LiberLion

Ford was the great symbolic inspiration for industrial technocracy, but he was not a member of Technocracy Inc. or any formal technocratic party. His figure became so closely linked to mass production and the technocratic imagination that, in the dystopia Brave New World (1932), global society venerates him as ‘Our Ford’, a kind of civic god who replaces traditional religions. Read my post: TOKENIZATION OF ENERGY AS MONEY in my #TechnocracySeries

ANALOGICAL IDENTITY: BIOMETRICS, GEOLOCATION, AND METADATA ᴬⁿᵃˡʸᶻᵉ ʰⁱˢᵗᵒʳʸ ᵗᵒ ᵘⁿᵈᵉʳˢᵗᵃⁿᵈ ᵗʰᵉ ᵖʳᵉˢᵉⁿᵗ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵃⁿᵗⁱᶜⁱᵖᵃᵗᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ᶠᵘᵗᵘʳᵉ Pass Law and the “Dompas.” South Africa, 1952. Background on Digital Identity Under apartheid, black citizens were required to carry the “Dompas,” an identity book containing fingerprints, employment history, and travel permits. Dompas is an Afrikaans word that literally means “stupid pass” (dom = stupid/foolish, pas = pass). It functioned as a physical geolocation system. The state monitored and restricted movement in real time; if the “identity” (the pass) did not have the correct stamp to be in a white zone, the person was immediately arrested. Ironically called the “Pass Abolition Act,” it actually consolidated multiple documents into a single Reference Booklet that was mandatory for all black men (and later women) over the age of 16. Primitive biometrics: The government created a Central Reference Office that archived the fingerprints of almost the entire black population, linking them to their documents. Complete history: The booklet not only had a photo; it recorded employment history, tax payments, and police permits. The employer had to sign it monthly; if the signature was missing, the person lost their legal status. Surveillance: “Statutory Crime” The system created crimes that existed only because of flaws in documentation. Influx Control: The pass dictated which urban areas (“white zones”) you could be in and for how long (usually 72 hours without a work permit). Random checks: The police could stop any Black person on the street and demand to see the book. Not having it, or having the wrong stamp, resulted in immediate arrest, forced labor, or deportation to rural areas. Why it violated privacy The state eliminated anonymity in public space. Your physical identity was tied to a centralized database that determined your right to move. The government knew where you worked, whether you had paid your taxes, and whether you had “permission” to be on the sidewalk where you were standing.

What is the maximum decentralization in the crypto ecosystem? Not being maximalist. You have all the options available for each use case at any given time. This way, you don't lock yourself in a gilded cage; you set yourself free in the wild jungle.

What are the chances that centralized governments, led by ambitious and megalomaniacal politicians, will not use all the technology at their disposal to implement the social engineering proposed by Technocracy? I would say the chances are very high, of course... as long as governments voluntarily give up power, politicians suddenly become humble, and history ceases to be history. In other words, zero. Technology is the favorite toy of control. The massive scale gives these pathological, megalomaniacal beings a powerful tool. When you give a centralized state data, algorithms, and sensors, it's like giving a hyperactive kid a box of matches. Then we're surprised when he sets fire to everything he can. Technocracy sells efficiency, but its premium package includes social engineering with real-time monitoring. Does anyone really believe that governments are going to look at that and say, “No, thank you, I'd rather govern blindly”? The temptation is too great, and political ambition is cheap fuel. The only question is not whether they will use it, but how long it will take them to say they are doing it “for our own good.”

