Автор: Битарх

Shame as a Weapon: What Libertarians Should Learn from Progressives?

There is one technique that progressive activists have mastered to virtuosity—the imposition of collective guilt. Look at modern Britons: half the country walks with their heads bowed because their great-great-grandfather once drank tea in Bombay. The result? A non-white migrant there today is almost a sacred cow. Deporting them is harder than convincing a cat to take a bath. The police shyly look away from “cultural peculiarities.” Courts acquit migrants in cases where a native Briton would have long since been sent behind bars. Meanwhile, for some white engineer from Poland, obtaining a visa is a bureaucratic hell of blood and sweat.

Whether you like it or not—the method works! Shame is a nuclear weapon in the information war. And while libertarians are writing another clever post about the Austrian School and the Laffer curve, our opponents have long since rewritten the moral code of society. So it’s time to take the tool in hand, not to lie, but to finally call things by their real names. Let’s look at a few examples of what statisticians can be shamed for.

Shame : It is YOUR fault that grandma is working until she’s 70.

Heard that the retirement age was raised? Crowds of migrants brought in? The demographic pit has turned into a demographic canyon? Congratulations, statist—this is your doing!

Any zoo worker will tell you: animals do not breed in captivity. Stress, a cramped cage, the inability to lead a natural way of life. Now look at your country—the very one where you demanded to “restore order,” “ban this,” “regulate that,” and “there should be a fine for this one.” Where every sneeze is a potential “victimless crime.” Where a person wakes up and the first thing they think about is whether they messed up yesterday according to point 87 of some regulation.

You built a zoo. And now you’re surprised that the population isn’t recovering. But now your pension will be paid by Abdullah, who had to be brought in because the locals stopped giving birth. Enjoy it, because you deserved this—in the most literal sense.

Shame : Your “good law” is someone else’s pain.

Do you know what you and a guy with a bat demanding money from a neighbor for a “good cause” have in common? The method. When you write a petition to “ban X,” lobby to “oblige everyone to Y,” or vote to “introduce liability for Z”—you are not participating in democracy. You are hiring a stationary bandit to go and beat up those who want to live differently.

“But I didn’t do it myself, the state did!” Sure, a hitman doesn’t kill by himself either—he just pulls the trigger. And the client is completely innocent; he only handed over the money. Every time you say “there should be a law that…”—you are literally demanding that people with weapons come to another living human being. If they don’t comply—they get fined. If they don’t pay—they get imprisoned. If they resist—they might be killed. This is the finale of any state norm. It’s just that usually, it doesn’t reach the finale; people surrender before the state decides to kill them. So next time you want to “force everyone”—look in the mirror. There stands a person ready to pay for their own comfort with someone else’s blood.

Shame : A ballot is not a civic duty, but complicity.

“I just voted, what’s the big deal?” Well, let’s break it down. You went to the polling station and checked a box for someone who promises to “restore order in sphere N.” This “order” means new bans, fines, inspections, and imprisonments. Against people who did nothing to you personally and just wanted to live their own way. You didn’t “express an opinion”; you signed a delegation for the use of violence. You signed the ledger: “Yes, I am for these people to be squeezed, those to be taxed, and those over there to be put behind bars.”

Statists should look at the British once more. They have learned to be ashamed of things they have no personal connection to—the actions of ancestors in the century before last. Therefore, let them not think that they cannot be made ashamed of what they are committing right now. With their own hands, voices, and “wants.” And this is not radicalism, but elementary honesty with oneself. Freedom begins not with a rally, but from the moment you stop wanting to command someone else’s life!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why parents should be interested in treating psychopathy in their children

Considering various approaches to solving the problem of violence using biomedical technologies, such as strengthening the violence inhibition mechanism and bio-enhancing morality, one can quite quickly conclude that the most appropriate and effective approach would be to perform such procedures as early as possible. Moreover, signs of psychopathic traits, which are the strongest predictors of violent behavior and indicate dysfunction of the violence inhibitor, can be detected as early as childhood, even at the age of 2-4 years, as demonstrated by research.

