Speaker 1: The conversation you are about to jump into is one
Speaker 1: of the best conversations I've had on this show in
Speaker 1: this channel. Now, it's actually the longest. I think it's
Speaker 1: like twice as long as like my average interview, and
Speaker 1: that's because we go into some deep stuff. Now. I
Speaker 1: know this might not be the typical content that I
Speaker 1: put forth where I'm talking really specifically about financial stuff,
Speaker 1: but this is a bigger level picture and it's super
Speaker 1: important for you to have. Uh, it's maybe one of
Speaker 1: the most important ones that I would recommend that you
Speaker 1: listen to. UM. It's what I learned a long time ago,
Speaker 1: twenty five years ago from Robert Kiyosaki, and he said that, UM,
Speaker 1: imagine a cup like a glass, and you have the
Speaker 1: glass and you can put the contents inside the glasses
Speaker 1: the context and what you put inside is the content.
Speaker 1: And we don't Eventually we can't put any more continents.
Speaker 1: We need more context. We need a bigger cup. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly what I try to do on this channel.
Speaker 1: And that's exactly what this interview does. So while it
Speaker 1: might not be the most tactical information that you want today,
Speaker 1: it is that important. It's the big picture stuff. It's
Speaker 1: how you can change your thinking to change your life.
Speaker 1: Of course, we do get into how to discern truth,
Speaker 1: how to think through complex things to make them UM simple,
Speaker 1: what I try to do all the time. We also
Speaker 1: talk about UM, where the future is going, what are
Speaker 1: the different systems that we have, UM, what can we do,
Speaker 1: what is the hope that we have for the future,
Speaker 1: And then ultimately asked him at the end to give
Speaker 1: me his forecast for how this plays out over the
Speaker 1: next decade. UM. This is a conversation that I really
Speaker 1: really hope that you'll listen to. UM. It is available
Speaker 1: on podcast as well. Just go to search Market Disruptors
Speaker 1: podcast and you can listen to it because it is
Speaker 1: pretty long, but it's super important. So let's go ahead
Speaker 1: and just jump right in. Hey, everyone, welcome to another
Speaker 1: episode of the Market Disruptors Show. Today, I'm sitting down
Speaker 1: with Alex Fetzki, and he is the CEO founder of Amber,
Speaker 1: which is a bitcoin service. But more importantly, he is
Speaker 1: a very very well UM he's a very well respected
Speaker 1: thinker writer. He's been writing some amazing pieces that have
Speaker 1: really caught my attention. I really want to dig into
Speaker 1: these and discuss them. With everyone today. Um, he just
Speaker 1: wrote a new piece the Bitcoin Times. I think it
Speaker 1: just came out yesterday. I'm gonna link to it down below,
Speaker 1: and I would advise everyone to go check that out
Speaker 1: and read his work. So I'll link to it down below.
Speaker 1: But Alex, welcome to the show. Mark, thank you very
Speaker 1: much for sending me on men. I really appreciate it. Yeah. So, UM,
Speaker 1: I'm obviously, like I said, I've been kind of following
Speaker 1: the stuff that you've done. I think you kind of
Speaker 1: caught my eye about a year ago, and UM, you
Speaker 1: talk a lot about breaking things down to their most
Speaker 1: basic truths, um, and so they're kind of easy to understand.
Speaker 1: And then obviously you're kind of painting this future of
Speaker 1: where we might go and hopefully ways we can prevent that.
Speaker 1: So that's what I want to kind of talk about today.
Speaker 1: So for everybody that's listening, that's kind of where we're
Speaker 1: gonna cover. But why don't you go ahead and just
Speaker 1: uh give us a little bit of background on what
Speaker 1: you're doing and and kind of what you're writing about
Speaker 1: right now. Cool. So, So I think what you mentioned
Speaker 1: there about breaking things down to like based truths is
Speaker 1: you know a lot of people. We've been sort of
Speaker 1: brainwashed through what I call feat academia too, to sit
Speaker 1: here and believe that we need a source for everything.
Speaker 1: You know that that truth is all relative, morality is relative,
Speaker 1: and everything is relative, so there's no actual truth, and
Speaker 1: that you know, we need to do empirical kind of
Speaker 1: testing for everything. Um you know, you see these academic
Speaker 1: monkeys who are like you, do you have a source
Speaker 1: for that? And it's just it's so ridiculous because there's
Speaker 1: there's so much in life that like that are that
Speaker 1: are praxeological truths or that are what what you know
Speaker 1: is called and philosophy like a priori truths where you
Speaker 1: don't need proof too to be able to deduce if
Speaker 1: something makes sense or not. You can you can quickly
Speaker 1: dismiss something without any evidence if you can find if
Speaker 1: it's consistent with what's called an a priori truth, which
Speaker 1: is true whether or not you test it, whether or
Speaker 1: not you knew the answer, didn't know the answer. We
Speaker 1: didn't even know the question beforehand. And like mathematics is
Speaker 1: like an a priori science, it's you know, one plus
Speaker 1: one equal to long before we figured it out. Um, So,
Speaker 1: so that exists you know, and and other a priori
Speaker 1: truths of things like um, you know, like time moves forward,
Speaker 1: you know, you can't move back. So something that happens later,
Speaker 1: you know, is a consequence of something you know that
Speaker 1: happened before. So you know, we have directionality. So so's
Speaker 1: there's a bunch of things. Another good example would be,
Speaker 1: you know, more of the same thing is worth more
Speaker 1: then less of the same thing, so so so you
Speaker 1: don't have to you know that when we look at
Speaker 1: ustrain economics and all this sorts of stuff, you know
Speaker 1: that we can build these accurate theories where we can
Speaker 1: predict what happens with certain interventions in an economy or
Speaker 1: in a system, not by having to empirically test it,
Speaker 1: because it's impossible to empirically test an economy because every
Speaker 1: human being is different and every moment in time is different,
Speaker 1: so you can't actually go back and apply any models
Speaker 1: to it. So what we do is we use praxeology,
Speaker 1: which is a which is a non empirical science to say,
Speaker 1: based on these sets of truths which you know, we
Speaker 1: can deduce to their to their to their base level.
Speaker 1: If we do this, if we behave like X or
Speaker 1: Y or z what direction will that lead us in
Speaker 1: or what consequences may that have? And the world seems
Speaker 1: to have lost this, Like the amount of people that
Speaker 1: I've asked that a young these days that have gone
Speaker 1: and studied economics at university and I say, have you
Speaker 1: did you guys do a module on praxeology And they're like,
Speaker 1: what's that? Yeah, like the most important, like I think,
Speaker 1: the most important to sciences on the planet of praxeology
Speaker 1: and math, and like, you know, people are not taught
Speaker 1: any of this crap anymore. So, you know, we're just
Speaker 1: taught to regurgitate whatever crap is written by another person
Speaker 1: who's regurgitating someone else's crap. And we've got we're just
Speaker 1: referencing garbage on top of garbage and top garbage. And
Speaker 1: we we live in a world now where there is
Speaker 1: an objective truth anymore. Everything is relative, um, and we
Speaker 1: just you know, we're swimming in a sea of lives
Speaker 1: and see a bullshit. So yeah, well it's coming back
Speaker 1: to your original quote. There is like I try and
Speaker 1: break things down to these base truths, um, and we
Speaker 1: can when we can start from there, we can you know,
Speaker 1: remain consistent and come up with ideas, concepts, rules, UM,
Speaker 1: and we can observe how best to to live and
Speaker 1: to cooperate and to act as human beings. UM. I
Speaker 1: just think that's missing. Yeah, that that that was great. Now.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of people might hear that and go, WHOA,
Speaker 1: that was kind of deep. I'm not exactly sure what
Speaker 1: what that means until we're gonna dig into that. But
Speaker 1: just for everybody listening, I want to really talk about
Speaker 1: where UM, because we have these problems today where we're
Speaker 1: headed because of that UM. Talk about this kind of
Speaker 1: totalitarian UM nightmare that we're kind of starting to have
Speaker 1: where the Nation States are just having all this power,
Speaker 1: and then what we can do today to protect ourselves
Speaker 1: and then change that. So make sure if you're listening,
Speaker 1: you're gonna stick around for that because it's gonna get good.
Speaker 1: But before we do what I want to what I
Speaker 1: wanna do is just you've just mentioned that people have
Speaker 1: lost this ability to break that down, and so I
Speaker 1: also see the same thing where people can't think on
Speaker 1: their own, and so maybe we could just talk through
Speaker 1: how people could actually change that. Obviously not sending people
Speaker 1: back to UM University, but I think you could give
Speaker 1: us some basic tips of how people could start to
Speaker 1: find truth and how they could start thinking. So if
Speaker 1: we can start with that and give people some ways
Speaker 1: to think clearly and have some truth, then we can
Speaker 1: show them where the world is going and how we
Speaker 1: can solve it. Maybe. So what do you think about that, Like,
Speaker 1: how can people think more critically and find that truth?
Speaker 1: I think one of the the word that comes to
Speaker 1: mind for me at the moment is responsibility. And I
Speaker 1: think one of the things we're taught in today's day
Speaker 1: and age is this this kind of palming off of
Speaker 1: our responsibility or our personal agency. We kind of give
Speaker 1: it to someone else to make decisions for us all
Speaker 1: the time. It's like, you know, instead of pursuing what
Speaker 1: you want to learn your you know, you when you're
Speaker 1: at your most you know, individualist and curious and spongy
Speaker 1: as a child, you're dumped into basically a sausage machine
Speaker 1: of a state indoctrination system which is called schooling, and
Speaker 1: you have all your individually individuality bashed out of you
Speaker 1: for twelve years um and you're all taught the same
Speaker 1: ship as everyone else. And you know, you come out
Speaker 1: on the other end, and of course you can't think
Speaker 1: for yourself because you didn't choose at any point in
Speaker 1: time what you wanted to pursue. There was no natural
Speaker 1: inclination towards a particular thing. You know. It's it's very
Speaker 1: rare that, you know, parents are wise or intelligent enough
Speaker 1: to sort of give the room for their children to
Speaker 1: sort of move into things that they want to take
Speaker 1: responsibility towards pursuing. And you know when, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: really evident when you look at people like Gilla Musk
Speaker 1: and all that sort of stuff, you look at their
Speaker 1: younger years and what their parents were like and how
Speaker 1: they helped nurture their own individuality. They are the people
Speaker 1: who are changing the world, not the ones who just
Speaker 1: became drones going through school. So like, and to that
Speaker 1: point real quick, it's also interesting to see that a
Speaker 1: lot of the people that you mentioned are actual college dropouts.
Speaker 1: They actually didn't go all the way through college and
Speaker 1: get droned even more correct correct. So, like, I think
Speaker 1: individual responsibility is such an important thing. Like I mean,
Speaker 1: I call Bitcoin the renaissance of responsibility because everything it does,
Speaker 1: it like it puts the individual back at the locus
Speaker 1: of the decision making point. So if we look at
Speaker 1: the way the world structured today is monetary decisions are
Speaker 1: made by at you, by someone else, you know, political decisions, war, medical,
Speaker 1: Who you should hang out like, I mean, particularly twenties,
Speaker 1: fucking wild. You know, you're not allowed to hang out
Speaker 1: with anyone. You're not allowed to choose what's healthy for
Speaker 1: you or not. You're not allowed to train, you know,
Speaker 1: You're you're told who, how many people you can see,
Speaker 1: You're told who you can spend time with. Like it's
Speaker 1: everything that defines an individual as a human being is
Speaker 1: being stripped. All of your personal agency with personal responsibilities
Speaker 1: taken away from you. And it's it's wild. Because I
Speaker 1: had to chat with this this girl that I was
Speaker 1: sort of seeing a little while back, and she was
Speaker 1: talking about how recently, you know, she's been reading books
Speaker 1: about how, you know, setting intention and it's a bit woo,
Speaker 1: you know, like I used to be in this into
Speaker 1: that whole you know, setting intentions of the universe is
Speaker 1: going to bring you all this stuff. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't buy into a lot of that crap anymore. But
Speaker 1: she's sort of going on her journey, and I understand
Speaker 1: the journey she's got to go through. But what's important
Speaker 1: about that only is a lot of that woo stuff
Speaker 1: kind of the the essence of what it teaches where
Speaker 1: there's some truth is this idea that it brings you
Speaker 1: back at cause in terms of the decisions you're making
Speaker 1: in life, and you as the manifesto of your life
Speaker 1: in some way, shape or form, uh in you know,
Speaker 1: some way responsible and are in more control of your life.
Speaker 1: And I was asking because she said I feel much
Speaker 1: better since I started thinking this way and doing this,
Speaker 1: and I inquired, I was like why, It's just like
Speaker 1: I don't really know, and then I sort of helped
Speaker 1: her extract the y and the wire is because when
Speaker 1: you're responsible for yourself, you're truly free, like response like
Speaker 1: freedom can only come from responsibility. When you give up
Speaker 1: your responsibility to someone else and you give your ability
Speaker 1: to choose, which I believe is your only human right,
Speaker 1: you diminish your own freedom, You make your your world smaller, you,
Speaker 1: you close up your circle of influence or your you know,
Speaker 1: your your comfort zone, and you become less of a human.
Speaker 1: So so it destroys you from within. So I think
Speaker 1: for people to start thinking for themselves, I think they
Speaker 1: need to take more responsibility across different elements, and just
Speaker 1: stop listening to what some institution like especially stop listening
Speaker 1: to fucking the news the experts. As soon as you
Speaker 1: see hear the word expert, run in the opposite direction,
Speaker 1: like run for your life or academics or intelligency or
Speaker 1: any of that sort of crap. Like find people who
Speaker 1: live what they talk or live what they preach um,
Speaker 1: you know, discover what their principles start and then apply
Speaker 1: those principles, Like look for the same type of principle
Speaker 1: across different areas and then apply it to your own life.
Speaker 1: And take responsibility from the decisions, Like that's how we
Speaker 1: become better human beings, not by giving our decision making
Speaker 1: powers away to others. Yeah, that's a great point, and
Speaker 1: it does really start with that responsibility. And to your point,
Speaker 1: the program she went through or some of the stuff
Speaker 1: you were into, and I've been through lots of personal development.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of us are always trying to
Speaker 1: be better person, a better person, but they always talk about, hey, uh,
Speaker 1: you are not a victim right your past. You can't
Speaker 1: change your past, but you can change your future. And
Speaker 1: it all starts with taking responsibility today to make the future,
Speaker 1: what you want to be versus what the world is
Speaker 1: telling you is it's not your fault you're overweight, you
Speaker 1: can't help it. It's not your fault that you're poor.
Speaker 1: And that's what we really see, especially today with politics,
Speaker 1: is you can't get ahead because you're a minority, you
Speaker 1: can't get ahead because you're a woman, you can't get
Speaker 1: ahead because of your sexual preference. And so if they
Speaker 1: can make you that victim mentality, then you need that savior.
Speaker 1: But really we're not victims. We take responsibility. So I
Speaker 1: love I love that approach absolutely. Yeah. I think I
Speaker 1: think the victimization, like I call it, we live in
Speaker 1: a world of oppression. Olympics, you know, everyone is arguing
Speaker 1: about who the fok is more impressed. You know, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: not impressed, oppressed. So it's like I'm oppressed because I
Speaker 1: have brown skin. Well I'm oppressed because i have black skin.
Speaker 1: Well I'm oppressed because I'm a woman and i have
Speaker 1: black skin. I'm oppressed because I'm a woman, i have
Speaker 1: black skin, I'm a single mom. It's like, well, I'm
Speaker 1: more oppressed than you because I have you know, i'm
Speaker 1: a woman, i have black skin, I'm a single mom
Speaker 1: and my kids retarded. It's like we're going to keep
Speaker 1: like arguing about who which minority is more oppressed until
Speaker 1: we get down to like the individual anyway. And it's like,
Speaker 1: you know that this is what we've been talking about
Speaker 1: from the beginning. It's like the individual is the core
Speaker 1: unit and at the end of the day that there
Speaker 1: is no one like we can't you can't live in
Speaker 1: a society where you know, one group because they argue
Speaker 1: more oppressed than others, get some fucking benefit. It's like,
Speaker 1: get rid of all of that and put the responsibility
Speaker 1: in the individual's hands to do something about it. And
Speaker 1: then you know, you have a bottom up approach to change,
Speaker 1: as opposed to this decree top down kind of approach,
Speaker 1: which assume that everyone is a poll victim, is some loser, um,
Speaker 1: and at the end of the day, some poll group
Speaker 1: has to pay for you know, the redistribution to everybody else,
Speaker 1: and you know that group has changed over time. But
Speaker 1: it's yeah, it's it's it's sickening, man. So the first
Speaker 1: step is that people have to take responsibility for themselves,
Speaker 1: and somehow we need to convince people that they need
Speaker 1: to do that. UM. And I think. Henry Ford said
Speaker 1: that thinking is hard work. That's why so few people
Speaker 1: do it. Do it. And if you understand your body,
Speaker 1: actually thinking requires a ton of energy, and so your
Speaker 1: body doesn't even like to think. Your body wants to
Speaker 1: turn everything into habits, right, so it can go through
Speaker 1: these motions without thinking. So it's almost like this human
Speaker 1: nature is to not think, um because it uses too
Speaker 1: much energy. So we kind of have to force ourselves
Speaker 1: to do that. But but it's super important to do.
Speaker 1: Now if someone wants to take the responsibility and now
Speaker 1: they're getting this information and they're seeing experts telling them
Speaker 1: this thing or that thing, is there some principles that
Speaker 1: you have that could decipher that that could help them
Speaker 1: think about that critically, How they could break that down
Speaker 1: or something? Mm hmm. I think you were going into
Speaker 1: an example before we started talking about like the different
Speaker 1: layers of thinking, kind of like on the table is
Speaker 1: kind of that what we were talking about. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: so so let's let's do two things here. UM, I'll
Speaker 1: talk about this concept called the table of truth, but
Speaker 1: then I'll also talk about this, UM, I'll talk about
Speaker 1: isolation versus holistic Isolated thinking versus holistic thinking. So what
Speaker 1: you find when you're pursuing the truth, I guess is
Speaker 1: you'll you'll find a lot of experts and central planet
Speaker 1: type intelligencia, you know, academia, bureaucratic morons. They always think
Speaker 1: in terms of isolated components and surgically fixing an isolated
Speaker 1: component without the ramifications. It's got to the whole, right So, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a good example of that is um, I mean,
Speaker 1: a vaccine is a good example of that. You know,
Speaker 1: let's let's you know, let's just assume that Corona is
Speaker 1: real and all that sort of stuff, or that it's
Speaker 1: a big threat, right, um, by rushing in or actually
Speaker 1: the lockdowns is probably a better example, by rushing in
Speaker 1: and closing down all the businesses. They think that they
Speaker 1: can solve this problem in isolation, but what they do
Speaker 1: is they create a thousand other problems because the whole
Speaker 1: system is holistic, and the more we funk with one part,
Speaker 1: the more we create these reverberations that spread out throughout
Speaker 1: the rest of the system for the system to find
Speaker 1: some sort of equilibrium, because you can't deal with things
Speaker 1: in isolation. And then this is one of the Keynsian problems,
Speaker 1: is they think that, Okay, if we print money here,
Speaker 1: we're going to somehow solve the problem. But then they
Speaker 1: create another hundred problems. And it's funny. I learned this
Speaker 1: lesson viscerally when I was I did start driving when
Speaker 1: I was five years old, and one of the things
Speaker 1: I learned was when a car is losing control, So
Speaker 1: we would be, you know, driving, and then the teacher
Speaker 1: out of nowhere would grab the steering wheel and just
Speaker 1: pull it, so the car would just lose control. And
Speaker 1: if you wanted to suck yourself up and flip the
Speaker 1: car over, you would grab the steering wheel and try
Speaker 1: and get control. If you wanted to live and not
Speaker 1: flip the car over, you let go and the car
Speaker 1: finds its own balance. So if you're so, I mean,
Speaker 1: if anyone's listening to this and they ever losing control
Speaker 1: in a car, you let go of the steering wheel.
