|
What are we fighting for
The core of the What We Are Fighting For direction is detailing how we want the desired society to look like, both de-jure and de-facto, from macro to micro level. Of course, the core being libertarian, this pertains mainly to "the rules of the game" - and even in this regard, there is generally only one core rule, which is prohibition of dominance: Dominance, consisting of the imposition through force, intimidation or cunnery, of one's own will, or of the will of a third party, illegitimate to be imposed in this fashion, on a person who does not fully and adequately consent to this is forbidden. Both exercise of dominance and submission thereto are forbidden. The other aspects are more like effects of the factuality of this rule, or means to ensure it can be upheld in practice: when emotions, sentiments and economics - coupled with enemy actions and external/mixed military threats can "blur" some people's concept of Morality. Also, the situations of "legitimacy" are clarified.
Already most of the papers from the Understanding Your Reality direction discuss in comparison "what should be" verus "what is". Nevertheless, how such differences are to be enacted in practice and ultimatelly "what makes Mircea Digulescu's goals and proposals different from what is already happening" can be blurred, especially in the context of information intoxication and propaganda by the Anglo-saxon junta within the Western-block.
In this context, based on priorities, the following papers are envisioned:
- How is the Libertarian State different (circa ~2025). Brief walkthrough of concrete differences between how things go now and how things will go in libertarian state according to Mircea Digulescu. An ultrabrief summary of these was made available on the What are we fighting for direction and also on the Home Page. That summary however is very succint and does not explain neither "what is" nor "why it is clearly better the way proposed" - it's main aim is to highlight that in fact tangible legislative, economic, business and cultural (mentality) aspects of society are indeed different in Mircea Digulescu's envisioned society compared to what is now. The above paper will elaborate more these, and also be more comprehensive in discussing differences. Brief walkthrough of how actual aspects of life, from relationships to economic outcome, to military service, to seccesion, to free-speech, to prison and so on are solved differently in a libertarian State and concretely as to what goals and effects. The focus is, nevertheless, on State and State policy-making (including Laws) and policy enforcement.
Also, a bit later on, Mircea Digulescu plans to write and publish, his version of the Constitutional Framework (Laws) of the Libertarian State:
- The Constitution of the Digulescian Libertarian State (circa ~2026). The title kind of says it all. The main focus will be on internal perspective. Usually, with any state, its Constitution also has a section describing how the various military forces which gained control in the state cooperate and split their power accross State bodies, systems and schemes. This later part will be discussed briefly, and some proposals made, but ultimatelly it will largely be left open to when the Digulescian State is actually enacted, so as to reflect the military-political arrangements of the time in this regard. Also, besides the full text of the proposed constitution (usually pretty short, like 200-500 short articles), also some Constitutional Principles and discussions will be presented.
- The Digulescian Criminal Code (circa ~2027). Mircea Digulescu considers the Criminal Code of a State part of its Constitutional Framework. The structure will be similar to the Constitution paper above, but addressing criminal law matters.
- On Filling Schemes in the Digulescian Libertarian State (circa ~2028). This describes how people should be selected, vetted and ousted from certain positions within the Digulescian State, such as: police, any person owning a physical weapon, prosecutors, judges, medics, nursing staff, ministries and government and so on. Note that Mircea Digulescu supports a 0-member parliment: allocations in money can be made to political parties based on results of elections, but, in the digital 21 century, there is no need for a body of actual people to "gather together" just to vote on laws. The institution of parliament can function even with 0 parlamentarians, where needed.
- Main Principles of Digulescian Civil Code (circa ~2028). Mircea Digulescu considers the Civil Code of a State part of its Constitutional Framework. The paper will only discuss major differences and some approaches and provisions which must be a part of the Civil Code. Given the typical length of a Civil Code, its full text will not be presented.
Even before the above papers are completed, and as a supplement to them anyhow, the Strategy Report, namely Defeating Imperialism: 21st Century Strategies for a Multipolar World Order, together with the Mircea Digulescu's 2020 Caracas Speech should clarify many, many contemporary aspects.
They are both available in full text in the context of the Achieving Liberty and respectively Taking Action directions, with links available below and on the Downloads Page.
The reader should waste no time in consulting them. Although both are targeted at policy makers and military men, the common reader can find most stuff understandable, especially the introductions. This may stimulate the reader to become active and perhaps become himself military or a leader, or elsehow to direct his contributions and activities to the cause of liberty and to the groups supporting it.
Additionally, both on the dedicated page of the What We Are Fighting For direction, and in a section below, a very brief, imperfect and incomplete overview of Some Differences at a Glance is included, describing some factual positions on actual political issues which are treated radically different in Mircea's libertarian state, than in any member state of the Western-block currently.
top
Some differences at a glance
See also
Mircea Digulescu denounces Western norms and endorses Russian values
Note that this is a very brief and very rough (imperfect and incomplete) overview of some (not all) major practical differences, mainly pertaining to actual social and economic life (WHAT) in a libertarian state, with only some minor talk about HOW [to maintain a viable state ensuring these].
Also their formulation (wording) is to be embellished shortly, as Mircea's time and effort in the direct of these writings allows. Please use the principle of "assume good faith" and "where in doubt think positively" and try to understand these differnces in the manner in which they produce and add value.. not in the sense they might be dangerous or outrageous.. as the enemy will for sure like you to understand them.
A document describing them both in Brief and in Full, will be published soon with priority, being more atuned to both describe such and other topics in greater detail, and to explain "why it is good and in fact even necessary that they are this way", as opposed to the complete opposite.
In brief, Mircea Digulescu has his own independent vision of how world, societal and social affairs should be conducted. Such vision is somewhat aligned with the ideals of the 1979 French Revolution and entail an open sexuality, non-interference, security from physical harm, absolute freedom of commerce, civil liberties, external state security, as well as a prevalence of the constituent values of Truth, Liberty, Justice, Tolerance and Love.
