Meta Platforms’ new AI Ray-Ban smart glasses with a built-in display are facing three major roadblocks in the European Union, where battery rules, AI regulations, and supply constraints have derailed plans to roll out the glasses across the continent.

Bloomberg spoke with people familiar with the new AI glasses, an upgrade over the previous model, which lacked built-in optics, and warned that Meta is attempting to launch the glasses in the EU, but its manufacturing partner, EssilorLuxottica SA, will not be able to secure enough supply to support the rollout.

Compounding EssilorLuxottica’s supply woes, the people warned that the delayed EU launch is also due to regulations governing AI features and batteries.

The big obstacle on the battery front is that one EU requirement mandates that devices sold on the continent must have removable batteries by 2027, which creates big design challenges for compact wearables like these glasses, as well as headlines and other similar devices.

Meta is reportedly pushing for an exemption with Brussels, arguing the rule would hurt not just glasses but other wearables across the consumer electronics market. 

Making matters worse for Meta, EU rules would also limit some of the AI functions that are key to the glasses, making a stripped-down launch very unattractive to consumers. 

EssilorLuxottica’s supply woes are understandable, but Brussels’s overregulation of nearly everything, including AI and batteries, shows how elected and unelected bureaucrats can slow or kill innovation.

Andrew Puzder, the US ambassador to the European Union, told an audience at an event earlier this week that the glasses will not be available in the region.

“Where is the one place in the world that you can’t sell these glasses? The European Union. Why? Because the battery isn’t removable,” Puzder said.

Earlier this year, we cited Goldman analyst Jerry Shen’s report on how the mass adoption cycle for AI glasses is just ahead, outlining the full supply chain of companies that make every component of these glasses (read here and here).

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In Hamlet, William Shakespeare famously wrote, “To thine own self be true.”

The problem is when others want to present a different “truth” long after you are gone.

Shakespeare is under an unrelenting attack in the United Kingdom from trigger warnings to censoring his prose.

Now, Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust has announced that it will “de-colonise” the Bard.

In the name of creating “a more inclusive museum experience,” the Trust is moving away from Western perspectives to avoid the dangers of “white supremacy.”

A prior research project between the trust and Dr Helen Hopkins at the University of Birmingham raised concerns over just praising the writer. 

Even recognizing Shakespeare’s genius “benefits the ideology of white European supremacy.”

The new push at the Trust follows The Globe Theatre’s previous move to “decolonise” Shakespeare’s famous plays.

Again, while many of us denounce this type of revisionism, it appeals to this community of cultural overlords.

It is personally advancing for these academics and experts to seek to change or cancel such works.

The same voices are being heard in the United States. As we previously discussed, in a column in the School Library Journal, Minnesota librarian and journalist Amanda MacGregor questioned why teachers were even still exposing their students to this harmful influence: “Shakespeare’s works are full of problematic, outdated ideas, with plenty of misogyny, racism, homophobia, classism, anti-Semitism and misogynoir.”

Lorena German, National Council of Teachers of English Anti-Racism Committee chair and a co-founder of the Disrupt Texts forum, insisted “everything about the fact that he was a man of his time is problematic about his plays. We cannot teach Shakespeare responsibly and not disrupt the ways people are characterized and developed.”

It is time for the dwindling population of sane Brits to step forward and fight for their culture and heritage. These advocates have used academia and the media to attack the foundations of British culture. It is not enough to foster diversity in other areas, they must change and reframe how historical figures and works are presented.

They recognize this as a culture war, but have met little resistance. It is time, as the Bard himself wrote, to “Cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war.”

When challenging progressives to give an example of a socialized welfare state that actually works, they will invariably bring up Denmark with its extensive public subsidy programs.  However, the Dutch system only functions when the population is small and generally homogeneous (mostly European).  In the past decade, the far-left Dutch government under the Social Democrats has allowed over 1 million migrants to enter the country with a population of only 5 million.

The non-western population of Denmark is now 10% (or more), and a large percentage of this immigration is Muslim.  For such a tiny country, this kind of abrupt demographic change can be destabilizing.  The government was forced to respond with tougher restrictions on asylum and tighter controls on border. 

They have also instituted measures to prevent third world “no-go” zones – Third world immigrants have a tendency to pack into small areas and “tribalize” neighborhoods, making those areas into colonized enclaves.  The level of complaints from these people in the face of common sense immigration reforms is telling.  They see Europe as an open buffet; a place where they are entitled to feed until their buttons burst.  They cannot comprehend the idea that they could be limited in any way.     

The Dutch population does not feel that the restrictions imposed by Social Democrats are enough.  They want deportations. Critics argue that the party only decided to take the immigration issue seriously after growing pressure from the public, along with the threat of election defeat.  Their actions were too little too late and the Social Democrats were pummeled in the latest election.

Danish Prime Minister ​Mette Frederiksen on ‌Wednesday submitted her government’s ​resignation to ​the king after her ⁠three-party coalition ​suffered a crushing ​defeat in the general election, the royal ​palace said ​in a statement.  Parties are ‌set ⁠to launch potentially tough negotiations ​to ​determine ⁠whether the next ​government will ​be ⁠formed by Frederiksen or another ⁠party ​leader.