It is important to understand that if an individual with a risk of developing a violent and psychopathic personality undergoes morality bio-enhancement very early, they will essentially not even have a chance to be such a personality for even a short time. Furthermore, the nervous system at this age is still developing, which makes it possible to achieve an effective result even with gentle intervention. Widespread practice in detecting and correcting violence inhibitor dysfunction could solve the problem of violence in society long before it even arises.

This should already be enough to convey to many parents how important it is to carefully monitor a child’s behavior and emotional reactions (for example, empathy and whether they have an aversion to causing harm to someone), and to intervene in a timely manner upon detecting any anomalies. However, if some parents are suddenly not very concerned about what kind of personality their child will grow into, or if they see no problem with violence at all, then it is worth reminding them of another very strong motivation to consider this issue—personal well-being and the preservation of their own nerves.

Research on violence and psychopathy is often focused on the person with such a condition—their behavior, the risks to society, and criminal manifestations. Some of it discusses the role parents may play in the development of psychopathic traits in a child. At the same time, the opposite problem remains in the shadow—when parents become the very first victims of heartlessness, manipulative behavior, lack of empathy, and even cruelty on the part of their own child.

Of course, it is not customary to label children as psychopaths, but they may demonstrate early signs of this condition or so-called callous-unemotional traits—emotional numbness, lack of guilt, and an inability to empathize. Such signs indicate that the child does not simply have a “difficult character”; we are talking about deep-seated personality characteristics which, among other problems, can seriously destroy family dynamics.

For parents, such a child becomes a severe psychological trial. Parenthood brings them no pleasure, only daily problems. They find themselves in a trap: on one hand, the social expectation to love and support their child, and on the other, constant stress, fear, and a sense of helplessness. Often, such families face a lack of understanding from others and even accusations of poor parenting, which only increases their sense of isolation and guilt. Parents may also face very serious problems if their child begins to behave antisocially in society, as they will have to bear responsibility for their actions.

All this being said, it must be understood that good upbringing and a favorable environment alone may not be enough to prevent a child from developing a psychopathic personality (although this is, of course, also important for reducing the risk). Therefore, all parents have an interest in detecting early signs of this condition and resorting to therapeutic intervention if they are present. This will certainly help them preserve their own family, and with widespread practice, it will also lead to a reduction in the level of violence throughout society, and over time—to the complete eradication of this problem!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Fight, flight, freeze… or just hack someone else’s brain?

As we know, there are three basic survival strategies in the wild. Encountered danger? In that case, fight, flee (“run”), or play dead (“freeze”/”hide”). But here’s the thing: while we thought this was an exhaustive menu, evolution decided not to stop there. As it turns out, there is a fourth, far more sophisticated path in the wild. Let’s call it “hack your neighbor’s neurobiology.”

Imagine: you are a huge, strong tropical cockroach. An emerald cockroach wasp (which is about three times smaller than you) flies up to you and gives you a quick sting. You are alive, you are conscious, your legs are working. But you… don’t want anything anymore. The wasp delivers a second, surgically precise sting directly into the cockroach’s subesophageal ganglion (the brain). Its venom acts as a perfect blocker of octopamine—the neurotransmitter responsible for initiative and the motivation to move. The cockroach is not paralyzed! It simply completely loses its free will. It is in a state of severe apathy. The wasp takes the giant by its antenna and, like a compliant dog on a leash, leads it to its burrow, where it will lay an egg on it. The larva will eat the cockroach alive, and the cockroach won’t even attempt to escape.

