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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voluntaryist, Bitarch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the translation:

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

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

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

Voluntarist, Bitarch

African Lessons

Article by @SperryUNIVAC, edited by Ankap-Tyan

Today, we want to talk about an important thing that is usually ignored in political discourse, and we can see this exemplified by the story of Tom Sankara, who attempted to reform Upper Volta – a destitute fragment of post-colonial French Africa – between 1983 and 1987.

Almost all of Africa after World War II was a field of countless proxy conflicts between the West and the USSR. Captain Tom Sankara’s military coup in 1983 was an attempt to exit this confrontation logic and ensure the country’s prosperity. He was inspired by the coup and subsequent reforms of Lieutenant Jeffrey Rawlings in neighboring Ghana. Initially, everything went well, but Sankara’s regime had two key shortcomings that led to the collapse of the reforms and eventually, the regime itself.

Firstly, Sankara was apolitical, he openly mocked ideology and derived from purely pragmatic tasks. Secondly, Sankara turned out to be a vegetarian idealist who neglected pragmatic methods familiar to any dictator.

The reformer radically cut state spending, sold off the luxurious government fleet, dismissed corrupt officials, carried out a nationwide vaccination campaign, launched economic growth – in short, he seemed to be doing everything to win popular favor – and he actually won it.

But he didn’t offer the people an ideology; holy places remain empty. The illegal left parties that had risen up in the previous regime raised their heads, declared the dictator a fascist, and began competing for the right to lead the struggle against Sankara. Orthodox Marxists, Maoists, and even supporters of Enver Hoxha were at odds with each other, but Sankara didn’t play on their contradictions, didn’t favor one over the other – he simply ignored irrelevant ideological questions. His only reaction to provoked unrest by the left was to dismiss the most odious party officials from the civil service.

As the curtain fell on Sankara’s rule, they finally convinced him to create his own communist party, but the government remained coalition. And in the center and at the local level, everyone was preoccupied with questions of personal power. It ended with one of Sankara’s friends, Blaise Compaoré, overthrowing him with the help of French special forces, shooting him, borrowing money from France, embezzling it, canceling his predecessor’s reforms (except for renaming the country from Upper Volta to Burkina Faso), staging mass shootings of communists – and he sat in that manner until 2014 when he was finally overthrown, fled to Côte d’Ivoire where he still lives today, while in Burkina Faso armed property redistribution continues.

The moral now.

Firstly, ideology doesn’t matter. Absolutely any party, whatever its slogans, from Khodjism to liberal democracy, strives for only one thing – absolute power. All ideological disputes between parties boil down to one problem – who will be at the helm? Africa is particularly indicative in this regard, as all processes there always happen faster and more sharply than anywhere else, and therefore are especially noticeable. In Burkina Faso, people fought among themselves not over ideologies, but over those desiring control. Ideology is simply a smokescreen for the lust for power.

Secondly, ideology matters – but it matters to those we intend to rule, because without it there’s a raw, aching void in the masses’ hearts, making them uncomfortable. If you don’t invest something of your own into it – people will follow someone else who will take care of that. Life became better in San Kara, but ideological emptiness prevailed. Conversely, regimes that immediately start preaching ideology (regardless of what it is – from Khodjism to Putinism or Shiism) live and thrive, even if people are eating bark off trees or hanging from autocrats.

The third lesson: If you come to power – try to clean up the mess, achieve real control, don’t be afraid to get your hands dirty, and make sure your road isn’t taken by those who want to overthrow you. Otherwise we’ll get the history of good-natured San Kara, which ended with a shooting.

And the final lesson that can be drawn from this. Libertarians will never seize power because they violate all these rules (and many others). Firstly, they will never gain the sympathy of ordinary people because they stand on the side of conditional bad guys (greedy exploiters-capitalists). Secondly, their ideology boils down to complicated economic theories, too complex for simple folks from the district. Thirdly, they are herbivores by definition, as they rely entirely on the principle of non-violence and immediately reject the idea that political opponents can and should be eliminated in all ways, and that political control is inseparable from military force. In the end, as we see, they’re occupied with completely harmless things – arguing about the nuances of interpreting various economic doctrines, and fruitless discussions about how courts will work during an upheaval, and who will pave roads. They forget that people are divided into two categories: those who have a revolver, and those who dig ditches. At any regime, the latter category will pave roads.

