During the invasion of Russian troops into the territory of Ukraine, an incident occurred that could have ended with extremely catastrophic consequences. We are talking about the events at the Zaporizhzhia NPP – the largest power plant in Europe. The details of this event are not so important; the main point here is that military actions were taking place around the nuclear power plant itself. Perhaps the probability of a catastrophe was extremely low, but it was still not zero. And had it happened, tens of millions of lives would have been at risk, as it would have been much worse than the well-known nuclear catastrophe at the Chernobyl NPP. Also, information has now emerged about biolaboratories located on the territory of Ukraine. The WHO recommended that Ukraine destroy dangerous pathogens to prevent their possible leakage.
Should this not demonstrate what the problem is with violence as a method of solving problems and achieving goals, and why we need to fight against it? War or any other violent conflict can lead to a catastrophe if it hits a nuclear plant, a warehouse with dangerous chemicals, or a biolaboratory with samples of deadly viruses, especially those of artificial origin, which were kept for strictly controlled experiments and for which it is unknown what to do if they suddenly break out.
As we can see, it is not even necessary to intentionally use nuclear, chemical, biological, or any other weapon of mass destruction to achieve exactly this mass destruction. In the modern world with a heap of dangerous technologies and means used at various enterprises and facilities, it can become merely an accidental result of even a small armed clash, not to mention a conflict as large-scale as the one currently taking place between Russia and Ukraine. Therefore, violence and war are extremely unacceptable; it is necessary to fight against all manifestations of violence immediately and everywhere, throughout the world. Those who are not in the territory of the conflicting countries likely believe they are completely safe. But this is absolutely not the case, for in the modern world, no one is safe as long as any violent conflicts remain possible.
The international community has managed to cause the Russian economy great pain in a very short time. In principle, this is quite enough to bury the current regime in the RF, should it decide to keep playing out an already lost war. But this will a) take a long time, b) bring enormous losses to all states and private companies that joined the sanctions against the RF, c) in no way help a fundamental solution to the problem of aggression by a nuclear power against a non-nuclear one (the PRC can wait until the governments that so joyfully implemented sanctions against the RF are swept away by an opposition promising a return to normalcy—and immediately after that move to restore its own territorial integrity across the strait).
How to solve the problem faster, cheaper, and more reliably? Simply use not only the stick, but also the carrot. You are already trying to apply this method by offering Russian pilots rewards for flying military aircraft abroad, but, agree, this is small-scale; act on a larger scale. Declare that your sanctions are only against the RF. If any territorial entity declares its separation from the RF, states that it does not support the RF’s invasion of Ukraine, and joins the sanctions against the RF, promise to immediately recognize the sovereignty of this new state, admit it to the UN, recognize its nuclear status if nuclear warheads are located on its territory—and, since this state is not the RF, no sanctions will apply to it.
For decades, the leadership of the RF has told its population that the collective West dreams of dismembering Mother Russia. So, bring this nightmare to life! Let Vladimir, the gatherer of Russian lands, go down in history as the one who left Russia as a principality the size of the Moscow region. It would be elegant. It would be instructive. It would put the PRC in its place.
A compact state, whose activity mostly consists of ensuring the operation of infrastructure and legal frameworks, is something that even libertarians agree to tolerate with some distaste. Yes, it is an outdated interface, but perhaps it is worth preserving temporarily for reasons of backward compatibility until the last statists die out naturally. However, vast empires are a dark past that belonged in the dustbin of history a hundred years ago, and there is simply no reason to preserve the RF (or the PRC) within its existing borders. If even the Ukrainian crisis does not push these empires toward collapse, it is frightening to imagine how great a crisis these empires will cause next time.
As a series of posts directed against the Russian state was published, about forty people unsubscribed from my Telegram channel, and now I intend to exacerbate the situation by taking a swipe at the state of Ukraine.
