NOSTR meetup in Prague

Clarinet Factory - the revelation of the evening

skeleton and fascia

Creation of the world #Prague

God bless you nostrians ✌️

I asked a Genie about the current situation in Ukraine. I gave him the lens of Kurt Lewin (Field Theory) and Mises (Methodological Individualism). WARNING: AI CONTENT -> Using the intellectual lenses of Kurt Lewin (Field Theory) and Ludwig von Mises (Methodological Individualism), we can describe the current situation in Ukraine as a state of total field entropy. This is where the survival vectors of the individual have entered a head-on collision with the survival vectors of the state structure. When the psychological field becomes "chronic, dense, and eerie," it describes a "High-Tension Field without Discharge." According to Lewin, if tension in a system rises without a release valve, the system begins to deform everything within itself. 1. The TCC as "Field Radiation" (Note: TCC stands for Territorial Recruitment Center—the state military enlistment offices responsible for mobilization). In a healthy state, the government attempts to remain invisible (Minarchism). However, the TCC has transformed into an object of maximum negative valence (−). It is no longer just an institution; it is a point that warps the space around it. People stop walking the streets, change their routes, and disappear from the radar. The Result: The social field disintegrates into thousands of isolated "bunkers." The social fabric tears because trust—the foundation of any market according to Mises—is replaced by paranoia. 2. Zelensky and the "Gambler’s Trap" For the leadership, the field has narrowed to a single figure: The Survival of the System at any cost. In the fourth year of the war, the leadership has become a hostage to the Sunk Cost Fallacy. When so many lives and resources have been invested, the system cannot admit a mistake or pivot, as that would mean the collapse of its own legitimacy. The Power Vector: Power is no longer directed toward "victory" in a vacuum, but toward preventing the structure from disintegrating. The TCC is simply a tool to "stitch" the field back together by force where it can no longer be held together by an idea. 3. Where is this Heading? (A Praxeological Forecast) Mises taught us: Interventionism always leads to more interventionism. Economic Leaching: When the field becomes "eerie," capital (human, intellectual, financial) moves into the shadows or emigrates. Institutional Degradation: The TCC and forced mobilization create a "corruption market." This becomes the only way for individuals to survive in such a dense field. The system begins to "eat itself": resources are diverted from national defense toward buying one's way out of the system. Chronic Field Fatigue: Lewin wrote that prolonged exposure to extreme tension leads to either apathy or an explosion. Currently, we are seeing apathy—a "dense and dark" field. It is a state where the individual no longer cares about ideology; they simply want to preserve their physical body. How Does it End? The field cannot remain "eerie" forever. A Phase Transition: A sharp change in the rules of the game (negotiations, power shifts, or structural reform). Systemic Collapse: The system collapses under the weight of its own coercion—when the resources required to maintain force exceed the results produced by that force. PS. Text on the picture ""You can stop the trolley at any moment, but then those who have already been crushed died in vain."

The Empire Collapse Cycle: 1. Hard labor & stable currency. 2. Ascendance & hegemony. 3. Printing money for "bread and circuses" (war and welfare). 4. Social rot and domestic turmoil. 5. Total breakdown or systemic reboot. How do you think where we are? 🤔

