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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History is never the story of ideal choices, but of least-bad decisions made by imperfect actors with limited knowledge, pursuing what they believed to be in their interests at the time. This is the reality of strategy, and of life itself.

Ah yes, the Balfour Declaration! But why stop there? Add in the Hussein–McMahon correspondence (1915–16), the Damascus Protocol (1915), and Sykes–Picot (1916). The British made overlapping promises to Arabs, Jews, and the French—then double-crossed everyone. Arabs lost independence, Jews got a vague “national home,” and France got Syria.