satisfaction. - J.Z., 5.4.89. – MONOPOLISM VS. COMPETITION, FREE ENTERPRISE & CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY

NATIONALIZATION: Would you want the Post Office to deliver your baby? – Fight Nationalized Health Care.” – SOUTHERN LIBERTARIAN MESSENGER, 4/79. – HEALTH SERVICES, MEDICARE

NATIONS, TERRITORIAL & PANARCHISM: National experimental freedom is insufficiently educational - apart from wrongly restricting moral choices, creative activities of individuals and groups. It must be replaced or at least supplemented by experimental freedom in all neighborhoods, based on voluntary participation in a-territorial experiments. - J.Z., n.d.

NATIONS: a huge obscuring force stalks the night of mankind. It is the boundary, the sickness called nations.” – T. Marshburn, THE MATCH, vol. 3. no. 3., Jan. 72. – Nationalism is the statist and territorialist equivalent of a country-wide religious spleen. It took for most the place of a God in which they no longer believed in. They certainly have not yet arrived at a knowledge of and belief in individuals and their individual rights and liberties. – J.Z., 24.2.09.

NATIONS: A nation is a society united by a delusion about its ancestry and by common hatred of its neighbors.” – Dean William R. Inge.

NATIONS: A Nation is merely an area in modern Europe, enclosed by frontiers that are geographical limit of a Government’s use of force.” – Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, 139. – Not only in Europe and only in peace time, which was always only a temporary armistice, with extensive preparations for the next war, with the exception of the mini-States and, in more recent times, of neutral states like Switzerland and Sweden. – J.Z., 28.1.08. – The territorial warfare States do certainly not always confine their aggressive and interventionist actions to their own subjects, living within their territorial borders. – J.Z., 25.2.09. - FORCE, VIOLENCE, COERCION, AGGRESSION, COMPULSION

NATIONS: A nation, after all, is just a society for hating foreigners, a sort of super-hate-club.” – Olaf Stapledon, Odd John, p.76. - & FOREIGN NATIONS, CHAUVINISM, NATIONALISM, PREJUDICE, HATREDS, ANTAGONISM

NATIONS: A really free nation or people or community does not have to be “led” or “run” or “built”. To the extent that this is still done, what results is not really a nation, far less a free nation, instead, to that very extent, it is unfree. – All such false pretences are advanced by power-addicts. - J.Z., 6.10.04, 22.10.07. - MINORITIES, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, PEOPLES, RUNNING, BUILDING OR LEADING THEM, FREEDOM, LEADERSHIP

NATIONS: a world of narrow and coercive political concerns.” – LIBERTARIAN ANALYSIS, Winter 1970, editorial, p.3. – That applies only to territorial nations with compulsory membership. Nations of volunteers only and confined to exterritorial autonomy, can be as authoritarian as they like, but only towards their own volunteers, without thereby constituting a threat towards the members of all other communities. They would just do their own things, as e.g. nuns and monks do, boxers and wrestlers and football club members. – J.Z., 28.1.08. - PANARCHISM

NATIONS: All ‘nations” and “peoples” are despotic which coercively and monopolistically “embrace”, rule over and exploit all those dissenters and their voluntary associations, societies and communities, who would rather secede and organize their own affairs under personal laws, i.e. full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 15.8.95, 24.1.08. - TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, COMPULSION VS. VOLUNTARISM

NATIONS: All nations are wholesale corrupters of youth.” – Wilson/Shea, Illuminatus VI(? – J.Z.), p.113. – Not that older people remain uncorrupted by national spleens, myths, errors and prejudices. – J.Z., 25.2.09. (Typing and scanning errors are easy to include but not so easy to eliminate. – J.Z.)

NATIONS: Although Spooner’s principles of law and reason may seem somewhat narrow and literal, his point is nevertheless valid: nationalists can define “nation” only through vague metaphysical qualities. Although obscure in origin, results are clear: the idea of nation always supports force and power – particularly that of the army.” –  Shiveley’s introduction, p.4 (40?) of Lysander Spooner, No Treason, VI, Works I.

NATIONS: And to-day, instead of the nation being, as of old, a means of security, it has become a centre of hidden warring interests, a fact of disorder, in which the natural factors and the artificial factors are confused in such a way that they cannot be disentangled.” – Henri Follin, according to Hutchinson Harris, The Doctrine of Personal Right, p.373. – They could become disentangled not via a world federation but, rather, by individual secessionism and voluntary communities, all merely exterritorially autonomous and not confined to any territory. – I do not know to what extent Follin pondered that option. – He must have, at least in his letter exchanges with Ulrich von Beckerath, of which the Beckerath collection was lost in an air raid in Nov. 1943. Was it preserved on the side of Follin and his heirs? Who knows? - J.Z., 25.1.08. – INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, LOBBIES & SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, WELFARE STATES, SUBSIDIES, BAILOUTS, TAXATION, PROTECTIONISM

NATIONS: Any territorial "nation" consists out of a ruling class or group, its favorites and temporary supporters and a number of conquered, oppressed and exploited minority groups, however camouflaged this relationship has been. As a result, each nation resembles an overheated boiler without a safety valve. Individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for all minorities could provide the needed safety valve and would leave much more unified and agreeable and genuine nations behind, which are merely exterritorially autonomous and made up of volunteers only and are to that extent rightful and harmless. - J.Z. 18.4.92, 13.1.93. - NEED SAFETY VALVES

NATIONS: Are our nations today comparable to closed monasteries? How long did it take before monks gained the right to opt out of their monasteries? - J.Z., 17.5.92. - AS MONASTERIES OR NUNNERIES OR NURSERIES VS. PANARCHIES, SECESSIONISM

NATIONS: Beware of young nations. Their nationalists are young and energetic fools. – J.Z., 5.7.85.

NATIONS: But under the cover of the nation everything can be hid. The national flag covers every injustice, every inhumanity, every lie, every outrage, every crime. The collective responsibility of the nation (*) kills the sense of justice of the individual and brings man to the point where he overlooks injustice done, where, indeed, it may appear to him a meritorious act if committed in the interest of the nation.” – Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, (*) ? Rather, the notion & practice of collective responsibility. Individuals are only responsible for their own actions, not for actions of others in their “nation”, “race” or “religion”. – J.Z., n.d. & 8.6.12. - & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY 252.

NATIONS: Caged animals … have been seen to destroy themselves utterly … Overt fighting has led to about 60 million deaths since 1820. … Has man caged himself in an artificial environment analogous to that of captive animals?” - H. N., in a review in PEACE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS JOURNAL, Ref. No. 8658. – Prof. Rudy Rummel has indicated that the number of victims, of territorial politics, even apart from the war victims, is much higher, coming for the 20th century alone already to over 200 million. – J.Z., 28.1.08, 8.6.12.

NATIONS: Each territorial nation began as a dream and ended up as a nightmare. – J.Z., 3.12.90, at least for some of its subjects. – J.Z., 24.1.08.

NATIONS: every country was a group of people living a common myth.” - Robert Anton Wilson, The Earth Will Shake, 207. - Actually, all of them do not even have a single myth in common but the majority of them do share all too many and also many different myths. - J.Z., 22.1.02. - COUNTRIES, STATES, MYTHOLOGY

NATIONS: Every nation is today split by various trends of thought into dozens of parties whose activity destroys the feeling of national unity and brands as a lie the fable of the community of intellectual interests of the nation. Each of these parties has its own party program, in pursuit of which it attacks everything which threatens it and adores whatever …” - Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.269. - & PARTIES

NATIONS: Every nation ridicules other nations - and all are right.” – Arthur Schopenhauer - NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONS: Every national border in Europe marks the place where two gangs of bandits got too exhausted to kill each other anymore and signed a treaty. Patriotism is the delusion that one of these gangs of bandits is better than all the others.” - Robert Anton Wilson, The Earth Will Shake, p.100. - BORDERS, FRONTIERS, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS, PATRIOTISM, WARS, PEACE BETWEEN WARFARE STATES, TREATIES

NATIONS: Human zoos under centralized mismanagement. Alas, with the consent of all too many of their victims. – J.Z., 19.4.93, 24.1.08. – Rather: Zoo-like enclosures for human under centralized mismanagement and without the informed consent of many to most of their victims. Who can enjoy such spectacles of unnatural imprisonment and domination? – J.Z., 8.6.12. - They are also comparable to nation-wide prisons. – J.Z., 24.1.08, 11.1.11. – STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONS: I loathe all nations equally.” – Robert Anton Wilson, Masks of the Illuminati, p.40. - One cannot really hate a non-existent and only imagined nation but only the idea of it and intolerant and wrongful actions and institutions, which are coercively upheld in accordance with that idea. – J.Z., 28.1.08, 8.6.12.

NATIONS: It is not so much that our nation is endangered but that the very existence of our “nation” in their exclusive, coercive and territorial forms, endangers us, endangers even all of mankind. Nothing but what is voluntary is deserving the name of national. – Caroline Chisholm, 1850, The ABC of colonization in a series of letters, No. 1. - Whatever is only voluntary rarely makes enemies and if it does, it can be easily defended. But not with nuclear “weapons”, but, rather, by mobilizing our secret allies on the other side and making an alliance with them, over the heads of their rulers. – J.Z., 1.3.86, 24.1.08, 8.6.12. – PANARCHISM, DES., LIBERATION, FRATERNIZATION, WAR & PEACE AIMS

NATIONS: It is the state which creates the nation, not the nation the state.” No individual, on this view, naturally holds a place within the nation as he holds a place within his family or tribe, for there is no basic social tie, which binds him to the political body. “Belonging to a nation is never determined, as is belonging to a people, by profound natural causes; it is always subject to political considerations and based on those reasons of state behind which the interests or privileged minorities always hide.” – Rudolf Rocker, Partisans of Freedom, p.478. – STATE, GOVERNMENTS, PRIVILEGES, RULING MINORITIES

NATIONS: Like Christ and his miracles, “Nations” are only “myths”. (p.42) “On general principles of law and reason”, they do not exist anywhere.” – Lysander Spooner, quoted by Chiveley, in his introduction to No Treason, VI, p.5 of Works I. - “That is to say, neither the whole people of England, for example, nor any open, avowed, responsible body of men, calling themselves by that name, ever, by any open, written, or other authentic contract with each other, formed themselves into any bona fide legitimate association or organization. … “ – Spooner, p. 42. )

NATIONS: National character is bad, … - Which national character? – The character of all nations.” – Hans Habe, Aftermath, p.47. – Just consider the numerous wrongful and often even beastly actions, which the national leaders have committed against the own subjects and the subject of other national leaders. – The statist and territorialist, often even slavish submissiveness of most of their subjects, does also not indicate much that could be counted as good character traits. – Being good warriors, marchers and flag wavers and shouters of wrongful and stupid slogans and all to submissive tax slaves - just is not good enough. - J.Z., 25.2.09. - NATIONAL CHARACTER

NATIONS: Nations are not equivalent to persons. They are composed of persons - and the government often equated with "the country" is seldom, if ever, equivalent to the people of the country. If the people of a country, or some of them, are being bullied by their own government, might intervention be as much justified, perhaps even morally demanded, as in the case of the bully in the schoolyard?” - Stanley Schmidt, editorial, Internal Affairs, ANALOG, 2/89, pp 6 & 8. - & GOVERNMENTS VS. PERSONS OR INDIVIDUALS, COUNTRIES, MINORITIES, PEOPLE, INTERVENTIONISM, DESPOTISM, IMPERIALISM, BULLYING, TOTALITARIANISM

NATIONS: Nations have been born in war and expire in peace.” – Yates Sterling, quoted in George Seldes, The Great Quotations. – But since we never had as yet a complete peace but only armistices, with preparations for the next war, they still persist, as creatures of mythology, ignorance, stupidity, old habits and traditions, and popular errors and prejudices and also e.g. via the “peaceful” coercion against free trade, free migration, free investments and that of compulsory levying of taxation or tributes, supposedly via representative consent. – What would remain of “nations” could only be seen after individuals and dissenting minorities had been free to secede for a while. - J.Z., 28.1.08.

NATIONS: Nations, presently, but not necessarily so – are many supposedly alike but really diverse people, all more or less coerced into one territorial organization, for an indefinite time, by one government. In reality, morally, rightfully and rationally, no more than an association of volunteers in any territory, all of them with at least one common background, motivation or interest or degree of tolerance can be called a genuine “nation”, as long as it does not make an exclusive claim to any territory at all but aims merely at or already practises, autonomy, but only exterritorially and is thus peacefully coexisting with other kinds of such communities in a country or world-wide. Caroline Chisholm’s saying applies: “Nothing but what is voluntary deserves the name of national.” ––The A.B.C. of colonization: In a series of letters, by Mrs. Chisholm. No.I. - Google has put it online, as I found out only today. – J.Z., n.d., & 28.1.08. 29.12.11. – Yesterday I tried in vain to download it or to get a password for doing this from Google. – J.Z., 8.6.12. - PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, POLYARCHISM.

NATIONS: No nation is fit to sit in judgment upon any other nation.” – Woodrow Wilson, Speech in N.Y., April 20, 1915. – No nation exists. If it did, it could not sit together. If it did, it would, as such an organization, have no judgment. Those few sitting “in judgment” know, primarily, only their power addiction and their special and separate interests, which they camouflage as being in the public or common or general interest. Judge them by the results of their addiction. – J.Z., 24.2.09, 8.6.12. - COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NATIONS: No one can move freely enough as long as he remains bound or in chains or incarcerated in nation-wide territorial prisons, under more or less absolute and authoritarian rulers, who have only some minority- or at best only majority support. - Minorities and majorities have only the right to rule over themselves and any aggressors against them, as far as this is necessary, but not over any peaceful dissenters wishing to or already doing their own things merely to or for themselves. - So far not even religious liberty or tolerance is fully recognized everywhere, although it has made its peaceful case in many countries already for centuries. – J.Z., Pan A Z j to r 28. 6. 06. - NATION-WIDE TERRITORIAL PRISONS: THE MODERN STATES OR COUNTRIES OR PEOPLES

NATIONS: Only weak nations have strong governments.” – CNT, Solidaridad Obrera, Barcelona), 1936, in “Smash the State”, p.43. – WEAKNESS, STRENGTH, GOVERNMENTS

NATIONS: Peace cannot be based on territorial nations. – J.Z., 9.10.79. –Nor can genuine and full freedom and justice. – Only some approximations can be thus achieved, none of them going far enough. For that complete voluntarism (apart from aggressors and other criminals with victims) is required, combined with full exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. – J.Z., 28.1.08, 8.6.12. – PEACE, FREEDOM, JUSTICE, PROGRESS, PROSPERITY, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONS: Playboy: But what if the Christians are right and humans are basically evil, unready to go it alone socially or metaphysically? Hess: In that sad case it would be even more imperative to avoid the nation state, because then a basically flawed individual would be invested with the greatest possible power.” – Karl Hess, interview by PLAYBOY, 7/76.

NATIONS: Since the world has been divided into nations too great to admit of being well governed, …” - Jean-Jacque Rousseau, Discourse on Political Economy, p.30. – How small would “nations” have to be to be well governed? The Greek city states were, obviously, already too large, so are modern city States, like Berlin, Bremen, Singapore, Hong Kong, even when they are better governed than still larger States. I hold that only governments or societies of volunteers can be “well governed”, at least by the standards of their own voluntary members. All others are at best only instances of lesser evils being chosen by individuals in the absence of choice of something better and lack of freedom to establish something better. – J.Z., 28.1.08. – Q. – CENTRALIZATION & DECENTRALIZATION, COMPULSION OR VOLUNTARISM? EXTERRITORIALISM OR TERRITORIALISM?

NATIONS: The couple hundred nations of this planet do not fight each other; they have no reason to.” - Kevork Ajemian, The Fallacy of Modern Politics, Books International, PO Box 6096, McLean, Virginia 22106, 1986, Tel. (703) 821-8900, p.146. – Alas, they can be forced, by their territorial governments, to fight each other – for the benefit of these “leaders”. – J.Z., 7.10.07. - WARS, LEADERSHIP VS. SUBJECTS, TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TAXATION, CONSCRIPTION, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE

NATIONS: The essential flaw in the doctrine of national self-determination is that there exists nowhere in reality such a singular entity as a “nation” or a “people” which can be treated as if it were a single unit possessed of a single mind or a single purpose.” – Dr. Duncan Yuille, on nationalism, ca. 1975.

NATIONS: The indigenous people of Hawaii, said to amount to 20% of the population, have recently claimed independence, being dissatisfied with their status merely as members of another U.S. State. Sympathizing with some of the Red Indians aspirations, they aim at independence via a nation within the nation agreement, according to radio news that I just heard. - J.Z. 14.1.93. - I know of no encouraging precedent for exterritorial autonomy among volunteers from Red Indians, Eskimos or minority groups of Asians. At most they want toleration for their religious rules. A lot of their newspapers and journals are microfilmed but I do not know them. During my U.S. trip I had no contact with Hawaii natives or reservation Indians. I would have liked to see whether some of the latter would be ready e.g. for a small-scale monetary revolution via their own shop currency. - J.Z., 14.1.93, 25.2.09. - NATIONS WITHIN NATIONS AGREEMENTS, MINORITY AUTONOMY, AGREEMENTS WITH DESCENDANTS OF DISPLACED NATIVES, ABORIGINES, PANARCHISM, MONETARY FREEDOM, HAWAII NATIVES, RED INDIANS–

NATIONS: The modern Bastille is the nation-state, no matter whether the jailers are conservative, liberal or socialist. That symbol of our enslavement must be destroyed if we ever want to be free again. The great revolution for the liberation of man has to be fought all over again.” – Emery Reeves. – STATE, TERRITORIALISM, COMPULSORY STATE MEMBERSHIP, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM.

NATIONS: The Nation is nothing at all but a simple force. Not in a single Nation are the people of one race, one history, one culture, nor the same political opinion or religious faith. They are simply human beings of all kinds, penned inside frontiers, which mean nothing whatever but military force. - The only thing that permits any of these Nations to exist, is the belief in the minds of almost all the persons penned inside these frontiers, that Government naturally controls their business, their work, their communications, their travels, their sale and tobacco and windows, and (to a greater or less extent) their newspapers, their public meetings, their theatres, their religion, and their personal habits. Workers have always been obliged to have permits to work, traders to trade, manufacturers to produce goods; communication and transportation have always belonged to Government; a new bathtub or a window in anyone’s house has always been Government’s affair; every contract between individuals must always be registered in a Government office (and taxed); a police agent always sits inside every apartment house or hotel entrance (and locks the doors at the evening hour set by the police chief) for Government must know everyone’s comings and goings and callers. (*) - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.139/40. - - In some respects it is not as bad any more, in others it is worse, at least in some countries. – (*) Now there are ca. 5 million surveillance cameras in England alone. - J.Z., 28.1.08.

NATIONS: the nation state impossible to defend … but old habits persist.” – H. N., in review, PEACE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS JOURNAL, Ref. No. 33957. – I finally discontinued subscribing to it when I concluded that it is too poor in positive suggestions for peace making. – It just abstracted the popular views, including popular errors and prejudices, without criticizing them sufficiently. - J.Z., 28.11.07. - It should have been renamed: ABSTRACTS OF OPINIONS ON PEACE. - J.Z., 11.1.11.

NATIONS: The nations must be redefined and reorganized from uniform and territorially exclusive and oppressive collectivist, centralized, monopolistic and organizations into exterritorial communities and societies of volunteers only,– - J.Z., 13.2.92, 24.1.08. - & PANARCHISM

NATIONS: The nations must be redefined and reorganized: Away from uniform, territorial, exclusive and compulsory, collectivist, centralized, monopolistic, oppressive and coercive organizations with involuntary members and subjects. They must be turned into only exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers only, all of them confined to exterritorial autonomy under personal laws and no borders to fight over and not confined to any territory, either. They could, e.g. establish several world-wide communities or federations. Thus no territorial borders would remain as wrongful and significant divisions to fight over and no territorial powers provoking forceful resistance. As Mrs. Chisholm, an Australian pioneer woman said: "Nothing but what is voluntary is deserving the name national." - The A.B.C. of colonization: In a series of letters, by Mrs. Chisholm. No.I. - Google has put it online, as I found out only today. – J.Z., 13.2.92, 13.1.93, 11.12.03, 29.12.11. My attempt to download it and to get a password from Google for this purpose did fail yesterday. – J.Z., 8.6.12.

NATIONS: The prison of the 19th and 20th century: the nation state.” – Source? Every territorial nation State is a prison – at least for some freedom lovers. – J.Z., 74. – But usually also for many other minorities and the majority is also subjected to a kind of prison discipline – and all too many, as territorialist statists, do still love it, even when they are victimized by it, without becoming aware of this. – J.Z., 28.1.08, 8.6.12.

NATIONS: The radical and revolutionary view of the future of nationhood is, logically, that it has no future, only a past – often an exciting one, and usually a historically useful one at some stage. But lines drawn on paper, on the ground or in the stratosphere are clearly insufficient to the future of mankind.” – Karl Hess, Death of Politics, p.14.

NATIONS: The so-called “rise” or growth of nations is actually their decline. – J.Z., 24.1.88. – “Like an anvil under one hammer, // United will all Germany stand, // …” - George Herwegh, long before WW I and WW II and their consequences. – J.Z., 26.1.08. - RISE, GROWTH & DECLINE

NATIONS: There are no nations, but only persons.” – Boris Pasternak, Dr. Shivago, Fontana Pocketbook, p. 126. – Alas, not all persons are personalities or free and responsible individuals as yet. – J.Z., 25.2.09.

NATIONS: There is no more natural and sensible reason for any Nation in Europe, than there is a reason why any State in this Union should be a nation. Germany is no more a German Nation than Wisconsin is, and Louisiana is a French Nation if France can claim to be. Normans and Gascons and Bretons and Provencals never mean France when they say, “my country”; they mean Normandy and Gascony and Brittany and Provence. Bavarians have not as much in common with Prussians as they have with Czechs, and Sicilians and Tuscans and Venetians and Neapolitans never have been Italians to each other.” - Rose Wilder Lane, The Discovery of Freedom, p.139.

NATIONS: They are the spooked “horror houses” of horror films, that threaten to exterminate all of us. – J.Z., 12.2.87. - TERRITORIAL STATES, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT

NATIONS: They have lawyers only to fight other lawyers, the way they have nations and governments to fight other nations and governments. – J.Z., 28.8.76. – LAWYERS, GOVERNMENTS

NATIONS: Twentieth century political thinking is incredibly primitive. The nation is personified as a living being with passions, desires, susceptibilities. The National Person is superhuman in size and energy but completely sub-human in morality … Men, who in private life behave as reasonable and moral beings, become transformed as soon as they are acting as representatives of a National Person into the likeness of their stupid, hysterical and insanely touchy tribal divinity.” – Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, 1937, p.40. – Compare: “Nuclear giants but ethically infants!” -  NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, CHAUVINISM, NATIONAL SOCIALISM

NATIONS: We have thought of ourselves as members of supremely meaningful and valuable communities – deified nations, divine classes and what not – existing within a meaningless universe. And because we have thought like this, rearmament is in full swing, economic nationalism becomes ever more intense, the battle of rival propaganda grows ever fiercer, and general war becomes increasingly probable.” – Aldous Huxley, p. 274/75 of Addresses, 1967, first published 1937. – NWT, WAR, TERRITORIALISM

NATIONS: While rejecting the artificial State and the atomistic society of capitalism, Landauer saw the nation as a peaceful community of communities: “Every nation is anarchistic, that is, without force; the conceptions of nations and force are completely irreconcilable.” – Peter Marshall: Demanding the Impossible, p.411. - FORCE & VOLUNTARISM, COMMUNITIES, SOCIETIES

NATIVE NATIONS: This ideal, freedom of choice in governance, is eminently just. It is a natural right that flows directly from our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is why we have a multitude of native nations within the boundaries of the U.S. "Under this policy, the U.S. recognizes 550 native nations within its borders. These are not state or federal agencies. This policy was established in 1970 by President Richard Nixon and reaffirmed on June 14, 1991 by President George Bush." ( - Cannot non-native Americans gain the same rights as native Americans and have their own governance? - Michael S. Rozeff, in his "Everything the Government Touches", 2008, 16 KBs, on

NATIVE TITLE: We have all been wronged, for many generations, by many different territorial governments. Against whom can we now raise claims for indemnification? And we are still daily and greatly wronged, e.g. as tax slaves or tribute payers or serfs of legislative, executive and juridical lords of the realm and their bureaucrats. – J.Z., 27.3.95, 24.1.08. - FOR AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES

NATIVE: A non-White inhabitant of a region whose ancestors dispossessed the previous lot.” – Satirical definition by Poul Anderson, There Will Be Time, p.30. – Often the previous lot had also dispossessed the previous etc. - back into times unknown to us. – J.Z., 28.1.08. – Natives have also been all too active exterminators of each other. For a long time they also used each other as a food reserve. – Or they robbed, raped, killed or enslaved each other. Who is to indemnify whom among their descendants? - J.Z., 25.2.09, 8.6.12. – DIS., JOKES

NATURAL FREEDOM: what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.” – John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, in Sir Ernest Barker, ed., Social Contract, New York: Oxford University Press, 1962, sec. 4, p.4. – Alas, that idea is still not fully understood and realized. – J.Z., 10.10.07. - INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

NATURAL GOVERNMENT: It is what E. C. Riegel has called “the natural government of man”. It governs the affairs of men in precisely the way that most people hope for from man-made governments.” – Harry Browne, You Can Profit from a Monetary Crisis, p.27. – Most people (or the majority) are just not good enough to govern anyone but themselves. Mostly the members of the majority are the most ignorant and prejudiced people. All peaceful minorities do have the right to govern themselves – but they, too, do not have the right to claim any territorial monopoly for themselves. – J.Z., 28.1.08. – GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, SELF-CONTROL, SELF-DETERMINATION, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

NATURAL GROWTH & DECLINE FOR HUMAN SOCIETIES & PANARCHISM: Just another suggestion for an entry - by someone. - J.Z., 20.10.11. - Naturally, it also means anarchism for anarchists, not only archism for archists. - J.Z., n.d.

NATURAL LAW, INDIVIDUAL & MINORITY RIGHTS: Every non-invasive and non-aggressive individual and minority group has the individual and natural right to insist upon his, her and its full exterritorial autonomy. This becomes established via individual and minority group secessions and voluntary associationism. - J.Z. 8.3.91, 14.1.93, 8.6.12.

NATURAL LAW: A law against Natural Law is void.” - James Otis. (Quoted in Read: Elements of Libertarian Leadership, p.90.) – Alas, the natural law, human rights and individual rights and liberties are still not sufficiently declared, publicized and discussed. There is not even sufficient interest in this job. All too flawed and incomplete existing governmental and private drafts of them are still all too uncritically accepted as if they were sufficiently rightful and liberating. – J.Z., 8.6.12.

NATURAL LAW: All men's natural rights are co-extensive with natural law, the law of justice; or justice as a science. This law is the exact measure, and the only measure, of any and every man's natural rights. No one of these natural rights can be taken from any man, without doing him an injustice; and no more than these rights can be given to any one, unless by taking from the natural rights of one or more others.” - Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, Works I, p.97.

NATURAL LAW: All systems of preference or of restraint, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord.” – Adam Smith, quoted in JLS, Fall 77, p.301. – NATURAL LIBERTY, LAISSEZ FAIRE, NATURAL HARMONIES, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, THE INVISIBLE HAND, FREE MARKETS

NATURAL LAW: And Anarchy began with the observation that the sole purpose of State legislators was to violate Natural Law.” – SEK3, NEW LIBERTARIAN 15, Aug. 85, p.11. – ANARCHY, LAWS, LEGISLATORS, PARLIAMENTS, CONGRESS

NATURAL LAW: And yet, C. S. Lewis, the Rational Christian, deduces Natural Law from precisely the amazing amount of agreement between various codes for human behavior deduced by completely different cultures around the world.” - SEK3, NEW LIBERTARIAN 15, Aug. 85, p.10. - - I wish that a similar agreement had already been achieved upon all individual rights and liberties, not just some of them. – J.Z., 26.1.08. - MORALITY, ETHICS.

NATURAL LAW: Any kind of thing existing in nature, a plant, a dog, a horse, has its own natural law, that is, the normality of its functioning, the proper way in which, by reason of its specific structure and specific ends, it “should” achieve fullness of being either in its growth or in its behavior.” – Jacques Maritain, Man & The State, ed. by Richard O’Sullivan, London, Hollis & Carter, 1954, p. 78/89. - HUMAN RIGHTS FOR HUMAN BEINGS

NATURAL LAW: As to the nature of law, (Jo) Labadie held that "The best laws, the safest laws, and ... the only laws necessary for the guidance of human action are natural laws." Natural laws, according to him, are self-enforcing and require no political machinery to give them effect ...” - Reichert: Partisans of Freedom, p.324.

NATURAL LAW: Based upon the premise of “natural law” one can never arrive at the wrongs and absurdities of majoritarian direct or representative democracies. – J.Z., 15.1.00, 11.9.08.

NATURAL LAW: Bastiat spelled out his concept of moral law (frequently referred to as natural law) as the source of all life and progress - and thus the proper basis for all relationships among men.” - Dean Russell: Bastiat, 3.

NATURAL LAW: Black’s Law Dictionary defines the natural law in a purely rationalistic and non-theological manner: “Jus Naturale, the natural law, or law of nature; law, or legal principles, supposedly to be discoverable by the light of nature or abstract reasoning, or to be taught by nature, i.e. in advance of organized governments or enacted laws.” (3rd. Ed., p. 1044). – Professor Patterson defines the natural law cogently and concisely as: “Principles of human conduct that are discoverable by ‘reason’ from the basic inclinations of human nature, and that are absolute, immutable and of universal validity for all times and places. This is the basic conception of scholastic natural law … and most natural law philosophers.” – Edwin W. Patterson, Jurisprudence: Men and Ideas of the Law (Brooklyn: The Foundation Press, 1953), p. 333.” – Annotation under Notes, No. 2, in Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, p. 7.

NATURAL LAW: But we can conquer Nature only by obeying her laws, and in order to obey those laws we must first learn what they are.” - Winwood Reade, The Martyrdom of Man, p.78

NATURAL LAW: By reason ... I do not think is meant here that faculty of the understanding which forms trains of thought and deduces proofs, but certain definite principles of action from which spring all virtues and whatever is necessary for the proper moulding of morals ... reason does not so much establish and pronounce this law of nature as search for it and discover it ... Neither is reason so much the maker of that law as its interpreter.” - John Locke, Essays on the Law of Nature, 1676, ed. W. von Leyden, Oxford, 1954, p.111, quoted in F. A. Hayek: The Confusion of Language in Political Thought, p.23.

NATURAL LAW: Clearly, not just any rules will do; for no authority could be long sustained which clearly affronted its subjects' conception of natural right.” - William D. Burt, THE FREEMAN, April 75.

NATURAL LAW: Don't try to improve on the natural order of things. It always backfires.” - Bob Howard, "Free Enterprise”, 2/76.

NATURAL LAW: Edicts of kings, votes of legislatures, or even the vote of all the people in the world could not establish natural law. Justice could be reached only through reason. Most men erred in their reasoning because they were encumbered by selfish or limited interests. Being free of encumbrances, Spooner believed he had reached the truth. Having mastered the natural law, he vowed to advocate it whenever or wherever he could find an audience, because natural law should rule all men in or out of office.” - Chiveley, comment to Spooner, Works I, p.40, referring in the last part to Spooner to George Bradburn, 5.12.1847.

NATURAL LAW: Even a minority of one, if grounded upon a sound recognition of nature's laws, will prevail against an overwhelming majority.” - Prof. Carl J. Friedrich, The New Belief in the Common Man, p.126. – The question is: WHEN? Soon enough? Under panarchism it could simply opt out to do its own things – immediately. Why should it be under the control of the majority until it has convinced the majority that it is right? – We do not apply such a senseless rule in our daily lives. Why should we apply it in spheres, which governments have so far monopolized? Surely no individual can rightfully declare a war upon a whole society or other State or nation and oblige all his countrymen to join him. However, private criminals commit such acts against their countrymen and foreigners all the time and territorial governments are only rarely able and willing to prevent them and to protect or indemnify the victims of these crimes. The excuse, that territorial governments are rightful and efficient protectors and defenders has long been proven to be invalid, in the eyes of any somewhat objective and critical observer. – J.Z., 25.2.09, 8.6.12. – NATURAL RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, MORALITY, ETHICS

NATURAL LAW: Every non-invasive and non-aggressive individual and minority group has the individual and natural human right to insist upon his, her and its full exterritorial autonomy. This becomes established via individual and minority group secessions and voluntary associationism. - J.Z. 8.3.91, 14.1.93, 8.6.12. - INDIVIDUAL & MINORITY RIGHTS

NATURAL LAW: For the reasons now given, the simple maintenance of justice, or natural law, is plainly the one only purpose for which any coercive power - or anything bearing the name of government - has a right to exist.” - Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.4. – Which territorial government has ever sufficiently fulfilled this duty? – J.Z., 25.2.09. – Q.

NATURAL LAW: Freedom, as well as reason, which serves it as a torch, is all the wider and more perfect, the more it agrees with the order of nature, i.e. with necessity.” - (“Die Freiheit ebenso wie die Vernunft, die ihr im Menschen als Fackel dient, is um so groesser und vollkommener, als sie mehr mit der Ordnung der Natur, d.h. mit der Notwendigkeit, uebereinstimmt.”) - Proudhon, 1846.

NATURAL LAW: His hope rested not in lawyers themselves but in natural law - a subject available and self-evident to all people (*) Once the people awoke to their rights, they would kill their rulers. If natural law was fully understood, revolutionaries when brought to trial could appeal beyond the government officials, beyond the legislatures, and beyond the judges, to the people sitting in the jury boxes.” - Charles Chiveley, introduction to Lysander Spooner, Collected Works, I, p.56.  (*) Micrographic and digital text reproductions could help to make it so. – So far their enlightenment options are still vastly under-utilized. - J.Z.)

NATURAL LAW: His system admittedly depended on the existence of a natural law. Today we are rather skeptical of such law; our behaviorists and psychoanalysts have shown how seldom men follow principles of reason. Before rejecting Spooner's ideas of natural law, we might ponder carefully his alternatives: either there are normative standards making justice possible, or there are no standards but force and violence. He laid it out clearly: "If there be, in nature, no such principle as justice, there is no moral standard, and never can-be any moral standard, by which any controversy whatever, between two or more human beings, can be settled in a manner to be obligatory upon either; and the inevitable doom of the human race must consequently be to be forever at war; forever striving to plunder, enslave, and murder each other; with no instrumentalities but fraud and force to end the conflict." - Lysander Spooner, Natural Law, p.15 - Chiveley's Introduction to Spooner, Works, I, p.55. - JUSTICE

NATURAL LAW: Honesty, justice, natural law," he writes, "is usually a very plain and simple matter, easily understood by common minds." Justice becomes perverted only when "laws" are ‘passed’." - Charles Chiveley's introduction to Spooner's Works I, p.4.

NATURAL LAW: How could a physician hope to deal successfully with a case if he was told first, to lay aside all the general principles of health and disease; the laws affecting the temperature and the nutrition of the body; the circulation; the general course of the disease, its accompanying and its resulting dangers? Both astronomer and physician possess their power, such as it is, simply in virtue of the laws which, as they have discovered, are invariably behind the facts. Facts not reduced to law can be of no practical service either to astronomer or physician. How can a politician dream that he exists in a different world from the physician and astronomer, and that it is given to him to use the facts which concern his trade, without understanding or caring to understand the laws of which they are but the expression?” - Auberon Herbert, Mack edition, p.134. – POLITICIANS, RULERS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, LEADERSHIP, REPRESENTATIVES

NATURAL LAW: If every citizen could be brought up to appreciate the beauty and harmony of the laws inherent in nature, he would be as incapable of establishing a tyranny as of enduring one. The society in which he lived would automatically be a natural society, a society of free consent, in which law and liberty are but two aspects of the same reality.” - From: "Social Relation and Freedom”, Modern Publishers Indore, p.45.

NATURAL LAW: If you drive out nature with a pitchfork it will, nevertheless, return.” (Naturam expellas furca, tamen, usque recurret.“ - - „Verjage die Natur mit der Mistgabel, sie kehrt doch wieder.“) – Horaz, Episteln, 1, 10, 42.- Compare: Destauches, Le Glorieux, III, 5: Vertreibt die Natur; sie kehrt im Galopp zurueck.“ (Drive out nature and she will return galloping.) - NATURE, FORCE, COERCION, LEGISLATION, LAWS, COERCION, COMPULSION

NATURAL LAW: If, finally, you shall find no such law, anywhere, nor be able to conceive of any such law yourself, I take the liberty to suggest that it is your imperative duty to submit the question to your associate legislators; and, if they can give no light on the subject, that you call upon them to burn all the existing statute books of the United States, and then to go home and content themselves with the exercise of only such rights and powers as nature has given to them in common with the rest of mankind.” – Lysander Spooner, conclusion of Letter to Thomas Francis Bayard, II, Boston, May 27th., 1882, Works I. – LAWS & POSITIVE LEGISLATION

NATURAL LAW: In fact, the legal principles of any society can be established in three alternative ways: (a) by following the traditional custom of the tribe or community; (b) by obeying the arbitrary, ad hoc will of those who rule the State apparatus; or c) by the use of man’s reason in discovering the natural law – in short, by slavish conformity to custom, by arbitrary whim, or by use of man’s reason. … Here we may simply affirm that the latter method is at once the most appropriate for man at his most nobly and fully human, and the most potentially “revolutionary” vis à vi and given status quo.” – Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, p.17. – Here he has certainly not taken the alternatives of diverse panarchies of volunteers into consideration. - A fourth way consists in allowing individuals to secede from the territorial law community they are living in and to choose or establish for themselves and other such secessionists another one, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, one that corresponds to their own errors, insights or prejudices or sound ideas. – J.Z., 26.1.08, 8.6.12.

NATURAL LAW: In the following passage, legal scholar George Padoux (preface to LEANG KI-TCHAO, 1926) summarizes the general philosophy of life that underlay the Chinese system of law and-justice. 'Since the dawn of its history, China has believed in the existence of a natural order of things, or law of Nature, including all parts of the universe and adjusting them harmoniously with one another. This order of Nature was not made, it exists and is its own reason for existence. Humanity is a part of it, and must conform to it ... This natural law does not yield precedence to positive law, i.e., laws representing human experience and wisdom. ... ' - A Chinese will regard as binding a rule promulgated even by doubtful constitutional authority if he deems it conformable to 'the edicts from on high'; and he will deem himself free to disregard it if he finds it in disaccord with the natural law ...” - LE-FEVRE'S JOURNAL, Winter 1975.

NATURAL LAW: It is significant that he quotes from Vattel’s Principles de la Loi Naturelle in the course of his argument. When he writes that ‘there can be no prescription old enough to supersede the law of nature and the grant of God Almighty, who has “given all men a right to be free”, he has really abandoned the logic of English constitutional law for the revolutionary logic of a higher and diviner law.” – Sir Ernest Barker, Traditions of Civility, p.303, on James Otis.

NATURAL LAW: It is the science which alone can tell a man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person.” – Lysander Spooner: Natural Law.

NATURAL LAW: Later thinkers noticed that human beings always live fuller, more satisfied lives when free than when enslaved. They called this regularly a natural law, too.” – Jeff Riggenbach, NEW LIBERTARIAN, 15, August 85, p.15. – FREEDOM, SLAVERY

NATURAL LAW: Lawmakers, as they call themselves, might just as well claim the right to abolish, by statute, the natural law of gravitation, the natural laws of light, heat, and electricity, and all the other natural laws of matter and mind, and institute laws of their own in the place of them and compel conformity to them, as to claim the right to set aside the natural law of justice, and compel obedience to such other laws as they may see fit to manufacture, and set up in its stead.” – Lysander Spooner, A Letter to Grover Cleveland, p.4.

NATURAL LAW: Laws- just laws, natural laws - are not made, they are discovered.” - Albert Parsons, on being sentenced to hang, 1886.

NATURAL LAW: leaving out of account the law of family, Duguit finds only three fundamental rules and no more - freedom of contract, the inviolability of property, and the duty to compensate another for damage due to one s fault.” - Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, p.454. – Why do so many writers attempt to reduce all natural laws or human rights to a few only, which can be expressed in a single sentence or paragraph? Is the topic not important enough to be expressed in sufficient detail? How many have concluded so far, from the above general terms, upon the right of individuals and minorities to secede and to rule themselves under personal laws, exterritorially autonomous, under their own personal laws? How many have derived all the economic, monetary and financial rights from such wordings? Why should we be prepared to fill out many pages upon the purchase of a car or some real estate but not take man’s individual rights and liberties serious enough to go to some lengths and details to describe them? – J.Z., 24.2.09. – INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, AN IDEAL DECLARATION IS REQUIRED STILL! Q.

NATURAL LAW: Libertarianism, then, is based squarely on what used to be called the tradition of natural rights, holding that every human being has the right to life, liberty and justly acquired property - property acquired by transforming un-owned natural resources by their own effort or by engaging in peaceful exchange of their own thought and labor for that of others ...” - Roy Childs, Liberty Against Power, p.7.

NATURAL LAW: Locke’s description of the state of nature as a place where men enjoy “perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or dependency upon the will of any man”. – JLS, Fall 77, p.147/48.

NATURAL LAW: Man can work with natural laws, but he cannot possibly direct, change or inflict his will against nature without disastrous results.” - Dr. J. A. S. Sage: Live to Be 100, p.109.

NATURAL LAW: Natural law and nature’s laws rather than “God’s” laws or man’s laws. – J.Z., 6.5.93, 24.1.08.

NATURAL LAW: Natural Law is historically the power in oppressed person’s defence against established churches and States.” - SEK3, NEW LIBERTARIAN 15, Aug. 85.

NATURAL LAW: Natural Law is simply conceptualization of the objective workings of human action.” - SEK3, NEW LIBERTARIAN 15, Aug. 85, p.10.

NATURAL LAW: Natural Law is the science of men's rights. ... It is impossible that men can have any right (either in person or in property), in violation of Natural Law. - For natural law is justice itself ... the nature of justice can no more be altered by legislation than the nature of numbers can be altered by the same means.” – Lysander Spooner.

NATURAL LAW: Natural Law or The Science of Justice: A Treatise on Natural Law, Natural Justice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing That All Legislation Whatsoever Is An Absurdity, A Usurpation, And A Crime.” – Lysander Spooner. – Title of one of his best essays. - J.Z. - LAW VS. LEGISLATION, NATURAL JUSTICE, NATURAL RIGHTS, NATURAL LIBERTY, TERRITORIALISM STATISM, NATURAL JUSTICE,

NATURAL LAW: Natural law, in regard to all human rights, is capable of being ascertained with nearly absolute certainty.” - Lysander Spooner, Poverty, p.63.

NATURAL LAW: Natural Law, is it obligatory for all or optional for individuals and volunteer groups in their self-concerned activities? - "... any act of any individual or any government inconsistent with natural justice and men's natural rights is unlawful and invalid. Under Spooner's definition of law, legislation and law-making is necessarily subject to natural law and natural justice. The idea that government of any majority of people have the inherent right to restrain others from the exercise of their natural rights - by way of lawmaking - 'is as sheer an imposture as the idea of the divine right of kings to reign ...' - And the idea of any necessary or inherent authority in legislation, as such, is an equal imposture. - 'If legislation be consistent with natural justice ... it is obligatory', if not, not." - Carl Watner, on Spooner, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, p. 124, quoting Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, p. 8. - All this is right but only for territorial, coercive, monopolistic and sovereign States and laws. One should distinguish between imposed (at least upon involuntary victims and upon dissenters) constitutions, laws and governments, judges and courts, administrations and police forces etc. and individually chosen or agreed-upon ones. Furthermore, one should distinguish laws, conditions and institutions to which one remains constitutionally bound to one's former choices, or those of one's ancestors, even when one has changed one's mind or the conditions have changed, and a state of affairs where individuals can freely opt out of what they formerly found attractive and voluntarily contracted for. Spooner's and Watner's kind of absolutist approach and interpretation, understandable with regard to the imposition and coercive maintenance of any kind of slavery, has, by being indiscriminately applied, so far prevented most anarchists and libertarians from comprehending and approving panarchism and from achieving it and thus achieving any kind of anarchism for its anarchists, any kind of libertarianism for its libertarians and any kind of statist archism for their kind of archists. A principle or dogma should never be insisted upon so absolutely that it ignores or demolishes our realistic and individual self-liberation rights, liberties and opportunities and those of others, who are at different stages of personal knowledge and development, just because these rights, liberties and opportunities are not absolutely perfect and fully claimed and realized by and for all. One should also realize that e.g. criminals, whether individual or organized ones, may not want and have contracted rightful and suitable controls over their criminal activities against others (against their victims), but they do, nevertheless, have to be resisted and controlled, forcefully, if necessary, to the extent that this can be rightfully and effectively done, never minding their dislikes and protests. – If all the total opponents of violence or force, even defensive force, indicated this clearly on their persons and e.g. their homes, then they would, thereby, turn themselves into easy targets for criminals. They would offer them, so to speak, the other cheek. And many criminals would be cheeky enough to make use of that opportunity. They are afraid of resistance, as they indicate by many attacks on old people, who are also all too much disarmed by our beloved Big Brothers. - Only non-initiation of force or non-aggression makes sense to me. - J.Z. 15.1.93, 17.9.04, 8.6.12. – Q., DIS., OBLIGATION, DUTY, RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITY, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, LAW, LEGISLATION, LAWMAKING, POLITICIANS, REPRESENTATIVES, PARLIAMENTARISM, DEMOCRACY, NATURAL JUSTICE, SPOONER, WATNER, NON-VIOLENCE?

NATURAL LAW: Natural law, notice, is not claimed as Invention. It is discovered, not invented. It is immutable to the subjective whims of the State’s Rulers.” - SEK3, NEW LIBERTARIAN 15, Aug. 85, p.1

NATURAL LAW: Natural laws have no pity.” - Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long. - J.Z.: Those applying between rational human beings have something much better, namely the justice resulting from the realization of human rights, those fitting the nature of human beings and their relations with each other. - J.Z., 24.11.05.

NATURAL LAW: natural rights are supposed to receive protection, not to provide it. … The function of natural law is not to protect any claims, but rather to tell us which claims deserve protection.” - Roderick T. Long, The Nature of Law, IV. - While this is true for most classical human rights, it is hardly true for those rights, which are intended to help protect other rights, like the right to resist, revolt, commit tyrannicide, to help liberate innocents, the right to individually secede from oppressive regimes, the right to refuse to accept deteriorated government money and to issue and accept sound and competitive private currencies instead, the right to bear arms for the protection of individual rights and to militarily organize and train oneself for the protection of individual rights. - J.Z., 1.2.02. - HUMAN RIGHTS

NATURAL LAW: Natural rights are those which grow out of the nature of man.” - Black's Law Dictionary. – MAN, HUMAN NATURE, RIGHTS

NATURAL LAW: Nature never breaks her own laws.” - Leonardo da Vinci.

NATURAL LAW: Nature, as far as I know, is not personified and does not object to how much of it is understood, used or misused. If natural law is understood and cooperation ensues, nature will favor the cooperator. If misunderstanding or misuse ensues, unpleasant consequences may follow. But in the latter case, the individual brings the difficulty on himself; there is no natural (*) supernatural interventionist of which I am aware.” – Robert LeFevre, NEW LIBERTARIAN 15, Aug. 85, p. 12. – A society of free individuals will cooperate with the natural law individuals and resist the aggressors against natural law. – (*) or? – J.Z., 29.4.89.

NATURAL LAW: Nature's laws are always enforced.” - Prof. Carl J. Friedrich, The New Belief in the Common Man, p.126. – Alas, the natural laws between human beings are only indirectly enforced, namely through the disastrous consequences of them being ignored or suppressed. All of recorded history is a lesson for this. - J.Z., 24.11.05. – But all of these lessons have to be sufficiently written up still – primarily in an ideal declaration of all individual rights and liberties. Or do you know anyone who is fully aware of all of them? – J.Z., 25.2.09. – Q., IDEAL HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION

NATURAL LAW: Oh, these grand, immutable, all-wise laws of natural forces, how perfectly they would work if human legislators would only let them alone! But no, they must be tinkering.” - Andrew Carnegie, quoted in SATURDAY REVIEW, 10.7.76. – Are those passing “positive” laws most familiar with natural laws and individual human rights and liberties? – J.Z., 25.2.09. - LEGISLATORS, LAWS, PARLIAMENTS, LAWYERS, PARLIAMENTS, Q.

NATURAL LAW: one unalterable law indicated by nature herself." - by?

NATURAL LAW: Only natural law is stable.” - J. G. Seume, Autobiography, p.96. - The laws or legislation of legislators are forever changing and mostly unjust, i.e., contrary to natural law and genuine individual human rights and liberties. - J.Z., 24.11.05, 19.11.10. - Compare: “Die Natur macht keine Spruenge.” – author? (Nature does not jump.) – Apart from e.g. mutations and some nuclear phenomena. But it produced some pretty good jumpers, like e.g fleas. – And sudden and spectacular “shorts”, like “lightening”. - J.Z., 25.2.09.

NATURAL LAW: Otis advances the view that an act of parliament against any of God’s natural laws, which are immutably true, would be contrary to truth, equity, and justice, and consequently void; and he proceeds to the conclusion that it has been – and still, by implication, should be – the function of the judges to declare the nullity of any such act.” – Sir Ernest Barker, Traditions of Civility, p.302, on James Otis. – Ulrich von Beckerath’s view was that an ideal militia of volunteers for the protection of individual rights and liberties – still to be established, even to be fully discussed, would be the ultimate arbiter and sovereign force to uphold these rights, independent of any government, society or jurisdiction. It would involve all citizens sufficiently enlightened and interested in this respect. I share this view. – He also asserted that Robert Owen, on his death bed would have stated that without an ideal militia the required social reforms could neither be achieved nor maintained. – He got this information from one of the biographies of R. O., which was, probably, burnt with his library in Nov. 1943. – I have not found this reference as yet. – The wonders of the Internet: A quick Google search of “Robert Owen” + militia brought me the “chance” to look at 3240 references. Now I will not take the time to peruse them. Some of his descendants were involved with militias. - J.Z., 26.1.08. – I wish all sensible discussions of ideal militias were pulled together, at least digitally, in an anthology. That wrongfully organized, motivated and commanded militias have done much wrong and could still do much wrong, I do not deny. – There are so many writings on statist military forces – and so few on somewhat rightful and voluntary military organizations. One of the reasons for this is, naturally, that there were so few of them and these were still not sufficiently enlightened. - J.Z., 25.2.09, 8.6.12. - & MILITIA, LAWS, NULLIFICATION, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, JUDGES

NATURAL LAW: Responding spontaneously to the laws of social economy and moral right which are independent of any man or legislative power, Proudhon argued, man is free, for 'it is the individual's privilege to recognize these laws (*), his honor to obey them'. (**) Obviously, Proudhon belongs to that school of natural right which holds that there is an order implicit in nature that is greater in wisdom and compassion than any man-made institution or system of justice can ever hope to be, and that a viable social order, therefore, can only be established where the basis of that order springs from man's 'natural constitution' rather than an artificial order dependent upon some political charter. (***) - What Proudhon has in effect proposed here is a theory of laissez-faire that is faithful to the spirit of that theory as it was presented by Adam Smith and other eighteenth century thinkers of the Enlightenment. Convinced that man is a social as well as an economic being, and that men, therefore, have the capacity of settling their differences equitably without help from outside, the Enlightenment stood ready to discard the institution of the state and rely wholly upon the social instincts of men for the purposes of self-government. The inevitable consequence of a society organized after the principle of laissez-faire is bound to be serendipitous, according to Proudhon, because it draws upon the full range of human potentiality for social progress." - W. O. Reichert, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, p.143/144. - Voluntary laws, laws for volunteers only, may contain arrangements contrary to natural justice. But individuals remain free to withdraw from them and their restrictions of individual rights, at any time (as long as they have committed no offences against individual rights, practised in that community). They are to that extent voluntary slaves or serfs, but only as long as they want to be. –– (*) Or, internally, among and with like-minded people, to disobey them! - - (**) or not! – - (***) Nothing wrong with such charters, as long as they remain exterritorially confined to volunteers! – J.Z., 1.7.92, 15.1.93, 8.6.12. - PROUDHON, PANARCHIES, LAISSEZ FAIRE, STATES & AUTONOMOUS SOCIETIES OF VOLUNTEERS

NATURAL LAW: Society … only exists if the Natural Right derived from Natural Law is respected. Each and every violation is a corrosion of Society until is ability to self-repair is overcome and Hobbes’ War of All Against All ensues.” (*) – SEK 3, NEW LIBERTARIAN 15, Aug. 85, p.15. – (*) As if e.g. monogamy did not exist even among some birds and, generally, herd instincts, symbiosis and mutualism. I learnt only recently that Alpacas are used by Australian farmers to protect their sheep and chicken against foxes. – Too many people like vast generalizations and ignore exceptional cases or even wide-spread practices. - J.Z., 8.6.12. - & SOCIETY, COOPERATION AMONG ANIMALS

NATURAL LAW: Spontaneously evolved theory and practice of law to fill in the gaps of the natural rights theory.” – George Smith, 8.1.91. – That, too, remained largely a utopia, I believe. However, we might approach it via long-term and free competition between all the various panarchies, which free men and women would form for themselves and like-minded people. – J.Z., 25.2.09, 8.6.12. – PANARCHISM, LAWS, JUDGES, LAWYERS

NATURAL LAW: Statute law is not based on natural law; they are the antithesis of each other.” - Sprading: Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.20. - LAWS

NATURAL LAW: the conclusion, reached by individuals in virtually all nations, races, climes and conditions of life that there are certain types of behaviour, which people ought to have and still other types which the people ought not to have.” - SEK3, NEW LIBERTARIAN 15, Aug. 85, p.12.

NATURAL LAW: The distinguishing doctrines of the Physiocrats were that a so-called natural condition or order exists in society, the violation of which causes all the evils suffered by man; that in this natural order man has a fundamental and inalienable right to freedom of person, opinion, property, contract, or exchange.” - Bliss, Enyclopedia of Social Reform, Physiocrats.

NATURAL LAW: the fact that natural law theorists derive from the very nature of man a fixed structure of law independent of time and place, or of habit or authority or group norms, makes that law a mighty force for radical change.” – Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, p.19. – The progress will be faster when all are free to progress towards that ideal only at their own speed, in accordance with their own beliefs, convictions and experiences, helped by what they are willing and able to learn from the experiences of others, all around them, also doing their own things. If the most advanced community tried to enforce its ideal, territorially, upon the rest, it would maximize resistance and opposition and might end up defeated, without its ideal constitution or conditions. – J.Z., 26.1.08. - VERSUS POSITIVE LAW, INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAWS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

NATURAL LAW: the idea of the limitation of the sovereignty of parliament by ‘natural laws which are immutably true’ is an idea based on the dictum of an English judge of the seventeenth century, Hobart, who had declared in 1614 (*) that an act of parliament against natural equity is void in itself, for ‘jura naturae sunt immutabilia,’ and they are ‘leges legum’. (On the other hand, this dictum of Hobart stands solitary and unparalleled, except for the statement of a similar view by Camden in the House of Lords in 1766; and though Otis affirms the contrary, it seems never to have been applied by any English court.) The proposition of Otis also looks forward, in the sense that the idea of judicial disallowance of legislative acts which are contrary to a higher and overriding law is a herald and forerunner of the power which the federal Supreme Court eventually came to assume after 1787.” (**) – Sir Ernest Barker, Traditions of Civility, p.302. - - (*) I believe that the idea of natural law goes back much further, even to the ancient Greeks and Romans, probably the ancient Chinese and Egyptians as well. – However, presently I will not spend time to confirm that belief by corresponding quotes. - - (**) Well, have the Supreme Courts of any country so far shown sufficient knowledge and respect for natural law and individual rights and liberties? I would like to see some evidence for that. - J.Z., 26.1.08, 8.6.12.

NATURAL LAW: the language of statutes and constitutions shall be construed, as nearly as possible, consistently with natural law.” - Spooner, Trial by Jury, Works II, p.135.

NATURAL LAW: The law of nature is perceptible to the eye of reason.” - Maurice Cranston, Political Dialogues, p.38, ascribing this view to Locke.

NATURAL LAW: The law of nature, being co-eval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is superior in obligation to every other. It is binding all over the glove, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid derive their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from the original.” – Blackstone

NATURAL LAW: The laws of physics, chemistry and mathematics are not (*) a good idea. They are immutable natural laws. The laws of economics are not (*) a good idea. They are immutable natural laws. The laws of economics are not (*) a good idea. They are immutable natural laws. There is nothing wrong with these natural laws and only fools attempt to 'improve' them.” - GOOD GOVERNMENT, April 83, then edited by W. A. Dowe, p.1. p (*) merely? - J.Z.

NATURAL LAW: The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature, because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual.” - Bakunin, God and State. (Seldes, p.562)

NATURAL LAW: the philosophy of natural law defends the rational dignity of the human individual and his right and duty to criticize by word and deed any existing institution or social structure in terms of those universal moral principles, which can be apprehended by the individual intellect alone.” – John Wild, Plato’s Modern Enemies, p.176, quoted in Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, p.18. – Not only the subscribers to Natural Law are entitled to their own communities of volunteers, as long as they do not infringe the natural law rights or individual rights and liberties that members of other communities claimed for themselves. I envision a great variety of statist, libertarian and anarchist panarchies and polyarchies, but also a strong tendency towards more and more freedom in all those, which have not already realized, within their own community, all known liberties and rights. Let them advance at their own speed, or stagnate or regress at their own risk and expense. – J.Z., 26.1.08.

NATURAL LAW: The physical world, like the cave’s flickering images, is untidy, shifting and out of focus. But there is order and purpose in the confusing kaleidoscope. Things happen according to immutable laws – laws governing life on earth, laws governing movement in the heavens, laws of logic governing thoughts, and moral laws governing behavior. None of these laws can be seen or touched; yet they are real nonetheless – more real, essentially, than the objects they govern. If Plato had known Newton’s law of gravity, he would have considered it more real than any falling apple. – From an article on Greece. Author and periodical presently unknown to me. – J.Z.

NATURAL LAW: the principal lasting modernizing effect of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century natural-law theorists was their limitation of the social impact of religious belief. By arguing that all men are equal before the natural law, and that all institutions are to be submitted equally to the same criteria concerning their conformity to this law, they postulated equally applicable sets of measures to man and his social doings. To hold that natural law is the same for all is not to argue that all men are empirically equal before that natural law, but at least it opens the door for thinking that all men are touched with grace, and so takes a step toward removing religion as a measure of worth determining a man's secular position. In addition, these theorists established a basis for reconciling individual with social good by proposing identical criteria for the ethical judgment of each.” - Silvert, Man's Power, p.120.

NATURAL LAW: The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.” - John Adams, to Jefferson, June 20, 1815. – Do the laws of human nature or the laws religions and powerful politicians impose upon men? – J.Z., 25.2.09. - GOD'S LAW OR THE LAWS OF KINGS, PRIESTS, POLITICIANS & BUREAUCRATS,. RULERS, TERRITORIALISM, Q., GOVERNMENTS, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARISM

NATURAL LAW: the right which a man has to do the things which are fit for his enjoyment.” - Quesnay, Le Droit Naturel. – Are pleasure or enjoyment to be the supreme standard? – J.Z., 25.2.09. – UTILITARIANISM, HEDONISM, Q.

NATURAL LAW: The rules of justice discernable by right reason.” - Source unknown to me. - J.Z. – Compare: The law of nature is perceptible to the eye of reason.” - Maurice Cranston, Political Dialogues, p.38, ascribing this view to Locke.

