Fighting crypto-anarchists is a shot in the foot

Bitarch

I often hear objections against agorism, crypto-anarchism, Bitcoin, darknet platforms, TOR, VPNs, and everything else that allows for fighting the stationary bandit (“the state”) using non-violent methods online. Critics argue that it is easy for the state to ban and block all of this.

Indeed, purely theoretically, the state is capable of blocking all this with a flick of a finger, but as always, the ratio of benefit to cost comes into play. Currently, network connectivity is so high that blocking a single IP address, protocol, or even a specific DPI signature will inevitably lead to collateral damage.

Roskomnadzor (RKN) tried to block Telegram, but eventually abandoned the idea because as a result of the blocking attempts, completely different services stopped working: online stores, payment processing for MasterCard, courier services, and even the Odnoklassniki website. Banning VPNs won’t work either—they are used by companies. Banning them for individuals while allowing them for companies sounds like complete madness—the appearance of 140 million legal entities in Russia would be a DDoS attack on the entire bureaucratic system. Could they create a powerful firewall with DPI “like in China”? Also not an option—all halfway decent VPN services provide tools to bypass it.

Some might mention whitelists, where all resources are blocked except those permitted. That won’t work either—a great deal of imported industrial and medical equipment requires network access to connect to the manufacturer’s servers. Talking about “import substitution” for equipment of this class is simply laughable. And let’s be honest, the authorities need to develop their own next “wonder-weapons,” and for that, they need access to many different “pirate” resources like Sci-Hub, where scientific articles from foreign publications are posted.

An objection also occasionally slips in that the state can simply intimidate crypto-anarchists with repression in real life. In reality, you can only intimidate some random guy playing a “pirated” version of Call of Duty. Ideological fighters against the stationary bandit, which is what most agorists and crypto-anarchists are, will quickly find ways to bypass surveillance and blocks. They will only become more resentful of the state and, instead of innocent internet mischief, will move toward developing tangible tools to deter the aggression of tyranny, such as drones, blinding lasers, and even weapons of mass destruction, since they have plenty of skills.

So it turns out that while blocking the activities of crypto-anarchists is theoretically possible, in practice it would result, for example, in the failure of tomographs and life-support systems in hospitals, along with the shutdown of many industrial enterprises and the collapse of the economy. Will the state take on such costs? I don’t think so!

From which side should Temasek be gnawed?

After publishing yesterday’s post, I encountered an interesting objection from Anton Epikhin, the lead of the channel RLN.Today. He argued that my idea of privatizing a profitable state-owned company is not the best thing that can be done to abolish the state. In short, the reasoning is as follows. People are used to a certain set of public goods provided by the state, and the state’s refusal to provide them would cause widespread outrage, and therefore the situation would be quickly rolled back. Consequently, from a purely political standpoint, it is quite difficult to strip the state of habitual functions such as the police or courts, even if it provides these services at a high cost and very low quality. However, one can try to sell citizens the idea that these services be provided by joint-stock companies where all citizens are shareholders. But a “Court” JSC is also not the most obvious idea. However, if one starts with a state investment company, then why not; this type of state ownership is certainly not essential, and the idea of transferring it to citizens would be successful. Instead of selling it at auction to private individuals, with a subsequent distribution of the proceeds among citizens, the company’s shares could be distributed equally among citizens. After the change of nominal owners, the company would continue to operate in the same mode, except that instead of paying dividends to the sole shareholder—the state—it would pay them to the new shareholders—the citizens.

I reasonably countered that it doesn’t really make a difference. After receiving the shares, people will still decide for themselves what to do with them—hold them, sell them, or buy them from others to obtain a large stake. With equal success, one could have first sold them to those interested, and then let them spend the proceeds however they wish. But no, Anton replies, there is a difference. Having seen the example of high-liquidity state assets and realized that they can be transferred to the ownership of citizens, citizens will get a taste for it and will be more likely after some time to demand that this operation be repeated with other assets, including the army and the police. But if the investment company were simply sold and the money distributed, it would be much easier to say about other state structures that “you don’t understand, this is different,” and that “this other thing” will be funded by taxes.

