Автор: Битарх

How politics deprives science and medicine of the opportunity to develop

Imagine this: scientists are actively researching a new approach to treating various mental disorders, including depression, anxiety, alcoholism, and even violence. They are achieving decent results, which indicate that this approach has significant potential. But then politicians, relying on personal interests and considerations rather than scientific data, strictly ban this approach as something extremely dangerous and unacceptable, often not even allowing scientific research in this direction behind closed laboratory doors. At the same time, for some reason, they are in no hurry to ban other equally risky things so strictly. Do you think this is a fiction or the plot of some novel? However, precisely such a story has already happened in real life.

In the middle of the 20th century, psychedelic substances such as LSD and psilocybin were actively researched for scientific and medical purposes. Scientists saw immense therapeutic potential in them, which is also confirmed by numerous modern studies conducted in recent years. However, there is a gap of almost half a century between those and these studies. Why is that? The answer is simple: psychedelic substances became associated with a number of things that politicians found objectionable.

First of all, in the pursuit of sensations, the media began to vilify them in every possible way, actively spreading reports about possible risks: psychoses, addiction, social degradation, and danger to youth. Of course, such risks cannot be completely denied, but they were extremely exaggerated. Claims of high addiction or mass social consequences had virtually no convincing evidence; the scientific basis cited in such claims was very limited.

Additionally, the spread of such claims coincided with the growth of countercultural movements, especially in the USA and Western Europe. Psychedelics became associated with hippies, anti-war protests, and broader cultural changes. As a result, drug policy began to be viewed not only as a matter of public health but also as a tool for social control. After all, one cannot expect a stationary bandit not to want to ban everything associated with movements opposing his policies. And psychedelics were caught in the crossfire.

The geopolitical context of the Cold War also played its part. The USSR and other Eastern Bloc countries actively used the topic of drugs in their propaganda as an argument against Western societies, depicting them as morally degrading. Naturally, in response, Western states decided to show that they were capable of controlling the drug problem and protecting public health.

Besides all the above, there was simply no one to protect psychedelics. Few would argue that tobacco, alcohol, as well as many sedatives and stimulants, pose no less risk to human health. However, their production had strong support from industry and governments. This helped them avoid the strictest restrictions. Psychedelics, on the contrary, had no powerful economic or political lobbyists; they were produced by the private sector, which gave politicians the opportunity to take harsher measures.

As a result, international policy regarding psychedelics was formed far from being based on scientific data about risks. Moreover, strict bans were imposed not only on their private distribution and use but also on their study. For example, in the USA, researching psychedelics was allowed only under the strict control of regulatory bodies, effectively closing this possibility to most laboratories, while the governments of France and the USSR at one point advocated for a total international ban even on limited scientific research of psychedelics. The policy of strict bans on psychedelics was shaped under the influence of cultural fears, political struggle, and institutional interests. This is precisely how science and medicine were deprived for a long time of the opportunity to develop a promising direction in the treatment of many disorders.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why do we call the state a Stationary Bandit?

Many of our subscribers and libertarians in general are likely already well acquainted with the abbreviation “SB” or the term “stationary bandit.” But despite their familiarity to us, most people have still not really encountered them. This also applies to new participants of our resource, who often do not understand what this means. Perhaps some of you accidentally came across a repost, started reading, and are now wondering: “Why do they constantly call the state some kind of bandit? What conspiracy theory is this?”.

Let us first note that such a term is not just some fantasy of ancaps written on a knee in a basement. This is an absolutely mainstream, classical theory of the origin of the state by Mancur Olson, which is recognized and respected in official academic science. But what does this theory imply and how did it arise in the first place?

So, imagine the early Middle Ages. A dense forest, a small village, peasants peacefully plowing the land, raising children and piglets. Suddenly, a gang of armed thugs flies out of the forest. In academic works, they are also called roving bandits. They slaughter half the village, burn the houses, take 100% of the grain, steal the livestock, and disappear into the sunset. But there is a small problem. When this same gang returns a year later, there will be nothing left to rob! The peasants have either died of hunger or scattered. As a business model, it is a complete failure, since this provides no long-term profit.

