Speaker 1: Hello, everyone, Welcome to another episode of The gold Silver
Speaker 1: Bitcoin Show, brought to you by Goldsilver Bitcoin dot Com.
Speaker 1: We are more than an honored to be sitting down
Speaker 1: today with Jay Dyer. Jay is known for his deep
Speaker 1: analysis of Hollywood, geopolitics, culture, and much more. His graduate
Speaker 1: work focused on psychological warfare and film, and he is
Speaker 1: the author of two books, So Tera Hollywood one and two,
Speaker 1: and the co creator and co host of the television
Speaker 1: show Hollywood Decoded. He's been featured on numerous popular shows
Speaker 1: and podcasts and debates with some of the world's top debaters.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Jay for joining us today.
Speaker 2: Yeah, man, glad to be here. I've been wanting to
Speaker 2: do more economic, crypto based type podcast, so I'm really
Speaker 2: honored to be here to talk about that with you today.
Speaker 1: Well, then, you know, with that said, like, why don't
Speaker 1: we just kind of jump into that arena on this
Speaker 1: show we try to just talk about bitcoin because for
Speaker 1: a couple of reasons, I noticed at the Bitcoin Conference
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one that there was this overlap between
Speaker 1: the American conservative movement and the bitcoiner And it was
Speaker 1: a overlap that I guess was there from the beginning
Speaker 1: when bitcoin had a lot of libertarians involved. A lot
Speaker 1: of the cyberpunks from back then were also kind of
Speaker 1: like small government minded individuals. But I've seen it evolve
Speaker 1: really to overlap with what we're seeing as the American
Speaker 1: conservative movement. In fact, some of my colleagues who are
Speaker 1: more on the block chiint the corporate blockchain side of things,
Speaker 1: mentioned to me they're like, Wow, I feel like I'm
Speaker 1: at a q rally.
Speaker 3: When Jack Dorsey was on stage, he was being booed.
Speaker 1: Laura Lumer ran up the stage and was confronting him
Speaker 1: for kicking her off of the platform and other conservatives
Speaker 1: and then also now I remember somebody yelled from the audience,
Speaker 1: you're on American Jack, and the whole discussion there was
Speaker 1: about inflation, central banks, debt, and so I saw this
Speaker 1: overlap between the bitcoin industry and then of course the
Speaker 1: American conservative movement. Mike mcgloane, who's actually a Bloomberg crypto
Speaker 1: and commodities analyst who's really interesting, he also notices this.
Speaker 1: He's got a clear head on his shoulders. And then
Speaker 1: I've also noticed that there's been this split between like
Speaker 1: bitcoiners and the rest of the all coin industry or
Speaker 1: the rest of the cryptocurrency industry. So there's Bitcoin maximalists
Speaker 1: and they're always kind of you know, calling all coin
Speaker 1: shit coins, for instance, and then the all coiners are
Speaker 1: all kind of saying that, you know, there's this Bitcoin
Speaker 1: toxic maximalism. All that is to say that I see
Speaker 1: increasingly this overlap between the American conservative movement who harke
Speaker 1: him back to the right wing of the right wing,
Speaker 1: I mean, the radical kind of republican base of the
Speaker 1: American Revolution who were known for kind of being conspiracy theorists.
Speaker 1: They thought the king was like conspiring against the colonies
Speaker 1: and all this stuff. And Bernard Balin, who I believe
Speaker 1: was a Harvard academic, actually has a note in his book.
Speaker 1: It's called a Note on Conspiracy maybe all four of
Speaker 1: this to you, and he addresses that there was this
Speaker 1: radical element who were convinced of a conspiracy, though not
Speaker 1: everyone was. I see overlapping between the modern conservatives with
Speaker 1: them and the modern conservatives and bitcoin and all that
Speaker 1: kind of leads me to what are your thoughts on
Speaker 1: the overlap between American conservatism and particularly bitcoin, And then
Speaker 1: from there maybe we can talk about this black Swan
Speaker 1: event that the w EEF has mentioned.
Speaker 2: I think that's a really good insight. I think there's
Speaker 2: definitely overlap, probably because of education. I think most of
Speaker 2: the time people who are knowledgeable about economics have a
Speaker 2: high degree of education, and more and more people are
Speaker 2: getting educated on economics, especially as the economy gets worse.
Speaker 2: They want to figure out like why is everything costing
Speaker 2: so much more now? Why is there super duper inflation,
Speaker 2: you know when I go to buy you know, eggs
Speaker 2: or whatever. So I think that there's a confluence of
Speaker 2: things happening. The idea of the debt based FIAT system
Speaker 2: being a trap, being a scam definitely, you know, overlapped
Speaker 2: with the so called conspiracy world, which is really just
Speaker 2: the reality world. I mean, it's not even conspiracies, it's
Speaker 2: it's people who were looking at what's really going on
Speaker 2: behind the scene, learning about the Federal Reserve. So I
Speaker 2: think that, you know, the Ron Paul era, which I
Speaker 2: was really involved in both I ran and ran Paul
Speaker 2: you know, campaigns and trying to you know, help out
Speaker 2: with that back in you know, the two thousand and seven,
Speaker 2: eight nine ten era. That was the period when a
Speaker 2: lot of people were getting educated in the libertarian and
Speaker 2: conservative libertarian camps on economics, and I saw, you know,
Speaker 2: I remember that time at the time when you know,
Speaker 2: Ron Paul would have rallies where he could fill entire
Speaker 2: stadiums and he was really calling out the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 2: And so, you know, Ran, I remember he based his
Speaker 2: whole campaign in twenty twelve or something, I think on
Speaker 2: the problems with the IRS, the problems with taxation, the
Speaker 2: problems with ultimately the Federal Reserve, and it was just
Speaker 2: really heard of at that time, even though you know,
Speaker 2: there's been a lot of you know, very goldwater types.
Speaker 2: We've been talking about the Fiddle Reserve for a long time.
Speaker 2: And it just was a perfect confluence because as we
Speaker 2: started seeing deplatforming, as we started seeing people noticing what
Speaker 2: I think last year there was a twenty ten to
Speaker 2: twenty percent loss in the purchase of nower of the
Speaker 2: dollar within a year. So people were really starting to say,
Speaker 2: wait a minute, like, we've got to have alternative systems,
Speaker 2: both in terms of media, in terms of how we
Speaker 2: get our information out, in terms of social media, in
Speaker 2: terms of video platforms, and so obviously to money, we
Speaker 2: need other ways to uh, you know, conduct economic transactions
Speaker 2: to share ideas and value that cannot be destroyed. They
Speaker 2: cannot be easily you know, gotten rid of, cannot be deleted.
Speaker 2: Since or so, the parallels became natural, as you said,
Speaker 2: between increased education on money, monetary policy, how everything's a
Speaker 2: scam when it comes to the Fed, it's private banks
Speaker 2: ripping off everybody in terms of general rational wealth through inflation.
Speaker 2: And then at the same time, we have, as you said,
Speaker 2: this sort of amazing invention that comes about with bitcoin,
Speaker 2: where you have this really ideal money system. I always
Speaker 2: call it like an ideal or a neoplatonic type of
Speaker 2: money system, because that's what it is. It's the hardest,
Speaker 2: best way to do money, hardest asset gold and silver.
Speaker 2: Obviously we're next to that, but it's the ideal. And
Speaker 2: so I think so many people being forced to come
Speaker 2: to grips with reality when it comes to the great Reset,
Speaker 2: when it comes to what's been happening the last two years,
Speaker 2: also forced people into reality when it came to how
Speaker 2: they're going to manage their personal finances, their investments and
Speaker 2: all this stuff, and so that just it was just
Speaker 2: a perfect confluence of all these things at once.
Speaker 1: Can you come up more on bitcoin as the quote
Speaker 1: perfect money as some have said like Max Kaiser for instance,
Speaker 1: and define like neo platonic, I guess some more.
Speaker 2: Well, that was just kind of my own thought process
Speaker 2: on it, because, like in, because I'm a philosopher, I'm
Speaker 2: not really trained. I do. I do have one published
Speaker 2: paper in economics and social theory, but most of my
Speaker 2: work has really been in terms of philosophy and history geopolitics.
Speaker 2: But one thing that I did was I got inadvertently
Speaker 2: into studying monetary policy and money through reading geopolitics, because
Speaker 2: I started learning about the Federal Reserve and I started,
Speaker 2: you know, reading quickly Stragic Hope, which basically admits everything
Speaker 2: that people have been so called conspiracy theorizing about the FED.
Speaker 2: It's all in that gigantic geopolitical tone, which is basically
Speaker 2: trying to defend the actions of a debt based monetary system.