Socialist Democrats ran largely on geopolitical issues, including their handling of the Trump Administration’s attempted purchase of Greenland (Denmark still maintains extensive control over Greenland’s political and economic affairs). 

Frederiksen called the snap election in late February 2026 partly to capitalize on a temporary poll boost from her “firm stance” against Trump’s comments regarding Greenland. She also assumed her strong support for Ukraine and increased defense spending would win over the voters. However, her plan backfired.

Once the short campaign began, domestic “bread-and-butter” issues overwhelmingly dominated the agenda for the Social Democrats and most other parties.  They probably should have taken into account popular polls.  A recent Gallup poll in Denmark found that 54.5% of Danes are “completely in disagreement” or “in disagreement” with the statement that Islam is compatible with Danish values.

Only about 17.4% (3.3% “completely in agreement” + 14.1% “in agreement”) think it is compatible, with the rest neutral or unsure.  The same survey showed 33.3% of Danes view Muslim immigrants as a threat to the country.  The right-wing “Blue-Bloc” gained 8 seats, bringing their total to 77.  The right-wing bloc’s overall seat increase was driven mainly by the strong recovery of the Danish People’s Party, reflecting continued voter concern over immigration, integration, and welfare sustainability.  

The core issue of the Blue Bloc is deportations of incompatible migrant groups; a subject which progressive parties traditionally refuse to address, but one that is becoming increasingly important for the success of any political party in the west.  

Via zeptabot substack,

Introduction

The modern nation-state is not natural nor permanent. It’s a technological product of the industrial era’s logic of mass warfare, bureaucracy, and centralized taxation. That logic is breaking down. In a world of cyberspace, mobile capital, and digital commerce and geography, brute force lose much of their leverage. You cannot conquer the internet with tanks, nor can a government easily tax a truly digital wallet whose private keys are hidden in someone’s mind. The Information Revolution is a shift in the logic of power as fundamental as gunpowder was to medieval knighthood. Every institution built on yesterday’s logic of violence will either adapt or crumble. This was the original thesis of the 1997 book The Sovereign Individual (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). And in 2026—with the rise of China, the regional military conflicts now underway, and the polarization of politics both within nations and between them—that shift is no longer speculatory. It is existential.

What matters now is what kind of order will emerge from it. The battle is no longer between rival “-isms” competing for control of the same nation-state, but between two fundamentally different civilizational logics: an empowering future that facilitates progress and an authoritarian one that dooms humanity.

A civilization can survive poverty. It can survive corruption. It can survive decadence for a time. What it cannot survive indefinitely is the slow freezing of criticism, the politicization of truth, the administrative management of thought, and the suppression of the independent mind. If centralized authoritarian models become the dominant operating system of the twenty-first century, then the danger is that humanity becomes less capable of discovering what is true, building what is new, and expanding beyond its present limits. In other words, stagnation. And stagnation necessarily leads to extinction.

This manifesto therefore renews the sovereign individual thesis under harsher conditions. The survival argument is simple: decentralization is the only civilizational trajectory that does not end in extinction. The individual mandate follows. Do science. Build technology. Start or fund companies at the frontier—AI, DeFi, fintech, data science, space, neurotechnology, anything that compounds intelligence and autonomy.

For every unit of wealth created, disperse it: into offshore jurisdictions that compete for your presence rather than conscript you, and into cryptographic infrastructure that answers to mathematics rather than to ministers.

Sections I through IV establish the theory. Sections V through VIII show how to live it.

I. Progress Only Happens Where Criticism Is Free and Error Is Correctable

Human progress has a habitat.

Modern science became cumulative, self-correcting, and civilization-transforming within a moral and institutional ecology shaped by the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment: criticism over dogma, experiment over inherited authority, open dispute over enforced orthodoxy, and a growing recognition that no claim is final simply because it is backed by rank or power (Deutsch, 2011). What mattered was a method that can be stated plainly as: reality must answer, error must be corrigible, and no authority may permanently close inquiry.

Decentralization is the political expression of that humility. It begins from the recognition that no ruler, committee, ministry, or expert class knows enough to centrally design the future. Discovery is distributed. Knowledge is local before it is general. Progress emerges through criticism, variation, risk, and recombination, not through administrative command (Deutsch, 1997, 2011).

Where thought is free, error can be exposed. Where error can be exposed, knowledge can compound. Where knowledge compounds, civilization advances.

Where criticism becomes dangerous, speech is narrowed, capital is trapped, and individuals are reduced to manageable units inside a bureaucratic machine, the range of possible futures contracts. Centralization misallocates resources. It narrows the imagination.

II. Every Decisive Breakthrough Has Come From Free Civilizations First

The United States achieved the first controlled fusion experiment in history to produce more fusion energy than the laser energy used to drive it at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility in December 2022 (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 2022).

Europe’s Joint European Torus then set a record of 69 megajoules in its final 2023 deuterium-tritium campaign, announced in 2024 (UK Atomic Energy Authority, 2024).