For exemplification, some policy issues which radically differ from what is currently prevalent in the Western block include:
- Free sex life between adults. Fully legalization and non-regulation of Prostitution, Sex for Benefits, Sex for Jobs, Sex down the hierarchy line within a job or other authority context, etc. In fact, any sexual behavior (including BDSM which in some few jurisdictions is still illegal) between adults is absolutely permissible. No "vulnerable" nor "privileged" parties. No such thing as "sexual exploitation". Caveat Emptor. Sex and sexual behavior is an unremarkable transaction between adults. Also, any form of sexual or romantic communication is considered "protected free speech". Naturally, being strongly against dominance, Mircea Digulescu condemns rape as a grave crime. Rape means a person was deprived of the physical ability to leave the encounter, or was intimidated by credible and material threat of actual imminent illegitimate violence (which she or he could not resists) to have the encounter - threat which, absent the compliance, would have materialized - or ample measures were taken to convince the victim that it would materialize. Nothing else. Of course, slavery and trafficking in slaves - including and especially for sexual purposes remains a particularly grave offense. Clients not involved in the network should NOT be punished for accepting services (no obligation to "play detective"). Blackmail with a legitimate act (eg. "if you don't have sex with me, I will file a criminal complaint against you for having hit me as a pedestrian while crossing on a green light") are unremarkable and absolutely permitted, even if the target of the blackmail cannot rationally or even reasonably emotionally not comply with the blackmail. If the blackmail constitutes in itself a crime like intimidation (eg. "I will kill your son if you don't have sex with me"), unless of an iminent nature, then it is that crime - but not rape. People have the obligation to resist Dominance. Rationalization of regret or exploitation of then-consensual sexual behaviour for politics or other purposes is thus prevented this way.
- Sex between adults and sexually aged minors and between minors. Mircea Digulescu supports the libertarian, Soviet and traditional (historical) French model on this. Anything between sexually aged persons - so with someone who has reached puberty should not form the object of law. More drastic punishment can be enacted legislatively for rape or slave trafficking of minors, but the 'definition of rape' should not change to prohibit them from having sex, nor prohibit adults from trying to have consensual sex with them. Parents have enough leverage to keep their minors at bay - if they (very wrongly in Mircea's opinion) - so consider: by restricting the movement of their children. Third parties cannot and should not be made to enforce archaic, religious or personal beliefs or policies (even if supposedly beneficial). He is against any kind of sex acts with a child - a minor who has not reached sexual puberty. As a compromise he can accept legislation which puts a low "for the avoidance of doubt" age limit, such as 12-13. In extremis, he can also accept 14 years old, which is the case in many EU and other countries. The core aspect of the difference between 12 and 14 is that someone 13 or 14 may ver well "look and behave" 18+.. so long as the law allows clearly an exception for when an adult didn't know the sexual counterparty was under 14, that's also, in extremis fine. Basically having sex MUST NOT be stresful to anyone: one MUST NOT be forced to "play detective" or "do due dilligence" when having consensual sex. Also, parents or any legal guardians or such in authority attempting to prevent a minor aged 16+ to have sex should be punished with prison terms by law (anti-rape), as a transient measure. Consensual sex acts are any consensual acts - regardless of the motive, so including prostitution. Additional care should, of course, be taken by both adults and other minors so as to "take care" of the mental and physical well being of a minor, and most importantly not deceive him or her [eg. with promises of a long term relationships, of wealth, or a life together - unless genuine]. As well as additional measures SHOULD be taken when dealing romantically and sexually with minors. However, such measures should NOT be a matter of law and must be of a voluntary nature. Parents/Legal guardians should also get involved on this and ensure sex education from a young age. They are allowed also to prevent a sexually mature minor aged below 16 years old to have sex or relationship with certain other people, however, there must be NO obligation whatsoever for such other people to support these policies.
- Free relationships of any kind, free termination or resumption. Relationships between adults are their own affairs. This includes both marriage, dissolution thereof, other romantic or sexual relationships such as polyamory, polygamy, polygyny, sexual orientation etc. Marriage contract can still remain a matter of law, however, its dissolution should be possible by unilateral denunciation (leading to some potential monetary compensation). Any other kind of social relationship between adults should be free and unregulated. Use of violence or intimidation there-with or forceful means to gain or maintain someone in a relationship (no matter anything) or to prevent him or her from having a social relationship of any kind with someone else (including as a group) is a grave or particularly grave crime. This extends beyond romantic / sexual relationships. It includes business, economic, social, fun and any other kind of recurrent or one-time encounters. Using deceit or force preemptively or proactively to prevent relations between third parties is also prohibited.
- Traditional Family. Mircea Digulescu supports the traditional family, consisting of a man and a women, collaborating to raise small children. The above policies on relationships, sex and romantic life, should complement and strengthen the traditional family - although of course, given their enactment the "who with who" will change sometimes drastically (becoming equitable and more prevalent). Note that a promiscuious sexuality is by no means incompatible with a traditional family - as elites both East and West clearly show: having a large number of sex partners both before, during and after a marriage, both as a man and as a women, does NOT inhibit in itself in anyway developing a loving traditional family for ones children nor getting married. Mircea supports the Celtic model in this regard, and denounces the Roman one.
- No 'woke' culture. No feminism, no positive discrimination, no racism, no LGBT, no hard drugs (eg. heroin). Mircea Digulescu is against all of these and definitely against the repeated and forceful propaganda on such topics [such as LGBT 'pride marches'] and considers the actual people involved with these 'movements' as Western foreign agents actually seeking political regime-change goals outside the Western world. Also, within the Western block such euphemism are used to curtail the civil rights of regular people (the vast majority) and to perturb normal romantic and sexual relationships between men and women.
- No illegal immigration. The so called immigrants within EU and USA are actually mainly former recruits (and many still Dash terrorists) of the Western establishment for military and political purposes. Also, the rest of such population are precisely the unqualified, not particularly smart, destitute up-starters that the Western hegemonic elites use as a voting-machine power base of support [including to be placed in key roles and to be used as extrajudicial "muscle force" against the local, so called free population].
- Absolute freedom of speech. No "community standards".. Anything which is a form of communication or information storage is permitted, except: (1) ordering someone to commit a crime or setting up operational details for such an attempt, bilaterally or multilaterally; (constituting that crime) (2) intimidating someone with a threat of imminent violence, threat which, absent the cooperation of the victim, would have been materialized or ample measures were taken to convince the victim that it would have materialized (eg. simulated acts of execution, threat after the victim was knowingly victimized physically similarly recently by the same group, etc.); (constituting dominance via intimidation) (3) military information consisting exclusively of documents classified as secrets, obtained illegitimately or data from them, if the data was obtained illegaly such as coordinates, detailed technical characteristics of weapons systems, troops dispositions and the like (constituting espionage) - all (1)-(3) unless they are in fact political or romantic speech. Political speech of any kind, including the advocation of change of legislation to include or exclude new crimes or measures is permitted, including secessionist or inflammatory speech. Hate speech is also permitted without restrictions (of course so long as it does not become intimidation). Normal threats and curses, as well as insults and in most cases calomnie are permitted. People have the right to seclusion, so physical stalking and in hard cases online stalking should be a medium crime, but only when the victim cannot reasonably ignore them physically. Additionally, any content, including notes, books, media materials (photos, videos), online content, etc., including depicting violent or particularly grave crime, being elsehow offensive to some (eg. pornographic or child pornography, Charlie Hesbo comics) or being the result of the commission of a crime (eg. child abuse, rape, murder, etc.) MUST be legal to own AND to disseminate. No community standards. Its creation (for example murdering someone in order to film it) can be a crime, and related content can be resonably confiscated. However, its mere consumption, possetion etc. by third parties MUST NOT be punishable. Of course, it may be confiscated if it constitutes intellectual property (copyright violation) or if it was created without the proper consent (eg. without everyone being filmed/photograph agreeing to this, unless in a public place or on the photographer's property, etc.), but as an administrative measure, without any fault nor guilt to the owning party. Content cannot be criminalized based on what it in itself represents (even if it pertains to false information, 'fake news' under someone's community standards, etc.). That's free speech. Nor can posesion, nor distribution of content be criminalized. That's politics. In fact, the only thing which may be criminalized is distribution after circumvention of copyright protection means for the purposes of making copies.