Speaker 2: And he even begins the book by saying, this really
Speaker 2: has his origins in the goal promissory notes system, in
Speaker 2: basically going back to Renaissance medieval Europe, where they started
Speaker 2: separating the currency from what was the paper currency from
Speaker 2: the actual held back value of gold or whatever, and
Speaker 2: that allowed the banking elite to sort of run up
Speaker 2: these debts and they could then buy up assets on
Speaker 2: you know, on the cheap. So it's it's a pretty
Speaker 2: simple and yet the same time complex scam that they
Speaker 2: run over and over and over, and so from a
Speaker 2: philosophical perspective, it was I was able to look at
Speaker 2: that and say, well, in philosophy, we have the idea
Speaker 2: of systems or systems analysis, or things that operate in
Speaker 2: the kind of objective way that are that are just
Speaker 2: totally math based, totally fact based, totally objective, and so
Speaker 2: what you would want to shoot for in that type
Speaker 2: of a system, whether it's a system related to engineering
Speaker 2: or a system that relates to a worldview. Actually, worldviews
Speaker 2: operate in the same way our belief. Systems operate in
Speaker 2: a systemic way. And then you know it basically, you know,
Speaker 2: computers operate in the same way of systems. So everything
Speaker 2: that we do, even the household, like a household, mom, dad, kids,
Speaker 2: it operates as a kind of a system. So when
Speaker 2: we understand systems and how they work from a philosophical perspective,
Speaker 2: I know, probably a lot of the listeners or watchers
Speaker 2: are familiar with Michael Saylor, the way he describes things
Speaker 2: in terms of engineering, and how bitcoin is this amazing
Speaker 2: engineering feat. You know, my analysis is more philosophical, so
Speaker 2: I can look at it from the vantage point of
Speaker 2: like philosophical systems. And the ultimate idealist system is Plato.
Speaker 2: And so I'm not advocating everything Plato said. He was
Speaker 2: actually a statist and you know, very problematic in his worldview,
Speaker 2: but one thing that he did have a conception of
Speaker 2: was objectivity, the importance of mathematics. And then if you
Speaker 2: could make mathematics and objectivity kind of the ultimate ledger
Speaker 2: or the ultimate decider of monetary policy, then you could
Speaker 2: have what would be at least the closest approximation of
Speaker 2: an ideal system. And that's what we have with a
Speaker 2: bitcoin type of system, is that approximation of an objective,
Speaker 2: mathematical based ideal. And the more it's based on that,
Speaker 2: the less it can be potentially manipulated by human beings.
Speaker 2: So no system is perfect obviously in this world. So
Speaker 2: I'm not avid. I'm not saying that, Oh it's the
Speaker 2: you know, like the salvation of everybody. I'm not a
Speaker 2: religious I do think ultimately it's kind of a gift
Speaker 2: from God in that sense that it is an answer
Speaker 2: to a lot of human kinds problems. But I don't
Speaker 2: think that it itself is divine or anything like that.
Speaker 2: But that's what I meant by kind of a neoplatonic
Speaker 2: money system is that in that it's ultimately shooting for
Speaker 2: a public, definable, objective, mathematically based way to have monetary transactions,
Speaker 2: to have an economy, to have money and value an
Speaker 2: energy stored over time. And there's nothing like that. Really,
Speaker 2: there's there's not anything in history. I mean, you could
Speaker 2: approximate it to things like gold, but but in ways
Speaker 2: bitcoin is even superior to that.
Speaker 1: So I came to economics through history, and I studied
Speaker 1: history in college. Then pretty much right after college, the
Speaker 1: first thing I did was start getting into economics. That
Speaker 1: thought that might make that might help me make money
Speaker 1: in the long I've learned since then that it's best
Speaker 1: just to follow your passion and be really passionate about
Speaker 1: it and consistent with it. But that aside, I just
Speaker 1: start studying economics, and then of course the economic history,
Speaker 1: particularly in the context of the twentieth century. In college,
Speaker 1: my focus was on places like the Soviet Union, where
Speaker 1: their shortage was something that was quite common. Another focus
Speaker 1: of mind was on Nazi Germany. Learned a lot about
Speaker 1: the German Democratic Republic thereafter, and of course the Weimar
Speaker 1: Republican in the Wymar Republic, of course, there's these stories
Speaker 1: of people going to restaurants and the price of the
Speaker 1: items on the menus changing during the course of their meal,
Speaker 1: or they would rather actually pay before they ate to
Speaker 1: make sure that that didn't happen, and their stories and
Speaker 1: I guess probably photos if I'm not mistaken, of people
Speaker 1: wheelbarrowing money around. And so I began learning about the
Speaker 1: World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and their role
Speaker 1: in world affairs in the post World War two period.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of their funding, most of their
Speaker 1: funding came from the US taxpayer, and their policy was
Speaker 1: to only give loans to countries throughout the world in
Speaker 1: exchange for not only is it there that debt, but
Speaker 1: there's this austerity measures in quote economic medicine that those.
Speaker 3: Leaders must impose.
Speaker 1: And then there's a long standing critique that that money
Speaker 1: essentially just goes to the plutocrats of each individual country.
Speaker 1: And so I started learning about this. The debt based system.
Speaker 1: The Federal Reserve was obviously a big played a big
Speaker 1: part in the global economy, stated back to nineteen thirteen.
Speaker 1: And then there was, of course some other big events
Speaker 1: in the US history. I think in nineteen thirty three
Speaker 1: Goald confiscation comes to mind, so gold was confiscated, but
Speaker 1: not everyone turned the gold in.
Speaker 3: And then in nineteen sixty five four Lyndon B.
Speaker 1: Johnson says, don't worry, this isn't going to change anything,
Speaker 1: but we're gonna take all the silver out of the
Speaker 1: coinage and we're going to get We're gonna put it
Speaker 1: nickel and zinc and copper in.
Speaker 2: It, debasing the currents that yeah, we're going.
Speaker 1: To debase the currency completely to zero, which is quite
Speaker 1: a radical step, by the way, and I began learning
Speaker 1: about the new kind of FiOS system post nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: one with Nixon doctrine taking the.
Speaker 3: US off the gold standard.
Speaker 1: So now bitcoin is almost direct statement, I would say,
Speaker 1: a philosophical statement, if you will, against the system that
Speaker 1: we've seen unfold, especially post two thousand and eight when
Speaker 1: there was the bailouts and the money printing. Of course,
Speaker 1: as Henry Hazlitt wrote in Economics in one lesson that
Speaker 1: inflation or money printing causes reckless spending, and it leads
Speaker 1: inevitably to fascism or communism, and that is essentially the
Speaker 1: path that we've seen a Bitcoin as an alternative. Not
Speaker 1: only was capped at twenty one million, I think is
Speaker 1: the only commodity in the world where we know exactly
Speaker 1: how many will exist forever more, but also it had
Speaker 1: in the genesis block a reference.
Speaker 3: To the bailout.
Speaker 1: In On January third, two thousand and nine, the headline
Speaker 1: of the UK Times read Chancellor on bring a second
Speaker 1: bailout and so here's bitcoin. It's this clear statement against
Speaker 1: central banking. Really and now we see that we the
Speaker 1: libertarians adopted it in some way, the cyberpunks adopted it
Speaker 1: in some way. A lot of other kind of countercultural
Speaker 1: movements also did adopt it. I remember on Bitcoin Talk
Speaker 1: there was debates is bitcoin like a communist organism or technology?
Speaker 1: And so a lot of countercultural people were rallying behind it.
Speaker 1: But I think it was in the US it was
Speaker 1: really driven by the libertarian movement. Whenever you win, it
Speaker 1: was all like small government minded individuals for the most part.
Speaker 1: That evolved in twenty fifteen when the I think blockchain
Speaker 1: was co opted by corporate America and they started calling
Speaker 1: distributed ledgers blockchains, and they said, hey, we're going to
Speaker 1: turn the world into a blockchain. They're really just talking
Speaker 1: about distributed ledgers at that point that by twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, I was like, man, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: democratic socialists running around.
Speaker 3: This industry now.
Speaker 1: So we see this strain from the libertarian movement, the bitcointers,
Speaker 1: the statement on the inflationary policies of central banks, and
Speaker 1: then of course the very kind of well the reference
Speaker 1: to central bank policy and the genesis block So in
Speaker 1: so many ways, it really is a commentary on the
Speaker 1: nature of our political systems, our financial systems, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And to see how it from that kernel with kind
Speaker 1: of this libertarian movement to becoming pop culture in rap songs,
Speaker 1: in TV shows and movies.
