@ 66675158:1b644430

I don't believe in "vibe coding" – it's just the newest Silicon Valley fad trying to give meaning to their latest favorite technology, LLMs. We've seen this pattern before with blockchain, when suddenly Non Fungible Tokens appeared, followed by Web3 startups promising to revolutionize everything from social media to supply chains. VCs couldn't throw money fast enough at anything with "decentralized" (in name only) in the pitch deck. Andreessen Horowitz launched billion-dollar crypto funds, while Y Combinator batches filled with blockchain startups promising to be "Uber for X, but on the blockchain."

The metaverse mania followed, with Meta betting its future on digital worlds where we'd supposedly hang out as legless avatars. Decentralized (in name only) autonomous organizations emerged as the next big thing – supposedly democratic internet communities that ended up being the next scam for quick money.

Then came the inevitable collapse. The FTX implosion in late 2022 revealed fraud, Luna/Terra's death spiral wiped out billions (including my ten thousand dollars), while Celsius and BlockFi froze customer assets before bankruptcy.

By 2023, crypto winter had fully set in. The SEC started aggressive enforcement actions, while users realized that blockchain technology had delivered almost no practical value despite a decade of promises.

Blockchain's promises tapped into fundamental human desires – decentralization resonated with a generation disillusioned by traditional institutions. Evangelists presented a utopian vision of freedom from centralized control. Perhaps most significantly, crypto offered a sense of meaning in an increasingly abstract world, making the clear signs of scams harder to notice.

The technology itself had failed to solve any real-world problems at scale. By 2024, the once-mighty crypto ecosystem had become a cautionary tale. Venture firms quietly scrubbed blockchain references from their websites while founders pivoted to AI and large language models.

---

Most reading this are likely fellow bitcoiners and nostr users who understand that Bitcoin is blockchain's only valid use case. But I shared that painful history because I believe the AI-hype cycle will follow the same trajectory.

Just like with blockchain, we're now seeing VCs who once couldn't stop talking about "Web3" falling over themselves to fund anything with "AI" in the pitch deck. The buzzwords have simply changed from "decentralized" to "intelligent."

"Vibe coding" is the perfect example – a trendy name for what is essentially just fuzzy instructions to LLMs. Developers who've spent years honing programming skills are now supposed to believe that "vibing" with an AI is somehow a legitimate methodology.

This might be controversial to some, but obvious to others:

Formal, context-free grammar will always remain essential for building precise systems, regardless of how advanced natural language technology becomes

The mathematical precision of programming languages provides a foundation that human language's ambiguity can never replace. Programming requires precision – languages, compilers, and processors operate on explicit instructions, not vibes. What "vibe coding" advocates miss is that beneath every AI-generated snippet lies the same deterministic rules that have always governed computation.

LLMs don't understand code in any meaningful sense—they've just ingested enormous datasets of human-written code and can predict patterns. When they "work," it's because they've seen similar patterns before, not because they comprehend the underlying logic.

This creates a dangerous dependency. Junior developers "vibing" with LLMs might get working code without understanding the fundamental principles. When something breaks in production, they'll lack the knowledge to fix it.

Even experienced developers can find themselves in treacherous territory when relying too heavily on LLM-generated code. What starts as a productivity boost can transform into a dependency crutch.

The real danger isn't just technical limitations, but the false confidence it instills. Developers begin to believe they understand systems they've merely instructed an AI to generate – fundamentally different from understanding code you've written yourself.

We're already seeing the warning signs: projects cobbled together with LLM-generated code that work initially but become maintenance nightmares when requirements change or edge cases emerge.

The venture capital money is flowing exactly as it did with blockchain. Anthropic raised billions, OpenAI is valued astronomically despite minimal revenue, and countless others are competing to build ever-larger models with vague promises. Every startup now claims to be "AI-powered" regardless of whether it makes sense.

Don't get me wrong—there's genuine innovation happening in AI research. But "vibe coding" isn't it. It's a marketing term designed to make fuzzy prompting sound revolutionary.

Cursor perfectly embodies this AI hype cycle. It's an AI-enhanced code editor built on VS Code that promises to revolutionize programming by letting you "chat with your codebase." Just like blockchain startups promised to "revolutionize" industries, Cursor promises to transform development by adding LLM capabilities.

Yes, Cursor can be genuinely helpful. It can explain unfamiliar code, suggest completions, and help debug simple issues. After trying it for just an hour, I found the autocomplete to be MAGICAL for simple refactoring and basic functionality.

But the marketing goes far beyond reality. The suggestion that you can simply describe what you want and get production-ready code is dangerously misleading. What you get are approximations with:

• Security vulnerabilities the model doesn't understand
• Edge cases it hasn't considered
• Performance implications it can't reason about
• Dependency conflicts it has no way to foresee

The most concerning aspect is how such tools are marketed to beginners as shortcuts around learning fundamentals. "Why spend years learning to code when you can just tell AI what you want?" This is reminiscent of how crypto was sold as a get-rich-quick scheme requiring no actual understanding.

When you "vibe code" with an AI, you're not eliminating complexity—you're outsourcing understanding to a black box. This creates developers who can prompt but not program, who can generate but not comprehend.

The real utility of LLMs in development is in augmenting existing workflows:

• Explaining unfamiliar codebases
• Generating boilerplate for well-understood patterns
• Suggesting implementations that a developer evaluates critically
• Assisting with documentation and testing

These uses involve the model as a subordinate assistant to a knowledgeable developer, not as a replacement for expertise. This is where the technology adds value—as a sophisticated tool in skilled hands.

Cursor is just a better hammer, not a replacement for understanding what you're building. The actual value emerges when used by developers who understand what happens beneath the abstractions. They can recognize when AI suggestions make sense and when they don't because they have the fundamental knowledge to evaluate output critically.

This is precisely where the "vibe coding" narrative falls apart.

@ bf95e1a4:ebdcc848

This is a part of the Bitcoin Infinity Academy course on Knut Svanholm's book Bitcoin: Sovereignty Through Mathematics. For more information, check out our Geyser page!

Everything A Trade

All human interaction can be defined as trade. Yes, all human interaction. Every time a human being interacts with another, an exchange takes place. In every conversation we have, we exchange information with each other. Even the most trivial information is of some value to the other person. If information didn’t have any value to us, we wouldn’t talk to each other. Either what the other person says is valuable to us, or we find it valuable to give information to them. Oftentimes both. At the core of all human interaction that isn’t violent, both parties perceive that they gain some value from it, otherwise the interaction wouldn’t have taken place at all. Civilizations begin this way — two people finding it valuable to interact with each other. That’s all it takes.

So, what constitutes value? What we find valuable is entirely subjective. A comforting hug, for example, probably has a different value to a two-year-old than it has to a withered army general. Even the most basic action, such as breathing, encapsulates the whole value spectrum. We tend to forget that even a single breath of air can be of immense value to us under the right circumstances. A single breath is worth more than anything on the planet to a desperate free-diver trapped under ice, while worth nothing to a person with a death wish in clean forest air on a sunny summer day. Value is derived from supply and demand, and demand is always subjective. Supply is not.

Since all of our lives are limited by time, time is the ultimate example of a scarce, tradeable resource. We all sell our time. We sell it to others, and we sell it to ourselves. Everyone sells their time, either through a product that took them a certain amount of time to produce, or as a service, and services always take time. If you’re an employee on a steady payroll, you typically sell eight hours of your day, every day, to your employer. If you’re doing something you truly love to do, that eight-hour day still belongs to you, in a way, since you’re doing what you’d probably be doing anyway if you had been forced to do it for free. Sometimes, we sacrifice time in order to acquire something in the future. An education, for instance, gives no immediate reward but can lead to a better-paying, more satisfying job in the future. An investment is basically our future self trading time with our present self at a discount. Once again, every human interaction viewed as trade.

It’s rooted in physics. For every action, there is an equally large reaction. Trade is at the very core of what we are, and the tools we use to conduct trade matter a lot to the outcome of each transaction. Money is our primary tool for expressing value to each other and if the creation of money is somewhat corrupt or unethical, that rot spreads down throughout society, from top to bottom. Shit flows downhill, as the expression goes.

So what is money, or rather, what ought money to be? In order for two persons to interact when a mutual coincidence of needs is absent, a medium of exchange is needed in order to execute a transaction. A mutual coincidence of needs might be “You need my three goats, and I need your cow,” or even “both of us need a hug.” In the absence of a physical good or service suitable for a specific transaction, money can fulfill the role of a medium of exchange. What most people fail to realize is that the value of money, just as the value of everything else, is entirely subjective. You don’t have to spend it. The problem with every incarnation of money that mankind has ever tried is that its value always gets diluted over time due to inflation in various forms. Inflation makes traditional money a bad store of value, and money needs to be a good store of value in order to be a good investment, or in other words, a good substitute for your time and your effort over time. Bitcoin tries to solve this problem by introducing absolute scarcity to the world, a concept that mankind has never encountered before. To comprehend what such a discovery means for the future, one needs to understand the fundamentals of what value is and that we assign a certain value to everything we encounter in life, whether we admit it or not. In short, we assign value to everything we do, value is derived from supply and demand, and supply is objective while demand is subjective.

Free trade emerges out of human interaction naturally and it is not an idea that was forced upon us at any specific point in time. The idea that markets should be regulated and governed, on the other hand, was. Free trade is just the absence of forceful interference in an interaction between two humans by a third party. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong or immoral about an exchange of a good or service. Every objection to this is a byproduct of the current global narrative — a narrative that tells us that the world is divided into different nations and that people in these nations operate under various sets of laws, depending on what jurisdiction they find themselves in. All of these ideas are man-made. No species except humans does this to themselves. Animals do trade, but they don’t do politics.

Bitcoin and the idea of truly sound, absolutely scarce money inevitably make you question human societal structures in general and the nature of money in particular. Once you realize that this Pandora’s box of an idea can’t be closed again by anyone, everything is put into perspective. Once you realize that it is now possible for anyone with a decently sized brain to store any amount of wealth in that brain or to beam wealth anonymously to any other brain in the world without anyone else ever knowing, everything you were ever told about human society is turned on its head. Everything you thought you knew about taxes, social class, capitalism, socialism, economics, or even democracy falls apart like a house of cards in a hurricane. It is, in fact, impossible to comprehend the impact Bitcoin will have on the planet without also understanding basic Austrian economics and what the libertarian worldview stems from.

Imagine growing up in an Amish community. Until your sixteenth birthday, you’re purposely completely shielded off from the outside world. Information about how the world really works is very limited to you since internet access, and even TVs and radios, are forbidden within the community. Well, from a certain perspective, we’re all Amish. How money really works is never emphasized enough through traditional media or public educational institutions. Most people believe that the monetary system is somehow sound and fair when there’s overwhelming evidence to the contrary all over the globe. Ask yourself, do you remember being taught about the origins of money in school? Me neither. I don’t believe that there’s some great, global conspiracy behind the fact that the ethics of money creation isn’t a school subject, but rather that plain old ignorance is to blame for the lack of such a subject primarily. As soon as their math-skill limit is reached, people seem to stop caring about numbers. The difference between a million and a billion seems lost on a depressingly large part of the world's population. In the chapters ahead, we’ll explore the pitfalls of central banking, how money pops into existence, and how inflation keeps us all on a leash.

About the Bitcoin Infinity Academy

The Bitcoin Infinity Academy is an educational project built around Knut Svanholm’s books about Bitcoin and Austrian Economics. Each week, a whole chapter from one of the books is released for free on Highlighter, accompanied by a video in which Knut and Luke de Wolf discuss that chapter’s ideas. You can join the discussions by signing up for one of the courses on our Geyser page. Signed books, monthly calls, and lots of other benefits are also available.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass technisch manches möglich ist, \ aber der Staat es nicht nutzt. \ Angela Merkel

Die Modalverben zu erklären, ist im Deutschunterricht manchmal nicht ganz einfach. Nicht alle Fremdsprachen unterscheiden zum Beispiel bei der Frage nach einer Möglichkeit gleichermaßen zwischen «können» im Sinne von «die Gelegenheit, Kenntnis oder Fähigkeit haben» und «dürfen» als «die Erlaubnis oder Berechtigung haben». Das spanische Wort «poder» etwa steht für beides.

Ebenso ist vielen Schülern auf den ersten Blick nicht recht klar, dass das logische Gegenteil von «müssen» nicht unbedingt «nicht müssen» ist, sondern vielmehr «nicht dürfen». An den Verkehrsschildern lässt sich so etwas meistens recht gut erklären: Manchmal muss man abbiegen, aber manchmal darf man eben nicht.

Dieses Beispiel soll ein wenig die Verwirrungstaktik veranschaulichen, die in der Politik gerne verwendet wird, um unpopuläre oder restriktive Maßnahmen Stück für Stück einzuführen. Zuerst ist etwas einfach innovativ und bringt viele Vorteile. Vor allem ist es freiwillig, jeder kann selber entscheiden, niemand muss mitmachen. Später kann man zunehmend weniger Alternativen wählen, weil sie verschwinden, und irgendwann verwandelt sich alles andere in «nicht dürfen» – die Maßnahme ist obligatorisch.

Um die Durchsetzung derartiger Initiativen strategisch zu unterstützen und nett zu verpacken, gibt es Lobbyisten, gerne auch NGOs genannt. Dass das «NG» am Anfang dieser Abkürzung übersetzt «Nicht-Regierungs-» bedeutet, ist ein Anachronismus. Das war vielleicht früher einmal so, heute ist eher das Gegenteil gemeint.

In unserer modernen Zeit wird enorm viel Lobbyarbeit für die Digitalisierung praktisch sämtlicher Lebensbereiche aufgewendet. Was das auf dem Sektor der Mobilität bedeuten kann, haben wir diese Woche anhand aktueller Entwicklungen in Spanien beleuchtet. Begründet teilweise mit Vorgaben der Europäischen Union arbeitet man dort fleißig an einer «neuen Mobilität», basierend auf «intelligenter» technologischer Infrastruktur. Derartige Anwandlungen wurden auch schon als «Technofeudalismus» angeprangert.

Nationale Zugangspunkte für Mobilitätsdaten im Sinne der EU gibt es nicht nur in allen Mitgliedsländern, sondern auch in der Schweiz und in Großbritannien. Das Vereinigte Königreich beteiligt sich darüber hinaus an anderen EU-Projekten für digitale Überwachungs- und Kontrollmaßnahmen, wie dem biometrischen Identifizierungssystem für «nachhaltigen Verkehr und Tourismus».

Natürlich marschiert auch Deutschland stracks und euphorisch in Richtung digitaler Zukunft. Ohne vernetzte Mobilität und einen «verlässlichen Zugang zu Daten, einschließlich Echtzeitdaten» komme man in der Verkehrsplanung und -steuerung nicht aus, erklärt die Regierung. Der Interessenverband der IT-Dienstleister Bitkom will «die digitale Transformation der deutschen Wirtschaft und Verwaltung vorantreiben». Dazu bewirbt er unter anderem die Konzepte Smart City, Smart Region und Smart Country und behauptet, deutsche Großstädte «setzen bei Mobilität voll auf Digitalisierung».

Es steht zu befürchten, dass das umfassende Sammeln, Verarbeiten und Vernetzen von Daten, das angeblich die Menschen unterstützen soll (und theoretisch ja auch könnte), eher dazu benutzt wird, sie zu kontrollieren und zu manipulieren. Je elektrischer und digitaler unsere Umgebung wird, desto größer sind diese Möglichkeiten. Im Ergebnis könnten solche Prozesse den Bürger nicht nur einschränken oder überflüssig machen, sondern in mancherlei Hinsicht regelrecht abschalten. Eine gesunde Skepsis ist also geboten.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Er ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

O conceito de Megablock propõe uma nova maneira de medir o tempo dentro do ecossistema Bitcoin. Assim como usamos décadas, séculos e milênios para medir períodos históricos na sociedade humana, o Bitcoin pode ser dividido em Megablocks, cada um representando 1 milhão de blocos minerados.

---

1. Introdução

O Bitcoin opera em um sistema baseado na mineração de blocos, onde um novo bloco é adicionado à blockchain (ou timechain) aproximadamente a cada 10 minutos. A contagem de tempo tradicional, baseada em calendários solares e lunares, não se aplica diretamente ao Bitcoin, que funciona de maneira independente das convenções temporais humanas.

A proposta do Megablock surge como uma alternativa para medir o progresso da rede Bitcoin, dividindo sua existência em unidades de 1 milhão de blocos, permitindo uma estruturação do tempo no contexto da blockchain. Entretanto, diferentemente de medidas fixas de tempo, como anos e séculos, o tempo de um Megablock futuro não pode ser previsto com exatidão, pois variações no hashrate e ajustes de dificuldade fazem com que o tempo real de mineração flutue ao longo dos anos.

---

2. Definição do Megablock

2.1 O que é um Megablock?

Um Megablock é uma unidade de tempo no Bitcoin definida por um ciclo de 1.000.000 de blocos minerados. Com a taxa de geração de blocos mantida em 10 minutos por bloco, podemos estimar:

1 Megablock ≈ 1.000.000×10 minutos = 10.000.000 minutos = 166.666,7 horas = 6.944,4 dias ≈ 19 anos

Entretanto, dados históricos mostram que a média real de tempo por bloco tem sido levemente inferior a 10 minutos. Ao analisar os últimos 800.000 blocos, percebemos que cada 100.000 blocos foram minerados, em média, 1 a 2 meses mais rápido do que o previsto. Com variações indo de 2 dias a 3 meses de diferença. Esse ajuste pode continuar mudando conforme o hashrate cresce ou desacelera

Isso significa que o Megablock não deve ser usado como uma métrica exata para previsões futuras baseadas no calendário humano, (apenas aproximações e estimativas) pois sua duração pode variar ao longo do tempo. No entanto, essa variação não compromete sua função como uma unidade de tempo já decorrido. O conceito de Megablock continua sendo uma referência sólida para estruturar períodos históricos dentro da blockchain do Bitcoin. Independentemente da velocidade futura da mineração, 1 milhão de blocos sempre será igual a 1 milhão de blocos.

2.2 Estrutura dos Megablocks ao longo da história do Bitcoin

| Megablock | Início (Bloco) | Fim (Bloco) | Ano Estimado (margem de erro: ±2 anos) | | ---------------- | ------------------ | --------------- | ------------------------------------------ | | 1º Megablock | 0 | 1.000.000 | 2009 ~ 2027 | | 2º Megablock | 1.000.001 | 2.000.000 | 2027 ~ 2045 | | 3º Megablock | 2.000.001 | 3.000.000 | 2045 ~ 2064 | | 4º Megablock | 3.000.001 | 4.000.000 | 2064 ~ 2082 | | 5º Megablock | 4.000.001 | 5.000.000 | 2082 ~ 2099 | | 6º Megablock | 5.000.001 | 6.000.000 | 2099 ~ 2117 | | 7º Megablock | 6.000.001 | 7.000.000 | 2117 ~ 2136 |

• Nota sobre o primeiro Megablock: Do Bloco Gênese (0) ao Bloco 1.000.000, serão minerados 1.000.001 blocos, pois o Bloco 0 também é contado. O milionésimo bloco será, na realidade, o de número 999.999. Nos Megablocks subsequentes, a contagem será exatamente de 1.000.000 de blocos cada.

O fornecimento de Bitcoin passará por 6 Megablocks completos antes de atingir seu total de 21 milhões de BTC, previsto para acontecer no Bloco 6.930.000 (7º Megablock), quando a última fração de BTC será minerada.

Se essa tendência da média de tempo por bloco ser ligeiramente inferior a 10 minutos continuar, o último bloco com recompensa pode ser minerado entre 2135 e 2138, antes da previsão original de 2140.

De qualquer forma, o Megablock não se limita ao fornecimento de novas moedas. O último bloco com emissão de BTC será o 6.930.000, mas a blockchain continuará existindo indefinidamente.

Após a última emissão, os mineradores não receberão mais novas moedas como recompensa de bloco, mas continuarão garantindo a segurança da rede apenas com as taxas de transação. Dessa forma, novos Megablocks continuarão a ser formados, mantendo o padrão de 1.000.000 de blocos por unidade de tempo.

Assim como o 1º Megablock marca a era inicial do Bitcoin com sua fase de emissão mais intensa, os Megablocks após o fim da emissão representarão uma nova era da rede, onde a segurança será mantida puramente por incentivos de taxas de transação. Isso reforça que o tempo no Bitcoin continua sendo medido em blocos, e não em moedas emitidas.

---

3. Benefícios do Conceito de Megablock

3.1 Estruturação do Tempo Já Decorrido

Os Megablocks permitem que os Bitcoiners analisem a evolução da rede com uma métrica clara e baseada no próprio protocolo, estruturando os períodos históricos do Bitcoin.

3.2 Comparação com Unidades Temporais Humanas

Assim como temos décadas, séculos e milênios, podemos organizar a história do Bitcoin com Megablocks, criando marcos temporais claros dentro da blockchain:

• 1 Megablock ≈ 17 a 19 anos (equivalente a uma “geração” no tempo humano)
• 210.000 blocos = ~4 anos (ciclo de halving do Bitcoin)

3.3 Aplicação na História do Bitcoin

Podemos usar Megablocks para marcar eventos históricos importantes da rede:

• O 1º Megablock (2009 ~ 2026/2028) engloba a criação do Bitcoin, os primeiros halvings e a adoção institucional.
• O 2º Megablock (2027 ~ 2044/2046) verá um Bitcoin muito mais escasso, possivelmente consolidado como reserva de valor global.
• O 3º Megablock (2045 ~ 2062/2064) pode ser uma era de hiperbitcoinização, onde a economia gira inteiramente em torno do BTC.

---

4. Conclusão

O Megablock é uma proposta baseada na matemática da rede para medir o tempo já decorrido no Bitcoin, dividindo sua história em unidades de 1 milhão de blocos minerados. Essa unidade de tempo permite que Bitcoiners acompanhem o desenvolvimento e registrem a história da rede de maneira organizada e independente dos ciclos arbitrários do calendário humano.

Estamos atualmente formando o Primeiro Megablock, assim como estamos vivendo e construindo a década de 2020 e o século XXI. Esse conceito pode se tornar uma métrica fundamental para o estudo da história do Bitcoin, reforçando a ideia de que no Bitcoin, o tempo é medido em blocos, não em relógios.

Você já imaginou como será o Bitcoin no 3º ou 4º Megablock?

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

19. März 2025

🔐 1. SHA-256 is Quantum-Resistant

Bitcoin’s proof-of-work mechanism relies on SHA-256, a hashing algorithm. Even with a powerful quantum computer, SHA-256 remains secure because:

• Quantum computers excel at factoring large numbers (Shor’s Algorithm).
• However, SHA-256 is a one-way function, meaning there's no known quantum algorithm that can efficiently reverse it.
• Grover’s Algorithm (which theoretically speeds up brute force attacks) would still require 2¹²⁸ operations to break SHA-256 – far beyond practical reach.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

🔑 2. Public Key Vulnerability – But Only If You Reuse Addresses

Bitcoin uses Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) to generate keys.

• A quantum computer could use Shor’s Algorithm to break SECP256K1, the curve Bitcoin uses.
• If you never reuse addresses, it is an additional security element
• 🔑 1. Bitcoin Addresses Are NOT Public Keys

Many people assume a Bitcoin address is the public key—this is wrong.

• When you receive Bitcoin, it is sent to a hashed public key (the Bitcoin address).
• The actual public key is never exposed because it is the Bitcoin Adress who addresses the Public Key which never reveals the creation of a public key by a spend
• Bitcoin uses Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH) or newer methods like Pay-to-Witness-Public-Key-Hash (P2WPKH), which add extra layers of security.

🕵️♂️ 2.1 The Public Key Never Appears

• When you send Bitcoin, your wallet creates a digital signature.
• This signature uses the private key to prove ownership.
• The Bitcoin address is revealed and creates the Public Key
• The public key remains hidden inside the Bitcoin script and Merkle tree.

This means: ✔ The public key is never exposed. ✔ Quantum attackers have nothing to target, attacking a Bitcoin Address is a zero value game.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

🔄 3. Bitcoin Can Upgrade

Even if quantum computers eventually become a real threat:

• Bitcoin developers can upgrade to quantum-safe cryptography (e.g., lattice-based cryptography or post-quantum signatures like Dilithium).
• Bitcoin’s decentralized nature ensures a network-wide soft fork or hard fork could transition to quantum-resistant keys.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

⏳ 4. The 10-Minute Block Rule as a Security Feature

• Bitcoin’s network operates on a 10-minute block interval, meaning:Even if an attacker had immense computational power (like a quantum computer), they could only attempt an attack every 10 minutes.Unlike traditional encryption, where a hacker could continuously brute-force keys, Bitcoin’s system resets the challenge with every new block.This limits the window of opportunity for quantum attacks.

---

🎯 5. Quantum Attack Needs to Solve a Block in Real-Time

• A quantum attacker must solve the cryptographic puzzle (Proof of Work) in under 10 minutes.
• The problem? Any slight error changes the hash completely, meaning:If the quantum computer makes a mistake (even 0.0001% probability), the entire attack fails.Quantum decoherence (loss of qubit stability) makes error correction a massive challenge.The computational cost of recovering from an incorrect hash is still incredibly high.

---

⚡ 6. Network Resilience – Even if a Block Is Hacked

• Even if a quantum computer somehow solved a block instantly:The network would quickly recognize and reject invalid transactions.Other miners would continue mining under normal cryptographic rules.51% Attack? The attacker would need to consistently beat the entire Bitcoin network, which is not sustainable.

---

🔄 7. The Logarithmic Difficulty Adjustment Neutralizes Threats

• Bitcoin adjusts mining difficulty every 2016 blocks (\~2 weeks).
• If quantum miners appeared and suddenly started solving blocks too quickly, the difficulty would adjust upward, making attacks significantly harder.
• This self-correcting mechanism ensures that even quantum computers wouldn't easily overpower the network.

---

🔥 Final Verdict: Quantum Computers Are Too Slow for Bitcoin

✔ The 10-minute rule limits attack frequency – quantum computers can’t keep up.

✔ Any slight miscalculation ruins the attack, resetting all progress.

✔ Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment would react, neutralizing quantum advantages.

Even if quantum computers reach their theoretical potential, Bitcoin’s game theory and design make it incredibly resistant. 🚀

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Bald werde es verboten, alleine im Auto zu fahren, konnte man dieser Tage in verschiedenen spanischen Medien lesen. Die nationale Verkehrsbehörde (Dirección General de Tráfico, kurz DGT) werde Alleinfahrern das Leben schwer machen, wurde gemeldet. Konkret erörtere die Generaldirektion geeignete Sanktionen für Personen, die ohne Beifahrer im Privatauto unterwegs seien.

Das Alleinfahren sei zunehmend verpönt und ein Mentalitätswandel notwendig, hieß es. Dieser «Luxus» stehe im Widerspruch zu den Maßnahmen gegen Umweltverschmutzung, die in allen europäischen Ländern gefördert würden. In Frankreich sei es «bereits verboten, in der Hauptstadt allein zu fahren», behauptete Noticiastrabajo Huffpost in einer Zwischenüberschrift. Nur um dann im Text zu konkretisieren, dass die sogenannte «Umweltspur» auf der Pariser Ringautobahn gemeint war, die für Busse, Taxis und Fahrgemeinschaften reserviert ist. Ab Mai werden Verstöße dagegen mit einem Bußgeld geahndet.

Die DGT jedenfalls wolle bei der Umsetzung derartiger Maßnahmen nicht hinterherhinken. Diese Medienberichte, inklusive des angeblich bevorstehenden Verbots, beriefen sich auf Aussagen des Generaldirektors der Behörde, Pere Navarro, beim Mobilitätskongress Global Mobility Call im November letzten Jahres, wo es um «nachhaltige Mobilität» ging. Aus diesem Kontext stammt auch Navarros Warnung: «Die Zukunft des Verkehrs ist geteilt oder es gibt keine».

Die «Faktenchecker» kamen der Generaldirektion prompt zu Hilfe. Die DGT habe derlei Behauptungen zurückgewiesen und klargestellt, dass es keine Pläne gebe, Fahrten mit nur einer Person im Auto zu verbieten oder zu bestrafen. Bei solchen Meldungen handele es sich um Fake News. Teilweise wurde der Vorsitzende der spanischen «Rechtsaußen»-Partei Vox, Santiago Abascal, der Urheberschaft bezichtigt, weil er einen entsprechenden Artikel von La Gaceta kommentiert hatte.

Der Beschwichtigungsversuch der Art «niemand hat die Absicht» ist dabei erfahrungsgemäß eher ein Alarmzeichen als eine Beruhigung. Walter Ulbrichts Leugnung einer geplanten Berliner Mauer vom Juni 1961 ist vielen genauso in Erinnerung wie die Fake News-Warnungen des deutschen Bundesgesundheitsministeriums bezüglich Lockdowns im März 2020 oder diverse Äußerungen zu einer Impfpflicht ab 2020.

Aber Aufregung hin, Dementis her: Die Pressemitteilung der DGT zu dem Mobilitätskongress enthält in Wahrheit viel interessantere Informationen als «nur» einen Appell an den «guten» Bürger wegen der Bemühungen um die Lebensqualität in Großstädten oder einen möglichen obligatorischen Abschied vom Alleinfahren. Allerdings werden diese Details von Medien und sogenannten Faktencheckern geflissentlich übersehen, obwohl sie keineswegs versteckt sind. Die Auskünfte sind sehr aufschlussreich, wenn man genauer hinschaut.

Digitalisierung ist der Schlüssel für Kontrolle

Auf dem Kongress stellte die Verkehrsbehörde ihre Initiativen zur Förderung der «neuen Mobilität» vor, deren Priorität Sicherheit und Effizienz sei. Die vier konkreten Ansätze haben alle mit Digitalisierung, Daten, Überwachung und Kontrolle im großen Stil zu tun und werden unter dem Euphemismus der «öffentlich-privaten Partnerschaft» angepriesen. Auch lassen sie die transhumanistische Idee vom unzulänglichen Menschen erkennen, dessen Fehler durch «intelligente» technologische Infrastruktur kompensiert werden müssten.

Die Chefin des Bereichs «Verkehrsüberwachung» erklärte die Funktion des spanischen National Access Point (NAP), wobei sie betonte, wie wichtig Verkehrs- und Infrastrukturinformationen in Echtzeit seien. Der NAP ist «eine essenzielle Web-Applikation, die unter EU-Mandat erstellt wurde», kann man auf der Website der DGT nachlesen.

Das Mandat meint Regelungen zu einem einheitlichen europäischen Verkehrsraum, mit denen die Union mindestens seit 2010 den Aufbau einer digitalen Architektur mit offenen Schnittstellen betreibt. Damit begründet man auch «umfassende Datenbereitstellungspflichten im Bereich multimodaler Reiseinformationen». Jeder Mitgliedstaat musste einen NAP, also einen nationalen Zugangspunkt einrichten, der Zugang zu statischen und dynamischen Reise- und Verkehrsdaten verschiedener Verkehrsträger ermöglicht.

Diese Entwicklung ist heute schon weit fortgeschritten, auch und besonders in Spanien. Auf besagtem Kongress erläuterte die Leiterin des Bereichs «Telematik» die Plattform «DGT 3.0». Diese werde als Integrator aller Informationen genutzt, die von den verschiedenen öffentlichen und privaten Systemen, die Teil der Mobilität sind, bereitgestellt werden.

Es handele sich um eine Vermittlungsplattform zwischen Akteuren wie Fahrzeugherstellern, Anbietern von Navigationsdiensten oder Kommunen und dem Endnutzer, der die Verkehrswege benutzt. Alle seien auf Basis des Internets der Dinge (IOT) anonym verbunden, «um der vernetzten Gemeinschaft wertvolle Informationen zu liefern oder diese zu nutzen».

So sei DGT 3.0 «ein Zugangspunkt für einzigartige, kostenlose und genaue Echtzeitinformationen über das Geschehen auf den Straßen und in den Städten». Damit lasse sich der Verkehr nachhaltiger und vernetzter gestalten. Beispielsweise würden die Karten des Produktpartners Google dank der DGT-Daten 50 Millionen Mal pro Tag aktualisiert.

Des Weiteren informiert die Verkehrsbehörde über ihr SCADA-Projekt. Die Abkürzung steht für Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, zu deutsch etwa: Kontrollierte Steuerung und Datenerfassung. Mit SCADA kombiniert man Software und Hardware, um automatisierte Systeme zur Überwachung und Steuerung technischer Prozesse zu schaffen. Das SCADA-Projekt der DGT wird von Indra entwickelt, einem spanischen Beratungskonzern aus den Bereichen Sicherheit & Militär, Energie, Transport, Telekommunikation und Gesundheitsinformation.

Das SCADA-System der Behörde umfasse auch eine Videostreaming- und Videoaufzeichnungsplattform, die das Hochladen in die Cloud in Echtzeit ermöglicht, wie Indra erklärt. Dabei gehe es um Bilder, die von Überwachungskameras an Straßen aufgenommen wurden, sowie um Videos aus DGT-Hubschraubern und Drohnen. Ziel sei es, «die sichere Weitergabe von Videos an Dritte sowie die kontinuierliche Aufzeichnung und Speicherung von Bildern zur möglichen Analyse und späteren Nutzung zu ermöglichen».

Letzteres klingt sehr nach biometrischer Erkennung und Auswertung durch künstliche Intelligenz. Für eine bessere Datenübertragung wird derzeit die Glasfaserverkabelung entlang der Landstraßen und Autobahnen ausgebaut. Mit der Cloud sind die Amazon Web Services (AWS) gemeint, die spanischen Daten gehen somit direkt zu einem US-amerikanischen «Big Data»-Unternehmen.

Das Thema «autonomes Fahren», also Fahren ohne Zutun des Menschen, bildet den Abschluss der Betrachtungen der DGT. Zusammen mit dem Interessenverband der Automobilindustrie ANFAC (Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Automóviles y Camiones) sprach man auf dem Kongress über Strategien und Perspektiven in diesem Bereich. Die Lobbyisten hoffen noch in diesem Jahr 2025 auf einen normativen Rahmen zur erweiterten Unterstützung autonomer Technologien.

Wenn man derartige Informationen im Zusammenhang betrachtet, bekommt man eine Idee davon, warum zunehmend alles elektrisch und digital werden soll. Umwelt- und Mobilitätsprobleme in Städten, wie Luftverschmutzung, Lärmbelästigung, Platzmangel oder Staus, sind eine Sache. Mit dem Argument «emissionslos» wird jedoch eine Referenz zum CO2 und dem «menschengemachten Klimawandel» hergestellt, die Emotionen triggert. Und damit wird so ziemlich alles verkauft.

Letztlich aber gilt: Je elektrischer und digitaler unsere Umgebung wird und je freigiebiger wir mit unseren Daten jeder Art sind, desto besser werden wir kontrollier-, steuer- und sogar abschaltbar. Irgendwann entscheiden KI-basierte Algorithmen, ob, wann, wie, wohin und mit wem wir uns bewegen dürfen. Über einen 15-Minuten-Radius geht dann möglicherweise nichts hinaus. Die Projekte auf diesem Weg sind ernst zu nehmen, real und schon weit fortgeschritten.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Was nützt die schönste Schuldenbremse, wenn der Russe vor der Tür steht? \ Wir können uns verteidigen lernen oder alle Russisch lernen. \ Jens Spahn

In der Politik ist buchstäblich keine Idee zu riskant, kein Mittel zu schäbig und keine Lüge zu dreist, als dass sie nicht benutzt würden. Aber der Clou ist, dass diese Masche immer noch funktioniert, wenn nicht sogar immer besser. Ist das alles wirklich so schwer zu durchschauen? Mir fehlen langsam die Worte.

Aktuell werden sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland riesige Milliardenpakete für die Aufrüstung – also für die Rüstungsindustrie – geschnürt. Die EU will 800 Milliarden Euro locker machen, in Deutschland sollen es 500 Milliarden «Sondervermögen» sein. Verteidigung nennen das unsere «Führer», innerhalb der Union und auch an «unserer Ostflanke», der Ukraine.

Das nötige Feindbild konnte inzwischen signifikant erweitert werden. Schuld an allem und zudem gefährlich ist nicht mehr nur Putin, sondern jetzt auch Trump. Europa müsse sich sowohl gegen Russland als auch gegen die USA schützen und rüsten, wird uns eingetrichtert.

Und während durch Diplomatie genau dieser beiden Staaten gerade endlich mal Bewegung in die Bemühungen um einen Frieden oder wenigstens einen Waffenstillstand in der Ukraine kommt, rasselt man im moralisch überlegenen Zeigefinger-Europa so richtig mit dem Säbel.

Begleitet und gestützt wird der ganze Prozess – wie sollte es anders sein – von den «Qualitätsmedien». Dass Russland einen Angriff auf «Europa» plant, weiß nicht nur der deutsche Verteidigungsminister (und mit Abstand beliebteste Politiker) Pistorius, sondern dank ihnen auch jedes Kind. Uns bleiben nur noch wenige Jahre. Zum Glück bereitet sich die Bundeswehr schon sehr konkret auf einen Krieg vor.

Die FAZ und Corona-Gesundheitsminister Spahn markieren einen traurigen Höhepunkt. Hier haben sich «politische und publizistische Verantwortungslosigkeit propagandistisch gegenseitig befruchtet», wie es bei den NachDenkSeiten heißt. Die Aussage Spahns in dem Interview, «der Russe steht vor der Tür», ist das eine. Die Zeitung verschärfte die Sache jedoch, indem sie das Zitat explizit in den Titel übernahm, der in einer ersten Version scheinbar zu harmlos war.

Eine große Mehrheit der deutschen Bevölkerung findet Aufrüstung und mehr Schulden toll, wie ARD und ZDF sehr passend ermittelt haben wollen. Ähnliches gelte für eine noch stärkere militärische Unterstützung der Ukraine. Etwas skeptischer seien die Befragten bezüglich der Entsendung von Bundeswehrsoldaten dorthin, aber immerhin etwa fifty-fifty.

Eigentlich ist jedoch die Meinung der Menschen in «unseren Demokratien» irrelevant. Sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland sind die «Eliten» offenbar der Ansicht, der Souverän habe in Fragen von Krieg und Frieden sowie von aberwitzigen astronomischen Schulden kein Wörtchen mitzureden. Frau von der Leyen möchte über 150 Milliarden aus dem Gesamtpaket unter Verwendung von Artikel 122 des EU-Vertrags ohne das Europäische Parlament entscheiden – wenn auch nicht völlig kritiklos.

In Deutschland wollen CDU/CSU und SPD zur Aufweichung der «Schuldenbremse» mehrere Änderungen des Grundgesetzes durch das abgewählte Parlament peitschen. Dieser Versuch, mit dem alten Bundestag eine Zweidrittelmehrheit zu erzielen, die im neuen nicht mehr gegeben wäre, ist mindestens verfassungsrechtlich umstritten.

Das Manöver scheint aber zu funktionieren. Heute haben die Grünen zugestimmt, nachdem Kanzlerkandidat Merz läppische 100 Milliarden für «irgendwas mit Klima» zugesichert hatte. Die Abstimmung im Plenum soll am kommenden Dienstag erfolgen – nur eine Woche, bevor sich der neu gewählte Bundestag konstituieren wird.

Interessant sind die Argumente, die BlackRocker Merz für seine Attacke auf Grundgesetz und Demokratie ins Feld führt. Abgesehen von der angeblichen Eile, «unsere Verteidigungsfähigkeit deutlich zu erhöhen» (ausgelöst unter anderem durch «die Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz und die Ereignisse im Weißen Haus»), ließ uns der CDU-Chef wissen, dass Deutschland einfach auf die internationale Bühne zurück müsse. Merz schwadronierte gefährlich mehrdeutig:

«Die ganze Welt schaut in diesen Tagen und Wochen auf Deutschland. Wir haben in der Europäischen Union und auf der Welt eine Aufgabe, die weit über die Grenzen unseres eigenen Landes hinausgeht.»

[Titelbild: Tag des Sieges]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Nice podcast with @sbddesign and @ConorOkus about bitcoin payments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSqoFKs1cE

In this episode, Conor, Open Source product manager at Spiral & Stephen, Product Designer at Voltage & Co founder of ATL Bitlab join Stephan to discuss the current state of Bitcoin user experience, particularly focusing on payments and the challenges faced by users. They explore the comparison between Bitcoin and physical cash, the Western perspective on Bitcoin payments, and the importance of user experience in facilitating Bitcoin transactions.

They also touch upon various payment protocols like #BOLT11, #LNURL, and #BOLT12, highlighting the need for interoperability and better privacy features in the Bitcoin ecosystem. The discussion also covers resources available for developers and designers to enhance wallet usability and integration.

@StephanLivera Official Podcast Episode: https://stephanlivera.com/646

Takeaways

🔸Bitcoin has excelled as a savings technology. 🔸The payments use case for Bitcoin still needs improvement. 🔸User experience is crucial for Bitcoin adoption. 🔸Comparing Bitcoin to cash highlights privacy concerns. 🔸Western users may not see a payments problem. 🔸Regulatory issues impact Bitcoin payments in the West. 🔸User experience challenges hinder Bitcoin transactions. 🔸Different payment protocols create compatibility issues. 🔸Community collaboration is essential for Bitcoin's future. 🔸Improving interoperability can enhance Bitcoin payments. Wallet compatibility issues can create negative user impressions. 🔸Designers can significantly improve wallet user experience. 🔸Testing compatibility between wallets is essential for user satisfaction. 🔸Tether's integration may boost Bitcoin adoption. 🔸Developers should prioritize payment capabilities before receiving capabilities. 🔸Collaboration between designers and developers can lead to better products. 🔸User experience improvements can be low-hanging fruit for wallet projects. 🔸A global hackathon aims to promote miner decentralization. 🔸Resources like BOLT12 and the Bitcoin Design Guide are valuable for developers. 🔸Engaging with the community can lead to innovative solutions.

Timestamps

(00:00) - Intro (01:10) - What is the current state of Bitcoin usage - Payments or Savings? (04:32) - Comparing Bitcoin with physical cash (07:08) - What is the western perspective on Bitcoin payments? (11:30) - Would people use Bitcoin more with improved UX? (17:05) - Exploring payment protocols: Bolt11, LNURL, Bolt12 & BIP353 (30:14) - Navigating Bitcoin wallet compatibility challenges (34:45) - What is the role of designers in wallet development? (43:13) - Rumble’s integration of Tether & Bitcoin; The impact of Tether on Bitcoin adoption (51:22) - Resources for wallet developers and designers

Links:

• https://x.com/conorokus • https://x.com/StephenDeLorme • https://bolt12.org/ • https://twelve.cash/ • https://bitcoin.design/guide/     • Setting Up Bitcoin Tips for Streamers](/watch?v=IWTpSN8IaLE)  

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/923714

@ 30fb9c78:1f1e3c3a

The President delivers a ‘State of the Union’ Speech every year, but that’s a snooze. Just look at your worthy representatives struggling to keep their eyes open. That’s because they’ve heard it all before.

We have too. Not much changes in politics. Certainly not the candidates.

There’s more variety at my local gas station, where at least I get to choose from three types of fuel and five flavors of Big Gulp.

So forget about politics. All the action now is happening in mainstream culture—which is changing at warp speed.

That’s why we need a “State of the Culture” speech instead. My address last year was quoted and cited, and was absolutely true back then—but it’s already as obsolete as the ChatGPT-1 help desk at the Bored Ape Yacht Club.

In fact, 2024 may be the most fast-paced—and dangerous—time ever for the creative economy. And that will be true, no matter what happens in November.

So let’s plunge in.

I want to tell you why entertainment is dead. And what’s coming to take its place.

If the culture was like politics, you would get just two choices. They might look like this.

Many creative people think these are the only options—both for them and their audience. Either they give the audience what it wants (the entertainer’s job) or else they put demands on the public (that’s where art begins).

But they’re dead wrong.

Maybe it’s smarter to view the creative economy like a food chain. If you’re an artist—or are striving to become one—your reality often feels like this.

Until recently, the entertainment industry has been on a growth tear—so much so, that anything artsy or indie or alternative got squeezed as collateral damage.

But even this disturbing picture isn’t disturbing enough. That’s because it misses the single biggest change happening right now.

We’re witnessing the birth of a post-entertainment culture. And it won’t help the arts. In fact, it won’t help society at all.

Even that big whale is in trouble. Entertainment companies are struggling in ways nobody anticipated just a few years ago.

Consider the movie business:

• Disney is a state of crisis—where everything is shrinking (except the CEO’s paycheck).
• Paramount just laid off 800 employees - and wants to find a new owner.
• Universal is now releasing movies to streaming after just 3 weeks in theaters.
• Warner Bros actually makes more money canceling films than releasing them.

The TV business also hit a wall in 2023. After years of steady growth, the number of scripted series has started shrinking.

Estimated number of U.S scripted originial series per year, 2010-2023 Source

Music may be in the worst state of them all. Just consider Sony’s huge move a few days ago - investing in Michael Jackson’s song catalog at a valuation of $1.2 billion. No label would invest even a fraction of that amount in launching new artists.

In 2024, musicians are actually worth more old than young, dead than alive.

This raises the obvious question. How can demand for new entertainment shrink? What can possibly replace it?

But something will replace it. It’s already starting to happen.

Here’s a better model of the cultural food chain in the year 2024.

The fastest growing sector of the culture economy is distraction. Or call it scrolling or swiping or wasting time or whatever you want. But it’s not art or entertainment, just ceaseless activity.

The key is that each stimulus only lasts a few seconds, and must be repeated.

It’s a huge business, and will soon be larger than arts and entertainment combined. Everything is getting turned into TikTok - an aptly named platform for a business based on stimuli that must be repeated after only a few ticks of the clock.

TikTok made a fortune with fast-paced scrolling video. And now Facebook—once a place to connect with family and friends - is imitating it. So long, Granny, hello Reels. Twitter has done the same. And, of course, Instagram, YouTube, and everybody else trying to get rich on social media.

---

This is more than just the hot trend of 2024. It can last forever—because it’s based on body chemistry, not fashion or aesthetics.

Our brain rewards these brief bursts of distraction. The neurochemical dopamine is released, and this makes us feel good—so we want to repeat the stimulus.

The cycle looks like this.

This is a familiar model for addiction.

Only now it is getting applied to culture and the creative world—and billions of people. They are unwitting volunteers in the largest social engineering experiment in human history.

So you need to ditch that simple model of art versus entertainment. And even ‘distraction’ is just a stepping stone toward the real goal nowadays—which is addiction.

Here’s the future cultural food chain—pursued aggressively by tech platforms that now dominate every aspect of our lives.

The tech platforms aren’t like the Medici in Florence, or those other rich patrons of the arts. They don’t want to find the next Michelangelo or Mozart. They want to create a world of junkies—because they will be the dealers.

Addiction is the goal.

They don’t say it openly, but they don’t need to. Just look at what they do.

Everything is designed to lock users into an addictive cycle

• The platforms are all shifting to scrolling and reeling interfaces where stimuli optimize the dopamine doom loop.
• Anything that might persuade you to leave the platform—a news story, or any outside link—is brutally punished by their algorithms. It might liberate you from your dependent junkie status, and that can’t be allowed.
• But wait, there’s more! Apple, Facebook, and others are now telling you to put on their virtual reality headsets—where you are swallowed up by the stimuli, like those tiny fish in my food chain charts. You’re invited to live as a passive recipient of make-believe experiences, like a pod slave in The Matrix.

The tech CEOs know this is harmful, but they do it anyway. A whistleblower released internal documents showing how Instagram use leads to depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. Mark Zuckerberg was told all the disturbing details.

He doesn’t care. The CEOs all know the score. The more their tech gets used, the worse all the psychic metrics get.

But still they push aggressively forward—they don’t want to lose market share to the other dopamine cartel members. And with a special focus on children. They figured out what every junk peddler already knows: It’s more profitable to get users locked in while they’re young.

And the virtual reality headsets raise even more issues—because they rewire users’ brains. Experts are already talking about “simulator sickness,” and that’s just the physical nausea, dizziness, and headaches. Imagine the psychic dislocations.

And you thought artists had it tough back in the day?

Even the dumbest entertainment looks like Shakespeare compared to dopamine culture. You don’t need Hamlet, a photo of a hamburger will suffice. Or a video of somebody twerking, or a pet looking goofy.

Instead of movies, users get served up an endless sequence of 15-second videos. Instead of symphonies, listeners hear bite-sized melodies, usually accompanied by one of these tiny videos—just enough for a dopamine hit, and no more.

This is the new culture. And its most striking feature is the absence of Culture (with a capital C) or even mindless entertainment—both get replaced by compulsive activity.

So don’t be surprised when huge corporations stop pretending otherwise—hence entertainment businesses that suddenly embrace gambling, or other equally addictive offerings. (Now you know why the Super Bowl took place in Las Vegas—a perfect symbol for the current moment in our culture.)

Everything is gamified. Anything can be scrollable. You can simulate any boat you row.

But what does this do to our brains? To our lives? To the future?

---

Here’s where the science gets really ugly. The more addicts rely on these stimuli, the less pleasure they receive. At a certain point, this cycle creates anhedonia—the complete absence of enjoyment in an experience supposedly pursued for pleasure.

That seems like a paradox

How can pursuing pleasure lead to less pleasure? But that’s how our brains are wired (perhaps as a protective mechanism). At a certain point, addicts still pursue the stimulus, but more to avoid the pain of dopamine deprivation.

People addicted to painkillers have the same experience. Beyond a certain level, opioid dependence actually makes the pain worse.

What happens when this same experience is delivered to everybody, via their phones? The results are devastating, as expert Dr. Len Lantz explains. Even people who thought they were immune to addictive behavior, get destroyed by the cycle:

There is a specific, abnormal brain activation pattern that is present in people who have anhedonia, which is a key feature of major depression, and absent in those who do not. It is often the case that when patients come to me with major depression, they say, “I shouldn’t be depressed. I have a good life. If my friends or coworkers knew I was depressed, they wouldn’t understand or they would be mad at me. They think I have it made. So, why don’t I feel that way?”

We’re now seeing the first effects on a grand social scale of this deadening effect.

Sure, let’s give it a name, something like TikTok depression or Silicon Valley zombification or whatever. The key fact is that users can feel it, even if they don’t have a label or a diagnosis. They feel it even if the technocrats refuse to tell them about it. Just listen to the words people use to describe their toxic online interactions: doomscrolling, trolling, doxxing, gaslighting, etc.

In the year 2024, this is what we do for fun.

But it doesn’t bring happiness. The World Happiness Report surveyed 150,000 people in 26 countries, and found that the US and other prosperous, technologically advanced societies are suffering a massive happiness decline. This is what happens when anhedonia is on sale every week—and the pervasive tech platforms increasingly resemble the ruthless corporations that got rich from opioid abuse.

Some companies get people hooked with pills and needles. Others with apps and algorithms. But either way, it’s just churning out junkies.

That’s our dystopian future. Not so much Orwell’s 1984—more like Huxley’s Brave New World.

---

Dr. Anna Lembke, author of Dopamine Nation, sometimes urges her patients to undergo a “dopamine fast” for one month—a sufficient amount of time for the brain to start rewiring. But even unplugging for a few minutes can be scary for those caught in the cycle.

She shares an example:

My patient Sophie, a Stanford undergraduate from South Korea, came in seeking help for depression and anxiety. Among the many things we talked about, she told me she spends most of her waking hours plugged into some kind of device: Instagramming, YouTubing, listening to podcasts and playlists. In session with her I suggested she try walking to class without listening to anything and just letting her own thoughts bubble to the surface. She looked at me both incredulous and afraid. “Why would I do that?” she asked, openmouthed.

A week later, Sophie returned and reported on the new experience: “It was hard at first. But then I got used to it and even kind of liked it. I started noticing the trees.”

Want a horror story? Read this book—it’s got more zombies than The Walking Dead

Not long ago, I’d have dismissed anecdotes like this. I couldn’t really imagine somebody addicted to Instagram or TikTok or some other phone app.

But I don’t need to imagine anything now. I see those sad-eyed junkies, hooked to their devices, wherever I go. And even their facial expressions convey that haggard strungout look.

This is the real state of play in our culture in 2024.

And it’s a bigger issue than just struggling artists or floundering media companies. The dopamine cartel is now aggravating our worst social problems—in education, in workplaces, and in private life.

But you will hardly hear about this—because too many people are making far too much money from the dopamine culture.

If you thought the drug cartels were rich, wait till you see how much money the dopamine cartel is making. For a start, check out the market cap at Apple, Meta, etc. They are literally too big to stop.

Just telling the truth about the dopamine cartel would be a major step forward for the culture in 2024.

Also, do yourself a favor. Unplug yourself from time to time, and start noticing the trees or your goofy pets. They actually look better in real life than in the headset.

---

Source: Ted Gioia, The Honest Broker, February 18, 2024

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ 401014b3:59d5476b

Alright, hoops degenerates, it’s March 24, 2025, and we’re deep in the March Madness grinder—Sweet 16 time, baby! The bracket’s a damn battlefield, with Auburn, Michigan, Texas Tech, Arkansas, and Purdue locked in alongside some heavy hitters and sneaky upstarts. We’re breaking down every matchup, throwing out some ballsy picks, and calling the full Elite Eight squads on the road to San Antonio. This ain’t some nerdy chalk fest—let’s get loud, let’s get rowdy, and let’s see who’s got the stones to survive this chaos. Strap in, fam—here we go!

South Region: Auburn’s Warpath or Spartan Magic?

Auburn vs. Michigan

Auburn’s the SEC beast, shredding Creighton 82-70 with Tahaad Pettiford’s bench juice (14 points) and Johni Broome’s paint dominance (22 points, 10 boards). Michigan’s Big Ten scrappers outlasted Texas A&M 91-79—Dusty May’s got ‘em humming with Olivier Nkamhoua’s 18 points. The Tigers are a top-5 offensive team, but Michigan’s been scrappy, winning close games all season. Auburn’s depth and Broome’s interior game (top-10 in blocks) overpower Michigan’s grit—Auburn rolls, 78-71.

Ole Miss vs. Michigan St.

Ole Miss’s Chris Beard-led crew topped Iowa St. 91-78—Sean Pedulla dropped 20, and their top-30 offense is humming. Michigan St. beat New Mexico 71-63—Tom Izzo’s Spartans are battle-tested, with a top-15 defense (per KenPom). Ole Miss can score, but Sparty’s physicality (top-10 in defensive rebounds) and Izzo’s March magic (five Final Fours) shut ‘em down—Michigan St. grinds it, 74-69.

Elite Eight Matchup: Auburn vs. Michigan St.

West Region: Houston’s Clamps or Gators’ Grit?

Houston vs. Purdue

Houston’s D suffocated Gonzaga 81-78—L.J. Cryer dropped 22, and their top-5 defense (forcing 16 turnovers per game) is a nightmare. Purdue crushed San Diego St. 76-62—Braden Smith dished 15 assists, and Fletcher Loyer had 18. Cougars are elite defensively, but Purdue’s size (top-10 in offensive rebounds) and tempo keep it close. Houston’s clamps and Cryer’s clutch shooting (40% from three) edge it—Houston dominates, 70-66.

Florida vs. Maryland

Florida stunned UConn 77-75—Walter Clayton Jr.’s 10 points in a three-minute span sealed it. Maryland’s buzzer-beater over Colorado St. 72-71—Derik Queen’s heroics—got ‘em here. Gators are rolling (SEC tourney champs), but Maryland’s Crab Five (top-20 offense) and Queen’s clutch play (20 PPG in March) keep it tight. Florida’s depth (four starters averaging 12+ PPG) pulls through—Florida wins, 82-78.

Elite Eight Matchup: Houston vs. Florida

Midwest Region: Arkansas’ Chaos or Bama’s Firepower?

Texas Tech vs. Arkansas

Calipari’s Razorbacks punked St. John’s 75-66—DJ Wagner dropped 16, and their depth shone. Texas Tech’s Big 12 muscle crushed Drake 77-64—Darrion Williams had 28. Hogs’ talent (six guys in double figures vs. St. John’s) faces Tech’s balanced attack (top-25 offense). Arkansas’ chaos and Calipari’s March pedigree (four Final Fours) overwhelm—Arkansas storms, 82-77.

BYU vs. Alabama

BYU’s hot streak topped Wisconsin 91-89—Trevor Knell hit six threes, averaging 18.9 PPG in their nine-game win streak. Alabama blitzed Saint Mary’s 86-80—Mark Sears dropped 25. Cougars’ offense (top-10 in three-point shooting) meets Bama’s firepower (top-15 in offensive efficiency). Alabama’s speed and Sears’ scoring (21 PPG) edge it—Alabama wins, 88-84.

Elite Eight Matchup: Arkansas vs. Alabama

East Region: Duke’s Flagg Show or Cats’ Revenge?

Duke vs. Arizona

Flagg’s back—Duke crushed Baylor 89-86, with Flagg dropping 20 and 8. Arizona blitzed Oregon 87-83—Caleb Love had 27. Flagg’s versatility (top-5 defensive efficiency for Duke) faces Love’s scoring (20 PPG in March). Duke’s depth (six guys scoring 10+ vs. Baylor) and Flagg’s two-way play edge it—Duke flexes, 85-76.

Kentucky vs. Tennessee

Kentucky beat Illinois—Mark Pope’s Wildcats are 2-0 against Tennessee this season. Tennessee topped UCLA 72-67—Zakai Zeigler had 18 and 8 assists. Cats’ resilience (top-20 offense) meets Vols’ defense (top-15 efficiency). Kentucky’s Quad 1 wins (12 this season) and Pope’s game plan edge it—Kentucky wins, 82-78.

Elite Eight Matchup: Duke vs. Kentucky

Elite Eight Teams (Full List)

South: Auburn, Michigan St.

West: Houston, Florida

Midwest: Arkansas, Alabama

East: Duke, Kentucky

The Final Buzzer

Sweet 16’s a bloodbath, and the Elite Eight’s set—Auburn, Michigan St., Houston, Florida, Arkansas, Alabama, Duke, and Kentucky are my picks to keep dancing. SEC’s got seven teams in the Sweet 16, blue bloods are flexing, and mid-majors are toast. Hit me on Nostr if you disagree, but this is my March Madness gospel—bracket’s clean, let’s see who survives! Let’s freaking go, degenerates!

@ 7d33ba57:1b82db35

Located in the Cabo de Gata-Níjar Natural Park, Agua Amarga is a small, picturesque fishing village on the southeastern coast of Spain. Known for its crystal-clear waters, whitewashed houses, and peaceful atmosphere, this is the perfect spot for a relaxing Mediterranean escape.

🏖️ Top Things to See & Do in Agua Amarga

1️⃣ Playa de Agua Amarga 🏝️

• A beautiful, sandy beach with shallow, turquoise waters.
• Family-friendly with beach bars (chiringuitos) and restaurants nearby.
• Great for swimming, paddleboarding, and sunbathing.
  

2️⃣ Cala de Enmedio – A Hidden Paradise 🌊

• A secluded cove with soft sand and smooth rock formations.
• Reachable by a 30-minute hike or by kayak.
• One of the most photogenic beaches in Cabo de Gata!

3️⃣ Cala del Plomo 🏞️

• Another pristine, unspoiled cove surrounded by dramatic cliffs.
• Accessible by a short hike or 4x4 vehicle.
• A perfect spot for snorkeling and enjoying nature in peace.

4️⃣ Boat & Kayak Excursions 🚤

• Explore the rugged coastline, caves, and hidden beaches by sea.
• Some tours include stops at Cala de San Pedro, a remote beach with an alternative hippie community.

5️⃣ Hiking & Nature Trails 🌿

• Agua Amarga is surrounded by stunning volcanic landscapes within Cabo de Gata Natural Park.
• The Sendero de la Cala de Enmedio is a scenic hike with breathtaking views.

🍽️ What to Eat in Agua Amarga

• Gambas rojas de Garrucha – Sweet red prawns 🦐
• Arroz caldoso de marisco – A rich, brothy seafood rice dish 🍚🐟
• Pulpo a la brasa – Grilled octopus, a local delicacy 🐙
• Pescado fresco – Fresh fish straight from the sea 🐠
• Tarta de almendra – A delicious almond cake for dessert 🍰

🚗 How to Get to Agua Amarga

🚘 By Car: ~1 hour from Almería via A-7 & AL-5106
🚌 By Bus: Limited services from Almería; renting a car is recommended for flexibility
✈️ By Air: Nearest airport is Almería Airport (LEI), about 50 km away

💡 Tips for Visiting Agua Amarga

✅ Best time to visit? Spring & early autumn – warm but not too crowded 🌞
✅ Bring water & snacks if visiting remote beaches – no facilities in hidden coves 🏝️
✅ Rent a kayak or boat for the best way to explore the coastline 🚣‍♂️
✅ Stay overnight to enjoy the peaceful ambiance after the day-trippers leave 🌅

@ a95c6243:d345522c

«Wir brauchen eine digitale Brandmauer gegen den Faschismus», schreibt der Chaos Computer Club (CCC) auf seiner Website. Unter diesem Motto präsentierte er letzte Woche einen Forderungskatalog, mit dem sich 24 Organisationen an die kommende Bundesregierung wenden. Der Koalitionsvertrag müsse sich daran messen lassen, verlangen sie.

In den drei Kategorien «Bekenntnis gegen Überwachung», «Schutz und Sicherheit für alle» sowie «Demokratie im digitalen Raum» stellen die Unterzeichner, zu denen auch Amnesty International und Das NETTZ gehören, unter anderem die folgenden «Mindestanforderungen»:

• Verbot biometrischer Massenüberwachung des öffentlichen Raums sowie der ungezielten biometrischen Auswertung des Internets.
• Anlasslose und massenhafte Vorratsdatenspeicherung wird abgelehnt.
• Automatisierte Datenanalysen der Informationsbestände der Strafverfolgungsbehörden sowie jede Form von Predictive Policing oder automatisiertes Profiling von Menschen werden abgelehnt.
• Einführung eines Rechts auf Verschlüsselung. Die Bundesregierung soll sich dafür einsetzen, die Chatkontrolle auf europäischer Ebene zu verhindern.
• Anonyme und pseudonyme Nutzung des Internets soll geschützt und ermöglicht werden.
• Bekämpfung «privaten Machtmissbrauchs von Big-Tech-Unternehmen» durch durchsetzungsstarke, unabhängige und grundsätzlich föderale Aufsichtsstrukturen.
• Einführung eines digitalen Gewaltschutzgesetzes, unter Berücksichtigung «gruppenbezogener digitaler Gewalt» und die Förderung von Beratungsangeboten.
• Ein umfassendes Förderprogramm für digitale öffentliche Räume, die dezentral organisiert und quelloffen programmiert sind, soll aufgelegt werden.

Es sei ein Irrglaube, dass zunehmende Überwachung einen Zugewinn an Sicherheit darstelle, ist eines der Argumente der Initiatoren. Sicherheit erfordere auch, dass Menschen anonym und vertraulich kommunizieren können und ihre Privatsphäre geschützt wird.

Gesunde digitale Räume lebten auch von einem demokratischen Diskurs, lesen wir in dem Papier. Es sei Aufgabe des Staates, Grundrechte zu schützen. Dazu gehöre auch, Menschenrechte und demokratische Werte, insbesondere Freiheit, Gleichheit und Solidarität zu fördern sowie den Missbrauch von Maßnahmen, Befugnissen und Infrastrukturen durch «die Feinde der Demokratie» zu verhindern.

Man ist geneigt zu fragen, wo denn die Autoren «den Faschismus» sehen, den es zu bekämpfen gelte. Die meisten der vorgetragenen Forderungen und Argumente finden sicher breite Unterstützung, denn sie beschreiben offenkundig gängige, kritikwürdige Praxis. Die Aushebelung der Privatsphäre, der Redefreiheit und anderer Grundrechte im Namen der Sicherheit wird bereits jetzt massiv durch die aktuellen «demokratischen Institutionen» und ihre «durchsetzungsstarken Aufsichtsstrukturen» betrieben.

Ist «der Faschismus» also die EU und ihre Mitgliedsstaaten? Nein, die «faschistische Gefahr», gegen die man eine digitale Brandmauer will, kommt nach Ansicht des CCC und seiner Partner aus den Vereinigten Staaten. Private Überwachung und Machtkonzentration sind dabei weltweit schon lange Realität, jetzt endlich müssen sie jedoch bekämpft werden. In dem Papier heißt es:

«Die willkürliche und antidemokratische Machtausübung der Tech-Oligarchen um Präsident Trump erfordert einen Paradigmenwechsel in der deutschen Digitalpolitik. (...) Die aktuellen Geschehnisse in den USA zeigen auf, wie Datensammlungen und -analyse genutzt werden können, um einen Staat handstreichartig zu übernehmen, seine Strukturen nachhaltig zu beschädigen, Widerstand zu unterbinden und marginalisierte Gruppen zu verfolgen.»

Wer auf der anderen Seite dieser Brandmauer stehen soll, ist also klar. Es sind die gleichen «Feinde unserer Demokratie», die seit Jahren in diese Ecke gedrängt werden. Es sind die gleichen Andersdenkenden, Regierungskritiker und Friedensforderer, die unter dem großzügigen Dach des Bundesprogramms «Demokratie leben» einem «kontinuierlichen Echt- und Langzeitmonitoring» wegen der Etikettierung «digitaler Hass» unterzogen werden.

Dass die 24 Organisationen praktisch auch die Bekämpfung von Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon und anderen fordern, entbehrt nicht der Komik. Diese fallen aber sicher unter das Stichwort «Machtmissbrauch von Big-Tech-Unternehmen». Gleichzeitig verlangen die Lobbyisten implizit zum Beispiel die Förderung des Nostr-Netzwerks, denn hier finden wir dezentral organisierte und quelloffen programmierte digitale Räume par excellence, obendrein zensurresistent. Das wiederum dürfte in der Politik weniger gut ankommen.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 30fb9c78:1f1e3c3a

Why anarchy? Because anything else would be uncivilized.”

This famous statement by Jeffrey Tucker inspired the Norwegian anarchists John Holmesland and Sondre Bjellås to create a truly civilized – voluntaryist society without coercion and violence – based on mutual voluntarism.

Anarchists in the “most perfect state” in the world

The first thing that has struck me for a long time is the strong anarchist movement in Norway – a state that almost all progressive politicians consider “perfect.” The most developed and advanced state in Scandinavia.

I first noticed this phenomenon at Anarchopulco (the big anarchist conference in Acapulco, Mexico), where the entire delegation of anarchists from Europe was primarily from Norway and Sweden. Countries that most EU politicians consider to be the epitome of a perfectly functioning state.

The Norwegian anarchists explained to me that Norway, despite publicly presenting itself as the most correct country, protecting all kinds of minorities, has problems that few people outside Norway suspect.

