"...And Then There Were None" - FLNWO #41

03/16/201826 Comments

"Take us to your leader!" is the science fiction cliche...but what if there's no leader to be taken to, and no one to do the leading? In this edition of the Film, Literature and the New World Order series, James examines the philosophy of Eric Frank Russell's 1951 story "...And Then There Were None" and unlocks the secret of the most dangerous weapon.

CLICK HERE for an audio reading of the story by John Lothe.

Watch this video on BitChute / Odysee / YouTube / Download mp4

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

"And Then There Were None" (text)

"And Then There Were None" (audio)

John Lothe YouTube page

Biography of Eric Frank Russell

Debt: The First 5000 Years

Undercover cops at Montebello protest

Next time: Gandhi (1982)

Filed in: Film, Literature & The New World Order
Tagged with:

Comments (26)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. scpat says:

    I think of a common argument given by people who advocate for Statism, and that is, “If we didn’t have the State to organize, manage, and regulate interactions, then we would isolate ourselves and revert back to battling tribal communities who are constantly at war with one another.”

    This argument ignores the fact that people interact voluntarily because it is in their interest to do so, economically speaking and practically speaking. People aren’t incentivized to interact because an “authority” said that they should. Trading also encourages peaceful relations because it is beneficial to both parties that they keep trading when they both need something. This builds friendships and community.

    So many, if not all of the logical fallacies of Statism ignore basic human nature and the fundamentals of human interaction.

    • mkey says:

      Not only that, but how do statists figure we need to “revert back” to become battling tribal communities? It’s exactly what all of these socially fragmented groups are: modern tribes on a blood frenzy looking to beat the crap out of everyone not fitting in the paradigm. Intercontinental warfare, even if it redefines the description, fits the same bill as well. Nationality, religion, polity, race, sex, culture; everything goes, but it goes with the benediction of the state and therefore it has been blessed by the supreme and almighty.

      • scpat says:

        You said it right there. So true. Whoever is the “authority” determines what words mean, shapes how people think of these terms and determines what the acceptable understanding of these words are.

        A point that Statists don’t grasp is that humans already organize naturally and effectively without the need for the state. The state is simply a violent parasite that leaches the wealth, productivity, and prosperity from the people.

        I recently read That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen, by Claude Frédéric Bastiat, and it’s probably one of the most enlightening things I’ve read in a long time. It demonstrates how the state is immoral and illegitimate through its own “economics” and policies. Funny how most of us were probably never taught any of this in school, even though it is so basic and foundational.

        • mkey says:

          I’ll give that a read. Private schools may teach such materials, but public ones sure as hell don’t, unless a teacher goes rogue and starts thinking with their own head ((*.*))

        • generalbottlewasher says:

          Great link SCPat. Thanks! I use to hate economics , not so much anymore . Austria is not Germany!I want to go to their library.

  2. brian.s says:

    State permanence is a fixing system given allegiance to over a fluid relationship.
    The fixing system is the idea of broken, lost, rejected, betrayed, attacked.
    The fixing system is the defence against total loss, total pain, betrayal etc
    The defence fixes the idea of total loss.
    The abandonment of the defence is believed to bring total loss.
    Everything is therefore sacrificed to be redefined in terms of a state of defence.
    Life becomes therefore a risk under threat.
    What you have taken for yourself, can be taken from, and taken away.
    In taking the broken mind in the fix of limited loss, is the need for completion set into a state of futility, for what is lacking is never completed by the world of its desire. Ands so the addiction to struggle in need and the attempts to make it bearable. The attempts to kill desire and the attempts to satiate it. The ‘moral’ imperative and the refusal of a naked emperor both.
    Releasing the world, the other, of the demands they serve your completion, your gratification, your fulfilment, your agenda, plan or moral crusade, is opening another perspective.
    The reaction in brokenness, grievance, hate, anger, fear, guilt, denial, and masking deceit as mind control ran instead of you, as if you, and in your name.
    But released of the compulsion to a recognition of choice, is the freedom to embody who you are instead of what fear made you. In making a true choice is the growing of the awareness of the true of you – as a recognition within a quality of fluid relationship and the structures of thought and ability that operate as contractual obligations or programs of predetermined reaction.
    The choice is not in the world. When the choice is set within the world, freedom is set within a framing of slavery. The choice is what the world is to be for you, and thus what you are giving to the world. Giving freedom is giving acceptance to what is – as it is. In the willingness to give as in truth you would receive is untruth brought into awareness and undone. But in attacking untruth is the belief it has power to hurt you and reveals that you give it power in some way that is hidden. In this is the work of self-acceptance too, for while I hold guilt of service to manipulate my experience or of others, I will keep it somewhere in back of mind and so be hackable or attackable in the terms I have set.
    Guilt faced and owned becomes something else. Fear faced and owned, becomes something else.
    Or rather, denial of our true feeling and thought makes ourself and world ‘something else’.
    Acceptance is not moral justification.
    There is no substitution for true that is true.
    The relation you open to being the unfolding of, is yours to live and give and discover.
    There is nothing else and you need nothing else.
    False needs generate false outcomes.
    The need for wholeness is really the need of wholeness to extend, give, share or be all that it is.
    Wholeness in a broken world is not given a broken world, but to the ones who have temporarily forgotten their freedom by choosing amiss. Join not in the fear and pain and struggle of a broken life – as if love must come here to die. Join in the willingness for life now by not choosing to be framed in reaction of a past that is not here and listening instead for the guidance and support of a relational being you cannot truly break or lose, so much as lose sight of in the wish or belief you can and have done so. Never underestimate the power of mind given to wish a belief be true, but neither fear the power that holds all that it is truly.
    It is so that the growing of a consciousness of freedom in wholeness will ‘inherit the Earth’ but not as any attempt to stuff it into a sense of lack.
    Futility persists until it can no longer pass off as meaningful, choosable or liveable. Not as a subjection to a cruel will, but to the awakening of a true will that is not coercive or tyrannical upon itself or on itself in others and world.

  3. Octium says:

    Great Story, Great Audio Book Reading and Great FLNWO!

    Rather prophetic that in 1951 Eric Frank Russell was predicting that Gandhi would be blanked out from the Terran’s history books.

    Well perhaps not quite, but none of the government indoctrination camps that I was forced to attend in Terra Australis ever mentioned him.

    It wasn’t until the availability of the Internet and Deep State’s action to demolish some buildings on 9/11 that I started looking into more things and discovered Gandhi in the process.

  4. n2abstract says:

    Wow! A fantastic read! Thank you, James, for another enlightening “book”.

    As I was reading I could not help but think about the military, soldier types, the ones who currently are our “ambassadors” sent to distant countries to democratize the savages. There are the language and cultural barriers, and I’m sure they’re making contacts just like the ones in the story did. Scary to think. One of which I’m sure everyone has heard by now of the USS Carl Vinson visiting Vietnam.

    If only the natives knows about Myob and the greatest weapon of all: F-IW! Those maybe their only hope to turn their potential aggressors/intruders about. LoL

  5. VoltaicDude says:

    On the whole this story is intriguing and worthy of review.

    As you emphasize, it portrays an imagined society based on voluntarism – a subject too often unexplored – but there is also a critical ominous note, equally worthy of exploration.

    Idle Jack’s sad and simplistically accounted for life does not serve the credibility of the larger narrative well, and more accurately portrays the familiar dimensions and unaccountability of real-life scapegoating and gang violence – dangerous pitfalls for poorly considered political philosophy.

    Unless one is entirely naïve this character’s plotline is suspicious at face value, and thus unfortunately casts a suspicious light on Russell’s entire enterprise here.

    As a matter of decree by the author, there is no “system” of accountability per se, only inadvertent word of mouth, a “natural” occurrence, so no corruption can be explored, it can’t even exist by definition.

    How convenient! The light of day will never shine on Jack’s accusers. Leaves me wondering, what if it did?

    We are expected to:
    – suspend belief (fair enough for a work of fiction)
    – believe in a shallow depiction of Jack-the-psychopath
    – not give the notion of a complex conspiracy of psycho/sociopathic criminals out to pick-off idle Jack a second thought – that would be a conspiracy theory!