Chat with AI about NOSTR community 😁 Prompt: "Let’s chat about the Nostr community. I’ve been in this community for a month now, and I see that many Bitcoiners there are a kind of religious believers. They are indoctrinated in this religion and look a bit rigid and fanatical. For me, as a libertarian, Bitcoin looks like a solution, but I am more flexible and not so indoctrinated. I want Bitcoin to spread; I want more people to use it and understand its true meaning, but I don’t want to use slogans and affirmations to propagate this idea. What do you think about this? Don't you think it is a side effect of all revolutionary ideas to have such adepts, and that without these adepts, an idea could not spread quickly? Or is it more repulsive than attractive?" Answer: That’s a very sharp observation. The Nostr community is currently an epicenter for what is often called "toxic maximalism," and your sense of its "religiosity" has very real sociological roots. Let’s break this down from a libertarian perspective and the history of ideas. 🧐 1. Why does it look like a religion? ⛪ When an idea (like Bitcoin) becomes more than just a financial tool and starts being viewed as a means of survival or "salvation" from an unfair system (fiat), it inevitably picks up the attributes of a cult: Dogmas: "21 Million," "Not your keys, not your coins." Prophets: Satoshi Nakamoto (who departed, becoming a mythical figure). Rituals: HODL, Stacking Sats. Inquisition: Attacks on "shitcoiners" or anyone suggesting compromises. For many on Nostr, Bitcoin isn't just money; it’s a moral choice. This is where the aggression comes from: any other idea isn't seen as an alternative, but as heresy threatening the success of the "one true path." 2. Is fanaticism a "side effect" of revolutions? 🌪 You are absolutely right. History shows that most radical changes (from the Reformation to the Enlightenment) required a core group of "unwavering adepts." The function of fanatics: They create an "impenetrable core." When the price drops 80%, these "believers" are the ones who don't sell, ensuring the network's survival. They act as an immune system, repelling any attempts at centralization or protocol changes. The cost: The side effect is exactly what you mentioned—rigidity. They become a barrier for average people who are intimidated by complex slogans and aggressive rhetoric. 3. Attraction vs. Repulsion 🧲 There is a paradox here: To the outside world: It often looks repulsive. Someone who just wants cheap transactions doesn't want to join a "sect." For internal resilience: It is incredibly attractive. Fanaticism creates a sense of community and absolute certainty, which is vital for an asset with no physical backing. Your Path: The Flexible Libertarian 🗽 Your position—"Bitcoin as a solution, not an icon"—is much closer to classical libertarianism. A pragmatic approach (spreading through utility rather than affirmations) usually works better for long-term adoption. Ultimately, if Bitcoin truly is the superior technology, it should win because of its market advantage, not because someone shouted a slogan louder on Nostr. #nostr community #bitcoiners

The mood

"The consumers patronize those shops in which they can buy what they want at the cheapest price. Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantity. They are pitiless masters, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do not care a whit for past merit or vested interests. If something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. In their capacity as buyers and consumers they are hard-hearted and callous, without consideration for other people." 😉 Human Action - Ludwig von Mises

"For those who do not distinguish between Law and Legislation (meaning the commands of a group of people), it is difficult to imagine that Law can exist independently of the State. Meanwhile, Law is older than any state. The State has never truly 'created' its own law (it cannot do so by definition). Instead, it has merely utilized and distorted pre-existing norms for its own benefit. The Roman Law we are familiar with and still utilize today was not a creation of the state. Roman Law was 'jurists' law' — a system shaped by practice and maintained by professionals who were paid for their services. Similarly, for approximately 1000 years, the legal system of ancient Ireland operated through a specialized class of jurists known as the Brehons. While Ireland comprised between 80 and 100 independent jurisdictions (tuatha), the Brehon Law was common to them all. This system was highly sophisticated for its time, surpassing, for instance, English Common Law. Lex Mercatoria (Merchant Law), which we also use today, emerged in the Middle Ages. It was created by merchants themselves for their mutual interactions. Because feudal law was cumbersome and often based on fallacies (such as the prohibition of interest or the notion of a 'just price'), Merchant Law arose to govern their relationships. It ignored feudal superstitions, allowing for the swift resolution of conflicts in courts held at major fairs and trading cities. English judges, who formed a relatively independent caste, were the first to recognize the superiority of this law; to attract clients, they began incorporating it into their own proceedings. By the way, English Common Law is also an example of 'free law,' as it contains 'judge-made law' alongside statutes. This system could have functioned perfectly well without the statutory component altogether. From the book of Vladimir Zolotariev: 'Why fix what wasn't broken?'"

We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors 🌳

When I have problems, I think about what Jesus would do. Then I pretend to be dead and disappear for three days 😊

Political campaigning has started in Slovenia. Robinhood was the first to arrive in the mailbox 😁

War does not end when someone finally forces a victory, but when momentum runs into the limits of reality. War ends when guilt becomes visible rather than projected. War ends when the ability appears to see reality without myth. War ends when victims are truly acknowledged. As long as victims serve ideology, the war continues to speak through new people. War ends when the system stops demanding self-sacrifice. War ends when life becomes more valuable than a symbol. War ends when the living become more important than the idea. War ends when responsibility returns to each person where it belongs. War ends when people begin to understand and say, “We cannot go on living as if this were normal.” War ends when death is no longer justified. War ends when victims stop being considered “necessary.” War ends when the living gain the right to live without guilt. War ends when there is less pathos, more silence, more simple questions, and fewer “sacred” answers.