TheStrategicCode
Richard Martin

www.thestrategiccode.com

I equip leaders to achieve strategic alignment through nested hierarchical action, harnessing initiative for maximal effectiveness with minimal friction.

Public Key

npub1x9qajd3am76anyjp2nefjjt634s7s9aahhy555a9q8tq2evcu6cqptcj06

NIP-05 Address

RichardMartin@primal.net

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrzswexc7aldwejfq4fu5ef9ag6c0gz77mmj222wjsr4s9vkvwdvqprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskueqdaudnm

Publishing to

premium.primal.net

relay.nostr.band

relay.primal.net

bf4bjlmbmanugchdfu3tlexijynhdmk27l7tlunr7zpikmbzzjlm64id.local

nos.lol

nostr.bitcoiner.social

Author Public Key

npub1x9qajd3am76anyjp2nefjjt634s7s9aahhy555a9q8tq2evcu6cqptcj06

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-03-18 14:23:41 UTC

Signal to noise ratio of Iran commentary.
https://blossom.primal.net/d26c2a3dc3b9b501cd6becdd4bc161c7f08fbd27ddb5cd4eea635e7af9af6900.jpg

2026-03-14 16:06:30 UTC

A common claim in commentary about the U.S.–Israeli campaign against Iran is that the United States entered the conflict without a coherent strategy. Such claims are premature.
Strategic design is rarely visible to outside observers during the early phases of a conflict. The appropriate analytical starting point is therefore the opposite hypothesis: that U.S. leadership initiated the campaign with a coherent hierarchy of ends and an associated campaign plan, and that operations are unfolding broadly within the expected range of wartime uncertainty and enemy reaction.
The task of analysis is not to assume the absence of strategy, but to test whether the observable pattern of action can be explained by a plausible strategic design.

2026-03-11 22:39:33 UTC

If you want to understand Bitcoin beyond price charts and hype, subscribe to Dollars2Bitcoin.
Clear analysis of how Bitcoin actually works, what it means for the global monetary system, and why it matters.
https://dollars2bitcoin.substack.com

2026-03-10 15:10:46 UTC

Bitcoin is no longer just a technology experiment or a speculative asset. It now sits inside the global monetary system alongside states, banks, and financial markets.
Most commentary still focuses on price, protocol debates, or ideology. That misses the real question. Governments, financial institutions, corporations, and investors are now forced to respond to a monetary network they do not control.
This article explains why Bitcoin must be analysed structurally and strategically, not just technologically or financially, and why understanding institutional responses will matter far more than predicting the next price move.
https://dollars2bitcoin.substack.com/p/bitcoin-and-the-structure-of-the

2025-12-07 23:09:10 UTC

https://rausi.ca/news/editorials/820-ukraine-and-the-unmaking-of-the-russian-imperium

2025-10-12 15:29:30 UTC

- reply

#naddr1qv…aac5

2025-10-08 11:56:48 UTC

- reply

I’ve read your Pegged white paper with genuine interest. It is both original and thought-provoking, an attempt to design a monetary protocol that redistributes value through provably fair lotteries, stripped of governance, narrative, or intervention. The elegance of its neutrality is clear, and it advances an important conversation about how money can be structured differently.
That said, I want to offer a critique that comes less from technical design and more from praxeology and anthropology, from the standpoint of how humans act, organize, and construct legitimacy.
From a praxeological perspective, money and capital are not ends in themselves; they are means to purposeful human action. Exclusion from finance is indeed a structural constraint, but it is not an empty space. Where formal banking and credit fail, people already build institutions to mitigate risk and create access: families and kin networks, savings circles, reciprocal lending, remittances, microfinance groups. These institutions exist because they counter randomness. They convert uncertainty into predictability through reciprocity, trust, and mutual obligation.
Pegged, by contrast, elevates randomness as its principle of fairness. This is technically ingenious, but anthropologically brittle. In real communities, repeated random outcomes are rarely interpreted as neutral. If the same individual wins twice, suspicion of foul play arises, no matter how strong the cryptographic proof. Without narrative legitimacy or embedded trust, structural neutrality risks being read as arbitrariness or collusion.
Moreover, excluded populations often place the highest value on reliability, continuity, and competence. A chance-based redistribution system may feel less like access and more like a casino. By design, Pegged refuses the social institutions that humans rely on to transform windfalls into sustained capital. The result is a profound cultural mismatch: what appears mathematically fair may be experienced socially as illegitimate.
My question, then, is whether randomness can ever serve as a sufficient foundation for money. Pegged is an experiment in radical neutrality, but fairness in human terms usually requires more than chance. It requires narrative, reciprocity, and competence. Without these, a protocol may function flawlessly in code yet fail as a human institution.
I offer this not as dismissal but as engagement. Pegged opens a fascinating design space. My critique is that it risks mistaking exclusion for emptiness, overlooking the dense institutional logics that already govern access to capital. I would be very interested to hear how you see Pegged addressing this cultural dimension.
With respect,
Richard Martin

2025-09-23 13:51:16 UTC

- reply

Try smiling.

2025-09-17 15:13:16 UTC

- reply

Do you correct stories that don't add up by making up other stories that don't add up?

2025-09-17 14:25:17 UTC

- reply

How do you know that?

2025-09-17 13:06:05 UTC

- reply

Of course, but that doesn't entail they are all connected in some way beyond the fact that our knowledge is always partial and people lie.

2025-09-17 13:04:26 UTC

- reply

Who says I don't do my own research? Stop projecting.

2025-09-17 12:55:32 UTC

- reply

What if there’s no conspiracy at all but just overexcited people making up stuff from random occurrences?