There is also the famous Toxoplasma (Toxoplasma gondii). This single-celled parasite desperately needs to get into a cat’s intestine—that is the only place where it can reproduce. But how do you get there if you are currently inside a mouse? Toxoplasma doesn’t just wait for the mouse to be eaten by chance. It takes control! The parasite forms microscopic cysts in the amygdala of the mouse’s brain, as a result of which the mouse completely loses its innate terror of the smell of cat urine, or even begins to experience slight sexual arousal from it. The mouse goes out into the open on its own, searches for a cat, and predictably becomes its lunch.

Another very cool example: the lancet fluke—a flatworm that needs to get from an ant into the stomach of a sheep or a cow. It penetrates directly into the ant’s subesophageal ganglion and takes the helm like a seasoned truck driver. In the evening, when it gets cold, the parasite forces the ant to separate from the colony, climb to the very tip of a tall blade of grass, and cling to it firmly with its jaws. The ant hangs there and waits to be swallowed by a cow. But do you know what is most amazing? If the cow doesn’t come during the night, and in the morning the sun begins to blaze (which could cause the ant to dry up and die along with the parasite), the worm releases control! It allows the ant to unclench its jaws, descend to the ground, and hide in the shade. The ant spends the whole day living its usual ant life, and in the evening, the parasite presses the button again: “Time to climb the blade of grass!”. And so it goes until they are eaten.

Why is this so cool? When we hear the word “parasite,” we imagine someone who just drinks blood or steals nutrients. But evolution has shown: information and control over behavior are the most valuable resources. These creatures do not control the victim through fear. They use perfect knowledge of neuropharmacology. They synthesize analogues of dopamine, serotonin, various alkaloids and proteins that “hack” the neural circuits of other species. This is not a random system glitch, but the result of millions of years of harsh evolutionary selection. Those who learned to change the host’s behavior in their favor survived and reproduced much more effectively than those who just sat and waited for a miracle. And nature didn’t give a damn about philosophical concepts like “free will”!

What does this mean for us, humans? Acting upon the neurobiology of an opponent who threatens us with harm—for the sake of bio-enhancing morality or as a violence inhibitor—is also not some “madman’s rambling,” but a fully successful strategy supported by millions of years of evolution, which is becoming technologically more accessible to us every day. If you don’t like such an approach at all, then look at yourself and propose full recognition of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and the impermissibility of violence in exchange for the limitation of biotech weapons that affect behavior.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

VPN in Russia 2026: a guide for those who do not want to live in a digital GULAG

The current internet situation in Russia resembles a joke: “We have freedom of speech, but no freedom after speech.” Only now, it’s no longer a joke, but daily reality. Roskomnadzor has blocked 800+ VPN services, TSPU has learned to recognize protocols in seconds, and since March 2026, “white lists” have even begun to be tested in Moscow—meaning only what is approved from above is allowed. Welcome to the sovereign internet! But we aren’t the type to give up, are we? So let’s break down what actually works.

Why are options like NordVPN and ExpressVPN no longer viable? In short: mass commercial VPNs are dead in Russia. OpenVPN is detected in seconds by the first byte of the packet. WireGuard is detected by its UDP structure. L2TP, PPTP, and SOCKS5 have been blocked since December 2025. Classic Shadowsocks is identified via entropy analysis. What works? Next-generation protocols: VLESS + Reality (mimics regular HTTPS to a legitimate site), AmneziaWG (a modified WireGuard with mimicry), Hysteria2 (based on QUIC), and xHTTP (fragments traffic to bypass TCP Freezing). But which VPN provider should we choose then?

1) Mullvad (Sweden) – the absolute gold standard of privacy. It doesn’t require an email—it generates a random account number. It accepts cash in an envelope (yes, literally put euros in an envelope and send it to Sweden), Monero, and Bitcoin. In 2023, Swedish police conducted a search at the request of Germany—and didn’t find a single byte of user data. This is the best proof of a “no-logs” policy imaginable. Of course, there is a downside: Roskomnadzor deliberately blocks Mullvad IP addresses, so you have to cycle through servers. The app has been removed from the Russian App Store.