And here, one of the bandit leaders, a guy with an entrepreneurial vein and a sufficient level of intelligence (let’s call him, say, Rurik or some Frankish chief), begins to think: “What if we don’t go anywhere? What if we settle here?”. Instead of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, this genius of criminal thought offers the peasants a “deal.” He declares himself king (or a duke, prince, or someone else) and gives a speech: “From now on, you give me not everything, but only 20% of your grain. In exchange, I will simply not kill you. Moreover, if other roving bandits come from the forest, I will protect you from them. Because you are now my cow, and only I am allowed to milk it!”

It is at this moment that the Stationary Bandit is born on the historical stage.

Over time, he realizes: in order to be able to take more, the economy must grow. He begins to build roads (to make it more convenient to collect taxes and move his retinue), introduces courts (after all, a peasant who dies in a knife fight does not pay taxes), and, most importantly, invents an ideology (so that people think less about the situation they have found themselves in). And after a couple of generations, he is no longer a racketeer who seized power by force, but the “Lord’s anointed,” the “father of the nation,” or the “guarantor of the constitution.”

Why is this concept popular among libertarians? It brilliantly tears off all the romantic masks from the face of Leviathan! Since our school days, we have all been brainwashed with fairy tales about the “social contract.” Allegedly, one day wise people gathered in a square and voluntarily decided to establish a state. Yeah, sure, maybe you can show me where I personally signed up for this? And even less so did those subordinated by military means sign up for it (remember that state borders on the map were historically formed precisely by wars).

We call the state a stationary bandit because, in its essence, it is no different from a mafia “protection racket.” It attempts to impose its monopoly on violence over a certain territory. And taxes are just legalized tribute so that you are simply not thrown into a cage.

Of course, for many, realizing this fact is like finding out as a child that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, only a hundred times more bitter. We are used to believing in the benevolence and caring nature of the state. But understanding the truth is necessary, because only by taking off the rose-colored glasses can one begin to ask the right questions. On what grounds does someone interfere in my private life? Why does a handful of bureaucrats decide what I can watch on the internet, who I can trade with, and how much of my money to take for “important projects” (i.e., replacing paving stones in a circle, palaces, or another bloody clash with a neighboring SB)?!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The Quota System, or Why Police Love Victimless “Crimes” So Much

Why does the police love catching you for smoking in the wrong place or for reposting a song on VKontakte, but they are in no hurry to find a stolen bicycle or solve a real crime? It’s simple: it is all because of the notorious “stick system” (KPI).

Imagine: a police officer needs to collect a certain number of “sticks”—solved crimes, fines, and reports. If they don’t reach the required number in a quarter, the superiors will be unhappy: no bonuses, no promotion, and they might even get reprimanded. Moreover, indicators must be improved every year, competing with one’s own past self (this is called the “PYP+1” principle: previous year period + one stick on top). It’s a kind of endless run in a circle, where each subsequent year is even worse than the previous one.

As a result, real crimes are often difficult to solve, and some even ruin the statistics. Had your phone stolen or even a serious crime committed? Good luck getting the report registered, because investigating it is difficult and tedious; it’s easier to pretend the crime never happened. They are especially reluctant to take on serious crimes without clear evidence—because these only increase the percentage of unsolved cases, meaning they worsen the statistics. The police prefer to grab “victimless crimes”—these are the easiest to close in a report. Caught on the street with a beer or violated some crazy ban on “propaganda”—an excellent stick for the report! The officer is happy, and the statistics flourish.

The pressure to meet the plan at any cost pushes some employees toward direct forgery. If there aren’t enough real crimes, the statistics have to be “made.” This is because for meeting and exceeding plans, superiors not only praise but also regularly issue bonuses and incentives to employees. These can be monetary bonuses, additional vacations, or even accelerated career advancement. It is rumored that especially “successful” police officers are sometimes even provided with housing. The stick system is encouraged at all levels, creating a huge temptation to chase minor “misdemeanors” without a victim and even fabricate cases.

In the West, meanwhile, such a system is generally considered absurd and bad form. In 26 US states, any “quotas” for arrests and fines are banned by law. In the remaining states, such practices are not officially encouraged and are under strict public control, as they are considered a form of corruption.

Of course, we are not idealizing Western countries—the state there is similarly a stationary bandit. And in some places, there are also excesses. For example, in Canada, there is an unspoken statistic, and news regularly arrives from there about similar persecutions for all sorts of “victimless crimes.” But still, one can often trace the difference between the motivation of officials and security forces in the West compared to how it happens here, which has a huge impact on the lives of ordinary people.

What is most sad is that this stick system literally motivates the police to commit repressions against peaceful people. When a plan needs to be met urgently, it is easy to fabricate a case or punish someone for some nonsense, even if no one suffered from your actions. That is why we have so many “victimless crimes,” where innocent people are imprisoned while real criminals walk free.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Divide, conquer, and… smile with all 32 teeth!

We usually talk about violence in physical terms. But there is another type of aggression that is far more elegant from a biological perspective. It is not the club of a Neanderthal, but a surgeon’s scalpel. Or, to be more precise, a sweet poison. Recently, a great article by Winifred Rohl on this topic was published in Psychology Today. She raises the issue of exactly how psychopathic personalities break social bonds. If we look at the market of human relationships as a free exchange of values, then a psychopath is a monopolist-fraudster. And their primary currency is confusion. Let’s now examine this problem point by point.

First, psychopaths use charm as camouflage. Rohl writes: “For psychopaths, charm is their glitter.” Biologically, this is mimicry. A psychopath cannot feel empathy, so they simulate it. Example: you see a charismatic leader who says the right things. Your brain, tuned to search for an “alpha,” screams: “Oh, this is someone to follow!”. In reality, it is a predator who has simply learned in what tone to purr.

Second, they employ the “Wedge” tactic. The article gives a chilling example: a mother (a psychopath) tells her daughter over the phone: “Speak, darling, we are alone, this is private.” The daughter pours her heart out. Meanwhile, the mother winks at the second daughter, who is sitting nearby and listening to everything. Why? To create an artificial deficit of information and trust. While you are fighting among yourselves, you aren’t looking at the one pulling the strings. A classic of statecraft transferred to the kitchen.

Third, they “hack” the hierarchy. Research by Paul Babiak (author of “Snakes in Suits”) shows that psychopaths are promoted in corporations. Why? Because they perfectly hack vertical management systems. To the boss, they “sell” confidence and flattery (psychopaths do not experience anxiety, so they appear super-competent). Meanwhile, they terrorize, sabotage, and frame their colleagues and subordinates. The result: those at the top see an “effective manager,” while those at the bottom see scorched earth. By the time the information reaches the top, the psychopath has already gained their benefit and moved to another department.

Why did evolution leave us with such personalities (approximately 1% of the population)? It is a parasitism strategy. If everyone around is cooperating and trusting (cooperative strategy), then an individual appears who can exploit this trust for maximum personal gain. Without spending resources on conscience, reflection, or fear. Pure profit.

How to avoid becoming prey? The author of the article emphasizes: the main marker that a psychopath is nearby is your feeling of “I’m going crazy.” If person A tells you nasty things about person B in secret, and then you see them hugging—you experience cognitive dissonance. You begin to doubt your own sanity.