The Great Patriotic War is taking place in Ukraine. The national spirit is strong, and the Javelins are fast; if only there were a no-fly zone, the occupiers would have been destroyed in a week, and without it, the task will stretch until summer, provided, of course, that the “snuffbox” factor doesn’t play a role. The state trusts its citizens so much that it distributes combat weapons to them without any documents and has officially declared that the killing of Russian soldiers by private individuals is not a criminal offense. In essence: be partisans, you have our blessing. Foreign volunteers are flocking to the country because human hunting is the most exciting of hunts, as we have read much about in the classics. To top it all off, the Ukrainian government is receiving serious amounts of aid not only in weapons and humanitarian cargo, but also in money.
The question is, why the hell does military conscription still exist in Ukraine? Why the hell are men up to 60 years old not allowed to leave the country? Firstly, this is sexism (well, that’s me lightly touching upon the “agenda”). Secondly, this is direct state slave-ownership. Thirdly, it is simply inefficient. If a man has already reached the border, he certainly does not intend to fight. He intends to get his family to a safe place, and there, in that safe place, he will at least no longer be a burden to the Ukrainian state social security system, will not increase the casualty count of the civilian population, and will hover before Russian embassies with a Ukrainian flag—and then, who knows, he might even return to join the war, but voluntarily. This is quite likely, especially given the fact that Ukraine is able to pay its soldiers quite generously, while refugees can only rely on their own savings and the help of the local Russian-Ukrainian diaspora.
The question is, why the hell has Ukraine kept border guards and especially customs officers on its western border at all? Does the state have nowhere to put its people? Does the state wish to obstruct the free movement of goods under conditions of extreme tension within civil society? Has the state lost its fucking mind? Customs should have been sent in full to the front on the first day of the war, so they could have all perished there. Or at least fired, for goodness’ sake.
In short, I am far from admiring the actions of the current Ukrainian leadership. It could destroy Putin’s occupiers no less effectively while not tyrannizing its own people. This would serve as a much more weighty moral example to the world than the president keeping an automatic rifle at his workplace. Look, Lukashenko also posed with an automatic rifle; some knight he is.
Literally yesterday I was in a gloomy and completely non-festive mood, but this morning I’m almost squealing with delight: the first news of a military enlistment office being burned down in the Russian Federation has arrived. This is exactly what I called for in one of my anti-Russian posts. The news was anonymously published in a Ukrainian Telegram channel, which is understandable, as such things wouldn’t be shown on the first state channel.
The target was chosen magnificently: a solitary building, locked for the night, without any guards or other possible victims. The area is rural, which means that the conscripts registered here are likely not wealthy and have no means to dodge the draft, so this event could be a real help for them. Now I would really like to see daytime photos demonstrating the result of the work, but we’ll see how it goes.
Guy, well done! Now, after the trial by fire, you face the trial of “copper pipes”: not to brag about your heroic act and not to get caught by the authorities. It is precisely the impunity of such actions that will best encourage their repetition throughout Russia. And for now, it’s better to hide the proofs securely and not take them out until the end of the war or successful emigration. In any case, thank you so much!
I urge my readers outside of Russia to actively repost this news, and those in Russia to send it to friends in private messages. And gather your courage to creatively develop this amateur activity. Once things really catch fire, it will be possible to start burning other interesting objects besides military enlistment offices: police stations and tax offices. But those are better guarded, so please be more careful with them. Again, collateral victims are possible in police stations, and not only among employees, so everything must be weighed three times here before deciding.
To put it very briefly, it is not worth going to rallies in Russia; it is an irrational waste of strength. A public appearance against the regime today is considered treason to the motherland in Russia and is punished with prison terms of up to fifteen years. But, as they say, if you’re going to be hanged for stealing a lamb, you might as well steal a sheep. A campaign of civil disobedience implies far more than just taking to the squares. It implies total sabotage of the state.
As I suggested earlier, you can burn down military recruitment offices. These are poorly protected targets containing a mass of paper personal files of conscripts. Their destruction will seriously hinder mobilization. If you work as a system administrator in one government institution or another, you can delete, corrupt, or leak databases and other important information into the public domain, leaving an Anonymous team business card on the screen—let them think it was hackers. You can embezzle any state property you can get your hands on, and even if you are caught, theft carries a lighter sentence than treason to the motherland. You can make calls reporting bomb threats.
