Read original post

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson led a pivotal roundtable event titled "Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel: Unveiling Hidden Agendas." This gathering brought together a panel of experts who revealed the realities of COVID-19. The session aimed to uncover the complex network of censorship and concealment orchestrated by the COVID Cartel, which included federal health agencies, major pharmaceutical companies, mainstream media, and leading technology firms. Additionally, the discussion highlighted the missteps and corruption within the ranks of the global elite and their influential institutions. In this article we will cover some key points raised by Dr. Harvey Risch, Kevin McKernan, and Lara Logan during the discussion.

Harvey Risch

Dr. Harvey Risch, a Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, expressed his concerns over what he deems a "crushingly obsessive push to COVID vaccinate every living person on the planet." Dr. Risch, known for advocating early COVID-19 treatment, questioned the origins of the virus and the subsequent global vaccination effort.

Dr. Risch suggested, citing circumstantial evidence and intelligence reports, that the COVID-19 virus likely originated from a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the fall of 2019. He pointed to a specific 19 nucleotide genetic sequence found in the virus, which is also present in journal patents from 2017, to support this claim.

Furthermore, Dr. Risch criticized the research conducted at the Wuhan laboratory, calling it "reckless" and alleging that it was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense (DOD), among others, through what he described as "money laundering" operations like the EcoHealth Alliance. He linked this research to a broader "bioweapons industry," which he claims has been secretive and nefarious in its development of biological weapons over the last 70 years.

Dr. Risch highlighted the 1975 Bioweapons Treaty, which prohibits the development of offensive bioweapons but allows for the creation of small quantities for vaccine countermeasure research. He argued that this loophole has been exploited for the past 50 years, with the bioweapons industry using the guise of vaccine development as a justification for their work.

Addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Risch questioned the absence of commercial vaccines resulting from the billions of dollars spent on bioweapons research. He criticized the year it took to develop and test the first commercial vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 as unacceptable, especially considering the rapid spread of a bioweapon.

Dr. Risch proposed a hypothesis that both the alleged cover-up of the virus's origins and the forced global vaccination campaign were orchestrated to protect the bioweapons industry. He suggested that the public would demand the industry's shutdown if it became widely known that it had been operating under false pretenses.

In addition to the origins and response to the pandemic, Dr. Risch also touched on the suppression of early COVID-19 treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. He initially thought this suppression was to protect the vaccine market but now believes it was to prevent these treatments from solving the pandemic, which would have negated the need for vaccines and challenged the rationale behind the offensive bioweapons research.

👀 Dr. Harvey Risch Says the COVID Virus & Vaccines Were Used to Justify Continued Funding of the U.S. Bioweapons Industry

"This work and the WIV leak was what I consider to be the fruit of our bioweapons industry that has been performing secretive and nefarious biological… pic.twitter.com/AtU1bGCY0t

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) February 26, 2024

Kevin McKernan

Kevin McKernan, a former team leader of research and development for the Human Genome Project at MIT and a widely recognized authority in the field of genomics, has raised grave concerns about DNA contamination in COVID-19 vaccines. Speaking before a panel, McKernan, who has an impressive 60,000 citations and numerous genomic patents to his name, detailed the findings of his team at Medicinal Genomics, which have been replicated by labs worldwide and recognized by several health authorities, including the FDA, EMA, and Health Canada.

McKernan leveled a damning accusation against Pfizer, asserting that they omitted critical SV40 sequences from their vaccine, a move that regulators have downplayed as inconsequential due to the supposedly low concentration and functional irrelevance of the DNA present. However, McKernan dismissed these claims as "false and unsupported," revealing that the regulators had been deceived and then sought validation from the very party responsible for the deception.

The potential risks of this contamination, according to McKernan, include insertion mutagenesis, a concern supported by both Moderna's own patents on mRNA vaccines and independent scientific research. He warned that the DNA found in the vaccines is not only present but functional, as it contains a promoter for an antibiotic resistance gene vital to plasmid manufacturing—a key component in gene therapy. Further, he indicated that the DNA quantity in some vaccine vials exceeds the ten nanogram per dose limit set by regulatory guidelines, with significant variations between lots.