#TechnocracySeries -Episode 5 ᴬⁿᵃˡʸᶻᵉ ʰⁱˢᵗᵒʳʸ ᵗᵒ ᵘⁿᵈᵉʳˢᵗᵃⁿᵈ ᵗʰᵉ ᵖʳᵉˢᵉⁿᵗ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵃⁿᵗⁱᶜⁱᵖᵃᵗᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ᶠᵘᵗᵘʳᵉ THE DNA OF TECHNOCRACY https://technocracyinc.org Stop buying the Tony Stark narrative. What Musk is building isn't creative chaos; it's an inherited blueprint. He isn't just assembling companies; he's laying the technical rails for a Global Technate. The ideology isn't new. It’s almost 100 years old. The root is in the bloodline. Joshua Haldeman, Musk's maternal grandfather, wasn't just a random ancestor. He was a leader of the Technocracy Party in Canada in the 30s and 40s (a branch of Technocracy Inc.). Elon didn't invent this vision; he was raised in it. In 1934, Technocracy Inc. published its "Study Course." https://t.co/5XeVAQyLBH The thesis? Politics is obsolete. Engineers and scientists must run the world via "Functional Sequences." The goal: Maximum efficiency. The method: Replacing the vote with physics. X (The Everything App) + Starlink = The All-Seeing Eye. The original technocrats dreamed of "Continental Accounting": tracking every resource in real-time. X is the ledger for identity and payments. Starlink is the nervous system ensuring no dark zones exist. SpaceX is the Technate's petri dish. Musk explicitly stated Earth laws won't apply on Mars. It’s the Technocracy Inc. wet dream: a blank slate territory with no politicians, only engineering imperatives for survival. A fiefdom ruled by technique. Neuralink is the optimization of the "human engine." To old-school technocracy, humans are inefficient energy machines. Spoken language is slow. Plugging the brain into the cloud removes biological "friction." It integrates the individual as just another node in the circuit. https://t.co/UYVUVnptoa xAI: The Supreme Governor. Why do you need democracy if an AI can calculate the "perfect" resource allocation? Grok isn't a chatbot; it's the attempt to build the central mind Technocracy Inc. needed to manage a planned economy without human error. Tesla’s Optimus isn't a sci-fi gimmick; it’s the workforce of the Technate. The original movement demanded the "displacement of human labor" to measure value in energy, not wages. Optimus removes the messy biological variable—us—from the economy: no strikes, no fatigue, just pure algorithmic execution. https://t.co/WQC1btxImw We aren't witnessing "libertarian capitalism." We are watching the engineering of a system where liberty is irrelevant compared to system efficiency. Musk is building the invisible cage his grandfather dreamed of, and we are funding the construction.

The enthusiasm of Zooko (founder of Zcash) reveals a dangerous naivety. Believing the SEC—an institution built on financial surveillance and control—will embrace true privacy just because the administration changed is a fundamental error. The state's machinery naturally opposes opaque transactions, regardless of who is in charge. By participating, Zooko risks validating political theater: a charade where regulators pretend to listen to "builders" only to justify stricter crackdowns later. Seeking permission in Washington, rather than relying on code, undermines the cypherpunk ethos. This isn't a diplomatic victory; it is likely a trap that legitimizes the very apparatus designed to dismantle financial #privacy. That's why #Monero

"Agorism is the consistent integration of libertarian theory with counter-economic practice; an agorist is one who acts consistently for freedom and in freedom." Samuel Edward Konkin III wrote this quote in 'An Agorist Primer', published in 2008, four years after his death.

Allow me to praise the magnificent efficiency of Windows. It's truly admirable how this system ensures your hardware is always at 100% utilization, guaranteeing that your processor and RAM never feel lonely or underutilized. What dedication to performance! And let's talk about telemetry. It's not surveillance, of course. It's a premium data collection service to ensure Microsoft knows exactly how to improve your experience... or how to sell you a product you need. This is a level of personalized attention that other systems just don't offer. Finally, their pricing model is a testament to its incalculable value. Why settle for something free when you can pay a substantial sum for an experience that constantly demands you buy more hardware? It's a brilliant market loyalty strategy. But luckily, there's a rumor about something called 'Linux.' They say it's free, open-source, and even runs without demanding your graphics card's soul. Frankly, using that would be like cheating. Today, with AI making setup easy (duck .ai or Venice .ai), you no longer have the excuse of being a 'nerd' to opt for something sensible. It’s almost disrespectful to the complexity Windows offers us. My regards to Windows 🖕🏻

