The Apolitical Revolution: An End of Politics and Political Divisiveness

Logos is politically neutral in its technology, but it is also the first “apolitical” experiment or “apolitical revolution.”

Allow me to make my case.

Max Borders wrote in his book “The Social Singularity” that subversive innovation will inevitably end politics and politicking. Some may think that is a bold claim and argue that politics and politicking are in our nature. Humans engage in politics to promote values, ideologies, and social agendas, and this is just an ingrained part of our inner life, they argue.

However, the central goal of the network state idea is to provide markets for competing governance solutions. In this scenario, people who disagree with a value set or politics of a particular governance framework can simply exit that framework and engage with another. Of course, I premise this scenario on the idea that exit costs are kept low.

Under the democratic nation-state model, exit costs are prohibitively expensive. To leave the nation-state entirely, you will require a passport, visa, and entry permission into another jurisdiction. You will also need to renounce citizenship of the current nation-state (especially in the USA) to prevent that state from attempting to tax you or label you treasonous under certain conditions.

When politicos force others to engage under a nation-state, they incentivize everyone to promote tribal politics. To wit, tribes or factions form that harbor antithetical viewpoints on how society should function and how people should behave. This tribalism leads to massive energy expenditure in the form of arguing with political opponents, working on getting a candidate into office, and sometimes using violence to assert tribal dominance, as is the case with bloody revolutions, cou de’ tat’s, and pogroms seen worldwide.

Not only is politicking a waste of human capital, energy, and expertise, but it often peaks in the violence mentioned. It is a net negative for humanity and damages our potential to accelerate and expand our potential. As an extropianist, I loathe politics not only for the violence it engenders but for the precious time it wastes.

So, how does Logos act as the first iteration of an “apolitical” organization? How is it leveraging what Max Borders called “subversive innovation.”

I have noted that the wonderful people of the Logos organization all believe that the modern alleged democratic systems have failed in some form or fashion. They recognise we need some change to promote further human development, prosperity, and what the ancient Greeks called eudaimonia: the positive and divine state of being achieved through a sense of social and self-fulfilment.

However, many organisation members believe in differing values, economic arrangements, and ethical considerations. Some lean more left. Some are more right. Some are communist. Some are capitalist. Some are idealistic, and some are passive. Nonetheless, there is a consensus that human rights are vital.

The beautiful thing about Logos is that it is apolitical because network states undermine the human urge to politick and infight. We all agree that if we disagree regarding economic values, the principal thesis of network states is that we can eventually exit and create our perfect “utopian” network state.

We relish that Network states promote the cosmopolitan, localized, and heterogeneous nature of the human enterprise. Logos does not attempt to chain people into specific belief patterns, save for the idea that we must maintain a politically neutral stance and generally promote the sine qua non of human rights.

Another word for what we are creating can be called “panarchy,” which means the ability to non-territorially exit governance models we dislike. The network state is the practical implementation of that meta-political idea. In this sense, “panarchy” is apolitical.

In my heart, this is why the Logos organisation is so aligned, so magnetic, and so potent in its mission. We share the fantastic notion that we can disagree but still live harmoniously and experience eudaimonia. We know what is coming, and it is what we can call the “apolitical revolution,” or the end of politics through the creation and proliferation of network states.

Just try to imagine all the time, energy, and lives we save by not constantly engaging in the uncivilized practice of politicking to enforce values and rulesets. This future is the future we are helping to construct, and that is why I am so driven every day to create tremendous value for the organisation and, ultimately, for the world. I hope you all feel similarly!

What are your thoughts?


A great synthesis of a handful of important ideas and writers. Thank you.


I tend to agree with much of what you have to say here. I have ideas for the type of systems I’m willing to consent to and be engaged in (I probably fall under the janky classification of Austro-mutualist or center voluntaryist), and couldn’t care less how others choose to organize so long as they aren’t infringing on others’ rights and their intent is peaceful.

Essentially, I agree that politicking is both violence and a major waste of time, and believe there’s a better way for people to exist in relative social harmony.