Speaker 1: You do not touch the break, you do not touch
Speaker 1: the acceleraty just let go and the car will find
Speaker 1: its own natural equilibrium. So it's it's a it's a
Speaker 1: really interesting um example of any complex system like biology
Speaker 1: is the same way. It's like you know, we we
Speaker 1: we think like you know, when we're looking at healing
Speaker 1: cancer or healing some problem. We go in and we
Speaker 1: bombard this one problem with drugs or you know, chemo
Speaker 1: or this or that, and we think we've eradicated it,
Speaker 1: and then what we find is we've created another ten problems,
Speaker 1: and we'll go where did those come from? Oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, let's hit this one. Let's hit and then
Speaker 1: we we make the thing worse. So I always look
Speaker 1: at when I'm when I'm looking for truth, is is
Speaker 1: this person talking about dealing with an issue or something
Speaker 1: like in pure isolation without thinking about the consequences to
Speaker 1: the whole, or are they approaching it in a holistic manner?
Speaker 1: So that's one good filter. The other one is this
Speaker 1: is this table of truth? And this is something I
Speaker 1: think people can apply to just about anything in life.
Speaker 1: Is I I'm going to write about it extensively in
Speaker 1: a book that I might publish next year or the
Speaker 1: year after, whenever I get some god down time. But basically,
Speaker 1: the concept I'm calling the table of truth. And basically
Speaker 1: the reason I pulled at a table is that you know,
Speaker 1: there's this four legs of objective truth and then this
Speaker 1: sort of table of subjective reality. Now it's a working title,
Speaker 1: to bear with me. But effectively we've got leg Number
Speaker 1: one is we exist. You know, we live. We're born
Speaker 1: in a world of finite material resources. We can't create
Speaker 1: it out of their end of like this, So we've
Speaker 1: got finite resources. We also live in a world. So
Speaker 1: the second leg is time that is fixed and finite. Um.
Speaker 1: You know that that's you know, we can't print more time,
Speaker 1: we can't go to get more time. Um. We also
Speaker 1: live in a world where energy is fixed and finite.
Speaker 1: We can't create energy out of nothing. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: the perpetual energy machine doesn't exist, perpetual motion you know,
Speaker 1: we we can only transform energy and use it. Um.
Speaker 1: And then fourth is so there's the fourth objective truth
Speaker 1: that these are these are truths that cannot be changed.
Speaker 1: That these are what I would call a priority truth.
Speaker 1: The fourth one is that time moves directionally forward. We
Speaker 1: can't move it backwards. Um. And as a result, that
Speaker 1: means the future is always unknown or uncertain. None of
Speaker 1: us have a crystal ball. We can't tell the future
Speaker 1: by the very nature of times directionality. So we've got
Speaker 1: these four objective truths. And in the table top of reality,
Speaker 1: I call is we are all unique individuals, and we
Speaker 1: all value everything subjectively. You might value black shirts more
Speaker 1: than I value you know, black shirts. I might value
Speaker 1: green shirts more, you know, like water, coke, food. This
Speaker 1: that we are all fundamentally unique. So when you wrap
Speaker 1: sort of these four objective truths in in this subjective reality,
Speaker 1: this these false notions that we get fed like, you know,
Speaker 1: these utopian ideals of peace on earth, or you know
Speaker 1: that there will never be arguments, or we can remove conflict,
Speaker 1: you know, everyone will be happy. We should you know,
Speaker 1: problems you know are bad, you know we should remove
Speaker 1: Like all of these stupidities. You find that they're not
Speaker 1: consistent with this table of truth because if we're all
Speaker 1: subjective and we have finite resources, finite time, uncertainty, and
Speaker 1: finite energy, there is always going to be conflict. There's
Speaker 1: always gonna be problems, there is always going to be disagreements,
Speaker 1: there is always going to be friction. That that is life.
Speaker 1: But how life manages all of that is by um
Speaker 1: by two functions, either cooperating and resolving and coming up
Speaker 1: with a better quality of problems, so sort of moving up,
Speaker 1: or you know, thieving and taking and creating a tragedy
Speaker 1: of the commons. And that's sort of the two directions
Speaker 1: that we can go and and one of them is
Speaker 1: compatible with life, the other one is incompatible with life.
Speaker 1: You know. One of them is compatible with the truths
Speaker 1: of these objective truths and the subjective reality, and one
Speaker 1: of them is incompatible. It chooses to ignore those and
Speaker 1: and that's sort of where we are today, is like
Speaker 1: we're ignoring these realities. Um, and we're trying to uh,
Speaker 1: shouldn't listen to experts and politicians and bureaucrats and academics
Speaker 1: that try and say, look, you know, we, you know,
Speaker 1: are powerful enough as individuals to eradicate you know, every sickness.
Speaker 1: And it's like, no, you're fucking not, like you know,
Speaker 1: when we're not. It's such a it's such an arrogant
Speaker 1: standpoint to to try and um yeah, yeah, just to
Speaker 1: try and dismiss these these realities. So yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 1: love I love I love that. That's that's thinking of
Speaker 1: of a system and and really I was just thinking
Speaker 1: of like our modern medicine that we have today right
Speaker 1: where they want to just treat that one thing in
Speaker 1: your body without thinking of your body as a system.
Speaker 1: And then there are you know, holistic or or functional
Speaker 1: medicine doctors who do take that into consideration. But it's like, oh,
Speaker 1: you're depressed, maybe you have a pros act deficiency. That's
Speaker 1: probably what your problem is. You have a pros act deficiency, right,
Speaker 1: instead of like thinking about like what what's your diet,
Speaker 1: what's your exercise? What are you focusing on what you like?
Speaker 1: There's all these other things. So that's a good way
Speaker 1: to think about that. But I and then I guess
Speaker 1: if I also summed up, what you're saying is that
Speaker 1: everything has trade offs, right. And I see this because
Speaker 1: I mean, between my videos and everything, I five thousand
Speaker 1: comments a week that I go through, so I really
Speaker 1: kind of gauge what people are seeing. And that's the
Speaker 1: one thing that I see is they think everything is
Speaker 1: like this or that, and they don't understand the trade
Speaker 1: offs that are there. Um And so I guess what
Speaker 1: you're saying is if people can understand that you need
Speaker 1: to think of things as a system, not an isolation,
Speaker 1: and then also understand that each decision has a trade off,
Speaker 1: or at least be better equipped to deal with information
Speaker 1: that's coming at them. Absolutely, And I think you just
Speaker 1: probably nailed the Like a third model for for for deciphering,
Speaker 1: you know, or calling bullshit over truth, you know, for
Speaker 1: people is look at what people saying is if they
Speaker 1: if they're talking me about these panaceas or these utopias
Speaker 1: or these end states or these you know, ways to
Speaker 1: fix everything, you know, they're not talking about the reality,
Speaker 1: which is trade offs and that that is that's how
Speaker 1: reality functions. Is Like what are the tradeoffs? Because everything
Speaker 1: has a tradeoff, like and you know, bitcoin is one example.
Speaker 1: Is it's trade off is that people need to take responsibility.
Speaker 1: But I would much rather live in a world where
Speaker 1: we have responsibility at the edge with the individual than
Speaker 1: responsibility at the center with some satalitarian that dictates what
Speaker 1: we should all live like, because one is aligned with
Speaker 1: life and one is not. You know, when you look
Speaker 1: at nature, when you look at life, it makes its
Speaker 1: decisions at the fringe. It does not have some you know,
Speaker 1: preordained you know, dude that's sitting in the middle that
Speaker 1: dictates what the lions are doing, what this is doing,
Speaker 1: what that's doing is like nature finds its way at
Speaker 1: the fringe and and that's compatible with life. We seem
Speaker 1: to be ignorant enough to think that we can do
Speaker 1: it from the center and somehow manage it. And I think,
Speaker 1: you know, the hubris of that is, we're not going
Speaker 1: to stop life as this broader thing. We're just gonna
Speaker 1: either do one of two things. We're either gonna get
Speaker 1: back in line with this flow of life, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, come back to bringing responsibility to the individual
Speaker 1: and do all this sort of stuff, or we're going
Speaker 1: to be the latest evolutionary example of what was incompatible
Speaker 1: with life and we're going to make ourselves obsolete in
Speaker 1: the process. Well, one of those two fucking things is
Speaker 1: going to happen. But you know, we're not larger than
Speaker 1: life itself. So if we take that and then we
Speaker 1: start to transition that back into kind of where we're
Speaker 1: at in the world today and where we're heading into
Speaker 1: the world, I would look at that and go, well,
Speaker 1: you know, we have is ms. We have socialism and
Speaker 1: communism and fascism and capitalism and all these different things,
Speaker 1: and people want to argue what the meanings of those
Speaker 1: words are and little flavors of the same thing. And
Speaker 1: so I thought about it, like, there's really only two, right,
Speaker 1: We really have either a free competitive model or we
Speaker 1: have like a captured, essentially controlled model. And may we
Speaker 1: just break those down into those two basics of socialism, socialism, communism, fascism.
