Kudzai Kutukwa

kudzaikutukwa@freedom.tech
Overview Articles Media Highlights

Real freedom means looking at the life you are living and asking, with genuine ruthlessness, how much of it is yours. How much of what you want is what you actually want, and how much was inserted into you by marketing departments with billion-dollar budgets and neuroscience consultants? How much of what you fear is real danger, and how much is manufactured anxiety; the low-grade, pervasive dread that keeps populations manageable, that makes the promise of security feel worth any price?

Bitcoin is not a revolution. It does not petition. It does not protest. It simply runs, indifferent to whoever is in office, whoever controls the courts, whoever owns the media cycle this week. Bitcoin does not fix human nature. It does not make evil people honest or powerful people humble. What it does is narrower and far more important: it creates an exit from a specific type of coercion; the monetary kind. The kind where your savings can be diluted by decree. The kind where your account can be frozen by a phone call. The kind where capital flows toward the politically connected and away from everyone else through mechanisms rendered invisible because they run through institutions you were taught to trust.

You cannot reform an institution whose fundamental architecture is designed for your containment. You cannot petition your way to sovereignty. You cannot vote your way out of tyranny or for a candidate who will dismantle the very machinery that elevated them. Revolutions beg the old power to step aside and usually install a new version of the same arrangement. The state does not produce liberty but it only produces managed, licensed, permissioned approximations of liberty, and it extracts a toll for every inch.

This is not accidental as Bitcoin was engineered in response to a world where trust in institutions had collapsed and where surveillance was already expanding under the banner of security and stability. Bitcoin is not merely scarce money. It is coordination without observation. It is economic action without identity fusion. It is savings without permission. It is exchange without behavioural contracts.

The fatal flaw though is that AI has finite deflationary effects, and it can only reduce costs so far before hitting physical limits of energy and materials. Fiat currency, by contrast, has no upper limit on its ability to offset deflation through expansion. This sounds like fiat's advantage, but it actually is its death warrant. The ability to print without limit means the temptation to print without limit. As AI pushes deflationary pressure to unprecedented levels, fiat systems will print to unprecedented levels, ultimately destroying the currency's value and credibility entirely.

All paper money, lacking the constraint of scarcity, faces the same endgame when confronted with sufficient deflationary force. The question is not whether this happens, but how quickly.

The old fiat system can't fix itself from within. The debt burden is too large, the political incentives too entrenched, the dependence on inflation too complete, and now the surveillance infrastructure too valuable to those in power. We need a structural exit, a parallel system that can accommodate technological abundance without requiring algorithmic control of human behaviour.

The old fiat system can't fix itself from within. The debt burden is too large, the political incentives too entrenched, the dependence on inflation too complete, and now the surveillance infrastructure too valuable to those in power. We need a structural exit, a parallel system that can accommodate technological abundance without requiring algorithmic control of human behaviour.

The old fiat system can't fix itself from within. The debt burden is too large, the political incentives too entrenched, the dependence on inflation too complete, and now the surveillance infrastructure too valuable to those in power. We need a structural exit, a parallel system that can accommodate technological abundance without requiring algorithmic control of human behaviour.Bitcoin provides the monetary foundation; AI provides the productive engine.

Bitcoin isn't just a protocol, but a living ecosystem. It needs builders in every sense of the word—including storytellers, educators, designers, accountants, salespeople, analysts, organizers, artists, HRs, and different types of 'operators'—just as much as it needs engineers and technical experts.

Bitcoin isn't just a protocol, but a living ecosystem. It needs builders in every sense of the word—including storytellers, educators, designers, accountants, salespeople, analysts, organizers, artists, HRs, and different types of 'operators'—just as much as it needs engineers and technical experts.As the network grows, so does the need for its "human layer". A diverse mix of talents turning code into culture and ideas into actual results.

Bitcoin isn't just a protocol, but a living ecosystem. It needs builders in every sense of the word—including storytellers, educators, designers, accountants, salespeople, analysts, organizers, artists, HRs, and different types of 'operators'—just as much as it needs engineers and technical experts.

Bitcoin isn't just a protocol, but a living ecosystem. It needs builders in every sense of the word—including storytellers, educators, designers, accountants, salespeople, analysts, organizers, artists, HRs, and different types of 'operators'—just as much as it needs engineers and technical experts.As the network grows, so does the need for its "human layer". A diverse mix of talents turning code into culture and ideas into actual results.