#TechnocracySeries –Episode 5 ᴬⁿᵃˡʸᶻᵉ ʰⁱˢᵗᵒʳʸ ᵗᵒ ᵘⁿᵈᵉʳˢᵗᵃⁿᵈ ᵗʰᵉ ᵖʳᵉˢᵉⁿᵗ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵃⁿᵗⁱᶜⁱᵖᵃᵗᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ᶠᵘᵗᵘʳᵉ You can explore the rest of the episodes by searching for #TechnocracySeries THE MEANING OF FREEDOM The text argues that freedom of thought is a cherished idea in the US, but most Americans do not exercise it. Instead, they prefer to have their thinking done for them and accept pre-prepared ideas on faith, like a salad. This leads them to affiliate with organized groups (churches, business clubs, political parties) where the thinking has already been done, thus placing little strain on the individual's brain cells. The text asserts that very few Americans have the: -Desire -Capacity -Integrity...to think things out clearly for themselves based on facts. It notes that Science provides this kind of training, but only to a few people in limited fields. The Technocracy concept is centered on the promise of achieving maximum social freedom by replacing the limiting restrictions of the Price System. The text asserts that genuine freedom for Americans to plan for the future requires the elimination of business and politics from the Continent's social operations. The existing Price System is criticized for its wasteful operations, which are rapidly depleting vital resources (including oil, copper, lead, zinc, and high-grade iron ore), thereby endangering the high-energy civilization. Excerpts from the article “The Meaning of Freedom” published in The Technocrat - Vol. 14 - November 1946 by Technocracy Inc. https://archive.org/details/TheTechnocrat-November1946/mode/2up

If your privacy requires permission, it was never freedom; it was an illusion. We live in a WORLD of SIMULATION ᴿᵉᵃˡⁱᵗʸ ⁱˢ ʰⁱᵈᵈᵉⁿ ⁱⁿ ˡᵃʸᵉʳˢ

THE MOST FAMOUS BUT LEAST PROMOTED CYPHERPUNK Did you know that Julian Assange is a cypherpunk? In this post, I'll tell you what few people know. Not only is he considered a cypherpunk, but he is also one of the most influential and active figures in the movement. What's more, for many, he is the person who put the theory into practice in the most radical way. He continues to uphold the principles of the movement. Unlike others who have been corrupted by money and power Do you need me to name names? You know who I'm talking about. Let's continue with Julian Assange. Early activism: He was an active member of the famous Cypherpunks mailing list since the mid-90s (posting under the nickname “Proff”). There, he debated and rubbed shoulders with figures such as Timothy May and Eric Hughes. Applied philosophy: WikiLeaks is basically the cypherpunk dream come true: using strong cryptography to protect the source (privacy for the weak) and expose the secrets of states (transparency for the powerful). His book: In 2012, he published Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet, where he argues that cryptography is the only defense we have left against mass surveillance. You can read my article: The Basics of Cryptoeconomics. Its History and Origin. nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzquzyzcynd8thaf2nmqz7axh43v57fsuatvyt89t8gxpectela67vqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcqx36xsefdvfshx6trwvkk7e3dvde8jur5dajkxmmwdakkjcmn945hgueddp5hxar0wfuj6ctwvskk7unfva5kux9dgha And get ready for the movie: The Six Billion Dollar Man https://blossom.primal.net/2a0ba405cf8449226d000b80f69e477ec860f6cf687917d3c60e6d2357501c91.mp4