It still seems to me that there is no significant difference. More precisely, there is none from an economic point of view, but as for which specific decision from a psychological and political rhetoric standpoint will be easier to sell to people, and which is more likely to be followed by further steps toward the denationalization of society—that is difficult for me to say. So I am simply describing this point of view; perhaps it is indeed valid, and in that case, any Singaporeans among my readers should, of course, insist specifically on such an option for the reorganization of Temasek Holdings.

Why is the Indonesian state company Temasek so successful if state management is inefficient?

анонимный вопрос

As far as I can tell, this most likely refers to the Singaporean company Temasek Holdings. As we all know from the blockbuster about Putin’s palace, the funds for its construction were initially accumulated from kickbacks on the supply of medical equipment to budget institutions under the pretext of creating a sovereign wealth fund. Given that during Putin’s first term, the concept of authoritarian modernization and, specifically, Singapore, was constantly looming in public discourse, it can be assumed that there was a desire to create something like Temasek.

Essentially, we are dealing with an interesting way of increasing a country’s investment attractiveness: instead of maintaining high taxes, state corporations are formed, whose official task is to bring profit to the budget. The more profit from state corporations, the less the need for taxes. As a result, a country like Saudi Arabia, thanks to revenues from the state oil industry, could allow its few citizens to live in practically a tax-free state.

State corporations can also be used to develop infrastructure or, for example, for geopolitical goals. This is also a powerful tool, but as soon as other considerations begin to prevail over economic ones, the income from such corporations naturally declines. The infrastructure being built may turn out to be unwanted, and geopolitical efforts can just as easily end in failure. So, adopting some Chinese experience is a dangerous game for a state.

But, as far as I can tell, in Singapore, the state holding simply invests in attractive assets around the world; that is, the state consciously imposed self-restrictions, allocated a package of state ownership for use strictly for commercial purposes, and has consistently adhered to this tactic.

Of course, the greatest danger for the citizens of a state who expect to be the beneficiaries of a state corporation is that the company’s managers have their own opinion on “benefit,” and they start plundering the company. That is why Lee Kuan Yew first very harshly suppressed corruption, then spent several more years diligently weeding that garden, and only then created the investment company in 1974.

I took a look at the company’s financial indicators. Over the last ten years, the company’s portfolio has grown by 70%. Thus, it can be stated that if you do not set unnatural goals for an investment company, punish corruption mercilessly, and implement all the advanced reporting and management practices developed in the market, there is a chance that the company will indeed operate like a market entity and with fully comparable indicators. Well, yes, authoritarian modernization is indeed possible, and state institutions are indeed capable of following written rules for some time under strict control. Nevertheless, I wish for the Singaporeans to privatize this company, reducing government spending by the amount of lost budget revenues—and divide the one-time profit from privatization equally among the citizens. They’ve played around—enough is enough; you cannot win at the casino indefinitely. Then, each citizen can decide for themselves whether to use the proceeds to buy shares in Temasek Holdings or something else.

Violence and Property Rights

Voluntarist, Bitarch

First, I want to share with you a rather interesting piece of material regarding the topic of violence and private property titled “The Political Concept of Freedom“. The author argues that property rights always have a violent origin, as violence must be applied to maintain them.

Before providing my commentary, I will note in advance that we are considering both the private property rights of individuals and companies (supported by the right-libertarians) as well as collective property rights formed within voluntary associations (supported by the left-libertarians). However, we dismiss the situation in which property rights do not exist at all, because in such a state of affairs, it would be impossible to organize any effective redistribution of resources to solve various tasks, since then absolutely anyone could take any resource from anyone else at any moment regardless of the circumstances.

If the matter concerns the protection of immediate property, which you use frequently or are holding in your hands right now, there is no problem in maintaining it—you would have to be attacked with physical harm (or at least with a non-zero probability of such harm) for it to be taken. If violence as a phenomenon has not yet been eradicated from society, then you can quite reasonably use means of self-defense. By the way, they do not even have to be lethal; they could be pepper sprays, stun guns, ultra/infrasound. It will be sufficient to inflict only very unpleasant sensations on the aggressor, without long-term physical consequences, to force them to let go of your bag or leave the house. If violence has been eradicated, then simply no one will attack you.

Regarding the protection of remote property—this too can be organized without violence, for example, by applying the following methods described by Bitarch in his material “Protection of Property in a Society that has Eradicated Violence“:

1) A contract within a contractual jurisdiction (CJ), under which the CJ will make certain efforts to prevent the violation of your property rights. The most obvious option for real estate is a contract between the CJ and utility providers (electricity, gas, water) regarding their disconnection in case of squatting or non-payment of rent.
2) Physical fencing of property with a fence and an access control system: a barrier, a door with an electronic lock.
3) For situational protection, when the owner wants to prevent anyone from entering their territory (for example, angry workers who want to seize a factory), a guard at the entrance or a human chain.
4) For any items containing electronic components (from planes, yachts, and cars to household appliances, phones, and headphones), blocking use without entering an access code, retina scan, fingerprint, or RFID tag.
5) Network-based reputation systems (available globally via the internet), where violators of private property can be listed, which would lead to denial of service, boycott, or ostracism.
6) A system of options. This is already widespread in Silicon Valley IT companies. The hired employee is financially interested in the success of the enterprise; they will profit from the growth of the company’s capitalization and are not interested in stealing the employer’s property, as under the terms of the contract, these options will be forfeited in the event of illegal actions by the employee.

As we can see, the protection of property does not necessarily require violence, except perhaps in the case of the immediate seizure of property that you are using at that moment; however, this is already an aggressive attack on you, in which case self-defense is permissible. Property rights and violence are not necessarily one and the same.

Example of property protection without violence

Yet another monstrous piracy

Not long ago, the audience of my Telegram chat watched in real time as I tried to crack an audio file in Amazon’s proprietary aaxc format and convert it into a human-readable mp3. Thanks to the help of readers and a bit of luck, I managed to do it in one evening.

Now, each chapter of the original text of David Friedman’s book The Machinery of Freedom is accompanied by audio where the author himself reads the corresponding chapter. Actually, I was cracking the audiobook for slightly different reasons, but I’ll get to that later; for now, I’ve put the intermediate result to use.

A translation of the first of three appendices to the book has also been published, but that’s a minor detail, needed only to change the number on the progress bar. For the most part, I am currently occupied with the final editing and layout of the translation into epub format.

By the way, regarding the audio. If anyone is interested in voicing the translation of the book, let’s collaborate. Record the poems from the epigraphs of all parts of the book and send the recording to me in a private message. Then, if the selection is representative enough, we will hold a vote on whose version to post on my site and, accordingly, suggest it to Friedman himself for his site. He has already prepared a section for his poems in Russian, but it’s empty for now, and this injustice should be corrected. And if the contest winner has the strength to voice the entire book (which is over twelve hours), that would be simply mega-cool, and it will almost certainly be rewarded by a grateful public.

Navalny’s Actions, Betting on the Rise

Last night, I thought about sharing my own impressions of the recent street protests while they were still fresh, but a more interesting news item came up. Alexei Nefedov, a former author of this channel, was detained on the street, so I decided to ask him how it all happened. And since I’m not very good at interviewing, the conversation quickly drifted into a more abstract discussion, which turned out to be quite interesting.

– I found out about your detention when I was already on my way home, because I rarely took my phone out on the street and only checked the coordination channel. This is the first time a close acquaintance of mine has been detained. In general, detentions have become the norm, so I wasn’t particularly worried; instead, I immediately decided to take the opportunity to ask how it looks from the other side—sorry for being so callous. To start with, how on earth did you get caught?

– When the report was being drawn up, I took Article 51, and I haven’t discussed the defense strategy with my lawyer yet, so I’ll refrain from commenting for now. I can only say that the recommendations you posted in the channel on Friday—it’s not that they are bad, they just work for different conditions. You talk about what a large mass of people should do, but they won’t be able to do it without a team. And you can only command anonymously via Telegram. That signal will be severely delayed. Fantasies about some kind of flag signals are for people who have had at least some coordination training. Not our case, in short. Therefore, people walked in scattered columns; they were easily split up, and movement was blocked. Detentions were also effortless. You can form a chain on the square, but it’s impossible in a column. The security forces control the entire roadway, so they can pop out from the side or behind and unexpectedly attack anyone. That’s exactly what happened to me.