- Absolute freedom of disposition of private property. People and groups must have absolute right to dispose of their private property - including real-estate, intellectual property, machinery, monetary means, digital assets, contracts, etc., as they see fit. In particular they are allowed to transfer it or its products to anyone - including terrorists, criminals and so on: the state is allowed to confiscate it from terrorists for their crimes, after due process, however the original owner, if he gained the property legitimatelly, can dispose of it as it sees fit. He also has the right to destroy it, to donate it, etc., as he sees fit - even if this gravely affects socially, economically, politically or so one any other party, including the state. For avoidance of doubt, people have the aboslute right to exploit natural resources found on their properties (eg. real-estate) also in any way they see fit. Real-estate comprises also 1 meter below ground and 100 meters above ground. Anything below or above belongs to the state collectively. For the avoidance of doubt, people have the right to collect rainwater, plants and mushrooms, soil and salt (no further than 1 meter below ground), as well as breed the air, as they see fit, from their own property, WITHOUT ANY additional permits and without this constituting economic activity. Also they can collect waters from rivers or lake if found on their property, but without changing their course (flow) without authorization (unless fully on their property). In terms of real-estate people should practically not end up owning more than 1 hectar of land for habitations or 10 hectars of land for economic activity per person. Some wealthier persons can go up to 100 or 1000 hectars, but beyond that it should be economic activity and may become regulated. This refers to "ground fingerprint", so if someone builds skyscrapers (less than 100 meters tall) on a 1 ha of land, he owns just 1 hectar, not the sum of the surface area of the floors. Also people have the right to sunshine, and are allowed without any formality to collect sunshine (eg. for electricity generation) as well as other energy or other resource from their property. When talking about real-estate people are the "masters of their castles": they can allow or banish anyone from their property, including police or gov't officials, including for pervert, interested, imoral motives, and generally absolutely arbitrarily.
- Absolute freedom to dispose of scientifc results and technology. Right to DIY (Do It Yourself). People and groups must have absolute right to do research and to create and use technology. This includes in the fields of medicine and biology. They also have the right to alter the germ-line, so long as they do it after giving full and adequate consent in front of a public notary. They have the right to access dangerous or experimental treatments for example, if after giving full and adequate consent in front of a public notary. Such consent must simply check that they understand the potential risks and benefits (or lack thereof), that they are aware of the position of different official bodies (eg. government) on such matters, and that such treatments can and/or probably will end up badly for them, according to whose' views. Also it should check that they are not being manipulated to the point of that constituting dominance - in which case, additional information can be provided to them so that they understand the positions of others "on the full picture" (even if they don't agree with the factuality of this position or don't believe it), after which they can consent. People have the right to harm themselves, if they so choose. When minors are involved, consent of Tutelar Authority may be required.
- Absolute freedom to develop private property. People and groups must have absolute right to build, alter, change, or use any and all parts of their private property (including real-estate) as they see fit. In particular they have the right to create new private property - including intellectual property, without any contraints. Some safeguards may be put on buildings and machinery so as to ensure the designs are sound, so that if for example one enters a building, he or she does not need to ponder first "will this building collapse on me?". Idealy such obligations are put on the developer and do NOT require authorization. However, authorization of such designs exclude liability in case of collapse or other matters - however, respecting such standards WITHOUT performing any bireoucractic formality should also do. Creation of intellectual properpty should be absolutely free.
- Absolute freedom of commerce. Basic commerce between people within the state, including organized as companies, should be permitted absolutely. The underground and strategic natural resources are the property of the state as a whole and their distribution and consumption should be regulated by state policy-making. At least circa 30% of annual resource production should be allotted to the population "to do with it as it pleases [except export it]". Restrictions should only be placed / placeable on strategic sectors - which are mainly those which can impact the EXTERNAL state security (such as weapons manufacture, new technologies, natural resources, etc.). Research which DOES NOT involve State Bodies or members or contractors thereof, should be permitted unrestricted as an exception to guards on strategic sectors. State monopoly should exist and be fairly distributed downstream over some specific "by themselves" finite resources (say ~50% state controlled): such as spots for Restaurants and Shops, air routes, etc.. Also, occasional, globally low-volume and one-off trades should not be considered economic activity.
- Regulated sectors of economy. Public Utilities should be regulated. Illegitimate monopolies/oligopolies should be regulated (after being legally declared illegitimate monopolies). Windows should be forced to compartmentalize its source code to allow users to exclude features and allow interoperability. It should also be forced to function within a VM machine. Google on the other hand cannot be regulated: it is a monopoly, but not an illegitimate one: its simply the best product by far out there, and there are no measure which restrict users to interact with it freely, although this is changing. Some aspects like Ranking, Modifications of Own data and so on, can be regulated to be particularizable, but unlike MS (which leverages its monopoly via "bundling") so far in this sense Google did not [because it did not have to]. Also, Retail Banking should be considered a public utility and where applicable monopoly and there should be regulatory obligations "to serve all customers [including if targeted by sanctions of other countries, if performing deemed undesirable activities such as political activity, prostitution, legal narcotics trade, etc.]".
- Unregulated creative and innovative sectors. Development, use and commercialization of technology, including AI (yes, including for "deep fake" purposes) should be free and unregulated, except with due regard to weapons (3D models for guns, ammunition, nuclear bomb designs, etc.). Export on technology can be partly controlled - depending on how it was developed. Indirect exports such as the US practices on the matter (ie. export to another citizen while within own territory is an export if that citizen later exports) should not be a matter of law.
