Sovereignism Part 1: Digital Creative Destruction

A 12-part essay series exploring the digital disrup­tion of the nation-state and the subse­quent ampli­fi­ca­tion of individual sover­eignty during the digital age. This series is based on the 1997 master­work: The Sover­eign Individual.

“Technology is advancing much faster than our ability to under­stand its impli­ca­tions.”

 — Ken Goldstein

Statism is a system of socioe­co­nomic organi­za­tion that origi­nated in the Indus­trial Age. Statism includes all state imple­men­ta­tions of capitalism, commu­nism, fascism, and all other state-isms; it does not refer to these ideolo­gies in any pure sense. Statist imple­men­ta­tions arose in the 20th century when the only known mode of sustain­able human organi­za­tion was a top-down, centrally controlled nation-state. Like feudalism before it, which fell to the Guten­berg printing press, statism has fallen behind the techno­log­ical reali­ties of its era. In the 21st century, digiti­za­tion is devouring every ineffi­cient techno­log­ical imple­men­ta­tion: from media and dating to adver­tising and travel. In the sphere of statism, digital tools are antiquating analog nation-states by radically empow­ering individ­uals in novel and profound ways.

All states are shaped by technology. Mankind exists in continual pursuit of more energy-efficient modes of self-organi­za­tion to preserve the produc­tivity liber­ated by the division of labor while minimizing expen­di­tures neces­sary for security. This is the purpose of society. By subdi­viding labor ever more deeply, mankind’s global treasury of knowl­edge grows ever-richer, informing the devel­op­ment of better tools and systems. As man has achieved more decen­tral­ized modes of securing property and persons, new states have emerged: the world has endured a long progres­sion from the tyranny of ancient Egypt to the repre­sen­ta­tive democ­ra­cies of Western Civiliza­tion. In succes­sion with these socioe­co­nomic “phase changes, ” vast amounts of creative energy are freed in the form of produc­tivity, profits, and capital accumu­la­tion. Optimizing for individual choice is the most energy-efficient strategy for socioe­co­nomic organi­za­tion. Capitalism outcom­peted commu­nism (destroying the USSR in the process) for this reason: volun­tarily adopted rules (free markets) do not incur the same enforce­ment and security costs as systems with imposed rules (unfree markets).

Capitalism triumphing over commu­nism is the classic Schumpterian process of “creative destruc­tion, ” where innova­tion obsoletes older and less energy-efficient tools and systems, liber­ating energy for alloca­tion to other aims. Tremen­dous economic returns emerge in the wake of this destruc­tive yet creative process. Consider, for instance, that 84 times more man-hours (human energy) were neces­sary to construct the Great Pyramid of Giza than the Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai, yet due to the knowl­edge special­iza­tion of moder­nity, the Burj stands at a staggering 830 meters — 7 times as tall as the ancient Pyramid. A spectac­ular testa­ment to modern (albeit margin­al­ized) capitalism, the Burj Khalifa was constructed by orders of magni­tude more efficiently than the Great Pyramid of Giza (498 times taller per man-hour).

As a socioe­co­nomic system, capitalism allocates energy more intel­li­gently than commu­nism. Organi­za­tional wellbeing is maximized when individual sover­eignty is prior­i­tized. Capitalism did this well but was hampered by state inter­ven­tion in the monetary and legal spheres. Even more deeply rooted in free market princi­ples, sover­eignism promises to be an unrivaled allocator of energy toward the higher satis­fac­tion of human wants.

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of frequency, vibra­tion, and energy." 

 — Nikola Tesla

Harnessing energy for self-gener­a­tion is the aim of all life. Energy is more efficiently converted to mechan­ical work in strongly bonded systems. In physical systems, these bonds are molec­ular; in economic systems, these bonds are property. Stronger bonds equal greater energy efficiency. Consid­er­a­tions of energy efficiency shape the tools and systems mankind creates for itself. Thermo­dy­nam­i­cally sound struc­tures — those which maximize the utility of absolutely scarce energy — tend to become favored in free market compe­ti­tion. Stronger bonds trans­late into higher power capacity: the ability to retain energy over time without dissi­pa­tion. In a universe where life contin­u­ously competes for its share of finite energy, profli­gacy is ruinous. As the most accurate portrayal of reality, energy is truth. Conser­va­tion of energy, then, is conser­va­tion of truth — the key to success in compet­i­tive condi­tions for organ­isms and organi­za­tions alike.