Where Libertarianism Will Actually Take Root? Spoiler: Probably Not Where You Think.

In the libertarian scene, the United States is considered an “earthly paradise.” How could it be any other way: the First and Second Amendments, the spirit of the Wild West, freedom of speech, the right to self-defense! Mises, Rothbard, Rand – all are connected with America. Meanwhile, old Europe and, especially, Canada and Scandinavia are often dismissively viewed as Trotskyist swamps with exorbitant taxes. But if we dig deeper and look at the very foundation of libertarianism – NAP (the principle of non-aggression) – we’ll see something interesting.

The renowned anthropologist Douglas Fry in his works raises a brilliant topic – so-called Hobbesian beliefs. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, if you remember, believed that the natural state of man is a “war of all against all.” So, Fry shows that the belief in the “naturalness” of war and violence in the United States is frighteningly widespread, much wider than in other developed countries. In one study, students at universities in Florida and Connecticut were asked whether people have a “war instinct” and whether war is an integral part of human nature. About half of the respondents answered affirmatively! Half of these young, educated people believe that killing your fellow humans – it’s frankly ingrained in our genes.

When the whole world calls America “Pinistan” or another derogatory analogy in their local language, it’s not necessarily envy. It could be a reaction to a culture in which a significant portion of the population normalizes violence and imperialist policies. As Fry notes, this is exactly what Europeans see in America. Of course, on the ground, far from all Americans are like that. But there’s enough of them to repeatedly elect hawks and applaud “precision strikes” against countries that many would not find on a map. Furthermore, if a society sincerely believes that violence is “human nature,” it will inevitably be tolerant of state violence within its own country.

And now let’s take a 180-degree turn. If to triumph the libertarianism and NAP we need an society which organically digests violence, where do we look? Contrary to popular myths, the best chances for libertarian ideas may lie precisely in Europe, Canada, and, paradoxically, Scandinavia.

Yes, there’s a bloated welfare state there now (though that’s pretty common these days). But let’s look at the social base. First, the level of violent crime (especially in Scandinavia) hovers around statistical error compared to America. Second, the overwhelming majority of people feel genuine, deep disgust for war and imperialistic ambitions, not considering it a natural phenomenon for humans. Third, the level of social trust there is colossal.

For a European or Canadian, it’s much harder to sell the idea of pre-emptive war. For them, violence is not “biological instinct,” but a catastrophic system failure, barbarism that simply has no place in the 21st century. And this is precisely the ideal psychological ground for the principle of non-aggression! NAP cannot win where many are ready to shoot first. NAP wins where people have internally agreed that initiating violence is an absolute social taboo.

So, perhaps we should stop idealizing cowboys and take a look at, say, Swedes or Norwegians. Yes, they still have a lot to explain, for example, that high taxes are also a form of hidden, systemic violence. But convincing a peaceful burgher who rejects aggression in principle may be much easier than persuading a supporter of preemptive bombing in the name of greatness.

Here you can see irony: “American” libertarianism is stuck in a country whose cultural code resists it. And where libertarians are used to seeing “socialism,” the basic premise of their philosophy – that people are not obligated to be violent – has already been accepted as common sense. Maybe we should stop banging our heads against a wall and look where the door is slightly open?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Do you want to close borders? Start with your yard!

We frequently observe an epic battle between frogs and snakes. On one side – conservatives who are horrified that their comfortable neighborhood is transforming into a small ghetto with foreign culture, loud music, and unfamiliar customs. They turn to a local criminal for bans, deportations, and a border wall. On the other side – liberals who welcome everyone in, completely ignoring the dissatisfaction of taxpayers funding lavish social events. And we, libertarians, stand in the middle, picking up rotten tomatoes from both sides. Because we advocate for freedom of movement (borders are evil), but oppose the state forcing its neighbors upon us.

Why do we all argue over migration? The “newcomer” problem only exists where there’s “public space”—that is, no man’s land. Streets, parks, and squares in ordinary cities belong to the government. Consequently, officials decide who can use them, disregarding public comfort unless it threatens their position. Ordinary people become frustrated because they cannot simply refuse entry to someone into their yard. Their only recourse is to beg Leviathan to institute visas and close the country’s borders. This is like amputating a limb to cure a blister—foolish, cruel, and ineffectual.