- Economic outcome in practice. Must favor intellectuals, leaders, entrepreneurs and military over unqualified or basic labor and agrigulture. This is the antithesis of the Anglo-saxon hegemonic "New Deal" economics of the XX century, which aimed, among other things, to reduce the amount of available food and agricultural producs on the market, to create artificial scarcity, so that they could exploit the urban population, especially the educated ones more widely and more cheaply. See State stakeholders below for examples of categories desired to attain a superior economic outcome in practice.
- Weapons Control. Depends on the particular context of the state. In states like USA, right to be armed and weapons are a sine qvo non. In Russia its much better that they are only license-based. In EU states its somewhere in between: can largely go either way. Generally weapons control regulation should not fall on the shoulders of the owner / user but on those of the seller / provider (eg. any due diligence or such - if any). Also, people must have the legal right to use those weapons to defend themselves: clear and unequivocal rules of engagement must be defined for situations and chategorise of response. People must have the right to use weapons including against the state and its representatives, including when acting within state authority - when they are comitting a breach of rights: no matter if such state representatives "have the proper paper work [eg. court orders]" - if the facts of the matter make their actions defendible against with armed force, then people have the right do so without punishment. This will serve like in the US to curtail and fight corruption among officials targeted unaffiliated population and political opposition. Also, Encryption and Use of Encryption, including without separation Unbreakable Encryption [by even state actors acting in unison] should be free and unregulated for all everywhere (assuming of course they are able to self-develop it or get it from a vendor): the benefits [especially political in nature] by many orders of magnitude outweigh the costs [eg. some facilitation of illegal trade in copyrighted materials, some coordination between people planing a joint crime, etc.]. Even where the cost/benefit trade-off shifts, morally, encryption is [must be] a human right: encrypted data is just an extension of ones own mind using external storage, benefiting from absolute privacy. Generally only hegemonic states (eg. USA) and states in defensive against mixed warfare seek to limit use of encryption by their citizens, and do so because the effective (emergent) public policies and so unpopular and immoral, that the ruling elites are always under-siege by their own populations and need transparency "into their mindsets" so as to be able to predict, prevent, mitigate, combat political change and political cohesion: especially revolutionary - and need to do so particularly via mass sentiment analysis tools and targeted incapacitation [eg. killings] of leaders: this fact steams from the very immoral (namely hegemonic) order they seek to enforce domestically - thus, basically 99% of all the lucid and aware population is strongly against them always; and they need to know when someone becomes lucid ('radicalized' in their terminology) and when someone or some-group is preparing to take some [social/political/military] action - so that they can preempt it: either kill/arrest the group, or change the policy to either loosen the grip a bit, or to instigate some other group to 'fight' the free citizens, etc.. Even absent such a rational, right to use encryption is a fundamental civil and political right of the physical person.
- Safety of Food, Water, Air, Medicine and such stuff. Food should be healthy. Current toxic and low-nutrient food in the EU is due to imperialistic control over food supply chains - partly via legislative regulations. Food in Russia is good. Follow the Russian model. Also, alternatively, food supply chain should be planned on the entire producer-processor-retailer-preparer-delivery guy level on yearly or 5-yearly basis, together with consumers. This means consumers [segments or even individually via personalization] decide what and how to eat, and they pay in advance / periodically to supply the supply chain. This can be done at gov't and mayor house levels. Supply chains and markets should be carefully watched by State and regulators, to make sure they dissolve illegitimate monopolies or prevent them from speculating their monopolistic power to degrade the quality of these products. This includes monopolies over supply chains, unrelated to the direct research or manufacture of such produce.
- Healthcare. It is vital that private healthcare coexists with state healthcare: both systems are required. State Healthcare is politicized in almost all states (just slightly less so in Communist ones). Also unlicensed healthcare should be allowed, including by non-doctors, when clearly and properly presenting themselves as such. Private sector can and should be regulated, but only mildly so. People should have power to decide which treatment and opportunity of treatment, including having the power to take useless or dangerous medications. Non-dangerous medications should be released without a prescription by every pharmacy. Dangerous medications (except narcotics) should be released to adults, potentially after taking a full and adequate consent affidavit at a notary office [confirming the understand the risks, they are able to consent, etc.] after which they can buy the medicine with their own money. Medication which, when taken inappropriately present ample public health hazards - as antibiotics are claimed to be, can be released to someone understanding this [eg. after pharmacists explains how to take the medication]. Pharmacies must be obligated to supply any medication in the public health system with advance payment and reservation by retail customers. Full and informed consent must exists for any medical procedure or medication. This must be in writing and taken before a notary for anything non standard or hazardous (including CT, radiography, surgery, narcotic painkillers, etc.). In emergency cases, and only when the patients life or long term wellness is in grave jeopardy, can a notary come at the place of provision to take the consent. Provision of such procedures or medicine absent this consent is a particularly grave crime and should be punishable by death. Also, any adverse treatment [especially inoculation with grave diseases such as HIV] or sudden cessation of treatment absent any court order should be considered aggravated murder and punishable by death.
- Psychiatry and Crime Prevention. This should follow the standards of any other medical branch, except when the patient is unable to give consent because of his minority, mental health situation or other aspects (eg. is in a coma, has speech difficulties or does not speak the language, etc.). In these cases, a notary should come and take consent. Absent such a consent, treatment might be doable only in emergency cases - acute psychosis for example -, only so long and insofar as it is required to eliminate the state of emergency (end or ameliorate acute psychosis), but no longer than a reasonable and typical sufficient duration such as 1 month and never beyond 6 months in a 5 year period, and only via a court order, and only in the strict interest of the patient. Additionally, in case of crimes committed due to psychiatric conditions (illness, psychosis, etc.), it is prohibited to have any HARSHER limitation of rights in duration or scope than if the crime was committed unrelated to psychiatry. In effect, for crimes committed due to psychiatric affection, the restrictive measures can be replaced with forced hospitalization (WITHOUT forced treatment), but only within the general bounds of the punishment for the respective crime, and also no longer than the maximum specific custodial punishment which would have been imposed for respective crime if it were to have been committed while sane. If the crime could not have been possibly committed while sane, then the general maximum for that category of crimes must be respected. Crimes committed while insane (including temporary such as due to narcotics) should be judicial tracked on the criminal record - thus repeat crimes could result in harsher punishment/longer terms. The problem with crime - especially grave crime - is not that the punishment terms are too low: it's that criminals get punished too late and some (up to 10%) never. If punishment were to occur immediatelly after a crime, even if for a shorter custodial time, crime rates would be much lower.. this includes most mentally ill people as well: unless grave learning disabilities or lack of self-control, even the mentally ill can understand to behave, so that they are better off - even when deranged or psychotic.