NATURAL LAW: The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by human power. This is what is called the law of nature, which being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times.” - Alexander Hamilton.

NATURAL LAW: The world is so constituted, socially and economically, that if you allow the natural law to function then you will get not only a free society but a rich one and a just one, in which, in the long run, revolution and war would make no sense, and in which, … men would breathe freely. It is no exaggeration to say that all the seemingly intractable economic problems of modern society, born both of the social maladjustments referred to and of the very misguided attempts to deal with them, would disappear.” – Frank McEachran, PROGRESS, 6/77.

NATURAL LAW: There are some writers ... contending that the code of Nature exists in the future and is the goal to which all civil laws are moving, but ...” - H. J. S. Maine: Ancient Law, p.43. – I am still very much under the impression that most “positive” laws go in the opposite direction. – Under the personal laws of panarchism this trend might become reversed. – J.Z., 25.2.09. – LAWS, PANARCHISM VS. STATISM

NATURAL LAW: There demonstrably are social laws which must be obeyed in the same sense that the law of gravity must be obeyed by willful human beings. That is, driving off a cliff with my car and demanding the result to be that I reach the other side as in an animated cartoon, is a violation of the Law of Gravity. (*) Similarly, defrauding my trading partners in an agora and expecting the agoric relations to continue unaffected is a violation of socio-economic Natural Law. If I am discovered, it will go, particularly badly for me, but even if I am not (punished?- J.Z.), the general collapse of trust necessary for ease of exchange will grow, to my increased annoyance and frustration.” – SEK3, NEW LIBERTARIAN 15, Aug. 85, p.15. - - (*) Not that of humor. – J.Z.

NATURAL LAW: there is and can be, correctly speaking, no law but natural law. There is no other principle or rule, applicable to the rights of men, that is obligatory in comparison with this, in any case whatever. And this natural law is no other than that rule of natural justice, which results either directly from men’s natural rights, or from such acquisitions as they have a natural right to make, or from such contracts as they have a natural right to enter into.” – Lysander Spooner, “What Is Law?” – Chapter I of Part I of The Unconstitutionality Of Slavery, 1845.

NATURAL LAW: There is plenty, and for all, he maintains, if production and trade were freed from the shackles of institutions founded on ignorance of the natural laws of economics. In this respect - his insistence that natural laws obtain in the realm of economics even as they do in the physical sciences - he traces his intellectual lineage back to the classicists, or old-fashioned liberals.” - Frank Chodorov: Out Of Step, on Henry George, p.62.

NATURAL LAW: Therefore, the difference between Natural Law and government law is that Natural Law demands freedom, while government law demands that certain men obey other men.” – Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p.32. – LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, FREEDOM VS. TERRITORIALLY ENFORCED OBEDIENCE

NATURAL LAW: This impossibility of any man's delegating any legislative power whatever necessarily results from the fact that the law of nature has drawn the line, and the only line - and that, too, a line that can never be effaced nor removed - between each man's own inherent and inalienable rights of person and property, and each and every other man's inherent and inalienable rights of person and property. It, therefore, necessarily fixes the unalterable limits, within which every man may rightfully seek his own happiness, in his own way, free from all responsibility, to, or interference by, his fellow men, or any of them.” – Lysander Spooner, Letter to Thomas Francis Bayard, 1882, Works I, p.5. – INVIOLABLE RIGHTS & LIBERTIES: ONE CAN ONLY, TEMPORARILY, RENOUNCE USING THEM. – E.g., a couple may decide not to have children now or soon and not to make use of their public speech and writing options. – But they can reclaim the practice of these rights whenever they want to. - J.Z., 8.6.12.

NATURAL LAW: those unalterable relations which Providence has ordained that every thing should bear to every other. These relations, which are truth itself, the foundation of virtue, and, consequently, the only measures of happiness, should be likewise the only measures by which we should direct our reasoning. To these we should conform in good earnest; and not to think to force nature, and the whole order of her system by a compliance with our pride and folly, to conform to our artificial regulations. It is by a conformity to this method [that? - J.Z.] we owe the discovery of the few truths we know, and the little liberty and rational happiness we enjoy. We have somewhat fairer play than a reasoner could have expected formerly; and we derive advantages from it which are very visible.” - Sprading, on Edmund Burke, p.61.

NATURAL LAW: Those, who want to command nature, must learn to know its its laws and they can profit only by using them to their own advantage and that of their associates, trading partners, clients or customers. – Not only our bodies and minds are subject to natural laws but also our institutions and relationships are subject to natural law. We cannot get away from the consequence of trying to ignore these laws. - J.Z., n.d., & 24.1.08, 8.6.12. -NATURAL LAWS

NATURAL LAW: True law is right reason conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil … This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome, and another at Athens; one thing to-day, and another to-morrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable.” - Cicero, On the Commonwealth, (De re publica) [de res publica? My Latin was never any good. – J.Z.], tr. in Bohn’s Classical Library, London, Belle and Daldy, 1872. - Did such thoughts induce Cicero to dare call for the abolition of slavery, anywhere, at any time? – J.Z., 28.1.08. - LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

NATURAL LAW: Under Natural Law which is embodied in Common Law and enshrined in the Constitution, your right to your life, your liberty, your property and the pursuit of your own happiness, is ABSOLUTE. The only valid function of government is the protection of these Natural Law rights (*); anything else is usurpation and oppression. - - “… to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” – Declaration of Independence - - Government, according to the Constitution, has only those rights and powers delegated to it by its citizens. (**) Any right not possessed by the individual (***) cannot be delegated. Since I have no right to your life, liberty or property, there is no way I can delegate that right to any government I may create. And there is no way our government can legally or morally arrogate to itself rights and powers not specifically possessed by its citizens nor delegated to it.” - - Source? - Lysander Spooner: Natural Law? - - (*) Is that really a working function of any territorial government? – - (**) Individually, not collectively! - - (***) Underlined by me. - J.Z., 28.1.08. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAW, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM.

NATURAL LAW: What David Hume called the "three fundamental laws of nature, that of the stability of possession, of transference by consent, and of the performance of promises." – Quoted where?

NATURAL LAWS, PROUDHON, PANARCHIES, LAISSEZ FAIRE, STATES & AUTONOMOUS SOCIETIES OF VOLUNTEERS: Responding spontaneously to the laws of social economy and moral right which are independent of any man or legislative power, Proudhon argued, man is free, for 'it is the individual's privilege to recognize these laws (J.Z.: or not!), his honor to obey them'. (J.Z.: Or, internally, among and with like-minded people, to disobey them!) Obviously, Proudhon belongs to that school of natural right which holds that there is an order implicit in nature that is greater in wisdom and compassion than any man-made institution or system of justice can ever hope to be, and that a viable social order, therefore, can only be established where the basis of that order springs from man's 'natural constitution' rather than an artificial order dependent upon some political charter. (J.Z.: Nothing wrong with such charters, as long as they remain exterritorially confined to volunteers! - 1.7.92.) - What Proudhon has in effect proposed here is a theory of laissez-faire that is faithful to the spirit of that theory as it was presented by Adam Smith and other eighteenth century thinkers of the Enlightenment. Convinced that man is a social as well as an economic being, and that men, therefore, have the capacity of settling their differences equitably without help from outside, the Enlightenment stood ready to discard the institution of the state and rely wholly upon the social instincts of men for the purposes of self-government. The inevitable consequence of a society organized after the principle of laissez-faire is bound to be serendipitous, according to Proudhon, because it draws upon the full range of human potentiality for social progress." - W. O. Reichert, in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, 143/144. - Voluntary personal laws, laws for volunteers only, may contain arrangements contrary to natural justice. But individuals remain free to withdraw from them and their restrictions of individual rights, at any time (as long as they have committed no offences against individual rights). They are to that extent voluntary slaves but only as long as they want to be. - J.Z. 1.7.92, 15.1.93.

NATURAL LIVING: claimed they lived as an integral part in “Nature’s Plan”. … she’d observed that intelligent life always forces nature to operate according to its plans. … Nature’s ‘plan’ for mankind, … is that we should still be shivering in damp cave on Earth somewhere, gnawing wormy berries, sandy tubers, and raw meat, and dying of old age before we turn thirty.” – L. Neil Smith, Taflak Lysander, p. 95, Avon Books, New York, 1988. - INTELLIGENT LIFE, BACK TO NATURE OR FORWARD WITH NATURE? DIS.

NATURAL MORAL LAW: Natural Moral Law is comprehensive in that it can assign one of three values – good – neutral, or evil – to any human action, simply by posing the question: has anyone been coercively harmed? And then using judgment plus the facts to answer yea or nay. (For moral good, we ask: has anyone been benefited and by whom?)” – Fred Foldvary, THE CONNECTION 115, p.91. – A mixture of utilitarianism and morality. Any free competitor who loses business to a better one could claim that he has been harmed, but, hardly, that he has been wronged. Nor would the customers of his competitor have been wronged or harmed.  – J.Z., 9.6.12. – HARM, WRONG & RIGHT.

NATURAL ORDER: Let things fall into their natural order, let society govern itself, and the sovereign function of the State will be to protect nature in the execution of her own law.” – Lord Acton, Lectures on the French Revolution, ed. by Figgis & Laurence, MacMillan, 1932, p.11/12, on the French economists. - If society is allowed to order itself, then a territorial State will be found to be superfluous – and also too dangerous to be allowed to exist. The territorial statist utopia has never fulfilled its promises or the hopes and expectations it aroused. -  J.Z., 10.10.07. - NATURAL LAW, NATURAL RIGHTS, LAISSEZ FARE, ECONOMIC FREEDOM, SOCIETY, STATE & SELF-GOVERNMENT

NATURAL ORDER: With his usual admirable net clarity, M. Henri Follin has diagnosed the disease from which the State now suffers, and has delineated the cure, in Principes Sociaux de l’Ordre Naturel (1921). (*) Apart from a few handfuls of ambitions and intriguing people, who love above all things to dominate those around them, he reminds us, apart from a few handfuls of simple idealists and sophists, who propose to model the world according to their heart’s desire, humanity is everywhere composed of individuals, who only ask to live, to work, to enjoy, or to suffer in peace, according to the opportunities that fate affords them. Natural Order is to allow one’s neighbour to attend to his own affairs, and not to be jostled by him. It is also not to be regimented, either from choice or compulsion, in groups whose principal raison d’être is to interfere in their neighbours’ lives, provided that these do not interfere with their own lives. Natural Order is to be responsible for one’s own acts and one’s own engagements, and not to have eternally to pay, to busy one’s self, and to bleed, owing to the stupidity and folly of others. Natural Order is to associate with those to whom this appears desirable in order to defend their legitimate interests, and not to associate with anyone to attack the legitimate interests of others. Natural Order, in a word, is the abolition of artificial tyrannies; the tyranny of manners, of traditions, of prejudices, of fashions, the tyranny of institutions, of governments, of spiritual cults, whether national or social; the tyranny of parties, of clans, of castes, and of groups.” – S. Hutchinson Harris, The Doctrine of Personal Right, p.368/69. - (*) I would like to see Follin’s work it in a German or English translation. He was a long-term friend of Ulrich von Beckerath, they were both members of the same cosmopolitan peace organization and Follin also advocated individual secessionism, at least in later years. – J.Z., n.d. – Te book by S. H. H. would also be worth digitizing, if somebody hasn’t done it already. – J.Z., 9.6.12. - ORDER, NEIGHBOURS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM

NATURAL RESOURCES: 28.) Property - Every rational being has the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property, alone as well as in association with others. This right is unlimited only with regard to earned, inherited, won or donated property. It cannot be claimed for natural resources such as land, mineral deposits, sources of energy, lakes, rivers, seas and oceans, air space and space, nor of socially essential services and structures like railways, streets, and canals (nor for mere discoveries of natural structures, like genes, which it took nature billions of years to develop. - J.Z., 27.10.01), because this would establish particularly harmful monopolies. - - It includes the right freely to dispose of all property by last will and testament except that required to secure a minimum standard of living to one's dependents. - - No one may be deprived of his property except in cases of evident public necessity, legally ascertained, and on condition of a previous just indemnification. In an emergency the indemnity has to be settled immediately afterwards. - - 29.) Natural Resources - Every rational being has the right to participate a) in the exploitation of all natural resources like land, mineral deposits, energy resources, rivers,  lakes, seas, and oceans, air space and space, and b) in the administration of all institutions, installations and structures beneficial, to all, if they possess some kind of inherent monopoly as do railways, streets, canals, hydroelectric dams and telephone networks. - - Comment: Private or national ownership would monopolize them and thus infringe right 27. Therefore, such monopolies should be rendered harmless by the above right. It could be realized by open cooperatives, open because everybody could join as a working member, investor or as a councillor and voter in its general meetings and because there would be no business secret. The members of an open cooperative, like that of any other, would share their earnings according to their work and their invested capital. The enforced sharing of monopoly profits and of the decision- making power would reduce the monopoly profits practically to naught. – From the Human Rights draft in PEACE PLANS No. 4.

NATURAL RESOURCES: In asserting its right or arbitrary dominion over that natural wealth that is indispensable to the support of human life, it asserts its right to withhold that wealth from those whose lives are dependent upon it. In this way it denies the natural right of human beings to live on the planet. It asserts that government owns the planet, and that men have no right to live on it, except by first getting a permit from the government. - - This denial of men’s natural right to take possession of and cultivate wilderness land is not altered at all by the fact that the government consents to sell as much land as it thinks it expedient or profitable to sell; nor by the fact that, in certain cases, it gives outright certain lands to certain persons. Notwithstanding these sales and gifts, the fact remains that the government claims the original ownership of the lands; and thus denies the natural right of individuals to take possession of and cultivate them. In denying this natural right of individuals, it denies their natural right to live on the earth; and asserts that they have no other right to life than the government, by its own mere will, pleasure and discretion, may see fit to grant them. - In thus denying man’s natural right to life, it of course denies every other natural right of human beings; and asserts that they have no natural right to anything; but that, for all other things, as well as for life itself, they must depend wholly upon the good pleasure and discretion of the government.” – Lysander Spooner, A Letter To Grover Cleveland, 34, Works I. - GOVERNMENTS, NATIONAL CLAIMS, TERRITORIALISM

NATURAL RESOURCES: it does not matter who ‘controls’ a given resource, so long as it can be bought at the market price.” – Joseph P. Martino, ed.: Defending a Free Society, p.37. - When ownership of them is claimed by national territorial governments then they are not always accessible and this at market prices. - J.Z., 11.1.11.

NATURAL RESOURCES: It is not enough that men should vote; it is not enough that they should be theoretically equal before the law. They must have liberty to avail themselves of the opportunities and means of life; they must stand on equal terms with references to the bounty of nature. Either this or Liberty withdraws her light! Either this, or darkness comes on, and the very forces that progress has evolved turn to powers that work destruction. This is the universal law. This is the lesson of the centuries. Unless its foundations be laid in justice the social structure cannot stand.” – Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 1879. – It is not up to a territorial government, for instance, to grant a licence to one miner and to refuse it to all others. – J.Z., 28.1.08. - - The “bounties” of nature do usually require a lot of work, ingenuity and capital investment to become useful and available to all of us – at their free market prices. – J.Z., 26.2.09. - VOTING, EQUALITY, DIS., OPEN COOPERATIVES, LAND MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM

NATURAL RESOURCES: Natural resources are a very minor factor in wealth.” – Prof. Jan Narveson, 25.7.04. – Clean water and air are important parts of free and civilized lives – and they are everywhere largely interfered with. We also live in a kind of soup of artificial radiation. Are e.g. energy sources as unimportant as he states here? – To some extent natural resources are territorially and monopolistically withheld from us. – Free trade and free enterprise do not yet fully exist in this sphere. - J.Z., 22.2.09. -  – Soil, water, air and sunshine are natural resources for human beings. We could not even survive without them. But they alone do certainly not make us prosperous or even rich. – J.Z., 26.2.09. - PANARCHISM, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL & SOCIAL LIBERTIES & RIGHTS, DIS.

NATURAL RESOURCES: No national or private monopoly for natural resources! Instead: Free access even for individual, to all natural resources, even if this means free movement into existing enterprises. - The dissolution of geographic nations by individual secession, the replacement of territorial law by personal law, would mean, at least in the long run, free access for all to all natural resources. This can be realized by means of the institution of "open cooperatives (as described in several works by Theodor Hertzka, i.e., associations which accept all comers, either as workers or investors, and do reward them according to their contributions.) - No more wars for the exclusive possession of oil-bearing areas. No more civil wars fomented by the land hungry. No more exclusive national land tenures which forcefully exclude some people from the better endowed areas of this planet. Primitive and aggressive tribal invaders drove e.g. the peaceful Hopis and the Eskimos into the all too dry or cold wilderness. - Free access to exploit the natural resources of the world would also turn all into proprietors, although not exclusive ones, and would thus make all people more reluctant to wilfully destroy any part of the world. - It surprises me that the conservationists and ecologists or "greenies" have not yet rediscovered this organizational and management approach. - Free access for all people, as decision-makers, to deposits of radioactive materials, would mean that the majority of people could then effectively organize themselves and decide to make these minerals still less accessible for their use, i.e., under present conditions, under territorialism, their abuse, e.g. for nuclear weapons and reactors. - From: J.Z., An ABC Against Nuclear War. - Revised here: J.Z., 11.1.11, 9.6.12. - & OPEN COOPERATIVES

NATURAL RESOURCES: No state, racial, ethnic, religious or voluntaryist community can lay exclusive claim to any natural resource beyond their own bodies, capability and rightfully acquired products. To that extent territorialism and national monopolies as well as unlimited private land-ownership must be abolished, in the long run. Transitionally this can be peacefully and gradually achieved via purchases through "open cooperatives" which do reward all their voluntary members in accordance with their work and investment contribution, regardless of their political or other affiliation. Donations and voluntary mergers with such open cooperatives could speed up the process. But in the meantime and until this ideal is voluntarily accepted, the existing legal land tenure and mining system and various competing and freely chosen and non-coercively practised other systems, should all competitively coexist for their voluntary supporters, in a kind of panarchistic competition. It may well happen that this kind of competition will continue indefinitely or re-occur now and then, to the extent that other models than the "open cooperative" one do remain or become popular and voluntarily supported. Business- and market-like transitions from one to the other system are always preferable to imposed solutions, based upon expropriation and legislation for all, even if an ideal is aimed at, because as disagreeable critters as human beings are, they are only all too likely to rather fight a civil war than submit involuntarily to an unaccustomed and suspected alternative land tenure and mining system. Free choice and competition are the answer here, too and provide the maximum chance to any supposedly ideal system for its wide-spread or even general realization. - J.Z., 1.4.89. - LAND MONOPOLY, OPEN COOPERATIVES

NATURAL RESOURCES: When politics are used to allocate resources, the resources all end up being allocated to politics." – P. J. O'Rourke. – Not all but all too many. – E.g., under governmental “pricing” most publicly supplied water, even in dry continents like Australia, was just flushed down the toilets. - J.Z., 2.1.08. – Their water-availability charge is up to ten times higher than the charge for the amount of water consumed. The same goes for sewage connection charges. So there is little interest in saving water because the bill is hardly reduced thereby. – That applies at least to where I live, in the Southern Highlands of N.S.W. - J.Z. 26.2.09. - & POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

NATURAL RESOURCES: You are not a natural resource.” – John A. Goodson, New Jersey Libertarian Party. – Yes, you are, but your own! No one else can rightfully claim you as his natural resource without your individual consent. – J.Z., 28.1.08. – DIS., SELF-OWNERSHIP, INDIVIDUAL CONSENT, VOTING, VOLUNTARISM

NATURAL RIGHTS: All schemes having their roots in natural rights are based on the desire to free man from bondage to social institutions of compulsion in order that he may attain the consciousness of his humanity and no longer bow before any authority which would deprive him of the right to his own thoughts and actions.” – Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, p.143. - The compulsion inherent in territorialism is usually overlooked, although it belongs to the most common formal definition of States. – Thoughts are still largely free, even in totalitarian States, unless one is under torture. But the public expression of thoughts as well as freedom of information, not to speak of freedom of action and experimentation, in spheres currently monopolized by territorial governments, are all too much restricted and these restrictions do also infringe free thinking, at least somewhat. - J.Z., 25.1.08, 19.11.10, 9.6.12.

NATURAL RIGHTS: Are all of the genuine individual political, economic and social rights sufficiently expressed by governments, in their constitutions and human rights declarations? Did these declarations ever convey enough knowledge and respect for individual human rights? - Has government-controlled education provided sufficient knowledge and appreciation of these rights? Obviously not. Nevertheless, anarchists and libertarians have so far shown quite insufficient knowledge of and interest in private human rights declarations and in attempts to provide still better and more complete and consistent ones. Why? Because even among them the opponents to the rights concepts and declarations are all too numerous? But then what about the rest? Why are they, mostly, content to advocate only one or the other of the governmental human rights declarations? Why do they write so much about human rights – without attempting to provide better human rights declarations? This is still a riddle to me. – Compare my digitized collection of private drafts of this kind in the enlarged PEACE PLANS 589/590. – J.Z., n.d. & 26.10.07. – This anthology is online as part of a CD reproduced by C.B. on - INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS, BILLS OF RIGHTS OF GOVERNMENTS: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, Q.

NATURAL RIGHTS: The late Professor Leo Strauss was in essential accord with Proudhon's argument that the individual is fully equipped by virtue of his basic social nature to grasp the outline of natural right without assistance from church or state or any other outside structure. As Strauss put it, 'It is man's natural sociality that is the basis of natural right in the narrow or strict sense of right. Because man is by nature social, the perfection of his nature includes the social virtue par excellence, justice; justice and right are natural.' When anarchists express a total disregard for legal systems, it is not because they oppose law and order that they do so but because, like Strauss and Proudhon, they believe that law and order are generated by the individual as he perfects his social nature in small communities in which he - and he alone - is responsible for observing right. Where men have turned this task over to the state, justice becomes a chimera." - W. O. Reichert in Holterman, Law in Anarchism, p.139. - Within exterritorial and autonomous communities of volunteers, as anarchistically organized as possible and desirable, some turning over of tasks, some division of labor, in upholding justice as well as in other trades, is not only possible but desirable. - J.Z. 1.7.92. - To the extent that any individual is always fully self-responsible and does not interfere with any of the rights and liberties of the other voluntary members, or of outsiders, he can be and will be left quite alone. However, whenever he has become an offender against the agreed-upon rights and liberties of the members of his community, to which he had himself voluntarily subscribed, or the rights and liberties claimed for themselves by members of other communities and internationally recognized as individual rights, then and precisely then he is not always sufficiently able and willing to be a correct judge in his own case and must, to that extent, be subjected to the internal or the international arbitration system that he had previously agreed to abide by. - J.Z. 14.1.93. - Not really a "slogan" for liberty, either, but rather a lot of interlinked thoughts. - J.Z. - HUMAN NATURE, LAW, JUSTICE, RIGHT, SOCIAL NATURE OF MAN, STATE, MAN

NATURAL SOCIETY: I now plead for natural society against politicians and for natural reason.” – Edmund Burke, A Vindication of Natural Society, p.52.

NATURAL SOCIETY: It is a misfortune, that in no part of the globe natural liberty and natural religion are to be found pure, and free from the mixture of political adulterations. Yet we have implanted in us by Providence ideas, axioms, rules of what is pious, just, fair, honest, which no political craft, no learned sophistry, can entirely expel from our breasts. By these we judge, and we cannot otherwise judge of the several artificial modes of religion and society, and determine of them as they approach to, or recede from this standard.” – Edmund Burke, A Vindication of Natural Society, 35.

NATURALIZATION: Australian territorial totalitarianism is expressed e.g. in the attempt to Australianise all immigrants – at least from the 2nd generation. – J.Z., 5.6.77. – Morally the attempt is not any better than would be that of Australian Aborigines trying to turn all later comers as closely as possible into Australian Aborigines. – To all immigrants their own institutions and laws for themselves, as long as they do prefer them. - J.Z., 5.6.77, 28.1.08. - PANARCHISM

NATURALIZATION: Only those who will be loyal to our institutions, who are here in conformity with our laws, and who are in sympathy with our national traditions, ideals, and principles should be naturalized.” – Republican National Platform, 1928. –– The others should be free to have their own exterritorially autonomous associations and personal laws, possibly cosmopolitan ones, their own ideals and principles, customs and traditions and should be free to practise them except on the properties of others. In the latter case they are bound by the restrictions inherent upon polite guests and un the laws of hospitality. – E.g. a Protestant or other sectarian cannot freely start to preach in a Roman Catholic church, unless he is invited to do so. The white etc. immigrant to North America did not adopt the traditions, laws, institutions and principles of the Red Indian natives, either but, instead, realized their own. – J.Z., 3.11.85, 10.7.86, 25.1.08. -  As if their ideals would have to be those of all the citizens in a country. Do the Republicans even fully agree among themselves? Do the members of any party? They have their factions, too, at least a right wing, a left wing and a center group. – According to this, those not naturalized would have to pay the same kind of taxes but without even a right to vote contrary to the principle of the “Founding Fathers”: No taxation without representation! - J.Z., 25.1.08, 9.6.12. - DIS., PANARCHISM, NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, LOYALTY

NATURE: Give nature a chance, with regard to human rights and liberties as well. – J.Z., 13.2.07. – Respect e.g. individual sovereignty and individual secessionism as well as voluntary associationism under personal laws. – J.Z., 25.10.07. - & HUMAN RIGHTS, MAN, RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

NATURE: Man, singular, is Creation’s (*) finest image. His destiny is the improvement, now and forever, of this image in order that he may increasingly share in Creation. Man’s purpose is a realization of his unique, creative potentialities. Man requires, above all else, not to be smothered – that is, he requires an absence of restraints against creative release. He needs ‘room to breathe’, as we say.” (**) – Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.118. – (*) Nature’s! – (**) In every sphere. Not only within the framework of territorial governments, however limited they may be otherwise. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - MAN, HUMAN NATURE, HUMAN VALUES, FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

NATURE: Nature acts without masters.” – Hippocrates – But it has its “masters” in its genetic blueprints. – J.Z., 23.1.08. – It also has its leading bulls and pecking orders. – But its followers are usually volunteers. They do not make exclusive territorial claims. - J.Z., 26.2.09. & MASTERS, HIERARCHIES, DIS.

NATURE: Nature has neither kernel nor shell; she is everything at once.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. - – Panarchism copies that characteristics of nature, just like the free production and free exchange of consumer goods and services does. To each the government or non-governmental society of his dreams or choice. – J.Z., 12.1.08. - PANARCHISM

NATURE: Nature is often hidden; sometimes overcome; seldom extinguished.” - Francis Bacon, Essays, Of Nature in Men. – But our territorial governments are still trying to extinguish us – with mass murder devices, which they call “defensive weapons”. – J.Z., 26.2.09, 9.6.12. – NUCLEAR WAR THREAT.

NAZIS: As rightist, nationalistic socialists the Nazis attacked what they perceived to be "plutocracy" and interest-slavery as much as the leftist state Socialists and nationalists attacked "capitalism", "corporations", "profit", "dividends", "unearned income" and international corporations and, nowadays, "globalization". Both, Nazis and Leftists were opponents to free trade and free migration, internally and externally. Both favored and abused monetary despotism and were enemies of a laissez faire economy and laissez faire politics (panarchism). Both were territorialists and suppressed individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy within their territories. - J.Z., 23.9.01, 1.2.02. - AS A LEFTIST MOVEMENT, STATE SOCIALISM

NAZIS: Fascism is an attempt to fight communism with its own weapons." – Antony Fisher, The Case for Freedom, p.59. – The “weapons” or, rather, methods involved are those of totalitarian and territorial statism, very much alike among all competitors for territorial power. – J.Z., 29.1.08, 9.6.12. - DIS. - FASCISM, COMMUNISM, STATE SOCIALISM, TERRITORIALISM, TOTALITARIANISM

NAZIS: In Germany, for example, a minority of the voters favored Hitler when the president of the Weimar Republic called on him to form a cabinet, and he had to form a coalition government. His was the largest single party, but there were many parties; and most of those who did vote for Hitler had no conception of the loss of freedom that awaited them. They were far from fastidious about the liberties of others, but they did not crave liberation from their own freedom. Their motives included resentment of the Treaty of Versailles and of the inability of democratic statesmen to get it altered; fear of Communism; dreams of national glory; and hatred of Jews. But no combination of these motives would have brought Hitler close to power if the republic had not been undermined by economic disaster.” – Walter Kaufmann: Without Guilt & Justice, p.6. - Each of its great economic crises, its Great Inflation, 1914-1923 and its Great Depression in the thirties, cost Germany - economically - as much as did World War I. And both crises had been made possible for Germany through governmental interventionism, especially in the monetary sphere. For 100 years, under various princes and kings and the emperor, Germany had not known as severe crises. Thus the Weimar Republic was blamed for them (in a sense it was rightly blamed, for it was all too state-socialistic and interventionist in its “economics”) and a new and strong leader was widely desired, equivalent to the former monarchs, under the false assumption that their “strengths” could cope with economic crises cause by wrongful and irrational laws. The mentality of the German population on economic problems was not all that different from that of the Parisians, during the French Revolution, who captured the King in Versailles and triumphantly led him back to Paris, shouting the slogan: “Now that we have the King, we will no longer be short of bread!” Hitler appealed successfully to these masses of unemployed and their dependents, with remarks similar to some F. D. Roosevelt made: The machines and factories, the raw materials, the food and clothing as well as the people willing to work are there. Somehow it must be possible to bring them together. We do not know how but we will experiment and will learn from our experiments until it is done. – That seemed plausible, and attractive, in the USA as well as in Germany. But the former statist interventionism, mainly the monetary despotism of central note-issuing banks, which had made inflation, deflation and mass unemployment legally possible and likely in the first place, was not discontinued. (And this in spite of the fact that in Germany it was introduced, from Banking Commission of 1908 onwards, with the declared intention to help “finance” a future war!) Only further statist measures were tried by the Nazis, public works, forced labor, conscription and an armament build up (“financed”, largely, with old age social insurance funds) and political opponents and other scapegoats of the Nazis were imprisoned or otherwise persecuted, while the remaining few economic and general liberties of the Weimar Republic were rapidly abolished. According to researches by Prof. Heinrich Rittershausen, other European countries recovered from the Great Depression faster than Germany did under the Hitler Regime. – The same kind of ignorance on the main causes of mass unemployment persists today in most heads. – In Australia it has led to concentration camps for illegal immigrants. – Through e.g. ABC mass murder devices or anti-people “weapons”  many Nazi “ideas” or popular errors and prejudices are still dominant in the heads of most people of democratic and other nuclear powers, and their supporters. - J.Z., 29.1.08.

NAZIS: Nazis are not rational beings. They do thus not have the natural rights of rational beings. – J.Z., 8.3.87. – The same applies to any other totalitarians. – J.Z., 25.1.08. - Nevertheless, as a panarchist I support their right to apply their wrongful and irrational notions to themselves, at their own risk and expense. That would tend to rapidly diminish the number of their supporters. For what real services can they offer themselves?  - One can't live off shared delusions. - J.Z., 11.1.11. – Their various robbery and exploitation opportunities of involuntary victims would then be abolished. – J.Z., 9.6.12.

NAZIS: The communists and the Nazis are merely two variants of the same evil notion: collectivism. But both should be free to speak – evil ideas are dangerous only by default of men advocating better ideas.” - Ayn Rand, The First Amendment and “Symbolic Speech”, in: “The Ayn Rand Column”, revised edition, 1998, p 118, Second Renaissance Books, New Milford, Connecticut, - - That is correct but does not go far enough: Their freedom of action is also harmless, to others, once it is confined to their own voluntary victims. If, under that freedom of action, they would largely wipe themselves out, I would not weep over them. Those among them able to learn from their own experience and the experiences of other communities will sooner or later adopt the better systems for themselves as well. No one should be obliged to stick with flawed ideas and actions. They, too, would have the right to secede from their totalitarian communities. – J.Z., 17.9.07. – TOTALITARIANISM, COMMUNISM, FREEDOM OF SPEECH & FREEDOM OF ACTION, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES AT THE OWN EXPENSE & RISK, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL, VOLUNTARY VS. COERCIVE COLLECTIVISM, PANARCHISM

NAZIS: The idea is: To achieve human felicity by concerting all efforts towards its realization, to root out and destroy the cultural supports of individualism and the pursuit of self-interest, and to use government to concert all efforts on behalf of a general felicity …” - Clarence B. Carson, Germany: Ideology Contends for Power, 1918-1930, THE FREEMAN, p.549. - They managed to murder and suppress more people than any previous German government and this in a mere 12 years. Perhaps they should thus be entered in the Guinness Book of Records? - J.Z., 11.1.11. - NATIONAL SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, TOTALITARIANISM, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

NAZIS: The Nazi’s “blood and soil” notions were just exaggerated notions of all too popular nationalistic and even chauvinistic ideas. – J.Z., 16.2.82, 29.1.08. - TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES, NATIONALISM, RACISM, IMMIGRATION BARRIERS, THE MYTH OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE, LEADERSHIP, TERRITORIALISM IN ITS EXTREMES

NAZIS: The Nazis always had been pretty funny – fat Hermann pretending he was a young Siegfried. As blond as Hitler, as slim as Goering, and as tall as Goebbels. …” - C. M. Kornbluth: Two Dooms, p.307. – But their methods of gaining and retaining power and organizing and financing aggression, exploitation and mass murder were not funny. Territorial powers and their actions rarely are. – J.Z., 29.1.08.

NAZIS: There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates from it.” – Hitler, in Hitler Speaks, p.134. – Both were totalitarian and territorial regimes, operating on the leadership principle and the suppression of individual rights and liberties. Both were strongly interventionist in economics. Both had central banks and “managed” foreign trade. Both had many concentration camps. Both had conscription. Both had a powerful secret police. Both had censorship. – A complete list might be interesting. – J.Z., 24.1.08. - & SOVIETS

NAZIS: They were and are all merely consistent territorial statists, consistent in their advocacy and practice of totalitarian territorial power in the hands of the State. – J.Z., 31.3.84, 29.1.08. - & SOVIETS & OTHER TOTALITARIAN STATISTS

NAZIS: World War II was the clash of socialist titans. It was ignited by revolutionary socialism ...” – Clarence B. Carson, THE FREEMAN, 1/78. – It was, rather, another clash about conflicting exclusive territorial claims. How many volunteers would these movements have got and how many would they have retained after a while, if they had all depended upon voluntary support only and would have had to compete, exterritorially, with all kinds of other communities of volunteers, some of them quite free ones and thus having really worthwhile reforms to offer to their members? – J.Z., 29.1.08. – Q., WORLD WAR II, STATE SOCIALISM & TERRITORIALISM, DIS., PANARCHISM, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, Q.

NAZISM, FASCISM, STALINISM & TERRITORIALISM: The rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period, but a necessary outcome of those tendencies." - F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom. - When people know only of and attack only "state socialism" then they should say so. Common features of all 3 are territorialism, i.e. suppression of individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, compulsory taxation, monopolized and centralized decision-making on war and peace, unjust war and peace aims, non-recognition of most individual rights, monetary despotism. Fascists and Nazis as well as the totalitarian communists simply went further in the direction of despotism. All democracies with such totalitarian traits are already to that extent totalitarian States, even while they class themselves as anti-fascist, anti-Nazi, anti-socialist or anti-communist. - J.Z., 5.4.89, 8.4.89. - FASCISM, STALINISM & TERRITORIALISM, COMMUNISM, STATE SOCIALISM, TERRITORIALISM, DIS. NECESSARY

EVIL: Government at its best is a necessary evil, and at its worst, an intolerant one.” – Thomas Paine. The concept of "necessary evil" is much abused in order to cover many quite unnecessary evils, e.g. territorial rule. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. - TERRITORIALISM

NECESSARY EVIL? Nuclear mass murder devices are not necessary evils, either; they are absolutely evils. There is no such thing as a necessary evil. - DEFENCE, EVIL, IMMORALITY, INDISCRIMINATE WARFARE, MORALITY, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, WEAPONS. - From: J.Z., An ABC Against Nuclear War. - - They are, largely, the result of the suppression of genuine individual rights and liberties, especially of individual responsibility, being replaced by collective responsibility, with "targets" readily present in form of territorial States. - These "weapons" are the clearest indication of governmentally organized terrorism, even while these governments pretend that they are fighting "terrorism". - J.Z., 11.1.11. – DIS., GOVERNMENTAL TERRORISM, TERRITORIALISM, NWT

NECESSITY: The web of this world is woven of Necessity and Chance. Woe to him who has accustomed himself from his youth up to find something necessary in what is capricious, and who would ascribe something like reason to Chance and make a religion of surrendering to it.” - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - – There are also creativity, invention, discovery, imagination and innovation, not always subject to necessity and chance only. Territorial States restrict them most. – Exterritorial experimental freedom would give a chance to volunteers for anything that is reasonable and also for anything that is unreasonable - but always at their own expense and risk. - J.Z., 12.1.08, 11.1.11, 9.6.12. - & CHANCE, LUCK, TERRITORIALISM VS. FULL INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, RIGHTS & CHOICES, LAWS

NEED: A distribution according to needs – to the extent that it not altogether impossible – has as a precondition an organization of rule that in all essentials agrees with the statist one and is, therefore, anti-anarchistic. A distribution really according to the needs is impossible because these are always greater than that what exists for distribution, especially since needs increase and are supplemented by news ones. (*) … Since in this distribution not everybody can serve himself in accordance with his actually felt or only asserted needs, others have to decide upon the distribution in an authoritarian allocation system. These others cannot really judge what is a real or only asserted need. That leads in the best cases to an irrational compulsory equalization but as a rule to the kind of waste, corruption and other defects that we know from “centrally planned and directed” economies. If you consider this to be an ideal constitution, you should not be hindered to realize it for yourself and all your followers, as long as you are pleased by it. But this pleasure is likely to disappear soon.” – LERNZIEL ANARCHIE, No. 5, p.13. – Needs often increase the more they are satisfied. – J.Z., n.d., & 29.1.08. NEED: A: “After all, monseigneur, I must live!” B.: “I don’t see the necessity for it.” – The protest was made by a priest accused of publishing libels; the answer was by the Count d’Argenson (1696-1764), one of the ministers of Louis XV. - - It is certainly not necessary to make a living through libel. – But the attitude of rulers towards the right to life of their subjects is also clearly expressed by this anecdote. – Are Rulers necessary? Are territorial States necessary? Are nuclear "weapons"? Do we have to monopolize war and peace decisions? - I would place this kind of monopoly decision-making with an ideal militia of volunteers for the protection of individual rights and liberties rather than with any ruler or any mob. Alas, such a militia does not exist as yet. Nor does an ideal declaration of all these rights and liberties. Regardless of how large the need for it appears to me. Moreover, there seems to be no rush to provide either, not even among anarchists and libertarians. Are they aware of everything that they would need to achieve their victory soon, at least regarding their own affairs? – (*) According to a reference that I read yesterday on Facebook, the present hunger in the world is certainly not due to insufficient food production, since the food is produced for about 17 billion people, while there are only about 7 billion. But the food producers do not find it easy enough to sell all of their ready-for-sale-food to the hungry billion or millions or get their food surplus turned into conserves and the hungry are not able to buy enough food for themselves. In other words, the potential buyers are insufficiently supplied with exchange media and with opportunities to earn them and thus the food producers have insufficient paying customers. Something is, obviously, wrong with the monetary and clearing exchange system for goods, services and labour, which is only to be expected under monetary despotism, its monopolism and prohibition of competition in this sphere. -  Much food is thrown away, eaten by insects, mice, rats etc. or goes bad in storage. The food producers complain about not enough mouths able to pay for food and the hungry about not enough money to buy food. - J.Z., 24.1.08, 26.2.09, 11.1.1, 9.6.12. - & NEED, NECESSITY, RULERS & SUBJECTS, IDEAL MILITIA & DECLARATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, Q., FREE EXCHANGE, UNEMPLOYMENT, MONETARY FREEDOM, FREE BANKING,

NEED: As social animals, we need freedom.” - Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, IX. - Once this is achieved we can, usually, satisfy our most urgent needs, as determined by ourselves, through free production and free exchange. – J.Z., 29.1.08. - We need the right and liberty to secede and to act freely under full exterritorial autonomy. - That is the best war to attempt to fulfil all our other needs through self-responsible actions. - J.Z., 11.1.11.

NEED: If you want something, work for it.” - Peter F. Hamilton, Judas Unchained, SF, 2005, McMillan, p.274. – And if work is not available or not very rewarding, find out about all the legal restrictions, which bring this condition about and then do something about them. Ignore them, revolt or secede and do your own things, together with like-minded people. At least potentially human beings are the most productive machines. It takes much government interventionism to make many of them poor. – J.Z., 25.3.09. – If all the ready-for sale and wanted goods, services and labour could be readily turned – by their owners and suppliers - into purchasing power in form of goods- and service-vouchers and wage- and salary payments for productive work, with all such competing alternative means of exchange, redeemable only in wanted goods, services and labour, and using a sound value standard, freely chosen, to express prices, wages and salaries with, then there would be enough exchange media for all wanted and needed exchanges. The governmental monetary despotism still does prevent that everywhere and is only able to produce inflations, deflations and stagflations in this sphere instead of supplying sound and enough exchange media, as the free market supply of competing monies and clearing facilities would. – J.Z., 9.6.12. -  INEQUALITY, WORK, WANT, POVERTY, UNEMPLOYMENT, SALES DIFFICULTIES, MONETARY FREEDOM VS. MONETARY DESPOTISM. TRANSFORMATION OF NEEDS & DEMAND AS WELL AS OF SUPPLY – INTO EFFECTIVE, SOUND & SUFFICIENT PURCHASING POWER.

NEED: It seems to me that Harry Brown is saying that the free market is not only the best suited for the economic needs of man’s existence, but that the free market is best suited for all of man’s needs.” – Jerry P. Starzinski, Reason, 9/74. – Yes, if it is understood to include voluntary communities that are only exterritorially autonomous: Panarchies or Polyarchies. – J.Z., 30.1.08. – FREE MARKET, COMPETITION, LAISSEZ FAIRE IN EVERY SPHERE

NEED: No politician knows better what I need than I do and no politician produces anything towards my needs but merely takes away the returns from goods and services produced by others in their attempts to cater to their own needs and those of their favourites or their voters. – It is the needs of politicians that should be most or totally neglected – except by their voluntary subjects. - J.Z., 18.6.92, 26.1.08. – POLITICIANS, NEEDS, WELFARE STATE

NEED: Remember, though, that this explosion of governmental “aids” and “services” is called for by “the people”; it is meant to answer to perceived social needs. But this brings us back once more to the main point. The government acts to meet the needs, which are imagined to arise from some mythical collective. Individual liberty or individual will is not its main concern, or even its tertiary concern. In fact, individual liberty or freedom of expression (*) The atmosphere in which it moves is not one of concrete, tangible realities, but of steamy vapors and myths, simplistic formulas, bromides and shibboleths. Being closely immersed in this system it is not easy to see how we may be deceived by it (as we can easily see how the language of Marxism and Leninism cozens the Russians), but if we expect our liberties to survive, we must be careful to see that we do.” – George H. Douglas, in THE FREEMAN, 12/74. - - (*) Much more is involved than merely that liberty. It is freedom for tolerant actions and experiments that is needed most to achieve genuine progress in the political, economic and social spheres. – J.Z., 11.1.11.

NEED: The idea of “need” is dangerous because it strikes at the heart of the practical argument for freedom. That argument depends on recognizing that each person is best qualified to choose for himself which among a multitude of possible lives is best for him. If many of those choices involve “needs”, things of infinite value to one person which can be best determined by someone else, what is the use of freedom? If I disagree with the expert about my ‘needs’, …” - David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, p.66. - To each the free choice among all systems which he believes will best satisfy his own needs, as long as he allows all others the same choice. - J.Z., 11.1.11.

NEED: The mischievous idea that all public needs should be satisfied by compulsory organization and that all the means that individuals are willing to devote to pubic purposes should be under the control of government, is wholly alien to the basic principles of a free society.” - Friedrich Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty. - However, as far as is humanly possible, all needs of free people can be best satisfied through communities, societies, laws and institutions of their own individual free choice. Then they would soon find out which ones are the most productive ones and which ones the most counter-productive ones. Let them all try, together with like-minded people. - Most of them would soon get far away from territorial statism and greatly improve their own situations by their own efforts, far beyond that which a Welfare State could provide via an enormous tax burden and bureaucracy and numerous other wrongful restrictions and impositions. - J.Z., 11.1.11, 9.6.12. - PUBLIC MEANS, TAXATION & STATISM, WELFARE STATE, PUBLIC SPENDING, NATIONAL INTEREST, PUBLIC INTEREST, FREE SOCIETY, FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS

NEED: The Nazis, Soviets, Maoists, Idi-Amin and Castro followers, the Japanese imperial warriors, the child molesters, rapists, kleptomaniacs and other habitual or professional criminals have their “needs”, too. Why should we respect them? – J.Z., 29.3.00, 24.1.08. – We need the freedom to get away from territorial statism and all its wrongs, burdens and impositions, to help ourselves as far as we can, alone or in association with like-minded people. - To each his own utopia, at the own risk and expense! - J.Z., 11.1.11. - Q., DIS.

NEED: We begin with the observed fact that men want things and go after them. All men are needy and all men are active. The economically rich are, upon the whole, more full of needs than are the poor. The necessitous poor are characterized not by the fact that they are in need but that they are unable to satisfy the basic needs of decent human life. Nor are the idle rich noted for being idle but for the fact that their activities are not under the constraint of economic necessity.” - Dr. H. G. Pearce, Value, p.24. – In their earnings and spending the rich remain under economic incentives but not those of basic survival needs. – J.Z., n.d. – Most of the needy have not realized as yet that they need especially more economic rights and liberties in order to become able to satisfy their needs themselves by their own efforts. – J.Z., 26.1.08, 11.1.11. - Under full experimental freedom they would soon find out which system would allow them to best satisfy their needs by their own efforts, including self-chosen insurance, monetary, credit, clearing and value standard systems and including even whole alternative political, economic and social systems, which are now suppressed by territorialism with its numerous wrongful powers and laws. - J.Z., 11.1.11, 9.6.12. - NECESSITY, THE POOR & THE RICH

NEED: We have one test, and one only, for what private citizens really wish to do: those things they will do voluntarily! It is plain that they wish telephones, printing presses, automobiles, air service, refrigeration, houses, corn flakes, gas and electric service; indeed, a million things could be listed. And they get them – voluntarily! But here’s the rub: There are those who believe we do not know of all the things we want or, at least, are unaware of what is good for us. (*) These “needs”, invented for us – going to the moon, old-age “security”, the Gateway Arch, or whatever – have no manner of implementation except by coercion. In a word, these people who would be our gods can achieve the ends they have in mind for us only as they gain control of our agency of force: government.” – Leonard E. Read, Let Freedom Reign, p.67/68 – Needs invented by others for us, at our expense, should be distinguished from self-felt and self-expressed needs, which one is quite free, able and willing to work or pay for. - (*) As if we were not bombarded with millions of advertisements and propaganda efforts! – J.Z., 29.1.08, 11.1.11. - Full experimental freedom in all spheres! Then all kinds of utopias could be tried out at the same time in the same country - all only by their volunteers. Think of the progress brought about by experimental freedom in all other spheres so far. Territorialism has prevented rapid progress in the social, economic and political spheres. It often imposed the opposites of progress. Nevertheless, it is still almost universally upheld in those spheres where it has brought the greatest wrongs and done the greatest harm. - Limited and non-territorial government would be merely one of the options, not necessarily the best one, once territorialism is finally discarded. - J.Z., 11.1.11 - VOLUNTARISM, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, PAYING ONE’S WAY, EARNING ONE’S LIVING, SELF-SUPPORT

NEED: We know better the needs of ourselves than of others. To serve oneself is economy of administration.” - Dr. Jamrach Holobom – Quoted in: Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary. - We should become free to serve ourselves by serving others in every sphere. "Society Is exchange!" said Frederic Bastiat. - J.Z., 11.1.11.

NEED: What is desirable is not always necessary, while that which is necessary may be the most undesirable. Perhaps the measure of a man is the ability to tell one from the other … and act on it.” - Randall Garrett, The Measure of a Man, ANALOG – ASTOUNDING SF 8/60, p.83, the motto of the story. – Let there finally be free choice for all in all spheres. Then most people would rapidly learn to make the best choices for themselves, just like they do already e.g. as sovereign consumers in a free market for consumer goods, edible or drinkable ones, reading and entertainment matter, music, arts and travel options, clothing, tools, seeds or plants for their gardens etc., in endless variety, always at their own expense and risk, independent of the beliefs of politicians and bureaucrats. As volunteers they would soon cease hiring them, obeying them or paying them a large part of their incomes. - Yes, in this respect I do have a one-track mind and am not afraid of repeating myself. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - NECESSITY, DESIRABILITY, VOLUNTARISM, CHOICE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FULL CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY, VOLUNTARY STATE MEMBERSHIP & TAXATION, SECESSIONISM.

NEGATIVE GOVERNMENT: One more bit of evidence to support my thesis that socialism is intuitive, not acquired (*), is my experience with ex-socialists and ex-communists. I have known a number of them and, with one exception, though they had dropped theoretical socialism, they were all for government intervention; even that one exception was for our undertaking a “preventive war” with Russia. (**) All of them were intellectually honest men (***) and rejected Marx on the basis of evidence and the dictates of logic; all of them were revolted by the immoralities of Sovietism. (****) Yet they could not accept wholeheartedly the principles of laissez-faire economics (*** ***), nor could they subscribe to the idea of negative government. (*** ****) They held to the notion that government ought to intervene in the marketplace, for the “social good”, that political power could be exercised for the benefit of mankind. They were socialists in spite of themselves. – Frank Chodorov, Fugitive Essays, p.139. - To me it makes more sense to talk and think about non-territorial or voluntary governments, societies and communities, all with full experimental freedom and self-managing, under genuine self-determination and self-government, continuously enforced by individual secessionism and by admitting only volunteers willing to subscribe to their systems. - It is hard to envision anything under the abstract term "negative government". It is almost the equivalent to the mathematical concept of a "negative number". It would be more correct to say that compulsory, monopolistic and territorial governments do have a negative value. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - (*) I hold that it is acquired through thousands to ten thousands of popular errors, myths and prejudices, which are nowhere systematically and encyclopaedically collected and refuted and swamp more or less almost everyone’s clear thinking on reality, just like formerly xyz superstitions and demon cults did. Even religious spleens are still predominant today, not to speak of those in the political, economic and social spheres. – Degrees of territorial statism can still be found among most libertarians and of territorialism among most anarchists. - - (**) Rather than merely a police action against its mis-rulers! How can one liberate captive people e.g. with ABC mass murder devices? - - (***) But not thorough enough intellectuals. - - (*****) Not that expressed e.g. by central banking, progressive taxation, inheritance taxes and conscription. - - (*** ***) No wonder, since they are nowhere fully realized in the West and were, probably, never fully realized anywhere in the past. Such a realization is only to be expected from voluntary communities that are exterritorially fully autonomous, so that they can freely realize also this radical alternative and thus set a convincing example for the world. - - (*** ****) Not a very happy formula: For who really knows “positive governments”, “good government” or “ideal governments” and what else but negative governments, in the sense of wrongful, irrational and prejudiced governments, committing enormous wrongs and doing endless harm, have we experienced so far? – J.Z., 30.1.08. - Even "positive" legislation has, usually, a negative value. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - ANARCHISM, LAISSEZ FAIRE, FREE ECONOMY, MARKET VS. STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, INTERVENTIONISM, SOCIAL GOOD, COMMON WEAL, PUBLIC INTEREST

NEGOTIATIONS: Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” – John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, 20.a.1961. – But never negotiate with the oppressors. Negotiate only with the oppressed. – J.Z. 8.7.82. – He, too, wanted to continue the governmental monopoly for international negotiations, treaties, conferences. A true democrat would have allowed his subjects to negotiate and make their own contracts and treaties. – Moreover, under his presidency the nuclear arsenal, the number of the US government’s mass murder devices was doubled. Did he not fear the possibility of a nuclear war? If not, then he was ignorant and a fool and certainly immoral. – J.Z., 21.11.85, 24.1.08. - People to people negotiations rather than summit conferences! Should one not fear nuclear arsenals? J. F. K. doubled the nuclear arsenal of the USA, i.e. its readiness to commit mass murder. What could the captive nations of the world expect from such a “liberator” – or the supposed “proletarians” of the West from a Communist “liberation” by means of such devices? – J.Z., 30.1.08. – Should we not fear e.g. nuclear war and seriously negotiate how to avoid it, without any territorialist false assumptions and conclusions? – J.Z., 26.2.09. – Diverse panarchies of volunteers would have their own negotiations and treaties. And a much better chance to achieve lasting agreements based upon voluntarism, tolerance and exterritorial autonomy for all. - They do not have to be afraid of each other. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - FEAR, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, PANARCHISM, CAPTIVE NATIONS, SUPPRESSED MINORITIES, SUMMIT CONFERENCES?

NEGOTIATIONS: Negotiations between rulers to eliminate war are as senseless as meetings between leading criminals to eliminate crime. Morally and rationally there is nothing to negotiate about nuclear strength. Only nuclear disarmament of the unilateral kind makes sense. Why wait with getting rid of a liability until someone else does so, too? - Negotiations between the peoples themselves, over the heads of their rulers, are required for this. Only they can inspire the necessary trust and would, lastly, and rather soon, lead to an all‑round nuclear disarmament, unilaterally initiated and continued. - (For they are the targets for these "weapons"! - J.Z., 11.1.11.) When and wherever prolonged peace negotiations between the peoples are rendered difficult to impossible by the regime on one side, e.g. by the restrictions imposed by a dictator, then the people on the other side must, one-sidedly, publicize as acceptable appeals and offers, and this in a quite trustworthy way, that they would convince, without arguments, the peoples on the other side. - Such appeals could be made on the basis of a unilateral nuclear disarmament, the declaration of quite rightful war and peace aims, in a trustworthy way, the recognition of rightful governments in exile, the welcoming of refugees and deserters, freedom for the establishment of all kinds of panarchies of refugees, setting quite free defectors and POW's, and by full publicity for the appeals, declarations and rightful war aims of their allies, governments- and societies-in exile of any kind that is wanted by the captive nations, our natural allies. In broadcasts almost all possible objections could be anticipated and answered. See: Appeals, Broadcasting, Decision, Declarations, Democracy, Diplomacy, Enemy, Exterritorial Imperative, Leadership, Liberation War, Military Insurrections, Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Minority Autonomy, Open Air Speaking, People, Propaganda, Publicity, Referendum, Revolutions, Secrecy, Secret Allies, Secret Diplomacy, Separate Peace, Summit Conferences, Trust, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons. - From: J.Z., An ABC Against Nuclear War. – - With some editing now, 11.1.11, 9.6.12. - NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE PEOPLES VS. THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY FOR NEGOTIATIONS

NEGOTIATIONS: Some governments are too weak or perfidious for reliable negotiations.” – THE BULLETIN, 26.4.74. – Replace “some” by “all” or at least “almost all”. – J.Z., 10/76. – Who has any good reasons to trust diplomats, leaders, politicians or bureaucrats? Even mere policemen are largely mistrusted. Negotiations directly between all kinds of “captive nations” and their governments- and societies-in-exile, in foreign countries, all of them exterritorially fully autonomous, and made up only by their kind of volunteers and negotiations between quite rightful militia forces, for the protection of individual rights and liberties, already existing or still to be organized on both sides. They could soon achieve mass fraternization on the basis of quite rightful war and peace aims. – J.Z., 30.1.08, 9.6.12. – PANARCHISM, PEOPLES, CAPTIVE NATIONS EVERYWHERE, TREATIES, DIPLOMACY, FRATERNIZATION, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, DES., REFUGEES, GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES IN EXILE, WAR AIMS, PEACE AIMS, PUBLICITY, GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY ACROSS FRONTIERS.

NEGOTIATIONS: The enemies of freedom do not argue; they shout and they shoot.” - W. R. Inge, The End of an Age. – Only talking to and negotiating with their subjects and victims makes sense, over the heads of their rulers, preferably by governments in exile, already practising their diverse platforms, but all only for their kinds of present and future volunteers. Experimental freedom, under voluntarism and full exterritorial autonomy, even for one’s opponents. That would tend to more effectively disarm and calming them down than “loving” them or trying to persuade them. – J.Z., 26.12.07, 11.1.11. - MEETINGS, CONFERENCES, ARGUMENTS? KEEP TALKING WITH AGGRESSIVE ENEMIES?

NEGRI, SAM: Man Without a Country. Rebel Gave Up Citizenship and Became Trapped in Classic Catch-22 Situation, 1991, 1p: 209, in PEACE PLANS 1540.

NEGRO OR NEGRO GHETTO BANK OF ISSUE: Neither forced integration nor forced segregation are the answer to all the problems of any racial minority. But full autonomy for ANY self-help efforts is: Already the drug laws are not fully enforced in ghetto areas. Let some more sensible free market activities be started there (and among Negroes elsewhere), to overcome unemployment of racial minorities in ghetto areas and outside of them. They would gather more sympathies than e.g. drug running or armed gangs could gather. Perhaps even as much as their musical, dancing and sports activities achieved for them so far. And it would be nice if descendants of former slaves emancipated themselves from the slave mentality of the voluntary victims of monetary despotism before most of its other victims did. - J. Z., 27.5.97. - Their new "Makuta" value standards could be as good or better than those used by their ancestors in Africa. - J. Z., 10.9.02. – The silver Maria Theresia Thaler, too, as well as reproductions of them, served in Africa for a long time as an alternative private value standard and means of payment. - UNEMPLOYMENT, FREE BANKING, MONETARY FREEDOM, GHETTOS, SLUMS, PANARCHISM

NEGROES: To view this matter through the lens of liberty is to see an entirely different sort of picture; it is to see the challenge of actually liberating black Americans from state control, letting them, if anything, have special assistance in cutting through red-tape, in blasting apart the restrictions of labor unions, business and zoning codes and, above all, constant police surveillance over their daily lives. It would mean, for instance, giving more than lip-service to the idea of local control of local schools – a supposedly conservative idea, which went up in smoke the moment it was desired not by white Americans, but by black Americans. - - The same instinct which led some conservatives to defend the right of some schools to teach and practice bias, in accordance with community control of the school, should certainly have led them to support black control of schools in black neighborhoods, even if the community wanted to teach Swahili, black supremacy or whatever.” – Karl Hess, The Lawless State, p.20/21. - Alas, Hess was not consistent enough to advocate, for Negroes and all other communities of volunteers, full exterritorial autonomy to do their own things for or to themselves. That would also apply to a minority of voluntary integrationists and one of voluntary segregationists. – J.Z., 30.1.08. – VOLUNTARY SEGREGATION & VOLUNTARY INTEGRATION, PANARCHISM, SELF-GOVERNMENT, RACISM

NEIGHBORHOODS: Gandhi … was the first great spokesman for the neighborhood. His notion was that the world is composed of neighborhoods – a breathtaking perception.” – Karl Hess, PLAYBOY Interview, 7/76. – Few friends and like-minded people live in the neighborhood. One is in many ways more closely connected to them than to neighbors. Thus with them, rather than merely with neighbors, should one be free to live under personal laws or exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 30.1.08. – PERSONAL LAW, VOLUNTARY COMMUNITIES, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY VS. ANY DECENTRALIZATION THAT IS STILL TERRITORIAL, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD POWER, DIS.