How do we address this issue? The answer, as always, lies in private property – specifically, gated communities (“gated communities”). Imagine: you don’t live in “City N,” but within a closed village. You have a contract. The contract outlines the rules. You and your neighbors are shareholders of the district. You hire security guards. And miraculously, you control who enters your territory yourselves! You don’t need the state to deploy machine gunners at national borders. A polite gatekeeper at your village entrance is sufficient.

This is termed discrimination—a profoundly disturbing word. However, within libertarianism, private discrimination (choosing whom to associate with and not) is a fundamental right of ownership. Let’s examine some global practices similar to this.

In the United States, it’s a classic example. Consider Florida or California. Vast territories governed by HOAs (homeowners associations). These are essentially miniature states based on contracts. In locales like The Villages (Florida), crime rates approach zero. There are no “random” individuals. Simultaneously, nobody prohibits hiring immigrant gardeners. They simply come to work; they do not impose their orders onto the playground. It’s a symbiosis: the labor market functions, and the cultural code of residents is protected by a fence rather than federal law.

Alternatively, consider Brazil. In São Paulo, there’s the Alphaville district. It’s literally a city within a city. It boasts its own schools, offices, and roads. Enveloping it are high levels of street crime, whereas inside, everything is calm and quiet. Residents of this area do not demand to close Brazilian borders; instead, they restrict access to their neighborhood. This proves remarkably effective!

And what about in Russia? Even here, a kind of impromptu Ancapistan for the rich already exists. Look at the Moscow suburbs – cottage developments like “Millennium Park,” “Agalarov Estate,” or simpler options. This is the realization of a libertarian dream in miniature (with the caveat of Russian realities, of course).

How is the “migration issue” resolved in such places? Entry is only by passes, so no “undesirable element” can just come and sit on a bench. At the same time, labor migration is welcomed. Residents happily hire migrants for construction, cleaning, and lawn care. But they are not free from responsibility. If the neighbor’s worker starts to get rowdy, the administration of the settlement fines him, and the worker is expelled by a security firm (ЧОП). Fast, without courts or investigations, purely according to the terms of the residence agreement.

And notice: residents of these settlements are completely indifferent to things like the introduction of new migration policy for 2026-2030 with biometrics and other means of tracking migrants. They have their own rules that work better. They’ve created a safe environment without the need to jail someone for not having a passport!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why human rights papers aren’t working anymore and how to make them respected again

Recently, Maxim Kats released a video about Davos and the sunset of the “long world.” And you know, there he voiced a thought that makes any normal person (and especially a libertarian) start to feel their hair stand on end. Of course, Maxim isn’t our ally by virtue of his political views, but he still knows how to effectively dissect current problems, so we’ll be considering his reasoning nonetheless. Because he rightly observes: what we call “human rights” – it’s essentially a system error, an anomaly.

His video begins with pointing out that war has long since ceased being just a slaughter between soldiers—scientific and technological progress has reached the point where it’s possible to erase entire cities from the face of the Earth. The idea that humanity could simply self-destruct as a result of another war has stopped being fantastic and has taken on the form of a real risk. Political elites who had experienced World War II realized: we won’t drag out another round. The response was the creation of so-called “international law” and the concept of “human rights,” simply to avoid dying. It was, essentially, a global non-aggression pact signed with a trembling hand at one’s temple.

Of course, international law is largely just a “fiction,” but to some extent states are still willing to play by the established rules and observe restrictions, so this fiction is quite useful. Politicians, naturally, don’t care about the lives of ordinary people and humanitarian ideals, but they are afraid for their own skins anyway, so they won’t go completely overboard. At least that’s how it worked until recently…

But what changed? To power came a generation of politicians who hadn’t personally witnessed disasters or felt the threat of war themselves. They no longer fear mutual guaranteed destruction (MAD) and other scenarios of “deterrence doctrine” so much. For them, all this is just an abstraction from historical textbooks. And therefore, their motivation to observe the “fiction” agreed upon by previous generations of politicians has decreased significantly. As a result, the world once again faces a state of war between everyone and everyone.

