My short thoughts on various topics
An important section has been completed, analyzing when the state attacks a group. Instead of the traditional internal classification of cases based on the answer to the question “is it attacking your group?”, here the priority had to be given to the answer to another question: “did the group identify itself as such?”
It also became clear that the next section will not be the final one regarding state-on-state attacks, but another intermediate one — about civil war.
“Practical Anarchy” is now available for download in epub format, so those who prefer reading the text continuously rather than in pieces can finally do so.
The fate of the author in the context of his reflections seems quite ironic to me. Molynieux constructs a model of a stateless society based on a rather strict dictate of commercial insurance companies, which, by mutual agreement, do not allow anyone to conduct economic activity without being bound by a contract with one of these companies. To many, such a future seems monstrous; he, however, claims that an honest person has nothing to fear, and that these cages are only for beasts. Yet his own fate shows how much commercial companies can complicate the life of a private individual who merely publishes unpleasant things, and how little they care about the change in their profits and capitalization resulting from the application of deplatforming. However, Molynieux is alive, has retained his audience, and continues to engage in economic activity.
Thus, for me, Molynieux’s vision of anarchy is something that, fortunately, will not come true. The same rules do not suit everyone, and no one will be able to impose them on all of humanity. This is impossible even in an era of state dictate, and it will be even less possible in stateless societies, amen.
On to other news.
Starting from February 2026, @SperryUNIVAC, a good acquaintance of mine with a very wide range of interests, will begin collaborating with the channel on a permanent basis. His own channel is dedicated to numismatics, which is too narrow a field, so there remain some interesting thoughts that clearly fall outside the channel’s theme but may find demand here.
Telegram is a place dominated by author channels; collective projects are a rarity. Nevertheless, in my case, you are encountering a strange persistence in diluting my own content with someone else’s. Well, now dear readers can hate yet another author, and they won’t even need to subscribe to a new channel to do so.
For a long time, I struggled to find the right tone for the final chapter of the book on libertarian theory of war, where a libertarian analysis and recommendations for wars initiated by the state should be provided. However, then a road incident occurred in the US state of Minnesota, which was accompanied by heated discussions online—and things finally started moving. So, I express my gratitude to all security services, civil activists, and lovers of online flame wars for their valuable contribution to science.
So far, only section 3.3.1, in which the state attacks the individual, is ready, but things should move faster from here.
Oh, and a small warning has been added at the very beginning of the third part of the book, regarding the fact that war with the state can be understood in different ways; in this book, we are interested in war in its more brutal sense, as it is precisely this form that has so far lacked libertarian theoretical reflection.
Atomic Cherry uploaded a four-part article cycle for his paid subscribers titled “On the Futurology of War”, and he sent me the drafts in Word. There was a brief discussion afterwards, but I’ll have to prepare a short overview of the cycle, where I partially restate the author’s opinion and partially supplement it.
The cycle briefly describes how a professional army, with the invention of nationalism in the 19th century, mutated into mass conscripted armies, and during the Cold War, due to the second demographic shift, there was a renewed trend towards professionalization. It also describes changes in military doctrines, from competition about who can outmaneuver the other, to the idea of a general battle, and then to total war, from which offshoots of information, hybrid wars, etc., later detached themselves.
The key contradiction that led to the crisis of modern wars, the author sees in this dilemma. On one hand, nationalism is still quite strong, and it intensifies even more when an invasion takes place, so it’s relatively easy to mobilize a large, motivated contingent for defense. On the other hand, most countries have already undergone the second demographic shift, have negative demographics, and gathering a motivated army of aggression is difficult. Thus, nationalism inevitably dictates that the aggressor follow the doctrine of total war, but demographics don’t allow them to draw an endless supply of human resources. Moreover, international humanitarian rhetoric forces them to be shy about blatant genocide, if, of course, the war is on the front pages of international media.
In light of this dilemma, the author describes several scenarios.
