The Libertarian Band studio released a fairly dense ten-minute video explaining the specifics of mobilization in the RF for those who still believe that it is actually possible to do something according to the law in the RF. By the way, this is actually possible, because “according to the law” in the RF is one of several competing systems of concepts, and where there is competition, there is an opportunity to win that competition. The thing is, the main tool to ensure that things are handled “according to the law” with you is a loud and dirty public scandal or a credible threat of one. The video also speaks quite clearly about this.
At the end of the video, it was also mentioned that a great way to avoid mobilization would be physical relocation to Montenegro and joining the Montelibero project.
Mikhail Svetov held a rather thin six-hour stream with the powerful title “Run,” where at the end he also mentioned that he strongly recommends fleeing, including to Montenegro, where one can join the Montelibero project if desired—despite Mikhail’s own skepticism regarding the project’s goals, as it’s not the time for luxuries.
I regret to state that the suggestions from both respected channels were slightly belated, and now the priority is to flee not specifically to Montenegro, but anywhere abroad at all, as long as you aren’t turned back at the border—then you can figure out how to survive in the new conditions, and perhaps you’ll manage to make it to Montenegro after all, who knows. For example, one of the project participants lived with us for a month in August; he liked it, then he returned to the RF to pack the rest of his things and move for good—and now he’s stuck in Kazakhstan, where he managed to get with considerable difficulty after the mobilization decree. “Packed his things,” my foot…
Nevertheless, we still declare that we will help with settling in those who make it to our remote area, from some Georgia, Armenia, the same Kazakhstan, or, why not, even from Russia. If you can—mobilize all your resources—and come join us.
About two months have passed since the previous newsletter, which means it’s time for the next one. Last time, there was a lot about the First Montelibero Club, which has become the main center of activity for project participants. So, once again, I’ll start by talking about the club.
Since only those who have explicitly agreed to abide by the NAP become club members, it is much easier to count them than the participants of the Montelibero project; today there are 81 people, half of whom I haven’t even seen once because I don’t visit as often now.
Currently, an English club, a movie club, and a discussion club coexist under its roof; lectures are held from time to time, and a coworking space and bar — with cocktails and the best coffee in Montenegro — are permanently operational.
Additionally, a podcast recording studio has been created there. Those interested can subscribe to the channel where they are posted. For now, the content consists of introductions to various project participants, but over time, I hope other materials will appear.
And I would like to say that this is a photo from a typical MTL breakfast, but no, it’s an ML assembly
The project’s tokenomics is becoming increasingly mature. For instance, for the MTL token — Montelibero’s main investment fund — a public offer has appeared, which finally describes in a dry but accessible manner what it is, what it is used for, and how it works. Previously, the tokens themselves were sold directly by the fund in unlimited quantities at a fixed price, but this sell order has now been liquidated. Issuance at a fixed price is still possible, but only in large portions and by prior request. It is expected that this will have a positive effect on the token price and on the activity of the secondary token market.
For the first time in a very long while, I didn’t start the news summary with the MTL City settlement, but that doesn’t mean construction has failed or even stopped. The concrete frames for a residential building with eight apartments and a non-residential building, which will house various technical services for the future settlement, are completely ready. Wall laying is finishing, then comes the finishing work; the buildings are promised to be completed by the end of the year.
Meanwhile, in Russia, general mobilization and the closing of borders are underway. This means that the main source of new recruits for the project is under threat of exhaustion, and we may soon need to reorient ourselves entirely toward other markets. I doubt we will suddenly start catering to Western European libertarians. Rather, we will work more actively with the already established Russian-speaking diaspora.
After my previous post, I was criticized for inconsistency: on one hand, I claim that the leaders of the Russian opposition acted quite competently, and on the other, I write that the regime’s response was to ban everything in Russia, and that all roads lead to the disposal of the population.
Here I will simply briefly note that when the RF troops attacked Ukraine, the Ukrainian troops also acted quite competently, which did not prevent them from losing a large territory. The actions of the opposition could have been successful if they hadn’t been constantly lagging. But they couldn’t help lagging: you cannot immediately incite people to burn down administrative buildings and engage in individual terror while people, for the most part, believe in legal methods of struggle. Thus, the few extremists from the time when the regime was slightly more herbivorous turned out to be premature, and their impulse went to waste. Now all they have left is to say, “we warned you.”
