Money in the bank is the riskiest asset. nostr:note10p8mpsqk42ejptluunffz9ye5zfkyev6pwc8arm5jkadxh7a0casaws8fm

“Elections should be held on April 16th- the day after we pay our income taxes. That is one of the few things that might discourage politicians from being big spenders.”

— Thomas Sowell

My husband recently observed to me how important conditioning is for people to accept things as normal.

He said that when he first began reading my articles, he was like “Okay but I mean, fiat currency censorship isn’t really *that bad* as you describe”. But then in the years that followed, he was like “oh shit, it actually is. The fact that we have to ask permission to access significant amounts of our own money at banks and say what we will do with it is fucking insane. Why is this normal now?”

In Europe especially but also elsewhere, it’s increasingly common to make cash transactions illegal above a certain threshold value. Above that value, you have to go through centralized, surveilled, corporate/government systems, or you’re doing an illegal transaction.

That seems absolutely insane if introduced out of nowhere, but instead it has been introduced gradually through conditioning and so people are like, “well I don’t use cash anyway so that’s okay I guess, in fact I don’t even know that’s a law now”.

The same is generally true for social media. Filtering communications through centralized pipes is actually a radical position but it’s increasingly the new normal. In fact, the centralization of banking and communications in the hands of the state were two of their ten steps proposed in the Communist Manifesto.

Sorry not sorry.

Foreign Security but dedicated to spying on nationals… someone please explain this to me.

The only thing both political parties agree on is that 1984 outlined the ideal way to organize society

Who's the patriot in this act?

Or is it a dumb question?

“I have no other self than the totality of things of which I am aware.”

–Alan Watts, “There is never anything but the present”

This correct except when it gets to a point where on-chain fees out-price the cost of running a node.

No one will be incentivized to run a node for a chain they can't use. That in turn weakens group rule validation.

I'm confident that with reasonable estimates for technological progress, a reasonable compromise can be reached.

"Bitcoin is used by criminals. Also, we define who is a criminal."

— Government

all longevity experts are in their 50s

good morning

Bitcoin doesn't win because of its marketing or its cheerleaders. We don't need to pretend it's perfect. What we need is to attract devs who'll work on improving it. Forever.

Economists say we’re wrong.

Shout out to Nostradamus + George Orwell- y’all really went off on predicting the future 🔮

“Economists point to awful consequences of massive spending and deficits as reason to not want things to naturally get more affordable.” nostr:note1vydr2tuk4xdezp5fyyc306smqxwluc2pcht96l502xyczjzhrhgqk23p5c