Однако несмотря на эти рассуждения, всё же может оставаться вопрос того, насколько реальной является угроза самоуничтожения человечества с технической точки зрения. Кто-то сразу подумает о ядерных боеголовках, но их не так уж много и находятся они в руках очень ограниченного числа лиц (хотя и они могут отбросить человечество на многие десятилетия назад). Впрочем, сейчас технологии зашли ещё дальше. Например, в ближайшем десятилетии мы вполне можем ожидать появление массовых, простых и очень дешёвых в производстве боевых дронов, которые будут иметь автономное управление на основе ИИ и смогут поражать любых «неугодных» людей, включая политиков, используя распознавание лиц, а глушение сигнала окажется неэффективным из-за отсутствия канала связи с оператором. Ещё одна угроза – создание смертоносных и очень заразных искусственных патогенов с целью применения в качестве биологического оружия массового поражения. Биотехнологии уже сейчас довольно продвинуты и дешёвы, чтобы такое было достижимым даже для небольших групп людей, преследующих насильственные политические цели.

В таких условиях в мейнстримовую повестку не просто вернётся значимость универсальных прав человека, гуманизма и идей о недопустимости насилия, а перестанут быть маргинальными и более радикальные способы предотвращения глобальной катастрофы. Идеи наподобие усиления механизма ингибирования насилия и даже морального улучшения людей с помощью биомедицинских технологий (биоусиление морали) уже не будут восприниматься как что-то невозможное или нежелательное для реальной жизни. Развитие этого направления становится необходимостью для долгосрочного искоренения насильственных угроз как в личной, так и общественной жизни. Иначе, как отмечают исследователи, нас ждёт либо глобальный тоталитаризм с круглосуточной слежкой за каждым, либо вовсе уничтожение цивилизации и даже всего человечества.


Не ИИ – пост написан людьми!

Notes on decentralization, part 2. Bitcoin.

The sphere of cryptocurrencies is a good illustration of the dynamic equilibrium between centralization and decentralization mentioned in the previous note.

Bitcoin, the first of the cryptocurrencies, was created as maximally decentralized money and is intended to serve as digital cash. But Bitcoin is not just a coin, but a coin with a built-in payment system. For ordinary users to be able to transfer bitcoins to each other, there are needed at least 1) network nodes that follow compatible transaction verification rules, 2) miners adding transaction blocks to the blockchain, and 3) wallets that allow signing transactions. Generally speaking, these functions can be combined: every node can mine, and every user can use a full node application with mining functionality as a wallet. Monero works on this principle and generally manages, providing a very high level of decentralization; however, Bitcoin is intended to become global money in the future, meaning it needs a very high network effect, and therefore an extremely low barrier to entry so that literally anyone can use it, both in terms of the required level of technical knowledge and in terms of the cost and compactness of the necessary equipment.

To this end, an entire ecosystem of entities has grown around Bitcoin to increase its ease of use: exchanges, exchangers, bank cards denominated in bitcoin, overlays for programming smart contracts, stablecoin lending services secured by bitcoin, tokenized bitcoins on other blockchains, transaction anonymization protocols, micropayment protocols, and much more. Most of these entities already require a trusted intermediary, meaning they are more centralized than pure Bitcoin. However, all this colorful complexity provides a rich selection of options for using bitcoin for various needs. Many of these services will prove unnecessary, and their developers will close their projects. Many will scam, and their developers will disappear with users’ money more or less with impunity. Many will be hacked, and hackers will walk away with users’ money (while developers will be suspected of affiliation with the hackers). But this is a normal process of competition, which ensures progress in the level of Bitcoin adoption by the masses of users. As long as the base protocol holds. And it seems to be holding, and with each year, Bitcoin’s Lindy effect grows stronger.

Again, when claims are made that Bitcoin is inconvenient for a certain task, it immediately turns out that there is a whole bouquet of other cryptocurrencies tailored specifically for that task. Here is crypto for smart contracts, here is crypto for tokenomics, here is one with fast transactions, one with cheap ones, one with anonymous ones, one for storing data in the blockchain, one with reversible operations and the ability to freeze accounts—and so on. Of course, each such cryptocurrency is a compromise. Many are not decentralized enough, many are not secure enough, some have insanely huge blockchains, some have insanely expensive transactions—but no one seems to hope anymore that something universal, surpassing competitors in all conceivable parameters, is even possible. This is the market, and the way it solves problems often baffles proponents of careful planning and managed development.

Just as the idea that content could be created not by site creators but by their users gave birth to Web2, the idea that not only content but also values could be transferred decentrally on the internet gave birth to Web3. However, there is an alternative vision of what exactly Web3 should become, and I hope to dedicate the next note to this.