- Economy. There should be a factual mix of state and private economy. State should directly control most of strategic sectors economy - and regulate the rest of such sectors, while private economy can target Innovative Industry, Civilian Products, Services [rendered on the national territory], etc. State should not have the power to impose sanctions supported by legislative penalties which apply extraterritoriality: bans on trading with some parties can be imposed democratically but simply traveling abroad to "circumvent them" should be legal: no extraterritoriality of law. Also, economic transactions between companies or involving retails actors cannot be restricted and should not be regulated except in sofar as to deal with Monopolies, prevent public dangers (food poisonings, construction safety etc. [for these two situation simple ample marking or notary confirmed consent can suffice - total ban should not be imposed]) or for concrete national security grounds (eg. preventing a citizen from selling his plot of land situated next to a major military base to a terrorist group or to the enemy, for the purposes of the later attacking the said based from there).
- Monetary Policy. States should only be able to dispose and regulate "what they do" with "their portion" of the national resources and economy at whole. This portion should typically be about 50% of natural resevers, 50%-70% of extracted natural reservers during the calendar year, 30%-50% of the civil economy. They can impose taxes, fees, redeverences and such, but such taxes must remain TAXES: ie. they must not regulate economics or political goals via imposition of taxes or authorizations [eg. make some activities hard impossible to practice by all or by some because taxes and authorizations required]. Also, for anti-racketeering purposes, the entire cash monetary base of a country should be fully changed (new style of printed money) every 5 years, with only 12x average gross salary convertible to "new money" [the rest - no: not even if of justified origin]. The rest can be converted prior to the change, via banks and regulatory anti-racketeering safeties. In a world where prostitution is legal, light drugs [at the very minimum alcohol and tobacco] are legal and gambling is legal (but not ubiquitous) - there should be really little social opposition to such a measure, which can then have only benefits. Of course, if the above legitimate practices - and above all clearly and by far prostitution - are required to be done illegally, then, yeah.. totally against such a measure. Also if normal living.. such as getting the food you want [eg. healthy food from local, unregistered and unregulated farmers willing to sell/give it], the medicine YOU want, the housing materials / house-building services you want, etc... is only possible "Under Consent of King" or is, as in EU right now, de facto illegal, then again.. yeah.. totally against cash recycling. But in a normal state, a libertarian state, with low levels of corruption, then 12x average salary should be sufficient.
- National Sovereignty. There should be a vaster plethora of cultural laws and customs, as well as specific legislative and commercial differentiation between states in their [desired] competition to gain desired citizens. International Treaties and Organizations should not have any jurisdiction with states. Also, "no matter what", international treaties should produce no effects internally - except insofar as some laws may have been enacted in the context of their adoption: however these national laws are to be respected, not the international treaty. National laws cannot delegate authority over anything, including "deciding a matter of fact" (eg. incidence of pandemic) to any external bodies. The national / state / local authorities may use the positions, threats, promises and so on of any external body regardless if a treaty was concluded with it or not, to lobby for and obtain enactment of local rules and measures - but these rules can then also be rolled back within the national level. Nevertheless, customary international aspects such as customary international law [eg. piracy charter, Geneva convention on prisoners of war, Vienna Treaty of Treaties] and standards (eg. IS, metric measurements, etc.) can be referenced and their following may or may not be recommended or factual, and even when existent, it will be on a case by case basis.
- No extraterritoriality of law. National laws applies to within physical geographic national borders of a country/state (as decided by the proper bodies of the law making state). Any material act committed outside these borders, including on an aircraft or vessel flagged by it but flying in a different jurisdiction or in international waters, cannot be considered criminal no matter what. Mircea Digulescu can somewhat compromise on the matter of aircraft and ships flagged under the jurisdiction of the state, so long as registering such ships in other states, or operating outside the flag-protection of a state registration in international waters is permitted. The only exceptions should be for Acts of War and Cross-border Bombardment: acts which, while committed outside a state, are actually completed by material acts which are performed by some party [eg. assassins, own narco traders, etc.] or some physical device [eg. a rocket, a bomb, etc.] within the jurisdiction of the legiferating body. Persecution of any such case MUST be subsequent to a formal declaration of war notified to the aggrieving party. For the avoidance of doubt, cybercrime MIGHT form Cross-Border bombardment but only when the "cyber boundry" of the nation is crossed forcibly: which currently cannot be the case with public Internet (except insofar as the Great Wall of China perhaps). So if for example US restricts via technical means access to Internet for devices in North Korea, then taking technical means (eg. hacking) to circumvent these means can constitute cross border bombardment. Simply opening up the Internet for incoming traffic to the whole world and then having a hospital or some military site be cyberhacked *by someone acting entirely from another jurisdiction* is not cross-border bombardment, no matter what the domestic treatment of the respective acts is. For hideous crimes (eg. genocide, terrorism) and some particularly grave crimes listed exhaustively (eg. slave trafficking, aggravated murder, grave or lasting bodily harm, etc.) punishable by more than 10 years of confinement, an exception CAN be made when the victim is a national of the law-making state and the crime occurred outside the jurisdiction of any other state, or the victim was kidnapped or conned to traveling there. Other than that, and even in most such cases, grave crimes should be dealt with by the state where they are committed materially. Only when such state is unable or unwilling to pursue these crimes, then, and only in the above hideous and particularly grave cases can the crime be pursued by the state of whom the victim is a national. Other than that, again: Caveat Emptor - be careful where you are traveling.
- Harsh treatment of physically violent crime. Mircea Digulescu strongly supports the Chinese model here. Aggravated murder should be punished by death, unless it constitutes a graver crime. Intentional murder, absent any unclarities or mitigating circumstance should also be punished by death. Grave or long-lasting bodily harm should also be punished the same way as murder, unless it constitutes a harsher crime. When doubts, mitigating circumstances or subjective legitimate defense exists (but not objective one), it can be treated more mildly, and depending on personal and objective factors with between 10 and 25 years of prison. Medium and low-level battery committed by someone not usually physically violent and with no grave consequences, can be punished by 6-9 years of prison. Otherwise, by 10 to 25, life or death - unless they constitute a graver crime. These generally refer to acts committed by the actual perpetrator and direct accomplices: not the instigator. The perpetrator can be considered also the instigator only when an actual order, compelling via dominance, or via "for hire" or via a mix of these was used to determine the criminal to commit the crime. Yes, some RICO 'bosses' might not be chargeable [due to lack of evidence] for some crimes this way.. although it is very very unlikely that they cannot be caught at all for any of the murders they commit via hierarchical orders: cost of liberty. In particular, public instigations to murder "in general", unless with Joe Biden's "time to put a target on Trump" constitute some sync between criminal actors, should not be punishable. Note that systematic propaganda to "kill someone" for example by foreign agents, even when done 'innocently' by a 'good Samaritan' unrelated local party, are still murder if the motivation was instilled via dominance [which includes ample deceit/manipulation] – but not elsehow. In case of foreign agents, or some more ample organizations they can also constitute Acts of War even if they are not technically murder as per the above, and can be tried as such - however, with all due regard to trying political and military crimes. By en culpa or by exceeding intent, should generally be punished mildly like no more than 5 years, and most commonly 2 or less - unless committed against state stakeholders.