China has simultaneously pressed forward with its own fusion program. Its Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST)—built on a tokamak architecture first conceptualized by Soviet physicists Andrei Sakharov and Igor Tamm and further refined across Western laboratories—set a world plasma confinement record of 403 seconds in 2023, then broke it again with 1,066 seconds in January 2025 (Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2025). EAST itself is described by its own engineers as a testbed for ITER technologies. China is now constructing the China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor (CFETR), a demonstration-scale plant expected to break ground by the late 2020s, explicitly designed as the next step after ITER, the Western-led international megaproject under construction in France. China’s flagship fusion facility is, by its own characterization, an implementation vehicle for a scientific framework established elsewhere.

Each of China’s fusion milestones is a record in plasma confinement duration—engineering feats of operational endurance within a device architecture invented and theorized outside China. The NIF’s December 2022 result was a foundational physics threshold: the first time in history that a fusion experiment produced more energy than the laser energy used to initiate it. China has not attempted that category of result.

The modern West’s greatest contribution was the creation of environments in which invention could become self-sustaining.

The atomic bomb emerged from the Manhattan Project in the United States, culminating in the Trinity test on July 16, 1945.

The Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb in 1949—four years after Trinity. China followed in 1964, nineteen years behind.

The first full-scale thermonuclear device, Ivy Mike, was detonated by the United States on November 1, 1952. Russia followed on August 12, 1953. China on December 28, 1966.

The first practical transistor was invented at Bell Labs in New Jersey in December 1947.

The first programmable general-purpose electronic digital computer, ENIAC, was built in the United States during the Second World War and unveiled in 1946.

The Apple II in 1977 and the IBM PC in 1981—both products of the American free market—first transformed computing from a state and corporate instrument into a mass-market personal tool.

In quantum theory, David Deutsch, working in Britain, published the foundational paper on the universal quantum computer in 1985, establishing the modern theory of quantum computation.

The first cloud-accessible quantum processor was made online in 2016, and the first integrated commercial quantum system was unveiled in 2019, both by IBM in the United States.

China, on the other hand, launched the Micius quantum satellite in 2016 and achieved major quantum-communication and quantum-computational milestones by 2017, 2020, and 2021.

The record is consistent: authoritarian systems can mobilize labor, direct capital, and scale what already works with systematic, disciplined execution—but always within frameworks that open scientific civilization originated. As we can observe, “China is copying at terrifying speed everything the free world originates.” That strength is real. But it is downstream. What such systems cannot reliably reproduce is the civilizational ecology—tolerant of eccentricity, dissent, and unplanned combinations of ideas—from which those originals emerged. The decisive breakthroughs—first fission, first thermonuclear device, the transistor, the personal computer, net-energy fusion ignition—emerged first in civilizations that made criticism productive rather than obedient.

That inheritance can be lost. A civilization can live for a long time on imitation. But if every civilization becomes too centralized to permit genuine criticism, eventually there is nothing left to copy. When that happens, decline is inevitable, and eventually leads to extinction—as all resources available to the static world are exhausted.

III. The Free Market Is the Only System That Actually Discovers Solutions

Socialism mistakes compassion for intelligence and assumes that visible suffering is evidence that command must be superior to emergence.

The free market is superior because it is a discovery process. Prices encode information about supply and demand that no planner can fully aggregate. Profit and loss expose reality faster than administrative committees. Hayek’s Knowledge Problem overwhelms any centralized economic system: all actual knowledge is on the edges, in the hands of the people closest to the transaction. Decentralization harnesses that complexity; centralization will starve you to death.

Markets lift people out of poverty—by far the most effective mechanism in history for doing so. Even under totalitarian regimes, an incremental relaxation of state control over production and trade produces rapidly rising incomes.

William Nordhaus showed that innovators capture roughly two percent of the economic value created by their technology—the other ninety-eight percent flows to society as surplus. Technological innovation in a market system is inherently philanthropic. A static morality says: solve the suffering directly in front of you. A civilizational morality says: build the engines that make fewer people poor, sick, and trapped across generations.

Nassim Taleb’s framework reaches the same conclusion from a different direction. Decentralized systems grow on volatility, error, and disorder—they are antifragile. Centralized systems suppress volatility, accumulate hidden fragility, and eventually shatter. A market economy processes errors continuously through profit and loss, killing bad ideas cheaply and at small scale. A planned economy suppresses error signals until failures compound invisibly and collapse catastrophically. The Soviet collapse was a fragility event—the accumulated cost of suppressed error, finally clearing (Taleb, 2012). That is what a decentralized system does: it processes failure continuously and cheaply, so collapse never has to be total. The free market is that system.

IV. Humanity Is Doomed on One Planet—and a Multiplanetary Civilization Cannot Be Centrally Governed

Fact: Humanity is doomed unless it becomes multiplanetary.

Solve every resource problem. End every war. Cure every disease. Feed every child. The sun still expands into a red giant in roughly five billion years, incinerating the Earth and everything on it. No redistribution policy, no sustainability framework, no amount of earthly justice changes that sentence. The only exit from it is leaving. As Deutsch observed, our history, science, art, philosophy, and moral values are, from the cosmos’s vantage point, “tiny side effects of a supernova explosion a few billion years ago, which could be extinguished tomorrow by another such explosion”—unless intelligence spreads far enough to prevent it (Deutsch, 2011). Stephen Hawking stated the nearer-term version with characteristic bluntness: humanity has “no future if it doesn’t go into space” (Hawking, 2014, 2016).