NEIGHBORHOODS: I favor a world of neighborhoods in which all social organization is voluntary.” – Karl Hess, PLAYBOY Interview, 7/76. – To achieve complete voluntarism exterritorial autonomy is required, for voluntary communities under personal laws. – J.Z., 26.2.09. – PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM

NEIGHBORHOODS: Our campaign is based on the premise that we have been living under the delusion that government can solve the social problems of the people. Only the people can solve their own problems. … The neighborhoods have to right to control their own affairs.” – Norman Mailer in a speech quoted in the NEW YORK TIMES, May 2, 1969. – Quoted by Jerome Tuccille: Radical Libertarianism, p.39. - That would still mean only rule by the local majority, which can be very prejudiced and authoritarian. One does not confine friendships and trade relationships or scientific interests to those people living in one’s neighbourhood. One is often mentally closer to a person on the other side of the world than to one’s next door neighbour. - J.Z., 30.1.08. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SELF-GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW VS. TERRITORIALISM EVEN ON A SMALL SCALE.

NEIGHBORHOODS: Power to the Neighborhoods. … Achieve local control of Education, Housing, Sanitation, Parks and Police … Kiss of the Boredom of the Democratic Machine …’ - Excerpt from the campaign literature of Norman Mailer and Jimmy Breslin during the New York mayoralty race, 1969. – Jerome Tuccille, Radical Libertarianism, p.39. - Only exterritorial decentralization and autonomy for volunteers goes far enough! - J.Z., 11.1.11. - Power to the neighborhoods.” – YAF Convention slogan. – Power only over the own affairs, not those of neighbours. That would be quite un-neighbourly! – J.Z., 30.1.08. – What cannot be done territorially can be done exterritorially, by and for volunteers only. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - POWER, DIS., AN ANARCHIST ALTERNATIVE, RADICAL DECENTRALIZATION

NEIGHBORS: in every sensible enterprise of humankind, you don’t go to the President. You go to your neighbors.” – Karl Hess, PLAYBOY Interview, 7/76. - Do your neighbours really share your special interests? I just browsed at Facebook again and was surprised at the number of famous libertarians one can find there. In this whole NSW district where I live, with 3 small towns and ca. 30,000 people, I cannot find even a single libertarian "neighbor"! Freedom and peace lovers will have to associate exterritorially. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - PRESIDENTS & SELF-HELP


NETTLAU, MAX: Der Vorfruehling der Anarchie, Berlin, 1925, S.179: "Fuer mich gehoert er (Stirner) keineswegs dem ENGEN Individualismus an, der NUR Individualist sein will und dadurch vom Bourgeois oder Tyrannen nicht zu scheiden ist, sondern er begruendete jenen breiten, echten Individualismus, der die Grundlage jedes freiheitlichen Sozialismus ist, die Selbstbestimmung eines jeden ueber die Beziehungen, in die er mit anderen zu treten wuenscht: diese koennen mutualistisch oder kommunistisch sein, eng oder entfernter, kurz oder lang usw., dass der Einzelne hierueber aus eigenem Wissen und eigener Kraft entscheide, das hat Stirner gewuenscht, und dazu suchte er ihn aus den Fesseln und Netzen der Autoritaet zu befreien. Der Individualismus als auschliessliches Prinzip ist eine einseitige Loesung und daher nicht Freiheit, sondern Enge; der Individualismus aber als feinstes Werkzeug, um jeden in das von ihm gewuenschte Milieu zu versetzen, muss jeder freien Gruppierung der Menschen zugrunde liegen." - Aus: Was Ist Eigentlich Anarchie? Verlag Freie Gesellschaft, 1983, ueberarbeitete Ausgabe, S. 75. ("For me Stirner does not belong to the narrow individualism which wants to be only individualistic and can thus not be separated from a bourgeois or tyrant {??? J.Z.}, but he established the broad and genuine individualism which is the foundation of any libertarian socialism, the self-determination of each over the relations into which he wishes to enter with others: These can be mutualistic or communistic, close or distant, short or long-term etc. Stirner wanted the individual to decide upon this from his own knowledge and capacity. For this he sought to liberate him out of the ties and nets of authority. Individualism as an exclusive principle is a one-sided solution and means not freedom but confinement, while individualism, as the finest tool to achieve for each the milieu desired by him, has to be the foundation of any free grouping of human beings." - translation attempt by J.Z., 17.9.04.)

NETTLAU, MAX: Geschichte der Anarchie, Bd. 1, Der Vorfruehling der Anarchie, Impuls Verlag, Auszug von S. 225, 1 S., über P. E. de Puydt’s article Panarchie, in REVUE TRIMESTRIELLE, Brussels, Juli 1860, S. 222 – 245, in German: 193, in PP 1539.

NETTLAU, MAX: Panarchie - eine verschollene Idee von 1860, 1909, 1, in ON PANARCHY VII, in PEACE PLANS 671. Revised edition, 120 of PP 1497. - Translation by J.Z., 86, 16pp, in PP 606, 608, 618, 621, 671 (ON PANARCHYVII), 698. - In German: "Panarchie - Eine verschollene Idee von 1860", 1909, 7 S. - "Do I want to propose my own system? Not at all! I am an advocate of all systems, i.e. of all forms of government that find followers." In this short essay M. N. expresses the panarchistic idea in his own terms and also by extensively quoting de Puydt. -  Gustav Landauer reproduced this essay 1920 in his "DER SOCIALIST" magazine. Nevertheless there was so far almost zero response in the anarchist movement upon the publication of this essay by these two famous anarchists. - J.Z., 28.8.04. - This situation is changing, but only slowly, through the Internet options. - I used it several times as a "filler" in my PEACE PLANS series. - He should have written "of governance", societies and communities", instead of only using "government". With his choice of terms he did, certainly, not make many followers of de Puydt among the anarchists of almost every color or shade in the spectrum. - J.Z., 20.10.11. - "Selbst die mir seit langem selbstverstaendich scheinende Idee der gegenseitigen Toleranz und des Nebeneinanderlebens auf sozialem und politischem Gebiet - wie dies of anderen Gebieten laengst stattfinded - fand ich einmal mit grosser Konsequenz ausgearbeitet als PANARCHIE in dem gleichnamigen Aufsatz des Belgiers P. E. de Puydt in der Bruesseler REVUE TRIMESTRIELLE, Juli 1860, S. 222-245. (Fussnote 286: Ich schrieb darueber im Berliner SOZIALIST, 15 Maerz 1909. - De Puydt schrieb ueber Naturgeschichtliches und besonders ueber Gartenbau und stand, soviel ich weiss, den radikalen Bewegungen fern.) - Er malt ganz einfach das Nebeneinanderbestehen aller Richtungen, bis zu Proudhon hin, aus, jede von ihren Anhaengern unterstuetzt und unterhalten und sich auf diese beschraenkend. - Warum sollte dies nur fuer soziale und politische Dinge unmoeglich sein, wo es fuer die einst nur mit dem Scheiterhaufen fuer Andersdenkende operierenden Religionen, fuer Wissenschaft und Kunst, fuer tausend Dinge des taeglichen Lebens laengst das Selbstverstaendliche geworden ist, wo sogar die heutigen schaerfsten Vertreter der Intoleranz, die Nationen, in grossen Staedten ganz ruhig nebeneinander zu leben wissen? Solange freilich Intoleranz als eine Parteitugend gilt und mit Prinzipientreue blindlings verwechselt wird, wird die Mentalitaet der Religions- und nationalistischen Kriege weiterhin das soziale und politische Leben vergiften. De Puydt hatte mehr gesunden Verstand als all diese Fanatiker. - So wie sich aber Brueche nur unter einen gemeinsamen Nenner bringen lassen, wenn die Eigenart jeder Zahlengroesse gewahrt bleibt, so ist ein Zusammenleben nur moeglich, wenn es der Eigenart jedes einzelnenhinreichende Befriedigung gewaehrt. Nur der mit persoenlicher Freiheit Gesaettigte hoert auf, agressiv zu sein; die Menschen haben nie gelernt und werden nie lernen, sich zu fuegen: sie konnten und koennen dazu nur mit Gewalt verhalten werden und ignorieren oder sprengen diese Fesseln, sobald sie koennen. Trotz der autoritaeren Raserei unserer Zeit kann man wohl sagen, dass sich ein sehr grosser Teil des Lebens in freien Formen vollzieht, die sich bewusst oder unbewusst von der Autoritaet entfernen. - - (Fussnote 287: Bekannt ist der handgreifliche Beweis durch diejenige Form des gewerkschaftlichen Widerstandes, die zuerst in Oestereich ausgebildet wurde, die Arbeit mit strikter Einhaltung aller Vorschriften, wodurch unfehlbar Verlangsamung und dann Stockung jedes Staatsbetriebes entstehen.) - Hierin liegt die Sicherheit der frueheren oder spaeteren Entfaltung der Anarchie zu ungeahnter Groesse und Schoenheit." - - Max Nettlau, Panarchie. Eine verschollene Idee von 1860 (1909) [Deutsch] Panarchy: A Forgotten Idea of 1860 - - NETTLAU, MAX, PANARQUIA: Una olvidada idea de 1860, por Max Nettlau, 22 febrero de 1909. - Last week I had the nice surprise of somebody sending me the Spanish translation of the article by Max Nettlau on Panarchy. - GPdB, 12.7.03 email. - - Max Nettlau, Panarchie. Eine verschollene Idee von 1860 (1909) [Deutsch] - Max Nettlau,  Panarchy. A forgotten idea of 1860  (1909) [English] - Max Nettlau, Panarchia. Una idea dimenticata del 1860 (1909) [Italiano] Max Nettlau,  Panarquia. Una olvidada idea de 1860  (1909) [Español] - Max Nettlau, Panarquia. Una ideia esquecida de 1860 (1909) [Portuguese] - In 1909 Max Nettlau, the historian of Anarchy, wrote an article published by “Der Sozialist” edited by Gustav Landauer in Berlin. The title of the article is: Panarchie. Eine verschollene Idee von 1860 (Panarchy. A forgotten idea of 1860). Right from the first sentence Nettlau manifests his enthusiasm for the idea of coexisting competing governments: “For a long time I have been fascinated by the thought how wonderful it would be if at last, in public opinion on the succession of political and social institutions, the fateful term ‘one after another’ would be replaced through the very simple and self-evident ‘simultaneously’.” - In the rest of the article Nettlau communicates to the reader his discovery of the de Puydt text and confesses to “have fallen in love with this idea” of “MUTUAL TOLERANCE in political and social affairs” represented by the existence of non-territorial governments, which individuals may adhere to and support in a voluntary way. - Max Nettlau, Panarchy. A forgotten idea of 1860. - - - Nettlau’s article was later reprinted in “Der individualistische Anarchist” (The Individualist Anarchist), published by Benedikt Lachman, in Berlin, in1920. However, apart from that, it seems that the text didn’t find any other circulation or attention, not even in anarchist circles. - Gian Piero de Bellis, On Panarchy. - (1909) Max Nettlau, Παναρχία. Μια ξεχασμένη ιδέα του 1860 [Greek]

NETUREI KARTA, ZIONISM, JUDAISM, ISRAEL, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, RELIGION & THE STATE: Neturei Karta opposed the establishment of and retain all opposition to the existence of the so-called "State of Israel"! Neturei-Karta is the Aramaic term for "Guardians of the City". The name Neturei-Karta originates from an incident in which R. Yehudah H-Nassi (Rabbi Judah the Prince) sent R. Hiyya and R. Ashi on a pastoral tour of inspection. In one town they asked to see the "guardians of the city" and the city guard was paraded before them. They said that these were not the guardians of the city but its destroyers, which prompted the citizens to ask who, then, could be considered the guardians. The rabbis answered, "The scribes and the scholars", referring them to Tehillim (Psalms) Chap. 127. (Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Hagiga 76c). The name was given to a group of Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem who refused (and still refuse) to recognize the existence or authority of the so-called "State of Israel" and made (and still make) a point of publicly demonstrating their position, the position of the Tora and authentic unadulterated Judaism.' - From a website. I did not note down its URL. - Apparently, they are opponents of territorialism but without being advocates of exterritorial autonomy. They appreciate only religious freedom, not the same freedom in the political, economic and social sphere. But, at least, they are opposed to territorialism for a particular faith, race or ethnic community . - J.Z., 29.8.04.

NETWORK SOCIETY: The Rise of the Network Society Manuel Castells 2000. - Abstracts are wanted & review hints, as well as links to the full texts, if they are relevant to this collection. - Titles can be deceptive. - J.Z., 13.10.11.

NETWORKING & PANARCHISM: What panarchism adds to "networking" is full exterritorial autonomy, in reality, for all networkers who desire it. - J.Z., 3.4.90, 29.12.11.

NETWORKING: The networks of the Aquarian Conspiracy – self-organizing forms that allow both autonomy and human connection – are at once both the tools for social change and the models of a new society.” – M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.224. – Nothing less than free individual secessionism and full exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities will do. The limited autonomy granted to us by Western bureaucrats is good enough only for some research and publicity and for all too limited actions. - J.Z., 6.4.89. - AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY & PANARCHISM

NETWORKING: We have talked about the power of the network, the form of catalyzing and mobilizing people all over the world.” – M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy. – To organize international lobbies is helpful but not enough. Nor is organizing demonstrations via mobile phones. What we need, rather, than mere lobbying, is exterritorially autonomous communities for innovations, peacefully coexisting and competing with each other. Also sufficient collaboration on large enlightening projects that require the participation by many people. Not just on some additional general encyclopaedias, like the WIKIPEDIA and its more recent competitors. – Not even a common list for all kinds of libertarian projects proposed or already under way to some extent, seems to exist so far. Not to speak of many kinds of additional reference works that would be very helpful but could hardly be effectively and economically compiled and published on paper. - Have the internet options, websites, email, fax, phones, mobile phones and electronic text messaging developed the networking options sufficiently as yet, to being all those interested in particular changes sufficiently together for productive cooperation? I have not yet seen enough signs for that. – Telegrams used to be important but expensive and were discontinued. So was ordinary and cheaper overseas mail per ship, at least for Australia, although it was cheaper than air mail. – 6.4.89, J.Z., 26.1.08. - Some libertarian enlightenment options are discussed in my digitized "New draft" manuscript of a year ago. GPdB discussed it on  - I would gladly send it as a zipped email attachment - until it appears online or on a disc. - J.Z., 11.1.11. – Q., INTERNET

NETWORKING: What panarchism adds to "networking" is full autonomy for all net workers who desire it. - J.Z., 3.4.90. - What panarchism adds to “networking” is full exterritorial autonomy, if it is desired by net workers. – J.Z., 24.1.08. - Alas, for the spheres still monopolized by territorial governments panarchism is so far still only a beautiful dream or libertarian utopia. But unless we think enough about it, we will never bring it about. - Currently, I am extending my old Pan A to Z. - Then I hope to get it online, to be corrected and finished by others. - J.Z., 11.1.11. - & PANARCHISM

NETWORKS: Networks, especially mere information and exchange networks, may be still too loose, so far, to serve as protective voluntary associations against the remaining powers of territorial States and of other intolerant and coercive associations, like churches or sects made up largely of fanatics and zealots. Public opinion is still not sufficiently enlightened and powerful. It may very well be that, once ideal local militias for the protection of individual rights do exist, and various competing panarchies as counter-weights and alternatives to all territorial States, that then mere verbal networking efforts might be more effective. But we are not there yet. We haven't even compiled an ideal declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties as yet. I know of no network that tries to provide it. My input towards that project consists of over 130 private human rights drafts, offered by me digitized. Included on:  - The best of these and all others should become combined. But who really cares? I do not even know of one other person, who really cares about that project. - J.Z., 16.10.88, 3.4.89, 11.1.11. – PANARCHISM, MILITIA

NETWORKS: Networks, which are developed according to what is known as the honeycomb model, have many decision-makers, who take decisions on the basis of the consent principle. (J.Z.: That applies to panarchism with its diverse panarchies, too.) The organizing principle here is coordination. (J.Z.: Under panarchism it is voluntarism and exterritorial autonomy. Coordination is not "organized" or not necessarily so, no more so than the provision of communication channels is or the order achieved by freedom of contract, free pricing, free trading, market relationships.) This model has a multiplicity of centres, so that power is distributed (J.Z.: In panarchies is not distributed in the sense that each shares in the total power of a whole territorial system but, instead, each shares only the power of his self-chosen panarchy, together with its other volunteers, to the extent that they still continue any "power system". Each panarchy is exterritorially completely autonomous or powerful over the own affairs and has none but defensive powers against aggressors, over aggressive members of other panarchies. Moreover, each member of a panarchy remains free to secede from it and to join another or none at all.); in the spider's web model, on the other hand, everything is concentrated in one center, in order to centralize power. Networks consist of elements, which are connected with one another (principle of complementation). (J.Z.: Panarchies have only communication, arbitration, trade and volunteer militia forces in common with other panarchies and respect for the individual rights that the members of other  panarchies wish to practise among themselves, in their communities.) This recognition of the co-existence of various possibilities is called the principle of reciprocal delineation of boundaries. (J.Z.: In panarchism and its panarchies, individuals draw their own boundaries around themselves and their voluntary groupings.) This should not be confused with an elaboration of the tolerance notion. (J.Z.: He seems to have an odd notion of tolerance in mind.) In pyramid structures, tolerance will be used opportunistic: since people are placed in positions of authority and subservience, it can be good for image building to be tolerant (repressive tolerance). (J.Z.: Even the existing power by territorial rulers is tolerant for some actions of their subjects and is thus of some value and not a "repressive tolerance", which seems to me to be a nonsensical term, if ever there was one. What they do not grant, as a rule, is full exterritorial autonomy regarding everything, which territorial governments have now monopolized - and the mutual tolerance that this implies. But who can blame them for this, while even most anarchists and libertarians remain addicted to the territorial model?) The mighty in the top of the pyramid (J.Z. and those liberated and organized in diverse and exterritorially autonomous groups of volunteers) can be 'tolerant'. This corresponds to the spiders' web-model as structuring elements, which are bound to one another through the centre. (J.Z.: This applies also to panarchies under panarchism.) The elements in networks develop as self-organizing systems." - Holtermann, Law in Anarchism, 38. - - If you have not yet been confused on this subject before, this paragraph and my bracketed comments should help! - J.Z., n.d. - Somewhat edited: 20.10.11, 9.6.12. - TOLERANCE & PANARCHIES

NETWORKS: The networks of the Aquarian Conspiracy - self-organizing forms that allow both autonomy and human connection - are at once both the tools for social change and the models of a new society.” - M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, P.224. - Nothing less than full exterritorial autonomy for volunteers will do. The limited autonomy granted to us by Western bureaucrats is only good enough for some research and publicity - apart from trivialities. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 8.4.89. - PANARCHISM

NETWORKS: THE POWER OF THE PERSONS, inherent in the transformative process - the discovery that any of us is 'the difference in the world'. We have talked about THE POWER OF THE NETWORK, the form of catalysing and mobilizing people all over the world." - Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.241. - Not just catalysing and mobilizing but individualizing, exterritorialising and autonomising under personal laws and cooperating, institutionally, with like-minded volunteers. Plus the organization of ideal local volunteer militias for the protection of individual rights and liberties! To organize mere international lobbies is sometimes helpful but is certainly not enough. What we need, rather than mere lobbyists, are AUTONOMOUS INNOVATORS, properly motivated, armed, trained and organized. Then they will hardly ever have to fight. Their mere existence and their tolerant mentality and practice and the liberties they have already protected will be the strongest deterrent. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 8.4.89, 12.12.03. – EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PANARCHISM, MILITIA

NETWORKS: Whatever their stated purpose, the function of most of these networks is mutual support and enrichment, empowerment of the individual, and co-operation to effect change. Most aim for a more humane, hospitable world. In its rich opportunities for mutual aid and support, the network is reminiscent of its forebear, the kinship system." - Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.232. - They still depend upon territorial power institutions or confine themselves merely to charitable and benevolent or informational efforts. Instead, they should strive for full exterritorial autonomy for all minority groups, from all territorial governments, through free individual choices. - J.Z., 6.4.89, 8.4.89, 9.6.12. –PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

NEUMAN, PAUL: BARNES, MICK, wrote in an article in "PEOPLE" (Australian illustrated weekly) 28.9.1978, p.9: "Our newest independent State is a strawberry patch and Paul Neuman is its premier. P.N. has international personal law ambitions according to this article. As address is only given: Dr. Paul Neuman, Aeterno Lucina, near Byron Bay, NSW. - Alas, neither the mass media nor the anarchist and libertarian presses pay much attention to such news. This is the only hint I got. - J.Z., 12.9.04. - What are too me the most important ideas, facts and developments remain largely unreported or under-reported in the mass media and also, still, in libertarian media. - So much so, for example, that by now I had forgotten about this case. Under present conditions one man can certainly not resist or fight effectively "city hall", as a proverb says, far less a State or even a Federal Government. - Their territorial and financial power, as well as their backing by public apathy, popular errors, myths, prejudices, dogmas, false assumptions and conclusions, are still all too strong for that and our enlightenment tools are still all too incomplete and those, which do exist, remain under-utilized or not most effectively and systematically used. - J.Z., 17.10.11. - TERRITORIALISM, ENLIGHTENMENT, POWER, INDIVIDUALS, GOVERNMENTS, RESISTANCE, LIBERATION, OPTING OUT, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, MICRO-GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS

NEUSTADT, D.: The Negiduth in Egypt in the Middle Ages, ZION, 4, 1939, 126-49, in Hebrew, on self-government.

NEUTRALITY DECLARATIONS BY INDIVIDUALS & MINORITY GROUPS: They are a particular application of individual and group secessionism, to the problem of war and peace, denying a central territorial government the authority to make life and death decisions for them, rather upholding individual responsibility in this sphere. – J.Z., n.d. - See also: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY ON WAR & PEACE, WAR & PEACE AIMS, OBEDIENCE, DISOBEDIENCE, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY.

NEUTRALITY: Atomic destructive devices, by their very nature, ignore the right to remain neutral in arguments between governments. But neutrality alone is not security enough against nuclear devices. It is helpful only to the extent that it is respected by one or both of the main contestants: "A country can only remain neutral if it is allowed to be neutral," - said Prof. Jeffrey Blaines, in a radio interview, 28/1/74. - An armed neutrality, based on volunteer militias and revolutionary warfare training, would be the safest. - To adopt a neutral stand in the face of nuclear devices would be a crime of omission  unless it goes beyond this to the advocacy of exterritorial autonomy for all dissenters, on all sides, who are now coercively embraced, oppressed, exploited, enslaved or sacrifice by the contending territorial governments. "In the struggle against such horrors as these, how dare you be neutral?" asked Henry Schoenheimer in THE AUSTRALIAN, 26.6.73, regarding the nuclear holocaust. - - Any neutral country could invite followers of all of the main beliefs or convictions, which are struggling through their statist territorial organizations, to establish themselves peacefully, tolerantly in the neutral country, in form of exterritorial and autonomous organizations, on a voluntary basis. This kind of peaceful coexistence could then soon become the declared war aim of all contestants. - Deserters from all sides could be offered asylum and protection, as well as political, economic, social and personal freedom, of the kind they like for themselves. An alternative and peaceful way of living would become known to soldiers all both sides, particularly if full use is made not only of leaflets but the Internet and of free broadcasting to spread the message. - See: Appeals, Asylum, Broadcasting, Coexistence, Communism, Competing Governments, Decision, Defence, Desertion, Employment, Exterritorial Imperative, Governments, Governments in Exile, Immigration Restrictions, Liberation Wars, Militia, Monetary Freedom, Peace Declarations, Publicity, Refugee Problem, Resistance, Revolutionary Warfare Secession, Sovereignty, States, Targets, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, War Aims, Weapons. - From: J.Z., An ABC Against Nuclear War. -  - It offers for your consideration ca. 500 alphabetized points. - J.Z., 11.1.11, revised here: 10.6.12. - RIGHT TO REMAIN NEUTRAL, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, LIBERATION, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, WAR & PEACE AIMS, RIGHTFUL REVOLUTIONS

NEUTRALITY: Even to conserve neutrality you must have a strong government.” – Alexander Hamilton, address, Constitutional Convention, June 29, 1787. That is the usual error of territorial statists. If there were no strong territorial governments around you, with their frequent squabbles, you would not even have to adopt a neutral stand towards their struggles. – J.Z., 30.10.84. - - A well developed and self-governing militia of volunteers for the protection individual rights and liberties would suffice. But it would not be remaining neutral towards massive offences against human rights and liberties, even when they take place in another country and other peoples, groups or individuals. – J.Z., 25.1.08. – MILITIA, HUMAN RIGHTS, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS, STRENGTH, MILITIA, LIBERATION, UNILATERAL PEACE DECLARATION, MASS FRATERNIZATION, DESERTION, WELCOMING REFUGEES, MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM TO PROVIDE THEM WITH SELF-SUPPORTING WORK. GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, SECRET ALLIES: THE CAPTIVE PEOPLE.

NEUTRALITY: Freedom knows only pro and contra with no neutrality in between.” - Dagobert D. Runes, "A Dictionary of Thought". - If one considers only territorial conditions of freedom or oppression, then in any particular territory any liberty, for any place, time and people and conditions, may either legally exist or not, or exist illegally or not. However, under exterritorial autonomy, all could contract for themselves constitutionally, legally and juridically precisely the kinds of liberties and rights, and degrees of them, which they, among themselves would find most attractive. And people would also be free to remain neutral towards certain liberties or offences, like abortion or homosexuality or gambling etc. The "all or nothing rule" is thus closely tied to territorialist thinking. Free choice for all in all spheres. Release all creative energies and allow all people to make their own mistakes at their own expense and risk, even in adopting for themselves restrictions or denials of their own individual liberties, as long as they want them and can stand them. Freedom of choice means much more than freedom between two options only. The menus of political, economic and social liberties and self-restrictions could and should be as diverse as the menus in restaurants are, musical, sports, entertainment and travel and fashion and gardening and jewelry choices, at least until all significant choices and experiments have been thoroughly tried and recorded. Why not, when they are our most significant choices for a just, free, peaceful, prosperous and progressive existence? - J.Z. 26.7.92, 8.1.93, 10.12.03. - PRO & CON OF FREEDOM, PANARCHISM, NOT ALL OR NOTHING BUT, RATHER, TO EACH HIS OWN!

NEUTRALITY: Never forget that no nation in the world today could afford the luxury of neutrality if it were not for the power of the United States.” – Richard M. Nixon, THE READER’S DIGEST, December 1965. - As a territorial power and also as one with nuclear weapons, the USA is part of the problem rather than the solution. It hasn't even solved its inflation and unemployment problem, although it has had some free banking in its history. - Now it is based upon the monetary despotism of central banking, advocated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their 1848 Communist Manifesto to assure the victory of State Socialism. This ideology has largely won, even in those States, which consider themselves to be anti-communist ones. - There is no more anti-communist and anti-totalitarian principle and practice than that of individual secessionism and voluntary associationism under full exterritorial autonomy. – The territorialist USA, instead of keeping Nazi extermination camps in readiness, or the equipment for them, stockpiles mass extermination devices! - J.Z., 11.1.11. – Calling them defensive or deterrent “weapons” does not extinguish their mass murderous nature. – J.Z., 10.6.12. - CENTRAL BANKING, COMMUNISM, MONETARY DESPOTISM, NWT., TERRITORIALISM

NEUTRALITY: To remain neutral as between the Gulag Archipelago and a constitution that can remove a sitting President is illiterate.” – Stephen Haseler, QUADRANT, 7/77. – Should we forget that on both sides there were over-kill stockpiles of mass murder devices, at the disposal of the top rulers? In this respect there was despotism on both sides. – J.Z., 30.1.08, 10.6.12.  - At first I called them, rather carelessly, “top men” but this does really not apply to the foremost power addicts, who, morally, are, rather, in the lowest rank of men and have condemned themselves, in they eyes and minds of all people still able to think ethically, by their own “nuclear strength” or “nuclear deterrence” actions and preparations, really only mass murder preparations and dangerous to all mankind already through the radioactive pollution caused by their production. The problems caused by radioactive garbage, also from “peaceful” nuclear reactors and their inevitable accidents, are still not solved and may never be solved. – J.Z., 10.6.12. - All territorial constitutions are steps towards Gulags. - In Australia its immigration restrictions have already lead to concentration camps for illegal immigrants. There are such camps in many other countries, too. And many walls are built or naval forces are used to prevent refugees, asylum and freedom seekers from crossing territorial borders. This happens, largely, because the territorialists and central banking supporters are incapable of ending and preventing mass unemployment - due to their ignorance and prejudices. Not that most of the refugees etc. wish to become enlightened in such matters, even while they are being victimized. - J.Z., 11.1.11, 10.6.12.

NEW & SECULAR PROTESTANTISM: The Catholic and territorial aspirations and practices of all States, as secular hierarchies, ought to be replaced by Protestant, competing, exterritorial and voluntaristic ones, or, in other words, by humanistic, ethical, atheistic, rationalistic and other kinds groups which correspond to the real and extensive diversity of beliefs and disbeliefs that exist among individual people and their favorite choices. - J.Z., 9.10.88, 1.4.89, 11.12.2003. – PANARCHISM, A NEW PROTESTANTISM VS. RELIGIOUS & POLITICAL TERRITORIAL HIERARCHIES

NEW AGE POLITICS: The new politics will speak for the millions - one by one." - Theodore Roszak, quoted by Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, 232. - It should not only speak but act for them in this way, i.e. panarchistically. - J.Z., 8.4.89. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, SECESSIONISM & VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM ETC.

NEW AGE: All our high priests – doctors, scientists, bureaucrats, politicians, churchmen, educators – are being defrocked at once. (*) Rushing in where angels fear to treat, we are challenging old laws (**), proposing new ones (***), lobbying and boycotting, wise now to the hidden powers of democracy. (****) “We are challenging the legitimacy of entire systems” said Willis Harman. “The citizen grants legitimacy to any institution – or withholds it.” (*****) - M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.246. - - (*) I wish that were already the case. They are only largely challenged, with some alternatives to them being opened up. The lawyers in and out of parliaments are still all too much in charge. So are central banks and the employer-employee relationship and government “defence” and police forces. Not even the postal monopoly has been completely done away with by various new alternatives. – - (**) The governmental declarations of human rights remain to be still sufficiently challenged by better private ones, with the best one still to be cooperatively developed through electronic networking. See my collection of over 130 private such drafts, digitized on  – - (***) Still more or rather more law repeals? – (****) Perhaps rather wise to the powerlessness its territorialism imposes upon individuals with unpopular ideas and opinions. - - (*****) Here he or she speaks as if panarchism were already realized. – J.Z., 26.1.08, 11.6.12. - & PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUALISM VS. AUTHORITARIANISM, SELF-LIBERATION, CITIZENSHIP, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERTS, AUTHORITIES, GOVERNMENTS, PRIESTS & PREACHERS, INDIVIDUAL CONSENT OR BOYCOTT, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

NEW AGE: The new politics will speak for the millions – one by one.” – Theodore Roszak, quoted by M. Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, p.232. – So far, to my knowledge, it has not done this clearly and explicitly enough. Its secessionism, as far as I know, is till confined to territorial decentralization. – J.Z., 26.1.08. - It should not only speak but act for them in this way, i.e. panarchistically. - J.Z., 8.4.89. - & PANARCHISM, POLITICS, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT

NEW CODE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, BY JEROME INTERNOSCIA, 1910: Microfiched in PEACE PLANS Nos. 85 - 95, 1003 pages, 5657 paragraphs, in 3 languages, side by side, with alphabetical index. Ulrich von Beckerath considered this private code the best on minority rights and said that panarchies could readily adopt it with the provision that deviations from its rules should only be permitted when they are publicly, extensively and sufficiently justified. Compared with it the "international law", as passed by territorial governments, is - in my opinion, largely only a law of warfare and respect for "territorial integrity", which is the very opposite of genuine integrity and justice. - J.Z., 28.8.04, 11.6.12.

NEW CONSERVATIVE, THE:  April 1969, Australia, p.13: short and disapproving (out of envy?) article on the toleration of polygamy in the U.K. by the Home Office. States that in Warley, Staffs. alone, no less than 500 immigrants have more than one wife. It appears that to this extent the old "capitulations" and personal law rules do still apply, i.e. the different marriage laws for different religions are respected. - J.Z., 2.9.04, 11.6.12.

NEW MODEL OR REVIVED MODEL OF PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHY ETC.: We have to re-think all the old political, economic, military and social models, ideas, practices and principles - for they have led us to the present situation. - J.Z.  6.4.89.

NEWELL, R. K.: Self-Government of Reasonable Beings, plan 165, page 41, in ON PANARCHY II, in PEACE PLANS 506. Alas, an ideal, which is expressed only in very general terms, will usually not lead, in most cases, to further thoughts, far less to corresponding concrete actions. - Even individual sovereignty and individual secession are already too hard to imagine for most people. Some apply it e.g. only to driving licences and car registration. - J.Z., 2.9.04, 11.6.12.

NEWS DIGEST INTERNATIONAL: September 1977, p.38: The Russian Empress Catherine II granted some 27,000 settlers, mostly from Hessen and the Palatinat, by means of her manifesto of 1763 and for settlement in the lower Volga region: freedom of religion, self-government, control of their own schools and freedom from military and other State services. - Local autonomy in czarist Russia! – J.Z., n.d.

NEWS: News reports bring all too often mere facts, observations or opinions of wars, revolutions, civil wars, terrorism, but without sufficiently discussing their motives, causes and the institutions, which make them possible or even likely. They do not or not sufficiently report the alternative institutions, principles, rights and liberties, which would make most of the man-made disasters and the present kind of all too flawed and incomplete news reporting impossible. These could prevent many present “events” or news altogether or would reduce many of them to e.g. quite rightful policing actions against real war criminals, terrorists and private criminals only. The “free” mass media are rather upholding the ideas, institutions, opinions, errors and prejudices, which do make territorialist political violence possible and assure that it will occur again and again. They do not sufficiently enlighten themselves or their readers, listeners and viewers. Insofar they support the main war criminals and terrorists, even while they complain about them or the fashionable scapegoats. – If, instead, they reported all the relevant rightful and rational ideas, institutions, principles, actions and plans sufficiently, and were no longer supporting territorial warfare States and their “sovereignty”, then they might actual promote peace rather than wars and other forms of violence. – Alas, for them, bad news sell better than good news. - J.Z., 15.8.06, 20.10.07, 11.6.12. - JOURNALISTS, WARS, CIVIL WARS, REVOLUTIONS, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS & TERRORISM, PRESS, NEWSPAPERS, RADIO, TV, MASS MEDIA, DIS.

NEWS: One or the other biased selection of news, misinformation and propaganda releases. Never the whole picture. Never the real reasons why. Personal rather than causal thinking prevails. The individual rights and liberties involved, the wrongful laws and territorial institutions, are almost always neglected. – J.Z., 2.4.97, 24.1.08. - JOURNALISM, MASS MEDIA

NICHOLLS, DAVID: Three Varieties of Pluralism, 1974, 121, here only a panarchist comment by John Zube, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

NIGERIA: In the DVD movie “Tears of the Sun”, undated on its case, it is mentioned that Nigeria, at least then, had already 120 million people and that they were divided into over 250 different ethnic groups, often so antagonistic to each other that people were murdered merely for going to a different church. The people of missions and whole villages were indiscriminately slaughtered. Forcing all these people under one territorial regime was, certainly, a recipe for atrocities. But no “liberation” or decolonization effort or current political conference considered the exterritorial autonomy alternative for voluntary communities. The price for this omission by territorialists is paid daily, in blood, rape, torture, destruction or looting, hunger, unemployment, poverty and sickness. – Whoever does not think sufficiently will have to take the consequences and should become aware of them. – These victims, obviously, were not free to decide upon their own living conditions but were rather subjected to the decisions of others – who simply had no other use for them than as victims of abuses. - In the war of the secessionist Biafra against Nigeria, the majority of the Biafrans resisted themselves secessionist attempts against them by some coastal tribes. With such friends, who needs enemies? - J.Z., 20.10.11. - J.Z., 21.3.05, 29.12.11. - TERRITORIALISM, TRIBALISM, ETHNIC CLEANSING, ATROCITIES, MASS MURDERS, “NATIONAL UNITY”, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

NISSANI: Dear Mr. Nissani, - among over 14,000 files (157Mbs) I downloaded 6 months ago there was your ZEEV (Vladimir) JABOTINSKY H. P. on classical liberalism. I presume it publishes the whole of a classical liberal book of J., one possibly otherwise unpublished. The Hebrew first part of these 5 pages was not accepted by my printer or only in fractional reproductions of code, with some famous names interspersed. I intend to include these few pages with my letter in one of my upcoming PEACE PLANS issues. - What interested me especially was your short summing up of an essential idea by J., not represented in the contents listing of his book, namely his envisioning "two autonomous peoples sharing the same land and each governing their own personal, cultural and religious lives." - - YOUR meaning of that passage is still not quite clear to me. Is autonomy to be confined, as it is in almost every cosmopolitan city, to "governing" only the "own personal, cultural and religious lives" or are the at least 2 different groups, living in the same country, to be each free to form their own autonomous communities, with their own constitutions, laws, administration, juridical system etc., however much or little they want of either, their own economic and social system, all only on the basis of mutual tolerance for all their tolerant actions, however much those actions might displease non-members? That would require full exterritorial autonomy for volunteer communities living under "personal laws" or "capitulations", in an exterritorial development of the old millet system or dhimmi. - - And why only this kind of "biarchy", as someone named it, for a country like Israel or Palestine, seeing that Jews as well as Arabs and any Christians or Non-believers, who remain living there, are all split into numerous dissenting groups? Why not as many autonomous groups as volunteers desire for themselves? Even under the Turkish overlordship of the Ottoman Empire there were THREE groups that enjoyed - not always and everywhere - degrees of local autonomy in their Jewish and Christian mainly local communities - while living among the Muslims, the third and largest community, which had subjected itself to the rules of Koran. (Well, even they were split, like any major religion, into various dissenting groups and still are.) One classical book on this is: S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, Volume II: The Community, The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza. - - Moreover, there were "capitulations" with other foreigners that allowed them to live under their own laws and jurisdiction. Later that was expressed in laws on "consular jurisdiction". Berbers, for a long time, had at least two competing societies in the same community, both voluntary ones, under the COF or SOF system, ignored or under-reported in most history books. - - Capitulation rules went on in Marocco until about 1955 and some personal law practices still remain in the world and also in Israel, as far as I know. - - Naturally, the large-scale eviction of Jewish people from Arab States after WW II has diminished somewhat the obvious need for such a tolerant system there. But then the remaining Arabs - like any other nation or people, are split into numerous dissenting groups as well, many of which would prefer exterritorial autonomy - if they were offered it. Each "holy land", although not necessarily each square yard of it, could come to belong to many different communities, including atheistic ones. As for property claimed exclusively by one or the other religious group, the "open cooperative" system, first proposed by Buchez, then developed by Hertzka and Beckerath (mainly in the sphere of cooperative production and for the ownership of natural resources), ought to be considered as a rightful and tolerant alternative to monopoly claims that cause friction and even fighting. - - Essentially, an open coop is open to new entries but members are rewarded only according to their work and capital input. To that extent the cooperatively owned capital or asset is socialized. Nobody is kept from it and nobody can exploit it. It is another of the all too many neglected freedom alternatives. (Hertzka’s open cooperative ideas turned Ulrich von Beckerath, 1882-1969, from a 16 year old Marxist into a libertarian.) … An idea like full experimental freedom or freedom of action or of tolerance expanded into the political, economic and social sphere, one that the world needs so much, should not be tucked away in a classical liberal book, or placed only between the lines, or expressed a by-line but fully developed towards a new kind of political science, with implications in all social sciences and immense practical implications for our future. - J.Z. to N., 6.2.03, slightly revised: 12.6.12.

NO GOVERNMENT: For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American war, and a longer period in several of the American states, there were no established forms of government. The old government had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defence to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet, during this interval, order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. (*) There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resources, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in.” – Thomas Paine, quoted in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.76. - - (*) We should not forget the expropriation and persecution of the royalists, most of whom fled to Canada. – As tolerant enough freedom lovers the republican revolutionaries should have recognized monarchism for the monarchists and claimed a republic or other kind of free society only for themselves. – Alas, they were also territorial monopolists, although of the limited government and constitutionalist kind. – Not that the royalists were more tolerant. – The precedent set by religious liberty or religious tolerance was not followed. Thus even the USA had its Civil War and numerous other wars. How would it have developed if it had recognized full exterritorial autonomy for slaves, Negroes, Red Indians and any other group of dissenters? – How would that have affected world history? - J.Z., 31.1.08, 12.1.11, 12.6.12. - AMERICAN REVOLUTION A KIND OF ANARCHISM, Q.

NO GOVERNMENT: Men have sought for ages to discover the science of government; and lo! here it is, that men cease totally to attempt to govern each other at all!(*) – Stephen Pearl Andrews, quoted in Reichert, Partisans of Freedom, p.84. - - (*) Or they attempt to do so only in communities of like-minded volunteers, under their own personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 30.1.08. – Reichert omitted the rest of that segment: … that they learn to know the consequences of their own acts, and that they arrange their relations with each other upon such a basis of science that the disagreeable consequences shall be assumed by the agent himself. – Probably from: The Science of Society. - PANARCHISM

NO GOVERNMENT: No Government Whatever.” – Voltairine de Cleyre, Anarchism and American Tradition, p.127. – Should volunteers not be free to form their own communities, societies and governments for themselves? In their way anarchists can be authoritarians as well. – J.Z., 26.2.09.- TOLERANCE FOR THE CHOICE INDIVIDUALS MAKE FOR THEMSELVES, PANARCHISM

NO GOVERNMENT: The "no government" philosophy is the most radical philosophy against the threat of nuclear war. "No government" is here used as meaning: no government that is not fully based on individual consent. - See: ACTION, ALTERNATIVE INSTITUTIONS, ANARCHISM, AUTONOMY, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, CONSENT, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE, GOVERNMENT, INDIVIDUALISM, LIBERTARIANISM, PANARCHY, PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS, PERSONAL LAW, PLURALISM, SECESSION, SOVEREIGNTY, STATISM, TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION, VOLUNTARISM, WAR AIMS. - From: J.Z., An ABC Against Nuclear War. – Online at

NO GOVERNMENT: The notion of Government is succeeded by that of Contract. The course of history inevitably leads mankind to adopt new practices. Economic criticism has already noted that under the new system political institutions must disappear within industrial organization. Let us therefore fearlessly conclude that the revolutionary slogan can no longer be Direct Legislation, Direct Government, Simplified Government. It must be NO MORE GOVERNMENT. - - There must be no monarchy, no aristocracy, no democracy even, insofar as this implies a government acting in the name of the people and claiming to be the people. No authority, no government, even if it be popular government, this is the Revolution.” – Proudhon, quoted in S. Edwards, Proudhon, 98/99, quoting from P.’s work on Revolution, 1851, p.199. - - Why not be tolerant towards all forms of government that are continued only under personal laws and exterritorial autonomy among their followers? – This kind of tolerance might promote tolerance for all kinds of anarchists and all kinds of libertarians as well and at least will reduce the opposition to as tolerant advocates of freedom or free choice, including free choice for individuals among political, economic and social systems. - J.Z., 30.1.08. – TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT & SELF-DETERMINATION, CONTRACTARIANISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

NO GOVERNMENT: What is at stake is the fundamental principle of the compact theory of government, enunciated in John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, and incorporated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: that governments are instituted among men for certain ends; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that whenever a government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of people to alter or abolish it.” – Howard Zinn, Disobedience and Democracy, p.118. – Underlining by me. – J.Z. – At least those no longer believing in territorial governments or wanting other forms of governments or societies for themselves, should be free to abolish a territorial government – as far as all their own affairs are concerned and run their own voluntary communities as they like, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy. – J.Z., 30.1.08. – DIS.

NO GOVERNMENT: Why suppose that there cannot be tribunals without violence? Trial by people trusted by the disputants have always existed and will exist, and needs no violence. We are so depraved by long-continued slavery that we can hardly imagine administration without violence. And yet, again, that is not true. Russian communes migrating to distant regions, where our government leaves them alone, arrange their own taxation, administration, tribunals, and police, and always prosper until government violence interferes with their administration. And in the same way, there is no reason to suppose that people could not, by common consent, decide how the land is to be apportioned for use.” – Tolstoy, quoted in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians, p.331. - Only territorialism, with its monopoly and coercion, should be done away with. - J.Z., 12.1.11. - VIOLENCE, SELF-GOVERNMENT, COURTS, JUSTICE, SELF-ADMINISTRATION, ARBITRATION

NO IMPOSITIONS: Panarchies are not impositions upon anyone but just extremely liberal and at the same time moral and utilitarian frameworks for everyone's favorite options. They allow everyone's options to be tolerantly and freely practised, among volunteers, on the basis of exterritorial autonomy, i.e. without interference by non-members. - J.Z., n.d. - The volunteers in each may interfere in their own affairs as much as they like. E.g., they may all be prohibitionists when it comes to alcohol, tobacco and other "stimulating" drugs. - J.Z., 20.10.11. – EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, CHOICE, DOING ONE’S OWN THING, TOLERANCE FOR ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE

NO LIMITS: No limits for voluntary and self-responsible actions. – J.Z., 7.4.93.

NO SIMPLE SOLUTIONS? There is no underlying simplicity to war and politics, much as Marxists and others dream of finding one.” – David Brin, ANALOG, April 27, 1981, p. 154.  Territorialism and Compulsory membership are two such single and simple as well as interrelated factors. Collective responsibility notions and practices is a third one. Monopolization of war and peace decisions is another. So is monetary despotism, as opposed to monetary freedom and the suppression of human rights instead of their realization. Ultimately, all these are part and parcel of territorialism. – Imagine our kind of bread or cake or drink would be centrally prescribed for all, under threat of treason trials - if we dared to make our own, to our own satisfaction. At most we would have one vote among millions on which kind of nourishment is to be imposed upon all for the next territorial government period. Do not try to tell me that such territorial interventionism would not cause much friction. We have therefore abolished it for millions of private decisions, alas, without abolishing it as well in the few but significant spheres where territorial decision-making still causes major troubles, even endangers the very survival of man. If people were open-minded in every respect, really motivated by major problems, able and willing to see, here, read and study, they would soon come to want to look at the other side of the coin, that which shows territorial sovereignty on the one side, that is before them, face up. They would want to explore, rather than continue to ignore their exterritorialist and voluntary options, the other side of this coin. Alas, most of us are descendants of slaves or serfs and just try to make the best out of our present situations, even if that means “dancing at the edge of a volcano”. – We can’t do much, as yet, about the eruptions of volcanoes but we could do much to prevent the frequent eruptions of territorial statism and the constant stench and poisons emanating from them. – J.Z., 11.1.99, 7.9.04, 29.12.11. – STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, MONOPOLIZED DECISION-MAKING

NO-GOVERNMENT: No-government is good government.” – The Preacher, THE CONNECTION, 133, p.91. - Only genuine self-government or self-determination, by individual choice, together with like-minded volunteers, can be a good government - by one's own standards. Territorialism outlaws such good governments, societies and communities. - J.Z., 12.1.11.

NO: A no at the proper time spares much trouble.” - (Ein Nein zur rechten Zeit / Erspart viel Widerwaertigkeit.) – Proverb. - Are we as yet free enough to say "no!" to territorialism, its monopolism and coercive impositions, by seceding from it, alone or in whole groups, but also without claiming any territorial monopoly ourselves? - J.Z., 12.1.11. Q., DIS.

NO: Almost all human beings are slaves for the same reason which the Spartans found for the servility of the Persians: They could not express the word “No”. – Nicolas Chamfort, Maximen und Gedanken. (Beinahe alle Menschen sind Sklaven aus dem Grunde, den die Spartaner fuer die Knechtschaft der Perser fanden: sie koennen das Woertchen „Nein“ nicht aussprechen.) - Are slaves or conscripts or taxpayers free to say "no"? - If only one could free oneself by simply saying "no!" - That "no!" does require already a very large degree of freedom! - J.Z., 12.1.11. - DIS., STATISM, SLAVE MENTALITY, TERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, MILITIA, RESISTANCE, LIBERATION, REVOLUTION, DISOBEDIENCE

NO: Be your own man (woman). All you have to do is to say: “No!” – Disney Show on Channel I, 20.4.80. - If only it were that simple! One can say that "no!" to a lover, a friend, a salesman, an advertisement, a job offer or to a private association - but when it comes to the territorial State it is, so far, rather ineffective. If an ideal militia force said "no!", then this would be quite a different matter. - J.Z., 12.1.11. – DIS.

NO: If they once said no! then they and many others would be helped. But the braying of jackasses says “yes” to everything.” – (Sagten sie einmal nein! waere ihnen und vielen geholfen; / Aber das Eselsgeschrei schreit zu allem: ja.) – Fallersleben, Gedichte. - Nein. – The ultimate „No!“ is expressed by individual secessionism and the reorganization, together with like-minded volunteers, under full exterritorial autonomy, including personal constitutions and laws. – J.Z., 21.7.86, 25.1.08. SAYING NO INSTEAD OF YES & PANARCHISM, DISOBEDIENCE VS. OBEDIENCE, RESISTANCE, SECESSIONISM

NO: it will also be necessary to liberate the individual from dependence upon the collectivity for his identity so that he becomes able to say “No” to Power. – R. V. Sampson, The Discovery of Peace, XXIV. – Merely saying “no” is not enough, as long as one is not free to secede as an individual or as a member of a minority group that will turn itself into an exterritorially autonomous community of volunteers under personal laws. – J.Z., 30.1.08. – INDIVIDUALISM, POWER, LIBERATION, INDEPENDENCE, SELF-LIBERATION, EGOISM, SELFISHNESS, VOLUNTARISM, SECESSION

NO: The whole task of good men consists in teaching the people to say ‘NO’. (*) The king’s fool asked the vital question: ‘What would you do, sire, if, when you say yes, everyone said no?” Let the people say this ‘No’. Nothing else is necessary, nothing else will do. – R. V. Sampson, The Discovery of Peace, p.102 on Proudhon. - - While it is almost impossible to teach all people anything really worth knowing, it is possible to teach communities of volunteers to say no to those things that they do dislike most. On that basis they can freely confederate with other communities of volunteers, who said “no” to other things, as far as their own affairs are concerned. A federation of these “no”-sayers could soon become more powerful than all the all too obedient “yes”-sayers in combination. – - (*) That merely the saying of “no” would be required is wishful thinking. – There are no words that really produce word-magic. All those, who agree among themselves, must also organize themselves to practise their beliefs among themselves and become tolerant towards all voluntary communities of others who do their things for or to themselves. Only then will they become more powerful than the present rulers of territorial States. Among other things, they will also have to organize themselves militarily for the protection of all their individual rights and liberties, to the extent that they want to claim and practise these rights among themselves – and that requires first a sufficient interest in a complete declaration of individual rights and liberties. – Alas, these preconditions are not yet fulfilled. – There may be quite a few others, too. - J.Z., 30.1.08, 12.6.12.

NOBODY: NOBODY FOR PRESIDENT ETC. - Only within societies of volunteers can voting be rightful and useful. Then and there each seriously dissenting voters reserves the main vote, namely his decision to secede and to associate otherwise. - J.Z., 12.1.11. - VOLUNTARISM, VOTING, SECESSIONISM, NO GOVERNMENT

NOBODY: Nobody keeps his promises. Nobody deserves to live off your taxes. Nobody should run your live. Nobody deserves your vote.” – Slogan reported by Ron Chusid in NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, Dec. 12, 76, p. 4.

NOBODY: Nobody keeps his promises. Nobody deserves to run your life. Nobody can represent you better than you can represent yourself. – Vote for Nobody, he’ll leave you alone.” – From the Nobody Campaign of Wavy Gravy and the Hog Farm, 1600 Woolsey, Berkeley, Cal., GREEN REVOLUTION, 10/78. - If only we already had this "no" vote towards all territorialists and were free to exterritorially and autonomously associate only with those, whom we do trust! - J.Z., 12.1.11. – VOTING, MAGIC WORDS, RIGHT TO SECEDE & LIVE UNDER PERSONAL LAW SYSTEMS, FREELY CHOSEN.

NOMADS: A Turareg girl pounds millet grain into flour outside her family’s tent, pitched in the Niger area of the Sahara Desert. The Sahara’s nomads do not acknowledge national boundaries any more than does the desert itself. – Inscription to a picture in “Encyclopedia of The World and its People, Bay Books, Sydney, volume 20, article Sahara Desert, p.1844. – Why should they? – J.Z., 25.12.11. - DESERTS, BORDERS, FRONTIERS, TERRITORIALISM, NOMADISM, TUAREGS

NON COMBATANTS: Seeing the facts and consequences of forced labor and also the powerful direction of labor into armament industries by means of inflationary central bank credits granted to armament industries, while peaceful enterprises are largely refused further production or turnover credits, and seeing that all merely conscripted enemy soldiers are also our potential allies, if only we have quite rightful war and peace aims, directed only against their despotic regime, we should consider these non-combatants and these conscripts both as largely innocents and as our potential and secret allies, whom we ought to treat as such, as much as possible. We should also give them as many chances as possible to desert or defect from their regime – to any government in exile, one of their own individual choice, none claiming a territorial monopoly and rule over others than volunteers, and inform them as much as possible about the techniques of rightful military uprising and liberating revolutions. As Eugene Lyons pointed out in at least one book, the captive peoples are our secret allies. We should not systematically bomb or otherwise exterminate these potential allies but rather treat them as much as possible already during a war as our allies rather than as enemies. The usual military strategies and tactics drive them into the arms of their victimizers and exploiters. – Our defensive war efforts should be directed only against the real war criminals on the other side. - J.Z., 17.7.87, 26.1.08. - DEFENCE, NATURAL ALLIES, LIBERATION, WAR AIMS, WARFARE, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, INDISCRIMINATE AIR RAIDS, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, ALL FOR VOLUNTEERS ONLY, INDISCRIMINATE AIR RAIDS, NO PARDON, DESERTION, FRATERNIZATION, LIBERATION, SECRET ALLIES

NON COMBATANTS: You may consider non-combatants as enemies to be killed, too, as present or future (children) armament producers or you could attempt to spare them, as much as possible and thereby give the enemy government’s conscripts less reason to obey them and to fight you and more reasons to rise against their regime, to desert to your side and even to become your allies. Especially if you proclaim quite rightful war and peace aims in a quite believable way, e.g. via various governments in exile, already now being free to do their things for their voluntary members, like they would for all their future voluntary members. It would be an important step towards reducing the “defensive” aggression on our side and achieving the overthrow of the aggressive enemy regime. – By targeting also the non-combatants we might turn them from indifferent subjects or even enemies of the regime into its loyal or at least obedient supporters. - J.Z., 17.7.87, 26.1.08. - GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, SECRET ALLIES, INDISCRIMINATE WARFARE, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NON CONFORMISM: Any attempt to impose conformity on human beings through political means is an attempt to destroy what it is that makes them essentially and gloriously human.” – Roy Childs, Liberty Against Power, p.8. – MAN, HUMAN, HUMANITY, NONCONFORMIST, NONCONFORMITY, TERRITORIALISM, HUMAN NATURE

NON CONFORMISM: The desire to be different from the people we live with is sometimes the result of our rejection - real or imagined - by them.” - Eric Hoffer - Regardless of our diverse motivations, we do have the right to live in our own ways, in accordance with our own ideals, but never the right to impose them territorially and by our vote or by force of arms upon any peaceful dissenters. - J.Z., 12.1.11. - INDIVIDUALISM, SELF-ASSERTION, REJECTION, CHOICE, TERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM

NON INTERFERENCE: Tolerant people "make a religion of not interfering with each other." - J. R. Wilson, The Side of the Angels, Collins, London, 1968, p.86. - TOLERANCE

NON-AGGRESSION: According to Block, the purpose of the book is to explore and justify the consistent application of the moral rule that every consenting adult has the right to do just as he pleases, provided he doesn’t interfere with the identical rights of others. “I wanted to come to grips with the view that all non-aggressive, noninvasive behaviour is legitimate.” – Richard Lubbock, in MERCURY, 1/79, on Walter Block’s work: “Defending the Undefendable”. - I googled yesterday for "personal law statements" and got 32,400.000 results. Personal law, India, brought me 24,600,000 results. Not mere speculation and utopianism is involved. - However, tolerance, there, too, even if merely in the religious sphere, still leaves all too much to be desired. - J.Z., 12.1.11. LEGITIMACY, PERSONAL LAW & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY CHOICES.

NON-ASSOCIATION: How does it become a man to behave toward his American government to-day? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. It cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.” – Thoreau, Civil Disobedience. – Or any government, which taxes or conscripts me or otherwise rules my life wrongly by all too many of its laws. – What is the rightful behaviour towards any nuclear power, i.e. any power prepared to commit mass murder with these wrongful “weapons”, which cannot be used discriminately against real criminals and aggressors only? - J.Z., 12.6.12. – Q., GOVERNMENT, SECESSIONISM, DISASSOCIATION VS. TERRITORIALISM

NON-ASSOCIATION: If I own my own life, then it follows that I am morally free to associate with whom I please and not to associate with whom I please. If I own my own mind and abilities, it follows that I may ask any compensation I wish - for using them to assist another.” – Dr. Duncan Yuille, in his human rights pamphlet, written for the Workers Party, ca. 1975. – Few draw the conclusion from owning their own life or self-ownership, that this would also entitle them to withdraw from a territorial State and establish, if they want to, an exterritorially autonomous community of like-minded volunteers, living under their own personal laws, but making no exclusive territorial claims. – or that freedom of association and disassociation, freedom of contract, freedom of action and experimentation as well as voluntarism can and should go as far. - J.Z., 31.1.08. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALITY, PERSONAL LAW, SELF-OWNERSHIP, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

NON-COERCIVE GOVERNMENTS: Do such non-coercive governments (towards outsiders) exist? For precedents you have to look no further than to your nearest Rugby League or Rugby Union Clubs. They do all organize violence - but by members and to members only, and to members of other voluntarily competing clubs, who similarly subscribe to violence as a "game", a violence that leaves non-combatants unhurt. - Tennis players, golfers swimmers and other sportsmen are not conscripted. They have sorted themselves out according to their preferences and in this respect they are already panarchists, although unconscious ones and do keep the peace with practitioners or viewers of other sports. - Is there something fundamentally different between football clubs and coercive governments? I see their only fundamental difference as consisting in voluntary membership, which also means non-territorial rule (apart from ownership or lease of playing fields) and which leads, automatically, to voluntary taxation or dues and fees. Coercive governments are just bigger football clubs with COERCIVE membership, which use us as footballs and tax slaves and a whole country as their playing field. They do not make escape or dropping out from under their rule easy or possible at all. At least they make it dependent upon their discretion. Moreover, territorial governments attack their own subjects with police forces, laws, courts, bureaucrats or and other governments and their subjects militarily if they dare to disobey and attempt to do their own things. Football clubs confine their violence to volunteers on football fields. But mind you, governments, internally, only abuse dissenters and nonconformists in this way. For their voluntary members they offer jolly good shows and these should be recognized as such, by us, FOR THEM. However, their voluntary members should no longer be granted any territorial powers, monopolies and privileges over dissenters, who do wish to opt out or already did. Panarchists merely want States and free societies to be run as differently and tolerantly as sports clubs are: Football for some, cricket, tennis, golf gymnastics, weight lifting, running or swimming, etc. for others, each according to the own preferences. – J.Z., n.d. - VOLUNTARISM, VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP, NON-COERCIVE TOWARDS NON-MEMBERS, I.E. ALL THOSE WHO DID NOT VOLUNTARILY JOIN THEM OR DID SECEDE FROM THEM, COMPARED WITH FOOTBALL CLUBS & OTHER SPORTS, NON-COMPULSORY GOVERNMENTS, VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENTS, COMPETING GOVERNMENTS, COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP, ASSOCIATIONISM, DISASSOCIATIONISM, SECESSION

NON-COMPLIANCE: La Boetie contends that freedom isn’t gained from violent action, but rather from not complying with the existing power structure.” – From blurb for his book, put out by Free Life Editions. – VIOLENCE, COERCION, COMPULSION, DISOBEDIENCE, SECESSIONISM

NON-CONFORMISM: (a) Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Whoso would be a man must be a non-conformist.” Do you agree or disagree? – (b) Would you prefer to conform on important matters, or on unimportant matters? - - (a) A non-conformist is not the same thing as an anti-conformist. Non-conformism connotes freedom to choose one’s own values – anti-conformism, the urge to be different, leaves us living in terms of others’ values just as much as conformity does. Therefore, using this definition we would agree with Emerson that living fully as a human being involves being a non-conformist. - - (b) If by conforming we mean living in terms of others’ values, the issue in question (whether important or unimportant) is less crucial than the fact of compromising the freedom of one’s values. Conformism would be unacceptable. - - It is possible to “go along” with things one does not agree with without altering one’s values. Possible motivations for this would include convenience, avoiding social friction, etc. Certainly this “going along” would be better done in less rather than more important matters. We suspect this type of activity could, over a period of time tend to erode one’s values, however.” - Glen G. Cooper in “Contemporary Realism”, p.24. - Panarchism or polyarchism, as opposed to territorial statism, offer a non-compromising “compromise”: To each free choice between various political, economic and social systems, without having to compromise in such choices. Under it all are volunteers and conform only to their own individual choices among all the systems on offer. – J.Z., 27.1.08, 12.1.11, 1.6.12.