McKernan criticized the regulators for allowing pharmaceutical companies to use measurement tools that could underestimate the contamination levels, pointing to a worrisome conflict of interest rooted in the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992. This act allows the FDA to be partially funded by the companies it regulates, a situation McKernan described as a harmful policy that has led to public distrust and a rise in cancer drug sales since the vaccine rollout.

Addressing the potential dangers of DNA contamination, McKernan explained that while DNA might not be the sole cause of cancer, it could contribute to the disease's development, especially in combination with weakened immune systems and the suppression of key tumor-suppressing genes. He also distinguished between the DNA contamination in traditional vaccines, which originated from egg or cell culture growth mediums, and the high copy number DNA found in mRNA vaccines housed within lipid nanoparticles—a distinction that significantly increases the risk of adverse effects.

McKernan called for urgent action from representatives to repeal or review the act that enables such conflicts of interest and to reconsider the current guidelines for DNA contamination, which were based on outdated assumptions about DNA's half-life in the blood.

In conclusion, McKernan's testimony suggests a pressing need for independent research and a reevaluation of vaccine safety protocols, particularly in light of the evidence pointing to the integration of vaccine DNA into human cell lines. His plea for transparency and regulatory reform resonates as a wake-up call to safeguard public health and uphold the integrity of scientific oversight.

🚨 Genomics Expert Kevin McKernan Schools the 'Fact Checkers' on the DNA Contamination Found in the COVID mRNA Vaccines

"The 'fact checkers' have been continually wrong throughout the last year this has gone on...First, they claimed it wasn't there. Now the FDA and the… pic.twitter.com/94fZquCxf0

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) February 26, 2024

Lara Logan

Lara Logan, a seasoned investigative journalist with an illustrious career history at 60 Minutes and CBS News, delivered a sobering diagnosis of the current state of media and free speech in America. Logan, a recipient of numerous accolades for her courageous reporting, addressed the assembly, expressing gratitude to Senator Johnson and emphasizing the honor of discussing such a critical topic amidst a gathering of peers.

Logan's address painted a grim portrait of the media landscape, describing it as "the worst of times" and asserting that propaganda has become the battlefield in an ongoing war for the minds of the public. She alluded to the chilling effects of advanced technology on information warfare, boldly stating, "We have never been here, not in all of human history."

The journalist recounted the troubling episode where fellow journalist Tucker Carlson was vilified and accused of treason merely for interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin. Logan highlighted the conspicuous silence of legacy media institutions in defending Carlson, signaling a dire betrayal of the free press’s most sacred principle.

Throughout her testimony, Logan's personal experiences – including a horrific assault while on assignment in Egypt and relentless attacks on her credibility and personal life in the aftermath – served as a stark testimony to the dangers faced by those in her field. She declared, "We are many. And we will not give up."

Logan criticized media companies, journalism schools, and so-called nonpartisan watchdog organizations for failing the public and engaging in politically motivated censorship. She accused them of perpetuating a "bloodsport" aimed at silencing dissents through "cancel culture," a practice she likened to a "death sentence" for journalists.

The journalist shed light on the pervasive and concerning collaboration between media and government agencies, leveraging phrases such as "protecting democracy" to justify censorship and the suppression of speech. She cited examples of taxpayer funds being misused overseas to influence foreign politics and even to attack free speech and religion.

Logan warned of the monopolistic powers of tech giants like Facebook, Google, and Instagram, and their ability to control the global narrative. She drew parallels with totalitarian leaders of the past, emphasizing the unprecedented power these companies wield in shaping public discourse.

Reflecting on her early days as a journalist under apartheid South Africa, Logan underscored the paramount importance of the First Amendment and the foundational role it plays in safeguarding all other liberties. Her closing remarks evoked Sir Edward Gray's poignant observation at the onset of World War I, warning that the lights of freedom are dimming, and their revival hinges on collective action.