Trade and money are founda­tional to socioe­co­nomic organi­za­tion. People exchange their energy to produce the fruits of labor. Money is the medium through which people trade energy. Ideally, money is as scarce as the energy neces­sary to produce the fruits of labor to which it lays claims. As the base layer operating system of human cooper­a­tion, this “thermo­dy­nam­i­cally sound” money would have profound impli­ca­tions on the socioe­co­nomic systems it upholds. Such a monetary medium would need to be as agnostic to polit­ical machi­na­tions and criminal actions as the thermo­dy­namic reality of absolute energy scarcity it securi­tizes. Stopping the alloca­tion of human energy into “manage­ment of” (more accurately, politicking over the power to manage) the money supply, mankind liber­ates his energies to construct more robust socioe­co­nomic struc­tures on the unshak­able founda­tion of immutable money.

“War is the contin­u­a­tion of politics by other means.”

 — Clausewitz

Thermo­dy­nam­i­cally sound money would estab­lish a “neutral terri­tory” where all that matters is how much you can contribute to the produc­tivity of society. Military rank, polit­ical affil­i­a­tion, and proximity to the printing press as deter­mi­nants of position in the global wealth hierarchy would be largely elimi­nated. By giving society a source of indis­putable truth around which it can self-organize, much violence in the world would be disin­cen­tivized and defunded. When rules can’t be bent, and money can’t be easily confis­cated through polit­ical measures, the pursuit of peaceful cooper­a­tion becomes the most produc­tive strategy. Immutable money enervates politics and its Clause­witzian contin­u­a­tion: warfare.

“All human rights may be distilled into one — choice.”

As you may have guessed by now, this ideal, thermo­dy­nam­i­cally sound, and apolit­ical money is Bitcoin. As a 12-year-old digital disruptor to one of the world’s most ancient and impor­tant tools — gold — Bitcoin is a tectonic shift in human organi­za­tion. Gold is the 5,000-year-old base layer monetary operating system for all modern systems of human gover­nance: an ancient sover­eignty system corrupted by central banking. Breaking the central­ized stran­gle­hold on money by disrupting it at the base layer, Bitcoin forces a total revamping of the socioe­co­nomic systems derived from money — including the rule of law, private property rights, and various insti­tu­tional forms. Nobody knows what shape this mega-polit­ical transi­tion will take, but it will certainly be an organic, bottom-up emergence since top-down control over this paradig­mat­i­cally new sover­eignty system simply does not exist. To state it plainly: Bitcoin is a momen­tous monetary innova­tion enabling a new mode of non-nation-state human organi­za­tion, a “purified” form of capitalism free of nation-state inter­fer­ence and deserving of its own neolo­gism. Let us call the new mode of socioe­co­nomic organi­za­tion enabled by encrypted digital money sover­eignism.

To fully explore the impli­ca­tions of sover­eignism, let’s begin with the invio­lable first principle of socioe­co­nomics: man must act. Action requires energy and implies purpose, as all conscious decision-making involves the attempted achieve­ment of an aim. The aims of man are always toward the allevi­a­tion of anxiety (what Austrian econo­mists call “want satis­fac­tion” or “reduced uneasi­ness”). Mankind is the dominant species on Earth because he uses technolo­gies and organi­za­tional systems to channel energy across space­time with more intel­li­gence and toward more profound purposes than any other animal.

Our higher aims require the channeling of energy at larger spatiotem­poral scales, with more sophis­ti­ca­tion and with greater preci­sion. Used properly, technolo­gies and socioe­co­nomic systems help us alleviate anxieties more easily. Tools amplify the force of our work efforts, increasing the ratio of outcomes to energy expended.

Systems of socioe­co­nomic organi­za­tion — like capitalism, socialism, and, now, sover­eignism — let us engage in concerted action to inten­sify collec­tive output through the concen­tra­tion of individual atten­tion on ever-narrower phases of produc­tion (the produc­tivity gains resulting from the division of labor). In this sense, tools are organi­za­tions, and organi­za­tions are tools: both are useful for enhancing the overar­ching purpose of human life — the execu­tion of action aimed at anxiety allevi­a­tion. The tools and organi­za­tions are best fit for energy conser­va­tion win over time.