NON-CONFORMISM: And they are no longer willing to conform. - These rising forces feel instinctively that the coming events require a political structure that is capable of guaranteeing law and justice. They sense, often subconsciously, that the Jacobin regimes created by the French Revolution are incapable of doing so, as they continually lead to an arbitrary exercise of power. The search for new concepts has begun. ..." - Otto von Habsburg, The Social Order of Tomorrow, p.39. – NEW POLITICAL STRUCTURES OR FRAMEWORKS ARE REQUIRED, ALL ONLY FOR VOLUNTEERS.

NON-CONFORMISM: But this liberty, too, naturally only at the expense and risk of those nonconformists, who want to do their own things to or for themselves.  How long it would take them to learn from their own mistakes would also be up to them. Their fate should be in their own hands – not in the hands of any outsiders, whom the nonconformists have left alone. – J.Z., 12.1.99. -  OF EVERY KIND & DEGREE FOR EVERY KIND OF NONCONFORMIST, VOLUNTARISM, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, EXTERRITORIALLY

NON-CONFORMISM: Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers.” – Mignon McLaughlin. – Every territorial State suppresses the non-conformists more or less. - J.Z., 12.1.11. – Individual and minority group secessionism, combined with full exterritorial autonomy for societies, communities and governance systems of volunteers only, would give all tolerant non-conformists their chance to do their things among like-minded people. – J.Z., 12.6.12. -  IDEAS ARCHIVE & TALENT CENTRE, NONCONFORMISTS, TROUBLEMAKERS & CONFORMISTS

NON-CONFORMISM: He who would be a man must be a nonconformist. – Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803-1882, philosopher, poet, mystic, essayist, publisher, USA. - Also towards well formulated individual rights and liberties? – J.Z., 25.1.08. – What about conforming to the play of team-mates in sports teams, properly collaborating with them? – J.Z., 26.2.09. - “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way as long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” – John Stuart Mill, 1906-1973, philosopher, essayist, England. – But only a few drew panarchistic or polyarchic conclusions from such general statements. – J.Z., 25.1.08. – One can rightfully restrict only the own genuine rights and liberties and those of official and private criminals with involuntary victims. - J.Z., 12.1.11. - Q., DIS., NIHILISM, ETHICS, MORALITY, VALUES, MAN, MANHOOD, INDIVIDUALISM

NON-CONFORMISM: If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist it’s another nonconformist who doesn’t conform to the prevailing standards of nonconformity.” – Bill Vaughan. [If found this again, on my Facebook page, entered by Chris Lyspooner shared Unbound Quotes and Notes's photo, on 8.6.12. - I commented: To each conformist his own conformism and to each non-conformist his own non-conformism! Under individual sovereignty, individual secessionism, personal law and exterritorial autonomy this would be possible. Who could then rightly complain?] – Territorialist notions make even the nonconformists intolerant. Under exterritorial autonomy, personal laws and voluntarism, all kinds of conformists and statists, as well as all kinds of nonconformists and radicals or mere reformers could quite peacefully coexist. – J.Z., 25.1.08. - INTOLERANCE

NON-CONFORMISM: Most people are just different types of conformists. Conforming with nothing means nihilism. The ultimate non-conformism in our unfree society means conformity as far as is humanly possible to the best interpretation of the moral law that has so far been achieved. This amounts, in the Kantian sense, to the rational individual as his own lawmaker. The ultimate nonconformist conforms only to his own highest moral standards, rationally arrived at. – J.Z., 25.4.87.

NON-CONFORMISM: Non-conformism is a virtue, not a vice, in most instances. Thus it should not be generally outlawed. - J.Z., in pamphlet: TOLERANCE.

NON-CONFORMISM: The greatest drawback in history has always been conformism.” – D. R. Runes, Treasury of Thought, p.23. – It is not so much a drawback as an obstacle, if the majority conforms to territorial law and institutions, i.e., does not allow the innovators to do their things for or to themselves, under full experimental freedom, freedom of action or exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. – If dissenting minorities had consistently demanded and worked for that freedom, they would, probably, have achieved it long ago. But so far this freedom and justice idea has not even penetrated the heads of most anarchists and libertarians. – J.Z., 31.1.08, 12.6.12.

NON-CONFORMISM: the opposite of conformism is not individualism but non-conformism, individualists conform to many things, especially the principles they all agree upon. Compulsive non-conformism is, in fact, irrational.” – Howard Samson, reason, 9/72. – Compulsory instead of “compulsive”? – Also add: “as irrational as compulsory (*) conformism.” – J.Z., 12/74. – (*) Add: “or compulsive”! – J.Z., 12.6.12. - INDIVIDUALISM, CONFORMISM, COMPULSION, NONCONFORMIST, NON-CONFORMITY, VOLUNTARISM.

NON-CONFORMISM: The result of non-conformity is progress. The main reward may well be ridicule, even abuse. – But to conform is to die. Not to conform is to live.” – John Singleton with Bob Howard, Rip Van Australia, p.184. - Territorialism, alas, imposes much more than mere ridicule or abuse. - It outlaws, prevents or penalizes many progressive actions, as well as mistakes made at the own expense and risk. - When it directs natural science, it does so e.g. to produce e.g. mass extermination devices! - It monopolizes and imposes its own choices among all political, economic and social systems upon involuntary victims. - J.Z., 12.1.11.

NON-CONFORMISM: To require conformity in the appreciation of sentiments or the interpretation of language, or uniformity of thought, feeling, or action, is a fundamental error in human legislation – a madness which would be only equaled by requiring all to possess the same countenance, the same voice or the same stature.” – Josiah Warren, Equitable Commerce, 1855. – UNIFORMITY, EGALITARIANISM, EQUALIZATION, LAWS, LEGISLATION

NON-CONFORMISM: When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.” - Charles Evans Hughes – It is not a privilege to be free but a basic individual human right for all rational, peaceful and tolerant people. – J.Z., 8.8.08, 12.6.12. - DIVERSITY, INDIVIDUALISM, DISSENTERS, FREEDOM, DIS.

NON-CONFORMISM: While to the claims of charity a man may yield and yet be free, to the claims of conformity no man may yield and remain free at all.” – Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism. – Quoted in Seldes, The Great Quotations.

NON-CONFORMISM: Whoso would be a man, must be a non-conformist.” – Emerson, Essays, First Series: Self-Reliance. – Compare: “Be yourself!” – common saying.– Sprading, The Great Quotations, p.144, continues this quote with: “He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness.” – MAN, MATURITY, GROWING UP.

NON-CONFORMISM: Why should we be in such desperate haste to succeed, and in such desperate enterprises? If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden. – Quoted in George Seldes, The Great Quotations. – In his time there was no urgency to get rid of totalitarian regimes, and totalitarian “weapons” like ABC mass murder devices. Unfortunately, most people still hear only wrongful different drummers and follow them. – J.Z., 31.1.08, 12.1.11.

NON-COOPERATION: Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good." - Mohandas Gandhi. - Make this an individual's free choice - in every sphere! - I prefer the terms "rights" and "wrongs" to “good” and “evil”. - J.Z., 12.1.11, 12.6.12. - DISOBEDIENCE, PASSIVE RESISTANCE, NON-VIOLENT RESISTANCE

NON-COOPERATION: Tucker did not believe that the ballot box or any armed rebellion would free society, asserting that only non-cooperation with the state would succeed. He endorsed enlightened selfishness and egoism as essential concomitants to liberty …” - LIBERTARIAN HANDBOOK 1973, on Benjamin R. Tucker. - But then Tucker had no experience with totalitarian regimes. He lived in what was then, probably, the most free country in the world. – J.Z., 31.1.08. - The totalitarians use terror, concentration camps. forced labor and even extermination camps against non-conformists or mere dissenters or any other people they dislike. During the last century they did thus murder over 200 million people. - Anarchists and libertarians have so far not bothered to compile a complete declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties and a good enough defence, liberation, militia and revolution program and to come to an agreement upon a common ideal like panarchism for all kinds of libertarians and anarchists as well as all kinds of statists, except the territorialist ones. - But at least he opposed patents and copyrights and stood up for monetary and financial freedom. - J.Z., 12.1.11.

NON-COOPERATION: We need not to act. We merely need to cease cooperating and then the State will be condemned to powerlessness.” – John Henry Mackay, Abrechnung, S.153. (Wir brauchen ja gar nicht zu handeln. Wir brauchen einfach nicht mehr mitzumachen und der Staat sieht sich zur Ohnmacht verurteilt.) – Obviously, Mackay overlooked here how many people are on the State’s payroll and that many of them are armed, organized, trained and dangerous, when it comes to defend their own livelihood. Taxation is not a voluntary action. Tax payment is all too effectively enforced. Tax strikers are lucky not to get killed in the process but merely imprisoned and losing their property. Refusing to recognize the right and, sometimes, the duty, to resist forcefully and armed, can only perpetuate victimization. If it were so easy to persuade policemen and soldiers to no longer obey the State, their paymaster, then such appeals should be directed primarily to them. Otherwise, better jobs should be offered to these people, via the introduction of full monetary and financial freedom, which would be possible, perhaps, through a well planned and organized monetary and financial revolution, at a suitable crisis point. Then, temporarily, the liberators should also take over the payment of the salaries of policemen and soldiers – until these people have taken up productive jobs. The non-cooperation should then also include refusals to accept government monopoly money and the ability and readiness to replace this money with better privately or cooperatively issued competing currencies. – Progress towards full liberation is not as simple to achieve as is often assumed, especially by poets and novelists. - My father, K. H. Solneman or Kurt H. Zube was a fan of his but at least in his "Manifesto for Freedom and Peace" he went into many details, he thought would be required, including panarchism and his kind of monetary freedom or clearing project. - - J.Z., 31.1.08, 12.1.11. – PASSIVE RESISTANCE, NON-VIOLENCE, NON-RESISTANCE

NON-COOPERATION: Why Tolstoy? He, as well as the Russian anarchist Prince Kropotkin, took an absolutist position – no cooperation with any state control which used force.” – Gregory Benford, Reactionary Utopian, FAR FRONTIERS, Winter 85, p.221. - The territorial Statists have worked out their domination and suppression system in great details. Anarchists and libertarians, to a very large extent, have still to do this - for their own liberation and for the liberation of all others, if and to the extent that they wish to be liberated as well. Some mere word-games or slogans are not a good enough substitutes for a rightful and sound program or blueprint. - J.Z., 12.1.11. - STATE CONTROLS & FORCE, DIS., LIBERATION, PROGRAM


NON-INTERFERENCE: All individuals can freely live as they choose as long as they don’t forcibly interfere with others.” - Stormy Mon, The Libertarian Principle. – This requires that they do renounce all territorial claims for themselves and do no longer recognize them in others. – J.Z., 31.1.08, 12.1.11.

NON-INTERFERENCE: How presumptuous of anyone to imagine that he has the right to interfere with his neighbour, to tell others how to live their lives! If we are asked for advice, we can give it. Otherwise we should leave well alone.” – IPA FACTS, 12/68. - Are conditions well enough or should we become free to try to improve them, at our own expense and risk, in exterritorially autonomous experiments among volunteers? Almost all our neighbours, nearby and in the whole country or continent, deny us this liberty even though it is quite rightful and would, at least in the long run, be also seen as of great benefit to them, by themselves. All they would lose is wrongful privileges at the expense of dissenters. They could gain so much more and this without struggle and expense to them. They would only have to copy the successful systems, once they are finally proven and practically demonstrated, also to them. None would be forced upon them. - They would have nothing to fear but fear itself and that would be quite unwarranted in this case, however justified it is when it comes to different and unwanted territorial systems. - J.Z., 12.1.11. – VOTING, MAJORITY DESPOTISM, DEMOCRACY VS. GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM VS. VOLUNTARISM

NON-INTERFERENCE: If he preferred, he could do nothing at all. No one would interfere with him, and the one law of the village was that he must interfere with no one.” – Lloyd Biggle Jr., Still, Small Voice, ANALOG, April 61, p.150.

NON-INTERFERENCE: In this country the party which is “in” always interferes, and the party which is “out” favors non-interference. (*) The system of interference is a complete failure to the ends it aims at, and sooner or later it will fall of its own expense and be swept away.” – W. G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, p.85. - - (*) If only it really did so! It may also aim at still more interference but merely of a somewhat different, like e.g. the State Socialists of his time. - What he calls “interference” is also inherent in territorialism. - J.Z., 31.1.08, 12.6.12. - TERRITORIALISM

NON-INTERFERENCE: Leave all things to take their natural course, and do not interfere.” – Lao Tzu, in Lionel Giles translation. – But, when you see cannibals preparing one of their feasts, with one of their victims … - Or when you see a child molester, doing what comes natural to him, picking another victim … - J.Z., 31.1.08. - Should we go on letting territorialism take its natural course, finally into the general nuclear holocaust? My book on how to prevent it is at: - J.Z., 12.1.11. - DIS.

NON-INTERFERENCE: Provided then, that we, as individuals (*) do not forcibly interfere with other people, we should be left free to conduct our own lives as we see fit.” – Source? - That should also include full exterritorial autonomy under personal laws for all communities of volunteers. - (*) or in groups! – J.Z., 31.1.08.

NON-INTERFERENCE: The concept of justice held by the common man could be summed up as: “I have the right to do anything I damn well please that will improve my life and my enjoyment of it, so long as I don’t interfere with anyone else’s similar right. If the law gets in my way, I’ll just ignore it.” – Jim Andrews, in FREEDOM TODAY, 10/75. – IGNORING THE STATE OR SOME OR ALL OF ITS LAWS.

NON-INTERFERENCE: The rational individualist knew that his needs could best be served by dealing with other men as traders, meaning that all men had to be free (*); therefore he did not believe in interfering in the lives of his neighbors. …” - Ringer, Restoring the American Dream, p.40. - (*) Not all men. It will suffice and spread from there, when e.g. the free traders and the various advocates of e.g. monetary and financial freedom and of whole alternative political, social systems - are as free as they want to be. – All reforms and innovations only for their volunteers! - Experimental freedom for all does not mean the territorial imposition of old or new experiments. - Freedom even for non-territorial statists to do their things - to themselves! - J.Z., 31.1.08, 12.1.11. - TOLERANCE, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, INDIVIDUAL CHOICES & SECESSIONISM

NON-INTERFERENCE: There can be no fairer order than one which gives absolute freedom to all conscious life gained only by one law: ‘No conscious being may interfere with another being’s exercise of free will.” – Stan & Louise Deyo, West Australian Texas Trading, 1978. – Some animal lovers would concede e.g. conscious life to at least some of their pets, and, in spite of their love for them, do interfere with them, treating them as their property. Pigs are supposedly even more intelligent than are dogs. Horses have at least horse sense. Wolves hunt intelligently in packs. Let’s settle the question of human individual rights first. – J.Z., 31.1.08. – Not every human will have to claim and practise all genuine rights and liberties for himself or herself. Perhaps not even one fully knows all of them by now. Let them restrict themselves as much and as long as they like - but not one else, least of all territorially. - Whoever does so, or tries, does certainly not love all his fellow men but hates all too many of them. - J.Z., 12.1.11, 12.6.12 . - LIBERTARIANISM, FIRST PRINCIPLES, FREE WILL, FREE CHOICE, SELF-GOVERNANCE, SELF-CONTROL, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-DETERMINATION, ALL QUITE INDIVIDUALIZED, I.E. FOR VOLUNTEERS ONLY.

NON-INTERFERENCE: We don’t pretend to know how you should best live your life. We are not in the business of enforcing our value judgments. We say – you live your life how you want to. Do whatever you like. But respect other people’s equal freedom.” –John Singleton with Bob Howard, Rip Van Australia, p.185. – Do apply this in every sphere. Full experimental freedom for volunteers, under personal law and exterritorial autonomy does make that possible. All we would lose would be territorialism with its monopolism and coercion, its wars, civil wars and violent revolutions, its official and private terrorism, its monetary despotism, it economic crises and also its exploitation of tax slaves. - J.Z., 12.1.11m 12.6.12. - EQUAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM, TOLERANCE

NON-INTERVENTION: confusion … results from government intervention in any commodity market. (*) Gluts and shortages appear which necessitate more violent correction than would have been needed if the market had been allowed freely to make the daily or hourly changes.” – Henry Meulen, THE INDIVIDUALIST, 8/75. – (*) Also from territorial interferences and domination or monopoly attempts over any human relationships, contracts, institutions and personal laws of volunteers, in their own societies and communities, none of them claiming any territorial monopoly. - Alas, Meulen never went that far. - J.Z., 12.1.11.

NON-INTERVENTION: Four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear, if we would only sit down and keep still.” - Calvin Coolidge. - Do nothing wrongful and harmful, rather abstain from action than act upon the maxim: "Something must be done!" - and then repeating mistakes that have been made again and again over centuries. Knee-jerk reactions do more harm than good. For instance: Wage controls, price controls, rent controls, interest rate controls, protectionist controls, monetary despotism. - J.Z., 21.8.02. - Disinterested and apathetic people, also prisoners, monks and nuns, do that to a large extent. Has our world turned into a paradise as a result of their involuntary or voluntary retreatism and inactivity? If you kept quite still, not moving at all, apart from breathing, then you are even likely to die soon. - Life means something much livelier, especial a free and rightful life, which will not come to us through our inactivity but only through our inactivation of all the territorialists and their territorialist schemes, laws, programs, institutions, to the extent that they are territorially imposed upon us. Only the statists should have to suffer under them, as long as they do not secede from them. - J.Z., 12.1.11, 12.6.12. - DIS., TOLERANCE, INACTION, LAISSEZ FAIRE, FREE MARKET

NON-INTERVENTION: Non-Intervention with rightful actions is right but intervention against wrongful actions is also right. – J.Z., 23.3.03, 12.6.12. – “Territorial integrity”, “national territorial independence” “national territory” and “national unity” are four of the major dangerous fictions. Integrity has nothing to do with territorial monopolies, domination and the country-wide suppression of the rights of individuals and minorities or even of the majority. – J.Z., 21.10.07, 12.6.12. - & INTERVENTION, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, DIS.


NON-INTERVENTION: Since beneficial general prescriptions can always be eroded case by case, we should learn from the wisdom of Dicey that without a strong presumption in favor of non-intervention a drift towards collectivism becomes irresistible.” – Milton Friedman, in the anthology: Down With The Poor, p.24. - Let dissenting individuals opt out and do their own things, together with like-minded volunteers, at their own expense and risk, in every sphere. Such a principled and institutionalized stand would be sufficiently self-regulating, especially when aided by e.g. an ideal declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties and an ideal militia of volunteers to realize and protect them, to the extent that volunteers do claim them for themselves, against all meddlers, aggressors, official and private criminals with victims. - It would correspond to the self-regulation of religious liberty or religious tolerance and of e.g. freedom of expression and information, also to the experimental freedom we have in the natural sciences and in technology and agriculture. - J.Z., 12.1.11.

NON-INTERVENTION: the blessings derived from individual creativity and voluntary association can never be harnessed by or replaced by government intervention.” – Robert G. Bearce, THE FREEMAN, 10/72. – GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, LAISSEZ FAIRE, FREE MARKETS

NON-INTERVENTION: The more schemes, the more arrangements, the more intervention in free exchange, the greater the distortions which will occur, rendering society poorer on net balance.” – G. C. Roche III, Frederic Bastiat, A Man Alone, p. 223. - The same applies to territorially imposed political and social systems, schemes and projects. - J.Z., 12.1.11. – FREEDOM OF CONTRACT & ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS DISASSOCIATION OR SECESSIONISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, HUMAN RIGHTS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTALISM, TERRITORIALISM

NON-INTERVENTION: The people of the United States are more prosperous than the inhabitants of all other countries because their government embarked later than the governments in other parts of the world upon the policy of obstructing business. – Ludwig von Mises, THE FREEMAN, Nov. 73. – By now it is well on the way of catching up with all other forms of territorial interventionism. Territorialism, taxes, monetary and financial despotism it has already in common even with totalitarian regimes. - J.Z., 12.1.11. - BUSINESS, WEALTH, AMERICA, USA, ECONOMIC FREEDOM

NON-INTERVENTION: war is the malignancy resulting from the grown of interventionism, which invariably becomes uncontrolled, once started. Without interventionism – starting way back with things like garbage service – war simply cannot happen.” – E. W. Dykes, THE FREEMAN, 1/64. The precondition of all interventionism is the territorial monopoly or territorialism. It opposite is exterritorial autonomy – or personal law – for all communities of volunteers. – J.Z., 31.1.08.

NON-INTERVENTION: What do you do when your brothers are oppressed? Modern American Liberals will tell you that, with the single exception of right-wing authoritarian regimes, any time a gang of murderous social deviants manages to seize power it instantly becomes a Sovereign States, and as such is immune to “interference”. - - No matter if the head of state kills his enemies and eats them (Idi Amin), or murders half his people (Pol Pot), or merely condemns his fellows to a life of endless want and anomie (any Communist regime), a sovereign state is sacred, and nothing justifies the intervention of a foreign power in its affairs. - - Do you believe that?” – JPB (Jerry Pournelle & Jim Baen), in their introduction to John Dalmas, Opening Move On Egil’s World, FAR FRONTIERS, Vol. IV, Winter 1985, p. 70. - INTERFERENCE, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, CRIMINAL GOVERNMENTS & SOVEREIGN STATES, INTERVENTIONISM, LIBERATION

NON-INVOLVEMENT: The man who is expending his energy wholly on private affairs, refusing to take the trouble about public affairs, praising himself on his wisdom in minding his own business, is blind to the fact that his own business is made possible only by the maintenance of a healthy social state and that he risks losing all by defective government arrangements. – Herbert Spencer. – What healthy social state did he have in mind? Did he know of any territorial government arrangements that were not defective? At least in his youth, in "Social Statics", 1850, he advocated ignoring the State. - Territorially conducted "public affairs" are usually conducted against the genuine rights and liberties of the public, i.e., against the genuine public interest or common interest, and this by a few power-mongers, exploiting public apathy, ignorance, errors and prejudices successfully, largely because they share most people's ignorance, errors and prejudices. - The collectivist and territorial vote provides the fiction of involvement while leaving the voter powerless regarding his own affairs. - It also brings the worst to the top. - J.Z., 12.1.11, 13.6.12. - PUBLIC AFFAIRS, DISINTEREST, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, NON-INTERFERENCE, LAISSEZ FAIRE, DIS.

NON-JOINERS: the freedom of joining – or not joining ... should be cherished; … Dean Smith, Conservatism, p.136. – And it should be applied to all territorial States – and to all alternative societies, all only exterritorially autonomous, that should replace all territorial States, with all of them made up only of volunteers. – Alas, most Conservatives want to conserve territorialism, unaware how despotic it tends to be. – J.Z., 31.1.08. – Or they love the wrongful power options it provides for them, too. - J.Z., 12.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM, STRIVING FOR UNITY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, CONSERVATISM

NON-MANIPULATION: a non-manipulative society cannot be achieved by manipulative means … - SOLIDARITY, London: As We Don’t See It, p.19. – Does a good liberation, defence, revolution or military insurrection program or one for a complete privatization of all government assets, or one to achieve permanent full employment and the avoidance of inflations, deflations and economic crises - amount to a wrongful manipulation – when it is applied? – J.Z., 31.1.08. - Or one that would achieve panarchies or full experimental freedom for the volunteers of all kinds of ideologies, systems and beliefs? - It would mean an end to their territorial manipulation by a few "leading" power addicts. - Secession is not manipulative, neither is voluntary associationism under personal laws. - Territorialism embraces the best and also the worst kinds of wrongful manipulation. - J.Z., 12.1.11.

NON-PARTICIPATION: Freedom from exploitation is perhaps the easiest freedom to get. All you have to do is to stop participating in any relationship – of any kind – that does not suit you. – Harry Browne, How I found Freedom, p.276/77. - - As if participation were already altogether optional. Territorialism and its laws, powers and institutions say otherwise. – Was he really unaware that e.g. taxation and conscription are not as voluntary as he here makes them out to be? - As if freedom were merely a matter of finding it, picking it up and keeping it! - It seems that not only religious people are all too faithful, hopeful and dogmatic. - J.Z., 31.1.08, 12.1.11. – INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

NON-PARTICIPATION: Right to Refuse Participation in an Unjust War. - Every rational being has the right and duty to refuse participation in an unjust war and to defend this right. - - Comment: This right implies e.g. the right to decide directly, by voting in plebiscites (compare 38) and in meetings of a volunteer-militia (compare 50) about war and peace, armament and disarmament, furthermore, the right to revolt against a government which prepares an unjust war. - It is infringed as long as conscription and weapons for mass-extermination (nuclear, germ and poison weapons) exist. These weapons would inevitably kill non-combatants and conscripts, even secret friends and allies and offend therefore against the human rights and natural rights of rational beings. The mere existence of such weapons is a threat to these rights. - Every rational being has therefore the right to participate directly in the destruction of all such weapons and the means by which they are produced and to search all suspicious localities for hidden weapons of this kind. The right to resist supersedes here the right to inviolability of one's home or rather the latter does not include a right to hide mass extermination weapons. - Conscription is unwarranted because only rational beings are entitled and obliged to resist. Rational beings would resist conscription or desert from those who conscripted them and rather fight against them than for them. Rational beings would voluntarily join a militia of the above (50) indicated kind. Since unreasonable beings do not possess all rights, those they do have must be protected by others, rational citizens. They, too, may not be conscripted as mere things (or property by any government – J.Z., 13.6.12.) For a volunteer peace force of the above indicated kind, they would anyhow be more of a burden than an asset. - In future, the recognition and realization of the right to secede from all unnatural associations would frustrate all attempts to uphold or introduce conscription. – From the human rights draft in PEACE PLANS No. 4, point 53. - NEUTRALITY, SEPARATE PEACE, PEACE TREATIES BETWEEN PEOPLES, OVER THE HEADS OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE, MILITIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES

NON-TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES: See OAKLEY, JOHN. - Abstract: Given the essentially territorial nature of the state, it has sometimes been assumed that attempts to resolve ethnic conflict by devolving power to ethnic groups must follow territorial lines. The present article assesses an alternative, "non-territorial," approach that has had some limited success as a device for the resolution of ethnic conflict. The origins of this approach may be traced back to the traditions of certain pre-modern states. A more systematic scheme of non-territorial autonomy appropriate to the modern state was elaborated in Austria-Hungary during its last years, and some instances of its attempted application may be seen immediately before and after the First World War. In the contemporary world, elements of this approach have been present in efforts to resolve the problems of indigenous minorities and in systems of consociational government. //// L'Etat ayant une vocation territoriale, on en déduit parfois que la solution des conflits ethniques passe par l'utilisation de la frontière et de la dévolution des pouvoirs. L'article évalue les possibilités qu'offre l'alternative offerte par des solutions non-territoriales dont le succès n'a été, jusqu'alors, que limité. Ayant leurs antécédents dans l'Etat pré-moderne (Empire Ottoman notamment) ces solutions ont été élaborées dans les dernières années de l'Empire Austro-hongrois et dans les décennies qui précèdent ou suivent immédiatement la première guerre mondiale. On retrouve des éléments de ces dernières solutions dans de récents projets destinés à résoudre les problèmes aborigènes comme dans certains types de structures 'consociationnelles'. – EXTERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES OF VOLUNTEERS, JOHN OAKLEY

NON-TERRITORIAL COMMUNITIES: To the Monopolists of All Parties by Richard C.B. Johnsson - Feb 8, 2005 ... When encountering people from other such non-territorial communities, it would seem only natural to expect that those ... -

NON-TERRITORIAL FEDERALISM: Searching with Google today for Karl Renner + non-territorial federalism, I got 2370 results. On the first page there are already 10 relevant hints: 1.) Dietmar Kneitschel, Federalism and Non Territorial Minorities (2004)
- Non-territorial federalism is a conception developed by Karl Renner at the beginning of the XX century. In this very interesting essay Dietmar Kneitschel puts ... - - 2.) - Comparative federalism: theory and practice - Google Books Result Michael Burgess - 2006 - Political Science - 357 pages - ... when Karl Renner and Otto Bauer proposed novel forms of association to resolve the nationalities question. This non-territorial or corporate federalism ... - - 3.) The demands of citizenship - Google Books Result
Catriona McKinnon, Iain Hampsher-Monk - 2000 - Political Science - 308 pages - - The Austro-Hungarian Empire soon fell apart, and Renner's scheme was therefore ... But various forms of non-territorial federalism were tried elsewhere, ... - - 4.) Federalism: a tool for conflict management in multicultural ... - Google Books Result
Thomas Fleiner, Thomas Fleiner-Gerster - 2008 - Political Science - 281 pages - Relevant here is the notion of non-territorial 'personal federalism' as ... to Otto Bauer and Karl Renner in several of the papers for the first session. ... - - 5.) [PDF]
Rainer Bauböck Multinational Federalism: Territorial or Cultural...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View - - by R Bauböck - 2001 - Cited by 8 - Related articles - - Federalism in its broadest sense is a conception of multilevel governance ...... Karl Renner tries to combine territorial and non-territorial federation in order to ... - - 6.) [PDF] 

EIF Working Paper Series
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View - by R Bauböck - Related articles - This volume contains the first English translation of Karl Renner's “Staat und Nation” ... 1 The Moravian compromise of 1905 created non-territorial linguistic ..... federalism in multinational societies – the likelihood of secession or partition that ... - - 7.) The politics of belonging: nationalism, liberalism, and pluralism - Google Books Result
Alain Dieckhoff - 2004 - Political Science - 294 pages - This is one reason why federalism in India has failed to reduce Kashmiri ... For examples of the enthusiasm for non-territorial autonomy in ECE, ... These models are often said to be inspired by the ideas of Otto Bauer and Karl Renner, ... - - 8.) Central European crossroads: social democracy and national ... - Google Books Result
Pieter van Duin - 2009 - History - 466 pages - - By the late 1890s Austrian social democrats like Karl Renner - but also ... the state should be reorganised on a democratic and federalist basis, ... Renner - but less so Bauer and others - also advocated the non-territorial principle ... - - 9.) Federalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
5 Jan 2003 – These systems are sometimes referred to as 'non-territorial' federations. Karl Renner and Otto Bauer explored such arrangements for ... - - 10.) Russia's Islamic threat - Google Books Result
Gordon M. Hahn - 2007 - History - 349 pages - - Democratic socialists Otto Bauer and Karl Renner proposed for the Austro- Hungarian Empire a rarely applied "corporate federalism" or non-territorial cultural ... – Perhaps the federalists have already explored their non-territorial option more so than the decentralists! Or should one consider this as the last attempt by the statist federalists to retain at least some of their power? – J.Z., 29.12.11.

NON-TERRITORIAL FEDERALISM: THE CONCEPT OF NON -TERRITORIAL FEDERALISM, 2003, 4pp. - Welcome address by Mr. Dietmar Kneitschel, Resident Representative Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. - FCT / SAI/ FES SEMINAR, “RIGHTS AND POWER SHARING MECHANISMS FOR NON TERRITORIAL MINORITY COMMUNITIES IN PROPOSED FEDERALLY RESTRUCTURED SRI LANKAN STATE”, (Colombo, 24.5.2003): Welcome on behalf of FES to this seminar on “Rights and Power Sharing mechanisms for non territorial minority communities in proposed federally restructured Sri Lankan state.” - The topic of the seminar is very important, because there is a fear and suspicion that the non-territorial minority communities-Muslims and Hill Country-Tamils, could become the losers, the orphans or step children of the peace process and of a future federal structure of the state. - In most ethno-political conflicts a territorial solution is at the core of the demands for self-determination. This is also the case in Sri Lanka. And territory is paramount in autonomy concepts like federalism as well. - Territorial federalism is characterized by the distribution of power over territorial entities. The overarching state, the federation, is divided into territorial sub-units (called states, provinces, Laender or cantons), and state power is dispersed over these federated subunits. Territorially concentrated ethnic or religious population groups benefit in such a traditional federal structure in the following four ways: 1. They are represented in the national parliament or first chamber as they would have been in a unitary state. - 2. They are represented in the executive, legislative and judiciary of the federated subunits where they constitute a majority, enjoying their internal right of self-determination. - 3. They are represented as well in the second chamber which voices the concerns of the sub-states in national policy making, and - 4. They are an active part in the intergovernmental policy networks, which are typical of federal arrangements. - - So in mono-ethnic or mono-national states territorial federalism may be an adequate solution. And even in multi-ethnic or multi national states where ethno-national communities are territorially concentrated and where the sub-states reflect this situation, territorial federalism, or power sharing between the central state and territorial political sub-units may be adequate and sufficient to satisfy the aspirations and needs of all nationalities or communities. - But non-territorial minorities do not benefit equally from all these forms of representation and participation provided by territorial federalism. - 2 - Therefore, in multi-national or multi-ethnic states with communities dispersed and mixed all over the country, classic federalism as a purely territorial project has serious intrinsic limitations as a solution to manage successfully ethnic identity conflicts and secure rights, dignity and security of all people - The territorial federal logic of traditional federalism is also hardly applicable when there are competing claims over territory. - So in such complex situations, traditional territorial federalism is an insufficient mechanism for the comprehensive accommodation and just representation of all minority rights and concerns. - Territorial federalism could even plant the seeds for new explosive ethnic antagonism by creating new intra-regional minorities. - It needs therefore to be supplemented and balanced by a non-territorial approach. - Non territorial or personal or corporate federalism is an unconventional federal concept. - Non territorial federalism defines the right of self-determination not from the narrow perspective of a privileged traditional nation or nationality with its well-defined own territory, but from the wider perspective of the individuals who subjectively profess a group identity without taking into consideration their territorial residence. - So the concept dissociates the right for self-rule from territory. It transcends the limits of homelands or places of residence. - This way, the so-called non territorial minorities can assert their rights of self-determination, and several ethno-national groups can enjoy autonomy in the same territory. - Thus, this concept would empower the members of a community which live outside the boundaries of their ‘homeland’. It would likewise empower those ethnic or religious communities which do not define themselves as traditional nations, and which do not claim a specific territory as their homeland, but which also may want to rule themselves and not to be ruled by others. - Non-territorial federalism would secure that the linguistic, educational and cultural rights of such non-territorial communities are also guaranteed. - So non territorial federalism is aiming at something more than the negative right of minorities to get protection against exclusion and discrimination by national or regional territorial majorities. - Non territorial federalism would establish a positive right of self-determination even for territorially dispersed minorities. - The idea of personal or non-territorial federalism had been propagated already at the beginning of the 20th century by the Austrian Social Democrat Karl Renner who tried to find a fair and democratic solution for the ethno-national diversity in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. - The idea was to represent different nations at the state level in separate autonomous national councils. - 3 - These councils would have the power to legislate in matters of cultural policy and education. - At present, the most prominent proponent of non-territorial federalism in multi-ethnic or multi-national societies with ethnically mixed territories is the Norwegian Professor of Peace Studies and Director of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace and Development, Johan Galtung. - In view of the experience in Ex-Yugoslavia, he has warned that in countries with a high degree of competing ethnic nationalisms and with nationalistic doctrines of blood and soil, territorial federalism could be an invitation to continued ethnic cleansing. And in his opinion such a danger could be avoided or at least reduced if federal arrangements were not based on territorial, but on non-territorial criteria. - A non-territorial federal formula would leave people where they are, but fully recognize their right to some [WHY NOT ALL? – J.Z., 13.6.12.] self-determination. - In short, the idea of Galtung is that in multi-national-countries each distinct nation elects its own parliament regardless of the place of residence of the individuals who form the particular nation. These parliaments with their executive arms would have authority especially over nation-specific cultural and educational affairs. - On top of this there would be an over-arching super-parliament responsible for matters which concern all nations or groups together. - I think it would be unrealistic to expect that such a concept could be implemented in Sri Lanka as a solution for the ethnic conflict between Sinhalese and Sri Lanka Tamils, because Eelam is clearly defined as a territorial project and not as a project of cultural autonomy, and the LTTE would not settle for a solution without a concrete Tamil homeland. And, probably, Sinhalese nationalists would also disagree with such a concept. - However there are not only two but four distinct communities in Sri Lanka. And a restructuring of the state and a new democratic federal constitution should not only address the concerns of the two communities in open conflict but should also address the legitimate concerns of the hitherto silent or non-militant minority communities, the Muslims and the Hill country Tamils. - The new federal constitution should make the state and the whole society more democratic and inclusive. It should provide rights of self- and co-determination to all existing communities and thus prevent the possibility of new ethnic cleavages and tensions in the future. - Therefore, even if we can presume that non-territorial arrangements as suggested by Galtung would not be accepted as a solution of the main conflict between Sinhalese and Sri Lanka Tamils, such arrangements could be useful for the territorially dispersed communities who equally possess their own distinct identities and thus - in an extended sense - rights of internal self-determination. - Such non-territorial arrangements could also be a reasonable alternative to the South-East - 4 - autonomous Muslim unit claimed by a sector of the Muslim community. - Because a separate Muslim territorial unit within the Eastern province would not represent the great majority of Muslims which are living outside this unit. - Non territorial federalism is certainly not a comprehensive federal institutional solution in itself, but it could be a useful additional building block in a solid constitutional and political architecture combining territorial federalism, consociational power sharing arrangements and constitutionally guaranteed safeguard for minorities. - The important condition is that such architecture must give proper recognition of equal status to all communities in Sri Lanka. - It must legitimize and give concrete expression to the aspirations of all four communities to some form of self-government while at the same time binding them together in a larger and equally self-governing shared multi-national or multi-ethnic federal state. - An interesting example of a country with a combination of territorial and non-territorial federalism as well as consociational arrangements is Belgium. - This small European country - half of the size of Sri Lanka - has developed in a long process a dual form of self-government for its citizens who belong to 3 different linguistic or cultural communities, Flemish, Walloons and Germans. - Belgians are both members of territorial units and members of autonomous non-territorial communities. While the regional councils represent the interests of the people living in the different regions, the community councils represent the interests of the different ethno-linguistic communities from all regions. - And this constitutional architecture, though it has not eliminated the conflicts between the 3 communities, has made them manageable and has avoided violent conflict. - Therefore, the Belgian model, especially its non-territorial principles and institutions, may be instructive and give some inspiration for the discussion in Sri Lanka. It is clear of course, that Sri Lanka has to design its own tailor-made federal model to suit its specific situation and culture. A copy of the Belgian, or the German, or the Canadian model would not work in Sri Lanka. - So an open un-dogmatic mindset, creativity and imagination are required to design a workable federal arrangement for Sri Lanka, applying pragmatically the core principles of federalism to the specific conditions of the country. - I hope this seminar will make some useful contributions to this discussion, especially by recommending principles and mechanisms for the proper inclusion of the non-territorial minorities in a future federal set-up.

NON-TERRITORIAL FREEDOM: HALLIDAY, ROY: Non-Territorial Freedom. Here, under the following three headings he offers 36 relevant articles: Cyberspace and the Internet - 20 articles. - Extraterritoriality - 2 articles by Richard C. B. Johnsson. - Panarchy, Polyarchy, or Multiple Governments - 14 articles by Le Grand E. Day, Max Nettlau, Gian Piero de Bellis, Bruno S. Frey & J.Z. - When I downloaded it, this page was last updated on July 11, 2011. He sums up the articles very shortly and refers to their URL location on various libertarian sites. A good links list on the subject. - J.Z.

NON-TERRITORIAL FREEDOM: Non-territorial Freedom [list of documents] July 2009.

NON-TERRITORIAL GOVERNANCE: NOWAR: 4258 - Forum with limited access. - NOWAR. Read: [next] [previous] message [NOWAR] Fwd: Lecture: Global Civil Society and Non-Territorial Governance. From: "Krishna E ... - 5k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages - NOWAR: old-4267 Forbidden. No permission for access. - - ... bahija2 <> -Tue, 02 Mar 2004 22:00:24 -0500 [4258] [NOWAR] Fwd: Lecture: Global Civil Society and Non-Territorial Governance "Krishna E ... - - 3k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from - - - [PDF] Citizen, Customer, Community: Changing Attitudes to Political ... - File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML... - decades. Analysts have begun to explore the possibility of non-territorial governance and territorially non-contiguous governance. ... - Similar pages

NON-TERRITORIAL SECESSION: An Introduction To Non-Territorial Secession, July 3, 2009. tags: the a word - by patrissimo. - - Normally, secession consists of an entire region seceding from a large one, and forming its own autonomous government. In non-territorial secession, you might: Secede from your city’s library services, because you only read things on the internet. - Secede from your city’s garbage service because you would rather compost or store your own trash. - Secede from your city’s police protection, because for the same cost, you can buy yourself a gun, defense training, and a good alarm for the house. - - The idea may sound strange at first (only pay for services if they are worth it? That’s crazy talk!), but if we think of government as just another industry, it makes sense. We choose our cell phone provider, our car insurance provider, our DSL provider, and many other providers of business services independently from among competing firms, and we don’t have to move to change providers. It is only with government, which divides the world into many regional monopolies, where we have to buy a giant package of many services, determined by our location. - - If these services could be unbundled and offered by multiple providers in a given location, we would have far more choice, and could assemble our own bundle based on our unique preferences. And the competition between providers, just like in any market, would result in higher quality, more cost-effective service. - - While some aspects of government service (like national defense) may be difficult to provide on a person by person basis, there are far fewer of these “natural monopolies” than you might think. As we mentioned in yesterday’s post, looking at history offers a new perspective on what forms of government are possible. Today, fire services are often considered to be a natural monopoly because fires can spread, but in the past, private fire insurance which only protected subscribers was used. As Wikipedia says: London suffered great fires in 798, 982, 989, and above all in 1666 (Great Fire of London). The Great Fire of 1666 started in a baker’s shop on Pudding Lane, consumed about two square miles (5 km²) of the city, leaving tens of thousands homeless. Prior to this fire, London had no organized fire protection system. Afterwards, insurance companies formed private fire brigades to protect their clients’ property. Insurance brigades would only fight fires at buildings the company insured. These buildings were identified by fire insurance marks. - - There are numerous other examples of services that we are used to seeing as natural monopolies, but which can or have been provided on a person-by-person basis. Some people believe that every aspect of government, even the courts and the military, can be provided in this fashion.  Whether or not you believe in the strongest version of the non-territorial secession, we think there is an excellent case that many services of today’s regional monopoly governments could be better provided by competing, non-territorial entities. - - To learn much more about the theory and history of these ideas, head on back to Secession Week: Friday – Non-territorial Secession. - From: Towards a Cambrian Explosion in Government: Home


NON-TERRITORIAL SECESSION: Secession Week: Friday – Non-territorial Secession - 2009 July 3 - 7 Comments. Tags: ancap, Arnold Kling, bruce benson, focj, panarchy, polycentric law, the a word - by patrissimo. - - Welcome to our penultimate Secession Week post, in celebration of Independence Day tomorrow. Today’s concept is non-territorial secession, or seceding without moving. For those who are totally unfamiliar with the concept, I offer a brief introduction. - - Overview: This is not a new concept, and has been proposed by many names and in many flavors, such as: Polycentric Law: “a legal structure in which providers of legal systems compete or overlap in a given jurisdiction, as opposed to monopolistic statutory law according to which there is a sole provider of law for each jurisdiction.” - - Market Anarchism: a “philosophy in which monopoly of force held by government would be replaced by a competitive market of private institutions offering security, justice, and other defense services – “the private allocation of force, without central control”. A market would exist where providers of security and law compete for voluntarily paying customers that wish to receive the services rather than individuals being taxed without their consent and assigned a monopoly provider of force.” - - FOCJ: Functional, Overlapping, and Competing Jurisdictions – A reinvention of these 150-year old ideas by Swiss economists Bruno Frey and Reiner Eichenberger in the 1990s, in articles like FOCJ: Competitive Governments For Europe. - - Panarchy: “a conceptual term first coined by the Belgian botanist and economist Paul Emile de Puydt in 1860, referring to a specific form of governance (-archy) that would encompass (pan-) all others … In his 1860 article “Panarchy” de Puydt … applied the concept to the individual’s right to choose any form of government without being forced to move from their current locale. This is sometimes described as “extra-territorial” (or “exterritorial”) since governments often would serve non-contiguous parcels of land.” - - Arnold Kling contributes a post about the idea, which he calls Virtual Secession: The problem with physical secession is that it is very difficult to achieve critical mass. There is probably not much overlap between the people you want to live with and the people who want to choose your particular form of government. The vast majority of us put up with government we dislike in order to live in proximity to people with whom we want to work and play. - With virtual secession, you could still live in San Francisco or Manhattan or Silver Spring while seceding from much of the government at the city, state, and Federal level. You and your next-door neighbor might belong to very different governmental units. - Arnold also has a paper on Competitive Government which covers a number of different models, some much like non-territorial secession, with great references. (A post of mine about how seasteading relates). - - Historical Cases: Historical context is very important when it comes to questioning the current method of governing. If a system has worked in the past, it is much more likely to be able to work in the future. I have two favorite references for historical methods of providing today’s government services privately on a person-by-person basis. The first is The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society, edited by David Beito, Peter Gordon, and Alexander Tabarrok. Its essays contain a wide range of examples of past methods of providing today’s monopoly services on a voluntary basis. The second is The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The State, by Bruce Benson. In addition to offering theoretical discussions of virtual secession, the author covers the history of law enforcement in England over the last millennia. This history gives the lie to today’s automatic assumption that courts and police must be public monopolies. Systems very different from what we are used to can function, and function well – sometimes even better than our own. This book influenced me strongly, by giving historical reality behind a set of ideas that I had thought might only work in theory. - - There are other interesting examples of societies where laws enforcement was provided in a non-territorial fashion, such as David Friedman’s work on Iceland and the Xeer law in Somalia. Peter Leeson’s Cato Unbound essay Self-Governance Works More Often Than You Think contains numerous historical examples as well. - - Polycentric Law. - This article by law professor Tom Bell is a good introduction from a legal perspective, and Randy Barnett wrote an entire book, The Structure of Liberty, exploring the idea of a polycentric constitutional order. - Bruce Benson, whose book will be discussed below, has a good article about Polycentric Governance: Let me say that my own preferred terminology here is “customary law communities” (bottom-up development of rules and institutions as opposed to top-down imposition of rules and institutions under “authoritarian law”). These communities do not just rely on self-enforcement in the sense of unilateral (morality-driven) or bilateral (e.g. tit-for-tat) actions. They often establish third party dispute resolution mechanisms (arbitration, mediation) backed by ostracism threats, and other institutions. - - The first point I want to make is that while these communities may be based on geographic proximity, they also may be based on kinship, functional proximity as in a trade association or the “business community,” religion, or any of a number of factors that create repeated dealings and/or reputation effects). - This article is part of an entire issue of Cato Unbound, in August 2007, devoted to a discussion of non-territorial governance, although with a rather more provocative title: "Pirates, Collapsed States, and the Possibility of Anarchy. WHO NEEDS GOVERNMENT? - Peter Leeson, Bruce Benson, Dani Rodrik, Randall Holcombe.

NON-TERRITORIALISM: Rethinking Sovereignty - 2009 June 28. Leave a comment - tags: Jurgen Brauer, Politics, Robert Haywood, Sovereignty - by Mike Gibson. - Michael Strong points us to a fascinating paper by Jurgen Brauer and Robert Haywood. Echoing the idea of breaking the monopoly on law, they argue against the concept of territorial based sovereignty. In its place, they imagine a type of polycentric sovereign order where, in any territory, political authority is fragmented and overlapping among states, civil society and private enterprise. They write: - - virtually the entire academic and public discussion regarding global governance is carried out in terms of the Westphalian-type, sovereign state-based, and state-centric system. But unlike global civil and commercial society, the members of that system are, ironically, the least global players. They cannot but act with merely local, parochial interests in mind. Thus, by design, state-based global governance is always likely to fall short of what is needed. Myopia prevails over utopia. - - What is needed is an enforceable, rules-based global structure that balances the respective strengths of political, civil, and commercial society, the first operating through power, the second through moral suasion, and the third through markets. Indeed, humanity’s very conception of sovereignty must return to its pre-1648 sense: universal assertion of authority and universal assertion of supremacy, but in a non-territorial way. (For example, religious doctrine generally asserts universal authority and supremacy over the faithful, wherever they may be located.) The question arises of how this can possibly be achieved today. Our suggestion looks to non-state sovereign (civil society and commercial) entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. This refers to trans-boundary, non-state actors as they impinge on and aim to supplement, even supplant, certain powers of sovereign states. - - Commercializing the success of free economic zones like the Dubai International Finance Center and Hong Kong is one way to realize a portion of their framework. On that note, Strong and Robert Himber have a new article in Economic Affairs on the lessons Dubai offers for such free market reforms. - Hints in: Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom.

NON-VIOLENCE & VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP: To eliminate the violence inherent and consequent upon our statist territorial organizations, within them and between them, we ought, first of all, to make State membership as voluntary as church membership is or ought to be. - J.Z., 3.9.91, 13.1.93.

NON-VIOLENCE: A non-violent revolution is not a program of seizure of power. It is a program of transformation of relationships, ending in a peaceful transfer of power.” – Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violence in Peace and War, 1948, 2.8. – Underlining by me. – If only power transfer is involved then this method is, in this respect, not any better than territorial and collectivist voting. - So much ado is made about his use of non-violence, towards a non-totalitarian colonialist regime, which had promoted much progress and enlightenment in India and also provided a common language at least for its intellectuals. Gandhi, alas, remained a territorial nationalist. Territorial power was still his objective and his kind of territorial independence led to territorial divisions of India, to civil war mass murders, terrorism, wars and nuclear armament of Pakistan and India and numerous assassinations, including his own. He did not recognize the nature of territorial States as warfare States, in most cases of the larger States. – J.Z., 21.1.08. – GANDHI, INDIA, PAKISTAN, TERRITORIALISM

NON-VIOLENCE: All non-violent resistance efforts are stumbling towards individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for volunteers - unless they, too, aim to intervene with the affairs of others. - J.Z., 6.9.87. - Small scale examples of this trend are a) conscientious objection to military service and b) the limited tax strikes so far practised, c) the all too limited "opting out" of dissatisfied youths, sometimes merely going to radical language, other dances, music, dress and hair styles, retreatism, drug use etc. - J.Z., 6.9.87 & 26.1.02. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL & MINORITY GROUP SECESSIONISM, GRADUALISM

NON-VIOLENCE: Have I not repeatedly said that I would rather India became free even by violence rather than she should remain in bondage? – Mahatma Gandhi, March 1922. – How much did he know and understand about political, economic and social freedom? In economics he wanted to go back to primitive spinning and weaving tools. - - What good has territorial political independence so far done for India? All the positive changes that have developed are rather due to some economic liberties and technological and scientific progress, as far as I know. Are the really significant innovators in India now any more free than they were before or still under territorial domination by those full of popular prejudices and all too little knowledge and moral restraints? – J.Z., 26.1.08. - Was the extensive personal law tradition in India ever applied not only in the religious sphere but also in the political and social spheres? - J.Z., 12.1.11. & VIOLENCE, FORCE, COMPULSION, COERCION, GANDHI, FREEDOM

NON-VIOLENCE: I do not oppose non-violence and pacifism as a whole but merely its extremist positions as the supposedly only moral, rational and practical ways. This position is almost as wrong and dangerous as that of territorial interventionism, namely that everything could be solved by such a use of force. – J.Z., 1986. On the other hand, I do take some extreme positions myself, e.g. against all ABC mass murder devices and against nuclear reactors as potential nuclear weapons factories. – J.Z., 25.1.08. - & PACIFISM, NWT

NON-VIOLENCE: Rather than trying further nonviolent confrontations between territorial warfare States and their victims, we should dismantle the power and violence inherent in these forms of States, so that, afterwards, even most nonviolent confrontations would be unnecessary - because the dissenters would be free to rule themselves and their own affairs. – J.Z., 17.8.93, 13.6.12.

NON-VIOLENCE: The main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations.” – Errico Malatesta, La Questione Sociale, November 25, 1899. – Removal of compulsion rather than of violence. For sometimes violent or forceful defence of rights and liberties against aggressors is required. Any voluntary society that favored e.g. duels, boxing, wrestling, karate fights and forms of rather violent football would still fit into an anarchist-panarchist and voluntarist framework. No one is compelled to participate in such practices or to watch them. – J.Z., 23.6.93, 24.1.08. - OR VOLUNTARISM? ANARCHISM, DIS., VIOLENCE

NON-VIOLENCE: To eliminate the violence inherent within and consequent upon our territorial States and between such States, we should, first of all, make state membership and subordination as voluntary, competitive, and peacefully coexistent as they ought to be and as e.g. church and sect membership already are - in most countries. – J.Z., 3.9.91, 13.1.93, 24.1.08. - & PANARCHISM, VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP, TERRITORIALISM

NON-VIOLENCE: While panarchism favors non-violence and voluntarism, it does not declare them to be absolute values in all situations. It distinguishes between violence and voluntarism used for aggression (acts against genuine individual rights and liberties) from rightful force, defensively used against aggressors, and, as far as possible, against aggressors only, whether the aggressors like that or not. It is the aggressors who ought to become non-violent and who ought to try to spread their ideas only by voluntary means. It is obvious that for all creative, productive, innovative attempts one should use only voluntary supporters and towards others only persuasion. But defensive actions in support of basic rights and liberties – and still respecting the basic rights and liberties of those not participating in an aggression, may use rightful force and rightful weapons discriminatingly used, but not e.g., mass murder devices or methods. Territorial governments are wrong in using violence aggressively against dissenters or opponents to what these governments claim to be their territorial monopoly. Such wrongful claims can be rightly resisted also by defensive force. However, such force should only be used as a last resort and, as far as possible, non-violent means should be utilized, like public secession declarations, appeals to the armed forces of a territorial regime, the proclamation of quite rightful peace aims, tax strikes, monetary revolutions, alternative and parallel institutions. These and other non-violent measures could and should be used to reduce armed clashes to a minimum and, ideally, avoid them altogether. – J.Z., 14. & 17.1.05, 12.1.11. - VS. VIOLENCE & THE USE OF FORCE UNDER PANARCHISM, DEFENCE VS. AGGRESSION

NON-VOTING: Ignoring the State is what most Americans do during their voluntary elections, by not voting or running for office. If they were given the voting options regarding taxation, then many of them might go the whole way in ignoring the State - while doing their own thing among and to themselves. -. - Let them make their own decisions at the own expense and risk. Obviously, major and minor decision-making by territorial politicians and bureaucrats only is very risky and very expensive for their subjects and quite wrong for all their involuntary but peaceful subjects. - J.Z., 29.11.92, 3.1.93- 9.12.03, 13.6.12. - & NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE, VOTING, IGNORING THE STATE, PEOPLE TREATED AS PROPERTY, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-DETERMINATION

NONE OF THE ABOVE: I have been working with a gang of friends in Hawaii to get a “none of the above” place on the ballot. I view that as a step towards secession, as a matter of fact. Once people become conscious of how silly most political personality choices are they may be come conscious of how very silly most remote politics are in general … As for a national movement which, in fact would encourage communities to act as though they had seceded, I see a strong need and response. Perhaps both things go together.” – Karl Hess, Letter to Martin Shepard. – I found this somewhere reproduced. – Here he seems to have in mind only geographical secessionism and local self-government. - J.Z., 15.6.92. - SECESSIONISM, VOTING, PANARCHISM

NON-INTERFERENCE: I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men’s rights. – Abraham Lincoln. - What Lincoln thought and did not add: As long as he obeys me, as leader of the Federal government and supreme commander of its armed forces, regardless of how I abuse these powers, in a country to be unified, in my opinion, under my rule. - At his time and in his position he was the greatest interventionist with men's rights, liberties and properties. Just look at the blood price to be paid for his policies. His power meant much more to him than the abolition of slavery, granted only late in the Civil War. - J.Z., 22. 11. 06. - Ignore their words but pay heed to their actions! - J.Z., 12.1.11. - RIGHTS, LIBERTIES, POLITICIANS, LINCOLN, CIVIL WAR, SECESSION, POWER, UNIFORMITYK

NON-INTERFERENCE: Tolerant people "make a religion of not interfering with each other." - J. R. Wilson, The Side of the Angels, Collins, London, 1968, p.86. - TOLERANCE

NONINTERVENTION: See PAUL, RON, on Iraq, where at least he proposes 3 different communities.

NORADOUNGHIAN, G.: Recueil d'actes Internationaux de I'Empire Ottoman, 4 vols., Paris, 1897-1903.

NORTH KOREA: Its government stand seems to be: If you do not like us getting more nuclear weapons and try to prevent us from getting them, we will nuke you now, with the few we already have. – J.Z., 16.7.03. – Which is the right response to such governments? Certainly not using nuclear weapons against them or their nuclear installations or against their all too helpless subjects. – Or mere diplomacy or international recognition for them and their “territorial integrity”. – But, e.g., a quite rightful revolution, military insurrection and liberation program might help, if e.g. broadcast and provided online, especially when supported by xyz governments and societies in exile, representing present refugee volunteers and future voluntary members or subjects and fully recognized as such, in their exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. – Such models, made known and understood, could melt the “ice” of territorial despotism and tyranny like sunshine and warm winds do. - None of them has anything better to offer. - J.Z., 23.10.07, 12.1.11. - NORTH KOREAN GOVERNMENT & NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, PANARCHISM, REVOLUTION, MILITARY INSURRECTION & QUITE RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS & PEACE PROGRAM, TYRANNICIDE OR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY? IDEAL DECLARATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, CRIMINAL GOVERNMENTS, LIBERATION, RIGHTFUL GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE

NORTON-KYSHE, JAMES WILLIAM: The history of the laws and courts of Hong Kong from the earliest period to 1898, Hong Kong, Vetch & Lee, 1971, 2 vols., on consular jurisdiction. - Here is another instance, of an extensive legal literature that has no or quite insufficient influence on the political thinking, actions and institutions of our times, just like the extensive atheist, libertarian and anarchistic literature of the last few centuries.  Without freedom to experiment with alternative institutions, ideologies and laws, the ideas of exterritorial autonomy have not sufficient power and the few historical and contemporary practices of it remain largely ignored by the mass media and the dominant "political science", just like religious liberty was ignored, for centuries, under the dominance of the Catholic Church. Moreover, all the sparks and fuel for a panarchistic chain reaction were never sufficiently brought together. A panarchist encyclopedia could remedy that aspect, if is combined with a complete bibliography, abstracts and review collection, comprehensive, cheap and permanent publishing of all related writings on alternative media and with private human rights drafts that include all these liberties, too. We must e.g. not only envision quite free juries as alternatives to the present government courts, although these, as Spooner described, might also lead the rapid repeal or non-application of most of the oppressive laws. - J.Z., 2.9.04. 