It is a country that, like any other, suffers from corruption and incredible waste. Many Norwegians are not the least bit happy about Norwegian funds supporting the most bizarre projects in the whole world. At the moment, a case is flying through Norway about how the head of the Norwegian Communist Party Bjornar Moxnes, stole USD 150 worth of sunglasses (Communists steal worldwide, including in Norway).

Last year, Norway introduced a wealth tax, which has seen most of the millionaire rich and productive people leave the country (especially Switzerland). Many of them took their “know-how” and their companies with them. Thanks to strong progressive taxation (productive people are the most discriminated against), everyone in Norway is more or less “equally well off.” Most Norwegians are indebted (mortgage or loan for practically everything) and live on credit. Even though the Norwegian economy is built on oil or fishing, don’t expect petrol, diesel, or fish to be cheap here (due to high taxation, they are more expensive than in most EU countries). Because of this, alcohol is also extremely expensive here and the most expensive beer in the world.

Although Norway is a rich country, Norwegians themselves don’t feel rich.

Unlike most countries, however, it is quite a bit more liberal – homeschooling, home births and decriminalized all drugs are allowed in Norway.

Most Norwegians are conformists and follow everything the government tells them. That’s why, for example, there are more police officers in most countries than in Norway – because everyone follows the law. They regard not paying taxes as blasphemy and selfishness, so the community in Liberstad, which takes absolutely nothing from the state and builds everything itself, unfortunately, has a hard time of it.

Voluntaryism in Liberstad

Since anarchism in mainstream society, unfortunately, has a negative connotation, John and Sondre decided to base and promote the whole project on the ideas of voluntarism and not mention anarchy. Voluntaryism represents a philosophy of life or moral stance where we only accept mutually voluntary relationships (commercial or non-commercial). Consistent voluntaryists reject unilaterally enforced relationships (e.g., between the state and the citizen) and are, therefore, automatically anarchists (that is unless we consider a state based on voluntary support).

Voluntaryists believe that a society built on mutual voluntarism would not only be more prosperous, but more importantly more civilized, as it would not use means of aggression against innocent people (which all states in the world do, and most people unfortunately approve of).

Voluntaryists consider a voluntaryist society to be a “framework,” that is, a basis on which any other social arrangements, such as democracy, can be built – if all its members voluntarily decide to use their democratic voice to make decisions about the lives of others. Or socialism – if all its members voluntarily donate 90% of their income to a standard pot and then redistribute it to elected central planners.

Liberstad’s Voluntaryist Treaty, respected by all its inhabitants

John and Sondre have no problem with Norway’s welfare state and huge taxes as long as its citizens are willing to support it voluntarily and use its services. On the other hand, they want nothing to do with it and are building an independent, self-sufficient, parallel society in the Norwegian mountains.

Independence and Autonomy for Liberstad

John and Sondre have bought more than 2 square kilometers of land that constitutes private property, even though it is Norwegian territory. It falls under the management of a non-profit private organization, which does not have to disclose anything (including its members or financial interactions between members) by law.

A couple of years ago, they launched a campaign to sell Libertad plots, when they all sold out (I visited a few of these plots yesterday, which my friends bought). I should point out that from the perspective of the Norwegian state, everything is owned by said private organization and the state does not know who the actual owner of a given parcel is (from that perspective, you can buy property in Liberstad without the Norwegian state knowing). There are active social channels where John, Sondre, and their management actively communicate with the owners of these parcels about their future fate.

Respect for autonomy has been resolved through a registered religious organization – the Norwegian Voluntaryist Organisation, which has no God and has key ideological/religious principles that must be respected (their automated translation via Google is available here).

Norway profiles itself as a “great fighter” for the rights of minorities around the world (from Tibet to the Kurds),” so the voluntarists in Liberstad hope that their minority within Norway itself will also be respected.

So far, they have had no problem with the government in Oslo. This is because the latter realizes that the more they publicly comment on Liberstad or interfere in its activities, the more publicity they would give it, and the more Norwegians would learn about the ideas of voluntarism and the need for an autonomous society.

But their real problems are with the local government, which constantly bullies them. For example, for posting (and flat out downloading) a drone-made video documenting how they built their private roads – which didn’t come without the explosions needed to modify the terrain. Without any permission, of course. Fortunately, they manage to ignore the local government politely, and since Norway is not a typical police state, they don’t anticipate a police raid on their private property.

Camping in Liberstad, view of the “anarchist park” in the background

Don’t ask permission, don’t deal with details

Voluntaryists in Liberstad do not recognize the state’s authority, so it makes no sense to them to ask for permission from it.

This is where the Liberstad project is different from the [Prospera project in Honduras (https://www.prospera.co/), which has a contract with the state of Honduras to build a similar private city (which they are having a bit of a problem with at the moment because there has been a change of government in Honduras, and the new government refuses to respect what the old government signed before).

That’s why the founders of Liberstad decided not to ask any permission from the state – they are building their properties without it (they are currently working on their brewery), building their roads, and homeschooling their children. They are just telling the state that they have built something new again.

"The important thing when building a private city is not to deal with all the details right from the start because your costs will rise disproportionately, and you’ll end up going nowhere,” says John Holmesland.

In Liberstad, they are very pragmatic and build just what they need. Similarly, they don’t invent any rules or laws for situations that are unlikely to arise. Indeed, what weighs heavily on contemporary society is an over-bureaucratized state apparatus that regulates and requires a rubber stamp for almost everything.

The current state of Liberstad

Liberstad’s permanent community may be small (under 15 people), but they have visitors worldwide and a potential location for thousands of new citizens. There are a few houses and caravans parked where Liberstad residents live. They have a large community center where there are lectures and evening events. Then there are the “barracks” for visitors (showers, toilets, washing machines, dryers). And lots of free parking space. A small island with a forest has earned the name “anarchist park.” Around it is a gravel road, which they plan to turn into asphalt.

Enter Liberstad. “Et lite stykke frihet” means “a little piece of freedom.”

Both founders consider Liberstad their lifelong project, so even though they don’t have a lot of funding, construction is still slowly progressing, and they are both fully committed to the project.

The current inhabited part of Liberstad. The total uninhabited size of Liberstad is an order of magnitude larger.

Liberstad’s parallel economy

Of all the stateless mini-communities I’ve visited so far (Kalu Yala in Panama, El Cherán in Mexico, Mennonites in Paraguay, Christiania in Copenhagen), Liberstad comes closest to me ideologically as a voluntarist. I got on exceedingly well with its founders, John and Sondre, and we agreed on all the ethical and social principles (which I rarely do).

With Liberstad founders John Holmesland and Sondre Bjellås.

Liberstad has a new neighbor, a Dutch photographer, and libertarian, who has bought a much larger plot of land next door. And who plans to build a similar libertarian community there.

I hope and believe that this voluntaryist anomaly in Norway will continue to live its free life and attract freedom-minded people worldwide. I have all my fingers crossed for Liberstad and will visit again in a few years!

Liberstad links to their main website, Facebook, X, Instagram.

---

Source: Liberationtravel, Liberstad: Voluntaryist experiment in southern Norway, August 30, 2023

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ 6a6be47b:3e74e3e1

Hey frens! Today, I spent a big chunk of the morning painting with watercolors. This is only the second time I've completed a piece using this technique in a long while. It feels like coming back home after a vacation: you enjoyed the time away and relaxed, but when you're lucky enough to have a safe space to call home, there's really nothing like it. 🖼️ 🎨 That's exactly how I feel about painting with watercolors again. I'm really excited to share what I've been working on with you soon. In the meantime, I've got a new blog post up about Ostara and the Spring Equinox. ⭐️Today, I just feel so blessed and excited about the future. I'm simply soaking up the moment, I guess. I hope you're feeling the same way too! Today, I also whipped up some mini veggie quiches chef's kiss. 🧑‍🍳 I wanted to spice things up a bit in the kitchen as well! 🪄I just wanted to share a little bit from my day and express how grateful I am. What did you get up to today? I'd love to hear more about it!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «Eliten» führen bereits groß angelegte Pilotprojekte für eine Zukunft durch, die sie wollen und wir nicht. Das schreibt der OffGuardian in einem Update zum Thema «EU-Brieftasche für die digitale Identität». Das Portal weist darauf hin, dass die Akteure dabei nicht gerade zimperlich vorgehen und auch keinen Hehl aus ihren Absichten machen. Transition News hat mehrfach darüber berichtet, zuletzt hier und hier.

Mit der EU Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI-Brieftasche) sei eine einzige von der Regierung herausgegebene App geplant, die Ihre medizinischen Daten, Beschäftigungsdaten, Reisedaten, Bildungsdaten, Impfdaten, Steuerdaten, Finanzdaten sowie (potenziell) Kopien Ihrer Unterschrift, Fingerabdrücke, Gesichtsscans, Stimmproben und DNA enthält. So fasst der OffGuardian die eindrucksvolle Liste möglicher Einsatzbereiche zusammen.

Auch Dokumente wie der Personalausweis oder der Führerschein können dort in elektronischer Form gespeichert werden. Bis 2026 sind alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten dazu verpflichtet, Ihren Bürgern funktionierende und frei verfügbare digitale «Brieftaschen» bereitzustellen.

Die Menschen würden diese App nutzen, so das Portal, um Zahlungen vorzunehmen, Kredite zu beantragen, ihre Steuern zu zahlen, ihre Rezepte abzuholen, internationale Grenzen zu überschreiten, Unternehmen zu gründen, Arzttermine zu buchen, sich um Stellen zu bewerben und sogar digitale Verträge online zu unterzeichnen.

All diese Daten würden auf ihrem Mobiltelefon gespeichert und mit den Regierungen von neunzehn Ländern (plus der Ukraine) sowie über 140 anderen öffentlichen und privaten Partnern ausgetauscht. Von der Deutschen Bank über das ukrainische Ministerium für digitalen Fortschritt bis hin zu Samsung Europe. Unternehmen und Behörden würden auf diese Daten im Backend zugreifen, um «automatisierte Hintergrundprüfungen» durchzuführen.

Der Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände (VZBV) habe Bedenken geäußert, dass eine solche App «Risiken für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und der Daten» berge, berichtet das Portal. Die einzige Antwort darauf laute: «Richtig, genau dafür ist sie ja da!»

Das alles sei keine Hypothese, betont der OffGuardian. Es sei vielmehr «Potential». Damit ist ein EU-Projekt gemeint, in dessen Rahmen Dutzende öffentliche und private Einrichtungen zusammenarbeiten, «um eine einheitliche Vision der digitalen Identität für die Bürger der europäischen Länder zu definieren». Dies ist nur eines der groß angelegten Pilotprojekte, mit denen Prototypen und Anwendungsfälle für die EUDI-Wallet getestet werden. Es gibt noch mindestens drei weitere.

Den Ball der digitalen ID-Systeme habe die Covid-«Pandemie» über die «Impfpässe» ins Rollen gebracht. Seitdem habe das Thema an Schwung verloren. Je näher wir aber der vollständigen Einführung der EUid kämen, desto mehr Propaganda der Art «Warum wir eine digitale Brieftasche brauchen» könnten wir in den Mainstream-Medien erwarten, prognostiziert der OffGuardian. Vielleicht müssten wir schon nach dem nächsten großen «Grund», dem nächsten «katastrophalen katalytischen Ereignis» Ausschau halten. Vermutlich gebe es bereits Pläne, warum die Menschen plötzlich eine digitale ID-Brieftasche brauchen würden.

Die Entwicklung geht jedenfalls stetig weiter in genau diese Richtung. Beispielsweise hat Jordanien angekündigt, die digitale biometrische ID bei den nächsten Wahlen zur Verifizierung der Wähler einzuführen. Man wolle «den Papierkrieg beenden und sicherstellen, dass die gesamte Kette bis zu den nächsten Parlamentswahlen digitalisiert wird», heißt es. Absehbar ist, dass dabei einige Wahlberechtigte «auf der Strecke bleiben» werden, wie im Fall von Albanien geschehen.

Derweil würden die Briten gerne ihre Privatsphäre gegen Effizienz eintauschen, behauptet Tony Blair. Der Ex-Premier drängte kürzlich erneut auf digitale Identitäten und Gesichtserkennung. Blair ist Gründer einer Denkfabrik für globalen Wandel, Anhänger globalistischer Technokratie und «moderner Infrastruktur».

Abschließend warnt der OffGuardian vor der Illusion, Trump und Musk würden den US-Bürgern «diesen Schlamassel ersparen». Das Department of Government Efficiency werde sich auf die digitale Identität stürzen. Was könne schließlich «effizienter» sein als eine einzige App, die für alles verwendet wird? Der Unterschied bestehe nur darin, dass die US-Version vielleicht eher privat als öffentlich sei – sofern es da überhaupt noch einen wirklichen Unterschied gebe.

[Titelbild: Screenshot OffGuardian]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ständige Lügen und Unterstellungen, permanent falsche Fürsorge \ können Bausteine von emotionaler Manipulation sein. Mit dem Zweck, \ Macht und Kontrolle über eine andere Person auszuüben. \ Apotheken Umschau

Irgendetwas muss passiert sein: «Gaslighting» ist gerade Thema in vielen Medien. Heute bin ich nach längerer Zeit mal wieder über dieses Stichwort gestolpert. Das war in einem Artikel von Norbert Häring über Manipulationen des Deutschen Wetterdienstes (DWD). In diesem Fall ging es um eine Pressemitteilung vom Donnerstag zum «viel zu warmen» Winter 2024/25.

Häring wirft der Behörde vor, dreist zu lügen und Dinge auszulassen, um die Klimaangst wach zu halten. Was der Leser beim DWD nicht erfahre, sei, dass dieser Winter kälter als die drei vorangegangenen und kälter als der Durchschnitt der letzten zehn Jahre gewesen sei. Stattdessen werde der falsche Eindruck vermittelt, es würde ungebremst immer wärmer.

Wem also der zu Ende gehende Winter eher kalt vorgekommen sein sollte, mit dessen Empfinden stimme wohl etwas nicht. Das jedenfalls wolle der DWD uns einreden, so der Wirtschaftsjournalist. Und damit sind wir beim Thema Gaslighting.

Als Gaslighting wird eine Form psychischer Manipulation bezeichnet, mit der die Opfer desorientiert und zutiefst verunsichert werden, indem ihre eigene Wahrnehmung als falsch bezeichnet wird. Der Prozess führt zu Angst und Realitätsverzerrung sowie zur Zerstörung des Selbstbewusstseins. Die Bezeichnung kommt von dem britischen Theaterstück «Gas Light» aus dem Jahr 1938, in dem ein Mann mit grausamen Psychotricks seine Frau in den Wahnsinn treibt.

Damit Gaslighting funktioniert, muss das Opfer dem Täter vertrauen. Oft wird solcher Psychoterror daher im privaten oder familiären Umfeld beschrieben, ebenso wie am Arbeitsplatz. Jedoch eignen sich die Prinzipien auch perfekt zur Manipulation der Massen. Vermeintliche Autoritäten wie Ärzte und Wissenschaftler, oder «der fürsorgliche Staat» und Institutionen wie die UNO oder die WHO wollen uns doch nichts Böses. Auch Staatsmedien, Faktenchecker und diverse NGOs wurden zu «vertrauenswürdigen Quellen» erklärt. Das hat seine Wirkung.

Warum das Thema Gaslighting derzeit scheinbar so populär ist, vermag ich nicht zu sagen. Es sind aber gerade in den letzten Tagen und Wochen auffällig viele Artikel dazu erschienen, und zwar nicht nur von Psychologen. Die Frankfurter Rundschau hat gleich mehrere publiziert, und Anwälte interessieren sich dafür offenbar genauso wie Apotheker.

Die Apotheken Umschau machte sogar auf «Medical Gaslighting» aufmerksam. Davon spreche man, wenn Mediziner Symptome nicht ernst nähmen oder wenn ein gesundheitliches Problem vom behandelnden Arzt «schnöde heruntergespielt» oder abgetan würde. Kommt Ihnen das auch irgendwie bekannt vor? Der Begriff sei allerdings irreführend, da er eine manipulierende Absicht unterstellt, die «nicht gewährleistet» sei.

Apropos Gaslighting: Die noch amtierende deutsche Bundesregierung meldete heute, es gelte, «weiter [sic!] gemeinsam daran zu arbeiten, einen gerechten und dauerhaften Frieden für die Ukraine zu erreichen». Die Ukraine, wo sich am Montag «der völkerrechtswidrige Angriffskrieg zum dritten Mal jährte», verteidige ihr Land und «unsere gemeinsamen Werte».

Merken Sie etwas? Das Demokratieverständnis mag ja tatsächlich inzwischen in beiden Ländern ähnlich traurig sein. Bezüglich Friedensbemühungen ist meine Wahrnehmung jedoch eine andere. Das muss an meinem Gedächtnis liegen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Men tend to find women attractive, that remind them of the average women they already know, but with more-averaged features. The mid of mids is kween.👸

But, in contradiction to that, they won't consider her highly attractive, unless she has some spectacular, unusual feature. They'll sacrifice some averageness to acquire that novelty. This is why wealthy men (who tend to be highly intelligent -- and therefore particularly inclined to crave novelty because they are easily bored) -- are more likely to have striking-looking wives and girlfriends, rather than conventionally-attractive ones. They are also more-likely to cross ethnic and racial lines, when dating.

Men also seem to each be particularly attracted to specific facial expressions or mimics, which might be an intelligence-similarity test, as persons with higher intelligence tend to have a more-expressive mimic. So, people with similar expressions tend to be on the same wavelength. Facial expessions also give men some sense of perception into womens' inner life, which they otherwise find inscrutable.

Hair color is a big deal (logic says: always go blonde), as is breast-size (bigger is better), and WHR (smaller is better).

@ 4259e401:8e20e9a6

[MVP: Gigi! How do I lightning prism this?]

If I could send a letter to myself five years ago, this book would be it.

I’m not a Bitcoin expert. I’m not a developer, a coder, or an economist.

I don’t have credentials, connections, or capital.

I’m a blue-collar guy who stumbled into Bitcoin almost exactly four years ago, and like everyone else, I had to wrestle with it to understand it.

Bitcoin is one of the most misunderstood, misrepresented, and misinterpreted ideas of our time - not just because it’s complex, but because its very structure makes it easy to distort.

It’s decentralized and leaderless, which means there’s no single voice to clarify what it is or defend it from misinformation.

That’s a feature, not a bug, but it means that understanding Bitcoin isn’t easy.

It’s a system that doesn’t fit into any of our existing categories. It’s not a company. It’s not a product. It’s not a government.

There’s no marketing department, no headquarters, no CEO.

That makes it uniquely resistant to corruption, but also uniquely vulnerable to disinformation.

Whether through negligence or malice, Bitcoin is constantly misunderstood - by skeptics who think it’s just a Ponzi scheme, by opportunists looking to cash in on the hype, by scammers who use the name to push worthless imitations, and by critics who don’t realize they’re attacking a strawman.

If you’re new to Bitcoin, you have to fight through layers of noise before you can even see the signal.

And that process isn’t instant.

Even if you could explain digital signatures off the top of your head, even if you could hash SHA-256 by hand, even if you had a perfect technical understanding of every moving part - you still wouldn’t get it.

Bitcoin isn’t just technology. It’s a shift in incentives, a challenge to power, an enforcer of sovereignty. It resists censorship.

A simple open ledger - yet it shakes the world.

Archimedes asked for a lever and a place to stand, and he could move the world.

Satoshi gave us both.

The lever is Bitcoin - an economic system with perfect game theory, incorruptible rules, and absolute scarcity.

The place to stand is the open-source, decentralized network, where anyone can verify, participate, and build without permission.

And what comes out of this seemingly simple equation?

The entire rearchitecture of trust. The separation of money and state.

A foundation upon which artificial intelligence must negotiate with the real world instead of manipulating it.

A digital economy where energy, computation, and value flow in perfect symmetry, refining themselves in an endless virtuous cycle.

Bitcoin started as a whitepaper.

Now it’s a lifeline, an immune system, a foundation, a firewall, a torch passed through time.

From such a small set of rules - 21 million divisible units, cryptographic ownership, and a fixed issuance schedule - emerges something unstoppable.

Something vast enough to absorb and constrain the intelligence of machines, to resist the distortions of human greed, to create the rails for a world that is freer, more sovereign, more aligned with truth than anything that came before it.

It’s proof that sometimes, the most profound revolutions begin with the simplest ideas. That’s why this book exists.

Bitcoin isn’t something you learn - it’s something you unlearn first.

You start with assumptions about money, value, and authority that have been baked into you since birth. And then, piece by piece, you chip away at them.

It’s like peeling an onion – it takes time and effort.

*And yes, you might shed some tears! *

At first, you might come for the speculation. A lot of people do. But those who stay - who actually take the time to understand what’s happening - don’t stay for the profits.

They stay for the principles.

If you’re holding this book, you’re somewhere on that journey.

Maybe you’re at the very beginning, trying to separate the signal from the noise.

Maybe you’ve been down the rabbit hole for years, looking for a way to articulate what you already know deep in your bones.

Either way, this is for you.

It’s not a technical manual, and it’s not a sales pitch. It’s the book I wish I had when I started.

So if you’re where I was, consider this a message in a bottle, thrown back through time. A hand reaching through the fog, saying:

“Keep going. It’s worth it.”

Preface The End of The Beginning

March 2025.

The moment has arrived. Most haven’t even noticed, let alone processed it. The United States is setting up a Bitcoin (Bitcoin-only!) strategic reserve.

It’s not a theory. Not an idea. The order is signed, the ink is dried.

The people who have been wrong, over and over (and over!) again - for years! - fumble for explanations, flipping through the wreckage of their previous predictions:

“Bubble…’’ “Fad…” “Ponzi…”

No longer.

The same analysts who once sneered are now adjusting their forecasts to protect what’s left of their credibility. Those who dismissed it are now trapped in a slow, humiliating realization: Bitcoin does not require their approval.

It never did.

Something fundamental has shifted, and the air is thick with a paradoxical cocktail of triumph and panic. Bitcoiners saw this coming. Not because they had insider information, but because they understood first principles when everyone else was still playing pretend.

Bitcoin was never just surviving.

It was infiltrating.

The question is no longer whether Bitcoin will succeed.

It already has.

The only question that remains is who understands, and who is still in denial.

Think back to 2022.

At its peak, FTX was one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, valued at $32 billion and backed by blue-chip investors. It promised a sophisticated, institutional-grade trading platform, attracting retail traders, hedge funds, and politicians alike. Sam Bankman-Fried, with his disheveled hair and cargo shorts, was its eccentric figurehead, a billionaire who slept on a bean bag and spoke of philanthropy.

Then the illusion shattered.

FTX collapsed overnight, an implosion so violent it left an entire industry scrambling for cover. One moment, Sam Bankman-Fried was the golden boy of crypto - genius quant, regulatory darling, effective altruist™.

The next, he was just another fraudster in handcuffs.

Billions vanished. Customers locked out. Hedge funds liquidated.

Politicians who had once taken photos with SBF and smiled at his political donations, suddenly pretended they had no idea who he was. The same regulators who were supposed to prevent disasters like this stood slack-jawed, acting as if they hadn’t been having closed-door meetings with FTX months before the collapse.

But FTX wasn’t just a scandal, it was a filter.

If you were Bitcoin-only, with your satoshis in cold storage, you didn’t even flinch. From your perspective, nothing important changed:

A new Bitcoin block still arrived every ten minutes (on average). The supply cap of 21 million bitcoins remained untouched. Ownership was still protected by public/private key cryptography.

You were literally unaffected.

You had already updated your priors:

“If you don’t hold your own keys, you own nothing.” “Bitcoin is not ‘crypto’.” “’Crypto’ is a casino.”

FTX was just another financial fire, another chapter in the never-ending saga of people trusting systems that had already proven themselves untrustworthy.

That moment was a prelude.

The U.S. Bitcoin pivot is the paradigm shift.

The Eukaryotic Revolution Is Upon Us

In biology, abiogenesis is when life emerged from non-life - a fragile, uncertain process where the first microscopic self-replicators struggled to survive against hostile conditions. That was Bitcoin’s early history. It had to fight for its existence, attacked by governments, dismissed by economists, ridiculed by mainstream media.

But it survived.

That era is over. We have entered the Eukaryotic Revolution.

This is the moment in evolutionary history when simple lifeforms evolved into something structurally complex - organisms with nuclei, internal scaffolding, and the ability to form multicellular cooperatives and populate diverse ecosystems. Once this transformation happened, there was no going back. Bitcoin is going through its own Eukaryotic leap.

Once an outsider, dismissed and ridiculed, it is maturing into an integrated, resilient force within the global financial system.

On March 2, 2025, the Trump administration announced a Crypto Strategic Reserve.

At first, it wasn’t just Bitcoin - it included XRP, SOL, and ADA, a desperate attempt to appease the altcoin industry. A political move, not an economic one.

For about five minutes, the broader crypto industry cheered. Then came the pushback.

Bitcoiners called it immediately: mixing Bitcoin with centralized altcoin grifts was like adding lead weights to a life raft.

Institutional players rejected it outright: sovereign reserves need hard assets, not tech company tokens. The government realized, almost immediately, that it had made a mistake.

By March 6, 2025, the pivot was complete.

Strategic Bitcoin reserve confirmed. The President signed an executive order, and legislation has been introduced in the United States House of Representatives.

The U.S. government’s official bitcoin policy: hold, don’t sell. Look for ways to acquire more.

Altcoins relegated to second-tier status, treated as fundamentally separate from and inferior to bitcoin. The government’s official policy: sell, and do not actively accumulate more (ouch!).

“Bitcoin maximalism” – the belief that any cryptocurrency other than bitcoin lies on a spectrum between “bad idea” and outright scam - wasn’t vindicated by debate.

It was vindicated by economic reality.

When the government was forced to choose what belonged in a sovereign reserve, it wasn’t even close. Bitcoin stood alone.

“There is no second best.” -Michael Saylor

Who This Book Is For: The Three Types of Readers

You’re here for a reason.

Maybe you felt something shift.

Maybe you saw the headlines, sensed the undercurrents, or simply couldn’t ignore the growing drumbeat any longer.

Maybe you’ve been here all along, waiting for the world to catch up.

Whatever brought you to this book, one thing is certain: you’re curious enough to learn more.

Bitcoin forces a reevaluation of assumptions - about money, trust, power, and the very foundations of the economic order. How much of that process you’ve already undergone will determine how you read these pages.

1. The Layperson → new, curious, maybe skeptical. Bitcoin probably looks like chaos to you right now. One person says it’s the future. Another says it’s a scam. The price crashes. The price doubles. The news is either breathless excitement or total doom. How the hell are you supposed to figure this out?

If that’s you, welcome.

This book was built for you.

You don’t need to be an economist, a technologist, or a finance geek to understand what’s in these pages. You just need an open mind and the willingness to engage with new ideas - ideas that will, if you follow them far enough, challenge some of your deepest assumptions.

Bitcoin is not an investment. Bitcoin is not a company. Bitcoin is not a stock, a trend, or a passing phase.

Bitcoin is a paradigm shift. And by the time you reach the last page, you won’t need to be convinced of its importance. You’ll see it for yourself.

2. The Student → understand the basics, want to go deeper.

You’ve already stepped through the door.

You’ve realized Bitcoin is more than just digital gold. You understand decentralization, scarcity, censorship resistance… But the deeper you go, the more you realize just how much there is to understand.

3. The Expert → You’ve been in the game for years.

You’ve put in the time.

You don’t need another book telling you Bitcoin will succeed. You already know.

You’re here because you want sharper tools.

Tighter arguments.

A way to shut down nonsense with fewer words, and more force.

Maybe this book will give you a new way to frame an idea you’ve been struggling to convey.

Maybe it will help you refine your messaging and obliterate some lingering doubts in the minds of those around you.

Or maybe this will simply be the book you hand to the next person who asks, “Okay… but what’s the deal with Bitcoin?” so you don’t have to keep explaining it from scratch.

*If you’re already deep in the weeds, you can probably skip Part I (Foundations) without missing much - unless you’re curious about a particular way of putting a particular thing. *

Part II (Resilience) is where things get more interesting. Why you want to run a node, even if you don’t know it yet. The energy debate, stripped of media hysteria. The legend of Satoshi, and what actually matters about it.

If you’re a hardcore cypherpunk who already speaks in block heights and sending Zaps on NOSTR, feel free to jump straight to Part III (The Peaceful Revolution). Chapter 15, “The Separation of Money and State” is where the gloves come off.

Bitcoin isn’t just a technology. Bitcoin isn’t just an economic movement. Bitcoin is a lens.

And once you start looking through it, the world never looks the same again.

This book will teach you what Bitcoin is, as much as it will help you understand why Bitcoiners think the way they do.

It isn’t just something you learn about.

Especially not in one sitting, or from one book.

It’s something you grow to realize.

Regardless of which category you fall into, you’ve already passed the first test.

You’re still reading.

You haven’t dismissed this outright. You haven’t scoffed, rolled your eyes, or walked away. You’re at least curious.

And that’s all it takes.

Curiosity is the only filter that matters.

The rest takes care of itself.

The Essential Role of Memes Memes won the narrative war - it wasn’t textbooks, research papers, or whitepapers that did it. Bitcoin spread the same way evolution spreads successful genes - through replication, variation, and selection. Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme” in The Selfish Gene, describing it as a unit of cultural transmission - behaving much like a gene. Memes replicate, mutate, and spread through culture. Just as natural selection filters out weak genes, memetic selection filters out weak ideas.

But Bitcoin memes weren’t just jokes.

They were premonitions.

The most powerful ideas are often compact, inarguable, and contagious - and Bitcoin’s memes were all three. They cut through complexity like a scalpel, distilling truths into phrases so simple, so undeniable, that they burrowed into the mind and refused to leave.

"Bitcoin fixes this." "Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins." "Number Go Up."

Each of these is more than just a slogan.

They’re memetic payloads, compressed packets of truth that can carry everything you need to understand about Bitcoin in just a few words.

They spread through conversations, through tweets, through shitposts, through relentless repetition.

They bypassed the gatekeepers of financial knowledge, infecting minds before Wall Street even understood what was happening.

And they didn’t just spread.

They reshaped language itself.

Before Bitcoin, the word fiat was a sterile economic term, borrowed from Latin, meaning "by decree." It had no weight, no controversy - just a neutral descriptor for government-issued money.

But Bitcoiners forced a memetic shift.

They didn’t just make fiat mainstream.

**They made it radioactive. **

They stripped away the academic detachment and revealed its true essence:

money because I said so.

No backing. No inherent value.

Just a command.

And of course, an unspoken threat -

"Oh, and by the way, I have a monopoly on violence, so you’d better get on board."

This wasn’t just linguistic evolution; it was a memetic coup.

Bitcoiners took a sterile term and injected it with an unavoidable truth: fiat money exists not because it is chosen, but because it is imposed.

Central banks, governments, and financial institutions now use the term fiat without a second thought.

The meme has done its work.

A word that was once neutral, now carries an implicit critique - a quiet but persistent reminder that there is an alternative.

Bitcoin didn’t just challenge the financial system - it rewired the language we use to describe it.

“Money printer go BRRRRRR" did more damage to the Fed’s reputation than a thousand Austrian economics treatises ever could.

Memes exposed what balance sheets and policy reports tried to obscure. They turned abstract economic forces into something visceral, something undeniable.

And now - they are historical markers of the shift, the fossil record of our collective consciousness coming to terms with something fundamentally new in the universe.

The old world relied on authority, institutional credibility, and narrative control.

Bitcoin broke through with memes, first principles, and lived experience.

This wasn’t just an ideological battle.

It was an evolutionary process.

The weaker ideas died. The strongest ones survived.

Once a meme - in other words, an idea - takes hold, there is nothing - no law, no regulation, no institution, no government - that can stop it.

Bitcoin exists. It simply is.

And it will keep producing blocks, every ten minutes, whether you get it or not.

This book isn’t a trading manual.

It won’t teach you how to time the market, maximize your gains, or set up a wallet.

It’s a carefully curated collection of memes, giving you the prerequisite mental scaffolding to grok the greatest monetary shift in human history.

A shift that has already begun.

The only thing to decide is whether you’re watching from the sidelines or whether you’re part of it.

The rest is up to you.

How This Book Is Structured Bitcoin spreads like an evolutionary force - through memes. Each chapter in this book isn’t just an idea, it’s a memetic payload, designed to install the concepts that make Bitcoin inevitable. The book is broken into three phases:

*I. Foundations *** Memes as Mental Antivirus The first layer cuts through noise and filters out distractions. "Bitcoin Only" is the first test - if you get this one wrong, you waste years chasing ghosts. "Don’t Trust, Verify" rewires how you think about truth. And "Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins"? If you learn it the hard way, it’s already too late.

II. Resilience Memes as Weapons in the Information War Here’s where Bitcoin earns its survival. "Shitcoiners Get REKT" is a law, not an opinion. "Fork Around and Find Out" proves that you don’t change Bitcoin - Bitcoin changes you. "Antifragile, Unstoppable" shows how every attack on Bitcoin has only made it stronger.

III. The Peaceful Revolution ** Memes as Reality Distortion Fields By now, Bitcoin isn’t just an asset - it’s a lens. "Separation of Money and State" isn’t a theory; it’s happening in real time. "Fix the Money, Fix the World" isn’t a slogan; it’s a diagnosis. And "Tick Tock, Next Block"? No matter what happens, Bitcoin keeps producing blocks.

These aren’t just memes. They’re scaffolding for a new way of thinking. Each one embeds deeper until you stop asking if Bitcoin will succeed - because you realize it already has.

Next: Chapter 1: Bitcoin Only. ** For now, it’s a heuristic - an efficient filter that separates signal from noise, with minimal effort.
But by the time you finish this book, it won’t be a heuristic anymore.
It will be something you know.

Welcome to the rabbit hole.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

I want to see Nostr succeed. If you can think of a way I can help make that happen, I’m open to it. I’d like your suggestions.

My schedule’s shifting soon, and I could volunteer a few hours a week to a Nostr project. I won’t have more total time, but how I use it will change.

Why help? I care about freedom. Nostr’s one of the most powerful freedom tools I’ve seen in my lifetime. If I believe that, I should act on it.

I don’t care about money or sats. I’m not rich, I don’t have extra cash. That doesn’t drive me—freedom does. I’m volunteering, not asking for pay.

I’m not here for clout. I’ve had enough spotlight in my life; it doesn’t move me. If I wanted clout, I’d be on Twitter dropping basic takes. Clout’s easy. Freedom’s hard. I’d rather help anonymously. No speaking at events—small meetups are cool for the vibe, but big conferences? Not my thing. I’ll never hit a huge Bitcoin conference. It’s just not my scene.

That said, I could be convinced to step up if it’d really boost Nostr—as long as it’s legal and gets results.

In this space, I’d watch for social engineering. I watch out for it. I’m not here to make friends, just to help. No shade—you all seem great—but I’ve got a full life and awesome friends irl. I don’t need your crew or to be online cool. Connect anonymously if you want; I’d encourage it.

I’m sick of watching other social media alternatives grow while Nostr kinda stalls. I could trash-talk, but I’d rather do something useful.

Skills? I’m good at spotting social media problems and finding possible solutions. I won’t overhype myself—that’s weird—but if you’re responding, you probably see something in me. Perhaps you see something that I don’t see in myself.

If you need help now or later with Nostr projects, reach out. Nostr only—nothing else. Anonymous contact’s fine. Even just a suggestion on how I can pitch in, no project attached, works too. 💜

Creeps or harassment will get blocked or I’ll nuke my simplex code if it becomes a problem.

https://simplex.chat/contact#/?v=2-4&smp=smp%3A%2F%2FSkIkI6EPd2D63F4xFKfHk7I1UGZVNn6k1QWZ5rcyr6w%3D%40smp9.simplex.im%2FbI99B3KuYduH8jDr9ZwyhcSxm2UuR7j0%23%2F%3Fv%3D1-2%26dh%3DMCowBQYDK2VuAyEAS9C-zPzqW41PKySfPCEizcXb1QCus6AyDkTTjfyMIRM%253D%26srv%3Djssqzccmrcws6bhmn77vgmhfjmhwlyr3u7puw4erkyoosywgl67slqqd.onion

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Europa – das Ganze ist eine wunderbare Idee, \ aber das war der Kommunismus auch. \ Loriot

«Europa hat fertig», könnte man unken, und das wäre nicht einmal sehr verwegen. Mit solch einer Einschätzung stünden wir nicht alleine, denn die Stimmen in diese Richtung mehren sich. Der französische Präsident Emmanuel Macron warnte schon letztes Jahr davor, dass «unser Europa sterben könnte». Vermutlich hatte er dabei andere Gefahren im Kopf als jetzt der ungarische Ministerpräsident Viktor Orbán, der ein «baldiges Ende der EU» prognostizierte. Das Ergebnis könnte allerdings das gleiche sein.

Neben vordergründigen Themenbereichen wie Wirtschaft, Energie und Sicherheit ist das eigentliche Problem jedoch die obskure Mischung aus aufgegebener Souveränität und geschwollener Arroganz, mit der europäische Politiker:innende unterschiedlicher Couleur aufzutreten pflegen. Und das Tüpfelchen auf dem i ist die bröckelnde Legitimation politischer Institutionen dadurch, dass die Stimmen großer Teile der Bevölkerung seit Jahren auf vielfältige Weise ausgegrenzt werden.

Um «UnsereDemokratie» steht es schlecht. Dass seine Mandate immer schwächer werden, merkt natürlich auch unser «Führungspersonal». Entsprechend werden die Maßnahmen zur Gängelung, Überwachung und Manipulation der Bürger ständig verzweifelter. Parallel dazu plustern sich in Paris Macron, Scholz und einige andere noch einmal mächtig in Sachen Verteidigung und «Kriegstüchtigkeit» auf.

Momentan gilt es auch, das Überschwappen covidiotischer und verschwörungsideologischer Auswüchse aus den USA nach Europa zu vermeiden. So ein «MEGA» (Make Europe Great Again) können wir hier nicht gebrauchen. Aus den Vereinigten Staaten kommen nämlich furchtbare Nachrichten. Beispielsweise wurde einer der schärfsten Kritiker der Corona-Maßnahmen kürzlich zum Gesundheitsminister ernannt. Dieser setzt sich jetzt für eine Neubewertung der mRNA-«Impfstoffe» ein, was durchaus zu einem Entzug der Zulassungen führen könnte.

Der europäischen Version von «Verteidigung der Demokratie» setzte der US-Vizepräsident J. D. Vance auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz sein Verständnis entgegen: «Demokratie stärken, indem wir unseren Bürgern erlauben, ihre Meinung zu sagen». Das Abschalten von Medien, das Annullieren von Wahlen oder das Ausschließen von Menschen vom politischen Prozess schütze gar nichts. Vielmehr sei dies der todsichere Weg, die Demokratie zu zerstören.

In der Schweiz kamen seine Worte deutlich besser an als in den meisten europäischen NATO-Ländern. Bundespräsidentin Karin Keller-Sutter lobte die Rede und interpretierte sie als «Plädoyer für die direkte Demokratie». Möglicherweise zeichne sich hier eine außenpolitische Kehrtwende in Richtung integraler Neutralität ab, meint mein Kollege Daniel Funk. Das wären doch endlich mal ein paar gute Nachrichten.

Von der einstigen Idee einer europäischen Union mit engeren Beziehungen zwischen den Staaten, um Konflikte zu vermeiden und das Wohlergehen der Bürger zu verbessern, sind wir meilenweit abgekommen. Der heutige korrupte Verbund unter technokratischer Leitung ähnelt mehr einem Selbstbedienungsladen mit sehr begrenztem Zugang. Die EU-Wahlen im letzten Sommer haben daran ebenso wenig geändert, wie die Bundestagswahl am kommenden Sonntag darauf einen Einfluss haben wird.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «moralische Weltordnung» – eine Art Astrologie. Friedrich Nietzsche

Das Treffen der BRICS-Staaten beim Gipfel im russischen Kasan war sicher nicht irgendein politisches Event. Gastgeber Wladimir Putin habe «Hof gehalten», sagen die Einen, China und Russland hätten ihre Vorstellung einer multipolaren Weltordnung zelebriert, schreiben Andere.

In jedem Fall zeigt die Anwesenheit von über 30 Delegationen aus der ganzen Welt, dass von einer geostrategischen Isolation Russlands wohl keine Rede sein kann. Darüber hinaus haben sowohl die Anreise von UN-Generalsekretär António Guterres als auch die Meldungen und Dementis bezüglich der Beitrittsbemühungen des NATO-Staats Türkei für etwas Aufsehen gesorgt.

Im Spannungsfeld geopolitischer und wirtschaftlicher Umbrüche zeigt die neue Allianz zunehmendes Selbstbewusstsein. In Sachen gemeinsamer Finanzpolitik schmiedet man interessante Pläne. Größere Unabhängigkeit von der US-dominierten Finanzordnung ist dabei ein wichtiges Ziel.

Beim BRICS-Wirtschaftsforum in Moskau, wenige Tage vor dem Gipfel, zählte ein nachhaltiges System für Finanzabrechnungen und Zahlungsdienste zu den vorrangigen Themen. Während dieses Treffens ging der russische Staatsfonds eine Partnerschaft mit dem Rechenzentrumsbetreiber BitRiver ein, um Bitcoin-Mining-Anlagen für die BRICS-Länder zu errichten.

Die Initiative könnte ein Schritt sein, Bitcoin und andere Kryptowährungen als Alternativen zu traditionellen Finanzsystemen zu etablieren. Das Projekt könnte dazu führen, dass die BRICS-Staaten den globalen Handel in Bitcoin abwickeln. Vor dem Hintergrund der Diskussionen über eine «BRICS-Währung» wäre dies eine Alternative zu dem ursprünglich angedachten Korb lokaler Währungen und zu goldgedeckten Währungen sowie eine mögliche Ergänzung zum Zahlungssystem BRICS Pay.

Dient der Bitcoin also der Entdollarisierung? Oder droht er inzwischen, zum Gegenstand geopolitischer Machtspielchen zu werden? Angesichts der globalen Vernetzungen ist es oft schwer zu durchschauen, «was eine Show ist und was im Hintergrund von anderen Strippenziehern insgeheim gesteuert wird». Sicher können Strukturen wie Bitcoin auch so genutzt werden, dass sie den Herrschenden dienlich sind. Aber die Grundeigenschaft des dezentralisierten, unzensierbaren Peer-to-Peer Zahlungsnetzwerks ist ihm schließlich nicht zu nehmen.

Wenn es nach der EZB oder dem IWF geht, dann scheint statt Instrumentalisierung momentan eher der Kampf gegen Kryptowährungen angesagt. Jürgen Schaaf, Senior Manager bei der Europäischen Zentralbank, hat jedenfalls dazu aufgerufen, Bitcoin «zu eliminieren». Der Internationale Währungsfonds forderte El Salvador, das Bitcoin 2021 als gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel eingeführt hat, kürzlich zu begrenzenden Maßnahmen gegen das Kryptogeld auf.

Dass die BRICS-Staaten ein freiheitliches Ansinnen im Kopf haben, wenn sie Kryptowährungen ins Spiel bringen, darf indes auch bezweifelt werden. Im Abschlussdokument bekennen sich die Gipfel-Teilnehmer ausdrücklich zur UN, ihren Programmen und ihrer «Agenda 2030». Ernst Wolff nennt das «eine Bankrotterklärung korrupter Politiker, die sich dem digital-finanziellen Komplex zu 100 Prozent unterwerfen».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 878dff7c:037d18bc

Smooth, rich, and deeply comforting, this savory porridge is enhanced by fermentation, warming spices, and a creamy finish — easy on digestion, full of flavor, and great for meal prep.

---

Ingredients (Serves 2–3):

• 200g (1 cup) lactofermented brown rice (see rice fermentation recipe in comments)
• 375–500ml (1.5-2 cups) broth or water (I use evaporation method, but cook rice however you normally do, it's not important) (chicken, vegetable, or bone broth for extra richness)
• 250ml (1 cup) milk (whole milk for creaminess)
• 5g (1 tsp) salt (adjust to taste)
• 15g (1 tbsp) butter or coconut oil (for extra silkiness)
• 15g (1 tbsp) fresh ginger, sliced or minced from a jar is fine (optional, for warmth)
• 5g (1 clove or 1 tsp) garlic, minced (optional. I normally skip this...)
• 2g (½ tsp) ground turmeric (for color and anti-inflammatory benefit)
• 1g (¼ tsp) white or black pepper (black pepper enhances turmeric absorption)

---

Optional Savory Toppings:

• 1 soft-boiled or poached egg
• 100g (¾ cup) shredded chicken, pork, or tofu
• 30g (¼ cup) grated cheese (Parmesan, aged cheddar, or nutritional yeast for vegan)
• 20g (2 tbsp) chopped scallions or chives
• 30g (2 tbsp) fermented vegetables, such as:
• Kimchi
• Pickled mustard greens
• Sauerkraut
• Lactofermented carrots
• 10g (1 tbsp) toasted sesame seeds or crushed peanuts
• 5ml (1 tsp) soy sauce, tamari, or fish sauce
• 15–30g (1–2 tbsp) full-fat Greek yogurt or kefir (optional probiotic boost – stir in when warm, not hot)

---

Instructions:

1. Cook the Fermented Rice Base

• In a pot, combine fermented brown rice with broth or water.
• Bring to a boil, then reduce to a gentle simmer.
• Add ginger, garlic, and turmeric.
• Cook uncovered for 90–120 minutes, stirring occasionally, until the rice breaks down into a creamy porridge.

2. Make It Creamy

• Stir in milk and butter or coconut oil.
• Simmer for another 10–15 minutes, stirring to prevent sticking.
• Season with salt and pepper.

3. Adjust Consistency

• Too thick? Add more broth or milk.
• Too thin? Simmer longer.

4. Cool Slightly & Add Yogurt or Kefir (Optional)

• Let porridge cool to a warm (not hot) temperature — about 50°C (122°F) or warm to the touch.
• Stir in Greek yogurt or kefir gently to preserve live cultures.

5. Serve with Toppings

Top each bowl with your choice of:

• Egg
• Shredded protein
• Cheese
• Soy sauce or tamari
• Scallions, sesame seeds, chili flakes
• Your favorite fermented veggies, like sauerkraut or lactofermented carrots

---

Make-Ahead & Freezing Tip:

You can ferment and cook a large batch of brown rice, then portion it into freezer-safe containers (about 200g per portion) for quick use. Thaw overnight in the fridge or gently warm from frozen before making your congee — a huge time-saver for busy days!

@ 1c19eb1a:e22fb0bc

What is #Nostrversity? It's where you can come to learn about all the great tools, clients, and amazing technology that is being built on #Nostr, for Nostr, or utilized by Nostr, presented in an approachable and non-technical format. If you have ever wondered what Blossom, bunker signing, or Nostr Wallet Connect are, how they work, and how you can put them to work to improve your Nostr experience, this is the place you can read about them without needing a computer-science degree ahead of time.

Between writing full-length reviews, which take a fair amount of time to research, test, and draft, I will post shorter articles with the Nostrversity hashtag to provide a Nostr-native resource to help the community understand and utilize the tools our illustrious developers are building. These articles will be much shorter, and more digestible than my full-length reviews. They will also cover some things that may not be quite ready for prime-time, whereas my reviews will continue to focus on Nostr apps that are production-ready.

Keep an eye out, because Nostr Wallet Connect will be the first topic of study. Take your seats, get out your notepads, and follow along to discover how Nostr Wallet Connect is improving Lightning infrastructure. Hint: It's not just for zaps.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Auf der diesjährigen Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz geht es vor allem um die Ukraine. Protagonisten sind dabei zunächst die US-Amerikaner. Präsident Trump schockierte die Europäer kurz vorher durch ein Telefonat mit seinem Amtskollegen Wladimir Putin, während Vizepräsident Vance mit seiner Rede über Demokratie und Meinungsfreiheit für versteinerte Mienen und Empörung sorgte.

Die Bemühungen der Europäer um einen Frieden in der Ukraine halten sich, gelinde gesagt, in Grenzen. Größeres Augenmerk wird auf militärische Unterstützung, die Pflege von Feindbildern sowie Eskalation gelegt. Der deutsche Bundeskanzler Scholz reagierte auf die angekündigten Verhandlungen über einen möglichen Frieden für die Ukraine mit der Forderung nach noch höheren «Verteidigungsausgaben». Auch die amtierende Außenministerin Baerbock hatte vor der Münchner Konferenz klargestellt:

«Frieden wird es nur durch Stärke geben. (...) Bei Corona haben wir gesehen, zu was Europa fähig ist. Es braucht erneut Investitionen, die der historischen Wegmarke, vor der wir stehen, angemessen sind.»

Die Rüstungsindustrie freut sich in jedem Fall über weltweit steigende Militärausgaben. Die Kriege in der Ukraine und in Gaza tragen zu Rekordeinnahmen bei. Jetzt «winkt die Aussicht auf eine jahrelange große Nachrüstung in Europa», auch wenn der Ukraine-Krieg enden sollte, so hört man aus Finanzkreisen. In der Konsequenz kennt «die Aktie des deutschen Vorzeige-Rüstungskonzerns Rheinmetall in ihrem Anstieg offenbar gar keine Grenzen mehr». «Solche Friedensversprechen» wie das jetzige hätten in der Vergangenheit zu starken Kursverlusten geführt.

Für manche Leute sind Kriegswaffen und sonstige Rüstungsgüter Waren wie alle anderen, jedenfalls aus der Perspektive von Investoren oder Managern. Auch in diesem Bereich gibt es Startups und man spricht von Dingen wie innovativen Herangehensweisen, hocheffizienten Produktionsanlagen, skalierbaren Produktionstechniken und geringeren Stückkosten.

Wir lesen aktuell von Massenproduktion und gesteigerten Fertigungskapazitäten für Kriegsgerät. Der Motor solcher Dynamik und solchen Wachstums ist die Aufrüstung, die inzwischen permanent gefordert wird. Parallel wird die Bevölkerung verbal eingestimmt und auf Kriegstüchtigkeit getrimmt.

Das Rüstungs- und KI-Startup Helsing verkündete kürzlich eine «dezentrale Massenproduktion für den Ukrainekrieg». Mit dieser Expansion positioniere sich das Münchner Unternehmen als einer der weltweit führenden Hersteller von Kampfdrohnen. Der nächste «Meilenstein» steht auch bereits an: Man will eine Satellitenflotte im Weltraum aufbauen, zur Überwachung von Gefechtsfeldern und Truppenbewegungen.

Ebenfalls aus München stammt das als DefenseTech-Startup bezeichnete Unternehmen ARX Robotics. Kürzlich habe man in der Region die größte europäische Produktionsstätte für autonome Verteidigungssysteme eröffnet. Damit fahre man die Produktion von Militär-Robotern hoch. Diese Expansion diene auch der Lieferung der «größten Flotte unbemannter Bodensysteme westlicher Bauart» in die Ukraine.

Rüstung boomt und scheint ein Zukunftsmarkt zu sein. Die Hersteller und Vermarkter betonen, mit ihren Aktivitäten und Produkten solle die europäische Verteidigungsfähigkeit erhöht werden. Ihre Strategien sollten sogar «zum Schutz demokratischer Strukturen beitragen».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 16f1a010:31b1074b

grain is a nostr relay built using Go, currently utilizing MongoDB as its database. Binaries are provided for AMD64 Windows and Linux. grain is Go Relay Architecture for Implementing Nostr

Introduction

grain is a nostr relay built using Go, currently utilizing MongoDB as its database. Binaries are provided for AMD64 Windows and Linux. grain is Go Relay Architecture for Implementing Nostr

Prerequisites

• Grain requires a running MongoDB instance. Please refer to this separate guide for instructions on setting up MongoDB: nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzq9h35qgq6n8ll0xyyv8gurjzjrx9sjwp4hry6ejnlks8cqcmzp6tqqxnzde5xg6rwwp5xsuryd3knfdr7g

Download Grain

Download the latest release for your system from the GitHub releases page

amd64 binaries provided for Windows and Linux, if you have a different CPU architecture, you can download and install go to build grain from source

Installation and Execution

• Create a new folder on your system where you want to run Grain.
• The downloaded binary comes bundled with a ZIP file containing a folder named "app," which holds the frontend HTML files. Unzip the "app" folder into the same directory as the Grain executable.

Run Grain

• Open your terminal or command prompt and navigate to the Grain directory.
• Execute the Grain binary.

on linux you will first have to make the program executable

chmod +x grain_linux_amd64

Then you can run the program

./grain_linux_amd64

(alternatively on windows, you can just double click the grain_windows_amd64.exe to start the relay)

You should see a terminal window displaying the port on which your relay and frontend are running.

If you get

Failed to copy app/static/examples/config.example.yml to config.yml: open app/static/examples/config.example.yml: no such file or directory

Then you probably forgot to put the app folder in the same directory as your executable or you did not unzip the folder.

Congrats! You're running grain 🌾!

You may want to change your NIP11 relay information document (relay_metadata.json) This informs clients of the capabilities, administrative contacts, and various server attributes. It's located in the same directory as your executable.

Configuration Files

Once Grain has been executed for the first time, it will generate the default configuration files inside the directory where the executable is located. These files are:

bash config.yml whitelist.yml blacklist.yml

Prerequisites: - Grain requires a running MongoDB instance. Please refer to this separate guide for instructions on setting up MongoDB: [Link to MongoDB setup guide].

Download Grain:

Download the latest release for your system from the GitHub releases page

amd64 binaries provided for Windows and Linux, if you have a different CPU architecture, you can download and install go to build grain from source

Installation and Execution:

• Create a new folder on your system where you want to run Grain.
• The downloaded binary comes bundled with a ZIP file containing a folder named "app," which holds the frontend HTML files. Unzip the "app" folder into the same directory as the Grain executable.

Run Grain:

• Open your terminal or command prompt and navigate to the Grain directory.
• Execute the Grain binary.

on linux you will first have to make the program executable

chmod +x grain_linux_amd64

Then you can run the program

./grain_linux_amd64

(alternatively on windows, you can just double click the grain_windows_amd64.exe to start the relay)

You should see a terminal window displaying the port on which your relay and frontend are running.

If you get

Failed to copy app/static/examples/config.example.yml to config.yml: open app/static/examples/config.example.yml: no such file or directory

Then you probably forgot to put the app folder in the same directory as your executable or you did not unzip the folder.

Congrats! You're running grain 🌾!

You may want to change your NIP11 relay information document (relay_metadata.json) This informs clients of the capabilities, administrative contacts, and various server attributes. It's located in the same directory as your executable.

Configuration Files:

Once Grain has been executed for the first time, it will generate the default configuration files inside the directory where the executable is located. These files are:

bash config.yml whitelist.yml blacklist.yml

Configuration Documentation

You can always find the latest example configs on my site or in the github repo here: config.yml

whitelist.yml

blacklist.yml

Config.yml

This config.yml file is where you customize how your Grain relay operates. Each section controls different aspects of the relay's behavior.

1. mongodb (Database Settings)

• uri: mongodb://localhost:27017/:
  • This is the connection string for your MongoDB database.
  • mongodb://localhost:27017/ indicates that your MongoDB server is running on the same computer as your Grain relay (localhost) and listening on port 27017 (the default MongoDB port).
  • If your MongoDB server is on a different machine, you'll need to change localhost to the server's IP address or hostname.
  • The trailing / indicates the root of the mongodb server. You will define the database in the next line.
• database: grain:
  • This specifies the name of the MongoDB database that Grain will use to store Nostr events. Grain will create this database if it doesn't already exist.
  • You can name the database whatever you want. If you want to run multiple grain relays, you can and they can have different databases running on the same mongo server.

2. server (Relay Server Settings)

• port: :8181:
  • This sets the port on which your Grain relay will listen for incoming nostr websocket connections and what port the frontend will be available at.
• read_timeout: 10 # in seconds:
  • This is the maximum time (in seconds) that the relay will wait for a client to send data before closing the connection.
• write_timeout: 10 # in seconds:
  • This is the maximum time (in seconds) that the relay will wait for a client to receive data before closing the connection.
• idle_timeout: 120 # in seconds:
  • This is the maximum time (in seconds) that the relay will keep a connection open if there's no activity.
• max_connections: 100:
  • This sets the maximum number of simultaneous client connections that the relay will allow.
• max_subscriptions_per_client: 10:
  • This sets the maximum amount of subscriptions a single client can request from the relay.

3. resource_limits (System Resource Limits)

• cpu_cores: 2 # Limit the number of CPU cores the application can use:
  • This restricts the number of CPU cores that Grain can use. Useful for controlling resource usage on your server.
• memory_mb: 1024 # Cap the maximum amount of RAM in MB the application can use:
  • This limits the maximum amount of RAM (in megabytes) that Grain can use.
• heap_size_mb: 512 # Set a limit on the Go garbage collector's heap size in MB:
  • This sets a limit on the amount of memory that the Go programming language's garbage collector can use.

4. auth (Authentication Settings)

• enabled: false # Enable or disable AUTH handling:
  • If set to true, this enables authentication handling, requiring clients to authenticate before using the relay.
• relay_url: "wss://relay.example.com/" # Specify the relay URL:
  • If authentication is enabled, this is the url that clients will use to authenticate.

5. UserSync (User Synchronization)

• user_sync: false:
  • If set to true, the relay will attempt to sync user data from other relays.
• disable_at_startup: true:
  • If user sync is enabled, this will prevent the sync from starting when the relay starts.
• initial_sync_relays: [...]:
  • A list of other relays to pull user data from.
• kinds: []:
  • A list of event kinds to pull from the other relays. Leaving this empty will pull all event kinds.
• limit: 100:
  • The limit of events to pull from the other relays.
• exclude_non_whitelisted: true:
  • If set to true, only users on the whitelist will have their data synced.
• interval: 360:
  • The interval in minutes that the relay will resync user data.

6. backup_relay (Backup Relay)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, the relay will send copies of received events to the backup relay.
• url: "wss://some-relay.com":
  • The url of the backup relay.

7. event_purge (Event Purging)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, the relay will automatically delete old events.
• keep_interval_hours: 24:
  • The number of hours to keep events before purging them.
• purge_interval_minutes: 240:
  • How often (in minutes) the purging process runs.
• purge_by_category: ...:
  • Allows you to specify which categories of events (regular, replaceable, addressable, deprecated) to purge.
• purge_by_kind_enabled: false:
  • If set to true, events will be purged based on the kinds listed below.
• kinds_to_purge: ...:
  • A list of event kinds to purge.
• exclude_whitelisted: true:
  • If set to true, events from whitelisted users will not be purged.

8. event_time_constraints (Event Time Constraints)

• min_created_at: 1577836800:
  • The minimum created_at timestamp (Unix timestamp) that events must have to be accepted by the relay.
• max_created_at_string: now+5m:
  • The maximum created at time that an event can have. This example shows that the max created at time is 5 minutes in the future from the time the event is received.
  • min_created_at_string and max_created_at work the same way.

9. rate_limit (Rate Limiting)

• ws_limit: 100:
  • The maximum number of WebSocket messages per second that the relay will accept.
• ws_burst: 200:
  • Allows a temporary burst of WebSocket messages.
• event_limit: 50:
  • The maximum number of Nostr events per second that the relay will accept.
• event_burst: 100:
  • Allows a temporary burst of Nostr events.
• req_limit: 50:
  • The limit of http requests per second.
• req_burst: 100:
  • The allowed burst of http requests.
• max_event_size: 51200:
  • The maximum size (in bytes) of a Nostr event that the relay will accept.
• kind_size_limits: ...:
  • Allows you to set size limits for specific event kinds.
• category_limits: ...:
  • Allows you to set rate limits for different event categories (ephemeral, addressable, regular, replaceable).
• kind_limits: ...:
  • Allows you to set rate limits for specific event kinds.

By understanding these settings, you can tailor your Grain Nostr relay to meet your specific needs and resource constraints.

whitelist.yml

The whitelist.yml file is used to control which users, event kinds, and domains are allowed to interact with your Grain relay. Here's a breakdown of the settings:

1. pubkey_whitelist (Public Key Whitelist)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, this enables the public key whitelist. Only users whose public keys are listed will be allowed to publish events to your relay.
• pubkeys::
  • A list of hexadecimal public keys that are allowed to publish events.
  • pubkey1 and pubkey2 are placeholders, you will replace these with actual hexadecimal public keys.
• npubs::
  • A list of npubs that are allowed to publish events.
  • npub18ls2km9aklhzw9yzqgjfu0anhz2z83hkeknw7sl22ptu8kfs3rjq54am44 and npub2 are placeholders, replace them with actual npubs.
  • npubs are bech32 encoded public keys.

2. kind_whitelist (Event Kind Whitelist)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, this enables the event kind whitelist. Only events with the specified kinds will be allowed.
• kinds::
  • A list of event kinds (as strings) that are allowed.
  • "1" and "2" are example kinds. Replace these with the kinds you want to allow.
  • Example kinds are 0 for metadata, 1 for short text notes, and 2 for recommend server.

3. domain_whitelist (Domain Whitelist)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, this enables the domain whitelist. This checks the domains .well-known folder for their nostr.json. This file contains a list of pubkeys. They will be considered whitelisted if on this list.
• domains::
  • A list of domains that are allowed.
  • "example.com" and "anotherdomain.com" are example domains. Replace these with the domains you want to allow.

blacklist.yml

The blacklist.yml file allows you to block specific content, users, and words from your Grain relay. Here's a breakdown of the settings:

1. enabled: true

• This setting enables the blacklist functionality. If set to true, the relay will actively block content and users based on the rules defined in this file.

2. permanent_ban_words:

• This section lists words that, if found in an event, will result in a permanent ban for the event's author.
• - really bad word is a placeholder. Replace it with any words you want to permanently block.

3. temp_ban_words:

• This section lists words that, if found in an event, will result in a temporary ban for the event's author.
• - crypto, - web3, and - airdrop are examples. Replace them with the words you want to temporarily block.

4. max_temp_bans: 3

• This sets the maximum number of temporary bans a user can receive before they are permanently banned.

5. temp_ban_duration: 3600

• This sets the duration of a temporary ban in seconds. 3600 seconds equals one hour.

6. permanent_blacklist_pubkeys:

• This section lists hexadecimal public keys that are permanently blocked from using the relay.
• - db0c9b8acd6101adb9b281c5321f98f6eebb33c5719d230ed1870997538a9765 is an example. Replace it with the public keys you want to block.

7. permanent_blacklist_npubs:

• This section lists npubs that are permanently blocked from using the relay.
• - npub1x0r5gflnk2mn6h3c70nvnywpy2j46gzqwg6k7uw6fxswyz0md9qqnhshtn is an example. Replace it with the npubs you want to block.
• npubs are the human readable version of public keys.

8. mutelist_authors:

• This section lists hexadecimal public keys of author of a kind1000 mutelist. Pubkey authors on this mutelist will be considered on the permanent blacklist. This provides a nostr native way to handle the backlist of your relay
• - 3fe0ab6cbdb7ee27148202249e3fb3b89423c6f6cda6ef43ea5057c3d93088e4 is an example. Replace it with the public keys of authors that have a mutelist you would like to use as a blacklist. Consider using your own.
• Important Note: The mutelist Event MUST be stored in this relay for it to be retrieved. This means your relay must have a copy of the authors kind10000 mutelist to consider them for the blacklist.

Running Grain as a Service:

Windows Service:

To run Grain as a Windows service, you can use tools like NSSM (Non-Sucking Service Manager). NSSM allows you to easily install and manage any application as a Windows service.

* For instructions on how to install NSSM, please refer to this article: [Link to NSSM install guide coming soon].

1. Open Command Prompt as Administrator:

   • Open the Windows Start menu, type "cmd," right-click on "Command Prompt," and select "Run as administrator."

2. Navigate to NSSM Directory:

   • Use the cd command to navigate to the directory where you extracted NSSM. For example, if you extracted it to C:\nssm, you would type cd C:\nssm and press Enter.

3. Install the Grain Service:

   • Run the command nssm install grain.
   • A GUI will appear, allowing you to configure the service.

4. Configure Service Details:

   • In the "Path" field, enter the full path to your Grain executable (e.g., C:\grain\grain_windows_amd64.exe).
   • In the "Startup directory" field, enter the directory where your Grain executable is located (e.g., C:\grain).

5. Install the Service:

   • Click the "Install service" button.

6. Manage the Service:

   • You can now manage the Grain service using the Windows Services manager. Open the Start menu, type "services.msc," and press Enter. You can start, stop, pause, or restart the Grain service from there.

Linux Service (systemd):

To run Grain as a Linux service, you can use systemd, the standard service manager for most modern Linux distributions.

1. Create a Systemd Service File:

   • Open a text editor with root privileges (e.g., sudo nano /etc/systemd/system/grain.service).