Speaker 1: They're all what you're saying, essentrally planned, controlled and then
Speaker 1: capitalism whatever you wanna call it. I don't know if
Speaker 1: that word works anymore, but it's free market competition. Do
Speaker 1: you see it kind of broken down into those two levels.
Speaker 1: And those are two options moving forward. That's it and
Speaker 1: and and I know it sounds overly simplistic, but it's
Speaker 1: literally you know, is it? Is it that I generally
Speaker 1: called that same model I call individualism versus collectivism. It's
Speaker 1: one of the two. So we either place the responsibility
Speaker 1: and individual or we assume there's no individual and we
Speaker 1: assume that you know, one group can dictate to all
Speaker 1: the individuals what they should do or you know, and
Speaker 1: like and it doesn't matter whether it's democracy, socialism, communism,
Speaker 1: it's all the same ship. Like in democracy. Was seeing
Speaker 1: that in American OWT like democracy apparently is a you know,
Speaker 1: the people imposing their will on It's fucking stupid, it's
Speaker 1: it's categorically ridiculous. So um, it's actually interesting because when
Speaker 1: you look at nature as well. Nature actually a species
Speaker 1: other than insects, which are which are quite different to
Speaker 1: how humans cooperate. But species actually have two ways of
Speaker 1: All other species other than humans and insects have two
Speaker 1: ways of cooperating, either through tyranny or territory. And tyranny
Speaker 1: is that top down approach. And there's a very very
Speaker 1: very very very few species that operate like that. The majority,
Speaker 1: overwhelming majority of natural species all operate through this territorial
Speaker 1: biological imperative that that is that is naturally emergent. It's
Speaker 1: not like there's a brilliant book by Robert Ardri called
Speaker 1: the It's called the Territorial Imperative. And when I read
Speaker 1: that book, I had this like epiphany, was like, holy crap,
Speaker 1: private property and you know, the individual as the focus
Speaker 1: of private properties actually biological. It's not some man made
Speaker 1: cultural construct that the collective US would have you believe.
Speaker 1: It's actually ingrained in usum. It's something that you know,
Speaker 1: it's nature's way of creating equilibrium in the world without
Speaker 1: creating a tragedy of the comments. So every single species
Speaker 1: has this innate ability to sort of have a territory,
Speaker 1: have a home um, and that territory is actually defined
Speaker 1: by what it can defend. So so at an individual levels,
Speaker 1: like we all have natural private property rights, and it
Speaker 1: starts with us, you know, extends to our thinking, extends
Speaker 1: to our work, and then extends to that which the
Speaker 1: natural stuff out there that we mix our work with,
Speaker 1: and you know, then that becomes our private property in
Speaker 1: our territory basically. And um, it's just one model, like
Speaker 1: I said, again, it's compatible with natural law. The other
Speaker 1: one is not. And and and that's really the fight
Speaker 1: here is, um is you know, do we make ourselves
Speaker 1: a revolutionary example or do we you know, moved with
Speaker 1: that flow and it's a I think we're gonna carry
Speaker 1: the moment. Yeah, a great illustration. It went around a while.
Speaker 1: I I posted it and a lot of people posted
Speaker 1: on online quite a while ago. But but the perfect
Speaker 1: example is is just a lion, right, So a lion
Speaker 1: out in the wild. He's free and uh, he's free
Speaker 1: to do what he wills, but at the same time,
Speaker 1: it's not a safe life. And actually, just a two
Speaker 1: weeks ago, I was talking with a friend who was
Speaker 1: a c World trainer. Um and now they they do
Speaker 1: private dog training. But he was saying we I was
Speaker 1: explained this to him and he said, yeah, he's like
Speaker 1: the life of a lion is not easy. They're constantly fighting,
Speaker 1: haven't defend their territory. They go days or whatever however
Speaker 1: time without eating, Like it's a very rough life to
Speaker 1: be a lion. But they're free. Or we can put
Speaker 1: that lion in a cage and give it one meal
Speaker 1: a day and all its shots and meds and it
Speaker 1: can just live there in a cage and it's safe,
Speaker 1: but it's not free. And so you kind of have
Speaker 1: those two trade offs. But like we said, nothing is
Speaker 1: black and white, so really everything is almost like a blend.
Speaker 1: You know, do you have a little bit more of this,
Speaker 1: a little bit more of this, I guess, But I
Speaker 1: think that's a great illustration kind of show. And then
Speaker 1: the one problem with that is that you know, once
Speaker 1: that line lives in captivity, or especially it's born in captivity,
Speaker 1: they can't just go back to the wild. And so
Speaker 1: we do have these people who have been used to that,
Speaker 1: like you said, offsetting offloading all their thinking, living like
Speaker 1: a cage lion, if you will, right, and like, how
Speaker 1: do we get those people back into the wild. And
Speaker 1: so that's gonna be definitely a tough, tough task. I
Speaker 1: would imagine, well, it's gonna be tough. I mean every
Speaker 1: you know, everything has a cost, and maybe the cost
Speaker 1: of uh, this is gonna sound really harsh, but the
Speaker 1: cost of having given up your personal agency responsibility for
Speaker 1: so long is that you no longer have the demand
Speaker 1: it of yourself. Um. And the cost is you end
Speaker 1: up becoming a casualty. All this this pendulum of life
Speaker 1: that's going to swing back to individual responsibility. Because like
Speaker 1: there's a guy who, uh, he's a complexity theorist mathematician,
Speaker 1: Joe Norman if if you if you've heard of him,
Speaker 1: so so he's brilliant, and he talks about like he's
Speaker 1: a he's a localist called libertarian localism kind of guy.
Speaker 1: And and he kind of I remember it was him
Speaker 1: or somewhere along the lines. I don't know that the
Speaker 1: idea that the world is going to fragment anyway, because
Speaker 1: we've sort of we've centralized that so much. And centralization
Speaker 1: is the process of giving up individual responsibility, right, so
Speaker 1: so you kind of move responsibility to the center. Now
Speaker 1: this because it's incompatible with life and nature is going
Speaker 1: to fall apart like it's not it's not a matter
Speaker 1: of Willard. It's gonna crash. It's gonna crumble because it's fragile.
Speaker 1: The more you centralize power and decision making, the less
Speaker 1: it's able, the less you're able to adapt at the fringe.
Speaker 1: So something is going to crack it now. The only
Speaker 1: question is is do we do that fragmentation consciously or
Speaker 1: does it happen unconsciously? And if it happens completely unconsciously,
Speaker 1: it's going to be fucking messy and violent, and there's
Speaker 1: a lot of people who during that process are going
Speaker 1: to be in a world of hurt. Now, the more
Speaker 1: time you spend becoming responsible for yourself across different levels
Speaker 1: and finding communities who you can be symbiotic with and
Speaker 1: you know, find complementary and this is I guess the
Speaker 1: proverbial bit coinciderle idea is that you know that the
Speaker 1: citadel doesn't necessarily have to be a place, but it's
Speaker 1: a it's a community of people who might be complementary
Speaker 1: with each other. Is we are building, you know, this
Speaker 1: sort of we're bringing the locus of control back into
Speaker 1: not only ourselves as individuals, but voluntary communities, which is
Speaker 1: how we are able to abstract responsibility. So it's a yeah, man,
Speaker 1: it's it's such a it's such a simple It's it's
Speaker 1: not easy, but it's simple, like all things in life. Yeah, correct, correct?
Speaker 1: How do you lose weight? Well, I need to get
Speaker 1: this fitbit and I have to track my macros and
Speaker 1: I have to do these things, and I have to
Speaker 1: wear the right clothes and have to do it. No,
Speaker 1: it's simple. You just consume less calories than you take it,
Speaker 1: I mean, than you burn. Right, Like, Um, so I
Speaker 1: get that. Now, let's let's try to push this into
Speaker 1: something more um timely and kind of what we're seeing
Speaker 1: right now and then and then hopefully practical. So right
Speaker 1: now we're seeing this process you said like the more
Speaker 1: we centralize, almost like the faster it's going to crash.
Speaker 1: And right now we're seeing massive centralization at a level
Speaker 1: we've never seen before. Um. You talked about that and
Speaker 1: kind of one of your last pieces that we're losing
Speaker 1: freedom and we're seeing centralization happen at a rate that
Speaker 1: we've never seen before. I would even say that not
Speaker 1: even at the speed, at the rate of speed we've
Speaker 1: ever seen before, but also the scale because now it's
Speaker 1: really global and for the first time, I think, you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of us have heard about this one world,
Speaker 1: one world all the time, but to see the entire
Speaker 1: world locked down in unison under the direction of the
Speaker 1: w h O was something to be seen in my opinion.