Responding to Senator Johnson's inquiry regarding the targeting she's faced over the past decade, Logan attributed the onslaught to her truthful reporting on Benghazi. She exposed the involvement of NGOs, like Media Matters for America and Facts First USA, in politically charged campaigns to discredit and silence voices like hers.

Logan's impassioned plea called for an end to taxpayer funding of NGOs that engage in censorship and the suppression of free discourse. She emphasized the imperative for those in power to serve the people and uphold the principles of a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Her testimony was not only a critique of the current media environment but also a clarion call for journalists, policymakers, and citizens to reclaim and defend the sanctity of free speech. Lara Logan's words resonate as a rallying cry for transparency, truth, and the unyielding defense of fundamental freedoms.

Watch Lara Logan's segment just this morning in Washington, D.C., at Senator Ron Johnson's roundtable discussion 'Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel: What Are They Hiding? pic.twitter.com/v4kzoiG4QP

— Lara Logan (@laralogan) February 26, 2024

Summary

The roundtable discussion featured Dr. Harvey Risch, who presented his views on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, the potential motivations behind the global vaccination campaign, and the suppression of early treatment options. Kevin McKernan addressed the issue of DNA contamination in COVID-19 vaccines, the inadequacy of regulatory responses, and the potential risks associated with this contamination. Lara Logan spoke on the state of media and censorship, emphasizing the critical role of free speech in democracy and the dangers of monopolistic control over information. Each speaker brought their perspective to the forefront, highlighting various concerns about public health policies, regulatory integrity, and the preservation of fundamental freedoms. We encourage you to watch the full roundtable event to hear from all the speakers.

Read original post

In a recent in-depth interview with Stella Assange, wife of Julian Assange, the grave circumstances surrounding the WikiLeaks founder's ongoing imprisonment and potential extradition to the United States were discussed, revealing a stark image of the threats to journalistic freedom and governmental accountability.

Julian Assange, a name synonymous with controversy and the publication of classified materials, has been confined, in one form or another, for over a decade. The founder of WikiLeaks first made waves with the release of sensitive U.S. government materials related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, it was the exposure of CIA surveillance practices that truly crossed a line for U.S. officials.

Stella Assange, a lawyer and human rights activist, joined the discussion to shed light on her husband's current status and the recent developments in his extradition hearings. She underscored the urgency of the situation, with Julian's fate hanging in the balance as UK judges have deferred their decision on his extradition to the U.S.

The narrative that unfolded in the conversation was one of political vendettas, with Assange being targeted not for crimes in the UK, where he has never been charged, but for the ire he has drawn from U.S. governmental bodies. This has led to a prolonged detention in London's high-security Belmarsh Prison, despite the clear implications this has on journalistic freedoms and human rights.

Stella Assange also highlighted the chilling revelation that former CIA director Mike Pompeo once discussed plans to murder Julian Assange, without any subsequent charges against Pompeo, raising questions about the unchecked power of certain U.S. government elements.

The interview also touched on the potential for a presidential pardon from the United States, with Stella expressing that any leader valuing constitutional protections should take action to free Julian Assange.

Throughout the discussion, it became evident that Julian Assange's physical and psychological well-being has been significantly compromised by his ongoing incarceration, with his inability to even attend his own hearings being a testament to his deteriorating condition.

As the world watches the fate of Julian Assange unfold, the case stands as a stark reminder of the fragility of journalistic freedom and the lengths to which governments may go to silence those who dare to reveal uncomfortable truths.

Quotes

1. "Unelected bureaucrats can't just murder people they don't like."
2. "Well, this is the default state of affairs. The UK views itself as a lap dog." - Stella Moris critically assesses the UK's stance in Assange's extradition case, suggesting a lack of sovereignty in its judicial process when dealing with U.S. demands.
3. "I think the CIA is a rogue organization that everyone, on every level of U.S. politics, is terrified of."
4. "He's a fighter, and I think the world's waking up."