– Strange, most of my recommendations concerned individual tactics, or small groups of acquaintances staying in clusters. But I was still hoping that the level of coordination would be higher. What happened after the detention?

– For starters, for some reason, instead of a classic police van, they used an ordinary Gazelle, without bars, with regular civilian plates. If not for the low ceiling, you might have thought it was taken off a shuttle route. Eight people were shoved in there, two “cosmonauts” [riot police] climbed in, and off we went to the police station. We arrived quickly, but then we sat in front of the doors for half an hour, so there was time to chat with the cosmonauts. Completely apolitical, good-natured guys. If we have to detain—we detain. If we have to kill—we kill. An order is an order. To the attacks of their fellow passengers, they replied that they simply didn’t understand life and invited them to go work for the National Guard to get their act together. In general, in the entire assembly line for stamping out administrative charges, a well-oiled routine is evident. They brought us in, waited for the signal that we could be brought inside, led us in pairs, and took us to the basement. There was more waiting, then the drawing up of the delivery and search report. Then to the duty office, where they have orders to do photography and fingerprinting. This is illegal, but it is demanded of them. So they try to push through purely psychologically, and they do it very well. I refused to roll my fingers and was sure that I would now be charged with violating the legal requirements of the police under Article 19.3. I even reset my phone to factory settings just in case. But none of that really matters, in the end. Generally, this feeling of the pointlessness of any fuss is very strong in the police station. Quotes from the Strugatsky brothers immediately come to mind, where an old revolutionary said: it’s not scary now, but when they were sawing off my arm and complaining about low wages—that’s when it was scary.

– What is expected next?

– They have three days to transfer the case to court, then they’ll call me and tell me the date. In court, I get a fine and file an appeal with the regional court. The appeal is denied, and I apply to the ECHR. In about three years, the ECHR awards me compensation. The fine is paid after the appeal is denied. I can pay it myself or ask the FBK for help. FBK lawyers also help prepare the ECHR application. In short, on our side, it’s also a completely routine conveyor belt, where not only the deadlines but also the court results are known in advance. There is also an unpleasant moment. For six months, protests are contraindicated for me until the administrative charge expires. As you correctly noted, two administrative charges mean the loss of the right to own a weapon. So now I’m sitting still, suing the state, not stirring things up. Or I’ll have to transfer the gun to acquaintances if I want to continue my activism.

– Svetov has a stream going on literally right now. In it, like me, he says that Navalny overestimated his influence, and in this situation, no peaceful protest will yield results. It can only provide a picture for diplomatic pressure on the regime from the outside. A week ago, it seemed to me that there were chances that the protest would soon stop being peaceful. Now it seems that the chance is lost. What do you think?

– Everyone is forced to judge by the part of the picture they see directly. Then they compare data and get a more comprehensive understanding. I only had time to return, wash up, and have dinner; I haven’t even read the feed yet. In the section where I was today, the wall is strong; it can’t be broken by forehead. There are so many security forces that they will disperse protests of this scale and intensity without breaking a sweat. The damage to the economy from blocking the city center for three hours on a weekend is minimal. Moreover, we are the province; everyone understands that the decision about Navalny is made in Moscow, and we are just there for the crowd. When selfish interests are touched, as was the case during the protests over utility tariffs, people are angrier and more active. No one here will seriously stand up for Navalny. Just compare how they shouted “freedom for Navalny” today versus “freedom for Boyko.” Boyko is closer, more popular; they will shout louder for him. But he will be released in mid-February, so people will limit themselves to shouting and won’t get into a fight.

– So you think everything is useless?

– Street politics is a very necessary training in self-organization, in the self-awareness of civil society. In this sphere, we have already streamlined a lot. All I did during the detention was press the red button. Then invisible wheels started turning, and that’s it—LPR writes about the detention on Twitter, OVD-Info calls me, a lawyer arrives, a care package arrives, all further litigation is put on stream. People are learning to peacefully defend their interests through voluntary cooperation. These are the skills that are relevant under ancap. These examples make it easy to show how ancap works. With these people, we will eventually build it. Or not ancap, but panarchy. Because systemic communists have their own mutual aid network, left-wing anarchists have theirs, nationalists have theirs. We are already streamlining society with ECU. It’s just that the streamlining is happening against the backdrop of opposing a single external threat.