So what should be done? Look at actions, not glitter: charisma is cheap, reputation and adherence to contracts are expensive. Therefore, decentralize your fact-checking. If you are told, “The whole department thinks you’re an idiot,” do not take it on faith. Go and speak with the department directly. Psychopaths fear the direct communication of victims like fire, because lies only live in the dark. So protect your neurons and your boundaries. Freedom begins where manipulation ends!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How the state and big business pressure private farming

A huge scandal recently erupted: numerous videos have appeared online showing veterinary services seizing and destroying livestock from farmers and private household owners in various regions of Russia. People are attempting to block roads and protest, as for many families, this is their only source of income. Formally, the reason given is an outbreak of an infectious disease, but farmers claim they are not shown test results or given explanations of the diagnosis, and state veterinarians arrive without any documentation. At the same time, similar measures are not applied to large agricultural enterprises, even when they are at the epicenter of the alleged outbreak.

Of course, this is a very alarming situation in its own right. However, it is far more important that it illustrates a broader trend: in many countries, state laws and practices are aimed at the total destruction of private farming and personal households.

One of the most common tools is seed regulation. For example, in Russia, agrarians are required to enter information about purchased and used seeds into special state registries and comply with numerous requirements regarding their origin and quality. Formally, this is explained as a fight against counterfeits and plant diseases. But in practice, such a system creates an unsustainable bureaucratic burden for small farms, which, unlike large agro-holdings, cannot afford to maintain an entire legal department. There are also restrictions on the import and use of seeds, which simply leave farmers with very few opportunities and choices for developing their farms, thereby once again making them unable to compete with large players.

Similar logic works in Europe. Under EU legislation, many types of seeds that are sold or distributed must undergo official certification and quality checks. This means that growing and trading non-certified varieties becomes practically impossible. Moreover, using one’s own seeds even in a personal garden can be prohibited and punishable, and seeds for this purpose must be bought at an exorbitant price from state-licensed suppliers. One should also recall the unbearable environmental requirements and the high-profile case from the Netherlands, where after the introduction of new environmental standards in 2022, it turned out that small farms simply would not be able to afford them and would have to close.

Such laws have an obvious economic effect. Large agro-holdings easily adapt to new requirements: they have lawyers, laboratories, and access to certified planting material. Even if some laws make their lives slightly more difficult, it must be understood that for small farms, they will be completely fatal, as the latter do not have huge incomes and savings. This is why every new regulation, license, or requirement hits small farms disproportionately. For corporations, it is just another line in the budget, while for a family farm, it is a question of survival.

As a result, the agricultural market is gradually concentrating in the hands of increasingly larger players. This is the result of a typical symbiosis between the state and big business. The state bureaucracy gains the ability to keep everything under its control since only a very limited number of agents remain in the market, and the population as a whole becomes unable to even provide for its own food. Meanwhile, large companies get the opportunity to become monopolists, meaning they can manipulate the quality, volume, and price of products as they wish and keep all possible income from agricultural activities for themselves.

The more regulations there are around food, the fewer people can produce it independently. Consequently, more power over food and people themselves ends up in the hands of the stationary bandit and large corporations. This is why the right to grow one’s own food is not just an agricultural topic, but directly a question of economic and personal freedom.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Serenity Mission – can the bio-enhancement of morality destroy us?

In the film titled Serenity, which takes place in the universe of the Firefly series, the main characters discover a planet with millions of deceased inhabitants. As it turns out, an experiment was conducted on this planet involving the spraying of an anti-aggression drug. However, along with this, it suppressed the very will to live, and in 10% of the population, it caused a side effect with the opposite result — a complete removal of ethical barriers, turning them into bloodthirsty predators.

Opponents of the idea of moral bioenhancement, which consists of improving people’s moral qualities through biomedical technologies, may use the plot of this film as another opportunity to criticize it. In general, they have already put forward various arguments against such a practice. But they should clearly not rush into this, because all their concerns can be answered. This is exactly what philosopher Barbara Stock did in one of her articles, which we will now examine in more detail.

The first problem lies in the impossibility of providing a general definition of morality, since different moral theories offer different answers to questions about good and bad. However, as Stock notes, this is not entirely true, as there are still some universally recognized values. If we look at the example from the film, although the main characters are smugglers who break the law (of course, as libertarians, we see nothing wrong with this), they are not devoid of basic moral principles, such as caring for one another, fairness toward the vulnerable, and a willingness to risk themselves for others.