NOTTEN, MICHAEL VON: An extract from Michael von Notten's essay: The Political Rationale for Free Zones in Europe, from: "FREEDOM IN OUR TIME", a collection of libertarian classics, ed. by Vincent E. Miller, 52, in ON PANARCHY X, in PP 755.

NOZICK, ROBERT: Anarchy, State & Utopia. Here he describes his "meta-utopia" concept, closely related to panarchism: 8, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. - On Meta-Utopia, 17, in ON PANARCHY VI, in PP 585. - Robert Nozick has described the metautopia, “utopia” as a “framework for [multiple] utopias,” - When I searched for it, in 07, Google brought me 89 results on "Nozick +metautopia". - J.Z. - coercion libertarianism K - Here Nozick, finding incredible the supposition that there is one best form of society for everyone, proposes instead a "metautopia"- a framework for many ... 320k - Cached - Similar pages - - Matters of Gravity: Special Effects and Supermen in the 20th Century - Google Books Result - by Scott Bukatman - 2003 - Social Science - 279 pages. - Robert Nozick has described the metautopia, “utopia” as a “framework for [multiple] utopias,” and America, “the promised land,” is perhaps the …. - His concept of a “meta-utopia” is rather panarchistic and should be more discussed than it was so far, to my knowledge. – J.Z., 18.1.09.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: President Johnson, in his television address to the nation on 21 January 1965, … said: “Disarmament is not merely the Government’s business, but everybody’s business.” - … But how much concerned with disarmament is “everybody”? One hopes that this is not another case of “What is everybody’s business is nobody’s business”. Of course, all of us should be concerned about disarmament, since the policies adopted by the government may determine whether we will live out our natural lives or be burned up, buried under rubble, radioactivated, or perish in some of the other horrid eventualities that will rise if the arms race runs on uncontrolled and the nations continue to rely on ever-increasing armed force for security.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.178. – But how much say do the nations and their individuals have on such subjects? At present dissenters are not even free to secede from nuclear-armed territorial governments and to engage in their own kind of “foreign” policy of making allies or friends or staying neutral. – Territorial States or, rather, their governments, still have a decision-making monopoly on such questions and that constitutional or usurped authority is only rarely questioned. Thus their subjects become targets for mass murder devices. They are considered merely as property of territorial governments. – J.Z. - DEMOCRACY, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, PEOPLE, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, DISARMAMENT, WEAPONS OF MASS MURDER & MASS DESTRUCTION

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: The general flaw of nuclear disarmament proposals was that it was entrusted to territorial governments, i.e., essentially, to Warfare States! That is like entrusting crime-fighting to the Mafia. - - Under international "controls" by governments and their international institutions nuclear proliferation is continuing and even private terrorists get some chances to arm themselves with such "weapons". - We have reached the absurd condition where more "democratic" governments possess these mass murder devices than dictatorial ones! At least at present they seem to have them also in much greater numbers. - Who and where are the people, who constitute the targets for these "weapons"? They are totally powerless and without influence, in this respect - and thus hopeless and apathetic. - These “weapons” are anti-people "weapons" not weapons suitable e.g. to execute or capture tyrants. They are the most anti-democratic "weapons" that can be imagined. - They are quite unsuitable for the defence of democracies and for the liberation of captive peoples. - Blind militarism, believing only in "big bangs" or "gang bangs" remains, obviously, even after decades, still ignorant of these facts or not caring enough about them. - Thus they offered enough evidence to make the disbandment of all standing armies urgent. Governments unable to enforce gun control towards violent criminals should not be expected to be successful in their attempts to achieve nuclear disarmament of criminal governments, or other terrorists, especially when they themselves are criminal enough to have armed themselves with nuclear mass murder devices rather than e.g. tyrannicide weapons or policing weapons only. - Atomic "weapons", not to speak of chemical and bacteriological "weapons", can all too easily be hidden - and governmental inspectors are unlikely to find them all or even most of them. - J.Z., 27 5 06, 12.1.11, 23.6.12. - BY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS? NUCLEAR OR EVEN GENERAL DISARMAMENT? DIS., NWT

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Even most advocates of "limited governments" still favor unlimited nuclear strength and do not notice the contradiction. - Nuclear strength means absurd strength: It holds the victims rather than the culprits responsible. The culprits might survive, in the safest bunkers. - To defeat a dictator, much less destructive weapons than nuclear devices are required. Otherwise his victims maybe completely wiped out instead and their oppressors may well be the only survivors. - Nuclear strength means: If anything goes wrong, all goes wrong and we have had it. - - "A nuclear armed nation is like a mouse with detonator teeth and a nitroglycerine- soaked tongue"  suggested D.Z., 7. 12. 73, when he was ten. - All nuclear strength policies remind me of the words of a rowing boat captain to his crew: "It's not all brute strength and stupidity!" - Nuclear strength is an invitation to disaster: It makes us a primary nuclear target for others. - -All in all, it amounts not to an extreme strength but an extreme weakness in national and individual security. Security can only be achieved when nobody has any nuclear strength left. To possess only a suicidal strength does indicate an extreme military weakness, probably the most dangerous of all. - - "1945 gave us a whole new situation. Up to then it was people who ran out of time. Now there's always the chance that time will run out of people first."  William Garner, "The Us or Them War", end of ch.27. Don't let time run out of people! would be a shorter version. - - Nuclear strength means wide-spread individual powerlessness, since nuclear power in the hands of a few renders all others impotent. (One might well ask whether most of those with nuclear potency want to make up for sexual impotence due to their age.) - Admittedly, nuclear strength in everyone's hands would make everybody even more insecure and, probably, would reduce our survival chances to hours or even minutes only. - Only the power to destroy all nuclear powers ought to be in everybody's hands. The only rightful and sensible conclusion is not a further monopolization of nuclear power but a general decision that nobody ought to be allowed any ABC mass murder devices. That is the only “gun control” we really need. It would be impossible to effectively control anybody's nuclear strength with complete safety, if he is left in possession. - - But all nuclear strength could be destroyed. This process of destruction can be controlled although not by governments, no matter how "strong" they are. It could be achieved by people properly armed, organized, trained and motivated for this, best in ideal militia forces. - - No moral or rational aim can be achieved with nuclear strength. What is usually called "nuclear strength" is nothing but a scientific preparation for mass murder. If you want to make friends with the innocents you have first of all to cease threatening them, indiscriminately, together with their oppressors. - Another kind of chain reaction, induced among the enemy's conscripts, could come to dissolve a criminal regime's military forces - by desertion or turning them against him en bloc, in a military insurrection, is a much more effective approach to peace than any nuclear chain reaction and it is also a way to avoid nuclear war. - - Secede from all nuclear powers and associate against them on an exterritorial basis, which does not offer them any nuclear targets. - Real strength instead of the fiction of nuclear "strength", would lie e.g. in the following measures and preparations: Outlawry and tyrannicide of all who retain or build nuclear mass murder devices. - Induced mass desertions from the enemy's forces. - Alliances with governments in exile, offered in panarchistic variety, all of them only for their present and future volunteers. Public declaration of quite just war aims. - Revolutionary warfare, leading e. g. to military uprisings among the enemy's forces. - - Separate peace treaties with the enemy's armies. - Establishment of militias for the protection of human rights  largely with deserters from the enemy regime's military forces. - Highly discriminating destructive warfare measures, like destruction of furnaces and ball-bearing industries only  but without nuclear weapons. - Respect fur the human rights even of the enemy's soldiers and civilians. - Proper clarification of who the real enemy is. - Appeals and declarations which could and would be trusted even by the enemy's soldiers. - - See: Accidental War, Acuteness of Danger, Arms Race, Backfiring, Decision, Collective Responsibility, Defence, Deterrence, Disarmament, Control, Doomsday Bomb, Enemy, Failsafe, Exterritorial Imperative, Madness, Overkill, Politicians, Power, Responsibility, Sleeplessness, Strength, Surrender, Targets, Terrorism, Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Tyrannicide, War Aims. - From: J.Z., An ABC Against Nuclear War. – Slightly revised here: J.Z., 13.6.12. -  GOVERNMENTS & NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT MIX WITH PEACE

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: Right now the US nuclear arsenal contains the equivalent of 615,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs. That's enough to annihilate every major Russian city 36 times over. The Russians are not quite so well supplied. They have only the capacity to annihilate every major American city 11 times. As of last count, the USSR was adding one new nuke every 48 hours, the US one every 8." - Frederick Pohl, DESTINIES, 2/4, p.28. - The bombs are not "Hiroshima-sized" but can be carried in a bomber or a rocket. And "the Russians" were and are made up of over 100 ethnic groups, many of them considering Russians as foreign invaders with a foreign religion and ideology. - J.Z., 20.11.02. - So who was the real enemy there? Who is it now, in any territory? - J.Z., 12.1.11. - ENEMIES OR SECRET ALLIES?, Q.

NUCLEAR STRENGTH: So much money, thought and labor have been invested in the wrongful principles, practices and aims that are based on territorialism and collective responsibility notions and so little thought, money and labor have been directed - in a rightful and sensible way - against the real enemy, namely tyrannical regimes and all regimes that are tyrannical to the extent that they are territorial. - J.Z., 4.2.02, 7.2.02. - DEFENCE, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY AND TYRANNICIDE, TERRITORIALISM, ENEMY

NUCLEAR TARGETS: All taxpayers are held collectively responsible, even in States that imagine themselves to be anti-communistic and opposed to State-socialism. All citizens living in nuclear target areas are also held collectively responsible for the actions of their governments. And the "nuclear strength" policy of their governments runs under the misnomer: "defence of freedom", leaving unstated: "via mass-murder devices!" Coercive collective responsibility is one of the essences of enforced territorial collectivism. - J.Z., 27.10.78 & 1.5.06. - TAXATION & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR PREVENTION: Extracts from: "An ABC Against Nuclear  War", PEACE PLANS 16-18, 1975, later re-fiched in PP 16-17 and also digitized, by J. Zube, pages 77-88. From: "Action, freedom of" to: "Enemy, wrong ideas on -". , in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507. - The whole book is now on and also accessible through  - Nukes are just another immoral idiocy of territorial governments - and depend on territorialism being continued. Why continue it, when it has nothing to offer us than "blood, sweat and tears"? - J.Z.

NUCLEAR WAR PREVENTION: Why Would the Basic, Libertarian and Constitutional Reform advocated by PEACE PLANS Prevent Atomic War, Stop the Nuclear Arms Race and Make almost Everyone Interested in One-sided Nuclear Disarmament? Plan 221, pages 30-35,., in ON PANARCHY III, in PP 507. (One of several attempts to sum up my book on the subject. - J.Z.) - NWT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & PANARCHISM: An unfinished manuscript by J.Z., from 2006. I don't know whether I will have the time or energy to finish it. Anyone willing to collaborate to improve and finish it. So far 108 pages in Word. Unzipped, with summaries, not used so far, 787 Kbs. Here I reproduce only the title and contents list. I will send the lot to anyone interested by zipped email attachment and do not make any copyrights claims. The topic is too important for such restrictions. Obviously, we cannot rely on full nuclear disarmament through territorial governments. More and more other terrorists are also likely to get their hands on such "weapons". - - PEACE THROUGH POPULAR NOTIONS - OR THROUGH THE SO FAR LARGELY UNKNOWN & THUS UNPOPULAR PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHISM? - A THOUGHT GAME AGAINST NUCLEAR WAR, by John Zube, - May 2006 - Still the same email address in 2011. - If you think that you have or know of any better peace proposals, please, do point them out to me! - Editorial improvement tips and supplementary information are welcomed as well. - I consider this to be a work permanently in progress, for the rest of my life. I am also prepared to consider the following and other of my writings only as personal suggestions and submissions and to let all of mankind, gradually, develop and write its own liberation, peace, justice and progress "Bible", or guide or reference work, inspired by the best ideas and the greatest knowledge that are on offer. My own knowledge is all too limited, as everyone's is, of necessity. We can read only about 20 000 books during our lives and more than 400 million were published so far. - I am not a genius or a prophet and I am not divinely inspired but simply became enthusiastic about certain ideas stated by others. Hopefully, some of my readers will, gradually, come to share this enthusiasm. - Do compare my two prior peace books, which are already online: and - If you are interested in helping to solve this remaining great problem, do become a co-writer or co-editor of this book - of use only whatever you like from it for your own book on the subject. - PIOT, John Zube, 11.9.11. - - - CONTENTS: INTRODUCTION - - ALTOGETHER TWELVE TYPICAL THOUGHT GAMES OR DREAMS, SHORTLY DISCUSSED. - - AT FIRST ONLY FOUR SAMPLES REGARDING THE LEADERS THEMSELVES. - - DREAM ONE: BRANDING THE DECISION-MAKERS or SHOWING THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE. - - DREAM TWO: PUTTING THE DECISION-MAKERS INTO NUCLEAR TARGETS. - - DREAM THREE: REALLY MAKING NUCLEAR WAR DECISIONS SUICIDAL FOR ALL SUCH MONOPOLY DECISION-MAKERS. - - DREAM FOUR: DUELS AMONG THE LEADERS. - - SOME FURTHER GENERAL COMMENTS TO THE ABOVE FOUR DREAMS. - - EIGHT POPULAR DREAMS REGARDING CHANGES OF INSTITUTIONS SYSTEMS, PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES. - - DREAM FIVE: A WORLD RELIGION. - - DREAM SIX: WORLD GOVERNMENT. - - DREAM SEVEN: WORLD LAW. - - DREAM EIGHT: A WORLD COURT. - - DREAM NINE: A WORLD POLICE FORCE - - DREAM TEN: A WORLD LANGUAGE. - - DREAM ELEVEN: THE GENERAL ADOPTION OF NON-VIOLENT METHODS ONLY. - - DREAM TWELVE: NUCLEAR OR EVEN GENERAL DISARMAMENT. - - SO, WHAT IS TO BE DONE, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION? - SOME THOUGHTS ON THE PANARCHISTIC OR POLYARCHIC "UTOPIA", ONE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING THE RULES OF THE USUAL POLITICAL GAME FROM TERRITORIALISM TO EXTERRITORIALISM AND FROM COMPULSORY PARTICIPATION TO VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION ONLY. - IS THIS THE ONLY UTOPIA THAT IS NOT TOO UNREALISTIC OR UTOPIAN? - INTRODUCTION TO THIS MAIN PART. - WHAT IS MEANT BY EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL COMMUNITIES, SOCIETIES AND COMPETING GOVERNMENTS OF VOLUNTEERS, FOR ALL, WHO DO WANT IT FOR THEMSELVES? THEY HAVE BEEN CALLED PANARCHIES OR POLYARCHIES. AND WHY SHOULD THEY BE INTRODUCED? - - MORE THOUGHTS ON THE PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHISM OF THE FUTURE. - - WHAT WOULD THE PANARCHIC OR POLYARCHIC CHANGE OF THE PRESENT POLITICAL TERRITORIAL GAMES RULES MEAN, ESPECIALLY FOR THE WAR AND PEACE SITUATION? - - STILL MORE ARGUMENTS FOR THE NEW AND ONLY EXTERRITORIALLY AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITIES OF ALL KINDS. - - REALLY FREE CHOICES IN ALL SPHERES! - - ONCE AGAIN: FURTHER GENERAL PANARCHIST FORMULATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS. - - SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THE PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHISM OF THE FUTURE. - - THE PANARCHISTIC AND REALLY DEMOCRATIC CHANGE TOWARDS NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. - - AN OBJECTION RE WAR AND PEACE. - - NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE? - - WHAT ABOUT ABORTIONS AND THE RIGHT TO LIFE? - - WHAT ABOUT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS , PUBLIC WORKS, COMMON INTERESTS IN IMPROVING OUR ENVIRONMENT? - - ELECTIONS? VOTING? DEMOCRACIES? - - SOME MORE DOUBTS, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. - - WHO SHOULD BE ABLE AND WILLING AND SHOULD DECIDE? - - MILITIAS, VOLUNTARY, TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES. - - OVERCOMING THE CONSTITUTIONAL, LEGAL AND JURIDICAL BARRIERS OF TERRITORIALISM. - - OUTLAWRY & TYRANNICIDE. - - MORE ENLIGHTENMENT EFFORTS ARE NEEDED E.G. ON INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS, RIGHTFUL WAR AND PEACE AIMS AND VOLUNTEER MILITIAS FOR THEIR PROTECTION. - - HOW TO GET FROM HERE TO THERE? - - PANARCHISM & POLYARCHISM: A NEW POLITICAL SCIENCE AND NEW POLITICAL PRACTICE. - - WILL IT, TOO, BE IMPOSED? - - CONCLUSION. - TWO APPENDIXES: 1) THE LMP PEACE QUESTIONNAIRE. - - 2.) MAX NETTLAU ON PANARCHISM. - - ANNOTATIONS. - - AN UNASKED-FOR "PROPHECY" - NWT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & PANARCHISM: Panarchism is the only political philosophy and practice that can drag us out of the nuclear mess. Nevertheless, some libertarians manage to ignore it and the nuclear threats and thereby confirm the worst myths and fears of collectivists. With nuclear “weapons” one cannot commit tyrannicide, i.e., hold criminals individually responsible, without also killing thousands to millions of his victims. The ABC mass murder devices, by their very nature, when used, apply the wrongful “principle” of collective responsibility.  To use an analogy:  It is as if the police, in the pursuit of some armed bandits within a city were to use heavy artillery bombardment or area bombing against those city districts in which they suspect the criminals to hide. To re-examine their nuclear faith, I would like these “libertarians” and “defenders” of liberty to at least read Murray N. Rothbard’s short essay: War, Peace and the State, if not my own ABC Against Nuclear War, in PEACE PLANS 16/17. - If panarchism were to mean that we would have to permit all the fans of ABC mass murder devices and of nuclear power plants to build and keep them, then I would come to oppose panarchism myself. Fortunately, it is the best means to release and organize all the anti-nuclear energies, to destroy the powers, motives and fears making for nuclear war between territorial States and panarchies would even destroy obvious targets for nuclear weapons and the secrecy required to build them and keep them in readiness. Under panarchism nuclear “strength” or strength in other indiscriminate mass murder devices would become one of the characteristics by which “leaders” would be defined as tyrants, which invite and justify tyrannicide. – J.Z., n.d. & 7.1.99. – There are no property rights and free exchange rights when it comes to the  possession and stockpiling of mass-murder devices. – J.Z., 14.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & PANARCHISM: See especially my second peace book: “An ABC Against Nuclear War”. - Panarchism would abolish the major preconditions for all wars, civil wars and revolutions. - "Perhaps most important of all, panarchism would do away with the threats arising from the mere existence of ABC mass murder or anti-people devices and of territorial governments able and willing to use them. E.g. no nuclear targets would remain nor any war and peace making monopoly. Motives and means for conducting international wars would tend to disappear and almost everybody would gain a personal interest in becoming also a disarmament inspector against the build-up of ABC mass murder devices by anyone, anywhere and at any time. Imagine the almost general outcry of all kinds of religious and non-religious people if the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches tried to arm themselves with nuclear "weapons" against each other. Everybody would realize that his own fate would then be at stake and that of mankind. No nuclear strength advocates would then get far with such an aspiration. Most religious people, today, would not even entertain such a notion in the first place. It would be too obviously wrong, self-defeating and absurd. On this aspect consult especially my book "An ABC Against Nuclear War", reproduced in PEACE PLANS 16-18." - J.Z. to Joe Toscana, March 96. -- Man must now be organized in a way to minimize the risk of nuclear war. Panarchism provides that organizational framework. It does not restrict any rightful aspirations, not even any wrongful and useless or destructive ones - provided, they are realized merely within the own sphere, among volunteers, i.e. at their own cost and risk only.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT & TOTALITARIANISM: Unless you learn to become tolerant - prepare yourself to become a slave or to die! (Compare especially PEACE PLANS 16-17 and 61-65, now online: - ) - DETERRENCE, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, ENEMIES, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: 1.) Better red than dead. 2.) Better dead than red. 3.) Neither dead nor red. (Unless an individual wants either for himself.) 4.) Better the reds dead. (A collective responsibility notion making for nuclear war.) 5.) To every enlightened person, and to every under-informed or stupid person just the system that he wants for himself and like-minded people. Under that condition no one has to be afraid of dissenters and revolutionaries or governments any longer, because all would be engaged with volunteers only. The few who would still try to dominate others would then encounter the combined resistance of all others, the vast majority, just like formerly well-poisoners and now known kidnappers and child molesters or child torturers or child sacrificers. There was at least that kind of progress in the world. - J.Z., 1. 5. 06. - FALSE & CORRECT ALTERNATIVES, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: 180 billion US $ planned for upgrading the US nuclear deterrence, but not even a million dollars for thoughts and ideas to make nuclear weapons superfluous. - J.Z., on news reported in THE AUSTRALIAN, 5.10.80. – Apparently, the vested interest involved in preparing for a general nuclear holocaust is enormous. – J.Z., 28.4.88. – And not one US taxpayer had any say on this use or abuse of his contribution or, rather, enforced tribute. – J.Z., 30.5.08, 27.2.09. - He is not even free to secede from such monstrous territorial States and to establish genuine societies and communities of volunteers only, all without a territorial monopoly. Nevertheless, the USA is considered to be a self-governing democracy or republic. In it an in all other territorial States, their subjects have only quite insignificant vote, on who is to be their master, not any against any territorial power over them. - J.Z., 12.1.11. - VOTING, DEMOCRACIES, REPUBLICS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A desperate, mad, frustrated world. And why? Because humanity has been hijacked. Literally this is what has happened, as all men are in fact hostages in their own countries. … We are hostages, because we are powerless as individuals, in view of the fact that we have placed ourselves in an indefensible position or at the mercy of those who trade in power.” - Kevork Ajemian, The Fallacy of Modern Politics, Books International, PO Box 6096, McLean, Virginia 22106, 1986, Tel. (703) 821-8900, p.197. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A physical and mental addiction to the power-high arising from the possession of mass murder devices is the worst, the most dangerous addiction of all times. It has driven territorial statism to the pinnacle of destructiveness, murderousness and absurdity. – J.Z., 10.7.88, 30.5.08. – DRUG ADDICTIONS, ADDICTIONS, POWER, POWER-MADNESS, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A reciprocal insanity (involving nuclear armaments) is at work in the world.” – Norman Cousins. - It is even more indiscriminately murderous and dangerous than the Inquisition was and the Nazi's Holocaust. Even the mere testing of its murder and torture instruments has already cost the lives of millions of victims, according to some reports on their radiation hazards. It is part and parcel of territorial politics and its power-games, going to the brink and all too often over it. That has not yet sufficiently deterred these power addicts and their past and future victims to induce them to think rightfully and sufficiently about the abolition of this danger and then to act accordingly. - J.Z., 13.1.11, 14.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A resolution to avoid an evil is seldom framed till the evil is so far advanced as to make avoidance impossible.” – Thomas Hardy, Far From the Madding Crowd, 1874, 18. – Maddening? – J.Z. - I find its lack of interest in its own and most important affairs maddening. - After all, these “weapons” are only man-made devices. All of us know how to kill but not all of us do apply that knowledge to those, who deserve to be executed for their crimes against whole nations or even mankind, even if they have only “prepared” for them by stockpiling these devices. – Official prizes on the heads of Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were first steps in this direction. – Why are the victims of the regimes e.g. in Iran and in North Korea threatened, rather than their rulers? - J.Z., 13.1.11, 14.6.12. - DIS., Q., TYRANNICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A second principle in the nuclear common world would be respect for the earth. This is nothing but a full realization of the ecological principle, according to which the earth’s environment is seen not merely as a surrounding element in which it is more or less pleasant to life but as the foundation of human as of other life. The oneness of the earth as a system of support for life is already visible around us. …” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.177. - I would rather start with respect for genuine individual rights and liberties, for our own lives and let the other living pests look out after themselves. - I have nothing in common with nuclear "weapons" and nuclear power, except that like me, they are on Earth. I do morally and rationally react against them, especially their builders owners and users (although mostly, so far, only in tests – as if it were terrible, if they would not work!) although we and they are all made up of sub-atomic particles, atoms and molecules. - Needed is an enlightened chain reaction against these devices and their users, rather than mere love or hate relationships based upon ignorance or prejudices. - None of us is as yet free to secede from these institutionalized wrongs and threats and to contribute towards disarming them. - J.Z., 13.1.11, 14.5.12. - RESPECT FOR THE EARTH & FOR OTHER LIFE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A thermonuclear war cannot be considered a continuation of politics by other means (according to the formula of Clausewitz). It would be a means of universal suicide." - Andrei Sakharov: Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom, p.32. – It is just more mass murderous than territorial warfare or civil war politics usually is - and follows directly from its false premises. - J.Z., 30.10.02, 14.6.12. - “Suicide” when less than one in a million has any say on war and peace, armament and disarmament? The careless use of language has led to the construction of nuclear “weapons” in the first place! – J.Z., 31.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A weapon is an enemy even to its owner.” – Turkish proverb. – At least it can be. I believe it applies to all of the ABC mass murder devices. – And this enemy should and could be disarmed by its potential victims, i.e., the peoples themselves, not by their territorial governments. I would say that this could be done, relatively easily, although not yet legally, for they are few and we are many. It would be even more easy for the military forces of a dictatorship, once they have got good reasons to trust the rightful peace promises, made by the subjects of their supposed enemy regimes, not its foreign ministers, prime ministers and diplomats, whom they have no reason at all to trust any more than they can trust their own authoritarian mis-rulers. - J.Z., 30.5.08, 27.2.09, 14.6.12. – WAR AIMS, PANARCHISM, LIBERATION, REVOLUTIONS, DIS., MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, DESERTIONS, REFUGEES, ASYLUM, MONETARY & FINANCIAL FREEDOM ALTERNATIVES COMPETITIVELY DEMONSTRATED

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: a West Coast correspondent for THE NATION in the Fall of 1958. He wandered into a press conference held by the head of the West Coast branch of an Eastern Seaboard company manufacturing instruments vital to rocket and missile production. The president of the firm, which derived 75 % of its business from war contracts, was in a jovial mood. He could see no threat, he said, of any cutbacks in government defense appropriations. - - - "You've got a big future in rockets and missiles," the reporter remarked conversationally.- - - "Tremendous," the president agreed. - - - The reporter wondered whether this wasn't an uncertain and risky business. Didn't it depend a lot on politics, on international affairs? - - -"Well, of course, our business would mushroom in an international crisis," Mr. Big said. - - -"Like what?" asked the reporter. - - - “War." - - - "What would happen to your business in a war between the United States and Russia?"- - - "As I said," Mr. Big re-explained patiently, "business would mushroom." - - - "For how many hours?" asked the reporter." - Fred J. Cook (11) (“The Warfare State”) – Corporations, with their thoughtless profit urge, have much contributed to the proliferation of nuclear mass murder devices, even among criminal regimes. Some things go beyond a joke. - But would any corporation have developed nuclear mass murder devices and their factories, nuclear reactors, without the support of territorial governments and their primitive power spleens? - J.Z., 13.1.11. - JOKES, CORPORATION PROFITS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: A. S. Suvorin mentions a passage of the novel (Dostojewski: Karamasow) in which Ivan Karamasov speaks to his saintly brother about the case of the general, who set his dogs to hound a peasant boy to death before they eyes of his mother; he asks Alesha whether he would want the general to be killed for this. Alesha, after a tormented silence, says, that he would. 'Bravo', says Ivan.” - Isaiah Berlin, Russian Thinkers, p.305. - What else should we do with the territorial nuclear weapons politicians and generals, who threaten to hound all of us to death, under the pretence of protecting us? - J.Z., 8. 11. 82. - & TYRANNICIDE, TERRITORIALISM & FEUDALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Abandon, ye people, all those chiefs who have their fingers hovering over nuclear war buttons and who are thus prepared to use anti-people mass murder devices. Outlaw them or secede from them. Grant them amnesty and anonymity only once they abdicated and surrender or destroyed at least one nuclear “weapon”. – We must leave them such a way out or they will attack like a cornered rat. - J.Z., 7.10.85, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Abolish the nuclear war “hot seats” and with them you would indirectly abolish the nuclear war threat, too. Allow no one to decide for nuclear war and allow everyone to secede from rulers thus armed with anti-people “weapons or mass murder devices. – 7.8.03. – And permit everyone to participate in the destruction or disabling of all such devices in the hands of anyone. – J.Z., 18.10.07, 13.1.11. - & THE DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Abolition of WMD’s in the hands of everyone, no exceptions (*) – but no restrictions upon rightful weapons in the hands of peaceful volunteers for the protection of individual rights and liberties? Can you imagine protecting e.g. freedom of speech and press with nuclear “weapons” or other mass murder devices? – J.Z., 24.10.07. - Only territorial politicians would be capable of such misjudgements. - J.Z., 13.1.11. – (*) Perhaps a few should be kept to deflect large meteors from their course towards Earth. – J.Z., 14.6.12. - & GUN CONTROLS, VICTIM DISARMAMENT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Accidental nuclear war? There is only one fail-safe way to prevent it: The destruction of all atomic weapons. Even after 100 years of attempts to develop quite “fail-safe” processes and systems one has still to expect some accidents and some of them could be disastrous. The danger of an accidental nuclear war is so great that it alone would already suffice to justify even unilateral nuclear disarmament. – J.Z., n.d., ca. 1964 & 14.6.12. - But it is not merely accidents that one has to fear with them when they are in the hands of territorial power mongers, whether of the despotic and obviously criminal kind or of the democratic or republican kind. Under territorialism the worst types get to the top and stay there for all too long. - J.Z., 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: After several centuries of bringing a variety of nightmarish futures into existence, we have now invented one so unbelievable and overwhelming that it (our future, our existence? – J.Z.) cannot now come to pass at all.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.143. – In this respect almost all human beings are in an automatic survival mode a fugue,  which psychologist call an attempt to escape from reality. For thinking of it constantly would drive us mad. – Especially if we do not see any way out or any sensible action for ourselves against this threat. Few are aware of the radical changes required and that, to achieve them, they have first to achieve a degree of freedom of action and choice for themselves, which, so far they almost never dreamed of. – J.Z., 21.9.07, 14.6.12. - DECLARATION OF ALL GENUINE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Agreement or destruction? The choice is simple.” - J. Hunter Holly, The Grey Aliens, p.119. - The choice is not so simple under territorial governments, which have monopolized all such decision-making and maintain themselves in power, largely by using force - and due to popular prejudices, myths and errors, as well as misleading propaganda. We are compulsory producers and consumers of "nuclear strength" and also compelled to be its victims. Institutions that would permit us free choice, in this and all other spheres, have still to be established and they are the opposite of the presently predominant territorial and more or less centralized States. - So far there was e.g. no referendum on nuclear armament or disarmament and, probably, there were only rare cases in which the building of a nuclear reactor was made dependent upon its approval by a referendum among the people living hundreds of km around it. - J.Z., 1. 5. 06. – Let us panarchistically and tolerantly as well as freely and competitively agree upon each of us to do the own things only to himself and like-minded people, always at the own risk and expense. See under PANARCHISM. – J.Z., 31.5.08. - No "neighbourly" nuclear weapons stockpiles or nuclear reactors! - J.Z., 13.1.11. - NEGOTIATIONS, AGREEMENTS, TREATY, TALKING WITH THE ENEMY ETC.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: All leading politicians should, perhaps, be tied to stakes or displayed in cages or stocks at the point zeros of all nuclear targets. Instead, we tolerate them sitting in the safest bunkers, with their fingers on nuclear “weapons” buttons, all too ready to use these mass murder devices against whole cities and peoples. – Hitler would have loved to be in such a powerful position. - J.Z., 12.3.06, 29.10.07. - Even many of the democratic - but still territorial - secular leaders have become mere "sky pilots", prepared to let us rise to heaven after a rapid transformation into very hot gas. - They can guaranty this performance better than the religious ones. - Nothing is less democratic and less republican than such preparations and performances. - But we are still not free to secede from these bastards and to send only them to Hell. - J.Z., 13.1.11. - & ITS DECISION-MAKERS, TERRITORIALISM, POWER ADDICTS, LEADERSHIP, TYRANNICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: All lovers of liberty and peace should take note how slow governments are to destroy their anti-people mass murder devices accumulated during the cold war under the pretence of nuclear strength and deterrence, even after the cold war has become largely a defunct cold war. – J.Z., 1.1.93, 30.5.08. - TERRITORIALISM, POWER GAMES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: all nuclear weapons immoral … the world leadership collectively insane.” - James P. Hogan, Endgame Enigma, 230. - Merely to strive for territorial power over whole populations is already a sufficient proof of insanity. By believing that they could rightly and effectively lead a whole population, even the democratic leaders are already more insane than those insane people, who try to assassinate them. The limited voting rights we have now, under the present conditions of insufficient enlightenment, permits us only to replace one such insane "leader" by another one. The territorial statist belief is still, essentially, the same as when it was expressed by saying: "The King is dead. Long live the King." - J.Z., 13.1.11. & LEADERSHIP, RULERS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, POLITICIANS, MADNESS, IRRATIONALITY, IMMORALITY, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: All people under 37 now were born into a world with nuclear weapons, never had a choice or say in the matter. Their fate is presently still territorially decided by some much older fools in wrongful power positions. – This Situation is basically unchanged even now, many years later. - J.Z., 4.8.82, 13.1.11. - DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: All the earth fears an atomic war and would do anything to avoid it, yet all the earth fears that an atomic war is inevitable.” – Isaac Asimov, Breeds There a Man …? – The Earth as such can’t fear or do anything. It’s peoples could e.g. consider their exterritorial autonomy, monetary freedom, and voluntary taxation alternatives and ways how to realize them, as well as all other alternatives to the existing territorial monopolies and coercion. They could study their ideal militia options, produce, finally, an ideal declaration of individual human rights and liberties, agree on quite rightful war and peace aims as well as genuine and quite rightful defence, liberation and revolution methods, rather than amusing or entertaining themselves, enjoying their little luxuries and engaging in various sports (mainly only as observers) and committing themselves to hobbies and crafts while mankind approaches more and more its extermination by its territorial rulers. They do not even seriously consider individual and group secessionism from all the mis-leaders who lead them towards nuclear war and, possibly, the extinction of mankind. – They still “dance at the edge of a volcano” about to erupt. – J.Z., n.d. & 24.1.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: All too many territorial governments are armed against the people of the world with nuclear or anti-people “weapons” or, rather mass murder devices, while pretending that they are only armed to protect the people of the world. Nuclear weapons are obviously unsuitable to be used only against aggressive governments rather than their victimized and exploited subjects. – J.Z., 19.10.06, 26.10.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Alliances with nuclear powers are alliances with governments that are prepared to commit mass murders. – J.Z., 12.2.88. – Yet the crimes acts clauses on conspiracy to commit murder are not applied to any of these governments. – They got away with this for decades. – And the diverse peoples of the world are still helpless and all too thoughtless pawns or clay in their hands. - J.Z., 30.5.08. - TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Almost all nations are now too big, ‘beyond the safety point’," - Sir Ernest Benn, Confessions of a Capitalist. - They ought to become decentralized to make them less exposed targets for destructive and mass murderous ABC devices. Ultimate safety against the use of such devices lies only in the recognition and realisation of individual sovereignty everywhere, which, socially, means exterritorial autonomy for all volunteer groups or their self-determination under personal laws. - That would remove the targets, motives and financial means for mass murder or anti-people weapons and facilitate their disarmament. - J.Z., 22.5.82, 4.8.82, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Almost all of the still all too numerous statists support their territorial governments in their “Russian Roulette” games with the nuclear war threat. – J.Z., 8.11.03, 26.10.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Almost everyone has acknowledged on some level that the peril exists, but the knowledge has been without consequences in our feelings and our actions, and the superpowers have proceeded with their nuclear buildups, in the recent words of George Kennan, “like the victims of some sort of hypnotism, like men in a dream, like lemmings heading for the sea.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.148. - As territorialists people and their misleaders can see no way out. - J.Z., 13.1.11. – STATISM, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Already merely from the position of psychological warfare we should realize that the "balance of terror" - continually playing at "soldiering" with "super-weapons", which might end in a general holocaust, cannot be a permanent solution but is a continuing vast problem. It does not win any friends but multiplies enemies. The offer of full experimental freedom, on the basis of exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, on the other hand, would multiply friends and neutrals and minimize enemies almost to zero. Thus this is, possibly, the most moral, rational and suitable "weapon" against the threat posed presently by nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence and nuclear strength or "the balance of terror". - J.Z., 19. 9. 82, 1. 5. 06. - & EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: although no one had decided to establish a doomsday machine, people had to act as though one were in place. They had to assume that one misstep could be the misstep that ended the world.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.208. – - Alas, none of the peoples, anywhere in the world, has so far any say or any freedom of action in this sphere. Their territorial governments have deprived them of both of these very important liberties. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - & THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Although other issues have diverted our attention, the possibility of a cataclysmic war remains so long as national defence is based upon atomic threat and mutual deterrence systems. Today, when a war might wipe out the entire human race, we need effective international law and peace-keeping procedures to make war impossible. (*) - Taking an active part in the solution of the problems of peace is a moral duty which no conscientious man can shirk." - Dr. Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Prescription, p.234. – (*) We need, rather, human organizations that, by their very nature, as opposed to that of territorial warfare States, keep the peace rather than prepare for and conduct wars, exploitation and oppression and that do not commit all too many aggressive actions even during their “defence”, as territorial governments usually do. – Obviously, the territorial leaders know nothing better and cannot be taught anything better. Their advisors tend to share their prejudices and wrong premises. E.g., none of them has so far considered the exterritorial and voluntary alternatives to their territorial internal and external policies, laws and institutions. J.Z., 26.4.06, 27.5.06 - Alas, most of their subject-victims are not much better in this respect. Can we accelerate and assure the process of enlightenment enough to reverse this situation? - Even the need for this and the steps required for this are, so far, seen only by very few people. - J.Z., 13.1.11, 14.6.12. - PANARCHISM, ENLIGHTENMENT & ITS ACCELERATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: America's mood reminds Keegan of the eve of Pearl Harbour. "Our people', he says, 'still believe that nuclear war is unthinkable. To Soviet leaders, however, nuclear war is both "thinkable" and "winnable". And they are preparing for just such an eventuality!' - Philip C. Clarke: National Defence and the Soviet Threat. - Now we have a range of other territorial rogue regimes striving to obtain this dishonourable and mass murderous power or to maintain it. - J.Z., 20.11.02. - We are not even free as yet to secede from "democratic governments with their anti-people nuclear "weapons". If we were free to set up alternative systems to territorial governments, all representing the aspirations if their volunteers, as far as humanly possible, we would, thereby, set up attractive models for revolutions and military insurrections against the remaining and obviously criminal territorial regimes. Via recognizing the exterritorial autonomy of all kinds of alternative governments and societies for them, we could also ally ourselves with all their opposition forces and even with their remaining "true believers". But all of our politicians and most of their followers are still stuck in the rut of territorialism. - Even in its democratic forms, this is obviously not a good enough model for countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and most others. - J.Z., 13.1.11. – A whole country or all of its population is not and cannot be in just ONE mood. – J.Z., 28.12.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: An ant hill on my own driveway and one on my neighbor’s reminded me of the wrongful, stupid and self-destructive territorial behaviour organized, established and maintained by human beings. We have likewise placed ourselves right into the roadway of destructive ABC mass murder devices by organizing ourselves as territorial targets for them. Will the ants learn from their experience? Will we, in time? – J.Z., 7.12.95, 24.1.08. - & TERRITORIALISM, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: And if enough people in the world make up their minds they will have nothing to do with politicians or with governments who are moving towards military decisions, they will have a good chance of preventing such decisions from being made.” - Jean Skuse, p.103 of: "Confronting the Nuclear Age", edited by John Hinchcliff. - Politicians who and governments which? – Nuclear war is neither to be a governmental nor a military decision. The mass of the people, its victims, would never decide for it or its preparation. - Does the suggestion of "having nothing to do with" clearly enough indicate the rights and liberties of individual and group secessionism as well as exterritorial autonomy for societies of volunteers? We need a clear declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties instead of such vague notions that seem to imply that we are already as free to ignore and disobey territorial governments, and their laws and institutions, boycott them, refuse to pay them taxes, as we are in our relations with private people and associations. - J.Z., 13.1.11, 14.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: And the concept of nationhood that allowed us to think we had the right to build such things as nuclear bombs. …” - Whitley Strieber and James Kunetka, War Day. It lasted thirty-six minutes – and devastated the world, p.199. – The concept of territorial nationhood, combined with the principle of collective responsibility of all subjects of a territorial government for the misdeeds of that government, are the major culpable notions in almost everybody’s head. - They do, almost inevitably, lead to wars and nuclear wars. But for that aim they do have many allies in other flawed ideas and institutions. - However, most of them are also related to territorialism and collective responsibility notions. - J.Z., 13.9.07 & 10.10.07. – NATIONALISM, TERRITORIALISM, NATIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: And when, … politicians let us know of their desire for a “place in history”, it is not only their swollen vanity that invites anger but their presumption in trying to reserve a place in a history whose continued existence their own actions place in doubt.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.160. - The natural history of rats, shells and cockroaches will, probably go on - after our mis-leaders achieved the ultimate in territorial power manifestation, a general nuclear holocaust against the more advanced life forms. - J.Z., 13.1.11 - & POLITICIANS SEEKING FAME IN HISTORY, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIAL LEADERSHIP

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As a species, we have as yet done nothing to save ourselves. The slate of action is blank. We have organizations for the preservation of almost everything in life that we want but no organization for the preservation of mankind.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.185. – The situation is even worse. Those organizations, which could save us, like panarchies or polyarchies, are outlawed and this largely with the approval of most of the public! – J.Z., 21.9.07, 14.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As far as possible, never stake your life, limbs, security, freedom and rights on computer hardware and software of e.g. the Minister for Defence and on his Defence Department or rely upon such and other people sufficiently functioning or acting as they should, as moral beings, at least not under the present territorialist conditions and beliefs. – J.Z., 23.2.06, 29.10.07. – Compare e.g.: “Might is right!” and ”My country, right or wrong!” - & DECISION-MAKING POWER ON WAR & PEACE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As long as nuclear "weapons" can be "sold" by power-hungry politicians to unwilling customers via taxation and the threat which powerful territorial politicians as such do represent, contrary to their promises and assertions and the statist beliefs, there will be a nuclear war threat. Minimum requirements for it are compulsory taxation and territorial power and subordination. - J.Z., 14. 9. 82, 14.6.12. - Even I forgot to mention here the belief in collective responsibility which “creates” unrealistic but, seemingly, quite plausible targets for these mass murder devices. - J.Z., 1. 5. 06., 14.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As long as politics fails to take up the nuclear issue in a determined way, it lives closer than any other activity to the lie that we have all come to live – the pretense that life lived on top of a nuclear stockpile can last.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.161. - Territorial politics and politicians can't help being territorial politics and politicians. - J.Z., 13.1.11. - DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS & TERRITORIAL POLITICS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As long as the nuclear war threat exists and in the interest of the survival of nations and man, all national frontiers would best be done away with and replaced by those around individuals, according to their own individual choices. That would do away with nuclear targets. What worked in the religious sphere, namely religious liberty or tolerance, as well as in numerous private activities, would also work well with regard to the different political, social and economic systems which individual prefer for themselves. To each the system of his dreams and choice. No one’s governmental or societal dream or nightmare is to be coercively applied to anyone but like-minded people. – J.Z., 1.10.85, 25.1.08. - & PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIAL STATISM, AUTHORITARIANISM, TOTALITARIANISM, CENTRALIZATION & MONOPOLISM, ESTABLISHING WARFARE STATES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: as long as we continue to accept the underlying assumptions of this strategy we will be condemned to go on sketching “scenarios” for futures that must never be, while neglecting all planning for futures that can be and that would permit us to be.”- Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.196. - & STRATEGIC THINKING IN TERMS OF TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY VS. PANARCHISM OR POLYARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: As the physical reality of this destructive potential became more and more lethal for the whole world, the state of mind of responsible people became rather less anxious.” - Fred Charles Ikle, Every War Must End, 1971, p.120. – Are the decision-makers on these questions really responsible people? Do they have really full freedom of action any more than most of their potential victims? They had decades to destroy these devices, even unilaterally. Instead they multiplied them and made them more powerful. – Does territorialism give them any other options? - J.Z., 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Britain (said Mr. Khrushchev) could be completely destroyed by three hydrogen bombs and France by four. Japan would probably need another four. - George Mikes, The Land of the Rising Yen, p.150. - Are there already 4 people in either country that are seriously interested, so far, in the panarchistic alternative? - J.Z., 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Burn not your house to fright away the mice.” – Thomas Fuller, M.D., Gnomologia, 1732, 1024. - Frighten? The other territorial arsonists are not mice, either. - J.Z., 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But Earth had always persecuted anyone who demonstrated intelligence and gumption, systematically punishing success and rewarding failure – then putting the human results of that process of “unnatural selection” in charge of nuclear explosives. – L. Neil Smith, The Wardove, p.67. - Earth is not immoral, short-sighted, stupid, prejudiced, malicious and power-mad. Its territorial leaders are. - J.Z., 13.1.11. - LEADERSHIP, IDEAS ARCHIVE, TALENT CENTRE, TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But now our responsibilities as citizens in the common world have been immeasurably enlarged. In the pre-nuclear common world, we were partners in the protection of the arts, the institutions, the customs, and all “perfection” of life; now we are also partners in the protection of life itself.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p. 122. - What rights and liberties for effective actions in this respect, do people so far posses or have striven for? Territorialism has made them helpless in this and many other respects, messed up, monopolistically and coercively, by territorial governments. Most have become all too obedient subjects and victims of this monstrous artificial constructs and wrongful powers . It has left no free and easy way out, except prayers, petitions, marches, demonstrations, protests etc., all ineffective towards territorial power addicts, the worst of the lot, those that got to the top under territorialism. We are still not free to secede from these monsters and to peacefully and exterritorially manage, our own affairs, together with like-minded people, under personal law. We are forced to live in the nuclear targets of our "great" territorial leaders, as long as they let us live, by not yet using these "weapons". We are, in fact, high-jacked by them, as their hostages. Whole peoples as property of a handful of the new feudal lords, in democratic camouflage, posing as our helpers and protectors. Most of us are not even questioning their decision-making power and monopolies. These sheeple deserve what they will get. But what about the rest? And all the minors and the yet unborn? - It was not always the governments, which decided upon war or peace. Even that tradition is largely forgotten or ignored. - J.Z., 13.1.11. - & CITIZEN RESPONSIBILITIES, TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, WARFARE STATES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But the drive for invulnerability leads to total vulnerability. A valid concept of national security should ensure life and a healthy future for the human race. Instead, the Pentagon scenario of national security through mutually assured destruction assures our annihilation.” – Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Madness, Autumn Press, 1978, p.92. - DETERRENCE, MAD: MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION, NATIONAL SECURITY & TOTAL NATIONAL INSECURITY, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, TERRITORIALISM, DIS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But the real moral point was made by Mr. Alex Comfort, when he wrote that we should no longer talk of dying to the last man but of killing to the last child. I would say, of torturing to the last child.” - Phililp Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.108. – The fearful choices arise mostly only when we are not given enough free choices. – J.Z., 23.7.09. – PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: But, no matter how one phrases it, the fact, which is rarely, if ever, mentioned, either in the cold, abstract language of the theorists or in the ringing tones of the statesmen, is that the nuclear powers put a higher value on national sovereignty than they do on human survival, and that, while they would naturally prefer to have both, they are ultimately prepared to bring an end to mankind in their attempt to protect their own countries.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.210. – Rather, their own territorial power positions. – J.Z., 22.9.07. – Can we afford such “leaders” any longer? – J.Z., 10.10.07. – We permit the greatest stupidities and wrongful acts to our “leaders”, while we do not even sanction the smallest stupidities and wrongful acts to our children in primary schools! – What shall we think of the reason, morality and maturity of the adults who think and act like this? “Nuclear giants and moral infants” General Omar Bradley called them. - J.Z., 23.2.09. - & NATIONAL TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY, I.E., UTMOST POWER TO TERRITORIAL RULERS, LEADERSHIP, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: By growing to actually rely on terror, we do more than tolerate its presence in our world: we place our trust in it. And while this is not quite to “love the bomb”, as the saying goes, it decidedly is to place our faith in it, and to give it an all-important position in the very heart of our affairs. Under this doctrine, instead of getting rid of the bomb we build it ever more deeply into our lives.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.201. - - And this happens even while the main terrorists, the official ones, the territorial leaders, are engaged in a world-wide campaign against private terrorists, who at least so far, have at most murdered by the thousands, while the territorial leaders, in their terrorist war actions, have murdered by the millions and still pretend that they are our protectors. At least the private terrorists act indiscriminately murderously, also on the “principle” of collective responsibility, without this false pretence. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - They outlawed our guns for self-defence against them and private criminals but still keep their anti-people mass murder devices stockpiled and in readiness, obviously not against other tyrants but against the peoples of the world, at least indirectly against even those they themselves subjected territorially. (Retaliation or pre-emptive strikes.) - They remain vague about protection, defence, deterrence, aggression and real enemies but not about more power in their own hands. - With their wrongful territorial powers, monopolies, laws, constitutions, jurisdictions, institutions, "weapons", "principles", errors and prejudices, they have turned themselves into our main enemies. - And yet most of their victims do still grant them the sanction of the victims, being institutionalized by governmental compulsory indoctrination for years, in schools and by tax-supported government propaganda in the mass media. - The mass of popular, statist and territorialist errors, prejudices, myths, dogmas, false assumptions and conclusions, is still not systematically countered e.g. by an ideal human rights declaration, militia for the protection of these rights and by an encyclopedia of the best refutations, as well as by an archive of and information centre on the best ideas and solutions, although some of these and related approaches are still not outlawed. - Most anarchists and libertarians are still not anarchistic and libertarian enough to make use of all their remaining self-help and self-enlightenment options! - J.Z., 13.1.11, 14.612. - & TRUST IN TERROR, LEADERSHIP, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, DICTATORS, EDUCATION, ENLIGHTENMENT, SELF-HELP OPTIONS REMAINING, IDEAS ARCHIVE, REFUTATIONS ENCYCLOPAEDIA, STATISM, PREJUDICES, DIS., PUBLIC OPINION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Can man be dissuaded from unleashing a nuclear war?" - Sean McBride, quoted in SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 8.3.78. – It is not “man” to be persuaded, but territorial governments, which will have to be forced to give up their mass-murder devices or anti-people “weapons” – J.Z., 11.2.08, 14.6.12. - Towards that aim we should ally ourselves with all their suppressed and exploited people, including e.g. the military forces of dictatorships. We can and should our appeal to the suppressed people everywhere and make them unilateral and just separate peace treaty offers, over the heads of the rulers, quite clearly and trustworthily  expressed. That would exclude the participation of political leaders and diplomats. They should consist in offers too good to refuse, which their dictators could not possibly match: Genuine self-determination under the systems of their own individual choice and dreams. Among them also those, which could assure them of great and earned prosperity. We could practically prove our case towards them by already realizing the exterritorialist and voluntaryist "meta-utopia" of which Nozick wrote, in our already somewhat but not yet sufficiently free countries, perhaps by starting with governments and societies in exile, all only for their present and future volunteers. Developing and publishing a quite rightful and comprehensive libertarian revolution and military insurrection program against all kinds of authoritarian regimes, could also greatly help the freedom, justice and peace-loving peoples of the world. So far only the totalitarians have developed detailed programs which are effective for their purposes. Libertarians and anarchists could not be bothered to develop and publish such programs. At least that was my experience, so far. - J.Z., 13.1.1, 14.6.12. - DIS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Can one interest the hundreds of book- and the thousands of article writers against nuclear war in a rightful, rational and practical program against this threat? So far I have not seen any evidence for this. Almost all “think” only along the lines of conventional territorialist flawed premises and assumptions and flawed statist ideas. – In my own two peace books I thought otherwise – that’s why both remained non-sellers and uninfluential, even when put on the Web. Mere readers are even less thoughtful and creative in this respect. - J.Z., 21.9.07. - & - PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Can the human race still be dragged back from racial suicide, the way they are ignorantly, disinterestedly and blindly harrying themselves into the nuclear fire, singing and playing and otherwise amusing themselves while all the preparations are made for their extermination and that of everyone else? - J.Z., 3. 5. 83, 1. 5. 06. – Here I abused the term “suicide” myself. What really threatens us is not suicide by all of mankind but mass murder of mankind by a few, a mere handful of people, those in territorial power. – J.Z., 11.2.08, 13.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Certain crimes have already set precedents for the greatest crimes! - Racine, Phèdre, 4.2. - „Quelques crimes toujours précèdent les grands crimes." – “Ein schwer Verbrechen sieht sich den Weg schon gebahnt.“ - MASS MURDERS, GENOCIDES, TERRITORIALISM, AIR RAIDS, BOMBING POLICIES, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Certainly, there is no need for anyone to strain to be irrational, as Kahn suggests, or out of control, as Schelling suggests: a world that has embarked on a holocaust is in its nature irrational and out of control.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.206. – Neither the world nor any of its many diverse peoples have so embarked. Only their territorial mis-leaders did, alas, without their territorialist subjects and victims sufficiently protesting or resisting them, for they, too, in most cases, know of nothing more "rightful" and "rational" than the territorial Warfare States. – J.Z., 22.9.07, 23.2.09, 13.1.11. - & ITS IRRATIONALITY OR INSANITY, TERRITORIALISM, PREJUDICES, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Compared to continuing to incur a constant risk of the destruction of the human race, all other evils are lesser evils. Anyone who finds one of these lesser evils intolerable can always contract out by committing suicide. But it is unreasonable that we should also bring the whole human race to an end, because most human beings, now and in the future, would undoubtedly prefer the lesser evil.” – Dr. Arnold Toynbee, in Philip Toynbee: The Fearful Choice, p.80. - Apparently, neither of these thinkers considered opting or contracting out of all territorial States. – J.Z., 30.5.08. – SECESSIONISM, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Damn it, why should a billion people die because some inventor had a brain that couldn't see an inch into human nature?” - Van Vogt: The Weapon Makers, p.118. - It isn't human nature that makes for nuclear war but statist territorialism. - The whole territorial State structure is unnatural, monopolistic, centralistic and coercively upheld. - There are, e.g., only few quite voluntary taxpayers. And none of the territorial subjects have individually chosen all of the territorial laws that are imposed upon them. It is even impossible for them to read and know them all. - J.Z., 13.1.11, 14.6.12. - DIS., HUMAN NATURE, MAN, LAWS, LEGISLATION, TAXATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Der Untergang des Abendlandes, he thought greyly. Spengler foresaw the collapse of a top-heavy civilization. He didn't foresee atomic bombs, radioactive-dust bombs, bacteria bombs, blight bombs - the bombs, the senseless inanimate bombs flying like monster insects over the shivering world. So he didn't guess the extent of the collapse.” - Poul Anderson, The Book of Poul Anderson, p.10. – Misprint: greyly? - J.Z. - On the other hand, Google offers presently (11.1.11) 33,000 references when searching for "panarchy". - J.Z., 13.1.11. – This evening I did another search: Panarchy: 111,000 results. - Panarchy definitions; 108,000. – panarchy model: 41,300 – panarchy ebook: 44400, - panarchy governance in the network age: 68,700. Alas, entries for what I consider to be the misunderstandings of P. B. Hartzog seem to form most of the entries. -  However, a search with Google for “panarchism” had 84,400 results, many of them relevant and quite new to me on the first 20 pages that I looked up. – Hartzog & Co. have not swamped references to that term as yet. Before it was used very much less than “panarchy” was. - J.Z., 14.6.12. - SPENGLER, CIVILIZATION, HIERARCHIES, TERRITORIALISM, INTERNET ENTRIES ON PANARCHY.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Different from the more intelligent rats, human beings join or remain on the sinking ship of the territorial State. They even shout for or make more holes, to make it sink faster, although they will go under with it. – J.Z., 17.8.86, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: E. M. Forster told us “Only connect!’ Let us connect. (*) Auden told us, “We must love one another or die.” (**) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.227. - - (*) Let us rather secede, individually and in groups, and let us connect and associate only on a voluntary basis and exterritorially, each under those personal law associations preferred by him or her. – J.Z., 1982, 23.9.07. - - (**) To do justice to each other is enough. Often it already suffices to leave each other alone, i.e. to tolerate all their tolerant actions. – J.Z., 23.9.07, 16.6.12. - PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Each time a politician raises his voice to speak of making a better world for our children and grandchildren (*) (and this is an intrinsic part of what politics is about, whether or not it happens to be explicitly stated), the peril of extinction is there to gainsay him with the crushing rebuttal: But there may be no children or grandchildren.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.160 - (*) As if they knew how to do this, with their “means” and methods. What they have proven, so far, is only that they can make matters much worse and have done so for centuries. All progress that we experienced came in spite of them, not through them. – J.Z., 21.9.07. – How many more proofs of their immorality, ignorance and prejudices as territorial politicians and of the great wrongs and harm they can do to whole populations, do we need, before we adopt the exterritorial alternatives to them, which would wrong and harm only their own kinds of volunteers? – J.Z., 23.2.09. - & POLITICIANS, TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM OR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR VOLUNTEERS, PROGRESS, SOLUTIONS, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Either men will learn to live like brothers, or they will die like beasts.” – Max Lerner, “The Gifts of the Magi”, Action and Passions, 1949. – They don't have to live as brothers but should live as free men, each doing his own things, being tolerant towards others and tolerated by them. Compare: "Und willst Du nicht mein Bruder sein, dann schlag ich Dir den Schaedel ein!" (If you don't want to be my brother, I'll smash your head in!) - German proverb. - BROTHERHOOD, COSMOPOLITANISM, TOLERANCE, INTOLERANCE, PANARCHISM, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, VOLUNTARISM, DIS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Eliminating the nuclear war threat will require many different and radical steps. I listed about 500 of them alphabetically in - Here are some of them: 1.) Eliminate the means, the anti-people “weapons”, by a disarmament carried out or controlled by the people, even unilaterally, probably best through an ideal militia of volunteers for the protection of individual rights and liberties. - 2.) Eliminate the nuclear targets by voluntaristic and exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers - replacing territorial States with compulsory membership or subordination. - 3.) Repeal the monopolistic decision-making power of governments on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties and alliances. - 4.) Eliminate the financial power for the financing of a nuclear arms race by replacing compulsory taxation, through well organized tax strikes, leading to voluntary taxation, the replacement of financial despotism by financial freedom, and of monetary despotism by monetary freedom, in a monetary and financial revolution, including refusals to accept inflated government paper money altogether or at par, so that, finally, sound and optional exchange media and value standards can drive out the bad ones. - 5.) Offer all people, who are working in or for the nuclear arms race industries, other and better jobs. That would be possible under full monetary and financial freedom. - 6.) Eliminate the motives for war by panarchism: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her choice, starting, perhaps, with recognizing corresponding governments and societies in exile, all of them only for their present and future volunteers. - 7.) Deterrence through outlawry and tyrannicide, combined with amnesty and asylum for those destroying or surrendering mass murder devices. - 8.) Removing the motives for war by declaring quite rightful war and peace aims in a believable way, by the people themselves, quite publicly and over the heads of the territorial rulers, who ought to become ignore in this and many other respects. - 9.) Removing secrecy: Everyone a spy for peace or disarmament inspector. - 10.) Removing all despotic regimes through libertarian revolutions and military insurrections, by supplying and publishing the best programs for this, which include exterritorial majority and minority autonomy for all the diverse groups, so that no one has any longer to be afraid of any of the others. - 11.) Separate peace treaties with captive peoples, unilaterally offered, also with insurrectionist armies, and welcoming any number of deserters and refugees - offering them not incarceration but well-paid jobs, made possible by full monetary and financial freedom. Exterritorial autonomy for them and all others, if they want it. - 12.) A new and complete declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties, also offered as the basis for a new kind of international law. - 13.) Local militias for the protection of individual rights and liberties – and nothing else – internationally federated. - 14.) Free migration, free trade, free movement of capital, freedom from compulsory taxation and freedom for investments with value-preserving clauses. - 15.) Spread of property incentives through businesslike purchases of enterprises by their employees, on terms, ultimately paid off with part of the additional productivity that would be achieved by people clearly working for themselves. – J.Z., 31.5.08, 16.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: End the nuclear arms race, not the human race.” – Slogan of nuclear war protestors, reported in TIME, 5.5.82. – Alas, the “how” is left to territorial governments, so this “armament” goes on. – J.Z., 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Even the greatest horror and the strongest language is not enough if some alternative proposals, projects or institutions do not offer the path, tools and methods and thus real hope for a genuine, fast and relatively easy solution of this problem. – J.Z., 3.10.92, 16.6.12. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIALISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL LAW