Similarly, this is all that remains to be said by those who desperately called all their friends and relatives to leave the country, and now they would be glad to leave, but there are traffic jams at all borders, and departure may be banned entirely any moment now.
We do not know what reserves of strength the regime has. Perhaps it will fall like the Soviet one after Afghanistan or the Russian one after the First World War. Or perhaps it will survive, like the Iranian one after the war with Iraq. It is only in our power to nudge it toward collapse through our action or inaction—and, if possible, avoid getting a retaliation from the regime for it. You can flee the country. You can burn down a recruitment office. You can beat up a recruitment officer. You can end up at the front and destroy your tank or commander there, and then successfully surrender into captivity. Or, if you prefer a positive agenda, you can help an immigrant, hide a deserter, persuade a friend not to go to the recruitment office… Ah, yes, that’s some kind of negativity again. Either way, all of these will be competent actions, strategically bringing you closer to the bright goal of the fall of the Russian dictatorship, even if the tactical effect seems negligible.
And what actions would be incompetent? For example, mocking those who have just this moment opened their eyes and demonstrating to them the shimmering whiteness of your own coat. Thoughtlessly approving and trying to justify every single action of regimes hostile to Russia—many of their actions are no less cannibalistic. Paying the regime fines issued to you for participating in peaceful street protests. Wishing the Russian army victory.
So, Putin announced mobilization. Not enough military recruitment offices were burned down in Russia for him to give up on this idea. Before that, not enough Rosgvardiya officers were killed during protests for Putin to give up on the idea of going for who-knows-which term of the presidency. And so on. This is a classic tragedy of the commons, where each protest activist bears personal costs, while the hypothetical result is achievable only collectively, and the contribution of a specific activist is always relatively small and can easily be replaced by the contribution of some other activist. For collective protest to be successful in such a situation, many crutches and fortunately aligned factors are required: political culture, charismatic leaders, a split among elites, and so on.
Of course, everyone understands this. FBK investigations plus lobbying for personal sanctions, as well as smart voting, are measures aimed at splitting the elites. Organizing rallies, training observers, and participating in elections are measures aimed at forming a political culture. Promoting opposition information channels is a measure aimed at the emergence of charismatic leaders. Navalny, Yashin, and Roizman demonstrated by their example that they not only call on others to bear costs but are ready to bear them themselves. The leaders of the Russian opposition have acted and continue to act generally quite competently.
As a countermeasure, the regime acted with maximum audacity, which was aptly described at the time by the formula “Yes, we’ve gone totally off the rails, so what?” The regime made it clear that in response to any criticism, it would destroy the source of that criticism, and this naturally led to a situation where now everything is banned in Russia. And if not long ago the regime’s propagandists were saying, “if you don’t like it, get out,” now even the option of leaving is becoming less accessible and increasingly subject to criminal charges.
Well then. If previously burning down recruitment offices seemed like a perfectly adequate measure that did not entail unnecessary casualties, now it is clearly insufficient. As correctly noted online, if you beat up a recruitment officer, you’ll get a lighter sentence than for draft evasion—provided, of course, that you don’t shout extremist slogans while doing it. But this, of course, is only relevant for those who are already in the first line for mobilization.
If I previously recommended the tactic of “committing a terror act and immediately fleeing abroad,” now everything has changed; there are traffic jams at the borders, plane tickets are sold out, and there is a high probability you’ll have to hide within the country, which is much harder. Therefore, active actions will need to be planned much more carefully to avoid being caught, and you certainly must not waste yourself on suicidal actions that have purely symbolic significance with negligible destructive effect. I’m talking about rallies, pickets, and similar non-working crap.
As for us in Montellibero, we are still ready to welcome those who managed to evacuate from the sinking ship and help them settle in. Even if your husband has been mobilized, that is no reason for you to remain a hostage of the regime, waiting for him in Russia—it is much more pleasant when a husband knows that you are safe. You won’t be lost here.
