When providing a a public platform I see it as a duty to ask critical questions, especially when there's more than obvious reason to do so. This has not happened. The final moments of the "interview" stand as perfect example.

Things will come from this, but unlikely any that contribute to the value and reputation of journalism, non-biased public debate, or freedom of speech in general. That's my take, same as that bipartisanship will get no society anywhere ever. Clearly we're not a good match to come to quick terms here. Which is fine, have things your way, no ne to prolog this.

I'd only like you to think about one think please: whether telling others what "a bitcoiner" does and does't shows a lot of evidence that you're on the right track in this movement...