2. Add Service Configuration:

   • Add the following content to the grain.service file, replacing the placeholders with your actual paths and user information:

   ```toml [Unit] Description=Grain Nostr Relay After=network.target

   [Service] ExecStart=/path/to/grain_linux_amd64 WorkingDirectory=/path/to/grain/directory Restart=always User=your_user #replace your_user Group=your_group #replace your_group

   [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target ```

   • Replace /path/to/grain/executable with the full path to your Grain executable.
   • Replace /path/to/grain/directory with the directory containing your Grain executable.
   • Replace your_user and your_group with the username and group that will run the Grain service.

3. Reload Systemd:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl daemon-reload to reload the systemd configuration.

4. Enable the Service:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl enable grain.service to enable the service to start automatically on boot.

5. Start the Service:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl start grain.service to start the service immediately.

6. Check Service Status:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl status grain.service to check the status of the Grain service. This will show you if the service is running and any recent logs.
   • You can run sudo journalctl -f -u grain.service to watch the logs

More guides are in the works for setting up tailscale to access your relay from anywhere over a private network and for setting up a cloudflare tunnel to your domain to deploy a grain relay accessible on a subdomain of your site eg wss://relay.yourdomain.com

@ c5128106:9b820f34

Continue to dishonour yourself, my soul ! Neither will you have much time left to do yourself honour. For the life of each man is almost up already ; and yet, instead of paying a due regard to yourself, you place your happiness in the souls of other men.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Nur wenn wir aufeinander zugehen, haben wir die Chance \ auf Überwindung der gegenseitigen Ressentiments! \ Dr. med. dent. Jens Knipphals

In Wolfsburg sollte es kürzlich eine Gesprächsrunde von Kritikern der Corona-Politik mit Oberbürgermeister Dennis Weilmann und Vertretern der Stadtverwaltung geben. Der Zahnarzt und langjährige Maßnahmenkritiker Jens Knipphals hatte diese Einladung ins Rathaus erwirkt und publiziert. Seine Motivation:

«Ich möchte die Spaltung der Gesellschaft überwinden. Dazu ist eine umfassende Aufarbeitung der Corona-Krise in der Öffentlichkeit notwendig.»

Schon früher hatte Knipphals Antworten von den Kommunalpolitikern verlangt, zum Beispiel bei öffentlichen Bürgerfragestunden. Für das erwartete Treffen im Rathaus formulierte er Fragen wie: Warum wurden fachliche Argumente der Kritiker ignoriert? Weshalb wurde deren Ausgrenzung, Diskreditierung und Entmenschlichung nicht entgegengetreten? In welcher Form übernehmen Rat und Verwaltung in Wolfsburg persönlich Verantwortung für die erheblichen Folgen der politischen Corona-Krise?

Der Termin fand allerdings nicht statt – der Bürgermeister sagte ihn kurz vorher wieder ab. Knipphals bezeichnete Weilmann anschließend als Wiederholungstäter, da das Stadtoberhaupt bereits 2022 zu einem Runden Tisch in der Sache eingeladen hatte, den es dann nie gab. Gegenüber Multipolar erklärte der Arzt, Weilmann wolle scheinbar eine öffentliche Aufarbeitung mit allen Mitteln verhindern. Er selbst sei «inzwischen absolut desillusioniert» und die einzige Lösung sei, dass die Verantwortlichen gingen.

Die Aufarbeitung der Plandemie beginne bei jedem von uns selbst, sei aber letztlich eine gesamtgesellschaftliche Aufgabe, schreibt Peter Frey, der den «Fall Wolfsburg» auch in seinem Blog behandelt. Diese Aufgabe sei indes deutlich größer, als viele glaubten. Erfreulicherweise sei der öffentliche Informationsraum inzwischen größer, trotz der weiterhin unverfrorenen Desinformations-Kampagnen der etablierten Massenmedien.

Frey erinnert daran, dass Dennis Weilmann mitverantwortlich für gravierende Grundrechtseinschränkungen wie die 2021 eingeführten 2G-Regeln in der Wolfsburger Innenstadt zeichnet. Es sei naiv anzunehmen, dass ein Funktionär einzig im Interesse der Bürger handeln würde. Als früherer Dezernent des Amtes für Wirtschaft, Digitalisierung und Kultur der Autostadt kenne Weilmann zum Beispiel die Verknüpfung von Fördergeldern mit politischen Zielsetzungen gut.

Wolfsburg wurde damals zu einem Modellprojekt des Bundesministeriums des Innern (BMI) und war Finalist im Bitkom-Wettbewerb «Digitale Stadt». So habe rechtzeitig vor der Plandemie das Projekt «Smart City Wolfsburg» anlaufen können, das der Stadt «eine Vorreiterrolle für umfassende Vernetzung und Datenerfassung» aufgetragen habe, sagt Frey. Die Vereinten Nationen verkauften dann derartige «intelligente» Überwachungs- und Kontrollmaßnahmen ebenso als Rettung in der Not wie das Magazin Forbes im April 2020:

«Intelligente Städte können uns helfen, die Coronavirus-Pandemie zu bekämpfen. In einer wachsenden Zahl von Ländern tun die intelligenten Städte genau das. Regierungen und lokale Behörden nutzen Smart-City-Technologien, Sensoren und Daten, um die Kontakte von Menschen aufzuspüren, die mit dem Coronavirus infiziert sind. Gleichzeitig helfen die Smart Cities auch dabei, festzustellen, ob die Regeln der sozialen Distanzierung eingehalten werden.»

Offensichtlich gibt es viele Aspekte zu bedenken und zu durchleuten, wenn es um die Aufklärung und Aufarbeitung der sogenannten «Corona-Pandemie» und der verordneten Maßnahmen geht. Frustration und Desillusion sind angesichts der Realitäten absolut verständlich. Gerade deswegen sind Initiativen wie die von Jens Knipphals so bewundernswert und so wichtig – ebenso wie eine seiner Kernthesen: «Wir müssen aufeinander zugehen, da hilft alles nichts».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ f18571e7:9da08ff4

Gostaria de dar-te as boas vindas à essa rede social descentralizada e sem censura. Creio eu que já tenha ouvido falar sobre o que ela é e como funciona parcialmente, caso não, existem dois sites (ao meu conhecimento) com boas informações, se chamam nostr.com e nostr.how, mas darei mais à frente uma explicação básica.

E já te dou um aviso: você precisa saber ler!

Aqui irei tentar ajuntar o máximo de informações que conseguir para que não falte nada para você, e o que faltar, quero que você saiba como pesquisar. Cada parte de como funciona, como acessar, como criar, etc.

Usarei como padrão neste artigo o #Amethyst, pois é o melhor e mais completo client para android, mas muitas das configurações nele podem ser visualizadas em outros clients. E para começar, vamos ver o que são clients.

Clients

Chamamos de clients (ou clientes em português) aqueles sites ou apps que dão acesso ao protocolo Nostr. Assim como para acessar à internet existem vários browsers (ou navegadores), para acessar o Nostr também existem vários clients, cada um voltado a um foco específico.

Amethyst

O melhor e mais completo client para #android, nele você pode ter acesso de tudo um pouco. Lives, comunidades, chats, "vídeos curtos", hashtags, notas populares, e muito mais.

Na versão da Play Store, existe uma funcionalidade de tradução usando o Google tradutor. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vitorpamplona.amethyst

Em outras lojas de apps e no repositório Github, o apk não possui essa função. https://github.com/vitorpamplona/amethyst

Aqui tem um tutorial do Amethyst: nostr:nevent1qqsgqll63rw7nfn8ltszwx9k6cvycm7uw56e6rjty6lpwy4n9g7pe5qpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvuhsygz8g3szf3lmg9j80mg5dlmkt24uvmsjwmht93svvpv5ws96gk0ltvpsgqqqqqqs7yma4t

Outros Clients

Aqui algumas pessoas expondo suas opiniões sobre certos clients: nostr:nevent1qqsdnrqszc2juykv6l2gnfmvhn2durt703ecvvakvmyfpgxju3q2grspzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuvrcvd5xzapwvdhk6tczyr604d4k2mwrx5gaywlcjqjdevtkvtdjq4hmtzswjxjhf6zv2p23qqcyqqqqqqghvkced nostr:nevent1qqsvqahwnljqcz3s3t5zjwyad5f67f7xc49lexu7vq5s2fxxskegv4spzemhxue69uhkummnw3ezuerpw3sju6rpw4ej7q3qvg9lk42rxugcdd4n667uy8gmvgfjp530n2307q9s93xuce3r7vzsxpqqqqqqzeykzw2 Eu mesmo gosto do Amethyst para android e iris.to para web no PC.

Recomendo à você dar uma olhada nesse site: nostrapps.comEle possui todos os clients atuais do Nostr, com uma descrição e links direcionais para você.

Nostr

Agora que você já sabe mais sobre os #clients, você pode acessar o Nostr segundo seu interesse de interface. Vamos ver o que uma IA nos diz sobre o Nostr:

"O #Nostr é um protocolo descentralizado e open source que permite a criação de redes sociais e outros aplicativos sem a necessidade de um servidor central. O nome é um acrônimo para Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays (Notas e Outras Coisas Transmitidas por Relays). Ele foi projetado para ser resistente à censura, oferecendo uma alternativa às plataformas tradicionais, onde os usuários têm controle total sobre seus dados.

Para que serve?\ O Nostr serve como base para aplicações descentralizadas, como redes sociais, sistemas de pagamento instantâneo em Bitcoin (usando a rede Lightning) e interações diretas entre criadores e consumidores de conteúdo. Ele promove a liberdade de expressão e a privacidade, sem exigir informações pessoais como nome, e-mail ou número de telefone para criar uma conta.

Como funciona?\ O protocolo utiliza dois componentes principais: clientes e relays. Os clientes são aplicações que os usuários usam para interagir com a rede, enquanto os relays são servidores que armazenam e transmitem mensagens. Cada usuário tem uma chave criptográfica única, que garante a autenticidade e a integridade das mensagens. Os relays são independentes, o que significa que, se um relay for bloqueado ou cair, os usuários podem continuar se conectando através de outros.

Em resumo, o Nostr é uma revolução na forma como nos conectamos online, oferecendo liberdade, privacidade e controle aos usuários."

-Perplexity AI

Se você chegou aqui, é porque ouviu em algum lugar ou de alguém, algo parecido com isso. O Nostr é algo moldável, você consegue fazer dele o que quiser, e por aqui você vai encontrar muitas dessas pessoas que o moldam (idealizadores, programadores e desenvolvedores).

Cuide de sua NSEC

Sua Nsec é a chave privada para acesso ao seu perfil, quem a possuir poderá realizar qualquer alteração que queira, comentar, publicar posts e assim por diante. Você deve guardar essa Nsec como se fosse a seed phrase ou chave privada de sua carteira cripto.

Existem alguns modos de guardar e criptografar sua Nsec:

Sem Criptografia

Primeiro de tudo, fique ciente de onde está a sua nsec no client em que acessa o Nostr!

No Amethyst

• Abra o menu de opções
• Selecione "Copia de segurança"
• Clique em "copiar minha chave secreta" Sua nsec será copiada para a àrea de transferência de seu teclado.

Depois de copiar sua nsec, as melhores recomendações que tenho para passar são:

1. Amber

Guarde sua nsec no #Amber, um app assinador de eventos que guarda sua nsec sob criptografia. Após isso, use o mesmo para acessar qualquer client ou site e gerenciar as permissões de cada um. nostr:nevent1qqsvppyfxm87uegv9fpw56akm8e8jlaksxhc6vvlu5s3cmkmz9e0x8cpypmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuampd3kx2ar0veekzar0wd5xjtnrdakj7q3q5wnjy9pfx5xm9w2mjqezyhdgthw3ty4ydmnnamtmhvfmzl9x8cssxpqqqqqqztzjvrd

2. Nos2x-fox

Coloque sua nsec no #Nos2x-fox, um gerenciador de permissões para navegadores a partir do #Firefox. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nos2x-fox/ E para navegadores da base #chromium existe o #Nos2x do mesmo desenvolvedor. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/nos2x/kpgefcfmnafjgpblomihpgmejjdanjjp

3. Gerenciador de Senhas

Essa é a recomendação mais arriscada, você ainda terá de usar o copiar e colar de sua nsec para acessar o Nostr, a não ser que seu gerenciador reconheça o campo de preenchimento da nsec. Mesmo assim, existem dois gerenciadores que indico; o #Bitwarden e #KeePassDX:

Bitwarden (online)

Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.x8bit.bitwarden Github: https://github.com/bitwarden/mobile

KeePassDX (offline)

Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kunzisoft.keepass.free Github: https://github.com/Kunzisoft/KeePassDX

Com Criptografia

Se tiver interesse em criptografar sua chave, o formato nativo aceito pelos clients é o ncryptsec. O #ncryptsec é uma criptografia por senha (a grosso modo), onde para ser capaz de usá-la nos clients, somente em conjunto com a senha usada na criptografia, fora isso, você não tem acesso. Você consegue encriptar sua nsec e hex para ncryptsec por meios como os abaixo:

1. Amethyst (nsec)

Existe uma função nativa no Amethyst abaixo da opção "copiar chave secreta" onde é só adicionar a sua senha e será criada uma ncryptsec para copiar. Guarde essa nsec encriptada + senha de descriptação em um lugar seguro.

2. Amber (nsec)

No Amber, existe uma função capaz de encriptar sua nsec.

Ao entrar no Amber

• Selecione a engrenagem na parte inferior da tela
• Selecione "backup keys"
• E rolando para baixo existe um campo para digitar sua senha para encriptação da nsec, digite sua senha e copie a ncryptsec. Guarde-as em um lugar seguro.

3. Nostr-Tools (hex)

Foi-me dito que essa ferramenta também encripta o formato nsec, mas eu não consegui fazê-lo, então deixarei para o formato hex. Compile essa ferramenta em seu pc e siga as instruções. Sua chave Hex será encriptada. https://github.com/nbd-wtf/nostr-tools/blob/master/nip49.ts Guarde-as em um lugar seguro.

Relays e Servidores

Relays

Os #Relays (ou relés) são essenciais para receber e enviar informações no Nostr, veja abaixo algumas definições e como utilizar: nostr:nevent1qqsw85k097m8rh5cgqm8glndhnv8lqsm3ajywgkp04mju9je3xje3hcpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ezuerpw3sju6rpw4ej7q3qne99yarta29qxnsp0ssp6cpnnqmtwl8cvklenfcsg2fantuvf0zqxpqqqqqqzxvc0le No exemplo é usado o Orbot no Amethyst, você pode escolher usar essa opção, mas houve uma atualização do Amethyst desde a criação deste post, onde foi adicionada a função de "Tor interno".

No Amethyst

• Deslize a tela da esquerda pra direita
• Selecione "Opções de Privacidade"
• Na opção "Motor Tor Ativo" selecione "Interno"
• Para melhor privacidade, na opção "Predefinições Tor/Privacidade" selecione "Privacidade Completa" Todo conteúdo e informação que receber do Nostr passará através da rede Tor, além de que é possível visualizar conteúdos publicados no Nostr exclusivos da rede #Tor com essa configuração. Lembrando que este método é mais veloz que usar o Orbot.

Aqui estão alguns relays Tor: nostr:nevent1qqsqe96a8630tdmcsh759ct8grfsdh0ckma8juamc97c53xvura3etqpxpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtmhwden5te0vdhkyunpve6k6cfwvdhk6tmjv4kxz7gzyr604d4k2mwrx5gaywlcjqjdevtkvtdjq4hmtzswjxjhf6zv2p23qqcyqqqqqqgmxr5jk

Servidores de Mídia

Os servidores de mídia são os responsáveis por armazenar seus vídeos e fotos postados no Nostr. No Amethyst já existem alguns por padrão: https://image.nostr.build/8e75323bb428c1e5ef06e37453f56bc3deecd38492a593174c7d141cac1c2677.jpg Mas se você quiser, pode adicionar mais: nostr:nevent1qqster6rm55vy3geqauzzwrm50xwvs2gwa4l27ta2tc65xhpum2pfzcpzamhxue69uhkjmnzdauzuct60fsk6mewdejhgtczyr604d4k2mwrx5gaywlcjqjdevtkvtdjq4hmtzswjxjhf6zv2p23qqcyqqqqqqgv2za2r Fique atento aos limites e regras de cada servidor de mídia. nostr:nevent1qqsq3qchucw49wfu2c4wpsung93ffzg4ktt4uuygnjcs5pldf5alr9c3hsgjr

E aqui vai uma #curiosidade: Caso queira postar uma foto ou vídeo que já postou antes, copie o ID da nota em que ela está e cole no novo post, ou então o URL da mídia. Você pode perceber que após upar uma mídia no Nostr, isso se torna uma URL, sempre que usar essa mesma URL, essa mídia irá aparecer.

Lightning e Zaps

Se você chegou aqui por meio de bitcoinheiros, já deve saber que por aqui, usamos a #Lightning para enviar zaps. Mas o que são zaps?

Zaps são nada mais do que satoshis enviados no Nostr. Um exemplo, eu criei esse artigo, pessoas que querem me apoiar ou agradecer por tal, me enviam alguma quantia em sats, dizemos que essa pessoa me mandou um #zap.

Agora posso falar mais sobre a lightning no Nostr.

Para enviar zaps para usuários no Nostr, você precisa de uma carteira lightning. E a carteira que recomendo criarem para isso é através da #Coinos. Na Coinos, você não precisa criar carteiras com seed phrases nem canais lightning, ela é uma carteira custodial, ou seja, a seed phrase está de posse da Coinos. Basta você acessar coinos.io e criar uma conta com username e senha, você pode configurar um e-mail de resgate, código 2FA, e senha para movimentação de fundos. Se quiser, aqui está o app da Coinos, ainda em fase de testes, mas a maior parte do usual funciona perfeitamente. nostr:nevent1qqspndmkhq2dpfjs5tv7mezz57fqrkmlklp4wrn3vlma93cr57q5xlqpypmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuampd3kx2ar0veekzar0wd5xjtnrdakj7q3q7xzhreevjvzyvuy48mjn7qlx55q2dktk3xm0lnlpehxvl8dq3l6qxpqqqqqqzp4vkne (o app está disponível na #zapstore, baixe a loja para ter acesso) O legal da coinos é que você pode criar um endereço lightning com o nome que você escolher, o meu por exemplo é componente08@coinos.io, basta criar sua conta e poderá enviar e receber zaps no mesmo instante.

Mas para receber de fato um zap usando o Nostr, você precisa configurar seu endereço lightning no seu perfil. Crie sua conta e copie seu endereço lightning.

No Amethyst

• Clique na sua imagem de perfil
• Selecione "Perfil"
• Aperte o botão com um lápis
• Em "Endereço LN" e "LN URL" cole seu endereço lightning Pronto! Agora as pessoas podem te enviar zaps através de suas publicações.

Antes de enviar zaps, configure seus valores no client.

No Amethyst

• Aperte e segure no raio de qualquer publicação
• No campo "novo valor em sats" digite um valor desejado
• Aperte o "x" nos valores que deseja excluir
• Clique em "Salvar"

Agora, você pode clicar no raio e escolher um valor, ao escolher você será direcionado para a sua carteira, confirme a transação e seu zap foi realizado!

Existe outro meio de enviar zaps que é através do #NWC (Nostr Wallet Connect). Siga os mesmos passos do Yakihonne no Amethyst na aba do raio que acessamos anteriormente. nostr:nevent1qqsxrkufrhpxpfe9yty90s8dnal89qz39zrv78ugmg5z2qvyteckfkqpzamhxue69uhkjmnzdauzuct60fsk6mewdejhgtczyr604d4k2mwrx5gaywlcjqjdevtkvtdjq4hmtzswjxjhf6zv2p23qqcyqqqqqqgrw73ux O NWC dá ao client ou app, a permissão de gerenciar sua carteira. Isso te permite enviar zaps sem sair do client ou precisar entrar no app da carteira.

Existem muitas outras carteiras lightning por aí, então além da coinos, deixarei o link de outras duas que utilizo.

WOS (Wallet of Satoshi)

Somente Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.livingroomofsatoshi.wallet

Minibits

Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.minibits_wallet Github: https://github.com/minibits-cash/minibits_wallet

Comunidades

Em uma #comunidade é possível encontrar respostas para suas perguntas, artigos e postagens de seu interesse, links úteis e tutoriais para burlar sistemas, documentos e estudos sem censura, etc. Aqui está um exemplo: nostr:nevent1qqs8qztlq26hhstz9yz2tn02gglzdvl5xhkpzhnpuh8v65mjldtdjlqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuvrcvd5xzapwvdhk6tczypr5gcpycla5zerha52xlam9427xdcf8dm4jccxxqk28gzayt8l4kqcyqqqqqqgldlvdq Esse usuário recorrentemente atualiza a lista de comunidades brasileiras no Nostr, recomendo seguir o perfil para se manter atualizado caso tenha interesse: nostr:nevent1qqsxkusgt02pmz6mda4emjlnjjyd4y9pa73ux02dcry8vk3wp85aq9cpzamhxue69uhkjmnzdauzuct60fsk6mewdejhgtczypr5gcpycla5zerha52xlam9427xdcf8dm4jccxxqk28gzayt8l4kqcyqqqqqqgqq5zn5 Aqui vão algumas #curiosidades para usuários mais avançados: nostr:nevent1qqs246x86gw4zfp70wg65rjklf909n6nppwm0xx6mssl6jgznw4nkjcpzamhxue69uhkjmnzdauzuct60fsk6mewdejhgtczyzgmafwdjds4qnzqn2h5t9gknz8k3ghu6jp8vt7edxnum3ca73z3cqcyqqqqqqgtkt83q Existem alguns clients que podem criar e gerenciar comunidades, caso você não encontrou nada de seu interesse e quer criar uma, os mais populares são:

Satellite.earth e noStrudel.ninja

Chats

Os #chats são espaços voltados a interação por meio de mensagens, aqui estão alguns: nostr:nevent1qqs98kldepjmlxngupsyth40n0h5lw7z5ut5w4scvh27alc0w86tevcpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qgsfujjjw3474zsrfcqhcgqavqeesd4h0nuxt0ue5ugy9y7e47xyh3qrqsqqqqqpgdaghw Para contatar uma pessoa no privado:

No Amethyst

• Clique no perfil da pessoa
• Clique no ícone de mensagem
• Envie uma mensagem

Caso queira criar um chat, siga os passos:

No Amethyst

• Clique no ícone de mensagens
• Clique no ícone de "+"
• Serão exibidas duas opções; "privado" e "público", escolha privado para um grupo de poucas pessoas e público para qualquer que quiser entrar.
• Adicione as especificações necessárias e seu chat será criado.

Seguidores

Existe uma #ferramenta capaz de identificar quais usuários que você segue estão inativos, ou publicam pouco e a longos hiatos: nostr:nevent1qqsqqqyhmkqz6x5yrsctcufxhsseh3vtku26thawl68z7klwvcyqyzcpzamhxue69uhkjmnzdauzuct60fsk6mewdejhgtczyzgmafwdjds4qnzqn2h5t9gknz8k3ghu6jp8vt7edxnum3ca73z3cqcyqqqqqqgmfzr67

Mais do Nostr

Existem muitas outras coisas para se explorar no Nostr, e é possível que daqui a uns meses, essas configurações e dicas estejam obsoletas. Explorem e aprendam mais sobre esse protocolo.

Abaixo estão mais algumas coisas que gostaria de compartilhar:

Muitos clients não possuem um sistema de #notificações, isso por conta da natureza #descentralizada dos apps, e para não ceder ao Google para isso, optaram por não ter notificações. O Amethyst por exemplo, só possui notificações ativas para quando você receber zaps. Mas esse problema foi resolvido com o #Pokey: nostr:nevent1qqsyw0m8wkwvzsanwufh6kmu3fkkjsu3x6jxxwxst5fxu3yld7q84cspzemhxue69uhkummnw3ezuerpw3sju6rpw4ej7q3q5wnjy9pfx5xm9w2mjqezyhdgthw3ty4ydmnnamtmhvfmzl9x8cssxpqqqqqqz4d5hj5

Aqui está um post sobre uma #loja de #apps voltada a apps do Nostr: nostr:nevent1qqsrk55p927srd30ukas79qzhlwhm5ls9l07g548y288s5u29najzrqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvuhsyg85l2mtv4kuxdg36gal3ypymjchvckmypt0kk9qayd9wn5yc5z4zqpsgqqqqqqskv0pek

Alguns RSS para quem gosta de notícias: nostr:nevent1qqsxctkju0pesrupvwfvzfr8wy3hgqag6r8v4228awgyf2x9htjqa7qpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ezuerpw3sju6rpw4ej7q3qvg9lk42rxugcdd4n667uy8gmvgfjp530n2307q9s93xuce3r7vzsxpqqqqqqzn4acev

Algumas pessoas famosas que estão por aqui: nostr:nevent1qqsvqnlx7sqeczv5r7pmmd6zzca3l0ru4856n3j7lhjfv3atq40lfdcpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qgs2tmjyw452ydezymtywqf625j3atra6datgzqy55fp5c7w9jn4gqgrqsqqqqqprwcjan

Alguns Nostr clients e outras coisas: nostr:nevent1qqsgx5snqdl2ujxhug5qkmmgkqn5ej6vhwpu4usfz03gt4n24qcfcwspr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qgs2tmjyw452ydezymtywqf625j3atra6datgzqy55fp5c7w9jn4gqgrqsqqqqqp3pf6y2

Outros posts interessantes: nostr:nevent1qqsp6vf8pp6l97ctzq2wp30nfc9eupnu2ytsauyxalp8fe8dda6dvdgpzamhxue69uhkjmnzdauzuct60fsk6mewdejhgtczyzgmafwdjds4qnzqn2h5t9gknz8k3ghu6jp8vt7edxnum3ca73z3cqcyqqqqqqgtkju3h nostr:nevent1qqs0faflxswn5rg8fe9q3202en927my6kupcf08lt26ry3cg3xuuy3gpzamhxue69uhkjmnzdauzuct60fsk6mewdejhgtczyzgmafwdjds4qnzqn2h5t9gknz8k3ghu6jp8vt7edxnum3ca73z3cqcyqqqqqqgsyrpkh nostr:nevent1qqspx9t3qfnsuzafxxuc5hyha9n5ul5v97uz57hfac9xdtvk5eygqggpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ezuerpw3sju6rpw4ej7q3qa5pl548ps6qdkpzpmlgkhnmh2hpntpk2gk3nee08e5spp5wzr3qqxpqqqqqqzctx6uf

Funcionalidades do Amethyst

• Reações (noStrudel também aceita)

nostr:nevent1qqst57p0pzw3vsx3n8g7eaa0dlx3kp5ys9rw3t367q5ewhdyw0kd2rspzamhxue69uhkjmnzdauzuct60fsk6mewdejhgtczyz36wgs59y6smv4etwgrygja4pwa69vj53hww0hd0wa38vtu5clzzqcyqqqqqqgpje0yu

• Markdown

nostr:nevent1qqs0vquevt0pe9h5a2dh8csufdksazp6czz3vjk3wfspp68uqdez00cpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qgs2tmjyw452ydezymtywqf625j3atra6datgzqy55fp5c7w9jn4gqgrqsqqqqqpekll6f

---

Espero ter dado alguma direção pela qual seguir por aqui, se tiver dúvidas, pode comentar aqui abaixo e responderemos com o melhor que pudermos. Olhem alguns dos comentários abaixo, terão posts que os veteranos consideram importantes.

---

Aos veteranos, comentem abaixo caso tenha faltado algo, e complementem aos novatos, grato!

---

Mais uma vez, seja bem-vindo ao Nostr!

nóspossuímosaweb #awebénostr

@ f18571e7:9da08ff4

João 5:28-29

Não vos maravilheis disso, porque vem a hora em que todos os que estão nos sepulcros ouvirão a sua voz.

E os que fizeram o bem sairão para a ressurreição da vida; e os que fizeram o mal, para a ressurreição da condenação.

Está chegando o dia em que cada um de nós, seja cristão ou não, vai descobrir exatamente o que está além da cortina do tempo. A Bíblia promete a Vida Eterna para alguns, e para outros, promete condenação. Todo ser humano ao longo da história tem certamente se perguntado: “O que vai acontecer comigo quando eu morrer?”

Muito antes de haver uma Bíblia para se ler, o profeta Jó observava a natureza. Ele falou sobre a esperança de uma árvore, como era cortada e morria, mas pelo cheiro das águas, revivia e soltava brotos novos. Jó sabia que o homem, como a árvore, ressuscitaria para a vida:

Morrendo o homem, porventura, tornará a viver? Todos os dias de meu combate esperaria, até que viesse a minha mudança. Chamar-me-ias, e eu te responderia; afeiçoa-te à obra de tuas mãos. Mas agora contas os meus passos; não estás tu vigilante sobre o meu pecado? (Jó 14:14-16)

Jó pode não ter tido uma Bíblia para ler, mas sabia que Deus iria, um dia, ressuscitá-lo do sepulcro quando o Redentor da humanidade viesse.

Quem me dera, agora, que as minhas palavras se escrevessem! Quem me dera que se gravassem num livro! E que, com pena de ferro e com chumbo, para sempre fossem esculpidas na rocha! Porque eu sei que o meu Redentor vive, e que por fim se levantará sobre a terra. E depois de consumida a minha pele, ainda em minha carne verei a Deus. (Jó 19:23-26)

O profeta estava falando do Senhor Jesus e da ressurreição do Seu povo. Por revelação Jó sabia que, ainda que nossos corpos possam desaparecer completamente, Jesus restaurará nossa carne. E com nossos próprios olhos veremos Sua Vinda. Todo o povo de Deus anela ver esse dia glorioso.

No entanto, tão certo como Deus existe, há também um diabo; e tão certo como existe Céu, também existe inferno. O que está em jogo é muito mais do que podemos imaginar. O apóstolo Paulo disse que “as coisas que o olho não viu, e o ouvido não ouviu, e não subiram ao coração do homem são as que Deus preparou para os que o amam.” (I Cor. 2:9)

Nossa mente não pode compreender quão grande será o Céu, e nem podem eles compreender os horrores do inferno. Jesus nos disse que o inferno é tão ruim que seria melhor se cortássemos um membro do nosso corpo do que nos arriscarmos a ir para aquele horrível lugar.

E, se a tua mão te escandalizar, corta-a; melhor é para ti entrares na vida aleijado do que, tendo duas mãos, ires para o inferno, para o fogo que nunca se apaga, (Mc. 9:43)

Então, quem vai para o Céu? E quem vai para o inferno? É um pensamento triste, mas Jesus disse que a maioria das pessoas não vai receber a recompensa que Ele está querendo dar: Entrai pela porta estreita, porque larga é a porta, e espaçoso, o caminho que conduz à perdição, e muitos são os que entram por ela; E porque estreita é a porta, e apertado o caminho que leva à vida, e poucos há que a encontrem. (Mt. 7:13-14)

Jesus também disse: “Nem todo o que me diz: Senhor, Senhor! entrará no Reino dos céus, mas aquele que faz a vontade de meu Pai, que está nos céus. Muitos me dirão naquele Dia: Senhor, Senhor, não profetizamos nós em teu nome? E, em teu nome, não expulsamos demônios? E, em teu nome, não fizemos muitas maravilhas? E, então, lhes direi abertamente: Nunca vos conheci; apartai-vos de mim, vós que praticais a iniquidade.” (Mt. 7:21-23)

Só porque uma pessoa afirma seguir o cristianismo não significa que esteja salva. Assim, essa é a pergunta óbvia em nossa mente: Como faço para receber a Vida Eterna? Jesus nos deu uma resposta muito simples: “Na verdade, na verdade vos digo que quem ouve a minha palavra e crê naquele que me enviou tem a vida eterna e não entrará em condenação, mas passou da morte para a vida.” (Jo. 5:24)

Infelizmente, existem tão poucas pessoas no mundo hoje que estão dispostas a tirar tempo de seus dias atarefados para ouvir a Palavra de Deus. E há menos ainda que crerão na Palavra, uma vez que a ouçam.

As igrejas nos dizem que devemos ser boa pessoa, pensar positivamente, não mentir, enganar ou roubar, e iremos para o Céu. Elas não entendem que o inferno estará cheio de pessoas que parecem viver uma vida boa. A realidade é que não vamos para o Céu por causa das nossas boas obras, ou porque somos membros de determinada igreja. Há apenas um caminho para a Vida Eterna, que é através de Jesus Cristo. Ele nos ensinou que devemos CRER em Sua Palavra, que é a Bíblia. Caso contrário, como poderíamos ser salvos?

Quando o dia do juízo chegar para você, você vai ouvir: “Vinde, benditos de meu Pai, possuí por herança o Reino que vos está preparado desde a fundação do mundo;” (Mt. 25:34), ou vai ouvir: “Apartai-vos de mim, malditos, para o fogo eterno, preparado para o diabo e seus anjos”? (Mt. 25:41)

Enquanto seus olhos leem estas palavras, você tem uma escolha a fazer: Será que vai escolher crer na Palavra de Deus? Onde você vai passar a eternidade?

Referências

Jó 14:12-16

Assim o homem se deita e não se levanta; até que não haja mais céus, não acordará, nem se erguerá de seu sono.

Tomara que me escondesses na sepultura, e me ocultasses até que a tua ira se desviasse, e me pusesses um limite, e te lembrasses de mim!

Morrendo o homem, porventura, tornará a viver? Todos os dias de meu combate esperaria, até que viesse a minha mudança.

Chamar-me-ias, e eu te responderia; afeiçoa-te à obra de tuas mãos.

Mas agora contas os meus passos; não estás tu vigilante sobre o meu pecado?

Jó 19:23-26

Quem me dera, agora, que as minhas palavras se escrevessem! Quem me dera que se gravassem num livro!

E que, com pena de ferro e com chumbo, para sempre fossem esculpidas na rocha!

Porque eu sei que o meu Redentor vive, e que por fim se levantará sobre a terra.

E depois de consumida a minha pele, ainda em minha carne verei a Deus.

Mateus 7:21-23

Nem todo o que me diz: Senhor, Senhor! entrará no Reino dos céus, mas aquele que faz a vontade de meu Pai, que está nos céus.

Muitos me dirão naquele Dia: Senhor, Senhor, não profetizamos nós em teu nome? E, em teu nome, não expulsamos demônios? E, em teu nome, não fizemos muitas maravilhas?

E, então, lhes direi abertamente: Nunca vos conheci; apartai-vos de mim, vós que praticais a iniquidade.

Mateus 22:14

Porque muitos são chamados, mas poucos, escolhidos.

João 3:16-17

Porque Deus amou o mundo de tal maneira que deu o seu Filho unigênito, para que todo aquele que nele crê não pereça, mas tenha a vida eterna.

Porque Deus enviou o seu Filho ao mundo não para que condenasse o mundo, mas para que o mundo fosse salvo por ele.

João 5:24

Na verdade, na verdade vos digo que quem ouve a minha palavra e crê naquele que me enviou tem a vida eterna e não entrará em condenação, mas passou da morte para a vida.

I Coríntios 2:9

Mas, como está escrito: As coisas que o olho não viu, e o ouvido não ouviu, e não subiram ao coração do homem são as que Deus preparou para os que o amam.

I Tessalonicenses 4:13-18

Não quero, porém, irmãos, que sejais ignorantes acerca dos que já dormem, para que não vos entristeçais, como os demais, que não têm esperança.

Porque, se cremos que Jesus morreu e ressuscitou, assim também aos que em Jesus dormem Deus os tornará a trazer com ele.

Dizemo-vos, pois, isto pela palavra do Senhor: que nós, os que ficarmos vivos para a vinda do Senhor, não precederemos os que dormem.

Porque o mesmo Senhor descerá do céu com alarido, e com voz de arcanjo, e com a trombeta de Deus; e os que morreram em Cristo ressuscitarão primeiro;

Depois, nós, os que ficarmos vivos, seremos arrebatados juntamente com eles nas nuvens, a encontrar o Senhor nos ares, e assim estaremos sempre com o Senhor.

Portanto, consolai-vos uns aos outros com estas palavras.

---

Este post foi publicado originalmente em:

https://themessage.com/pt/lifeafter

Leia mais em:

https://themessage.com/pt/home

@ 9dd283b1:cf9b6beb

My Raspberry Pi 4 (running Umbrel) has been disconnecting approximately once a month, and my 1TB SSD now has only 80GB of space remaining. I'm considering an upgrade—possibly moving to a Pi 5 with a 2TB drive—but I'm open to any suggestions for a better setup within a similar budget. Any recommendations?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/911133

@ a60e79e0:1e0e6813

*This is a long form Nostr native version of a post that lives on my Nostr educational website Hello Nostr *

At first glance Nostr might appear quite similar to some of the apps you use every day, such as Twitter, Mastodon, or Facebook, but that couldn't be further from the truth. This post aims to dispel the myth that "Nostr is just a Twitter replacement" and give you a better understanding about the 'what', the 'how' and most importantly, the 'why' of Nostr.

What Is Nostr?

Nostr is a decentralized, open-source protocol designed for censorship-resistant networking and communication on the web. It stands for "Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays," and it works by allowing users to publish messages (notes) and content in the form of 'other stuff', to a network of servers (relays) that store and distribute the content.

Unlike traditional platforms like Twitter, Ebay or Facebook, Nostr doesn't rely on a central authority; instead, users control their own identities via cryptographic key pairs.

The simplest open protocol that is able to create a censorship-resistant global "social" network once and for all.

Fiatjaf - Nostr Creator

Nostr is not a website or an app you download from a single source — it’s an open protocol, like email or the internet. Think of it as a set of rules that anyone can use to build tools for sharing messages, posts, or other data without needing a centralized middleman like a big tech company.

Nostr was created by a developer named Fiatjaf in 2020, and has since been steadily gaining traction among people who care about privacy, freedom, and censorship resistance.

Why Nostr?

Imagine the scenario, you've been using an online platform for 5 or even 10 years. You've built up thousands of contacts, perhaps built yourself a sizeable reputation, or even rely on the income from the platform to feed your family. Then one day you make a controversial post, sell a certain item or upload a video on a spicy subject to the platform where the owner disagrees with. With the click of a button, your account is removed. All trace of you, your social graph, or even your future income, disappears in an instant.

Read aloud like that is sounds crazy that we'd even entertain using such a platform, right!? Sadly that is the reality in 2025. This is exactly what happens every single day on X, Facebook, Ebay, Paypal, Linkedin, etc.

Looking at the problem through a more social media focused lens, many of us have become slaves to the likes of Instagram, Twitter and TikTok. We use these 'free' apps under the guise of being social with others online. The reality is that we see what those apps want us to see. We've become slaves to the manipulation of complex and opaque algrorithms designed to keep us hooked and try to sell us things.

Unlike traditional platforms, which are often governed by centralized entities wielding significant control over user data, content moderation, and algorithmic influence, Nostr flips the script by prioritizing user sovereignty and resilience. Built on an open-source framework, Nostr allows individuals to control their own data and interact through a network of relays, making it much more difficult for any single authority - be it a corporation, government, or bad actor - to censor or manipulate the flow of information.

• Is a relay refusing to host your notes? Use another or run your own!
• A specific client using an algorithm you don't like, take your identity and social graph elsewhere and choose another!

Take your identity and social graph with you, anywhere any time.

Nostr’s ability to foster authentic, unfiltered conversations while safeguarding user sovereignty has made it a cornerstone for communities seeking alternatives - whether they’re activists, creators, or everyday people tired of being pawns in the data-driven game. It's simple and adaptable design also encourages innovation, inviting developers to build tools and interfaces that keep pushing the boundaries of what the decentralized internet can achieve. In short, Nostr isn’t just a tool; it’s a movement toward a freer, more equitable digital future.

How Does Nostr Work?

Instead of one giant server owned by a single company holding all your posts and messages, Nostr spreads everything across lots of smaller servers called relays. To get started, you download a client, create your account and back up your private key. Your private key is used to secure your account and sign every message you send over the network. This allows anyone you interact with the verify the integrity of the data coming from 'you'.

The Nostr network is essentially a collection of bulletin boards that share a common format

When you write a note, or share some other type of compatible data, your client signs it with your private key, then sends it to one or more relays. Which relays your information is sent to is entirely up to you. These relays share your message with others who want to see it.

For others to see your notes or 'other stuff', they'll need to be able to find you. Typically this is done by using your public key, which looks something like this npub15c88nc8d44gsp4658dnfu5fahswzzu8gaxm5lkuwjud068swdqfspxssvx. Don't panic though, you don't need to memorize all of your friends public keys, there are more human friendly methods of finding people that we'll come onto later.

Once someone is following you, their client will ask all of their connected relays for any data shared by your public key. Their client will receive this data, verify it is signed by your private key and then populate it into their feed.

The “Other Stuff” Explained

Nostr’s name hints at this: Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays. But what is the “other stuff”? Put simply, it’s all the creative and experimental things people are building on Nostr, beyond simple text based notes. Every action on Nostr is an event - like a post, a profile update, or even a payment. The 'Kind' is what specifies the purpose of each event. Kinds are the building blocks of how information is categorized and processed on the network, and the most popular become part of higher lever specification guidelines known as Nostr Implementation Possibility - NIP. A NIP is a document that defines how something in Nostr should work, including the rules, standards, or features. NIPs define the type of 'other stuff' that be published and displayed by different styles of client for different purposes.

Here's some content examples of 'Other Stuff':

1. Long-Form Content: Think blog posts or articles. NIP-23.
2. Private Messaging: Encrypted chats between users. NIP-04.
3. Communities: Group chats or forums like Reddit. NIP-72
4. Marketplaces: People listing stuff for sale, payable with zaps. NIP-15
5. Zaps: Value transfer over the Lightning Network. NIP57

The beauty of Nostr is that it’s a flexible foundation. Developers can dream up new ideas and build them into clients, and the relays just keep humming along, passing the data around. It’s still early days, so expect the “other stuff” to grow wilder and weirder over time!

Clients vs Relays: What’s the Difference?

Newbies often get tripped up by these two terms, so let’s clearly define them.

Clients

A client is what you use to interact with Nostr. It’s the app or website where you type your posts, read your feed, follow and interact with others. Examples of Nostr clients include:

• Damus (iOS Twitter style client)
• Primal (Cross-platform Twitter style client)
• Amethyst (Android only Twitter style client)
• Habla.News (Web based blog client)
• Olas (Instagram style client)
• 0xchat (Messaging client)

Clients don’t store your data; they just pull it from relays and display it for you. You can switch clients whenever you want, and your account stays the same because it’s tied to your keys, not any single client or app.

Clients are how you use Nostr, and relays are where the data lives. You need both to make the magic happen.

Relays

A relay is a server that stores and shares Nostr data. It’s a little like a post office: you send your note to a relay, and it delivers it to anyone who’s subscribed to see it (like your followers). Relays are run by individuals, groups, or companies who volunteer their computing power. Some are free, some charge a small fee, and you can connect to as many as you like. Most clients will come pre-configured with a list of well-known relays, but you can add or remove any you like.

What Are Zaps?

Zaps are arguably one of Nostr’s coolest features! A zaps is a way to send payments in Bitcoin directly to other users. Imagine liking a post, but instead of just clicking a heart (which you can of course do), you send the poster a few cents worth of Bitcoin to say, “This is awesome!”.

Zaps use Bitcoin's Lightning Network, a faster and cheaper way to move Bitcoin around. To Zap someone, you need a Lightning wallet linked to your Nostr client. Some clients, like Primal, ship with their own custodial wallet to make getting started a breeze. Most clients also allow more advanced users to connect an existing Lightning Wallet to reduce reliance and trust in the client provider.

Zaps are optional but add a fun layer to Nostr. Creators love them because it’s a way to get direct support from fans, with no middleman required.

NIP-05 Identifiers: Your Nostr “Username”

Your nPub, or public key (that long string of letters and numbers) is your 'official' Nostr ID, but it’s not exactly catchy. Enter NIP-05 identifiers, a human-readable and easily sharable way to have people find you. They look like an email address, like qna@hellonostr.xyz.

Here’s how it works:

Most users obtain their NIP-05 ID from a website or service that supports Nostr. Some of these services are free whereas some charge a fee. Some clients, like Primal will set one up for you automatically when you create an account. The email like ID links to your public key, so people can find you more easily. And because these ID's are domain based, there can be no duplicates. qna@hellonostr.xyz can only map to a single public key. The only person that can change that link is the person in control of the domain.

If you control your own domain, you can easily map your Nostr public key to name@my.domain. It’s not mandatory, but it’s super useful for building trust and making your profile recognizable.

Next Steps

So you're bought in. You understand why Nostr is so important and want to get started. Check out our simple onboarding guide here.

Thanks For Reading

Hopefully that moistened your taste buds for more educational Nostr content. This was a basic one, but there will be more focused material coming soon.

If you found this post useful, please share it with your peers and consider following and zapping me on Nostr. If you write to me and let me know that you found me via this post, I'll be sure to Zap you back! ⚡️

@ a7bbc310:fe7b7be3

I’ve been back from Morocco for just over a month and I’ve had some time to reflect. I started writing a day by day of what I did in my trip to Morocco but that was turning out a bit boring. I couldn’t do the trip justice. I thought I’d share some of my observations instead. I’d start by saying I was only there for 5 1/2 days. 5 days in Marrakesh and half day in Essaouira

You can feel the rich culture and history Morocco has such a rich culture and history. Influence of Romans, French, Arab, Berbers, Saharan and Nomadic tribes. You can see it in the architecture, taste it in the food and hear it in the language. The streets of Marrakesh had the smells of spices, perfumes and petrol. There is a synchronised dance between everyone that occupy the streets. People, motorbikes, donkeys, carts, all jostling for position but never seeming to collide into on another.

One thing that didn’t surprise me was the high level of craftsmanship and intricate designs on some of the buildings. I was told by a tour guide that some of the calligraphy could only be understood and read by the person who wrote it.

There seemed to be a sense of community, people stopping in the street to greet each other and say hello. What surprised me about this in Marrakesh most was that it happened in such a busy city. From my experience big cities are places that you go to get lost, ignored and don’t want to be found. Scene at the end of the movie Collateral comes to mind. You know the one where he’s riding on the subway alone after being shot.

A vendor tried to sell me a pendant, a symbol of the Berber tribe that meant ‘free man’. The symbol looks similar to the one for Sats 丰. I declined to purchase since I wasn’t educated enough on the Berbers to rep a symbol.

Couldn’t get over how much stuff there was for sale! And duplications of everything, rugs, shoes , handbags, jackets. Cold mornings and evenings, warm during the day. Everyone dressed like it was winter, even when it for warmer in the afternoon. It was a special trip. I’d definitely go back. Both to visit Marrakesh and other places.

@ 078d6670:56049f0c

I spent some time outside in the dark last night. After a little sleep I was wide awake again, so I ventured downstairs, rolled a joint and stepped into the darkness. No moon, no outside lights. Just stars flickering through space and landing on the sky dome, expanding my being.

There was nothing unusual. Just the usual fleeting apparitions shooting through the ether, barely visible, like they’re behind a lace curtain and I have a glimpse into the astral: light and dark winged things, miniature meteor orbs and bat shadows. This time I wasn’t listening to anything, just the inspiring tangent thoughts spiralling through my mental DNA. No cows, no lions fornicating, not even any barking dogs. (But there was a Wood Owl hooting.)

Initially, I was a little disappointed I hadn’t seen anything inexplicable, but I got over myself and expectation to always see fairies. There is a bliss in just being present (and stoned)!

When I was ready to exit the deck space, I yelled silently to myself and anyone reading my mind, “Goodnight Sky! Thank you stars for shining! Thank you planets for showing yourselves! Blessings to all the conscious beings in the Universe!”

I wasn’t prepared for what happened next. I wasn’t sure if I should run inside to get my smartphone or just watch.

An orb, a little bigger than the average star, manifested directly above my head, star-height, as far as my perception could guess. Then it disappeared after two seconds. Another one appeared in the same vicinity, and disappeared. I couldn’t tell if it was the same one reappearing in an astral (wormhole) jump, or other orbs were taking turns to greet me, because there were more, probably five in total.

How the f*!k did they hear me?

Is the sky conscious?

Does my being extend to the stars?

It felt like I was inside a lucid dream. The world was alive and acknowledging my blessings instantaneously. What impeccable manners!

I understand everything in my dream world is an extension of my consciousness. When I’m lucid I can interact with any of my dream elements and ask for meaning. There are no limits, only my imagination and unconscious beliefs.

But what is happening now?!

My reality is transforming into a dream, or the dream sandbox is becoming more real. Synchronistically, this is amazing, since my reading is taking me on a journey into western esotericism to expansive experiences through imagination to include the stars and beyond.

Soon, it’ll be time to call reality the Unreal, and the unreal Reality.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Im Augenblick wird mit größter Intensität, großer Umsicht \ das deutsche Volk belogen. \ Olaf Scholz im FAZ-Interview

Online-Wahlen stärken die Demokratie, sind sicher, und 61 Prozent der Wahlberechtigten sprechen sich für deren Einführung in Deutschland aus. Das zumindest behauptet eine aktuelle Umfrage, die auch über die Agentur Reuters Verbreitung in den Medien gefunden hat. Demnach würden außerdem 45 Prozent der Nichtwähler bei der Bundestagswahl ihre Stimme abgeben, wenn sie dies zum Beispiel von Ihrem PC, Tablet oder Smartphone aus machen könnten.

Die telefonische Umfrage unter gut 1000 wahlberechtigten Personen sei repräsentativ, behauptet der Auftraggeber – der Digitalverband Bitkom. Dieser präsentiert sich als eingetragener Verein mit einer beeindruckenden Liste von Mitgliedern, die Software und IT-Dienstleistungen anbieten. Erklärtes Vereinsziel ist es, «Deutschland zu einem führenden Digitalstandort zu machen und die digitale Transformation der deutschen Wirtschaft und Verwaltung voranzutreiben».

Durchgeführt hat die Befragung die Bitkom Servicegesellschaft mbH, also alles in der Familie. Die gleiche Erhebung hatte der Verband übrigens 2021 schon einmal durchgeführt. Damals sprachen sich angeblich sogar 63 Prozent für ein derartiges «Demokratie-Update» aus – die Tendenz ist demgemäß fallend. Dennoch orakelt mancher, der Gang zur Wahlurne gelte bereits als veraltet.

Die spanische Privat-Uni mit Globalisten-Touch, IE University, berichtete Ende letzten Jahres in ihrer Studie «European Tech Insights», 67 Prozent der Europäer befürchteten, dass Hacker Wahlergebnisse verfälschen könnten. Mehr als 30 Prozent der Befragten glaubten, dass künstliche Intelligenz (KI) bereits Wahlentscheidungen beeinflusst habe. Trotzdem würden angeblich 34 Prozent der unter 35-Jährigen einer KI-gesteuerten App vertrauen, um in ihrem Namen für politische Kandidaten zu stimmen.

Wie dauerhaft wird wohl das Ergebnis der kommenden Bundestagswahl sein? Diese Frage stellt sich angesichts der aktuellen Entwicklung der Migrations-Debatte und der (vorübergehend) bröckelnden «Brandmauer» gegen die AfD. Das «Zustrombegrenzungsgesetz» der Union hat das Parlament heute Nachmittag überraschenderweise abgelehnt. Dennoch muss man wohl kein ausgesprochener Pessimist sein, um zu befürchten, dass die Entscheidungen der Bürger von den selbsternannten Verteidigern der Demokratie künftig vielleicht nicht respektiert werden, weil sie nicht gefallen.

Bundesweit wird jetzt zu «Brandmauer-Demos» aufgerufen, die CDU gerät unter Druck und es wird von Übergriffen auf Parteibüros und Drohungen gegen Mitarbeiter berichtet. Sicherheitsbehörden warnen vor Eskalationen, die Polizei sei «für ein mögliches erhöhtes Aufkommen von Straftaten gegenüber Politikern und gegen Parteigebäude sensibilisiert».

Der Vorwand «unzulässiger Einflussnahme» auf Politik und Wahlen wird als Argument schon seit einiger Zeit aufgebaut. Der Manipulation schuldig befunden wird neben Putin und Trump auch Elon Musk, was lustigerweise ausgerechnet Bill Gates gerade noch einmal bekräftigt und als «völlig irre» bezeichnet hat. Man stelle sich die Diskussionen um die Gültigkeit von Wahlergebnissen vor, wenn es Online-Verfahren zur Stimmabgabe gäbe. In der Schweiz wird «E-Voting» seit einigen Jahren getestet, aber wohl bisher mit wenig Erfolg.

Die politische Brandstiftung der letzten Jahre zahlt sich immer mehr aus. Anstatt dringende Probleme der Menschen zu lösen – zu denen auch in Deutschland die weit verbreitete Armut zählt –, hat die Politik konsequent polarisiert und sich auf Ausgrenzung und Verhöhnung großer Teile der Bevölkerung konzentriert. Basierend auf Ideologie und Lügen werden abweichende Stimmen unterdrückt und kriminalisiert, nicht nur und nicht erst in diesem Augenblick. Die nächsten Wochen dürften ausgesprochen spannend werden.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Menschen tun alles, egal wie absurd, \ um ihrer eigenen Seele nicht zu begegnen. \ Carl Gustav Jung

«Extremer Reichtum ist eine Gefahr für die Demokratie», sagen über die Hälfte der knapp 3000 befragten Millionäre aus G20-Staaten laut einer Umfrage der «Patriotic Millionaires». Ferner stellte dieser Zusammenschluss wohlhabender US-Amerikaner fest, dass 63 Prozent jener Millionäre den Einfluss von Superreichen auf US-Präsident Trump als Bedrohung für die globale Stabilität ansehen.

Diese Besorgnis haben 370 Millionäre und Milliardäre am Dienstag auch den in Davos beim WEF konzentrierten Privilegierten aus aller Welt übermittelt. In einem offenen Brief forderten sie die «gewählten Führer» auf, die Superreichen – also sie selbst – zu besteuern, um «die zersetzenden Auswirkungen des extremen Reichtums auf unsere Demokratien und die Gesellschaft zu bekämpfen». Zum Beispiel kontrolliere eine handvoll extrem reicher Menschen die Medien, beeinflusse die Rechtssysteme in unzulässiger Weise und verwandele Recht in Unrecht.

Schon 2019 beanstandete der bekannte Historiker und Schriftsteller Ruthger Bregman an einer WEF-Podiumsdiskussion die Steuervermeidung der Superreichen. Die elitäre Veranstaltung bezeichnete er als «Feuerwehr-Konferenz, bei der man nicht über Löschwasser sprechen darf.» Daraufhin erhielt Bregman keine Einladungen nach Davos mehr. Auf seine Aussagen machte der Schweizer Aktivist Alec Gagneux aufmerksam, der sich seit Jahrzehnten kritisch mit dem WEF befasst. Ihm wurde kürzlich der Zutritt zu einem dreiteiligen Kurs über das WEF an der Volkshochschule Region Brugg verwehrt.

Nun ist die Erkenntnis, dass mit Geld politischer Einfluss einhergeht, alles andere als neu. Und extremer Reichtum macht die Sache nicht wirklich besser. Trotzdem hat man über Initiativen wie Patriotic Millionaires oder Taxmenow bisher eher selten etwas gehört, obwohl es sie schon lange gibt. Auch scheint es kein Problem, wenn ein Herr Gates fast im Alleingang versucht, globale Gesundheits-, Klima-, Ernährungs- oder Bevölkerungspolitik zu betreiben – im Gegenteil. Im Jahr, als der Milliardär Donald Trump zum zweiten Mal ins Weiße Haus einzieht, ist das Echo in den Gesinnungsmedien dagegen enorm – und uniform, wer hätte das gedacht.

Der neue US-Präsident hat jedoch «Davos geerdet», wie Achgut es nannte. In seiner kurzen Rede beim Weltwirtschaftsforum verteidigte er seine Politik und stellte klar, er habe schlicht eine «Revolution des gesunden Menschenverstands» begonnen. Mit deutlichen Worten sprach er unter anderem von ersten Maßnahmen gegen den «Green New Scam», und von einem «Erlass, der jegliche staatliche Zensur beendet»:

«Unsere Regierung wird die Äußerungen unserer eigenen Bürger nicht mehr als Fehlinformation oder Desinformation bezeichnen, was die Lieblingswörter von Zensoren und derer sind, die den freien Austausch von Ideen und, offen gesagt, den Fortschritt verhindern wollen.»

Wie der «Trumpismus» letztlich einzuordnen ist, muss jeder für sich selbst entscheiden. Skepsis ist definitiv angebracht, denn «einer von uns» sind weder der Präsident noch seine auserwählten Teammitglieder. Ob sie irgendeinen Sumpf trockenlegen oder Staatsverbrechen aufdecken werden oder was aus WHO- und Klimaverträgen wird, bleibt abzuwarten.

Das WHO-Dekret fordert jedenfalls die Übertragung der Gelder auf «glaubwürdige Partner», die die Aktivitäten übernehmen könnten. Zufällig scheint mit «Impfguru» Bill Gates ein weiterer Harris-Unterstützer kürzlich das Lager gewechselt zu haben: Nach einem gemeinsamen Abendessen zeigte er sich «beeindruckt» von Trumps Interesse an der globalen Gesundheit.

Mit dem Projekt «Stargate» sind weitere dunkle Wolken am Erwartungshorizont der Fangemeinde aufgezogen. Trump hat dieses Joint Venture zwischen den Konzernen OpenAI, Oracle, und SoftBank als das «größte KI-Infrastrukturprojekt der Geschichte» angekündigt. Der Stein des Anstoßes: Oracle-CEO Larry Ellison, der auch Fan von KI-gestützter Echtzeit-Überwachung ist, sieht einen weiteren potenziellen Einsatz der künstlichen Intelligenz. Sie könne dazu dienen, Krebserkrankungen zu erkennen und individuelle mRNA-«Impfstoffe» zur Behandlung innerhalb von 48 Stunden zu entwickeln.

Warum bitte sollten sich diese superreichen «Eliten» ins eigene Fleisch schneiden und direkt entgegen ihren eigenen Interessen handeln? Weil sie Menschenfreunde, sogenannte Philanthropen sind? Oder vielleicht, weil sie ein schlechtes Gewissen haben und ihre Schuld kompensieren müssen? Deswegen jedenfalls brauchen «Linke» laut Robert Willacker, einem deutschen Politikberater mit brasilianischen Wurzeln, rechte Parteien – ein ebenso überraschender wie humorvoller Erklärungsansatz.

Wenn eine Krähe der anderen kein Auge aushackt, dann tut sie das sich selbst noch weniger an. Dass Millionäre ernsthaft ihre eigene Besteuerung fordern oder Machteliten ihren eigenen Einfluss zugunsten anderer einschränken würden, halte ich für sehr unwahrscheinlich. So etwas glaube ich erst, wenn zum Beispiel die Rüstungsindustrie sich um Friedensverhandlungen bemüht, die Pharmalobby sich gegen institutionalisierte Korruption einsetzt, Zentralbanken ihre CBDC-Pläne für Bitcoin opfern oder der ÖRR die Abschaffung der Rundfunkgebühren fordert.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die grauenvollste Aussicht ist die der Technokratie – \ einer kontrollierenden Herrschaft, \ die durch verstümmelte und verstümmelnde Geister ausgeübt wird. \ Ernst Jünger

«Davos ist nicht mehr sexy», das Weltwirtschaftsforum (WEF) mache Davos kaputt, diese Aussagen eines Einheimischen las ich kürzlich in der Handelszeitung. Während sich einige vor Ort enorm an der «teuersten Gewerbeausstellung der Welt» bereicherten, würden die negativen Begleiterscheinungen wie Wohnungsnot und Niedergang der lokalen Wirtschaft immer deutlicher.

Nächsten Montag beginnt in dem Schweizer Bergdorf erneut ein Jahrestreffen dieses elitären Clubs der Konzerne, bei dem man mit hochrangigen Politikern aus aller Welt und ausgewählten Vertretern der Systemmedien zusammenhocken wird. Wie bereits in den vergangenen vier Jahren wird die Präsidentin der EU-Kommission, Ursula von der Leyen, in Begleitung von Klaus Schwab ihre Grundsatzansprache halten.

Der deutsche WEF-Gründer hatte bei dieser Gelegenheit immer höchst lobende Worte für seine Landsmännin: 2021 erklärte er sich «stolz, dass Europa wieder unter Ihrer Führung steht» und 2022 fand er es bemerkenswert, was sie erreicht habe angesichts des «erstaunlichen Wandels», den die Welt in den vorangegangenen zwei Jahren erlebt habe; es gebe nun einen «neuen europäischen Geist».

Von der Leyens Handeln während der sogenannten Corona-«Pandemie» lobte Schwab damals bereits ebenso, wie es diese Woche das Karlspreis-Direktorium tat, als man der Beschuldigten im Fall Pfizergate die diesjährige internationale Auszeichnung «für Verdienste um die europäische Einigung» verlieh. Außerdem habe sie die EU nicht nur gegen den «Aggressor Russland», sondern auch gegen die «innere Bedrohung durch Rassisten und Demagogen» sowie gegen den Klimawandel verteidigt.

Jene Herausforderungen durch «Krisen epochalen Ausmaßes» werden indes aus dem Umfeld des WEF nicht nur herbeigeredet – wie man alljährlich zur Zeit des Davoser Treffens im Global Risks Report nachlesen kann, der zusammen mit dem Versicherungskonzern Zurich erstellt wird. Seit die Globalisten 2020/21 in der Praxis gesehen haben, wie gut eine konzertierte und konsequente Angst-Kampagne funktionieren kann, geht es Schlag auf Schlag. Sie setzen alles daran, Schwabs goldenes Zeitfenster des «Great Reset» zu nutzen.

Ziel dieses «großen Umbruchs» ist die totale Kontrolle der Technokraten über die Menschen unter dem Deckmantel einer globalen Gesundheitsfürsorge. Wie aber könnte man so etwas erreichen? Ein Mittel dazu ist die «kreative Zerstörung». Weitere unabdingbare Werkzeug sind die Einbindung, ja Gleichschaltung der Medien und der Justiz.

Ein «Great Mental Reset» sei die Voraussetzung dafür, dass ein Großteil der Menschen Einschränkungen und Manipulationen wie durch die Corona-Maßnahmen praktisch kritik- und widerstandslos hinnehme, sagt der Mediziner und Molekulargenetiker Michael Nehls. Er meint damit eine regelrechte Umprogrammierung des Gehirns, wodurch nach und nach unsere Individualität und unser soziales Bewusstsein eliminiert und durch unreflektierten Konformismus ersetzt werden.

Der aktuelle Zustand unserer Gesellschaften ist auch für den Schweizer Rechtsanwalt Philipp Kruse alarmierend. Durch den Umgang mit der «Pandemie» sieht er die Grundlagen von Recht und Vernunft erschüttert, die Rechtsstaatlichkeit stehe auf dem Prüfstand. Seiner dringenden Mahnung an alle Bürger, die Prinzipien von Recht und Freiheit zu verteidigen, kann ich mich nur anschließen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 6a6be47b:3e74e3e1

Hi frens, I just wanted to say hello and remind you about the amazing artwork available from my creative corner. 🖼️ 🦄 I have a few digitala prints on my Plebeian Market stall from Bitcoin to some hoverflies. 🦄 On my Kofi-shop I have a bunch of digital prints too; fromBeelzebub toKrampus, stickers for Goodnotesand many other occulture and religious theme artwork. 🦄If you're more into physical prints, you can visit my INPRNT shop but if you'd like to wear my artwork, visit my Teespring shop. 🦄 You can find all of this at my nostree.me profile or go directly tomy website 🦄And of course, my pride and joy are my blog entries, I've painted about Ostara,Lupercalia, Nunsand many other religious and pagan themes. I invite you to take a peek 👀 Also, just dropping by to know how you've been? How are you gonna celebrate this Equinox? Maybe a Spring Cleansing?? Whatever you decide to do, I wish the best for you and your loved ones. I also would like to thank kyou for liking, reposting, the zaps, you're all awesome! None of this would be possible without you my frens! Wishing you all a Happy New Astrological year! Happy Equinox! Godspeed

@ a93be9fb:6d3fdc0c

Publishing new article

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ich begann, Social Media aufzubauen, \ um den Menschen eine Stimme zu geben. \ Mark Zuckerberg

Sind euch auch die Tränen gekommen, als ihr Mark Zuckerbergs Wendehals-Deklaration bezüglich der Meinungsfreiheit auf seinen Portalen gehört habt? Rührend, oder? Während er früher die offensichtliche Zensur leugnete und später die Regierung Biden dafür verantwortlich machte, will er nun angeblich «die Zensur auf unseren Plattformen drastisch reduzieren».

«Purer Opportunismus» ob des anstehenden Regierungswechsels wäre als Klassifizierung viel zu kurz gegriffen. Der jetzige Schachzug des Meta-Chefs ist genauso Teil einer kühl kalkulierten Business-Strategie, wie es die 180 Grad umgekehrte Praxis vorher war. Social Media sind ein höchst lukratives Geschäft. Hinzu kommt vielleicht noch ein bisschen verkorkstes Ego, weil derartig viel Einfluss und Geld sicher auch auf die Psyche schlagen. Verständlich.

«Es ist an der Zeit, zu unseren Wurzeln der freien Meinungsäußerung auf Facebook und Instagram zurückzukehren. Ich begann, Social Media aufzubauen, um den Menschen eine Stimme zu geben», sagte Zuckerberg.

Welche Wurzeln? Hat der Mann vergessen, dass er von der Überwachung, dem Ausspionieren und dem Ausverkauf sämtlicher Daten und digitaler Spuren sowie der Manipulation seiner «Kunden» lebt? Das ist knallharter Kommerz, nichts anderes. Um freie Meinungsäußerung geht es bei diesem Geschäft ganz sicher nicht, und das war auch noch nie so. Die Wurzeln von Facebook liegen in einem Projekt des US-Militärs mit dem Namen «LifeLog». Dessen Ziel war es, «ein digitales Protokoll vom Leben eines Menschen zu erstellen».

Der Richtungswechsel kommt allerdings nicht überraschend. Schon Anfang Dezember hatte Meta-Präsident Nick Clegg von «zu hoher Fehlerquote bei der Moderation» von Inhalten gesprochen. Bei der Gelegenheit erwähnte er auch, dass Mark sehr daran interessiert sei, eine aktive Rolle in den Debatten über eine amerikanische Führungsrolle im technologischen Bereich zu spielen.

Während Milliardärskollege und Big Tech-Konkurrent Elon Musk bereits seinen Posten in der kommenden Trump-Regierung in Aussicht hat, möchte Zuckerberg also nicht nur seine Haut retten – Trump hatte ihn einmal einen «Feind des Volkes» genannt und ihm lebenslange Haft angedroht –, sondern am liebsten auch mitspielen. KI-Berater ist wohl die gewünschte Funktion, wie man nach einem Treffen Trump-Zuckerberg hörte. An seine Verhaftung dachte vermutlich auch ein weiterer Multimilliardär mit eigener Social Media-Plattform, Pavel Durov, als er Zuckerberg jetzt kritisierte und gleichzeitig warnte.

Politik und Systemmedien drehen jedenfalls durch – was zu viel ist, ist zu viel. Etwas weniger Zensur und mehr Meinungsfreiheit würden die Freiheit der Bürger schwächen und seien potenziell vernichtend für die Menschenrechte. Zuckerberg setze mit dem neuen Kurs die Demokratie aufs Spiel, das sei eine «Einladung zum nächsten Völkermord», ernsthaft. Die Frage sei, ob sich die EU gegen Musk und Zuckerberg behaupten könne, Brüssel müsse jedenfalls hart durchgreifen.

Auch um die Faktenchecker macht man sich Sorgen. Für die deutsche Nachrichtenagentur dpa und die «Experten» von Correctiv, die (noch) Partner für Fact-Checking-Aktivitäten von Facebook sind, sei das ein «lukratives Geschäftsmodell». Aber möglicherweise werden die Inhalte ohne diese vermeintlichen Korrektoren ja sogar besser. Anders als Meta wollen jedoch Scholz, Faeser und die Tagesschau keine Fehler zugeben und zum Beispiel Correctiv-Falschaussagen einräumen.

Bei derlei dramatischen Befürchtungen wundert es nicht, dass der öffentliche Plausch auf X zwischen Elon Musk und AfD-Chefin Alice Weidel von 150 EU-Beamten überwacht wurde, falls es irgendwelche Rechtsverstöße geben sollte, die man ihnen ankreiden könnte. Auch der Deutsche Bundestag war wachsam. Gefunden haben dürften sie nichts. Das Ganze war eher eine Show, viel Wind wurde gemacht, aber letztlich gab es nichts als heiße Luft.

Das Anbiedern bei Donald Trump ist indes gerade in Mode. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) tut das auch, denn sie fürchtet um Spenden von über einer Milliarde Dollar. Eventuell könnte ja Elon Musk auch hier künftig aushelfen und der Organisation sowie deren größtem privaten Förderer, Bill Gates, etwas unter die Arme greifen. Nachdem Musks KI-Projekt xAI kürzlich von BlackRock & Co. sechs Milliarden eingestrichen hat, geht da vielleicht etwas.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Vom Schrei nach dem Frieden ist hier die Luft ganz schwer,

Der Friede, der Friede, wo kommt denn der Friede her?

Der kommt nicht vom bloßen Fordern,

Der kommt nur, wenn wir ihn tun,

Und wenn in unseren Seelen die Mörderwaffen ruhn.

Wenn wir Gewalt verweigern, in Sprache, Not und Streit,

Wenn wir als Haltung lieben, Zeit unsrer Lebenszeit.

André Heller (*1947)

Die Lage ist ernst. Es ist so unübersehbar wie skandalös:

• Das "Friedensprojekt" Europäische Union rüstet zum Krieg. Orwell ist längst Realität.
• Im "Nie-Wieder-Krieg"-Land Deutschland prügeln die Kriegstreiber hunderte Milliarden durch einen abgewählten Bundestag, Wahlbetrug inklusive. Wieder mal an vorderster Front mit dabei: Kein Weltkrieg ohne uns!
• Ein Joschka Fischer, der nie gedient hat, außer an den Futtertrögen des Steuerzahlers oder von Transatlantistan, bringt die Wehrpflicht für Männer und Frauen ins Spiel. Gleichberechtigt in den Tod für die Waffenlobby!
• Der Ausnahmezustand hat nie aufgehört, bekommt nur ein neues Gesicht: die Fratze von Krieg, Tod und Leid. Corona ist abmoderiert. Das neue Virus heißt Russland, der Impfstoff „slava ukraini“, und auch bei der Finanzierung bleibt alles gleich: die Zeche zahlen (wieder mal) Sie. Diesmal doppelt. Sie dürfen zahlen und sterben, das Sonderopfer für jede Politikverwirrung zahlt in “Unserer Demokratie” immer der angebliche Souverän, der vom Nutztier jederzeit zum Schlachttier gemacht werden kann.
• Was jetzt kommt, kennen Sie schon von der Corona-Generalprobe: Spaltung, Diffamierung, Propaganda, Zensur, irre Milliardenausgaben, Ausnahmezustand, Kriegswirtschaft, Kriegszustand. Volksvertreter und Lobbyisten können sich jetzt straffrei eine goldene Nase verdienen, wenn sie ihre Wähler in die Bajonette laufen lassen. Die Strack-Zimmermanns und Kiesewetters sind die Lauterbachs und Dahmens im Tarnfleck, und sie werden bis zum letzten Wähler mutig „für das Gute“ kämpfen. Wie sich die Bilder doch gleichen:

Nicht mit uns: Erheben wir jetzt die Stimme für den Frieden!

Machen wir den Kriegstreibern einen Strich durch die Rechnung! Bringen wir die Stimmen für den Frieden an einen Tisch! Wir lassen die Friedenstaube fliegen, die erste unzensierbare Friedenspublikation der Welt auf Nostr und Pareto.

Die Vielfalt an Themen ist groß. Wir wollen aufklären und informieren:

Über Diplomatie und Strategien für den Frieden; über Lügen, Propaganda und Manipulation; über Verschwendung, Völkerrechtsbrüche und Kriegsverbrechen. Wir nehmen kein Blatt vor den Mund, egal ob hybride Kriegsführung, kognitive Kriegsführung oder sonstige neuartige Methoden der Kriegsführung. Wir wollen die Friedenswilligen vereinen und der Friedensbewegung eine starke Stimme verleihen, quer durch alle Lager. Wer auch immer jetzt das Lied vom Tod anstimmt, wird es unter den kritischen Augen der Öffentlichkeit machen müssen.

Warum wir?

• Wir haben die unzensierbare Technologie, um eine nachhaltige Publikation als Autorenblog und Newsletter aufzubauen. Diese brauchen wir auch, wir haben aus der Corona-Zensur unsere Lektion gelernt (https://pareto.space/read).

• Wir können alle Formate bedienen, von Text, Bild und Podcast bis Video und Stream.

• Wir werden online und in Print stattfinden (wenn Sie das wollen).

• Wir sind eine Gruppe von Autoren mit Reichweite, Erfahrung und Impact. Wir werden eine Kernredaktion haben und auf viele freie Autoren setzen, auch aus dem Ausland. Erste Kontakte sind hergestellt, das Feedback ist überwältigend.
• Wir setzen zudem von Anfang an auch auf Bürgerjournalismus und wollen jeder Stimme für den Frieden Raum und Platz bieten. Auch Sie können auf unserer freien Tribüne ("Weltbühne") publizieren und gelesen werden. Jede Stimme für den Frieden zählt!

Ich will Sie nicht mit Name dropping blenden, freue mich jedoch über bekannte erstklassige Stimmen aus der kritischen Szene, die bereits ihre Mitwirkung zugesagt haben. Diese Liste wird ständig aktualisiert (und auch ich werde Texte beitragen):

• Dr. Ulrike Guérot
• Mathias Bröckers
• Dr. Daniele Ganser
• Tom-Oliver Regenauer
• Prof. Dr. Michael Meyen
• Jonas Tögel
• Jürgen Müller
• uvm.

Sie sind Autor und wollen mit dabei sein? Schreiben Sie uns an: milosz@pareto.space

Jetzt abonnieren! Holen Sie sich die neusten Artikel der Friedenstaube in Ihr Postfach indem Sie HIER klicken.

---

Gründen wir eine Genossenschaft! Wir sind bereit – und Sie?

Sie entscheiden, ob und wie hoch die Friedenstaube fliegt. Wir werden eine Publikationsgenossenschaft gründen. Die Friedenstaube soll allen und niemandem gehören. Denn auch der Friede gehört allen, die ihn wollen. Krieg dagegen will immer nur eine Minderheit, am liebsten diejenigen, die nicht an die Front gehen.

Die Kriegsmaschine wird mit hunderten Milliarden geschmiert – und das ist nur der Anfang. Wir glauben, dass das Wort mächtiger ist als das Schwert. Für die Genossenschaft sammeln wir mindestens 100 000 CHF, die den Redaktionsbetrieb für ein Jahr sichern sollen. Mit einem Genossenschaftsanteil zu 1000 CHF sind Sie automatisch Verleger und bestimmen mit. Pro Person können maximal 20 Anteile gezeichnet werden, jeder Genossenschafter hat immer nur eine Stimme.

• Für 50 CHF bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo der Friedenstaube.
• Für 120 CHF bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo und ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Für 500 CHF werden Sie Förderer und bekommen ein lebenslanges Abo sowie ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Ab 1000 CHF werden Sie Genossenschafter der Friedenstaube mit Stimmrecht (und bekommen lebenslanges Abo, T-Shirt/Hoodie).

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

Wenn Sie auf anderem Wege beitragen wollen, schreiben Sie mich an: milosz@pareto.space oder kontakt@idw-europe.org.

Das gilt auch für Unterstützungen jenseits finanzieller Zuwendungen. Wir sind für jede Unterstützung dankbar, die hilft, das Projekt zu realisieren. Wir planen auch Printprodukte, Übersetzungen in andere Sprachen, Ausschreibungen und Wettbewerbe zum Thema Frieden uvm. Seien Sie von Anfang an mit dabei: Als Autor, Mitwirkender, Genossenschafter oder in welcher Rolle sie auch immer hilfreich zu sein glauben.

Ich kann Ihnen keine Wunder versprechen aber Sie dürfen mich an meinen bisherigen Projekten messen. Wenn ich etwas angehe, mache ich es mit voller Kraft:

Mit Ihrer Unterstützung war schon vieles möglich:

• Sie haben den “Appell für freie Debattenräume” zum sichtbarsten Zeichen gegen Cancel Culture in Europa gemacht.
• Sie haben gehofen, die Freischwebende Intelligenz zu einem der führenden Substack-Newsletter in Europa zu machen
• Sie haben “Pandamned” unterstützt, eine Corona-Doku, die mehr als 1 Mio. Menschen gesehen haben.
• Sie haben die Realisierung von Pareto unterstützt und uns geholfen, ein unzensierbares Werkzeug für Blogging/Newsletter zu bauen, weltweit einmalig.

Lassen Sie uns jetzt gemeinsam die Friedenstaube zur führenden Friedenspublikation der freien Welt aufbauen.

Lassen wir die Friedenstaube fliegen!

Jetzt.

Herzlichen Dank, dass Sie meine Arbeit unterstützen!

Ich kann Ihnen auch manuell einen Zugang zur Publikation einrichten, wenn Sie lieber per Paypal, Überweisung oder Bitcoin (einmal Jahresbeitrag, ewiger Zugang) bezahlen. Sie erreichen mich unter kontakt@idw-europe.org

Refer a friend

@ 30ceb64e:7f08bdf5

NIP-101e: Workout Data and Running Extensions

NIP-101e represents a crucial step forward for fitness tracking on Nostr, giving us a common language that would allow workout data to flow freely between apps. This proposal outlines a thoughtful framework with Exercise Templates, Workout Templates, and Workout Records that would finally free our fitness data from proprietary silos and put it back in our hands. I'm eager to see this proposal implemented because it would create the foundation for a genuinely open fitness ecosystem on Nostr.

As a runner building a Nostr running app RUNSTR, I've proposed some running-specific extensions to NIP-101e that address the unique needs of runners without disrupting the elegant structure of the original proposal. My extensions would standardize how we record GPS routes, pace metrics, elevation data, splits, and even weather conditions - all things that matter tremendously to runners but aren't covered in the base proposal that focuses more on strength training.

By implementing NIP-101e along with these running extensions, we could create something truly revolutionary: a fitness ecosystem where runners aren't locked into a single platform because of their data. You could track your morning run in my app, analyze your training in another app that specializes in statistics, and share achievements with friends using whatever Nostr clients they prefer. I believe strongly in getting NIP-101e implemented with these extensions included because it would foster innovation while giving runners unprecedented freedom to own their data and use it however they want. Let's make this happen and show what's possible when fitness data becomes truly interoperable!

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Before I saw those X right-wing political “influencers” parading their Epstein binders in that PR stunt, I’d already posted this on Nostr, an open protocol. 

“Today, the world’s attention will likely fixate on Epstein, governmental failures in addressing horrific abuse cases, and the influential figures who perpetrate such acts—yet few will center the victims and survivors in the conversation. The survivors of Epstein went to law enforcement and very little happened. The survivors tried to speak to the corporate press and the corporate press knowingly covered for him. In situations like these social media can serve as one of the only ways for a survivor’s voice to be heard. 

It’s becoming increasingly evident that the line between centralized corporate social media and the state is razor-thin, if it exists at all. Time and again, the state shields powerful abusers when it’s politically expedient to do so. In this climate, a survivor attempting to expose someone like Epstein on a corporate tech platform faces an uphill battle—there’s no assurance their voice would even break through. Their story wouldn’t truly belong to them; it’d be at the mercy of the platform, subject to deletion at a whim. Nostr, though, offers a lifeline—a censorship-resistant space where survivors can share their truths, no matter how untouchable the abuser might seem. A survivor could remain anonymous here if they took enough steps. 

Nostr holds real promise for amplifying survivor voices. And if you’re here daily, tossing out memes, take heart: you’re helping build a foundation for those who desperately need to be heard.“

That post is untouchable—no CEO, company, employee, or government can delete it. Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t take it down myself. The post will outlive me on the protocol. 

The cozy alliance between the state and corporate social media hit me hard during that right-wing X “influencer” PR stunt. Elon owns X. Elon’s a special government employee. X pays those influencers to post. We don’t know who else pays them to post. Those influencers are spurred on by both the government and X to manage the Epstein case narrative. It wasn’t survivors standing there, grinning for photos—it was paid influencers, gatekeepers orchestrating yet another chance to re-exploit the already exploited.

The bond between the state and corporate social media is tight. If the other Epsteins out there are ever to be unmasked, I wouldn’t bet on a survivor’s story staying safe with a corporate tech platform, the government, any social media influencer, or mainstream journalist. Right now, only a protocol can hand survivors the power to truly own their narrative.

I don’t have anything against Elon—I’ve actually been a big supporter. I’m just stating it as I see it. X isn’t censorship resistant and they have an algorithm that they choose not the user. Corporate tech platforms like X can be a better fit for some survivors. X has safety tools and content moderation, making it a solid option for certain individuals. Grok can be a big help for survivors looking for resources or support! As a survivor, you know what works best for you, and safety should always come first—keep that front and center.

That said, a protocol is a game-changer for cases where the powerful are likely to censor. During China's # MeToo movement, survivors faced heavy censorship on social media platforms like Weibo and WeChat, where posts about sexual harassment were quickly removed, and hashtags like # MeToo or "woyeshi" were blocked by government and platform filters. To bypass this, activists turned to blockchain technology encoding their stories—like Yue Xin’s open letter about a Peking University case—into transaction metadata. This made the information tamper-proof and publicly accessible, resisting censorship since blockchain data can’t be easily altered or deleted.

I posted this on X 2/28/25. I wanted to try my first long post on a nostr client. The Epstein cover up is ongoing so it’s still relevant, unfortunately.

If you are a survivor or loved one who is reading this and needs support please reach out to: National Sexual Assault Hotline 24/7 https://rainn.org/

Hours: Available 24 hours

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Was du bist hängt von drei Faktoren ab: \ Was du geerbt hast, \ was deine Umgebung aus dir machte \ und was du in freier Wahl \ aus deiner Umgebung und deinem Erbe gemacht hast. \ Aldous Huxley

Das brave Mitmachen und Mitlaufen in einem vorgegebenen, recht engen Rahmen ist gewiss nicht neu, hat aber gerade wieder mal Konjunktur. Dies kann man deutlich beobachten, eigentlich egal, in welchem gesellschaftlichen Bereich man sich umschaut. Individualität ist nur soweit angesagt, wie sie in ein bestimmtes Schema von «Diversität» passt, und Freiheit verkommt zur Worthülse – nicht erst durch ein gewisses Buch einer gewissen ehemaligen Regierungschefin.

Erklärungsansätze für solche Entwicklungen sind bekannt, und praktisch alle haben etwas mit Massenpsychologie zu tun. Der Herdentrieb, also der Trieb der Menschen, sich – zum Beispiel aus Unsicherheit oder Bequemlichkeit – lieber der Masse anzuschließen als selbstständig zu denken und zu handeln, ist einer der Erklärungsversuche. Andere drehen sich um Macht, Propaganda, Druck und Angst, also den gezielten Einsatz psychologischer Herrschaftsinstrumente.

Aber wollen die Menschen überhaupt Freiheit? Durch Gespräche im privaten Umfeld bin ich diesbezüglich in der letzten Zeit etwas skeptisch geworden. Um die Jahreswende philosophiert man ja gerne ein wenig über das Erlebte und über die Erwartungen für die Zukunft. Dabei hatte ich hin und wieder den Eindruck, die totalitären Anwandlungen unserer «Repräsentanten» kämen manchen Leuten gerade recht.

«Desinformation» ist so ein brisantes Thema. Davor müsse man die Menschen doch schützen, hörte ich. Jemand müsse doch zum Beispiel diese ganzen merkwürdigen Inhalte in den Social Media filtern – zur Ukraine, zum Klima, zu Gesundheitsthemen oder zur Migration. Viele wüssten ja gar nicht einzuschätzen, was richtig und was falsch ist, sie bräuchten eine Führung.

Freiheit bedingt Eigenverantwortung, ohne Zweifel. Eventuell ist es einigen tatsächlich zu anspruchsvoll, die Verantwortung für das eigene Tun und Lassen zu übernehmen. Oder die persönliche Freiheit wird nicht als ausreichend wertvolles Gut angesehen, um sich dafür anzustrengen. In dem Fall wäre die mangelnde Selbstbestimmung wohl das kleinere Übel. Allerdings fehlt dann gemäß Aldous Huxley ein Teil der Persönlichkeit. Letztlich ist natürlich alles eine Frage der Abwägung.

Sind viele Menschen möglicherweise schon so «eingenordet», dass freiheitliche Ambitionen gar nicht für eine ganze Gruppe, ein Kollektiv, verfolgt werden können? Solche Gedanken kamen mir auch, als ich mir kürzlich diverse Talks beim viertägigen Hacker-Kongress des Chaos Computer Clubs (38C3) anschaute. Ich war nicht nur überrascht, sondern reichlich erschreckt angesichts der in weiten Teilen mainstream-geformten Inhalte, mit denen ein dankbares Publikum beglückt wurde. Wo ich allgemein hellere Köpfe erwartet hatte, fand ich Konformismus und enthusiastisch untermauerte Narrative.

Gibt es vielleicht so etwas wie eine Herdenimmunität gegen Indoktrination? Ich denke, ja, zumindest eine gestärkte Widerstandsfähigkeit. Was wir brauchen, sind etwas gesunder Menschenverstand, offene Informationskanäle und der Mut, sich freier auch zwischen den Herden zu bewegen. Sie tun das bereits, aber sagen Sie es auch dieses Jahr ruhig weiter.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Heute möchte ich ein Gedicht mit euch teilen. Es handelt sich um eine Ballade des österreichischen Lyrikers Johann Gabriel Seidl aus dem 19. Jahrhundert. Mir sind diese Worte fest in Erinnerung, da meine Mutter sie perfekt rezitieren konnte, auch als die Kräfte schon langsam schwanden.

Dem originalen Titel «Die Uhr» habe ich für mich immer das Wort «innere» hinzugefügt. Denn der Zeitmesser – hier vermutliche eine Taschenuhr – symbolisiert zwar in dem Kontext das damalige Zeitempfinden und die Umbrüche durch die industrielle Revolution, sozusagen den Zeitgeist und das moderne Leben. Aber der Autor setzt sich philosophisch mit der Zeit auseinander und gibt seinem Werk auch eine klar spirituelle Dimension.

Das Ticken der Uhr und die Momente des Glücks und der Trauer stehen sinnbildlich für das unaufhaltsame Fortschreiten und die Vergänglichkeit des Lebens. Insofern könnte man bei der Uhr auch an eine Sonnenuhr denken. Der Rhythmus der Ereignisse passt uns vielleicht nicht immer in den Kram.

Was den Takt pocht, ist durchaus auch das Herz, unser «inneres Uhrwerk». Wenn dieses Meisterwerk einmal stillsteht, ist es unweigerlich um uns geschehen. Hoffentlich können wir dann dankbar sagen: «Ich habe mein Bestes gegeben.»

Ich trage, wo ich gehe, stets eine Uhr bei mir; \ Wieviel es geschlagen habe, genau seh ich an ihr. \ Es ist ein großer Meister, der künstlich ihr Werk gefügt, \ Wenngleich ihr Gang nicht immer dem törichten Wunsche genügt.

Ich wollte, sie wäre rascher gegangen an manchem Tag; \ Ich wollte, sie hätte manchmal verzögert den raschen Schlag. \ In meinen Leiden und Freuden, in Sturm und in der Ruh, \ Was immer geschah im Leben, sie pochte den Takt dazu.

Sie schlug am Sarge des Vaters, sie schlug an des Freundes Bahr, \ Sie schlug am Morgen der Liebe, sie schlug am Traualtar. \ Sie schlug an der Wiege des Kindes, sie schlägt, will's Gott, noch oft, \ Wenn bessere Tage kommen, wie meine Seele es hofft.

Und ward sie auch einmal träger, und drohte zu stocken ihr Lauf, \ So zog der Meister immer großmütig sie wieder auf. \ Doch stände sie einmal stille, dann wär's um sie geschehn, \ Kein andrer, als der sie fügte, bringt die Zerstörte zum Gehn.

Dann müßt ich zum Meister wandern, der wohnt am Ende wohl weit, \ Wohl draußen, jenseits der Erde, wohl dort in der Ewigkeit! \ Dann gäb ich sie ihm zurücke mit dankbar kindlichem Flehn: \ Sieh, Herr, ich hab nichts verdorben, sie blieb von selber stehn.

Johann Gabriel Seidl (1804-1875)

@ 0c469779:4b21d8b0

Sobre el amor

Mi percepción del amor cambió con el tiempo. Leer literatura rusa, principalmente a Dostoevsky, te cambia la perspectiva sobre el amor y la vida en general.

Por mucho tiempo mi visión sobre la vida es que la misma se basa en el sufrimiento: también la Biblia dice esto. El amor es igual, en el amor se sufre y se banca a la otra persona. El problema es que hay una distinción de sufrimientos que por mucho tiempo no tuve en cuenta. Está el sufrimiento del sacrificio y el sufrimiento masoquista. Para mí eran indistintos.

Para mí el ideal era Aliosha y Natasha de Humillados y Ofendidos: estar con alguien que me amase tanto como Natasha a Aliosha, un amor inclusive autodestructivo para Natasha, pero real. Tiene algo de épico, inalcanzable. Un sufrimiento extremo, redentor, es una vara altísima que en la vida cotidiana no se manifiesta. O el amor de Sonia a Raskolnikov, quien se fue hasta Siberia mientras estuvo en prisión para que no se quede solo en Crimen y Castigo.

Este es el tipo de amor que yo esperaba. Y como no me pasó nada tan extremo y las situaciones que llegan a ocurrir en mi vida están lejos de ser tan extremas, me parecía hasta poco lo que estaba pidiendo y que nadie pueda quedarse conmigo me parecía insuficiente.

Ahora pienso que el amor no tiene por qué ser así. Es un pensamiento nuevo que todavía estoy construyendo, y me di cuenta cuando fui a la iglesia, a pesar de que no soy cristiano. La filosofía cristiana me gusta. Va conmigo. Tiene un enfoque de humildad, superación y comunidad que me recuerda al estoicismo.

El amor se trata de resaltar lo mejor que hay en el otro. Se trata de ser un plus, de ayudar. Por eso si uno no está en su mejor etapa, si no se está cómodo con uno mismo, no se puede amar de verdad. El amor empieza en uno mismo.

Los libros son un espejo, no necesariamente vas a aprender de ellos, sino que te muestran quién sos. Resaltás lo que te importa. Por eso a pesar de saber los tipos de amores que hay en los trabajos de Dostoevsky, cometí los mismos errores varias veces.

Ser mejor depende de uno mismo y cada día se pone el granito de arena.

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Milosz Matuschek. Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.

---

Seit Sonntag (zu allem Glück auch noch meinem 45. Geburtstag) ist bei mir noch ein bisschen mehr los als sonst – und das liegt an Ihnen. Der Aufruf zur Gründung der „Friedenstaube“, einer unzensierbaren Friedenspublikation mit bekannten Stimmen aus der kritischen Szene, der Friedensbewegung und von Bürgerjournalisten ist bei Ihnen auf mehr als nur offene Ohren gestoßen! Ich bin regelrecht geplättet von den vielen Reaktionen, die ich noch gar nicht alle beantworten konnte.

Ich danke Ihnen herzlich für das Vertrauen in mich (auch wenn ich natürlich stark auf die Autoren angewiesen bin) und die überwältigenden Reaktionen: Es sind hunderte Abonnements für den Newsletter eingegangen, darunter einige bezahlte Abos und Förderabos und auch die ersten Genossenschaftsanteile wurden gezeichnet! Was mich besonders freut: Gut zehn weitere freiwillige Autoren wollen mitmachen und arbeiten bereits an den ersten Texten. Damit darf ich schon jetzt verkünden, dass die Genossenschaft definitiv gegründet werden kann, die Friedenstaube wird fliegen. Wie hoch und wie weit, das liegt dann nun nur noch in unser aller Hände.

Der Anfang ist jedenfalls gemacht. Die nächsten Wochen werden besonders arbeitsintensiv, ich bitte Sie um etwas Geduld: Aufbau einer Kernredaktion, Organisation der Abläufe, technologische Entwicklungsarbeiten, Genossenschaftsgründung etc. stehen jetzt auf der Agenda. Mit Tom-Oliver Regenauer darf ich den ersten Autor im redaktionellen Kernteam verkünden, der sich nicht nur große Verdienste im Schreiben erarbeitet hat (siehe u.a. sein Buch Hopium) sondern auch über Managementerfahrung verfügt; mit weiteren helfenden Händen bin ich im Gespräch.

Ich freue mich auf die (auch für mich) neue Erfahrung, quasi aus dem Nichts eine Publikation mit Redaktionsbetrieb und freien Autoren auf einer gänzlich neuen technologischen Infrastruktur aufzubauen. Es wäre illusorisch zu glauben, dass alles glatt gehen wird, denn wir starten quasi „on the go“, aber im Fall von Frieden oder Krieg gilt es, keine Zeit verstreichen zu lassen. Ich arbeite nach dem Motto „Tun, statt reden; zeigen, statt ankündigen; liefern, statt versprechen“.

Die ersten Texte zum Thema Frieden sind bereits publiziert, ein halbwegs geordneter Betrieb sollte ab April realistisch sein. Die Liste der Autoren wird regelmäßig aktualisiert, schauen Sie gerne hier (oder noch besser: hier) immer wieder herein. Dort finden Sie auch noch mal alle Infos, wenn Sie die Friedenstaube unterstützen wollen. Ab 1000 Euro/CHF werden Sie Genossenschafter, also Verleger!**

Auch an die bisherigen Unterstützer des Pareto-Projekts, der technologischen Basis der Friedenstaube, will ich hiermit schon etwas zurückgeben: Alle Spender für Pareto werden die Friedenstaube immer kostenlos lesen können. Sie, die Leser dieser Publikation haben die technologische Basis mit aufgebaut, die uns zur weltweit ersten, zensursicheren Friedenspublikation macht. Uns Autoren steht damit ein kompetentes Support-Team von inzwischen über zehn Entwicklern (und weiteren Helfern) an der Seite, welche die Friedenstaube am Fliegen halten werden.

Kontaktieren Sie mich gerne zu allen Fragen (je kürzer die Mail, desto früher kommt die Antwort): milosz\@pareto.space oder kontakt\@idw-europe.org

---

JETZT ABONNIEREN:

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel in Ihr Postfach, vorerst für alle kostenfrei, wir starten gänzlich ohne Paywall. (Die Bezahlabos fangen erst zu laufen an, wenn ein Monetarisierungskonzept für die Inhalte steht).

---

• Für 50 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo der Friedenstaube.
• Für 120 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo und ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Für 500 CHF/EURO werden Sie Förderer und bekommen ein lebenslanges Abo sowie ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Ab 1000 CHF/EURO werden Sie Genossenschafter der Friedenstaube mit Stimmrecht (und bekommen lebenslanges Abo, T-Shirt/Hoodie).

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

Wenn Sie auf anderem Wege beitragen wollen, schreiben Sie mich an: milosz@pareto.space oder kontakt@idw-europe.org.

---

Was bewegt mich beim Thema Krieg und Frieden?

Erlauben Sie mir einen kurzen persönlichen Prolog: Ich stamme aus Schlesien. Mein Urgroßvater kämpfte im I. Weltkrieg bei Verdun. Mein Großvater wurde in die Wehrmacht eingezogen, kämpfte im Partisanenkrieg in Jugoslawien, verlor Hand und Auge. Ein Bruder meiner Großmutter entzog sich und landete in Dachau. Ich kenne meine Familiengeschichte nur in groben Umrissen, vielen wird es ähnlich gehen. Einige meiner schlesischen Vorfahren waren später vor allem Lokführer. Aufgrund der bewegten schlesischen Geschichte wechselten sie mehrfach die Uniform. Die Tätigkeit und Fahrstrecke blieb die gleiche. Für wen oder was kämpften sie in Kriegen in welchen Uniformen? Vermutlich wussten sie es selbst nicht.

Auch ich könnte heute nicht genau sagen, welche Interessen und Mächte die Kriegsmaschinerie bedienen. Doch ich wüsste es gerne und Sie vielleicht auch. Kämpfen ohne letztlich zu wissen für wen und warum: Wozu? Krieg simuliert Sinn und Notwendigkeit und lässt einen am Ende mit den großen Fragen allein, ahnungslos gestorben im Schützengraben. Zivilisatorisch ist das ein Offenbarungseid.

Bin ich ein totaler Anti-Militarist? Ich glaube nicht. Ich habe nichts gegen die Idee privaten Waffenbesitzes. Ich kann der Idee der Landesverteidigung durchaus etwas abgewinnen. Den Wehrdienst habe ich bewusst nicht verweigert. Ich wollte die Erfahrung machen. Hier schreibt also auch ein Obergefreiter a. D. eines bayerischen Gebirgspionierbataillons bei Rosenheim mit bronzener Schützenschnur, der am MG durchaus treffsicher war. Aber eben auch jemand, den der Wehrdienst zum Teil-Pazifisten gemacht hat. Mir war nach dem Grundwehrdienst klar: Wir sind eine Gurkentruppe, reines Kanonenfutter. 20-jährige Grünschnäbel mit zu viel Testosteron und Hollywood in den Gliedern, aber wenig Ahnung.

Ich war also einer, der sich verlässlich mit anderen beim Orientierungslauf im Wald verirrte; einer, der mit anderen übermüdet beim ersten Wachdienst einpennte (und damit im Ernstfall den Tod im Schlaf kennengelernt hätte, denn just erfolgte ein simulierter „Angriff“); einer, der auch mal übernächtigt sein Gewehr vor dem Zelt vergaß (wir sollten dem G3 den Namen unserer damaligen Freundin geben – wie pervers – ich vergaß also „Petra“ vor dem Zelt) und schließlich einer, der die meiste Zeit des Dienstes fürs Vaterland letztlich mit dem Servieren von Getränken und Schinkennudeln im Offizierskasino verbrachte und die institutionalisierten Alkoholiker der Bundeswehr bei Laune hielt („it ain’t much, but it was honest work“).

Anders gesagt: Krieg – spätestens seitdem: ohne mich. Auch wenn ich gerne Ernst Jünger lese und zitiere (er war einfach ein großartiger Chronist und lebendiger Geist), seinen abenteuerlustigen Militarismus kreide ich ihm an und rufe ihm posthum hinterher: man muss nicht erst einen Sohn im Krieg verloren haben, um zum Pazifisten zu werden.

Weitere Störgefühle tauchten auf: In meiner Dissertation durfte ich mich u.a. mit philosophischen Theorien zum Gesellschaftsvertrag (u.a. Kant, Rousseau, Locke und Hobbes sind hier zu nennen) beschäftigen. Dies brachte mein Staatsverständnis gerade bei der Kriegsfrage noch mehr durcheinander. Wenn Mindestziel der Staatsgründung innere und äußere Sicherheit sind, aber letztlich nicht der Staat den Bürger, sondern der Bürger den Staat schützt, wozu sich dann eine Schutzmacht erfinden, die einen am Ende durch den Fleischwolf jagt? Hobbes setzte zumindest auf Söldner.

Kriege werden mit Lügen begonnen, wusste Julian Assange. Können Sie mit Wahrheit beendet oder gar verhindert werden? Seit Walter Lippmanns „Liberty and the News“ von 1920 weiß man spätestens, dass gesicherte Information im Krieg das seltenste Gut ist. Sagt Lippmann als oberster Mainstream-Journalist und Einflüsterer der Mächtigen. Jeder Journalist muss hier ein Störgefühl entwickeln, der Leser noch mehr. Der Journalist der Nachrichtenagentur ist selten im Geschehen sondern wird vom heimischen Militär gebrieft, sein Bericht landet dann in den Newstickern und Redaktionen. Die Kriegsmaschinerie produziert also auch ihre eigene Sicht auf die Dinge, die sie den Bürgern als die Realität verkauft.

Kein Wunder, dass jede abweichende Information massiv bekämpft werden muss. Im Krieg ist Zweifel gleich Verrat, quasi unsolidarisches Sektierertum und Wehrkraftzersetzung, wenn nicht Feindbegünstigung. Der kritische Journalist steht in Ausnahmezuständen, wie man schon bei Corona sehen konnte, automatisch aus Staatssicht im Lager des Feindes und wird entsprechend behandelt. Zensursicheres Publizieren ist dann nicht nur ein nettes feature, sondern notwendige Basisvoraussetzung. Vor kurzem war Twitter/X nicht mehr zugänglich wegen massiven Cyberattacken. Wenn dann noch Rundfunk und Presse auf der Propagandawelle surfen und die Plattformzensur wieder zuschlägt, wird das Angebot schnell dünn.

Wem aber dient Zensur und Propaganda? Die aktuelle Lage im Russland-Ukraine-Konflikt ist auch Gelegenheit, um zu zeigen: Es sind eben nicht nur staatliche Interessen, die hier verhandelt werden, sondern es muss (wieder mal) eine andere Entität mit am Tisch sitzen, man nenne sie Deep State oder wie auch immer. Europäische Eliten dienen offensichtlich Fremdinteressen, wenn sie mit Aufrüstungsplänen Volksvermögen verspekulieren oder darin (wie von der Leyen) ein notwendiges „Investment“ sehen. Von wem werden wir letztlich regiert? Auch diesem Themen-Komplex werde ich mich in der Friedenstaube nähern.

Es gibt viel zu tun, aber für mich ist klar: Frieden ist ohne Wahrheit nicht zu bekommen, deshalb ist Wahrheitssuche auch immer Friedenssuche, wie Wahrheitsliebe letztlich Friedensliebe ist.

Gerade fallen auch im Mainstream die Corona-Lügen zur Labortheorie in sich zusammen, fünf Jahre nach Ausrufung der Pandemie. Der Frieden hat nur eine Chance, wenn es uns gelingt, die Lügen nun möglichst synchron zu den Geschehnissen aufzudecken und zu dokumentieren.

Das ist mein persönlicher Wunsch, mit dem ich die Friedenstaube fliegen lasse.

Was ist Ihrer? Schreiben Sie es gerne in die Kommentare. Welche Erwartungen, Wünsche haben Sie an uns? Liebe Autoren: Was ist euer Beweggrund, für den Frieden zur Feder zu greifen?

---

Zeichnen Sie jetzt “Friedensanleihen”. Werden Sie Genossenschafter und Verleger der Friedenstaube ab 1000 Euro/CHF. Es können mehrere Anteile pro Person gezeichnet werden, es bleibt bei einem Stimmrecht pro Kopf. milosz\@pareto.space

---

P.S: Mit diesem Text testen wir die Newsletterfunktion erstmals an mehrere Hundert Mailadressen. Wenn Sie die Friedenstaube abonniert haben, sollten Sie diesen Artikel per Mail bekommen haben.

ANZEIGE:

Sie suchen nach dem einfachsten Weg, Bitcoin zu kaufen und selbst zu verwahren?* Die* Relai-App ist Europas erfolgreichste Bitcoin-App.* Hier kaufen Sie Bitcoin in wenigen Schritten und können auch Sparpläne einrichten. Niemand hat Zugriff auf Ihre Bitcoin, außer Sie selbst.* Relai senkt jetzt die Gebühr auf 1%, mit dem Referral-Code MILOSZ sparen Sie weitere 10%. (keine Finanzberatung). Disclaimer wg. EU-Mica-Regulierung: Die Dienste von Relai werden ausschließlich für Einwohner der Schweiz und Italiens empfohlen.

---

Join the marketplace of ideas! We are building a publishing ecosystem on Nostr for citizen-journalism, starting with a client for blogging and newsletter distribution. Sound money and sound information should finally be in the hands of the people, right? Want to learn more about the Pareto Project? Zap me, if you want to contribute (all Zaps go to the project).

Are you a publication or journalist and want to be part of it, test us, migrate your content to Nostr? Write to team@pareto.space**

Not yet on Nostr and want the full experience? Easy onboarding via Start.

Pareto has started a crowdfunding campaign on Geyser. We were in the Top 3 in February, thank you for the support!

@ f3873798:24b3f2f3

Recentemente, assisti a um vídeo que me fez refletir profundamente sobre o impacto da linguagem na hora de vender. No vídeo, uma jovem relatava sua experiência ao presenciar um vendedor de amendoim em uma agência dos Correios. O local estava cheio, as pessoas aguardavam impacientes na fila e, em meio a esse cenário, um homem humilde tentava vender seu produto. Mas sua abordagem não era estratégica; ao invés de destacar os benefícios do amendoim, ele suplicava para que alguém o ajudasse comprando. O resultado? Ninguém se interessou.

A jovem observou que o problema não era o produto, mas a forma como ele estava sendo oferecido. Afinal, muitas das pessoas ali estavam há horas esperando e perto do horário do almoço – o amendoim poderia ser um ótimo tira-gosto. No entanto, como a comunicação do vendedor vinha carregada de desespero, ele afastava os clientes ao invés de atraí-los. Esse vídeo me tocou profundamente.

No dia seguinte, ao sair para comemorar meu aniversário, vi um menino vendendo balas na rua, sob o sol forte. Assim como no caso do amendoim, percebi que as pessoas ao redor não se interessavam por seu produto. Ao se aproximar do carro, resolvi comprar dois pacotes. Mais do que ajudar, queria que aquele pequeno gesto servisse como incentivo para que ele continuasse acreditando no seu negócio.

Essa experiência me fez refletir ainda mais sobre o poder da comunicação em vendas. Muitas vezes, não é o produto que está errado, mas sim a forma como o vendedor o apresenta. Quando transmitimos confiança e mostramos o valor do que vendemos, despertamos o interesse genuíno dos clientes.

Como a Linguagem Impacta as Vendas?

1. O Poder da Abordagem Positiva

Em vez de pedir por ajuda, é importante destacar os benefícios do produto. No caso do amendoim, o vendedor poderia ter dito algo como: "Que tal um petisco delicioso enquanto espera? Um amendoim fresquinho para matar a fome até o almoço!"

2. A Emoção na Medida Certa

Expressar emoção é essencial, mas sem parecer desesperado. Os clientes devem sentir que estão adquirindo algo de valor, não apenas ajudando o vendedor.

3. Conheça Seu Público

Entender o contexto é fundamental. Se as pessoas estavam com fome e impacientes, uma abordagem mais objetiva e focada no benefício do produto poderia gerar mais vendas.

4. Autoconfiança e Postura

Falar com firmeza e segurança transmite credibilidade. O vendedor precisa acreditar no próprio produto antes de convencer o cliente a comprá-lo.

Conclusão

Vender é mais do que apenas oferecer um produto – é uma arte que envolve comunicação, percepção e estratégia. Pequenos ajustes na abordagem podem transformar completamente os resultados. Se o vendedor de amendoim tivesse apresentado seu produto de outra maneira, talvez tivesse vendido tudo rapidamente. Da mesma forma, se cada um de nós aprender a se comunicar melhor em nossas próprias áreas, poderemos alcançar muito mais sucesso.

E você? Já passou por uma experiência parecida?

@ 3ffac3a6:2d656657

Recently, I found an old Sapphire Block Erupter USB at home that I used for Bitcoin mining back in 2013. Out of curiosity and nostalgia, I decided to try getting it to work again. I spent an entire afternoon configuring the device and, after much trial and error, discovered that I needed an older version of CGMiner to make it work.

The Sapphire Block Erupter USB was one of the first ASIC devices designed for Bitcoin mining. Although obsolete for competitive mining, it can still be used for learning, nostalgia, or experimentation. In this post, I’ll show you how to run a Block Erupter USB on Linux today.

1. Prerequisites

Before you start, make sure you have:

• A Sapphire Block Erupter USB
• A powered USB hub (optional but recommended)
• A computer running Linux (Ubuntu, Debian, or another compatible distribution)
• A mining pool account (e.g., Slush Pool, KanoPool, etc.)

2. Installing Dependencies

Before running the miner, install some dependencies:

bash sudo apt update && sudo apt install -y git build-essential autoconf automake libtool pkg-config libusb-1.0-0-dev

3. Determining the Compatible Version of CGMiner

To find the correct CGMiner version that still supports Block Erupter USB, I performed a binary search across different versions, testing each one until I found the last one that properly recognized the device. The result was that version 3.4.3 is the most recent one that still supports Block Erupters. However, different versions of these devices may require different CGMiner versions.

4. Downloading and Compiling CGMiner

CGMiner is one of the software options compatible with Block Erupters. You can download the correct version from two trusted sources:

• From the official repository: CGMiner v3.4.3 on GitHub
• Alternatively, from this mirror: CGMiner v3.4.3 on Haven

To ensure file integrity, verify the SHA-256 hash:

3b44da12e5f24f603eeeefdaa2c573bd566c5c50c9d62946f198e611cd55876b

Now, download and extract it:

```bash wget https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/archive/refs/tags/v3.4.3.tar.gz

Or, alternatively:

wget https://haven.girino.org/3b44da12e5f24f603eeeefdaa2c573bd566c5c50c9d62946f198e611cd55876b.tgz

sha256sum v3.4.3.tar.gz # Confirm that the hash matches

Extract the file

tar -xvf v3.4.3.tar.gz cd cgminer-3.4.3

Compile CGMiner

./autogen.sh --enable-icarus make -j$(nproc)

Install on the system (optional)

sudo make install ```

5. Connecting the Block Erupter USB

Plug the device into a USB port and check if it is recognized:

bash dmesg | grep USB lsusb

You should see something like:

Bus 003 Device 004: ID 10c4:ea60 Cygnal Integrated Products, Inc. CP2102 USB to UART Bridge Controller

If needed, adjust the USB device permissions:

bash sudo chmod 666 /dev/ttyUSB0

6. Configuring and Running CGMiner

Now, run CGMiner, pointing it to your mining pool:

bash ./cgminer -o stratum+tcp://your.pool.com:3333 -u yourUsername -p yourPassword

If the miner detects the Block Erupter correctly, you should see something like:

[2025-03-08 22:26:45] Started cgminer 3.4.3 [2025-03-08 22:26:45] No devices detected! [2025-03-08 22:26:45] Waiting for USB hotplug devices or press q to quit [2025-03-08 22:26:45] Probing for an alive pool [2025-03-08 22:26:46] Pool 0 difficulty changed to 65536 [2025-03-08 22:26:46] Network diff set to 111T [2025-03-08 22:26:46] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block [2025-03-08 22:27:02] Hotplug: Icarus added AMU 0

Conclusion

Although no longer viable for real mining, the Sapphire Block Erupter USB is still great for learning about ASICs, testing mining pools, and understanding Bitcoin mining. If you enjoy working with old hardware and have one lying around, it’s worth experimenting with!

If you have any questions or want to share your experience, leave a comment below!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Falls du beim Lesen des Titels dieses Newsletters unwillkürlich an positive Neuigkeiten aus dem globalen polit-medialen Irrenhaus oder gar aus dem wirtschaftlichen Umfeld gedacht hast, darf ich dich beglückwünschen. Diese Assoziation ist sehr löblich, denn sie weist dich als unverbesserlichen Optimisten aus. Leider muss ich dich diesbezüglich aber enttäuschen. Es geht hier um ein anderes Thema, allerdings sehr wohl ein positives, wie ich finde.

Heute ist ein ganz besonderer Tag: die Wintersonnenwende. Genau gesagt hat heute morgen um 10:20 Uhr Mitteleuropäischer Zeit (MEZ) auf der Nordhalbkugel unseres Planeten der astronomische Winter begonnen. Was daran so außergewöhnlich ist? Der kürzeste Tag des Jahres war gestern, seit heute werden die Tage bereits wieder länger! Wir werden also jetzt jeden Tag ein wenig mehr Licht haben.

Für mich ist dieses Ereignis immer wieder etwas kurios: Es beginnt der Winter, aber die Tage werden länger. Das erscheint mir zunächst wie ein Widerspruch, denn meine spontanen Assoziationen zum Winter sind doch eher Kälte und Dunkelheit, relativ zumindest. Umso erfreulicher ist der emotionale Effekt, wenn dann langsam die Erkenntnis durchsickert: Ab jetzt wird es schon wieder heller!

Natürlich ist es kalt im Winter, mancherorts mehr als anderswo. Vielleicht jedoch nicht mehr lange, wenn man den Klimahysterikern glauben wollte. Mindestens letztes Jahr hat Väterchen Frost allerdings gleich zu Beginn seiner Saison – und passenderweise während des globalen Überhitzungsgipfels in Dubai – nochmal richtig mit der Faust auf den Tisch gehauen. Schnee- und Eischaos sind ja eigentlich in der Agenda bereits nicht mehr vorgesehen. Deswegen war man in Deutschland vermutlich in vorauseilendem Gehorsam schon nicht mehr darauf vorbereitet und wurde glatt lahmgelegt.

Aber ich schweife ab. Die Aussicht auf nach und nach mehr Licht und damit auch Wärme stimmt mich froh. Den Zusammenhang zwischen beidem merkt man in Andalusien sehr deutlich. Hier, wo die Häuser im Winter arg auskühlen, geht man zum Aufwärmen raus auf die Straße oder auf den Balkon. Die Sonne hat auch im Winter eine erfreuliche Kraft. Und da ist jede Minute Gold wert.

Außerdem ist mir vor Jahren so richtig klar geworden, warum mir das südliche Klima so sehr gefällt. Das liegt nämlich nicht nur an der Sonne als solcher, oder der Wärme – das liegt vor allem am Licht. Ohne Licht keine Farben, das ist der ebenso simple wie gewaltige Unterschied zwischen einem deprimierenden matschgraubraunen Winter und einem fröhlichen bunten. Ein großes Stück Lebensqualität.

Mir gefällt aber auch die Symbolik dieses Tages: Licht aus der Dunkelheit, ein Wendepunkt, ein Neuanfang, neue Möglichkeiten, Übergang zu neuer Aktivität. In der winterlichen Stille keimt bereits neue Lebendigkeit. Und zwar in einem Zyklus, das wird immer wieder so geschehen. Ich nehme das gern als ein Stück Motivation, es macht mir Hoffnung und gibt mir Energie.

Übrigens ist parallel am heutigen Tag auf der südlichen Halbkugel Sommeranfang. Genau im entgegengesetzten Rhythmus, sich ergänzend, wie Yin und Yang. Das alles liegt an der Schrägstellung der Erdachse, die ist nämlich um 23,4º zur Umlaufbahn um die Sonne geneigt. Wir erinnern uns, gell?

Insofern bleibt eindeutig festzuhalten, dass “schräg sein” ein willkommener, wichtiger und positiver Wert ist. Mit anderen Worten: auch ungewöhnlich, eigenartig, untypisch, wunderlich, kauzig, … ja sogar irre, spinnert oder gar “quer” ist in Ordnung. Das schließt das Denken mit ein.

In diesem Sinne wünsche ich euch allen urige Weihnachtstage!

---

Dieser Beitrag ist letztes Jahr in meiner Denkbar erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Das Betriebsklima ist das einzige Klima, \ das du selbst bestimmen kannst. \ Anonym

Eine Strategie zur Anpassung an den Klimawandel hat das deutsche Bundeskabinett diese Woche beschlossen. Da «Wetterextreme wie die immer häufiger auftretenden Hitzewellen und Starkregenereignisse» oft desaströse Auswirkungen auf Mensch und Umwelt hätten, werde eine Anpassung an die Folgen des Klimawandels immer wichtiger. «Klimaanpassungsstrategie» nennt die Regierung das.

Für die «Vorsorge vor Klimafolgen» habe man nun erstmals klare Ziele und messbare Kennzahlen festgelegt. So sei der Erfolg überprüfbar, und das solle zu einer schnelleren Bewältigung der Folgen führen. Dass sich hinter dem Begriff Klimafolgen nicht Folgen des Klimas, sondern wohl «Folgen der globalen Erwärmung» verbergen, erklärt den Interessierten die Wikipedia. Dabei ist das mit der Erwärmung ja bekanntermaßen so eine Sache.

Die Zunahme schwerer Unwetterereignisse habe gezeigt, so das Ministerium, wie wichtig eine frühzeitige und effektive Warnung der Bevölkerung sei. Daher solle es eine deutliche Anhebung der Nutzerzahlen der sogenannten Nina-Warn-App geben.

Die ARD spurt wie gewohnt und setzt die Botschaft zielsicher um. Der Artikel beginnt folgendermaßen:

«Die Flut im Ahrtal war ein Schock für das ganze Land. Um künftig besser gegen Extremwetter gewappnet zu sein, hat die Bundesregierung eine neue Strategie zur Klimaanpassung beschlossen. Die Warn-App Nina spielt eine zentrale Rolle. Der Bund will die Menschen in Deutschland besser vor Extremwetter-Ereignissen warnen und dafür die Reichweite der Warn-App Nina deutlich erhöhen.»

Die Kommunen würden bei ihren «Klimaanpassungsmaßnahmen» vom Zentrum KlimaAnpassung unterstützt, schreibt das Umweltministerium. Mit dessen Aufbau wurden das Deutsche Institut für Urbanistik gGmbH, welches sich stark für Smart City-Projekte engagiert, und die Adelphi Consult GmbH beauftragt.

Adelphi beschreibt sich selbst als «Europas führender Think-and-Do-Tank und eine unabhängige Beratung für Klima, Umwelt und Entwicklung». Sie seien «global vernetzte Strateg*innen und weltverbessernde Berater*innen» und als «Vorreiter der sozial-ökologischen Transformation» sei man mit dem Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitspreis ausgezeichnet worden, welcher sich an den Zielen der Agenda 2030 orientiere.

Über die Warn-App mit dem niedlichen Namen Nina, die möglichst jeder auf seinem Smartphone installieren soll, informiert das Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe (BBK). Gewarnt wird nicht nur vor Extrem-Wetterereignissen, sondern zum Beispiel auch vor Waffengewalt und Angriffen, Strom- und anderen Versorgungsausfällen oder Krankheitserregern. Wenn man die Kategorie Gefahreninformation wählt, erhält man eine Dosis von ungefähr zwei Benachrichtigungen pro Woche.

Beim BBK erfahren wir auch einiges über die empfohlenen Systemeinstellungen für Nina. Der Benutzer möge zum Beispiel den Zugriff auf die Standortdaten «immer zulassen», und zwar mit aktivierter Funktion «genauen Standort verwenden». Die Datennutzung solle unbeschränkt sein, auch im Hintergrund. Außerdem sei die uneingeschränkte Akkunutzung zu aktivieren, der Energiesparmodus auszuschalten und das Stoppen der App-Aktivität bei Nichtnutzung zu unterbinden.

Dass man so dramatische Ereignisse wie damals im Ahrtal auch anders bewerten kann als Regierungen und Systemmedien, hat meine Kollegin Wiltrud Schwetje anhand der Tragödie im spanischen Valencia gezeigt. Das Stichwort «Agenda 2030» taucht dabei in einem Kontext auf, der wenig mit Nachhaltigkeitspreisen zu tun hat.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a367f9eb:0633efea

On February 27th, the Securities and Exchange Commission stated in its latest staff statement that memecoins are not necessarily securities.

“Although the offer and sale of meme coins may not be subject to the federal securities laws, fraudulent conduct related to the offer and sale of meme coins may be subject to enforcement action or prosecution,” writes the SEC.

‍This clarity is important, but it reveals nothing about what the policies around memecoins, rugpulls, and crypto scams should actually be.

‍This month has already delivered us Argentine President Javier Milei’s promotion of a pump-and-dump memecoin called LIBRA. At this moment, Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy is probably pumping his third or fourth favorite memecoin into oblivion while he dumps on retail.

‍In each of these cases, these tokens are created with copy-paste smart contracts, influencers singing their praises, and people exchanging their stablecoins, bitcoin, or some other altcoin for the hope of making it rich.

Memecoin world

‍Of course, in a free country people should be free to bet on things they want. But they should be prepared to lose just as much as they’re prepared to win.

To the uninitiated, these scams represent “crypto” writ-large, lumping the original decentralized protocol of Bitcoin with pump and dump scams from platforms like pump.fun that run on Solana and other chains.

‍Knowing what we know, and how desperate parts of the crypto market are for outrageous tokens and leveraged degen trading, we must naturally ask how Bitcoin can fix this. Or, rather, how smart Bitcoin policies can fix this.

As I have written for several years, we as Bitcoin advocates should promote sound policies that will encourage innovation and increase economic inclusion across all income groups, all the while protecting consumers from harm. We want to avoid blowouts like FTX, Celsius, and even stablecoins projects like TerraUSD – not only because they defraud bitcoiners, but because they sully the reputation of our entire sector of technological innovation.

Because Bitcoin represents scarcity, decentralization, and complete transparency, there is much we can learn from Satoshi’s innovation when we’re dealing with next-level crypto-offspring.

The Smart Bitcoin Policies to Stop Crypto Scams

‍To begin, US federal, state, and local agencies should update their technological stack to rigorously identify and prosecute fraud and abuse in crypto projects. Fraudulent claims, fake token whitepapers, and deceptive tactics are already illegal under existing law. Our agencies should be empowered to enforce existing law and weed out the bad actors.

Whether that means better training or tools, law enforcement should receive the necessary upgrades to prosecute and identify the real fraudulent crime that happens to take place in crypto protocols. Much of this behavior is just being used in a new medium. It’s not crazy to think that cops should upgrade their tech stack to understand how it’s happening now.

Second, our policies on money transmission licenses and regulation for crypto exchanges should be streamlined and made easier, rather than more difficult. Let competition provide the best places for people to buy their bitcoin. As much as privacy advocates abhor centralized platforms and exchanges, they still implement better security and educational practices to inform users than a shady service hosted in China will provide.

By simplifying the rules and restrictions on bitcoin exchanges, especially by allowing them to consider their custodied bitcoin as assets rather than liabilities as was done by rescinding SAB 121, it means that more Americans will have the opportunity to have excellent experiences when purchasing their coins online.

Third, regulators must not pigeonhole bitcoin and its crypto-offspring only as investments fit for taxing, but rather as technological tools that empower consumers and foster innovation. Too much discussion about bitcoin policies hinges on the tax rate or how much it will bring to state coffers, rather than by how much it can make one’s life better by removing the red tape to safeguard wealth.

By recognizing the ultimate power of bitcoin self-custody without needing to trust third parties or intermediaries, it means we finally view this technology as an extension of our own free speech and freedom of association.

And lastly, we must focus on removing the barriers to using bitcoin as an ordinary means of payment. The Keep Your Coins Act restricts federal agencies from stopping individuals from using bitcoin how they see fit, as well as protecting self-custody. That, plus de minimis exemption rules that allow us to spend bitcoin as any other asset, mean we can use digital money as intended.

We know that memecoins and rugpulls will continue to happen no matter what, this is almost human nature. But at the same time, embracing smart bitcoin policies will ensure that consumers and users have the best tools and protections available to use the technology if they want.

Originally published at the Bitcoin Policy Institute.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die Ungerechtigkeit ist uns nur in dem Falle angenehm,\ dass wir Vorteile aus ihr ziehen;\ in jedem andern hegt man den Wunsch,\ dass der Unschuldige in Schutz genommen werde.\ Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Politiker beteuern jederzeit, nur das Beste für die Bevölkerung zu wollen – nicht von ihr. Auch die zahlreichen unsäglichen «Corona-Maßnahmen» waren angeblich zu unserem Schutz notwendig, vor allem wegen der «besonders vulnerablen Personen». Daher mussten alle möglichen Restriktionen zwangsweise und unter Umgehung der Parlamente verordnet werden.

Inzwischen hat sich immer deutlicher herausgestellt, dass viele jener «Schutzmaßnahmen» den gegenteiligen Effekt hatten, sie haben den Menschen und den Gesellschaften enorm geschadet. Nicht nur haben die experimentellen Geninjektionen – wie erwartet – massive Nebenwirkungen, sondern Maskentragen schadet der Psyche und der Entwicklung (nicht nur unserer Kinder) und «Lockdowns und Zensur haben Menschen getötet».

Eine der wichtigsten Waffen unserer «Beschützer» ist die Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Die tiefen Gräben, die Politiker, Lobbyisten und Leitmedien praktisch weltweit ausgehoben haben, funktionieren leider nahezu in Perfektion. Von ihren persönlichen Erfahrungen als Kritikerin der Maßnahmen berichtete kürzlich eine Schweizerin im Interview mit Transition News. Sie sei schwer enttäuscht und verspüre bis heute eine Hemmschwelle und ein seltsames Unwohlsein im Umgang mit «Geimpften».

Menschen, die aufrichtig andere schützen wollten, werden von einer eindeutig politischen Justiz verfolgt, verhaftet und angeklagt. Dazu zählen viele Ärzte, darunter Heinrich Habig, Bianca Witzschel und Walter Weber. Über den aktuell laufenden Prozess gegen Dr. Weber hat Transition News mehrfach berichtet (z.B. hier und hier). Auch der Selbstschutz durch Verweigerung der Zwangs-Covid-«Impfung» bewahrt nicht vor dem Knast, wie Bundeswehrsoldaten wie Alexander Bittner erfahren mussten.

Die eigentlich Kriminellen schützen sich derweil erfolgreich selber, nämlich vor der Verantwortung. Die «Impf»-Kampagne war «das größte Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit». Trotzdem stellt man sich in den USA gerade die Frage, ob der scheidende Präsident Joe Biden nach seinem Sohn Hunter möglicherweise auch Anthony Fauci begnadigen wird – in diesem Fall sogar präventiv. Gibt es überhaupt noch einen Rest Glaubwürdigkeit, den Biden verspielen könnte?

Der Gedanke, den ehemaligen wissenschaftlichen Chefberater des US-Präsidenten und Direktor des National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) vorsorglich mit einem Schutzschild zu versehen, dürfte mit der vergangenen Präsidentschaftswahl zu tun haben. Gleich mehrere Personalentscheidungen des designierten Präsidenten Donald Trump lassen Leute wie Fauci erneut in den Fokus rücken.

Das Buch «The Real Anthony Fauci» des nominierten US-Gesundheitsministers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. erschien 2021 und dreht sich um die Machenschaften der Pharma-Lobby in der öffentlichen Gesundheit. Das Vorwort zur rumänischen Ausgabe des Buches schrieb übrigens Călin Georgescu, der Überraschungssieger der ersten Wahlrunde der aktuellen Präsidentschaftswahlen in Rumänien. Vielleicht erklärt diese Verbindung einen Teil der Panik im Wertewesten.

In Rumänien selber gab es gerade einen Paukenschlag: Das bisherige Ergebnis wurde heute durch das Verfassungsgericht annuliert und die für Sonntag angesetzte Stichwahl kurzfristig abgesagt – wegen angeblicher «aggressiver russischer Einmischung». Thomas Oysmüller merkt dazu an, damit sei jetzt in der EU das Tabu gebrochen, Wahlen zu verbieten, bevor sie etwas ändern können.

Unsere Empörung angesichts der Historie von Maßnahmen, die die Falschen beschützen und für die meisten von Nachteil sind, müsste enorm sein. Die Frage ist, was wir damit machen. Wir sollten nach vorne schauen und unsere Energie clever einsetzen. Abgesehen von der Umgehung von jeglichem «Schutz vor Desinformation und Hassrede» (sprich: Zensur) wird es unsere wichtigste Aufgabe sein, Gräben zu überwinden.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Konsum ist Therapie.
Wolfgang Joop

Umweltbewusstes Verhalten und verantwortungsvoller Konsum zeugen durchaus von einer wünschenswerten Einstellung. Ob man deswegen allerdings einen grünen statt eines schwarzen Freitags braucht, darf getrost bezweifelt werden – zumal es sich um manipulatorische Konzepte handelt. Wie in der politischen Landschaft sind auch hier die Etiketten irgendwas zwischen nichtssagend und trügerisch.

Heute ist also wieder mal «Black Friday», falls Sie es noch nicht mitbekommen haben sollten. Eigentlich haben wir ja eher schon eine ganze «Black Week», der dann oft auch noch ein «Cyber Monday» folgt. Die Werbebranche wird nicht müde, immer neue Anlässe zu erfinden oder zu importieren, um uns zum Konsumieren zu bewegen. Und sie ist damit sehr erfolgreich.

Warum fallen wir auf derartige Werbetricks herein und kaufen im Zweifelsfall Dinge oder Mengen, die wir sicher nicht brauchen? Pure Psychologie, würde ich sagen. Rabattschilder triggern etwas in uns, was den Verstand in Stand-by versetzt. Zusätzlich beeinflussen uns alle möglichen emotionalen Reize und animieren uns zum Schnäppchenkauf.

Gedankenlosigkeit und Maßlosigkeit können besonders bei der Ernährung zu ernsten Problemen führen. Erst kürzlich hat mir ein Bekannter nach einer USA-Reise erzählt, dass es dort offenbar nicht unüblich ist, schon zum ausgiebigen Frühstück in einem Restaurant wenigstens einen Liter Cola zu trinken. Gerne auch mehr, um das Gratis-Nachfüllen des Bechers auszunutzen.

Kritik am schwarzen Freitag und dem unnötigen Konsum kommt oft von Umweltschützern. Neben Ressourcenverschwendung, hohem Energieverbrauch und wachsenden Müllbergen durch eine zunehmende Wegwerfmentalität kommt dabei in der Regel auch die «Klimakrise» auf den Tisch.

Die EU-Kommission lancierte 2015 den Begriff «Green Friday» im Kontext der überarbeiteten Rechtsvorschriften zur Kennzeichnung der Energieeffizienz von Elektrogeräten. Sie nutzte die Gelegenheit kurz vor dem damaligen schwarzen Freitag und vor der UN-Klimakonferenz COP21, bei der das Pariser Abkommen unterzeichnet werden sollte.

Heute wird ein grüner Freitag oft im Zusammenhang mit der Forderung nach «nachhaltigem Konsum» benutzt. Derweil ist die Europäische Union schon weit in ihr Geschäftsmodell des «Green New Deal» verstrickt. In ihrer Propaganda zum Klimawandel verspricht sie tatsächlich «Unterstützung der Menschen und Regionen, die von immer häufigeren Extremwetter-Ereignissen betroffen sind». Was wohl die Menschen in der Region um Valencia dazu sagen?

Ganz im Sinne des Great Reset propagierten die Vereinten Nationen seit Ende 2020 eine «grüne Erholung von Covid-19, um den Klimawandel zu verlangsamen». Der UN-Umweltbericht sah in dem Jahr einen Schwerpunkt auf dem Verbraucherverhalten. Änderungen des Konsumverhaltens des Einzelnen könnten dazu beitragen, den Klimaschutz zu stärken, hieß es dort.

Der Begriff «Schwarzer Freitag» wurde in den USA nicht erstmals für Einkäufe nach Thanksgiving verwendet – wie oft angenommen –, sondern für eine Finanzkrise. Jedoch nicht für den Börsencrash von 1929, sondern bereits für den Zusammenbruch des US-Goldmarktes im September 1869. Seitdem mussten die Menschen weltweit so einige schwarze Tage erleben.

Kürzlich sind die britischen Aufsichtsbehörden weiter von ihrer Zurückhaltung nach dem letzten großen Finanzcrash von 2008 abgerückt. Sie haben Regeln für den Bankensektor gelockert, womit sie «verantwortungsvolle Risikobereitschaft» unterstützen wollen. Man würde sicher zu schwarz sehen, wenn man hier ein grünes Wunder befürchten würde.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

How to create a nostr app quickly using applesauce

In this guide we are going to build a nostr app that lets users follow and unfollow fiatjaf

1. Setup new project

Start by setting up a new vite app using pnpm create vite, then set the name and select Solid and Typescript

```sh ➜ pnpm create vite │ ◇ Project name: │ followjaf │ ◇ Select a framework: │ Solid │ ◇ Select a variant: │ TypeScript │ ◇ Scaffolding project in ./followjaf... │ └ Done. Now run:

cd followjaf pnpm install pnpm run dev ```

2. Adding nostr dependencies

There are a few useful nostr dependencies we are going to need. nostr-tools for the types and small methods, and rx-nostr for making relay connections

sh pnpm install nostr-tools rx-nostr

3. Setup rx-nostr

Next we need to setup rxNostr so we can make connections to relays. create a new src/nostr.ts file with

```ts import { createRxNostr, noopVerifier } from "rx-nostr";

export const rxNostr = createRxNostr({ // skip verification here because we are going to verify events at the event store skipVerify: true, verifier: noopVerifier, }); ```

4. Setup the event store

Now that we have a way to connect to relays, we need a place to store events. We will use the EventStore class from applesauce-core for this. create a new src/stores.ts file with

The event store does not store any events in the browsers local storage or anywhere else. It's in-memory only and provides a model for the UI

```ts import { EventStore } from "applesauce-core"; import { verifyEvent } from "nostr-tools";

export const eventStore = new EventStore();

// verify the events when they are added to the store eventStore.verifyEvent = verifyEvent; ```

5. Create the query store

The event store is where we store all the events, but we need a way for the UI to query them. We can use the QueryStore class from applesauce-core for this.

Create a query store in src/stores.ts

```ts import { QueryStore } from "applesauce-core";

// ...

// the query store needs the event store to subscribe to it export const queryStore = new QueryStore(eventStore); ```

6. Setup the profile loader

Next we need a way to fetch user profiles. We are going to use the ReplaceableLoader class from applesauce-loaders for this.

applesauce-loaders is a package that contains a few loader classes that can be used to fetch different types of data from relays.

First install the package

sh pnpm install applesauce-loaders

Then create a src/loaders.ts file with

```ts import { ReplaceableLoader } from "applesauce-loaders"; import { rxNostr } from "./nostr"; import { eventStore } from "./stores";

export const replaceableLoader = new ReplaceableLoader(rxNostr);

// Start the loader and send any events to the event store replaceableLoader.subscribe((packet) => { eventStore.add(packet.event, packet.from); }); ```

7. Fetch fiatjaf's profile

Now that we have a way to store events, and a loader to help with fetching them, we should update the src/App.tsx component to fetch the profile.

We can do this by calling the next method on the loader and passing a pubkey, kind and relays to it

```tsx function App() { // ...

onMount(() => { // fetch fiatjaf's profile on load replaceableLoader.next({ pubkey: "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d", kind: 0, relays: ["wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com/"], }); });

// ... } ```

8. Display the profile

Now that we have a way to fetch the profile, we need to display it in the UI.

We can do this by using the ProfileQuery which gives us a stream of updates to a pubkey's profile.

Create the profile using queryStore.createQuery and pass in the ProfileQuery and the pubkey.

tsx const fiatjaf = queryStore.createQuery( ProfileQuery, "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d" );

But this just gives us an observable, we need to subscribe to it to get the profile.

Luckily SolidJS profiles a simple from method to subscribe to any observable.