Speaker 1: And so we have these NGOs, non government organizations, the
Speaker 1: w EF, the w h O, the w t O,
Speaker 1: the u N and i m F and they're all
Speaker 1: trying to centralize this power. And at the same time,
Speaker 1: are you seeing that? And and and does it seem
Speaker 1: like we're on this as you said, this kind of uh,
Speaker 1: this rate of centralization to kind of have this global, centralized,
Speaker 1: totalitarian world I mean, is is that where people are
Speaker 1: trying to take us? I mean what other options do
Speaker 1: they have? I mean that they don't they don't have
Speaker 1: like that they can let people, they can let people
Speaker 1: make their own decisions. Yeah. Well, unfortunately in their model
Speaker 1: of the world, like for you to think that for
Speaker 1: an individual to believe that the world government is good,
Speaker 1: they also have to believe that individuals are incapable of
Speaker 1: deciding for themselves. So it's like yeah, and that's the thing.
Speaker 1: So so that their belief system comes from a model
Speaker 1: of the world which all your peasants dumb and ridiculous
Speaker 1: and you can't decide for yourself. We know better, so
Speaker 1: we as a you know, institution that you didn't elect
Speaker 1: in any way, not not that I believe in voting elections,
Speaker 1: but anyway you didn't know. Like thus, but that doesn't
Speaker 1: matter because we the intelligentia and you know, the the
Speaker 1: status and whatever, we are like the bureaucrats, we know
Speaker 1: better and we know what's right for you, and we're
Speaker 1: going to mandate that at a global level, irrespective of Like,
Speaker 1: it's funny because it's so contradictory. I did this video
Speaker 1: while ago talking about how you know, discrimination as a
Speaker 1: concept is bashed, but diversity is applauded. But like, you
Speaker 1: can't have one without the other, like diversity exactly the
Speaker 1: same thing. Thing. You need to discern, You need to
Speaker 1: discriminate in order to make a decision. And you know,
Speaker 1: in the process of discrimination, you create diversity, create differences.
Speaker 1: And like, so much for the call for diversity, when
Speaker 1: now you have the same idiots who have been calling
Speaker 1: for diversity quote unquote now calling for you know, we're
Speaker 1: all the same, We're all in this together. Blah, blah blah,
Speaker 1: which which is the antithesis of diversity, and like I'm
Speaker 1: all for diversity, but at it's like like I'm talking
Speaker 1: true diversity, which is like what nature is. Nature is
Speaker 1: completely diverse. There is everything and anything in nature, and
Speaker 1: it's like it nature a phause like mono crops or monotony.
Speaker 1: It's like, you know, look at food, like when they
Speaker 1: create these mono crops, they die, like well you know that.
Speaker 1: I think Brandon Quentin was talking about this last week
Speaker 1: when I was on a podcast with him, Like the
Speaker 1: original banana, they created the same species of banana. I
Speaker 1: think it was the company was dull or whoever it was.
Speaker 1: And this is sort of where the concept of banana
Speaker 1: Republic came out. And then one parasite I think it
Speaker 1: was a fungal parasite wiped out all of the bananas.
Speaker 1: And and and that's the problem with like homogenizing everything, and
Speaker 1: this is what but but the benefit of homogenizing everything
Speaker 1: is that there's efficiencies to be gained. So if you're
Speaker 1: a central planner, what more do you want? You don't
Speaker 1: want diversity, You want a homogeneous easily like you you
Speaker 1: want a bunch of drones that you can tell what
Speaker 1: to do really easily, because it's much easier to control
Speaker 1: that from the center when you have diversity. When you
Speaker 1: have something that's alive, it's very, very very difficult to control.
Speaker 1: So the only way they can validate their existence is
Speaker 1: to try and enforce conformity across the whole populace, and
Speaker 1: I just think that's silly. Well, the reason why they
Speaker 1: need the conformity is because they're trying to push like
Speaker 1: we should all have like equality of like we should
Speaker 1: all have be able to have the same opportunity, quality
Speaker 1: of opportunities. But they're trying to push for equality of
Speaker 1: an outcome, and you can't get the outcome because like,
Speaker 1: even two kids raised by the same parents in the
Speaker 1: same house, in the same neighborhood, with the same school
Speaker 1: still end up in different places. And that's because the
Speaker 1: decisions that they've made are different. If we want everyone
Speaker 1: to get to the same outcome, then everyone has to
Speaker 1: make the same decisions, and the only way to get
Speaker 1: everyone to make the same decisions is to limit them
Speaker 1: to where they many choices. Correct. So I would actually
Speaker 1: even go a step further on this, So I think
Speaker 1: the quality of the outcome is a complete fucking derangement,
Speaker 1: Like that's the dumbest thing ever. Um. I actually also
Speaker 1: think quality of opportunities are false WITHOOD two. I don't
Speaker 1: think that's possible because that would assume that remember that
Speaker 1: table of truth that I discussed, is that would assume
Speaker 1: that all materials and distributed equally, that all uh time
Speaker 1: and energy um is available to to everyone. So it's like,
Speaker 1: but but not necessarily right because we're we're all we
Speaker 1: all have twenty four hours, and we all have the
Speaker 1: chance to go get those even though the resources are limited.
Speaker 1: If we all have a chance to go get resources,
Speaker 1: like that's an equal opportunity to go get them. Maybe, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's it's a tough one because the problem
Speaker 1: is because life is dynamic, like unless we had some
Speaker 1: you know, great reset event, like a zeroing of everything,
Speaker 1: right and I don't not trying to use their stupid
Speaker 1: term here, the great reset, but I mean like unless
Speaker 1: we sort of brought everyone back to zero and we
Speaker 1: all started again, we just can't fundamentally get to an
Speaker 1: equality of opportunities. So I just think that what we
Speaker 1: can move towards is not even um equality in any sense.
Speaker 1: But like a a system that is incorruptible and fair.
Speaker 1: And this is this is really where I find bitcoin,
Speaker 1: that the one thing that is our life raft is
Speaker 1: I honestly think bitcoin is the one thing that cannot
Speaker 1: be corrupted, that cannot be changed, that is beyond the
Speaker 1: reach of anybody. And as a result, we're not even
Speaker 1: like I mean, we don't even have the equality of
Speaker 1: opportunity bitcoin like and have access to it and all
Speaker 1: this sort of stuff, like in some countries in the
Speaker 1: Balkans that there is completely like blanket bands on this stuff.
Speaker 1: You can't get your hands on it unless you know,
Speaker 1: you've I don't know, meant someone individually that can do it.
Speaker 1: So so we're not even going to have the quality
Speaker 1: of opportunity. But um maybe on a long enough time
Speaker 1: scale that may change. But even then, like material resources
Speaker 1: um uh spread unevenly that the parents were born to
Speaker 1: a different um you know, the place we're born to
Speaker 1: his different you know, the values we grow up in
Speaker 1: a different the cult like diversity by its nature means
Speaker 1: that we're not going to even have the quality of opportunity.
Speaker 1: So like like Jordan Peterson talks about this where he's like, look,
Speaker 1: you can't change your past. It's like playing a game
Speaker 1: of poker. You play the hand that you're dealt, right,
Speaker 1: so you you got dealt a better hand than I did.
Speaker 1: But I still have the same opportunity to play my
Speaker 1: hand as best as I can, just like you have
Speaker 1: the opportunity play your hands. So I can still bluff you,
Speaker 1: and I can still this and whatever, even though my
Speaker 1: hand sucks, and it is what it is, but my
Speaker 1: opportunity to play that hand, so I don't know. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's so I call this less um the equality opportunity.
Speaker 1: I actually call it the what I believe is the
Speaker 1: only human right we have. It is it's the right
Speaker 1: to choose, so long as that remains um, you know,
Speaker 1: the at the core of like, so you know equality
Speaker 1: and two things is we all should have the equal
Speaker 1: right to choose, a simple as that, you know. And
Speaker 1: number two is equality in the way that probability or
Speaker 1: luck imposes its will on us. All right, So you know,
Speaker 1: luck is something you can't take out of the equation
Speaker 1: because luck is you know, this sort of I call
Speaker 1: it the force of randomness in the universe, like it
Speaker 1: exists and we can't remove that. And as long as
Speaker 1: it applies to everyone, and this is the problem with centralization.
Speaker 1: What they do is when when forces are able to
Speaker 1: centralize power or concentrated, they actually they change how the
Speaker 1: probability your randomness associates to their decisions. So, like the
Speaker 1: perfect example was the GFC in two thou ship blew up.
Speaker 1: But then they socialize the losses, so they pushed the
Speaker 1: consequence of you know, the you know, the probability of
Speaker 1: blowing up. They pushed the consequences out to the fringe. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, and they got the benefit of it. So
Speaker 1: they it was it was a game of heads. They win,
Speaker 1: tells we lose and that kind of um ah. I
Speaker 1: guess unequal distribution of the application probability creates both inequality
Speaker 1: of opportunity and inequality of outcome. It fucking distorts everything.
Speaker 1: But I think fundamentally inequality equality of opportunities just a
Speaker 1: difficult one because again opportunities is a bit broader than
Speaker 1: just having the right to choose. So I think it's
Speaker 1: equality and the right to choose and equality and probability.
Speaker 1: Um And I think those two ingredients are really where
Speaker 1: we're that's the only things we're really equal in. Everything
Speaker 1: else is diverse, it's uneven, and that's a good that's
Speaker 1: a good point. I mean equal equal, equal chance to choose.
Speaker 1: So freedom, right, right, it down from being so um,
Speaker 1: if we're free, then we all have the freedom to choose.