Read original post

In The Zero Dollar Manifesto: Part One, we talked about why you’d want to hold zero dollars. With GetOnZero, you use bitcoin as the money in your checking account, while using the dollar as a legacy payment rail to remain interoperable with the fiat system. The benefits are clear to anyone who’s been down the bitcoin rabbithole: you are upgrading your money from one that is being actively devalued, to one that can’t. Touching dollars for no longer than a millisecond (only at the time of transaction) allows us to completely sidestep financial debasement by unelected bureaucrats in government. 

Friction in going dollar-free

In The Zero Dollar Manifesto: Part Two, we walk through how to achieve this goal with the tools we have available to us today. Much of the process involved disparate tools, manual processes, and periods where we may be exposed to the dollar more than we’d ideally like to be. 

For example: you receive your paycheck via your “ACH Node” (discussed in Part Two here) via dollars. Instead of being instantly, automatically converted from Weak Money (dollars) to Strong Money (bitcoin), today you manually “buy” bitcoin with those dollars. Next, when it comes time to pay a bill through dollars via your ACH node, you manually “sell” the exact amount for the conversion & payment to go through. Unfortunately, chances are that your bills are not all due on the same day. This complication implies one of two strategies—either:  

1. remember to convert on the day-of payment (which adds friction to the experience—you’ll need reminders on multiple days), or 
2. batch convert all bill-pays at once (which may expose you to dollar debasement for longer periods).

Filing taxes at the end of the year is much easier than you may think, but still may involve a little bit of manual effort: 

1. getting a list of transactions from your exchange, 
2. formatting it properly, then 
3. uploading it to your tax tracking tool (see Part Two for specifics on tax related tools).

It’s worth it

I get it. Between work, family, and rising cost of living, we all have enough to deal with on a day-to-day basis. No one is looking for additional friction in their financial tools; none of this is the ideal GetOnZero experience. With that said, we’ve come a long way in the last few years. Developers and companies like Fold and Strike working on GetOnZero tools are actively looking for help—we owe it to ourselves to give them feedback and steer them in the right direction! I would argue that these compromises are minor, and are absolutely worth it in order to avoid financial debasement and fully participate in the upside of bitcoin’s purchasing power.

The ultimate vision

Originally, internet connectivity relied on dial-up connections through traditional, legacy phone lines, necessitating a switch between phone and internet usage. However, with technological advancements, the landscape shifted towards broadband internet access and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) for voice communication. This transition streamlined communication processes, offering faster internet speeds and enabling seamless integration of voice and data services over a single, interoperable network. Fast-forward past the transitionary period to today, and modern phone calls now primarily utilize digital upgraded networks, providing enhanced reliability, clarity, and efficiency compared to the legacy network.

From The Zero Dollar Manifesto: Part One

In much the same way, I see interoperability with legacy payment rails as a transitionary phase as we evolve into a fully hyperbitcoinized world with bitcoin as store of value, direct medium of exchange, and unit of account. Until then, it helps to have a foot in both worlds so we can focus on our craft, providing value, and enjoying life - rather than worrying about having a second job as an investor. 

Let’s be very clear about the ultimate vision of what a GetOnZero bank looks like: with your upgraded bank account, you will be able to send and receive money - anytime, anywhere, using any payment rail, without holding any fiat currency. You hold Strong Money (bitcoin) while being interoperable with anyone, regardless of what the medium of exchange or payment rail is. Conversions will happen instantaneously and automatically, without having to think about the underlying mechanics.

• If your employer requires paying you with dollars and ACH, you happily accept because you know your bank will automatically convert to Strong Money as soon as you receive it. 
• If your landlord only accepts Venmo, you happily pay, because you know it will automatically come out of your Strong Money (bitcoin) balance without you having to hold a Weak Money (dollar) balance. 
• If your rancher accepts bitcoin for beef, you will be proud to pay using the lightning network, thanks to the privacy benefits. You won’t be worried about spending your bitcoin, since you only have bitcoin  (no dollars!) to spend.

Whether it’s dollar bills, lightning network, ACH, ecash, or PayPal, you are fully interoperable with any payment rail while only holding bitcoin—upgraded money. 

