Anthemism vs. Olivier Janssens’ 2017 Reddit Thread
Recently, Olivier Janssens launched the Destiny project in Nevis. It appears to be a continuation of what he announced back in 2017 in a Reddit post on r/btc: a plan to buy sovereignty in order to create a new society organized around libertarian principles.
Janssens’ post generated a long discussion thread which evolved beyond the original idea itself and into practical questions. How such a society could defend itself, what immigration and citizenship rules might look like, whether international recognition would be possible, how governance could function in the long term, and whether a libertarian model could survive real geopolitical and social pressures.
We have already discussed the differences between projects of this type and Anthemism (see references below). Here, we briefly compare the themes raised in that Reddit thread with the positions presented on the anthemism.org website — using ChatGPT as the comparison tool.
ChatGPT:
Both ideas begin from the same basic premise: modern states are too corrupt, inefficient, or ideologically degraded to be meaningfully reformed from within. So instead of:
elections,
reforms,
or lobbying,
the proposal becomes:
exit the existing system,
and build a new society from scratch.
But after that point, the paths diverge significantly.
1. The Janssens thread: a “crypto-startup state”
The discussion around Janssens’ post was very much a product of the crypto atmosphere of 2017. It was dominated by:
Bitcoin idealism,
techno-optimism,
startup mentality,
and the idea that government could be “disrupted” the same way Uber disrupted taxis.
The state was treated almost like a technological project:
“What if we built a new country like a startup?”
As a result, the discussion focused on:
acquiring territory,
international recognition,
taxes,
infrastructure,
defense,
economics,
and treaties with existing states.
Ideology was mostly in the background. The dominant mindset was entrepreneurial and engineering-oriented.
2. Anthemism: a civilizational project
Anthemism appears much more philosophical and ideological. The focus is not merely on:
low taxes,
cryptocurrency,
or “free markets.”
The idea is to build an entire civilization grounded in Objectivist philosophy. Capitalism is treated not merely as an efficient economic system, but as a moral principle.
At the center are:
rationality,
individualism,
individual rights,
anti-collectivism,
and cultural and philosophical cohesion.
As a result, Anthemism feels less like a “startup state” and more like an attempt to create a new ideological state.
3. Tone and atmosphere
The comments under Janssens’ post
The atmosphere was:
energetic,
chaotic,
startup-oriented,
and optimistic about technology and the future.
Even skeptics argued like engineers:
“this doesn’t scale,”
“there won’t be enough money,”
“who’s going to build the power grid?”
Anthemism
The tone on the Anthemism site is much more serious and pessimistic. There is a strong sense that:
Western societies are declining,
existing states are losing stability,
culture is deteriorating,
and some kind of civilizational “exit” is necessary.
So this no longer feels like:
an interesting experiment,
but more like:
an attempt to preserve a certain type of civilization.
4. Force and sovereignty
Critics in the Janssens thread repeatedly argued:
Sovereignty is determined by force, not contracts.
In other words:
without military power and real authority,
paperwork alone means nothing.
Many commenters believed libertarian projects naively assumed that wealth, technology, or private agreements were enough to guarantee independence.
Anthemism responds directly:
Yes, the state must possess a monopoly on force.
That is a major distinction.
Anthemism:
is not anarchist;
does not believe the market can replace the state;
does not assume private contracts automatically produce order.
Instead, it argues that a functioning society requires:
military force,
police,
courts,
borders,
diplomacy,
geopolitical alliances,
and a fully developed state structure.
In this sense, Anthemism is much closer to classical statecraft than libertarian utopianism.
5. Libertarianism vs. Objectivism
The Janssens thread mixed together:
libertarianism,
crypto-anarchism,
voluntary association,
and anti-state sentiment.
But there was no unified philosophy behind it.
Anthemism is explicitly grounded in Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. That means:
a much more rigid philosophical framework;
with defined positions on:
reason,
morality,
human nature,
the role of government,
and capitalism as an ethical system.
As a result, Anthemism is:
less chaotic,
less “hacker-like,”
and much more ideologically structured.
6. Immigration
In the comments under Janssens’ post, the debate looked like this:
Open borders are freedom
versus
Open borders will destroy the system.
People struggled to reconcile those positions.
Anthemism proposes a specific solution:
borders can remain open;
but the political system must be protected separately.
In other words:
almost anyone may enter;
but citizenship and political influence are not automatic rights.
The distinction is between:
freedom of movement,
and political sovereignty.
7. Final difference
The Janssens thread
It was:
crypto-utopianism,
startup thinking,
an attempt to “disrupt the state.”
The core question was:
Can a freer jurisdiction be built?
Anthemism
This is more:
philosophical,
cultural,
and civilizational.
The central question becomes:
Can a stable society with a coherent value system be created and preserved over the long term?
The summary above is only an introduction to the broader differences between Anthemism and similar initiatives. See also: