I wondered why this was making me think of slime mold and what I read about the design of the Tokyo subway system (which would have been effectively achieved using slime mold rather than human engineers), so I asked Brave AI about it and it makes sense that your article and slime mold are related in a very beautiful and inspiring way (slime mold is beautiful despite the name): “Slime mold solves mazes by using a decentralized, self-organizing system—not through a central leader or brain. When placed in a maze with food at the start and end, it spreads across all paths, then retracts from dead ends and inefficient routes, leaving only the shortest path. This happens because the mold leaves behind a trail of slime that acts as a memory, helping it avoid revisiting areas it has already explored.
This process mirrors how diverse groups of people can work together effectively without top-down control. Like the slime mold, organizations can solve complex problems by relying on simple, local rules—such as "move toward resources" or "avoid paths already taken"—and by communicating through shared signals (like digital tools or feedback loops). The result is a collective intelligence that emerges from interaction, not hierarchy.
Studies show that slime molds optimize networks—like Tokyo’s railway system or highway layouts—by finding the most efficient connections. Similarly, diverse teams, when aligned around a shared goal and equipped with clear communication, can innovate and adapt rapidly, much like the mold’s ability to reconfigure its network in response to environmental changes. “😉🎈❤️
On the one hand, the left associates us with animals when they should be affirming our humanity, and then they turn around and deny our biology and insist that everything is social construction.
The left never misses an opportunity to get it wrong.
Love it! It is so comforting in a way to know that there is someone who is truly focused on these vital issues intelligently working to clarify, educate, and inspire us to see there is a better way. Thanks so much Christopher. May your important work reach an ever growing number of freedom lovers who sometimes can become discouraged that there will ever be an answer.
Patience is an under-rated value, and Rome was not built in a day as they say. The problem did not come about in days or months or years, it has been one for more like millennia, I just hope to see a beautiful step in this direction while I'm around to see it happening, and maybe push a little energy its way.
You are one of those fortunates who has found his passion and nothing will stop you from amazing things my friend. Just remember to keep balanced and don't burn yourself out, we need you.
Count Me in! Except that I would obsolete accounting for Our energy added, and use the Laws of Ethics - which are Natural Law expressed as the three things no One would say are okay to do to Them.
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
This seems like a false dichotomy, either we have a nation (which is discussed as an organization) or we are atomized and have no organizations or institutions. Decentralization allows many kinds of organizations and institutions. What is the advantage of having one big one called “the nation”?
There are advantages to having a small amount of coherence, as I note in the piece (and have noted elsewhere in this project). Did you ever read “Enemy of the State” by F. Paul Wilson? The Kyfhons are a good (albeit fictional) analogue. A people can be free and decentralized and still consider themselves a people. Think of it like a diaspora, except instead of being Jewish or Mormon or Armenian or whatever, the cohering factor is principles rather than ethnic or religious identity. That small amount of coherence will prove more effective than pure atomization, especially down the road. (The Mormons are decentralized, yet as a cohort, they are going to be a major player 50 years from now—their numbers keep growing while others’ shrink.)
“ having a small amount of coherence” is pretty vague. I think we are talking past each other.
Rather than calling it a nation, We could instead think of it as a secular religion, or a club, or some even less formally organized cultural phenomenon. There is a wide spectrum of possibilities between extreme atomization and … something a lot more like a formal organization. What are we actually talking about?
First, “distributed nation” is a categorical description, like “network state.” I don’t mean it in the sense in which we normally think of a nation, just as surely Srinivasan didn’t mean “state” in the sense of the modern Westphalian state.
That said, for all his genius, I think Srinivasan made an error by using the word state at all. “Nation,” at least, can be understood somewhat more broadly. (For example, the diaspora of Red Sox fans call themselves Red Sox nation.)
In fact, the inspiration for me was not Srinivasan’s concept; it was the “phyles” in Neal Stephenson’s “Snow Crash” and “The Diamond Age.” These may or may not have had territorial enclaves, but the real innovation was that they were diasporas—distributed people who shared identity, membership, etc. in a particular “tribe,” based on some common or unifying characteristic, belief, identity, culture, stance, etc.
Then, another work of fiction—Enemy of the State by F. Paul Wilson—added another dimension. The Kyfhons were absolute market anarchists. Yet they were fiercely devoted to the principles that told them that they are, and of right ought to be, independent and free. They were fiercely protective of that independence, and thus, in spite of their complete market-anarchic condition, they nonetheless shared a common bond, and even a common identity. They were Flinters and Tolivians, and their commitment to their independence formed a shared bond.
Yes, this is fiction, but these things form a partial model for us. Right now, we are a diaspora of people who believe in a set of principles, but we do not have any of that common feeling or shared identity. I believe there are many advantages to be had by cultivating something of that coherence.