Thank you Sklujan for sharing your thoughts on Logos apolitical approach. It’s evident that you have a strong belief in the potential of network states to transform governance and human interaction positively, which i support and partially agree on.

I indeed agree that politicking is both violence and a major waste of time but that is also the way the world and the power structure went on since the agricultural revolution. I stand with Logos vision and am working to fulfil it, just sometimes i wonder:

  1. Competitive Benefits and Protection - is a network state able to provide competitive benefits and ‘protecion’ for the individual? I feel network states have the potential to offer diverse governance solutions that cater to varying ideologies and preferences, thereby enhancing competition and potentially providing protection for individuals who may not align with the prevailing ideologies of traditional nation-states. Hard to achieve but doable.

  2. Adoption and Effort - human inertia and the tendency to delegate responsibilities are significant factors to consider. Are we willing to put energy, effort, and trust to make nation states working (considering we are lazy, we like to delegate and tech is not easy to use compering to other systems?). Overcoming these challenges will require concerted efforts in education, outreach, and user-friendly technological interfaces to facilitate the transition to network states.

  3. Resistance from Nation States and Finance - anticipating counter-legal arguments and opposition from established nation-states and financial entities is essential. These entities will perceive the rise of network states as a threat to their authority and economic interests. They would employ various measures such as legal challenges, economic sanctions, (disinformation campaigns…) to undermine the credibility and viability of network states. Preparing robust legal defenses and strategies to navigate these challenges will be critical for the success of this revolution.

Overall, I hope and stand with you to work towards realizing a future characterized by greater freedom, harmony, and human flourishing. Nevertheless, as I grow older, I increasingly realize how easy it is to get lost in idealism in this world filled with hypocritical rules, vicious cycles, and threats, and I wonder, therefore, how reasonable it is and how to proceed to have practical impact.

That’s a nice sentiment. I think the issue arises when the states don’t cease taxing you or allowing you to live outside their laws. It feels to me like that puts a damper on self-fulfillment.

Your writing reminds to #Ryoshi the founder of #SHIB.
Anyhow, greetings from Mexico to everyone!

How can we beat bad persons? How can we overcome the challenges of water shortage for upcoming generations?

I’ll try to come back more often.

You all take care!

Hello !

When dealing with “bad persons”, i usually look far into our history as a human speices.
What a “bad” person is, is from this perspective usually ‘everyone’.
Everyone has the capacity to be a “bad” person.

And from the same perspective, is all people who fight in wars the “good” guys.

It certainly almost always comes down to perspective. From what point of view we are looking at this persons…

Some cases might of course be much more ‘clear’ who is bad, like Murders, rapes, child molesters and so on.

So we have to define what a bad person is to begin the argument.
Also i belive How to deal with this is a community issue.

On the challanges of ‘water shortage’ we’ve found the solution to lay beneeth our feet.
Namely Carbon (Organic matter)

Every part carbon can hold 8 parts water.
So The more carbon we get into soil, the more the water storage and infiltration capabilities.

To tell you the exact solution is hard because the ‘how to’ is defined by local resources (plants-animals-microlife), that will vary in every case.

In a regenerative-farming setting, farmers have shown extreme reciliense to droughts and extreme rain events, just by few % increase of carbon in soil…

This types of systems can show us a way forward.
Soil microbes “eat” plant carbohydrates (glucose) = carbon.
That plants secrete out of the roots itself.
The microbes then become food for larger life, and end up as “humus” “living soil” where cO2 is captured in the ground.

All as a byproduct from photosythesis.

So it is essentially a question of HOW do we maximize photosynthesis.

That will definatly overcome the water shortage. As carbon acts as a “sponge” in the soil. and will slowly let exess water sipher down to the groundwater table.

The whole human idéa of plowing the soil is coming to an end… it is an at least 8000 year old idéa we now need to part ways from on a grand scale.

Go and look into the “no-dig garden systems” to find more inspiration.
& Regenerative agriculture.

Wish you well.