    But that sounds more like how the real world works than anything – including the roles of spineless, passively complicit and noncritical “consumers.”

    In the real-world a sure-fire way to promote corruption is to hide the inner workings of a de facto penal code – in effect a vigilante system.

    The news of Jack’s demise is delivered as proof that this new culture is capable of formidable self-regulation and sustainability – which poses as realism (Russell’s actual militaristic upbringing comes into focus).

    Simultaneously (hypocritically) the speaker distances himself from the cruel narrative of Jack’s life by saying he never actually saw anything like this – it’s just a founding lore for his culture’s shunning practices (ha-ha, just kidding! – but also not).

    Why is Jack such a psychopath? IS Jack a psychopath?

    Maybe Gands are spineless cows – sounds like a blobby mess – incapable of standing up to bullies always hiding in the shadows (where else?).

    According to this story Jack’s a psychopath because with absolute certainty his cultural milieu had no influence.

    There is likewise no curiosity what-so-ever about the origins of Jack’s terminal pathology – too bad.

    This story thus positions itself rather perversely relative to the canon of great literature that explores the plight of the individual within the tyranny of the group: Les Miserables; The Scarlet Letter; The Crucible; Bartleby; Silas Marner; Lord of the Flies; The Immoralist; The Stranger; Clockwork Orange – a short, diverse list.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, this type of narrative offers the potential of a facile excuse and refuge to shadowed criminal elements of social engineering and vigilantism that use social conflict to camouflage their malice.

    Not to mention related contrivances such as Arab Spring and Colour Revolutions.

  6. HomeRemedySupply says:

    This story aligns in parallel to the recent update about China’s social credit roll-out.

  7. wingsuitfreak says:

    Thought I’d take a break from the drama. But here’s a link to ten movies that they are going to be re-making. For some reason, I think they fit this column. The usual suspects is the only clue I’m giving. Now, it’s off to turn off the internet and smoking out with my friends.


    • I Shot Santa says:

      Okay, clue 1: Rambo: The Musical. I kid you not. Not sure why this one was re=posted up here, though I did like the attitudes of the people. JimBob who thinks it’s pointless to talk to uniforms hisself, but he does it sometimes just to watch the veins in their temples throb.

  8. manbearpig says:


    Ok. I finally get it. Baudrillard warned (if I sort of understood his message) “we’d” end up worshipping the icon (and then the icon of the icon and so forth) to the point of abandoning the original concept…

    It’s NOT about Ghandi the man. It’s not about MLK. It’s all about what they symbolize: non-violent resistance.

    I’m not sure the British ever really pulled out of India or if the “liberated” country with its truncated Pakistani part is really better off today thanks to Ghandi – I’m not smart enough to make any insightful rulings about that – Don’t know if blacks are better off or if more people have become sensitized to the anti-war movement thanks to MLK…

    I’m not even completely and profoundly convinced that non-violent resistance can really be effective

    and what a useful exercise it is to explore the full meaning of the words “violence” and “non-violence” as evoked in this story…

    or if these pacifists act as societal “pacifiers” in the negative sense of the word – the martyrs will take care of it so I don’t need to…if you see what I mean?

    but I’m now fully aware of what Mr Corbett means when he opines “It’s not about the man!”… It’s the info, it’s the concept…

    Other points that struck me listening to this wonderful podcast featuring a fabulously nuanced and funny reading by John Lothe whose voice is absolutely extraordinary:

    “I wonder why I would bother to educate a uniform…”…

    “There are no friendly worlds: only hostile or non-hostile”.

    And if it were remotely possible, Mr Corbett would not “flip the switch” to anarchy over night…!

    I’m filled with a sense of gratitude today, once again, for what this website has brought me.

    I will watch this Ghandi Biopic that I otherwise would not have had the courage to bear

    and I look forward to the next FLNWO!!

    Thanks again Mr Corbett even if it’s not about YOU!! In fact, especially BECAUSE

    it’s NOT ABOUT YOU!!