I know that that objective must swim upstream against the fact that many in the freedom movement are very personally independent, and thus are not joiners by nature. And indeed, some are almost quasi-autistic in their desire to avoid any such contact with other humans, I get that. I respect that, and I wouldn’t force anyone to join anything (obviously).
But I do think that a loose association with shared principles—no gatekeeping and of course no central authority—will confer advantages, and will ultimately be attractive even to those who are not joiners by nature. Because it will still be an individual declaration of independence above all else.
And then also, the degree of involvement, cooperation, etc., can be entirely a matter of choice too. We can do things together, or not. People can form their own associations within our nation, or not.
I will be distilling all this down soon. It’s a lot of work, so it’s taking time to get to it all! But yeah, your description of a private membership association is not unreasonable. It’s closer to that than to a classic “nation,” of course. Like a diaspora with a strong shared consciousness of first principles as the unifying factor, rather than, say, an ethic identity.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think we are on the same page now, and it is just difficult to articulate precisely the distinction we want to make. Perhaps I have become accustomed to critics of atomism attacking something more reasonable from a less reasonable perspective.
There is a challenge to getting things off the ground. E.g. Bitcoin was intended as a means to a more decentralized world. It has succeeded more than a skeptic would have predicted, but has also been co-opted to some degree. This generalizes as, we don’t want to/can't exclude anyone from participating in our experiments, but that will inevitably make them unpredictable and corruptible. It isn't clear how to maintain a core of participants willing and able to keep things on track, or even how to know what is on track and what isn’t.
I have thoughts on this, and I would like your input on them. But first, so I know what our foundation is, have you read what I have written about the Alliance for Human Independence (the think tank-like organization I have envisioned to help foster this “nation”)?
I wondered why this was making me think of slime mold and what I read about the design of the Tokyo subway system (which would have been effectively achieved using slime mold rather than human engineers), so I asked Brave AI about it and it makes sense that your article and slime mold are related in a very beautiful and inspiring way (slime mold is beautiful despite the name): “Slime mold solves mazes by using a decentralized, self-organizing system—not through a central leader or brain. When placed in a maze with food at the start and end, it spreads across all paths, then retracts from dead ends and inefficient routes, leaving only the shortest path. This happens because the mold leaves behind a trail of slime that acts as a memory, helping it avoid revisiting areas it has already explored.
This process mirrors how diverse groups of people can work together effectively without top-down control. Like the slime mold, organizations can solve complex problems by relying on simple, local rules—such as "move toward resources" or "avoid paths already taken"—and by communicating through shared signals (like digital tools or feedback loops). The result is a collective intelligence that emerges from interaction, not hierarchy.
Studies show that slime molds optimize networks—like Tokyo’s railway system or highway layouts—by finding the most efficient connections. Similarly, diverse teams, when aligned around a shared goal and equipped with clear communication, can innovate and adapt rapidly, much like the mold’s ability to reconfigure its network in response to environmental changes. “😉🎈❤️
“Slime mold solves mazes by using a decentralized, self-organizing system—not through a central leader or brain”
Talk anarchy to me ❤️
“…leaves behind a trail…”
Slime mold acts as an ant colony.
Very interesting example. Amazing how often nature has solved difficult problems in order to achieve success in an area.
Yes. I find it inspiring and hopeful. And of course, we are part of nature.
“…we are part of nature.”
Thank you, Terra!
The Left uses the idea of humans-as-pests to destroy the West.
On the one hand, the left associates us with animals when they should be affirming our humanity, and then they turn around and deny our biology and insist that everything is social construction.
The left never misses an opportunity to get it wrong.
Exactly.
Even *reality* is just another thing to be used to reinforce the narrative, and contradiction is no impediment.
As far as the dual nature of the human being, *both* are perfectly real, natural, and non-contradictory.
I definitely do not feel contradictory 🙏🏻💪
And yeah, they get their fuel from complete irrationality from those wicked postmodernists. Gross.
Love it! It is so comforting in a way to know that there is someone who is truly focused on these vital issues intelligently working to clarify, educate, and inspire us to see there is a better way. Thanks so much Christopher. May your important work reach an ever growing number of freedom lovers who sometimes can become discouraged that there will ever be an answer.
Thank you, Hat.
Thank you also for sticking around. I know it is taking me a long time to make this official!
Patience is an under-rated value, and Rome was not built in a day as they say. The problem did not come about in days or months or years, it has been one for more like millennia, I just hope to see a beautiful step in this direction while I'm around to see it happening, and maybe push a little energy its way.
🙏🏻
I will redouble my efforts!
You are one of those fortunates who has found his passion and nothing will stop you from amazing things my friend. Just remember to keep balanced and don't burn yourself out, we need you.
Your kind words and input help me to keep going.
Atomization is not freedom!
💯🔥
Well...it is for a few atoms...
0.001% at the top. But their kids will still be enslaved.
I very much like what you've written here.
Thank you. I do too. The things we've been trying have not worked. It's time for something new.