For many Bitcoiners, there often comes a moment when they realize that just stacking sats through side hustles or swapping fiat isn't quite enough anymore. They begin craving something more: a genuine connection where Bitcoin becomes their main source of income, not just a side gig or hobby.

W does not begin by asking, “How do we help people speak, connect, and create?” It begins by asking, “How do we make speech legible, attributable, and governable?” That is the philosophy of the state, not the market, not the user, and certainly not the internet. Dissidents in authoritarian regimes, whistleblowers, activists, and everyday people discussing sensitive topics all rely on the ability to speak without state surveillance. W explicitly rejects this from day one.

The state is not the solution to financial repression because it is the source of it. You cannot vote your way out of a surveillance-based monetary regime. You cannot regulate your way back to sovereignty.

The debanking of Scott Ritter isn't an anomaly, it's a feature. The modern banking system exists in a parasitic symbiosis with the State. Banks aren't private institutions operating in a free market; they're State-licensed cartels operating under a regime of regulatory capture, fiat currency monopoly, and central bank manipulation.

When you think 20 years ahead, the state will have comprehensive profiles on all it's citizens, created without consent and retained permanently. This has nothing to do with the stated educational objectives. It's pre-crime infrastructure - databases that could eventually be paired with Digital ID systems to enable unprecedented surveillance and social control.

When schools claim they "need" Google Workspace or biometric systems, what they mean is "We've built our operations around these systems and changing would be inconvenient." That's an argument for institutional inertia, not necessity.

Consent under pressure isn't free consent. When refusing means your child is excluded from class photos, left out of school trips, or stigmatised as the "difficult family," consent is coerced. The power imbalance between schools and desperate parents makes genuinely voluntary consent impossible in educational settings.

True safeguarding doesn't require broadcasting children's images on social media. Posting photos of children to Twitter or Facebook serves institutional marketing, not child protection. If anything, it increases risk by making children's images, locations, and routines publicly accessible.

This is the nature of decentralization's protection. It does not hide you from the adversary. It does not prevent him from acting. It ensures that no action available to him achieves his goal. There is no arrest that stops Bitcoin because there is no one whose arrest matters. There is no raid that seizes it because there is nothing to seize. There is no jurisdiction that contains it because it exists in all jurisdictions simultaneously and in none of them definitively.

The pattern could not be clearer. Digital currencies that challenge state monetary control invite destruction. When that destruction comes, it follows the same template: identify the person in charge, arrest him, seize the assets, shut down the servers. The entire apparatus of a billion-dollar financial network collapses because it depends on a single point of failure. The founder is the kill switch.

The belief that broken systems can be redeemed by better people is one of the most persistent and damaging myths of modern civilization. It keeps humanity trapped in cycles of hope and disappointment, progress and regression, reform and relapse.

True freedom abandons the fantasy of benevolent rulers and replaces it with a harder, more honest question, what would a society look like if no one had the power to lie, steal, censor, or coerce at scale?

Ours is a society built on broken promises. We’re more shocked when a politician or institution actually follows through with half their commitments than when they deliver nothing at all. Once we realize we’ve been bamboozled again, we wait for the next election to “vote for change.” We elect the opposition’s candidate and receive a different flavour of the same betrayal, as if trapped in a loop. Ten years pass, then twenty, then fifty, and before we know it, an entire century has elapsed with no real or fundamental change, just the same campaign promises recycled endlessly.

The ethical framework that should govern children's data is simple: Dose this serve the child's best interests? Most surveillance practices fail this test. They serve institutional convenience, commercial profit, or policy goals - not the wellbeing and development of the children whose data is being collected.

Does a primary school need timestamped photographs of every activity four-year-old does throughout the day uploaded to a commercial platform? Schools claim this is necessary for "documenting learning" and "parental engagement." But children learned successfully for generations without minute-by-minute photo documentation stored on corporate servers.

GDPR guarantees to right to withdraw consent at any time.[6] In theory, parents can withdraw photo consent. In practice, doing so means: The child is excluded from class photos. They're removed from trip documentation. Their achievements aren't celebrated publicly. They may be the only child in their year with this restriction.