Speaker 3: Has been quite a sight to behold. It's like, I
Speaker 3: can't think of any other moment in history where something
Speaker 3: like this has happened. I guess you could argue the
Speaker 3: revolutions are those like the American Revolution comes to mind. However,
Speaker 3: on the front of just finance, there have been private moneies,
Speaker 3: but nothing that has disrupted things like this in such
Speaker 3: a short amount of time. Von Nohouse comes to mind.
Speaker 1: I think in twenty shortly after the release of bitcoin,
Speaker 1: bernardvon Nohouse started creating Liberty dollars out of silver coins.
Speaker 1: They were being minted in North Idaho by Sunshine May
Speaker 1: and the FEDS rated the mint They arrested Bernard von
Speaker 1: Nohause and said that he was basically counterfeiting US currency. Well,
Speaker 1: how far have we come in the last ten years
Speaker 1: on the on the back of bitcoin? Really?
Speaker 2: Oh? Absolutely, yeah, I wasn't trying to cut you off.
Speaker 2: I disagree. I mean, yeah, I remember too when that happened,
Speaker 2: because that was around the time I first bought some
Speaker 2: gold or silver. It was probably around two thousand and
Speaker 2: eight or nine, so I was following that kind of
Speaker 2: stuff relatively close. And I remember that story, and I
Speaker 2: remember thinking, and I think maybe I was a little
Speaker 2: for many years initially suspicious of bitcoin because I was
Speaker 2: so kind of mired in the conspiracy world that I
Speaker 2: was overly negative in my appraisal of everything. And I
Speaker 2: remember thinking, well, if they if they rate a guy
Speaker 2: for that, like, they're not going to allow bitcoin, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, if bitcoin is what it says it is, Uh,
Speaker 2: you know, they're gonna shut that down. And I think
Speaker 2: they intended and tried, you know, for a long time.
Speaker 2: They're really shut down bitcoin. They didn't want it to
Speaker 2: be what it could become and what it is becoming.
Speaker 2: You know, we've seen actually who Bill Gates, Hillary Clinton
Speaker 2: within the last couple of weeks have come out and
Speaker 2: said we got to get rid of this bitcoin. Crypton
Speaker 2: needs to go away, you know, Hillary, even Hillary is
Speaker 2: on to the fact that cryptocurrency, especially bitwin, is a
Speaker 2: threat to the traditional banking model and they're calling it,
Speaker 2: you know, terrorism and all this nonsense. But their reality
Speaker 2: is that they're the central bank terrorists, right, They're the
Speaker 2: ones that are terrorizing the economy and have been for
Speaker 2: a long time. And there a lot of those people
Speaker 2: are Boomer tier. They're Boomer era, which means that they
Speaker 2: don't realize that people can within five to ten minutes
Speaker 2: figure out that the monetary system for centuries is a scam.
Speaker 2: And it's that this is people aren't ready to grapple
Speaker 2: with that reality that for whatever reason, you know, especially people,
Speaker 2: you know, I have a lot of my audience is
Speaker 2: a lot of people probably twenty five and younger, they're
Speaker 2: a lot more hip to being able to figure those
Speaker 2: things out like quicker. So I think that again we're
Speaker 2: kind of at this point where we've the wave has
Speaker 2: sort of crusted and tipped over to where I don't
Speaker 2: think that we're going to see a real shutting down
Speaker 2: a bitcoin or and in the stuff that they were
Speaker 2: threatening in the FUD you know, ten years ago, eight
Speaker 2: years ago, because I think it's really proven itself. And yeah,
Speaker 2: I think that you're right about when we think about
Speaker 2: the projects that for example, Klaus the World Economic Forum
Speaker 2: projects that he recommends, and the blockchain that he recommends
Speaker 2: in his books, you know, it's it's an alternate version
Speaker 2: where we need to be on these centrally controlled things.
Speaker 2: And in the iron is of course that the original
Speaker 2: idea here is to not have a centrally controlled mechanism
Speaker 2: but to have it decentralized. And so I think most
Speaker 2: of those projects and blockchain technologies that Klaus in the
Speaker 2: World Economic Form one everybody shifted over to are the
Speaker 2: ones that are going to be the most threatening. And
Speaker 2: so that's why I think it's central to conservative minded
Speaker 2: people or people who might be deplatformed to begin to
Speaker 2: think about the alternate ways. I mean, we should have
Speaker 2: already been thinking of We should have been on the
Speaker 2: top of this along. I kicked myself for not, you know,
Speaker 2: getting into this stuff earlier. I got into it in
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen. I heard about it in twenty twelve, right,
Speaker 2: and I thought, Oh, it can't be that. But you know,
Speaker 2: the sooner the better, so you know the future that
Speaker 2: we're going into. I read a good article I think
Speaker 2: about six months ago. I don't remember what website it
Speaker 2: was on, but it was basically arguing that actually, you know,
Speaker 2: bitcoin and cryptos might actually be a great heade for
Speaker 2: going into a Great reset, because the Great Reset is
Speaker 2: going to be kind of a global economic attack. I
Speaker 2: made a lot of videos last year talking about how
Speaker 2: I think that's this is really largely I mean, it's
Speaker 2: a lot of things that's to move towards global government
Speaker 2: all that, but it's also an economic attack to centralize wealth,
Speaker 2: to centralize control.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: And so it's it would be wise for people who
Speaker 2: want to hedge and to fight against that, to go
Speaker 2: for the systems and the types of things that fight
Speaker 2: against that. And like you said, it's a philosophical announcement,
Speaker 2: especially you know, bigcoin against that central banking model. That's
Speaker 2: that's precisely what conservatives need to wake up to.
Speaker 1: What are the implications for Bitcoin of the Great Reset?
Speaker 1: And perhaps even what is your view of the Great
Speaker 1: Reset generally? I know you've probably hashed that over many,
Speaker 1: many times.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've done a lot of podcasts and shows on
Speaker 2: that in the last couple of years. So we did
Speaker 2: several We read and analyzed several of Klaus's books, several
Speaker 2: of the white papers that dealt with the Great Reset.
Speaker 2: And I think that it's part of a long term
Speaker 2: technocratic plan that's been there for one hundred years. When
Speaker 2: people hear technocracy, that's probably what might get some people
Speaker 2: nervous about things like bitcoin or cryptocurrencies. But I think
Speaker 2: that that's it's a you know, there's phases and layers
Speaker 2: of education that we have to go through. And so
Speaker 2: it's not that any of these technologies are inherently bad,
Speaker 2: it's that they can be misused. So the point the
Speaker 2: problem is not blockchain. The problem is not the Internet.
Speaker 2: The problem is not e money, e cash or any
Speaker 2: of this stuff, because we already use this, right, I mean,
Speaker 2: we already use the Internet, we already are banking is
Speaker 2: already more or less electronic when we're using apps to
Speaker 2: you know, transfer money already just from our fiat bank accounts.
Speaker 2: Uh So, none of those things is inherently the problem.
Speaker 2: The problem is, as you know, when we have shadowy, central, private,
Speaker 2: unaccountable you know, individuals who can manipulate the currency basically.
Speaker 2: At well, I just covered a white paper that was
Speaker 2: kind of in the domain of I guess you could
Speaker 2: say conspiracy for a long time. But I think really
Speaker 2: we've seen vindication of what was written in this white
Speaker 2: paper in nineteen seventy nine. That it's a real document.
Speaker 2: It's called the Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, and that
Speaker 2: document it's about one hundred pages, but it covers different
Speaker 2: ways that the society can be manipulated through economic warfare.
Speaker 2: And they actually it actually says in the document that
Speaker 2: what people aren't going to understand is that the economy itself,
Speaker 2: the US economy itself, is a weapon, and it's a
Speaker 2: weapon that targets and attacks the society, not necessarily just
Speaker 2: at one point, but over time to rob people of
Speaker 2: their wealth through inflation. Basically, it puts people into a
Speaker 2: black hole where you run hamster wheel that powers the
Speaker 2: black hole, and the black hole it just always sucks away.
Speaker 2: You're in value and your your wealth over time, and
Speaker 2: you're the one powering the black hole because you keep
Speaker 2: investing in the system. And that was the sort of
Speaker 2: amazing thing that I'd never really thought about. I mean,
Speaker 2: I knew about you know, IMF and all that World
Speaker 2: Bank and Bank for National Settlements because quickly covers that
Speaker 2: really in depth, and he talks about how it's kind
Speaker 2: of a control mechanism and so we really have to
Speaker 2: understand that first. And like you said, Big Quinn is
Speaker 2: a philosophical statement against that, and so it's really just
Speaker 2: it's it's that's why it's a great hedge against it,
Speaker 2: because it represents everything that is what the Great reset
Speaker 2: is not, and it's using it's using computers and technology
Speaker 2: obviously to fight on the ground of computers and technology.