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Eventually - and it's a dead race with time - we must take over and make certain that baby never plays with matches.” - Robert Heinlein, Assignment in Eternity, p.63. – We have learnt to control babies – but not yet territorial governments. – J.Z., 27.2.09. - In some respects they are just as childish and immature, thoughtless and immoral. - J.Z., 13.1.11. – Territorial governments are amoral - but not innocent, like babies and infants are. – J.Z., 16.6.12. -  TERRITORIALISM, LEADERSHIP, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Every day in which the bombs are not loosed is another day in which we can learn to avoid that catastrophe.” - Deborah Wheeler, Jaydium, p.249. – But who does really want to learn about that? My book: An ABC Against Nuclear War, remains a record non-seller and few look it up online, as far as I know, because I have never got a response to this online publication or to my other peace book. – The “death wish” seems to be stronger than the survival instinct. - J.Z., 16.9.07. - & -

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: every man not a fool steps off the railroad track when he sees a train approaching.” – Source? – However, when it comes to the nuclear war threat, we are not allowed to step off the track the territorial governments are on. – J.Z., 30.5.08. – TERRITORIALISM MAINTAINS THE TARGETS FOR MASS MURDER DEVICES, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Extinction, being in its nature outside human experience, is invisible, but we, by rebelling against it, can indirectly make it visible. No one will ever witness extinction, so we must bear witness to it before the fact. And the place for the rebellion to start is in our daily lives. … And this turnabout in the first instance can be as simple as a phone call to a friend, a meeting in the community.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.227. – It is high time for people to finally make a stand against the existence of anti-people mass murder devices in anyone’s hands, especially in the hands of the own and of any foreign territorial government and against all the ideas, hypotheses, theories, errors, myths, prejudices, false assumptions and conclusions, constitutions, laws and institutions that led to this situation of a possibly imminent and quite general but also man-made catastrophe for all of mankind. Territorial governments, here as well, are not the solution but the problem. – J.Z., 23.9.07, 16.6.12. – Government have slid, unintentionally, into WW I and WW II. They could, unintentionally, also slide into WW III, a nuclear war. Just compare how e.g. the Sep.11 terrorist act has led to two conventional wars, still going on in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The machinery of territorial warfare States is easy to start, for the men in power, but difficult to stop for their victims – unless they resort to voluntary and exterritorial autonomy methods, based upon individual sovereignty and individual and group secessionism. – J.Z., 10.10.07, 16.6.12. - & EXTINCTION OF MANKIND, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, WARFARE STATE, DEFENCE, DETERRENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Fight the nuclear society!" - ? This is not a society. Nor is it nuclear otherwise than in the meaning that all of us are made up of atoms, molecules and subatomic particles. It is a coercive and coerced territorial collective that is producing and asking for mass murder devices, because, being governmentally mis-educated and also lied to, it does not know anything better. - J.Z., 5. 9. 82, 1. 5. 06, 13.1.11. – It is almost as if all of mankind had been forced to become part and parcel of a world-wide nuclear reactor, a very flawed one, in a condition that is close to a run-away and uncontrollable nuclear chain reaction. – J.Z., 16.6.12. - DIS., FIGHT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For governments, still acting within a system of independent nation-states, and formally representing no one but the people (*) of their separate, sovereign nations, are driven to try to defend merely national interests (**) with the means of destruction that threaten not only international but intergenerational and planetary doom.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.188. – - (*) Not “the” people but only some to many people in the territory over which - and its population - they claim exclusive territorial sovereignty. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - - (**) The national interest is usually only the propaganda fiction advanced by the power addicts and power-mad leading politicians hiding behind this false pretence. – The real national interest demands the abolition of their territorial monopolies and exclusive territorial powers. With that abolition the threat of war would be gone. But these leaders and their faithful subjects would be the last to recognize that. – J.Z., 10.10.07. – J. S. should rather have titled it: The fate of mankind – in the hands of territorial governments. – J.Z., 23.2.09. – Territorial rulers, are as such already criminals, even if they had the highest abilities and the best intentions. – J.Z., 16.6.12. - TERRITORIAL NATION STATES, PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, CRIMINAL RULERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For if we try to guarantee our safety by threatening ourselves with doom, then we have to mean the threat; but if we meant it, then we are actually planning to do, in some circumstance or other, that which we (*) categorically must never do and are supposedly trying to prevent – namely, extinguish ourselves. (*) This is the circularity at the core of the nuclear-deterrence doctrine; we seek to avoid our (*) self-extinction by threatening to perform the act. According to this logic, it is almost as though if we (*) stopped threatening ourselves (*) with extinction, then extinction would occur.”(**)- Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.201. - - (*) Remember, that only our incredibly under-informed and power-madness-driven top territorial leaders are involved in such decision-making! We are completely disfranchised in this respect, although, supposedly, possessing “the” vote. – J.Z., 22.9.07. – (*) I do not see the logic of the last part of his argument. – J.Z., 26.6.12. - & THE DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS, DIS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For the doctrine’s central claim – that it deploys nuclear weapons only in order to prevent their use – is simply not true. Actually, it deploys them to protect national sovereignty, and if this aim were not present they could be quickly dismantled.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.217. - & THE DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS, NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OR TERRITORIALIST STATES & GOVERNMENTS, DIS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For us to permit others to build, store and keep in readiness “nuclear weapons” is like us permitting others to bring TNT by the tons into our homes and to play with it, or to allow children to play with sticks of gelignite. I know how you would react if I tried to do that to you, as a visitor, threatening your survival and that of your family. Well, governments are doing it to all of us, with their nuclear strength “policy”, and overkill nuclear power, coming to the equivalent of x tons of TNT per head of the population. What can you do about this? Begin at least to think what you should be able to do about this! – J.Z., 13.1.88, 30.5.08. - I do know as well as you do, that the territorial governments have made us powerless in this respect. We have to think how to get our freedom of choice and action back , even regarding laws and public institutions. Once we are, we will certainly choose better ones and safe ones for ourselves than they can offer or are willing to offer to us. - J.Z., 13.1.11. - INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONS, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, PERSONAL LAWS, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, VS. TERRITORIALISM & NWT, PERSONAL LAW, FREEDOM OF ACTION, CHOICE, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, SELF-DETERMINATION, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For while the aim of survival causes statesmen to declare regularly that no purpose could ever be served by a holocaust, and that the aim of nuclear policy can only be to prevent such insanity, the pursuit of national objectives forces them to declare in the next breath that they are unwaveringly resolved to perpetrate exactly this unjustifiable and insane action if some nation (*) threatens a “vital interest” of theirs.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.210. – (*) Not the “nations” threaten but their territorial rulers do. Against them e.g. military insurrections, secessionism, governments in exile, welcoming of refugees and deserters, combined with rightful and sensible full employment programs, monetary and financial freedom revolutions, alternative institutions, liberating revolutions, tyrannicide, tax strikes, refusals to accept their paper money etc. are much more rightful and rational means than nuclear governmental and general suicide preparations. – J.Z., 22.9.07, 16.6.12.- & TERRITORIAL NATIONALISM & POLITICIANS, DIS.,

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: For while the events that might trigger a holocaust would probably be political, the consequences would be deeper than any politics or political aims, bringing ruin to the hopes and plans of capitalists and socialists, rightists and leftists, conservatives and liberals alike. Having as the source of its strength only the spontaneously offered support of the people of the earth, it would, in turn, respect each person’s will, which is to day his liberty.” (*) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.229. – (*) Primary for this individual liberty would be the choice among political, economic and social systems for each and everyone (e.g. babies, infants and madmen excluded), just normal adults are already largely free to choose their religion, their jobs, their insurance contracts, their marriage partners, their sports and hobby activities, their friends and associates, their goods in their shopping carts. – J.Z., 23.9.07. - TOLERANCE, LIBERTY, INDIVIDUALISM, INDIVIDUAL CHOICE OF POLITICS & POLITICAL AIMS, FOR ALL KINDS OF IDEOLOGIES & THEIR BELIEVERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Formerly only young and fit men were conscripted to be slaughtered in battlefields, in trenches, planes, ships etc. all for undisclosed or senseless war aims. Now almost all are conscripted into the open nuclear “weapons” free fire zones, to be mass-murdered upon the whims, spleens, prejudices and power-mad leaders their or all too obedient henchmen. – J.Z., 31.10.85, 30.5.08, 16.6.12. – TERRITORIALISM PROVIDES THE TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR “WEAPONS”.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: From my analysis, the only way to avoid the threat of atomic war is in the abolition of governments.” - Laurance Labadie, Selected Essays, p.59. - Whoever seriously analyses the voluntary alternatives will find that this means in practice, merely, the abolition of all territorial governments. That would leave to everyone the government or non-governmental free society of his dreams or: panarchism. - J.Z., 4.8.82, 13.1.11. – What more could or should anybody ask for and should anybody ask for or struggle for anything less? – J.Z., 16.6.12. - VOLUNTARISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Generally, I am hopeful when discussing the Arms Race with those who embrace the Augustinian version of the Just War. They can be reasoned with, because there is the essential requirement that in any declaration of war there must be the right intention to secure a good after-effect. They understand that total annihilation is not good after effect. As Eisenhower said: "In a nuclear war there can be no victors, only losers." (*) They recognize that if they were to survive, it would be difficult to live with the guilt of having morally condoned mass murder (**), a greater evil than the Nazi gas chambers.” - John Hinchcliff: Confronting the Nuclear Age, p.85. – (*) Put in bold by me. - J.Z. - (**) On a territorial scale, not just via one or the other secret extermination camp, with most (at least of the extermination camps) placed in another country, the way Poland was used by the Nazis. - J.Z., 13.1.11, 16.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Gian Piero de Bellis: Waiting for the Bomb? - Appendix: Waiting for the Bomb? - And the Bomb? - Given the current reality, most likely it will arrive. - It might be a real, physical bomb of astounding power or a metaphorical one, i.e. an ecological, chemical, financial, moral, bomb that will shatter our lives and will show us that, ultimately, there is no master to protect us and no tutor to guide us. - - At that moment we will discover our loneliness in the world but also our uniqueness and the absurdity of abdicating our task of striving to become human beings in exchange for an illusory security under elected or imposed masters. - - "Servitude is a people's voluntarily accepted evil and its existence is more the fault of the servants than of the masters." [La servitù è male volontario di popolo ed è colpa dei servi più che dei padroni.] - From an inscription outside the Museum of St. Martin, Naples. - - In any case, if we are passively waiting for the bomb (consciously or unconsciously) it means not only that we have forgotten our human rights but also that we do not really deserve them because we are just dummies stuffed with straw. - - We will make a good fire, then, when the bomb finally arrives! - - The pre-conditions for the bomb to arrive are all there. (*) - - Observe, for instance, the incredible imbalance engendered, on the one side, by a feudal territorial model of social and political organization in which the individual is treated as a handicapped child, denied any possibility of true social experimentation and, on the other side, a technological and informational reality where the individual is the potential master of a universe of tools and data encompassing a world-wide network of connections and relations. - In the past, the narrow views of most of the populace, who spent their lives inside a limited territory and with a relatively restricted range of social intercourse, were, from time to time, shaken by unforeseen events over which people had no control whatsoever. - In our times, not only do news and ideas circulate instantaneously on a world-wide scale, but, in addition, the archives of the past are open to all, to be perused and pondered in order to avoid previous mistakes, and simulations can be made to anticipate possible future events. So, we do not really need further shocking facts to force us to change direction, after having already paid a terrible toll in psychological suffering and material loss of lives. - - State territorialism is a pest we can no longer afford to live with because the consequences that might be generated by it are even more appalling than the worst ones we have witnessed in the past. - - Maybe a further gigantic slaughter is what we need in order to say eventually: Enough is Enough! - (**) Let the carnage stop and let people live how they want, freely professing their chosen political creed, without territorial masters dictating to them their beliefs and practices of observance. - - Impositions didn't work for religion and cannot work for politics (for many, the new religion). - - As history shows us, only after abominable bloodshed driven by religious hatred (like the August 23, 1572, Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day in France in which twenty thousand Huguenots were killed); and after long conflicts like the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) in which religious pretexts fuelled territorial ambitions (**), bringing grief and misery to many regions of Europe, did ideas of tolerance in religious matters slowly start to be introduced, considered, and finally accepted. - Unfortunately, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) that ended that war started the official enthronement of the territorial states and of their rulers as the protagonists of history. So, while religious tolerance was sprouting, religious grievances were declining and conflicts in matters of faith were becoming a thing of the past, new violent clashes were incubating, engendered by the usual territorial greed and fed by the new fanaticism of national hatreds based on politics. - If bloodshed itself can cure us of our territorial madness based on political intolerance, we could say that we already had the equivalent of a Thirty Years' War (**) in the two World Wars (1914-1945) of the last century. - So, we shouldn't really need a series of further political conflicts leading to more colossal destructions and waste of lives before we start accepting and practicing political tolerance, i.e. tolerance in matters of political faith, where everybody can freely practice his own political beliefs, following not the leaders selected by the majority (democracy) or by the minority (oligarchy) but only those chosen by himself/herself, if he/she so wants, or no leader whatsoever, according to his/her personal exigencies and wishes. - Regrettably, many human beings do not seem able to remember (***) the past or prefer to ignore its lessons and so are bound to repeat the same tragic mistakes. - In fact, a sort of religious war has already started. As in the Thirty Years' War religion is only a pretext for political expansion and dominance. In current times, even more than in the past, defending a religion means upholding a political faith, and this has nothing to do either with spirituality or with religious sentiment. - - Political faiths all based on territorialism are, indeed, the new soporific opium of people, which obfuscate the minds of individuals and lead to commit atrocities that will horrify future generations who will deride if not despise us for our blindness and intolerance as we deride and despise those who committed the religious massacres and persecutions of the past. - - For all these reasons, now more than ever, each person in full possession of his rational capabilities and having at his disposal plenty of historical data and reflections on those data, should ask himself the question: AM I WAITING for the BOMB? - The way each of us responds to this question intellectually and practically will make the difference between remaining moronic servants at the mercy of any foreseeable and avoidable cataclysmic event, or mature human beings who are fully independent, responsible shapers of our own future. - Gian Piero de Bellis in his "Waiting for the bomb." - Appendix: Waiting for the Bomb? - (*) Serious interest in preventing nuclear war is still all too rare, as I experienced with the near zero response to my ABC Against Nuclear War, which I self-published, rather primitively, more than a generation ago, in 1975 and which has also been digitized online for several years already: - It also contains de Puydt's panarchy essay in the appendix. In its main part it raises and tries to answer the problem in 500 alphabetized points. - But it is still a record non-seller! - (**) The slaughter of the Thirty Years' War, which lead to the introduction of religious liberty or religious tolerance in Europe, was only concluded after the population of Germany had been reduced from about 25 million to about 5 million, as my friend, Ulrich von Beckerath, who was also a statistician, pointed out. - At least a nuclear war will be shorter than this one. But even less people are likely to survive it and their world will be poisoned by radioactive pollutants. - Most people, who do fight, do not fight for their country or for its population but also against both, without clearly noticing this. They do not even notice, on either side, that none of them has quite rightful war and peace aims. And all too many participate in or sympathize with the atrocities committed by the own side, in most wars, simply because they subscribe to the abominable "principle" of collective responsibility. - J.Z., 26.8.11, 16.6.12. – (***) or study – J.Z.


NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Give me Liberty or give me death.” - Patrick Henry, 1776. - This old saying has acquired a new meaning in our times. For lack of sufficient individual rights and liberties to prevent nuclear war, we may all suffer a nuclear war death, either immediately or slowly afterwards. So far most seem to be prepared to wait, passively, for nuclear war, rather than struggle to gain the liberties and rights to prevent it. - Too many of us were descended from obedient slaves! - "Don't rock the boat!" and "Don't make waves!" seem to be among their leading "principles". - Liberty is not something to be given but something to be taken, if necessary with rightful arms and rightful military organizations, from those, who try to withhold it. - After all, the American Revolution started with some rightful militia actions and so did the French Revolution. - But neither were conducted only quite rightfully. In both the remaining loyal monarchists were badly treated and in both forced paper currencies and the following price controls incapacitated the revolutionaries and in France even led to a terror regime. - Neither had quite rightful war aims and warfare methods. - J.Z., 1. 5. 06. - We should be able to do much better, if we seriously tried, if we really want ourselves to survive, our family members and our friends and those, whom we can and do respect as our country-men or fellow associates in voluntary communities and societies, all of them exterritorially autonomous and without any territorial monopoly claim, that would re-introduce nuclear targets again. - J.Z., 13.1.11. – First of all we have to recognize the right to and the need for this freedom of association, action and experimentation and then to work systematically to realize it. For this aim we could, potentially, get more allies than for any other aim, for it offers to each group of dissenters or dissatisfied people the path to or the framework for the kind of “paradise” or “ideal” that they do prefer for themselves. – J.Z., 16.6.12. - DIS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: God must have been pleased when our moral awareness reached sufficient sensitivity for us to abolish slavery. God will be pleased now with the long-overdue recognition of women's rights, the rights of the handicapped, of the poor, the rights of the unborn, even the rights of the whales. Nature is included in the process: It is not just a tool-box. So it is not a question of creating human unity, but one of affirming it. It used to be that this part of the globe could not protect itself against the other parts. The whole is the target of future war now. The whole world lives on the target. So we are forced to affirm the ancient religious belief that we all belong to one another.” - James Reston, OMNI, 12/81. - The best that can be said about some religious people now is that, at last, they have become somewhat interested in the nuclear problem. Naturally, most of them still only pray, march and protest and few have started to think and act in the right direction. But it is a beginning and the non-religious people have not really been shining examples of morality and rationality in this respect, either. - J.Z. - They and their critics have not concluded from the facts of religious freedom or religious tolerance that a similar peaceful coexistence is possible, rightful, rational for whole political, economic and social systems, all subject to individual choices. Genuine self-ownership, individual sovereignty, exterritorial autonomy, voluntarism and individual choices, rights and liberties, offer a better solution. - Have any problems ever been solved by territorial collectivism or compulsory brotherhood or membership? - J.Z., 13.1.11. - Q., PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE UNDER FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM ETC.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: He believed in slow progress, made only by minorities, if only they do not destroy each other.” - Isaiah Berlin, Russian Thinkers, p.292, on Turgenjev. - Give minorities their exterritorial autonomy chance to their kind of progress and there would no longer be a threat of nuclear war nor would their genuine progress (away from all the remaining flaws in their systems) and the resulting all-over progress be slow. - J.Z., 8. 9. 85 & 1. 5. 06, 16.6.12. – PANARCHISM, FULL EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL MINORITIES! DIS., EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, VOLUNTARISM, PROGRESS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: He was game - for astrology, for I Ching, for LSD, for demons, for whatever Simon had to offer as an alternative to the world of sane and rational men who were sanely and rationally plotting their course toward what could only be the annihilation of the planet.” - Wilson/Shea: Illuminatus I, p.116. - Such insane men or "leaders" are, territorially, in charge of this world. We are not. Let us become, or, rather, make ourselves, exterritorially autonomous and quite independent of them. Then we could be as free and safe as we want to be. For all their past wrongful actions we should also present them a bill. We should not only get our individual and family shares in all the national, State and local government properties, which they have withheld from us, even while taxing us highly for their system, their powers, their wrong-doing. - We would be insane ourselves not to do this and to obey them any longer, like their slaves or serfs, waiting for their largest human sacrifice. - J.Z., 13.1.11. – RULERS, INSANITY, NWT, TERRITORIALISM, LEADERSHIP, PRIVATIZATION, DENATIONALIZATION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: hideous weapons … are dangerous as long as the insane may obtain power. - Marc Stiegler, A Simple Case of Suicide, ANALOG, May 83, p.159. - - Why not attack the problem from the "may obtain power" end, namely, by outlawing and destroying the territorial State system, which permits insane people to acquire excess powers and does not allow sane people to secede from it? – J.Z., 25.1.08. - The insanity of some people should become confined to mismanaging their own affairs and that of insane voluntary followers. - Mass murder devices belong into no one's hands, regardless how sane their owner is supposed to be. - Without territorial targets and supposed enemies, mass murder devices become obviously useless. - J.Z., 13.1.11. - Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: How can one peacefully coexist with the owners of nuclear weapons, who keep them in readiness? By going on to ignore them, until they are used? - J.Z., 20.11.02. – Should we not at least try to realize our right to secede from them and to organize in alternative associations, societies and communities, under personal law, all without a territorial monopoly, thus eliminating the territorial targets? - J.Z., 13.1.11. - Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I also find a process of weapons development by which the leaders of states are being given less and less time to make decisions on whether or not to press a fatal button.” - Herb Feith in John Hinchcliff's, ed., "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.59. - They already had decades to get rid of these immoral and irrational anti-people weapons and their push-buttons systems to activate and send them to us, their targets, the peoples in xyz countries, mostly living in cities. They did not use these decades, morally and rationally. They seem to be quite incapable or unwilling to do so. They are power addicts and power-mad. They should, finally, become deprived of all their territorial powers, laws and institutions, especially all their mass murder devices, by the targeted peoples themselves, properly enlightened, motivated, armed, organized and trained for this purpose. - J.Z., 13.1.11. – RULERS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I am sure that the lines on which we ought to be thinking are the depoliticization of the issue of the destruction of humanity." - Stephen Spender, in Phillip Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, P. 59. - Ending territorial politics and replacing it with individual secession and exterritorial autonomy options for individuals and minorities would depoliticize nuclear weapons and make them obviously wrong and useless. Or can you imagine e.g. the Pope being armed with nuclear weapons? Wherever he would explode them, he would also kill Catholics or possible converts to Catholicism. Thus he would not even dream of acquiring, stockpiling and using such mass murder devices, except in nightmares. - J.Z., 30.4.08. - It is the same for the thousands of other human groups of volunteers, once they are free to organize themselves under personal law and full exterritorial autonomy. Compelled to live under territorial governments, they form an explosive mixture and situation. It becomes diffused and neutralized, even abolished, once individuals and groups are free to sort themselves out to do their own things, anywhere, but as far as territories are concerned, on their own private or cooperative properties only and in whole countries, continents and the world, always at the own expense and risk, leaving all others in the same territories free to do their own things – among their volunteers. It worked and works still in the even more irrational, immoral and metaphysical as well as emotional sphere of religion, wherever this tolerance and peaceful coexistence was seriously tried and is still continued. It would work even better for the supporters of the numerous diverse political, economic and social systems. All the wrongful walls would come down. All the wrongfully conceived enemies would disappear. Also their fears and motivations for defence and aggression would tend to disappear. - J.Z., 13.11.11, 17.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I have read numerous stories and books in which either gangsters or some right-wing officers of Western military forces were going to use nuclear "weapons" and similar devices for mass extermination - but hardly any in which communists would do the same. The bias expressed by most writers is the same as that in most films depicting businessmen as baddies. Yet, the Soviets are best prepared for nuclear war! - J.Z. – 27.1.82. - They might have started it off, might have "won" it and the survivors, who would write or read history, if they still could, would blame "capitalism", the "profit-motive" etc., but territorialism: the coercive division of the Earth surface and populations into territorial segments, all and as such ruled in a more or less totalitarian way, and constituting targets, under notions of "collective responsibility" for the decisions of a few monopoly decision-makers, would remain unquestioned rather than blamed - as happens still today, with territorialism remaining mostly unrecognised as the main factor, the main wrongful power, embracing all other wrongful powers, which are making for wars with ABC mass murder and mass destruction devices. - J.Z., 20.11.02, 17.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I have said that we do not have two earths, one to blow up experimentally and the other to live on; nor do we have two souls, one for reacting to daily life and the other for reacting to the peril to all life. But neither do we have two wills, one with which we can intend to destroy our species and the other with which we can intend to save ourselves. Ultimately, we must all live together with one soul and one will on our one earth.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.198. – - But that desire or ideal and will must be quite tolerant, much more tolerant that we have ever been before, towards all kinds of diversity, tolerantly practised only among volunteers. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - & THE DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I remember them as men - ordinary men in an extraordinary world of their own making. Men with fast brains and slow hearts; with the gift of creation in their dreams and the impulse of destruction in their fingers.” - Edmund Cooper: Tomorrow Came, Panther Books, 1963, story: Judgement Day. - This description ignores that most men are not free to follow their creative urges - while some men, those in official positions, are allowed to follow their destructive, murderous, exploitative and oppressive ones. - J.Z., 4.8.82, 17.6.12. - Our territorialist non-thinking and territorialist institutions, constitutions, laws and jurisdictions, traditions, customs and public opinion do give them that wrongful "authority". - J.Z., 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I see "Panarchy" as defined by P. E. De Puydt as the main way to prevent nuclear war. (Compare his essay "Panarchy" in the appendix to PP 16-17 and on my main website and on ) J.Z., 4.8.82. - But how many others do, so far, among the total world population? In this respect a wilful and culpable mental blindness prevails still. - J.Z., 20.11.02. – STATISM, OBEDIENCE, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICE, SLAVE MENTALITY, SERVILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: I trust and believe, we will awaken to the truth of our peril, a truth as great as life itself, and, like a person, who has swallowed a lethal poison but shakes off his stupor at the last moment and vomits the poison up, we will break through the layers of our denials, put aside our fainthearted excuses, and rise up to cleanse the earth of nuclear weapons.” (*) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.231. - Secede, individually and in whole groups, from all the nuclear bomb makers and their stock-pilers and decision-makers. Thereby, directly and indirectly, and one person after another, we would, gradually to fast, eliminate all nuclear targets by peacefully seceding from the whole nuclear establishment. – Imagine all the top decision-makers finally left sitting alone on their beloved stockpiles of mass murder devices! - Naturally, long before that would happen, the secessionists would have organized the destruction of these devices. Territorial governments are unwilling to part with all of them, still imagining them to be rightful and useful. In their context, with their limited horizon and power addiction, they are, to some extent, at least in their own mind and what they have of a conscience, excused. They lie to themselves and their subjects and other future victims of this wrongful and hellish power. That is why all such governments must be abolished and replaced by voluntary and competing governments or societies, none of them with any territorial monopoly. These true believers and power addicts cannot be enlightened and changed. They remain immune to criticism and the best of the alternative ideas. In this they are like most of the other religious people. Their religion is territorial statism. - J.Z., 12.9.82, 23.9.07m 17.6.12. - - (*) And of all ideas, institutions, constitutions, laws and juridical decisions that made the production, stockpiling and use of ABC mass murder devices possible and likely. – Jonathan Schell’s “The Fate of the Earth” is one of the best peace books that I know of. Alas, it still lacks a sufficiently clear peace program. – It constitutes mainly only a general wake-up call, with some general suggestions, some flawed and some, still all too general, going in the right direction. - J.Z., 23.9.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If our economy were to produce a wonderful abundance of silverware, glasses, and table napkins but no food, people would quickly rebel and insist on a different system. The world’s political arrangements, which now aim at providing some accoutrements of life but fail to lift a finger to save life itself, are in no less drastic NEED OF REPLACEMENT.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.161. - ECONOMICS & POLITICS OF TERRITORIAL STATES, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If the human race wants to go to hell in a basket, technology can help it get there by jet. It won’t change the desire or the direction, but it can greatly speed the passage.” – Charles M. Allen, “Unity in a University”, speech at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., April 25, 1967. - Alas, everyone of the human race is not given a choice or even a say on this matter. – Probably less than two dozens decision-makers are still involved. Can they and do they represent all mankind in this respect? - J.Z., 30.5.08. - REPRESENTATION, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If the world could barely tolerate a dozen killer nations, how could it survive thousands of psychotics with rad bombs and war plagues?” – p.52 of Vernor Vinge, The Peace War, in ANALOG, 8/84. - It is not "nations" or "peoples" that are organized as mass murderers but their territorial governments. - J.Z., 17.8.02. – Most of the private mass murderers and terrorists are by-products of territorial governments. – J.Z., 27.2.09. - NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, TERRORISM, MASS MURDER DEVICES, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If this proliferation of nuclear power should occur, it would follow that the nuclear arm would indeed become “conventional”, in the sense that it would be regarded as one of the kinds of armament that would be normal to employ in warfare. And, as has been argued in previous pages, and is contended by most writers on the subject, once nuclear weapons are used, in a “tactical” situation, there is no cut-off point in size. There is nothing to stop the successive use of more and more powerful weapons, until the largest and most powerful are brought into play, and there is all-out nuclear war.” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.240. – In other words, causes for wars, targets, enemies and weapons are still not sufficiently defined when it comes to “nuclear weapons” and thus the threat continues. Any minor government that also has some nuclear mass murder devices is thereby also already a “super-power” and thus super-dangerous. – And that is what all too many of them still desire to be – because they are territorial powers. Can you imagine the Pope or the Anglican Church or any football club or association of such clubs being armed with nuclear mass murder devices? - J.Z., 10.10.08. – PROLIFERATION, TERRITORIALISM, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, DEFENCE & DETERRENCE IDEOLOGY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If we have to learn to live with the bomb, then only under conditions where it won’t be governmentally mass produced, tested, stored and kept in readiness of its “military” use, upon the decision of some ruler or government or the other. When there are no longer military aims, motives and means for them, when consent is 99.9 % against them, when they have been reduced in public opinion to a criminal menace and its delivery mechanisms for earth targets have been dismantled, their radioactive cores are guarded by ideal militia forces, perhaps for future use in spaceship drives or as a defence against comets, then we could begin to relax regarding them. – J.Z., 15.7.87, 25.1.08. - But not while territorial governments, i.e. Warfare States, are being continued. - J.Z., 26.1.11. – TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If you come to think of it and to really evaluate the anti-people mass murder devices of governments, called ABC “weapons”, then you would have, thereby, fully discredited, at least in your own eyes, all territorial governments which are building them, holding them in readiness or allying themselves with nuclear armed governments. The same objections apply to governments ready or engaging in “conventional” area bombing and scorched or poisoned earth policies or those mass-murdering their the subjects of their opponents by poison gas, bombing, shooting or systematic starvation. – J.Z., 4.8.92, 26.1.08, 26.1.11, 17.6.12. – WEAPONS, DETERRENT HYPOTHESIS, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If you favour the nuclear war threat then I know that you are going to hell anyway, so I don't have to wish you on your way. What worries me is only that you are likely to drag me into it, too. - J.Z., 4.8.82. - Twenty years later nuclear "weapons" are still accepted in the hands of the "goodies" and only objected to in the hands of some of the "baddies"! And still there is no interest in the changes of principles and structures that are required to end this threat! - J.Z., 20.11.02. – However, by now secessionism, panarchism and monetary freedom are, probably, more discussed than ever before, judging by the increasing number of search results one gets on such topics with automatic search engines. – J.Z., 17.6.12. - TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM & EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: if you’re the President, what if you have to push the button! Could he have done it? Could he have decided that the security of his country required the death of thousands – millions – of other human beings? Probably not, he judged. He was too good a man for that.” - Tom Clancy, The Sum of all Fears, p.211. Should anyone be placed in that position and given that power over dozens to hundreds of millions of lives, perhaps even the survival of mankind on Earth? Long before it could come to such a decision we should question and abolish all the powers and facilities for it. – J.Z., 14.9.07. - DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: If your neighbour produced and stored nuclear mass murder devices then you would be inclined to try to do something about this threat. – Why do you think it is quite different and right if your territorial government does the same? – J.Z., 19.8.05. - Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In 1946, the McGraw-Hill book Co. published a compilation of essays under the title, One World or None …” A Report to the Public on the Full Meaning of the Atomic Bomb.” In the book, more than 16 academics and nuclear experts, including Albert Einstein, J.R. Oppenheimer and Walter Lippman, expressed their fears for the survival of civilization unless the concept of national self-defence were abandoned in favor of an internationalist approach to security.” - Brian Wilshire, The Fine Print, published by Brian Wilshire, PO Box 209, Round Corner, NSW 2158, Australia., 1992., p.6. – Alas, these experts, too, did not realize that it is territorial nationalism and organization that constitutes the threat and that exterritorial autonomy for all kinds of communities of volunteers, everywhere, locally, nationally or internationally federated, according to their own preferences, constitutes the largest part of the solution. For then everybody, except criminals and aggressors with involuntary victims, could get the government or non-governmental society of his or her individual choice, thus producing genuine and very diverse  forms of self-governance everywhere and a healthy and peaceful competition between them, based on full consumer sovereignty and full free enterprise and free exchange, freedom of association and freedom of contract in the sphere of public services (or presumed public services) as well. – Nuclear weapons require territorial motives, targets means and ideas, combined with the notion of collective responsibility. – J.Z., 1.10.07. – One should imagine that when one system has caused one problem after the other, one crisis after the other, one war after the other, one tax after the other, and this for thousands of years, that then, finally, enough of its victims would begin to seriously think about the opposite to territorial states, namely freely competing societies of volunteers only, all under exterritorial autonomy and personal laws. Alas, this has still not occurred. – J.Z., 10.10.07, 176.12. – PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, MULTIARCHISM, PLURALISM FOR VOLUNTEERS, PERSONAL LAW

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: in a common political endeavor, reaching across national boundaries … the aim of the endeavor would be to hold the gates of life open … to every living person … it would not seek to derive any rights to dictate to the generations on hand. … Intellectually and philosophically, it would carry the principle of tolerance to the utmost extreme. It would attempt to be as open to new thoughts and feelings as it would be to the new generations that would think those thoughts and feel those feelings. Its underlying supposition about the creeds and ideologies would be that whereas without mankind none can exist, with mankind all can exist.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.227. – But who does conclude from such general statements upon the exterritorial autonomy for voluntary communities which is advanced by panarchists and polyarchists? Not even Ayn Rand did, although she made similar general statements. – J.Z., 10.10.07. - & TOLERANCE, FOR ALL IDEOLOGIES, AMONG THEIR BELIEVERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In a world that sits not on a powder keg but on a hydrogen bomb, one begins to suspect that the technician who rules our world is not the master magician he thinks he is but only a sorcerer's apprentice who does not know how to turn off what he turned on - or even how to avoid blowing himself up." - Joseph Wood Krutch, Wilderness as a Tonic, THE SATURDAY REVIEW, 8.6.1963, p. 15. - Don't blame the results of your own stupidities, prejudices, wrong premises and lack of interest on any God or ruler! - J.Z., 20.11.02. - Our territorial rulers represent largely only the foolishness, errors and popular prejudices of their subjects. Most hold dozens to hundreds of wrongful notions in their heads that do, ultimately, lead to nuclear war. And they are still not interested in an Encyclopedia of the Best Refutations, which could also shake their faith in territorial statism. - J.Z., 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In my opinion, Carthage must be spared!" - the constant reply of Publius Scipio Nasica to Cato. - Compare the constant struggle of Israel to preserve its existence and that of the Palestinians to obtain a territorial existence. Now, if both were organized exterritorially, they could come to peacefully coexist and the other territorial targets or countries to conquer or defend would disappear - as they once disappeared for the churches in Europe. - J.Z., 4.8.82. – Jews, having been all too often the victims of “collective responsibility” notions, should actually be the foremost opponents of applying them in theories (hypotheses) and in action. Nevertheless, they too, at least in Israel, as territorial statists, did “arm” themselves (their governments) with mass murder devices. Each such "weapon" can be compared to a Nazi extermination camp in a small package. Byy now they have an estimated 200 to 300 of them. Even the Nazis did not have as many mass extermination camps! The total losses that could be inflicted with such “weapons”, largely upon non-combatants, civilians in cities, could easily be larger than the total of the Holocaust mass murders the Nazis committed. – One does not defeat the Nazis of this world by acting like them. – J.Z., 27.2.09, 26.1.11. - ISRAEL & ARAB STATES, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL VS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In our present-day world, in the councils where the decisions are made, there is no one to speak for man and for the earth, although both are threatened with annihilation.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.188. - & DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY OVER WAR & PEACE, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATE, DEMOCRACY, REPRESENTATIONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In supposing that the world (*) had found a political means of making international decisions, I made a very large supposition indeed – one that encompasses something close to the whole work of resolving the nuclear predicament, for, once a political solution has been found (**), disarmament becomes a merely technical matter, which should present no special difficulties. (***) And yet simply to recognize that the task is at bottom political, and that only a political solution can prepare the way for full disarmament (****) and real safety for the species, is in itself important. The recognition calls attention to the fact that disarmament in isolation from political change cannot proceed very far.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.225. - - (*) Some individuals and that these had succeeded to actually reach the world with their ideas. -  - (**) It must not only be found but also become sufficiently widely recognized and realized, so that it can, from then on, spread, rather fast, by voluntary acceptance, to all others. - - (***) The solution must include full employment for all the soldiers and other public servants who would become superfluous as such in the process. - - (****) not e.g. regarding rightful policing weapons and self-defence weapons. - The political solution would, essentially, consist in allowing almost all political solutions to be applied among volunteers, with voluntarism assured by individual secessionism and the exterritorial autonomy of such communities. These organizations would be self-limited by the fact that they have to bear the costs and risks their political, economic and social experiments themselves and that their members could secede from them. Only such governments would be truly “limited” governments, without any of the wrongful and harmful features of territorial governments, however limited these would otherwise be. Only individually backed international relations and policies can be rightful and effective as well as peace-promoting, as peace promoting e.g. as individual and group tourism, free trade and free enterprise are and also free productive cooperatives or other self-management systems - for all, who do want them for themselves. – J.Z., 22.9.07, 17.6.. - POLITICS & NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, A POLITICAL SOLUTION

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In the battle of strength between genuine social sciences and mass murderous nuclear strength preparations, these social sciences can and ought to win. – J.Z., 1.6.86. – Alas, so far these genuine social sciences are still very weak and ill prepared. Certainly not push-button ready for operation. – J.Z. 30.5.08. - SOCIAL SCIENCES ARE NOT SCIENCES UNTIL THEY SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE EXTERRITORIAL & VOLUNTARY ALTERNATIVES AS WELL.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In these circumstances, public opinion in the free countries would have to represent public opinion in all countries, and would have to bring its pressure to bear, as best as it could, on all governments.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p. 230. - When even in democratic countries individuals and groups of volunteers are not yet free to secede from their territorial governments and to establish exterritorially autonomous communities, then the best way to exert pressure upon foreign despotic governments would be to pressurize the own democratic governments to concede these rights to the own citizens and to the former subjects of the foreign dictatorships, who have managed to escape them. This would mean, full freedom for them, to establish their own kinds of governments in exile as alternatives to the despotic regimes and as ideals for all the opposition groups remaining under these criminal foreign regimes. These free and tolerant examples, set in relatively free countries, would inspire rightful revolutionary, military insurrection and putsch attempts and prevent infighting between all such groups, simply by giving them a common ideal of mutual tolerance and peaceful coexistence in diversity, upon the basis of exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. Only once this freedom is practically demonstrated, first in the presently democratic countries, will public opinion pressure also become effective upon despotic regimes and their victims. Freedom must not only be talked about but practically demonstrated, even in its most radical and tolerant versions. Otherwise it will remain doubtful for or even feared by all too many. – J.Z., 23.9.07. – Governments have mostly made sure that their voters are unarmed and unorganized and untrained to protect their individual rights and liberties against their territorial rulers. They made even sure that they know very little about these rights, as far as they could, with their governmental flawed and incomplete bills of rights and with their “education” systems and monopoly for armed organizations. – J.Z., 23.2.09, 17.6.12.  - ENLIGHTENED PUBLIC OPINION? Whatever there is of it as yet, governments do not have to take it serious as yet. They get away with simply ignoring it or even with simply remaining unaware of it. Territorial governments cannot provide the required self-rule or self-determination by sufficieintly enlightened people. – J.Z., 23.2.09, 17.6.12. – TERRITORIALISM, POLITICIANS, RULERS, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In this book, I have not sought to define a political solution to the nuclear predicament – either to embark on the full-scale re-examination of the foundations of political thought which must be undertaken if the world’s political institutions are to be made consonant with the global reality in which they operate or to work out the practical steps by which mankind, acting for the first time in history as a single entity (? – J.Z.), can reorganize its political life. I have left to others those awesome, urgent tasks, which, imposed on us by history (?- J.Z.), constitute the political work of our age. Rather, I have attempted to examine the physical extent, the human significance, and the practical dimensions of the nuclear predicament in which the whole world now finds itself. This predicament is a sort of (territorialist – J.Z. ) cage (*) that has quietly grown up around the earth, imprisoning every person in it, and the demanding terms of the predicament – its durability, its global political sweep, its human totality (**), constitute the bars of that cage. However, if a description of the predicament which is the greatest that mankind has ever faced, cannot in itself reveal to us how we can escape, it can, I believe, acquaint us with the magnitude and shape of the task that we have to address ourselves to. And it can summon us to action.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.219/20. - - (*) One with many national or statist sub-cages! And with no release, parole or escape for anyone of its victims. Their staff are also victims of this system, not only victimizers and beneficiaries. - - (**) Rather, its inhuman territorial totalitarianism! – J.Z., 22.9.07. - POLITICS, UTOPIAS, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM OR WORLD STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: In this timid, crippled thinking, “realism” is the title given to beliefs whose most notable characteristic is their failure to recognize the chief reality of the age, the pit into which our species threatens to jump; …” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.161. – It isn’t jumping but is being pushed – by its territorial masters. – J.Z., 10.10.07. - & “REALISM”, DIS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: in today’s system the actual weapons have already retired halfway from their traditional military role. They are “psychological” weapons, whose purpose is not to be employed but to maintain a permanent state of mind-terror in the adversary. Their target is someone’s mind, and their end, if the system works, is to rust into powder in their silos. And our generals are already psychological soldiers – masters of the war game and of the computer terminal but not, fortunately, of the battlefield.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.222. – If that is already the case, then why not choose the alternative of debating and finally publishing quite rightful war- and peace aims, and already realizing them, in the own countries, among the own voluntary communities and thus demonstrating them, believably, to the rest of the world? They must be so attractive that only madmen would still oppose them and these madmen would then no longer find hordes of followers. If our aims are quite rightful and attractive then “enemy” soldiers and officers would rather desert or rise against their government than fight us. Then these armed forces would become our most important allies. At least they would then declare themselves neutral. Famous precedent: The convention at Tauroggen, where the Prussian forces at first declared that they would not longer fight for Napoleon but declared themselves neutral. Later they even resolved to fight against him. Quite rightful and attractive war and peace aims would establish something like a military jiu-jitsu defence that would turn the real enemy’s forces against him. – Just and attractive ideas could be our most effective “weapons”. Compare the slogan: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her own free choice! – Who would fanatically oppose such free choices? – With such ideas sufficiently launched, we could even afford unilateral nuclear disarmament and a temporary occupation by the conscripted soldiers of dictators. They would then not be the obedient soldiers of their dictators for much longer. - J.Z., 22.9.07, 26.1.11. - WEAPONS & PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE, PANARCHISM AS A RIGHTFUL & ATTRACTIVE WAR AIM, DESERTION, DECISION-MAKING ON WAR & PEACE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Intellectually, we recognize that we have prepared ourselves for self-extermination and are improving the preparedness every day, but emotionally and politically we have failed to respond.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.151/52. - - One of the reasons for this is that the power to respond to that threat has been taken from us. We have neither achieved, as yet, decision-making power in this sphere nor freedom of action, including e.g. individual secessionism, exterritorially autonomous communities, nor ideal militia forces to defend our individual rights and liberties. As a result we feel helpless and, mostly, rather think about something else, the minor things of life that we can already and still do something about. – J.Z., 10.10.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Is all this to end in trivial horror because so few are able to think of Man rather than of this or that group of men?” – Bertrand Russell, Man’s Peril, in Peter Mayer, editor, The Pacifist Conscience, a Pelican Book, paper back, 1966, p.321. – As I see it, the peril lies in most people being only able to think in terms of territorially “united” groups of men, instead of in terms of only exterritorially united groups of men, all volunteers, who might be spread all over one or several countries or all over the world, with all ruling themselves under their own preferred personal laws and to that extent having no disagreement with any other such group of volunteers. – The former organizes them in territorial warfare States, the latter in various free societies, free to do all their own things for and to themselves only and having thus little reason to hate the members of any other groups or any strong motive to go to war against any of the other groups, also very little power and opportunity to do so. Just like most churches and sects have by now given up any serious attempt at world domination. – J.Z., 11.9.08. – PANARCHISM, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, FREEDOM TO DO THE OWN THINGS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Is any man good enough to be authorized to decide whether millions of others are to die? – J.Z., n.d.. – DECISION ON WAR & PEACE, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It amounts to “scorched earth policy” and universal hostage-taking on a genocidal or universal holocaust scale. Each government “armed” with ABC mass murder devices has in effect high-jacked the whole population, which is territorially subjugated by the regime it opposes and threatens to murder these hostages by the hundred-thousands or dozens of millions. They hold these victims (but not their territorial despotic or authoritarian governments) responsible for the actions of their governments, while the guilty governments would be able to survive, at least for years, in the safest shelters. Compared with these high-jackings the conventional high-jackers and terrorists are innocent babies. – J.Z., 12.2.88, 30.5.08. - TERRITORIALISM & ITS MASS MURDER OR GENERAL HOLOCAUST PREPARATIONS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is another nonsensical feature of the nuclear predicament that while each side regards the population of the other side as the innocent victims of unjust government, each proposes to punish the other government by annihilating that already suffering and oppressed population.”- Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. - COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY & HOSTAGE TAKING, PEOPLES CONSIDERED AS PROPERTY OF THEIR TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is desperately important today, that we look the reality of nuclear war courageously in the face, that we announce one to another what we have seen there. Even if the sight turns us to stone - the sight not only of apocalyptic horrors, but also the sight of ourselves, a people, who seriously, with forethought, are preparing their own demise. The first fruits of our skill and over-skill, the people of Hiroshima, are long dead. A few, on this anniversary, still cling to the tree of life, scarred and ailing. But there will be also a second harvest as a greater storm shakes that tree. We shall live to feel it." - Daniel Berrigan, THE AUSTRALIAN, 7/8/79. - Rhetoric will not help the victims enough, no more so than prayers, marches, demonstrations, protests or petitions, as long as they are without the saving ideas and without arms, organization and training against the nuclear armed and thus monstrous territorial State organizations. - J.Z., 20.11.02, 26.1.11, 18.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is high time that the race of man recognize that many, perhaps most, of its rulers have been mad. The course of events charted by these psychotics in power has been a dirty, cruel, bloody road along with men, essentially decent men, have been led to horrible suffering, starvation and pointless, premature deaths. - - This book is intended to be a polemic, an evangelistic tract to preach the doctrine that all rulers should be looked upon as potentially crazy, and that mankind must guard against them if it is to survive.” – Russell V. Lee, M.D., The Menace of Madness in High Places, R.V.L., Palo Alto, 1977, in the Foreword.-  THREAT & LEADERSHIP, MADNESS OF RULERS, POWER ADDICTION, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM, POLITICS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, PREMIERS, POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is ironical that in an age when we have prided ourselves on our progress in the intelligent care and teaching of children we have at the same time put them at the mercy of new and most terrible weapons of destruction.” – Pearl S. Buck, What America Means to Me, 1943, p.12. - WE? How many people among over 6 billion, have any nuclear weapons at their disposal and any say on their use or destruction? The collective guilt involved consists only in tolerating such a situation instead of becoming interested in radical, here exterritorial and voluntary alternatives to it? - J.Z., 26.1.11. - EDUCATION, CHILDREN, PUBLIC OPINION, WHAT KIND OF COLLECTIVE GUILT EXISTS? Q., DIS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: it is my thesis that we shall never eliminate or contain the omnipresent threat of nuclear warfare until ordinary people fully comprehend – both cognitively and viscerally – two aspects of the arms problem: firstly, the full extent to which the human species is endangered by continuing to stockpile weapons of mass extermination and develop the concomitant technology; and secondly, why supposedly sane leaders, supported by the majority of their constituents, persist in the pursuit of arms policies that any detached observe with a long vie would clearly perceive as ‘mad’. – Unless the peace movement is able to bring the public to grips with these two interrelated issues, the downward slide towards sui-genocide seems inevitable.” – Ralph Summy, SOCIAL ALTERNATIVES, June 82. - Under territorialism it is still not suicide, which would be individually decided upon,  but mass murder, by power-holders on top of this wrongful, irrational and even mad "system". - J.Z., 26.1.11, 18.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is no longer a question of 'choosing' a good or better system, but a question of whether life on earth will continue.” - Laurance Labadie: Selected Essays, P.66. - It is precisely a question of choosing between territorial systems and exterritorial ones, i.e., also coercive or voluntarily accepted (by individuals) systems, between hierarchical systems and self-managing ones, between monopolistic and competitive ones. - Alas, even an individualist anarchist like L. L. could remain blind to such distinctions and arrived at despair rather than the solution. - J.Z., 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is no longer true that wars begin in the minds of men (*); they can now start in the circuits of computers. (**) – Arthur C. Clarke, editorial in ANALOG, 7/83, p. 164. - Deterrence may work for a while – but not forever. - (*) Not all men are involved. Just a few powerful territorial decision-makers, so mad that they imagine to be able to lead their nation or even mankind into a better future, while most of the ideas in their heads are popular errors or prejudices and this is the main reason why they rose to power with the majority of votes. - - (**) It may, actually, be only the malfunction of a single computer, which brings nuclear war about. - Has your own computer never played up? – Mine did so, all too often. - J.Z., 25.1.08, 26.1.11, 18.6.12. - ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR & COMPUTERIZATION, Q., TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is no overstatement to say that if any society organized its affairs in this way, giving to each citizen the power to kill all the others, it would be regarded as deranged.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.216. – Societies of volunteers would not do this. However, finally freed peoples, everywhere, might one day resolve to give all their surviving leaders the chance to establish such a “society” or last “summit conference” and deterrence policy “safety” for themselves, in an exclusive club of their own, and to maintain themselves there, as long as they can, somewhere in a remote, infertile or even desert-area, where their wipe-out would not harm any other people. They would not need nuclear devices for this. High explosives would serve just as well. Since, for all too long, the leaders have forced such a situation upon the whole population of the world, it would only be just to sentence these “statesmen” to such an imprisonment, as long as it can last. – Thus getting rid of all of them at the same time would justify the expense of providing them, for their last days or weeks or even years, with all the personal luxuries that they are accustomed to. But not with any personal servants, unless some of them volunteer for this. – Their goodies could be delivered by automated transport, e.g. a small field railway, without endangering any other life. Remote controls could be used to ensure that their “deterrent” is still functioning. – A temporary and luxurious asylum for all the leading insane people. - Good riddance to bad rubbish! - J.Z., 22. 9.07. – Was there ever as yet a quite sane territorial society or State? – The most insane ones seem to be in charge of the territory-wide nut-houses. – J.Z., 23.2.09. - LEADERSHIP, WARFARE STATES, A GENUINE DETERRENCE POLICY, GENUINE SOCIETIES & FREE PEOPLE, VOLUNTEERS, AN EXCLUSIVE CLUB FOR ALL TERRITORIAL STATESMEN & THEIR DETERRENCE POLICY, ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR MIS-LEADERS, RULERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is often said that nuclear arms have made war obsolete, but this is a misunderstanding. Obsolescence occurs when a means to some end is superseded by a new and presumably better means – was (occurring? – J.Z.), when it was discovered that vehicles powered by internal combustion engines were more efficient than vehicles pulled by horses at transporting people and goods from one place to another. (*) But war has not been superseded by some better means to its end, which is to serve as the final arbiter of disputes among sovereign states (**) On the contrary, war has gone out of existence (***) without leaving behind any means at all – whether superior or inferior – to that end. (****) The more than three decades of jittery peace between the nuclear super-powers, which the world has experienced since the invention of nuclear weapons is almost certainly the result of this lack. There is no need to “abolish war” among the nuclear powers; it is already gone. The choices don’t include (*****) war any longer. They consist now of peace, on the one hand, and annihilation, on the other. And annihilation – or “assured destruction” is as far from being war as peace is, and the sooner we recognize this the sooner we will be able to save our species from self-extermination.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.192/193. - - (*) Actually, horses are internal combustion engines as well, although only of the biological kind. – J.Z. - - (**) That would require the realization of individual and group secessionism from territorial States and the freedom for these dissenters to establish their various communities of volunteers only, all under full exterritorial sovereignty or personal laws, whereby they could peacefully realize their own rightful aims, while those States, from which they have seceded, would not be interfered with in the pursuit of their own rightful and tolerant aims and practices. – No rightful cause or motive for a just war would remain for either of these groups. – - (***) That is putting it too strongly. Only to some extent has it gone out of existence, while all the preparations for the next war go on and arms races do mostly end in wars. - - (****) Moral reasoning and the ideas of panarchism or polyarchy do exist - but are not applied in this case but, rather, ignored, preferring instead the old territorialist notions and prejudices, institutions and “policies” . The real solutions, quite rightful war and peace aims, including the tolerant options of individual secessionism and personal law or exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, are not even publicly discussed, except among a handful of people in the whole world. – Schell does not seem to be aware of this alternative, either. - J.Z., 22.9.07. – [A Google search for “panarchism” has recently demonstrated to me that the discussion of this alternative is expanding, so much so that I on my own cannot follow all of it and that I found already in the first search pages many references that are new to me, including two books on panarchism. – J.Z., 18.6.12.] Are e.g., campaigns against slavers, pirates and tyrants no longer warranted, if justly conducted only against them? – 23.2.09. - Should we use "weapons" suitable only to murder the slaves rather than execute the slavers? - J.Z., 26.1.11. - & NUCLEAR DETERRENT, DEFENCE, LIBERATION, Q., COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is predicted that within 30 days after nuclear exchange 90 per cent of American human beings will be dead. As Nikita Khrushchev said years ago, in the event of a nuclear war, the living will envy the dead. President Carter stockpiled huge quantities of opium in case of nuclear war - for euthanasia. - Helen Coldicott, in John Hinchcliff's, ed., "Confronting the Nuclear Age", p.27. - Neither he not any of his followers stockpiled and discussed ideas, proposals and platforms on how to abolish the nuclear war threat - but, rather, continued with it! - His secret services did not manage to find them either, although they are already somewhat published! As much or as little can we rely on our territorial "protectors" and “intelligence” services. - J.Z., 26.1.11, 18.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is right and much easier to hit, without nuclear devices, but with ordinary weapons, instead (i.e., genuine weapons, that can be used discriminately), only those real enemies, who are in power to decide upon the use of nuclear weapons and are prepared for their use against millions of innocent people, equipped with them even to the extent of “over-kill” or genocide, risking the survival of all of mankind, e.g. via a “nuclear winter”. They are even worse terrorist means than the worst kind of unofficial terrorists have so far used. – J.Z., 7.10.97, 24.1.08. - & TYRANNICIDE, TERRORISM, GENUINE WEAPONS?