To make things reactive SolidJS uses accessors, so to get the profile we need to call fiatjaf()

```tsx function App() { // ...

// Subscribe to fiatjaf's profile from the query store const fiatjaf = from( queryStore.createQuery(ProfileQuery, "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d") );

return ( <> {/ replace the vite and solid logos with the profile picture /}

{fiatjaf()?.name}

  {/* ... */}

); } ```

9. Letting the user signin

Now we should let the user signin to the app. We can do this by creating a AccountManager class from applesauce-accounts

First we need to install the packages

sh pnpm install applesauce-accounts applesauce-signers

Then create a new src/accounts.ts file with

```ts import { AccountManager } from "applesauce-accounts"; import { registerCommonAccountTypes } from "applesauce-accounts/accounts";

// create an account manager instance export const accounts = new AccountManager();

// Adds the common account types to the manager registerCommonAccountTypes(accounts); ```

Next lets presume the user has a NIP-07 browser extension installed and add a signin button.

```tsx function App() { const signin = async () => { // do nothing if the user is already signed in if (accounts.active) return;

// create a new nip-07 signer and try to get the pubkey
const signer = new ExtensionSigner();
const pubkey = await signer.getPublicKey();

// create a new extension account, add it, and make it the active account
const account = new ExtensionAccount(pubkey, signer);
accounts.addAccount(account);
accounts.setActive(account);

};

return ( <> {/ ... /}

  <div class="card">
    <p>Are you following the fiatjaf? the creator of "The nostr"</p>
    <button onClick={signin}>Check</button>
  </div>

); } ```

Now when the user clicks the button the app will ask for the users pubkey, then do nothing... but it's a start.

We are not persisting the accounts, so when the page reloads the user will NOT be signed in. you can learn about persisting the accounts in the docs

10. Showing the signed-in state

We should show some indication to the user that they are signed in. We can do this by modifying the signin button if the user is signed in and giving them a way to sign-out

```tsx function App() { // subscribe to the currently active account (make sure to use the account$ observable) const account = from(accounts.active$);

// ...

const signout = () => { // do nothing if the user is not signed in if (!accounts.active) return;

// signout the user
const account = accounts.active;
accounts.removeAccount(account);
accounts.clearActive();

};

return ( <> {/ ... /}

  <div class="card">
    <p>Are you following the fiatjaf? ( creator of "The nostr" )</p>
    {account() === undefined ? <button onClick={signin}>Check</button> : <button onClick={signout}>Signout</button>}
  </div>

); } ```

11. Fetching the user's profile

Now that we have a way to sign in and out of the app, we should fetch the user's profile when they sign in.

```tsx function App() { // ...

// fetch the user's profile when they sign in createEffect(async () => { const active = account();

if (active) {
  // get the user's relays or fallback to some default relays
  const usersRelays = await active.getRelays?.();
  const relays = usersRelays ? Object.keys(usersRelays) : ["wss://relay.damus.io", "wss://nos.lol"];

  // tell the loader to fetch the users profile event
  replaceableLoader.next({
    pubkey: active.pubkey,
    kind: 0,
    relays,
  });

  // tell the loader to fetch the users contacts
  replaceableLoader.next({
    pubkey: active.pubkey,
    kind: 3,
    relays,
  });

  // tell the loader to fetch the users mailboxes
  replaceableLoader.next({
    pubkey: active.pubkey,
    kind: 10002,
    relays,
  });
}

});

// ... } ```

Next we need to subscribe to the users profile, to do this we can use some rxjs operators to chain the observables together.

```tsx import { Match, Switch } from "solid-js"; import { of, switchMap } from "rxjs";

function App() { // ...

// subscribe to the active account, then subscribe to the users profile or undefined const profile = from( accounts.active$.pipe( switchMap((account) => (account ? queryStore.createQuery(ProfileQuery, account!.pubkey) : of(undefined))) ) );

// ...

return ( <> {/ ... /}

  <div class="card">
    <Switch>
      <Match when={account() && !profile()}>
        <p>Loading profile...</p>
      </Match>
      <Match when={profile()}>
        <p style="font-size: 1.2rem; font-weight: bold;">Welcome {profile()?.name}</p>
      </Match>
    </Switch>

    {/* ... */}
  </div>

); } ```

12. Showing if the user is following fiatjaf

Now that the app is fetching the users profile and contacts we should show if the user is following fiatjaf.

```tsx function App() { // ...

// subscribe to the active account, then subscribe to the users contacts or undefined const contacts = from( accounts.active$.pipe( switchMap((account) => (account ? queryStore.createQuery(UserContactsQuery, account!.pubkey) : of(undefined))) ) );

const isFollowing = createMemo(() => { return contacts()?.some((c) => c.pubkey === "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d"); });

// ...

return ( <> {/ ... /}

  <div class="card">
    {/* ... */}

    <Switch
      fallback={
        <p style="font-size: 1.2rem;">
          Sign in to check if you are a follower of the fiatjaf ( creator of "The nostr" )
        </p>
      }
    >
      <Match when={contacts() && isFollowing() === undefined}>
        <p>checking...</p>
      </Match>
      <Match when={contacts() && isFollowing() === true}>
        <p style="color: green; font-weight: bold; font-size: 2rem;">
          Congratulations! You are a follower of the fiatjaf
        </p>
      </Match>
      <Match when={contacts() && isFollowing() === false}>
        <p style="color: red; font-weight: bold; font-size: 2rem;">
          Why don't you follow the fiatjaf? do you even like nostr?
        </p>
      </Match>
    </Switch>

    {/* ... */}
  </div>

); } ```

13. Adding the follow button

Now that we have a way to check if the user is following fiatjaf, we should add a button to follow him. We can do this with Actions which are pre-built methods to modify nostr events for a user.

First we need to install the applesauce-actions and applesauce-factory package

sh pnpm install applesauce-actions applesauce-factory

Then create a src/actions.ts file with

```ts import { EventFactory } from "applesauce-factory"; import { ActionHub } from "applesauce-actions"; import { eventStore } from "./stores"; import { accounts } from "./accounts";

// The event factory is used to build and modify nostr events export const factory = new EventFactory({ // accounts.signer is a NIP-07 signer that signs with the currently active account signer: accounts.signer, });

// The action hub is used to run Actions against the event store export const actions = new ActionHub(eventStore, factory); ```

Then create a toggleFollow method that will add or remove fiatjaf from the users contacts.

We are using the exec method to run the action, and the forEach method from RxJS allows us to await for all the events to be published

```tsx function App() { // ...

const toggleFollow = async () => { // send any created events to rxNostr and the event store const publish = (event: NostrEvent) => { eventStore.add(event); rxNostr.send(event); };

if (isFollowing()) {
  await actions
    .exec(UnfollowUser, "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d")
    .forEach(publish);
} else {
  await actions
    .exec(
      FollowUser,
      "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d",
      "wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com/"
    )
    .forEach(publish);
}

};

// ...

return ( <> {/ ... /}

  <div class="card">
    {/* ... */}

    {contacts() && <button onClick={toggleFollow}>{isFollowing() ? "Unfollow" : "Follow"}</button>}
  </div>

); } ```

14. Adding outbox support

The app looks like it works now but if the user reloads the page they will still see an the old version of their contacts list. we need to make sure rxNostr is publishing the events to the users outbox relays.

To do this we can subscribe to the signed in users mailboxes using the query store in src/nostr.ts

```ts import { MailboxesQuery } from "applesauce-core/queries"; import { accounts } from "./accounts"; import { of, switchMap } from "rxjs"; import { queryStore } from "./stores";

// ...

// subscribe to the active account, then subscribe to the users mailboxes and update rxNostr accounts.active$ .pipe(switchMap((account) => (account ? queryStore.createQuery(MailboxesQuery, account.pubkey) : of(undefined)))) .subscribe((mailboxes) => { if (mailboxes) rxNostr.setDefaultRelays(mailboxes.outboxes); else rxNostr.setDefaultRelays([]); }); ```

And that's it! we have a working nostr app that lets users follow and unfollow fiatjaf.

@ 3ffac3a6:2d656657

Como Rodar um Sapphire Block Erupter USB para Mineração no Linux em 2025

Recentemente, encontrei um Sapphire Block Erupter USB velho aqui em casa que eu usava para minerar Bitcoin em 2013. Por curiosidade e nostalgia, resolvi tentar colocá-lo para funcionar novamente. Passei uma tarde inteira tentando configurar o dispositivo e, depois de muita tentativa e erro, descobri que precisava de uma versão mais antiga do CGMiner para fazê-lo funcionar.

Os Sapphire Block Erupter USB foram um dos primeiros dispositivos ASIC voltados para mineração de Bitcoin. Embora estejam obsoletos para mineração competitiva, eles ainda podem ser usados para aprendizado, nostalgia ou experimentação. Neste post, vou te mostrar como rodar um Block Erupter USB no Linux atualmente.

1. Pré-requisitos

Antes de começar, certifique-se de que você tem:

• Um Sapphire Block Erupter USB
• Um hub USB alimentado (opcional, mas recomendado)
• Um computador rodando Linux (Ubuntu, Debian, Arch ou outra distribuição compatível)
• Um pool de mineração configurado (ex: Slush Pool, KanoPool, etc.)

2. Instalando as Dependências

Antes de rodar o minerador, instale algumas dependências:

bash sudo apt update && sudo apt install -y git build-essential autoconf automake libtool pkg-config libusb-1.0-0-dev

3. Determinando a Versão Compatível do CGMiner

Para encontrar a versão correta do CGMiner que ainda suporta os Block Erupter USB, realizei uma busca binária entre diferentes versões, testando cada uma até encontrar a última que reconhecia corretamente o dispositivo. O resultado foi que a versão 3.4.3 é a mais recente que ainda suporta os Block Erupters. No entanto, outras versões desses dispositivos podem requerer versões diferentes do CGMiner.

4. Baixando e Compilando o CGMiner

O CGMiner é um dos softwares compatíveis com os Block Erupters. Você pode baixar a versão correta de duas fontes confiáveis:

• Do repositório oficial: CGMiner v3.4.3 no GitHub
• Alternativamente, deste espelho: CGMiner v3.4.3 no Haven

Para garantir a integridade do arquivo, você pode verificar o hash SHA-256:

3b44da12e5f24f603eeeefdaa2c573bd566c5c50c9d62946f198e611cd55876b

Agora, faça o download e extraia:

```bash wget https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/archive/refs/tags/v3.4.3.tar.gz

Ou, alternativamente:

wget https://haven.girino.org/3b44da12e5f24f603eeeefdaa2c573bd566c5c50c9d62946f198e611cd55876b.tgz

sha256sum v3.4.3.tar.gz # Confirme que o hash bate

Extraia o arquivo

tar -xvf v3.4.3.tar.gz cd cgminer-3.4.3

Compile o CGMiner

./autogen.sh --enable-icarus make -j$(nproc)

Instale no sistema (opcional)

sudo make install ```

4. Conectando o Block Erupter USB

Plugue o dispositivo na porta USB e verifique se ele foi reconhecido:

bash dmesg | grep USB lsusb

Você deve ver algo como:

Bus 003 Device 004: ID 10c4:ea60 Cygnal Integrated Products, Inc. CP2102 USB to UART Bridge Controller

Se necessário, ajuste as permissões para o dispositivo USB:

bash sudo chmod 666 /dev/ttyUSB0

5. Configurando e Rodando o CGMiner

Agora, execute o CGMiner apontando para seu pool de mineração:

bash ./cgminer -o stratum+tcp://seu.pool.com:3333 -u seuUsuario -p suaSenha

Se o minerador detectar corretamente o Block Erupter, você verá algo como:

``` [2025-03-08 22:26:45] Started cgminer 3.4.3 [2025-03-08 22:26:45] No devices detected! [2025-03-08 22:26:45] Waiting for USB hotplug devices or press q to quit [2025-03-08 22:26:45] Probing for an alive pool [2025-03-08 22:26:46] Pool 0 difficulty changed to 65536 [2025-03-08 22:26:46] Network diff set to 111T [2025-03-08 22:26:46] Stratum from pool 0 detected new block [2025-03-08 22:27:02] Hotplug: Icarus added AMU 0

```

Conclusão

Apesar de não serem mais viáveis para mineração real, os Sapphire Block Erupter USB ainda são ótimos para aprender sobre ASICs, testar pools e entender mais sobre a mineração de Bitcoin. Se você gosta de hardware antigo e tem um desses guardado, vale a pena experimentar!

Se tiver dúvidas ou quiser compartilhar sua experiência, comente abaixo!

@ 4925ea33:025410d8

1. O que é um Aromaterapeuta?

O aromaterapeuta é um profissional especializado na prática da Aromaterapia, responsável pelo uso adequado de óleos essenciais, ervas aromáticas, águas florais e destilados herbais para fins terapêuticos.

A atuação desse profissional envolve diferentes métodos de aplicação, como inalação, uso tópico, sempre considerando a segurança e a necessidade individual do cliente. A Aromaterapia pode auxiliar na redução do estresse, alívio de dores crônicas, relaxamento muscular e melhora da respiração, entre outros benefícios.

Além disso, os aromaterapeutas podem trabalhar em conjunto com outros profissionais da saúde para oferecer um tratamento complementar em diversas condições. Como já mencionado no artigo sobre "Como evitar processos alérgicos na prática da Aromaterapia", é essencial ter acompanhamento profissional, pois os óleos essenciais são altamente concentrados e podem causar reações adversas se utilizados de forma inadequada.

---

2. Como um Aromaterapeuta Pode Ajudar?

Você pode procurar um aromaterapeuta para diferentes necessidades, como:

✔ Questões Emocionais e Psicológicas

Auxílio em momentos de luto, divórcio, demissão ou outras situações desafiadoras.

Apoio na redução do estresse, ansiedade e insônia.

Vale lembrar que, em casos de transtornos psiquiátricos, a Aromaterapia deve ser usada como terapia complementar, associada ao tratamento médico.

✔ Questões Físicas

Dores musculares e articulares.

Problemas respiratórios como rinite, sinusite e tosse.

Distúrbios digestivos leves.

Dores de cabeça e enxaquecas. Nesses casos, a Aromaterapia pode ser um suporte, mas não substitui a medicina tradicional para identificar a origem dos sintomas.

✔ Saúde da Pele e Cabelos

Tratamento para acne, dermatites e psoríase.

Cuidados com o envelhecimento precoce da pele.

Redução da queda de cabelo e controle da oleosidade do couro cabeludo.

✔ Bem-estar e Qualidade de Vida

Melhora da concentração e foco, aumentando a produtividade.

Estímulo da disposição e energia.

Auxílio no equilíbrio hormonal (TPM, menopausa, desequilíbrios hormonais).

Com base nessas necessidades, o aromaterapeuta irá indicar o melhor tratamento, calculando doses, sinergias (combinação de óleos essenciais), diluições e técnicas de aplicação, como inalação, uso tópico ou difusão.

---

3. Como Funciona uma Consulta com um Aromaterapeuta?

Uma consulta com um aromaterapeuta é um atendimento personalizado, onde são avaliadas as necessidades do cliente para a criação de um protocolo adequado. O processo geralmente segue estas etapas:

✔ Anamnese (Entrevista Inicial)

Perguntas sobre saúde física, emocional e estilo de vida.

Levantamento de sintomas, histórico médico e possíveis alergias.

Definição dos objetivos da terapia (alívio do estresse, melhora do sono, dores musculares etc.).

✔ Escolha dos Óleos Essenciais

Seleção dos óleos mais indicados para o caso.

Consideração das propriedades terapêuticas, contraindicações e combinações seguras.

✔ Definição do Método de Uso

O profissional indicará a melhor forma de aplicação, que pode ser:

Inalação: difusores, colares aromáticos, vaporização.

Uso tópico: massagens, óleos corporais, compressas.

Banhos aromáticos e escalda-pés. Todas as diluições serão ajustadas de acordo com a segurança e a necessidade individual do cliente.

✔ Plano de Acompanhamento

Instruções detalhadas sobre o uso correto dos óleos essenciais.

Orientação sobre frequência e duração do tratamento.

Possibilidade de retorno para ajustes no protocolo.

A consulta pode ser realizada presencialmente ou online, dependendo do profissional.

---

Quer saber como a Aromaterapia pode te ajudar? Agende uma consulta comigo e descubra os benefícios dos óleos essenciais para o seu bem-estar!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Und plötzlich weißt du:
Es ist Zeit, etwas Neues zu beginnen
und dem Zauber des Anfangs zu vertrauen.
Meister Eckhart

Schwarz, rot, gold leuchtet es im Kopf des Newsletters der deutschen Bundesregierung, der mir freitags ins Postfach flattert. Rot, gelb und grün werden daneben sicher noch lange vielzitierte Farben sein, auch wenn diese nie geleuchtet haben. Die Ampel hat sich gerade selber den Stecker gezogen – und hinterlässt einen wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Trümmerhaufen.

Mit einem bemerkenswerten Timing hat die deutsche Regierungskoalition am Tag des «Comebacks» von Donald Trump in den USA endlich ihr Scheitern besiegelt. Während der eine seinen Sieg bei den Präsidentschaftswahlen feierte, erwachten die anderen jäh aus ihrer Selbsthypnose rund um Harris-Hype und Trump-Panik – mit teils erschreckenden Auswüchsen. Seit Mittwoch werden die Geschicke Deutschlands nun von einer rot-grünen Minderheitsregierung «geleitet» und man steuert auf Neuwahlen zu.

Das Kindergarten-Gehabe um zwei konkurrierende Wirtschaftsgipfel letzte Woche war bereits bezeichnend. In einem Strategiepapier gestand Finanzminister Lindner außerdem den «Absturz Deutschlands» ein und offenbarte, dass die wirtschaftlichen Probleme teilweise von der Ampel-Politik «vorsätzlich herbeigeführt» worden seien.

Lindner und weitere FDP-Minister wurden also vom Bundeskanzler entlassen. Verkehrs- und Digitalminister Wissing trat flugs aus der FDP aus; deshalb darf er nicht nur im Amt bleiben, sondern hat zusätzlich noch das Justizministerium übernommen. Und mit Jörg Kukies habe Scholz «seinen Lieblingsbock zum Obergärtner», sprich: Finanzminister befördert, meint Norbert Häring.

Es gebe keine Vertrauensbasis für die weitere Zusammenarbeit mit der FDP, hatte der Kanzler erklärt, Lindner habe zu oft sein Vertrauen gebrochen. Am 15. Januar 2025 werde er daher im Bundestag die Vertrauensfrage stellen, was ggf. den Weg für vorgezogene Neuwahlen freimachen würde.

Apropos Vertrauen: Über die Hälfte der Bundesbürger glauben, dass sie ihre Meinung nicht frei sagen können. Das ging erst kürzlich aus dem diesjährigen «Freiheitsindex» hervor, einer Studie, die die Wechselwirkung zwischen Berichterstattung der Medien und subjektivem Freiheitsempfinden der Bürger misst. «Beim Vertrauen in Staat und Medien zerreißt es uns gerade», kommentierte dies der Leiter des Schweizer Unternehmens Media Tenor, das die Untersuchung zusammen mit dem Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach durchführt.

«Die absolute Mehrheit hat absolut die Nase voll», titelte die Bild angesichts des «Ampel-Showdowns». Die Mehrheit wolle Neuwahlen und die Grünen sollten zuerst gehen, lasen wir dort.

Dass «Insolvenzminister» Robert Habeck heute seine Kandidatur für das Kanzleramt verkündet hat, kann nur als Teil der politmedialen Realitätsverweigerung verstanden werden. Wer allerdings denke, schlimmer als in Zeiten der Ampel könne es nicht mehr werden, sei reichlich optimistisch, schrieb Uwe Froschauer bei Manova. Und er kenne Friedrich Merz schlecht, der sich schon jetzt rhetorisch auf seine Rolle als oberster Feldherr Deutschlands vorbereite.

Was also tun? Der Schweizer Verein «Losdemokratie» will eine Volksinitiative lancieren, um die Bestimmung von Parlamentsmitgliedern per Los einzuführen. Das Losverfahren sorge für mehr Demokratie, denn als Alternative zum Wahlverfahren garantiere es eine breitere Beteiligung und repräsentativere Parlamente. Ob das ein Weg ist, sei dahingestellt.

In jedem Fall wird es notwendig sein, unsere Bemühungen um Freiheit und Selbstbestimmung zu verstärken. Mehr Unabhängigkeit von staatlichen und zentralen Institutionen – also die Suche nach dezentralen Lösungsansätzen – gehört dabei sicher zu den Möglichkeiten. Das gilt sowohl für jede/n Einzelne/n als auch für Entitäten wie die alternativen Medien.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Ludwig F. Badenhagen. Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.

---

Einer der wesentlichen Gründe dafür, dass während der „Corona-Pandemie“ so viele Menschen den Anweisungen der Spitzenpolitiker folgten, war sicher der, dass diese Menschen den Politikern vertrauten. Diese Menschen konnten sich nicht vorstellen, dass Spitzenpolitiker den Auftrag haben könnten, die Bürger analog klaren Vorgaben zu belügen, zu betrügen und sie vorsätzlich (tödlich) zu verletzen. Im Gegenteil, diese gutgläubigen Menschen waren mit der Zuversicht aufgewachsen, dass Spitzenpolitiker den Menschen dienen und deren Wohl im Fokus haben (müssen). Dies beteuerten Spitzenpolitiker schließlich stets in Talkshows und weiteren Medienformaten. Zwar wurden manche Politiker auch bei Fehlverhalten erwischt, aber hierbei ging es zumeist „nur“ um Geld und nicht um Leben. Und wenn es doch einmal um Leben ging, dann passieren die Verfehlungen „aus Versehen“, aber nicht mit Vorsatz. So oder so ähnlich dachte die Mehrheit der Bürger. 

Aber vor 5 Jahren änderte sich für aufmerksame Menschen alles, denn analog dem Lockstep-Szenario der Rockefeller-Foundation wurde der zuvor ausgiebig vorbereitete Plan zur Inszenierung der „Corona-Pandemie“ Realität. Seitdem wurde so manchem Bürger, der sich jenseits von Mainstream-Medien informierte, das Ausmaß der unter dem Vorwand einer erfundenen Pandemie vollbrachten Taten klar. Und unverändert kommen täglich immer neue Erkenntnisse ans Licht. Auf den Punkt gebracht war die Inszenierung der „Corona-Pandemie“ ein Verbrechen an der Menschheit, konstatieren unabhängige Sachverständige. 

Dieser Beitrag befasst sich allerdings nicht damit, die vielen Bestandteile dieses Verbrechens (nochmals) aufzuzählen oder weitere zu benennen. Stattdessen soll beleuchtet werden, warum die Spitzenpolitiker sich so verhalten haben und ob es überhaupt nach alledem möglich ist, der Politik jemals wieder zu vertrauen? Ferner ist es ein Anliegen dieses Artikels, die weiteren Zusammenhänge zu erörtern. Und zu guter Letzt soll dargelegt werden, warum sich der große Teil der Menschen unverändert alles gefallen lässt.

Demokratie

Von jeher organisierten sich Menschen mit dem Ziel, Ordnungsrahmen zu erschaffen, welche wechselseitiges Interagieren regeln. Dies führte aber stets dazu, dass einige wenige alle anderen unterordneten. Der Grundgedanke, der vor rund 2500 Jahren formulierten Demokratie, verfolgte dann aber das Ziel, dass die Masse darüber entscheiden können soll, wie sie leben und verwaltet werden möchte. Dieser Grundgedanke wurde von den Mächtigen sowohl gehasst als auch gefürchtet, denn die Gefahr lag nahe, dass die besitzlosen Vielen beispielsweise mit einer schlichten Abstimmung verfügen könnten, den Besitz der Wenigen zu enteignen. Selbst Sokrates war gegen solch eine Gesellschaftsordnung, da die besten Ideen nicht durch die Vielen, sondern durch einige wenige Kluge und Aufrichtige in die Welt kommen. Man müsse die Vielen lediglich manipulieren und würde auf diese Weise quasi jeden Unfug umsetzen können. Die Demokratie war ein Rohrkrepierer.

Die Mogelpackung „Repräsentative Demokratie“

Erst im Zuge der Gründung der USA gelang der Trick, dem Volk die „Repräsentative Demokratie“ unterzujubeln, die sich zwar nach Demokratie anhört, aber mit der Ursprungsdefinition nichts zu tun hat. Man konnte zwischen zwei Parteien wählen, die sich mit ihren jeweiligen Versprechen um die Gunst des Volkes bewarben. Tatsächlich paktierten die Vertreter der gewählten Parteien (Politiker) aber mit den wirklich Mächtigen, die letztendlich dafür sorgten, dass diese Politiker in die jeweiligen exponierten Positionen gelangten, welche ihnen ermöglichten (und somit auch den wirklich Mächtigen), Macht auszuüben. Übrigens, ob die eine oder andere Partei „den Volkswillen“ für sich gewinnen konnte, war für die wirklich Mächtigen weniger von Bedeutung, denn der Wille der wirklich Mächtigen wurde so oder so, wenn auch in voneinander differierenden Details, umgesetzt.

Die Menschen waren begeistert von dieser Idee, denn sie glaubten, dass sie selbst „der Souverän“ seien. Schluss mit Monarchie sowie sonstiger Fremdherrschaft und Unterdrückung.

Die Mächtigen waren ebenfalls begeistert, denn durch die Repräsentative Demokratie waren sie selbst nicht mehr in der Schusslinie, weil das Volk sich mit seinem Unmut fortan auf die Politiker konzentrierte. Da diese Politiker aber vielleicht nicht von einem selbst, sondern von vielen anderen Wahlberechtigten gewählt wurden, lenkte sich der Groll der Menschen nicht nur ab von den wirklich Mächtigen, sondern auch ab von den Politikern, direkt auf „die vielen Idioten“ aus ihrer eigenen Mitte, die sich „ver-wählt“ hatten. Diese Lenkung des Volkes funktionierte so hervorragend, dass andere Länder die Grundprinzipien dieses Steuerungsinstrumentes übernahmen. Dies ist alles bei Rainer Mausfeld nachzulesen.

Ursprünglich waren die Mächtigen nur regional mächtig, sodass das Führen der eigenen Menschen(vieh)herde eher eine lokale Angelegenheit war. Somit mussten auch nur lokale Probleme gelöst werden und die Mittel zur Problemlösung blieben im eigenen Problembereich.

---

JETZT ABONNIEREN:

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel in Ihr Postfach, vorerst für alle kostenfrei, wir starten gänzlich ohne Paywall. (Die Bezahlabos fangen erst zu laufen an, wenn ein Monetarisierungskonzept für die Inhalte steht).

---

• Für 50 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo der Friedenstaube.
• Für 120 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo und ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Für 500 CHF/EURO werden Sie Förderer und bekommen ein lebenslanges Abo sowie ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Ab 1000 CHF/EURO werden Sie Genossenschafter der Friedenstaube mit Stimmrecht (und bekommen lebenslanges Abo, T-Shirt/Hoodie).

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

Wenn Sie auf anderem Wege beitragen wollen, schreiben Sie die Friedenstaube an: milosz@pareto.space oder kontakt@idw-europe.org.

---

Beherrschungsinstrumente der globalen Massenhaltung

Im Zuge der territorialen Erweiterungen der „Besitzungen“ einiger wirklich Mächtiger wurden die Verwaltungs- und Beherrschungsinstrumente überregionaler. Und heute, zu Zeiten der globalen Vernetzung, paktieren die wirklich Mächtigen miteinander und beanspruchen die Weltherrschaft. Längst wird offen über die finale Realisierung einen Weltregierung, welche die Nationalstaaten „nicht mehr benötigt“, gesprochen. Dass sich Deutschland, ebenso wie andere europäische Staaten, der EU untergeordnet hat, dürfte auch Leuten nicht entgangen sein, die sich nur über die Tagesschau informieren. Längst steht das EU-Recht über dem deutschen Recht. Und nur kurze Zeit ist es her, als die EU und alle ihre Mitgliedsstaaten die WHO autonom darüber entscheiden lassen wollten, was eine Pandemie ist und wie diese für alle verbindlich „bekämpft“ werden soll. Eine spannende Frage ist nun, wer denn über der EU und der WHO sowie anderen Institutionen steht?

Diese Beschreibung macht klar, dass ein „souveränes Land“ wie das unverändert von der amerikanischen Armee besetzte Deutschland in der Entscheidungshierarchie an die Weisungen übergeordneter Entscheidungsorgane gebunden ist. An der Spitze stehen - wie kann es anders sein - die wirklich Mächtigen. 

Aber was nützt es dann, Spitzenpolitiker zu wählen, wenn diese analog Horst Seehofer nichts zu melden haben? Ist das Wählen von Politikern nicht völlig sinnlos, wenn deren Wahlversprechen ohnehin nicht erfüllt werden? Ist es nicht so, dass die Menschen, welche ihre Stimme nicht behalten, sondern abgeben, das bestehende System nur nähren, indem sie Wahlergebnisse akzeptieren, ohne zu wissen, ob diese manipuliert wurden, aber mit der Gewissheit, dass das im Zuge des Wahlkampfes Versprochene auf keinen Fall geliefert wird? Aktive Wähler glauben trotz allem an die Redlichkeit und Wirksamkeit von Wahlen, und sie akzeptieren Wahlergebnisse, weil sie denken, dass sie von „so vielen Idioten, die falsch wählen“, umgeben sind, womit wir wieder bei der Spaltung sind. Sie glauben, der Stand des aktuellen Elends sei „selbst gewählt“.

Die Wahl der Aufseher

Stellen Sie sich bitte vor, Sie wären im Gefängnis, weil Sie einen kritischen Artikel mit „gefällt mir“ gekennzeichnet haben oder weil Sie eine „Kontaktschuld“ trifft, da in Ihrer Nachbarschaft ein „verschwörerisches Symbol“ von einem „aufmerksamen“ Nachbarn bei einer „Meldestelle“ angezeigt wurde oder Sie gar eine Tat, „unterhalb der Strafbarkeitsgrenze“ begangen hätten, dann würden Sie möglicherweise mit Maßnahmen bestraft, die „keine Folter wären“. Beispielsweise würde man Sie während Ihrer „Umerziehungshaft“ mit Waterboarding, Halten von Stresspositionen, Dunkelhaft etc. dabei „unterstützen“, „Ihre Verfehlungen zu überdenken“. Stellen Sie sich weiterhin vor, dass Sie, so wie alle anderen Inhaftierten, an der alle vier Jahre stattfindenden Wahl der Aufseher teilnehmen könnten, und Sie hätten auch einen Favoriten, der zwar Waterboarding betreibt, aber gegen alle anderen Maßnahmen steht. Sie hätten sicher allen Grund zur Freude, wenn Sie Ihren Kandidaten durchbringen könnten, oder? Aber was wäre, wenn der Aufseher Ihrer Wahl dann dennoch alle 3 „Nicht-Folter-Maßnahmen“ anwenden würde, wie sämtliche anderen Aufseher zuvor? Spätestens dann müssten Sie sich eingestehen, dass es der Beruf des Aufsehers ist, Aufseher zu sein und dass er letztendlich tut, was ihm „von oben“ aufgetragen wird. Andernfalls verliert er seinen Job. Oder er verunfallt oder gerät in einen Skandal etc. So oder so, er verliert seinen Job - und den erledigt dann ein anderer Aufseher.

Die Wahl des Aufsehers ändert wenig, solange Sie sich im System des Gefängnisses befinden und der Aufseher integraler Bestandteil dieses Systems ist. Zur Realisierung einer tatsächlichen Änderung müssten Sie dort herauskommen.

Dieses Beispiel soll darstellen, dass alles in Hierarchien eingebunden ist. Die in einem System eingebundenen Menschen erfüllen ihre zugewiesenen Aufgaben, oder sie werden bestraft.

Das aktuelle System schadet dem Volk

Auch in der staatlichen Organisation von Menschen existieren hierarchische Gliederungen. Eine kommunale Selbstverwaltung gehört zum Kreis, dieser zum Land, dieses zum Staat, dieser zur EU, und diese - zu wem auch immer. Und vereinnahmte Gelder fließen nach oben. Obwohl es natürlich wäre, dass die Mittel dorthin fließen, wo sie der Allgemeinheit und nicht einigen wenigen dienen, also nach unten.

Warum muss es also eine Weltregierung geben? Warum sollen nur einige Wenige über alle anderen bestimmen und an diesen verdienen (Nahrung, Medikamente, Krieg, Steuern etc.)? Warum sollen Menschen, so wie Vieh, das jemandem „gehört“, mit einem Code versehen und bereits als Baby zwangsgeimpft werden? Warum müssen alle Transaktionen und sämtliches Verhalten strickt gesteuert, kontrolliert und bewertet werden? 

Viele Menschen werden nach alledem zu dem Schluss kommen, dass solch ein System nur einigen wenigen wirklich Mächtigen und deren Helfershelfern nützt. Aber es gibt auch eine Gruppe Menschen, für die im Land alles beanstandungsfrei funktioniert. Die Spaltung der Menschen ist perfekt gelungen und sofern die eine Gruppe darauf wartet, dass die andere „endlich aufwacht“, da die Fakten doch auf dem Tisch liegen, so wird sie weiter warten dürfen.

Julian Assange erwähnte einst, dass es für ihn eine unglaubliche Enttäuschung war, dass ihm niemand half. Assange hatte Ungeheuerlichkeiten aufgedeckt. Es gab keinen Aufstand. Assange wurde inhaftiert und gefoltert. Es gab keinen Aufstand. Assange sagte, er hätte nicht damit gerechnet, dass die Leute „so unglaublich feige“ seien.

Aber womit rechnete er den stattdessen? Dass die Massen „sich erheben“. Das gibt es nur im Film, denn die Masse besteht aus vielen maximal Indoktrinierten, die sich wie Schafe verhalten, was als Züchtungserfolg der Leute an den Schalthebeln der Macht und deren Herren, den wirklich Mächtigen, anzuerkennen ist. Denn wer mächtig ist und bleiben möchte, will sicher keine problematischen Untertanen, sondern eine gefügige, ängstliche Herde, die er nach Belieben ausbeuten und steuern kann. Wenn er hierüber verfügt, will er keinen Widerstand.

Ob Corona, Krieg, Demokratie- und Klimarettung oder Meinungsäußerungsverbote und Bürgerrechte, die unterhalb der Strafbarkeitsgrenze liegen, all diese und viele weitere Stichworte mehr sind es, die viele traurig und so manche wütend machen.

Auch das Mittel des Demonstrierens hat sich als völlig wirkungslos erwiesen. Die vielen gruseligen Videoaufnahmen über die massivsten Misshandlungen von Demonstranten gegen die Corona-Maßnahmen führen zu dem Ergebnis, dass die Exekutive ihr Gewaltmonopol nutzt(e), um die Bevölkerung gezielt zu verletzen und einzuschüchtern. Bekanntlich kann jede friedliche Demonstration zum Eskalieren gebracht werden, indem man Menschen in die Enge treibt (fehlender Sicherheitsabstand) und einige V-Leute in Zivil mit einschlägigen Flaggen und sonstigen „Symbolen“ einschleust, die für Krawall sorgen, damit die gepanzerten Kollegen dann losknüppeln und die scharfen Hunde zubeißen können. So lauten zumindest die Berichte vieler Zeitzeugen und so ist es auch auf vielen Videos zu sehen. Allerdings nicht im Mainstream.

Dieses Vorgehen ist deshalb besonders perfide, weil man den Deutschen ihre Wehrhaftigkeit aberzogen hat. Nicht wehrfähige Bürger und eine brutale Staatsmacht mit Gewaltmonopol führen zu einem Gemetzel bei den Bürgern. 

Ähnliches lässt sich auch in zivilen Lebenssituationen beobachten, wenn die hiesige zivilisierte Bevölkerung auf „eingereiste“ Massenvergewaltiger und Messerstecher trifft, die über ein anderes Gewalt- und Rechtsverständnis verfügen als die Einheimischen.

System-Technik

Die These ist, dass es eine Gruppe von global agierenden Personen gibt, welche das Geschehen auf der Erde zunehmend wirksam zu ihrem individuellen Vorteil gestaltet. Wie sich diese Gruppe definiert, kann bei John Coleman (Das Komitee der 300) und David Icke nachgelesen werden. Hierbei handelt es ich um Autoren, die jahrzehntelang analog streng wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen zu ihren Themen geforscht haben und in ihren jeweiligen Werken sämtliche Quellen benennen. Diese Autoren wurden vom Mainstream mit dem Prädikatsmerkmal „Verschwörungstheoretiker“ ausgezeichnet, wodurch die Ergebnisse Ihrer Arbeiten umso glaubwürdiger sind. 

Diese mächtige Gruppe hat mit ihren Schergen nahezu den gesamten Planeten infiltriert, indem sie Personen in führenden Positionen in vielen Belangen größtmögliche Freiheiten sowie Schutz gewährt, aber diesen im Gegenzug eine völlige Unterwerfung bei Kernthemen abfordert. Die Motivatoren für diese Unterwerfung sind, abgesehen von materiellen Zuwendungen, auch „Ruhm und Ehre sowie Macht“. Manchmal wird auch Beweismaterial für begangene Verfehlungen (Lolita-Express, Pizzagate etc.)  genutzt, um Forderungen Nachdruck zu verleihen. Und auch körperliche Bestrafungen der betroffenen Person oder deren Angehörigen zählen zum Repertoire der Motivatoren. Letztendlich ähnlich den Verhaltensweisen in einem Mafia-Film.

Mit dieser Methodik hat sich diese mächtige Gruppe im Laufe von Jahrhunderten! eine Organisation erschaffen, welche aus Kirchen, Parteien, Firmen, NGO, Vereinen, Verbänden und weiteren Organisationsformen besteht. Bestimmte Ämter und Positionen in Organisationen können nur von Personen eingenommen und gehalten werden, die „auf Linie sind“. 

Die Mitglieder der Gruppe tauchen in keiner Rubrik wie „Die reichsten Menschen der Welt“ auf, sondern bleiben fern der Öffentlichkeit. Wer jemanden aus ihren Reihen erkennt und beschuldigt, ist ein „Antisemit“ oder sonstiger Übeltäter und wird verfolgt und bekämpft. Über mächtige Vermögensverwaltungskonzerne beteiligen sich die Mitglieder dieser Gruppe anonym an Unternehmen in Schlüsselpositionen in einer Dimension, die ihnen wesentlichen Einfluss auf die Auswahl der Topmanager einräumt, sodass die jeweilige Unternehmenspolitik nach Vorgaben der Gruppe gestaltet wird.

Die Gruppe steuert das Geldsystem, von dem sich der Planet abhängig zu sein wähnt. Hierzu eine Erläuterung: Ein Staat wie Deutschland ist bekanntlich maximal verschuldet. Man stelle sich vor, ein unliebsamer Politiker würde entgegen sämtlicher „Brandmauern“ und sonstiger Propaganda und Wahlmanipulationen gewählt, das Land zu führen, dann könnte dieser keine Kredit über 500 Mrd. Euro bei der nächsten Sparkasse beantragen, sondern wäre auf die Mächtigen dieser Welt angewiesen. Jeder weiß, dass Deutschland als Staat kein funktionierendes Geschäftsmodell hat und somit nicht in der Lage ist, solch ein Darlehen zurückzuzahlen. Welche Motivation sollte also jemand haben, einem Land wie Deutschland so viel Geld ohne Aussicht auf Rückführung zu geben? Es leuchtet ein, dass dieser Politiker andere Gefälligkeiten anbieten müsste, um das Darlehen zu bekommen. Im Falle einer Weigerung zur Kooperation könnte der Staatsapparat mit seinen Staatsdienern, Bürgergeld- und Rentenempfänger etc. nicht mehr bezahlt werden und dieser Politiker wäre schnell wieder weg. Er würde medial hingerichtet. Es ist somit davon auszugehen, dass ein Spitzenpolitiker dieser Tage nicht über viele Optionen verfügt, denn er übernimmt eine Situation, die von seinen Vorgängern erschaffen wurde. Trotz alledem darauf zu hoffen, dass es einen anderen Politiker geben könnte, mit dem dann alles wieder gut wird, mutet ziemlich infantil an. 

Dass ein Großteil der Medien von Zuwendungen abhängig ist, dürfte ebenfalls leicht nachzuvollziehen sein, denn der gewöhnliche Bürger zahlt nichts für den Content der MSM. Abhängig davon, von wem (Regierung, Philanthrop, Konzern etc.) ein Medium am Leben gehalten wird, gestalten sich auch dessen Inhalte. Und wenn angewiesen wird, dass ein Politiker medial hingerichtet werden soll, dann bedient die Maschinerie das Thema. Man beobachte einfach einmal, dass Politiker der Kartell-Parteien völlig anders behandelt werden als solche jenseits der „Brandmauer“. Und der Leser, der solche Auftragsarbeiten kostenlos liest, ist der Konsument, für dessen Indoktrination die Finanziers der Verlage gerne zahlen. Mittlerweile kann durch die Herrschaft über die Medien und die systematische Vergiftung der Körper und Geister der Population die öffentliche Meinung gesteuert werden. Die überwiegende Zahl der Deutschen scheint nicht mehr klar denken zu können.

Wer sich das aktuelle Geschehen in der deutschen Politik mit klarem Verstand ansieht, kommt nicht umhin, eine Fernsteuerung der handelnden Politiker in Betracht zu ziehen. Aber was soll daran verwundern? Sind es deshalb „böse Menschen“? Sind die in „Forschungslaboren“ arbeitenden Quäler von „Versuchstieren“ böse Menschen? Sind der Schlächter, der Folterer und der Henker böse Menschen? Oder der knüppelnde Polizist? Es handelt sich zunächst einmal um Personen, die einen Vorteil dadurch haben, Ihrer Tätigkeit nachzugehen. Sie sind integrale Bestandteile eines Belohnungssystems, welches von oben nach unten Anweisungen gibt. Und wenn diese Anweisungen nicht befolgt werden, führt dies für den Befehlsverweigerer zu Konsequenzen.

Der klare Verstand

Es ist nun eine spannende Frage, warum so viele Menschen sich solch eine Behandlung gefallen lassen? Nun, das ist relativ einfach, denn das angepasste Verhalten der Vielen ist nichts anderes als ein Züchtungserfolg der Wenigen.

Die Psyche der Menschen ist ebenso akribisch erforscht worden wie deren Körperfunktionen. Würden die Menschen von den wirklich Mächtigen geliebt, dann würde genau gewusst, wie sie zu behandeln und mit ihren jeweiligen Bedürfnissen zu versorgen sind. Stattdessen werden die Menschen aber als eine Einnahmequelle betrachtet. Dies manifestiert sich exemplarisch in folgenden Bereichen:

1. Das Gesundheitssystem verdient nichts am gesunden Menschen, sondern nur am (dauerhaft) kranken, der um Schmerzlinderung bettelt. Bereits als Baby werden Menschen geimpft, was die jeweilige Gesundheit (mit Verweis auf die Werke von Anita Petek-Dimmer u. a.) nachhaltig negativ beeinflusst. Wer hat denn heute keine Krankheiten? Die „Experten“ des Gesundheitssystems verteufeln Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Lithium, die Sonne, Natur etc. und empfehlen stattdessen Präparate, die man patentieren konnte und mit denen die Hersteller viel Geld verdienen. Die Präparate heilen selten, sondern lindern bestenfalls zuvor künstlich erzeugte Leiden, und müssen oftmals dauerhaft eingenommen werden. Was ist aus den nicht Geimpften geworden, die alle sterben sollten? Sind diese nicht die einzigen Gesunden dieser Tage? Ist nicht jeder Geimpfte entweder permanent krank oder bereits tot? Abgesehen von denen, welche das Glück hatten, „Sonderchargen“ mit Kochsalz zu erhalten. \ \ Wem gehören die wesentlichen Player im Gesundheitswesen zu einem erheblichen Teil? Die Vermögensverwalter der wirklich Mächtigen.
2. Ähnlich gestaltet es sich bei der Ernährungsindustrie. Die von dort aus verabreichten Produkte sind die Ursachen für den Gesundheitszustand der deutschen Population. Das ist aber auch irgendwie logisch, denn wer sich nicht falsch ernährt und gesund bleibt, wird kein Kunde des Gesundheitswesens. \ \ Die Besitzverhältnisse in der Ernährungsindustrie ähneln denen im Gesundheitswesen, sodass am gleichen Kunden gearbeitet und verdient wird.
3. Die Aufzählung konnte nun über die meisten Branchen, in denen mit dem Elend der Menschen viel verdient werden kann, fortgesetzt werden. Waffen (BlackRock erhöhte beispielsweise seine Anteile an der Rheinmetall AG im Juni 2024 auf 5,25 Prozent. Der US-Vermögensverwalter ist damit der zweitgrößte Anteilseigner nach der französischen Großbank Société Générale.), Energie, Umwelt, Technologie, IT, Software, KI, Handel etc.

Wie genau Chemtrails und Technologien wie 5G auf den Menschen und die Tiere wirken, ist ebenfalls umstritten. Aber ist es nicht seltsam, wie krank, empathielos, antriebslos und aggressiv viele Menschen heute sind? Was genau verabreicht man der Berliner Polizei, damit diese ihre Prügelorgien auf den Rücken und in den Gesichtern der Menschen wahrnehmen, die friedlich ihre Demonstrationsrechte wahrnehmen? Und was erhalten die ganzen zugereisten „Fachkräfte“, die mit Ihren Autos in Menschenmengen rasen oder auch Kinder und Erwachsene niedermessern?

Das Titelbild dieses Beitrags zeigt einige Gebilde, welche regelmäßig bei Obduktionen von Geimpften in deren Blutgefäßen gefunden werden. Wie genau wirken diese kleinen Monster? Können wir Menschen ihr Unverständnis und ihr Nicht-Aufwachen vorwerfen, wenn wir erkennen, dass diese Menschen maximal vergiftet wurden? Oder sollten einfach Lösungen für die Probleme dieser Zeit auch ohne den Einbezug derer gefunden werden, die offenbar nicht mehr Herr ihrer Sinne sind?

Die Ziele der wirklich Mächtigen

Wer sich entsprechende Videosequenzen der Bilderberger, des WEF und anderen „Überorganisationen“ ansieht, der erkennt schnell das Muster:

• Reduzierung der Weltpopulation um ca. 80 Prozent
• Zusammenbruch der Wirtschaft, damit diese von den Konzernen übernommen werden kann.
• Zusammenbruch der öffentlichen Ordnung, um eine totale Entwaffnung und eine totale Überwachung durchsetzen zu können. 
• Zusammenbruch der Regierungen, damit die Weltregierung übernehmen kann.

Es ist zu überdenken, ob die Weltregierung tatsächlich das für die Vielen beste Organisationssystem ist, oder ob die dezentrale Eigenorganisation der jeweils lokalen Bevölkerung nicht doch die bessere Option darstellt. Baustellen würden nicht nur begonnen, sondern auch schnell abgearbeitet. Jede Region könnte bestimmen, ob sie sich mit Chemtrails und anderen Substanzen besprühen lassen möchte. Und die Probleme in Barcelona könnte die Menschen dort viel besser lösen als irgendwelche wirklich Mächtigen in ihren Elfenbeintürmen. Die lokale Wirtschaft könnte wieder zurückkommen und mit dieser die Eigenständigkeit. Denn die den wirklich Mächtigen über ihre Vermögensverwalter gehörenden Großkonzerne haben offensichtlich nicht das Wohl der Bevölkerung im Fokus, sondern eher deren Ausbeutung.

Das Aussteigen aus dem System ist die wahre Herkulesaufgabe und es bedarf sicher Mut und Klugheit, sich dieser zu stellen. Die Politiker, die unverändert die Narrative der wirklich Mächtigen bedienen, sind hierfür denkbar ungeeignet, denn sie verfolgen kein Lebensmodell, welches sich von Liebe und Mitgefühl geleitet in den Dienst der Gesamtheit von Menschen, Tieren und Natur stellt.

Schauen Sie einmal genau hin, denken Sie nach und fühlen Sie mit.

Was tun?

Jedes System funktioniert nur so lange, wie es unterstützt wird. Somit stellt sich die Frage, wie viele Menschen das System ignorieren müssen, damit es kollabiert, und auf welche Weise dieses Ignorieren durchzuführen ist? Merkbar ist, dass die große Masse der Verwaltungsangestellten krank und oder unmotiviert und somit nicht wirksam ist. Würden die entsprechenden Stellen massiv belastet und parallel hierzu keine Einnahmen mehr realisieren, wäre ein Kollaps nah. Die Prügelpolizisten aus Berlin können nicht überall sein und normale Polizisten arbeiten nicht gegen unbescholtene Bürger, sondern sorgen sich selbst um ihre Zukunft. Gewalt ist sicher keine Lösung, und sicher auch nicht erforderlich. 

Wie eine gerechte Verwaltungsform aufgebaut werden muss? Einfach so, wie sie in den hiesigen Gesetzen beschrieben steht. Aber eine solche Organisationsform muss frei sein von Blockparteien und korrupten Politikern und weisungsgebundenen Richtern etc. Stattdessen werden Menschen benötigt, welche die Menschen lieben und ihnen nicht schaden wollen. Außerdem sollten diese Führungspersonen auch wirklich etwas können, und nicht nur „Politiker“ ohne weitere Berufserfahrungen sein.

---

Ludwig F. Badenhagen (Pseudonym, Name ist der Redaktion bekannt).

Der Autor hat deutsche Wurzeln und betrachtet das Geschehen in Deutschland und Europa aus seiner Wahlheimat Südafrika. Seine Informationen bezieht er aus verlässlichen Quellen und insbesondere von Menschen, die als „Verschwörungstheoretiker“, „Nazi“, „Antisemit“ sowie mit weiteren Kampfbegriffen der dortigen Systemakteure wie Politiker und „Journalisten“ diffamiert werden. Solche Diffamierungen sind für ihn ein Prädikatsmerkmal. Er ist international agierender Manager mit einem globalen Netzwerk und verfügt hierdurch über tiefe Einblicke in Konzerne und Politik.

---

Not yet on Nostr and want the full experience? Easy onboarding via Start.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Es ist besser, ein Licht zu entzünden, als auf die Dunkelheit zu schimpfen. Konfuzius

Die Bemühungen um Aufarbeitung der sogenannten Corona-Pandemie, um Aufklärung der Hintergründe, Benennung von Verantwortlichkeiten und das Ziehen von Konsequenzen sind durchaus nicht eingeschlafen. Das Interesse daran ist unter den gegebenen Umständen vielleicht nicht sonderlich groß, aber es ist vorhanden.

Der sächsische Landtag hat gestern die Einsetzung eines Untersuchungsausschusses zur Corona-Politik beschlossen. In einer Sondersitzung erhielt ein entsprechender Antrag der AfD-Fraktion die ausreichende Zustimmung, auch von einigen Abgeordneten des BSW.

In den Niederlanden wird Bill Gates vor Gericht erscheinen müssen. Sieben durch die Covid-«Impfstoffe» geschädigte Personen hatten Klage eingereicht. Sie werfen unter anderem Gates, Pfizer-Chef Bourla und dem niederländischen Staat vor, sie hätten gewusst, dass diese Präparate weder sicher noch wirksam sind.

Mit den mRNA-«Impfstoffen» von Pfizer/BioNTech befasst sich auch ein neues Buch. Darin werden die Erkenntnisse von Ärzten und Wissenschaftlern aus der Analyse interner Dokumente über die klinischen Studien der Covid-Injektion präsentiert. Es handelt sich um jene in den USA freigeklagten Papiere, die die Arzneimittelbehörde (Food and Drug Administration, FDA) 75 Jahre unter Verschluss halten wollte.

Ebenfalls Wissenschaftler und Ärzte, aber auch andere Experten organisieren als Verbundnetzwerk Corona-Solution kostenfreie Online-Konferenzen. Ihr Ziel ist es, «wissenschaftlich, demokratisch und friedlich» über Impfstoffe und Behandlungsprotokolle gegen SARS-CoV-2 aufzuklären und die Diskriminierung von Ungeimpften zu stoppen. Gestern fand eine weitere Konferenz statt. Ihr Thema: «Corona und modRNA: Von Toten, Lebenden und Physik lernen».

Aufgrund des Digital Services Acts (DSA) der Europäischen Union sei das Risiko groß, dass ihre Arbeit als «Fake-News» bezeichnet würde, so das Netzwerk. Staatlich unerwünschte wissenschaftliche Aufklärung müsse sich passende Kanäle zur Veröffentlichung suchen. Ihre Live-Streams seien deshalb zum Beispiel nicht auf YouTube zu finden.

Der vielfältige Einsatz für Aufklärung und Aufarbeitung wird sich nicht stummschalten lassen. Nicht einmal der Zensurmeister der EU, Deutschland, wird so etwas erreichen. Die frisch aktivierten «Trusted Flagger» dürften allerdings künftige Siege beim «Denunzianten-Wettbewerb» im Kontext des DSA zusätzlich absichern.

Wo sind die Grenzen der Meinungsfreiheit? Sicher gibt es sie. Aber die ideologische Gleichstellung von illegalen mit unerwünschten Äußerungen verfolgt offensichtlich eher das Ziel, ein derart elementares demokratisches Grundrecht möglichst weitgehend auszuhebeln. Vorwürfe wie «Hassrede», «Delegitimierung des Staates» oder «Volksverhetzung» werden heute inflationär verwendet, um Systemkritik zu unterbinden. Gegen solche Bestrebungen gilt es, sich zu wehren.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ bd32f268:22b33966

O que torna um homem um modelo a ser seguido ? Que qualidades pode apresentar um homem que demonstram as suas aspirações ?

Nos dias que correm a nobreza de carácter não parece ser o factor chave nas figuras que são mais celebradas pelo mundo inteiro. A nossa sociedade dá mais atenção ao indigente moral célebre pelas sacadas narcísicas do que ao guerreiro, ao santo, ao patriarca que dedicaram a sua vida a um propósito e aspirações manifestamente superiores.

É frequente vermos ser objeto de atenção o homem vaidoso, efeminado, narcísico e corrupto até. O facto de serem estas as referências que temos na cultura moderna diz muito da sociedade em que vivemos. É importante notar que nós somos como espelhos que refletem aquilo que reverenciamos, isto é, vamo-nos tornando mais parecidos com o objeto da nossa admiração. É nosso instinto tentar imitar aquilo que admiramos, portanto isto é um grave problema quando admiramos as coisas erradas.

Pode parecer contraintuitivo mas por vezes as coisas mais admiráveis na vida são na verdade as mais simples. Prestemos atenção ao que nos diz o auto G.K Chesterton a este propósito.

Há algo de magnificamente sóbrio no pai de família que não procura atenção e se dedica exclusivamente ao seu dever. Esta figura é, por hora, demonizada tantas e tantas vezes, sendo frequentemente apresentado como sendo o mandatário de uma cultura misógina e machista.

Estou convencido que enquanto a figura de pai de família não for devidamente reabilitada, dificilmente teremos um ressurgimento de famílias propriamente ordenadas. É importante notar aqui um ponto, este pai de família deve ser alguém capaz de colocar os interesses da família primeiro que os seus interesses individuais. Deve ser alguém que não viva no relativismo moral, mas sim um homem de fé, algo que está em vias de extinção no ocidente e em particular em Portugal. Este homem deve ser o porto de abrigo para a sua família, alguém disposto a travar o bom combate, e será sempre portanto um defensor acérrimo da verdade. Não será naturalmente alguém obcecado com a sua própria imagem, mas sim um homem desejavelmente forte quer em termos físicos, tendo zelo na forma como se exercita, quer em termos mentais, sendo uma pessoa capaz mas com autocontrolo. Deve também ser um homem com uma vida intelectual, isto é, alguém que nutre interesse pelo legado que lhe foi confiado e procura aprender sobre o mesmo. Muitos homens antes de si fizeram sacrifícios para que o homem da atualidade usufrua dos mais variados benefícios.

A atualidade oferece-nos por vezes a promoção de algumas destas facetas, algo que seria desejável e bom, contudo com algumas distorções. Há homens fortes, capazes de feitos atléticos ímpares, que se cultivam nesse domínio mas pelas razões erradas. Por vezes o imperativo moral que os guia é a vaidade, sendo que esse trabalho físico que fazem conspira para consolidar o seu narcisismo.

Outros há com uma determinação inabalável, algo louvável quando usada para os fins próprios. Esta determinação não deve ser usada para a procura de grandes riquezas como um fim em si mesmas, nem como um isco usado para o oportunismo sexual com as mulheres.

Poderíamos também dar como exemplo, homens com uma prodigiosa inteligência mas que, não a tendo devidamente orientada, a usam para manipular e corromper o discurso público não olhando a meios para atingir os fins.

Um factor chave que dificulta a formação de mais homens com este tipo de espinha dorsal é uma certa apropriação da linguagem que tem existido no discurso público que procura rotular quem ousa desafiar este status quo. Termos como “negacionista”, “radical”, “fascista”, “fundamentalista”, “ultranacionalista” entre outros, são constantemente atirados remetendo o homem para uma falsa conclusão:

“ Tu não podes defender nada, nem ter certeza de nada”.

Outra ferramenta importante nesta desconstrução é o apelo ao vício. Sendo através da pornografia, da comida ultra-processada ou de uma vida de conforto , há claramente um incentivo ao hedonismo e à autoindulgência. Procura-se alimentar cada vez mais esta busca do prazer com o fim último, e por conseguinte a coragem, o sacrifício e o trabalho, como pedras angulares da construção do carácter do homem ficam para segundo plano.

O cavalheirismo ficou-se apenas pelas aparências. Por vezes, há um verniz de algumas das propriedades que descrevi em várias situações, contudo não passa de uma máscara. É fácil segurar uma porta para uma senhora e dizer “com licença”, “por favor”, para se mostrar alguém educado quando o custo para o fazer é mínimo. Difícil é estar disposto a fazer sacríficos em que nos doamos inteiramente pelos outros, no entanto é isso que é pedido ao homem. Doando-se encontrará o seu verdadeiro propósito.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum dritten Geburtstag, liebe Denk Bar! Wieso zum dritten? Das war doch 2022 und jetzt sind wir im Jahr 2024, oder? Ja, das ist schon richtig, aber bei Geburtstagen erinnere ich mich immer auch an meinen Vater, und der behauptete oft, der erste sei ja schließlich der Tag der Geburt selber und den müsse man natürlich mitzählen. Wo er recht hat, hat er nunmal recht. Konsequenterweise wird also heute dieser Blog an seinem dritten Geburtstag zwei Jahre alt.

Das ist ein Grund zum Feiern, wie ich finde. Einerseits ganz einfach, weil es dafür gar nicht genug Gründe geben kann. «Das Leben sind zwei Tage», lautet ein gängiger Ausdruck hier in Andalusien. In der Tat könnte es so sein, auch wenn wir uns im Alltag oft genug von der Routine vereinnahmen lassen.

Seit dem Start der Denk Bar vor zwei Jahren ist unglaublich viel passiert. Ebenso wie die zweieinhalb Jahre davor, und all jenes war letztlich auch der Auslöser dafür, dass ich begann, öffentlich zu schreiben. Damals notierte ich:

«Seit einigen Jahren erscheint unser öffentliches Umfeld immer fragwürdiger, widersprüchlicher und manchmal schier unglaublich - jede Menge Anlass für eigene Recherchen und Gedanken, ganz einfach mit einer Portion gesundem Menschenverstand.»

Wir erleben den sogenannten «großen Umbruch», einen globalen Coup, den skrupellose Egoisten clever eingefädelt haben und seit ein paar Jahren knallhart – aber nett verpackt – durchziehen, um buchstäblich alles nach ihrem Gusto umzukrempeln. Die Gelegenheit ist ja angeblich günstig und muss genutzt werden.

Nie hätte ich mir träumen lassen, dass ich so etwas jemals miterleben müsste. Die Bosheit, mit der ganz offensichtlich gegen die eigene Bevölkerung gearbeitet wird, war früher für mich unvorstellbar. Mein (Rest-) Vertrauen in alle möglichen Bereiche wie Politik, Wissenschaft, Justiz, Medien oder Kirche ist praktisch komplett zerstört. Einen «inneren Totalschaden» hatte ich mal für unsere Gesellschaften diagnostiziert.

Was mich vielleicht am meisten erschreckt, ist zum einen das Niveau der Gleichschaltung, das weltweit erreicht werden konnte, und zum anderen die praktisch totale Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Haben wir das tatsächlich mit uns machen lassen?? Unfassbar! Aber das Werkzeug «Angst» ist sehr mächtig und funktioniert bis heute.

Zum Glück passieren auch positive Dinge und neue Perspektiven öffnen sich. Für viele Menschen waren und sind die Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre ein Augenöffner. Sie sehen «Querdenken» als das, was es ist: eine Tugend.

Auch die immer ernsteren Zensurbemühungen sind letztlich nur ein Zeichen der Schwäche, wo Argumente fehlen. Sie werden nicht verhindern, dass wir unsere Meinung äußern, unbequeme Fragen stellen und dass die Wahrheit peu à peu ans Licht kommt. Es gibt immer Mittel und Wege, auch für uns.

---

Danke, dass du diesen Weg mit mir weitergehst!

@ ed84ce10:cccf4c2a

The Evolution of Hackathons: From Offline to Online, Powering Frontier Innovation Worldwide

Throughout the history of open-source platform technology, hackathons have been the launchpads for innovation—fueling breakthroughs, incubating the next generation of startups, and serving as the proving ground for builders. Over the past decade, DoraHacks has led the charge, driving the hacker movement and open-source revolution. We didn’t just witness the evolution of hackathons—we architected it.

The Online Revolution of Hackathons

Before 2020, hackathons were largely stuck in the physical world—you had to be in the room to participate. The idea of a fully online, global hackathon was a pipe dream. Then, DoraHacks.io changed everything. Suddenly, a developer in Africa could win funding from a hackathon hosted by a Silicon Valley company. Geographic barriers collapsed. Today, over 95% of hackathons happen online.

The Infrastructure Revolution: Making Hackathons 10x More Effective

DoraHacks relentlessly iterated on the hackathon model. We built BUIDL pages for real-time project showcases, a world-class hackathon organizer dashboard, MACI-powered decentralized privacy governance, and Grant DAOs that provide ongoing funding. The result? DoraHacks became the ultimate launchpad for hackers and early-stage builders.

The Ecosystem Revolution: Supercharging Open Innovation

DoraHacks became the backbone of Web3 innovation—from Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain to the next wave of blockchains like Aptos, Cosmos, Injective, TON, and Sonic. Since 2023, hackathons have expanded beyond crypto—quantum computing, commercial space tech, and AI-driven innovations are now being built on DoraHacks.

Rolling Hackathons and Uninterrupted BUIDLing - the New Standard for Ecosystem Growth

BUIDLs can be created spontaneously at any time. Hosting Hackathons as short-term events held only once or twice a year is not conducive to attracting outstanding Hackers and high-quality projects to join the ecosystem and drive innovation in the long term. To remediate this, Hackathons should be continuous and uninterrupted, serving as a long-term driving force within the developer ecosystem.

Historically, the high organizational costs and substantial resource investments associated with frequent Hackathons meant that most emerging ecosystems couldn't afford to host them regularly. As a result, Hackathons became rare, annual spectacles, and for some projects, an unaffordable luxury. This model severely restricted developers' chances to participate and hindered the ecosystem's ability to innovate consistently. Let's imagine what would happen if an ecosystem held 12 or more Hackathons each year?

• Developers have a clear loyalty incentive: They would know that the ecosystem is committed to supporting and funding excellent developers and projects continuously, which would encourage them to make long-term investments and contribute regularly.
• Missing out is no longer an issue: Even if a developer couldn't attend a particular Hackathon, there would be another one soon, increasing accessibility.
• Accelerated ecosystem innovation: Frequent Hackathons would accelerate ecosystem innovation. Developers would be constantly pushed to explore new directions, significantly boosting the growth rate of the technological ecosystem.

Previously, due to the limitations of costs and organizational difficulties, frequent Hackathons were almost unthinkable. Only ecosystems with sufficient funds like Google and Amazon could afford rolling Hackathons. But now, DoraHacks' upcoming BUIDL AI platform tools are set to change the game. These tools make it possible to organize 12 Hackathons in a year, and even go a step further by enabling the simultaneous hosting of multiple differently-themed Hackathons. This will help emerging ecosystems effectively incentivise developers, expand their technological influence, and increase the number of exceptional BUIDLs (projects) in their ecosystems.

The majority of BUIDLs come about continuously and spontaneously and should be recognized and incentivized promptly, rather than having to wait for the single annual Hackathon.

As the saying goes, "He who wins over developers wins the world." In the highly competitive Web3 space, Hackathons are an effective means of attracting developers, and rolling Hackathons are the best way to achieve this. For an ecosystem to stay competitive, it must ensure that developers always have opportunities to engage and create.

The AI Era of Hackathons: A 10x Opportunity, A 10x Challenge

AI Turns Everyone Into a Hacker

AI has obliterated repetitive work. Building is faster than ever. Anyone, from anywhere, can hack, ship, and scale with AI tools that accelerate ideation, development, and execution. The potential of hackathons in this AI-powered era is 10x bigger than ever before.

But Hackathon Infrastructure Is Stuck in the Past

Despite this massive opportunity, organizing hackathons remains painfully inefficient:

• Most organizations don’t know how to run hackathons effectively.
• Even those who do lack time and resources to do it frequently.
• Ecosystem builders who have the resources can only host one hackathon per year.

The result?

• Hackathons are underutilized, slowing innovation.
• Ecosystem growth is bottlenecked by developer relations (DevRel) teams.
• Many ecosystems fail to maximize the potential of hackathons.
• Low-frequency hackathons waste hacker potential—builders sit idle when they could be shipping.

BUIDL AI: Unlocking the Infinite Potential of Hackathons

We refuse to let inefficiency limit innovation. BUIDL AI is our answer.

DoraHacks is launching BUIDL AI, the AI-powered Hackathon Co-Pilot that automates, scales, and supercharges hackathon organization.

BUIDL AI: The Game-Changing Features

1. Edit and Launch: One-Click Hackathon Deployment

Organizers can now launch a hackathon in minutes by filling in basic details (prizes, themes, workshops, judges, etc.). No tedious manual setup.

2. BUIDL Review: Submission Evaluation (10x Faster)

Traditional hackathons get hundreds of submissions—judging takes hundreds of hours. BUIDL AI changes the game. It automatically scores projects based on completeness, originality, and theme relevance—filtering out low-quality submissions 10x faster than before.

3. Automated Marketing: Instant Hackathon Reports

After the hackathon ends, BUIDL AI auto-generates a full post-event report—highlighting winners, standout projects, and key takeaways—boosting visibility and impact.

4. Seamless Interaction: Smarter Collaboration, No Bottlenecks

BUIDL AI will interact with hackathon organizers to keep organizers in sync, alerting them about new submissions, pending approvals, and participant inquiries in real time. No more dropped balls.

5. Multi-Hackathon Management: Scaling Innovation Without Limits

Before BUIDL AI, running multiple hackathons at once was a logistical nightmare. Now, ecosystem builders can launch and manage multiple hackathons seamlessly, boosting innovation frequency exponentially

The full BUIDL AI Beta version will release on April 15th, but multiple free BUIDL AI features have already been available on DoraHacks.io!

BUIDL AI: The Next Great Leap in Open Innovation

Hackathons aren’t just competitions. They are the birthplace of the next trillion-dollar innovations.

With BUIDL AI, hackathons enter a new era—automated, intelligent, and infinitely scalable. This means more hackers, more builders, and more breakthrough projects than ever before.

At DoraHacks, we believe in an open, hacker-driven future. BUIDL AI is the rocket fuel for that future.

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: René Boyke, Rechtsanwalt. Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Sie finden alle Texte der Friedenstaube und weitere Texte zum Thema Frieden hier.

---

Frieden. Ein Begriff den jeder kennt, oder? Kennen schon. Aber was bedeutet er? Die Abwesenheit von Gewalt und Konflikten? Ja, auch, wenn man Frieden seinem Widerpart, dem Krieg, gegenüberstellt. Demnach müsste immer dann Frieden herrschen, wenn es keinen Krieg gibt. So richtig überzeugt das nicht, denn Frieden entsteht nicht aus heiterem Himmel. Er erfordert Verhandlungen, Toleranz und ganz allgemein die Förderung von Gerechtigkeit. Doch was verstehen wir unter Gerechtigkeit? Was unter Toleranz? Und wann verhandeln wir wirklich und ehrlich?

Das Grundgesetz als Friedensauftrag

Der Begriff des Friedens ist also unscharf und von weiteren unscharfen Begriffen abhängig. Und doch ist er Gegenstand des Recht z.B. des Grundgesetzes (GG):

• Nach der Präambel des GG verpflichtet sich das Deutsche Volk „dem Frieden der Welt zu dienen.“
• In Art. 1 Abs. 2 GG bekennt sich das Deutsche Volk zu den Menschenrechten als Grundlage des Friedens in der Welt.
• Art. 26 Abs. 1 GG verbietet Handlungen, die geeignet sind und in der Absicht vorgenommen werden, „das friedliche Zusammenleben der Völker zu stören.“

Der Frieden ist also unzweifelhaft Gegenstand des deutschen Rechts – und natürlich auch des Völkerrechts. Bereits in Art. 1 Ziff. 1 der VN-Charta ist zu lesen, dass ein gesetztes Ziel der Vereinten Nationen die Wahrung des Weltfriedens ist und dass sie „Bedrohungen des Friedens verhüten und beseitigen“ will. Es ist also festzustellen: Der Begriff des Friedens ist unscharf und damit unklar, aber dennoch ist er Teil des deutschen Rechts und auch des internationalen Völkerrechts. Bei dieser Sachlage ist Streit vorprogrammiert. Wenn nicht klar ist, was Frieden eigentlich ist, aber von seinem Vorliegen oder seiner Abwesenheit rechtliche Konsequenzen abhängen, dann wird dies selbst zu Auseinandersetzungen führen.

So meinen die einen, einen anderen Staat präventiv mit Waffengewalt anzugreifen, fördere den „Frieden“ – wir erinnern uns an den Präventivschlag der USA gegen den Irak 2003. Andere sehen darin nichts anderes als einen rechtswidrigen Angriffskrieg. Rechtliche Konsequenzen hatte dieser Angriffskrieg für die USA nicht. Blicken wir auf die Bewertung des Ukrainekriegs im Jahr 2022, der seitens 1/3 Russlands ebenfalls einen Präventivkrieg darstellt, ist festzustellen, dass es auch hier wieder geteilte Lager gibt.

---

JETZT ABONNIEREN:

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel in Ihr Postfach, vorerst für alle kostenfrei, wir starten gänzlich ohne Paywall. (Die Bezahlabos fangen erst zu laufen an, wenn ein Monetarisierungskonzept für die Inhalte steht).

---

Schon jetzt können Sie uns unterstützen:

• Für 50 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo der Friedenstaube.
• Für 120 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo und ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Für 500 CHF/EURO werden Sie Förderer und bekommen ein lebenslanges Abo sowie ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Ab 1000 CHF werden Sie Genossenschafter der Friedenstaube mit Stimmrecht (und bekommen lebenslanges Abo, T-Shirt/Hoodie).

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

Wenn Sie auf anderem Wege beitragen wollen, schreiben Sie die Friedenstaube an: milosz@pareto.space oder kontakt@idw-europe.org.

---

Die einen sehen das Verhaltens Russland als gerechtfertigt an, die anderen als völkerrechtswidrig. Interessanterweise halten viele, die den Angriffs der USA auf den Irak für gerechtfertigt hielten, den Angriff Russlands auf die Ukraine nicht für gerechtfertigt. Wie kann das sein? Werden hier unterschiedliche Kriterien angelegt? Warum gefährdet der Angriff der USA – die im Übrigen die Gründe für die Bedrohung des Iraks nachweislich erfunden und damit gelogen haben – angeblich nicht den Frieden, obwohl es ja nachweislich zum Krieg kam? Und warum soll das Verhalten Russlands den Frieden gefährden? Erscheint diese unterschiedliche Bewertung nicht völlig willkürlich?

Welche Begriffe für Frieden werden hier zugrunde gelegt? Der 2019 verstorbene ehemalige Richter am Bundesverwaltungsvewaltungsgericht, Dr. Dieter Deiseroth, hat in einem Aufsatz 2010 dargelegt, dass völlig unklar ist, was unter dem Begriff des Friedens zu verstehen ist. Deiseroth schrieb: „Für die Kompetenzen des UN-Sicherheitsrates ist damit der Friedensbegriff von\ entscheidender Bedeutung. Er ist in der UN-Charta nicht definiert. Das macht\ Probleme.“ Und: „Je weiter der Friedensbegriff ausgelegt wird, umso weiter gehen\ die Kompetenzen des UN-Sicherheitsrates (...).“

Ein Definitionsvakuum und ein Auftrag

Umfasst Frieden im rechtlichen Kontext lediglich die Abwesenheit zwischenstaatlicher bewaffneter Konflikte? Was ist mit Piraterie? Was mit Terrorakten? Raubbau an der Natur? Wer Frieden nicht definieren kann, der kann auch nicht sagen, wann er bedroht ist. Wenn man etwas bewahren will, dann sollte man doch wissen, was dieses Etwas ist, was man zu bewahren vorgibt, oder? Weiß man dies nicht, lässt sich selbst ein Angriff auf ein anderes Land als friedenssichernde Maßnahme verkaufen, während der Angriff eines anderen Landes plötzlich als rechtswidriger Friedensbruch gilt.

Der Willkür ist Tür und Tor geöffnet. Dann bestimmt der Stärkere bzw. dessen Propaganda, was Recht ist und was Unrecht. Das jedoch hat mit Recht nichts zu tun, bzw. sollte mit Recht nichts zu tun haben, denn es gehört leider auch zur Realität des Rechts, dass es der absolute Regelfall ist, dass der Stärkere seine einzelfallbezogene Definitionshoheit und damit sein „Recht“ durchsetzt und der Schwächere – mag er noch so gute Argumente haben – den Kürzeren zieht.

Doch diesem Sein folgt denklogisch kein Sollen. Dieser systemische Rechtsmissbrauch ist kein Argument dafür, diesen Zustand beizubehalten und ihn nicht anzuprangern. Er ist vielmehr Argument dafür, diesen Zustand offenzulegen, zu kritisieren und auf seine Beseitigung hinzuwirken.

Wie kann Frieden nun also definiert werden? So definiert, dass eben nicht eine Autorität seine eigene Definitionsmacht missbraucht? Meines Erachtens geht dies nur im gegenseitigen ehrlichen Austausch der Parteien. Der Frieden ist kein allgemein definierbarer Zustand, schon gar nicht ist er ein losgelöst von anderen Lebensbereichen existierender normativer Begriff. Die rechtliche Dimension des Friedensbegriffs kann nicht für sich allein stehen, sondern ist in eine Lebenswirklichkeit eingebettet, die bei jedem einzelnen in sich selbst als innerer Frieden beginnt – dieser Ursprung ist auch der Ursprung der rechtlichen Dimension des Friedensbegriffs.

Oder anders formuliert: Ohne inneren Frieden kein äußerer Frieden.

---

René Boyke ist Rechtsanwalt mit Schwerpunkt Asylrecht. Er hat sieben Jahre im Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge gearbeitet und betreibt die Seite covid-justiz.de auf der er Gerichtsentscheidungen aus der Coronazeit kommentiert.

---

Sie sind noch nicht auf Nostr and wollen die volle Erfahrung machen (liken, kommentieren, zappen etc.)? Erstellen Sie sich einen Account auf Start. Weitere Onboarding-Leitfäden gibt es im Pareto-Wiki.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ein Lämmchen löschte an einem Bache seinen Durst. Fern von ihm, aber näher der Quelle, tat ein Wolf das gleiche. Kaum erblickte er das Lämmchen, so schrie er:

"Warum trübst du mir das Wasser, das ich trinken will?"

"Wie wäre das möglich", erwiderte schüchtern das Lämmchen, "ich stehe hier unten und du so weit oben; das Wasser fließt ja von dir zu mir; glaube mir, es kam mir nie in den Sinn, dir etwas Böses zu tun!"

"Ei, sieh doch! Du machst es gerade, wie dein Vater vor sechs Monaten; ich erinnere mich noch sehr wohl, daß auch du dabei warst, aber glücklich entkamst, als ich ihm für sein Schmähen das Fell abzog!"

"Ach, Herr!" flehte das zitternde Lämmchen, "ich bin ja erst vier Wochen alt und kannte meinen Vater gar nicht, so lange ist er schon tot; wie soll ich denn für ihn büßen."

"Du Unverschämter!" so endigt der Wolf mit erheuchelter Wut, indem er die Zähne fletschte. "Tot oder nicht tot, weiß ich doch, daß euer ganzes Geschlecht mich hasset, und dafür muß ich mich rächen."

Ohne weitere Umstände zu machen, zerriß er das Lämmchen und verschlang es.

Das Gewissen regt sich selbst bei dem größten Bösewichte; er sucht doch nach Vorwand, um dasselbe damit bei Begehung seiner Schlechtigkeiten zu beschwichtigen.

Quelle: https://eden.one/fabeln-aesop-das-lamm-und-der-wolf

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Listen the Podcast:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7lJWc1zaqA9CNhB8coJXaL?si=4147bca317624d34

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/YEGnlBLZhvuj96GSpuk9

Abstract

This paper examines a hypothetical scenario in which the United States, under Trump’s leadership, withdraws from NATO and reduces its support for Europe, thereby enabling a Russian conquest of Ukraine and the subsequent expansion of Moscow’s influence over Eurasia, while the US consolidates its dominance over South America. Drawing on classical geopolitical theories—specifically those of Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Rudolf Kjellén, and Friedrich Ratzel—the study analyzes how these frameworks can elucidate the evolving power dynamics and territorial ambitions in a reconfigured global order. The discussion highlights Mackinder’s notion of the Eurasian Heartland and its strategic importance, Mahan’s emphasis on maritime power and control of strategic routes, Kjellén’s view of the state as an expanding organism, and Ratzel’s concept of Lebensraum as a justification for territorial expansion. The paper also explores contemporary developments, such as the US–Ukraine economic agreement and Trump’s overt territorial ambitions involving Greenland and Canada, in light of these theories. By juxtaposing traditional geopolitical concepts with current international relations, the study aims to shed light on the potential implications of such shifts for regional stability, global security, and the balance of power, particularly in relation to emerging neocolonial practices in Latin America.

Introduction

In recent years, the geopolitical dynamics involving the United States, Russia, and Ukraine have sparked analyses from different theoretical perspectives. This paper examines recent events – presupposing a scenario in which Donald Trump withdraws the US from NATO and reduces its support for Europe, allowing a Russian conquest of Ukraine and the expansion of Moscow’s influence over Eurasia, while the US consolidates its dominance over South America – in light of classical geopolitical theories. The ideas of Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Rudolf Kjellén, and Friedrich Ratzel are used as reference points. The proposal is to impartially evaluate how each theory can elucidate the developments of this hypothetical scenario, relating Russian territorial expansion in Eurasia to the strategic retreat of the US to the Western Hemisphere.

Initially, we will outline Mackinder’s conception of the Heartland (the central Eurasian territory) and the crucial role of Eastern Europe and Ukraine in the quest for global dominance. Next, we will discuss Mahan’s ideas regarding maritime power and the control of strategic routes, considering the impacts on the naval power balance among the US, Russia, and other maritime powers such as the United Kingdom and Japan. Subsequently, we will examine Kjellén’s organic theory of the state, interpreting the Russian expansionist strategy as a reflection of a state organism in search of vital space. In the same vein, Ratzel’s concept of “Lebensraum” will be explored, along with how Russia could justify territorial expansion based on resources and territory. Finally, the paper connects these theories to the current political context, analyzing the direct negotiations between Washington and Moscow (overlooking Ukraine and Europe), the US policy toward authoritarian regimes in Latin America, and the notion of a hemispheric division of power – the “Island of the Americas” under North American hegemony versus an Eurasia dominated by Russia. Lastly, it considers the possibility that such a geopolitical arrangement may foster the strengthening of authoritarian governments globally, rather than containing them, thus altering the paradigms of the liberal world order.

The Heartland of Mackinder: Ukraine, Eurasia, and Global Dominance

Halford J. Mackinder, a British geographer and pioneer of geopolitics, proposed the celebrated Heartland Theory in the early twentieth century. Mackinder divided the world into geostrategic zones and identified the Heartland—the central continental mass of Eurasia—as the “geographical pivot of history” [5]. His most famous maxim encapsulates this vision: “who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; who rules the World Island commands the world” [5]. Eastern Europe and, in particular, the region of present-day Ukraine, play a key role in this formula. This is because, for Mackinder, Eastern Europe functions as a gateway to the Heartland, providing access to resources and a strategic position for the projection of continental power [5].

Applying this theory to our scenario, the conquest of Ukraine and Eastern European countries by Russia would have profound geopolitical implications. From a Mackinderian point of view, such a conquest would enormously strengthen Russia’s position in the Heartland by adding manpower (population) and Ukraine’s industrial and agricultural resources to its power base [5]. In fact, Mackinder argued that controlling the Heartland conferred formidable geostrategic advantages—a vast terrestrial “natural fortress” protected from naval invasions and rich in resources such as wheat, minerals, and fuels [5]. Thus, if Moscow were to incorporate Ukraine (renowned for its fertile soil and grain production, as well as its mineral reserves) and extend its influence over Eastern Europe, Russia would consolidate the Heartland under its direct control. In this context, the absence of the USA (withdrawn from NATO and less engaged in Europe) would remove an important obstacle to Russian predominance in the region.

With central and eastern Eurasia under Russian influence, it would be possible to move toward the realization of the geopolitical nightmare described by Mackinder for Western maritime powers: a hegemonic continental power capable of projecting power to both Europe and Asia. Mackinder himself warned that if a Heartland power gained additional access to an oceanic coastline—in other words, if it combined land power with a significant maritime front—it would constitute a “danger” to global freedom [5]. In the scenario considered, besides advancing into Eastern Europe, Russia would already possess strategic maritime outlets (for example, in the Black Sea, via Crimea, and in the Baltic, via Kaliningrad or the Baltic States if influenced). Thus, the control of Ukraine would reinforce Russia’s position in the Black Sea and facilitate projection into the Eastern Mediterranean, expanding its oceanic front. From a Mackinderian perspective, this could potentially transform Russia into the dominant power of the “World Island” (the combined mass of Europe, Asia, and Africa), thereby unbalancing the global geopolitical order [5].

It is worth noting that, historically, Mackinder’s doctrine influenced containment strategies: both in the interwar period and during the Cold War, efforts were made to prevent a single power from controlling the Heartland and Eastern Europe. NATO, for example, can be seen as an instrument to prevent Soviet/Russian advances in Europe, in line with Mackinder’s imperative to “contain the Heartland.” Thus, if the USA were to abandon that role—by leaving NATO and tacitly accepting the Russian sphere of influence in Eurasia—we would be witnessing an inversion of the principles that have guided Western policy for decades. In short, under Mackinder’s theory, the Russian conquest of Ukraine and beyond would represent the key for Russia to command the Heartland and, potentially, challenge global hegemony, especially in a scenario where the USA self-restricts to the Western Hemisphere.

The Maritime Power of Mahan and the Naval Balance between West and East

While Mackinder emphasized continental land power, Alfred Thayer Mahan, a nineteenth-century American naval strategist, highlighted the crucial role of maritime power in global dominance. In his work The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890), Mahan studied the example of the British Empire and concluded that control of the seas paved the way for British supremacy as a world power [10]. He argued that a strong navy and the control of strategic maritime routes were decisive factors for projecting military, political, and economic power. His doctrine can be summarized in the following points: (1) the United States should aspire to be a world power; (2) control of the seas is necessary to achieve that status; (3) such control is obtained through a powerful fleet of warships [17]. In other words, for Mahan, whoever dominates the maritime routes and possesses naval superiority will be in a position to influence global destinies, ensuring trade, supplies, and the rapid movement of military forces.

In the proposed scenario, in which the USA withdraws militarily from Europe and possibly from the Eurasian stage, Mahan’s ideas raise questions about the distribution of maritime power and its effects. Traditionally, the US Navy operates globally, ensuring freedom of navigation and deterring challenges in major seas (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, etc.). A withdrawal of the USA from NATO could also signal a reduction in its naval presence in the Northeast Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, and other areas close to Eurasia. In such a case, who would fill this naval vacuum? Russia, although primarily a land power, has been attempting to modernize its navy and has specific interests—for example, consolidating its dominance in the Black Sea and maintaining a presence in the Mediterranean (with a naval base in Tartus, Syria). The United Kingdom, a historic European maritime power, would remain aligned with the USA but, without American military support in Europe, might potentially be overwhelmed trying to contain an increasingly assertive Russian navy in European waters on its own. Japan, another significant maritime actor allied with the USA, is concerned with the naval balance in the Pacific; without full American engagement, Tokyo might be compelled to expand its own naval power to contain both Russia in the Far East (which maintains a fleet in the Pacific) and, especially, the growing Chinese navy.

According to Mahan’s thinking, strategic maritime routes and choke points (crucial straits and channels) become contested prizes in this power game. With the USA focusing on the Americas, one could imagine Washington reinforcing control over the Panama Canal and Caribbean routes—reviving an “American Gulf” policy in the Western Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. In fact, indications of this orientation emerge in statements attributed to Trump, who once suggested reclaiming direct control over Panama, transforming Canada into a North American state, and even “annexing” Greenland due to its Arctic geopolitical importance [18]. These aspirations reflect a quest to secure advantageous maritime positions near the American continent.

Conversely, in the absence of American presence in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, Russia would have free rein for regional maritime projection. This could include anything from the unrestricted use of the Black Sea (after dominating Ukraine, thereby ensuring full access to Crimea and Ukrainian ports) to greater influence in the Eastern Mediterranean via Syria and partnerships with countries such as Iran or Egypt. The Baltic Sea would also become an area of expanded Russian interest, pressuring coastal countries and perhaps reducing NATO’s traditional local naval supremacy. However, it is worth noting that even with these regional expansions, Russia lacks a blue-water navy comparable to that of the USA; thus, its initial global maritime impact would be limited without alliances.

An important aspect of Mahan’s theories is that naval power serves as a counterbalance to the land power of the Heartland. Therefore, even if Russia were to dominate the Eurasian continental mass, the continued presence of American naval might on the oceans could prevent complete global domination by Moscow. However, if the USA voluntarily restricts its naval reach to the Americas, it would forgo influencing the power balance in the seas adjacent to Eurasia. Consequently, the balance of maritime power would tend to shift in favor of regional Eurasian actors. The United Kingdom and Japan, traditional allies of the USA, could intensify their naval capabilities to defend regional interests—the United Kingdom safeguarding the North Atlantic and the North Sea, and Japan patrolling the Northwest Pacific—but both would face budgetary and structural limitations in fully compensating for the absence of the American superpower. Consequently, Mahan’s vision suggests that the withdrawal of the USA from the extra-regional scene would weaken the liberal maritime regime, possibly opening space for revisionist powers to contest routes that were previously secured (for example, Russia and China encountering less opposition on the routes of the Arctic and the Indo-Pacific, respectively). In summary, naval hegemony would fragment, and control of strategic seas would become contested, reconfiguring the relative influence of the USA, Russia, and maritime allies such as the United Kingdom and Japan.

Kjellén and the State as a Living Organism: Russian Expansion as an Organic Necessity

Another useful theoretical lens to interpret Russian geopolitical posture is that of Rudolf Kjellén, a Swedish political scientist of the early twentieth century who conceived the State as a living organism. Kjellén, who even coined the term “geopolitics,” was influenced by Friedrich Ratzel’s ideas and by social Darwinism, arguing that States are born, grow, and decline analogously to living beings [13]. In his work Staten som livsform (The State as a Form of Life, 1916), he maintained that States possess an organic dimension in addition to the legal one and that “just as any form of life, States must expand or die” [14]. This expansion would not be motivated merely by aggressive conquest but seen as a necessary growth for the self-preservation of the state organism [14]. In complement, Kjellén echoed Ratzel’s “law of expanding spaces” by asserting that large States expand at the expense of smaller ones, with it being only a matter of time before the great realms fill the available spaces [14]. That is, from the organic perspective, vigorous States tend to incorporate smaller neighboring territories, consolidating territorially much like an organism absorbing nutrients.

Applying this theory to the strategy of contemporary Russia, we can interpret Moscow’s actions—including the invasion of Ukraine and the ambition to restore its sphere of influence in Eurasia—as the expression of an organic drive for expansion. For a strategist influenced by this school, Russia (viewed as a state organism with a long imperial history) needs to expand its territory and influence to ensure its survival and security. The loss of control over spaces that once were part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union (such as Ukraine itself, the Caucasus, or Central Asia) may be perceived by Russian elites as an atrophy of the state organism, rendering it vulnerable. Thus, the reincorporation of these territories—whether directly (annexation) or indirectly (political vassalage)—would equate to restoring lost members or strengthening vital organs of the state body. In fact, official Russian arguments often portray Ukraine as an intrinsic part of “Russian historicity,” denying it a fully separate identity—a narrative that aligns with the idea that Russian expansion in that region is natural and necessary for the Russian State (seen as encompassing also Russian speakers beyond its current borders).

Kjellén would thus provide a theoretical justification for Russian territorial expansion as an organic phenomenon. As a great power, Russia would inevitably seek to expand at the expense of smaller neighbors (Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic States, etc.), as dictated by the tendency of “great spaces to organize” to the detriment of the small [14]. This view can be identified in contemporary Russian doctrines that value spheres of influence and the notion that neighboring countries must gravitate around Moscow in order for the natural order to be maintained. The very idea of “Eurasia” united under Russian leadership (advocated by modern Russian thinkers) echoes this organic conception of vital space and expansion as a sign of the State’s vitality.

However, Kjellén’s theory also warns of the phenomenon of “imperial overstretch,” should a State exceed its internal cohesion limits by expanding excessively [14]. He recognized that extending borders too far could increase friction and vulnerabilities, making it difficult to maintain cohesion—a very large organism may lack functional integration. In the Russian context, this suggests that although expansion is seen as necessary, there are risks if Russia tries to encompass more than it can govern effectively. Conquering Ukraine and subjugating Eastern Europe, for example, could economically and militarily overburden the Russian State, especially if it faced resistance or had to manage hostile populations. However, in the hypothetical scenario we adopt (isolated USA and a weakened Europe), Russia might calculate that the organic benefits of expansion (territory, resources, strategic depth) would outweigh the costs, since external interference would be limited. Thus, through Kjellén’s lens, expansionist Russia behaves as an organism following its instinct for survival and growth, absorbing weaker neighbors; yet such a process is not devoid of challenges, requiring that the “organism Russia” manages to assimilate these new spaces without collapsing under its own weight.

Ratzel and Lebensraum: Resources, Territory, and the Justification for Expansion

Parallel to Kjellén’s organic view, Friedrich Ratzel’s theory offers another conceptual basis for understanding Russian expansion: the concept of Lebensraum (vital space). Ratzel, a German geographer of the late nineteenth century, proposed that the survival and development of a people or nation depended critically on the available physical space and resources. Influenced by Darwinist ideas, he applied the notion of “survival of the fittest” to nations, arguing that human societies need to conquer territory and resources to prosper, and that the stronger and fittest civilizations will naturally prevail over the weaker ones [12]. In 1901, Ratzel coined the term Lebensraum to describe this need for “vital space” as a geographical factor in national power [15].

Subsequently, this idea would be adopted—and extremely distorted—by Nazi ideology to justify Germany’s aggressions in Europe. However, the core of Ratzel’s concept is that territorial expansion is essential for the survival and growth of a State, especially to secure food, raw materials, and space for its population [12].

When examining Russia’s stance under this perspective, we can see several narratives that evoke the logic of Lebensraum. Russia is the largest country in the world by area; however, much of its territory is characterized by adverse climates (tundra, taiga) and is relatively sparsely populated in Siberia. On the other hand, adjacent regions such as Ukraine possess highly arable lands (chernozem—black soil), significant Slavic population density, and additional natural resources (coal in the Donbass, for example). An implicit justification for Russian expansion could be the search for supplementary resources and fertile lands to secure its self-sufficiency and power—exactly as Ratzel described that vigorous nations do. Historical records show that Ratzel emphasized agrarian primacy: he believed that new territories should be colonized by farmers, providing the food base for the nation [12]. Ukraine, historically called the “breadbasket of Europe,” fits perfectly into this vision of conquest for sustenance and agricultural wealth.

Furthermore, Ratzel viewed geography as a determinant of the destiny of nations—peoples adapted to certain habitats seek to expand them if they aspire to grow. In contemporary Russian discourse, there is often mention of the need to ensure security and territorial depth in the face of NATO, or to unite brotherly peoples (Russians and Russian speakers) within a single political space. Such arguments can be read as a modern translation of Lebensraum: the idea that the Russian nation, in order to be secure and flourish, must control a larger space, encompassing buffer zones and critical resources. This Russian “vital space” would naturally include Ukraine and other former Soviet republics, given the historical and infrastructural interdependence. Ratzel emphasized that peoples migrated and expanded when their original homeland no longer met their needs or aspirations [12]. Although contemporary Russia does not suffer from demographic pressure (on the contrary, it faces population decline), under the logic of a great power there is indeed a sentiment of geopolitical insufficiency for having lost influence over areas considered strategic. Thus, reconquering these areas would mean recovering the “habitat” necessary for the Russian nation to prosper and feel secure.

It is important to mention that, in Ratzel’s and Kjellén’s formulations, the pursuit of Lebensraum or organic expansion is not morally qualified—it is treated as a natural process in the politics of power. Thus, on the discursive level, Russia can avoid overly aggressive rhetoric and resort to “natural” justifications: for example, claiming that it needs to occupy Ukraine for defensive purposes (security space) or to reunify peoples (a common cultural and historical space). Beneath these justifications, however, resonates the geopolitical imperative to acquire more territory and resources as a guarantee of national survival, something consonant with Ratzel’s theory. In fact, Russian Realpolitik frequently prioritizes the control of energy resources (gas, oil) and transportation routes. Expanding its influence over central Eurasia would also mean controlling oil pipelines, gas lines, and logistical corridors—essential elements of modern Lebensraum understood as access to vital resources and infrastructure.

In summary, by conquering Ukraine and extending its reach into Eurasia, Russia could effectively invoke the concept of Lebensraum: presenting its expansion not as mere imperialism, but as a necessity to secure indispensable lands and resources for its people and to correct the “injustice” of a vital space diminished by post-Cold War territorial losses. The theories of Ratzel and Kjellén together paint a picture in which Russian expansion emerges almost as a natural law—the great State reclaiming space to ensure its survival and development at the expense of smaller neighbors.

Trump, NATO, and the Threat of American Withdrawal

One of the most alarming changes with Trump's return to power is the tense relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump has long criticized allies for not meeting military spending targets, even threatening during his first term to withdraw the US from the alliance if members did not increase their contributions [2]. This threat, initially viewed with skepticism, became concrete after his re-election, leading European allies to seriously consider the possibility of having to defend themselves without American support [1]. In fact, Trump suggested in post-election interviews that the US would only remain in NATO if the allies “paid their bills” – otherwise, he “would seriously consider” leaving [2]. Such statements reinforced the warning that the US might not honor NATO's mutual defense commitment, precisely at a time of continuous Russian threat due to the war in Ukraine [1].

From a theoretical point of view, this posture of American retrenchment evokes the classic tension between maritime power and land power. Alfred Thayer Mahan emphasized that the global power of the US derived largely from its naval superiority and from alliances that ensured control over strategic maritime routes [9]. NATO, since 1949, has served not only to deter Soviet terrestrial advances in Eurasia, but also to secure the US naval presence in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean – a fundamental element according to Mahan. In turn, Halford Mackinder warned that the balance of global power depended on the control of the Eurasian “Heartland” (the central region of Eurasia). The withdrawal or disengagement of the US (a maritime power) from this region could open the way for a continental power (such as Russia) to expand its influence in Eastern Europe, unbalancing the power balance [3]. In other words, by threatening to leave NATO, Trump jeopardizes the principle of containment that prevented Russian dominance over Eastern Europe – something that Mackinder would see as a dangerous shift in global power in favor of the Heartland power.

Adopting an impartial tone, it is observed that European countries have reacted to this new reality with precautionary measures. Strategic reports already calculate the cost of an autonomous European defense: hundreds of thousands of additional soldiers and investments of hundreds of billions of euros would be required if the US ceased to guarantee the security of the continent [1]. European dependence on American military power is significant and, without it, there would be a need for a major reinforcement of European Armed Forces [1]. This mobilization practically reflects the anticipation of a power vacuum left by the US – a scenario in which Mackinder’s theory (on the primacy of the Heartland and the vulnerability of the “external crescent” where Western Europe is located) regains its relevance.

The US–Ukraine Economic Agreement: Strategic Minerals in Exchange for Support?

Another novelty of Trump's second term is the unprecedented and transactional manner in which Washington has been dealing with the war in Ukraine. Instead of emphasizing security guarantees and alliances, the Trump administration proposed a trade agreement with Ukraine focused on the exploitation of strategic minerals, linking American support to a direct economic benefit. According to sources close to the negotiations, the US and Ukraine are about to sign a pact to share the revenues from the exploitation of critical mineral resources on Ukrainian territory [19]. Materials such as titanium, lithium, rare earths, and uranium – vital for high-tech and defense industries – would be at the core of this agreement [6]. According to the known draft, Ukraine would allocate 50% of the profits from new mineral ventures to a fund controlled by the US, which would reinvest part of the resources in the country’s own reconstruction [6] [19].

It is noteworthy that the pact does not include explicit security guarantees for Kyiv, despite Ukraine remaining under direct military threat from Russia [19]. Essentially, the Trump administration offers financial support and economic investment in exchange for a share in Ukrainian natural resources, but without formally committing to Ukraine's defense in the event of a renewed Russian offensive [19]. American authorities argue that this economic partnership would already be sufficient to “secure Ukrainian interests,” as it would provide the US with its own incentives to desire Ukraine’s stability [19]. “What could be better for Ukraine than being in an economic partnership with the United States?” stated Mike Waltz, a US national security advisor, defending the proposal [19].

Analysts, however, assess the agreement in divided terms. For some, it represents a form of economic exploitation at a time of Ukraine's fragility – comparing the demand to share mineral wealth amid war to a scheme of “mafia protection” [19]. Steven Cook, from the Council on Foreign Relations, classified the offer as “extortion,” and political scientist Virginia P. Fortna observed that charging resources from an invaded country resembles predatory practices [19]. Joseph Nye adds that it is a short-term gain strategy that could be “disastrous in the long run” for American credibility, reflecting the transactional approach that Trump even adopted with close allies in other contexts [19]. On the other hand, some see a future advantage for Kyiv: journalist Pierre Briançon suggests that at least this agreement aligns American commercial interests with Ukraine’s future, which could, in theory, keep the US involved in Ukrainian prosperity in the long term [19]. It is even recalled that President Zelensky himself proposed last year the idea of sharing natural resources with the US to bring the interests of the two countries closer together [19].

From the perspective of geopolitical theories, this agreement illustrates a shift towards economic pragmatism in international relations, approaching concepts proposed by Kjellén. Rudolf Kjellén, who coined the term “geopolitics,” saw the State as a territorial organism that seeks to ensure its survival through self-sufficiency and the control of strategic resources [4]. Trump's demand for a share in Ukrainian resources in order to continue supporting the country reflects a logic of autarky and direct national interest – that is, foreign policy serving primarily to reinforce the economic and material position of the US. This view contrasts with the traditional cooperative approach, but aligns with Kjellén’s idea that powerful States tend to transform international relations into opportunities for their own gain, ensuring access to vital raw materials. Similarly, Friedrich Ratzel argued that States have a “propensity to expand their borders according to their capacities,” seeking vital space (Lebensraum) and resources to sustain their development [11]. The US–Ukraine pact, by conditioning military/economic aid on obtaining tangible advantages (half of the mineral profits), is reminiscent of Ratzel’s perspective: the US, as a rising economic power, expands its economic influence over Ukrainian territory like an organism extending itself to obtain the necessary resources for its well-being. It is, therefore, a form of economic expansionism at the expense of purely ideological commitments or collective security.

Peace Negotiations Excluding Ukraine and the Legitimacy of the Agreement

Another controversial point is the manner in which peace negotiations between Russia and the West have been conducted under Trump's administration. Since taking office, the American president has engaged directly with Moscow in pursuit of a ceasefire, deliberately keeping the Ukrainian government out of the initial discussions [6]. Trump expressed his desire to “leave Zelensky out of the conversation” and also excluded the European Union from any influence in the process [6]. This negotiation strategy—conducted without the presence of the primary interested party, Ukraine—raises serious questions about the legitimacy and sustainability of any resulting agreement.

Historically, peace agreements reached without the direct participation of one of the conflicting parties tend to face problems in implementation and acceptance.

The exclusion of Ukraine in the decision-making phase brings to light the issue of guarantees. As noted, the emerging agreement lacks formal US security guarantees for Ukraine. This implies that, after the agreement is signed, nothing will prevent Russia from launching a new offensive if it deems it convenient, knowing that the US has not committed to defending it militarily. Experts have already warned that a ceasefire without robust protection may only be a pause for Russian rearmament, rendering the conflict “frozen” temporarily and potentially resumed in the near future. The European strategic community has expressed similar concern: without American deterrence, the risk of further Russian aggressions in the region increases considerably [1]. Denmark, for example, has released intelligence reports warning of possible imminent Russian attacks, prompting neighboring countries to accelerate plans for independent defense [1].

The legitimacy of this asymmetric peace agreement (negotiated without Ukraine fully at the table and under economic coercion) is also questionable from a legal and moral point of view. It violates the principle of self-determination by imposing terms decided by great powers on a sovereign country—a practice reminiscent of dark chapters in diplomacy, such as the Munich Agreement of 1938, when powers determined the fate of Czechoslovakia without its consent. In the current case, Ukraine would end up signing the agreement, but from a position of weakness, raising doubts about how durable such a commitment would be.

From Mackinder’s perspective, Ukraine’s removal from the battlefield without guarantees essentially means admitting a greater influence of Russia (the Heartland power) over Eastern Europe. This would alter the balance in Eurasia in a potentially lasting way. Furthermore, the fact that great powers negotiate over the heads of a smaller country evokes the imperial logic of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when empires decided among themselves the divisions of foreign territories—a behavior that Mackinder saw as likely in a world of a “closed system.” With the entire world already occupied by States, Mackinder predicted that powers would begin to compete for influence within this consolidated board, often subjugating smaller states to gain advantage [3]. The US–Russia negotiation regarding Ukraine, without proper Ukrainian representation, exemplifies this type of neo-imperial dynamic in the twenty-first century.

Also noteworthy is the consonance with the ideas of Ratzel and Kjellén: both viewed smaller states as easily relegated to the status of satellites or even “parasitic organisms” in the orbit of larger states. Kjellén spoke of the intrinsic vulnerability of states with little territorial depth or economic dependence, making them susceptible to external pressures [4][20]. Ukraine, weakened by war and dependent on external aid, becomes a concrete example of this theorized vulnerability: it has had to cede strategic resources and accept terms dictated against its will in an attempt to secure its immediate survival. The resulting agreement, therefore, reflects a power imbalance characteristic of the hierarchical international relations described by classical geopolitical theorists.