Tools and organi­za­tions are both means for more intel­li­gently channeling energy across space­time. The hydro­elec­tric dam and the nation-state have this in common — they are both intel­li­gently designed reser­voirs and alloca­tors of energy; the dam for hydraulic energy of water and the nation-state for the metabolic, polit­ical, and produc­tive energy of popula­tions. Both, at least temporarily, harness and channel the entropic onslaught of (ecolog­ical and human) nature. But in the end, both give way to the decen­tral­izing tenden­cies of the very nature they seek to contain: water always flows to the lowest places, and people always self-organize in ways that most favor their economic interests.

The ultimate man-made tools for decen­tral­izing power away from top-down insti­tu­tional control are open-source digital organi­za­tions, like those composing the many layers of the internet protocol suite. Wikileaks, the Arab Spring, the George Floyd protests are just a few examples proving the internet poses a major threat to central­ized power struc­tures. Social movements like this are mere tremors of the coming nation-state collapse. As the only non-state digital money, Bitcoin is the value layer of the internet — the first viable competitor to the sover­eignty system gold provided historically.

An exten­sion of the self-organizing internet ecosystem, Bitcoin is the world’s first self-sover­eign digital organi­za­tion. These organi­za­tional forms are the most advanced way of harmo­nizing individual and collec­tive willpower. 

A self-sover­eign digital organi­za­tion like Bitcoin is self-governing and can split in the event polit­ical differ­ences threaten organi­za­tional cohesion (see Bitcoin cash fork). As an intrin­si­cally more adaptive, fluid, and volitional system for allocating socioe­co­nomic energy across space­time, Bitcoin outcom­petes the closed-source, analog, and compul­sory organi­za­tion of nation-states.

Bitcoin is an indis­putable sover­eignty system recon­ciling individual exchanges made within the socioe­co­nomic collec­tive. It obviates the need for nation-states and exists with absolute agnos­ti­cism to the man-made systems of law and order which incubated it during its early years. Lever­aging the power of human nature and incen­tives as two of its indis­pens­able operating compo­nents, Bitcoin harnesses human energy to scale its network.

As a loss-minimized system for storing and trans­fer­ring the fruits of labor, Bitcoin’s fixed money supply gener­ates its own demand (validating Say’s Law) as ever-more wealth is plundered via infla­tion. This is why everyone ends up on Bitcoin’s payroll eventu­ally. A new breed of global citizen is now emerging: inhab­i­tants whose influ­ence, voice, and capital can completely transcend locality, and its various local author­i­ties. Compul­sion finally cedes to civiliza­tion as sover­eignism rises.

“Micro­pro­cessing will subvert and destroy the nation-state.”

 — The Sover­eign Individual

Sover­eignism succeeds by reducing the economic returns tradi­tion­ally associ­ated with violence and coercion. Citizens will demand contract law and property assur­ances of equal integrity to those offered by Bitcoin, other­wise they will not part with their money. In the same way, summoning a stranger to be your private driver for the evening would seem crazy 25 years ago; digital technology will continue to change the nature of trust and human inter­ac­tion. But when money digitizes, the impli­ca­tions are much more signif­i­cant. 

Multi-signa­ture capabil­i­ties of Bitcoin are already being explored as a means for facil­i­tating private contract gover­nance indepen­dent of state courts. This has the poten­tial of growing into a decen­tral­ized alter­na­tive to the tradi­tional justice system. Since money can no longer be censored or stolen, the socioe­co­nomic struc­tures devel­oped atop this base layer operating system will leverage encryp­tion to strive for an equiv­a­lent censorship-resistance.

But like all new births, the transi­tion to this decen­tral­ized state of unpar­al­leled civiliza­tion is bound to be messy. When the economic returns of organizing violence at scale decline, the business models premised on protec­tion from violence (govern­ments and nation-states) neces­sarily shrink and become more local­ized. This macro­eco­nomic counter-swing of the pendulum means violence will become more small-scale and random­ized: akin to what prevailed in the (truly decen­tral­ized) age of hunters and gatherers. Like paleo diets, yoga, medita­tion, Ayurvedic medicine, entheogens, and even Bitcoin (Austrian economic money) — sover­eignism is yet another example of how ancient ways are resur­gent in the digital age.