- Equality before the law. Enacting this is very difficult, however its factuality is a must for a free society. The law must apply equally to everyone, or it means nothing. In this regard, providing for formal but exhaustive privildeges within the law - as per State Stakeholders below -, can be good step forward in ensuring that whatever is actually written in law stands and applies to everyone. Otherwise, elite state Stakeholders who are de-facto not accountable before the judicial system simply place themselves (but not others) above the law informally and secretly. Also, some crimes of small or medium gravity might be included in laws just as safeguards or economic policies against the behavior of the masses - which is expected to be somewhat more "crude" and unwise than that of elites.
- State Stakeholders. State Stakeholders are meritocraticaly important actors within the state, who enjoy both as a protection and as a priviledge within the law, special treatment in some cases. This is in line with the principle of Constitutionalism. The overall "mass" of State Stakeholders should be small, but not the 0.0023% that it is now with the Western hegemonic elite. Typically it should lie between 5% and 10% of the population. Also the priviledges and protections awarded should be reasonable and not create apartheid as with the Anglo-saxon elite. Also, State Stakeholders should be categories of people - and not a group which decides to "accept" new joiners no matter by what rule. Priviledges and Protections: State Stakeholders can only be tried after they are released from immunity via political process such as exclusion from party, state body, professional or scientific body decision or potentially via referendum, facts later confirmed by Supreme Court. Also, state stakeholders also do not answer for crimes of low or medium gravity (punishable in general by no more than 5 years or punished in effect by 5 years or less) committed against non-state stakeholders. State Stakeholders should be: active statutory leaders of political parties from central or territorial organs who have gained (alone or together) at least Constitutional Minority votes or, even absent Constitutional Minority, active military leaders of the state including and above the rank of colonel (except where title is honorary), active and former political leaders from central (but NOT from local) administration involved in policy making (but NOT the actual enforcers of policy), active members of central government, any person holding the scientific title of Doctor of Sciences or admitted for any PhD programme, any graduate of long-term higher education in a STEM field (all issued by due process of state within the jurisdiction), any person holding at least 1 million USD equivalent minimum balance in Treasury Accounts for each day of the past calendar year (or holding such value in long term, non-revocable investments with maturity beyond the current calendar year), any person actively working as a Researcher or Engineer in a STEM field within any State Accredited body or on a State Accredited Project [eg. via his own company], active heads, board members and C-level executives of State Corporations and private organizations recognized formally as Strategic Enterprise (usually working in Public/Private partnerships), judges, social activists and independent journalists (influencers) involved in political activity with over 10,000 independent genuine impressions over the past year (summed over all channels) or who have had at least 2 major media appearances before accredited mass-media institutions on political topics over the past year - unless they are foreign agents, members of banned groups, promoting ideology explicitly banned by state as main activity, or acting as proxies for such, politically involved persons who do not meet the criteria for influencers directly (or such cannot be established) but for whom the breath and scope of their political activity warrants the title of politically involved and such title is recognized by proper state bodies or validated via referendum, or if this can be established in court (eg. photos at political events, genuine media articles, written or oral statements to the effect by State Stakeholders, documents [eg. advisorship contracts, etc.]), active heads, board members and C-level executives of state recognized media companies except foreign media companies, anyone having earned in taxable income at least 100,000 USD per month for the past calendar year or owning civil real estate within the state exceeding in cadastral value 10,000,000 USD, military decorated with the highest or second-highest medals by central state bodies for military achievements related to at least 1 military victory as well as spies who successfully performed at least 1 successful tour of duty abroad, veterans who took part in at least 1 victorious battle. The children (up to 18 years old or 26 years old if continuing education), family members and affins (up to the 3rd degree), loved ones and close associates of State Stakeholders are not considered State Stakeholders: they answer for trivial and medium gravity crimes except where there is a written objection from a sponsoring State Stakeholder, or where such a written objection has been stricken down following POLITICAL-JUDICIAL process (not judicial alone), such as via legislative decision or by referendum. When accused of any crime, State Stakeholders (and their affiliates unless objection was stricken down) have the right to trial by referendum for any crime: after the conclusion of the usual judicial process, they have the right to resort to individual public referendum on their case: if they are able to gather a Constitutional Minority of all registered voters, or Simple Majority of expressed votes - in favor of their acquittal, they walk free: even if guilty, unless anyone with legislative initiative under due process of law passes a successful "constitutional dissolution" referendum which suppresses the acquittal: in a constitutional dissolution referendum, voting is public and anyone voting against the proposed measures is saying that the measures are so grave that, if passed "they can no longer form part of the state" - in this case they renounce their citizenship and a constitutional resolution process is initiated, resulting in accommodation of the minority somehow or expulsion of it from citizenship and generally voluntary relocation of it outside state borders.
- Military Prowess. The state must use (part of) the resources under its control (including but not only natural resources) to ensure the military prowess of the state so as to defending from external intervention as well as infilitration and mixed warfare. Its policies should also support a strong military, as well as ensure external security WITHOUT any internal ingerence. Submission to other states (such as suzeranity, allowing "state advisors" giving advice of a mandatory nature, allowing foreign enemy troops on own soil, chaging or attemting to change state laws to adjust them to the desires of the enemy without referendum, etc.) is also forbidden - even where suicidal. Dominance in all its forms, including submission to dominance is forbidden. If the state has factually no choice than to either submit or fight, loose and become exterminated, than it will choose to fight, no matter what - even if defeat and factual extermination are certain. Normal diplomatic process and policy making are allowed. Strategic alliances are decided by referendum and political process.