The second problem points out that everything could end badly, as happened in the plot of the film. But it is important to understand that the film shows an extremely negligent intervention — without clinical trials, without ethically permissible procedures, and without an overall understanding of the risks. Of course, no one will dispute that real researchers must take all of this into account in any of their actions.

The third problem arises from the fact that morality is not some separate trait, but a complex system of interconnected qualities and motives. However, this is also a question of the correct approach to implementation. One should focus on interventions that are minimal and take such interrelationships into account. To Stock’s argument, let us also add the fact that in reality, it is not necessary to suppress aggression specifically — it is only necessary to strengthen inhibiting mechanisms when a person lacks them.

The fourth problem consists of the danger and repressiveness of coercion to undergo biomedical procedures. We know, of course, that total coercion is ethically unacceptable. But what about moderate social methods of pressure to undergo the procedure (and mandatory moral bioenhancement only for those who have already committed acts of violence)? Furthermore, even now there are situations where students and employees resort to taking nootropics to improve their alertness and attention, and thereby cope with the tasks assigned to them. In this sense, moral bioenhancement, which allows a violent individual to manage things so that other people do not see them as a threat and do not exclude them from social interactions, is no different from the question of other forms of human enhancement.

The final problem is the undermining of human freedom and autonomy. There are claims that morality is the ability to choose between good and evil, and if a person cannot choose to commit evil, their moral actions lose any meaning. But Stock rightly notes that any current proposals for moral bioenhancement do not consist of turning people into mechanical robots without choice, but merely in shifting their inclinations toward the more moral. And can we even respect the autonomy, for example, of a person who is directly threatening to commit violence against us? You likely wouldn’t do that yourself!

Of course, the idea of moral bioenhancement requires caution and thorough elaboration. It indeed may carry a number of serious risks. But these risks are not an insurmountable obstacle requiring a categorical rejection of the idea. They can quite well be taken into account and worked through.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

When State Grants Disappear: How to Finance Science in the Age of Obscurantists

The state likes to present itself as the “sole savior” of science. Budgetary money seems like a reliable thing, but only until the next lover of “true knowledge” comes to power. And just like that—your field of science is immediately declared an “enemy of the people” and, in the best case, simply stripped of funding.

Remember how Donald Trump, with one stroke of a pen, cut funding for climatology and research in the field of renewable energy? Scientists had spent years accumulating knowledge, writing papers, and relying on promised grants, and then—bam—the funding turned into a pumpkin. Because of “I don’t believe it” and “I don’t like it.” Science isn’t Hollywood: there might not be a sequel if the money suddenly runs out. And scientists are left either to find a sponsor themselves or to sadly wind down their research.

And this is where alternative sources of funding come into play, many of which have already proven their viability time and again throughout history.

1) Since the Renaissance, people of art and science have lived on the support of wealthy patrons. Modern philanthropists, such as Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or even (who would have thought!) Pavel Durov, allocate millions of dollars to education, medical research, artificial intelligence, and even space exploration. Why? Simply because they like it. Or they want humanity to stop being so boring and monotonous. Who knows! In Russia, an example was Dmitry Zimin’s “Dynasty” foundation, which gave a second wind to many talented people until the state suddenly decided it was a “foreign agent.” But the idea itself didn’t die—funds like “Trajectory,” “Evolution,” and other initiatives appeared. In short, even here, science funded by private money is a reality.

2) Don’t laugh—sometimes asking the people for money is much more effective than asking stern uncles from the Ministry of Education. People are happy to support unusual projects, whether it’s the “Mayak” satellite launched by Russian students or gut microbiota research that raised over 350 thousand dollars on Kickstarter. Yes, the gut turned out to be far more charismatic than experts thought. It works simply: you make a vivid presentation, explain to people why it’s important (or at least fun), and the people vote with their wallets.