Speaker 2: So we're really I think out of critical venture where
Speaker 2: education is because if people don't choose the right forms
Speaker 2: of these things, they're going to be co opted into
Speaker 2: you know, fed Cooin.
Speaker 1: Patrick Burn discusses how he sees and saw bitcoin as
Speaker 1: a continuation of Western philosophy of classical liberalism, which he
Speaker 1: notes is today most often referred to as libertarianism, but
Speaker 1: classical liberalism, to perhaps oversimplify, proceeded, preceded I guess, social liberalism,
Speaker 1: which was more of a sixties variety of liberalism, and
Speaker 1: then today we have, I suppose, what Noam Chomsky refers
Speaker 1: to as neoliberalism, which so is it far cry from
Speaker 1: the classical liberalism which really inspired a lot of the Enlightenment,
Speaker 1: as well as the founding of the United States and
Speaker 1: our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Patrick Byrn knows that
Speaker 1: bitcoin is really a con continuation of that, and it's
Speaker 1: the acknowledgment of the sovereignty of the individual, the ability
Speaker 1: of the individual to make decisions for themselves better than
Speaker 1: the few can or some leaders. And could you kind
Speaker 1: of speak about the kind of philosophical history of the
Speaker 1: individual and then the way in which bitcoin, for instance,
Speaker 1: really I guess, empowers the individual.
Speaker 2: So I'm maybe a little bit of a anomaly in
Speaker 2: this regard because I'm not actually a libertarian, but i
Speaker 2: am very much a proponent of bitcoin, because I would
Speaker 2: say I'm more of a classical traditional conservative in many ways,
Speaker 2: maybe paleocon in a lot of ways, but and I
Speaker 2: recognize the libertarian ethos from which bitcoin arises. I recognize
Speaker 2: the positive aspects of the history of classical liberalism, but
Speaker 2: I'm also very much a critical of classical liberalism, which
Speaker 2: you might think is ironic given that I would be
Speaker 2: such a proponent of a bitcoin. But what I think
Speaker 2: has happened is that we're at a point now where
Speaker 2: those things in the past don't even really matter. I mean,
Speaker 2: they're interesting to study from a history of ideas perspective,
Speaker 2: from a history of the world or history philosophy, and
Speaker 2: yes they do relate, but I look at it like, look,
Speaker 2: if bitcoin works, and if it is fair, and if
Speaker 2: it is just and it's not a debt slave model,
Speaker 2: then it's virtuous money. It's actually a monetary system that
Speaker 2: is based on facts, truth, logic, math, objectivity, and virtue.
Speaker 2: And if that's the case, it doesn't really matter whether
Speaker 2: it came from libertarians or even if some Marxists invented it,
Speaker 2: which obviously wasn't a Marxist. I don't think a Marxist
Speaker 2: could have invented but you know what I'm saying, why
Speaker 2: they were at the point where it doesn't matter anymore
Speaker 2: about like, oh, you like bitcoin. Then you must be
Speaker 2: one of those libertarians, you must be one of those anarchists,
Speaker 2: you must be one of those conservatives getting deplatformed who
Speaker 2: you know wants to be a pseudo terrorist. None of
Speaker 2: those things even matter anymore, And now are at a
Speaker 2: stage where it's like we have to adopt some things that,
Speaker 2: even just from a pragmatic standpoint, that work. So if
Speaker 2: this is better, if this works, that's all the justification
Speaker 2: that's really needed. Yeah, I don't have a problem admiring
Speaker 2: and admitting the elements of the libertarian free market ethos
Speaker 2: that I do respect. But at the same time, I'm
Speaker 2: a big critic of neoliberalism. I'm a big critic of
Speaker 2: classical liberalism in many ways. That does not mean I'm
Speaker 2: a socialist. I'm not at all socialist. I would be
Speaker 2: probably more amenable to something like a hop of you.
Speaker 2: But yeah, so I just think that just from those perspectives,
Speaker 2: when we do understand the reality of central banking, I mean,
Speaker 2: who cares if it comes out of a libertary and ethos,
Speaker 2: whether you agree with the returners or not. If it's
Speaker 2: a better, more virtuous, objective, truth based model, then why
Speaker 2: would we not accept that, like.
Speaker 3: What would help think of bitcoin?
Speaker 2: I don't know. It's a weird question because I find
Speaker 2: his defenses of traditional societies like that are monarchical. Maybe
Speaker 2: he thinks that's a better model, even that you might
Speaker 2: have potentially more economic success in a monarchy than you
Speaker 2: could in a democratic republic. So I'm I have very
Speaker 2: big critiques of democratic republicanism. I'm speaking of the classical
Speaker 2: positions out of the Enlightenment. I'm not talking about the
Speaker 2: Republican Party. I'm not talking about today's two party politics.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about the ideas out of the French Revolution
Speaker 2: and Enlightenment. So I would say, I guess if he
Speaker 2: had the belief that a a monarchical hierarchical society that
Speaker 2: was also decentralized or localized was a better model than
Speaker 2: a gig gigantic US imperial democratic republican model, if you
Speaker 2: had something like that, then and if if he argued
Speaker 2: that that was the on the basis of like Western
Speaker 2: monarchies that had even lower taxation models and principles than
Speaker 2: the I R. S and the FED have had, then
Speaker 2: he would probably think that bitcoin would make the most
Speaker 2: sense that any that that the operations of someone like
Speaker 2: like a king going onto a Bitcoin model for his people,
Speaker 2: like El Salvador is doing, would probably be something that
Speaker 2: Poppa would think was a great idea. But and let
Speaker 2: me preface that by saying that that does not mean
Speaker 2: I am an advocate for most of today's quote monarchies.
Speaker 2: I think they're mostly degenerate, just terrible situations. It's just
Speaker 2: my own kind of eccentric opinion that I think monarchy
Speaker 2: as a form of government is a better form because
Speaker 2: I think high ierarchy is natural to human beings to
Speaker 2: have a hierarchy, and that might be kind of at
Speaker 2: odds with the sort of libertarian ethos of the individual,
Speaker 2: the atomized individual, something I'm leary of. But I think again,
Speaker 2: we're at a weird situation where the world is in
Speaker 2: such a bizarre place that these idealistic disputes don't matter
Speaker 2: as much anymore. And now it's a where situation where
Speaker 2: we've got to make the right decisions based on pragmatic things.
Speaker 2: And so what's our best options for economic theory. It's
Speaker 2: going to be a model like Bitcoin that's hard, that's
Speaker 2: not inflatable, that's objective, math based. That's one of our
Speaker 2: best options in fighting against the emerging global government, which
Speaker 2: is what the great recet is.
Speaker 1: You know, there goes back a long time literature about
Speaker 1: the world state. Ishu Wells wrote about it. It's not
Speaker 1: there is a draw of literature written by many cases
Speaker 1: influential individuals throughout the last especially one hundred years, one
Speaker 1: hundred fifty years, maybe further back, but there's no shortage
Speaker 1: of it between that time range, which essentially posites this
Speaker 1: stuff and anybody who wants to think critically can't just
Speaker 1: be dispelled by as a bunch of blue needs on
Speaker 1: the internet who are saying this stuff. That's not what
Speaker 1: this is obviously now libertarianism aside. I'm curious, like, you know,
Speaker 1: what's the individual's role bin in history, and like, how's
Speaker 1: bitcoin a continuation of that if it is at all
Speaker 1: in your opinion, Well, there is.
Speaker 2: Some truth to the fact that individuals can be the
Speaker 2: driving impetus of a new paradigm or a new idea
Speaker 2: or sure, but I also believe that it doesn't happen
Speaker 2: just on the base of a sort of Anne Randy
Speaker 2: and kind of you know, John gall Figure. I think
Speaker 2: there's also we are beings that are also parts of
Speaker 2: classes of things. Whether we like it or not. So
Speaker 2: for example, as an individual, I do have an individual existence,
Speaker 2: but I don't have that existence apart from my connection
Speaker 2: to other groups. And that doesn't necessitate that group or
Speaker 2: class relations, which I believe are actually ontological metaphysical realities,
Speaker 2: it doesn't necessitate that I being oppressed by them, or
Speaker 2: that I'm necessarily confined by them. Think for example, about gender.
Speaker 2: I mean, I believe gender is connected directly to our biology.