Find out where the recruitment office employees live, and don’t let them reach the main road
Some people believe that a stationary bandit can be defeated exclusively by initiating violence against them. From them, one may hear calls for a violent revolution. To some, such an idea may even seem reasonable; however, look at this matter from another perspective. To carry out a violent attack, it is necessary to gather a group of people capable of it, for such a task cannot be accomplished by complete pacifists or those ready to use weapons only for self-defense. Such people will emerge, naturally supported by interest groups who are also not opposed to violence as a tool for achieving goals. These people will attack the government, maiming and killing everyone who gets in their way along the way, and seize power for themselves. What happens next?
Nothing will change! One set of violent oppressors in power will be removed, and other violent oppressors will take their place. Of course, it is quite likely that the new regime will be more liberal, as in such an unstable position, it will not risk immediately resorting to the methods of its predecessors. But the stationary bandit himself will not go anywhere; he will still try to build a monopoly on power through violence. Gradually, the new faces in power will also strive for increasingly harsh orders. This is how it has always been and always will be with monopoly political power. Or does someone really expect that people for whom using violence was previously the norm will suddenly become peaceful and kind pacifists after seizing power? It would be great naivety to believe so!
It sounds as if we are supporting the state. However, these are merely practical considerations. Since we want to achieve a free, non-violent society, it is more advantageous for activists ready for radical action to focus on balancing the potential for violence by ensuring universal armament, which will deprive the stationary bandit of the ability to effectively apply force. Or better yet, think in general about the methods of eradicating violence from society, which we constantly talk about. Non-violence and freedom cannot be achieved through the seizure of political power and a mere change of faces at the helm of the stationary bandit!
Not only will there be no need for ordinary taxi drivers and construction workers, but lawyers, doctors, artists, and others will also lose their jobs en masse.
Yes, some people will be social workers, jesters, and prostitutes, but why are all the others needed? And what will they live on? People who have a sufficient cushion of assets are the exception, even in developed countries. And why wouldn’t the state be able to use this crisis to build a totalitarian hell?
Vietnamese
I’ll start from the end. The state doesn’t need any special reasons to try and build a totalitarian hell; it tries to do so permanently, and is limited in this pursuit only by the willingness of its subjects to live in a totalitarian hell. All that remains is to understand whether the situation under consideration will create any preconditions for a huge number of people to willingly agree to a totalitarian hell.
So, a vast amount of intellectual labor, which is currently considered an exclusively human prerogative, has been automated. Let’s assume it’s an ancap world. This means a free market. After automation, productivity increases sharply—consequently, the supply of the produced good or service increases sharply. Therefore, with demand remaining unchanged, its price will inevitably fall. The technological revolution leads to a situation where maintaining a standard of living that was quite wealthy by the standards of the previous technological era requires mere pennies.
Those lucky few whose labor within the new technological order turns out to be necessary on a regular basis will earn an obscene amount of money. Those whom the new economy does not need as much will be able to provide themselves with an acceptable standard of living even with rare, sporadic earnings. Want to update the furniture in your house? Donate blood, participate as an extra in a movie, train a neural network. Don’t need any serious expenses? Well, check a box on the websites of a couple of charitable foundations, stating you wish to receive a basic income—and that will be enough.
Again, after every previous technological revolution, those who were no longer required in the former numbers eventually retrained themselves more or less, and for their children, the new reality was completely organic, and they no longer had problems finding an occupation in it. Peasants’ children became workers, and workers’ children became clerks. Clerks’ children will become, for example, motivators for those titans of thought whose labor proved impossible to automate, or enter other spheres that are difficult for us to even imagine now, just as it was once difficult to imagine professional esports.
And what changes if we encounter this new reality while still having modern-type states? It will be more regulated. Those who receive an obscene amount of money will not be those whose labor is necessary to maintain the new technological order, but those who rob them and redistribute the funds. A large class of government employees will remain. Many will consider the state of affairs, if not the best, then the only possible one. Will this be a totalitarian hell? Unlikely; rather a kingdom of apathy, not of artificial totalitarian enthusiasm—but that doesn’t make the picture any more pleasant.