Speaker 1: And I guess and and and the more essentially planned,
Speaker 1: the less free you are to choose. And at the
Speaker 1: same time, the less equal it is, because now they're
Speaker 1: picking and choosing their own winners. Yeah. So um, so
Speaker 1: the world that we're moving into, as you, as you
Speaker 1: made the point in your most recent article, right, we've
Speaker 1: lost more freedom at the fastest rate we've ever seen
Speaker 1: in history. Like I said, I already said, we've we've
Speaker 1: seen power centralized more than we've ever seen. And so
Speaker 1: before we started recording, we talked about how like almost
Speaker 1: every like futuristic movie has always shown this kind of
Speaker 1: totalitary nightmare and and that's obviously where we're headed. But
Speaker 1: then you just mentioned that, you know, we have this
Speaker 1: life raft and so I've gone on I just went
Speaker 1: on on someone else to show this week, and I
Speaker 1: went on this rant and I said, it's the only
Speaker 1: thing to give me hope, because I think it's the
Speaker 1: only thing that can break this I see that we're
Speaker 1: going into this centralized controlled nightmare and the only way
Speaker 1: to break that is through is through competition, and bitcoin
Speaker 1: is what enables that competition. What do you think about that?
Speaker 1: How do you see us being able to break that
Speaker 1: grip of totalitarian control? And where's our life raft? Well again,
Speaker 1: so so the bitcoin, because it's this, like I called
Speaker 1: it earlier, this renaissance of responsibility it brings. It gives
Speaker 1: us instead of trying to change the existing corrup system
Speaker 1: from within, it gives us that new level playing field
Speaker 1: where no one is able to Again, this is where
Speaker 1: holistic thinking comes in. This is why it's so important
Speaker 1: to think holistically and why bitcoin is I think in general,
Speaker 1: a holistic think is is um. Bitcoin itself doesn't give
Speaker 1: anyone the ability to get an advantage because in getting
Speaker 1: an advantage for yourself, you actually disadvant ege everyone else.
Speaker 1: So that's how the world works at the moment, right,
Speaker 1: So central planners, bureaucrats in the academies and all that
Speaker 1: sort of stuff, they give themselves an advantage, but it's
Speaker 1: at the expense of everyone of the French So bitcoin,
Speaker 1: you can't do that. There's the there's a fixed supply
Speaker 1: of money. It's got its rules. If you don't you
Speaker 1: abide by the rules, you're out, like you know, and
Speaker 1: it's not you get booted out. It's like you voluntarily
Speaker 1: opt yourself out or you voluntarily opt yourself in. So
Speaker 1: so there's no there's no impulse other than your own
Speaker 1: personal I guess need for survival, your own personal Darwinian
Speaker 1: force of you know, of existence that drives you to
Speaker 1: want to have access or operate on this field of bitcoins.
Speaker 1: So it does that out here now the existing system
Speaker 1: because it's debt based, because you know, the vanguard of
Speaker 1: the existing system, you know, it is not just going
Speaker 1: to give up the fucking reins. You know, they're going
Speaker 1: to try and grip more and more and more. As
Speaker 1: the as the things sort of slipping out of their hands,
Speaker 1: they're going to group harder, and the heart of the
Speaker 1: group the more it slips, they're going to naturally concentrate
Speaker 1: and centralize and become more draconian. Now my argument is,
Speaker 1: in the absence of bitcoin, yes, we do go into
Speaker 1: a total Terrian type of you know, dystopian, whether that's
Speaker 1: you know, it looks more like or Well or Huxley,
Speaker 1: or a blend of the two, like I think, you know,
Speaker 1: is most likely we're going to look like a brave
Speaker 1: united I think that's going to happen, But long term
Speaker 1: that collapses anyway, Um, the the beauty of bitcoin and
Speaker 1: if we sort of throw some sort of biblical elements
Speaker 1: here is you know, as this life raft is, the
Speaker 1: flood is going to come and in that other totalitarian system,
Speaker 1: in the absence of bitcoin, we all just fucking drown,
Speaker 1: like it's really really really bad for everyone, Whereas with
Speaker 1: the existence of bitcoin, some of us are going to
Speaker 1: be able to protect that world as this other house
Speaker 1: of cuts starts falling down. And you know, I wrote
Speaker 1: this whole book, the whole article about what was it
Speaker 1: called Bitcoin of Lockdowns, I think, and I put that
Speaker 1: model of you come to bitcoin through curiosity or pain.
Speaker 1: Those of us who are curious now to get in
Speaker 1: before the pain is really set in. We're gonna come
Speaker 1: in there. We're going to sort of claim territory on
Speaker 1: this new promised land, you know, which has its own
Speaker 1: constitution with, which has its own rules that we all
Speaker 1: voluntarily agree on. We're gonna get in there and we're
Speaker 1: gonna claim some territory now while everyone else is still
Speaker 1: trying to work around here with this house of cards.
Speaker 1: But as the house of cards starts to fall over
Speaker 1: under the gravity of its own stupidity, the pain is
Speaker 1: going to start to set in and then people are
Speaker 1: going to come across to the only thing that's still functional.
Speaker 1: And yeah, it's like everyone is going to come across
Speaker 1: to it. It's not a matter of if, it's a
Speaker 1: matter of when, and um, the only the only question is, yeah,
Speaker 1: how are you going to come for curiosity or pain?
Speaker 1: And I think yeah. But Bitcoin to me is again
Speaker 1: the last thing that gives me hope because without it,
Speaker 1: you took the the to tailor that the totalitarian central
Speaker 1: planet do not win on a long enough time scale.
Speaker 1: All they do is they keep the can down the
Speaker 1: road to the next central planners, and one of them
Speaker 1: is going to drop the hot potato, right, But the
Speaker 1: question is whose head does a drop on, and it's
Speaker 1: all of ours. Bitcoin might help us, you know, have
Speaker 1: a sanctuary for you know, when that thing pulls down.
Speaker 1: And I think that's really the distinction here. What I
Speaker 1: was thinking is that, as you said, they have that grip,
Speaker 1: and why would they want to give that up? And
Speaker 1: it's unfortunate. Um. You know, there's just those people in
Speaker 1: life that want to have control. Right, whether it's your
Speaker 1: local neighborhood association or your your parent teacher association, or
Speaker 1: local government or whatever. People just want to control. And
Speaker 1: so they don't want to give up that control of
Speaker 1: that power, right, And why would they. We've already talked
Speaker 1: about that. So at some point, maybe it fails. But
Speaker 1: even when it fails, a lot of times you kind
Speaker 1: of get the same system. Try let's try it again
Speaker 1: a little bit different. So, in my opinion, the way
Speaker 1: that I see it is that the only thing that
Speaker 1: can really break that grip is competition. So if the
Speaker 1: United States and Australia and China this took you know,
Speaker 1: this nightmare, um, but another country says, hey, come over here,
Speaker 1: you can live free, you can no masks, and you
Speaker 1: can have any business you want and live free, and
Speaker 1: then people might go there. And then if enough people
Speaker 1: start going there, another country is like, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: you can come here too, And then it's through that
Speaker 1: competition cycle where countries will realize they can't extract. And
Speaker 1: the reason why I think that's important is that growing
Speaker 1: up I had friends whose whose families came from Iran
Speaker 1: or Afghanistan, and one of my best friends family came
Speaker 1: from South Africa and they left an oppressive country to
Speaker 1: come to America. That was free. But the difference was
Speaker 1: is that when they came, they couldn't bring their money
Speaker 1: out of the bank, their goal, their real estate, so
Speaker 1: they came penniless. They had to start over. And bitcoin
Speaker 1: is the only thing that changes that. So now we
Speaker 1: can control our money, we can take our money with us,
Speaker 1: which I think will speed up the competition, which will
Speaker 1: and I believe that's the only thing that will break
Speaker 1: the grip because people will that that that that that
Speaker 1: centralized control. It just won't work when people when there's
Speaker 1: competition for another system, and bitcoin helps that. I don't know,
Speaker 1: That's what I was thinking. What do you think about that? Look,
Speaker 1: that's I think that's the it's a very realistic, optimistic beauty.
Speaker 1: So I'm cautiously optimistic that. Uh. And again I write
Speaker 1: this in the article, is like I hope that bitcoin
Speaker 1: helps cushion the fall of the centralized model as best
Speaker 1: as possible, because what you're discussing there is a cushioning
Speaker 1: of this. You know, these these existing centrally planned nation
Speaker 1: states and attempts for world government and everything they are
Speaker 1: contrary to to how life functions. You know, life is
Speaker 1: this competitive thing. You know, life is always competitive by
Speaker 1: its very nature, and competition is conflict and so so
Speaker 1: that's going to exist. And the incentives to create places,
Speaker 1: whether you know, call them citadels or you know, sanctuaries
Speaker 1: for the free or whatever, that will exist because there's
Speaker 1: going to be people with some wealth. And this is
Speaker 1: why bitcoin is just so powerful is that it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter if your friend or foe Bitcoin benefits from you, Like,
Speaker 1: you know, if you as a nation state, like game
Speaker 1: theoretically decided, man, we need to hold some of this
Speaker 1: thing because it's appreciating value. Um, you actually inadvertently make
Speaker 1: it stronger and make yourself as a nation state obsolete.
Speaker 1: So like it literally takes everything and turns it into this.
Speaker 1: I call it the prospering of the commons, like it
Speaker 1: makes itself stronger. So I think that force is definitely
Speaker 1: going to help us. And this is why you know
Speaker 1: bitcoin is the is the arc, right, is it's going
Speaker 1: to allow us to have and build places of sanctuary
Speaker 1: because the incentives exist. Sometimes though my more pessimistic side.
Speaker 1: And the sort of as a function of how deranged
Speaker 1: I've seen society becoming is I think, man like, so
Speaker 1: many people are still asleep. And I guarantee when things
Speaker 1: get much better for bitcoiners, there's going to be a
Speaker 1: lot of people out there who are going to point
Speaker 1: at us and say, you got lucky, give us your money.