The objection—how can anyone spend capital becoming multiplanetary when we have the poor still here in front of us—is a false dilemma. Injustice always exists. The decel doomers who make this argument often also believe humans on Earth will probably go extinct within a thousand years anyway—through war, environmental collapse, or some other catastrophe. There is no substantial difference between extinction in a thousand years and five billion due to the sun’s expansion. Either way, we have to deal with it. We need to be on our way to escape velocity.

Another fact: Space civilization is necessarily decentralized. NASA analyses show one-way communications delays to Mars can reach roughly 21 to 23 minutes, with further disruption and blackout periods (McBrayer et al., 2022; NASA, 2024a). That already makes management harder. The principle becomes far more severe as humanity moves outward.

Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light-years away—a round-trip exchange takes 8.6 years (NASA, 2018). Kepler-452b is 1,400 light-years away—a round-trip takes 2,800 years (NASA, 2015, 2025). Andromeda is 2.5 million light-years away—communication crosses out of politics and into geological time (NASA, 2024b).

A civilization spread across stars cannot be governed like one compressed onto a single planet. Delayed feedback, local scarcity, environmental hostility, and divergent adaptation all destroy the fantasy of centralized control. Multiplanetary humanity decentralizes by physics as astronomical distance enforces autonomy.

V. Accumulating and Dispersing Wealth Away From Predatory States Is a Moral Imperative

Wealth is stored optionality—the capacity to migrate, fund research, defend speech, exit failing systems, and act without pleading for permission. Davidson and Rees-Mogg predicted that individuals would “achieve increasing autonomy over territorial nationstates through market mechanisms” (1997). Mobile capital is the mechanism.

Davidson and Rees-Mogg warned in 1997 that as wealth became more mobile, states would turn against their most productive citizens with increasing desperation: “like an angry farmer, the state will no doubt take desperate measures at first to tether and hobble its escaping herd. It will employ covert and even violent means to restrict access to liberating technologies” (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). We are living that future right now.

In November 2020, the Chinese Government cancelled the Ant Group IPO overnight—what would have been the world’s largest, at a $37 billion valuation—after founder Jack Ma gave a speech mildly critical of financial regulators. Beijing’s regulatory crackdown that followed wiped more than a combined $1 trillion from China’s biggest tech companies. Alibaba was fined $2.8 billion; Didi, valued at $70 billion at its U.S. IPO, was forced to delist; the entrepreneurial business model that had driven China’s tech boom was, in the assessment of analysts, permanently extinguished. Ma himself disappeared from public view for months. The message was unambiguous: private wealth that grows too autonomous will be brought to heel. The state does not negotiate with capital it can still reach.

This is the coercive nature of the centralized nation-state in its full honesty. The accumulated capacity to relocate, fund research, exit failing institutions, and act without permission is precisely what Beijing’s model cannot tolerate.

We believe David Deutsch when he said that wealth is the set of all physical transformations that you are capable of bringing about. Accumulating that wealth and dispersing it into offshore jurisdictions and cryptographic cyberspace is therefore morally just. Every dollar removed from the reach of predatory institutions is a dollar withdrawn from the machine that kills the only process by which genuine knowledge grows. Left unchecked, it forecloses that growth. To starve that institution of capital is to fight for the survival of the species. Cryptographic infrastructure is the most powerful tool in this fight to date.

VI. Cryptography Is the Technical Instrument of Individual Sovereignty

Davidson and Rees-Mogg predicted in 1997 that cybermoney would become “the new money of the Information Age, replacing the paper money of Industrialism”—and that it would “substantially free you from the power of the state” (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). The mechanism they described was Hayek’s: competitive private currencies, freed from legal-tender requirements, would force issuers to preserve value or lose customers—eradicating inflation by market discipline alone. Physical offshore jurisdictions had long allowed the wealthy to escape predatory taxation. Cybermoney would complete what geography had only partially achieved: an economy with no territorial jurisdiction, where “cyberspace is the ultimate offshore jurisdiction” (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). The cows, as they put it, would have wings.

Bitcoin is that prediction realized.

Cryptocurrency altered a balance that had held for all of recorded history: for the first time, individuals could store value, communicate, and coordinate across borders in systems that do not require the permission of any institution to operate.

In the foreword to the 2020 reprint of The Sovereign Individual, Peter Thiel described the technology conflict of the Information Age as running on two poles: “Artificial Intelligence holds out the prospect of finally solving what economists call the ‘calculation problem’—AI could theoretically make it possible to centrally control an entire economy. It is no coincidence that AI is the favorite technology of the Communist Party of China. Strong cryptography, at the other pole, holds out the prospect of a decentralized and individualized world. If AI is communist, crypto is libertarian” (Thiel, 2020).

The reason Satoshi Nakamoto, the founder of Bitcoin, kept his identity unknown is integral to Bitcoin’s history: had the creator been identified, “our too powerful central government would probably do some very unpleasant things to that person” (Thiel). Bitcoin’s founding anonymity was a design principle. An act of decentralized, individual liberty from the start.