NATURAL LAW, OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE Lysander Spooner was one of the leading exponents of individualist anarchism and natural law. A thinker and author whom I deeply admire. Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) was not a library intellectual; he was a real nightmare for the bureaucrats of his time. Born in Massachusetts, this jurist, philosopher, and radical abolitionist brought his ideas to life. He was the man who dared to found his own postal service, the American Letter Mail Company, to compete against the state monopoly. The result? He proved he could provide a more efficient and cheaper service. Since the government couldn't beat him in the marketplace, it had to shut him down by force. With that same intransigence, Spooner dedicated his life to dismantling the legal logic of power. In his work Natural Law (1882), he left us a legacy that shatters the very foundation of modern politics. We have been taught that the law is what is written on a piece of paper signed by legislators. Spooner taught us that this is a dangerous lie. For him, justice is a natural science, as immutable as gravity. It is the science of “mine and yours”; unrestricted respect for property and the person. Justice is not legislated; it is discovered. Under this magnifying glass, Spooner rules that any attempt by the state to “create” laws falls into a fatal absurdity: -If written law coincides with Natural Law, it is redundant (it serves no purpose). -If written law contradicts Natural Law, it is criminal (it violates rights). The sovereign individual does not obey arbitrary laws; he respects natural rights. Everything else is tyranny disguised as paper. https://ia803206.us.archive.org/12/items/1882-natural-law-or-the-science-of-justice/1967%20-%20NATURAL%20LAW%20OR%20THE%20SCIENCE%20OF%20JUSTICE%20-%20Reprint%20-%20Lysander%20Spooner.pdf

Being a writer is the natural consequence of being a Sci-facts thinker, which is the natural consequence of being a promoter of critical thinking, which in turn is the consequence of being a defender of freedom. MAXIMALIST ONLY OF FREEDOM

If you think that the crypto space is recent and started with Bitcoin, you are missing part of its history, and to better understand its fundamentals, you need to read it. In this article, I will make a brief review of the history of the crypto space, and I will leave you with material so that you can deepen your knowledge, if that is what you want. nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzquzyzcynd8thaf2nmqz7axh43v57fsuatvyt89t8gxpectela67vqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcqx36xsefdvfshx6trwvkk7e3dvde8jur5dajkxmmwdakkjcmn945hgueddp5hxar0wfuj6ctwvskk7unfva5kux9dgha

Imagine Monero reaching massive, accelerated, unstoppable adoption. Do you think regulators would feel comfortable? Of course not — that's exactly why they cannot allow the "system error" to grow. My article 👇🏻 nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzquzyzcynd8thaf2nmqz7axh43v57fsuatvyt89t8gxpectela67vqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7qqmd4hkuetjdukkvctrv4ej6cfdvd6kcar4wfskctthv9eqgc66g2

Do not fear an army of lions led by a sheep. Fear an army of sheep led by a lion.

THE DAY MONERO BECOMES TOO BIG TO IGNORE ᵀʰᵉ ⁱⁿᶜᵒⁿᵛᵉⁿⁱᵉⁿᵗ ᵗʳᵘᵗʰ: ᵇᵉᵗᵗᵉʳ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ⁱᵗ ᵈᵒᵉˢⁿ'ᵗ ʰᵃᵖᵖᵉⁿ If Monero stays in its corner, governments won’t lose sleep. As long as it remains a niche, delistings and the usual “criminal crypto” narrative are enough. They haven’t broken the design, but they also haven’t pushed hard. And I’m not saying that throwing their entire arsenal would destroy Monero. What they’d actually try is forcing it back into its niche: scare the majority, spark regulatory panic, and make casual users abandon the ecosystem. Now picture the uncomfortable scenario: exponential adoption. Do you really think regulators would just sit in the stands and watch? It is not advisable to lead the Monero ecosystem into direct warfare against governments, but rather guerrilla warfare. They have every weapon at their disposal, as well as the complicity and validation of the majority of their army of sheep. Keep it simple, keep it useful, keep it small, keep it private. Monero isn’t built for everyone, only for those who refuse to ask permission. ᴸᵉᵗ ᵀʰᵉʳᵉ ᴮᵉ ᴰᵃʳᵏ🏴a³ Lunarpunk🌒 #agorist #monerist #SovereignIndividual