GDPR guarantees to right to withdraw consent at any time.[6] In theory, parents can withdraw photo consent. In practice, doing so means: The child is excluded from class photos. They're removed from trip documentation. Their achievements aren't celebrated publicly. They may be the only child in their year with this restriction.This isn't a genuine right to withdraw, it's a choice between accepting surveillance or accepting that your child will be othered and excluded.

GDPR guarantees to right to withdraw consent at any time.[6] In theory, parents can withdraw photo consent. In practice, doing so means: The child is excluded from class photos. They're removed from trip documentation. Their achievements aren't celebrated publicly. They may be the only child in their year with this restriction.

GDPR guarantees to right to withdraw consent at any time.[6] In theory, parents can withdraw photo consent. In practice, doing so means: The child is excluded from class photos. They're removed from trip documentation. Their achievements aren't celebrated publicly. They may be the only child in their year with this restriction.This isn't a genuine right to withdraw, it's a choice between accepting surveillance or accepting that your child will be othered and excluded.

This insight applies far beyond money. Trust is not morally neutral. In adversarial environments, trust is a liability. Trust is embedded into the functioning of our political and financial institutions. We’re supposed to trust that when elected officials make decisions, these decisions are carefully considered. We’re expected to trust that every policy is made with good intent and that it’s in our best interest to comply. During COVID-19, many trusted the guidance of public health officials, from social distancing (which isn’t even a medical term) to mask mandates to vaccine requirements. Meanwhile, the same officials gave themselves and their allies exemptions to all of the above. Despite the obvious hypocrisy, we were still expected to trust them, and some did, to their own detriment.

Every generation is told the same lie: “The system is broken, but it can be fixed if the right people are elected.” This is reformism’s fatal flaw. It confuses structural incentives with individual virtue. It treats corruption as a bug rather than a feature. The question is not “Who should rule?” but “Where can coercion be eliminated entirely?” The goal is not to trust better people, but to build systems that do not require trust at all. Trustless systems.

Academic studies note that "reliance on surveillance-based approaches to monitoring online activities of children (aged 5-14) may actually be leading to a greater danger: a decrease in opportunities for children to have experiences that help them develop autonomy and independence."

This isn't speculation. As surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden warned: "A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all. They'll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves, an unrecorded, un-analyzed thought."

The UK's multi-agency safeguarding infrastructure reflects a fundamental tension: the need to protect vulnerable children versus the privacy rights of families. Getting this balance right is extraordinarily difficult, and the current system arguably errs too far toward surveillance, particularly for families already disadvantaged by poverty, mental health issues, or involvement with police.

A child who had a difficult period in Year 3, perhaps related to family stress, friendship issues, or developmental challenges, carries that record through secondary school and beyond, even if they've long since moved past those difficulties.

Parents often don't know what's recorded about their child in CPOMS. Schools are not required to proactively inform parents of every entry, particularly for "low-level concerns" that don't trigger formal safeguarding procedures.

This creates an extraordinarily detailed chronicle of a child's school life, with particular focus on moments of vulnerability, difficulty, or concern.

Every coin held in self-custody is wealth beyond the reach of the state's expropriating hand. Every business built on Bitcoin rails is infrastructure for the parallel society.

Seventeen years on, Bitcoin continues doing what it was born to do: proving that reality is more malleable than we were taught, that power is more distributed than we were shown, and that freedom is more achievable than we were allowed to believe.

The same applies now. Censorship-resistant communication requires relays that someone must run. Sound money requires infrastructure that someone must maintain. Private exchange requires protocols that someone must develop. Every tool that enables exit from predatory systems is a tool that someone built because they resolved to build rather than merely wish.

In practice: hold your own keys. Form your own opinions. Make your own decisions and live with the results. Do not ask permission to speak, to build, to trade, to live. You were born with jurisdiction over yourself, and no document or decree has revoked it.

Do not ask permission to speak, to build, to trade, to live. You were born with jurisdiction over yourself, and no document or decree has revoked it.This is harder than compliance. There is comfort in letting others decide, in following rather than choosing. But those who surrender self-ownership become instruments of purposes not their own. They live as tools, and tools do not build free societies.

To steal is to take what belongs to another without consent. This includes the obvious forms: theft, robbery, burglary. It also includes the forms that respectable society pretends are something else. When you vote to take your neighbor's property and redistribute it, you are stealing. When you lobby for regulations that hamper your competitors, you are stealing. When you accept subsidies extracted from others under threat of imprisonment, you are receiving stolen goods.

