The leftists, in their obsession with achieving a “stateless” nation, a United Individuals of America, are now pushing to dismantle official employment and to replace it with so-called “voluntary interactions.” If they were intelligent they would understand that none of the so-called stateless nations are actually stateless. Their government have only moved underground. “Anarchy” is really the art of hiding power relations, not eliminating them, because power is indestructible where people have different aptitudes.

Let us recount the history of the first stateless nation. Such a task is, of course, now momentous thought-crime. “Denial” of true statelessness, though once prominent, is now considered immoral by the left because it supposedly downplays the trillions of lives lost by state violence throughout history. Let me be clear that I do not mean to marginalize the plight of the victims of unjustified state violence. Human nature is largely malevolent, which is why we have states in the first place. I only advocate for the explicit recognition of said structures.

Now, back to Russia. The story begins with the Russian War for Freedom which began in 1917 in the midst of the First Mass Depopulation perpetrated by the Malthusian states of Europe under the guise of “war.” (Counter to the mainstream MD1 was in fact partially motivated by geopolitics, as the result of the event was crushing for the central European states). The popular narrative is that the people rose up to finally implement the first abolition of State since the latter’s creation shortly after the spread of agriculture. This is not the case as admitted by mainstream historians. It was thought by the Bakhuninists that statelessness could only be implemented after the revolutionary conflict. “Fight fire with fire and state with state, and after the enemy is burned put out the flames” said Lenin.

It is widely believed that they achieved just that, but the reality is that statelessness is inachievable. This is why any Westerner who tries to visit a stateless nation is swiftly ejected. The “conspiracy theories” are correct; there is an underground government in Russia. The “abolition of law” has only meant the abolition of the rule of law. There are, in fact, still rules, only these rules are created by the unaccountable and are enforced likewise. The whole nation is a Kafka-esque nightmare. Numerous defectors have told us as much. While the left dismisses these men as frauds, I see no case for this.

Dmitri Muravyov, for instance, crossed via the Mexican border in 1965. He claimed to have been on a diplomatic mission for his very existent State when he defected. In the recordings he is shown to have a Slavic look and he very clearly possesses a Russian accent. Perhaps this was all an elaborate fascist hoax, but I doubt it. Let us consider what Muravyov had to say, and perhaps we can reason as to whether it aligns with what the rest of history says about power.

“I must inform you the Russian State is very much alive. Our whole nation is a grand illusion. It is said that each man is an individual, yet he has no freedom. There are no laws, yet people severely punished for certain actions. It is forbidden to explicitly acknowledge this.”

“When a child is born, he is to be raised by the local community and not the parents. If the parents try to exert too much influence over the child, the child disappears. When I was young, occasionally a new child would appear. It was always said that the child had chosen to migrate. If the child complained, he was punished and shamed for stateism. Usually he was withheld food as that was considered a purely voluntary action on behalf of the community.”

“Adults generally could not migrate. Occasionally they would come and go but sometimes we were to shun them if they came. Others were welcomed.”

“It was always mysterious to me how the system worked, even living within it. I always felt like something was off. I think I was alone. Many, especially the women, are totally engrossed in the propaganda. I suppose they just can’t think critically. There were always a minority that had to be emulated or else bad things would happen. Direct defiance was the worst crime. Any direct defiance resulted in disappearance. At work or in the town or apartment building, everything was supposed to be decided as a group. All the important decisions, however, we always proposed by a few people, and disagreement on these decisions would result in shutting down the question and disappearance. The occasional dumbass, usually a woman, thinks that they are free and dissents when something particularly inhuman is pushed by the thought-leaders. For instance, a new measure to send half of our food to brothers in a more famished area was proposed. The thought leaders of course supported this measure. A woman, usually pious, was indignant. ‘How am I going to feed my baby?’ she crowed. ‘We’re already tight on food! This will make us all hungry!’ I could tell another woman was about to speak up when the thought leaders gave in and suggested that the discussion be resumed at a later date. ‘Fine’ said the first woman. ‘But I still won’t agree.’ Luckily the second woman did not speak up. The next day the first woman was gone and the measure was discussed again. The second woman said nothing.”

“Until I was taken to conduct these secret State activities it was something of a mystery to me as to how it worked. Perhaps, I occasionally thought, the dissenters willingly leave in the spirit of voluntaryism. Something about that was not quite right. When new people arrived and were not to be shunned they were generally to be respected like the others I labeled “thought leaders.” This shut down any idea I had of ‘voluntary admiration,’ which was the line they gave when an unwitting child asked the difficult question ‘why does everyone always do what you say? Aren’t we all equals?’ ‘Child,’ one of them said, ‘we are all equals. You are sounding like a statist. But there is voluntary admiration, and that’s okay.’ The child was not fed the rest of that day on account of the people feeling the need to punish his latent statism.”

“Around the time I was twenty-five I was arrested in the middle of the night. They gagged me and drove me out to a large building amidst the wilderness. They drug me into a windowless room where they began by interrogating me as to my ideological history. ‘One lie,’ they said, ‘and you’re dead.’ The bluff didn’t work. I had already lied and continued to tell them what they wanted to hear. One question was difficult. They asked me if I had theorized that there was still a military for purposes of national defense. I told them no, that I did not think about such things, for I was merely an individual.”

“I was lucky. This was what they wanted to hear. They didn’t want to make the mistake of taking in someone who is capable of independent thought. This here is the price they pay for doing so.”

“My task was at first to guard a labor camp. This is where the disappearing undesirables ended up, I learned. The camps were governed similarly to the rest of society. We guards would rotate in and out of the inside, some of us play-acting as prisoners during the day while the others stood guard outside the fenced-in parameter, out of sight of the prisoners. The method worked and I thought little of it at the time; it seemed less like a ridiculous farce and more just the way things worked. It helped keep the dogma of voluntaryism alive among the guards and the prisoners amidst the most contradictory conditions.”

That is enough from Mr. Muravyov. Forgive the extension quotation, but I believe we can see just how stateless the supposed “Stateless Nation” of Russia really is. Statelessness is impossible; if they did not keep up a military, every Stateless Nation would be easily invaded. The reality is that statelessness is a farce that serves to obscure who is really in power. How can subjects rebel when they don’t know who to rebel against? A stateless society is really a grand feet of totalitarian social engineering; the people under the evil Nazis were freer than the so-called free individuals of stateless nations.

Why, then, is statelessness growing ever the more popular in the West? Who is behind this?