– These are all very long terms, but young people have a short planning horizon. Don’t you think people might simply burn out?

– It’s important to switch. I’m temporarily finishing with street activity now and will find myself another occupation. Maybe it will be helping those who will still be detained. Maybe I’ll go give lectures on Bitcoin. Rest is switching to other types of activity. Parties are good in that they are large organizations with several different directions of work; burnout happens much slower than if you, for example, only participate in open-ended protests or only volunteer at elections.

– Parties seem to me a way to unproductively spend a huge amount of time. In my own channel, I also have the most diverse activities and answer questions on a wide variety of topics. But once I switched to street protest, I became close to burnout because there is no immediate result. It’s not like writing a post, discussing the publication, and then writing a new one tomorrow.

– Imagine that you’re just going to a fitness center. You also give yourself a regular load and change imperceptibly. In the process, it may be boring or unpleasant, but you see people around you doing the same thing, which also helps to motivate yourself.

– In short, we’ll keep pumping the invisible butt of the market. Alright, thanks for the story, good night)))

Aesthetics and Propriety as Applied to Book Piracy

Rodion Belkovich has for the first time publicly responded to the appearance of the electronic version of his “Blood of Patriots”. It is clearly evident from this: Rodion Belkovich and I could live within the framework of one republic, since we agree on legal issues (authorship is unconditional; copyright is doubtful, however, restrictions on copying can be introduced by contract; and, of course, appealing to gangsters for help in resolving conflicts that did not arise from the use of violence is unacceptable) and share common interests (we want as many people as possible to read the smart books we like).

Where Rodion and I diverge is in our perceptions of aesthetics and propriety. For Belkovich, paper books possess aesthetic value; they represent respectability and respect for tradition. For me, paper is dust and mustiness, a synonym for stagnation and one of the inherent attributes of Putin, with his famous folders. For Rodion, it is improper, while providing a free service to an indefinitely wide circle of people, to remind the public of the possibility of expressing their gratitude in monetary form. For me, the ancient Soviet tradition of selling a product as a bundle is improper, requiring those who wish to buy the market-demanded Belkovich to also pay for the publication of an unsellable Ficino (though it is quite proper to advertise Ficino’s book right on the paper pages of one’s own bestseller).

That is exactly why I meticulously listed: pay here to support the author, here to support the paper publisher, and here to support the electronic publisher. For me, this is a truly important ethical issue—to ensure maximum transparency of conditions for the consumer. For these same reasons, I, for example, will not place “джинса” (sponsored content) in the channel, I will indicate which donations I received for answers to certain questions, how much the contract for content placement with Bitarch costs, and even how much referral commission I will receive from your transactions in the btc_banker bot. Speaking more broadly, the spheres of what is permitted and appropriate for me, as a fairly typical libertarian, are of course very different.

So, although Rodion Belkovich and I can live within one res publica, it will be more comfortable for us to live further apart and clearly define the boundaries of our res privata. Perhaps then we won’t fight.

Books are lying on the floor. Just imagine if they tried to do that in a mosque!

Why you should not count on the creation of new jurisdictions in the ocean or space

Bitarch, Voluntarist

The idea of seasteading—creating contractual jurisdictions on floating platforms or artificial islands in international waters—seems like a quite interesting solution to the problem of having to submit to monopolistic and violent stationary bandits in the form of states. And the colonization of celestial bodies beyond Earth is a necessity without which humanity cannot survive in the long term. However, these options cannot be relied upon as a real possibility to escape the stationary bandit as long as they still exist and are capable and willing to use violence.

Remember: if you can get somewhere, then the stationary bandit can get there too. This has already been demonstrated by the examples of the Republic of Minerva, Liberland, and a floating platform near the shores of Thailand. In all these cases, the attempt to escape the state ended in its invasion. Additionally, various remote weapons can be used against you, such as missile strikes. This is the easiest way for authorities to get rid of a remote, disobedient jurisdiction without exposing themselves to any risks.