2025-09-16 15:56:46 UTC

I've created a Bitcoin Home Mining Calculator: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A27rvArtVs32nGj62pOCHAFKjK5eSJp6/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117433313265964214204&rtpof=true&sd=true
#bitcoin #mining #homemining #calculator

2025-09-16 14:54:58 UTC

Bitcoin Home Mining Calculator
Yours to use. Yellow cells for variables and green cells for estimates. Let me know what you think.
Rich
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A27rvArtVs32nGj62pOCHAFKjK5eSJp6/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117433313265964214204&rtpof=true&sd=true

2025-09-12 16:47:11 UTC

- reply

I just checked and everything is still pretty murky.

2025-09-12 16:40:44 UTC

- reply

Agreed

2025-09-12 12:39:39 UTC

- reply

Information follows a Pareto distribution: 90 percent of the information comes from 10 percent of the sources. Prior to the internet and mobile phones, that meant a few TV networks and local radio stations and newspapers. It used to cost tens of dollars for a long distance phone call; now it’s basically free. Now the outliers can broadcast their messages. In some cases, they’re valuable. But there are a lot of wing nuts out there. There have always been conspiracy theories, for instance, but now they have a global community and can talk to each other.

2025-09-12 10:53:42 UTC

- reply

Or maybe you've become much more aware of the need to triangulate because all information is partial.

2025-09-11 21:16:43 UTC

- reply

I can relate. That’s why we need to consult reliable sources and wait for police to do their job.

2025-09-11 20:57:54 UTC

- reply

That’s unnecessarily cynical.

2025-09-11 20:25:54 UTC

- reply

I just saw that. WSJ normally a reliable source, but it’s still early.

2025-09-11 16:18:28 UTC

- reply

Exactly. Key word is allegedly. What is the source?

2025-09-11 14:11:51 UTC

- reply

What evidence do you have that the guy is a radical—or any other kind of—leftist?

2025-09-11 14:10:52 UTC

No evidence yet that Charlie Kirk’s assassin was a “leftist.” Shooter remains unidentified; motive unknown. Claims about ideology are speculation. Important to separate facts from rhetoric. #Nostr #CharlieKirk

2025-09-11 12:57:27 UTC

I once worked with a submariner who watched a Royal Navy sub limp back into port with bent diving planes and a dented conning tower after colliding with a Soviet sub it had been shadowing. Encounters like that were routine in the Cold War and far riskier than a handful of drones.
You also do not see Canada or the United States activating Article 4 every time Russia tests NORAD air defences in the north. What is happening in Poland is a different kind of provocation. It is political theatre designed to unsettle. The real threat is psychological, aimed at eroding NATO cohesion by frightening the population, with a view to buying time for Russia to hold on to its gains in Ukraine.

2025-09-10 17:40:43 UTC

- reply

Not received yet.

2025-09-10 13:10:47 UTC

- reply

I saw you have a white paper on a stable coin protocol. Is that what you DM'd me about?

2025-09-10 12:41:15 UTC

Bitcoin is the deterministic automation of money.

2025-09-10 12:32:11 UTC

- reply

Please DM me again. In the future why don’t you just say what you mean instead of leaving the reader to wonder.

2025-09-09 15:53:38 UTC

- reply

I get the impression you're trying to tell me something.

2025-09-09 12:51:39 UTC

What drives me is the need to understand human action. All is action, always taken within constraint, never entirely free. Strategic action is that which carries disproportionate consequence, shaping the fate of orders and communities. My method is radical decentring: stepping into the actor’s frame to see what they saw, without imposing my moral judgment. I seek the underlying patterns — functional and symbolic — that persist across time, revealing how humans make meaning and navigate necessity.

2025-09-09 01:35:34 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/73920e436bd0173be871972f43fb41534fe9cfde6dca5e8d4bba9cf06f949723.jpg

2025-09-05 14:15:37 UTC

Store of value and medium of exchange are two sides of the same coin.

2025-09-03 10:35:29 UTC

- reply

Metaphors and analogies only lay the groundwork for explaining how something works or why it’s necessary. Example: Saying money production is like turning on the money printer. The person hears/reads that and says, "wow, how does that work?" You've created an opening for learning.
You’re analogy about garbage only succeeded in triggering me. I am running Knots, having listened to one side of the debate. Maybe I'm wrong or, more likely, I've overreacted or fallen for a bad argument.

2025-09-03 10:25:26 UTC

- reply

Okay. I misinterpreted. Can you explain what you mean?

2025-09-03 10:24:06 UTC

- reply

Why don’t you lay out your argument instead of making snide comments?

2025-08-29 17:19:58 UTC

- reply

History shouldn’t be judged by hindsight; strategy must be judged ex ante — see my new essay on Vietnam and U.S. grand strategy, 1955–65.
This essay grew out of a recent exchange about Vietnam, American grand strategy, and how we judge historical decisions. Too often debates about wars collapse into hindsight: “it was unnecessary” or “it worked” — both argued from the same outcomes.
My point is that serious study of strategy must judge decisions ex ante, by what leaders knew and feared at the time, not by what we know now. Vietnam (1955–1965) is a living example. Whatever we think of the outcome, U.S. political, military, and foreign policy leaders largely agreed on the ends. The debates were about ways and means under uncertainty, with lessons from Munich, World War II, and Korea in mind.
The result is this essay: “Judging Strategy Ex Ante: Vietnam, U.S. Grand Strategy, and the Lessons of Context (1955–1965).” It sets out eight principles for analyzing strategy that I think apply as much to today’s world as to the Cold War.
#naddr1qv…2was

2025-08-29 15:32:43 UTC

Strategy isn’t chemistry in a lab. Leaders make choices in real time, with prior beliefs, knowledge and background, fears, and messy constraints. Hindsight proves nothing.
Eight principles for thinking straight about strategy:
1. Ex ante, not hindsight.
2. Ends–Ways–Means under uncertainty.
3. Hierarchy of ends (local → global).
4. Priors matter.
5. All sides have agency.
6. Least-bad options.
7. Synchronic + diachronic context.
8. Reasonable under the circumstances.
Strategic history’s value is not in proving what should have happened, but in understanding how leaders thought and why they chose as they did.