Indeed!
Count Me in! Except that I would obsolete accounting for Our energy added, and use the Laws of Ethics - which are Natural Law expressed as the three things no One would say are okay to do to Them.
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
Tritorch posted a wonderful comment here
https://conspirat.substack.com/p/chewsday-memes-jan-20/comments#comment-202451156
I hope you can read it, it seems to point where you are going.
Yep, he (she?) posted it here too. Thanks!
This seems like a false dichotomy, either we have a nation (which is discussed as an organization) or we are atomized and have no organizations or institutions. Decentralization allows many kinds of organizations and institutions. What is the advantage of having one big one called “the nation”?
There are advantages to having a small amount of coherence, as I note in the piece (and have noted elsewhere in this project). Did you ever read “Enemy of the State” by F. Paul Wilson? The Kyfhons are a good (albeit fictional) analogue. A people can be free and decentralized and still consider themselves a people. Think of it like a diaspora, except instead of being Jewish or Mormon or Armenian or whatever, the cohering factor is principles rather than ethnic or religious identity. That small amount of coherence will prove more effective than pure atomization, especially down the road. (The Mormons are decentralized, yet as a cohort, they are going to be a major player 50 years from now—their numbers keep growing while others’ shrink.)
“ having a small amount of coherence” is pretty vague. I think we are talking past each other.
Rather than calling it a nation, We could instead think of it as a secular religion, or a club, or some even less formally organized cultural phenomenon. There is a wide spectrum of possibilities between extreme atomization and … something a lot more like a formal organization. What are we actually talking about?
It is an excellent question, thank you.
First, “distributed nation” is a categorical description, like “network state.” I don’t mean it in the sense in which we normally think of a nation, just as surely Srinivasan didn’t mean “state” in the sense of the modern Westphalian state.
That said, for all his genius, I think Srinivasan made an error by using the word state at all. “Nation,” at least, can be understood somewhat more broadly. (For example, the diaspora of Red Sox fans call themselves Red Sox nation.)
In fact, the inspiration for me was not Srinivasan’s concept; it was the “phyles” in Neal Stephenson’s “Snow Crash” and “The Diamond Age.” These may or may not have had territorial enclaves, but the real innovation was that they were diasporas—distributed people who shared identity, membership, etc. in a particular “tribe,” based on some common or unifying characteristic, belief, identity, culture, stance, etc.
Then, another work of fiction—Enemy of the State by F. Paul Wilson—added another dimension. The Kyfhons were absolute market anarchists. Yet they were fiercely devoted to the principles that told them that they are, and of right ought to be, independent and free. They were fiercely protective of that independence, and thus, in spite of their complete market-anarchic condition, they nonetheless shared a common bond, and even a common identity. They were Flinters and Tolivians, and their commitment to their independence formed a shared bond.
Yes, this is fiction, but these things form a partial model for us. Right now, we are a diaspora of people who believe in a set of principles, but we do not have any of that common feeling or shared identity. I believe there are many advantages to be had by cultivating something of that coherence.
I know that that objective must swim upstream against the fact that many in the freedom movement are very personally independent, and thus are not joiners by nature. And indeed, some are almost quasi-autistic in their desire to avoid any such contact with other humans, I get that. I respect that, and I wouldn’t force anyone to join anything (obviously).
But I do think that a loose association with shared principles—no gatekeeping and of course no central authority—will confer advantages, and will ultimately be attractive even to those who are not joiners by nature. Because it will still be an individual declaration of independence above all else.
And then also, the degree of involvement, cooperation, etc., can be entirely a matter of choice too. We can do things together, or not. People can form their own associations within our nation, or not.
I will be distilling all this down soon. It’s a lot of work, so it’s taking time to get to it all! But yeah, your description of a private membership association is not unreasonable. It’s closer to that than to a classic “nation,” of course. Like a diaspora with a strong shared consciousness of first principles as the unifying factor, rather than, say, an ethic identity.
I am eager to hear, and welcome, your thoughts.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think we are on the same page now, and it is just difficult to articulate precisely the distinction we want to make. Perhaps I have become accustomed to critics of atomism attacking something more reasonable from a less reasonable perspective.
There is a challenge to getting things off the ground. E.g. Bitcoin was intended as a means to a more decentralized world. It has succeeded more than a skeptic would have predicted, but has also been co-opted to some degree. This generalizes as, we don’t want to/can't exclude anyone from participating in our experiments, but that will inevitably make them unpredictable and corruptible. It isn't clear how to maintain a core of participants willing and able to keep things on track, or even how to know what is on track and what isn’t.
I have thoughts on this, and I would like your input on them. But first, so I know what our foundation is, have you read what I have written about the Alliance for Human Independence (the think tank-like organization I have envisioned to help foster this “nation”)?
I have not. Is it a chapter of The Distributed Nation? I don’t think I was subscribing yet when you released that.