Discussing the articles, I noted that they somehow focus on the fact that total war remains the only way to resolve interethnic conflicts by force, while there is also another way – eliminating the ruling elite of the enemy. To this the author replied that Hamas’s leadership had already been destroyed several times and it didn’t help. It seemed to me, however, that for countries with a negative demographic, such a method should still be relevant. Understandably, he was referring to removing Putin: the regime is quite personalized, the population is sufficiently apathetic, therefore eliminating the first face should, in my opinion, make the regime much more willing to negotiate. Atomic Cherry argued that the Russian regime is not so personalized, and that a no less frozen character will come to Putin’s place, who will continue the same policy, and in the worst case there would be many such frozen characters, they would arrange a full-scale civil war, and then it would be like with the Soviet Union, which calmed down after the citizen and went to seize the world.
Well, of course, then the Maduro takeover happened, a regime that wasn’t particularly personalized – and the country is obviously experiencing depopulation. So we’re both thrilled to observe this natural experiment: will this methodology work or won’t it? Will old-fashioned nationalism prevail, or postmodernism? If the latter, then a total war looks like a viable alternative, and that’s definitely a plus. And the next important precedent in the history of wars will be the forceful elimination of a nuclear dictator. I, of course, am betting that this won’t lead to a nuclear war, and that the world is almost ripe for this revelation.
Перечитала свои итоги прошлого года, сдержанно оптимистичные. К сожалению, оптимизм этот никак не оправдался. Канал вёлся скорее по инерции, Монтелиберо существовало скорее по инерции, каких-то жизнеспособных форков от него не отпочковалось, любые инвестиции в Черногорию оказывались убыточными, а само черногорское государство начало избавляться от иностранцев: а хули, мы уже одной ногой в ЕС, сейчас как сядем на европейские субсидии, и нафиг нам после этого работающая экономика, давайте разгоним уже всех этих понаехавших.
У меня не закончен ни один из предполагавшихся к завершению долгосрочных проектов, остались буквально последние главы, может, хоть в новом году доползу до финиша. В качестве следующей страны для поселения пока рассматриваю Сербию, и там снова придётся выращивать вокруг себя комьюнити с нуля, а такие фокусы мне стали с годами как-то тяжелее даваться.
В общем, мир вокруг настраивает на резкое повышение временного предпочтения: жить одним месяцем и не планировать на следующий, избавляться от любых долгоиграющих активов при первой же возможности, потому что когда припрёт, хрен их реализуешь за приемлемую цену, не держаться даже за людей, всё равно они сегодня здесь, а завтра в Парагвае. Хочется же прямо противоположного: осесть, накрепко вцепиться в клочок земли, завести клан, набить хлева всякой полезной скотиной, а гаражи полезной техникой, нарожать детей, учить их экономической теории и пилотированию дронов…
Пока же единственным моим реальным достижением за год стало обучение пилотированию автомобиля, он-то меня теперь и кормит. Со времён белой эмиграции известно, что самые ходовые профессии для русских – это шофёры и гувернантки, вот я теперь худо-бедно совмещаю обе, имея работу в сфере доставки и долю в детском садике.
За окнами адский ветер, сшибающий с ног. Но я обязательно выживу. И это единственное, что я могу достаточно искренне пожелать своим читателям в новом году.
I was approached by the founder of the “Molinariy” project, for whom I had already translated one of the chapters of “Evenings on Saint-Lazare Street,” written, in fact, by Gustave de Molinari, the author of the key idea of anarcho-capitalism—namely, the private production of security in a free competitive market, similar to any other consumer services. Molinariy consists of a Telegram channel, which at the time of this publication has 70 subscribers, a Substack with a whopping six subscribers, and a YouTube channel with 1.13 thousand subscribers. This asymmetry is due to two factors. First, YouTube promotes channels through a suggestion system, while Substack and Telegram do so far less effectively. Second, the primary content of Molinariy is video content, while the auxiliary text channels are used to store additional materials and alternative formats for delivering the main content. Thus, we come to the essence of the request. I was asked to give my opinion on the Russian translation published in Molinariy of a 1989 lecture by Murray Rothbard regarding the global political agenda of that time, primarily the collapse of the socialist camp.
The video is posted on YouTube, while on Substack and in Telegram, a transcript of the speech and comments on it are provided.