Implicit Territorial Concessions and Trump’s Public Discourse

A central and controversial point in Trump’s statements regarding the war in Ukraine is the insinuation of territorial concessions to Russia as part of the conflict’s resolution. Publicly, Trump avoided explicitly condemning Russian aggression and even stated that he considered it “unlikely” that Ukraine would be able to retake all the areas occupied by the Russians [16]. In debates and interviews, he suggested that “if I were president, the war would end in 24 hours,” implying that he would force an understanding between Kyiv and Moscow that would likely involve ceding some territory in exchange for peace. This position marks a break with the previous US policy of not recognizing any territorial acquisitions made by force and fuels speculations that a future peace agreement sponsored by Trump would legitimize at least part of Russia’s gains since 2014 (Crimea, Donbass, and areas seized during the 2022 invasion).

The actions of his administration corroborate this interpretation. As discussed, the economic agreement focuses on the exploitation of Ukrainian natural resources, many of which are located precisely in regions currently under Russian military control, such as parts of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Donetsk, Lugansk, and the Azov Sea area [6]. A Ukrainian geologist, Hanna Liventseva, highlighted that “most of these elements (strategic minerals) are found in the south of the Ukrainian Shield, mainly in the Azov region, and most of these territories are currently invaded by Russia” [6]. This means that, to make joint exploitation viable, Russia’s de facto control over these areas would have to be recognized—or at least tolerated—in the short term. In other words, the pact indirectly and tacitly accepts Russian territorial gains, as it involves sharing the profits from resources that are not currently accessible to the Kyiv government.

Furthermore, figures close to Trump have made explicit statements regarding the possibility of territorial cession. Mike Waltz, Trump’s national security advisor, publicly stated that Zelensky might need to “cede land to Russia” to end the war [8]. This remark—made public in March 2025—confirms that the Trump White House considers it natural for Ukraine to relinquish parts of its territory in favor of an agreement. Such a stance marks a break from the previous Western consensus, which condemned any territorial gains by force. Under Trump, a pragmatic view (in the eyes of his supporters) or a cynical one (according to his critics) seems to prevail: sacrificing principles of territorial integrity to quickly end hostilities and secure immediate economic benefits.

In theoretical terms, this inclination to validate territorial gains by force recalls the concept of Realpolitik and the geopolitical Darwinism that influenced thinkers such as Ratzel. In Ratzel’s organic conception, expanding states naturally absorb neighboring territories when they are strong enough to do so, while declining states lose territory—a process almost biological in the selection of the fittest [11]. The Trump administration’s acceptance that Ukraine should “give something” to Moscow to seal peace reflects a normalization of this geopolitical selection process: it recognizes the aggressor (Russia) as having the “right” to retain conquered lands, because that is how power realities on the ground dictate. Mackinder, although firmly opposed to allowing Russia to dominate the Heartland, would see this outcome as the logical consequence of the lack of engagement from maritime powers (the USA and the United Kingdom, for example) in sustaining the Ukrainian counterattack. Without the active involvement of maritime power to balance the dispute, land power prevails in Eastern Europe.

From the perspective of international legitimacy, the cession of Ukrainian territories—whether de jure or de facto—creates a dangerous precedent in the post-Cold War era. Rewarding violent aggression with territorial gains may encourage similar strategies in other parts of the world, undermining the architecture of collective security. This is possibly a return to a world of spheres of influence, where great powers define borders and zones of control according to their convenience—something that the rules-based order after 1945 sought to avoid. Here, academic impartiality requires noting that coercion for territorial concessions rarely produces lasting peace, as the aggrieved party—in this case, Ukraine—may accept temporarily but will continue to assert its rights in the long term, as has occurred with other territorial injustices in history.

Territorial Ambitions of Trump: Greenland and Canada

Beyond the Eurasian theater of war, Trump revived geopolitical ambitions involving territories traditionally allied with the US: Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark) and Canada. As early as 2019, during his first term, Trump shocked the world by proposing to buy Greenland—rich in minerals and strategically positioned in the Arctic. Upon his return to power, he went further: expressing a “renewed interest” in acquiring Greenland and publicly suggesting the incorporation of Canada as the 51st American state [2].

In January 2025, during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, he even displayed maps in which the US and Canada appeared merged into a single country, while Greenland was marked as a future American possession [2]. Posts by the president on social media included satirical images with a map of North America where Canada was labeled “51st” and Greenland designated as “Our Land” [2].

Such moves were met with concern and disbelief by allies. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was caught on an open microphone warning that Trump’s fixation on annexation “is real” and not just a joke [7]. Trudeau emphasized that Washington appeared to covet Canada’s vast mineral resources, which would explain the insistence on the idea of absorption [7]. In public, Trump argued that Canadians “would be more prosperous as American citizens,” promising tax cuts and better services should they become part of the US [7]. On the Danish side, the reaction to the revived plan regarding Greenland was firmly negative—as it was in 2019—reaffirming that the territory is not for sale. Trump, however, insinuated that the issue might be one of national security, indicating that American possession of Greenland would prevent adverse influences (a reference to China and Russia in the Arctic) [2]. More worryingly, he refused to rule out the use of military means to obtain the island, although he assured that he had no intention of invading Canada by force (in the Canadian case, he spoke of “economic force” to forge a union) [2].

This series of initiatives reflects an unprecedented expansionist impetus by the US in recent times, at least in discourse. Analyzing this through the lens of classical geopolitics offers interesting insights. Friedrich Ratzel and his notion of Lebensraum suggest that powerful states, upon reaching a certain predominance, seek to expand their territory by influencing or incorporating adjacent areas. Trump, by targeting the immediate neighbor (Canada) and a nearby strategic territory (Greenland), appears to resurrect this logic of territorial expansion for the sake of gaining space and resources. Ratzel saw such expansion almost as a natural process for vigorous states, comparable to the growth of an organism [11]. From this perspective, the US would be exercising its “right” of expansion in North America and the polar region, integrating areas of vital interest.

Additionally, Alfred Mahan’s view on maritime power helps to understand the strategic value of Greenland. Mahan postulated that control of key maritime chokepoints and naval bases ensures global advantage [9]. Greenland, situated between the North Atlantic and the Arctic, has become increasingly relevant as climate change opens new polar maritime routes and reveals vast mineral deposits (including rare earth elements and oil). For the US, having a presence or sovereignty over Greenland would mean dominating the gateway to the Arctic and denying this space to rivals. This aligns with Mahan’s strategy of securing commercial and military routes (in this case, potential Arctic routes) and resources to consolidate naval supremacy. On the other hand, the incorporation of Canada—with its enormous territory, Arctic coastline, and abundant natural resources—would provide the US with formidable geoeconomic and geopolitical reinforcement, practically eliminating vulnerabilities along its northern border. This is an ambitious project that also echoes ideas of Kjellén, for whom an ideal State should seek territorial completeness and economic self-sufficiency within its region. Incorporating Canada would be the pinnacle of American regional autarky, turning North America into a unified bloc under Washington (a scenario reminiscent of the “pan-regions” conceived by twentieth-century geopoliticians influenced by Kjellén).

It is important to note, however, that these ambitions face enormous legal and political obstacles. The sovereignty of Canada and Greenland (Denmark) is guaranteed by international law, and both peoples categorically reject the idea of annexation. Any hostile action by the US against these countries would shake alliances and the world order itself. Even so, the very fact that an American president suggests such possibilities already produces geopolitical effects: traditional partners begin to distrust Washington’s intentions, seek alternative alliances, and strengthen nationalist discourses of resistance. In summary, Trump’s expansionist intentions in Greenland and Canada rekindle old territorial issues and paradoxically place the US in the position of a revisionist power—a role once associated with empires in search of colonies.

Implications for Brazil and South America: A New Neocolonization?

In light of this geopolitical reconfiguration driven by Trump's USA—with a reordering of alliances and a possible partition of spheres of influence among great powers—the question arises: what is the impact on Brazil and the other countries of South America? Traditionally, Latin America has been under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), which established non-interference by Europe in the region and, implicitly, the primacy of the USA in the Western Hemisphere. In the post–Cold War period, this influence translated more into political and economic leadership, without formal annexations or direct territorial domination. However, the current context points to a kind of “neocolonization” of the Global South, in which larger powers seek to control resources and peripheral governments in an indirect yet effective manner.

Mackinder’s theories can be used to illuminate this dynamic. As mentioned, Mackinder envisioned the twentieth-century world as a closed system, in which there were no longer any unknown lands to be colonized—hence, the powers would fight among themselves for control over already occupied regions [3]. He predicted that Africa and Latin America (then largely European colonies or semi-colonies) would continue as boards upon which the great powers would project their disputes, a form of neocolonialism. In the current scenario, we see the USA proposing exchanges of protection for resources (as in Ukraine) and even leaders of developing countries seeking similar agreements. A notable example: the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Felix Tshisekedi, praised the USA–Ukraine initiative and suggested an analogous agreement involving Congolese mineral wealth in exchange for US support against internal rebels (M23) [19]. In other words, African countries and possibly South American ones may enter into this logic of offering privileged access to resources (cobalt, lithium, food, biodiversity) in order to obtain security guarantees or investments. This represents a regression to the times when external powers dictated the directions of the South in exchange for promises of protection, characterizing a strategic neocolonialism.

For Brazil, in particular, this rearrangement generates both opportunities and risks. As a regional power with considerable diplomatic autonomy, Brazil has historically sought to balance relationships with the USA, Europe, China, and other actors, avoiding automatic alignments. However, in a world where Trump’s USA is actively redefining spheres of influence—possibly making deals with Russia that divide priorities (for example, Washington focusing on the Western Hemisphere and Moscow on the Eastern)—South America could once again be seen as an exclusive American sphere of influence. From this perspective, Washington could pressure South American countries to align with its directives, limiting partnerships with rivals (such as China) and seeking privileged access to strategic resources (such as the Amazon, fresh water, minerals, and agricultural commodities). Some indications are already emerging: Trump’s transactional approach mentioned by Nye included pressures on Canada and Mexico regarding border and trade issues, under the threat of commercial sanctions. It would not be unthinkable to adopt a hard line, for example, with regard to Brazilian environmental policies (linked to the Amazon) or Brazil’s relations with China, using tariffs or incentives as leverage—a sort of geopolitics of economic coercion.

On the other hand, Brazil and its neighbors could also attempt to take advantage of the Sino–North American competition. If the USA is distracted consolidating its hemispheric “hard power” hegemony (even with annexation fantasies in the north), powers such as China may advance their economic presence in South America through investments and trade (Belt and Road, infrastructure financing)—which is already happening. This would constitute an indirect neocolonial dispute in the South: Chinese loans and investments versus American demands and agreements, partly reminiscent of the nineteenth-century imperial competition (when the United Kingdom, USA, and others competed for Latin American markets and resources).

From a conceptual standpoint, Mackinder might classify South America as part of the “Outer Crescent” (external insular crescent)—peripheral to the great Eurasian “World-Island,” yet still crucial as a source of resources and a strategic position in the South Atlantic and Pacific. If the USA consolidates an informal empire in the Americas, it would be reinforcing its “insular bastion” far from the Eurasian Heartland, a strategy that Mackinder once suggested for maritime powers: to control islands and peripheral continents to compensate for the disadvantage of not controlling the Heartland. However, an excessive US dominance in the South could lead to local resistance and alternative alignments, unbalancing the region.

Kjellén would add that for Brazil to maintain its decisive sovereignty, it will need to strengthen its autarky and internal cohesion—in other words, reduce vulnerabilities (economic, military, social) that external powers might exploit [4]. Meanwhile, Mahan might point out the importance for Brazil of controlling its maritime routes and coastlines (South Atlantic) to avoid being at the mercy of a naval power like the USA. And Ratzel would remind us that states that do not expand their influence tend to be absorbed by foreign influences—which, in the context of Brazil, does not mean conquering neighboring territories, but rather actively leading South American integration to create a block more resilient to external intrusion.

In summary, South America finds itself in a more competitive and segmented world, where major players are resurrecting practices from past eras. The notion of “neocolonization” here does not imply direct occupation, but rather mechanisms of dependency: whether through unequal economic agreements or through diplomatic or military pressure for alignment. Brazil, as the largest economy and territory on the subcontinent, will have to navigate with heightened caution. A new global power balance, marked by the division of spheres of influence among the USA, China, and Russia, may reduce the sovereign maneuvering space of South American countries unless they act jointly. Thus, theoretical reflection suggests the need for South–South strategies, reinforcement of regional organizations, and diversification of partnerships to avoid falling into modern “neocolonial traps.”

Conclusion

The emerging post–re-election geopolitical conjuncture of Donald Trump signals a return to classical geopolitical principles, after several decades of predominance of institutional liberal views. We witness the revaluation of concepts such as spheres of influence, exchanges of protection for resources, naval power versus land power, and disputes over territory and raw materials—all central themes in the writings of Mackinder, Mahan, Kjellén, and Ratzel at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. An impartial analysis of these events, in light of these theories, shows internal coherence in Trump’s actions: although controversial, they follow a logic of maximizing national interest and the relative power of the USA on the world stage, even at the expense of established principles and alliances.

Halford Mackinder reminds us that, in a closed world with no new lands to conquer, the great powers will seek to redistribute the world among themselves [3]. This seems to manifest in the direct understandings between the USA and Russia over the fate of Ukraine, and in American ambitions in the Arctic and the Western Hemisphere. Alfred Mahan emphasizes that the control of the seas and strategic positions ensures supremacy—we see reflections of this in Trump’s obsession with Greenland (Arctic) and the possible neglect of the importance of maintaining NATO (and therefore the North Atlantic) as a cohesive bloc, something that Mahan’s theory would criticize due to the risk of a naval vacuum. Rudolf Kjellén and Friedrich Ratzel provide the framework to understand the more aggressive facet of expansionist nationalism: the idea of the State as an organism that needs to grow, secure resources, and seek self-sufficiency explains everything from the extortionate agreement imposed on Ukraine to the annexation rhetoric regarding Canada.

The potential consequences are profound. In the short term, we may witness a precarious ceasefire in the Ukraine war, with consolidated Russian territorial gains and Ukraine economically tied to the USA, but without formal military protection—a fragile “armed peace.” Western Europe, alarmed, may accelerate its independent militarization, perhaps marking the beginning of European defense autonomy, as is already openly debated [1]. At the far end of the globe, American activism in the Arctic and the Americas may reshape alliances: countries like Canada, once aligned with Washington, might seek to guarantee their sovereignty by distancing themselves from it; powers like China could take advantage of the openings to increase their presence in Latin America and Africa through economic diplomacy; and emerging countries of the Global South may have to choose between submitting to new “guardianships” or strengthening South–South cooperation.

Ultimately, the current situation reinforces the relevance of studying geopolitics through historical lenses. The actions of the Trump administration indicate that, despite all technological and normative advances, the competition for geographic power has not disappeared—it has merely assumed new formats. Academic impartiality obliges us not to prematurely judge whether these strategies will be successful or beneficial, but history and theory warn that neo-imperial movements tend to generate counter-reactions. As Mackinder insinuated, “every shock or change anywhere reverberates around the world,” and a sudden move by a superpower tends to provoke unforeseen adjustments and chain conflicts. It remains to be seen how the other actors—including Brazil and its neighbors—will adapt to this new chapter in the great struggle for global power, in which centuries-old theories once again have a surprising explanatory power over present events.

Bibliography

[1] A Referência. (2025). Europa calcula o custo de se defender sem os EUA: 300 mil soldados e 250 bilhões de euros a mais. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://areferencia.com/europa/europa-calcula-o-custo-de-se-defender-sem-os-eua-300-mil-soldados-e-250-bilhoes-de-euros-a-mais/#:\~:text=Europa%20calcula%20o%20custo%20de,bilh%C3%B5es%20de%20euros%20a%20mais

[2] Brexit Institute. (2025). What happens if Trump invades Greenland? Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2025/01/what-happens-if-trump-invades-greenland/#:\~:text=Ever%20since%20Donald%20Trump%20announced,agreed%20in%20Wales%20in%202014

[3] Cfettweis C:CST22(2)8576.DVI. (2025). Mackinder and Angell. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://cfettweis.com/wp-content/uploads/Mackinder-and-Angell.pdf#:\~:text=meant%20the%20beginning%20of%20an,Mackinder

[4] Diva-Portal. (2025). The geopolitics of territorial relativity. Poland seen by Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1696547/FULLTEXT02#:\~:text=,The%20state%20territory

[5] Geopolitical Monitor. (2025). The Russo-Ukrainian War and Mackinder’s Heartland Thesis. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/the-ukraine-war-and-mackinders-heartland-thesis/#:\~:text=In%201904%2C%20Sir%20Halford%20J,in%20adding%20a%20substantial%20oceanic

[6] Instituto Humanitas Unisinos. (2025). Trump obriga Zelensky a hipotecar a exploração de minerais críticos em troca do seu apoio. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.ihu.unisinos.br/648986-trump-obriga-zelensky-a-hipotecar-a-exploracao-de-minerais-criticos-em-troca-do-seu-apoio#:\~:text=Essa%20troca%20inclui%20os%20cobi%C3%A7ados,s%C3%A3o%20praticamente%20inexploradas%20no%20pa%C3%ADs

[7] Politico. (2025). Trump’s annexation fixation is no joke, Trudeau warns. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/07/canada-trudeau-trump-51-state-00203156#:\~:text=TORONTO%20%E2%80%94%20Prime%20Minister%20Justin,Canada%20becoming%20the%2051st%20state%2C%E2%80%9D%20Trudeau%20said

[8] The Daily Beast. (2025). Top Trump Adviser Moves Goalpost for Ukraine to End War. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-trump-adviser-moves-goalpost-for-ukraine-to-end-war/#:\~:text=LAND%20GRAB

[9] The Geostrata. (2025). Alfred Thayer Mahan and Supremacy of Naval Power. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.thegeostrata.com/post/alfred-thayer-mahan-and-supremacy-of-naval-power#:\~:text=Alfred%20Thayer%20Mahan%20and%20Supremacy,control%20over%20maritime%20trade%20routes

[10] U.S. Department of State. (2025). Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power upon History: Securing International Markets in the 1890s. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/mahan#:\~:text=Mahan%20argued%20that%20British%20control,American%20politicians%20believed%20that%20these

[11] Britannica. (2025a). Friedrich Ratzel | Biogeography, Anthropogeography, Political Geography. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/biography/Friedrich-Ratzel#:\~:text=webster,Swedish%20political%20scientist%20%2076

[12] Britannica. (2025b). Lebensraum. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lebensraum#:\~:text=defined,The

[13] Britannica. (2025c). Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rudolf-Kjellen

[14] Wikipedia (ZH). (2025). Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/w:Rudolf_Kjell%C3%A9n#:\~:text=Besides%20legalistic%2C%20states%20have%20organic,preservation.%20%5B%203

[15] Wikipedia. (2025). Lebensraum. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum#:\~:text=The%20German%20geographer%20and%20ethnographer,into%20the%20Greater%20Germanic%20Reich

[16] YouTube. (2025). Trump says Ukraine 'unlikely to get all land back' or join NATO [Vídeo]. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmHzAVLhsXU#:\~:text=Trump%20says%20Ukraine%20%27unlikely%20to,for%20it%20to%20join%20NATO

[17] U.S. Naval Institute. (2025) Operation World Peace. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1955/june/operation-world-peace#:\\~:text=“The Mahan doctrine%2C” according to,the word “airships” is more

[18] Emissary. (2024) Trump’s Greenland and Panama Canal Threats Are a Throwback to an Old, Misguided Foreign Policy. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/01/trump-greenland-panama-canal-monroe-doctrine-policy?lang=en

[19] A Referência. Acordo EUA-Ucrânia está praticamente fechado, mas analistas se dividem sobre quem sairá ganhando. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://areferencia.com/europa/acordo-eua-ucrania-esta-praticamente-fechado-mas-analistas-se-dividem-sobre-quem-saira-ganhando/#:\\~:text=EUA e 17,o acordo a seu favor

[20] Wikipedia. (2025) Geopolitik. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitik#:\\~:text=Rudolph Kjellén was Ratzel's Swedish,Kjellén's State

@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

In this edition, we’re thrilled to sit down with Tomek K from Bitcoin Alby, a passionate advocate for Bitcoin’s global adoption. Tomek K shares how Alby is driving innovation in the Bitcoin ecosystem and offers a glimpse into his vision for the cryptocurrency’s future. From his journey as a libertarian activist to co-founding the Bitcoin Film Festival, Tomek K’s story is one of curiosity, purpose, and a relentless pursuit of freedom through technology.

YakiHonne: Tomek K, it’s a pleasure to meet you! Today, we’re diving into your community topic—Alby Wallet. But before we begin, let me introduce our readers to Yakihonne. Yakihonne is a decentralized media client powered by the Nostr protocol, dedicated to promoting free speech through technology. It empowers creators to truly own their voices and assets, offering features like smart filtering, verified notes, and a focus on long-form content. So, Tomek, could you tell us about yourself and your work with Alby?

Tomek K: Of course! I’m Tomek K, originally from Poland, and right now, I’m speaking to you from Sri Lanka. I love traveling and observing how different countries adopt Bitcoin. For most of my career, I’ve been a free-market advocate, promoting economic freedom through various projects—essentially doing PR for capitalism. I’ve organized conferences, political demonstrations, economic seminars, summer festivals, and even opened a bar in Warsaw to spread these ideas in different ways.

During this advocacy work, I came across Bitcoin. At first, I didn’t pay much attention to it, but over time, I started feeling frustrated—our efforts raised awareness about freedom, but they didn’t bring measurable change. That led me to study Bitcoin more deeply, and I gradually shifted my focus to Bitcoin activism. Along the way, I collaborated with publishers to translate Bitcoin-related books into Polish and co-founded the Bitcoin Film Festival with friends from Meetup. Later, I joined Alby, marking my transition from free-market activism to Bitcoin promotion.

At the Bitcoin Film Festival, I handle operations and networking—organizing the event, managing logistics, and making things happen. Our team is small, but I enjoy the work. I’m passionate about Bitcoin because I came for the revolution, and I’m staying for the revolution.

That said, I don’t consider myself a Bitcoin absolutist. I see Bitcoin as a tool for freedom, not just a currency or a more efficient technology. If there were a better tool for advancing liberty and making societies freer, I’d probably focus on that. But for now, Bitcoin appears to be the most effective tool for freedom. Ultimately, I consider myself a “life maximalist”—because to live a good life, you need freedom, and to have freedom today, you need sound money. And right now, that money is Bitcoin.

YakiHonne: Was there a specific moment or event that sparked your interest in Bitcoin and motivated you to join the Alby community?

Tomek K: What attracted me to Bitcoin was its promise of global monetary independence and its ability to reduce the control of the Federal Reserve, central banks, and governments—the strongest and most covert control mechanisms in the world. Unfortunately, many people, even libertarians, often overlook this.

As for why I joined Alby, it’s because this startup is driven by values and mission rather than simply chasing profits, like selling tokens or games. This aligns well with my interest in the Lightning Network. As I explored Lightning more deeply, I came across Alby. I’ve always enjoyed testing new tools, trying them firsthand, and understanding the communities behind them—so naturally, I became part of it. Along the way, I also got to know some of the team members, which reinforced my involvement.

Additionally, Alby supported the Bitcoin Film Festival. While they weren’t the largest sponsor, their contribution was generous. The festival served as a great platform for them and other projects. I think it was good marketing because people like me—who have strong networking skills, arrange podcast interviews, and organize various activities—help build awareness and positive PR. That was part of my role.

If I had to pinpoint a single defining moment that led me here, I honestly couldn’t. Becoming a Bitcoiner doesn’t happen overnight. You can’t just read The Bitcoin Standard, declare that you understand Bitcoin, and instantly become a maximalist. Anyone who’s intellectually honest will admit that it takes multiple touchpoints—articles, films, career shifts, essays, hands-on experimentation, and actually using Bitcoin—to truly grasp its significance. I had many such moments along the way: reading The Bitcoin Standard, learning from friends who had a deeper understanding of Bitcoin, and working at Alby, which further expanded my knowledge of the Lightning Network’s capabilities and limitations. It wasn’t one turning point but a series of pivotal experiences that shaped my path.

YakiHonne: How did the Alby community start, and how did it attract its first members?

Tomek K: When I joined Alby, the community had already been established for some time. It originally emerged within the browser design community, where early users helped developers refine the product by providing feedback. That’s how the first members joined, and this process has been ongoing for four years now.

As for how Alby attracted members, it was through a mix of channels—social media (Twitter, Telegram, Discord), email engagement, and active participation in Bitcoin conferences. But the core strategy has always been openness, engaging with users, and listening to their feedback. Sometimes that means making a joke, sometimes defending against unfair criticism, and other times implementing requested features. We’ve always worked to maintain an active and friendly community atmosphere.

We also host bi-weekly community calls, which are a central part of our activities. Every two weeks, available team members meet with users for open Q&A sessions, issue discussions, and demonstrations of various projects integrating with Alby. I’ve participated in some of these calls, and they help maintain strong relationships with users, developers, and other projects—something crucial for the ecosystem. The Bitcoin technology landscape is somewhat fragmented, and grassroots coordination is necessary since there’s no single leader defining terminology or coding practices.

That’s also why Alby doesn’t exist in isolation. Almost everything we’ve built has been made possible by the creators of previous libraries, prior codebases, and collaborative efforts in writing specifications for protocols. Projects like Yakihonne and many others also recognize the importance of open-source collaboration. I think it’s essential to acknowledge the contributions of the open-source community. One thing I really appreciate is that Bitcoiners are driving open-source development in virtually every part of the world, all working toward a shared and meaningful goal.

YakiHonne:Were there any notable challenges in the early days that left a strong impression on you?

Tomek K :When I first joined Alby, I struggled with a bit of imposter syndrome for months. I was handling PR for the project, but I didn’t fully understand all the technical details—how certain protocols interact or what’s happening under the hood. It took time to get familiar with everything and really feel like I belonged.

Regulatory pressure has also been a huge challenge. In some cases, developers have been arrested, projects have had to leave certain countries, and users have been geoblocked based on their location. But challenges like these can also drive innovation. For example, Alby developed AlbyHub, an open-source self-custodial node, as a response to these kinds of issues.

There are always risks in this space—governments might suddenly demand a banking license or require compliance with new regulations. These are real obstacles, but we tackle them by embracing decentralization and open-source solutions. That’s how we ensure the project stays true to its mission and vision.

YakiHonne:If someone wanted to start a Bitcoin community today or grow an existing one, what advice would you give them?

Tomek K: The most important thing is to just get started. A community begins with action, and it takes more than one person. Even if it’s just you and a friend grabbing a beer, that’s already a start. Maybe after the first or second meetup, you post on Meetup.com, Twitter, or local forums:"Hey, we’re hosting a Bitcoin meetup in this city. We just want to connect with other Bitcoiners!" If you keep doing it consistently, the community will naturally grow. Over time, the bar where you meet might get interested in accepting Bitcoin, or you might meet some OGs in your area who decide to join—maybe they already run a business and want to support what you’re doing.

You don’t have to over-plan everything from the start. No need to think, “We need a podcast, 10 episodes, a logo…”—all that can come later. Just bootstrap it: organize a meetup, grab a beer, and get going. As you go, you’ll adapt, improve, and build recognition.Beyond that, it’s a great way to meet other Bitcoiners, develop leadership skills, and learn about community building. And at the very least, you’ll have fun doing it—which, honestly, is one of the main reasons I keep organizing meetups and other activities.

YakiHonne: Exactly, the key is to take action—just start and see where it leads. Does your community focus more on Bitcoin’s technical aspects, like coding and development, or do you emphasize non-technical areas such as education and outreach? Or do you try to balance both?

Tomek K: Our users come from all kinds of backgrounds. Some are very engaged and provide feedback regularly, while others prefer to stay in the background. Some attend our community calls, and within that group, some are developers actively building projects and collaborating with us. At the same time, there are developers we know are out there, but they never directly engage with us. That’s just how the Bitcoin community works—there’s no strict definition of being part of Alby. People engage in their own way. Some users are active on Discord, some aren’t, but we treat them all as part of the family, keeping them informed through newsletters, offering support, and making sure they stay updated with what’s happening at Alby.

As for whether we lean more toward technical development or non-technical outreach, there’s no clear-cut answer. Our community is diverse—we cater to a wide range of Lightning Network users. Some just use the browser extension, while others are deeply involved in our ecosystem. We also work with NGOs, educational initiatives, and community organizations. At the same time, we place a strong emphasis on developers and maintaining good relationships with them. Our repositories and developer portal offer useful libraries and examples, making it easier for both aspiring and experienced developers to integrate the Lightning Network into their projects. Developer relations are something we consider highly important.

YakiHonne: I understand that you're also the founder of another Bitcoin-related film project. Could you tell us a bit about it? What exactly inspired you to combine Bitcoin and filmmaking?

Tomek K: Yes, I founded Bitcoin Film Fest to help build what I call Bitcoin Cinema—an emerging industry that blends Bitcoin and filmmaking. I wanted to track everything happening at the intersection of these two worlds. Just like e-commerce, energy, and information technology, I believe the film industry will eventually be shaped by Bitcoin. And in fact, it’s already happening. There are Bitcoin-themed movies, and even major Hollywood productions have started including Bitcoin references. Bitcoin filmmakers, Bitcoin culture, and even a Bitcoin subculture already exist. We have our own heroes, stories, and values, and from this, films are being created. I love cinema, and I love Bitcoin—this was my way of bringing the two together.

The festival itself happened somewhat by accident—but maybe it was meant to be. It all started in Warsaw when I was organizing a Bitcoin meetup. I planned to screen a Bitcoin documentary, but due to technical issues, it didn’t happen. So, over a few beers, we came up with an idea: if we couldn’t show one film, why not go all in and create a full-scale Bitcoin film festival? We started researching and realized there were enough Bitcoin-related films out there to make it happen. So, we did.

The response from the community was overwhelmingly positive. It became clear that people wanted a space for Bitcoin cinema—a hub for information, networking, and collaboration. We started using the term “Binema” (Bitcoin Cinema) to describe this emerging genre. I find it fascinating to witness the growth of Bitcoin culture and storytelling. Before this, I had followed libertarian artistic movements closely, and now I see how important culture is for Bitcoin’s adoption—it’s not just about the technical and financial aspects.

Bitcoin adoption isn’t going to happen overnight, and it won’t happen without developers, educators, infrastructure builders, UX designers, and many others contributing to the ecosystem. Culture is one of the most powerful tools for shaping society, and I, like many others, am working to bring Bitcoin adoption closer through film. We’re witnessing the early days of Bitcoin cinema. I missed out on the birth of traditional cinema, but this time, I want to be part of it.

YakiHonne:In your region, does the government support or oppose Bitcoin? How has this stance impacted the development of the Bitcoin community so far?

Tomek K :Bitcoin doesn’t concern itself with nation-state borders, and frankly, we don’t either. The situation in Poland has little influence on what we do. The only connection is that I, along with two others, happen to be in Poland, but most of our team is globally distributed. On a broader scale, the U.S. tends to shape regulatory trends, and unfortunately, it often does so in a more restrictive way. However, Poland itself hasn’t had a significant impact on our work.

YakiHonne:Has your Bitcoin Film Fest community ever used film as a way to connect with members—perhaps by watching a Bitcoin-related movie or hosting a movie night to make things more fun and engaging? Have you done anything like that before?

Tomek K:Yes, absolutely! The film festival itself is a great example—we watch movies together and build a community around them. Aside from the festival we organized in Warsaw, we've also hosted film screenings at various Bitcoin events, like Sats and Facts in Thailand, BTC Prague, Plan B Lugano, Frimadera, Adopting Bitcoin, and several other conferences. We also organize online watch parties—actually, there's one happening next Sunday. The movie is available on Prime Video, but we'll sync up on Discord to watch it together, chat, and share our thoughts. We'll be announcing it on Twitter, so if you check Bitcoin Film Fest on Twitter, you'll find details on how to join.

Film has been a great way to connect with members and spark discussions. We've seen Bitcoin meetups worldwide organizing movie nights—our volunteer friends in Montenegro have hosted one, and our partners in Kenya and South Africa have done the same. Lately, movie nights have been happening more and more frequently, which is exciting.

It's still early—after all, Bitcoin is only 16 years old, so the selection of Bitcoin movies is still relatively small. Many of these films haven’t had large budgets or massive talent pools yet, but that’s changing. Right now, we’re primarily focused on showing films within the Bitcoin community rather than creating films aimed at the general public. That said, those kinds of projects are also emerging. I’m optimistic about the growth of Bitcoin cinema—better storytelling, AI-driven advancements, increasing interest from audiences, and even sponsors willing to invest in filmmakers. Big things are coming, and while we already have some great Bitcoin films, the best is yet to come. We’re still in the early days, and this is the time to contribute and help shape the future of Bitcoin cinema.

YakiHonne:We’ve come to the end of today’s interview, and I’ve truly enjoyed every moment of it. I’m very sure your idea will be incredibly engaging, inspiring more people and attracting a broad audience. Thank you so much for your time today—it was a great conversation.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

There is something quietly rebellious about stacking sats. In a world obsessed with instant gratification, choosing to patiently accumulate Bitcoin, one sat at a time, feels like a middle finger to the hype machine. But to do it right, you have got to stay humble. Stack too hard with your head in the clouds, and you will trip over your own ego before the next halving even hits.

Small Wins

Stacking sats is not glamorous. Discipline. Stacking every day, week, or month, no matter the price, and letting time do the heavy lifting. Humility lives in that consistency. You are not trying to outsmart the market or prove you are the next "crypto" prophet. Just a regular person, betting on a system you believe in, one humble stack at a time. Folks get rekt chasing the highs. They ape into some shitcoin pump, shout about it online, then go silent when they inevitably get rekt. The ones who last? They stack. Just keep showing up. Consistency. Humility in action. Know the game is long, and you are not bigger than it.

Ego is Volatile

Bitcoin’s swings can mess with your head. One day you are up 20%, feeling like a genius and the next down 30%, questioning everything. Ego will have you panic selling at the bottom or over leveraging the top. Staying humble means patience, a true bitcoin zen. Do not try to "beat” Bitcoin. Ride it. Stack what you can afford, live your life, and let compounding work its magic.

Simplicity

There is a beauty in how stacking sats forces you to rethink value. A sat is worth less than a penny today, but every time you grab a few thousand, you plant a seed. It is not about flaunting wealth but rather building it, quietly, without fanfare. That mindset spills over. Cut out the noise: the overpriced coffee, fancy watches, the status games that drain your wallet. Humility is good for your soul and your stack. I have a buddy who has been stacking since 2015. Never talks about it unless you ask. Lives in a decent place, drives an old truck, and just keeps stacking. He is not chasing clout, he is chasing freedom. That is the vibe: less ego, more sats, all grounded in life.

The Big Picture

Stack those sats. Do it quietly, do it consistently, and do not let the green days puff you up or the red days break you down. Humility is the secret sauce, it keeps you grounded while the world spins wild. In a decade, when you look back and smile, it will not be because you shouted the loudest. It will be because you stayed the course, one sat at a time. \ \ Stay Humble and Stack Sats. 🫡

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

When developing on nostr, normally it's enough to read the NIP related to a given feature you want to build to know what has to be done. But there are some aspects of nostr development that aren't so straightforward because they depend less on specific data formats than on how different concepts are combined.

An example of this is how for a while it was considered best practice to re-publish notes when replying to them. This practice emerged before the outbox model gained traction, and was a hacky way of attempting to ensure relays had the full context required for a given note. Over time though, pubkey hints emerged as a better way to ensure other clients could find required context.

Another one of these things is "relay-based groups", or as I prefer to call it "relays-as-groups" (RAG). Such a thing doesn't really exist - there's no spec for it (although some aspects of the concept are included in NIP 29), but at the same time there are two concrete implementations (Flotilla and Chachi) which leverage several different NIPs in order to create a cohesive system for groups on nostr.

This composability is one of the neat qualities of nostr. Not only would it be unhelpful to specify how different parts of the protocol should work together, it would be impossible because of the number of possible combinations possible just from applying a little bit of common sense to the NIPs repo. No one said it was ok to put t tags on a kind 0. But no one's stopping you! And the semantics are basically self-evident if you understand its component parts.

So, instead of writing a NIP that sets relay-based groups in stone, I'm writing this guide in order to document how I've combined different parts of the nostr protocol to create a compelling architecture for groups.

Relays

Relays already have a canonical identity, which is the relay's url. Events posted to a relay can be thought of as "posted to that group". This means that every relay is already a group. All nostr notes have already been posted to one or more groups.

One common objection to this structure is that identifying a group with a relay means that groups are dependent on the relay to continue hosting the group. In normal broadcast nostr (which forms organic permissionless groups based on user-centric social clustering), this is a very bad thing, because hosts are orthogonal to group identity. Communities are completely different. Communities actually need someone to enforce community boundaries, implement moderation, etc. Reliance on a host is a feature, not a bug (in contrast to NIP 29 groups, which tend to co-locate many groups on a single host, relays-as-groups tends to encourage one group, one host).

This doesn't mean that federation, mirrors, and migration can't be accomplished. In a sense, leaving this on the social layer is a good thing, because it adds friction to the dissolution/forking of a group. But the door is wide open to protocol additions to support those use cases for relay-based groups. One possible approach would be to follow this draft PR which specified a "federation" event relays could publish on their own behalf.

Relay keys

This draft PR to NIP 11 specifies a self field which represents the relay's identity. Using this, relays can publish events on their own behalf. Currently, the pubkey field sort of does the same thing, but is overloaded as a contact field for the owner of the relay.

AUTH

Relays can control access using NIP 42 AUTH. There are any number of modes a relay can operate in:

1. No auth, fully public - anyone can read/write to the group.

2. Relays may enforce broad or granular access controls with AUTH.

Relays may deny EVENTs or REQs depending on user identity. Messages returned in AUTH, CLOSED, or OK messages should be human readable. It's crucial that clients show these error messages to users. Here's how Flotilla handles failed AUTH and denied event publishing:

LIMITS could also be used in theory to help clients adapt their interface depending on user abilities and relay policy.

1. AUTH with implicit access controls.

In this mode, relays may exclude matching events from REQs if the user does not have permission to view them. This can be useful for multi-use relays that host hidden rooms. This mode should be used with caution, because it can result in confusion for the end user.

See Triflector for a relay implementation that supports some of these auth policies.

Invite codes

If a user doesn't have access to a relay, they can request access using this draft NIP. This is true whether access has been explicitly or implicitly denied (although users will have to know that they should use an invite code to request access).

The above referenced NIP also contains a mechanism for users to request an invite code that they can share with other users.

The policy for these invite codes is entirely up to the relay. They may be single-use, multi-use, or require additional verification. Additional requirements can be communicated to the user in the OK message, for example directions to visit an external URL to register.

See Triflector for a relay implementation that supports invite codes.

Content

Any kind of event can be published to a relay being treated as a group, unless rejected by the relay implementation. In particular, NIP 7D was added to support basic threads, and NIP C7 for chat messages.

Since which relay an event came from determines which group it was posted to, clients need to have a mechanism for keeping track of which relay they received an event from, and should not broadcast events to other relays (unless intending to cross-post the content).

Rooms

Rooms follow NIP 29. I wish NIP 29 wasn't called "relay based groups", which is very confusing when talking about "relays as groups". It's much better to think of them as sub-groups, or as Flotilla calls them, "rooms".

Rooms have two modes - managed and unmanaged. Managed rooms follow all the rules laid out in NIP 29 about metadata published by the relay and user membership. In either case, rooms are represented by a random room id, and are posted to by including the id in an event's h tag. This allows rooms to switch between managed and unmanaged modes without losing any content.

Managed room names come from kind 39000 room meta events, but unmanaged rooms don't have these. Instead, room names should come from members' NIP 51 kind 10009 membership lists. Tags on these lists should look like this: ["group", "groupid", "wss://group.example.com", "Cat lovers"]. If no name can be found for the room (i.e., there aren't any members), the room should be ignored by clients.

Rooms present a difficulty for publishing to the relay as a whole, since content with an h tag can't be excluded from requests. Currently, relay-wide posts are h-tagged with _ which works for "group" clients, but not more generally. I'm not sure how to solve this other than to ask relays to support negative filters.

Cross-posting

The simplest way to cross-post content from one group (or room) to another, is to quote the original note in whatever event kind is appropriate. For example, a blog post might be quoted in a kind 9 to be cross-posted to chat, or in a kind 11 to be cross-posted to a thread. kind 16 reposts can be used the same way if the reader's client renders reposts.

Posting the original event to multiple relays-as-groups is trivial, since all you have to do is send the event to the relay. Posting to multiple rooms simultaneously by appending multiple h tags is however not recommended, since group relays/clients are incentivised to protect themselves from spam by rejecting events with multiple h tags (similar to how events with multiple t tags are sometimes rejected).

Privacy

Currently, it's recommended to include a NIP 70 - tag on content posted to relays-as-groups to discourage replication of relay-specific content across the network.

Another slightly stronger approach would be for group relays to strip signatures in order to make events invalid (or at least deniable). For this approach to work, users would have to be able to signal that they trust relays to be honest. We could also use ZkSNARKS to validate signatures in bulk.

In any case, group posts should not be considered "private" in the same way E2EE groups might be. Relays-as-groups should be considered a good fit for low-stakes groups with many members (since trust deteriorates quickly as more people get involved).

Membership

There is currently no canonical member list published by relays (except for NIP 29 managed rooms). Instead, users keep track of their own relay and room memberships using kind 10009 lists. Relay-level memberships are represented by an r tag containing the relay url, and room-level memberships are represented using a group tag.

Users can choose to advertise their membership in a RAG by using unencrypted tags, or they may keep their membership private by using encrypted tags. Advertised memberships are useful for helping people find groups based on their social graph:

User memberships should not be trusted, since they can be published unilaterally by anyone, regardless of actual access. Possible improvements in this area would be the ability to provide proof of access:

• Relays could publish member lists (although this would sacrifice member privacy)
• Relays could support a new command that allows querying a particular member's access status
• Relays could provide a proof to the member that they could then choose to publish or not

Moderation

There are two parts to moderation: reporting and taking action based on these reports.

Reporting is already covered by NIP 56. Clients should be careful about encouraging users to post reports for illegal content under their own identity, since that can itself be illegal. Relays also should not serve reports to users, since that can be used to find rather than address objectionable content.

Reports are only one mechanism for flagging objectionable content. Relay operators and administrators can use whatever heuristics they like to identify and address objectionable content. This might be via automated policies that auto-ban based on reports from high-reputation people, a client that implements NIP 86 relay management API, or by some other admin interface.

There's currently no way for moderators of a given relay to be advertised, or for a moderator's client to know that the user is a moderator (so that they can enable UI elements for in-app moderation). This could be addressed via NIP 11, LIMITS, or some other mechanism in the future.

General best practices

In general, it's very important when developing a client to assume that the relay has no special support for any of the above features, instead treating all of this stuff as progressive enhancement.

For example, if a user enters an invite code, go ahead and send it to the relay using a kind 28934 event. If it's rejected, you know that it didn't work. But if it's accepted, you don't know that it worked - you only know that the relay allowed the user to publish that event. This is helpful, becaues it may imply that the user does indeed have access to the relay. But additional probing may be needed, and reliance on error messages down the road when something else fails unexpectedly is indispensable.

This paradigm may drive some engineers nuts, because it's basically equivalent to coding your clients to reverse-engineer relay support for every feature you want to use. But this is true of nostr as a whole - anyone can put whatever weird stuff in an event and sign it. Clients have to be extremely compliant with Postell's law - doing their absolute best to accept whatever weird data or behavior shows up and handle failure in any situation. Sure, it's annoying, but it's the cost of permissionless development. What it gets us is a completely open-ended protocol, in which anything can be built, and in which every solution is tested by the market.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

This piece is the first in a series that will focus on things I think are a priority if your focus is similar to mine: building a strong family and safeguarding their future.

---

Choosing the ideal place to raise a family is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make. For simplicity sake I will break down my thought process into key factors: strong property rights, the ability to grow your own food, access to fresh water, the freedom to own and train with guns, and a dependable community.

A Jurisdiction with Strong Property Rights

Strong property rights are essential and allow you to build on a solid foundation that is less likely to break underneath you. Regions with a history of limited government and clear legal protections for landowners are ideal. Personally I think the US is the single best option globally, but within the US there is a wide difference between which state you choose. Choose carefully and thoughtfully, think long term. Obviously if you are not American this is not a realistic option for you, there are other solid options available especially if your family has mobility. I understand many do not have this capability to easily move, consider that your first priority, making movement and jurisdiction choice possible in the first place.

Abundant Access to Fresh Water

Water is life. I cannot overstate the importance of living somewhere with reliable, clean, and abundant freshwater. Some regions face water scarcity or heavy regulations on usage, so prioritizing a place where water is plentiful and your rights to it are protected is critical. Ideally you should have well access so you are not tied to municipal water supplies. In times of crisis or chaos well water cannot be easily shutoff or disrupted. If you live in an area that is drought prone, you are one drought away from societal chaos. Not enough people appreciate this simple fact.

Grow Your Own Food

A location with fertile soil, a favorable climate, and enough space for a small homestead or at the very least a garden is key. In stable times, a small homestead provides good food and important education for your family. In times of chaos your family being able to grow and raise healthy food provides a level of self sufficiency that many others will lack. Look for areas with minimal restrictions, good weather, and a culture that supports local farming.

Guns

The ability to defend your family is fundamental. A location where you can legally and easily own guns is a must. Look for places with a strong gun culture and a political history of protecting those rights. Owning one or two guns is not enough and without proper training they will be a liability rather than a benefit. Get comfortable and proficient. Never stop improving your skills. If the time comes that you must use a gun to defend your family, the skills must be instinct. Practice. Practice. Practice.

A Strong Community You Can Depend On

No one thrives alone. A ride or die community that rallies together in tough times is invaluable. Seek out a place where people know their neighbors, share similar values, and are quick to lend a hand. Lead by example and become a good neighbor, people will naturally respond in kind. Small towns are ideal, if possible, but living outside of a major city can be a solid balance in terms of work opportunities and family security.

---

Let me know if you found this helpful. My plan is to break down how I think about these five key subjects in future posts.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Abstract

This paper examines a hypothetical scenario in which the United States, under Trump’s leadership, withdraws from NATO and reduces its support for Europe, thereby enabling a Russian conquest of Ukraine and the subsequent expansion of Moscow’s influence over Eurasia, while the US consolidates its dominance over South America. Drawing on classical geopolitical theories—specifically those of Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Rudolf Kjellén, and Friedrich Ratzel—the study analyzes how these frameworks can elucidate the evolving power dynamics and territorial ambitions in a reconfigured global order. The discussion highlights Mackinder’s notion of the Eurasian Heartland and its strategic importance, Mahan’s emphasis on maritime power and control of strategic routes, Kjellén’s view of the state as an expanding organism, and Ratzel’s concept of Lebensraum as a justification for territorial expansion. The paper also explores contemporary developments, such as the US–Ukraine economic agreement and Trump’s overt territorial ambitions involving Greenland and Canada, in light of these theories. By juxtaposing traditional geopolitical concepts with current international relations, the study aims to shed light on the potential implications of such shifts for regional stability, global security, and the balance of power, particularly in relation to emerging neocolonial practices in Latin America.

Introduction

In recent years, the geopolitical dynamics involving the United States, Russia, and Ukraine have sparked analyses from different theoretical perspectives. This paper examines recent events – presupposing a scenario in which Donald Trump withdraws the US from NATO and reduces its support for Europe, allowing a Russian conquest of Ukraine and the expansion of Moscow’s influence over Eurasia, while the US consolidates its dominance over South America – in light of classical geopolitical theories. The ideas of Halford Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Rudolf Kjellén, and Friedrich Ratzel are used as reference points. The proposal is to impartially evaluate how each theory can elucidate the developments of this hypothetical scenario, relating Russian territorial expansion in Eurasia to the strategic retreat of the US to the Western Hemisphere.

Initially, we will outline Mackinder’s conception of the Heartland (the central Eurasian territory) and the crucial role of Eastern Europe and Ukraine in the quest for global dominance. Next, we will discuss Mahan’s ideas regarding maritime power and the control of strategic routes, considering the impacts on the naval power balance among the US, Russia, and other maritime powers such as the United Kingdom and Japan. Subsequently, we will examine Kjellén’s organic theory of the state, interpreting the Russian expansionist strategy as a reflection of a state organism in search of vital space. In the same vein, Ratzel’s concept of “Lebensraum” will be explored, along with how Russia could justify territorial expansion based on resources and territory. Finally, the paper connects these theories to the current political context, analyzing the direct negotiations between Washington and Moscow (overlooking Ukraine and Europe), the US policy toward authoritarian regimes in Latin America, and the notion of a hemispheric division of power – the “Island of the Americas” under North American hegemony versus an Eurasia dominated by Russia. Lastly, it considers the possibility that such a geopolitical arrangement may foster the strengthening of authoritarian governments globally, rather than containing them, thus altering the paradigms of the liberal world order.

The Heartland of Mackinder: Ukraine, Eurasia, and Global Dominance

Halford J. Mackinder, a British geographer and pioneer of geopolitics, proposed the celebrated Heartland Theory in the early twentieth century. Mackinder divided the world into geostrategic zones and identified the Heartland—the central continental mass of Eurasia—as the “geographical pivot of history” [5]. His most famous maxim encapsulates this vision: “who rules Eastern Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; who rules the World Island commands the world” [5]. Eastern Europe and, in particular, the region of present-day Ukraine, play a key role in this formula. This is because, for Mackinder, Eastern Europe functions as a gateway to the Heartland, providing access to resources and a strategic position for the projection of continental power [5].

Applying this theory to our scenario, the conquest of Ukraine and Eastern European countries by Russia would have profound geopolitical implications. From a Mackinderian point of view, such a conquest would enormously strengthen Russia’s position in the Heartland by adding manpower (population) and Ukraine’s industrial and agricultural resources to its power base [5]. In fact, Mackinder argued that controlling the Heartland conferred formidable geostrategic advantages—a vast terrestrial “natural fortress” protected from naval invasions and rich in resources such as wheat, minerals, and fuels [5]. Thus, if Moscow were to incorporate Ukraine (renowned for its fertile soil and grain production, as well as its mineral reserves) and extend its influence over Eastern Europe, Russia would consolidate the Heartland under its direct control. In this context, the absence of the USA (withdrawn from NATO and less engaged in Europe) would remove an important obstacle to Russian predominance in the region.

With central and eastern Eurasia under Russian influence, it would be possible to move toward the realization of the geopolitical nightmare described by Mackinder for Western maritime powers: a hegemonic continental power capable of projecting power to both Europe and Asia. Mackinder himself warned that if a Heartland power gained additional access to an oceanic coastline—in other words, if it combined land power with a significant maritime front—it would constitute a “danger” to global freedom [5]. In the scenario considered, besides advancing into Eastern Europe, Russia would already possess strategic maritime outlets (for example, in the Black Sea, via Crimea, and in the Baltic, via Kaliningrad or the Baltic States if influenced). Thus, the control of Ukraine would reinforce Russia’s position in the Black Sea and facilitate projection into the Eastern Mediterranean, expanding its oceanic front. From a Mackinderian perspective, this could potentially transform Russia into the dominant power of the “World Island” (the combined mass of Europe, Asia, and Africa), thereby unbalancing the global geopolitical order [5].

It is worth noting that, historically, Mackinder’s doctrine influenced containment strategies: both in the interwar period and during the Cold War, efforts were made to prevent a single power from controlling the Heartland and Eastern Europe. NATO, for example, can be seen as an instrument to prevent Soviet/Russian advances in Europe, in line with Mackinder’s imperative to “contain the Heartland.” Thus, if the USA were to abandon that role—by leaving NATO and tacitly accepting the Russian sphere of influence in Eurasia—we would be witnessing an inversion of the principles that have guided Western policy for decades. In short, under Mackinder’s theory, the Russian conquest of Ukraine and beyond would represent the key for Russia to command the Heartland and, potentially, challenge global hegemony, especially in a scenario where the USA self-restricts to the Western Hemisphere.

The Maritime Power of Mahan and the Naval Balance between West and East

While Mackinder emphasized continental land power, Alfred Thayer Mahan, a nineteenth-century American naval strategist, highlighted the crucial role of maritime power in global dominance. In his work The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1890), Mahan studied the example of the British Empire and concluded that control of the seas paved the way for British supremacy as a world power [10]. He argued that a strong navy and the control of strategic maritime routes were decisive factors for projecting military, political, and economic power. His doctrine can be summarized in the following points: (1) the United States should aspire to be a world power; (2) control of the seas is necessary to achieve that status; (3) such control is obtained through a powerful fleet of warships [17]. In other words, for Mahan, whoever dominates the maritime routes and possesses naval superiority will be in a position to influence global destinies, ensuring trade, supplies, and the rapid movement of military forces.

In the proposed scenario, in which the USA withdraws militarily from Europe and possibly from the Eurasian stage, Mahan’s ideas raise questions about the distribution of maritime power and its effects. Traditionally, the US Navy operates globally, ensuring freedom of navigation and deterring challenges in major seas (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, etc.). A withdrawal of the USA from NATO could also signal a reduction in its naval presence in the Northeast Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, and other areas close to Eurasia. In such a case, who would fill this naval vacuum? Russia, although primarily a land power, has been attempting to modernize its navy and has specific interests—for example, consolidating its dominance in the Black Sea and maintaining a presence in the Mediterranean (with a naval base in Tartus, Syria). The United Kingdom, a historic European maritime power, would remain aligned with the USA but, without American military support in Europe, might potentially be overwhelmed trying to contain an increasingly assertive Russian navy in European waters on its own. Japan, another significant maritime actor allied with the USA, is concerned with the naval balance in the Pacific; without full American engagement, Tokyo might be compelled to expand its own naval power to contain both Russia in the Far East (which maintains a fleet in the Pacific) and, especially, the growing Chinese navy.

According to Mahan’s thinking, strategic maritime routes and choke points (crucial straits and channels) become contested prizes in this power game. With the USA focusing on the Americas, one could imagine Washington reinforcing control over the Panama Canal and Caribbean routes—reviving an “American Gulf” policy in the Western Atlantic and Eastern Pacific. In fact, indications of this orientation emerge in statements attributed to Trump, who once suggested reclaiming direct control over Panama, transforming Canada into a North American state, and even “annexing” Greenland due to its Arctic geopolitical importance [18]. These aspirations reflect a quest to secure advantageous maritime positions near the American continent.

Conversely, in the absence of American presence in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, Russia would have free rein for regional maritime projection. This could include anything from the unrestricted use of the Black Sea (after dominating Ukraine, thereby ensuring full access to Crimea and Ukrainian ports) to greater influence in the Eastern Mediterranean via Syria and partnerships with countries such as Iran or Egypt. The Baltic Sea would also become an area of expanded Russian interest, pressuring coastal countries and perhaps reducing NATO’s traditional local naval supremacy. However, it is worth noting that even with these regional expansions, Russia lacks a blue-water navy comparable to that of the USA; thus, its initial global maritime impact would be limited without alliances.

An important aspect of Mahan’s theories is that naval power serves as a counterbalance to the land power of the Heartland. Therefore, even if Russia were to dominate the Eurasian continental mass, the continued presence of American naval might on the oceans could prevent complete global domination by Moscow. However, if the USA voluntarily restricts its naval reach to the Americas, it would forgo influencing the power balance in the seas adjacent to Eurasia. Consequently, the balance of maritime power would tend to shift in favor of regional Eurasian actors. The United Kingdom and Japan, traditional allies of the USA, could intensify their naval capabilities to defend regional interests—the United Kingdom safeguarding the North Atlantic and the North Sea, and Japan patrolling the Northwest Pacific—but both would face budgetary and structural limitations in fully compensating for the absence of the American superpower. Consequently, Mahan’s vision suggests that the withdrawal of the USA from the extra-regional scene would weaken the liberal maritime regime, possibly opening space for revisionist powers to contest routes that were previously secured (for example, Russia and China encountering less opposition on the routes of the Arctic and the Indo-Pacific, respectively). In summary, naval hegemony would fragment, and control of strategic seas would become contested, reconfiguring the relative influence of the USA, Russia, and maritime allies such as the United Kingdom and Japan.

Kjellén and the State as a Living Organism: Russian Expansion as an Organic Necessity

Another useful theoretical lens to interpret Russian geopolitical posture is that of Rudolf Kjellén, a Swedish political scientist of the early twentieth century who conceived the State as a living organism. Kjellén, who even coined the term “geopolitics,” was influenced by Friedrich Ratzel’s ideas and by social Darwinism, arguing that States are born, grow, and decline analogously to living beings [13]. In his work Staten som livsform (The State as a Form of Life, 1916), he maintained that States possess an organic dimension in addition to the legal one and that “just as any form of life, States must expand or die” [14]. This expansion would not be motivated merely by aggressive conquest but seen as a necessary growth for the self-preservation of the state organism [14]. In complement, Kjellén echoed Ratzel’s “law of expanding spaces” by asserting that large States expand at the expense of smaller ones, with it being only a matter of time before the great realms fill the available spaces [14]. That is, from the organic perspective, vigorous States tend to incorporate smaller neighboring territories, consolidating territorially much like an organism absorbing nutrients.

Applying this theory to the strategy of contemporary Russia, we can interpret Moscow’s actions—including the invasion of Ukraine and the ambition to restore its sphere of influence in Eurasia—as the expression of an organic drive for expansion. For a strategist influenced by this school, Russia (viewed as a state organism with a long imperial history) needs to expand its territory and influence to ensure its survival and security. The loss of control over spaces that once were part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union (such as Ukraine itself, the Caucasus, or Central Asia) may be perceived by Russian elites as an atrophy of the state organism, rendering it vulnerable. Thus, the reincorporation of these territories—whether directly (annexation) or indirectly (political vassalage)—would equate to restoring lost members or strengthening vital organs of the state body. In fact, official Russian arguments often portray Ukraine as an intrinsic part of “Russian historicity,” denying it a fully separate identity—a narrative that aligns with the idea that Russian expansion in that region is natural and necessary for the Russian State (seen as encompassing also Russian speakers beyond its current borders).

Kjellén would thus provide a theoretical justification for Russian territorial expansion as an organic phenomenon. As a great power, Russia would inevitably seek to expand at the expense of smaller neighbors (Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic States, etc.), as dictated by the tendency of “great spaces to organize” to the detriment of the small [14]. This view can be identified in contemporary Russian doctrines that value spheres of influence and the notion that neighboring countries must gravitate around Moscow in order for the natural order to be maintained. The very idea of “Eurasia” united under Russian leadership (advocated by modern Russian thinkers) echoes this organic conception of vital space and expansion as a sign of the State’s vitality.

However, Kjellén’s theory also warns of the phenomenon of “imperial overstretch,” should a State exceed its internal cohesion limits by expanding excessively [14]. He recognized that extending borders too far could increase friction and vulnerabilities, making it difficult to maintain cohesion—a very large organism may lack functional integration. In the Russian context, this suggests that although expansion is seen as necessary, there are risks if Russia tries to encompass more than it can govern effectively. Conquering Ukraine and subjugating Eastern Europe, for example, could economically and militarily overburden the Russian State, especially if it faced resistance or had to manage hostile populations. However, in the hypothetical scenario we adopt (isolated USA and a weakened Europe), Russia might calculate that the organic benefits of expansion (territory, resources, strategic depth) would outweigh the costs, since external interference would be limited. Thus, through Kjellén’s lens, expansionist Russia behaves as an organism following its instinct for survival and growth, absorbing weaker neighbors; yet such a process is not devoid of challenges, requiring that the “organism Russia” manages to assimilate these new spaces without collapsing under its own weight.

Ratzel and Lebensraum: Resources, Territory, and the Justification for Expansion

Parallel to Kjellén’s organic view, Friedrich Ratzel’s theory offers another conceptual basis for understanding Russian expansion: the concept of Lebensraum (vital space). Ratzel, a German geographer of the late nineteenth century, proposed that the survival and development of a people or nation depended critically on the available physical space and resources. Influenced by Darwinist ideas, he applied the notion of “survival of the fittest” to nations, arguing that human societies need to conquer territory and resources to prosper, and that the stronger and fittest civilizations will naturally prevail over the weaker ones [12]. In 1901, Ratzel coined the term Lebensraum to describe this need for “vital space” as a geographical factor in national power [15].

Subsequently, this idea would be adopted—and extremely distorted—by Nazi ideology to justify Germany’s aggressions in Europe. However, the core of Ratzel’s concept is that territorial expansion is essential for the survival and growth of a State, especially to secure food, raw materials, and space for its population [12].

When examining Russia’s stance under this perspective, we can see several narratives that evoke the logic of Lebensraum. Russia is the largest country in the world by area; however, much of its territory is characterized by adverse climates (tundra, taiga) and is relatively sparsely populated in Siberia. On the other hand, adjacent regions such as Ukraine possess highly arable lands (chernozem—black soil), significant Slavic population density, and additional natural resources (coal in the Donbass, for example). An implicit justification for Russian expansion could be the search for supplementary resources and fertile lands to secure its self-sufficiency and power—exactly as Ratzel described that vigorous nations do. Historical records show that Ratzel emphasized agrarian primacy: he believed that new territories should be colonized by farmers, providing the food base for the nation [12]. Ukraine, historically called the “breadbasket of Europe,” fits perfectly into this vision of conquest for sustenance and agricultural wealth.

Furthermore, Ratzel viewed geography as a determinant of the destiny of nations—peoples adapted to certain habitats seek to expand them if they aspire to grow. In contemporary Russian discourse, there is often mention of the need to ensure security and territorial depth in the face of NATO, or to unite brotherly peoples (Russians and Russian speakers) within a single political space. Such arguments can be read as a modern translation of Lebensraum: the idea that the Russian nation, in order to be secure and flourish, must control a larger space, encompassing buffer zones and critical resources. This Russian “vital space” would naturally include Ukraine and other former Soviet republics, given the historical and infrastructural interdependence. Ratzel emphasized that peoples migrated and expanded when their original homeland no longer met their needs or aspirations [12]. Although contemporary Russia does not suffer from demographic pressure (on the contrary, it faces population decline), under the logic of a great power there is indeed a sentiment of geopolitical insufficiency for having lost influence over areas considered strategic. Thus, reconquering these areas would mean recovering the “habitat” necessary for the Russian nation to prosper and feel secure.

It is important to mention that, in Ratzel’s and Kjellén’s formulations, the pursuit of Lebensraum or organic expansion is not morally qualified—it is treated as a natural process in the politics of power. Thus, on the discursive level, Russia can avoid overly aggressive rhetoric and resort to “natural” justifications: for example, claiming that it needs to occupy Ukraine for defensive purposes (security space) or to reunify peoples (a common cultural and historical space). Beneath these justifications, however, resonates the geopolitical imperative to acquire more territory and resources as a guarantee of national survival, something consonant with Ratzel’s theory. In fact, Russian Realpolitik frequently prioritizes the control of energy resources (gas, oil) and transportation routes. Expanding its influence over central Eurasia would also mean controlling oil pipelines, gas lines, and logistical corridors—essential elements of modern Lebensraum understood as access to vital resources and infrastructure.

In summary, by conquering Ukraine and extending its reach into Eurasia, Russia could effectively invoke the concept of Lebensraum: presenting its expansion not as mere imperialism, but as a necessity to secure indispensable lands and resources for its people and to correct the “injustice” of a vital space diminished by post-Cold War territorial losses. The theories of Ratzel and Kjellén together paint a picture in which Russian expansion emerges almost as a natural law—the great State reclaiming space to ensure its survival and development at the expense of smaller neighbors.

Trump, NATO, and the Threat of American Withdrawal

One of the most alarming changes with Trump's return to power is the tense relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump has long criticized allies for not meeting military spending targets, even threatening during his first term to withdraw the US from the alliance if members did not increase their contributions [2]. This threat, initially viewed with skepticism, became concrete after his re-election, leading European allies to seriously consider the possibility of having to defend themselves without American support [1]. In fact, Trump suggested in post-election interviews that the US would only remain in NATO if the allies “paid their bills” – otherwise, he “would seriously consider” leaving [2]. Such statements reinforced the warning that the US might not honor NATO's mutual defense commitment, precisely at a time of continuous Russian threat due to the war in Ukraine [1].

From a theoretical point of view, this posture of American retrenchment evokes the classic tension between maritime power and land power. Alfred Thayer Mahan emphasized that the global power of the US derived largely from its naval superiority and from alliances that ensured control over strategic maritime routes [9]. NATO, since 1949, has served not only to deter Soviet terrestrial advances in Eurasia, but also to secure the US naval presence in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean – a fundamental element according to Mahan. In turn, Halford Mackinder warned that the balance of global power depended on the control of the Eurasian “Heartland” (the central region of Eurasia). The withdrawal or disengagement of the US (a maritime power) from this region could open the way for a continental power (such as Russia) to expand its influence in Eastern Europe, unbalancing the power balance [3]. In other words, by threatening to leave NATO, Trump jeopardizes the principle of containment that prevented Russian dominance over Eastern Europe – something that Mackinder would see as a dangerous shift in global power in favor of the Heartland power.

Adopting an impartial tone, it is observed that European countries have reacted to this new reality with precautionary measures. Strategic reports already calculate the cost of an autonomous European defense: hundreds of thousands of additional soldiers and investments of hundreds of billions of euros would be required if the US ceased to guarantee the security of the continent [1]. European dependence on American military power is significant and, without it, there would be a need for a major reinforcement of European Armed Forces [1]. This mobilization practically reflects the anticipation of a power vacuum left by the US – a scenario in which Mackinder’s theory (on the primacy of the Heartland and the vulnerability of the “external crescent” where Western Europe is located) regains its relevance.

The US–Ukraine Economic Agreement: Strategic Minerals in Exchange for Support?

Another novelty of Trump's second term is the unprecedented and transactional manner in which Washington has been dealing with the war in Ukraine. Instead of emphasizing security guarantees and alliances, the Trump administration proposed a trade agreement with Ukraine focused on the exploitation of strategic minerals, linking American support to a direct economic benefit. According to sources close to the negotiations, the US and Ukraine are about to sign a pact to share the revenues from the exploitation of critical mineral resources on Ukrainian territory [19]. Materials such as titanium, lithium, rare earths, and uranium – vital for high-tech and defense industries – would be at the core of this agreement [6]. According to the known draft, Ukraine would allocate 50% of the profits from new mineral ventures to a fund controlled by the US, which would reinvest part of the resources in the country’s own reconstruction [6] [19].

It is noteworthy that the pact does not include explicit security guarantees for Kyiv, despite Ukraine remaining under direct military threat from Russia [19]. Essentially, the Trump administration offers financial support and economic investment in exchange for a share in Ukrainian natural resources, but without formally committing to Ukraine's defense in the event of a renewed Russian offensive [19]. American authorities argue that this economic partnership would already be sufficient to “secure Ukrainian interests,” as it would provide the US with its own incentives to desire Ukraine’s stability [19]. “What could be better for Ukraine than being in an economic partnership with the United States?” stated Mike Waltz, a US national security advisor, defending the proposal [19].

Analysts, however, assess the agreement in divided terms. For some, it represents a form of economic exploitation at a time of Ukraine's fragility – comparing the demand to share mineral wealth amid war to a scheme of “mafia protection” [19]. Steven Cook, from the Council on Foreign Relations, classified the offer as “extortion,” and political scientist Virginia P. Fortna observed that charging resources from an invaded country resembles predatory practices [19]. Joseph Nye adds that it is a short-term gain strategy that could be “disastrous in the long run” for American credibility, reflecting the transactional approach that Trump even adopted with close allies in other contexts [19]. On the other hand, some see a future advantage for Kyiv: journalist Pierre Briançon suggests that at least this agreement aligns American commercial interests with Ukraine’s future, which could, in theory, keep the US involved in Ukrainian prosperity in the long term [19]. It is even recalled that President Zelensky himself proposed last year the idea of sharing natural resources with the US to bring the interests of the two countries closer together [19].

From the perspective of geopolitical theories, this agreement illustrates a shift towards economic pragmatism in international relations, approaching concepts proposed by Kjellén. Rudolf Kjellén, who coined the term “geopolitics,” saw the State as a territorial organism that seeks to ensure its survival through self-sufficiency and the control of strategic resources [4]. Trump's demand for a share in Ukrainian resources in order to continue supporting the country reflects a logic of autarky and direct national interest – that is, foreign policy serving primarily to reinforce the economic and material position of the US. This view contrasts with the traditional cooperative approach, but aligns with Kjellén’s idea that powerful States tend to transform international relations into opportunities for their own gain, ensuring access to vital raw materials. Similarly, Friedrich Ratzel argued that States have a “propensity to expand their borders according to their capacities,” seeking vital space (Lebensraum) and resources to sustain their development [11]. The US–Ukraine pact, by conditioning military/economic aid on obtaining tangible advantages (half of the mineral profits), is reminiscent of Ratzel’s perspective: the US, as a rising economic power, expands its economic influence over Ukrainian territory like an organism extending itself to obtain the necessary resources for its well-being. It is, therefore, a form of economic expansionism at the expense of purely ideological commitments or collective security.

Peace Negotiations Excluding Ukraine and the Legitimacy of the Agreement

Another controversial point is the manner in which peace negotiations between Russia and the West have been conducted under Trump's administration. Since taking office, the American president has engaged directly with Moscow in pursuit of a ceasefire, deliberately keeping the Ukrainian government out of the initial discussions [6]. Trump expressed his desire to “leave Zelensky out of the conversation” and also excluded the European Union from any influence in the process [6]. This negotiation strategy—conducted without the presence of the primary interested party, Ukraine—raises serious questions about the legitimacy and sustainability of any resulting agreement.

Historically, peace agreements reached without the direct participation of one of the conflicting parties tend to face problems in implementation and acceptance.

The exclusion of Ukraine in the decision-making phase brings to light the issue of guarantees. As noted, the emerging agreement lacks formal US security guarantees for Ukraine. This implies that, after the agreement is signed, nothing will prevent Russia from launching a new offensive if it deems it convenient, knowing that the US has not committed to defending it militarily. Experts have already warned that a ceasefire without robust protection may only be a pause for Russian rearmament, rendering the conflict “frozen” temporarily and potentially resumed in the near future. The European strategic community has expressed similar concern: without American deterrence, the risk of further Russian aggressions in the region increases considerably [1]. Denmark, for example, has released intelligence reports warning of possible imminent Russian attacks, prompting neighboring countries to accelerate plans for independent defense [1].

The legitimacy of this asymmetric peace agreement (negotiated without Ukraine fully at the table and under economic coercion) is also questionable from a legal and moral point of view. It violates the principle of self-determination by imposing terms decided by great powers on a sovereign country—a practice reminiscent of dark chapters in diplomacy, such as the Munich Agreement of 1938, when powers determined the fate of Czechoslovakia without its consent. In the current case, Ukraine would end up signing the agreement, but from a position of weakness, raising doubts about how durable such a commitment would be.

From Mackinder’s perspective, Ukraine’s removal from the battlefield without guarantees essentially means admitting a greater influence of Russia (the Heartland power) over Eastern Europe. This would alter the balance in Eurasia in a potentially lasting way. Furthermore, the fact that great powers negotiate over the heads of a smaller country evokes the imperial logic of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when empires decided among themselves the divisions of foreign territories—a behavior that Mackinder saw as likely in a world of a “closed system.” With the entire world already occupied by States, Mackinder predicted that powers would begin to compete for influence within this consolidated board, often subjugating smaller states to gain advantage [3]. The US–Russia negotiation regarding Ukraine, without proper Ukrainian representation, exemplifies this type of neo-imperial dynamic in the twenty-first century.

Also noteworthy is the consonance with the ideas of Ratzel and Kjellén: both viewed smaller states as easily relegated to the status of satellites or even “parasitic organisms” in the orbit of larger states. Kjellén spoke of the intrinsic vulnerability of states with little territorial depth or economic dependence, making them susceptible to external pressures [4][20]. Ukraine, weakened by war and dependent on external aid, becomes a concrete example of this theorized vulnerability: it has had to cede strategic resources and accept terms dictated against its will in an attempt to secure its immediate survival. The resulting agreement, therefore, reflects a power imbalance characteristic of the hierarchical international relations described by classical geopolitical theorists.

Implicit Territorial Concessions and Trump’s Public Discourse

A central and controversial point in Trump’s statements regarding the war in Ukraine is the insinuation of territorial concessions to Russia as part of the conflict’s resolution. Publicly, Trump avoided explicitly condemning Russian aggression and even stated that he considered it “unlikely” that Ukraine would be able to retake all the areas occupied by the Russians [16]. In debates and interviews, he suggested that “if I were president, the war would end in 24 hours,” implying that he would force an understanding between Kyiv and Moscow that would likely involve ceding some territory in exchange for peace. This position marks a break with the previous US policy of not recognizing any territorial acquisitions made by force and fuels speculations that a future peace agreement sponsored by Trump would legitimize at least part of Russia’s gains since 2014 (Crimea, Donbass, and areas seized during the 2022 invasion).

The actions of his administration corroborate this interpretation. As discussed, the economic agreement focuses on the exploitation of Ukrainian natural resources, many of which are located precisely in regions currently under Russian military control, such as parts of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast, Donetsk, Lugansk, and the Azov Sea area [6]. A Ukrainian geologist, Hanna Liventseva, highlighted that “most of these elements (strategic minerals) are found in the south of the Ukrainian Shield, mainly in the Azov region, and most of these territories are currently invaded by Russia” [6]. This means that, to make joint exploitation viable, Russia’s de facto control over these areas would have to be recognized—or at least tolerated—in the short term. In other words, the pact indirectly and tacitly accepts Russian territorial gains, as it involves sharing the profits from resources that are not currently accessible to the Kyiv government.