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is the result of failure to properly define important terms like weapons, enemies, defence, aggression, warfare, strength, collective responsibility, territorial integrity, consent, self-government, people, democracy, individual rights and international law. See my ABC Against Nuclear War in - J.Z., 17.1.00.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It is useless to ban the Bomb. What we must ban is the (*) ideology of war, which means the ideology of government omnipotence of aggressive nationalism, of intervention run riot.” – William H. Peterson, THE FREEMAN, 8/76, p.453. - (*) territorialist … And such an ideology cannot be banned but must be sufficiently refuted. – I wish all suitable slogans, definitions, quotes, jokes and refutations, ideas and wordings on this threat and how to counter it, would be put together. Perhaps under “Slogans for Survival!”? - Keyboards of PC’s and their words might, after all, become more powerful than nuclear “weapons” - J.Z., 14.1.93, 30.5.08. – This alphabetized compilation is only my second small beginning of efforts in this direction. Very much input from many others is required to make it sufficiently complete and convincing. – I wish one could directly appeal to the survival instinct. But it did not develop against such threats, which tend to be rather ignored than taken into account in one’s daily thinking and actions. People, under present territorial conditions, have a right to feel helpless, because they largely are. But they ought to start thinking about the kinds of freedom of action that they would need to solve this problem created and maintained by their territorial governments. – J.Z., 18.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It makes sense only to adopt non-violent practices among the advocates of non-violence, i.e., panarchistically, but not towards the actions of violent coercers around them (acting against such peaceful communities), because the coercers have adopted the “value” of violence not only against violent people but also against non-violent ones and only respect effective defensive force. – J.Z., 9.12.87, 26.1.08, 18.6.12. - & PANARCHISM, NONVIOLENCE, RESISTANCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It means something that we call both pornography and nuclear destruction “obscene”. In the first, we find desire stripped of any further human sentiment or attachment – of any “redeeming social value”, in the legal phrase. In the second, we find violence detached from any human goals, all of which would be engulfed in a holocaust – detached, that is, from all redeeming social value.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.158. - - Already most conventional wars are without any rightful war and peace aims. Nuclear war and its “weapons” are without any moral, rational or sensible aims at all. Only territorial power addicts would even dream of building, stockpiling and using them. – Already all their territorialist assumptions are insane. Nuclear war preparations and actions heap another kind of insanity upon that insanity, among the leaders as well as among their henchmen and voters. – J.Z., 21.9.07, 18.6.12. - PORNOGRAPHY, OBSCENITY, SOCIAL VALUES, HUMAN GOALS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It was a pleasant night, provided one didn't think too deeply about man-made suns in brief blossom over defenseless cities.” - Bob Shaw, Ground Zero Man, p.38. - This danger is still largely ignored rather than rightfully and rationally tackled in all its causes, most of them territorial, apart from the still persisting and quite wrong notions of collective responsibility. - J.Z., 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It was easy to say, as many did, that in a nuclear world mankind had to live in peace or perish; it was a far different matter to make actual political sacrifices (*) that would permit the nuclear peril to be lifted. The present-day United Nations is the empty husk of those irresolute good intentions. But, whatever people said, or ineffectually hoped for, the world (**) in fact chose the course of attempting to refashion the system of (***) sovereignty to accommodate nuclear weapons.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.194. - - (*) Not “sacrifices” are needed but merely quite rightful, peaceful and mutually beneficial changes. Only very flawed “ideals” would have to be “sacrificed”, namely the quite utopian ones that are all built on the assumption that statist paradises of various kinds can be built upon a territorial basis, as regimes not only over voluntary but also over involuntary members, who are neither criminals nor aggressors. – That kind of “sacrifice” is as much a “sacrifice” as giving up the burning of witches, heretics and widows. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - - (**) The world and its population has not any say in the matter. Territorial governments have monopolized this kind of decision-making, among all too little protest against this among their subjects. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - - (***) They simply have not seriously considered the refashioning or change of territorial sovereignties, of the relatively few now ruling territorial governments, into mere exterritorial autonomy for the multitude of all the diverse communities of volunteers that would result – once former mere subjects become free to opt out, as individuals or in whole groups, free also to associate in whatever statist or non-statist communities they want to associate among themselves, under full freedom to do so and to rule all their internal affairs, those of all their volunteers, quite independently from all other communities. Territorial States, from which one can so secede and within which – and across all former borders – one can establish “States within States”, but only within the limits of personal laws for volunteers, would thereby themselves be turned into remnants of formerly territorial States, which would consist only of their remaining volunteers and their exterritorial autonomy would then also remain untouched. – For instance, the Kurds are now subjects to three adjacent territorial States and not free in any one of them or in all of them to associate under full exterritorial autonomy. Naturally, their national identity is not the only thing that Kurds possess. They, too, have the usual religious, and ideological other divisions among themselves and these would, under full freedom for alternative institutions, lead also to diverse Kurdish communities of volunteers, all of them exterritorially autonomous, but, perhaps, forming one Kurdish federation or several. - J.Z., 22.9.07. - The transformation of territorially imposed systems to individually chosen ones, all under personal law and full exterritorial autonomy, would be a win-win situation for the masses of mankind, with the only exception formed by the territorial power addicts, from then on reduced to being confined to their kind of volunteers and exterritorially autonomous own affairs. All others would not complain. Do these power-mongers have a rightful cause to complain when they lose their territorial power over involuntary victims? Many other power-addicts would get their chance - to rule over voluntary victims only, as long as their victims are prepared to put up with them, i.e., do not secede from them individually or in whole groups. - J.Z., 26.1.11, 18.6.12. - UNITED NATIONS & "SACRIFICES" TO ACHIEVE PEACE, KURDS, EXTERRITORIAL FEDERALISM, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, SECESSIONISM, CONSISTENT & COMPREHENSIVE EXTERRITORIAL ASSOCIATIONISM FOR VOLUNTEERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It was not unless one lifted one’s gaze from all the allegedly normal events occurring before one’s eyes and looked at the executioner’s sword hanging over everyone’s head that the normality was revealed as a sort of mass insanity. This was an insanity that consisted not in screaming and making a commotion but precisely in not doing these things in the face of overwhelming danger, as though everyone had been sedated.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.151. - TERRITORIALISM & ITS MAIN THREAT.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It will cease once people stop believing in absurdities and act accordingly. Absurdities like "nuclear strength", "nuclear deterrence", "nuclear weapons", "monopolistic decision-making" by "leaders", "collective responsibility", "national sovereignty", "territorialism", "rights granted by governments", "avalanches of laws", "the monies of monetary despotism", the "welfare based upon tribute payments", "representation" by collective voting, giving only majorities a chance, etc., etc. There are ten thousands of these errors, myths and prejudices that only their encyclopaedic treatment could come to effectively deal with them. - J.Z., 16. 11. 82, 1. 5. 06. – DIS., PREJUDICES, ERRORS, FALSE ASSUMPTIONS, PUBLIC OPINION, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: It would indeed be a tragedy if the history of the human race proved to be nothing more than the story of an ape playing with a box of matches on a petrol dump.” – David Ormsby Gore. - Is it a consolation for us to say that with our territorial votes we have placed many apes into such positions? - J.Z., 26.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM, VOTING, RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Jacques Chirac says France (*) is prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests…. “Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction”, he said. “The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centres of power. … (**) All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit.” … The International Institute for Strategic Weapons in London says France has 348 nuclear weapons…” - Molly Moore, in Paris, in: “Chirac sounds nuclear warning to terrorists, France will retaliate if attacked.” – THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 21/22 Jan. 06. - As if in any country all of the people - or at least the majority - had any say at all on terrorist attacks or ordinary military aggressions. – Immoral and power-mad people like Chirac might unleash a world-wide nuclear war, simply because they cannot think straight. - - How many people in capitals are actually the decisive men on terrorist attacks, already presuming that these attacks are government-organized and not undertaken by a private terrorist radical movement, which their government vainly tried to suppress. How would the French government know the difference? The more suitable weapons against these few governmental decision makers would still be small bombs, poisons, daggers, rifles, pistols and even bow and arrow. These would also be suitable weapons against the terrorists. Conventional armies and nuclear mass murder devices are quite unsuitable against them. See the current experience in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is the height of idiocy to employ a nuclear explosive device to eliminate one or a few criminals. – A government might as well “respond” in this way against shooters of university student or school pupils or against murderous bank robbers. – French people once took the lead in the process of enlightenment. That was a long time ago. Excessive wine drinking does apparently go on, there, from childhood on and it seems to have burnt out some brains. - J.Z., 31.10.07. – In practice most terrorists cannot even be found to be arrested, sent to court or executed. Devastating a whole city or country and all its people because the anti-terrorists can’t cope with the terrorist threats does not make any sense at all. – (*) he! – (**) Remember, the location of Bin Laden is still unknown, years later! – J.Z., 23.2.09. [Well, at least Saddam Hussein  and Bin Laden were finally found and eliminated. – But how many innocent people were wrongly killed in the process? - J.Z., 18.6.12.] Small scale terrorism is not effectively countered by large-scale and official terrorism. - J.Z., 26.1.11.- TYRANNICIDE, TERRORISM & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY NOTIONS, LEADERSHIP, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS, POLITICIANS, RULERS, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, DIS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Knowledge is the deterrent.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, 223. – Rather, sufficient knowledge of the right kind could be the best deterrent. Not only the knowledge of the extent and limits of tyrannicide and of quite rightful military revolutions and military uprisings and how best to finance them. Knowledge also of all individual human rights and liberties, including individual secessionism and exterritorial autonomy for communities of volunteers, the knowledge to end and avoid deflations, inflations and mass unemployment and involuntary poverty. The knowledge that the people themselves, properly organized and trained, would be the most efficient disarmament inspectors for the destruction of all ABC mass murder devices. Knowledge of quite rightful peace aims, very attractive to soldiers and officers on the other side. Knowledge of how to treat POWs and deserters as allies or neutrals rather than as enemies. I compiled ca. 500 such points in my second peace book, alphabetically. It is online and I do not want to repeat myself too often. – Only on the basis of all such knowledge, once it is at least somewhere applied, would it become true what Schell says, ibid: “All human beings would join in a defensive alliance, with nuclear weapons as their common enemy.” - J.Z., 22.9.07. - DETERRENT, KNOWLEDGE AS A DETERRENT, DIS. – MILITIA, DEFENCE, LIBERATION, REVOLUTION, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, RIGHTFUL WAR AIMS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Let us be clear. The possibility of total annihilation in a nuclear war is real. Such a catastrophe will be the work of governments, not of their subjects. The depression and the economic disorder of the 1970s are equally the work of governments and not of their subjects. The solution seems obvious and is difficult: to reduce and confine the power of governments.” - H. S. Ferns: The Disease of Government, p.118. - Any territorial power going beyond privately or cooperatively owned real estate goes too far and leads to nuclear "strengths" and nuclear targets. - J.Z., 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Let us initiate the unilateral disarmament of the Red Army by a separate peace treaty offer with so attractive terms that they can hardly refuse to accept it and act upon it by destroying their regime's nuclear "weapons" first. - J.Z., 18. 4. 83. - Then we should follow suit, without hesitation. - Actually, I believe we could and should have risked, even unilaterally, disarming ourselves as far as ABC mass murder devices are concerned. Thereby we would clearly have proven how wrong and false the communist propaganda was and that we pose no threat to the Russian people. Anyhow, I doubt that more than a tiny fraction of the Red Army consisted of fanatical communists. These could then have been overpowered rather fast and easily. And on our side we should have been sufficiently prepared for a rightful and quite effective libertarian revolution or resistance against any occupying force and its regime, together with the occupying force and the military forces remaining in the country of the regime. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are more afraid of such resistance to them than of all foreign military forces and their weapons. As it is, the authoritarians and totalitarians are preparing for their kinds of revolutions, insurrections and subversions everywhere, but the supposedly free and freedom-loving countries and their peoples make no preparations for their kind of liberating revolutions to overthrow the remaining dictators. - J.Z., 1. 5. 06, 18.6.12. - Panarchism for ourselves and for our secret allies, the captive nations and other minorities under dictatorships, demonstrated by our own panarchies and by many exterritorially autonomous governments and societies in exile, in our midst, also as our open allies and as rightful and attractive alternatives to their present despotic and territorial mis-rulers. Thus and otherwise only quite rightful war and peace aims. - J.Z., 26.1.11. - UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, LIBERATING REVOLUTIONS & MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, DESERTION, WAR AIMS, FRATERNIZATION, GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Libertarian, anarchistic and panarchist utopianism vs. the nuclear Warfare State and nuclear war threat. – J.Z., 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Life does not exist for the sake of the governments. …” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.170. – Nevertheless, to preserve their existence with mass-murderous and also suicidal means, or, rather, to assure their mutual destruction, territorial governments are now prepared to risk even the survival of mankind. – J.Z., 21.9.07. - LIFE & TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, NUCLEAR WINTER

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Like all those who are inclined to suicide, we approach the action in two capacities: the capacity of the one who would kill and that of the one who would be killed. As when we dream, we are both the authors and the sufferers of our fate.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. – If mere words, describing the horror of it, could prevent nuclear war, then this would be the book to do it. Alas, positive alternative ideas are also required – and they must be widely accepted to become effective. Alas, even books containing such ideas, like my own two, remain largely ignored, although they are online. – A genuine information revolution – in enough heads – has still to happen! – J.Z., 2.2.09. - See:  & - J.Z., 10.10.07. - & SUICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Look what happened to Hilda Murrell, finding out about nuclear weapons in Thatcher’s armada.” - Ian Watson, Oracle, p.126. – Was there ever a more trivial war aim on both sides? Giving the few inhabitants their individual choice of government affiliation, English or Argentinean, was, obviously, not considered by either side. And this clash might, nevertheless, have lead to nuclear war! – J.Z., 11.9.07. - DURING THE FALKLAND WAR, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Major wars can never again win anything but desolation over the whole earth. Such war has ceased to be a usable instrument of national policy.” - R. M. MacIver, Power Transformed, p. 86. MACMILLAN, 1964. - Alas, although no longer useful and never rightful, they are still being built and kept in readiness by territorial governments. - J.Z., 26.1.11, 20.6.12. - WAR, WORLD WARS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Man - his own greatest enemy, and as it were, his own executioner. - Sir Thomas Browne. – It is rather the territorial State, which is prepared to become man’s executioner. – J.Z., 11.2.08. - DIS., TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.” – John F. Kennedy, address, United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 25, 1962. – Apparently, he did not realize that he, his office and his actions, were part of the problem. – J.Z., 27.2.09. - Mankind and all "nations", somewhat free peoples and captive nations are still without any powers and rights in this respect - although they are the targets! - J.Z., 26.1.11, 18.6.12. - TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: military objectives, in the event of a nuclear war stemming from a major attack on the Alliance, should be the destruction of the enemy’s military forces, not on his civilian population.” - Mr. McNamara, quoted by Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.202. – It took our great mis-leaders and "experts" a long time to make this distinction between governments and their subjects, even in cases of totalitarian regimes imposed upon whole populations. They still do not make it - as a rule. For it does not take a nuclear “weapon” to get rid of a ruling dictator tyrant or small despotic clique. These “weapons” are always directed more against their victims than against these victimizers. – J.Z., 10.10.08. – The conscripts on the other side should also be considered as innocent victims, as much as possible, and treated accordingly,  especially when they are taken prisoner or deserted. – J.Z., 18.6.12. - TERRITORIALISM & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Millions for defence, but not one cent for survival.” – Alfred Bester, The Stars My Destination, p.189. – Billions for mutual mass murder by governments of the subjects of other governments. Not one cent for survival, except for the high cost of putting such mass murderous rulers, in the safest shelters. – As for the shelters built for ordinary civilians: Nuclear war is likely to come so sudden that most will be outright killed or exposed to deadly radiation before they reach their shelters. And what are the survivors to eat in the future? Highly irradiated food? And to grow it and harvest it, they will have to expose themselves to high radiation as well. - J.Z., 1.2.92, 26.1.08, 28.2.09. - TERRITORIALISM, STATES AS OUR PROTECTORS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Minds, which are sick enough to design and build doomsday devices and keep them in readiness, are also sick enough to use them, sooner or later. Only into such heads could personal doomsday devices be rightfully implanted, of a kind that would all go off automatically, killing just that person, upon the first explosion of any ABC mass murder device - anywhere. – J.Z., 31.5.06. - Naturally, it would be more sensible to deprive them of all territorial and nuclear powers powers. - J.Z., 26.1.11, 18.6.12. - DOOMSDAY BOMBS, DETERRENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: modern warfare, supported as it is by the blind devotion of super-patriotism and the consciousless demands .... in which the masses play a passive but crucial role, is not only a conspiracy against life by the few but it is also a form of collective madness ...” - Reichert: Partisans of Freedom, p.587. - How much freedom of action against such threats do most of the victims have so far? - J.Z., 26.1.11. – Q., DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Most people would rather die in a nuclear war than think about its prevention and what they themselves could possibly do to help prevent it. – J.Z., 6.11.03, 26.10.07. - If they had freedom of action in this sphere as well, would they have remained as ignorant and apathetic towards their much better chances? - J.Z., 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Mr. Kennan has said that anything would be better than a policy which led inevitably to nuclear war. But surely anything is better than a policy which allows for the possibility of nuclear war. – Philip Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.21. - TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Must we acknowledge that the civilized nations of the world can only be restrained from attacking one another by the threat of an immediate hell on earth?” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.221. – Nations do not attack each other. Their territorial governments do. There is nothing right and civilized about territorial governments! – J.Z., 10.10.08. - DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: My friends, I’m not going to tell you sweet words. The situation in the world is not just dangerous, it isn’t just threatening, it is catastrophic.” – Solzhenitsyn, Words of Warning to the Western World. – Formally, the most powerful totalitarian regime is gone – but its totalitarian weapons remain. – J.Z., 1.7.92. - Also its wrongful and irrational territorial form of organization, world-wide. - J.Z., 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Next time China threatens to rain nuclear missiles on our West Coast cities – as they’ve been doing every day now for months – I‘d offer to shower them with presents, just like their imperial treasure fleet did long ago.” - L. Neil Smith, Lever Action, A Mountain Media Book, 2001, p. 143. - … the worst enemies of China’s government are China’s people …” - ibid, p. 143. - The worst or the best of enemies? Our secret allies! They, especially the “people’s army”, could get rid of this despotic regime almost without any bloodshed, especially if they adopted a panarchistic or polyarchic liberation platform, applicable even to its present rulers, for even the worst governments have still some voluntary followers. Let them have them! They deserve no better followers and these followers deserve no better government! – J.Z., 10.10.07, 23.2.09. - BOMBING OR AIR RAIDS - WITH PRESENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: No nations – no nukes!” – Carol Moore, THE CONNECTION, p.77. – No territorial nations – no nukes! There would no longer be any targets for them. People of all ideologies and systems would live intermixed in the same countries, under different governments or administrations or personal law rules, customs or traditions. Motives, finance and volunteers to service these mass murder devices and keep them in readiness would also disappear. – J.Z., 28.2.09. – PANARCHISM, PEACE, TERRITORIALISM, SECESSIONISM, NEUTRALITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Not even a collapsing world looks dark to a man who is about to make his fortune.” – E. B. White, “Intimations”, One Man’s Meat, 1944. – Almost all still try to make a fortune or are concerned with their more or less trivial hobbies, while all too few do seriously ponder, doubt or criticize territorialism, which is one of the foundations for nuclear war power and try to do something towards its abolition. – They act somewhat like the mere ants, who try to build their nests on my driveway – J.Z., 20.11.85, 30.5.08, 26.1.11, 19.6.12. - LACK OF INTEREST IN THE OWN AFFAIRS OR DANCING AT THE EDGE OF A VOLCANO.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war has been misnamed the "suicide of mankind". But mankind has had so far no say at all on such decisions. It is not organized as such for this kind of decision-making. Not even its various national, ethnic, religions or ideological constituents, already living very much intermixed with each other, are freely organized for or against such decision-making. -  We are all put into territorial and collectivistic straightjackets, cages or State-wide prisons and have men with all too fixed, wrong and irrational ideas run these territorial-wide or national asylums, concentration camps or kinder gardens, under minimum to maximum "security". - They call it "leadership". Alas, too many of their victims still believe that it is, instead of realizing the enormous insecurity and mass murders which their leaders have prepared for them. Often these "leaders" are themselves the worst and most dangerous madmen and criminals, particularly with regard to their nuclear "security", "deterrence" and "defence" "policies". – J.Z., 27 5 06. –  SUICIDE? TERRITORIALISM, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, LEADERSHIP, RULERS, GOVERNMENTS, STATES, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear war is the continuance of territorial politics with other means. Territorial politics is the continuance of its mass murder wars, civil wars or revolutions with other means. - J.Z., 30.10.02, 26.1.11. – POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons are not the cause of the power of States, but the result. - PRAJ, 32155. – They are the consequences of territorial rule. – J.Z., 28.2.09. – STATES, TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons are obviously unsuitable for tyrannicide. Since they cannot be used exclusively against the real political and war criminals, they are, obviously, not proper weapons but merely mass murder and mass destruction devices, which will, quite inevitably,,  lead to the murder of many more innocent people than are executed thus as guilty ones. – J.Z., 14.5.98, 18..6.12. – They are the terrible result of the non-thinking involved in territorial nationalism and in collective responsibility notions. – J.Z., 24.1.08. - & TYRANNICIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented.” – Tom Clancy, The Sum of all Fears, 1030. - The Inquisition was. Absolute monarchism was. Torture as a common practice was. Many once common torture instruments are no longer used. The official burning of widows and witches was largely done away with. And we are close to abolishing the victory celebrations of territorial conquests. Open dictatorships and tyrannies have also been diminished in number. The Berlin Wall was destroyed. The Iron Curtain fell, at least from the Eastern side. State socialism is no longer so popular as it once was. Pollution is now largely frowned upon or even penalized. Apart from compulsory fluoridation, well-poisoning was largely discontinued. We have no longer capital punishment for 200 different offences. Religious human sacrifices have been largely abolished. Only to territorial rule are still all too many human sacrifices made or taken. Governments do at least try to excuse their actions towards the public. – J.Z., 14.9.07. We are beginning to questions territorialism. Do a Google search for panarchy and for panarchism, personal law and secessionism. - J.Z., 26.1.11, 18.6.12. – DIS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons do inevitably hit more innocents than guilty ones, even among the uniformed and armed subjects of an enemy regime, while, usually, sparing that regime itself. They are, therefore, not “weapons” but merely “mass extermination devices” that wipe out most of our potential secret allies, the captive peoples of the world. – J.Z., 29.8.87. Our governments and ourselves have not even fully recognized their existence by recognizing governments in exile for all of them, but all of them only for volunteers, the present refugees and deserters as well as all their future volunteers. All of them should be confined to exterritorial autonomy under personal laws. With such recognition and alternatives established, the existing despotic territorial regimes would come close to their almost non-violent collapse - via military insurrections or revolutions, provided these are also supplied with a good enough liberation program. Panarchism for all recognized governments in exile and alliances with a federation of them could sufficiently unite the opposition forces against their oppressors, exploiters and abusers. It would also have a strong appeal for the military forces of any despotic regime. – All nuclear threats from our side must cease and become replaced by sensible tyrannicide, revolution, military insurrection and liberation policies, combined with unilateral nuclear disarmament. Our “nuclear weapons” were never directed against the real enemies but, rather, their victims. – J.Z., 29.8.87, 30.5.08, 18.6.12. - They strengthened rather than weakened tyrannical regimes. Our military experts still manage to overlook that. At least some of them have by now questioned the indiscriminate air raid "policies" of WW II. - Tyrants fear every rightful government in exile (those for volunteers only) much more than they fear our governments' nuclear "weapons". - If all our territorial governments had already been transformed into communities and societies of volunteers only, then the threat of nuclear war and of tyranny and aggression would already be close to over. - The various captive nations and societies, including their soldiers and public servants, would say to themselves: We, too, want to have what they are having for themselves. For this we have only to copy them instead of trying to conquer them. - J.Z., 26.1.11. - GOVERNMENTS & SOCIETIES IN EXILE, VOLUNTEERS UNDER PERSONAL LAWS, PANARCHISM AS A RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIM, LIBERATION, REVOLUTION & MILITARY INSURRECTIONS INSTEAD OF INTERNATIONAL WARFARE.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: nuclear weapons, if they were ever used in large numbers, would simply blow war up, just as they would blow up everything else that is human.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.189. - Their mere existence is already an almost incredibly inhuman characteristic for our present territorial States, demonstrating their wrongfulness and irrationality to any objective observer. – J.Z., 23.9.07. – TERRITORIALISM, STATES & STATISM, WARFARE STATES, DEFENCE, PROTECTION, WAR

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Nuclear weapons: These products of scientifically and technologically guided insanity, have been produced, have already been used and will be used again - unless we, the targets of these “weapons”, in all countries, achieve the freedom, right and opportunity to stop this madness. - J.Z., 6/82, 28.2.09, 26.1.11, 18.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: On the one side stands (*) human life and the terrestrial creation. On the other side stands a particular organization of human life – the system of independent, sovereign nation-states. (**) Our choice so far has been to preserve that political organization of human life at the cost of risking all human life. (***) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.218. - - (*) unfree …- J.Z. - - (**) I would rather call it a system of territorially sovereign State governments, which have subdued and exploited their subjects. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - - (***) When and where was that ever the subject of a referendum? And if a national majority were in favour of it, it would still not have the right to impose its preference territorially upon all “its” minorities. With all minorities, including individuals, the smallest minority, freed, via individual and group secessionism, to do their own things but only for and to themselves, some would soon set enlightening examples and the current kinds of wrongful majority rule would come to shrink, slowly or, perhaps, even fast. – J.Z., 22.9.07.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Only if we abolish nuclear weapons and permanently halt the nuclear power industry can we hope to survive. To achieve these ends, it is vital that people be presented with the facts. Today more than ever, we need what Einstein referred to as a “chain reaction of awareness”: “To the village square”, he wrote in 1946, “we must carry the facts of atomic energy” Once presented, the facts will speak for themselves. “– Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Madness, Autumn Press, 1978, p.84. - - Better ideas and forms of social, political and economic organization could, but mere terrifying facts do rarely enlighten enough. – J.Z., 19.1.05, 24.9.07. - ENLIGHTENMENT, VOLUNTARISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL & GROUP SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Only insane people would seriously consider the use of nuclear “weapons” to murder other peoples territorially, genocidally, by the millions. But, as a matter of fact, there are actually dozens of supreme commanders and thousands of their officers who have nuclear weapons at their disposal and only wait for a government command or a computer malfunction or misinterpretation to use them. That is the kind of “protection” that we do get from our territorial governments. – J.Z., 9.9.04, 22.10.07. – PROTECTION, TERRITORIALISM, STATES, GOVERNMENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Our last war was thirteen centuries ago. It was an atomic war. We nearly destroyed ourselves. It taught us that we must love one another or die.” – Edmund Cooper, Tomorrow Came, p.34. – Rather, that we must be just or tolerant to one another, even without loving each other. – I find it terrible that after almost 2000 years most people have nothing better than “love” to offer as a solution to all problems. – J.Z., n.d. & 30.5.08. – JUSTICE, TOLERANCE, VOLUNTARISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, PERSONAL LAWS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: our reliance on “terror” to provide “safety”, and on the threat of “annihilation” to provide “survival”. For it is in an effort to strengthen and shore up the terror and make annihilation more certain that the strategists and statesmen are forced into these appalling postures. Their problem is to find a way of appearing “inexorably” resolved to do things that can never make any sense or ever be justified by any moral code, and irrationality and uncontrol fulfill the requirements for the very reason that they represent the abandonment of morality and sense. Adopted as a policy, they lend credibility to actions that are – conveniently for strategic purposes, if not for the safety of mankind – immoral and insane.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.205/6. – Apparently, territorialists cannot come up with anything rightful and rational in this respect, even after trying, for decades! – J.Z., 22.9.07. - DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: our weapons now threaten to destroy us.” – John C. Polanyi in: The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, p.71. – Rather, our territorial political organizations – or the ideas they are based on, threaten to destroy us – if we subscribe to them any longer. – J.Z., 13.7.94.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Panarchism is the only political philosophy and practice that can drag us out of the nuclear mess. Nevertheless, some libertarians manage to ignore it and the nuclear threats and thereby confirm the worst myths and fears of collectivists. With nuclear “weapons” one cannot commit tyrannicide, i.e., hold criminals individually responsible, without also killing thousands to millions of his victims. The ABC mass murder devices, by their very nature, when used, apply the wrongful “principle” of collective responsibility. To use an analogy: It is as if the police, in the pursuit of some armed bandits within a city, were to use heavy artillery bombardment or area bombing against those city districts in which they suspect the criminals to hide. To re-examine their nuclear faith, I would like these “libertarians” and “defenders” of liberty to at least read Murray N. Rothbard’s short essay: War, Peace and the State, if not my own ABC Against Nuclear War, in PEACE PLANS 16/17. If panarchism were to mean that we would have to permit all the fans of ABC mass murder devices and of nuclear power plants to build and keep them, then I would come to oppose panarchism myself. Fortunately, it is the best means to release and organize all the anti-nuclear energies, to destroy the powers, motives and fears making for nuclear war between territorial States. Panarchies would even eliminate the seemingly obvious targets for nuclear weapons and the secrecy required to build them and keep them in readiness. Under panarchism nuclear “strength” or strength in other indiscriminate mass murder devices would become one of the characteristics by which “leaders” would be defined as tyrants, which would invite and justify tyrannicide. Under a proper re-organization it would even assure it, soon. See: MILITIA. – J.Z., n.d. & 7.1.99, 26.1.11. - & PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People are as shit-scared and cowardly as ever, and still waiting for orders. Nothing can change humanity. Jesus couldn't do it. Jefferson couldn't do it. Even Hubbard can't do it. People are hopeless." - R. A. Wilson, Schroedinger's Cat II: The Trick Top Hat, p.105. - People as parts of territorial collectives: Yet those few people, thinking as individualists, forced to live among "the people" and according to their rules, are not as indifferent and hopeless cases. However, they, too, have not yet bothered to compile a program for their effective resistance and regime change. Many are e.g. more concerned about the history of their movement than about its future. Or they engage with gusto in mere scholastic debates and controversies. - J.Z., 1. 5. 06. - & PEOPLE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People can do something about nuclear war only once they become fully aware how little they can do about it right now and why, so that they resemble, indeed, the condemned man waiting in a death cell, for the execution date to be fixed. Aware of their missing options, they can then begin to work with determination towards self-determination, towards the vote and freedom of action in this most important sphere and in all others. Compared with that freedom the current franchise is as nothing, nay, even of negative value. - J.Z., 4.8.82, 26.1.11. - FREEDOM OF CHOICE, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, VS. DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLIES, TERRITORIALISM, OBEDIENCE TO WRONGFUL GOVERNMENTS, DECLARATION OF ALL GENUINE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS, MILITIA, RIGHTFUL WAR & PEACE AIMS & ALLIANCES, VOTING, ENLIGHTENMENT

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People pay taxes, presumably for their own benefit – while TERRITORIAL governments build e.g. anti-people mass murder devices with these extorted funds and reserve to themselves the “right” to do so and to use these devices - if they consider this to be justified and necessary. – J.Z., n.d. & 24.1.08, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: People who permit their governments to force monopolistic and inflated money upon them, who let themselves be subjected to tribute payments, called "taxes" with their collectivist consent, and also permit themselves being snowed under by numerous laws and governmental disservices, in the name of genuine laws, representation and public services, and who still assume that thereby they receive genuine public services, will also tend to thoughtlessly accept governmental preparations for the general holocaust, as if they were defence preparations or preparations for liberation efforts. They have to come to opt out from their servility and all too great obedience, first with their minds and then with their bodies. - J.Z., 5. 11. 82, 1. 5. 06, 19.6.12. – The diverse peoples in all countries should finally come to realize that THEY are the real targets of all mass extermination devices – and then do something about this situation, to defend their rights and liberties even against their power-mad own governments. – J.Z., 29.6.12. - MONETARY DESPOTISM & COMPULSORY TAXATION, ENLIGHTENMENT, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE TARGETED PEOPLE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Perry emphatically tells us that “war has become as never before in the world’s history, an imminence of catastrophe, while peace has become not only an ideal good, but an absolute and paramount necessity.” … Individual heroism cannot withstand the force of an atomic blast.” - Irving Louis Horowitz, War and Peace in Contemporary Social and Philosophical Theory, a Condor book, 1957, 1973, Chapter 12: Ralph Barton Perry: Universal Individualism, p. 180. - - We should remember that since 1945 no more nuclear weapons have been used in wars, although numerous wars were conducted since then. But they might be used at any time. Thus rightful organizations and arms, as well as all other suitable means should be organized and prepared to deal effectively with conventional aggressors and to prevent, as far as possible, their aggressions and to achieve the total destruction of all mass murder devices. A “war” against the war-mongers and their total war preparations only could be realized in practice. It could be a minor and quite rightful police action. But are we as yet mentally and physically prepared for this? So far we are not even sufficiently prepared for quite rightful tyrannicide, as opposed to wrongful assassinations. – Individual human rights are still not fully recognized and rightful militias and quite rightful societies for their realization and defence even less. - J.Z., 29.9.07, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Politics, … is fully stuck with the glaring absurdity that with one hand it builds for a future (*) that with the other hand it prepares to destroy.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.160. - (*) I deny that territorial politics does that or can do that or that it can do that better, more cheaply and without great risks than private and voluntary self-help efforts could. – J.Z., 21.9.07. – In all their Summit Conferences they never discussed the moral and rational alternative of exterritorial and voluntaristic politics. Most of them are either totally ignorant or prejudiced against it. – Their powerful and well-financed secret services are also unable to dig up this published "secret" for them! – Our fate is in the hands of the stupid, ignorant, prejudiced and interested people, all of them addicted to territorial power. - J.Z., 23.2.09. - & POLITICS, TERRITORIALISM, WARFARE STATE, EXTERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, SECRET SERVICES, POWER MONGERS, RULERS, PRIME MINISTERS, PRESIDENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Power over other men, accompanied with quite insufficient power over the own life, has finally led us to nuclear holocaust powers and keeps us under their threats. More territorial government power cannot lead us out of it. Only the abolition of all territorial political power over non-consenting individuals could. Individuals have to regain the kind of power required to resist the current few and exclusive power holders and the power to run their own lives in accordance with their own ideas, convictions or faith or their own preferred and free experiments, systems, communities and institutions, always at their own expense and risk. - J.Z., 30. 10. 82, 1. 5. 06. - & POWER, GENUINE SELF-GOVERNMENT, PANARCHISM, POLYARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS VS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: President Dwight Eisenhower wrote in a letter in 1956 that one day both sides would have to “meet at the conference table with the understanding that the era of armaments has ended, and the human race must conform its actions to this truth or die.” – Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.6. – But mankind has been given no vote on this matter. Only the territorial power addicts have been given that vote and none of the nuclear power addicts has, so far, destroyed all his nuclear mass murder devices – and the masses have meekly submitted to this situation. – J.Z., 30.5.08. – NUCLEAR STRENGTH, DEFENCE, DETERRENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Rabbi Oshaya said: God was charitable to Israel when he dispersed the Children of Israel among many nations.” – Pesahim, 87b. – This can be interpreted in two ways: Firstly, it dispersed some intelligent people among other nations. Just compare e.g. the contributions which Jews made to the culture of Arabs and of Germans. Secondly, with regard to the nuclear war threat, not all Jews, are any longer concentrated in nuclear weapons targets. Only a fraction of them thus exposed themselves in Israel and prepared their own mass murderous means. - While there are still nuclear mass murder devices around, all nations should seek their own Diaspora or should exterritorially decentralize into communities of volunteers, all kinds, whose member live mixed with each other but all under their own personal laws and institutions. No more large territorial targets for mass extermination devices used under the misconception of collective responsibility of territorial subjects for the crimes of their rulers. – J.Z., 2.3.83, 26.1.08, 19.6.12. – Moreover, everybody could be as free or unfree as he or she wants to be and thus nobody would have any good cause to complain. - J.Z., 26.1.11. - DIASPORA, PANARCHISM DISSOLVES THE TARGETS FOR WMD’S.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: recognize the peril, dismantle the weapons, and arrange the political affairs of the earth so that the weapons will not be built again.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.122. - & PANARCHISM, NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES, PROPERLY ORGANIZED, ARMED & TRAINED FOR THAT PURPOSE IN VOLUNTEER MILITIAS TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: relying on this contradictory system for our survival is our present half-numb, half-terror-stricken world, in which growing mountains of nuclear weapons are supposed to improve the world’s safety, and in which we do not know from one moment to the next whether we will survive or be exploded back into our original atoms. Reflecting on the frightful effects of this arrangement – effects that, even without a holocaust, corrupt our lives, - we are led to wonder why it should be necessary to seek safety in terror, survival in annihilation, existence in nothingness, and to wonder why we shouldn’t resort to the more straightforward measure of disarmament: of seeking survival by banning the instruments of death.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.209. – I see in the underlined section the weakest part of this otherwise excellent book on the dangers we ought to face and abolish. For what effective technical, means, organizational forms, training and suitable weapons do the people have, anywhere, now, to “ban” and disarm and destroy nuclear weapons in the hands of their own territorial governments and in the hands of foreign such governments? They, including their intellectuals, have no program and training for such a revolutionary act. They are so apathetic, helpless and ignorant and also disinterested in this sphere that they expect their territorial governments, i.e., the warfare States themselves, to do this job for them, as if territorial governments could point out any great successes in any of their efforts. It’s like entrusting crime fighting to the Mafia. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - Under full freedom to experiment for all, under personal laws and full exterritorial autonomy, the already existing solutions in some minds and published texts could easily become realized, without having to succeed first in persuading the territorial statists, which seems to be close to impossible. - Letting their opponents opt out, to do their own things for or too themselves, would seem attractive to at least some of the territorial politicians, so that a start could be made somewhere. These politicians, with their remaining volunteers, could then remain in the saddle as long as they still have voluntary supporters. - J.Z., 26.1.11. - THREAT, DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Responding to one mass murder of innocents by another mass murder of innocents is no solution, no defence, no liberation but just another case of nuclear war madness. – J.Z., 15.8.04. - Another case also of the wrongfulness and irrationality of territorialism. - J.Z., 26.1.11. - RETALIATORY STRIKES, TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Robert McNamara, who served as Secretary of Defense for seven years under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, defined the policy in his bookThe Essence of Security” (*), published in 1968, in the following terms: “Assured destruction is the very essence of the whole deterrence concept. We must possess an actual assured-destruction capability, and that capability also must be credible. The point is that a potential aggressor must believe that our assured-destruction capability is in fact actual, and that our will to use it in retaliation to an attack is in fact unwavering.” Thus deterrence “means the certainty of suicide to the aggressor, not merely to his military forces, but to his society as a whole.” (**) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.196. - - (*) ( It should have been entitled: “The Essence of Nuclear Insecurity”! – J.Z., 22.9.07. - - (**) Simply overlooked is here the fact that the top decision-makers are not identical with the nation, the people and the military forces. They are only a few monopolists and, in this regard, they are extreme tyrants. Against tyrants there has existed, for thousands of years, a tacit to publicly expressed policy of tyrannicide. As tyrannicide weapons nuclear weapons are quite unsuitable. Tyrannicide strikes against the real war-mongers and war criminals would be much more sensible, easier and cheaper than to organize and finance “nuclear” “weapons” against the victims of these tyrants. Nevertheless, this alternative path and also the path to prevent any tyranny from arising or continuing, by recognizing, declaring and sufficiently publishing all individual rights and liberties, including individual secessionism, exterritorial autonomy and monetary freedom and the replacement of collective responsibility by individual responsibility, was, so far, not taken or even seriously and quite publicly discussed. The territorialist popular religion has prevented this discussion. – J.Z., 22.9.07. – Most people are even as unconscious of it, as they are of their support of collective responsibility, in all its wrongfulness and absurdity. They simply take both to be self-evident and take them, quite tacitly, for granted. – J.Z., 23.2.09. - To some extent this MAD policy resembles the "Christian" threat with "eternal hell fire" for unrepentant "sinners. Obviously, this threat, conducted for almost 2,000 years, hasn't prevented all sinning, either. Should we not expect the "nuclear deterrent" to be as ineffective, because under continuing territorialism, finally, even if only accidentally, the general nuclear holocaust will occur? Should all those, who caused it and all those who did nothing moral and rational to prevent it, expect to get to their kind of "heaven"? - J.Z., 26.1.11. – If Hell has not been a sufficient deterrent, why should we expect a fast or lingering death via a nuclear general holocaust to be a sufficient deterrent? Should we blame a God, the Big Brothers or ourselves for our present situation? – J.Z., 19.6.12. - & DETERRENCE DOCTRINE, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, GOD, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY, SELF-ENLIGHTENMENT, FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT, FREE CHOICE IN ALL ONE’S OWN AFFAIRS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Rogue's Gallery: The strangler strokes his silken cord, The mugger loves his knife. The poisoner makes his victims twitch, And thrash away their life. The passionate choose bullets, Or perhaps a heavy club, While some are more inventive, They electrify a tub. But the ones that give me nightmares, And destroy my aplomb, Are those smiling men in politics, With their damned atomic bomb.” - P. M. Ferguson, p.54 of ANALOG, 6/85. - Murderers threaten and kill only some people. Territorial mass murderers, like our present politicians, threaten to kill everyone. - J.Z., 17.8.02. - Moreover, they still pretend to be our protectors - and all too many of their victims do still believe them! - J.Z., 26.1.11. - NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, TERRORISM, MASS MURDER DEVICES, POLITICIANS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Rothbard's arguments refuting the interventionists are solidly grounded in hard-core libertarian theory and not refutable. "Liberty must be the highest political end, and in the same way, peace and avoidance of mass murder must be the highest end of foreign policy." - NEW LIBERTARIAN WEEKLY, 23.10.77. - Alas, territorial politics cannot achieve that. - Even Rothbard did not see or express that clearly enough. - J.Z., 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Sakharov envisages a world quickly descending into chaos and, in all probability, total nuclear destruction. The forces which man now controls are so pervasive, their potential so cataclysmic, that without the broadest scale collaboration and utilization of man's capacity for social management, he will inevitably destroy himself. Sakharov's view of the brink on which mankind stands, is one shared by most thoughtful scientists of the western world - a belief that our potential for destruction has grown so radically that the odds upon the world arriving at the year 2,000 may be stated in the negative. - After-word by H. E. Salisbury to: A. D. Sakharov: Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom. - But are even these few thoughtful scientists prepared to objectively look at all alternative policies proposed to the ones now pursued and making for nuclear war? There is not even one place collecting all these alternative views - apart from my own all too limited single-handed efforts. Most people are strong only in rejecting ideas, which do not agree with their own. - J.Z. 4/8/82. - To my knowledge, there are still all too few people with any comprehension of the exterritorial imperative, voluntarism, individual sovereignty and individual secessionism, combined with exterritorial autonomy for all societies, communities and governance systems of volunteers - as the most important preconditions for the solution of this problem. - J.Z., 20.11.02, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Secede from all nuclear “Popes” or powers. – J.Z., 13.9.89, 25.1.08. - Secede from all nuclear power popes. - J.Z., 29.12.11.NUCLEAR STRENGTH, NUCLEAR POWER, PANARCHISM, SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: See especially my second peace book: “An ABC Against Nuclear War.” - Panarchism would abolish the major preconditions for all wars, civil wars and revolutions. - "Perhaps most important of all, panarchism would do away with the threats arising from the mere existence of ABC mass murder or anti-people devices and of territorial governments able and willing to use them. E.g. no nuclear targets would remain nor any war and peace making monopoly. Motives and means for conducting international wars would tend to disappear and almost everybody would gain a personal interest in becoming also a disarmament inspector against the build-up of ABC mass murder devices by anyone, anywhere and at any time. Imagine the almost general outcry of all kinds of religious and non-religious people if the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches tried to arm themselves with nuclear "weapons" against each other. Everybody would realize that his own fate would then be at stake and that of mankind. No nuclear strength advocates would then get far with such an aspiration. Most religious people, today, would not even entertain such a notion in the first place. It would be too obviously wrong, self-defeating and absurd.” - J.Z. to Joe Toscana, a Melbourne anarchist, March 96. - Man must now be organized in a way to minimize the risk of nuclear war. Panarchism provides that organizational framework. It does not restrict any rightful aspirations, not even any wrongful and useless or destructive ones - provided, they are so only within the own sphere, among volunteers, i.e. at their own cost and risk only. – J.Z., n.d. - & PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Should we allow our government or any other government to build any mass extermination camps against any section of any population? If not, should we then permit our government or any other government to build and keep in readiness at the at least equivalent mass extermination devices, directed largely and almost exclusively against the population of whole cities and even countries, under any excuse or pretence? - Couldn't we come to any better arrangement with their potential victims than threatening them with the ultimate and a suicidal holocaust, i.e., people, who do not themselves and directly threaten us? They are, presently, just the playthings in the hands of their territorial rulers, much like we are now in this respect in the hands of our own territorial rulers. - J.Z., 12. 2. 83, 1. 5. 06. – In this territorial political chess game as well the pawns are all too readily offered as human sacrifices to preserve the territorial power holders. – J.Z., 19.6.12. - TERRITORIALISM, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, PEOPLES AS TARGETS, PEOPLE TREATED AS PROPERTY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Since Aristotle, it has often been said the two basic aims of political association are, first, to assure the survival of members of society (that is, to protect life) and, second, to give them a chance to fulfill themselves as social beings (that is, to enable them to lead a noble or a good life). The threat of self-extermination annuls both of these objectives, and leaves the politics of our day in the ludicrous position of failing even to aim at the basic goals that have traditionally justified its existence.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.160/61. - It is not "self-extermination" when the masses of the victims, under territorialism, have no say on the matter at all. - Even he got some of the basics wrong. - J.Z., 26.1.11. POLITICS, STATES, PROTECTION, DEFENCE, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Since in a holocaust the consequences may be the same for the aggressor, its punisher, and bystanders, the distinction between friendly and hostile nuclear forces has lost most of its meaning, and the nuclear arsenals of the world are effectively combined by policy into one great arsenal (*), which is looked to by all powers (**) equally for their ‘safety’.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.215/15. - - (*) of anti-people “weapons” or mass murder devices, whose use cannot distinguish between friends and enemies. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - - (**) By all territorial power-mongers and power addicts, regardless of how much they endanger their territorial subjects. Alas, the victims of this policy do not complain or resist this disfranchisement and preparation for human sacrifices on the scale of mass murders. If they had a say on these “weapons” and the organizations and weapons to do so, they would sooner or later destroy them, even unilaterally, no longer waiting for their governments to do so. – J.Z., 22.9.07, 20.6.12. - ENEMIES & ALLIES OR NEUTRALS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Since there were many captive peoples victimized by the Soviets, including most of the Russian people, the Western nuclear weapons threatened these peoples rather than the Soviets. If there had been many workers exploited by capitalists in the West (“proletarians”), then the Soviet nuclear weapons did threaten mainly these victims with death, rather than their governments or their exploiters. – Curiously enough, this contradiction of the ideological split was never publicly and widely discussed - to my knowledge. The wrongful, false and territorial identification of diverse peoples with their mis-rulers, based on the “principles” of collective responsibility or of territorialism, of peoples considered and treated as mere property of territorial governments, and responsible, nevertheless, for the criminal actions of their territorial rulers, continues to this day. It led to the ABC mass murder devices. – J.Z., 28.7.87, 30.5.08, 26.1.11, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Since we have not made a positive decision to exterminate ourselves but instead have chosen to live on the edge of extinction, periodically lunging toward the abyss only to draw back at the last second, our situation is one of uncertainty and nervous insecurity rather than of absolute hopelessness. We know that we may fall into the abyss at any moment, but we also know that we many not. So life proceeds – what else should it do? But with a faltering and hesitant step, like one who gropes in darkness at the top of a tall precipice.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.151. – What an abuse of the term “we”, as far as the mere territorial subjects are concerned,  who are, in this respect, only the mere property, serfs  or slaves of territorial power addicts and monopoly-decision-makers! – J.Z., 10.10. 07, 19.6.12. - Most people still merely react with a fugue or denial to this threat. - J.Z., 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Sir Alec Douglas-Home, then Prime Ministers of the UK, in reply to Chairman Khrushchev’s message of 31 December 1963 proposing the peaceful settlement of territorial disputes, ended by saying that the principal task of statesmen today is to assure that nuclear war will not break out. How are the statesmen going about that task; what ideas guide them in it?” - Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.199.“ - Neither the “statesmen” nor their advisors realized so far that territorial disputes cannot be territorially settled but merely exterritorially. The attempt to settle them territorially will always lead to further wars, civil wars, oppression, revolutions and terrorism. I am also convinced that none of the “great leaders” or their famous advisors has ever read peace books like my own two ones and that their secret services, supposed to look out after the security of whole nations or populations have also either not discovered such publications and their open secrets or have not comprehended them. They are still as far as ever from exterritorialist ideas, thinking, tolerance and actions. – J.Z., 10.10.08. – LEADERSHIP, STATESMEN, RULERS, POLITICIANS, SECRET SERVICES, TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Split States panarchistically, i.e. voluntaristically and exterritorially, thus quite decentralized and intermingled – and you remove nuclear targets for mass murder devices and also motives and means for building, maintaining and using them. – J.Z., 5.6.92. – PANARCHISM, TERRITORIALISM, TARGEST FOR MASS EXTERMINATION DEVICES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: suppose, for a moment, that the world had established a political means of mankind international decisions and thus had no further need for nuclear or any other weapons.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.221. – The most effective means would be individual choice for all political associations, including individual secession upon disappointment with any territorial or exterritorial regime, i.e., a kind of consumer sovereignty for all political “services”. That would make nuclear completely and conventional military weapons largely superfluous but not protective associations, armed with police weapons, against private and official criminals with involuntary victims. – Mankind is merely an abstract notion. Only individuals are real. - J.Z., 22.9.07, 26.1.11. – PANARCHISM, DIS., CONSUMER SOVEREIGNTY IN EVERY SPHERE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Tactical nuclear war would quickly become strategic or total war for small nations and the local populations over whose fields and cities nuclear weapons are exploding. Hiroshima, after all, was destroyed by what is considered to be one small tactical nuclear weapon in today’s arsenal.” – Gwyn Prius, ed. The Choice: Nuclear Weapons vs. Security, p.31. Published by A. S. Collins. - Territorial politicians are still in denial of their mass murder preparations. - J.Z., 26.1.11. – They lie to us on numerous relatively small points. Why should we expect them to be truthful when it comes to the large survival questions? – J.Z., 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: technical knowledge, in the absence of wisdom and discipline, merely gives us more efficient weapons of collective suicide. Butler’s fantasy of the machines which men have made acquiring a mind of their own, and then rounding upon their masters and destroying them, has very nearly come true. If some new force, like the release of atomic energy, had been discovered during this war, and applied (as Mr. Wells has imagined it being applied) to bombs that would go on exploding without cessation for a week or two, we know that passions ran so high that both sides would have used them, as both sides in the next war will use super-poison gas and disease germs. Not only the destruction, therefore, but the passion and the ruthlessness, the fears and hates, the universal pre-emption of wealth for ‘defence’ perpetually translating itself into preventive offence, would have grown. Man’s society would assuredly have been destroyed by the instruments that he himself had made, and Butler’s fantasy would have come true.” - Norman Angell, Human Nature and the Peace Problem, 1925, p.127. - Suicide requires individual decision-making, which is now replaced by mass murder decision-making in a few minds and hands, those of the territorial mis-leaders and their henchmen. - J.Z., 26.1.11, 19.6.12.- DIS., MASS MURDER IS NOT SUICIDE. DEFENCE, PASSIONS, FEARS, HATREDS, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, ENEMY, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Territorial “nations” are in fact preparations for genocide. Whatever benefits they might offer, they are not worth that price. Moreover, these real or imagined benefits could also be provided in reality, to the limits of their possibility, by full exterritorial autonomy for them, among their volunteers. - J.Z., 18. 12. 82, 1. 5. 06, 19.6.12. - TERRITORIALISM, PANARCHISM, NATIONALISM & GENOCIDE, WARFARE STATES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Territorial governments built the nuclear bombs and rockets and kept them in readiness, , directed against whole peoples, forcefully and territorially organized into State-sized targets. – J.Z., 22.4.86. – And the “sheeples” still hold still, obey and pay their future mass murderers for their supposed “services”. – J.Z., 30.5.08, 19.6.12. – PEOPLES, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Territorial governments have developed into the greatest threat to the survival of the human race. Yet they are still being voted into office or tolerated in power. - J.Z., 6. 4. 84. - & GOVERNMENTS, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: That most libertarians, to my knowledge, have so far not responded to Rothbard’s “War, Peace and the State”, indicates their intellectual stagnation or cowardice. - J.Z., 9.6.86, – But then I must admit to not having made a web-search on the subject. – Perhaps there are already thousands of positive responses to this excellent essay of his and I have just not noticed them. – Finally, today, I have repaired that omission. Google provided me with 626 references to this essay, upon (Rothbard + “War, Peace and the State”), mainly reproductions and translations or remarks on it. I downloaded the first 94 selected from these hints by Google and just browsed through these short references, without downloading their full text. Mea culpa! My fault! My ignorance, my neglect! There were as many responses. Some other libertarians have recognized the value of this outstanding article as well. – I am happy about that. This work will continue to be read and induce more thinking. [Today I even got 41,900 results with Google, searching for: Rothbard’s “War, Peace and the State”. – J.Z., 19.6.12.] But have most readers as yet taken a fully consistent stand against all nuclear weapons and for the alternatives to them and for the panarchistic institutions that would render nuclear weapons impossible, superfluous and abhorrent to most people? Was Rothbard himself converted to panarchism by this essay? – Naturally, he discussed many other points in this essay. – J.Z., 30.6.09.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The best defense against the atom bomb is not to be there when it goes off ...” - BRITISH ARMY JOURNAL, 1949. (*) – As if these devices could not be deconstructed or politics could not be changed so much that their targets would disappear and they would become obviously useless and superfluous. – J.Z., 8.8.08. – (*) Where can one flee to in order to fully escape the nuclear war threat? A couple, who saw WW II coming, had fled to Okinawa! I, newly married, fled in 1959 from the threat of nuclear war in Europe to Australia, which is largely citified and whose cities can be demolished with about 6 large nuclear bombs. All the rest of it is not safe from radioactively polluted winds and rains, either. – Space travel is not yet an option. We have to solve this problem here and now. So far we were merely lucky. - J.Z., 19.6.12. - NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, JOKES, DEFENCE, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS! PANARCHISM, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The bottom line is that this country needs a powerful, secure defence, but not one that will lead to our blowing ourselves up.” – Henry Kendall, PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, Nov. 82. – Ourselves? The blowing up would be generously done, free of charge (apart from the tax burdens), by the opposing nuclear powers. That these powers, but, more certainly, their direct victims, their subjects, would also be blown up would not be a sufficient consolation. – J.Z., 25.1.08, 27.2.09. - If only all territorial politicians would blow themselves up, without murdering anyone else in the process! - J.Z., 26.1.11. – The main culprits may even survive for a long time, in the best shelters they got built for themselves. – J.Z., 19.6.12. - & DEFENCE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The death penalty for individual crimes has been largely abolished but the "death penalty" for whole populations, even for mankind, has been introduced, prepared and maintained by territorial governments, our pretended "protectors", still all too widely believed in, in spite of all their criminal, immoral and irrational actions. - J.Z., 24. 2. 83, 1. 5. 06, 19.6.12. - & THE DEATH PENALTY:

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The entire planet is a human time-bomb.” - Edmund Cooper, Kronk, p.186. - Not the planet but some of its territorial power-mongers, and in them, some of their wrongful and irrational ideas and notions and, through them, their nuclear arsenal of anti-people “weapons” or quite wrongful mass murder devices, which cannot be effectively used against the main war criminals only. - J.Z., 26.1.11, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The first is to save the world from extinction by eliminating nuclear weapons from the earth. Just recently, on the occasion of his retirement, Admiral Hyman Rickover, who devoted a good part of his life to overseeing the development and construction of nuclear-powered, nuclear-missile-bearing submarines for the United States Navy, told a congressional committee that in his belief mankind (*) was going to destroy itself with nuclear arms. He also said of his part in the nuclear buildup that he was “not proud” of it, and added that he would like to “sink” the ships that he had poured so much of his life into. And indeed, what everyone is now called on to do is to sink all the ships, and also ground all the planes, and fill in all the missile silos, and dismantle all the war-heads. The second aim, which alone can provide a sure foundation for the first, is to create a political means by which the world can arrive at the decisions that sovereign states previously arrived at through war. These two aims, which correspond to the aims mentioned earlier of preserving the existence of life and pursuing the various ends of life, are intimately connected. If, on the one hand, disarmament is not accompanied by a political solution, then every clash of will between nations (territorial governments! – J.Z.) will tempt them to pick up the instruments of violence again, and so lead the world back toward extinction. If, on the other hand, a political solution is not accompanied by complete (nuclear, biological and chemical) disarmament, then the political decisions that are made will not be binding, for they will be subject to challenge by force.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.221. - The alternative institutions that are required would simply grow from realizing individual secessionism and free associationism under full exterritorial autonomy. Such institutions have no need for super-“weapons” or reasons or motives to fear other such institutions, all being free to do their own things. They would have not use for ABC mass murder devices and would collaborate to destroy all of them as fast as possible. The kinds and shapes, means and ends of their voluntary communities would be entirely up to them. Their growth and decline would be determined by individuals being attracted to them or by leaving them because of disappointment with them. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - - (*) Rather, territorial governments will do this job, against the wishes and will of mankind. – J.Z., 22.9.07. -  NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT & POLITICAL ALTERNATIVES TO SOVEREIGN TERRITORIAL STATES & THEIR “SOLUTIONS” VIA WARS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The gods visit the sins of the fathers upon the children.” – Euripides, Phrixus, c. 412 B.C., 970, tr. H. Morgan. – Nuclear “weapons” were actually designed upon such “thoughts” about religion. Which religion and which modern political theory does quite radically reject all notions and practices of collective responsibility? – J.Z., 30.5.08. – Also of any degree of territorial domination? - J.Z., 26.1.11. - COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, PANARCHISM, PANARCHY, POLYARCHY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The human race could not survive mass death technology so widely spread. - Vernor Vinge, The Peace War, in ANALOG 7/84, p.137. - Not under territorialism and the belief in collective responsibility. - J.Z. - NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, TERRORISM, MASS MURDER DEVICES, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, VOLUNTARISM, PERSONAL LAW, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM – VS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The Human Race: Fellow travelers on a tiny spaceship spinning through infinite space. We can wreck our ship, we can blow the human experiment into nothingness; and by every analogy of practical life, a quarrelsome ship's company and many hands on the steering gear is a good recipe for disaster.” - Adlai Stevenson, at UN, NYC, 26. 1. 65. - Not so tiny that each could not enjoy almost full exterritorial autonomy with like-minded people in his own cubicles, under his own laws. - One steering wheel for all, in spite of the great diversity of aims, is a good recipe for disaster. It is asking for battles to control the wheel. - J.Z., 14. 3. 84. - Anyhow we cannot steer the course of planet Earth, at least not yet. But what we should be able to steer, quite freely, is the course of our own lives, together with like-minded people, and always at our own risk and expense. Territorial governments have made that largely impossible in very important spheres. Only in those sphere they consider to be trivial or of no interest to them have they left us some autonomy. - J.Z., 15. 3. 84, 1.5.06. - HUMAN RACE, SPACESHIP EARTH, DECISION ON WAR & PEACE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The idea of the territorial “state, not society is responsible for the design, development and utilization of the atomic bomb.” – Felix Morley, State and Society, in Templeton, The Politization of Society, p.82. – I only added the 5 words at the beginning. – J.Z., 54.6.92.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, the most respected defence institute in the West (*), has released a report stating unequivocally that there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war. Any nuclear war would (*) escalate into a world-destroying holocaust.” – Daniel Kagan in PENTHOUSE, INTERNATIONAL, 11/82. - - (*) It could, and that is bad enough. Has it also explored the possibilities for an ideal militia of volunteers for the protection of all individual rights and liberties? And that of exterritorially autonomous communities of volunteers, with some of them practising full monetary and financial freedom and proclaiming only quite rightful war aims and alliances with all kinds of governments in exile, all only for volunteers? Has it developed a libertarian defence and liberation program, one for the initiation of a military insurrection against a dictatorship? I very much doubt this? - J.Z., 25.1.08.  - LIMITED NUCLEAR WAR, MILITIA

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the invention of political means by which the world can peacefully settle the issues that throughout history it has settled by war.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, 227. – Religious wars were settled merely by giving the world religious liberty or religious tolerance, i.e., individuals and their voluntary groups the choice of their religious or non-religious activities. Wars for artificial monopolies, e.g. over the customers in a particular countries, can be avoided via free trade. To the extent that protectionists continue to religiously believe in their dogmas and prejudices, they can and should be granted their preferred kind of protectionism for their own volunteers and at their own expense and risk. At the same time, the believers in Free Trade should be left to their free trading deals and communities or federations. Sports, arts, literary and food and clothing supply competitions do already peacefully exist almost everywhere. The same kind of tolerance and peaceful coexistence can be and must be achieved for whole political, economic and social systems or any parts of them. None of them should be granted a territorial monopoly with territorial government power and territorial laws. Only then would such systems no longer automatically clash with each other. Such a tolerant and peace-promoting system does not have to be invented. It has long existed in history, although mostly somewhat limited or only in parts and temporary. It merely became largely forgotten or territorially suppressed. All the constitutional, legal, juridical and institutional barriers against would merely have to be removed, by no longer recognizing and respecting their territorial monopoly claims and allowing self-help, individual choice, free enterprise, consumer sovereignty, free associationism, free contracts, free federalism and individual secessionism in these spheres as well. Then most of the current “issues”, “crises” or “conflicts”, all symptoms and difficulties of territorialism, which often lead to wars, civil wars, bloody uprisings and revolutions, as well as terrorism, would simply disappear. Artists, poets, sportsmen, fashion-designers, gardeners, hobbyists, inventors of one kind or the other do not battle each other in the streets but simply do all their own things, quite peacefully, at their own expense and risk. The same is possible in the last few spheres in which territorial monopolies remained, so far legally and coercively upheld by territorial governments, but also by an all to under-informed and prejudiced public opinion. Territorial governments are not only superfluous but constitute the very motive for and cause of ABC mass murder devices, their development, stockpiling and their ultimate use. – J.Z., 23.9.07, 19.6.12. - PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the latest refinements of science are linked with the cruelties of the Stone Age.” – Sir Winston Churchill, speech, London, March 26, 1942. (*) – Apparently, he had not read his Shakespeare, Henry V.: When lenity and cruelty fight for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner. – (Quoted from my flawed memory only. – J.Z., 30.5.08.) - (*) He was one of those, who made sure of that. – But then he seems to have been almost always “under the influence.” – Thus his originally almost photographic memory did not always help him and he fell back into stone age emotions. – “When wine is in, wit is out!” It is even worse for harder drinks. – Not that his counterpart, Hitler, was any better in any respect, although he was a vegetarian, non-smoker and teetotaller. But Hitler was addicted to other drugs and syphilis had already deteriorated his brain. Both were ruthless territorialists and acted on the biblical “principle” of collective responsibility. – That reminds me of an old joke: “A summit conference plane, carrying Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, does crash. - Who is saved? - None of them! But Europe is!” - J.Z., 30.5.08. - JOKES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The mere existence of nuclear weapons was the most revealing symptom of what was out of balance about the past. Two societies (territorial States!- J.Z.), in varying degrees acceptable or unacceptable to one another, were so interested in their differences that they came to hate their common good. That obsession was as a cancer in the mind and heart of the old world, which spread cruelty and blindness through the whole enormous body, and finally killed it. … If only we had gained wisdom from the fire. If only we can accept how alike we all are, one and another. …” - Whitley Strieber and James Kunetka, War Day, p.514 & 515. In this book it lasted thirty-six minutes – and devastated the world. - Those alike should “embrace” whatever structure, constitution, legal, juridical, economic and social system they do prefer for themselves, while tolerating all the others, all of them trying to successfully practise their own ideologies among themselves, under personal law or exterritorial autonomy, freely practised with their laws and institutions, structures and services, leaving each other sufficiently alone, peacefully coexisting at the same time and in the same territory or even internationally and world-wide, with all the diverse societies etc. only doing their own things for or to themselves. Territorialists find that very difficult to do or even merely to think about. They want to reshape all others in accordance with their own ideals and this leads, inevitably to clashes, for the others have different ideals and also want to impose them upon dissenters. Only exterritorially, as voluntary and free experimenters, could they leave each other sufficiently alone. But it takes a major effort to get that simply idea into their heads, which are, presently, mostly blocked by territorialist notions. In their private lives they do already practise this kind of mutual tolerance in many ways and there they are already, taking it for granted. E.g. sports- and hobby groups do not fight each other. But in public affairs their minds are still welded to the territorial model. – J.Z., 13.9.07, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The Nazis are regarded as animals in human form because they gassed, shot or burned perhaps as many as six million Jews. Today the people of the United States are quite prepared, if provoked, to actually burn alive hundreds of millions of innocent men and women, young and old.” – Mr. Steve Allen, in a foreword to “God and the H-Bomb”, a symposium of opinion published in 1961, and distributed by Random House. – Quoted by: Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.225. – Even in the freest – or least unfree - territorial States the people have no say on this subject. – J.Z., 10.10.08, 19.6.12. – MASS MURDER PREPARATIONS TACITLY TOLERATED