2025-08-28 13:44:50 UTC

Sovereign restraint is the discipline of universality: sovereignty must remain thin, general, and neutral, leaving the space of particularity to parasovereign orders. Where sovereigns enforce religion, sex, ideology, or lifestyle, they collapse into factional capture. Where sovereignty restrains itself, it becomes durable, while parasovereignty supplies the diversity and richness of human life. Sovereignty without restraint is brittle. Sovereignty with restraint is stable.

2025-08-28 11:34:02 UTC

- reply

It’s the same with high speed rail in North America. Every few years a new project is announced to great fanfare. After a few years, we learn that it’s off the rails—pun intended. The promoters couldn’t get the capital to invest because it’s not a profitable venture. Five years later, rince and repeat.

2025-08-28 11:18:08 UTC

- reply

Or maybe not profitable and too uncertain therefore negative expected value.

2025-08-28 10:58:32 UTC

"The aggressor is always peace-loving; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed."
Carl von Clausewitz, On War

2025-08-28 10:55:14 UTC

- reply

I've been hearing about it for decades. So why is it still only theoretical?

2025-08-28 10:54:04 UTC

War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing, huh!
Except when a country attacks. Are you just supposed to lie down and take it?

2025-08-28 10:44:25 UTC

- reply

2025-08-27 16:54:51 UTC

- reply

So they should just let Hamas attack them? Pretty rich coming from someone in Switzerland, known for being armed to the teeth.

2025-08-27 15:48:36 UTC

- reply

I am skeptical of all numbers, regardless of who is putting them out. And if Netanyahu is such a horrible leader, why is he still in power as PM? Moreover, do you even know the meaning of fascism? Just because a country defends itself and seeks to wipe out its enemy doesn't make it fascist.

2025-08-26 19:05:01 UTC

- reply

Gunnar, every one of the definitions in that OED article says what I say, with the exception of the Twain quote, which it also says is no longer used. 😁
I know it’s the style in Bitcoin circles to talk about "sovereign individuals," but I choose to be autonomous instead.
😎

2025-08-26 17:47:29 UTC

"Strong opinion, loosely held" is a stupid retort. If you wish to take a strong stance, at least have the courage to defend it with evidence and logic. That’s the essence of debate. On the other hand, retreating without a fight after someone challenges you is the epitome of cowardice. Don’t be a wuss.

2025-08-26 17:30:01 UTC

- reply

There is no such thing as a sovereign individual. Autonomous yes; sovereign no.

2025-08-26 16:42:13 UTC

Human life is action: people speak, trade, and associate by nature. Sovereign orders overlay hindrance through taxation, censorship, and control, while parasovereign orders preserve continuity when overreach occurs. The central tension today is between action itself and the hindrance imposed upon it.

2025-08-26 12:58:45 UTC

Bitcoin and Nostr are brilliant parasovereign protocols. They give individuals real autonomy in money and speech. But too many Bitcoiners and Nosterati treat government as pure evil and dream of fleeing to hidden valleys. For someone who starts from this perspective, the mission shapes the epistemology. If the mission is escape from corruption, then “truth” is built to serve that mission. The wiser path is to recognize complementarity. Sovereign orders secure collective defence. Parasovereign orders secure individual freedom. One without the other collapses into fantasy.

2025-08-26 12:21:19 UTC

- reply

A good example is Cooper’s claim that mass Jewish deaths were due to food shortages. That’s simply not accurate. Nazi Germany implemented a deliberate Hunger Plan to starve millions, including Russian civilians and Soviet prisoners of war, and we have extensive documentation of the Final Solution. This isn’t hidden history; it’s central to the historical record. The problem with his narrative isn’t that he uncovers new facts, but that he strips real facts from context and ignores overwhelming contradictory evidence. That’s why historians call it pseudo-history.
See my latest note providing even more evidence. You need to get a better grasp of genuine historical scholarship and the science of historiography in general. I can recommend some good sources if you wish for you to get a better grounding in the history of WW2.
As for this discussion, I'm done.

2025-08-26 12:05:26 UTC

I've been challenged by @nprofile…3lpm to produce evidence of Darryl Cooper's pseudo historical claims about Churchill, the Holocaust, and Hitler. As I have neither the time nor the inclination to do a detailed rebuttal and analysis myself, I got ChatGPT to do it in deep research mode. See the attachment.
https://blossom.primal.net/3f7fbd9fcb6fae287d84335763f7669e439120d0e22ea2d3f3a0c3560bbcb378.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/c6118996c0600eeb4da6916f8922093027a7b5c67d706a7a1126a57d548aa16a.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/d4e3fe1a6a78690a3dac45ecafaf63eb88c50f3d839b19f808ceb44180ae1f0c.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/74773172246e40a0fab45b31d14e7b4b9355c992309512f0c636db37eaab2a83.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/9aa547bb420e12593b8840303f4ce26212d79fb012c191a642345cc85e9cbb20.jpg
https://blossom.primal.net/a383cf1ade080d6dc624b3741b77fceed6a10bd19c0e45660b3d54bb5f59fcce.jpg