One can and should savor all stories of such sabotage and spread rumors about it to the widest possible audience. If a “vatnik” only receives information that new sanctions are being introduced from the outside, he may rally around the flag. But if he receives a constant stream of rumors that a partisan war against the regime is underway in Russia—that citizen A had their tires slashed for the letter Z, that citizen B was beaten up, that the republican administration has gathered for a secret meeting on the topic of seceding from Russia—then his morale will be undermined much more effectively.
There is no point in telling regime supporters that the war was condemned by someone like Chichvarkin. He is already a traitor; what can be expected from him. On the other hand, it is useful to tell them that people like Abramovich have condemned the war. As in, look how smart people act: they’ve fled far away themselves and are atoning for their sins before the West. And tomorrow, slightly less smart guys, who have stolen not billions, but hundreds of millions, will do the same. And the day after tomorrow, the head of a city FSB office will flee and ask for political asylum. Only the most incorrigible idiots will support the regime until the end—they are the ones who will be appointed as scapegoats. Though, an idiot might not live to see that moment because he will go to the front and be killed there.
And such defeatist talk is far more effective than various stupid rallies. Leave the rallies to the diaspora; they can do it much more safely and with much more positive media coverage. For instance, we have a rally tomorrow at 14:00 in Podgorica; if you are already in Montenegro and have Sunday off, then come. People are actively coordinating in local chats, so you’ll figure out the most convenient way to get there.
Another important direction of effort for the diaspora is helping everyone fleeing the war. This is useful first and foremost not even to the refugees, but to the volunteers themselves. Just think about the fact that the proportion of Ukrainians among Russian-speaking emigrants will grow sharply, and all these people will be damn angry. Do not give a reason to direct this anger at Russian expats. Let’s make it clear that Putinism is strictly limited to the territory where Putin’s tanks graze and is powerless to penetrate beyond its borders. And here live the “right” Russians, who saw that Putin roughly in the same place as the Russian warship.
Now we can clearly observe where violence as a method for solving problems and achieving goals leads. Regardless of who holds what views regarding the conflict in Donbas, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, the relations between Ukraine and Russia, the state of affairs in both countries, or who is right and who is wrong, in all possible positions, the attempt to achieve something by violent—in this case, military—means can be called both the root cause and an aggravating factor of the existing problems.
Indeed, what can we expect in a world where governments and states declare themselves “monopolists” of the right to “legally” use violence to achieve certain goals. And now, the Russian government has simply exercised this “right to violence.” As any other government that relies on force instruments will do, if it seems profitable enough.
Some may justify what is happening by saying that it is a response to the violence of the Ukrainian government toward the residents of Donbas who are unwilling to submit to it. But even if that is the case—can any force measures be justified in this instance other than purely defensive ones? Can an invasion of peaceful cities with accompanying human casualties be justified? No, and again no! And if someone thinks otherwise, if someone considers the death of people to be an adequate and acceptable price for achieving some geopolitical goals, then their opinion can only be called the position of a rapist and a psychopath who does not care about human life. And I have said more than once that a position allowing for forceful coercion, the infliction of harm, and the killing of people simply has no right to exist.
Of course, actual rapists and psychopaths make up only a tiny percentage of society; far more people simply hold such a position due to their own stupidity and lack of understanding. It was a tiny percentage of people who were responsible for violent attacks throughout all of human history, while the vast majority of people never needed this—they have their own families, concerns, and goals, and in general, they simply feel an instinctive aversion to violence and would never be able to commit a murder with their own hands.
Understanding all this, we must first and foremost fight against violence as an approach to achieving any goals, against the existence of any force structures in society that may have an advantage in their potential for violence relative to ordinary people, and most importantly—against rapists for whom committing a murder costs nothing, and with such a position, they successfully advance either into force structures or government bodies. After all, as long as someone has the opportunity to freely commit violence, they will do so in pursuit of their goals at the first convenient opportunity. And if someone holds violent views and possesses power over certain force structures staffed by violent people, then even war ceases to be something surprising and unexpected.