As surely as capitalism outcom­peted commu­nism, sover­eignism will outcom­pete statism in all its forms. By empow­ering individual freedom in radically new ways, societies adhering to organi­za­tional princi­ples consis­tent with sover­eignism (broad indus­trial priva­ti­za­tion, debureau­cra­ti­za­tion, consen­sual taxation, Bitcoin, etc.) will generate more wealth than the command-and-control economies of more rigid nation-states, and attract more citizens. More compet­i­tive juris­dic­tions mean less toler­ance for bureau­cratic waste­ful­ness. As citizens wake up to this new reality, the modern obses­sion with state politics will fade into a relic of a bygone era.

Contrary to modern miscon­cep­tions, economics drives politics; politics do not drive economics. The legislator’s pen does not create wealth, it can only distribute it. As polit­ical bureau­cra­cies swell to the point of being unsus­tain­able by their under­lying produc­tive economies, desper­a­tion will cause govern­ment overreach to explode, forcing market actors to shelter wealth any way they can. And in the 21st century, capital will find no more unassail­able domain than the digital. As capital flees into the digital domain to escape escalating taxation and infla­tion, govern­ment revenues will fall rapidly, causing them to fragment and fail. As a result, organized crime is likely to grow in scope during this transi­tion.

In truth, the nation-state is “organized crime” — the apparatus of compul­sion and coercion intended to insulate the produc­tivity gains gener­ated by a peaceful division of labor. Legal and police systems protect market actors from endoge­nous threats to the economic wellspring of free trade while the military neutral­izes exoge­nous threats. The nation-state was 20th-century society’s best way of wielding violence to preserve peace.

But the techno­log­ical reali­ties of the 21st century signif­i­cantly change the calculus of violence. Since digital capital cannot be unilat­er­ally seized via taxation or infla­tion, the level of protec­tion services nation-states actually provide will come to reflect their actual produc­tion costs over time. Said differ­ently: in the digital age, nation-states will be forced to compete and earn the loyalty of their citizens, like any other free market enter­prise, and will there­fore only be able to charge market rates for their (decreas­ingly neces­sary) services. Tradi­tional legal and police systems required for enforcing contract law, preserving property rights, and peace­keeping in the Indus­trial Age may quickly find themselves facing irrel­e­vance in a world where these services are more efficiently provided by self-organizing digital networks. Coupled with the collapsing tax capac­i­ties of govern­ments, many former state-provided services will fall to software.

“Efficiency will become more impor­tant than the dictates of power in the organi­za­tion of social insti­tu­tions.”

 — The Sover­eign Individual

As nation-states falter, barriers to market entry, partic­i­pa­tion, and exit will fall too, thereby exacer­bating free market compe­ti­tion and wealth gener­a­tion. In digitally enabled, hyper-compet­i­tive market­places, power law distri­b­u­tions predom­i­nate and winner-take-all effects prolif­erate: Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft, and now Bitcoin are all examples of this Darwinian digital paradigm. Choice and exper­i­men­ta­tion will become the defining variables of redefining socioe­co­nomic organi­za­tion. New modes of securing life, liberty, and property will be tried, failed, and iterated upon. The ever-present threat of capital flight into unreach­able digital space will force insti­tu­tions wishing to survive to deal with citizens honestly. When govern­ments are demate­ri­al­ized by software, they will become almost unrec­og­niz­ably agile, innov­a­tive, and fragmen­tary. Encryp­tion embroils nation-states in digital acid: dissolving even their most rigid power struc­tures and trans­forming their incen­tive struc­tures from within. Only the most produc­tive and account­able govern­mental functions will remain. With the restric­tions of locality largely dimin­ished, only the most valuable services will earn customer capital and atten­tion. Meritoc­racy supplanting bureau­cracy is distinc­tive to sovereignism.

Digiti­za­tion makes results matter more than decrees, meaning merit will ascend the social hierarchy of values. A world in which all spatiotem­poral bounds are lifted will become an “age of excel­lence.” For instance, it is (already) no longer good enough to be the best cover band in your city: thanks to YouTube, you now need to be the best cover band in the world, and across all time, to compete success­fully for the atten­tion of your target audience. Cover bands must even compete with the original band they’re covering in an era defined by digital media! When sales demon­stra­tions are conducted over digital media instead of in-person, execu­tives will deploy only their most adept sales­people no matter where they live. Minimized bureau­cratic barriers will maximize the promo­tion of merit and mitigate polit­ical force­ful­ness in business.