WHEN CONVENIENCE BECOMES AN ATTACK VECTOR Linux isn’t “safer”, it’s built like a vault. That’s the part most people miss. Security and privacy aren’t built on comfort, they rest on friction, even when it’s inconvenient. When you compare Linux to Windows, you’re not comparing operating systems, you’re comparing mindsets. One prioritizes user control, the other spent decades prioritizing convenience even when it weakened security. Linux limits privileges by design, keeps a strict user–system separation, and distributes software through signed repositories. It avoids random executables and avoids handing out permissions “just in case”. Its diversity and open code make mass-scale malware harder, because every layer can be audited, patched, or replaced without gatekeepers. Windows carried the legacy of running almost everything as admin. That model opened doors malware learned to exploit, and its market dominance made it an irresistible target. The gap isn’t mystical, it’s strategic. If the next digital era is defined by resilience, the question isn’t “which system has fewer viruses” but “which architecture withstands human error and economic incentives to attack it”. Linux bets on autonomy and transparency, and that’s the real shield.

#TechnocracySeries –Episode 4 ᴬⁿᵃˡʸᶻᵉ ʰⁱˢᵗᵒʳʸ ᵗᵒ ᵘⁿᵈᵉʳˢᵗᵃⁿᵈ ᵗʰᵉ ᵖʳᵉˢᵉⁿᵗ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵃⁿᵗⁱᶜⁱᵖᵃᵗᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ᶠᵘᵗᵘʳᵉ You can explore the rest of the episodes by searching for #TechnocracySeries TOKENIZATION OF ENERGY AS MONEY What would happen if we began to see money not as debt or, as it was under the gold standard, backed by precious metals, but as energy, as real material potential: labor, resources, the physical metabolism of society that allows people to live, build, move, and sustain themselves? From that point of view, “real wealth” would be the ability to transform energy and matter into food, housing, technology, services—in other words, into what really sustains human life. For its part, what we usually call “money” would be more of a substitute: a symbolic token separated from the real energy flows behind production. This is how the Technocrats viewed the price system, and therefore money. In the image, you can see an excerpt from a 1939 publication. Source: Technocracy In Plain Terms https://archive.org/details/TechnocracyInPlainTerms/page/n5/mode/2up Do you see any similarities to the current technology that Trump and many of his banker friends are so strongly promoting?

#TechnocracySeries –Episode 3 ᴬⁿᵃˡʸᶻᵉ ʰⁱˢᵗᵒʳʸ ᵗᵒ ᵘⁿᵈᵉʳˢᵗᵃⁿᵈ ᵗʰᵉ ᵖʳᵉˢᵉⁿᵗ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵃⁿᵗⁱᶜⁱᵖᵃᵗᵉ ᵗʰᵉ ᶠᵘᵗᵘʳᵉ THE ORIGIN OF TECHNOCRACY You can explore the rest of the episodes by searching for #TechnocracySeries UBI Universal Basic Income emerges as one of the central pillars of the new technocratic order. It is not a social policy, but a mechanism of control and stabilization in a hyper-automated economy where human labor ceases to be the core of production. AI is both the culprit and the engine of technocratic promises that will reshape humanity. You will not work, because you will not be able to, and you will be happy. The official narrative promises freedom: with a guaranteed income, each person could devote themselves to learning, creating or building projects. But beneath that promise lies the structural design of a system where machines generate value and the State, aligned with technological corporations, administers its distribution. UBI also operates as an instrument of algorithmic governance. With mandatory digital identities, programmable accounts, and continuous monitoring, income can become a tool of reward or punishment depending on citizen behavior. The technocratic argument is simple: if humans are no longer necessary for production, they must be maintained, managed, and contained. Basic income resolves social tension while ensuring political stability. However, the risk is clear. UBI could become the entry point to a deeply centralized model in which economic survival depends on compliance. A future where the State not only provides income but defines the limits of individual autonomy. In this image, you see a fragment from an article published in 'The Technocrats' Magazine' in 1933, showing how a universal income was already being proposed long before it had its current name. The key question is not whether UBI will exist, but under what conditions and who will set its rules. Source: https://archive.org/details/the-technocrats-magazine-1933_202011/mode/2up