Fight against violence and war. And stay with us to learn more about how we can deal with the problem of violence and achieve a free, non-violent society.
As you can see, my imagination is not very rich when it comes to headlines. Usually, the authors of the questions provide them for me, preventing me from revealing my inadequacy.
A march in support of Ukraine’s defenders took place in Podgorica today. Unfortunately, I work without days off, and I couldn’t find a replacement, so I didn’t attend; I only watched the videos. By my estimates, there were between five hundred and a thousand people. Considering that it is currently the off-season for tourism, this means that a very large proportion of the Russian-speaking diaspora showed up. In local chats, statements from those who approve of the war are literally solitary. People have split into those discussing how to help the victims of the attack, and those who snort irritably at the discussion of politics, after first assuring that they, of course, deeply sympathize with the Ukrainians, but the topic is simply off-topic for the chat.
Several people who had previously expressed interest in the Montelibero project in the vein of “I should visit you in the summer and have a look” have now changed their tone to “I’m urgently gathering my documents and moving to you for good.” I recommend you join their ranks as soon as possible. You need a foreign passport, a diploma or certificate, a police clearance certificate, a Tinkoff Bank card, and the standard COVID kit that grants the right to cross borders. There are no direct connections between Russia and Montenegro; for now, the most reliable route is via Istanbul. If possible, bring cash Euros. If this is difficult (I fully admit that there may be unjustifiably large spreads when buying currency in Russia now), bring bitcoins. Dollars are not needed here at all.
It feels like the Russian leadership has frightened the whole world quite a bit, and under the influence of panic, people are prone to impulsive actions. Pavel Durov almost closed the Russian segment of Telegram. European countries are stopping the issuance of visas to citizens of the Russian Federation. There are rumors about crypto-exchanges blocking Russian wallets. In short, in every “watchman,” there awakens a desire to immediately close some entrance or exit, because something must be done, given what a fucking disaster is happening.
Therefore, if you have so far neglected the recommendations to store savings in non-custodial bitcoin wallets, it is quite likely that you have suddenly become significantly poorer. This also means that if you rush abroad right now, you will find yourself there completely unprepared. Do not hesitate to ask for help, but also do not assume that anyone owes you anything. As I have written repeatedly about social welfare under ancap — the main virtue of the poor is to be sweet and grateful.
If you decide to stay in Russia — it is difficult for me to give detailed recommendations here; I am no longer well-oriented in the situation and do not know where it is more dangerous — in a conditional Moscow or in a conditional village. I will be very surprised if Russia does not see a wave of reports about the mining of various government institutions, or even defense enterprises, as well as cyberattacks. Actual terrorist attacks are more likely in the border zone. Try not to end up in the troops; that is the stupidest thing you can do right now. If the military enlistment office becomes interested in you, do not try to sue or count on alternative civilian service (AGS); just get out, at least by moving to another district outside your registered address. They are unlikely to be ceremonious with you now, so do not contact the state more than necessary.
Final paragraph — for those who want to be heroes in this war. Burn down the military enlistment offices. It is hard to think of a more effective peaceful anti-war action. The recipe for a Molotov cocktail is publicly available, and enlistment offices are usually not in residential buildings, so in a nighttime arson, the probability of casualties is minimal, while the benefit is obvious: destroying the infrastructure for conscription undermines mobilization capabilities. With literally a couple of liters of gasoline and a liter of oil, you are capable of saving several hundred human fates. In the worst-case scenario, you will ruin your own, so try not to get caught stupidly.
Sorry that I didn’t cancel Bitarch’s scheduled post; it completely slipped my mind with everything going on, and the publication was somewhat out of place. Now, let’s get to the point.
In a recent post about mercantilism, I pointed out that today it is a tool not for achieving wealth, but for war. The market is a tool for peaceful people, and economic sanctions are the flip side of that tool. Specifically, if you, the reader, can find any way to make the Russian state poorer, I will be glad if you apply it. I will be even gladder if you can do this without danger to your life, and if it doesn’t hit your own wallet too hard—after all, the resources of a peaceful person and a state differ greatly, and it’s better to avoid clearly suicidal actions, unless, of course, you believe you can achieve some truly important goal for yourself this way.