2) IVPN (Gibraltar) – Mullvad’s closest competitor in terms of paranoia (in a good way). Also no email, just a random Account ID. Cash, Monero (they have their own Full Node—no third-party payment gateways), and Bitcoin. A security audit by Cure53 has been conducted. V2Ray obfuscation (VMESS/QUIC and VMESS/TCP) is built into all clients. Exemplary split tunneling—both direct and inverted. Ideal for those who need to access Gosuslugi and read blocked media simultaneously.

3) Proton VPN (Switzerland) – Stealth protocol, four Securitum audits, and a history of rejecting all legal requests for data. There is a free plan with unlimited traffic. However: it requires an email (you can use an anonymous ProtonMail registered via TOR), it doesn’t accept Monero directly, and Roskomnadzor actively tries to block it. Lifehack: manually loading WireGuard configs often works when the app cannot connect.

Note that as of May 2026, the Ministry of Digital Development has required large platforms to block access via VPN. The solution: split tunneling—route banks and government services outside the tunnel, and everything else through the VPN. There is also an advanced scheme against “white lists”: Client → Russian VPS (on the white list) → foreign server. TSPU sees domestic traffic and leaves it alone.

Why will you never be punished for the mere fact of using a VPN?! This is a favorite scare tactic of propagandists, but it collapses against reality. First, TSPU physically cannot distinguish VPN traffic from regular HTTPS with 100% accuracy—that’s exactly how VLESS and Reality are built. Fining people for “suspicious traffic”? How many people and on what grounds would they even have to sue. Second, VPNs are the backbone of legal business. Every bank, every corporation, every remote worker uses a VPN daily. And third: introducing liability for the “fact of using a VPN” would immediately lead to millions of people connecting via other people’s Wi-Fi networks. We would end up with millions of criminal cases against 80-year-old grandmothers whose routers “used a VPN.” Imagine the headlines: “Pensioner from Saratov fined for bypassing blocks.” No government can afford such a level of absurdity—it would be political suicide. Therefore, the state’s strategy is different: not to punish users, but to make VPNs as inconvenient as possible. Our task is to stay one step ahead. After all, freedom is not something given, but something taken!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The Myth of “Selfish Nature”: How Science Showed That People Are Naturally Generous

You have likely had to argue at least once in your life with fans of the “strong state hand” or amateur cynics who, with an air of wisdom, proclaimed: “Humans are extremely selfish by nature. Just look at small children; they behave like egoists and sociopaths until they are taught to adapt to society.” The claim is that this is precisely why we need a Leviathan with its taxes and regulations; otherwise, we would all tear each other’s throats out over an extra piece of bread.

Well, next time, you can boldly point them toward an excellent study that was recently featured in the journal Developmental Science. Scientists decided to check whether we are indeed born as self-centered egoists and tested the most “uneducated” people, those free from social attitudes—toddlers (children aged one and a half to two years).

What was the essence of the experiment? Imagine the scene: 134 children were invited to a laboratory. Each was seated at a table (the parents, by the way, sat nearby but wore headphones and kept their eyes closed to avoid exerting any influence). A scientist sat opposite them, along with a plush toy monkey. First, the toddler was given a bowl of treats—fish crackers. Then a game began with the monkey, who also “really loved fish.” The children were presented with different scenarios in a random order:

1) Watch the scientist feed the monkey.
2) Give the monkey a “foreign” cracker (from the scientist’s secret stash).
3) Take another cracker for themselves.
4) Share their own cracker from their own bowl (in science, this is called “costly altruism”).

It is important to note another point: the scientists didn’t just observe who exhibited greedy or generous behavior. They also video-recorded the children’s faces so that independent experts, who were unaware of the experiment’s goal, could rate their level of happiness and the sincerity of their smiles on a 7-point scale.

And what do you think? The children were happy and literally beamed with joy when they treated the plush macaque. But the most striking part: their level of happiness hit the ceiling precisely when they gave away their own cracker! The joy from voluntary charity was statistically significantly higher than the joy from simply receiving treats “for free.”