Furthermore, figures close to Trump have made explicit statements regarding the possibility of territorial cession. Mike Waltz, Trump’s national security advisor, publicly stated that Zelensky might need to “cede land to Russia” to end the war [8]. This remark—made public in March 2025—confirms that the Trump White House considers it natural for Ukraine to relinquish parts of its territory in favor of an agreement. Such a stance marks a break from the previous Western consensus, which condemned any territorial gains by force. Under Trump, a pragmatic view (in the eyes of his supporters) or a cynical one (according to his critics) seems to prevail: sacrificing principles of territorial integrity to quickly end hostilities and secure immediate economic benefits.

In theoretical terms, this inclination to validate territorial gains by force recalls the concept of Realpolitik and the geopolitical Darwinism that influenced thinkers such as Ratzel. In Ratzel’s organic conception, expanding states naturally absorb neighboring territories when they are strong enough to do so, while declining states lose territory—a process almost biological in the selection of the fittest [11]. The Trump administration’s acceptance that Ukraine should “give something” to Moscow to seal peace reflects a normalization of this geopolitical selection process: it recognizes the aggressor (Russia) as having the “right” to retain conquered lands, because that is how power realities on the ground dictate. Mackinder, although firmly opposed to allowing Russia to dominate the Heartland, would see this outcome as the logical consequence of the lack of engagement from maritime powers (the USA and the United Kingdom, for example) in sustaining the Ukrainian counterattack. Without the active involvement of maritime power to balance the dispute, land power prevails in Eastern Europe.

From the perspective of international legitimacy, the cession of Ukrainian territories—whether de jure or de facto—creates a dangerous precedent in the post-Cold War era. Rewarding violent aggression with territorial gains may encourage similar strategies in other parts of the world, undermining the architecture of collective security. This is possibly a return to a world of spheres of influence, where great powers define borders and zones of control according to their convenience—something that the rules-based order after 1945 sought to avoid. Here, academic impartiality requires noting that coercion for territorial concessions rarely produces lasting peace, as the aggrieved party—in this case, Ukraine—may accept temporarily but will continue to assert its rights in the long term, as has occurred with other territorial injustices in history.

Territorial Ambitions of Trump: Greenland and Canada

Beyond the Eurasian theater of war, Trump revived geopolitical ambitions involving territories traditionally allied with the US: Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark) and Canada. As early as 2019, during his first term, Trump shocked the world by proposing to buy Greenland—rich in minerals and strategically positioned in the Arctic. Upon his return to power, he went further: expressing a “renewed interest” in acquiring Greenland and publicly suggesting the incorporation of Canada as the 51st American state [2].

In January 2025, during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, he even displayed maps in which the US and Canada appeared merged into a single country, while Greenland was marked as a future American possession [2]. Posts by the president on social media included satirical images with a map of North America where Canada was labeled “51st” and Greenland designated as “Our Land” [2].

Such moves were met with concern and disbelief by allies. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was caught on an open microphone warning that Trump’s fixation on annexation “is real” and not just a joke [7]. Trudeau emphasized that Washington appeared to covet Canada’s vast mineral resources, which would explain the insistence on the idea of absorption [7]. In public, Trump argued that Canadians “would be more prosperous as American citizens,” promising tax cuts and better services should they become part of the US [7]. On the Danish side, the reaction to the revived plan regarding Greenland was firmly negative—as it was in 2019—reaffirming that the territory is not for sale. Trump, however, insinuated that the issue might be one of national security, indicating that American possession of Greenland would prevent adverse influences (a reference to China and Russia in the Arctic) [2]. More worryingly, he refused to rule out the use of military means to obtain the island, although he assured that he had no intention of invading Canada by force (in the Canadian case, he spoke of “economic force” to forge a union) [2].

This series of initiatives reflects an unprecedented expansionist impetus by the US in recent times, at least in discourse. Analyzing this through the lens of classical geopolitics offers interesting insights. Friedrich Ratzel and his notion of Lebensraum suggest that powerful states, upon reaching a certain predominance, seek to expand their territory by influencing or incorporating adjacent areas. Trump, by targeting the immediate neighbor (Canada) and a nearby strategic territory (Greenland), appears to resurrect this logic of territorial expansion for the sake of gaining space and resources. Ratzel saw such expansion almost as a natural process for vigorous states, comparable to the growth of an organism [11]. From this perspective, the US would be exercising its “right” of expansion in North America and the polar region, integrating areas of vital interest.

Additionally, Alfred Mahan’s view on maritime power helps to understand the strategic value of Greenland. Mahan postulated that control of key maritime chokepoints and naval bases ensures global advantage [9]. Greenland, situated between the North Atlantic and the Arctic, has become increasingly relevant as climate change opens new polar maritime routes and reveals vast mineral deposits (including rare earth elements and oil). For the US, having a presence or sovereignty over Greenland would mean dominating the gateway to the Arctic and denying this space to rivals. This aligns with Mahan’s strategy of securing commercial and military routes (in this case, potential Arctic routes) and resources to consolidate naval supremacy. On the other hand, the incorporation of Canada—with its enormous territory, Arctic coastline, and abundant natural resources—would provide the US with formidable geoeconomic and geopolitical reinforcement, practically eliminating vulnerabilities along its northern border. This is an ambitious project that also echoes ideas of Kjellén, for whom an ideal State should seek territorial completeness and economic self-sufficiency within its region. Incorporating Canada would be the pinnacle of American regional autarky, turning North America into a unified bloc under Washington (a scenario reminiscent of the “pan-regions” conceived by twentieth-century geopoliticians influenced by Kjellén).

It is important to note, however, that these ambitions face enormous legal and political obstacles. The sovereignty of Canada and Greenland (Denmark) is guaranteed by international law, and both peoples categorically reject the idea of annexation. Any hostile action by the US against these countries would shake alliances and the world order itself. Even so, the very fact that an American president suggests such possibilities already produces geopolitical effects: traditional partners begin to distrust Washington’s intentions, seek alternative alliances, and strengthen nationalist discourses of resistance. In summary, Trump’s expansionist intentions in Greenland and Canada rekindle old territorial issues and paradoxically place the US in the position of a revisionist power—a role once associated with empires in search of colonies.

Implications for Brazil and South America: A New Neocolonization?

In light of this geopolitical reconfiguration driven by Trump's USA—with a reordering of alliances and a possible partition of spheres of influence among great powers—the question arises: what is the impact on Brazil and the other countries of South America? Traditionally, Latin America has been under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), which established non-interference by Europe in the region and, implicitly, the primacy of the USA in the Western Hemisphere. In the post–Cold War period, this influence translated more into political and economic leadership, without formal annexations or direct territorial domination. However, the current context points to a kind of “neocolonization” of the Global South, in which larger powers seek to control resources and peripheral governments in an indirect yet effective manner.

Mackinder’s theories can be used to illuminate this dynamic. As mentioned, Mackinder envisioned the twentieth-century world as a closed system, in which there were no longer any unknown lands to be colonized—hence, the powers would fight among themselves for control over already occupied regions [3]. He predicted that Africa and Latin America (then largely European colonies or semi-colonies) would continue as boards upon which the great powers would project their disputes, a form of neocolonialism. In the current scenario, we see the USA proposing exchanges of protection for resources (as in Ukraine) and even leaders of developing countries seeking similar agreements. A notable example: the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Felix Tshisekedi, praised the USA–Ukraine initiative and suggested an analogous agreement involving Congolese mineral wealth in exchange for US support against internal rebels (M23) [19]. In other words, African countries and possibly South American ones may enter into this logic of offering privileged access to resources (cobalt, lithium, food, biodiversity) in order to obtain security guarantees or investments. This represents a regression to the times when external powers dictated the directions of the South in exchange for promises of protection, characterizing a strategic neocolonialism.

For Brazil, in particular, this rearrangement generates both opportunities and risks. As a regional power with considerable diplomatic autonomy, Brazil has historically sought to balance relationships with the USA, Europe, China, and other actors, avoiding automatic alignments. However, in a world where Trump’s USA is actively redefining spheres of influence—possibly making deals with Russia that divide priorities (for example, Washington focusing on the Western Hemisphere and Moscow on the Eastern)—South America could once again be seen as an exclusive American sphere of influence. From this perspective, Washington could pressure South American countries to align with its directives, limiting partnerships with rivals (such as China) and seeking privileged access to strategic resources (such as the Amazon, fresh water, minerals, and agricultural commodities). Some indications are already emerging: Trump’s transactional approach mentioned by Nye included pressures on Canada and Mexico regarding border and trade issues, under the threat of commercial sanctions. It would not be unthinkable to adopt a hard line, for example, with regard to Brazilian environmental policies (linked to the Amazon) or Brazil’s relations with China, using tariffs or incentives as leverage—a sort of geopolitics of economic coercion.

On the other hand, Brazil and its neighbors could also attempt to take advantage of the Sino–North American competition. If the USA is distracted consolidating its hemispheric “hard power” hegemony (even with annexation fantasies in the north), powers such as China may advance their economic presence in South America through investments and trade (Belt and Road, infrastructure financing)—which is already happening. This would constitute an indirect neocolonial dispute in the South: Chinese loans and investments versus American demands and agreements, partly reminiscent of the nineteenth-century imperial competition (when the United Kingdom, USA, and others competed for Latin American markets and resources).

From a conceptual standpoint, Mackinder might classify South America as part of the “Outer Crescent” (external insular crescent)—peripheral to the great Eurasian “World-Island,” yet still crucial as a source of resources and a strategic position in the South Atlantic and Pacific. If the USA consolidates an informal empire in the Americas, it would be reinforcing its “insular bastion” far from the Eurasian Heartland, a strategy that Mackinder once suggested for maritime powers: to control islands and peripheral continents to compensate for the disadvantage of not controlling the Heartland. However, an excessive US dominance in the South could lead to local resistance and alternative alignments, unbalancing the region.

Kjellén would add that for Brazil to maintain its decisive sovereignty, it will need to strengthen its autarky and internal cohesion—in other words, reduce vulnerabilities (economic, military, social) that external powers might exploit [4]. Meanwhile, Mahan might point out the importance for Brazil of controlling its maritime routes and coastlines (South Atlantic) to avoid being at the mercy of a naval power like the USA. And Ratzel would remind us that states that do not expand their influence tend to be absorbed by foreign influences—which, in the context of Brazil, does not mean conquering neighboring territories, but rather actively leading South American integration to create a block more resilient to external intrusion.

In summary, South America finds itself in a more competitive and segmented world, where major players are resurrecting practices from past eras. The notion of “neocolonization” here does not imply direct occupation, but rather mechanisms of dependency: whether through unequal economic agreements or through diplomatic or military pressure for alignment. Brazil, as the largest economy and territory on the subcontinent, will have to navigate with heightened caution. A new global power balance, marked by the division of spheres of influence among the USA, China, and Russia, may reduce the sovereign maneuvering space of South American countries unless they act jointly. Thus, theoretical reflection suggests the need for South–South strategies, reinforcement of regional organizations, and diversification of partnerships to avoid falling into modern “neocolonial traps.”

Conclusion

The emerging post–re-election geopolitical conjuncture of Donald Trump signals a return to classical geopolitical principles, after several decades of predominance of institutional liberal views. We witness the revaluation of concepts such as spheres of influence, exchanges of protection for resources, naval power versus land power, and disputes over territory and raw materials—all central themes in the writings of Mackinder, Mahan, Kjellén, and Ratzel at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. An impartial analysis of these events, in light of these theories, shows internal coherence in Trump’s actions: although controversial, they follow a logic of maximizing national interest and the relative power of the USA on the world stage, even at the expense of established principles and alliances.

Halford Mackinder reminds us that, in a closed world with no new lands to conquer, the great powers will seek to redistribute the world among themselves [3]. This seems to manifest in the direct understandings between the USA and Russia over the fate of Ukraine, and in American ambitions in the Arctic and the Western Hemisphere. Alfred Mahan emphasizes that the control of the seas and strategic positions ensures supremacy—we see reflections of this in Trump’s obsession with Greenland (Arctic) and the possible neglect of the importance of maintaining NATO (and therefore the North Atlantic) as a cohesive bloc, something that Mahan’s theory would criticize due to the risk of a naval vacuum. Rudolf Kjellén and Friedrich Ratzel provide the framework to understand the more aggressive facet of expansionist nationalism: the idea of the State as an organism that needs to grow, secure resources, and seek self-sufficiency explains everything from the extortionate agreement imposed on Ukraine to the annexation rhetoric regarding Canada.

The potential consequences are profound. In the short term, we may witness a precarious ceasefire in the Ukraine war, with consolidated Russian territorial gains and Ukraine economically tied to the USA, but without formal military protection—a fragile “armed peace.” Western Europe, alarmed, may accelerate its independent militarization, perhaps marking the beginning of European defense autonomy, as is already openly debated [1]. At the far end of the globe, American activism in the Arctic and the Americas may reshape alliances: countries like Canada, once aligned with Washington, might seek to guarantee their sovereignty by distancing themselves from it; powers like China could take advantage of the openings to increase their presence in Latin America and Africa through economic diplomacy; and emerging countries of the Global South may have to choose between submitting to new “guardianships” or strengthening South–South cooperation.

Ultimately, the current situation reinforces the relevance of studying geopolitics through historical lenses. The actions of the Trump administration indicate that, despite all technological and normative advances, the competition for geographic power has not disappeared—it has merely assumed new formats. Academic impartiality obliges us not to prematurely judge whether these strategies will be successful or beneficial, but history and theory warn that neo-imperial movements tend to generate counter-reactions. As Mackinder insinuated, “every shock or change anywhere reverberates around the world,” and a sudden move by a superpower tends to provoke unforeseen adjustments and chain conflicts. It remains to be seen how the other actors—including Brazil and its neighbors—will adapt to this new chapter in the great struggle for global power, in which centuries-old theories once again have a surprising explanatory power over present events.

Bibliography

[1] A Referência. (2025). Europa calcula o custo de se defender sem os EUA: 300 mil soldados e 250 bilhões de euros a mais. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://areferencia.com/europa/europa-calcula-o-custo-de-se-defender-sem-os-eua-300-mil-soldados-e-250-bilhoes-de-euros-a-mais/#:\~:text=Europa%20calcula%20o%20custo%20de,bilh%C3%B5es%20de%20euros%20a%20mais

[2] Brexit Institute. (2025). What happens if Trump invades Greenland? Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://dcubrexitinstitute.eu/2025/01/what-happens-if-trump-invades-greenland/#:\~:text=Ever%20since%20Donald%20Trump%20announced,agreed%20in%20Wales%20in%202014

[3] Cfettweis C:CST22(2)8576.DVI. (2025). Mackinder and Angell. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://cfettweis.com/wp-content/uploads/Mackinder-and-Angell.pdf#:\~:text=meant%20the%20beginning%20of%20an,Mackinder

[4] Diva-Portal. (2025). The geopolitics of territorial relativity. Poland seen by Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1696547/FULLTEXT02#:\~:text=,The%20state%20territory

[5] Geopolitical Monitor. (2025). The Russo-Ukrainian War and Mackinder’s Heartland Thesis. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/the-ukraine-war-and-mackinders-heartland-thesis/#:\~:text=In%201904%2C%20Sir%20Halford%20J,in%20adding%20a%20substantial%20oceanic

[6] Instituto Humanitas Unisinos. (2025). Trump obriga Zelensky a hipotecar a exploração de minerais críticos em troca do seu apoio. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.ihu.unisinos.br/648986-trump-obriga-zelensky-a-hipotecar-a-exploracao-de-minerais-criticos-em-troca-do-seu-apoio#:\~:text=Essa%20troca%20inclui%20os%20cobi%C3%A7ados,s%C3%A3o%20praticamente%20inexploradas%20no%20pa%C3%ADs

[7] Politico. (2025). Trump’s annexation fixation is no joke, Trudeau warns. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/07/canada-trudeau-trump-51-state-00203156#:\~:text=TORONTO%20%E2%80%94%20Prime%20Minister%20Justin,Canada%20becoming%20the%2051st%20state%2C%E2%80%9D%20Trudeau%20said

[8] The Daily Beast. (2025). Top Trump Adviser Moves Goalpost for Ukraine to End War. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-trump-adviser-moves-goalpost-for-ukraine-to-end-war/#:\~:text=LAND%20GRAB

[9] The Geostrata. (2025). Alfred Thayer Mahan and Supremacy of Naval Power. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.thegeostrata.com/post/alfred-thayer-mahan-and-supremacy-of-naval-power#:\~:text=Alfred%20Thayer%20Mahan%20and%20Supremacy,control%20over%20maritime%20trade%20routes

[10] U.S. Department of State. (2025). Mahan’s The Influence of Sea Power upon History: Securing International Markets in the 1890s. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/mahan#:\~:text=Mahan%20argued%20that%20British%20control,American%20politicians%20believed%20that%20these

[11] Britannica. (2025a). Friedrich Ratzel | Biogeography, Anthropogeography, Political Geography. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/biography/Friedrich-Ratzel#:\~:text=webster,Swedish%20political%20scientist%20%2076

[12] Britannica. (2025b). Lebensraum. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lebensraum#:\~:text=defined,The

[13] Britannica. (2025c). Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rudolf-Kjellen

[14] Wikipedia (ZH). (2025). Rudolf Kjellén. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/w:Rudolf_Kjell%C3%A9n#:\~:text=Besides%20legalistic%2C%20states%20have%20organic,preservation.%20%5B%203

[15] Wikipedia. (2025). Lebensraum. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum#:\~:text=The%20German%20geographer%20and%20ethnographer,into%20the%20Greater%20Germanic%20Reich

[16] YouTube. (2025). Trump says Ukraine 'unlikely to get all land back' or join NATO [Vídeo]. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmHzAVLhsXU#:\~:text=Trump%20says%20Ukraine%20%27unlikely%20to,for%20it%20to%20join%20NATO

[17] U.S. Naval Institute. (2025) Operation World Peace. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1955/june/operation-world-peace#:\\~:text=“The Mahan doctrine%2C” according to,the word “airships” is more

[18] Emissary. (2024) Trump’s Greenland and Panama Canal Threats Are a Throwback to an Old, Misguided Foreign Policy. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/01/trump-greenland-panama-canal-monroe-doctrine-policy?lang=en

[19] A Referência. Acordo EUA-Ucrânia está praticamente fechado, mas analistas se dividem sobre quem sairá ganhando. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://areferencia.com/europa/acordo-eua-ucrania-esta-praticamente-fechado-mas-analistas-se-dividem-sobre-quem-saira-ganhando/#:\\~:text=EUA e 17,o acordo a seu favor

[20] Wikipedia. (2025) Geopolitik. Recuperado em 3 de março de 2025, de https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitik#:\\~:text=Rudolph Kjellén was Ratzel's Swedish,Kjellén's State

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Tom-Oliver Regenauer

Grafik: Tina Ovalle.

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Sie finden alle Texte der Friedenstaube und weitere Texte zum Thema Frieden hier.

---

»Krieg ist Frieden«. Dieses zwischenzeitlich fast abgedroschen wirkende, weil in den letzten Jahren zu häufig verwendete Zitat aus George Orwells Klassiker »1984«, beschreibt zunehmend genau, was europäische Spitzenpolitiker dieser Tage als »Wehrtüchtigkeit« vermarkten – die wahnwitzige Illusion, dass Kriegswaffen der Friedenssicherung dienen. 

So aber funktioniert das Geschäft industrialisierten Tötens nicht. Denn Krieg entsteht nicht organisch. Schon gar kein Weltkrieg. Militärische Konflikte globalen Ausmaßes sind stets trauriger Kulminationspunkt langjähriger Entwicklungen. Sie beginnen mit Partikularinteressen, diplomatischen Kontakten, bilateralen Absprachen, militärisch-industriellen Konjunkturprogrammen und der Etablierung von Verteidigungsbündnissen. Kriege sind von langer Hand geplante Disruptionen, die genutzt werden, um Paradigmenwechsel zu rechtfertigen – Entwicklungen, die der Bevölkerung ohne eine solch existenzielle Bedrohung nicht unterzujubeln sind. So gäbe es ohne die beiden ersten Weltkriege heute weder die Bank für Internationalen Zahlungsausgleich noch die Vereinten Nationen oder die NATO. Und auch das herrschende, auf Verschuldung basierende und von Zentralbankkartellen dominierte Weltfinanzsystem, das darauf ausgelegt ist, Staaten und damit deren Bevölkerung schleichend zu enteignen, wäre so nicht entstanden – siehe Bretton Woods und »Nixon Schock«.

Wem dienen Kriege?

Folgt man der tatsächlichen Geschichte des Ersten Weltkrieges, die nicht 1914 mit der Ermordung von Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand, sondern bereits 1891 in Südafrika begann – siehe Teil 1 und 2 meines diesbezüglichen Essays – wird rasch deutlich, wem Kriege dienen. Und damit auch, von wem sie ausgelöst werden: Von Finanzkartellen, die zunächst an der Aufrüstung, dann an der Finanzierung des Krieges und zum Schluss am Wiederaufbau verdienen – ganz zu schweigen von der supranationalen Konsolidierung und Zentralisierung von Finanzmacht, die mit derartigen geopolitischen Verwerfungen einhergeht. 

Im Falle der beiden Weltkriege sind diese Hintergründe gut belegt und detailliert nachvollziehbar. Man muss sie nur lesen. Weil Geschichte, zumindest die offiziell goutierte und gelehrte Variante, aber bedauerlicherweise von den Gewinnern geschrieben wird, sind wir scheinbar dazu verdammt, sie zu wiederholen. Dem geschichtsaffinen Leser dürfte es derweil nicht allzu schwer fallen, Parallelen zwischen der Zeit vor den beiden Weltkriegen und der Gegenwart auszumachen.

---

DIE FRIEDENSTAUBE JETZT ABONNIEREN:

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel in Ihr Postfach, vorerst für alle kostenfrei, wir starten gänzlich ohne Paywall. (Die Bezahlabos fangen erst zu laufen an, wenn ein Monetarisierungskonzept für die Inhalte steht).

---

Schon jetzt können Sie uns unterstützen:

• Für 50 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo der Friedenstaube.
• Für 120 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo und ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Für 500 CHF/EURO werden Sie Förderer und bekommen ein lebenslanges Abo sowie ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Ab 1000 CHF werden Sie Genossenschafter der Friedenstaube mit Stimmrecht (und bekommen lebenslanges Abo, T-Shirt/Hoodie).

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

Wenn Sie auf anderem Wege beitragen wollen, schreiben Sie die Friedenstaube an: milosz@pareto.space oder kontakt@idw-europe.org.

---

Zum einen stimmt Trump die USA auf Isolationismus ein. Zum anderen lässt er das US-Militär gleichzeitig Öl in die bestehenden Brandherde in Europa, Nahost und dem Indopazifik gießen. Gleichzeitig läuten seine Strafzölle eine Phase internationaler Handelskriege ein, die den Rest der Welt zur Reaktion zwingt. Nicht umsonst spricht Ursula von der Leyen nun von »ReARM Europe« und will bis zu 800 Milliarden Euro für »Wiederaufrüstung« mobilisieren. Nicht von ungefähr wirft Friedrich Merz, ehemaliger BlackRock-Manager, auf dem Weg ins Kanzleramt mit »Sondervermögen« um sich und möchte 500 Milliarden in die Bundeswehr investieren. Vielleicht hat ihn Larry Fink oder die Teilnahme an der Bilderberg Konferenz 2024 in Madrid inspiriert – standen dort doch unter anderem die »Zukunft der Kriegsführung« und die »geopolitische Landschaft« auf der Agenda. 

Es besteht kein Zweifel: Wir befinden uns in einer Vorkriegszeit. Die Frage ist nur, wie dieser Krieg aussehen wird und wann er beginnt. Denn die moderne Informationskriegsführung gegen die breite Bevölkerung läuft spätestens seit 9/11 auf Hochtouren – und intensivierte sich nach der Markeinführung des Smartphones im Jahr 2007 konstant. Es hat Gründe, warum ich einen Großteil meiner Artgenossen heute als Smombie bezeichne. 

Zeit, für den Frieden zu kämpfen

Wie jedoch ein kinetischer Krieg in den 2020er Jahren aussehen wird, vor allem, wenn atomar bewaffnete, mit Drohnen, Robotern und KI ausgestattete Supermächte sich gegenüberstehen, weiß niemand. Den Ersten Weltkrieg konnte man sich damals auch nicht vorstellen – denn bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt gab es keine derartig weitreichenden »Verteidigungsallianzen« und »Bündnisfälle«. Auch die Waffen, die im Zweiten Weltkrieg zum Einsatz kommen sollten, waren neu. Das Ausmaß der Zerstörung eine todbringende Zäsur. 

Wenig verwunderlich also, dass die Reprise dieser zivilisatorischen Katastrophe knapp 60 Millionen mehr Menschen das Leben kostete als die Premiere – und den perfekten Hebel zur Etablierung der postmodernen »Global Governance« bot. Einem inhumanen, antidemokratischen, zusehends totalitären Herrschaftskonstrukt, das sich nun mit der aus dem Elfenbeinturm kommunizierten »Zeitenwende«, »Wehrtüchtigkeit« und »ReARM Europe« anschickt, uns in einen Dritten Weltkrieg zu manövrieren. 

Es ist Zeit, nein zu sagen. Nein zu Sondervermögen. Nein zu Aufrüstung. Nein zu Massenvernichtungswaffen. Und nein zu Konflikten, die stets von jenen angezettelt werden, die darin »nicht sterben« werden, wie Robert Habeck im Februar 2022 bei Maischberger selbst einräumte. Nein zu Krieg!

Wer seine Kinder nicht an die Front schicken oder am eigenen Leib erfahren möchte, welche automatisiert mordenden Waffengattungen in einem Dritten Weltkrieg zum Einsatz kommen, sollte für den Frieden kämpfen. Mit allen Mitteln – gemeinsam – und zwar jetzt. Bedarf es für die finale Ausgestaltung der »vierten industriellen Revolution«, für Agenda 2030, C40-Städte und Net Zero 2050, sprich, dem digitalen Gulag von morgen, einer globalen militärischen Disruption – und das scheint im Lichte der Vergangenheit durchaus wahrscheinlich – bleibt uns nicht mehr allzu viel Zeit, um Sand ins Getriebe der aufheulenden Kriegsmaschinerie zu streuen.

---

Tom-Oliver Regenauer, Jahrgang 1978, war nach betriebswirtschaftlicher Ausbildung in verschiedenen Branchen und Rollen tätig, unter anderem als Betriebsleiter, Unternehmens- und Management-Berater sowie internationaler Projektmanager mit Einsätzen in über 20 Ländern. Seit Mitte der 90er-Jahre ist er zudem als Musikproduzent und Texter aktiv und betreibt ein unabhängiges Plattenlabel. Der in Deutschland geborene Autor lebt seit 2009 in der Schweiz. Zuletzt erschienen von ihm „Homo Demens — Texte zu Zeitenwende, Technokratie und Korporatismus“ (2023), „Truman Show“ (2024) und "HOPIUM" (2025). Weitere Informationen unter www.regenauer.press.\ HOPIUM jetzt direkt im Shop oder im Handel.

---

Wir testen derzeit den Mailversand an allen Artikeln. In Zukunft bekommen Sie ca. drei Mailsendungen der Friedenstaube pro Woche.

---

Sie sind noch nicht auf Nostr and wollen die volle Erfahrung machen (liken, kommentieren, zappen etc.)? Erstellen Sie sich einen Account auf Start. Weitere Onboarding-Leitfäden gibt es im Pareto-Wiki.

@ 75869cfa:76819987

GM, Nostriches!

The Nostr Review is a biweekly newsletter focused on Nostr statistics, protocol updates, exciting programs, the long-form content ecosystem, and key events happening in the Nostr-verse. If you’re interested, join me in covering updates from the Nostr ecosystem!

Quick review:

In the past two weeks, Nostr statistics indicate over 225,000 daily trusted pubkey events. The number of new users has seen a notable decrease, with profiles containing a contact list dropping by 95%. More than 10 million events have been published, with posts and reposts showing a decrease. Total Zap activity stands at approximately 15 million, marking a 10% decrease.

Additionally, 26 pull requests were submitted to the Nostr protocol, with 6 merged. A total of 45 Nostr projects were tracked, with 8 releasing product updates, and over 463 long-form articles were published, 29% focusing on Bitcoin and Nostr. During this period, 2 notable events took place, and 3 significant events are upcoming.

Nostr Statistics

Based on user activity, the total daily trusted pubkeys writing events is about 225,000, representing a slight 8 % decrease compared to the previous period. Daily activity peaked at 18179 events, with a low of approximately 16093.

The number of new users has decreased significantly. Profiles with a contact list are now around 17,511, reflecting a 95% drop. Profiles with a bio have decreased by 62% compared to the previous period. The only category showing growth is pubkeys writing events, which have increased by 27%.

Regarding event publishing, all metrics have shown a decline. The total number of note events published is around 10 million, reflecting a 14% decrease. Posts remain the most dominant in terms of volume, totaling approximately 1.6 million, which is a 6.1% decrease. Both reposts and reactions have decreased by about 10%.

For zap activity, the total zap amount is about 15 million, showing an increase of over 10% compared to the previous period.

Data source: https://stats.nostr.band/

NIPs

Bulletin Boards

nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z is proposing that A bulletin board is a relay-centric system of forums where users can post and reply to others, typically around a specific community. The relay operator controls and moderates who can post and view content. A board is defined by kind:30890. Its naddr representation must provide the community's home relays, from which all posts should be gathered. No other relays should be used.

Add NIP-101e: Workout Events

nostr:npub1xy54p83r6wnpyhs52xjeztd7qyyeu9ghymz8v66yu8kt3jzx75rqhf3urc is proposing a standardized way to represent fitness and workout data in Nostr, including: Exercise Templates (kind: 33401) for storing reusable exercise definitions, Workout Templates (kind: 33402) for defining workout plans, Workout Records (kind: 1301) for recording completed workouts. The format provides structured data for fitness tracking while following Nostr conventions for data representation.Many fitness applications use proprietary formats, locking user data into specific platforms. This NIP enables decentralized fitness tracking, allowing users to control their workout data and history while facilitating social sharing and integration between fitness applications.

NIP-47 client-created secret

nostr:npub1zk6u7mxlflguqteghn8q7xtu47hyerruv6379c36l8lxzzr4x90q0gl6ef is proposing a PR introduces two "1-click" connection flows for setting up initial NWC connections. Rather than having to copy-paste a connection string, the user is presented with an authorization page which they can approve or decline. The secret is generated locally and never leaves the client. HTTP flow - for publicly accessible lightning wallets. Implemented in Alby Hub (my.albyhub.com) and CoinOS (coinos.io). Nostr flow - for mobile-based / self-hosted lightning wallets, very similar to NWA but without a new event type added. Implemented in Alby Go and Alby Hub. Benefits over NWC Deep Links are that it works cross-device, mobile to web, and the client-generated secret never leaves the client. Both flows are also implemented in Alby JS SDK and Bitcoin Connect.

add B0 NIP for Blossom interaction

nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 describes a tiny subset of possible Blossom capabilities, but arguably the most important from the point of view of a most basic Nostr client. This NIP specifies how Nostr clients can use Blossom for handling media. Blossom is a set of standards (called BUDs) for dealing with servers that store files addressable by their SHA-256 sums. Nostr clients may make use of all the BUDs for allowing users to upload files, manage their own files and so on, but most importantly Nostr clients SHOULD make use of BUD-03 to fetch kind:10063 lists of servers for each user.

NIP-C0: Communi-keys

nostr:npub149p5act9a5qm9p47elp8w8h3wpwn2d7s2xecw2ygnrxqp4wgsklq9g722q defines a standard for creating, managing and publishing to communities by leveraging existing key pairs and relays, introducing the concept of "Communi-keys". This approach allows any existing npub to become a community (identity + manager) while maintaining compatibility with existing relay infrastructure.

A way for relays to be honest about their algos

securitybrahh is proposing a PR introduces NIP-41, a way for relays to be honest about their algos, edits 01.md to account for changes in limit (related #78, #1434, received_at?, #620, #1645) when algo is provided, appends 11.md for relays to advertize whether they are an aggregator or not and their provided algos. solves #522, supersedes #579.

nip31: template-based "alt" tags for known kinds

nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 is proposing that clients hardcoding alt tags are not very trustworthy. alt tags tend to be garbage in a long-enough timeframe.This fixes it with hardcoded rich templates that anyone can implement very easily without having to do it manually for each kind. alt tags can still be used as a fallback.

First draft of NIP-44v3

nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z is proposing a PR addresses 3 main problems of NIP-44v2. First, It has a message size limit of 65Kb, which is unnecessarily small. Second, It forces the encrypting key to be the same as the event's signing key. Which forces multi-sig actors to share their main private key in order to encrypt the payload that would be later signed by the group. Decoupling singing and encryption keys, for both source and destination, is one of the goals of this version. And It offers no way to describe what's inside the encrypted blob before requesting the user's approval to decrypt and send the decrypted info back to the requesting application. This PR adds an alt description to allow decrypting signers to display a message and warn the user of what type of information the requesting application is receiving.

Notable Projects

Damus nostr:npub18m76awca3y37hkvuneavuw6pjj4525fw90necxmadrvjg0sdy6qsngq955

• Notes in progress will always be persisted and saved automatically. Never lose those banger notes when you aren't quite ready to ship them.
• Make your profile look just right without any fuss. It also optimizes them on upload now to not nuke other people’s phone data bills.
• You won't see the same note more than once in your home feed.
• Fixed note loading when clicking notifications and damus.io links.
• Fixed NWC not working when you first connect a wallet.
• Fixed overly sensitive and mildly infuriating touch gestures in the thread view when scrolling

Primal nostr:npub12vkcxr0luzwp8e673v29eqjhrr7p9vqq8asav85swaepclllj09sylpugg

Primal for Android build 2.1.9 has been released. * Multi-account support * Deep linking support * "Share via Primal" support * Bug fixes and improvements

Yakihonne nostr:npub1yzvxlwp7wawed5vgefwfmugvumtp8c8t0etk3g8sky4n0ndvyxesnxrf8q

YakiHonne Wallet just got a fresh new look!

0xchat nostr:npub1tm99pgz2lth724jeld6gzz6zv48zy6xp4n9xu5uqrwvx9km54qaqkkxn72

0xchat v1.4.7-beta release * Upgraded the Flutter framework to v3.29.0. * Private chat implementation changed to NIP-104 Nostr MLS. * NIP-17 and NIP-29 messages now support q tags. * You can swipe left to reply to your own messages. * Chat messages now support code block display. * Copy images from the clipboard. * Fixed an issue where underlined text in chat appeared as italic.

GOSSIP 0.14.0 nostr:npub189j8y280mhezlp98ecmdzydn0r8970g4hpqpx3u9tcztynywfczqqr3tg8

Several major bugs have been fixed in the last week. * New Features and Improvements * Zappers and amounts are now shown (click on the zap total) * Reactions and who reacted are now shown (click on the reaction numbers) * Multiple search UI/UX improvements * Undo Send works for DMs too * Undo Send now restores the draft * UI: Side panel contains less so it can be thinner. Bottom bar added. * UI: frame count and spinner (optional) * Relay UI: sorting by score puts important relays at the top. * Relay UI: add more filters so all the bits are covered * Image and video loading is much faster (significant lag reduction) * Thread loading fix makes threads load far more reliably * Settings have reset-to-default buttons, so you don't get too lost. * Setting 'limit inbox seeking to inbox relays' may help avoid spam at the expense of possibly * Fix some bugs * And more updates

Nostur v1.18.1 nostr:npub1n0stur7q092gyverzc2wfc00e8egkrdnnqq3alhv7p072u89m5es5mk6h0

New in this version: * Floating mini video player * Videos: Save to library, Copy video URL, Add bookmark * Improved video stream / chat view * Top zaps on live chat * Posting to Picture-first * Profile view: Show interactions with you (conversations, reactions, zaps, reposts) * Profile view: Show actual reactions instead of only Likes * Improved search + Bookmark search * Detect nsfw / content-warning in posts * Show more to show reactions outside Web of Trust * Show more to show zaps outside Web of Trust * Support .avif image format * Support .mp3 format * Support .m4v video format * Improved zap verification for changed wallets * Improved outbox support * Show label on restricted posts * Low data mode: load media in app on tap instead of external browser * Many other bug fixes and performance improvements

Alby nostr:npub1getal6ykt05fsz5nqu4uld09nfj3y3qxmv8crys4aeut53unfvlqr80nfm

Latest two releases of Alby Go, 1.10 and 1.11, brought you lots of goodies: * BTC Map integration for quick access to global bitcoin merchants map * Confirm new NWC connections to your Alby Hub directly in Alby Go! No more copy-pasting or QR code scanning * Support for MoneyBadger Pay Pick n Pay QR payments in over 2000 stores in South Africa

ZEUS v0.10.0 nostr:npub1xnf02f60r9v0e5kty33a404dm79zr7z2eepyrk5gsq3m7pwvsz2sazlpr5

ZEUS v0.10.0 is now available. This release features the ability to renew channel leases, spin up multiple embedded wallets, Nostr Wallet Connect client support, and more. * Renewable channels * NWC client support * Ability to create multiple Embedded LND 'node in the phone' wallets * Ability to delete Embedded LND wallets * Embedded LND: v0.18.5-beta * New share button (share ZEUS QR images) * Tools: Export Activity CSVs, Developer tools, chantools * Activity: filter by max amount, memo, and note

Long-Form Content Eco

In the past two weeks, more than 463 long-form articles have been published, including over 91 articles on Bitcoin and more than 41 related to Nostr, accounting for 29% of the total content.

These articles about Nostr mainly explore the rise of Nostr as a decentralized platform that is reshaping the future of the internet. They emphasize Nostr's role in providing users with greater freedom, ownership, and fair monetization, particularly in the realm of content creation. The platform is positioned as a counter to centralized social media networks, offering uncensored interactions, enhanced privacy, and direct transactions. Many articles delve into Nostr’s potential to integrate with Bitcoin, creating a Layer 3 solution that promises to end the dominance of old internet structures. Discussions also cover the technical aspects of Nostr, such as the implementation of relays and group functionalities, as well as security concerns like account hacks. Furthermore, there is an exploration of the philosophical and anthropological dimensions of Nostr, with the rise of "Dark Nostr" being portrayed as a deeper expression of decentralized freedom.

The Bitcoin articles discuss the ongoing evolution of Bitcoin and its increasing integration into global financial systems. Many articles focus on the growing adoption of Bitcoin, particularly in areas like Argentina and the U.S., where Bitcoin is being used for rental payments and the establishment of a strategic Bitcoin reserve. Bitcoin is also portrayed as a response to the centralized financial system, with discussions about how it can empower individuals through financial sovereignty, provide a hedge against inflation, and create fairer monetization models for creators. Additionally, the articles explore the challenges and opportunities within the Bitcoin ecosystem, including the rise of Bitcoin ETFs, the development of Bitcoin mining, and the potential impact of AI on Bitcoin adoption. There is also emphasis on Bitcoin's cultural and economic implications, as well as the need for decentralized education and innovation to drive further adoption.

Thank you, nostr:npub1ygzsm5m9ndtgch9n22cwsx2clwvxhk2pqvdfp36t5lmdyjqvz84qkca2m5 nostr:npub1rsv7kx5avkmq74p85v878e9d5g3w626343xhyg76z5ctfc30kz7q9u4dke nostr:npub17wrn0xxg0hfq7734cfm7gkyx3u82yfrqcdpperzzfqxrjf9n7tes6ra78k nostr:npub1fxq5crl52mre7luhl8uqsa639p50853r3dtl0j0wwvyfkuk4f6ssc5tahv nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx nostr:npub19mf4jm44umnup4he4cdqrjk3us966qhdnc3zrlpjx93y4x95e3uq9qkfu2 nostr:npub1marc26z8nh3xkj5rcx7ufkatvx6ueqhp5vfw9v5teq26z254renshtf3g0 nostr:npub1uv0m8xc6q4cnj2p0tewmcgkyzg8cnteyhed0zv30ez03w6dzwvnqtu6gwl nostr:npub1ygzsm5m9ndtgch9n22cwsx2clwvxhk2pqvdfp36t5lmdyjqvz84qkca2m5 nostr:npub1mhcr4j594hsrnen594d7700n2t03n8gdx83zhxzculk6sh9nhwlq7uc226 nostr:npub1xzuej94pvqzwy0ynemeq6phct96wjpplaz9urd7y2q8ck0xxu0lqartaqn nostr:npub1gqgpfv65dz8whvyup942daagsmwauj0d8gtxv9kpfvgxzkw4ga4s4w9awr nostr:npub16dswlmzpcys0axfm8kvysclaqhl5zv20ueurrygpnnm7k9ys0d0s2v653f and others, for your work. Enriching Nostr’s long-form content ecosystem is crucial.

Nostriches Global Meet Ups

Recently, several Nostr events have been hosted in different countries. * The first Bitcoin Meetup organized by Mi Primer Bitcoin was successfully held on March 14, 2025, at Texijal Pizza in Apaneca. The event included Bitcoin education, networking, a Q&A session, and merchandise distribution, offering an exciting experience for all participants.
* The Btrust Space discussion was successfully held on March 13, 2024. The event focused on how to support Bitcoin developers, fund open-source contributions, and grow the Bitcoin ecosystem. The speakers included Bitcoin core contributors, Btrust CEO, engineering leads, and other project leaders.

Here is the upcoming Nostr event that you might want to check out.

• The Nostr Workshop, organized by YakiHonne and Bitcoin Safari, will take place online via Google Meet on March 17, 2025, at 7:00 PM (GMT+1). The event will introduce the Nostr ecosystem and Bitcoin payments, with participants learning about decentralized technology through YakiHonne and earning rewards. Register and verify your account to claim exclusive rewards, and invite friends to unlock additional rewards.
• The 2025 Bitcoin, Crypto Economy, and Law FAQ Webinar will be held online on March 20, 2025 (Thursday) from 12:00 to 13:00 Argentina time. The webinar will be hosted by Martin Paolantonio (Academic Director of the course) and Daniel Rybnik (Lawyer specializing in Banking, Corporate, and Financial Law). The session aims to introduce the academic program and explore Bitcoin, the crypto economy, and related legal issues.
• Bitcoin Educators Unconference 2025 will take place on April 10, 2025, at Bitcoin Park in Nashville, Tennessee, USA. This event is non-sponsored and follows an Unconference format, allowing all participants to apply as speakers and share their Bitcoin education experiences in a free and interactive environment. The event has open-sourced all its blueprints and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to encourage global communities to organize similar Unconference events.

Additionally, We warmly invite event organizers who have held recent activities to reach out to us so we can work together to promote the prosperity and development of the Nostr ecosystem.

Thanks for reading! If there’s anything I missed, feel free to reach out and help improve the completeness and accuracy of my coverage.

@ 06bc9ab7:427c48f5

Bitcoin Safe - A bitcoin savings wallet for the entire family

Designed for both beginners and power users, Bitcoin Safe combines security with an intuitive user experience. In this article, we dive deep into its features, unique benefits, and the powerful tools that make managing your Bitcoin wallet simple and secure.

Built for Learners

✔️ Step-by-step wallet setup wizard + PDF backup sheets 📄 🧪 Test transactions to ensure all hardware signers are ready 🔑 🛡️ Secure: Hardware signers only – no hot wallet risks 🚫🔥 🌍 Multi-language support: 🇺🇸 🇨🇳 🇪🇸 🇯🇵 🇷🇺 🇵🇹 🇮🇳 🇮🇹 🇫🇷 🇩🇪 🇲🇲 🇰🇷 📁 Address categories for easy organization ☁️ Label and category synchronization, and cloud backup (optional) 💰 Automatic UTXO merging to save on fees ⚡ Fast syncing with Electrum servers, Compact Block Filters coming soon

Built for Power Users

🔐 Supports Coldcard, Bitbox02, Jade, Trezor, Passport, Keystone & many more 🏦 💬 Multi-party multisig chat & PSBT sharing (optional) 📊 Transaction flow diagrams to trace coin movements 🔍 Instant cross-wallet wallet search ⚙️ Set your own electrum server, mempool instance, and nostr relay

---

Step-by-Step Wallet Setup

Whether you’re setting up a single-signature or multi-signature wallet, the setup wizard guides you every step of the way:

• Single Sig Wizard: Follow the intuitive wizard that walks you through each step. https://youtu.be/m0g6ytYTy0w

Clear instructions paired with hardware signer screen-shots, like the steps for a Coldcard

• Multisig Wizard: The wizard ensures you do all necessary steps for a Multisig wallet in the right order. Afterwards your Multisig is ready to use and all signers are tested. Check out https://bitcoin-safe.org/en/features/setup-multisignature-wallet/

• PDF Backup: The wizard will also generates 3 PDF backup sheets for a 2-of-3 multisig wallet, so ensure you always have your wallet descriptor together with the seed.

• Hardware Signer Support: With full support for major hardware signers your keys remain securely offline.

---

Transaction Visualization

Visualize and navigate your transaction history:

• Graphical Explorer: An interactive transaction diagram lets you click on inputs and outputs to follow the money flow intuitively.

• Coin Categories: Organize your addresses into distinct coin categories (e.g., “KYC”, “Work”, “Friends”) so Bitcoin Safe automatically selects the correct inputs when creating PSBTs.

It prevents you accidentally linking coin categories when creating a transaction, and warns you if mistakes happened in the past.

Powerful Wallet Management Tools

• Flexible Fee Selection: Choose fees with one click using an intuitive mempool block preview.
• UTXO Management: Automatically (optional) merge UTXOs when fees are low.
• CSV Table Export: Right click, Drag&Drop, or CTRL+C for immediate CSV export for easy processing in Excel.
• PDF Balance Statement: Export the address balances for easy record keeping on paper.

---

Advanced Features for the Power-User

Sync & Chat is off by default (for the paranoid user), but can be enabled with just one click.

Label Synchronization and Backup

• Seamless Sync: Using encrypted nostr messages, Bitcoin Safe synchronizes your coin categories and labels across multiple devices.
• Easy Backup: A short backup key is all you need to safeguard your coin categories and labels, ensuring your organization remains intact.

Collaborative Multi-party Multisig

• Group Chat Integration: After creating your multisig wallet, Bitcoin Safe offers an encrypted nostr group chat for secure collaboration and one-click PSBT sharing.
• User Authentication: Each participant must authenticate every other user with a simple click, ensuring secure communication.

Watch and Learn: Get Started with Bitcoin Safe

If you’re new to Bitcoin Safe, a short video guide can make all the difference. Learn how to set up your Bitcoin Safe wallet in this detailed walk through:

https://youtu.be/m0g6ytYTy0w

Or see how to verify an address on your hardware singer:

https://youtu.be/h5FkOYj9OT8

Building up a knowledge base: https://bitcoin-safe.org/en/knowledge/

---

Whats next?

• Compact Block Filters!!! They make electrum servers obsolete.
• Why? Compact Block Filters increase the network privacy dramatically, since you're not asking an electrum server to give you your transactions
• Trade-off: They are a little slower than electrum servers. For a savings wallet like Bitcoin Safe this should be OK.
• How do they work? Simply speaking: They ask normal bitcoin core nodes for a short summary of each block. And if the summary shows a transaction belonging to the wallet, the entire block is then downloaded from the bitcoin core node. The bitcoin core node does not learn however which of the many transactions in the block you were interested in. Read more here and of course in the bip.
• When: 2 weeks 😅. Lots of things need to be done until Bitcoin Safe can use the bdk CBF/kyoto client from rustaceanrob, so keep an eye out for updates and please give feedback when you use Bitcoin Safe.

Stay updated on nostr or on GitHub.

Thank you

A huge thanks goes to nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f for supporting this project with a grant and nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx for the Hackathon prize.

This wallet is only possible because it is building upon other peoples open source work. Most notably

• bdk nostr:nprofile1qqsgkmgkmv63djkxmwvdlyaxx0xtsytvkyyg5fwzmp48pwd30f3jtxspzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskueqr8vuet
• and especially nostr:npub1thunderat5g552cuy7umk624ct5xe4tpgwr2jcjjq2gc0567wgrqnya79l , nostr:npub1reezn2ctrrg736uqj7mva9lsuwv0kr5asj4vvkwxnrwlhvxf98tsq99ty4 , and nostr:npub1ke470rdgnxg4gjs9cw3tv0dp690wl68f5xak5smflpsksedadd7qtf8jfm for dealing with my many feature requests and questions.
• rustaceanrob building kyoto which implements CBF for BDK; a crucial library and will be able to replace electrum servers for many use cases
• ndk by nostr:nprofile1qqsx3kq3vkgczq9hmfplc28h687py42yvms3zkyxh8nmkvn0vhkyyuspz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsz9thwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjme0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9u0uehfp

And of course, secure storage of bitcoin is only possible, because of the hardware signer manufacturers. Thanks to nostr:npub1az9xj85cmxv8e9j9y80lvqp97crsqdu2fpu3srwthd99qfu9qsgstam8y8 Coldcard , Coldcard Q , nostr:npub1tg779rlap8t4qm8lpgn89k7mr7pkxpaulupp0nq5faywr8h28llsj3cxmt Bitbox02 , nostr:npub1jg552aulj07skd6e7y2hu0vl5g8nl5jvfw8jhn6jpjk0vjd0waksvl6n8n Blockstream Jade , Trezor Safe, Foundation Passport, Keystone, Ledger, Specter Shield, and many more.

I also want to thank people who gave feedback and helped spread the knowledge of Bitcoin Safe (please forgive me if I forgot to mention you)

• nostr:npub1p5cmlt32vc3jefkl3ymdvm9zk892fsmkq79eq77uvkaqrnyktasqkpkgaw nostr:npub1s07s0h5mwcenfnyagme8shp9trnv964lulgvdmppgenuhtk9p4rsueuk63 nostr:npub18f3g76xc7xs430euwwl9gpn7ue7ux8vmtm9q8htn9s26d8c4neeqdraz3s nostr:npub1mtd7s63xd85ykv09p7y8wvg754jpsfpplxknh5xr0pu938zf86fqygqxas nostr:npub1kysd8m44dhv7ywa75u5z7w2w0gs4t6qzhgvjp555gfknasy3krlqfxde60 nostr:npub185pu2dsgg9d36uvvw7rwuy9aknn8hnknygr7x2yqa60ygvq6r8kqc836k8 nostr:npub1hkcgyqnsuaradq3g5hyvfdekwypc25494nmwggwpygxas7fcs4fst860fu nostr:npub1xsl0msy347vmj8gcpsjum6wwppc4ercvq4xfrhqmek2dqmqm0mtsyf35vx nostr:npub1hxjnw53mhghumt590kgd3fmqme8jzwwflyxesmm50nnapmqdzu7swqagw3 nostr:npub1ke470rdgnxg4gjs9cw3tv0dp690wl68f5xak5smflpsksedadd7qtf8jfm nostr:npub1sk26fxl4fy3vt8m5n0a6aturaql0w20nvh22q0cyaqm28tj7z8ss3lutc9 nostr:npub1r4llq2jcvq4g2tgha5amjz07zk7mrrcj89wllny9xwhhp5zzkklqk4jwja nostr:npub1p9v2zpwl28c0gu0vr2enp3lwdtv29scwpeqsnt0ngqf03vtlyxfqhkae5w nostr:npub1xkym0yaewlz0qfghtt7hjtnu28fxaa5rk3wtcek9d3x3ft2ns3lq775few nostr:npub1r8343wqpra05l3jnc4jud4xz7vlnyeslf7gfsty7ahpf92rhfmpsmqwym8 nostr:npub12zpfs3yq7we83yvypgsrw5f88y2fv780c2kfs89ge5qk6q3sfm7spks880 nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx https://x.com/91xTx93x2 https://x.com/afilini rustaceanrob

@ 06639a38:655f8f71

https://ccns.nostrver.se is a (Drupal powered) website that I started to build in January 2024 (source on Github and Gitlab). It's a fork of an earlier (abandoned) project https://cchs.social/.
Currently CCNS is a link aggregration website and for now it's only my who is using it to save and share Nostr related links. When you post a new link, you have the option to cross-post it as a Nostr note (example here).

Kind 39700

Last month Jurjen and Abir has started to work on a social bookmark client built with Nostr (inspired by Del.icio.us from the past). Earlier this month they changed to event kind 39700 for broadcasting the Nostr event with the bookmark / link data accross the network. They did this because Sep already created a social bookmark like client called Pinja when fiatjaf raised this idea.

With these developments to me it was very obvious to integrate the feature that new created CCNS links are now also published as kind 39700 events to the Nostr network. This means that links are now also distributed on multiple relays as kind 39700 events and are accessible in multiple clients (Yumyume and Pinja).

Here you can see the same data, from left to right:

• CCNS
• Pinja
• Yumyume
• njump

Structure

The current data structure for the 39700 kind looks as follow:

• "id": "event_id"
• "pubkey": "pubkey author"
• "created_at": unix_timestamp
• "kind": 39700
• "tags":
  • "description", "description text here"
  • "d", "unique-slug-value"
  • "t", "hashtag"
• "content": "https://book_mark_url"  
• "sig": "signature"

As there is no NIP (yet) for this event kind, I see some possible improvements:

• Use the bookmark URL as d tag so it can be used as a unique identifier for every client
• Use the content field for the description
• Use the a tag for an addressable event following NIP-01: ["a", "39700:pubkey_of_author:", recommended_relay_url_optional]

On short-term I don't have any plans to developer CCNS further, as most of my attention goes to the development of the Nostr-PHP library and Drupal related contribs using that library. That said, CCNS is a Drupal project but all the Nostr stuff is done client-side (Javascript) with NDK and Nostr-PHP is not used (maybe this will change in the future).

@ d560dbc2:bbd59238

When it comes to task management, most of us are familiar with the traditional approach: plan your day, set deadlines, and create detailed schedules to stay on top of everything. But what if there’s a better way—a method that doesn’t require meticulous planning, yet ensures you’re always working on the right task at the right time?

Enter the 2-5 Rule, an “anti-planning” concept that focuses on which task to act on right now, rather than creating a rigid plan for the future. In this deep dive, we’ll explore what makes the 2-5 Rule stand out, how it works, why it’s so effective, and how TaskforUs brings this innovative approach to life. Whether you’re renewing a passport or keeping in touch with a loved one, the 2-5 Rule offers a refreshingly simple way to manage your tasks without the stress of planning.

---

What Is the 2-5 Rule?

The 2-5 Rule is a task management method that prioritizes tasks based on their timing—not a detailed schedule. Instead of planning exactly when to do each task, you simply:

1. Enter the task into a system like TaskforUs.
2. Assign it a time unit (days, weeks, months, or years).
3. Let the algorithm decide when it should climb to the top of your priority list.

The “2-5” refers to the ideal action window: you should act on a task within 2 to 5 of its assigned time units. For example:

• Daily tasks: (e.g., “Do cardio”) should be done every 2-5 days.
• Weekly tasks: (e.g., “Schedule dinner with a friend”) should be acted on every 2-5 weeks.
• Monthly tasks: (e.g., “Review budget”) have a window of 2-5 months.
• Yearly tasks: (e.g., “Reassess career goals”) should be revisited every 2-5 years.

This sweet spot ensures tasks are neither rushed nor neglected.

Key Point: The 2-5 Rule isn’t about planning—it’s about capturing tasks and letting the system determine their priority based on timing. Simply enter the task, set its time unit, and provide either the last date you acted on it or a fixed due date (using Fix Mode for specific events). The system does the rest.

---

How It Works: No Planning Required

When you add a task to TaskforUs, you assign it a time unit based on how often you want to act on it:

• Daily tasks: Act every 2-5 days (e.g., “Do cardio”).
• Weekly tasks: Act every 2-5 weeks (e.g., “Meet a friend for dinner”).
• Monthly tasks: Act every 2-5 months (e.g., “Review budget”).
• Yearly tasks: Act every 2-5 years (e.g., “Renew passport”).

For recurring tasks, you enter the last date you acted on them (the “last act date”). For date-specific tasks, you can use Fix Mode to set a due date. The 2-5 Rule calculates the task’s priority based on how much time has passed since the last action or how close the due date is—ensuring it rises to the top at just the right moment.

---

Real-Life Examples of the 2-5 Rule in Action

Example 1: Renewing Your Passport

• Scenario:
  You get your passport today and know it needs to be renewed every 5 years. You don’t want to plan the renewal far in advance—you just want a reminder at the right time.

• Implementation:

• Add the task “Renew passport” and set its time unit to yearly.

• Enter the “last act date” as today’s date (e.g., March 24, 2025) or use Fix Mode to set the exact expiration date (e.g., March 24, 2030).

• Outcome:
  The task starts low on your priority list. As time passes, it climbs based on the 2-5 Rule. After 2 years, it begins to rise; by 5 years, it’s nearing the top—ensuring you act before the passport expires.

---

Example 2: Meeting Uncle Lars Regularly

• Scenario:
  You want to meet your Uncle Lars regularly but not too often. You’d like to see him about 10 times a year (roughly once every 5 weeks). However, to give yourself more flexibility, you choose a longer time unit.

• Implementation:

• Add the task “Meet/eat with Uncle Lars” and set its time unit to monthly.

• Set the “last act date” as the most recent time you met him (e.g., March 1, 2025).

• Outcome:
  Over time, the task slowly climbs in your priority list. After 2 months, it starts gaining focus; by 5 months, it becomes urgent—nudge you to reach out and schedule a meeting, all without needing to plan the exact date in advance.

---

The Origins of the 2-5 Rule: An Anti-Planning Revolution

The 2-5 Rule isn’t entirely new—it has roots in productivity and behavioral science, emerging as a response to the complexity of traditional task management systems that require detailed schedules, deadlines, and constant reviews. Influential figures, including Bill Gates, have reportedly praised its simplicity for managing tasks without over-planning.

• Why It Works:
  The 2-5 Rule leverages the natural rhythm of tasks, ensuring that you act within an optimal time window without micromanaging your schedule. It aligns with our intuition—you don’t need to plan exactly when to call a friend; you just know it’s been a while, and it’s time to reconnect.

---

Why the 2-5 Rule Works: The Science Behind Anti-Planning

1. Reduces Decision Fatigue:
   Traditional planning forces you to decide when to act on each task, which can be mentally exhausting. The 2-5 Rule automates prioritization, freeing up mental energy.

2. Aligns with Natural Rhythms:
   Research on habit formation shows that consistency is key. The 2-5 window ensures you act within a natural timeframe—tasks feel urgent after 2 units but are at risk of being neglected by 5 units.

3. Prevents Over-Planning Stress:
   Detailed plans can lead to stress when life interferes. The 2-5 Rule removes the need for rigid scheduling, letting you focus on action rather than planning.

4. Ensures Critical Tasks Don’t Slip Through the Cracks:
   With Fix Mode, date-specific tasks like passport renewals or birthdays climb in priority as the due date approaches, ensuring you never miss a deadline.

---

How TaskforUs Brings the 2-5 Rule to Life

TaskforUs is a web-based platform that makes the 2-5 Rule actionable, elevating the anti-planning concept with features designed for ease and precision:

• Add Tasks Easily:
  Enter a task, set its time unit (days, weeks, months, or years), and provide the last act date or a fixed due date for Fix Mode tasks.

• Top Task:
  TaskforUs automatically highlights your most urgent task based on the 2-5 Rule—telling you exactly what to do right now.

• Focus Mode:
  Display your top 3 tasks (or adjust the number) for a distraction-free view when juggling multiple priorities.

• Fix Mode:
  For tasks tied to specific dates, Fix Mode ensures they rise in priority as the due date approaches, peaking on the day itself.

• Category Filtering and Archiving:
  Organize your tasks into categories (e.g., Work, Personal) and archive completed tasks to keep your list clutter-free.

• Export Tasks:
  Download your tasks as a CSV file for backup or analysis.

---

Practical Applications: More Ways to Use the 2-5 Rule

• Health Goals:
  Want to drink more water daily? Set “Drink water” as a daily task. TaskforUs will nudge you every 2-5 days to stay hydrated—no strict schedule required.

• Work Projects:
  Need to follow up on a client email? Set it as a weekly task. After 2 weeks, it’ll start climbing your list, ensuring you don’t forget.

• Special Dates:
  Have a wedding anniversary coming up? Use Fix Mode to set the date; TaskforUs will ensure “Plan anniversary dinner” becomes your top task on that day.

• Long-Term Goals:
  Want to learn a new skill every few years? Set “Explore new skill” as a yearly task, and TaskforUs will remind you every 2-5 years.

---

The 2-5 Rule vs. Traditional Planning: Why Anti-Planning Wins

Traditional planning methods—such as detailed schedules or comprehensive systems like Getting Things Done (GTD)—often come with drawbacks:

• Complexity:
  Detailed planning requires significant time and effort.

• Inflexibility:
  Rigid plans can crumble when unexpected events occur.

• Mental Load:
  Constantly deciding when to do each task contributes to decision fatigue.

The 2-5 Rule avoids these pitfalls by letting you focus on timing. You simply enter your tasks, and TaskforUs automatically prioritizes them based on the optimal action window.

---

Why You Should Try the 2-5 Rule with TaskforUs

The 2-5 Rule offers a fresh perspective on task management by focusing on when to act rather than what to do. It’s particularly effective for balancing short-term habits with long-term goals. Here’s why you should give it a try:

• No Planning Needed:
  Simply add your tasks and let the system handle prioritization.

• Clarity:
  Always know what to do right now without overthinking.

• Flexibility:
  The 2-to-5 window provides the ideal balance between prompt action and careful timing.

• Reliability:
  Fix Mode ensures you never miss critical dates.

• Be Part of the Beta:
  As a beta user, your feedback can shape the future of TaskforUs.

---

Take Control of Your Tasks Today

The 2-5 Rule is more than a productivity hack—it’s a new way to think about task management. By focusing on timing, it ensures you’re always working on the right thing at the right time. Ready to say goodbye to over-planning and hello to effortless prioritization?

Sign up for TaskforUs at task4.us and experience the 2-5 Rule in action.
Your tasks, perfectly timed—without a plan in sight.

@ d560dbc2:bbd59238

Task management is a challenge we all face—whether it’s juggling work deadlines, staying in touch with friends, or remembering important dates like birthdays. With endless to-do lists and competing priorities, how do you decide what to tackle next?

Enter the 2-5 Rule, a unique approach to task management that focuses on timing tasks within a specific “sweet spot”—between 2 to 5 time units—ensuring they’re neither rushed nor neglected. In this deep dive, we’ll explore what makes the 2-5 Rule stand out, how it works, and how it compares to other popular task management techniques like the 1-3-5 Rule, Eisenhower Matrix, Getting Things Done (GTD), and the Pomodoro Technique.

---

What Is the 2-5 Rule?

The 2-5 Rule is a timing-based task management strategy designed to help you act on tasks at the right moment. Every task has a natural rhythm or “time unit” (days, weeks, months, or years) that dictates how often it should be addressed. The rule dictates that you should act on a task within 2 to 5 of these units. For example:

• Daily tasks (e.g., “Do cardio”) should be done every 2-5 days.
• Weekly tasks (e.g., “Schedule dinner with a friend”) should be done every 2-5 weeks.
• Monthly tasks (e.g., “Review budget”) should be done every 2-5 months.
• Yearly tasks (e.g., “Reassess career goals”) should be revisited every 2-5 years.

This “sweet spot” balances urgency and flexibility—acting too soon wastes energy, while waiting too long risks neglecting the task. The 2-5 Rule is the foundation of TaskforUs, a platform that automates this process to help you prioritize tasks with precision.

---

Comparing the 2-5 Rule to Other Task Management Techniques

1. The 1-3-5 Rule: Daily Structure Without Timing

• Overview:
  Organizes your day into 1 big task, 3 medium tasks, and 5 small tasks.
• Strengths:
• Helps set realistic daily goals and forces you to prioritize.
• Weaknesses:
• Does not account for the natural rhythm or timing of tasks over longer periods.
• Comparison:
  The 1-3-5 Rule is excellent for daily planning, while the 2-5 Rule provides a broader perspective by scheduling tasks over days, weeks, months, or years. They can be combined: use 1-3-5 for daily structure and the 2-5 Rule for long-term timing.

---

2. Eisenhower Matrix: Urgency vs. Importance

• Overview:
  Categorizes tasks into four quadrants based on urgency and importance:
• Urgent and Important: Do immediately.
• Important but Not Urgent: Schedule for later.
• Urgent but Not Important: Delegate.
• Neither Urgent nor Important: Eliminate.
• Strengths:
• Excellent for decision-making and eliminating time-wasters.
• Weaknesses:
• Lacks guidance on when to act on tasks that are important but not urgent.
• Comparison:
  While the Eisenhower Matrix focuses on what to do, the 2-5 Rule tells you when to do it. They can work together for a complete task management system.

---

3. Getting Things Done (GTD): Comprehensive but Complex

• Overview:
  GTD is a system to capture and organize all your tasks using steps like capture, clarify, organize, reflect, and engage.
• Strengths:
• Ensures nothing is forgotten by capturing every task.
• Weaknesses:
• Can be overwhelming and time-consuming for those who prefer simplicity.
• Comparison:
  GTD provides a comprehensive framework, whereas the 2-5 Rule offers a focused strategy for timing and prioritization, reducing decision fatigue.

---

4. Pomodoro Technique: Focus on the Present

• Overview:
  Breaks work into intervals (typically 25 minutes of focused work followed by a 5-minute break).
• Strengths:
• Boosts focus and prevents burnout during work sessions.
• Weaknesses:
• Doesn’t help you decide which task to tackle or manage long-term priorities.
• Comparison:
  The Pomodoro Technique helps you focus on a chosen task; the 2-5 Rule helps you decide the right task to work on at the right time. They complement each other well.

---

Why the 2-5 Rule Stands Out

1. Integrates Behavioral Science:
   Grounded in research on habit formation and decision fatigue, the 2-5 Rule leverages our natural sense of urgency to prompt action at the optimal time.

2. Balances Urgency and Flexibility:
   It provides a flexible window for action, ensuring tasks are handled neither too early nor too late.

3. Simplifies Decision-Making:
   By automating prioritization, TaskforUs reduces the mental load, so you always know which task to focus on.

4. Addresses Long-Term Timing:
   Unlike the Pomodoro Technique, it considers tasks over various timeframes—daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly.

5. Never Misses Critical Dates:
   With Fix Mode, TaskforUs ensures that date-specific tasks (e.g., birthdays) climb to the top of your list as the date approaches.

---

Practical Applications of the 2-5 Rule

• Social Connections:
  Task: “Schedule dinner with Alex”
  Time Unit: Weeks
  Application: If it’s been 3 weeks since your last meetup, TaskforUs flags it as your top task, prompting you to reconnect.

• Health Goals:
  Task: “Do cardio”
  Time Unit: Days
  Application: If it’s been 2 days since your last workout, the platform nudges you to exercise before reaching the 5-day mark.

• Special Dates:
  Task: “Wish Alex a happy birthday”
  Mode: Fix Mode
  Application: TaskforUs ensures the task climbs in priority as the birthday nears, becoming the top task on the day.

• Long-Term Planning:
  Task: “Reassess my career path”
  Time Unit: Years
  Application: If it’s been 2 years since your last career review, the system prompts you to evaluate your progress and goals.

---

Why You Should Try the 2-5 Rule with TaskforUs

The 2-5 Rule offers a fresh perspective on task management by focusing on timing rather than solely on task content. It is particularly effective for balancing short-term habits with long-term goals. TaskforUs brings this concept to life with features such as:

• Top Task: Automatically highlights your most urgent task within the 2-5 window.
• Focus Mode: Displays your top 3 tasks (customizable) to help you concentrate.
• Fix Mode: Prioritizes date-specific tasks as their deadlines approach.
• Category Filtering and Archiving: Keeps your task list organized and clutter-free.

If you’re tired of chaotic to-do lists, missed deadlines, or the mental load of deciding what to do next, the 2-5 Rule offers a better way.

---

Take Control of Your Tasks Today

The 2-5 Rule is more than a productivity hack—it’s a mindset shift. By focusing on when to act, it ensures you’re always working on the right task at the right time. Ready to give it a try?
Sign up for TaskforUs at task4.us

Your tasks, perfectly timed—every time.

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Voices for Gaza – Stimmen, die das Unsagbare singen. Es fehlen die Worte ob der Wut, der Zerstörung, dem tausendfachen Mord, dem unfassbaren Leid, den fortwährenden Intrigen und Strategien. Jetzt werden Geiseln übergeben, es könnte ein Weg zu mehr Frieden sein, aber jede Regung wird benützt, um der anderen Seite Demütigung und Inszenierung zu unterstellen. Wieder werden Vereinbarungen gebrochen. Es macht sprachlos, hilflos und müde. Aber der Musiker und Produzent Jens Fischer Rodrian nimmt all seine Kraft, seine Musikalität und Vernetzung zusammen und wirbt mit einer weiteren, einer dritten CD im Rahmen der Protestnoten um Auflösung von Unrecht, diesmal um Frieden in Gaza.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/voices-for-gaza-ein-gespraech

Unsere Kollegin Eva Schmidt hat sich mit Jens Fischer Rodrian über die neue Produktion Voices for Gaza unterhalten, für die er Künstler begeistern konnte wie Dieter Hallervorden, Jakob Heymann, den palästinensischen Poeten Ibrahim Massri, Markus Stockhausen, Diether Dehm, Wolfgang Wodarg, Kilez More, Morgaine oder Äon.

Für „Voices for Gaza“ wurde übrigens ein Crowdfunding ins Leben gerufen wurde, das noch bis zum 15. März läuft. Mehr Informationen gibt’s auf der Seite: protestnoten.de.

www.radiomuenchen.net/​\ @radiomuenchen\ www.facebook.com/radiomuenchen\ www.instagram.com/radio_muenchen/\ twitter.com/RadioMuenchen

Radio München ist eine gemeinnützige Unternehmung.\ Wir freuen uns, wenn Sie unsere Arbeit unterstützen.

GLS-Bank\ IBAN: DE65 4306 0967 8217 9867 00\ BIC: GENODEM1GLS\ Bitcoin (BTC): 3G1wDDH2CDPJ9DHan5TTpsfpSXWhNMCZmQ\ Ethereum (ETH): 0xB41106C0fa3974353Ef86F62B62228A0f4ad7fe9

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

Hello Stackers!

Welcome on into the ~Music Corner of the Saloon!

A place where we Talk Music. Share Tracks. Zap Sats.

So stay a while and listen.

🚨Don't forget to check out the pinned items in the territory homepage! You can always find the latest weeklies there!🚨

🚨Subscribe to the territory to ensure you never miss a post! 🚨

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/923278

@ 6ad08392:ea301584

In 2024, I was high as a kite on Nostr hopium and optimism. Early that year, my co-founder and I figured that we could use Nostr as a way to validate ambassadors on “Destination Bitcoin” - the germ of a travel app idea we had at the time that would turn into Satlantis. After some more digging and thinking, we realised that Nostr’s open social graph would be of major benefit, and in exploring that design space, the fuller idea of Satlantis formed: a new kind of social network for travel.

###### ^^2 slides from the original idea here

I still remember the call I had with @pablof7z in January. I was in Dubai pitching the AI idea I was working on at the time, but all I could think and talk about was Satlantis and Nostr.

That conversation made me bullish AF. I came back from the trip convinced we’d struck gold. I pivoted the old company, re-organised the team and booked us for the Sovereign Engineering cohort in Madeira. We put together a whole product roadmap, go to market strategy and cap raise around the use of Nostr. We were going to be the ‘next big Nostr app’.

A couple of events followed in which I announced this all to the world: Bitcoin Atlantis in March and BTC Prague in June being the two main ones. The feedback was incredible. So we doubled down. After being the major financial backer for the Nostr Booth in Prague, I decided to help organise the Nostr Booth initiative and back it financially for a series of Latin American conferences in November. I was convinced this was the biggest thing since bitcoin, so much so that I spent over $50,000 in 2024 on Nostr marketing initiatives. I was certainly high on something.

Sobering up

It’s March 2025 and I’ve sobered up. I now look at Nostr through a different lens. A more pragmatic one. I see Nostr as a tool, as an entrepreneur - who’s more interested in solving a problem, than fixating on the tool(s) being used - should.

A couple things changed for me. One was the sub-standard product we released in November. I was so focused on being a Nostr evangelist that I put our product second. Coupled with the extra technical debt we took on at Satlantis by making everything Nostr native, our product was crap. We traded usability & product stability for Nostr purism & evangelism.

We built a whole suite of features using native event kinds (location kinds, calendar kinds, etc) that we thought other Nostr apps would also use and therefore be interoperable. Turns out no serious players were doing any of that, so we spent a bunch of time over-engineering for no benefit 😂

The other wake up call for me was the Twitter ban in Brazil. Being one of the largest markets for Twitter, I really thought it would have a material impact on global Nostr adoption. When basically nothing happened, I began to question things.

Combined, these experiences helped sober me up and I come down from my high. I was reading “the cold start problem” by Andrew Chen (ex-Uber) at the time and doing a deep dive on network effects. I came to the following realisation:

Nostr’s network effect is going to take WAY longer than we all anticipated initially. This is going to be a long grind. And unlike bitcoin, winning is not inevitable. Bitcoin solves a much more important problem, and it’s the ONLY option. Nostr solves an important problem yes, but it’s far from the only approach. It’s just the implementation arguably in the lead right now.

This sobering up led us to take a different approach with Nostr. We now view it as another tool in the tech-stack, no different to the use of React Native on mobile or AWS for infrastructure. Nostr is something to use if it makes the product better, or avoid if it makes the product and user experience worse. I will share more on this below, including our simple decision making framework. I’ll also present a few more potentially unpopular opinions about Nostr. Four in total actually:

1. Nostr is a tool, not a revolution
2. Nostr doesn’t solve the multiple social accounts problem
3. Nostr is not for censorship resistance
4. Grants come with a price

Let’s begin…

Nostr is a tool, not a revolution

Nostr is full of Bitcoiners, and as much as we like to think we’re immune from shiny object syndrome, we are, somewhere deep down afflicted by it like other humans. That’s normal & fine. But…while Bitcoiners have successfully suppressed this desire when it comes to shitcoins, it lies dormant, yearning for the least shitcoin-like thing to emerge which we can throw our guiltless support behind.

That thing arrived and it’s called Nostr.

As a result, we’ve come to project the same kind of purity and maximalism onto it as we do with Bitcoin, because it shares some attributes and it’s clearly not a grift.

The trouble is, in doing so, we’ve put it in the same class as Bitcoin - which is an error.

Nostr is important and in its own small way, revolutionary, but it pales in comparison to Bitcoin’s importance. Think of it this way: If Bitcoin fails, civilisation is fucked. If Nostr fails, we’ll engineer another rich-identity protocol. There is no need for the kind of immaculate conception and path dependence that was necessary for Bitcoin whose genesis and success has been a once in a civilisation event. Equivocating Nostr and Bitcoin to the degree that it has been, is a significant category error. Nostr may ‘win’ or it may just be an experiment on the path to something better. And that’s ok !

I don’t say this to piss anyone off, to piss on Nostr or to piss on myself. I say it because I’d prefer Nostr not remain a place where a few thousand people speak to each other about how cool Nostr is. That’s cute in the short term, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s a waste of a great tool that can make a significant corner of the Internet great again.

By removing the emotional charge and hopium from our relationship to Nostr, we can take a more sober, objective view of it (and hopefully use it more effectively).

Instead of making everything about Nostr (the tool), we can go back to doing what great product people and businesses do: make everything about the customer.

---

Nobody’s going around marketing their app as a “react native product” - and while I understand that’s a false equivalent in the sense that Nostr is a protocol, while react is a framework - the reality is that it DOES NOT MATTER.

For 99.9999% of the world, what matters is the hole, not the drill. Maybe 1000 people on Earth REALLY care that something is built on Nostr, but for everyone else, what matters is what the app or product does and the problem it solves. Realigning our focus in this way, and looking at not only Nostr, but also Bitcoin as a tool in the toolkit, has transformed the way we’re building.

This inspired an essay I wrote a couple weeks ago called “As Nostr as Possible”. It covers our updated approach to using and building WITH Nostr (not just ‘on’ it). You can find that here:

https://futuresocial.substack.com/p/as-nostr-as-possible-anap

If you’re too busy to read it, don’t fret. The entire theory can be summarised by the diagram below. This is how we now decide what to make Nostr-native, and what to just build on our own. And - as stated in the ANAP essay - that doesn’t mean we’ll never make certain features Nostr-native. If the argument is that Nostr is not going anywhere, then we can always come back to that feature and Nostr-fy it later when resources and protocol stability permit.

Next…

The Nostr all in one approach is not all “positive”

Having one account accessible via many different apps might not be as positive as we initially thought.

If you have one unified presence online, across all of your socials, and you’re posting the same thing everywhere, then yes - being able to post content in one place and it being broadcast everywhere, is great. There’s a reason why people literally PAY for products like Hypefury, Buffer and Hootsuite (aside from scheduling).

BUT…..This is not always the case.

I’ve spoken to hundreds of creators and many have flagged this as a bug not a feature because they tend to have a different audience on different platforms and speak to them differently depending on the platform. We all know this. How you present yourself on LinkedIn is very different to how you do it on Instagram or X.

The story of Weishu (Tencent’s version of TikTok) comes to mind here. Tencent’s WeChat login worked against them because people didn’t want their social graph following them around. Users actually wanted freedom from their existing family & friends, so they chose Douyin (Chinese TikTok) instead.

Perhaps this is more relevant to something like WeChat because the social graph following you around is more personal, but we saw something similar with Instagram and Facebook. Despite over a decade of ownership, Facebook still keeps the social graphs separated.

All this to say that while having a different strategy & approach on different social apps is annoying, it allows users to tap into different markets because each silo has its own ‘flavour’. The people who just post the same thing everywhere are low-quality content creators anyway. The ones who actually care, are using each platform differently.

The ironic part here is that this is arguably more ‘decentralised’ than the protocol approach because these siloes form a ‘marketplace of communities’ which are all somewhat different.

---

We need to find a smart way of doing this with Nostr. Some way of catering to the appropriate audience where it matters most. Perhaps this will be handled by clients, or by relays. One solution I’ve heard from people in the Nostr space is to just ‘spin up another nPub’ for your different audience. While I have no problem with people doing that - I have multiple nPubs myself - it’s clearly NOT a solution to the underlying problem here.

We’re experimenting with something. Whether it’s a good idea or not remains to be seen. Satlantis users will be able to curate their profiles and remove (hide / delete) content on our app. We’ll implement this in two stages:

Stage 1: Simple\ In the first iteration, we will not broadcast a delete request to relays. This means users can get a nicely curated profile page on Satlantis, but keep a record of their full profile elsewhere on other clients / relays.

Stage 2: More complex\ Later on, we’ll try to give people an option to “delete on Satlantis only” or “delete everywhere”. The difference here is more control for the user. Whether we get this far remains to be seen. We’ll need to experiment with the UX and see whether this is something people really want.

I’m sure neither of these solutions are ‘ideal’ - but they’re what we’re going to try until we have more time & resources to think this through more.

Next…

Nostr is not for Censorship Resistance

I’m sorry to say, but this ship has sailed. At least for now. Maybe it’s a problem again in the future, but who knows when, and if it will ever be a big enough factor anyway.

The truth is, while WE all know that Nostr is superior because it’s a protocol, people do NOT care enough. They are more interested in what’s written ON the box, not what’s necessarily inside the box. 99% of people don’t know wtf a protocol is in the first place - let alone why it matters for censorship resistance to happen at that level, or more importantly, why they should trust Nostr to deliver on that promise.

Furthermore, the few people who did care about “free speech” are now placated enough with Rumble for Video, X for short form and Substack for long form. With Meta now paying lip-service to the movement, it’s game over for this narrative - at least for the foreseeable future.

The "space in people’s minds for censorship resistance has been filled. Both the ‘censorship resistance’ and ‘free speech’ ships have sailed (even though they were fake), and the people who cared enough all boarded.

For the normies who never cared, they still don’t care - or they found their way to the anti-platforms, like Threads, BlueSky or Pornhub.

The small minority of us still here on Nostr…are well…still here. Which is great, but if the goal is to grow the network effect here and bring in more people, then we need to find a new angle. Something more compelling than “your account won’t be deleted.”

I’m not 100% sure what that is. My instinct is that a “network of interoperable applications”, that don’t necessarily or explicitly brand themselves as Nostr, but have it under the hood is the right direction. I think the open social graph and using it in novel ways is compelling. Trouble is, this needs more really well-built and novel apps for non-sovereignty minded people (especially content creators) and people who don’t necessarily care about the reasons Nostr was first built. Also requires us to move beyond just building clones of what already exists.

We’ve been trying to do this Satlantis thing for almost a year now and it’s coming along - albeit WAY slower than I would’ve liked. We’re experimenting our way into a whole new category of product. Something different to what exists today. We’ve made a whole bunch of mistakes and at times I feel like a LARP considering the state of non-delivery.

BUT…what’s on the horizon is very special, and I think that all of the pain, effort and heartache along the way will be 100% worth it. We are going to deliver a killer product that people love, that solves a whole host of travel-related problems and has Nostr under the hood (where nobody, except those who care, will know).

Grants come with a price

This one is less of an opinion and more of an observation. Not sure it really belongs in this essay, but I’ll make a small mention just as food for thought,

Grants are a double-edged sword.

I’m super grateful that OpenSats, et al, are supporting the protocol, and I don’t envy the job they have in trying to decipher what to support and what not to depending on what’s of benefit to the network versus what’s an end user product.

That being said, is the Nostr ecosystem too grant-dependent? This is not a criticism, but a question. Perhaps this is the right thing to do because of how young Nostr is. But I just can’t help but feel like there’s something a-miss.

Grants put the focus on Nostr, instead of the product or customer. Which is fine, if the work the grant covers is for Nostr protocol development or tooling. But when grants subsidise the development of end user products, it ties the builder / grant recipient to Nostr in a way that can misalign them to the customer’s needs. It’s a bit like getting a government grant to build something. Who’s the real customer??

Grants can therefore create an almost communist-like detachment from the market and false economic incentive. To reference the Nostr decision framework I showed you earlier, when you’ve been given a grant, you are focusing more on the X axis, not the Y. This is a trade-off, and all trade-offs have consequences.

Could grants be the reason Nostr is so full of hobbyists and experimental products, instead of serious products? Or is that just a function of how ambitious and early Nostr is?

I don’t know.

Nostr certainly needs better toolkits, SDKs, and infrastructure upon which app and product developers can build. I just hope the grant money finds its way there, and that it yields these tools. Otherwise app developers like us, won’t stick around and build on Nostr. We’ll swap it out with a better tool.

To be clear, this is not me pissing on Nostr or the Grantors. Jack, OpenSats and everyone who’s supported Nostr are incredible. I’m just asking the question.

Final thing I’ll leave this section with is a thought experiment: Would Nostr survive if OpenSats disappeared tomorrow?

Something to think about….

Coda

If you read this far, thank you. There’s a bunch here to digest, and like I said earlier - this not about shitting on Nostr. It is just an enquiry mixed with a little classic Svetski-Sacred-Cow-Slaying.

I want to see Nostr succeed. Not only because I think it’s good for the world, but also because I think it is the best option. Which is why we’ve invested so much in it (something I’ll cover in an upcoming article: “Why we chose to build on Nostr”). I’m firmly of the belief that this is the right toolkit for an internet-native identity and open social graph. What I’m not so sure about is the echo chamber it’s become and the cult-like relationship people have with it.

I look forward to being witch-hunted and burnt at the stake by the Nostr purists for my heresy and blaspheming. I also look forward to some productive discussions as a result of reading this.

Thankyou for your attention.

Until next time.

@ fbf0e434:e1be6a39

黑客即命运：四个支点推动未来的杠杆

在《Why Software is Eating the World》中，Marc Andreessen 指出，软件的扩张不仅是一场技术革命，更是一场社会变革。我们深以为然。但 DoraHacks 相信真正改变世界的不只是软件，而是一群愿意动手解决问题的黑客（Hackers）。

DoraHacks 正在构建 Hacker Movement —— 一个以自由、开源、技术为武器的全球创新网络。我们认为这个运动的终点不是某种“Web3.0”神话，也不是一个新冷战时代的技术出口，而是一场社会的重构，是对“什么值得被构建”这一问题的深度回应。

在这个过程中，Dora Ventures 是辅助 DoraHacks 协调与捕获价值的资本引擎。Dora Ventures 当前的工作将围绕以下四个方面展开：

一、FDA 自由社会 (BioHack)

黑客社会的健康自由宣言：解锁生命技术的市场机制

回顾历史，每一次真正的技术突破，都伴随着对既有范式的挑战。今天，医疗健康领域依然是人类最受制于官僚主义的地方 —— 一个新药从实验室走向病人，往往需要十年时间和几十亿美元的投入，绝大多数创新止步于此。

FDA Free Society，并不是呼吁无政府主义，而是呼吁一种更具活力、更以患者为中心的健康和生物科技创新体系。

我们看到的问题：

• FDA的审批周期与风险厌恶机制正在扼杀潜在的突破性治疗；
• 大药企的市场垄断让药品定价脱离现实，限制竞争；
• 病人的“尝试权”（Right to Try）在监管框架下被边缘化；
• 小型生物科技初创公司面对高昂试验成本几乎没有生存空间。

我们相信的解决方向：

• 市场驱动的健康创新机制：把研发、试验和使用的决策权更多交还给患者、医生和创业者；
• 让创新回归第一性原理：不是“通过审批”，而是“是否有效”；
• 为 Right to Try 正名：真正的风险不是尝试未经审批的疗法，而是死于等待；
• 打造有竞争力的生物初创生态：帮助小团队也有机会改变世界，而不只是为大药厂打工。
• 软件和人工智能驱动的生物科技：生物科技和软件的结合驱动全新的生物科技产品。

我们相信，药物研发的未来，不属于某个监管机构，也不属于市值5000亿的大公司，而属于一群不愿等待的创新者。

FDA Free Society 是对“技术进步必须服从监管”的有力反击，是对“创新必须通过审批”的结构性质疑。我们押注这个方向，是因为它比“创新”更稀缺——它关乎人类对生存权的重新主张。

二、开源量子计算基础设施（Open Source Quantum）

量子软件的开源狂潮，是今天的以太坊2015年

Arthur C. Clarke 曾说：“任何足够先进的技术，看起来都像是魔法。” 量子计算就是这样一种技术。但问题在于，魔法要成为工具，必须走向可编程、可复现、可协作 —— 换句话说，它需要“开源”。

Dora Ventures 对量子计算的投资逻辑很清晰：量子计算正走向它的“智能合约时刻”。硬件进入工程优化周期，软件和工具层尚属一片荒芜，但这正是黑客的黄金年代。

我们关注的几个关键趋势：

• 开源量子编译器与转译器：打通经典与量子系统的语言障碍；
• 量子密码学：利用量子力学的原理构建全新的加密系统；
• 量子软件应用：我们相信量子计算软件和应用可以在人工智能、生物科技、区块链等技术的进步中发挥巨大的价值，直接或间接影响金融、物流、制药、国防、太空探索等重要领域。

我们不仅是观察者，更是建设者。通过举办黑客松、资助和投资量子开源软件项目、开展量子密码学的研究和生态发展，我们参与这个时代最具颠覆性的计算平台的构建。

三、消费级加密应用（Consumer Crypto）

胖应用的春天已至：Crypto 将赢得最后10亿用户

如果你理解历史，你会明白今天的 Crypto 不是互联网的“平行世界”，而是互联网故事的下一个篇章。

1990年代，HTTP 和 TCP/IP 改变了信息分发； 2000年代，Web 应用改变了商业与社交； 2010年代，移动端应用重塑了人类行为； 2020年代，是 Crypto 应用真正走向大众的十年。

基础设施已充分，胖应用正在破壳而出。

Dora Ventures 最核心的判断是：谁能抓住第一个亿级用户的Crypto应用场景，谁将书写Web3时代的Paypal和微信故事。

• 稳定币合规化将使 USDC 成为数字美元；
• 去中心化社交和加密支付的全球化催生比特币和 Web3 支付的“ VISA 网络”；
• 大应用链基建将通过 Move 语言和极简化工具降低用户门槛；
• 链上原生经济系统将实现创作者直接变现、社区协作分润。

想象这个场景: 一个住在纽约的人通过链上音乐会平台(KYD Labs)使用快速Move区块链网络(Aptos)的 Circle USDC 购买今晚的演唱会门票，一个阿根廷的居民每天去咖啡馆用闪电网络上的比特币“聪”购买拿铁，在去中心化社交媒体(Yakihonne)与朋友分账单，这些都会在今年真实发生。我们不只是投资协议，而是投资体验新范式的创造者。

四、全自动化组织(Agentic Organizations)

组织将成为智能体，DAO将成为大型语言模型的组织形态

2022年，Sam Altman 重构了“工具”的定义；2025年，我们将重构“组织”的定义。

我们认为，未来组织不是由人构成的矩阵结构，而是由Agent协作而成的智能系统。

Agent 是新的工作单元，它不眠不休、持续学习、自动调度。它不是增强人类的工具，而是自动化组织的大脑。

一些例子:

• DAO Agent 系统将自动执行治理流程，并保护参与者隐私；
• Smart Widget 框架让开发者用三行代码部署社交、支付、交易型 Agent ；
• 隐私协议和隐私应用在自动化组织中成为主流；
• 黑客松涌现出大量加密 Agent。

AI + 区块链不是 Buzzword ，而是组织智能化的起点。

过去我们说“公司是信息处理的机器”，未来我们会说“ DAO 是 Agent 运行的网络”。我们正在进入一个无需CEO的公司、无需审批的流程、无需办公室的全自动化组织时代。

尾声：我们下注在拥有“BUIDL自由”的人类

这四个方向——FDA Free Society、Open Source Quantum、Consumer Crypto、Agentic Organizations，不是我们幻想的未来，而是已经开始发生的未来。

Dora Ventures不是下注在技术上，而是下注在一群不服从的Builder身上。他们愿意解决真正的问题，质疑现有体制，构建新的秩序。他们相信世界可以不同，并愿意动手去实现它。

黑客运动正在吞噬世界，在人工智能的时代，人类必将成为 Hacker ，用代码，用治理，用想象力，创造一个值得居住的世界。