Speaker 2: But if I was a radical individual as I might
Speaker 2: conclude that I am being oppressed and I'm being And
Speaker 2: that's what we hear a lot from the left is
Speaker 2: the narrative that any sort of objective reality and classification,
Speaker 2: that that sort of binds us or restricts us, is
Speaker 2: inherently oppressive, and so therefore they must punish anyone who
Speaker 2: restricts them in any way. But I think that some
Speaker 2: restrictions are real or natural, they're metaphysical or ontological. They
Speaker 2: haven't objected reality to them. So I'm just saying it's
Speaker 2: a little for me, it's more nuanced from a philosophical
Speaker 2: perspective to realize that it's not in my view that
Speaker 2: the struggle of history is not the individual against the state,
Speaker 2: or the individual against the collective. There are cases of that,
Speaker 2: but I think that's an oversimplification of how the world
Speaker 2: is and how we operate in the world. But yes,
Speaker 2: there have certainly been many outstanding geniuses who have you know,
Speaker 2: propelled society, and I would definitely class you know, bigcoin
Speaker 2: as one of those amazing inventions that potentially could change
Speaker 2: the world. Comparable to the Internet. I mean you could say, well,
Speaker 2: what's it comparable to? Probably to the way that the
Speaker 2: Internet has changed the world. You guys shouldnt debate whether
Speaker 2: it was good or for evil, for the better or
Speaker 2: for the worse. But ultimately, then if we get these
Speaker 2: kinds of amazing additional inventions like bitcoin, then maybe the
Speaker 2: Internet can be a great thing. It's really up to
Speaker 2: us what we do with it. We're either going to
Speaker 2: use these technologies for enslavement, We're going to use these
Speaker 2: technologies for virtue and for good.
Speaker 1: What do we make of Klaus's cyber pandemic and what
Speaker 1: are the implications for the I guess our infrastructure generally,
Speaker 1: which would include the Internet and bitcoin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I went and I watched and read the paper,
Speaker 2: his white paper on that sound a couple a couple
Speaker 2: of notes on that if I could remember what all.
Speaker 2: It's actually not that long. It's only about a twenty
Speaker 2: page thing if you read it, But just to be accurate,
Speaker 2: I was gonna try to file my notes here.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, take a look.
Speaker 1: And for those that don't know, Klaus Schwaba leads the
Speaker 1: World Economic Forum. It's I guess based in Devo, if
Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken, and entails a lot of the fortune
Speaker 1: you know, top fortune, say ten one hundred companies on
Speaker 1: the planet. They have published stuff like own Nothing, Be Happy,
Speaker 1: which elevates the sharing economy and a context that perhaps
Speaker 1: is not what you might think of in terms of
Speaker 1: a sharing economy. I more like a I guess a
Speaker 1: public utilitarian economy probably seems to be more good.
Speaker 3: The feeling. So go ahead. So Klaus Schwab.
Speaker 1: He talks about a cyber pandemic that we're gonna have,
Speaker 1: like essentially a at least internet wide or even infrastructure
Speaker 1: wide power or outages.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it calls it a digital pandemic. And the idea
Speaker 2: here is that they would run these drills of red
Speaker 2: team versus Blue team. Red team being the attack team,
Speaker 2: blue team being the defense and it would be a
Speaker 2: tax on certain areas of society and of the economy.
Speaker 2: And see what would happen in these attacks and how
Speaker 2: well they could defend against it. And it's see this
Speaker 2: was part of a Rockefeller plan as well. It is
Speaker 2: a It included partners such as IBM and i CAN,
Speaker 2: which was what Obama had handed over to the UN. Basically,
Speaker 2: I guess the control of like the domain names and
Speaker 2: that kind of stuff. And the idea was that this
Speaker 2: would reduce this would create an entire world changing event,
Speaker 2: so the world would never be the same. According to
Speaker 2: page twenty one, after this, what they called a cyber
Speaker 2: version of the Kufid so to speak, right, So this
Speaker 2: would lead to a new implementation rollout of AI. AI
Speaker 2: would then be rolled out as supposedly the answer to this,
Speaker 2: you know, pandemic this or this collapse. I don't think
Speaker 2: that it. I don't think literally it means the collapse
Speaker 2: of the entire Internet. I mean, I'm not like an
Speaker 2: IT specialist person. I don't think they could do that.
Speaker 2: And I think, you know, decentralized networks are really difficult
Speaker 2: in that regard, how in terms of shutting everything down.
Speaker 2: But the end result is that five G and the
Speaker 2: role out of five G would be key, would be
Speaker 2: key to the new Internet, as you said, which would
Speaker 2: be related to the Internet of Things, and that would
Speaker 2: be related to if you don't know whether the Internet
Speaker 2: of things is basically everything in the world in a
Speaker 2: way being modeled and mimicked in the simulant world in
Speaker 2: some way. Thus the tracking and tracing would then potentially
Speaker 2: be total, right, so all of the world basically is
Speaker 2: the idea is is to be mirrored on the Internet
Speaker 2: in real time, so that everything could be tracked and
Speaker 2: traced and you could get future predictive you know, algorithms,
Speaker 2: all that kind of stuff. I'm trying to My note
Speaker 2: is a little messys is all all, oh uh, all
Speaker 2: global nation states that are all the global the globe
Speaker 2: will adopt this new model, they're saying. And then it
Speaker 2: goes on to say that one of the key areas
Speaker 2: they would attack, for example, will be hospitals. We would
Speaker 2: see the rollout of ransomware. I actually think that the
Speaker 2: last year we've already seen kind of this with the
Speaker 2: pipelines and this kind of stuff, So I don't think
Speaker 2: that this is literally intended to be the entire Internet
Speaker 2: shutting off because a lot of people think, oh, why
Speaker 2: would I invest in dickcoin when Klaus wants to destroy
Speaker 2: the internet. You know, Klasses don't want to destroy the internet.
Speaker 2: Klaus is actually rolling out all these cryptos that he
Speaker 2: wants you on, and those are the centralized ones that
Speaker 2: can be you know, implemented into this tracking and tracing
Speaker 2: total control system. It's rather breakdowns and attacks on certain
Speaker 2: areas of the economy, like I said, hospitals. And then
Speaker 2: they actually this was an interesting element. They actually say
Speaker 2: that there would be an attack on anyone who opposed
Speaker 2: it or called it out. They would say that they
Speaker 2: are cyber terrorists. So if you question the narrative within
Speaker 2: the cyber Polygon exercise, they say that those questioning the
Speaker 2: narratives are thus aiding the cyber criminals, when, of course
Speaker 2: we know from this document the cyber criminals are the
Speaker 2: people running cyber Polygon. They're the one is Klaus wearing
Speaker 2: his hoodie hacking, you know, bent over his computer hacking,
Speaker 2: not literally Klaus himself, but the people underneath him, you
Speaker 2: could say. And so basically it leads to one of
Speaker 2: the advantages of this is the shutdown of all alternative media,
Speaker 2: because they will say that anyone in alternative media questioning
Speaker 2: the narrative of the attacks will be framed as cyber terrorists.
Speaker 2: They will all be shut down and then ultimately it
Speaker 2: even now this is my own speculation. If you've read
Speaker 2: about promis and backdoor technology, my speculation is that a
Speaker 2: lot of these infrastructure programs and places already have back doors,
Speaker 2: so it's already they can easily cause these problems through
Speaker 2: the back doors as they so choose. So it is
Speaker 2: not actually Russia, China or foreign enemies that are doing this,
Speaker 2: there's actually the people hired into this operation that will
Speaker 2: be doing these these I guess you could, for lack
Speaker 2: of a better time, false flag attacks basically is what
Speaker 2: it would.
Speaker 3: Be and kind of down the hierarchy.
Speaker 1: I think it'll play out, and it has played out
Speaker 1: very much like the Milgrim experiment. So you'll have like
Speaker 1: people who are dependent on the Internet, like the ISPs, right,
Speaker 1: they need to open out the internet really, but yet
Speaker 1: they'll shoot themselves in the foot and pull yank websites,
Speaker 1: perhaps with enough pressure on them, so now I can
Speaker 1: That was an interesting moment in time when Obama did
Speaker 1: see control of I can over to international organizations. So
Speaker 1: your read on this is that they will basically like
Speaker 1: YANK at the domain level websites.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think it says that explicitly. I think
Speaker 2: it's implied because it does mention. It just mentions the
Speaker 2: partners in the cyber Polygon event, and the partners included
Speaker 2: IBM and I CAN so they at some level will
Speaker 2: be involved or are aware of this exercise And the
Speaker 2: reason we pay attention to the exercise is just like
Speaker 2: when it came to the twenty twenty events, we had
Speaker 2: multiple previous exercises that match in many ways perfectly with
Speaker 2: what happened in twenty twenty and even now with the
Speaker 2: Spars document. But we had Clayde actually had Dark Winter,
Speaker 2: we have Crimson Coctasian, we have Spars, we have Event
Speaker 2: to A one, and so those were all exercises and
Speaker 2: plans that really sort of set the stage what happened
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty twenty twenty one. And so that's why
Speaker 2: when we pay attention to something like cyber Polygon, we're
Speaker 2: watching because we think that that's a potential card they
Speaker 2: could play in the future. So, yeah, I don't know
Speaker 2: exactly to what degree I can would be involved, but
Speaker 2: it does look like they're you know, involved in this
Speaker 2: to some degree. And to your comment too about sort
Speaker 2: of collectivism, socialism, Marxism, communism, I think that Klaus and
Speaker 2: these people, you know, they're very open about for the masses,
Speaker 2: that's what they want. They want the masses to essentially
Speaker 2: be in a collectivist socialist communists, sharing economy, circular economy.