2025-08-25 22:15:38 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/d5f2cdf3523d220ec54b12b42895073f1b3e8073d553bb809d22e9850afd09e8.png

2025-08-25 15:38:01 UTC

Chokepoints and the Limits of Parasovereignty
Sovereignty is anchored in the physical world. Its strength comes from control of territory and chokepoints; mountains, straits, rivers, ports, and borders shaped by topography, oceanography, and geology. When combined with geopolitics and geoeconomics, these natural features become powerful attractors that channel the flow of goods and people.
Parasovereign protocols, by contrast, operate in cyberspace. Their strength lies in bypassing digital chokepoints and checkpoints through cryptography, decentralization, and voluntary participation. Bitcoin, Nostr, and Tor reduce dependence on state-controlled rails. But their nodes remain physically vulnerable to sovereign coercion, sovereign-dependent capture, or even criminal attack.
What makes parasovereign protocols unique is not invulnerability, but resilience. Once invented, they cannot be uninvented. Their concepts can always be redeployed, replicated, and revived. This is the whack-a-mole effect: even if individual nodes or edges are suppressed, the network persists at scale. Sovereigns hold physical space; parasovereigns persist in digital space. Together they define the modern strategic terrain.

2025-08-25 15:25:56 UTC

Any private security organization strong enough to defend against state-level threats inevitably becomes indistinguishable from a state itself. History shows that mercenary companies, militias, or private armies eventually either dissolve into banditry or establish their own sovereignty.

2025-08-25 15:22:13 UTC

Anybody who thinks that military defence can be assured by private businesses is delusional. That includes all the Mises Institute libertarians who follow Rothbard and Hoppe.
The keyword in the term Austrian economics is economics. It has nothing to do with defence or security. Even Ludwig von Mises, the namesake of the institute was clear that only the state can provide defence and security. For that it requires the monopoly of force suitably constrained by a vigilant population and enforced through effective institutions of governance.

2025-08-25 14:29:07 UTC

No parasovereign system can abolish sovereignty, for human action remains rooted in territory, resources, and defence.
No sovereign order can abolish parasovereignty, for once discovered these systems cannot be uninvented.
The flourishing of human society requires both: the state as guardian of the collective, and parasovereign protocols as guardians of the individual.
#parasovereignty #sovereignty #autonomous individual #peace #security #prosperity

2025-08-25 14:27:29 UTC

Parasovereignty is the authority of protocols and practices that empower individuals to act freely in commerce, expression, and association.
Its purpose is autonomy: to protect individuals from coercion by enabling voluntary, permissionless action.
Its legitimacy derives from decentralization, persistence, and voluntary participation.
Its limit is reached when convenience or centralization reduces it to dependence on custodians or corporate intermediaries.
#parasovereignty

2025-08-25 14:26:18 UTC

Sovereignty is the authority to order collective human action within a defined territory.
Its purpose is protection: to secure peace, defend the community, and enable prosperity. Peace-Security-Prosperity.
Its legitimacy derives from fulfilling this protective role for the people under its care.
Its limit is reached when it becomes an instrument of domination, captured by elites or ideologies, exceeding its mandate of defence and order.

2025-08-25 13:46:01 UTC

Statement of Parasovereign Principles
1. Parasovereignty is Necessary for Individual Autonomy
Human beings are not only members of collectives; they are also individuals with needs, choices, and responsibilities. Parasovereign systems empower individuals to act freely in commerce, communication, and association without requiring permission. The printing press broke the monopoly of church and crown over knowledge. Samizdat publications pierced censorship in the Soviet bloc. Bitcoin, Nostr, and Tor extend this tradition digitally.
2. The Purpose of Parasovereignty is Constraint
Parasovereign protocols are not alternatives to sovereignty but constraints upon its excess. They ensure that money cannot be endlessly debased, that speech cannot be wholly suppressed, and that association cannot be fully surveilled. Bitcoin constrains financial coercion. Nostr constrains censorship. Tor constrains surveillance. Each narrows the range of coercion available to sovereign or corporate power without violence.
3. Parasovereignty is Not Inherently Good or Evil
Just as sovereignty can protect or oppress, parasovereign protocols can empower or harm. Nostr can host human rights activism, or it can host antisemitism. Bitcoin can provide lifelines to those under tyranny, or it can facilitate fraud. Parasovereignty is not a moral guarantee. Its value depends on how individuals choose to use the autonomy it provides.
4. The Problem is Capture Through Centralization
Parasovereign systems remain resilient so long as individuals uphold their responsibility to keep them decentralized and voluntary. When users default to custodians, central relays, or corporate platforms, the system drifts toward sovereign-dependency. This is the ever-present danger: autonomy conceded not by suppression, but by convenience. Like the countless Bitcoin forks abandoned by the market, parasovereign systems persist only when autonomy is actively chosen.
5. The Challenge is Persistence
Parasovereign systems cannot prevent suppression, but they can outlast it. Each time a sovereign power blocks a Tor exit node, another reappears. Each time a Nostr relay is censored, new ones come online. Each time Bitcoin is banned, miners and nodes shift to new jurisdictions. This is the “whack-a-mole” principle: degradation is possible, capture is not. Parasovereignty is a social commitment as much as a technical design, requiring vigilance, responsibility, and persistence.