To steal is to take what belongs to another without consent. This includes the obvious forms: theft, robbery, burglary. It also includes the forms that respectable society pretends are something else. When you vote to take your neighbor's property and redistribute it, you are stealing. When you lobby for regulations that hamper your competitors, you are stealing. When you accept subsidies extracted from others under threat of imprisonment, you are receiving stolen goods.

Children have no say in the creation of their NPD records. Parents can not opt out. The data is permanent. And once it's shared with third parties, there's no way to un-share it.

Between July 2015 and September 2016, the Home Office made requests relating to 2,462 individuals, and the DfE returned 520 records. Parents were not informed. Schools were not told their pupil data was being used for immigration enforcement. Children from migrant families feared going to school.

Previous generations attended school without providing permanent biological samples. They weren't required to submit their physical bodies to identification systems in order to eat lunch or borrow books. The current generation experiences this as normal, which means they'll accept it as normal in workplaces, shops, transport systems, and public spaces as adults.

Previous generations attended school without providing permanent biological samples. They weren't required to submit their physical bodies to identification systems in order to eat lunch or borrow books. The current generation experiences this as normal, which means they'll accept it as normal in workplaces, shops, transport systems, and public spaces as adults.

Previous generations attended school without providing permanent biological samples. They weren't required to submit their physical bodies to identification systems in order to eat lunch or borrow books. The current generation experiences this as normal, which means they'll accept it as normal in workplaces, shops, transport systems, and public spaces as adults.

Previous generations attended school without providing permanent biological samples. They weren't required to submit their physical bodies to identification systems in order to eat lunch or borrow books. The current generation experiences this as normal, which means they'll accept it as normal in workplaces, shops, transport systems, and public spaces as adults.

Previous generations attended school without providing permanent biological samples. They weren't required to submit their physical bodies to identification systems in order to eat lunch or borrow books. The current generation experiences this as normal, which means they'll accept it as normal in workplaces, shops, transport systems, and public spaces as adults.Preparing children for a biometric surveillance society may be the most concerning outcome of all.

Previous generations attended school without providing permanent biological samples. They weren't required to submit their physical bodies to identification systems in order to eat lunch or borrow books. The current generation experiences this as normal, which means they'll accept it as normal in workplaces, shops, transport systems, and public spaces as adults.

Previous generations attended school without providing permanent biological samples. They weren't required to submit their physical bodies to identification systems in order to eat lunch or borrow books. The current generation experiences this as normal, which means they'll accept it as normal in workplaces, shops, transport systems, and public spaces as adults. Preparing children for a biometric surveillance society may be the most concerning outcome of all.

Previous generations attended school without providing permanent biological samples. They weren't required to submit their physical bodies to identification systems in order to eat lunch or borrow books. The current generation experiences this as normal, which means they'll accept it as normal in workplaces, shops, transport systems, and public spaces as adults.

Previous generations attended school without providing permanent biological samples. They weren't required to submit their physical bodies to identification systems in order to eat lunch or borrow books. The current generation experiences this as normal, which means they'll accept it as normal in workplaces, shops, transport systems, and public spaces as adults. Preparing children for a biometric surveillance society may be the most concerning outcome of all.

Previous generations attended school without providing permanent biological samples. They weren't required to submit their physical bodies to identification systems in order to eat lunch or borrow books. The current generation experiences this as normal, which means they'll accept it as normal in workplaces, shops, transport systems, and public spaces as adults.

Previous generations attended school without providing permanent biological samples. They weren't required to submit their physical bodies to identification systems in order to eat lunch or borrow books. The current generation experiences this as normal, which means they'll accept it as normal in workplaces, shops, transport systems, and public spaces as adults. Preparing children for a biometric surveillance society may be the most concerning outcome of all.

Schools have handed an entire generation's behavioural, education, and personal data to American technology companies. What began as pragmatic solutions to classroom management and remote learning have become deeply embedded surveillance infrastructure that track, profile, and permanently record children's development from age four onwards.

On top of this, we need to take the control of money out of the hands of central banks and governments. The case for bitcoin has never been stronger. A lot of this fraud is enabled by unfettered money printing and debt expansion, which act as a double whammy to obliterate your wealth alongside taxation.