Speaker 1: And you know, we're going to have to really think
Speaker 1: deeply as bitcoin is, about how to defend what we have.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I know a lot of bitcoiners
Speaker 1: and I'm one of these is before you get my bitcoin,
Speaker 1: will burn my private keys, like you are not going
Speaker 1: to get them from me, and I don't care. And
Speaker 1: in doing that, I actually strengthened the rest of my
Speaker 1: bitcoin friends because I've just decreased the supply of them further.
Speaker 1: And and that bit of like, you know, this is
Speaker 1: the one thing that never existed before is a network
Speaker 1: or a system or a tool where in the cost
Speaker 1: of attack was so high, but the cost of defense
Speaker 1: is so little um and that changes the game. And
Speaker 1: this this is I guess at the at the very
Speaker 1: core of the whole sovereign individual thesis is that when
Speaker 1: you when you change, when you alter the cost of
Speaker 1: attack um and the cost of defense and you and
Speaker 1: you make one more expensive and the other cheaper. Is
Speaker 1: it changes how human beings interact and and I think
Speaker 1: you know, this is why a bitcoin is hope. It
Speaker 1: genuinely is the one thing where we can prosper from
Speaker 1: collaborative efforts as opposed to efforts of theft. And I
Speaker 1: don't know, man, It's like in many ways, it ain't
Speaker 1: gonna be easy. There's gonna be a tough decade. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, the more bitcoin appreciates and the quicker it does, that,
Speaker 1: I think the better chance we have of building a
Speaker 1: larger lifeboat for more people, and then that will cushion
Speaker 1: the fall more for more people. But if you know,
Speaker 1: if the populace stays largely ignorant, and you know, bitcoins
Speaker 1: emergence takes another two three decades and everyone decides to
Speaker 1: get back snated and all that sort of ship, this
Speaker 1: just may take longer. And it just means that, uh,
Speaker 1: the full of the state is going to be more painful.
Speaker 1: So so it's gonna happen. The question is how painful
Speaker 1: is this process? That that's really the only question here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: to your point about them saying, hey, you got lucky.
Speaker 1: We want some of that money. Um. I mean that's
Speaker 1: not a guess, that's what we're seeing today. Um. You
Speaker 1: know they're already like, well, we need to raise taxes
Speaker 1: on the rich, right, and we see that depend on
Speaker 1: what you consider rich. Um, Now it's four hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars in the United States whatever. You know, we've seen
Speaker 1: AOC come out and say that, Um, you didn't make
Speaker 1: a billion, you took a billion, right, So like we
Speaker 1: already seeing that narrative shift. Um. So so you're right.
Speaker 1: I mean we we know that, and we also just
Speaker 1: know human nature, right, so we know that as well.
Speaker 1: But I just think like in the Cayman Islands or
Speaker 1: in St. Barts, for example, like people go there for money, right,
Speaker 1: so like I can take my wealth with me. I'll
Speaker 1: be in St. Barts. I'll see you there. Right, maybe
Speaker 1: that's our citadel. But I guess uh. I'd like to
Speaker 1: maybe wrap it up by moving into the question of
Speaker 1: like what we what you see in the future. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to ask you to predict the price
Speaker 1: of bitcoin because I try not even focus on that
Speaker 1: because it's so much more than that. And actually I
Speaker 1: was I was actually thinking last night. UM, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe it sounds cliche. At this point we talked offline.
Speaker 1: I mean I came in because of the ideology. I
Speaker 1: came in because it's censorship resistant. I believe it. It
Speaker 1: can change the future. Um, and to see something that
Speaker 1: see the needs so big and the only tool that
Speaker 1: we have to solve it. But people are talking about
Speaker 1: lambas like really like with with what the problems we
Speaker 1: have in the world, and I'm scared. I got kids.
Speaker 1: I Mean, all I think about is how to navigated
Speaker 1: for my family. And when I see the problem in
Speaker 1: the world and the only tool that we have to
Speaker 1: solve it and people are talking about trading it for
Speaker 1: our lambo anyway, it flows my mind. That's that's the
Speaker 1: world we live in, right. We've all been taught that,
Speaker 1: you know, consumption is the path to happiness. And and
Speaker 1: then this is why I love a lot of Jordan
Speaker 1: Peterson's work is that and I completely concur with him
Speaker 1: this idea that happiness is not a goal. It's not
Speaker 1: a noble goal. Happiness is a fucking byproduct like the goal,
Speaker 1: the pursuit is meaning. And we live in a world
Speaker 1: where we're taught that happiness is the thing. So so
Speaker 1: then you know, we achieve happiness through we achieve sorry,
Speaker 1: fleeting surface level happiness through you know how many likes
Speaker 1: we have on Instagram and you know what photos we
Speaker 1: have in this narcissistic crap and the next bit of
Speaker 1: chocolate weed, the next bit of fast food we consume,
Speaker 1: the next bit of you know TV we watch, and
Speaker 1: all this crap like it's just this surface, pathetic version
Speaker 1: of life that is all in this pursuit of fleeting
Speaker 1: happiness where and that's where the lambos come in. It's
Speaker 1: like that that same feat high time preference mentality versus
Speaker 1: the pursuit of meaning is deep. It's low time preference.
Speaker 1: It's meaningful, and it's hard, um and you know, it
Speaker 1: takes time. And and that's where I think, you know,
Speaker 1: people like you and I get along, is that we're
Speaker 1: on that path. This is this other one which in
Speaker 1: regards to that, I have a nonprofit I work with
Speaker 1: and our quote is that happy people help others. And
Speaker 1: so back to that, that pursuit of happiness. I would
Speaker 1: think most people probably have experienced this and would agree
Speaker 1: that the most happy feeling you might ever have is
Speaker 1: when you've helped somebody else and help them. They're happy
Speaker 1: to change their life. Like when you're an adult and
Speaker 1: you have kids, like all your fun is having watching
Speaker 1: your kids have fun. Right, And so if I can
Speaker 1: go solve the need with my neighbor and really help
Speaker 1: them out, I give them a gift that they really value,
Speaker 1: Like that's like the best feeling. So um, anyway, it's
Speaker 1: not about me buying a lambo. It's about me helping
Speaker 1: other people. But so, anyway back to this, so I
Speaker 1: don't want to I'm not gonna ask you to guess
Speaker 1: where the price of bitcoin is going to be, but
Speaker 1: how do you see this playing out? Maybe you can
Speaker 1: give me that kind of a guest. Obviously, we have
Speaker 1: the w EF, the World Economic Forum. Their goal is
Speaker 1: by So they have this agenda by own nothing and
Speaker 1: you're happy. Um, that's that all. And they've stated it's
Speaker 1: on their websites, their pictures are there, um right, So
Speaker 1: the goal is by they've have established this comment. They
Speaker 1: don't call it communism, but we live in a commune.
Speaker 1: We own nothing, right, so that's their goal. How do
Speaker 1: you see this plane out? Do you do you see us?
Speaker 1: Over what time frame? Does bitcoin changes? Does this fall
Speaker 1: apart in three to five years and we moved to
Speaker 1: this competitive model or try to forecast that. For me, who,
Speaker 1: I didn't think it's one or the other. I think
Speaker 1: it's a it's a messy, convoluted version of both. So
Speaker 1: I think whilst so there's gonna be my gifts is
Speaker 1: that it's going to be formal polarization. Um so, so
Speaker 1: there'll be this kind of ripping and stretching of society
Speaker 1: where people are pointing at what they can inherently feel
Speaker 1: is a problem, but don't know how to articulate it.
Speaker 1: So you'll end up with more socialism. You'll end up with,
Speaker 1: you know, the continued separation of Main Street Wall Street,
Speaker 1: which will will look like on the surface that you know,
Speaker 1: the rich of the problem. Now, what that'll do then
Speaker 1: is then that'll kind of like point the guns at
Speaker 1: the rich that people can actually get money off, and
Speaker 1: that's not you know, the the you know, call it
Speaker 1: the elite lizards or whatever we want to call them,
Speaker 1: that will be the business owners in the middle classes.
Speaker 1: It will keep eroding the middle class. But I think
Speaker 1: what that'll then do is that will push those people
Speaker 1: who are productive towards something like bitcoin, because they're going
Speaker 1: to that will be that pain driver. They're going to
Speaker 1: find that there's nothing else, and they're going to come
Speaker 1: across someone like you or I or someone that they respect,
Speaker 1: who has got some bit, who gets it, who's been
Speaker 1: orange told, and they're going to sort of say, hey, look,
Speaker 1: come into this. And you know that they're going to
Speaker 1: come into it with probably a mind frame of, oh,
Speaker 1: you know this, I thought this was some Ponzi scheme.
Speaker 1: But as they dig a little bit deeper, it'll it'll,
Speaker 1: you know, spark their fire aligned with their own values
Speaker 1: of personal individual responsibility, because that's what it produced as
Speaker 1: a producer of someone who takes, you know, the creation
Speaker 1: of something into their own hands. And there are many
Speaker 1: of us, but there's not many of us in bitcoining yet,
Speaker 1: so so so those people slowly but slowly keep coming across.
Speaker 1: And I think we'll have an opportunity to build cities, citadels, communities,
Speaker 1: etcetera of people who are more collaborative and productive in nature.