3) If your research smells even slightly of commercial perspective, it’s worth considering venture capital and business. There are plenty of examples: from Bell Labs and IBM, which gave the world transistors and lasers, to SpaceX, which made private astronautics a reality. Yes, this isn’t “pure science for science’s sake,” but it is business that can give a push to technologies that would otherwise remain as reports on a shelf.

4) Prizes and competitions. Once, entrepreneur Peter Diamandis announced a 10 million dollar prize for whoever first flew into space twice in two weeks on a private ship. In the end, the winner spent nearly 25 million on preparation, but that’s not the point. The competition spawned an entire industry of private space transport.

5) For the truly advanced: DAO and crypto-science. DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) allow people to unite and fund science via blockchain. An example is VitaDAO, which successfully raised millions of dollars for longevity research. Perhaps crypto-enthusiasts will vote for your idea with tokens?

6) Subscription to results: people and companies pay to be the first to get access to your scientific data and discoveries. The more interesting and important your research, the more subscribers. Almost like Netflix, but instead of series—your discoveries.

7) Imagine a prediction market where investors bet on scientific ideas and results. If your project looks convincing, you will receive funding from those who believe in your success and want to profit from an accurate prediction.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

“Dark Rizz”: Why We Fall in Love with Tyrants and Vote for Psychopaths

Perhaps some of you have already seen this concept – “Dark Rizz” (Тёмный ризз) – on Western social networks. If not, it conceals a rather unsettling, yet intriguing, psychology. And recently, Psychology Today released an excellent article on this subject, from reading which you’ll only have one thought in your head: “Damn it, this is an ideal description of the relationship between a citizen and the state!” So let’s examine in detail how it operates, why our brains succumb to manipulation, and what significance understanding this has from a libertarian standpoint.

At the core of “Dark Rizz” lies the classic “Dark Triad”: narcissism (I – the center of the universe), Machiavellianism (the ends justify the means, and people are pawns), and psychopathy (there is no fear or conscience). Individuals possessing such qualities often exhibit a strange, toxic magnetism. They aren’t kind or caring, but it’s impossible to tear your eye away from them because they exude an extraordinarily attractive confidence.

Is this familiar? Simply turn on the television or watch election debates. That politician who shouts loudest of all promises to “restore order” and views opponents as dirt – that’s it. We often accept their fearlessness as competence, and their brazenness as leadership strength. But why do we fall for it? Psychologists term this intermittent reinforcement. Imagine you are communicating with a person (or living in a country) who behaves unpredictably. Today he is cold, ignores you or introduces a new ridiculous ban. The next day – he pays attention to you, reduces the mortgage rate, or simply doesn’t hit you. This contrast triggers a dopamine rush. If you were given a treat every day, you would get used to it. But when the treat is given randomly, after a week of being whipped – you begin to crave it. You become addicted.

In interpersonal relationships, this is referred to as “emotional swings.” In politics, it’s called populism and statism. A stationary bandit creates a problem (cold), you suffer, and then he slightly loosens his grip (warmth). And you feel grateful. “Thank you for letting us breathe on even days, our great leader!”

The author of the article, Dr. John Gruda, aptly expresses himself regarding this issue: “Calm, emotionally stable people rarely become heroes of drama.” This implies that healthy relationships (and a healthy market economy) are boring. You go to the bakery, pay money, and receive bread. The baker doesn’t gaslight you, doesn’t disappear for a week, and doesn’t demand worship. It is a fair deal. However, “Dark Rizz” is cinematic. It’s tension and drama. Politicians with “dark charisma” sell us this show to us. They create chaos so they can heroically resolve it. They make us feel small so that they appear large.

How to spot a trap? Psychologists advise asking yourself: “Do I feel better or worse after talking to this person?” Healthy charisma (and a healthy society) gives you a feeling of safety and autonomy. “Dark charisma” feeds on your fear and insecurity. If a leader (or partner) demands loyalty through fear, avoids responsibility and constantly changes the rules of the game – it’s not a ‘strong hand’, it’s just manipulation.