2025-08-25 13:39:30 UTC

Statement of Sovereign Principles
1. Sovereignty is Necessary for Collective Survival
Human beings cannot survive alone. From the smallest kinship band to the modern nation-state, sovereignty organizes collective defence against threat and disorder. The lesson is dramatized in Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven: villagers, though many, cannot defend themselves without organizing under capable leaders. Sovereignty exists to ensure survival through collective action.
2. The Purpose of Sovereignty is Protection
The sovereign order exists to defend the community and maintain peace within its territory. When governments meddle in every aspect of private life, they neglect this primary duty. This was the strongest criticism of Canada’s Trudeau government after 2021: it interfered in markets, provincial responsibilities, and daily life while ignoring its irreducible, primary responsibility, which is to defend Canadian territory, Canadians and Canadian institutions.
3. Sovereignty is Not Inherently Good or Evil
Power itself is morally neutral. Like Bitcoin or Nostr, which can be used to empower or to harm, sovereign power can protect or oppress. There is a difference, however, between authoritarian dictatorships and liberal democracies. The latter, though flawed, embody institutions and norms that restrain abuse and better serve the collectivity.
4. The Problem is Concentration of Power
Those most capable of leading in conflict are also most tempted to hold power indefinitely. Seven Samurai makes this point explicitly: warriors are necessary in crisis but dangerous if left unchecked in peacetime. The Roman ideal was Cincinnatus, the farmer who accepted dictatorial power only long enough to win a war, then returned to his fields. George Washington, though flawed, modeled the same restraint. Churchill led Britain through war, but was dismissed by the electorate the moment the war ended. True sovereignty requires leaders who are effective when needed, but restrained when not.
5. The Challenge is Restraint
Across history, societies have developed institutions to limit sovereign overreach. Ancient Athens used ostracism to curb leaders who grew too powerful. As anthropologist Christopher Boehm observed, even small-scale hunter-gatherer societies practised “reverse dominance hierarchy,” banding together to check domineering leaders. These mechanisms, from ancient customs to modern checks and balances, ensure sovereignty remains a protector, not an oppressor.

2025-08-25 13:06:17 UTC

Sovereignty and Parasovereignty in Balance
Sovereignty secures peace and prosperity in the material world. This is the classical liberal ideal, sometimes dismissed by collectivists as the “night watchman state.” The problem is not sovereignty itself, but what happens when collectivists, do-gooders, or corrupt elites capture the state and extend its remit beyond maintaining social peace and defending territory.
Parasovereign systems, especially those deliberately engineered as engines of individual autonomy and cooperation, serve as the ultimate tools of constraint. They do not overthrow sovereignty but limit its excesses. By removing the most impactful means of coercion short of violence, they narrow the scope of state overreach.
-Sound money (Bitcoin) constrains monetary manipulation and debasement.
-Freedom of expression (Nostr) constrains censorship and narrative control.
-Freedom of association (Tor) constrains surveillance and forced isolation.
Together, these protocols rebalance the relationship between state power and individual autonomy. Sovereignty provides order; parasovereignty provides constraint. Both are necessary for human flourishing.

2025-08-25 12:57:27 UTC

Sovereignty in the Physical, Parasovereignty in the Digital
Sovereignty is the king of the physical world. States order territory, population, infrastructure, and resources because all human action ultimately takes place in space and time. Unless someone invents teleportation to bypass physical chokepoints, the sovereign order will persist as the framework for collective survival and security.
Parasovereign protocols exist on a different plane. They operate in cyberspace, made possible by cryptography, distributed networks, and voluntary participation. Bitcoin, Nostr, and Tor do not command territory; they bypass it. Their resilience lies not in physical force, but in replication, persistence, and the refusal of users to bend to central control.
The two orders are not rivals but complements. Sovereignty secures peace and prosperity in the material world. Parasovereignty secures autonomy in the digital world. Both are indispensable.

2025-08-25 12:52:44 UTC

Parasovereignty is Fundamentally Social, Not Technological.
Parasovereign protocols are not sustained by technology alone. Code and cryptography provide the rails, but they are only means to an end. The end is human action: individuals choosing to transact, communicate, and associate freely, without permission.
Bitcoin, Nostr, and Tor persist because people continue to run nodes, sign messages, and route traffic. The resilience of these systems depends not only on their technical design but also on the willingness of individuals to uphold their rules voluntarily.
Without this social foundation, the protocols degrade into tools captured by states or corporations. With it, they remain engines of autonomy.