Bitcoin’s implementation has been far from clean. Short-sighted cash-grabbers have hijacked the category and turned swaths of it into speculation and outright fraud. Governments and major institutions have moved to integrate cryptocurrency into regulated platforms rather than displace them—BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust accumulated over $91 billion in assets under management by 2025, making the world’s largest asset manager the second-largest known holder of Bitcoin, its ETF structure reintroducing the very centralized custody and intermediary dependence the protocol was designed to eliminate (Bitget Academy, 2025; TRM Labs, 2026). The subcultures that formed around crypto are often ideologically shallow, speculative, and corrosive to its founding purpose.

None of this refutes the underlying architecture. The potential of sovereign cybermoney remains infinitely worth pursuing because no better instrument for individual financial autonomy and exit optionality has been invented. The protocol itself is structurally resistant in ways its capture by institutions cannot undo. A Bitcoin transaction is a signed string of text. It can be transmitted by email, by radio, by any communications medium that exists. It does not require a Bitcoin node inside any particular jurisdiction. As one technical analysis put it: “a protocol cannot be blocked. Ports can be blocked but software quickly learns how to port-hop—see torrents for example. Impossible without shutting down all internet communications. If there’s a communications medium, there’s nothing stopping bitcoin blocks and transactions from being transferred over it” (Stack Exchange, n.d.). Gavin Andresen, one of Bitcoin’s earliest core developers, demonstrated the point at the MIT Bitcoin Expo by blinking a transaction in morse code. China cannot block Bitcoin. No government can. It can be built better, made to serve its true purpose more faithfully, and freed from the institutions that have tried to domesticate it. That is the work.

VII. Decentralization Is Not Inevitable—It Must Be Actively Fought For

Davidson and Rees-Mogg wrote in 1997 as if decentralization were a tide—inevitable, irresistible, beyond the capacity of any state to reverse. They were only partially correct. The Chinese Communist Party read the same trends and built a counter-architecture: a digital panopticon that captured the Information Age’s tools and turned them toward total surveillance and nationalist control. Populist movements across the democratic world are closing jurisdictional exits, weaponizing tax law, and criminalizing the financial privacy that sovereign individuals require. The technology arc bends toward decentralization. It can be bent back.

This is the existential update to the 1997 thesis. The sovereign individual is the force that determines which direction history moves. Centralization wins through atmosphere: caution, exhaustion, guilt, and managed decline. That outcome must be actively refused.

VIII. What You Must Do

Depending on your circumstances, each of the following points may or may not apply to you. The more you can check, the better.

Obtain additional passports. Reside primarily in a country other than the one from which you hold your first passport. Keep the bulk of your money in a third jurisdiction—preferably a tax haven. Never leave your money in any jurisdiction that claims the right to conscript you or your descendants (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997).

Travel widely. Select alternative residences in attractive locales where you will have right of entry in an emergency.

Domicile your businesses offshore where possible. Structure corporations as virtual entities—“bundles of contracting relations without any material reality” held through offshore trusts—to minimize political surface area (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997).

Hold sovereign assets. A meaningful share of wealth in Bitcoin or equivalent seizure-resistant, inflation-proof, borderless instruments—not as speculation, as infrastructure. Cybermoney is the offshore tax haven that fits in your mind. Aggressive governments will attempt to bar effective encryption and fail—just as the medieval Church failed to ban printing, the technology will retreat to wherever authority is weakest and resurface more subversively (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997).

Avoid debt. Pursue savings with urgency. Structure compensation flexibly. “Debt should be avoided; savings and cost reductions should be pursued with greater urgency” as entitlement programs collapse and deflation accompanies the reordering of power (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). The sovereign individual does not depend on the system he is routing around.

Get equity. Invest in, co-found, or build companies, as salary is becoming less stable and trustworthy. “Jobs will increasingly become tasks or piece work rather than positions within an organization” (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). Hold equity, not just a role.

Play long-term, iterated games with long-term people. All returns in life—wealth, relationships, reputation—come from compound interest. Trust compounds. Knowledge compounds. The growing danger of crime and fraud, Davidson and Rees-Mogg observed, “will make morality and honor among associates more crucial and highly valued” (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). Pick people with high intelligence, high energy, and high integrity. Build relationships you can keep for decades.

Guard your mind. The Techno-Optimist Manifesto names the disposition required: “free thought, free speech, and free inquiry” and “an absolute rejection of resentment” (Manifesto, n.d./uploaded text). Do not let institutional credentialism or the political management of information corrupt unimpaired reasoning. “Thinking about the end of the current system is taboo,” Davidson and Rees-Mogg wrote—“you must transcend conventional thinking and conventional information sources” (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997). Ideas are the primary form of wealth in the Information Age.

Get out early. Those who recognize systemic collapse and reposition before the nationalist reaction hardens are consistently better placed than those who wait for social consensus. The window for frictionless departure narrows as the crisis deepens. “The dangers of a nationalist reaction to the crisis of the nationstate make it important not to underestimate the scope for tyranny,” Davidson and Rees-Mogg warned (Davidson & Rees-Mogg, 1997).

Refuse the moral vocabulary of stagnation. Wealth creation is not extraction. Jurisdictional optimization is not evasion. Ambition is not greed. Privacy is not criminality. Building technology is not exploitation. These framings exist to keep productive individuals legible, taxable, and stationary. The Techno-Optimist Manifesto identifies the source: a “mass demoralization campaign” run under names like sustainability, de-growth, stakeholder capitalism, and the precautionary principle (Manifesto, n.d./uploaded text). Reject every version of it.

