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.