Rothbard begins with a brief overview of the history of socialism: how it appeared in Europe in the 19th century, how and why it gradually gained popularity, how liberals toward the end of the 19th century felt a sense of doom because socialist ideas had completely seized the masses, and how in the 20th century socialism finally had the opportunity to be embodied in practice. He then notes a phase-shifted movement of ideas: people in the socialist bloc countries were fed up to their teeth with this collectivist system and dreamed of capitalism, while Western intellectuals managed to maintain an untouched admiration for socialism throughout the decades because they had not truly tasted it in practice.
It turns out that there is only one way to prompt people to abandon an externally attractive but false idea: let them try to implement it and wait until the idea is discredited. However, even in this case, the abandonment of the idea will most likely not occur until the first generation of its carriers physically dies out.
Here, a mischievous question occurs to me: could the same happen with ancap? Perhaps it will gradually win over minds, a certain critical percentage of politicians will be permeated by it, and then everyone will be more or less unanimous that it is finally time to let people realize this bright idea. And then, when the first generation of those who dismantle the state in favor of the free market begins to physically die out, the idea will lose its sincere carriers, and in the eyes of the next generation, it will already be discredited. And if at the end of the eighties of the last century, the rulers of the socialist camp countries bewilderedly asked such clever Western experts if there were any reliable ways to carefully abandon excessive state regulation and transition to a free market, then in a hundred years, will free participants of a spiraling libertarian society bewilderedly ask how to carefully find those who are ready to take responsibility for people and start managing them, rather than complaining, “Why on earth would I want to do that?”
Life, of course, has shown that the world is more complex than the picture Rothbard saw at the end of the eighties, but overall his view was quite correct. For instance, he correctly grasped that in American society at that time, people were tired of high government spending under Reagan, and soon under Clinton, the national debt began to decrease. But the momentum did not last long, and now it is growing at unprecedented rates. He identified the problem of “too big to fail” financial institutions, and this problem eventually triggered a global crisis. He correctly noted that China would have problems with a market economy if it were not accompanied by general liberalization. And indeed, thirty years later, China’s economy eventually faltered due to a lack of freedom and an excess of state regulation, but by then it had managed to become a superpower. Finally, Rothbard noted that now that the Cold War between superpowers has ended, this would not be a reason for the US to demilitarize; instead, the government would frantically seek any excuse to fight with anyone or anything.
Rothbard also harshly criticized the Libertarian Party, which practically failed to notice that liberalism had won over socialism and in no way took advantage of the fruits of this victory, focusing instead on its own internal administrative squabbles. In fact, this criticism applies to any libertarian party in any country at any time: libertarians are especially vulnerable to the bureaucratization of their institutions. This applies not only to parties but also to scientific institutes or projects like Mont Pelerin. The thing is, a volunteer comes to an organization for a result, while long-term institutions work for the sake of the process. As a result, enthusiasts burn out and leave, leaving behind those for whom routine is comfortable, and work results are measured by the number of meetings.
And finally, I want to leave hanging the key prediction Rothbard made in his lecture: that the 21st century would be the century of freedom. Of course, compared to the 20th century, in very many aspects and in very many countries, people have become noticeably freer. But regulators have not been idle, and many freedoms that people enjoyed at the beginning of the 21st century are now unthinkable in its second quarter. However, I want to note an interesting pattern here: modern enslavement is not total. It exists only where the state maintains its monopoly. For example, it has turned air travel into a sophisticated mockery. But in the field of money transfers, people endure the mockery only where the transaction must be shown to the state. But if it needs to be hidden, everything is done in two clicks. And so in many industries. People are learning and getting used to bypassing government desires, and they seem to stop longing for a boot over them. Perhaps freedom really is arriving? I want to believe it.
I am currently experiencing a period of some confusion, I don’t know where to best apply my efforts. Not having a ready answer, I simply want to discuss this openly in the post, hoping something will occur to me during the process, and perhaps the readers will offer suggestions too.
Let’s briefly review the past. Since 2018, I have publicly been disseminating libertarian theory, while simultaneously mastering it and filling in gaps where I found them. Since 2021, the theory has become supplemented with practice, and we began building a libertarian community in Montenegro. In 2022 something happened, and respectable Russian emigrants became those upon whom it’s convenient to vent complexes. In 2024 something else happened, and anti-migrant rhetoric began to gain mainstream traction worldwide. At the close of 2025 in Montenegro we have preparations for government to sharply tighten conditions for foreign nationals’ legal stay and readiness of Russians to a mass exodus from the country towards Serbia primarily.