Build foundational leverage. Skills that apply leverage to any domain: logic, computers, arithmetics, probability, statistics, and microeconomics—the tools that allow you to reason about systems, incentives, and price signals rather than just memorize facts. Add persuasion and communication, because selling—in the broadest sense of conveying ideas—is the other half of building. These are the foundations. Everything else compounds on top of them.

Build, or invest in, the technologies that widen human agency. AI systems that decentralize intelligence rather than concentrate it. DeFi protocols that remove institutional gatekeepers from finance. Cryptographic infrastructure that makes individual sovereignty technically enforceable. Fintech that routes around the rent-extracting intermediaries of the old banking stack. Every product that empowers the individual at the expense of the administrative machine is a contribution to the civilizational project this manifesto describes.

Build, or invest in, the technologies that extend human reach. Nuclear fusion—the only energy source capable of powering both a post-scarcity Earth and an interplanetary civilization. Neurotechnology that expands cognitive capacity and ultimately may permit the transport of mind beyond the biological substrate. Hibernation and long-duration life support systems that make deep space survivable. Cheaper launch, reusable propulsion, orbital manufacturing. These are the literal instruments of the transition from a single-planet species to a multiplanetary one. Andreessen’s challenge stands: “our forefathers built roads and trains, farms and factories, then the computer, the microchip, the smartphone”—the only way to honor that legacy is to build the next layer (Andreessen, 2020).

Every one of these imperatives serves the same end. The sovereign individual who holds seizure-resistant assets, operates transnationally, invests in the companies that widen human agency, and builds the frontier technologies is tending the decentralized ecology—of open inquiry, corrigible error, unimpeded conjecture, and free exchange—that David Deutsch identifies as the only habitat in which genuine progress has ever occurred. He is starving the institutions that would freeze that ecology. He is planting the seeds of a civilization capable of reaching the stars, rather than one that kills growth and shall live out its days in stagnation.

The stakes are high. It’s time to act.

One week ago, when fears that the Strait of Hormuz blockade would mean a permanent collapse in oil supply (we have since seen that Iran is allowing “friendly” ships to cross the strait, especially if they grease the toll-keeper with $2 million per crossing) hit a fever pitch and pushed the price of Brent to $120, we said that “Saudi Arabia Has Already Revived More Than Half Its Oil Exports Via Hormuz Bypass.”  

With Iran blocking Saudi ships from cross Hormuz for the time being, the Kingdom had drastically ramped up its oil exports to more than half of normal levels despite the disruptions from the Iran war, a successful sign for the kingdom’s ambitious contingency plan to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. To do this, Saudi Arabia has ramped up crude shipments from Yanbu export terminals on the Red Sea coast as it diverted supplies away from the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz via the East-West pipeline.

Saudi Arabia, along with the UAE, is one of only two countries in the region that can divert significant amounts of oil to bypass Hormuz, providing a crucial lifeline for supply. And since the start of the war, the Saudis had been rerouting oil through the 1,200 kilometer (746 mile) East-West pipeline to the western port of Yanbu. At the same time, it’s quickly amassed a huge armada of tankers that have streamed toward the Red Sea to load the oil and are now piling up around the port. 

Fast forward to today when Bloomberg reported that Riyadh now aims to boost export shipments from its Red Sea ports to 5 million barrels a day, a target within reach. The East-West pipeline, linking the Abqaiq processing hub to Yanbu, has a nominal capacity of 7 million barrels a day. But 2 million of those are required to supply refineries in Riyadh and on the Red Sea coast at Yanbu and Jizan, near the Yemen border, as well as power generation and desalination plants.

Crude shipments for export from the Yanbu South and Yanbu North terminals averaged 4.4 million barrels a day in the five days to Tuesday, according to vessel tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. Flows through Yanbu have been rising steadily after the kingdom moved quickly to pump crude through the 746-mile conduit to the Red Sea.

Remarkably, the kingdom’s rerouting efforts have seen it double crude exports from Yanbu in just over two weeks. Even so, the diversions will only be enough to offset about half the lost Persian Gulf shipments this month. Even at target levels, Yanbu exports would still leave Saudi Arabia’s crude exports roughly 2 million barrels per day below pre-war levels, which however is a far cry from some of the worst case scenarios contemplated just days ago. 

According to Bloomberg calculations, there are about 56 million barrels of Saudi crude held on tankers that are stuck in the Gulf. Those cargoes loaded in late February and early March, but have been unable to transit the Strait of Hormuz to the open seas.

At least 40 oil tankers, most of them very large and capable of hauling about 2 million barrels of crude each, are now anchored near Yanbu waiting to take on cargoes, the tracking data show. 

Additionally, several ships stopped transmitting automated position signals in the Arabian Sea while en route to the Saudi port and may not reappear on tracking systems until they are well clear of the region. This could result in upward revisions to export figures.

Tankers that have loaded since the diversions began have mostly headed to Asia, with shipments to China and India dominating the flow. Cargoes are also bound for South Korea, Pakistan and Thailand. Customers in Japan have been supplied from storage tanks on the island of Okinawa, where the Saudi national oil company Aramco leases storage tanks that can hold 8.2 million barrels of crude.