What could allow such a scenario to be realized? Mass stupification and conformism. Do we see tendencies toward this? We certainly do! And what could make such a scenario stable? A high level of professionalism among managers, allowing them to maintain a high-tech society while leading a mass of fools and conformists. The scenario proves to be fundamentally unstable: current trends will inevitably force a transition to some other future. This could, of course, be new Dark Ages. Or it could turn out to be ancap. So let’s work toward making it ancap!
My voice is currently forming a funny polyphony with the voice of the Bitarch: he continues to develop the theme that the only justified reason for violence should be self-defense at the immediate moment of the act, while I am rooting for guerrilla warfare, and specifically, I tossed out the idea of intensifying it during election periods, when the enemy’s forces are distracted by this boring show.
And since we are talking about elections, I would like to rely on the opinion of a key Russian opposition political strategist, Leonid Volkov. Who, if not him, should understand how relevant all this guerrilla activity is at the current moment?
So, let’s read his recent interview with Novaya Gazeta, which was recently shut down in the RF. What theses does he convey regarding the issue of interest:
Guerrilla warfare against the Russian regime is cool, right, and patriotic; and if no Stauffenberg is found near the Führer, then it is possible and necessary to hit the regime at least at those levels where it cannot reliably protect potential targets of attack.
Donating to the AFU is like bailing out the ocean with spoons; big predators operate at this level, so let the states dispose of their weapon stockpiles; for private individuals, it only makes sense to plug occasional holes in this area.
Creating organizations for conducting guerrilla warfare in the RF is either stupidity or provocation; one must absolutely not act this way.
Why doesn’t Volkov try to organize guerrilla actions? Because he doesn’t know how, and doesn’t even have a clue how to go about such things. He advocates for the division of labor, where everyone realizes their comparative advantages, just as economic theory suggests to us.
So, the maestro is ready to support the guerrillas informationally, but abstains from more direct participation. In this regard, first I want to speculate on how it actually makes sense to act in order to inflict regular damage on the regime in the rear while maintaining an acceptable level of security.
There are, of course, old known mechanisms like the assassination market, which are designed flawlessly in terms of security, but have a significant drawback: for some reason, they never worked in real life. Why? Primarily because ideas do not exist without carriers. It is not enough to provide a mechanism; you also need to attract people who would start using it.
Therefore, when choosing between security and effectiveness, one always has to sacrifice security in some way. Hence custodial crypto wallets, Telegram instead of encrypted mail, and the creation of firms instead of a total realm of freelancing.
Therefore, as a decent compromise, I want to recommend the article Entry Point. Creating a Cell from the Telegram channel Black Journal — slightly leftist, but that has little effect on the quality of the practical material.
The recent AFU offensive seems to have become a turning point in the Ukrainian military campaign, and while previously I was inclined to recommend the operational scheme “lone wolf commits sabotage – immediately leaves the country,” now optimists can afford schemes like “created a cell – we work in different directions – those who are exposed leave the country, the others continue the work.” A political future may largely lie within such cells of grassroots self-organization, because all the old mechanisms of political participation, such as parties, have long been bankrupt.
The goal of sabotage and terror attacks is not so much the immediate weakening of the enemy, but rather to sow and strengthen defeatist sentiments among the ranks of poorly motivated supporters and hostages of the regime. Essentially: look what the current leadership has brought the country to: its army is being beaten to a pulp at the front, Ukrainian saboteurs roam the rear like they are at home, orders are sabotaged, budgets are plundered; grab a piece of the country for yourself at the end, however much you can, the inevitable collapse will write everything off anyway.
Accordingly, if you absolutely cannot imagine how you would organize any destructive activity, but you know how to whine talentedly, then rejoice: your hour has come! It is precisely talented whining that the country needs most right now. If you don’t sow defeatist sentiments, then who will, other than you? Well, Strelkov is trying too, of course, but you should be able to do no worse. Rebrand yourselves as victims of television propaganda and start spreading gloom: the whole West is against us, everyone is deceiving Putin, everything is lost, the front is collapsing, what the hell is this Donbass for, it’s nothing but problems, and all those refugees — and so on and so forth, depending on who your interlocutor is.
It is often believed that the question of violence boils down exclusively to the goals that incite it, or to provoking factors. Based on this opinion, violence will be committed almost every time if it is beneficial for a specific person and carries no risks. Likewise, in the absence of risks, violence will almost always be committed in the event of a provoking stimulus. And the only thing that stops any person from committing violence is precisely such rationally assessed risks, for example, the threat of punishment following the violence, armed self-defense by the victim of a violent attack, or others.