How we get there

Here are the missing pieces, and the path to get to GetOnZero bank vision:

Instant conversions

Conversions between Strong Money (bitcoin) and Weak Money (dollars) must be instant. When receiving via the dollar network, it’s important to instantly convert to bitcoin to completely sidestep fiat financial debasement. When sending money, conversions from bitcoin to dollars must be instant, to be able to make payments at any time without running into liquidity constraints (eg. waiting 2-5 business days for a transfer to settle).

Today, some products have instant conversions (milliseconds), while others have near-instant conversions (1-5 minutes). As conversion time decreases, we’ll be exposed to weak money for little time. 

Automated conversions

While not a strict requirement for those of us that are willing to jump through a few hoops (like manually buying and selling), automated conversions between Strong Money (bitcoin) and Weak Money (dollars) are critical to providing a smooth user experience that abstracts away underlying complexities–the optimal user experience.

When dollars touch your bank account (via ACH, account/routing number, or wire) a bitcoin-buy order is placed, instantly converting the fiat currency into bitcoin.

On the other side (say you need to pay off your credit card bill, denominated in fiat currency): When an ACH-pull is triggered by your credit card company, a bitcoin-sell order is placed, converting the exact amount of bitcoin you need to fiat currency to pay off the bill.

This way, you are only exposed to fiat currency debasement at the time of transaction, and for no longer.

Zero transaction fees

There is no denying that it’s important for a financial services company to be able to earn revenue to be a sustainable business. That said, charging a fee (or spread) on conversions negatively incentivizes the conversion process. 

It’s not a big deal if a is occasionally buying bitcoin or sets up a recurring DCA. It’s much more painful when they are frequently converting between Weak and Strong money. Conversions should not be penalized! Fees cause huge psychological friction.

Instead of charging a conversion fee, the ideal Strong Money bank would charge a recurring subscription fee, better aligning incentives for providing a valuable financial service. This bank could have two tiers of service: one for occasional buyers (fee-based) and another for those who live on bitcoin (subscription).

Bitcoin rails

Interoperability with legacy rails is critical for this transitionary period we’re living through. With that said, being able to make payments via superior, upgraded rails (bitcoin-native rails) is even better whenever possible. If you’re able to spend your money (bitcoin) with both payment rails, you and your counterparty have a choice of which rail to use—and there are clear benefits of using upgraded rails.

Lightning network interoperability

The lightning network is a second-layer scaling solution for near instant, inexpensive bitcoin payments. You can think of lightning as a clearing mechanism between different self-custodial wallets, fedimints, and banks. Imagine a world where you can spend bitcoin to pay rent via ACH, and pay for coffee via lightning—using the same Strong Money bank. A single bitcoin balance, available to pay anyone, regardless of rails. 

Bitcoin withdrawals

Most bitcoin banks will likely be custodial (third-party custody), at least during this transitionary period of using the dollar as a legacy payment rail. While there is certainly a downside risk of custodial bitcoin, the benefit is ease of use and user experience. By storing some money in a Strong Money Bank, you can seamlessly spend that money via bitcoin-native rails, or legacy (dollar) rails without having to manually transfer funds.

On-chain withdrawals of your bitcoin will be critical to allowing for a “run on the bank”, and will help to keep these Strong Money banks honest. In your bitcoin bank, store only what you need for your “checking account” amounts, and withdraw the rest to cold storage. Not your keys, not your bitcoin.

However, some people that have a fixed number of bills in the month (say, a couple credit card bills, mortgage, car payment) may be comfortable with the tradeoff of manually depositing bitcoin into their Strong Money bank right before a payment is due, in order to minimize custodial risk. A good Strong Money bank should allow you to deposit and withdraw your money to your own self-custody wallet via bitcoin-native payment rails (on-chain, lightning). 

Bitcoin deposits

As bitcoin evolves as a medium of exchange, many customers will want to accept bitcoin directly for goods and services. As Parker Lewis talks about in his Pay Me In Bitcoin Theory, this behavior is rational. Accepting bitcoin directly bypasses added friction in acquire Strong Money: namely cost in conversion between Weak and Strong Money, and using more privacy preserving payment rails (bitcoin-native rails). Allowing for bitcoin deposits will make your bitcoin bank a one-stop shop for all bitcoin transactions, including using legacy payment rails via the dollar. 

