Bitcoin: Let’s Get Smarter Weak men make hard times

but respect for real men. Man, crazy morning, right? I just decided to have a nice, labor day, morning with my wife, go out for breakfast, and then all of a sudden my text messages start to light up. Apparently there was a space going on, bunch of weak men, basically system worshipers, as I like to call them. And yeah, you know what? To them, I am a doomer, right? I wear it with pride. I stick up for the 85% of Americans that don't have a voice in these spaces. It's absolutely ridiculous. Where we've come from to where we are today, to see a bunch of cooked loser influencers, probably on the take, most certainly on the take from these big, Bitcoin companies coming in here, calling us doomers, why? Because we tell the truth. We talk about the system, we talk about its failings, and to them it's the greatest single threat in the world. If you're a weak man and you're wealthy, listening to me speak must make you sick, puncher. They feel the same way about you too, brother. That's okay. I got thick skin. That's all right. Yeah, but again, it's not about our skin. We both have thick skin. This is a bigger issue, right? This issue gets down to, you know, why did Satoshi create Bitcoin in the first place? Why did we all come here and where are we going? Because if this is gonna turn into BlackRock coin and, you know, Coinbase coin and Sailor coin, we got a problem. We definitely have a problem. Yeah, look, I am perplexed and I know we might disagree on this, but why would, if you grant that potentially an attack vector has been created and successfully created, I mean, five, I have a five-mic, public mining firms control 90% of the hash, come on. So, if you think that that's a vector and if you think cores compromise, I don't wanna make this a Blake2v, but why wouldn't you at least support the idea of, you know, a fork, a hard fork that might potentially fix some of those attack vectors to just vilify it and ban people from the spaces and, you know, and then say things like, why do you just be consistent and sell all your core coin? I'm like, well, because I'm not an idiot, I think the price is gonna go up. But that's separate from, you know, having a decentralized and secure protocol, monetary protocol, which I thought was the reason we were all here, but again, everybody's free to do what they want and say what they want, that's fine. But calling people who have pretty high alpha, I know it's done a lot in Bitcoin and who shared that ethos to call them retards and then banish them and then, you know, that makes them persona non grata, I think is foolish and in time I think, you know, look, it's a long shot, but I think the time we'll see how it plays out. Yeah, look, I, you know, I joined the revolution for separation of money and state, you know, long before there was Bitcoin, I bought gold and silver, I'll get in self-custody because it separated money from state. That's turned out to be a pretty wise decision. Look, in the end, right, this is a revolution. This is a revolution against central banking, it's a revolution against fractional reserve banking. We have a chance for the first time in history to have a neutral reserve asset that lives outside the Rothschild system, right? That's what this is about. That's why we're here, at least that's why I'm here. I've watched our country be decimated by a banking cartel that could care less about any single person in this room or all of us combined. The only thing they care about is themselves and they're looting our country at the behest of the, at the behest of the little guy. So who's here to stand up for the little guy in this fight? Who's here to stand up for the people in the bottom half of the king? You know, and the reality is, it's probably those of us that were in the bottom half of the K at one point or another. Right, and that's where this battle has turned for me, Puncher and I see Simon's up here, Simon, I'll invite you to co-host, man, it's so good to see you, man, it's been such a long time since we've talked. But look, you know, what I see is a group of elitist snobs that probably, you know, were silver spooners never spent a day in the bottom half of the K and all they care about is protecting their own wealth, is protecting their own bags, protecting their own status, right? Like that's what this has become. And yeah, they're gonna ban you from spaces. Yeah, they're gonna ban me. Yeah, they're gonna label us dooms or whatever their word of the day is. But that's all in an attempt to protect themselves. And that's what, look, I hate to say it, but the fifth point space is fast turning into a class warfare space. And we gotta fight it. Yeah, I agree, a couple of things. Apparently you and I are feds and Simon, Simon is a city of London operative. That's what I saw. That's what it said. That may be last. Yeah, and then, you know, look, I hate to make broad generalities, but what they say, generalizations aren't worth a damn, but they're generally true and nonetheless. If somebody was born into wealth, there's almost a guilt associated with that. That they didn't earn it. And it's well-founded guilt of some sort. I don't begrudge anybody, but I wasn't born into wealth for sure. I grew up in a 700 square foot row home in Philadelphia. And you know, my next door neighbors had 10 kids, a grandmother and two parents and a two bedroom house. So, I'm only saying that because if I were to go back to that, I know how to function and live without money. I just know how to do it because I did it for the majority of my life. There's nothing proud about that, but I think the people who never experienced that, it must be terrifying. So, whatever. I'm not saying this about anybody in particular, but I'm definitely not a fed. And if I was, what would be my, I don't understand what that I'm saying or you're saying would lead somebody to believe that we're acting on behalf of big government. I think it's a great exact opposite. Yeah, the guy who talks about the great taking as a fed, give me a break, right? Give me a, the guy who talks about agenda 2030 who points to the very system and what their objectives are. Yeah, that were feds, right? Simon's a feds. So Simon, hi feds, Simon, how you doing, brother, man? Like, can you believe what's going on in