In the early days of the conflict, shipments from Yanbu mostly went north to the Sumed pipeline that crosses Egypt to bypass the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia typically loads crude for its customers in Europe and along the east coast of North America from a terminal at Sidi Kerir on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast.

There is perhaps nothing more revealing about the desperate state of Hollywood than its obsession with digging up old franchises in a futile race to capitalize on audeince nostalgia.  In fact, it has been widely understood in the film industry for the past decade that almost no project will be greenlit unless it is a reboot, remake or “re-imagining” of a previously popular story property.

The problem, which everyone except Hollywood executives understands, is that you cannot recapture the magic of older hit movies, especially when your stable of writing talent is populated by an army of left-wing, pill popping ideological lunatics with no moral standards to speak of.  These kinds of people are simply incapable of relating to the common moviegoer.

This dynamic has led Hollywood down a path of financial destruction, with dozens of big budget films bombing at the box office in the past year alone.  Some projects have lost hundreds of millions of dollars and the smell of napalm is heavy in the air. 

One disastrous reboot attempt that set Hollywood on the path of total defeat is Amazon’s ludicrous Lord Of The Rings project, “The Rings Of Power”.  A non-canonical adaptation of limited parts of The Silmarillion, the show turns Galadriel, the personification of the pure feminine, into a spitting, angry feminist girl-boss that slaughters orcs by the barrel.  The show’s writing was saturated with sad approximations of Tolkien-style dialogue written by people with no life experience or wisdom.   

Tolkien was a historical linguistics professor who fought in some of the bloodiest battles of WWI.  His insight into mythology and the human condition was deep and compelling.  The idea that anyone in current-day Hollywood could hold a candle to him is absurd. 

The series was meant to exploit the pre-existing fanbase of the Peter Jackson trilogy.  Amazon execs bragged that the franchise was a sure thing, suggesting that the fans were a “captive audience” that would rush consume whatever drivel Amazon produced.

It was also clearly designed with the illusory left-wing “modern audience” in mind, and of course, that audience never showed up to watch.  Rings of Power is now considered a critical failure and a huge money-loser for Amazon.  But, one celebrity who jumped on the Amazon bandwagon early in the game was leftist propagandist Stephen Colbert, a self proclaimed Lord of the Rings “superfan”. 

Colbert was a primary promoter for the Rings Of Power series launch and at no point did he ever question the validity of the story or its major deviations from the spirit of the source material.  What better person to co-write the next installment of the Lord Of The Rings film series? 

New Line has recruited an aging Peter Jackson to helm a series of film spinoffs, but it’s hard to say yet how much freedom his team will have in the production.  The idea to include Colbert could very well bury the effort before it begins.

The announcement is bizarre, given The Colbert Show’s collapsing audience numbers and his dwindling popularity.  He is a largely hated figure in the world of entertainment and in politics.  But, the decision does make perfect sense if you consider the possibility that Hollywood’s only goal at this point is to destroy every single beloved franchise of the past and give a big middle finger to fans. 

The Amazon series proved that LOTR audiences could not be suckered or controlled, so, instead, it appears the industry is bent on petty revenge instead.  The tentatively titled The Lord of the Rings: Shadow of the Past is set to be written by Colbert, Philippa Boyens and Peter McGee.  Colbert revealed that the film will be based on “Fogs on the Barrow-downs,” the eighth chapter of The Fellowship of the Ring  

The notion that a woke pariah and Big Pharma shill with no moral compass could ever write an adaptation of The Lord Of The Rings, a story based on the honor and inherent goodness in the hearts of men, is rather insulting.  But, maybe that’s the point.     

There is perhaps nothing more revealing about the desperate state of Hollywood than its obsession with digging up old franchises in a futile race to capitalize on audeince nostalgia.  In fact, it has been widely understood in the film industry for the past decade that almost no project will be greenlit unless it is a reboot, remake or “re-imagining” of a previously popular story property.

The problem, which everyone except Hollywood executives understands, is that you cannot recapture the magic of older hit movies, especially when your stable of writing talent is populated by an army of left-wing, pill popping ideological lunatics with no moral standards to speak of.  These kinds of people are simply incapable of relating to the common moviegoer.

This dynamic has led Hollywood down a path of financial destruction, with dozens of big budget films bombing at the box office in the past year alone.  Some projects have lost hundreds of millions of dollars and the smell of napalm is heavy in the air. 

One disastrous reboot attempt that set Hollywood on the path of total defeat is Amazon’s ludicrous Lord Of The Rings project, “The Rings Of Power”.  A non-canonical adaptation of limited parts of The Silmarillion, the show turns Galadriel, the personification of the pure feminine, into a spitting, angry feminist girl-boss that slaughters orcs by the barrel.  The show’s writing was saturated with sad approximations of Tolkien-style dialogue written by people with no life experience or wisdom.   

Tolkien was a historical linguistics professor who fought in some of the bloodiest battles of WWI.  His insight into mythology and the human condition was deep and compelling.  The idea that anyone in current-day Hollywood could hold a candle to him is absurd. 