    • manbearpig says:

      And the ol’ double-edged sword thing;

      -how icons can be used to muddy or even sully the concept they embody

      -how something as humanly innate as a form of “reputation system” can be hijacked to enslave rather than to liberate…

      -and even how the term “non-violent resistance” can trap one into a binary paradigm…

      I think I prefer simply turning attention away towards creating something better – as the story shows; demonstrating something subjectively better rather than expending energy towards “non-violent resistance”.

      “Walking the talk”, or as Mr Corbett expresses it in the podcast using the commonly evoked and rarely practiced formula: “Be the change you want to see in the world”.

      A concept I prone, but that in many important ways, I have not put into practice myself.

  9. Taffekles says:

    Thanks for the interesting article James. Some thoughts came to mind about the “Obs” system that I am hoping you and the subscribers might be able to help me with –
    1- How would transfer of obs work? E.g. If farmer Cliff keeled over in his field one day or the dastardly terrans took him away would his obs transfer to his family? Would his children inherit any of his debts or credits?
    2- How would society deal with those unable to work?
    E.g. old or sick people.
    I know these questions are a bit trivial in the greater scheme of things but are really bugging me.
    Really looking forward to seeing your analysis of Ghandi – not sure I am up to the challenge of sitting through it all before the show though 🙂

  10. rueckl1b says:

    Thanks James!

    I loved the Podcast and the Audiobook.
    It is worth pondering about where to apply F.I.W. in my own live.

    This powerful one-way-weapon wes prominent in the 1980’s in Germany thanks to the film “Ghandi”, but is now often forgotten.
    Thanks a lot for the reminder.

    Next I will watch again the film Ghandi…

  11. cmad says:

    Hi and may I start by applauding Mr Loath for the voice-over, super creepy baritone. My first thoughts were of the twisting of words and the way we think thing just are the way they are. It reminded me of the way Child welfare officers remove children from families, for reasons of homeschooling & vaccinations. The social workers go in there with an assumption of righteousness because they represent “the norm”. Unfortunately, “I won’t” isn’t allowed anymore? This was a great story, even from its highlights. I have to agree that we are not ready to “flip the switch”. I write on steemit, mainly for @familyprotection(I am @article61), and the steemit website already has an air of oppression about it. Folk can’t help themselves and I find myself being told to comment in a certain way or send out delegations to various groups in order to gain entry to a higher society… On the positive side of things, it does show willing and I hope this is a way of the future and may we all become Gans one day…

    You mentioned in your Q’s for Corbett, that you had answered a lot of the questions you now receive. I have one for you..

    Would you be interested in doing a piece about “Common-Law”
    In 1973 Ted Heath(Peedo) led the UK into the EEC(Without a Referendum). As this was unconstitutional, it sparked out-rage among many. In 1975 we had a referendum and the country agreed to enter the EEC(European common market). As time went on and we realised that this was a socialist agenda, to strip the UK of its sovereignty & constitution, a group named ‘Sanity-UK’ then held an inquiry in 2000/2001. This was because the “most honourable” Tony Blair(Then PM) was about to sign the ‘NICE Treaty’, which gave away another chunk of common Law. This led to a group called “Sanity-UK” holding in investigation into the treason carried out by various MP’s & PM’s, in order to get this far into Europe. Ted Heath got the ball rolling with a complete Lie and told the public the EEC was nothing more than a farming agreement. As we can all see now, the EU is sooooo much more than that. Like a giant Pac-man going around the globe. Much Much…
    There is loads more info on this and a whole backlash that has come from it. I am part of a group called ‘practical lawful dissent’ and we take an approach that is much like the ‘Gans’. Common Law is so basic that it reminds me of the “I won’t” method. We get a lot more grief from our “Enlightened ones” than the Gans do, but this is real life and King John passed on everything he knew.

    If not this, then I would like to hear your take on the Dunblane primary school shooting. It has massive ties to a Peedo ring and implements PM Gordon Brown, Scotland Yard and also involves a patsy, one that is highly suspected of being controlled through manipulation techniques.