our space? Hey, Doc. Yeah, no, I haven't been around spaces for a while. I'm coming up quickly, but I think it's such an important distinction. People think that Bitcoin's mission was to separate money and state. It wasn't. Central banks already did that. They took over the government and they subordinated the government and they created the money printer. And the money printer was handed over to the central bank and the central bank is owned by the banks. And so they separated money from state. Bitcoin came to separate money from bank and give you the ability to own your own money, spend your own money, and have a monetary policy that was set by mass and code and would never change. And the latest mission is to, you know, is to dwarf Bitcoin. They couldn't beat us. They tried to create blockchains. They tried to create private chains. They tried to take away the word Bitcoin. And the latest attack vector was just to get people to not own Bitcoin and put it in a Wall Street wrapper because Wall Street already separated money and state and central banks got the ability to create digital currency every time they issue alone. And central banks created the ability to privatize the gains and socialize losses and guarantee the system. They created the cantillion effect and Bitcoin was the resistance against that. And so the movement to put Bitcoin in banks is the antithesis of what we essentially set out to achieve. And anyone that says Bitcoin separates money from state is either deliberately obvious gating the reality or ignorant around what Bitcoin was here to achieve. It was to separate bank and Bitcoin. So I think you make it, I guess when we say state, we mean exactly what we were talking about, the Mick, thick and thick that operate above sovereigns. That's kind of like a state like entity, but yeah, it's a good distinction. It's actually not. It actually took over the state. It uses the state to socialize the losses on the people and privatize all the gains in the moral hazard by guaranteeing the banking system. And so if you have the ability to print money, then you get to take the money you printed to purchase assets prior to the inflation of assets. And that whole cantillion effect was the whole purpose of separating money and state. And yeah, Bitcoin just said, all right, we'll opt out of that. You don't need a bank to hold it. You don't need government to give you permission to spend it. And you don't need a central bank to set the supply and control the cost of money. Hey Simon, what is the end goal? And who articulates that end goal? You know, I know it's got a mouth, a mouth-usian aspect to it. But who are the, who are the, would you say the, I don't want to say, great minds. But the minds that think that, you know, we need three quarters of the world's population eliminated that the resources are better served with much fewer people in a hand, centralized into the hands. Who is articulating that message? Most clearly that we should keep an eye on. Well, you've got to remember that a lot of these like think tanks and stuff, that, you know, that create these like different schools of thoughts, like, like say the one you're talking about, depopulation, that's like a club of Rome think tank. These think tanks are funded by NGOs and policy is set. And lobbies, you know, pay for these policies to be implemented. But they're not necessarily the overarching agenda or of power because, you know, if you're a business and, you know, if you're a bank, you don't really want the population to shrink because then you want nothing to sell to. But what they are is they're very carefully incentivized, divide in concreparations. And so when you can create carnage and you have a central banking system, the private, the privatized losses, the socialized losses and privatized games, then you have a bailout mechanism. And so every disaster you can create, every crisis is a new mechanism to justify a bailout and every bailout transfers more wealth up the K. And so there's a plethora of ops that are funded in order to divide conquer. What I think the most important thing with all these ops are is they want you to think that the enemy is something that is not because the enemy is simply like it's more simple. You know, it's control over your assets. It's obviousation of bearer assets. It's the fact that you can only own shares if you hold them with somebody else. And then you have lots of divide in concreparations that create a crisis, that knowing that you have a bailout mechanism and you can keep transferring wealth upwards. And at the end of empire, once all the assets have been stripped upwards, you just start again. And what I think we're witnessing is the dismantlement of like the European-American dominated empire and the transition to multiple nodes around the world. And that requires you asset strip the host nation. You try and get all the assets in custody. And then you manage capital outflows into your alternative notes. And that's what I think we're witnessing. The liquid thing is pretty interesting because liquid is a good indication of how it is. It's a, if you look at what liquid was, it was created by block stream and it required the divide in concreparation called get the whole Bitcoin community to fight between Bitcoin a store of value and Bitcoin as median of exchange when Bitcoin clearly has both. But when you get them to argue about it, i.e. is it digital gold? Do we need nodes? Is it going to be what's the price of nodes? What's the fee market? When you get people to argue about it, which really was, if we look back at it, a block stream op. Then you end up facturing the community and those that resist against certain narratives. And with every hard fork, you fork off, those that were trying to preserve a radical aspect of Bitcoin, the separation between bank and money. And that's really been the story in hindsight. But if you look at what, if you look at what, yeah. You're saying that BIP 110 was an app somehow created by block stream. I'm not connecting the dots there. No, not necessarily. You can fund both sides, right? So the divide and conqueror is normally where you just try and factor off the community. So like in the original block size war, you had the funding of block stream and then Brock Peer's via the Epstein Network style.