Speaker 2: These are all the words they use for that model
Speaker 2: they want to bring in, and it is just really basic,
Speaker 2: basic bitch socialism Marxism. But it's a corporate sponsored and
Speaker 2: funded Marxism, which is the kind of the bizarre twist
Speaker 2: in this that a lot of people have a hard
Speaker 2: time with. Well, why would corporate elites banking at least,
Speaker 2: why would they want Well, well, that's actually the whole
Speaker 2: history of Marxism socialism is that it's a banking funded thing.
Speaker 2: It always has been, especially when you go into who
Speaker 2: funded marx right, wealthy stock owners or why would well, Well,
Speaker 2: because it's a system of weapons and control. It's an
Speaker 2: economic weapon. It's not a system of liberation and freedom,
Speaker 2: and so it's it's a tool. It's a mechanism of warfare,
Speaker 2: is what Marxism and socialism are. And so just like
Speaker 2: the Silent Weapons document, you might think, you know, if
Speaker 2: you're a John Bircher reading that forty fifty years ago, oh,
Speaker 2: this is Marxism communism. Not exactly, it's Marxism communism by
Speaker 2: a fortune one hundred cabal, by a you know, top
Speaker 2: banking elite cabal. That's what it is now. So for
Speaker 2: the masses, it's socialism communism, and for the elite it's
Speaker 2: a tier of kind of exemption from all of that
Speaker 2: and basically just THEFT.
Speaker 1: I guess, wonder what is the system after a process
Speaker 1: of monopoly plays out?
Speaker 3: And whymar republic.
Speaker 1: I remember we were reading that it was pretty much
Speaker 1: like a cartel run society, and I think that's very
Speaker 1: much where we find ourselves today.
Speaker 3: It's like a cartel run world.
Speaker 1: So now there are projects on the decentralized Internet front.
Speaker 1: They're trying to create a new Internet that won't have
Speaker 1: these potential security issues. So one project that is doing
Speaker 1: that is stacks formerly blockstack. So they're trying to create
Speaker 1: a decentralized Internet on the bitcoin blockchain. They think the
Speaker 1: bitcoin blockchain is something that can be built on in
Speaker 1: a lot of the same ways that the other blockchains
Speaker 1: are being built upon, like Ethereum and the smart contract platform.
Speaker 1: The bitcoiners are arguing on the engineering front that because
Speaker 1: Bitcoin forces this to be built out in a modular manner,
Speaker 1: so you have to build it layer by layer, that
Speaker 1: that is a form of I guess hyperfrigility if you will,
Speaker 1: or it is a more sound engineering framework then just
Speaker 1: trying to stuff everything into an S two for instance.
Speaker 1: So that's the argument of like those that are making Lightning,
Speaker 1: those that are working on RSK, which is a bitcoin
Speaker 1: smart contracting platform.
Speaker 3: And then I suppose that's also.
Speaker 1: The argument of, like, for instance, we need ali of
Speaker 1: blockstack or stacks. Now they they're you're they're creating NFTs
Speaker 1: all the bitcoin blockchain now on that front, so there
Speaker 1: is some work on a decentralized Internet. And then I
Speaker 1: wrote back in twenty thirteen in an article called the
Speaker 1: Internet is down the Bitcoin Uh, the Internet is down?
Speaker 3: Bitcoin over no, And so yes.
Speaker 2: This is what I'm glad we're going to go to that.
Speaker 2: I wanted to touch it because the number one, number
Speaker 2: one thing everybody says as well, if the Internet is down,
Speaker 2: you lose all your bigcoin bitcoins destroyed, which is a
Speaker 2: huge misunderstanding that. No, it's not that.
Speaker 3: So let's get into that.
Speaker 1: I write in this piece I cover how people could
Speaker 1: theoretically create networks using wireless routers, PCs, laptops, and ultramobile
Speaker 1: devices like head cell phones, which have the capacity to
Speaker 1: become part of an ad hoc network whereby all network
Speaker 1: devices transmit the data of the network. These networks can
Speaker 1: become very big and are not difficult to set up,
Speaker 1: apparently for some I imagine probably be pretty difficult for
Speaker 1: me to set up. So I wrote this a long
Speaker 1: time ago. The tech savy can use such a network
Speaker 1: to host temporary websites and chatrooms. Apple computers have an
Speaker 1: easy to use functionality built in which includes the pre
Speaker 1: installed iChat which will automatically run an ad hoc rendezvut
Speaker 1: chat room among anybody on the network.
Speaker 3: It's me.
Speaker 1: So now many would argue, well, these hardware is a problem,
Speaker 1: and that is and I know that there is a
Speaker 1: gentleman working on a company that's already live.
Speaker 3: You can buy the products now. It's called purism.
Speaker 1: I think it's like pur dot ism, purism laptops, and
Speaker 1: he's creating an alternative to these major companies that essentially
Speaker 1: have a quasi monopoly on the hardware. Theoretically, then we
Speaker 1: got this ad hoc network of ideally these like Purism
Speaker 1: or you know, uh, we'll call them like boutique hardware manufacturers.
Speaker 1: You can also build large bridge wireless networks with wireless
Speaker 1: access point devices such as link C's wireless bridge networks
Speaker 1: can effectively create a local area network or a private
Speaker 1: Internet for all users within a range. Most access points
Speaker 1: will cover a one hundred meter area. And if your
Speaker 1: wireless device is built to support this wireless standard, I
Speaker 1: guess it's the AO two point one point one end
Speaker 1: wireless standard. Do you enjoy nearly a five hundred meter
Speaker 1: coverage area for each access point for instance? And I
Speaker 1: guess you can even use Nintendo DS supports Wi Fi
Speaker 1: and its own wireless protocols, So there are options. And
Speaker 1: you want to mention that if the Internet goes down,
Speaker 1: then your bitcoin also are not destroyed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that's just because it's such a common mistake
Speaker 2: in bizarre objection. I mean, I guess it depends on
Speaker 2: where you have your bitcoin conceivably, but I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't you know, I would never I would store on
Speaker 2: you know, cold storage, hardwallet. That's that's what I do.
Speaker 2: So you know, unless the device is destroyed or hacked,
Speaker 2: I mean, no, you're not going to lose your bitcoin.
Speaker 2: And you know that. And I'm not an IT tech person,
Speaker 2: but you know, my basic understanding of the network is
Speaker 2: that you know, the bitcoin network is distributed amongst ten
Speaker 2: thousand different nodes. Some of those nodes are house the
Speaker 2: public ledger. So unless every node is destroyed like that,
Speaker 2: there's which is very unrealistic, very unlikely, And if that
Speaker 2: does happen, then there's much bigger problems in the world anyway.
Speaker 2: I mean, if that happens, you're not going to be
Speaker 2: able to access your FIAT bank either, you know what
Speaker 2: I mean, You're not gonna be able to use your
Speaker 2: banking app if the whole Internet goes down. So you know, yes,
Speaker 2: in that case, the gold or silver, if there was
Speaker 2: a you know, a terrible event like that, those would
Speaker 2: be the most logical means to go to next. So
Speaker 2: you know, that's why I don't believe in only having
Speaker 2: one thing. I don't. I don't know why people think
Speaker 2: that you can't have bitcoin and gold and silver. That's
Speaker 2: another mistake that people make because like, like if you
Speaker 2: say that bitcoin is even in my view it is
Speaker 2: a superior way of doing things than even gold, that
Speaker 2: doesn't mean gold's bad. You have, you know, multiple ways
Speaker 2: to hedge against multiple bad scenarios. So yeah, if things
Speaker 2: get really bad, then yeah, we would want to have
Speaker 2: gold and silver. We want to have assets, We want
Speaker 2: to have things that are not even necessarily connected to
Speaker 2: the Internet or relate to the Internet. But that's a
Speaker 2: very unlikely scenario that the whole Internet goes away, or
Speaker 2: that all the blockchain computers are destroyed. It's just very unlikely.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I don't think we have to worry about that.