One should also not forget another fact. Creating jurisdictions remote from the rest of the world entails enormous costs; such jurisdictions are difficult to develop and are unattractive to many people due to the unavailability or high cost of many goods.

In order to protect themselves from the encroachments of stationary bandits, people who decide to leave their jurisdiction need certain means of deterrence and self-defense. Free people must be armed; furthermore, they must have the ability to threaten any potential aggressors with unacceptable damage. In modern conditions, the most accessible means of deterrence of this type could be samples of dangerous viruses—by threatening to release them, one could force state leaders to leave you alone. But regardless of which means of deterrence and self-defense is chosen, it is easiest to apply if one does not try to run as far as possible from the stationary bandit; otherwise, they will, again, be able to destroy you with remote weaponry without any risks to themselves. Let us also not forget the ethical point—viruses are indiscriminate WMDs capable of affecting the entire population of the planet, including those not involved in the government’s aggressive actions. The use of such weapons completely contradicts libertarian ethics, and without such weapons of deterrence, the stationary bandit will sooner or later reach your CJ, even if it is located on Mars. Such is realpolitik.

In the end, we have the following: a remote jurisdiction can certainly be reached for the purpose of subjugation, it can be quite easily destroyed remotely, and life in it is unattractive to most people. Considering all this, the most profitable strategy is to strive for the achievement of a free society where you are right now, or, if you still like the idea of settling previously unoccupied lands, you should choose among the most accessible, comfortable, and economically advantageous territorial plots, rather than among islands in the ocean or space objects. To secure your intentions, you need to use various means of deterrence and self-defense—then no one will be able to continue imposing their violent power on you. The creation of remote jurisdictions, for example in the oceans or space, is a task that can be undertaken after the possibility of current stationary bandits applying violence has been eliminated, so as not to fear invasion or remote destruction on their part.

Comment by Alexander Tatarkov:

If you blackmail the state with a viral attack in case of aggression, then it is logical to organize your stateless territory precisely in the capitals!

For example, declare a specific micro-district to be free.

The logic is this: they definitely will not bomb their own capital. Meanwhile, in case of aggression against the free territory by the state, it is much easier to poison their reservoirs.

As for the idea of moving to the end of the world, as Svetov propagated—the story of the “Order of the Solar Temple” is a typical example. It would seem that they didn’t harm the state, moved to a remote wilderness that you can’t find on maps, didn’t even refuse to pay taxes, and made no demands…

For the state, the very fact of their existence was grounds for a punitive operation. They need no other reasons!

P.S. We are not calling for the use of a virus; this is an idea by Alexander Rozov, which at least looks realistic compared to the naive dreams of seasteaders, even if it is extremely inhumane. We always advocate for the option of eradicating aggressive violence as such, then there will be no problem of creating a CJ!

Street processions. Recommendations.

Tomorrow, January 31, we take to the streets again. After January 23, we see a fairly clear tactic from the regime: to make coordination as difficult as possible and to knock out all organizers, as well as those who theoretically could be organizers, even if they aren’t currently exposed but were noticed in something similar in the past. In the locations where the protests are held, communication will be jammed, public transport movement will be restricted, sidewalks and roads will be blocked, and establishments will be closed.

Navalny’s headquarters continues to insist that the upcoming action be peaceful. That is, it is suggested not to kick the security forces in the stomach, even if their visors fog up.

How is it proposed to behave within the restrictions imposed on us by the enemy, and those imposed on us by our own command?