If you go out onto Russian streets to protest the war, try not to get arrested. If you do get arrested, at least try not to pay the fines afterward. If there is an opportunity to emigrate immediately (for example, if you have remote work, you are not burdened by real estate, sick relatives, and so on), do it. Even if you continue to work remotely for some Russian enterprise, at least you won’t be paying consumption taxes to Russia. If you are burdened by things like clothes, cats, or studying political science, I hope you will soon rethink the priorities in your life, although you certainly know best.
Montenegro remains visa-free for Russians for now, so for some time it will still be possible to get here relatively freely. One of the MonteLibero participants has already issued a statement that they are ready to help free of charge in obtaining a residence permit for everyone who is forced to leave Ukraine for Montenegro and asks for help. I cannot formulate a similarly broad offer for everyone wishing to urgently ditch Russia on my part, but I will certainly help with advice on settling in.
Even if you are thrilled that Putin is finally cracking down on Ukrainian Nazis, I still hope that you leave Russia, but preferably far away from me.
In general, the best thing that could happen to Russians in the coming years is if they completely lose their own statehood and scatter across the world. Change my mind.
I reread what I wrote and see that it came out terribly dry. That’s why I love texts. You can write three paragraphs of emotion and pathos, exhale, and erase them.
About a month ago, the chapter-by-chapter publication of the translation of Jonathan Beer’s book Blocksize War ended on the Hype Coin News and Bitcoin Translated channels. I read the translation as it was being released, and when it finished, I decided to layout the book in epub, as I had previously done with the book Inventing Bitcoin published there. I started the work but forgot to upload it to the cloud, and then I left for Albania, resulting in a long technical break. Better late than never, so I laid out the book upon my return, and now I am posting it.
The book describes the inner workings of the bitcoin community in detail and provides an understanding of how decision-making occurs when everything is decentralized. Moreover, it is a successful case study where a very difficult and fundamental conflict eventually led to a good, balanced solution where everyone made some concessions. Thus, the book will be interesting not only to tech geeks (I am not one of them), but also to those interested in the mechanisms of self-governance in complex systems, which is extremely important for us ancaps.
Upd.: I added a section about patrons to the preface, as it felt impolite toward the people who funded the translation. Sorry for forgetting it at first.
Between different jurisdictions, there has always been the question of maintaining strategic parity—that is, an equality of chances of emerging victorious in the event of a military conflict. Without this, it is impossible to either deter a potential aggressive attack or repel it should it occur. But what strategic parity can there be in the case of an excessive difference in power potential? And the problem here consists not only in the quantitative and qualitative difference in weaponry, but also in the difference in violent tendencies among people. However, a solution exists even for absolutely pacifist societies, which we will now discuss.
Imagine Scandinavia, where although violence has not been completely eradicated, certain social factors have clearly reinforced low violent tendencies in the vast majority of the population over time. Even among state security agents, violent tendencies there are relatively low; at the very least, they are not even close to the violent tendencies of similar agents from other countries, such as Russia. If we assume that a military conflict arises between the Scandinavian states and Russia, the latter would be able to seize them almost without a fight. Even weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons or a class 4 pathogenic virus, would not help if they suddenly came into the possession of the Scandinavians, for because of their pacifism, they would hardly dare to actually use them. And given a similarly pacifist army and the lack of a balance of violence potential (general armament of the population), for security forces highly prone to violence—those who previously toured actively in Donbas and Syria—it would be no problem at all to march across the entire territory of Scandinavia and easily deal with any possible resistance in their path.
This same problem can be transferred to a potential free stateless society in which different contractual jurisdictions exist. Imagine that in such a society there is a jurisdiction of pacifists, in which violence is completely eradicated, and any offenses are punished by non-violent methods (ostracism or financial sanctions). But alongside this, there exists a violent jurisdiction, in which all problems are solved by brute force and cruel physical punishments (such a jurisdiction might be created, for example, by some conservatives). Obviously, there is no strategic parity here either; the order of the second society will lead to the reinforcement of violent tendencies in its participants, whereas in the case of the first society, these tendencies will be maximally suppressed (reinforcing a strong version of Lorenz’s violence-inhibiting mechanism). I think it is easy to understand who would win in the event of a direct military conflict.