Speaker 2: And in regard to that, it just matters where people
Speaker 2: are storing their bitcoin, which you know, I would definitely say,
Speaker 2: you know, use a hard wallet in that red m.
Speaker 1: Hm, because some of the scenarios that you were outlining,
Speaker 1: really you could argue that a coinbase or a Kraken
Speaker 1: or some of these other centralized exchanges are a betting terrorists,
Speaker 1: cyber terrorists, and therefore we're gonna have.
Speaker 3: To shut them down and confiscate everything.
Speaker 1: So now, what gave you confidence that bitcoin is a
Speaker 1: product of the free market or of just spontaneous order
Speaker 1: or of some of a god given gift as opposed
Speaker 1: to like a honeypot or an intelligence operation. Of course,
Speaker 1: there's stories of Gavin and Dreesen and early bitcoin developer
Speaker 1: visiting the CIA to explain to them what bitcoin was
Speaker 1: all about. Shortly there after, Satoshi leaves the project, and
Speaker 1: then there's been a long standing rumor that the NSA
Speaker 1: created Bitcoin, and I know a lot of the American
Speaker 1: conservatives automatically say that it's like it's probably got some
Speaker 1: nefarious back story.
Speaker 3: So what gave you the confidence that this isn't the case?
Speaker 2: Great question. So when I first heard about bitcoin, that
Speaker 2: was kind of my default was just to assume that
Speaker 2: anything like that has to be inherently bad or evil.
Speaker 2: And I didn't even wrote a blog piece maybe in
Speaker 2: twenty thirteen or fourteen saying that like I didn't know
Speaker 2: anything about it. Really about was just like I would
Speaker 2: be weary of this, This is, you know, some kind
Speaker 2: of a trick. And that was because at that time,
Speaker 2: you know, it was right around you know, Obama had
Speaker 2: been in for a year, and I think everybody's expectations
Speaker 2: about the economy in general were pretty bad with Obama
Speaker 2: and then I think that you know that we'd had
Speaker 2: the collapse housing collapse in two thousand and eight and nine,
Speaker 2: and so everybody there was just a very dismal outlook.
Speaker 2: You know, the public confidence was very dismal in terms
Speaker 2: of the economy during the Obama administration. So all of
Speaker 2: those things probably affected why I was just very reticent initially,
Speaker 2: and I just didn't know what I was talking about.
Speaker 2: And over time, what did I hear. I don't know
Speaker 2: that I even heard one specific thing, but I remember
Speaker 2: in twenty seventeen, when I noticed bitcoin going up, I
Speaker 2: was like, well, you know, why is it going up
Speaker 2: if it's you know, this this big scam, and you know,
Speaker 2: are they just pumping at the dump it? And I
Speaker 2: remember all of the news at that time was really
Speaker 2: just hammering away at it. So my first suspicion that
Speaker 2: maybe this isn't that bad is well, if the system
Speaker 2: is constantly attacking it, trying to destroy it, constantly talking
Speaker 2: about how much of a scam it is, I know,
Speaker 2: the system is constantly lying, well, why why would they
Speaker 2: be saying that? So if the news is just blowney
Speaker 2: and the central banks hate bitcoin, why, I mean, is
Speaker 2: this a long scheme of oh, they're really attacking bitcoin
Speaker 2: because they want you to get bitcoin, so and so
Speaker 2: that I just started doubting that approach, that it wasn't
Speaker 2: that wasn't very likely and very tenable. Yes, maybe they
Speaker 2: could be playing a sixty six degree chess game where
Speaker 2: they want you to buy a bitcoins so they can
Speaker 2: destroy it down the road. But it just didn't make
Speaker 2: sense because the more I would hear you know, these
Speaker 2: boomer Charlie Mungers and Dan Pena or whatever his name is,
Speaker 2: and Warren Buffett, when I would hear them attack it,
Speaker 2: I would hear them saying stuff that made no sense.
Speaker 2: Say and no, they didn't know what they were talking about.
Speaker 2: So more I would learn about bitcoin, the more, well,
Speaker 2: they don't know what they're talking why that doesn't make sense.
Speaker 2: It's a stupid it's a bad argument. And as a philosopher,
Speaker 2: I try to recognize bad arguments. That's what we do,
Speaker 2: is look for fallacies. And so I would just notice
Speaker 2: more and more bad argumentation, bad reasons. And then I
Speaker 2: listened to Max for many, many years, even when I
Speaker 2: was skeptical a bitcoin, I hear I heard him talking
Speaker 2: about it way early on when it was like a dollar.
Speaker 2: I was still listening to Max's show all the time,
Speaker 2: and I knew his you know, take on central banking,
Speaker 2: and I remember in twenty fourteen or fifteen, I went
Speaker 2: through about maybe one hundred episodes of Max's shows, and
Speaker 2: I would take notes to try to learn more about economics.
Speaker 2: I went and I listened to hours and hours of
Speaker 2: Peter Schiff's podcast. I would listen to his lectures taking notes,
Speaker 2: and so I just really wanted to learn more about economics,
Speaker 2: and the more I heard from Max, I just felt
Speaker 2: like he had a much better argument, a better case
Speaker 2: for a bitcoin as opposed to the things I was
Speaker 2: hearing from critics like Peter Schiff, who I still liked
Speaker 2: on gold and stuff. But I read Peter Shifts books
Speaker 2: over the years too, and I just felt like Max
Speaker 2: had better augmentation. As a philosopher, I could judge who
Speaker 2: had the better argument, who had a more logical presentation overall,
Speaker 2: And so eventually I just got into it. In terms
Speaker 2: of it from an investing perspective, I wasn't really that
Speaker 2: philosophically invested. I was just interested in how can I
Speaker 2: put the money that I'm making into something that's not
Speaker 2: going to lose value through inflation, you know, crazy inflation
Speaker 2: over a year or over two years, And so it
Speaker 2: was just purely pragmatically motivated. In twenty seven. I got
Speaker 2: scared again when we had the crash in twenty seventeen
Speaker 2: from nineteen thousand down to three or whatever it was eventually,
Speaker 2: and so but I was still very ignorant. I didn't
Speaker 2: know much about it, what it was while we were
Speaker 2: doing this, and then over time I would kind of,
Speaker 2: you know, buy a little more and kind of play
Speaker 2: around and experimenting with trading a little bit here and
Speaker 2: there and learning more about it, and eventually it just
Speaker 2: I saw. Another thing that was a big vindicator for me.
Speaker 2: Was vindication was how you would if you followed this
Speaker 2: stuff from news in twenty ten, eleven, twelve to now,
Speaker 2: you have seen the same thood recycled. And so when
Speaker 2: I saw, like, I've seen this for twelve years, ten years,
Speaker 2: this is a stupid argument that they just recycle every
Speaker 2: couple of years or even every year. And so one
Speaker 2: by one, all of the objections just fell away, and
Speaker 2: it was just like, that's a dumb argument. That's I've
Speaker 2: heard that for twelve years. China, Oh, John, and they
Speaker 2: just hear the same dumb arguments over and over and
Speaker 2: over it's a Ponzi scheme, and you realize, no, the
Speaker 2: fiat system is a Ponzi scheme, not Bitcoin, right, So
Speaker 2: over and over and over it would, they would. The
Speaker 2: dejections just fell away. And then I met certain people
Speaker 2: who were involved in coding, who were involved in early bitcoin,
Speaker 2: who were involved in engineering, and they explained a lot
Speaker 2: of stuff I didn't know and just made it even
Speaker 2: more coherent and clear for me. So it's a learning
Speaker 2: curve that we all go through. Not that I've gotten,
Speaker 2: I mean, that's still a lot I don't know, but
Speaker 2: you know, that's what it takes to be ahead of
Speaker 2: the ahead of the curve. That's what it's. I mean,
Speaker 2: even twenty seventeen is for most people ahead of the curve,
Speaker 2: because you know, we're still early in bitcoin. I think
Speaker 2: I think we're going to see obviously bitcoin going to
Speaker 2: I don't know when, but you know, ultimately eventually be
Speaker 2: a million dollars, probably in five to ten years at least,
Speaker 2: especially if the existing system continues with its spiraling out
Speaker 2: of control madness. So yeah, that's a long Sorry, that's
Speaker 2: a long winded reply to just a long period of research.
Speaker 2: The more that I got involved in, you know, trading
Speaker 2: cryptos and moving this there and doing this and that,
Speaker 2: experimenting with this, the more the more confident you get.
Speaker 2: I remember the first time I bought the coiners really nervous, like,
Speaker 2: are they gonna take my money? My money's going to disappear?