What should libertarians do with this knowledge? Of course, you need to remember about boundaries. Dark rizz only works when your personal boundaries are blurred. In politics, these are boundaries of self-ownership and private property. And if someone steps over them, you simply need to send them into the woods. It’s also worth appreciating boredom. Stability of contracts, inviolability of personality and a free market don’t cause an adrenaline rush. And that’s great! We don’t live in a blockbuster; we just need to live and work normally. And finally, you shouldn’t confuse control with charisma. If someone is trying to control every step you take, disguising it as “national interests” or “overall security” – it’s not leadership. It’s abuse, inflated to the scale of a country.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Pavel – no apostle at all, but a true usurper.

История вопроса, если по-простому: жил-был Савл из Тарса, ярый гонитель первых христиан. Такой себе средневековый Роскомнадзор – преследовал, сажал, даже участвовал в убийствах. Но вдруг по пути в Дамаск ему якобы являлся воскресший Христос (проверить, разумеется, никто не мог). И вот этот вчерашний «охотник за экстремистами» резко становится главным «апостолом» и начинает раздавать указания тем людям, кто лично ходил с Иисусом.

Представьте, если бы завтра бывший гаишник вдруг объявил, что теперь он либертарианец номер один, и начал бы учить всех свободе. Вы бы сильно удивились, верно? Но самое смешное, что ранние христиане не особо повелись на такой трюк. Многие считали Павла, мягко говоря, шарлатаном. Например, эбиониты, одна из первых христианских общин, вообще называли его отступником и считали, что он полностью исказил учение Иисуса, в чём они вполне себе были правы!

Павел создал собственную религию, в которой вместо простого и понятного послания любви и свободы, которое нёс Иисус, в центре оказалось поклонение страданиям и смерти. Христос учил «любить врагов» и не цепляться за материальное, а Павел – всем покорно подчиняться властям, жёнам молчать, а рабам не жаловаться. Если задуматься, это гениально удобная религия для любой власти: «терпи, Бог терпел и нам велел». А фраза Павла «нет власти не от Бога» вообще стала хитом у всех диктаторов. В 18-м веке её активно использовали британские монархи против американских колонистов, а в 20-м веке даже нацисты призывали немецкий народ покорно подчиняться, ссылаясь на Павла. Ну не прелесть ли?

Идём дальше. Женщины? «Пусть молчат в церквях». Рабы? «Пусть служат господам как Христу». Павел буквально узаконил и закрепил в христианстве жесточайшую иерархию и патриархат. Вместо равенства и братства он построил целую систему жесткого послушания и догматизма. Стоит отметить, что когда-то даже Томас Джефферсон – один из отцов-основателей США, так сильно возмущался этим, назвав Павла «первым коррупционером от религии». И вправду, человек, который не был знаком с Иисусом лично, написал половину Нового Завета и ещё при этом умудрился исказить всё первоначальное учение до неузнаваемости.

С философской точки зрения Павел – это такой религиозный Ленин: вроде и революционер, но вместо обещанной свободы принес репрессии, догматизм и жёсткий контроль над личностью. Вместо духовного поиска – формулы, догмы, наказания за отступление. Идеальная религия для любого государства! Философ Ницше вообще говорил, что Павел «распял Христа во второй раз», превратив живое послание в инструмент для подавления. Трудно не согласиться: благодаря Павлу церковь превратилась в настоящую машину власти, потеряв свободу, которая была у первых христиан.

And now a bit personal. Imagine you are an ordinary person of Pavel’s time. And you hear about a new doctrine that says: “You are all equal, love one another, live according to conscience.” And then some guy pops up named Pavel and tells you: “You’re definitely equal, but don’t get too showy, obey your superiors, don’t argue with your wife, and if you’re a slave – all the more so, don’t fidget.” What would you choose?