Skeptics will immediately jump in: “Oh, they were just happy to follow an adult’s command; children love to please!” But that’s not the point. When the scientist said, “Now take a cracker for yourself,” the children did so with complete indifference. No joy from obedience.

Some might also say: “Then they were just copying the emotions of the happy monkey!” Again, wrong. The monkey “rejoiced” exactly the same way in all scenarios, but the children smiled sincerely only when they themselves acted as the giver. There was no emotional contagion—the joy came precisely from the fact of the kind act itself.

Why is this important from a libertarian perspective? The point is that solidarity, mutual aid, and generosity are not artificial constructs that need to be hammered in from above. Humans are literally biologically programmed to derive pleasure from voluntary cooperation and helping others. Evolution made us empathetic because voluntary, mutually beneficial coexistence is the most effective way to thrive.

The problem begins exactly where a third force crudely interferes in this wonderful natural process—that is, when a stationary bandit comes along and says: “Right, now charity is an obligation. We will take your crackers under threat of a fine or prison and decide for ourselves which monkey to give them to” (spoiler: officials will eat half the crackers while carrying them).

Coercion kills the very essence of humanity. When your earned resources are taken by force, you feel not joy, but a dull irritation (and a sharp desire to Google tax avoidance schemes). The state does not make us kinder—it only atomizes society, forcing people to think: “Why should I chip in to help a neighbor or repair the street if I’ve already paid giant taxes for it?”.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How Psychology Predicts Support for the War

Debates about war often revolve around questions of morality, law, or geopolitics. However, modern psychological research reveals a very interesting point: a person’s attitude toward war is largely determined not by arguments, but by their personality traits. For instance, a recent study in Britain showed that support for war is closely linked to certain stable psychological characteristics, rather than just a rational assessment of the situation.

First of all, it should be noted that so-called social dominance orientation (SDO)—the tendency to believe that society should be hierarchical and that some groups of people deserve to have power over others—plays an important role. As it turns out, people with high SDO scores are more likely to support military actions because they perceive the world merely as an arena of competition and a struggle for power. Conversely, people with low SDO scores tend toward more egalitarian views: they are more likely to consider all people equal and are therefore less inclined to justify violence as a tool of policy.

Another point worth noting is childhood abuse. As is well known, there is a connection between childhood experiences and attitudes toward violence in adulthood. Accordingly, it was found that people who were subjected to both emotional and physical abuse by family members in childhood are far more likely to come out in support of war.

We should also consider the willingness to obey authority. People with an extremely submissive personality type tend to align themselves with the aggressive policies of the state, including the waging of wars. In their understanding, one must not speak out against authority or sow useless doubts in people’s minds. On the contrary, people with low scores in obedience to authority who support the freedom to oppose it are not inclined to speak in favor of war.

Finally, let us not forget the dark personality traits. As it turns out, sadism is very strongly linked to support for war. People with this trait derive pleasure from cruelty and causing harm to others, and are therefore highly inclined to advocate for violence as a method of conflict resolution. Support for war is also characteristic of personalities with psychopathy, as they are emotionally detached from other people and feel no aversion to committing violence.

All this shows that the choice “for” or “against” war cannot be explained by a person’s rational assessment of the situation alone. In practice, the opposite often happens: first, a person has a certain psychological predisposition, and only then are arguments selected that fit well into it. Certain personality traits lead a person to rationalize military aggression, exaggerating convenient arguments and ignoring everything else.

From a libertarian perspective, this is especially important, because if support for war is linked to personality traits such as a drive for dominance or psychopathy, it calls into question the very idea of granting a “monopoly on violence” to a stationary bandit. In such a case, decisions about war would reflect not objective necessity, but the psychological distortions of those given the power to make them.