Such a view of the issue of violence, of course, does not correspond to reality. Otherwise, the entire world would consist of evil and violent, or at least simply indifferent to violence, people. But the behavior of any person is largely shaped by a vast spectrum of feelings. Aggressive feelings are no exception; they are quite natural for a human being. However, based on the concept of the violence inhibition mechanism, every normally developing individual experiences, from a very early age, a feeling of repulsion toward committing violent acts against other people. This same mechanism plays an important role in the development of empathy, which is also characteristic of the vast majority of people.
It is also worth remembering that regardless of social circumstances, the vast majority of people never commit violence. Even in Latin American countries, all violent crime originates from a small minority of people. The driving force behind all wars, repressions, and genocides was a small minority of people. Therefore, can it really be believed that every person will indeed commit violence whenever it is rationally beneficial for them?
Regardless of the circumstances, the vast majority of people have never committed and will never commit violence, at least in its most serious forms (causing significant physical harm or murder). Violence is not formed solely by goals and provocations. These, of course, can incite violence, but only in those people who were already capable of such things because they felt no repulsion toward violence.
Elections are coming soon in Russia. Last time, voting at polling stations lasted for three whole days, and I hope this practice continues now. The FBK, as usual, is calling for smart voting, and of course, the Russian opposition (those who haven’t left yet) should publicly support this initiative. Be sure to post on social media that it is now more important than ever to act within the legal framework, support democratic institutions, and so on and so forth. And even go and vote for someone; it might prove useful.
The most important thing for the Russian opposition in the coming voting days is that a vast number of polling stations are open across the country, and at each one, there is one or even two cops on duty. This, in turn, means a sharp increase in the police response time to various truly important political actions, such as burning down certain government institutions—like the already familiar military recruitment offices—or even something more tasty. It would be a sin not to take advantage of this!
Remember: the only thing that justifies a Russian oppositionist remaining in Russia right now is participation in sabotage, diversions, and terrorist attacks. Your sitting in prison weakens the regime far less, and participating in some pickets actually strengthens it, because you will inevitably pay the regime a hefty fine afterwards. So, for those of you remaining behind enemy lines, it is far more useful to promote some theory of small deeds, write that the special operation is “not that straightforward,” and generally behave in a moderately unacceptable manner—while steadily unscrewing the nuts from the rails.
Luddite and anti-progressive positions that oppose scientific and technological progress, while quite unpopular, still exist, creating a myth about the enslavement of people by technology. These positions blame technology specifically for the fact that people are rapidly losing their freedom and happy lives. For example, with its help, governments gain more power and the ability to manipulate people, meaning that scientific and technological progress, starting from the moment of the industrialization of society, is an evil that must be eradicated. Of course, many would consider such argumentation extremely absurd without further explanation, but let us nevertheless look at what is wrong with it.
The point is that technologies themselves do not lead to any enslavement of humans. This is primarily caused by violence as a method of solving problems and achieving certain goals, including when used by those same governments. All of them rely on the threat of applying certain “legitimate” and “legal” force measures against any ordinary person if they do not follow a specific order. Technologies in this case only make such a threat more effective in its execution and help strengthen the power of already existing governments.
But think about it—even with the simplest tool, such as a hammer, it is much easier to intimidate, subdue, or even maim a person than with bare fists. However, a hammer is created to drive nails, and the problem lies within the person who is capable of committing violence using any available tools, not in the hammer itself. The exact same situation applies to weapons—the problem is not with the weapon, but with the tiny percentage of people willing to use it to commit violent attacks.
It is the problem of violence and the fact that some people strive for the forceful subjugation of others that needs a solution. As soon as this problem is solved and violent hierarchies of dominance disappear from society, technologies will cease to contribute to the enslavement of people in any way. It is necessary to fight violence and the tiny percentage of violent offenders in society, not technologies, which, by the way, are the only thing that could save people from endless hunger, disease, child mortality, and other terrible phenomena of the past, and will also allow humanity to survive and continue its existence in the long term.