What should I personally do within this entire situation?
There’s a path that Montelibero is pursuing. It has re-qualified as an international movement and now manifests mainly online, with occasional offline activity shifting to Serbia, Georgia and Argentina. I’m already distanced from this movement, because it’s hard for me to understand what’s going on within it and what place makes sense for me to occupy.
There is a spontaneously emerging movement in Montenegro advocating for immigrant rights, covering today three diaspora: Russian, German and Turkish. This is new for me and quite insightful. Russians are still organized worse than everyone within this situational alliance, aside from the Serbs, of whom there are more in Montenegro, but they do not consider themselves true immigrants and possibly think that all these tightening conditions are not written for them. However, the movement attracts local citizens who realize that without immigrants, the country will be very difficult.
There is an obvious route – within about a year to relocate non-hurriedly to Serbia and settle there, and to cease all black Montenegrin activities. For me this means withdrawing previously made investments from Montenegro, finding funds for earning on a new place, forming a new community of communication and mutual assistance. The same could be done with Georgia, but learning Georgian after Serbian – it’s obviously a significant challenge.
In any case, my priorities have changed quite a bit. I don’t really feel like investing in online communities anymore because economic connections are more important than ideological ones. It doesn’t matter that there’s another powerful libertarian festival happening somewhere in New Hampshire, or another major conference in Prague, or another significant reform taking place in Argentina – it won’t directly benefit me. But a good auto mechanic will be useful to me, even if he doesn’t particularly understand praxisology. You need to be friends with him, drink kofu with him, jointly defend your rights and, where possible, bring him some benefit besides just paying for the service, because local communities are held together by exactly these kinds of mutual services.
And also, I need to remember that practice makes perfect, but generally speaking, my strongest trait is precisely the theoretical understanding of how the current world is structured, from a libertarian ideological perspective. These musings don’t feed me directly, but subjectively they seem most important to me. Are they in demand among channel readers? It’s hard to say.
Just submitted an article to the editorial board for the third issue of “Fronda”. And if that’s the case, why not make your own column from the second issue, dedicated to democracy, publicly available? Here it is, please enjoy:
Hello everyone, it’s Anka-tyan with you again, and today we’re talking about the lessons that a social structure like democracy gives us.
Ancient Greek democracy began with tyrannicides. Since then, killing a tyrant is considered good manners and a pretty decent prelude to establishing a more free political order. Most tyrants have drawn this lesson, so they try to maintain the outward appearance of democracy. Let’s draw the same lesson for ourselves:
The most direct way to establish democracy is to destroy the tyrant… Destroying an army or an economy is a much more roundabout and unreliable way. Negotiating with a tyrant about his peaceful departure is even less reliable.
Fighting for democracy, people don’t want democracy itself. They want freedom from tyranny – that is, from a regime in which they are arbitrarily subjected to violence. Democracy is just a family of various compromise social structures designed to prevent a recurrence of tyranny. The common thing in all stable democracies is the principle of separation of powers. No one owns all power! Tyranny of the popular assembly is just as tyrannical as the tyranny of one person. Let’s formulate our lesson as follows:
Construct a system of self-government so that your community doesn’t give anyone the opportunity to seize power. No expansive interpretations of norms! No extraordinary powers! Any holder of power is a potential tyrant. Be vigilant!
Coordination in a community implies working to ensure it. Someone needs to do this work. We need to find and involve someone in this. How to look for them? In modern democracies, everything usually comes down to two mechanisms: an official is appointed by a higher authority, or they are elected by vote. Voting is just one of the possible meansof achieving a compromise solution in selecting candidates from a group, and it has a lot of drawbacks. There are many other means. The most unbiased means was originally considered lots. There are also exams and other types of competitions, there’s the purchase of positions, there are tenders, there is volunteering… Democracy doesn’t reduce to voting. The lesson is obvious here:
Don’t substitute goals with means. Don’t try to use a tool for everything, even if it’s very fashionable. Use what is simpler, more reliable, and that solves the specific task that has been set.