Allowing for deposits will also let customers spend bitcoin savings without having to keep a large custodial balance. By withdrawing your balance after exceeding a certain amount (based on your custodial risk appetite), you can withdraw to self custody. Then, if you need to spend your bitcoin via the dollar as a payment rail, deposit the bitcoin and spend via your bitcoin bank.

Tax reporting improvements

Today, your bitcoin exchange or Strong Money bank provides a simple spreadsheet of buy and sell transactions. This data needs to be manually formatted, and then uploaded to your tax tracking tool of choice (eg. Cointracker). Getting this transaction information into the tool is important to be able to minimize your tax liability, since we are converting between Strong and Weak money often. As we discussed in detail in The Zero Dollar Manifesto: Part Two, capital gains tax should not be an impediment to upgrading your money. If you owe tax, it’s because you are coming out ahead compared to holding Weak Money. All of this is fairly straightforward, and takes me around 30-60 minutes every year. 

That said, it is additional friction that could be abstracted away. In the future, Strong Money banks could export spreadsheets already pre-formatted for the most popular tax tracking software. Even better—they could have one-click integrations with tax tools like Cointracker or TurboTax.

Spending on collateralized credit: GetOnNegative?

As we discussed in The Zero Dollar Manifesto: Part Two, spending on credit is not critical, but helps streamline some of the experience around transactions. If you could minimize spending your bitcoin to zero (and spend on credit), would you?

In this hypothetical example, your checking account balance (held in Strong Money: bitcoin) would be used as collateral for a revolving line of credit (similar to a HELOC) that you could draw on at any time. This bank would have both ACH and lightning network interoperability, so that you could “unleash” your collateral (checking account balance) without spending it directly, to pay for rent, coffee, and more.

The obvious risk here would be exchange rate fluctuations, but it could be mitigated by having enough of a balance to be able to withstand harsh drawdowns.

Other non-dollar assets

Hold a basket of assets, while being interoperable with any payment rail

Relax—I’m not talking about altcoins! 

GetOnZero doesn’t mean hold only bitcoin. It just means holding fiat currencies that are actively debased by governments. 

What if you could hold Apple shares, stock market index funds, or even gold ETFs in your Strong Money bank, and be interoperable with all payment rails? Imagine a basket of these non-dollar assets as your money that you can send, receive, and save in. It’s not something I’m personally interested in (bitcoin-only for me!) but I could see this being a useful bridge service, especially for those who are more concerned about bitcoin’s near-term exchange rate volatility measured in dollars. Additionally, this would likely increase the total-addressable-market for a GetOnZero product by going beyond just bitcoiners.

Banking table-stakes

Debit cards are important for both spending money, and being able to withdraw dollar bills from ATMs. “Spend your bitcoin” using dollar bills as a payment rail: a great privacy win! Some transactions require the use of personal checks, so being interoperable with that payment rail is important as well.

KYC concerns

In my opinion, Know Your Customer and Anti Money Laundering laws harm honest citizens more than they do stop criminals, and should be abolished. That said, there is no denying the fact that Strong Money bank will be required to comply with KYC/AML regulations. I don’t like it or agree with it, but that’s one of the tradeoffs of using a convenient Strong Money bank.

If noKYC is a strict requirement for you, I still think the Strong Money mental model can be a valuable one to internalize. Holding as few dollars as possible should be the goal, and the specific mechanics can be adjusted depending on your acceptance of KYC vs UX tradeoffs.

Some examples of privacy-friendly ways of spending Strong Money are: The Bitcoin Company VISA gift cards, Fold gift cards, and noKYC physical cash ATMs.

You may still want to track the cost basis of your noKYC coins. Privacy is the ability to selectively reveal information about yourself, so being able to choose to reveal cost basis information if you need to spend large amounts of bitcoin via a KYC exchange (eg. buying a house) can be a useful preparatory tool.