It’s funny, but history repeats itself again and again. Every time someone appears with simple ideas of freedom and brotherhood, people like Pavel come after them who turn those ideas into a rigid system of control. Here you can ask yourself – do you know why there’s so much from Pavel in the Bible, but not from the real disciples of Jesus? Pavel was just a good organizer and a born politician: he didn’t hesitate to promote his own views, pushing the real witnesses of Jesus life into the background. That’s a ‘political coup’ in religion!

So it’s worth thinking twice before calling Pavel “apostle,” because he simply turned out to be “apostle of the empire and submission,” rather than a messenger of freedom and truth.

Voluntaryist, Bitarch

Why financial anonymity is a basic human right, and the cancellation of currency control is the key to the prosperity of society as a whole

I’m sure many of you are tired of having to prove to the bank, tax authorities, and even just some random official that you aren’t a camel—that your money was earned “legally.” Familiar situation, right? I think everyone has at least once experienced the humiliating feeling when your own honestly earned money suddenly turns into suspicious substance, and to get it, you have to collect a stack of papers as thick as Tolstoy’s *War and Peace*.

And let’s not just talk about taxes. Many people live in the “paid and sleep peacefully” paradigm (although the dream of seeing tax rates is more like a nervous one). The problem is another—even if you are willing to give a stationary gangster “his share,” he doesn’t always simply go through with the deal, and you often have to lose dozens of percent of your income on an absolutely useless procedure of “legitimation.” Some people are forced to draw contracts with non-existent sole proprietors, some buy fake services, and others even give half their earnings to “cash” (in some “developed” countries it’s already not an exaggeration)—just to have the opportunity to use their own money.

Why does this happen? Governments demand “their share,” but they are afraid of losing control, especially due to the appearance of financially independent people who can even finance opposition, so they suffocate any attempts at free use of money. And this story, unfortunately, is not just about Russia, but also about all other states.

It’s important to understand: money is simply your work, talent, and time transformed into numbers on your account. By depriving a person of the ability to manage earned money, the state essentially deprives them of part of their freedom. Presumption of innocence? Forget it. Now the presumption is this: if you have money, you are automatically either a thief, a swindler, or just a clever guy until someone proves otherwise.

Also, states are fighting cash and trying to drive everyone into a transparent electronic world where every ruble or dollar will be seen through. In Germany or the United Kingdom, accounts can already be blocked instantly if you try to withdraw just a few thousand euros in cash. Why is this done? Supposedly, to combat terrorism and crime. But the result is bleak: crime remained as it was (almost all criminal money is washed—the effectiveness of the fight is practically zero), and ordinary people suffer from bureaucratic hell.

Here’s the translation:

Right here, cryptocurrencies and technologies of financial anonymity come onto the scene. The authorities hate them, calling them dirty and dangerous. But in fact, they are the only island of financial freedom remaining in a world of total control. As long as you have crypto – you truly own your money, rather than renting it from a bank or tax service (of course, if you store it on your own wallet, rather than on an exchange or other intermediaries). Of course, crypto isn’t perfect, and the state is trying to take away this tool too; luckily, so far unsuccessfully. But its popularity shows – people need a place where their money remains only their money, without constant justifications and humiliating procedures.

Furthermore, currency control significantly reduces economic activity. Many people have cash or crypto for buying an apartment, a car, land, but prefer to live “like everyone else” and not attract attention. This is not just inconvenience for individual citizens – it damages the entire economy. When people don’t invest and spend their honestly earned money, the entire economic chain suffers: demand falls, production shrinks, employment and incomes decline. The result – economic stagnation and a loss of enormous growth potential and well-being for all.

Incidentally, arguments against currency control are much more readily accepted by a wide audience than, for example, arguments about abolishing taxes. It’s difficult for people to imagine how social benefits would be funded without taxes, but abolishing currency control no one loses – on the contrary, everyone wins thanks to economic growth and freedom of entrepreneurship!

Voluntarist, Bitarch