Как ни распределяй власть, какие ни внедряй сдержки и противовесы, как ни связывай власть имущих законами, система со временем деградирует. Деградировав, она порождает новых тиранов, а потом по их головы приходят новые тираноборцы… Что может помешать соблазну сконцентрировать власть? Только одно: отсутствие того, что можно сконцентрировать.
Если координация происходит добровольно, в этом процессе нет места для того, кто принуждает. Чем больше места занимают добровольные отношения, тем меньше места занимают властные. Отсюда простой урок:
Если вам что-то нужно от других, спрашивайте, что хотят взамен. Не считайте, что вас должны обслужить даром. Если от вас что-то требуют, называйте свою цену. Не считайте, что вы должны обслуживать других даром. Согласны сотрудничать – сотрудничайте. Не согласны – не сотрудничайте. Всякий претендующий на власть должен понимать: принуждать людей себе дороже. Будут саботировать и искать удобного случая ударить исподтишка. Никому не хочется войти в историю в качестве свергнутого тирана.
С одной стороны, демократия – это способ не дать немногим всю полноту власти над большинством. С другой стороны, демократия это возможность для большинства получить общественные блага дешевле, чем они бы стоили на рынке. Это большой соблазн, но надо отдавать себе отчёт в том, что это тоже тирания, только тирания большинства. Переход к рынку вместо принуждения – это нравственный выбор людей, которые сознательно отказываются быть тиранами. Только этот путь ведёт к настоящей свободе.
Finished chapter 3.2, which describes waging war in the event that a group attacks. The most interesting scenario is analyzed — when a group attacks a state.
For the sake of brevity, I preferred to limit myself to considering the situation where you are in the attacking group, rather than when some outsiders are trying to destroy your beloved state. Perhaps I will still need to write this subsection later, but I will try to do without it.
Things are either feast or famine for me: new posts are coming out quite frequently in November, and poor Bitark doesn’t even have a chance to get a word in. Another article from the old archives is on the way, as well as one answer to a subscriber’s question.
Because of my new job, I don’t have a lot of free time right now, but there is still a little left for entertainment. Since I’ve been asked to promote some of these activities, I think I’ll share my plans for the coming month.
On November 3rd, I’m setting aside time for Adam Smith Readings. Traditionally, on this day, instead of long-form posts, I will have many short notes throughout the presentations. I will definitely post them on Telegram; as for Huitter and Nostr, we’ll see depending on the circumstances. The organizers promise nine speakers. My favorites in terms of anticipation for exciting and non-trivial presentations are Kapelyushnikov and Vatoadmin; Morozov will probably trigger me, Bazhenov will likely put me to sleep, Ali’s presentation topic looks like a box-ticking exercise, Kynev’s topic looks like a story about some alternative universe, and I don’t know Salnikova and Troparevsky. They won’t bring in an English-speaking speaker, which is understandable—Mordor is for orcs. Overall, my expectations are quite high. I hope there are no internet outages on the Russian side.
November 7th is a memorable date for all extremists, so I’m dedicating it to an extremist event: the press conference of the Association of Arbitration Courts, where the courts belonging to the Association will, among other things, sign a memorandum on the framework of cooperation. I was invited there by the organizer of this whole movement, since the offer for my own court has been posted in the public domain for quite a while. I already have experience judging within the Association, so we will develop the cooperation.
Also, theoretically, the MTL-fest is supposed to take place in Podgorica on November 27th, but I have a very strange attitude toward it right now. The first one was in MTL-City, and its main goal was to brag about how ancaps know how to build roads. The second was in Bar, and its main goal was to bring in Pozharsky to speak, since Svetov was brought to the first fest. The third will be in Podgorica, in English, and its main goal will be to show that Montelibero is just another harmless NGO and shouldn’t be crushed by the state’s boot. It’s not very clear how much I need to be there, or how much they need me. But I’m keeping it in mind anyway.
And it’s not all just talk. Valera asked me to mention his media project RoninRoker, where he posts multi-genre songs on the theme of freedom. These are, of course, neural network creations, but they are certainly no more embarrassing than Bitarkh’s articles. Three versions are provided for each song: Russian, English, and Serbian. Valera also performs these live, which further blurs the line between human and machine creativity. In terms of mood, with the onset of the rainy season, “Neon Freedom” felt closest to me, so I’ll attach it here as an illustration.