2025-08-25 12:49:33 UTC

The Whack-a-Mole Principle of Parasovereignty
Individual parasovereign actors (node operators, relays, channel managers) can always be suppressed. States can arrest operators, seize hardware, block internet routes, or freeze communication channels. Suppression at this level is real and inevitable.
Yet suppression at the node level is not capture at the network level. Parasovereign systems persist because new nodes can always be spun up, code can be redeployed, and protocols can be re-instantiated by anyone, anywhere. This creates the whack-a-mole effect: sovereign powers can degrade a network locally, but every act of suppression triggers reappearance elsewhere.
The key distinction is between degradation and capture. Degradation happens when suppression reduces efficiency or scale. Capture would mean altering the rules of the system itself. Parasovereign protocols cannot be captured in principle, but they can be captured in practice if their individual operators renege on the responsibility to maintain protocol integrity. Persistence depends not only on design but also on users choosing to uphold the rules.
Guarantee: Parasovereign systems survive because they are harder to eliminate than to regenerate, provided their participants remain committed to autonomy.
Example 1: Bitcoin Mining Ban in China (2021)
China banned all Bitcoin mining in May 2021. At the time, Chinese miners contributed over 50% of global hashpower. The network’s computational strength fell sharply, showing how vulnerable individual actors are to sovereign suppression.
But within a year, hashpower fully recovered and exceeded past highs as miners relocated to North America, Central Asia, and elsewhere. No central authority coordinated this recovery. The Bitcoin protocol endured, but only because miners and node operators voluntarily upheld the rules.
Lesson: Sovereign power can degrade Bitcoin, but cannot capture it unless operators themselves abandon protocol integrity.
Example 2: Nostr Relays and Censorship
Nostr relays are easy to suppress: a state could shut down a relay operator, seize servers, or block domains. But because the protocol is so lightweight, new relays can spin up quickly, and users can switch connections freely.
The system persists as long as individuals continue to run relays and sign messages. Capture is only possible if users en masse default to using a single corporate or sovereign-dependent relay, thereby centralizing the network.
Lesson: Resilience depends not just on code but on the willingness of individuals to keep participation decentralized.
Example 3: Tor Exit Nodes Under Fire
Tor exit nodes are frequent targets of law enforcement, ISPs, and regulators. Operators face harassment, lawsuits, or worse. Individual nodes vanish all the time.
Yet Tor continues to function globally, because new exit nodes regularly appear and traffic reroutes through them. The protocol ensures persistence, but if users and volunteers stopped shouldering the risk of operating nodes, Tor could degrade into irrelevance.
Lesson: Tor survives because enough individuals continue to run nodes despite risk. Suppression plays whack-a-mole, but capture becomes possible only if the community abdicates responsibility.
Core point across all three: Parasovereign resilience is never absolute. It depends on individuals who uphold the rules voluntarily. Sovereigns can degrade networks, but capture only occurs if participants concede their autonomy.

2025-08-24 21:57:21 UTC

- reply

The problem comes when actors who are empowered by the stae try to do what individuals and businesses/non profits do best.

2025-08-24 21:20:04 UTC

- reply

My thesis is the state will remain. It has to be constrained and restrained. Engineered parasovereign technologies like Bitcoin, Nostr and Tor are crucial in that regard.

2025-08-24 20:23:33 UTC

- reply

Alex, I appreciate the seriousness of your reply. Let me clarify my point. I am not dismissing criticism of Israel or of Western powers. I am drawing a distinction between serious historiography and what I call ‘hidden history.’
Real revisionism is a scholarly process. It introduces new sources of evidence or reinterprets existing ones, and it always weighs those findings against the accumulated record. It is Bayesian in the sense that new information shifts probabilities, but it must still meet the threshold of plausibility.
Consider Victor Suvorov’s Icebreaker thesis, which argued that Stalin intended to attack Germany and Western Europe before being preempted by Barbarossa. His work has received serious attention because it raises genuine questions. The consensus is that his evidence is circumstantial and there is no smoking gun, but scholars continue to examine it, and they may ultimately be vindicated if Soviet archives yield more. That is how serious historical debate proceeds.
By contrast, Roosevelt-at-Pearl-Harbor conspiracies or Cooper’s pseudo-historical narratives about WWII do not meet that threshold. They offer insinuation, not evidence. The fact that scholars still scrutinize Suvorov’s work but dismiss Roosevelt conspiracies outright proves the point: credible historiography demands evidence, not performance. That is why I resist ‘hidden history’ narratives. They are not history, they are inventions.

2025-08-24 19:53:35 UTC

- reply

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. For me, Lowery’s Softwar argument is a non-starter, so I don’t try to fold it into my framework. Sovereignty, as I see it, is the capacity to order collective human action within a defined territory in order to ensure peace, security, and prosperity for its inhabitants. The modern nation-state is the most powerful and effective embodiment of this principle, and while sovereignty has taken other forms throughout history and prehistory, I don’t see anything on the horizon capable of replacing the state as the generator and protector of collective life.
Where I focus instead is on how parasovereign protocols like Bitcoin, Nostr, and Tor complement sovereignty by enabling individual autonomy in commerce, expression, and association. Sovereignty and parasovereignty do not compete; they guarantee different but equally necessary dimensions of human action.

2025-08-24 19:38:04 UTC

I’ve been working on a new framework for leaders and entrepreneurs who want to thrive in this world of autonomous consumers. Stay tuned.

2025-08-24 19:37:30 UTC

The next wave of strategy will not be about controlling consumers, but about serving them on the rails they choose. Entrepreneurs who understand this will build the future.

2025-08-24 19:37:10 UTC

Debanking. Deplatforming. Surveillance. Each one pushes consumers away from sovereign-dependent systems and toward autonomy-first systems that cannot be uninvented. The lesson for business: adapt or be bypassed.

2025-08-24 19:36:44 UTC

Consumers are no longer shaped by systems. They are shaping the systems themselves. With new rails for money, expression, and connection, individuals are now in a better position to decide what is best for themselves.

2025-08-24 19:35:40 UTC

For centuries, businesses operated on rails built by states and corporations. Money, communication, and association all depended on someone else’s permission. That code is breaking down.

2025-08-24 18:15:38 UTC

- reply

I find the idea of "digital force projection" contradictory. Force is physical. Digital is based on physical, but it can't defend or attack the non-digital.

2025-08-24 18:12:44 UTC

- reply

Well said! To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumours of the death of the state are greatly exaggerated.

2025-08-24 18:11:03 UTC

I'm getting on Nostr than I ever got on X, FB and even LinkedIn. No algo means followers are getting the notes unfiltered. I get actual replies and discussions.