Speaker 2: But so over time, you you know, you get confident
Speaker 2: and comfortable with it, and you're not as worried. So
Speaker 2: it was just a just education.
Speaker 1: Really Max posits this as like a new renaissance. Do
Speaker 1: you have the same hope or outlook?
Speaker 2: So I think I listened to a lot of Michael
Speaker 2: Saylor's talks and podcasts, many many hours of that over
Speaker 2: the last year, and he made a lot of good
Speaker 2: arguments why they could be the case. I think the
Speaker 2: potential is there, but whether we will act on that
Speaker 2: is I don't know.
Speaker 1: What's your hope for the future of humanity.
Speaker 3: A return to.
Speaker 2: Traditional organic ways of living, I think is the best hope.
Speaker 2: And obviously, you know, economy is a huge part of that.
Speaker 2: The way that we what we live for diet, where
Speaker 2: we live, not being in mega cities, not that it's
Speaker 2: inherently wrong to be in a city. But I think
Speaker 2: as things degrade as they try to bring in this reset,
Speaker 2: big cities are going to be really difficult to be in.
Speaker 2: So it might be better for people, at least in
Speaker 2: the near term, to you know, try how to get
Speaker 2: into the countryside. That kind of a thing. I usually
Speaker 2: advocate that kind of stuff, you know, having as being
Speaker 2: as self sufficient as you can in terms of feeding yourself.
Speaker 2: Most of my friends are into homesteading. I live in
Speaker 2: the country and I don't have a homestead. I'm not
Speaker 2: a farmer. I'm not a farming kind of dude. But
Speaker 2: a lot of people have found that to be a
Speaker 2: good avenue, especially if they have, you know, a lot
Speaker 2: of kids. So I believe in self defense. I believe
Speaker 2: in you know, owning guns, goal, living outside of cities,
Speaker 2: having your own land, being as self sufficient as you
Speaker 2: can in terms of not on the grid, so to speak.
Speaker 2: That's the best hope for us now and in the
Speaker 2: long run.
Speaker 1: One of the refrains about bitcoin is that it empowers
Speaker 1: everyone to be their own bank, or be their own
Speaker 1: central bank. Does that play into this idea of self
Speaker 1: sufficiency in your opinion?
Speaker 2: Absolutely? I mean when you understand what a central bank
Speaker 2: is in terms of the scammery and the Fiat theft,
Speaker 2: then you realize, well, now, wait a minute, shouldn't I
Speaker 2: be in charge of my own value? Shouldn't I be
Speaker 2: in charge of my own capital accumulation? Yes? Why must
Speaker 2: I have this amorphous, shady thing staring over me? And
Speaker 2: I think the way you call it a cartel? That reminds
Speaker 2: me that in Quigley's traging hope, that's what he says.
Speaker 2: He says that the official geopolitical model for the system
Speaker 2: that we're under is a cartel. It's a central banking cartel.
Speaker 2: So it's an organized crime cartel. And when you understand
Speaker 2: it that way, then you understand exactly what you're saying.
Speaker 2: It's basically another type of slavery. It's a covert type
Speaker 2: of slavery. So yeah, shouldn't I be in charge of
Speaker 2: the capital and the money that I make just as
Speaker 2: much as I'm in charge of the land that I own.
Speaker 1: So silver is written up in the Constitution. We're supposed
Speaker 1: to be on a biometallic standard gold and silver. I
Speaker 1: still believe the American conservative movement should adopt silver. With
Speaker 1: an activist mindset. I think in the countryside you're a
Speaker 1: lot closer to getting small business owners to accept silver
Speaker 1: for their products and services than in the city. And
Speaker 1: I think that's actually less of a pipe room than
Speaker 1: many people think. Look at what we've seen with bitcoin,
Speaker 1: for instance, over the last ten years, and I think
Speaker 1: that the silver community can adopt this attitude that the
Speaker 1: bitcoin community has taken. And some older critiques of Bitcoin
Speaker 1: that I've heard from older gentlemen is something like, look,
Speaker 1: I'm a little old to be getting into that bitcoin stuff,
Speaker 1: because that's the equivalent of storming the beaches at Normandy.
Speaker 3: And that's why we need young people so that they're
Speaker 3: the ones that take up these projects.
Speaker 1: And I still while thinking, well, I think gold and silver,
Speaker 1: particularly silver bugs could adopt this mentality, and in many
Speaker 1: ways that mentality was drained from that movement and into Bitcoin.
Speaker 1: With that aside, Bitcoin has adopted that movement. It is
Speaker 1: essentially skeptical of central banks. It's a skeptical of the
Speaker 1: debt based system. It's always ahead of the curb on
Speaker 1: the economic news as well. Inflation was a story at
Speaker 1: Bitcoin twenty twenty one, before it was the story in
Speaker 1: every popular culture. Exactly So that said, any further comments
Speaker 1: on the world.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think just again that when we one of
Speaker 2: the things I've highlighted in the last couple of years
Speaker 2: is studying organized crime and studying the international geopolitical power
Speaker 2: clicks and power blocks, and through studying organized crime at
Speaker 2: a local level, the history of the Sicilian mafia, the
Speaker 2: history of other mafia is how they work, how they operate,
Speaker 2: how that cartel works, as you're talking about, as well
Speaker 2: as drug cartels for example, we start to realize that, wow,
Speaker 2: they seem to be really similar to the central banks, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, they're really just the big cartels, right, and
Speaker 2: then there's the little cartel. So when we begin to
Speaker 2: understand that that's really what's going on, that's the reality
Speaker 2: of things on the ground, then we can reevaluate our
Speaker 2: approach to the world on the basis of the hard facts,
Speaker 2: the hard reality. And that's my bigcoint is an answer
Speaker 2: economically speaking to a lot of the problems. It's not
Speaker 2: every an answer to everything, but and by extension, yes,
Speaker 2: gold and silver as well. And that's really the takeaway here.
Speaker 2: So what I do a lot of times is I
Speaker 2: lecture through the writings of the elite so called for
Speaker 2: the last one hundred years, kind of do a summary
Speaker 2: of those books because a lot of people don't have
Speaker 2: time to read all these big, boring global elite books.
Speaker 2: And what you start to realize when you read fifty
Speaker 2: sixty of these is that's really what's going on. It's
Speaker 2: cartels writing things, keeping people in the dark, tricking people,
Speaker 2: using all the scams at their disposal to steal your
Speaker 2: value and your energy over time. That's it. That's how
Speaker 2: it works. That's how the system works. So educating people,
Speaker 2: getting people to make the right decisions, getting people to
Speaker 2: one thing I didn't grow up with that Bitcoin and
Speaker 2: gold and silver taught me it was saving because they
Speaker 2: don't incentivize saving when you have what a banks give you,
Speaker 2: like a negative interest rare, like like you get like
Speaker 2: a two percent say, I don't know a zero point five.
Speaker 2: I don't know what it is, but it's not even
Speaker 2: worth And that's on purpose, as the some of the
Speaker 2: white peoples even say, is that they want to de
Speaker 2: incentivize saving money. And one of the things that you
Speaker 2: mentioned HG. Wells and like the socialist technocrats from one
Speaker 2: hundred years ago, they discussed that when they roll out
Speaker 2: the universal basic income. One of the tricks it would
Speaker 2: be to have the UBI that you get it goes
Speaker 2: away after a week, and that means you can't save
Speaker 2: it up because for you to save up wealth, value,
Speaker 2: energy over time time is for you to have your
Speaker 2: own firewall, to have a defense mechanism against the tyrannical system.
Speaker 2: And obviously one of the if the system can disarm
Speaker 2: you from that, then you're no longer a threat. So
Speaker 2: that's that's the key takeaway here.
Speaker 1: I think we've had the honor and privilege of sitting
Speaker 1: down today with j Dyer of jasanalysis dot com. You
Speaker 1: can also find him on YouTube at Jay Dyer. Is
Speaker 1: there anywhere else people can find you Jay.
Speaker 2: All the other ones just under my name, and then yeah,
Speaker 2: you can find me also on Rockfinn. Rockfin is a
Speaker 2: really awesome free speech based platform. So a lot of
Speaker 2: my content, a lot of exclusive stuff is over there
Speaker 2: on Rockfin is free to sign up. And then there's
Speaker 2: you know, if you it's kind of like Netflix, or
Speaker 2: if you pay you get access to all the creators
Speaker 2: uh paywall content. And then I also host the fourth
Speaker 2: hour of the A L e X j O n
Speaker 2: E S show.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us today, absolutely thank you,
Speaker 1: and thank you everyone for listening.
Speaker 3: Then