  1. This is not the final decisive battle, but simply one of the episodes of a very long confrontation to come.
  2. But tomorrow we must perform more vividly than a week ago.
  3. Most likely, slightly more people will come out, but that is not of particular importance.
  4. We need to demonstrate determination, but at the same time sustain minimal losses.
  5. Therefore, the main emphasis is placed precisely on safety.
  6. Anonymity. Unobtrusive clothing that hides identifying features; definitely wear masks, no badges or other accessories that make identification easier.
  7. Come in groups. If you don’t have your own company, try to attach yourself to someone. You must not remain alone and unsupervised.
  8. Do not stand in squares; move continuously as a dense mass, do not let yourselves be surrounded or split; if the cops try to break into the ranks—link arms.
  9. During detention attempts, grab those being detained, surround the resulting scuffle, and demand that the cops leave without their prize.
  10. Film only the cops on camera. Under no circumstances film your own. Demand that journalists only film wide shots, and only from behind. No interviews—tell them to fuck off. And use profanity specifically, so there is no temptation to broadcast it. The best thing you can do with a pro-government channel journalist is to secretly push them toward the cops and immediately vanish into the crowd.
  11. Do not bring posters. Unless that poster is on plywood, and the plywood is on a sturdy stake. You never know, it might come in handy.
  12. Regarding weapons. Use them only to prevent detention, and only when it is not being recorded by cameras. Stream and gel sprays are good. Aerosols are bad (your own people may suffer).
  13. Banners are needed only for orientation, to understand where the head and tail of the column are. The banner-bearer should not walk on the edge—they are a primary target for detention. If the banner-bearer is detained anyway, take the flag from them, if they don’t think to throw it far into the crowd themselves. Let someone else carry the flag. It is stupid to take the flag with you into the police van.
  14. Chants—keep them to a minimum; it is better to loudly greet friendly motorists who are honking. Chants can also be used to notify the rear ranks of important details of the situation. “Putin is a dick!” is a bad chant. “Cops on the right!” is a good one.
  15. When the end point of the march is reached, you must immediately and very quickly disperse in different directions, but not individually, but in several columns, according to the number of possible directions of movement at the finish point. This is the most dangerous stage of the action; it would be a pity to complete the entire route only to end up in a police van at the very end.
  16. If the cops are waiting at the finish point, do not go there at all—it is better to turn off beforehand and go far to the side, and only end the action at a safe distance from the enemy.

All these recommendations are for the regions. The two capitals have their own specifics, huge experience with such actions, plus a completely different scale; they will figure it out themselves.

As for banal things, like how to behave in the police department, I’ll leave that to the lawyers. First of all, try not to end up there.

Yes, this is all preparation for a past war. If tomorrow we are met not with batons but with water cannons, gas, and rubber bullets, little of these recommendations will be useful. If the situation proves to be that abnormal, you should simply get as far away from the action site as possible, because it will mean that next time you will need to bring completely different equipment.

It is better to repost this text from anonymous accounts.

I’m not calling for this yet, although I really want to, of course

Our goal is the elimination of the violence of pawns

Voluntarist

There is an argument that fighting a phenomenon such as violence will in no way help eliminate our current hierarchy of dominance and the monopoly on power. Firstly, many doubt that methods against violence can be applied to the leaders of the dominance hierarchy—they work in closed office buildings, travel in armored cars, and their homes are cordoned off by security, meaning there is no way to approach or reach them. Secondly, they may be people who are not themselves prone to committing acts of violence. Perhaps some of them are intellectuals, incapable of even hitting someone lightly, and they have no need for it anyway, since an entire army of pawns, already prone to violence, does all the dirty work for them. Sometimes the second argument is even considered alleged proof that the problem of the dominance hierarchy and monopoly power does not stem from violence.

To refute this argument, we must always remember exactly this army of pawns. Behind political leaders stand the security structures in which many agents work. And it is these agents who enter into direct contact with us; it is through them that all orders given from above are carried out. The cause of our problems and the goal of our activity is the elimination of their violent nature. Looking at it realistically, we cannot stop the leader of the dominance hierarchy, liquidate him during self-defense during a direct attack, or even in the future, with the development of technology, inject him with a gene therapy needle. But this may be completely unnecessary and even useless given that he himself may be a person not prone to committing acts of violence. However, we will always be able to apply all these measures to his servants, since they, again, enter into direct contact with us when applying aggressive violence against us.

As soon as all the pawns are stopped or liquidated in the process of self-defense against their attack, their leader will simply lose his power; he will no longer be able to realize any aspirations toward us. That is precisely why it is sufficient to work only with the violence of the pawns who enter into direct contact with us; without them, the leader of the dominance hierarchy is absolutely worthless!