2025-08-24 16:21:05 UTC

A “network state” is just a digital-first community with shared capital and maybe some land. But it’s not sovereign. It still relies on existing states for law, protection, and recognition.
In my framework, that makes it a sovereign-dependent order — closer to a corporation or NGO than a state. Even if it uses parasovereign tools like Bitcoin or Nostr, it can’t stand alone.
True sovereignty comes only from the ability to defend yourself and survive. Without that, independence and recognition are temporary favors from others, not guarantees.
#networkstate #sovereignty #parasivereignty #defense

2025-08-24 16:18:02 UTC

- reply

A “network state” is really just a digital-first community with shared capital and some physical footprint. But it’s not sovereign. It still depends on existing states for law, protection, and recognition.
In my framework, that makes it a sovereign-dependent order — closer to a corporation or NGO than to a state. Some may leverage parasovereign protocols like Bitcoin or Nostr for autonomy, but that doesn’t make them sovereign.
True sovereignty is the insurance policy for collective survival and prosperity. Network states can’t provide that guarantee — they remain downstream from actual states.

2025-08-24 15:12:08 UTC

I am working on a book that will clarify a simple conviction: sovereignty and parasovereignty are not rivals, but complementary guarantees of human action. Sovereignty is the insurance policy for collective survival and prosperity. Parasovereign protocols — Bitcoin, Nostr, Tor — are the insurance policies for individual freedom. Both are indispensable, but they do not operate on the same plane.
The task now is to serve those who recognize this. To build systems, products, and services that help individuals and organizations leverage parasovereign protocols for their own freedom and flourishing. That, after all, is what the capitalist system exists to do: to meet real human needs with ingenuity, discipline, and courage.
My intent is to explore and equip leaders for this frontier. Not to predict the future, but to help shape it — by aligning strategy with the enduring truth that freedom and survival require both sovereignty and parasovereignty, each in its place.
#parasovereignty

2025-08-24 15:09:20 UTC

Sovereignty and parasovereignty are not rivals.
Sovereignty is the insurance policy for collective survival and prosperity.
Parasovereign protocols — Bitcoin, Nostr, Tor — are the insurance policies for individual freedom.
Both are indispensable. Both must be served.
The work ahead is to build systems that help people leverage parasovereignty for freedom and flourishing.
That is what capitalism is for.

2025-08-24 15:02:19 UTC

- reply

#asknostr

2025-08-24 15:01:51 UTC

Question for the Nostrati
Does the fact of Nostr signatures and cryptographic integrity of Nostr events render copyright statements irrelevant?

2025-08-24 14:59:20 UTC

Sovereignty is the insurance policy for collective survival and prosperity; parasovereignty is the insurance policy for individual freedom — together indispensable, but never on the same plane.

2025-08-24 14:58:12 UTC

Sovereignty and Parasovereignty
Sovereignty is the insurance policy for collective survival and prosperity. It is the encompassing order that enables a people not only to endure but also to thrive: defending territory, securing resources, protecting institutions, and creating the conditions for flourishing. The premiums of sovereignty are paid by the people who make up and sustain the sovereign order — through service, sacrifice, taxes, law, and civic responsibility. Without sovereignty, collective survival becomes precarious, and collective prosperity impossible.
Parasovereignty, by contrast, is the insurance policy for individual freedom. Engineered protocols such as Bitcoin, Nostr, and Tor empower individuals to act autonomously, beyond censorship, coercion, or central chokepoints. They do not replace sovereignty, nor can they govern territory or populations. Instead, they secure personal agency, privacy, and resilience inside — and sometimes against — sovereign and sovereign-dependent orders.
Both are indispensable. Sovereignty guarantees the survival and prosperity of the collective; parasovereignty safeguards the freedom and autonomy of the individual. They do not compete on the same plane. Rather, they complement one another: sovereignty provides the ultimate guarantee of existence and thriving, while parasovereignty preserves the space of liberty within it.

2025-08-23 15:40:59 UTC

- reply

I appreciate your suggestions, Alex. But here’s my wider point: the ‘outsider revealer of secrets’ is itself an archetype. Cooper, Smith, Horton, and others all play that role. They present themselves as brave truth-tellers exposing what hidden powers don’t want you to know. A segment of the audience laps it up, not because the history is sound, but because it fulfills an archetypal need for revelation. I’ve already written a critique debunking Cooper’s pseudo-historical takes on WWII and antisemitism, which shows how thin the "scholarship" really is. See link following.
More broadly, this isn’t new — American politics has long been fertile ground for conspiratorial thinking, as Richard Hofstadter’s The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Thomas Konda’s Conspiracies of Conspiracies both demonstrate. Graham Hancock does the same with ‘hidden ancient civilizations’ — different subject, same script. This isn’t history. It’s science fiction written in the style of history.
https://www.exploitingchange.com/tucker-carlsons-interview-with-darryl-cooper-i-listened-to-it-so-you-dont-have-to/

2025-08-23 15:00:50 UTC

- reply

I respect your point of view. However, were the Aztecs, Maya and Incas also not indigenous? Didn't they have kings?