It is also interesting that such attitudes are closely linked to views on freedom and control in general. People who accept violent hierarchy as the norm are more likely to justify not only external aggression but also internal restrictions—from the strengthening of security forces to the suppression of civil rights. The presence of such people in society is very beneficial to the state, as it allows it to introduce authoritarian orders without hindrance.

Therefore, any debate about war is not just a clash of arguments, but a clash of psychological types. This means that to achieve peace and freedom, it is not enough to simply “convince.” It is necessary to understand which psychological predispositions make people inclined to justify violence, and to work specifically with them. For as long as there are enough people in society who are psychologically ready to accept war, a reason to start one will always be found.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why the sated is no comrade to the hungry, and technology is driven by those whose asses are on fire

Do you know what a cozy chair at Stanford, a patent for 20 years ahead, and a lifetime grant from the NSF have in common? Exactly—the desire to change nothing. Why bother? The bread is already buttered, topped with caviar, the competition has been squeezed out by copyright laws and NDAs, and any new idea is a risk that your beautiful, multi-year body of work might become obsolete even before it hits the pages of Nature. Therefore, when yet another overfed professor curls his lip at a new technology, it’s not “weighted scientific skepticism,” but simply the instinct to preserve a comfortable spot.

A case that should be tattooed on the forehead of every skeptic: EUV lithography. In the mid-1980s, Japanese engineer Hiroo Kinoshita from NTT became the first in the world to produce an image using extreme ultraviolet light and reported it at a meeting of the Japan Society of Applied Physics in 1986. The reaction from the room? To quote Kinoshita himself: “The audience was extremely skeptical. However, my faith did not change.” During the same period at Bell Labs, Aubert Wood and Bill Sylfvast tried to push the same idea in the US—and received an “extremely negative reaction” from reviewers: they claimed that even if every component were assembled, the system would be so complex that its uptime would be “negligibly small.” Now look at 2026. Every chip in your smartphone, every graphics card, every AI accelerator—all of it is made on machines that use the exact same EUV lithography that the mainstreamers laughed at. What would have happened if Kinoshita had listened to his “esteemed colleagues” and gone to teach optics to freshmen?

Now let’s move to the Ukrainian trenches. Remember how back in 2020, serious men from military academies chuckled at the idea of FPV drones? “Toys for children,” “unserious weapons,” “real war is tanks and artillery.” Military science is generally one of the most conservative swamps on the planet—careers there are built over decades, and you certainly don’t get patted on the back for “unserious ideas.” But in 2022, when the AFU faced a question of physical survival, it suddenly turned out that a dirt-cheap FPV drone with a shaped-charge warhead could take out a million-dollar tank. And the conservative soldiers, for whom all this was “not according to regulation” just yesterday, turned enthusiast home-builds into an entire branch of service in a year and a half. Because the alternative was to die. And death is an excellent motivator to cast aside corporate pride and take what works.

The pattern is simple: technology is not pushed forward by those who are “doing fine.” Technology is pushed forward by those who have a choice between “accepting the new” and “dying” (metaphorically or literally). So let’s list some categories of people who are truly desperate:

– Startuppers with no money. They have nothing to lose but their over-commits. That’s why garage teams, not IBM’s R&D departments, give birth to the things that change industries.
– Fighting armies of the weaker side. Ukraine with drones, Mujahideen with Stingers, Finns with Molotov cocktails. The stronger side always has the temptation to “crush with mass,” while the weaker side only has their brains.
– Scientists from the “wrong” countries and institutes. When you can’t get an NSF grant simply because you aren’t from the “right” laboratory, you are forced to make a breakthrough just to be noticed at all. Half of the Nobels in the last 30 years went to people who were first dismissed by the mainstream.
– Patients with incurable diseases. The most desperate drivers of biohacking and DIY medicine. They literally have nothing to lose, so they are the first to test gene therapy from a garage.
– Victims of domestic violence in third-world countries. When you have no option to turn to the police or social services against an abusive father, the covert addition of drugs to food to enhance a violence inhibitor no longer seems like some kind of psychosis.