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear theorist Herman Kahn, for example, suggests that “it might best deter the attack” by an “appearance of irrationally inexorable commitment”. Kahn first wonders whether it might not be enough merely to “pretend” to be irrationally committed, but he concludes that a pretense of unreason is not reliable, and that one must “really intend to do it”. The prescription, then, which he calls the policy of “the rationality of irrationality”, is to coolly resolve to be crazy. How statesmen are to go about this, Kahn does not say.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.204. – They cannot help it! - J.Z., 1982. - They act crazily all the time, for instance in their economic “policies” and “measures”. Alas, this kind of craziness is not recognized by the ruling crazies on the other side, either, at least not when it comes to their own territorialist craziness and power addiction. So the others crazies will not be deterred by it nor will the crazy rulers on our side be deterred by it. – The whole nuclear strength policy is crazy – but the crazies who practise it at our risk and expense have not yet recognized its craziness and their own craziness and may never do so. – Nuclear “weapons” in the hands of crazies and targeted, mainly, at innocents or at least at people who have no say in the matter! – It is truly a crazy world in which we live. The innocent victims do not even seriously question being so ruled or misruled. This situation leads towards nuclear war by crazies practising territorial rule and “protection”, “prevention”, “deterrence” -  by mass-murder devices. - J.Z., 22.9.07. - DETERRENCE & APPEARANCE OF IRRATIONALITY, CRAZY RULERS, TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear threat is the greatest treason ever committed by governments against the peoples. - J.Z. 10.2.79.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear war threat is so unimaginable to ordinary human experience that, like a mere dream or nightmare it is, usually, simply ignored or overlaid by delusions like that of peace through the nuclear deterrent. - J.Z., 20.11.02. - Fugues or denials are usual responses among humans to as large threats. - People are all too aware that at least under the present territorial establishments they are altogether helpless against this threat. So they do not even explore what actions they ought to undertake to finally gain self-help freedom of action in this sphere as well. - J.Z., 26.1.11. - TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear war threat results from a combination of various factors like e.g.: 1.) the insane centralization and monopolization of decision-making power over war and peace, disarmament and disarmament, international alliances and treaties, disfranchising peoples and individuals in this respect, 2.) the immoral principle and practice of collective responsibility, believed in and acted upon, as if it were self-evident, 3.) the territorial division of this planet among State governments, wrongly called national or peoples’s governments, with compulsory members and subjects, territorial constitutions, laws and jurisdictions, 4.) the dependency upon territorial governments that States have established, especially through their monetary and financial despotism but also through many other monopolies, privileges, and hand-out welfare systems, as well as their costly, insufficiently funded and unsoundly invest social “insurance” schemes, largely “investing” in governmental tax slaves (governmental “insecurity” certificates”). These do all exploit and impoverish the people under the pretence of protecting them and taking care of them. They have thus established nation-wide and official kindergartens for adults or a kind of nation-wide prisons for innocents, 5.) territorial governments have outlawed competition with themselves in many very important spheres, thus rendered their subjects largely helpless victims of the “services” provided by territorial governments, 6.) territorial governments do not permit their subjects to protect their genuine individual rights and liberties themselves, with suitable arms, organizations and training, 7.) territorial governments do not even proclaim, recognize and protect all individual right and liberties of their subjects in their declarations and constitutions, 8.) they established and maintained what they assumed to be justified targets for ABC mass murder devices, 9.) Territorial governments, even in form of “Welfare States”, treat us, in practice, as their property and tax slaves, as people to be used and abused by them. – Thus they have become the greatest threats, criminals and aggressors, internally and externally and the least protective institutions. - J.Z., 14.1.06, 29.10.07, 18.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The nuclear war threat will only disappear with the faith in the "principles" of collective responsibility, territorial integrity, internal affairs of governments, uniformity of laws and jurisdiction for all - because these lead to nuclear targets, motives, powers and means to conduct nuclear war. - J.Z., 30. 10. 82, 1. 5. 06. – TERRITORIALISM, NATIONAL UNITY, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the peril of extinction is the price that the world pays not for “safety” or “survival” but for its insistence on continuing to divide itself up into sovereign nations. Without this insistence, there would be no need to threaten annihilation in order to escape annihilation, and the world could escape annihilation by disarming, …” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.210. - - This “world” is just a planet, without a will of its own. Its population, with its multitude of various groups, has so far not been given the option, anywhere, to divide itself up, including individual choice, into the kinds of non-territorial, not-geographical or exterritorial communities of volunteers, in all their variety, which they would individually prefer for themselves, of whatever kind these may be. Their territorialist “statesmen”, politicians, legislators and institutions prevent them from doing this, although thereby the individually seceded and exterritorially and voluntarily associated and freed people, minorities and individuals as well as majorities or the remaining volunteers, would eliminate territorial targets, motives, means and powers to continue to prepare for or engage in a nuclear war. This arrangement would confine all politicians to the voluntary followers they can manage to keep or find anywhere in the world. Among them, as long as they have any, they would have a kind of sinecure. The remaining and morally justified guilty targets would be only individuals and small local groups. With them one can cope with rightful policing or militia methods. Nobody would dream of using nuclear weapons against them – and, thereby, also against all their dissenting neighbours, no more so than e.g. the Pope or some other religious leader would nowadays dream of using ABC mass murder devices to impose or protect their faith. – J.Z., 22.9.07, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The problem of our time is how to develop new political units. Just as the hydrogen bomb numbers the days of the completely sovereign nation state, great numbers of such new states are being born. What kind of political organization can give us both security and variety? Probably the answer is that any given group of people should belong simultaneously to more than one political unit. We would do well to study the Swiss Confederation, and the linguistic states in India. – B. Henderson, reviewing the editorial “Maxi-Mini” in OBSERVER, London, 3.1.65. Ref. 15634, addr. 14, in PEACE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS JOURNAL. – Almost all peace lovers seem to be addicted to dealing only with territorial political units and their all too limited potential for peaceful coexistence. Or they are committed to other primitive peace ideas, already often refuted. – J.Z., n.d. & 30.5.08. – TERRITORIALISM, PEACE LOVERS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The procession of generations that extends onward from our present leads far, far beyond the line of our sight, and, compared with these stretches of human time, which exceed the whole history of the earth up to now, our brief civilized moment is almost infinitesimal. And yet we threaten, in the name of our transient aims and fallible convictions, to foreclose it all.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.182. - - Was there ever a greater crime planned and prepared? – Could there be a greater crime? – And yet these terrible power addicts, liars, confidence tricksters and mis-leaders remain honoured, elected, in office and in possession of monopolistic territorial powers over our “fate”, in their hands. - J.Z., 10.10.07, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The self-extinction of our species is not an act that anyone describes as sane or sensible, nevertheless, it is an act that, without quite admitting it to ourselves, we plan in certain circumstances to commit. Being impossible as a fully intentional act, unless the perpetrator has lost his mind, it can come about only through a kind of inadvertence – as a “side effect” of some action that we do intend, such as the defense of our nation, or the defense of liberty, or the defense of socialism, or the defense of whatever else we happen to believe in. To that extent, our failure to acknowledge the magnitude and significance of the peril is a necessary condition for doing the deed. We can do it only if we don’t quite know what we’re doing. If we did acknowledge the full dimensions of the peril, admitting clearly and without reservation that any use of nuclear arms is likely to touch off a holocaust in which the continuance of all human life would be put at risk, extinction would at that moment become not only “unthinkable” but also undoable.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.186. – His “we” is entirely misplaced. Governmental declarations of human rights do not give us any say or freedom of action in this sphere. Is there anyone else but me, who is really interested in what some of the private declaration of individual rights have to say on this and other matters? I haven’t got any requests for my collection of them: PEACE PLANS 589/590, revised edition, enlarged & digitized and available for the time being only from a disc reproduced by CB. On - It is not a case of "self-extinction" but of mass murders by territorial governments, under all kinds of false excuses and pretences! - J.Z., 10.10.07, 26.1.11, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The state of mind of the decision-makers might be one of calm rationality, of hatred, of shock, of hysteria, or even of outright insanity. They might follow coldly reasoned scenarios of destruction to the letter (*) and exterminate one another in that way.” – Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.31. - - (*) Just like the scientists and technicians, who built such “weapons”. – Moral principles are not their most significant trait. – Territorial rulers are already madly in love with their territorialism and nuclear mass murder devices are large enough to be easily used against whole territories and populations. - J.Z., 21.9.07. – If, with nuclear “weapons” the territorial and monopolistic decision-makers were able and willing to exterminate ONLY EACH OTHER, I, for one, would cheer. However, like in ordinary wars, they tend to stay in the safest places and to sacrifice the lives of their victims for their immoral and irrational aspirations, by the thousands to dozens of millions, even risking, nowadays, the survival of mankind. – J.Z., 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The statistical probability of our avoiding general suicide is very small …” - Arthur Koestler. – It is very misleading to speak of “suicide” in this respect, since the decision-making power on nuclear and other war is very much centralized and territorially monopolized. The guilt of the rest of the people consists in this, that they consider even such mass murderous power to be quite normal and tolerable and do not really give it a second thought in most instances. – J.Z., 24.1.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The system of sovereignty is now to the earth and mankind what a polluting factory is to its local environment. The machine produces certain things that its users want – in this case, national sovereignty – and as an unhappy side effect – extinguishes the species.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.187. – Was there ever a referendum on whether its victims really want “national territorial sovereignty”, including decision-making power on war and peace, armament and disarmament and international treaties, in the hands of its “democratic” rulers, any more than in the hands of an absolute king, emperor, czar, prophet or guru? – Are the people using this power or are they used or abused by it and threatened to be used up by it? – It is really a carry-over from the times of governmental absolutism and an all too easy step towards total war and general holocaust. - J.Z., 10.10.07. - & SOVEREIGNTY & POLLUTION, ECOLOGY & CONSERVATION, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TERRITORIALISM, Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The ultimate danger stems not from the bomb itself but from the paranoia of the institutions that wield it.” - Jack Stoneley: CETI, p.164. - These institutions do have so excessive powers that they can only be described as mad and to be afraid of them is rational. One should remain rational in one's justified fears and come to ponder rational and moral actions and institutions to end and forever remove and make impossible such powers at the disposal of anyone. - So far they remained, and this largely, unquestioned! - J.Z., 4.8.82.,  20.11.02, 26.1.11, 19.6.12. – TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift to unparalleled catastrophe.” – Albert Einstein, quoted in - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.188. –. – He rejected the secessionist and exterritorial autonomy alternatives for volunteers and promoted the worst form of expressing territorialism and collective responsibility, namely, with WMDs. – J.Z., 8.1.06. - It certainly did not change his mode of thinking on territorialism and exterritorialism. He was quite in vain approached about the panarchistic alternative. – J.Z., 23.2.09. -  - He was a good example of the "barbarism of the specialists". (Ortega Y Gasset.) – Mouthing a few platitudes and primitive notions, errors and prejudices did not turn him into a sufficiently informed peace lover and guide to peace, based upon rightful and sound foundations. – J.Z., 19.6.12. - COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY & TERRITORIALISM, EINSTEIN

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The very fact that political leaders got nuclear weapons built, stockpiled and kept in readiness, targeted, and that they showed no willingness to destroy all of them, unilaterally, says something about their mental condition. – J.Z., 3.1.98. – POLITICIANS, RULERS, LEADERSHIP, POWER ADDICTS, PRESIDENTS, PRIME MINISTERS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: the very nature of modern nuclear warfare rests upon the annihilation of civilians.” - Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, revised edition, p. 267, Collier Books, 1978, ISBN 0-02-074690-3. – We should be deterred, as moral beings, from ever building, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons or allowing anyone else to do so. – J.Z., 22.2.09. - NUCLEAR STRENGTH, NUCLEAR WAR THREAT, NUCLEAR DETERRENCE.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The way in which methods of waging war have developed since the introduction of aircraft, through the nuclear and missile age, leads to the conclusion that if war between great powers should occur, it would be unlimited in scope, and cause immense, catastrophic damage to the most highly civilized countries. The greatest danger against which all nations have to be protected is the outbreak of nuclear war.” – Lt.-Gen. E. L. M. Burns, Megamurder, 1966, p.254. – And that, at a minimum, will require the abolition of all territorial powers and their replacement of communities of volunteers, none of them with a territorial monopoly, all of them only exterritorially autonomous – and as wide-spread on this planet as they want to be and can be. – J.Z., n.d. – PANARCHISM VS. TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The whole nuclear war threat is just a modern and “scientific” revival of the ancient warfare method of “scorched earth”. – Our territorial rulers and their advisors could not or would not think of anything moral and rational. – So why should we trust and follow them any longer, into a universal extermination camp? – J.Z., 23.2.09, 26.1.11. - Q.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The world, obviously, cannot survive many more decades of rule by gangs of armed males calling themselves governments. Whatever its varying forms of justifications, the armed State is what is threatening all of our lives at present ... " Who we are: the anarcho-feminist manifesto", first published by Siren, Chicago.1971, quoted in H. J. Ehrlich et al: Re-inventing Anarchism, p.251. - Not the fact that they are males is decisive but that they, and the women, too, are territorially organized and motivated. - These "liberationists" overlook this aspect of liberation as well as most males do. - J.Z., 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The worst enemies of mankind put themselves forward as its defenders! And they are, all too widely, still accepted as such, by people who should know better but do not bother to learn enough about this problem and its solution. They would rather read the latest novels or play the latest war games. - J.Z., 20.11.02. - TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: The worst terrorists are the nuclear-armed territorial governments. They are “holding” the population of all whole countries as hostages. - J.Z., 17. 12. 82, 26.1.11. – At least they hold them collectively responsible for the criminal action of their governments or mis-rulers. – The modern hostages, whole territorial populations, do no longer have to be incarcerated by their hostage takers. They are already taken hostage by their own territorial governments and threatened with mass murder by our own territorial governments. Moreover, our immigration restrictions help to prevent them from escaping their dictatorial regimes. – J.Z., 23.2.09. – It terrorizes me that they are not terrorized by their terrorist nuclear powers. – J.Z., 28.12.11. - GOVERNMENTS & TERRORISM, HOSTAGE TAKING, TERRITORIALISM, PEOPLES AS PROPERTY, COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There are no circumstances”, he says, “in which we could use these weapons without behaving both wickedly and insanely. What sort of ‘deterrent’, then, are weapons, which can never in any circumstances be used to our advantage – which can only be used as a futile act of revenge from the grave or as a means of putting us into the grave? They are of use to no one who possesses them and they are a perpetual and appalling danger to us all.” The same might be said of those chemical and biological weapons which have dropped so surprisingly from our calculations.” - Nigel Nicolson, M.P., in Philip Toynbee: The Fearful Choice, p.41, quoting P. Toynbee. - Replace all these wrongful territorial "choices" by freely made individual ones, all directly or indirectly going into the direction of peace, justice, freedom, prosperity, progress, enlightenment, longevity and the stars, by full exterritorial autonomy under personal law, or full experimental freedom in all spheres now monopolized by territorial governments. - J.Z., 16.1.11, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There are only two ways: either peaceful coexistence or the most destructive war in history." - said Bulganin, 1956. - Alas, he thought only of territorial "coexistence", which is like the "coexistence" between criminals and their victims. – J.Z., NWT 27.5.06. - Peaceful coexistence requires individual choices under exterritorial autonomy and personal law, i.e., individual and group secessionism, freedom of contract, free associationism, regardless of one's ideal, if only one confines it them to their volunteers and remains tolerant towards all the different choices which other people make for themselves. - Needed also: An ideal declaration of all genuine individual rights and liberties and also an ideal militia for their protection. - J.Z., 26.1.11, 19.6.12. - TERRITORIALISM, PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: there is another extreme solution, which would entirely remove the defect in the doctrine of nuclear deterrence. This solution, described (but not recommended) by Kahn, would be to construct a literal doomsday machine, which would blow up the whole world as soon as an adversary engaged in some activity that had previously been defined as “unacceptable” by the machine’s possessor. Kahn, who estimated in 1960 that a doomsday machine might be built for as little as ten billion dollars, points out that the machine would eliminate any doubt concerning the retaliatory strike by making it fully automatic. The retaliatory strike would still be senseless, but this senselessness would no longer cloud its “credibility”, since the action would have been predetermined: the foundation would have been provided for a fully consistent policy of nuclear deterrence, under which nations would be deterred from launching nuclear attacks (*) by the pre-arranged certainty that their own countries would perish in the ensuing global annihilation. But Kahn is also quick to point out a disadvantage of the doomsday machine which makes its construction immediately repugnant and intolerable to anyone who thinks about it: once it is in place, “there is no chance of human intervention, control, and final decision.” And behind this objection, we may add, is an even simpler and more basic one: the chief reason we don’t want a doomsday machine is that we don’t want doom – not in any circumstances. Doom doesn’t become any more acceptable because it comes about as someone’s “final decision”. And, of course, even though no enemy attack has been launched, in a moment of computer confusion the doomsday machine might make its own “final decision” to go off.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.206. - (*) Nations or the population never do, only their mis-leaders do decide upon war under the present universal system of territorial sovereignty for our political mis-leaders. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - I would rather propose a cheaper scheme, namely implanting a bomb in the brain of everyone who has his finger on a nuclear button. This bomb to explode, automatically, in all these heads, as soon as the first nuclear "weapon" is used anywhere. The functioning of this bomb is to be frequently tested, if possible, without exploding it. That would put an effective deterrent exactly there, where it is needed most, as long as the people of this world are still foolish enough to tolerate any nuclear "weapons" anywhere on or around Earth. - Doing away with all territorial powers and all their nuclear “weapons” would work even better. - J.Z., 26.1.11, 19.6.12. - & THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: There will be nukes – as long as we maintain large territorial targets for them and continue to apply the “principle” of collective responsibility. – J.Z., 8.1.84, 13.8.87, 26.1.08. - NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, TERRITORIALISM & COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: these bombs are sheer lunacy, just one more example of the insane antics of governments.” – Lee Goodlow & Jerry Oltion, Moonsong, ANALOG 7/89, p.37. – Most people still fail to distinguish between territorial governments and societies, communities and governance systems of volunteers only, just like they speak of money without distinguishing between the monies of monetary despotism and the free market monies of monetary freedom. They did not even clearly distinguish between e.g. individual strength and nuclear strength, the deterrence of genuine tyrannicide and that of mass murder devices, or between voluntary integration and compulsory integration, voluntary segregation and compulsory segregation, voluntary and compulsory State membership, voluntary and individualized secessionism and collectivist and territorial secessionism, welfare claims and individual rights, standing armies of territorial governments and autonomous militias of volunteers to uphold genuine individual rights and liberties, consent and treaties by governments and consent and treaties by individuals and their voluntary associations, weapons that can be used discriminatingly against real enemies and indiscriminatingly murderous and destructive “weapons” like the nuclear ones. - Their language abuse, their flawed and false definitions and wordings do have catastrophic consequences. Not even “enemies” and “aggression” have so far been sufficiently defined in public opinion and in the “minds” of our territorial mis-leaders. – J.Z., 19.6.12. - TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: This is not a policy of peace. It is a policy of war. If this is the only way we win, we do not deserve to win; and in any case, if the precepts of history have any validity, we cannot win this way. We can end only in impoverishing and ruining America.” - Fred J. Cook, The Warfare State, Jonathan Cape, 1962, p.352. – What actually happened, was that the USSR was ruined in this way. With its much more State-socialized economy it could not keep up the pace of the nuclear arms race. Alas, its collapse has not led to the destruction of all nuclear mass murder devices for territorial misrule went on, on all sides. – J.Z., 6.10.07. – Its territorial system, its central banking despotism and too much of its territorial and nuclear power was retained. – J.Z., 19.6.12. - DETERRENCE HYPOTHESIS, NUCLEAR STRENGTH POLICY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To me it seems reasonable that if we're to survive at all, we have to make a team and work together … Apparently it does not seem so to you.” - Poul Anderson, Planet of No Return, p.32. - Instead, let each become free to choose or build his own team, all of volunteers only, all free to try to realize their ideals or dreams, as far as possible, at their own expense and risk, under full experimental freedom, which would mean ignoring or destroying all territorialist regimes and realizing full exterritorial autonomy for all their experiments or ideals, whether utopian or realistic. It works in the sphere of religion and in numerous private choices. I would also work in the sphere of political, economic and social systems, which are now still monopolized by territorial governments. - Alas, P. A., although one of the best libertarian SF writers, was not ready to accept that view and develop it in one of his stories. - He stuck with the all too limited and still territorial utopia of "a limited" government. - J.Z., 26.1.11.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To the old “harsh realities” of international life (*) has been added the immeasurably harsher new reality of the peril of extinction.”- Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.185. – (*) Between territorial warfare States! – J.Z., 21.9.07. - INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & THE EXTINCTION OF MANKIND

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: To the old truth that all men are brothers has been added the inescapable new truth that not only on the moral but also on the physical plane the nation that practises aggression will itself die. This is the law of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence – the doctrine of “mutual assured destruction” – which “assures” the destruction of the society of the attacker.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. - When was the last time that a whole nation decided upon an aggressive war, if ever? - J.Z., 1. 5. 06. – DIS., DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Today we Pacifists have become realists. We are willing to fight, to kill and to die, in order to prevent war. We are not interested in the survival of individuals, we are of the opinion that another war will destroy the race, and to preserve humanity we will do literally anything." - The Book of War, Editor J. Sallis, p.73. (War hawks “think” similarly! - J.Z.) - Yes, they are both prepared to do anything - except think about the exterritorialist and personal law alternatives! - J.Z., 20.11.02. – PANARCHISM, EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM & VOLUNTARISM FOR ALL

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Today, when all the world is becoming Nazi, when all nations are becoming capable of genocide with their nuclear war preparations …” - Emanuel Levine. - It still takes territorialism, with its centralized powers, coercion and monopolies to bring this about. Their opposites could prevent it. - J.Z., 26.1.11. - NAZIS & GENOCIDE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: US President Harry S. Truman, … said in his message to Congress on 3rd October, 1945: “The release of atomic energy constitutes a new force too revolutionary to consider in the framework of old ideas.” Quoted by Brian Wilshire, The Fine Print, published by Brian Wilshire, PO Box 209, Round Corner, NSW 2158, Australia, 1992., p.7. – The ideas of genuine self-government - through full exterritorial autonomy for volunteers, independent of where they live - is not a new but a very ancient one, also one with a very prolonged practice which, alas, has been largely forgotten by modern “political scientists”, who, following the rule of absolute emperors and kings, have concentrated all their thoughts and efforts on the supposed ideal of territorial sovereignty in the hands of territorial “democratic” governments and have, largely, forgotten about the sovereignty of the individual and of communities of volunteers (which do really provide unanimous consent organizations, methods and situations), apart from the farce of territorial, collectivistic and majoritarian voting (misnamed “the” vote or “the” franchise” or “self-government”), by which individuals are really disfranchised and become victims of “representative” politicians, among whom the worst tend to get to the top and stay there, for all too long. – No territorial government and no territorial population, anywhere, has so far seriously considered the exterritorialist alternative. This is probably a by-product of the public mis-education delivered or controlled by territorial governments. – The older ideas and practices of exterritorial autonomy for volunteers are in many ways very much superior to the newer notions and practices of territorial sovereignty, especially when it comes to the threats posed by ABC mass murder devices in the hands of “sovereign” territorial regimes, from which no one is allowed to freely to secede. Individual secession is, probably, the most important vote of all. - J.Z. 1.10.07. - & REVOLUTIONARY NEW IDEAS, PANARCHISM, VOTING, REPRESENTATION,  CONSENT, VOLUNTARISM, VS. TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Use of power is no longer the deciding factor because one man is as powerful as a million. Restraint - self-restraint is now the key to survival. Each of us is at the mercy of his neighbor's good will. Each of us ... the man in the palace and the man in the shack. We'd better do all we can to increase that good will - not attempting to buy it. but simply recognizing that individual dignity is the one inalienable right..." - Frank Herbert: Committee of the Whole, Worlds of F. H., p.46. - (We ought to grant that dignity even to the terrorists - once they confine all their activities to creative options among like-minded people and ought to offer some of them amnesty under that basic condition. - J.Z., 4.8.82.) - The very characteristic of territorial nuclear powers is that they are not inherently restrained but unrestrained and that even good will and logic does not open their minds to the exterritorialist and voluntaristic alternatives. - J.Z., 20.11.02.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: utopian” is the term of scorn for any plan that shows serious promise of enabling the species to keep from killing itself (*) (if it is “utopian” to want to survive, then it must be “realistic” to be dead); and the political arrangements that keep us on the edge of annihilation are deemed “moderate”, and are found to be “respectable”, whereas new arrangements, which might enable us to draw a few steps back from the brink, are called “extreme” or “radical”. With such fear-filled, thought-stopping epithets as these, the upholders of the status quo defend the anachronistic structure of their thinking, and seek to block the revolution in thought and action which is necessary if mankind is to go on living.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, 161/62. - (*) It is not the species that does that but its “territorial State” or its misleaders, its top criminals, even prepared to commit mass murder with the help of advanced science and technology. – Underlining by me. - J.Z., 21.9.07, 19.6.12. - & UTOPISM CHARGE, PANARCHISM, OBJECTIONS, DIS., PREJUDICES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: we are once again having the same old argument from the National Rifle Association: “Guns don’t kill – people kill.” Maybe we should start selling nuclear “weapons” to any country that wants them. (*) After all, “nuclear bombs don’t kill - - only people who drop them kill.” There is a quantitative and a qualitative difference in nuclear weapons. Their “quality” is indiscriminate killing, masses of innocents together with a few guilty people. Rifles and hand-guns can be directed against guilty people only and for centuries, even in the hands of quite wrongful territorial governments, they have not yet threatened all of mankind with extermination. A mad gunman could only kill a few dozen people before he is killed himself. A madman with nuclear weapons could kill dozens of millions of innocents. – J.Z., 6.7.89, 30.5.08. - (*) Neither their countries nor their populations want them. Their territorial governments do. – J.Z., n.d.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We are told that “realism: compels us to preserve the system of sovereignty. But that political realism is not biological realism; it is biological nihilism – and for that reason is, of course, political nihilism, too. Indeed, it is nihilism in every conceivable sense of that word.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.218. – What other species upholds a territorial sovereignty? They only protect nesting and breeding grounds etc. not whole territories, which they do share, non-violently or violently as their life forms demand. No government-prescribed any armed borders for them, only the natural barriers exist for them. – J.Z., 22.9.07. – Most people are still statist and territorialist utopians rather than realists. – They are so much "true believers" that they never examine the foundations of their faith and its opposites. - J.Z., 23.2.09. - & TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY & NIHILISM RATHER THAN REALISM.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We are told that it is human fate – perhaps even “a law of human nature” – that, in obedience, perhaps, to some “territorial imperative”, or to some dark and ineluctable truth in the bottom of our souls, we must preserve sovereignty and always settle our difference with violence. If this is our fate, then it is our fate to die.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p. 218. – How many have so far thoroughly criticized the notion of “territorial imperative” and replaced it in their heads with the “exterritorial imperative”? – J.Z., 23.2.09. - & TERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE, TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE, PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We can kill all human beings and close down the source of all future human beings, but we cannot create even one human being, much less create those terrestrial conditions which now permit us (*) and other forms of life to live.”- Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.178. - - WE? - (*) Which now permit us? Which would now permit us? – We are not free to establish them and, most of us, do not even bother to think about them sufficiently, so far. – Most people could but don’t, they just can’t be bothered, although their own lives are at stake and the lives of those people whom they are supposed to love or are friends of. – They rather take out huge insurance contracts, which will be useless in case the nuclear holocaust happens. – They do not want to think about effective self-help steps in this sphere, but rather ask: “What’s for dinner?” - J.Z., 10.10.07, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We endeavor to hold life sacred, but in accepting our roles as the victims and the perpetrators of nuclear mass slaughter we convey the steady message – and it is engraved more and more deeply on our souls as the years roll by – that life not only is not sacred but is worthless; that, somehow, according to a “strategic” logic that we cannot understand, it has been judged acceptable for everybody to be killed.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.153. - And all too many still put their trust upon their future territorialist executioners! – J.Z., 10.10.07, 26.1.11. – The territorial leaders would then mutually exterminate their subjects, which is no better for the victims than being exterminated by the own territorial government. – J.Z., 19.6.12. - & THE SANCTITY OF LIFE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We have no power against this threat! - What powers would we need for this? Why have we not got them as yet, although we do have, supposedly, "the" vote? How can we acquire these powers? Can we afford not to acquire them? - J.Z., 18. 12. 82. - Alas, the slave mentality is still with us. - J.Z., 1. 5. 06. – Q. – STATISM, SLAVE MENTALITY, FREEDOM OF ACTION, SELF-HELP OPTIONS TO BE ESTABLISHED FIRST.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We must … found a political system for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. (*) - - The task we face is to find a means of political action that will permit human beings to pursue any end for the rest of time.” (**) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.226. - - (*) Most political disputes could and should be avoided in the first place by giving up and no longer recognizing any territorial monopoly claims for any particular group of any population. - - (**) Any aim that does that involves only the like-minded volunteers of a community, which maintains or makes no territorial monopoly claims, however wrong and irrational we, as outsiders, might perceive their actions to be, as long as the members of a voluntary community are prepared to put up with their self-selected conditions, gurus and mis-leaders and do not secede from them individually or in groups. That secession or separation right should never be suppressed by any community. Experimental freedom for all others as well, as the only limit to freedom of action for the volunteers of the own community. In other words, the only system in common need be that of tolerance for all tolerant communities of volunteers. Under that condition there could not only be one society or community for all but hundreds to thousands of them, all somewhat different, according to the preferences, ideals or prejudices or their voluntary members. None of them to possess compulsory membership or subordination, except for aggressors or private criminals against a community of volunteers. To assure that mutual tolerance, juridical avenues are to be agreed upon, especially arbitration arrangements. [The latest and, perhaps, greatest innovation in that sphere is the online offer of arbitration. – J.Z., 19.6.12. - Maybe you should have a look at as well. Very panarchistic, and a libertarian behind it as well. – RCBJ, 15.6.12.] As international law for them would count especially the best declaration of individual rights and liberties that can so far be compiled and published. A most suitable international enforcement agency against offenders of such rights in members of other communities than their own would be an ideal volunteer militia for the defence of individual rights and liberties. Internal and self-chosen restrictions of individual rights and liberties among the volunteers of an exterritorially autonomous community would not be considered as offences against the rights and liberties of its members. – J.Z., 23.9.07, 26.1.11. - A TERRITORIALIST & TERRORIST POLITICAL SYSTEM, OPERATING ON THE “PRINCIPLE OF “COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY” OR PANARCHISM ( POLYARCHY ), I.E. A SYSTEM THAT HAS ROOM FOR THE PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE OF HUNDREDS TO THOUSANDS OF DIVERSE POLITICAL SYSTEMS, ALL ONLY FOR THEIR OWN VOLUNTEERS & UNDER PERSONAL LAWS? Q., ARBITRATION ONLINE, INTERNATIONAL LAW, INTERNOSCIA

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We possess – each of us – nuclear arsenals capable of annihilating humanity. We – both of us – have a special duty to see to it that confrontations are kept within the bounds that do not threaten civilized life. Both of us, sooner or later, will have to come to realize that the issues that divide the world today, and foreseeable issues, do not justify the unparalleled catastrophe that a nuclear war would represent.” – US. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, press conference statement, 25. Oct. 1972; “Years of Upheaval”, 1982, p.594. - Territorial rulers are no more likely to destroy their nuclear "weapons" than they are to abdicate. - Their victims ought to do away with such "leaders", such "systems", such "politics" and such "weapons", before they are too much or altogether victimized by them. - J.Z., 26.1.11, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We rely on the weapons of annihilation to secure our ‘way of life’. - Violence is so commonplace in our lives that we hardly notice it. …” – In a leaflet by American Friends Service Committee, Inc., (Quakers), 431 So. Dearborn, Chicago, Ill. 60605, directed against toys of violence for our children. – Have the toy producers already produced imitations nuclear weapons for children or are such “toys” in real version, reserved for our adult and official war games players, in spite of their obvious immorality and immaturity when it comes to such devices? – Much of public opinion is directed against firearms in the hands of decent people – but indifferent towards nuclear “weapons” in the hands of the worst criminals, the territorial governments. - J.Z., 24.9.08. – TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS OR PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We see today governments, controlled by imbeciles who, while presuming to care for the health, education, and welfare of their victims, are at the same time preparing for a holocaust that threatens to decimate the human race; and this astounding contradiction is being accepted by millions of manufactured idiots the world over, completely oblivious of the inherently criminal nature of these very governments.” - Laurance Labadie, Selected Essays, p.39. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: We send a little medicine here, we distribute a little food there, we give proof of what we could do if mankind would only devote as much attention to its own preservation as it does to its own destruction.” - Alan Drury, A Shade of Difference, p.520. - He wrote as if charity would always be superior in its effects to free trade, voluntary insurance and competitive credit arrangements under conditions of full monetary and financial freedom. In the latter case all the medicines of the world and all its food would be available, under fair conditions to both sides, to those who urgently need them and those, who are ready to supply them. Not just a little bit of medicine and food! - I underlined part of that passage. - J.Z., 1. 5. 06. - It is not mankind or individuals or groups of volunteers that are free to act in this sphere but only territorial governments. - The targeted people, free to choose, would hardly "pursue nuclear strength and deterrence" policies. - J.Z., 26.1.26. – TERRITORIALISM, GOVERNMENTS VS. THE PEOPLE

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Well, if you prefer nuclear weapons, nuclear targets and nuclear deaths as your choice, then that is what you will get. - Prepare for your point zero impact. - Unfortunately, we others will suffer under your choices, too, unless we manage to destroy all your favourite “weapons” and get rid of all your power maniacs first. – J.Z., n.d. & 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What are its premises? Mainly: territorial organization, political and juridical monopolies, monetary despotism, taxing powers and intolerant ideologies, notions of collective responsibility and of statism in general! - J.Z., 11/6/80, 20.11.02. - Most of hundreds to tens of thousands of wrongful ideas, notions, opinions, errors and prejudices in our heads, with so far only about 500 of them alphabetically listed and somewhat discussed, in PEACE PLANS 16-17 & 61-63 (online at, ), make for nuclear war rather than peace. – How many alphabetized ideas, definitons, opinions, quotes, comments etc. are listed in this alphabetized compilation relating to panarchism? I will get its paragraphs counted by the computer, once I finished this second revision. - J.Z., 20.11.02, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What is needed to make extinction possible, therefore, is some way of thinking about it that at least partly deflects our attention from what it is. And this way of thinking is supplied to us, unfortunately, by our political and military traditions, which, with the weight of almost all historical experience behind them, teach us that it is the way of the world for the earth to be divided up into independent sovereign states, and for these states to employ war as the final arbiter for settling the disputes that arise among them. This arrangement of the political affairs of the world was not intentional. No one wrote a book proposing it; no parliament sat down to debate its merits and then voted it into existence. It was simply there, at the beginning or recorded history; and until the invention of nuclear weapons it remained there, with virtually no fundamental changes. Unplanned though this arrangement was, it had many remarkably durable features, and certain describable advantages (*) and disadvantages; therefore, I shall refer to it as a “system” – the system of sovereignty.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.186/87. - - (*) The only “advantage” that I can see, which perpetuated it so far, was its “democratic” agreement with many popular errors and prejudices, just like it happened in another sphere to make the long continuance of various churches and sects possible and in the economic sphere numerous errors and abuses, etc. The misnamed “social sciences” are still in a terrible mess. - J.Z., 21.9.07. - Territorial statism or absolutism is also much more recent than this author believes, He even manages to overlook altogether the historical exterritorial alternatives. Personal law probably prevailed before there were any written histories or even any writing and reading abilities for most people. - J.Z., 26.1.11.  TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGN STATES, TERRITORIALISM, PERSONAL LAW TRADITION, DIS., HISTORY, PRECEDENTS FOR VOLUNTARISM & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What kind of idiots would tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of politicians? - J.Z., 19.4.82, after re-reading: Frederic Brown: The Weapon, in ASTOUNDING SF, Oct. 61: “…  only a madman would give a loaded revolver to an idiot" - the idiot son of a nuclear scientist, a scientist without social responsibility. – J.Z., n.d.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What legal and constitutional methods are left to us to prevent war and nuclear holocaust? - J.Z., 22. 11. 82. – Q., TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What offers would we have to make to Russian (*) soldiers and officers to satisfy their nationalistic, survival, conservative and reform aspirations and induce them to destroy, even one-sidedly, the Soviet nuclear arsenal? They would have to be strong incentives, indeed, but not impossible ones. They would have to assure even the few convinced communists among them a continued autonomous existence - even after they are deprived of their power over others. For details see PEACE PLANS 16-17 and 61-65. - J.Z., 4.8.82. – (*) The Soviets are gone, but not their anti-people or anti-proletarian “weapons” and others have copied this totalitarian precedent or one of the “democratic” ones. – The same applies, naturally, to any other nuclear power. - J.Z., 28.2.09. – Q., FRATERNIZATION, DES., GOVERNMENTS IN EXILE, SECRET ALLIES, UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, PEACE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE PEOPLES, OVER THE HEADS OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS, TREATIES, UNILATERAL PEACE DECLARATIONS, SECRET ALLIES, CAPTIVE NATIONS, DESERTION, MILITARY INSURRECTIONS, LIBERATION, LIBERTARIAN REVOLUTIONS AGAINST ALL DESPOTISMS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What the alpha males had forgotten was that the science of weaponry had already evolved to the point where even a small minority of angry, rage-filled people could blow the whole planet to hell. Even if they had understood this, it is doubtful that the alpha males would have tried to create a world in which it was impossible for anybody to get that angry. Such a goal would have seemed utopian to them. They could not guess that it was actually a necessity on any advanced technological planet.” - R. A. Wilson: Schroedinger's Cat, p.107/8. - Ponder the effects, even upon private terrorists, when the following principle becomes realized: To each the government or non-governmental society of his or her dreams! - J.Z. – PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY OR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM FOR ALL, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: What would be the pathogenesis of the terminal event, nuclear war? Through history we see that wars are often started for totally illogical and inane reasons. (*) Often wars are started by sane men. (**) Or nuclear war could be initiated by pathology within leaders of the world. Sane people can easily develop acute psychosis suddenly, under severe stress. A leader could develop a cerebral tumor and before they get their CT scan could do something which is totally insane. (***) Or a nuclear war could be started by accident. Over the last 18 months computers within the Pentagon and elsewhere have made 151 errors that predicted that nuclear weapons were coming from the Soviet Union. One such error was started by a man who plugged a war games tape into the fail-safe computer at the Pentagon in November 1979. The computer detected weapons coming from Russia. There was a full-scale nuclear alert for six minutes. At the seventh minute the President was to be officially notified but he could not be found. If the error had not been determined at that time, we would have been annihilated. … What is the therapy for this planet, and for us? First, as physicians we must shatter people's psychic numbing. It is inappropriate for any person on this planet to be psychologically comfortable in this day and age. As the psychic numbing is shattered, people will enter the phases of the grieving reaction. This then motivates individuals to become active in doing something about the problem. The anger can be very profound. It becomes therapeutic to do something: it feels better.” - Helen Caldicott in John Hinchcliff: Confronting the Nuclear Age, 29. - Towards the end H. C. repeats the old error that the very terrors of a war would suffice to induce people to do something to prevent war. The terror rather leads to another kind of psychic numbing, which leads to inactivity because of a feeling of total helplessness. It does not even induce people to explore the reasons for their present helplessness and the ways and means for them to develop self-help options for themselves and freedom of action against such threats. – (*) Motives! – (**) Men who strove for territorial power and maintain themselves in that position are, at least to some extent, already insane. – (***) It is also insane to maintain such decision-making monopoly positions! - J.Z., 1. 5. 06. – E.g. the mere love, non-violence, conscientious objection and charity notions in most people’s heads are certainly not a sufficient safeguard against the nuclear threat. – J.Z., 19.6.12. – PREJUDICES, PUBLIC OPINION, UNFOUNDED OPTIMISM, IGNORANCE ERRORS, ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR WAR, FUGUES, DENIALS, PSYCHIC NUMBING, INSANITY, POWER MADNESS, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” – Bible, Galatians, 6.7. – Alas, in this case, the sowers will survive, at least for years. Only their victims will die. – Who else but governments has produced nuclear “weapons” so far, “weapons”, which, in reality, are, anti-people mass murder devices? - J.Z., 30.5.08, 19.6.12. - TERRITORIALISM, STATISM, GOVERNMENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When one reads in the press that ‘terrorists have sabotaged a nuclear rocket base’, the debasement of language can go no further. – STATE RESEARCH BULLETIN, vol.5, No.31, Aug./Sept. 1982. – TERRORISM, RESISTANCE, WEAPONS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When people say that they are prepared to defend our freedom even at the cost of nuclear warfare, they are talking nonsense. What they should say is that they are prepared to destroy our freedom by accepting the mutilation of our society rather than to destroy it by accepting an occupation by the Russians. - For we can predict that there will be a personal struggle for survival in this country after a nuclear attack. And we can predict that it will be a hideous affair, which will take little account of parliamentary procedures or the four freedoms. This is another example of the obsolescence of our vocabulary.” - Phililp Toynbee, The Fearful Choice, p.108. - Even this famous historians did not distinguish between the Soviets and their Russian victims and the over other 120 other ethnic groups in Soviet Russia, not to speak of all their religious and ideological victims. The whole nuclear war threat is built upon thus ignoring facts and failing to think or even define basic notions like "freedom, "enemy", "people", "nation", "target", "aggression", "defence" and "weapons". - 99% or even more do still ignore the exterritorial and voluntary alternatives to the territorial Warfare States. - J.Z., 23.1.11. – DEFENCE, DETERRENCE, NUCLEAR STRENGTH, WEAPONS, FREEDOM, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When the next “great” leader commands the use of the next nuclear anti-people mass murder device, then the suicide bomb, previously installed in him and in all other such leading politicians should become automatically exploded. For then they would have become, quite obviously, not only useless but even a threat to the survival of mankind. Only such bombs could act somewhat effectively as means to deter “leaders” from engaging in a nuclear war. – Obviously, such doomsday devices should only be installed in such decision-makers, not on the innocent people whom they do target with nuclear “weapons”. Then only these potential mass murderers would be unsafe while the people would be largely safe from them. Then even they might come to work actively for the destruction of all mass murder devices. – Naturally, it would be even better if there were no risk of such “representatives” finding obedience to their orders or if ABC mass murder powers and devices would be altogether destroyed for him and for all others and if they had no longer any territorial powers to build and stockpile such devices again. - J.Z., 12.2.06, 12.3.06, 29.10.07, 26.1.11, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: when we hide from ourselves the immense preparations that we have made for our self-extermination we do so for two compelling reasons. First, we don’t want to recognize that at any moment our lives may be taken away from us and our world blasted to dust, and, second, we don’t want to face the fact that we are potential mass killers.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.152. – We aren’t the territorial governments and the territorial governments aren’t us. But we do put up with all too much from territorial governments, in their actions, charges and false pretences. – J.Z., 10.10.07, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: When you are marked for extermination, as all people are, who are living in nuclear target zones, what do you think or wish to do to your potential exterminators or executioners? Do you respect their legitimacy, their constitutional or other powers and their territorial integrity or their “internal affairs” or their territorial sovereignty? Do you then decide upon “non-intervention” and “non-violence” or for persuasion and negotiation attempts only? Or do you think it to be good enough to simply ignore all such problems and threats and leave their solution to territorial governments, which have created them in the first place and maintained them for decades already? – J.Z., 17.6.03, 31.10.07. - WMD’s: ATOMIC WEAPONS, DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY, TYRANNICIDE, DISARMAMENT BY THE PEOPLE, IDEAL MILITIAS FOR THE DEFENCE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & LIBERTIES, TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY & INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Who decided for nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors? Territorial governments, did, not their subjects, the people themselves. The people are merely, as usual, the targeted or exposed victims of these “weapons” and reactors. – J.Z., 5.5.04, 16.10.07. - Also victims of these territorial rulers and "protectors" in numerous other ways. The Mafia and the Pope are too sensible to "arm" themselves with such mass murder devices. But if they did, there would be a general outcry against it. We are used to take almost any wrong decision and action from our territorial governments. - When they tell us that nuclear reactors are "peaceful" then we manage to ignore that they are also factories for nuclear weapons materials. - J.Z., 23.1.11. - & NUCLEAR REACTORS, STATISM, TERRITORIALISM, PUBLIC OPINION, IGNORANCE, PREJUDICES

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: With regard to nuclear war we are all hostages in enemy hands and our political opposition, the communist party members and their victims, are hostages of the West. But an ineffective hostage system is involved. Like e.g. the thousands of Japanese Christians were, who lived in Hiroshima, and the hundreds of thousands of opponents to the Nazis in Germany, who were also bombed by the Allies. Those preparing for mass murders do not care if a few hundred-thousands or even millions of innocents are killed in the process. Why would e.g. exterritorially autonomous communities of communists in Western countries and anti-communists ones in Eastern countries, be better hostages or, rather, guarantors for peace via the only kind of "peaceful coexistence", that is quite rightful and possible? They are then no longer outlawed or all too much restrained. They would then be no longer territorially oppressed, misled and exploited but liberated. Then they could peacefully practise their beliefs and convictions and gain more voluntary followers everywhere. Then they would be secure and would no longer need the usual "national security" protection and defence. They would not constitute a threat to others, against which the others would want and need protection and defence. They would tend to dissolve all monolithic power blocks. They would make the same difference which the freely competing and tolerated as well as tolerant churches and sects provided and still provide under full religious liberty or tolerance. – Free enterprise businesses, too, do not make war against each other or against the customers of the others but, rather, compete with the other businesses, peacefully and appeal to all potential customers, quite peacefully, with better offers. - J.Z., 29. 10. 82, 1.5.06, 27.2.09. - & EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY, HOSTAGE SYSTEM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Without territorialism and the collective responsibility spleen, the  nuclear “powerful” “weapons” would have no targets. Nor would there be powers and means to stockpile and use them. – J.Z., 22.9.07, 19.6.12. - & TERRITORIALISM VS. EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR VOLUNTEERS OR PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Yet nuclear deterrence begins by assuming, correctly, that victory is impossible. Thus, the logic of the deterrence strategy is dissolved by the very event – the first strike – that it is meant to prevent. Once the action begins, the whole doctrine is self-cancelling. In sum, the doctrine is based on a monumental logical mistake: one cannot credibly deter a first strike with a second strike whose raison d’être dissolves the moment the first strike arrives. It follows that, as far as deterrence theory is concerned, there is no reason for either side not to launch a first strike.” - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.202. – Our supposedly irreconcilable enemy, who, we assume, considers us as his irreconcilable enemy, might then actually rely upon our humane feelings and reasoning not to strike back, in a second strike, after having delivered the first strike against us. The basic concepts of enemy and aggression have to become re-defined, and this without the wrongful assumptions of territorialism. To the extent that extensive tourism does lead to some thinking and re-thinking among the tourists, at least their concept of territorial enemies becomes undermined. They come as peaceful observers and buyers rather than as bomb-throwers and thus are not regarded as enemies either, by most of the natives. But both groups might still - and with good reasons, - dislike or even hate their own and the other’s territorial governments, as their true enemies. – J.Z., 22.9.07. – Alas, even on this most important question, the survival of mankind on Earth, so far no electronic “argument mapping”, as proposed by Paul Monk et al, and explained on the Internet, has been compiled to my knowledge. Apparently, the survival instinct is not strong enough in the face of such ultimate danger. To bear it, psychologically, we simply switch off our awareness of it – unless we are lucky enough to be shown a way out and are able to comprehend it. – J.Z., 10.10.07. - DETERRENCE, FIRST & SECOND STRIKES, ENEMIES & TOURISM, PEOPLE VS. GOVERNMENTS

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: Yet the deterrence policy itself is clearly not the deepest source of our difficult. Rather, as we have seen, it is only a piece or repair work on the immeasurably more deeply entrenched system of national sovereignty. People do not want deterrence for its own sake (*), indeed, they hardly know what it is, and tend to shun the whole subject. They want the national sovereignty that deterrence promises to preserve. (**) National sovereignty (***) lies at the very core of the political issues that the peril of extinction forces upon us.” (****) - Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, p.217/18. - - (*) The people have no say in the matter anyhow. That is one aspect of territorial sovereign powers! – J.Z., 22.9.07. – - (**) Do they really? Were the details of it ever clearly spelled out and left to a referendum to decide? Were the minorities allowed to opt out? After all, they are also part of the people, although not an inseparable part. They could form their own kind of peoples and should be free to do so. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - - (***) Rather, territorial monopoly claims made by territorial governments. – J.Z., 22.9.07. (****) It is rather the political practice of territorialism that forces the peril of extinction upon us. Schell seems to have in mind, as an alternative, not exterritorial autonomy for all communities of volunteers but merely some form of world State or world federation, with its sovereign and world-wide territorial and imperial monopoly, which could lead to nuclear weapons production and use in its kinds of civil wars. – J.Z., 22.9.07. - DETERRENCE DOCTRINE & NATIONAL TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY OR EXCLUSIVE TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY: TERRITORIALISM VS. PANARCHISM

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: You have slammed the door into the face of every possible rightful and rational solution, or simply ignored it. Coercively organized, mis-educated, misled, compelled into a death march towards an almost guaranteed and generalized nuclear holocaust, seemingly with your consent, in your name, for your sake, by your territorial “representatives”, giving them the “sanction of the victims”. Those, who adopted nuclear mass murder as a final solution for their problems will get it – for they will find enough similar murderous and self-destructive territorialist fools all over the world. – Unfortunately, they will also be the death of the more moral and rational people. – J.Z., 17.8.86, 30.5.08.

NUCLEAR WAR THREAT: You never know what territorialist fools, madmen or power addicts will do with nuclear weapons. So far they have kept them in readiness for the ultimate folly and crime. – And we have let them do this to us. - J.Z., 25.3.99, 24.1.08, 23.1.11.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Each nuclear mass murder device would kill only about one real enemy among a thousand people, all others being innocents, non-combatants, at least as far as nuclear strength is concerned, all being potential allies or friends, or trading partners, insurrectionists, revolutionaries, refugees or deserters or at least neutrals. And, thereby, it makes, by its mere existence and readiness to be used, more enemies than would exist without its existence and threat. – Even the worst government can exploit that fear as an excuse to produce its own nuclear mass murder devices and keep them in readiness. - J.Z. 6.9.89, 30.5.08. – NUCLEAR DETERRENT? NUCLEAR STRENGTH OR MASS MURDER DEVICES WHICH CREATE MASSES OF ENEMIES?

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Linked to Territorialism, 16, 22, 33, 49, 63, 70, ON PANARCHY I, in PP 505. - See also under "COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY" & under ENEMY, also: DECISION-MAKING MONOPOLY.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Most were built and are kept in readiness as if they had the following inscriptions: a.) This device will kill only communists, not their victims or active anti-communists, or b.) This device will kill only capitalists, not socialists or other “proletarians”. – As if such lies about them were really believable. – J.Z., 4.12.95, 19.6.12. – Such false assumptions or beliefs are only possible in an atmosphere of territorial statism, also characterized by its popular notions of collective responsibility of subjects for the actions of their territorial governments, although the subjects had no real say regarding the decisions of their supposedly representative governments and foreign policies and war and peace decisions are constitutionally still monopolized in the hands of territorial governments. – J.Z., 24.1.08, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: nuclear proliferation must be prevented. It is an urgent, mortal threat to any hope of getting the arms race under control.” - Gwyn Prins, ed., The Choice: Nuclear War vs. Security, p.12. – But what can you do as long as madmen or power addicts are territorially in control, on all sides and all armed forces are at their disposal and most people cannot even imagine anything else than territorial rule? – J.Z., 24.1.08. – Q.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Via their nuclear weapons territorial governments have made themselves the true and primary enemies of all truly moral and rational men and women. – Alas, sometimes one comes to believe that there are more territorial governments than there are such people. – J.Z., 13.4.86, 30.5.08. – TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, ALL OF THEM, AS OUR MAIN ENEMIES.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: We put up with kings for thousands of years, so I guess we are prepared to put up with nuclear weapons for hundreds of years - if their holers will let us! Especially if placed in the hands of territorial power-addicts and power-mad people. - J.Z., 11.12.82, 1.5.06, 19.6.12.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: What is most unclear and wrong about nuclear “weapons”? a) Their targets, whole civilian populations, whole cities, b) their supposed enemy, c) the “justification” of their use by notions of collective responsibility, d) their supposed “deterrent” effect upon the decision-makers, e) the exclusive and centralized decision-making power involved, f.) their finance out of coercively levied tributes, g) the absence of quite rightful war- and peace aims, h) their infringement of international laws on warfare, e.g. of the concept of “open cities” not to be bombarded, i) the fact that they are “weapons” of aggression, which make a real defence impossible, j) the fact that only madmen or power addicts can and will use them, k) the fact that the systems, democratic or autocratic, which built them, kept them in readiness and will sooner or later use them, disfranchised the own people regarding the questions of their own survival and that of other peoples, even that of all of mankind? – J.Z., 10.5.96, 24.1.98. – What help offer our present democracies, representatives, laws, elections, “the” free vote, against such mass murder devices in anyone’s hands? – J.Z., 19.6.12. - Q., WEAPONS AS OPPOSED TO MASS MURDER DEVICES, TERRITORIALISM

NUCLEAR WINTER: The government must be nailed to the wall on this one. Nothing would be more graphic and final an argument for government as the problem, not the solution.” – Pyrrho, THE CONNECTION 122, p. 65.

NUISANCE: The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited: he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859, p.3. – (Compare comments on this under LIBERTY.) You may be considered a mere nuisance by some people, particularly the enemies of liberties, the holders of power and privileges, never mind that, but you must not be an aggressor with involuntary victims. You might bore some indifferent people with your preachings about liberty and they might consider such preaching to be a nuisance. Just ignore their complains and go on talking to better prospects. You might prance around nakedly, if you like, but not upon other people’s bodies or properties, only within their sight - and if they consider that to be a nuisance, then this mental hang-up is their problem. Don’t the complainants see e.g. naked plants and their genitals, flowers, very often and do not complain about that? Don’t they see other naked animals very often and even have them as pets? – But you are not entitled to inflict you smoke or excess noise upon them. – That could be real nuisance. - J.Z. 25.1.08. - Nothing is a nuisance to all. Nothing makes everybody happy. Both are subjectively perceived. Somewhat definable are private and property spheres. Thus there can hardly be anything like a “public nuisance”, unless one defines almost all territorial governments in this way. The vote of one, on his own affairs, with regard to his privacy and private property, should be enough, to decide what constitutes to him a nuisance that he will not tolerate. – No host is obliged to put up with every trouble-maker. Guests are obliged to abide by the usual house rules, politeness and good manners and consideration for others. - J.Z., 6.4.89. – Can one be more precise on this? – J.Z., 26.1.08. – ZERO AGGRESSION, NON-INITIATION OF FORCE, TOLERANCE TOWARDS ALL TOLERANT PEOPLE, DIS., INTOLERANCE

NULLIFICATION POWER FOR DISSENTERS: Nullification power for dissenters, regarding their own affairs, making them exterritorially autonomous in their own voluntary communities. – J.Z., 30.9.04. – INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM, VOLUNTARISM, PANARCHISM, EXTERRITORIAL AUTONOMY FOR ALL DISSENTERS.

NULLIFICATION: The alleged right of a state of the Union to declare an Act of Congress inapplicable, null and void, and without force or effect, within its own borders.” - Footnote 6 of: C. Gordon Post, in his introduction to: “John C. Calhoun. A Disquisition on Government and Selections from the Discourse”, The Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1953, page XI. - Under: “State Rights and Nullification” Post wrote: “Nullification developed as a concomitant of the doctrine of state rights, which, in turn, had its genesis in the question of the nature of the union. Was the union intended to be a consolidated republic or a confederation of sovereign and independent states bound together by a formal compact, namely, the Constitutions. … The most extreme statement of the doctrine, for example, held to the notion that the states did not relinquish their sovereignty when they agreed to enter the Union. …” – Nullification power for dissenters and the right for them to associated in voluntary communities that are exterritorially autonomous! Nullification power transferred from States to individuals! Even a consistent geographical secessionist and decentralist would, finally, arrive at individual secession, too. – J.Z., 30.9.04 & 17.1.05, 26.1.11.

NUMBER OF MINORITY GROUPS IN PRESENT TERRITORIAL STATES: The "unified" territorial States like to pretend that they are really unified. The figures for their minorities do usually prove the contrary. Even their temporary majorities are usually made up of several minorities. – J.Z., n.d. – MINORITIES, INTERNATIONAL, VOLUNTARISM, ASSOCIATIONISM, UNITY, UNIFORMITY, TERRITORIALISM

NUMBERS: The enormous variety of human beings and other living things should be taken sufficiently into consideration. No two people are alike and yet the assumption is that as single and legally imposed "culture" would be suitable for all human beings in a territory. Sufficient awareness of this variety would, inevitably, lead many people towards panarchism for human beings. Territorial States, like exclusive territorial churches, are not institutions that are natural for human beings. - See my growing digitized file on this (Pan Numbers), still to be increased further, edited and published to counter the unity and uniformity spleens. - J.Z., n.d. – TERRITORIALISM, NATIONALISM, STATISM, UNIFORMITY, UNITY, DIVERSITY

NURSERIES FOR ADULTS: If you want to remain in the nurseries for adults provided by national territorial "welfare" States, you should be free to do so - at your own continued risk and expense. But if you have mentally grown up and are willing to risk and finance your own experiments, with like-minded people, then you should become free to opt out of these nurseries, to begin an adult and independent lifestyle, in your self-chosen or self-made "utopia". - J.Z., 13.1.93, 11.12.03. in old Pan AZ. – TERRITORIALISM, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, MATURITY, INDIVIDUAL SECESSIONISM

NYGH, P.E.: Conflict of Laws in Australia, 4th ed., Butterworths, 1984, indexed, 548pp, $ 49 in 1987. - At least the lawyers and publishers could make money out of conflicting personal laws and territorial laws. - J.Z., 3.2.1999. - But would they really like the simplification and reduction of legislation that would, finally, result? - J.Z., 5.11.11.

NYS, E.: Le Droit International, 3 vols., Bruxelles, 1912. – INTERNATIONAL LAW, INTERNOSCIA, JEROME


[Home] [Top]