2025-08-23 14:59:27 UTC

- reply

Hi Alex,
I appreciate your perspective. I share some of it, though not all. It’s refreshing to be able to exchange ideas without rancour.
I value the points you raised about Jews worldwide. Most of the Jewish friends and acquaintances I’ve known are secular, much as I was raised Catholic but now mark holidays more culturally than spiritually. To be clear, my arguments are coming from a historical and strategic perspective, not religious conviction.
I know full well that most Jews don’t live in Israel and many are ambivalent about its policies or even its existence. That tension itself is part of the story. I’m currently preparing a series of articles on the historical development of Zionism, why it emerged, and what it means today. I come at this as a Canadian, aligned with our longstanding position: neutrality in the conflict, support for Israel’s right to exist, and support for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. That’s also Israel’s official position, even if terminology differs (Judea and Samaria, etc.). Names change — Sumer and Akkad are now Iraq.
On ChatGPT: I agree with your caution. I never take its first answer at face value, especially on contested issues. I use it as one tool among many, testing, probing, and vetting what it gives me. My background in historiography helps me separate useful synthesis from errors or bias.
On politics: I’m not a libertarian. I respect that view but I believe it’s naïve. The answer to bad government isn’t to abolish it; it’s to improve it with free speech, oversight, and gradual reform. Liberal democracy is not perfect, but it is the least bad option we have. Churchill was right about that, and Mises was right that it is the best system for peaceful adaptation.
Finally, for context: I served 26 years as an infantry officer, including Bosnia and multiple other multinational operations, including the Middle East. I have many friends—including my brother and father-in-law—who have served in the Middle East. I’ve studied military history and strategy for more than 45 years. I don’t claim omniscience, but I bring real-world experience to these discussions.
If you’re interested, my blog is here: www.thestrategiccode.com. I also post articles on Nostr.

2025-08-23 14:24:43 UTC

- reply

Thank you for this perspective. You’ve put your finger on the deep clash of worldviews: one sees land, water, and air as sacred gifts to be cared for, while the other treats them as property to be claimed, divided, and controlled. The history of treaties in Canada shows how these views collided, agreements to share were reinterpreted as cessions of ownership.
In my own work, I describe sovereignty as the state’s claim to order land and people through symbols, laws, and institutions. But I also see the persistence of parasovereign orders—like kinship, indigeneity, language, and spiritual responsibility—that resist being reduced to property or ownership. Your comment reminds me that these alternate conceptions of order still carry a truth that empire never erased.

2025-08-23 14:07:12 UTC

Phantom Man Argument:
A phantom man argument is a rhetorical fallacy where someone responds to an imaginary claim that was never made. It’s essentially a form of projection: the responder attributes to the author a position that exists only in their own anxieties, assumptions, or preconceptions, then argues against that phantom.
Contrast with Straw Man:
-Straw Man: Misrepresents or distorts the original argument, but at least stays on topic.
-Phantom Man: Doesn’t engage the original argument at all — it invents a position out of thin air and attacks that.
Key Features:
-Imaginary target — The argument being refuted never appeared in the original text.
-Projection-driven — It reflects the responder’s fears or biases more than the author’s words.
-Derailing — It pulls the discussion off track, forcing the author to defend against a ghost.

2025-08-23 13:38:55 UTC

- reply

I never claimed otherwise. I’m fully aware that Jews are not a homogeneous group, nor anyone else for that matter. Don’t put words in my mouth or over interpret my statements. However, Israel is explicitly THE Jewish State. A quick ChatGPT search answers this question, but that requires bit of work, right?

2025-08-23 12:59:06 UTC

The Antisemitic Paradox
Antisemitism has never been consistent; that is its power. Jews have been cast as both inferior and superior, crafty and foolish, subservient and domineering, rootless cosmopolitans and clannish tribalists. These contradictions aren’t mistakes. They’re projections. Societies resolve their own fears by assigning both sides of the paradox to Jews.
In Christian Europe, Jews were blamed as Christ-killers yet accused of greed as moneylenders. In the Islamic world, they were humiliated as dhimmis yet feared as disloyal. In modern politics, the far right accused them of inventing communism, while the far left accused them of running capitalism. The same people could be Bolsheviks and Rothschilds at once.
Today these paradoxes are projected onto the State of Israel. It is accused of being both too weak (dependent on America) and too strong (a colonial oppressor). Both victim (survivor of wars and terror) and aggressor (charged with genocide for defending itself). Both Western outpost and alien theocracy.
The lesson is clear: the paradox is the continuity. Israel is not hated for what it is, but for what others need it to symbolize. That is why Israel’s existence is non-negotiable. It is the refusal to remain the screen for other people’s contradictions.

2025-08-23 06:35:52 UTC

Whataboutism: The rhetorical tactic of citing supposed exceptions to a rule or proposition. "Oh yeah? What about X?"
This is why in logic we say that "the exception proves the rule." It ends up testing the rule and demonstrating that the "exception" isn’t really an exception after all.

2025-08-23 06:29:19 UTC

- reply

Why don’t YOU explain it?

2025-08-22 22:45:55 UTC

- reply

In 1948, Israel accepted the UN partition plan but was immediately invaded by five Arab armies. The Arab leadership rejected both the Jewish and the projected Arab state, seeking instead to wipe out the Jews. In the war that followed, Israel survived and controlled land allocated for the Arab state, but Jordan annexed the West Bank and Egypt took Gaza, leaving Palestinians stateless and in refugee camps by Arab design. From 1949 through the 1960s, Israel endured constant fedayeen raids from Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, and Lebanon, with full state backing. The 1956 Sinai campaign came after Egypt blockaded Eilat, an act of war, and massed troops. Under U.S. pressure, Israel withdrew. In 1967, after another Egyptian blockade and massive buildup in Sinai, Israel launched a preemptive strike; despite urging Jordan and Syria to stay out, both attacked, and Israel captured the Sinai, Golan, West Bank, and East Jerusalem. These territories were understood as bargaining chips for peace, not conquest. The 1973 Yom Kippur War, launched by Egypt and Syria, finally led to peace with Egypt and Jordan. The pattern is clear: Israel’s territorial changes came in defensive wars forced on it, not from unprovoked expansionism.

2025-08-22 22:05:42 UTC

- reply

Good idea. You’re beyond redemption.

2025-08-22 22:04:47 UTC

- reply

Congratulations—you’ve just demonstrated that you have no substantive arguments. Resorting to insults and baseless accusations says more about your antisemitism than anything else you’ve written.