    I can send you plenty of data about either subject so feel free to ask. It’s good to see you on steemit.com and hope this message finds you well.

  12. VoiceOfArabi says:

    Hello James,

    Another great FLNWO segment. I truly love and enjoy FLNWO segments.

    Please, Please, Please…. more FLNWO whenever time allows..

    All the best…

  13. andrew.s says:

    I could imagine the parable of Idle Jack working as an isolated incident – if one “fat-tail” outlier comes up against the system – but how would the system work if Idle Jack teamed up with Idle Tom, Idle Dick and Idle Harry, who then organised and armed themselves?

    • I Shot Santa says:

      This scenario requires that the others would not be armed. We already know they are not idle. I keep noticing this common theme of free peoples being victims. I am NOBODY’S victim. They can arm themselves all they want, I’m a real redneck. I may be a bit long in the tooth, but I can still dance. JimBob who’s run into a heap of idle Jacks in his time and he’s still standing.

  14. kapslok says:

    Great episode. Love it. Thanks Corbett

  15. Derryl says:

    The Gans have a gift economy like Native tribes practiced, not a barter economy as is imagined by economists as the precedent to a money economy. A Gans “puts an ob” on somebody by giving them something or doing something for them, which obligates reciprocity from the recipient. The ob is cleared when the recipient reciprocates.

    This only works, as Russell recognized, in local economies where everybody knows each other. Everybody is free to say “I won’t” put an ob on a parasite by giving him something that they know will not be reciprocated. “Morality” only works when the people know each other and impose it on each other. The townsfolk won’t do business with a known crook. Instant karma. The crook is shut out of the local economy.

    Even Adam Smith’s “free market” system imagines a barter economy where everybody is a producer of useful stuff and they can trade their surplus stuff with each other in the village marketplace, and the villagers do not do business with producers of bad stuff or traders who demand excessive amounts of other people’s goods in exchange for their own. Smith imagined his free market village, inhabited by farmers and crafters and small owner-operated family businesses (butchers, bakers, candlestick makers). In his 1776 opus Smith was highly critical of Britain’s actual 1776 political economy which was State-corporate mercantilism populated by aristocrats and State-chartered merchant corporations like the British East India Company (of Boston Tea Party infamy). Economists who have never read Smith’s book assume he was “describing” Britain’s free market economy in his book, rather than reading the book to see Smith was presenting his vision of a free market as a utopian improvement over mercantilism.

    Native gift economies were between different tribes. Within the tribe they had communism, from each according to his ability, to each according to their need, as is practiced in every family where parents give to children, older kids help younger, younger adults take care of old people, etc. Everybody who can has to contribute to the physical and social labor of life for the good of the family as a cohesive unit. These are not rugged individualists competing against each other for power, wealth and social status. They are members of collectives, parts of wholes, members of the family or tribe whose fortunes rise and fall together.

    Tribes are basically economically self-sufficient extended families who do not depend on “trade” to acquire their daily necessities of life. You cannot have advanced technology like steel and electricity and electronics in a local economy because all these things require inputs from geologically diverse regions, require knowledge-based and physically and technically difficult refining and manufacturing processes, and the technologies are interdependent. Native Americans had Stone Age technologies, for example, like tools made of wood and stone, houses made of wood and hides, clothes made of hides, etc. There is no hi-tech processing required to convert these locally available materials into things the people need. But there is a lot of local knowledge, hand skills, and muscle powered labor required.

    [SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words or less. Longer comments can be split into multiple posts. -JC]

  16. Gavinm says:

    Very interesting indeed, thanks so much for introducing me to this story James (and thank you nosoapradio for suggesting I check out this episode).

    The part where the Terran ambassador guy was scheming about how to redefine the term “hostile” to justify military action is reminiscent of what is going on right now in Canada. Recently the government here has attempted to redefine the term “violence” to include anything they deem as ‘disruptive to the economy’ so they can justify their using the Emergency Act to crush a peaceful protest with militarized police units and totalitarian technocratic bank account freezing tactics. https://reclaimthenet.org/canada-redefined-economic-impact-as-violence-ea/

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top