With less to be gained from the use of force, efficiency becomes more impor­tant than magni­tude in terms of channeling energy across space­time. When effec­tive­ness trumps fiat in this way, insti­tu­tions disin­te­grate and reorga­nize, with the resul­tant economic gains largely accreting to the “cogni­tive elite” who success­fully presage and prepare for the mega-polit­ical shifts under­foot. Those who synchro­nize their affairs to adapt to this fluid, border­less, and self-organizing digital zeitgeist (largely by being among the first to move their savings into Bitcoin and diver­sify their citizen­ship options) will dethrone the “ruthless capital­ists” of the Indus­trial Age to crown themselves the “sophis­ti­cated sover­eignists” of the Digital Age.

Digital technology broadens the scope of human possi­bility, making the manifes­ta­tion of sover­eignists’ imagi­na­tions in all their multi-faceted forms seem feasible. Streaming video, encrypted commu­ni­ca­tions, and unstop­pable money let man “bend space­time” to his will. But attached to these advanced capabil­i­ties are new costs and risks. Lacking social safety nets and other govern­ment welfare programs will force individ­uals to become more self-respon­sible than they were accus­tomed to being in the Agricul­tural and Indus­trial Ages (hereafter referred to as The Analog Ages). Successful sover­eignists will be those who embody the timeless wisdom of Voltaire:

Sover­eignists who rise to the occasion will no doubt be tested, as nation-states will fight back in an attempt to retain their tradi­tional powers over popula­tions. Nation-states will lose leverage over self-emanci­pated “sover­eign individ­uals, ” who will be armed with the tremen­dous option­ality engen­dered by digital networks, markets, and capital. Increas­ingly desperate, targeted extor­tion may become the weapon of choice for failing govern­ments. Only those sover­eignists running the best opsec will survive such militaristic measures. As the reality of an existen­tially threat­ening digital future dawns on them, nation-states are unlikely to pull any punches in the subse­quent power struggle — as The Sover­eign Individual describes it:

“Just as monarchs, lords, popes, and poten­tates fought ruthlessly to preserve their accus­tomed privi­leges in the early stages of the modern period, so today’s govern­ments will employ violence, often of a covert and arbitrary kind, in the attempt to hold back the clock. Weakened by the challenge from technology, the state will treat increas­ingly autonomous individ­uals, its former citizens, with the same range of ruthless­ness and diplo­macy it has hereto­fore displayed in its dealing with other governments.”

Strive as they might, nation-states will succumb to software. Fighting the free flow of data is as futile as fighting the tide.

“In the digital age, the threats of physical violence that have been the alpha and the omega of politics since time immemo­rial will diminish.”

 — The Sover­eign Individual

Nation-states, like dams, can only inter­rupt the inexorable flow of nature’s self-organizing tenden­cies for so long. As taxing capacity plummets, disec­onomies of scale will ensue, making smaller nation-states more econom­i­cally compet­i­tive and, there­fore, attrac­tive to sover­eignists. Glimmers of this transi­tion are already evident, with cities like Miami announcing programs to draw forward-thinking entre­pre­neurs into residency.

Due to a variety of techno­log­ical advances, the advan­tages of scale in a combat will be dimin­ished. Themat­i­cally, digiti­za­tion reduces the size that organi­za­tions must attain to be effec­tive in the use of violence. Guns can be 3‑D printed, cheap anti-aircraft drones can be launched, hackers can cripple militaries, and capital can be mobilized without a trace. Asymme­tries of cost and effect paradox­i­cally result in more symmet­rical power struc­tures. When the cost of defense plummets, offen­sive strate­gies become less lucrative.

In this (re-)decentralization of sover­eignty, the world will undergo a rever­sion to a symmetry of violence last seen during the age of hunters and gatherers. However, this rever­sion will (somewhat counter­in­tu­itively) generate more peace on balance since sometimes the power to take an action is more impor­tant than actually taking it. Similar to the ever-present threat of capital flight forcing insti­tu­tions to be more honest in their dealings, the ever-present threat of local­ized violence will encourage peaceful inter­ac­tion among sover­eign­tists at scale.

Armed with advanced weaponry enabling them to “punch above their weight” compared to nation-states, combat advan­tages will accrue to the most versa­tile and adaptive organi­za­tions. Equal access to armaments, download­able in digital space or buyable in unham­pered markets, means sover­eignists will mostly accord politely with one another. Although appealing at a civiliza­tional level, achieving this symmetry of power involves a recon­fig­u­ra­tion of insti­tu­tional struc­tures, an event likely to exhibit great turbu­lence: like nature restoring balance by bursting a dam.