How to safely cross the border for a person with “incorrect” views from the state’s point of view

The crossing of a state’s border with a repressive regime is not just about buying tickets and collecting the necessary things for life in a suitcase. For those who might have once spoken out against its policies, retained unfavorable materials, or, even more so, engaged in active opposition activities directed at a stationary gangster – it’s primarily a conversation about digital footprints. Phones, laptops, flash drives – all of this is a source of risk. Therefore, we should consider a number of practical recommendations that will help reduce vulnerability and maintain safety for ourselves and others.

The main rule is not to take anything superfluous across the border. Especially if there are data on devices related to any activism or criticism of authorities. Ideally – don’t take your primary phone and storage media with you where this information was stored. Even “remote” files can often be recovered, especially with the resources available to the FSB (or intelligence agencies of other countries). In serious risks, it is better to pre-transfer data to a protected cloud storage, and format and discard/sell the devices where they were stored. This is particularly important for people who were in an area of heightened attention or engaged in serious activism.

Before traveling, you should seriously prepare. Collect important contacts, documents, photos, backup password copies, crypto wallet files, and other critical data. Pack them into an encrypted archive (e.g., using 7-Zip) or create a file container (e.g., via VeraCrypt) for further upload to the cloud. Use a long and unique password that, at the same time, should differ from your cloud password by at least several characters. It is critically important to come up with a good association for this password so you don’t forget it even in a stressful situation.

After creating the archive, upload it to several independent cloud storage services. When doing this, use accounts that are not linked to your activism or your real identity. Also, be sure to download and verify that the archive opens, as you certainly don’t want to lose everything due to some unforeseen technical error. Make sure you accurately remember the passwords for the container and the clouds. Some people also prefer to use paid and more private services, such as Proton (of course, with a new account created specifically for this purpose). At the same time, it is safe to upload your data only to cloud storage in hostile jurisdictions for your government authorities. For citizens of Russia this is almost all of Europe and America, you can use Google Drive, although we recommend paid protected services like Proton Drive, Filen, Sync, MEGA, Internxt, NordLocker. Pay exclusively with cryptocurrency, preferably Monero (XMR) or Bitcoin via a mixer.

The ideal strategy is to cross the border with a “clean” device, on which there are no unnecessary apps installed, no sensitive correspondence, and accounts of social networks you want to hide have never been logged into. The device should also never have had SIM cards inserted that were used in undesirable activities (the security services can easily detect this simply by knowing the IMEI of the device, which will shine together with all the phone numbers used on it in operator databases). Of course, it is desirable to have some old activity on the device so that excessive cleanliness does not also arouse suspicion. However, even with such, you can say that the old device was simply stolen, lost or broken, and therefore had to be replaced.

Intelligence agencies have the resources to carefully analyze your devices and media, so digital hygiene is simply a necessity for survival. Preparatory work before crossing the border gives you control over the situation and peace of mind, which means a lower risk of suspicion from security forces. And this, of course, will ensure the safety of you and those with whom you have business dealings.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Does Faktum care about your feelings? Tell it to the conservatives!

You’ve probably heard conservatives trot out the same mantra: “We are the party of logic and reason, while liberals are snowflakes living on emotions.” It sounds so pretty, like a slogan on a t-shirt. But then came this study published in PLOS One in January 2026, and let’s just say it slightly spoils their jam. Scientists decided to check how people actually seek evidence before forming an opinion. Not how they twist facts when they’ve already made up their minds, but exactly the process of seeking truth.

What was the essence of the experiment? They took 583 people and gave them a task: assess the effectiveness of the cash bail reform. The situation is classic: there are 100 cities with reform and 200 without. The task – to understand if crime rates have decreased. Participants were given a “data bank.” You could look at dry statistics (where crime increased, where it decreased, compare groups) or read the opinions of “experts” and party bosses (from Democrats to Republicans and NRA).

And that’s when things got interesting. It turned out that liberals (and people with high cognitive reflection) behaved like tedious accountants. They dove into the statistics, gathered a complete picture: they compared cities “with reform” and “without,” looked at growth and decline. That is, they used a scientific approach: need a control group, need a sample, need all 4 pieces of the puzzle.

What were conservatives doing in the meantime? They more often relied on “intuition” and what are called “categorical proofs.” Simply put, they plucked out one fact. For example: “In City X, they implemented reform, and crime increased! Aha, you’ve been caught!” The fact that in a neighboring city without reform it grew even stronger bothered them little. Context? Control group? That’s for boffers! But worse still – conservatives were much more eager to see what “authorities” thought about it (i.e., their favorite party or organization).