Speaker 1: And the way we'll connect ourselves is I think through
Speaker 1: bitcoin and and this I think will be a very decentralized, grassroots,
Speaker 1: bottom up movement against the backdrop of a continued conformist
Speaker 1: drive towards the world government, where people will be more depressed,
Speaker 1: more dependent, more stupid, more docile, um, you know, more,
Speaker 1: they will own nothing, they won't be happy, um, and
Speaker 1: they'll wonder why they're not happy. And as that thing
Speaker 1: sort of crumbles, um, you know, will will have an
Speaker 1: opportunity to to rise. Now, the one thing I'm uncertain
Speaker 1: of is, you know, the nexus between those things is
Speaker 1: do those failing states try and come and take our ship,
Speaker 1: you know, who are the productive constituents of society? Or
Speaker 1: do they realize you do they make the the game
Speaker 1: theoretic choice not to come and take our ship, but
Speaker 1: to collaborate with those of us who have created these pockets,
Speaker 1: to compete and correct exactly exactly. So that's that's the
Speaker 1: only thing. And again that's not a clear answer, because
Speaker 1: some may compete, some may not. And then what that's
Speaker 1: going to mean is we're going to need to get
Speaker 1: strategic with how we um, you know, how we protect
Speaker 1: ourselves in this and the negotiations and the agreements we
Speaker 1: have with the old world. So so I think it's
Speaker 1: going to be it's going to require a lot of courage, strength, prowess, intelligence,
Speaker 1: it's self sovereignty, you know, the ability to protect It's
Speaker 1: going to require a lot of that on our part.
Speaker 1: So so I'm a big advocate of all of us
Speaker 1: who are in the bitcoint space to build skills outside
Speaker 1: of just you know, whether you're just a code or
Speaker 1: whether you're an economist person like you want to build
Speaker 1: skills and you want to build networks because it's going
Speaker 1: to require us to really be intelligent over the coming decade.
Speaker 1: And my guess is that the decade is going to
Speaker 1: be quite tumultuous. But I actually think that by the
Speaker 1: times around will have definitively one because this clusterfuck of
Speaker 1: essentially planned the world is going to fall under its
Speaker 1: own weight. It cannot persist. You can't fight gravity for long.
Speaker 1: And I think beyond is that's when we'll see the
Speaker 1: opportunity for bitcoins, who at that stage are going to
Speaker 1: be so incredibly wealthy. We're going to have an opportunity
Speaker 1: to rebuild the world in a more fragmented, low galizes manner.
Speaker 1: So so that would be my humble attempt at I guess. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So we have the free society and we have the
Speaker 1: centrally consult society, and the central model continues to get
Speaker 1: stronger and stronger and stronger, but maybe simultaneously the free
Speaker 1: model continues to continue tenues, maybe by we hit the
Speaker 1: tipping point and then the free model starts to take over.
Speaker 1: Then kind of I think the centrally planned. On the surface,
Speaker 1: it might look like it's getting stronger. I would argue
Speaker 1: that it's it looks like it's getting bigger, but it's
Speaker 1: becoming hollowed out. So I actually would argue that it's
Speaker 1: getting a lot weaker. But it's kind of like an egg,
Speaker 1: So so it's it's it's becoming completely fucking hollow. There's
Speaker 1: no belief behind it. There's no faith in it. You know,
Speaker 1: it's empty, it's it's unhappy, it's depressing, but it comes
Speaker 1: out like with this bravado of like we're bigger and
Speaker 1: better than ever, but in reality there's nothing. There's no substance,
Speaker 1: whereas we might be smaller, but there's some fucking sub stance.
Speaker 1: And when that shill is crrecked, the whole thing will
Speaker 1: full up. Now one more thing, I mean you talked
Speaker 1: about like the need. Will these other nation states where
Speaker 1: they come and compete for it, or will they try
Speaker 1: to take it. And I think maybe in the sovereign
Speaker 1: invidual they kind of made this case. But basically we
Speaker 1: can see that throughout history, UM, thing we we all
Speaker 1: of a sudden had to shift, right. So for example, Um,
Speaker 1: at the beginning of time, you had one guy came
Speaker 1: over and took another guy's goats, and then another village
Speaker 1: would come and take their goats and their women, and
Speaker 1: then a kingdom would come and take all their gold
Speaker 1: and their goats, and then like um, now they would
Speaker 1: go and take their their oil, right um. And then
Speaker 1: there was always something to go and get. But today,
Speaker 1: as you said, the cost to defend has come down. Today,
Speaker 1: what are they gonna get? They're gonna get my twelve words,
Speaker 1: like you said, you would die before they get that,
Speaker 1: right or whatever. So like, what are they gonna take
Speaker 1: from me? There's no, I don't have any oil at
Speaker 1: hot many goats, and don't many gold like good luck.
Speaker 1: So that as you already made the case lower the defense.
Speaker 1: But I mean, I think that also shifts things quite
Speaker 1: a bit. It does that that's the one thing that
Speaker 1: changes the game more than anything else in the past.
Speaker 1: So every single other revolution, like you sort of mentioned
Speaker 1: with your friend from South Africa is in the process
Speaker 1: of the revolution happening and the power overturning and all
Speaker 1: that sort of stuff. The old holders of wealth, you know,
Speaker 1: good or bad, they lost it all in the process.
Speaker 1: So like or you know, when you've left one oppressed
Speaker 1: to jurisdiction for a new you have to leave everything behind.
Speaker 1: And or there's always been something to rape from pillage.
Speaker 1: Now mind you the you know, they may be able
Speaker 1: to come and you know, wreck the place that we're
Speaker 1: living in, but but there's very little benefit for them
Speaker 1: to do that other than trying to impose, you know,
Speaker 1: we're bigger than you and you must listen to us.
Speaker 1: So I don't know. It's like Hong Kong is the
Speaker 1: one thing that you know, I guess wasn't predicted in
Speaker 1: in the sovereign individual in the sense that how China
Speaker 1: actually did come in and you know, put the like
Speaker 1: they they've got very little to gain from Hong Kong
Speaker 1: by coming in and doing what they're doing and in
Speaker 1: fact just gonna hurt themselves in the process. But the
Speaker 1: funding idiots did it anyway, Like it's baffling to me
Speaker 1: that the Chinese win and did that with Hong Kong.
Speaker 1: So so I think, you know, I call it never
Speaker 1: underestimate the stupidity of a status. Yeah, like you know,
Speaker 1: they will, they will. They'll cut their own nose off
Speaker 1: to spite you, like, despite their face. So it's so
Speaker 1: it's like it's it's a really I And that's why
Speaker 1: I think we we can't sort of rest on our
Speaker 1: laurels and just hope that game theoretically, you know, because
Speaker 1: because game theoretically speaking, corporation does make more sense for
Speaker 1: the failing state. But some of these clowns are really
Speaker 1: fucking dumb um and you know, we we sort of
Speaker 1: need to be prepared for that. Yeah, well that's great. Um.
Speaker 1: With that, we're going to wrap it up. It's been
Speaker 1: great to have you. I would say that this is um,
Speaker 1: I think that's the longest interview I've ever done, and
Speaker 1: and and it's definitely different. I mean, normally it's a
Speaker 1: lot more centered around kind of money and stuff, but
Speaker 1: you're such a eight thinker, so it's super fun to
Speaker 1: have that conversation with you. UM. I want to make
Speaker 1: sure that we link everything that you have in the
Speaker 1: in the show notes below. But one of the best places,
Speaker 1: I mean, people to go read your stuff on medium
Speaker 1: and follow on Twitter or what do you? What do
Speaker 1: you got? Pretty much? So I think, I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a different flavor of me between Twitter and Medium. You
Speaker 1: would know, like so on Twitter, I'm much more abrasive
Speaker 1: and sort of like if you want to see the
Speaker 1: more psycho version of Alex on Twitter at Alex Swetzky.
Speaker 1: And my name is for a l e K s
Speaker 1: than s v e T s k I. Um, my
Speaker 1: medium is my more long form, thought out you'll see
Speaker 1: a much more reserved version of me. Now, my my
Speaker 1: articles are probably still fiery, but like you, it's it's
Speaker 1: much more thought out. So that's just Setzki dot medium,
Speaker 1: dot com. Um. And then I employ everyone to check
Speaker 1: out the Bitcoin Times. It's just Bitcoin Times dot news.
Speaker 1: Don't put the www in front of it. I don't
Speaker 1: know for some reason that doesn't work. I'm not a
Speaker 1: tech whiz. But yeah, if you just do Bitcoin Times
Speaker 1: dot news, you'll get you'll be able to download there's
Speaker 1: three editions now of the Bitcoin Times, and well everyone
Speaker 1: sort of read through all of them. Uh yeah, that
Speaker 1: that's sort of the best places. And then actually, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I always forget I'm doing this new podcast called the
Speaker 1: wake Up Podcast, so you know you yeah, you'll you'll
Speaker 1: find that I'm doing that with like it's it's not
Speaker 1: not super consistent. Lately, I've been a bit more consistent,
Speaker 1: but it's more about long, longer form discussions, so it's
Speaker 1: like sort of Joe roganesque kind of two to three
Speaker 1: hour discussions with I always have two guests on and
Speaker 1: we're kind of discussing ideas in a discussion format, lesson
Speaker 1: an interview format. So if anyone wants to sort of
Speaker 1: it's not just bitcoin. It's very broad, so philosophy. I
Speaker 1: did one on religion, I did one with atheists. We
Speaker 1: did one called Bitcoin of biology recently, so it's it's
Speaker 1: quite the topics are really broad. So if anyone's red
Speaker 1: pill and that stuff, well, if you enjoyed this this
Speaker 1: show that, I'm sure you would enjoy that podcast, So
Speaker 1: um go check that out. So with that, we're gonna
Speaker 1: go and wrap it up. Thanks so much for joining
Speaker 1: us today. Thanks a little MANKA really really appreciate a man,
Speaker 1: all right, h