- Libertarian State. State exists only to (1) ensure external security (including internally from mixed warfare, 'colored revolutions' or such, targeting the libertarian nature of the state); (2) safeguard civil rights and individual liberties and their prevalence internally; (3) achieve the goals of humanity (including monumental works such as space exploration and exploitation, advanced fundamental research, prevalance of communism, etc.). The state is not a familiy. It should not nor pretend to take care of its citizen to the point of "knowing better than them" or "protecting the community" to the detriment of even 1 citizen's rigths. The state does not judge nor "put in balance" the interests of the many against those of the few, nor those of different interest groups. It is not about "all of us getting together and deciding how to live" (and in fact very few deciding how OTHERS should live by Western hegemonic standards). It is an alliance of people which exists solely to safeguard points (1)-(3) for which it is also authorized to dispose of state owned resources and to levy taxes and impose fees, as well as adopt and materialize policies to this end. There must be no obligation to follow or support state policy as a private citizen. In particular: No "due dilligence" obligations, no obligations to report crimes (except flagrant violent crimes), etc. The state can in matters of national security or other particularly grave matters impose some requirements, however their fulfillment must fall upon itself: for example, banks cannot be forced to "do due dilligence" themselves, however, they may be obligated to report transactions to state and the state can decide if they are permitted or not (the old way) - and where refused, interested parties can contest such decisions in court, or via political process. In fact due dilligence in today's Western-block is just imposed by Rothschild and the rest to prevent the few non-affiliated banks and wealthy people and institutions out there from trading with their (the Rothschild's) enemies, particularly in profiting from their (Rothschild and the rest') decision not to trade with ther enemies (who are, by the way, you and me.. the reader and the normally-minded, liberty-loving person, as well as the powerful countries and groups supporting such an ideology).
- Anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted. This is a fundamental republican principle. Law by analogy is prohibited. Anything not explicitly and unequivocally banned by law is permitted. That means no person can face legal repercursion for doing anything not prohibited by law (even where it bothers, or gravely harms others). Also, people may NOT break the law to "defend themselves" against some harming them or others without breaking the law. However, the right to do something does not equate to the capability of doing it: people are free to prevent others from doing non-illegal stuff, so long as they do this without breaking the law themselves. Also, "the right to have consensual sex with minors" for example, does not equate that you will be able to find minors willing to have sex with you. If you do however, than no one can prevent it from occuring. Similarly, the "right to bear arms" or use cryptography does not equate an obligation to someone else to sell or provide you with a gun or cryptographic product. He or she however can do this if they so choose. These are called relative rights: you are free do attain them if you succed to do it, without breakint the law. State security forces are obligated to defend people in such circumstances even if they disagree with their actions or their consequences. People should also be educated to know, exercise and respect both their own rights and those of others. They are free to compete in whatever aspect or way they see fit, so long as they don't break criminal law. Civil rights and individual liberties cannot form the object of any limitation or renouncination. They constitute absolute rights. Any contrary clause is considered unwritten.
- Prevalance of liberty in practice. The above principles should not only describe legal "de jure" reality but also practical "de facto" reality. Of course, mild violations can happen, and some more serious ones can occur once in a while, so long as they do not overall diminish or annul the libertarian nature of the society and the state. Finally, again, prevalance "de facto" does not imply an obligation to anyone "to exercise their rights": again, in one perhaps of the more contentios matters: sexually aged minors being allowed to have consensual sex freely as they see fit, does not equate an obligation for them to do so (although it is very likely they will indeed seek to exercise this right): they can act strategically, collude, etc..
- No Ministry of Truth. Schemas (people) over structures. Facts over statements. . While the state and the judiciary is tasked with acting scientifically and based on the truth - to the best of its abilities to consider it, holding differing views even when wrong (or most commonly despite that they are in fact right), must be permitted without restrictions. Also, matters of fact, including principled matters of fact, cannot be relied to as being "already established" as a result of either their being widespreadly promoted as such by the media, by the government, finding themselves stated or adopted as such by state bodies, etc.. Facts prevail. People should also be more concerned about what kind of leaders they endow to lead or be responsible for the activities of certain areas - ESPECIALLY police, prosecutor, judges, commerce registry - rather then insisting on specific separate structures (bodies) or rules to govern such matters. Also, leaders should be deposable by the people whenever the people so consider - most likely because such leaders were or became corrupt, are incompetent, or they changed their stances or behavior: the 1789 (and subsquent) French communist model is good in this regard. Much, much care should be taken to the fact that geniune well-intended and competent leaders and would be leaders (eg. like Mircea Digulescu, Julian Assange, Hugo Chavez, etc.) are likely discredited and frawed up deeply and also made to look incompetent by the adjusting of the enemy activity (increasing it) - while enemy puppets enjoy reduced apparent enemy activity (to make them look good) and so on. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.
Note that Mircea Digulescu is not too habotnic about the exact wording and content of all of these differences at a glance.. some room for maneuver (for example for economic or political reasons) exists. Realism and Resonability are values considered when taking action. However, as Sigmund Freud said: "We start by compromising on words, then we end up compromising on ideas". This means that, as mundane or as radical as they may seam, more or less, the above is what is desired (in terms of both WHAT and HOW). It will be refined, perfected and clarified in future writings.
In regard to his envisioned libertarian society, Russia, China, Venezuela, Belarus, the DPRK [North Korea] and Iran, as well as their allies represent the closest favorable match in terms of current foreign policy and to a good extent domestic policies goals. Mircea Digulescu is strongly and firmly against Western, Algo-saxon or, for that matter, any form of hegemonism and oppression. He is against the Western elite rulers, consisting of the self proclaimed 'society of the elect' comprising the families of Rothschild, Rockeffeller, Murdoch, Soros, Rhodes, [Bill] Gates, Clinton, Bush, [Henry] Ford, Hearst, Zuckerberg, [Andrew] Carnagie, Morgan, Bezos and the other few dozen transnational western evil-doers.