An excellent solution to the problem of maintaining strategic parity on the part of more pacifist jurisdictions and societies is the creation of gene therapy against violence. It could be implemented in the form of a drug delivered to attacking agents via a fired dart. In an extreme case, implementation as a pandemic virus is possible (we do not approve of this option). Of course, the latter faces many risks, including the fact that bystanders would be affected, some of whom might die (even with the highest quality vaccination, not everyone tolerates it). However, such a “non-violence virus” is not a traditional weapon of mass destruction in terms of the physical destruction of the attackers; it is intended only for the forced eradication of violence in the aggressor’s army and is therefore the best possible solution within the framework of the classical MAD doctrine (Mutual Assured Destruction) that can be imagined if there is no chance of stopping the aggressor through immediate resistance.
Both darts with the drug and a pandemic “non-violence virus” (personally, I do not approve of this option, but the opinions of others regarding the admissibility of such a “weapon” may differ) could be used even by fierce pacifists, given that such a “weapon” does not initiate violence in the biological sense, and even a person with a strong version of the Lorenz mechanism would be able to apply it. They would allow for the deterrence of potential aggressors, as they would fear losing their violent tendencies as a result of attacking pacifists. But if someone still decides to attack, then we will arrive at the following scenarios:
1) Security agents sent to the front by the aggressor will come under fire from darts with gene therapy. And these darts will reach their target far more often than bullets do now, because soldiers, for the most part, are not rapists or violent criminals; they most often try to simulate activity at the front, avoid shooting, and if they do shoot, it is not at people on the other side of the front, but into the air, again, merely to create the illusion of performing some activity. There are quite few actual violent criminals in war, and this is confirmed by research, which you can find here. But anyone can fire a dart. And if the darts accurately hit the soldiers on the other side of the front, including those actually prone to violence, then the aggressor will soon find themselves completely without people capable of pushing the war further.
2) It is impossible to stop the attack; even darts with gene therapy are not enough to deter the overwhelming forces of the aggressor. In such a case, a pandemic “non-violence virus” is deployed across the front. After this, a few weeks may be enough for the aggressor’s forces to be completely disorganized and the soldiers to turn into pacifists incapable of attack. The war ends quite quickly.
Do you see now what an effective means of deterrence and ending war gene therapy against violence is? In principle, this is the only possible salvation for peaceful and non-violent societies from attack by violent aggressors. Moreover, compared to the weapons of mass destruction that are currently suggested as means of deterring aggressive attacks, this solution is extremely humane.
By the way, this solution is an excellent answer to the question of how a free society can protect itself from aggression by surrounding states in the event of a local rather than global achievement. It is also very useful in the very process of achieving a free society—the same darts with gene therapy can be successfully launched at security agents who beat and arrest peaceful protesters. Ensuring a balance of violence potential (general armament of the population) to achieve a state of affairs where any aggressor can be eliminated upon immediate attack can be a quite difficult task, but it is not necessary to provide everyone with darts with gene therapy—a small number of activists ready to fire them upon seeing another security officer in case of need will suffice (this is especially effective if security officers are deanonymized, as is currently done in Belarus; then they can be caught even in everyday life). And activists will be able to do this even while being less violent people than the security officers, or even absolute pacifists, because, again, this is not a means of inflicting physical harm or killing another person, but merely a means of depriving them of their violent tendencies.
As we can see, for the sake of maintaining strategic parity on the part of pacifist societies and for the sake of ensuring an effective struggle of peaceful protesters against the security agents of the state, it is very advantageous to develop gene therapy against violence. What is very important for us is that this is advantageous even to many modern governments, for example, in Scandinavia, and it is quite likely that they will want to help us. This would be the best and most humane solution to these problems that could possibly be imagined.