Greater symmetry of and reduced incen­tives for violence mean less mass murders, less school shoot­ings, and less govern­ment war-mongering. However, sover­eignists will still face threats like extor­tion and ransom, which nation-states may wield indis­crim­i­nately as they struggle to remain relevant while dissolving in a flood of digital acid. Demand for protec­tion from failing govern­ments will grow. Opsec will be of paramount impor­tance for anyone of means. Private security details are likely to become increas­ingly common among sover­eignists. State-assigned identi­ties will be abandoned and aliases adopted. As digital technology revolu­tion­izes mankind in every respect, our laws will become antiquated, our insti­tu­tions inverted, our morals reshaped, and our percep­tions perma­nently altered. Sover­eignism will shake the (illusory) sense of socioe­co­nomic stability derived from violence monop­o­lies and portend a total break­down of the heavily politi­cized 20th-century nation-state organi­za­tional model. As The Sover­eign Individual words it:

“Market forces, not polit­ical majori­ties, will compel societies to recon­figure themselves in ways that public opinion will neither compre­hend nor welcome. As they do, the naïve view that history is what people wish it to be will prove wildly misleading.”

A popular counter­ar­gu­ment to the rise of Bitcoin-enabled sover­eignism is that “nation-states will never allow it.” Such a line of thought is inher­ently flawed since it considers nation-states to be single, indivis­ible, and autonomous organi­za­tions. In truth, nation-states are (more or less tightly) inter­woven constel­la­tions of individ­uals connected through common economic inter­ests, trade networks, socio­cul­tural similar­i­ties, or geopo­lit­ical affil­i­a­tions. Nation-states are not singular socioe­co­nomic aggre­gates, as the mental models of many dissenters falsely assume. The authority holding these outdated organi­za­tions together is, again, derived (either directly or indirectly) from their equity stake in the world’s only analog sover­eignty system: gold.

As the level of service, these nation-state complexes render declines relative to its cost, the incen­tives for individual citizens to exit these violently imposed monetary monop­o­lies will increase commen­su­rately, causing an eventual “rush for the exits” into Bitcoin. State police, judges, and regula­tors alike will face these pressures in their roles as citizens, and only the most stupid or jingo­istic will ignore the economic pressures to exit failing fiat systems. As influ­en­tial state constituents start acquiring Bitcoin, they become aligned with its success, and the power struc­tures cohering every nation-state will be dissolved from the inside out. Self-sover­eignty is in unceasing and universal demand on the free market; Bitcoin immutably speaks this truth to power. Sover­eignism will see nation-state power struc­tures stand naked before truth.

Although this transi­tion may seem alarming and poten­tially chaotic, the end-game of sover­eignism is an explo­sion of wealth and a commen­su­rate human flour­ishing in the wake of nation-state disso­lu­tion. Self-organizing digital organi­za­tions stand to become the greatest testa­ments to Schumpterian creative destruc­tion known to history. The breaking of the nation-state dam — a complex of artifice, confis­ca­tion, and conscrip­tion — will unleash human ingenuity to a virtu­ally incom­pre­hen­sible extent. If this thesis holds true, history will regard the internet as merely a prereq­ui­site innova­tion for Bitcoin: the real catalytic break­through in the civiliza­tional conver­sion to sovereignism.

Sover­eignism will eclipse statism in the 21st century. This mega-polit­ical transi­tion is already well underway, and its conse­quences are more evident by the day. In part 2, we will examine Bitcoin as a catalyst to sover­eignism. Functioning as “the ultimate offshore bank” for 21st century sover­eignists, Bitcoin is the key innova­tion in a world rapidly submerging into the ungovern­able waters of the digital high seas.

Thank you for reading Sover­eignism Part I: Digital Creative Destruc­tion.

Subscribe to my YouTube Channel: bit.ly/321Lzm0

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Breedlove22

Stack sats with me, get $10 in free Bitcoin through this link: https://www.swanbitcoin.com/breedlove

Journey with me as I write my first book: https://bit.ly/3aWITZ5

If you enjoyed this, please send sats: https://tippin.me/@Breedlove22

Or, send sats via Light­ning Network with Strike: https://strike.me/breedlove22

Or, send sats via PayNymID: +tightking693

Or, send dirty fiat dollars via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/RBreedlove

Or, send dirty fiat dollars via Venmo: https://venmo.com/code?user_id=1784359925317632528