The series was meant to exploit the pre-existing fanbase of the Peter Jackson trilogy.  Amazon execs bragged that the franchise was a sure thing, suggesting that the fans were a “captive audience” that would rush consume whatever drivel Amazon produced.

It was also clearly designed with the illusory left-wing “modern audience” in mind, and of course, that audience never showed up to watch.  Rings of Power is now considered a critical failure and a huge money-loser for Amazon.  But, one celebrity who jumped on the Amazon bandwagon early in the game was leftist propagandist Stephen Colbert, a self proclaimed Lord of the Rings “superfan”. 

Colbert was a primary promoter for the Rings Of Power series launch and at no point did he ever question the validity of the story or its major deviations from the spirit of the source material.  What better person to co-write the next installment of the Lord Of The Rings film series? 

New Line has recruited an aging Peter Jackson to helm a series of film spinoffs, but it’s hard to say yet how much freedom his team will have in the production.  The idea to include Colbert could very well bury the effort before it begins.

The announcement is bizarre, given The Colbert Show’s collapsing audience numbers and his dwindling popularity.  He is a largely hated figure in the world of entertainment and in politics.  But, the decision does make perfect sense if you consider the possibility that Hollywood’s only goal at this point is to destroy every single beloved franchise of the past and give a big middle finger to fans. 

The Amazon series proved that LOTR audiences could not be suckered or controlled, so, instead, it appears the industry is bent on petty revenge instead.  The tentatively titled The Lord of the Rings: Shadow of the Past is set to be written by Colbert, Philippa Boyens and Peter McGee.  Colbert revealed that the film will be based on “Fogs on the Barrow-downs,” the eighth chapter of The Fellowship of the Ring  

The notion that a woke pariah and Big Pharma shill with no moral compass could ever write an adaptation of The Lord Of The Rings, a story based on the honor and inherent goodness in the hearts of men, is rather insulting.  But, maybe that’s the point.     

There is perhaps nothing more revealing about the desperate state of Hollywood than its obsession with digging up old franchises in a futile race to capitalize on audeince nostalgia.  In fact, it has been widely understood in the film industry for the past decade that almost no project will be greenlit unless it is a reboot, remake or “re-imagining” of a previously popular story property.

The problem, which everyone except Hollywood executives understands, is that you cannot recapture the magic of older hit movies, especially when your stable of writing talent is populated by an army of left-wing, pill popping ideological lunatics with no moral standards to speak of.  These kinds of people are simply incapable of relating to the common moviegoer.

This dynamic has led Hollywood down a path of financial destruction, with dozens of big budget films bombing at the box office in the past year alone.  Some projects have lost hundreds of millions of dollars and the smell of napalm is heavy in the air. 

One disastrous reboot attempt that set Hollywood on the path of total defeat is Amazon’s ludicrous Lord Of The Rings project, “The Rings Of Power”.  A non-canonical adaptation of limited parts of The Silmarillion, the show turns Galadriel, the personification of the pure feminine, into a spitting, angry feminist girl-boss that slaughters orcs by the barrel.  The show’s writing was saturated with sad approximations of Tolkien-style dialogue written by people with no life experience or wisdom.   

Tolkien was a historical linguistics professor who fought in some of the bloodiest battles of WWI.  His insight into mythology and the human condition was deep and compelling.  The idea that anyone in current-day Hollywood could hold a candle to him is absurd. 

The series was meant to exploit the pre-existing fanbase of the Peter Jackson trilogy.  Amazon execs bragged that the franchise was a sure thing, suggesting that the fans were a “captive audience” that would rush consume whatever drivel Amazon produced.

It was also clearly designed with the illusory left-wing “modern audience” in mind, and of course, that audience never showed up to watch.  Rings of Power is now considered a critical failure and a huge money-loser for Amazon.  But, one celebrity who jumped on the Amazon bandwagon early in the game was leftist propagandist Stephen Colbert, a self proclaimed Lord of the Rings “superfan”. 

Colbert was a primary promoter for the Rings Of Power series launch and at no point did he ever question the validity of the story or its major deviations from the spirit of the source material.  What better person to co-write the next installment of the Lord Of The Rings film series? 

New Line has recruited an aging Peter Jackson to helm a series of film spinoffs, but it’s hard to say yet how much freedom his team will have in the production.  The idea to include Colbert could very well bury the effort before it begins.

The announcement is bizarre, given The Colbert Show’s collapsing audience numbers and his dwindling popularity.  He is a largely hated figure in the world of entertainment and in politics.  But, the decision does make perfect sense if you consider the possibility that Hollywood’s only goal at this point is to destroy every single beloved franchise of the past and give a big middle finger to fans. 

The Amazon series proved that LOTR audiences could not be suckered or controlled, so, instead, it appears the industry is bent on petty revenge instead.  The tentatively titled The Lord of the Rings: Shadow of the Past is set to be written by Colbert, Philippa Boyens and Peter McGee.  Colbert revealed that the film will be based on “Fogs on the Barrow-downs,” the eighth chapter of The Fellowship of the Ring  

The notion that a woke pariah and Big Pharma shill with no moral compass could ever write an adaptation of The Lord Of The Rings, a story based on the honor and inherent goodness in the hearts of men, is rather insulting.  But, maybe that’s the point.