The conclusion? If you want to see the future—look at those who have no choice. They are the true engine of progress. And the “esteemed experts” will catch up in about 15 years—once the technology can be used to defend another dissertation and they can quietly live until retirement.

P.S. Hiroo Kinoshita, by the way, lived to see it. And let’s hope that he sometimes smiles cunningly while reading ASML’s annual reports.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The “Rich Pauper” Strategy: How to Cheat the State and Preserve Capital

Imagine two guys. The first drives a shiny Ferrari, wears a Brioni suit, and posts photos of oysters on Instagram. He has a mountain of debt, insomnia, and breaks into a cold sweat every time a letter from the tax office arrives. The second takes the subway in an inconspicuous logo-less hoodie, eats shawarma on the corner, and sighs during a conversation with a neighbor about how utilities have gone up again. But in his head is a seed phrase for a wallet containing hundreds of bitcoins. Which one of them is truly free? For any self-respecting agorist, the answer is obvious.

We are living in an era where the state has turned into a giant Tyrannosaurus Rex. And as we remember from “Jurassic Park,” a T-Rex’s vision is based on movement. In our reality, it is based on showing off. If you want to live freely, build your capital, and avoid attracting the attention of “comrade major,” the tax inspectorate, or simply criminal elements, you need to master the greatest art of the 21st century: being a “poor” rich person.

First and foremost, you should rent everything rather than owning it. Do you know what buying a luxury home or car in your own name is? It’s voluntarily pinning a huge target to your back that says: “I’m here! Milk me!”. It is the ideal asset for confiscation, seizure, or exorbitant taxes. Rent your housing and transport. Ideally, not even in your own name, but through trusted representatives, cooperatives, or anonymous companies, if the scale allows. You can live in a penthouse and drive a Bentley, but on paper, you are just a passerby.

It is also important to give up luxury: Rolexes, Birkin bags, Gucci belts—these are taxes on insecurity. In agorism, your clothing is camouflage. Dress neatly, but in a way that makes you impossible to remember. Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg didn’t popularize basic t-shirts for no reason. When you have no labels, people (and officials) cannot “appraise” you. You blend into the crowd.

Of course, you must not talk about your assets! Friends will start asking for loans (and get offended if you refuse). Acquaintances might accidentally blurt out about your wealth in a bar where the wrong person is sitting. Money loves silence, and crypto loves graveyard silence. To everyone, you should be that guy who “does something on the internet, seems to have enough for food.”

It would be a good idea to learn how to professionally play poor. In our society, successful people are envied, while the poor are pitied and left alone. Complain about inflation, sigh when paying a bill at a cafe, always ask for discounts and promo codes, and haggle at markets. It’s not about the 5 dollars saved—it’s about creating an alibi. When you constantly demonstrate that you are counting pennies, no one will even think that you can be “de-kulakized.”

Another tip: delete Instagram to hell, or at least stop posting photos from business class. Social networks are an open database for tax collectors and scammers. Your profile should look as if you spend your vacation at your grandmother’s cottage, not in the Maldives.

Furthermore, invest your money in things that cannot be taken away. Instead of gold chains, invest in your health (best medicine, quality but simple food, biohacking) and in knowledge. And foreign passports and residency permits (which, of course, you will tell no one about) are the best insurance, invisible to neighbors.

And finally, use cash and P2P. If you pay for everything with a named bank card, your consumption profile is visible as clear as day. Pay for daily expenses in cash wherever possible, as paper money leaves no logs.

In conclusion, it should be said that agorism is not just a philosophy of the free market, but a daily spy game. The stationary bandit wants you to be transparent, predictable, and tied to a place. But you can live in such a way that you will only smile, watching the system try to grab you by the throat, while its fingers grasp emptiness. Because for the system, you simply will not exist; you will be a ghost. A very wealthy, free, and invulnerable ghost.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

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