Mircea Digulescu is an Eurosceptic, and supports dissolution of the European Union, supporting Ludovic Orban (Hungary) and Peter Pellegrini (Slovakia) stances on the matter. He salutes the BREXIT and wishes furthermore for UK to exit from under the hegemonic rules of the aformentioned families and become an independent state. He supports Nigel Farrage. Mircea Digulescu does not have a significant preference for a US leader, however he does mildly endorse and support Donald Trump as an outsider from the aforementioned hegemonic families. Since Mircea Digulescu aligns with BRICS, CSTO and not at all with the Western Block, he is typically less concerned with internal politics between elites within the latter. He does however salute and endorse the extra-systemic pro-liberty protest movement particularly in Spain and France, as well as more recently in Britain. Mircea Digulescu also supports Palestine and, while in the past favoring a state solution with both Israelis and Palestinians living in peace on the land, recent behavior (2024) of Israel has shown that the grip by Rothschild and the rest on Israel is too deep and its internal and external behavior (genocide in Gaza, Lebanon and assassinations within Iran, Syria and Lebanon - so outside its borders) make a single-state (Palestinian) solution look increasingly like the only realistic viable option internationally. Mircea Digulescu supports Parti Quebecois and Quebec Province secessionism from Canada. He also supports Basc secession from current imperialistic Spain. He does not recognize and condemns as US proxies both Kosovo (Serbia) nor Taiwan (PR China). He recognizes the entirety of the former Ukraine as Russian territory and recognizes and supports Abhazia and South Ossetia. He recognizes Azerbaijan's suveranty over Nagorno Karabah (since 2022 - when both pro-Russian stance of Azerbaijan and pro-Western stance of Armenian ruler Pashynian become obvious). He does support the desire of the Armenian people to exist as well and advises them to rid them self of pro-Western rulers and resume friendly tie with Russia for this purpose. In fact, when he visited Armenia in 2021, he [falsely] believed that Armenian administration was pro-Russia [since it was part of CSTO, EEU and his Russian immigration partner had recommended it], a belief supported by the fact a majority of Armenians are indeed pro-Russian. He was also duped to believe that Azerbaijan was anti-Russian - by the emphasis on some projected joint ship building with USA on the Caspian Sea port which didn't materialize. Mircea Digulescu currently also maintains his recognition of Israel as a state, although this recognition is flickering. He condemns and considers US proxies the Dash terrorists (so called Islamic State or ISIS) [banned in Russia] as well as Chinese Falung-Dong 'movement'. He DOES recognize Kurdistan (after a circa 4 months fliker) but considers current Kurdish 'leaders' in Turkey, Syria and to a large extent in Iraq as US proxies and calls upon them to establish Kuridstan as a secular Republic without bringing undue detriment to Recep Erdogan or to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mircea Digulescu recognizes and, in the current configuration (anti-Western ally) supports the Taliban movement as legitimate rules of Afghanistan.
For the avoidance of doubt, Mircea Digulescu unequivocally supports the following world leaders, in this order: Nicolas Maduro [successor to Hugo Chavez] (Venezuela), Xi Jin Ping (China), Vladimir Putin (Russia), Mahmud Ahmadinejad (former president of Iran), Alexandr Lukashenko (Belarus), Kim Jon Un (North Korea) as well as, to a large extent their administrations and their policies, especially foreign policies. Additionally he supports the leaders of friendly nations in general, comprising of BRICS states and opposition leaders as well as non-state actors from non-friendly states who align sufficiently with his views. He also supports Turkish President Recept Erdogan, after the failed US coupe attempt in Turkey and considers him and his administration an ally. He also supports For avoidance of doubt, he also supports Syrian leader Bashar al Assad and his administration.
In terms of thought leaders, Mircea Digulescu supports (in arbitrary order): Peter Joseph (The Zeitgeist Movement) [and does NOT support Jacque Fresco], Nigel Farage (BREXIT Party leader), Edward Snowden, Jullian Assange, Bradley Maning, Greta Thurenberg (after her 2023 pro-Palestine pivot) as well as some others.
The main purpose of the above ultrabrief overview of stances, is to highlight that what Mircea Digulescu proposes is indeed different from "what is already out there", both in terms of general law and practical way of life, AND in terms of which world leaders, countries, etc. are in favor and which are perceived as pro or against it.
top
Credentials
Further details about Mircea can be found by exploring the presentation documents available on the Taking Action page, including photos and links to media sets and other political documents from Mircea Digulescu's history, downloading the relevant bundle from the Downloads Page and checking out his credentials for Intelligence and Strategy Services and Leadership Services.
The following relevant documents also talk about Mircea Digulescu's professional and political history in life:
top
Call for Action
Contact Mircea Digulescu at mircea.digulescu@mail.ru (preferred) or at mircea.digulescu@gmail.com or via Telegram/WhatsApp/Viber at +40736.617.391 to interact with him regarding his social-political-military research and activism, including for paid and pro-bono licensing of media materials, public speaking, coaching and training sessions and the like. Additional contact details may be available on the Contact Page.
If you liked the topis or content of his writings and activity, please consider Donating to support further research. Mircea Digulescu is yet to be financed via a grant or such by any body, but he seeks to obtain a stady cashflow from political donations in the future. So, instead of boot-strapping, if you support his political activity, Contact Mircea to donate: BTC and fiat transfers in RON or RUB are accepted.
Note that you can also donate even if you dislike Mircea's activity, but, for example, appreciate him as a person, are curious to know "what happens next", or simply wish to donate "just because", or for finding the idea in itself funny or enjoyable.
Please consider Donating. It will be great if, instead of boot-strapping, support from smart donations such as by yourself could be leveraged. Please see Contact Mircea to donate: BTC and fiat transfers in RUB are accepted. A BTC donation of 100-200 USD will mean a lot to him and his activism. Especially if you were able to repeat the gesture once in a while.
To donate in use the following BTC address: bc1qtgt8ctz3ffd95dwxux3wed6nlq3r5mhhzg98zp.
To donate in RUB use the following MIR card number: 2202 2023 9828 3287.
To donate in any other currency, please use an online service such as Telegram Wallet, Binance or others or make use of an offline exchange or BTC ATM machine, like for example cryptoatm.ro to donate in BTC to the address above.
Please see the Contact Page for additional details, including how to donate in BTC. Note that the above adddreses and card numbers will change once in a while. Make sure you ar visiting the latest version of this page or of the Contact Page.
top
|
| Documente |
Contact Mircea for buying, supporting or investing in any of these products using the coordinates on the Contact Page.
Download the freely available Personal-Use-Only licensed Products using Downloads Page.
See the Crytology, Game Theory and Complexity Theory papers published by Mircea Digulescu on the Research Page.
Download the following relevant documents:
Download the following relevant documents:
Download the following relevant documents:
top
|
Please consider donating. It will be great if, instead of boot-strapping, support from smart donations such as by yourself could be leveraged. Please see Contact Page to donate.
BTC (Bitcoin) and fiat transfers in RUB are accepted. A BTC donation of 150-300 USD will mean a lot to Mircea and his activity. Some reasons for donating: You appreciate Mircea's stances, the content of published document, the products and services he brings to the market, his activities, or, simply you appreciate Mircea himself as a person, are curious "just to see what happens next", or choose to donate "just because".
Donate now: Contact Page.
top
|
|
|