Why should this bother us, libertarians? Because it’s a diagnosis. We often laugh at left-liberals for their economic illiteracy (and rightly so), but right-wing conservatives suffer from a different disease – intellectual laziness, blind faith in authorities and a penchant for the boss’s shoes. Instead of calculating figures themselves, a conservative asks: “What does Trump/The Republican Party/The Pope think about it?” This, naturally, is not individualism, but collectivism, simply colored in another shade.

Firstly, their thinking is based on intuition instead of data. “I just have a gut feeling about this being bad.” A gut feeling is a terrible advisor when it comes to complex social policy. If you make decisions based on one bright example, ignoring overall statistics, then you’re an easy target for populists. Secondly, they suffer from a lack of willingness to think. The study showed a direct correlation: the lower your ability at analytical thinking (cognitive reflection), the higher the probability that you will simply confirm your prejudices with the first convenient fact.

The result: those who shout the loudest about “reality” and “facts” are often actually relying on feelings and opinions of authorities. Liberals may be wrong in their moral conclusions or propose monstrous methods for solving problems (take and divide), but, as this study shows, at the stage of collecting data they at least try to look at the whole table.

For us libertarians, this is a good lesson. It’s not enough just to hate the state. You need to work with information better than opponents do. If your method of analysis is “to look at one scary headline and listen to your favorite blogger,” then you are definitely not a fighter for freedom—you’re just an NPC (non-player character) with a different skin, and it doesn’t matter what color it is, it won’t change anything.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Notes on Decentralization, Part 1

I have long been considering detailing my thoughts on the phenomenon of decentralization, however, the topic is too broad to fit into a single article, even a longread, and it does not yet fit into a specific structure in my mind that would make writing a book about it meaningful. So, I intend to gradually publish a series of posts, which are unlikely to be connected by a single narrative thread. I don’t know how many posts there will be, or if I will realize at some point that the topic has been sufficiently covered, or if I will simply abandon it over time. The posts will be numbered purely chronologically, and if the material ever becomes the basis for a book, the order of arguments may change. Alright, enough with the disclaimers, let’s begin.

Libertarians have their fetishes. Since individual interests are by default always more important than group interests for them, all else being equal, they will always prefer decentralized structures and mechanisms. It is more or less clear how this works in the sphere of coordinating efforts: if there is a task important enough for the community members, they will somehow manage to solve it together, although they will argue during the process about who does what and in what order. However, they usually find it easier to agree on such things than to appoint a leader who will direct the efforts of others.

But this applies primarily to short-term projects, where, having jointly solved a task, people return to their own affairs. As soon as it comes to infrastructural issues requiring constant effort, such momentary agreements begin to work poorly. As a result, private initiative comes to the fore, where the issue is handled by the person who needs it most, or by the person who expects to monetize the benefit they thereby provide to others.

Whether a centralized or decentralized solution is more profitable is largely determined by economies of scale, which can be either positive or negative. In this context, digital infrastructure, rather than physical, is most interesting, because there the negative economies of scale are quite small, while the positive ones are very large. As a result, a business based on providing a certain digital platform will expand until it digests the entire available client base. The limits of expansion will be determined mainly by competitive pressure. In addition to increasing the number of clients, the platform will strive to derive maximum benefit from each client. To achieve this, on the one hand, the platform will seek to provide services in a wide variety of fields (in my old post, using a couple of platforms as examples, it is shown that this leads to increasing inefficiency). On the other hand, the platform can provide services to some of its clients at the expense of others. A classic example is when social networks trade data on account activity, manipulate search algorithms, and so on.

A kind of dynamic equilibrium is formed between centralized and decentralized digital services, which can shift in one direction or another due to government regulations (for example, censorship requirements for social networks and banking operations) or market innovations.

That’s all for now. Directions for further reflection: 1) consider the main market innovations designed to increase the decentralization of information exchange, including the exchange of property titles to scarce resources; 2) consider approaches to the decentralization of law—a key ancap technology without which a social order cannot be called ancap at all; 3) an overview of the decentralization of utility services; 4) an overview of decentralized approaches to waging war. It may well happen that the next post will have nothing to do with these points, but it still seems useful to leave some hooks for the future.