Looking ahead: imagine a future where all Square terminals accept bitcoin directly, and your landlord accepts bitcoin as payment. I’m optimistic that this future is coming soon. I am hopeful that legacy payment rails are a transitionary phase until bitcoin-native rails are more commonplace, and we can spend bitcoin directly in a more privacy-preserving way.

Note: I am by no means a bitcoin privacy expert. Follow my friends Matt Odell and Tony Giorgio for more information on how to transact privately with bitcoin.

A call to action

Bitcoin has superior monetary properties to dollars in almost every way. Those of us who already have a large potion of their savings in bitcoin already understand this. As far as I can tell, the primary benefit of the dollar is its salability—that is, it’s much more widely accepted around the world. 

When we GetOnZero and use the dollar as a payment rail rather than an asset, we get the best of both worlds: the salability of dollars with the store of value properties of bitcoin. 

After Parts 1, 2, and 3, we now understand why we should hold zero dollars, know how to functionally implement the framework today, and are aware of the tradeoffs. If you believe in this vision and are a builder yourself, now is the time to implement this vision. If you work at a bitcoin company, consider adding these features to your roadmap. If you’re a client of a bitcoin company, ask your favorite product when they are going to help you GetOnZero. 

Now is the time. There is no need to wait for “hyperbitcoinzation”. We’re living through it.

Engage & learn more

Have specific questions? Find me on Twitter @SahilC0 and join the GetOnZero Telegram group here. 

Read Part One and Part Two on TFTC.

Originally published on Sahil's Substack

Read original post

Every once in awhile the veil is pierced and the world gets a glimpse into the inner workings of the power structure. Earlier today we were blessed with a slight piercing of the veil when Tucker Carlson told Glenn Beck the saga of his attempts to get former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to sit down for an interview to discuss Ukraine and Tucker's recent trip to Russia. Apparently Boris has been playing hard to get and wants Tucker to pay him $1,000,000 before agreeing to an interview.

This highlights just how sleezy your run-of-the-mill politician is. Instead of being a man and agreeing to a conversation in which he can engage in an honest exploration of competing ideas for the sake of providing the public with better context that could equip them with better knowledge to arrive at a more informed opinion on the topics at hand, it appears that Boris is more interested in a fat pay day. I guess $1,000,000 for one to two hours of work isn't a bad gig if you can get it, but this outrageous ask was more likely a way to create a scapegoat. "I was open to sitting down for a conversation but he wasn't willing to pay my rate!"

One of the interesting details that Tucker disclosed is the fact that Boris is demanding that his fee be paid in "US dollars, gold or bitcoin."

“He will talk to you, but he wants $1,000,000. $1,000,000 in either US dollars, gold, or bitcoin.”

Bitcoin is becoming mainstream pay-to-play money. Bullish.

pic.twitter.com/gesCQz11oT

— Marty Bent (@MartyBent) February 20, 2024

A former Prime Minister doesn't even want to accept pounds, which should tell you all you need to know about that particular cuck buck. But, alas, that's not the point of this article. Boris Johnson, despite being a warmongering statist who would like to shovel billions of more dollars toward the war in Ukraine, is a man of good taste in the arena of pay-to-play currencies. If he's going to risk getting embarrassed in front of a global audience he might as well walk away with some good money. The fact that he has bitcoin as one of his payment options is indicative of two things; he understands the best way to preserve his wealth over the long-term and bitcoin is more respected in the eyes of people who understand the incumbent monetary system than most people realize.

Bitcoin becoming mainstream pay-to-play money is a very bullish indicator. Boris Johnson being part of a political class that has embarked on a coordinated effort over the last decade-and-a-half to label bitcoin as the currency of drug dealers and money launderers is the cherry on top of this particular story. It proves that the political class deals in propaganda seeped in pure projection. They will be the first to attempt to drive the Common Man away from bitcoin and even go as far as to try to prevent him from accessing it if he is so willing while also demanding it in payment for themselves.

That is where the signal lies. Despite what many in the political class would attempt to have you believe, they understand that bitcoin is better money. This is an undeniable fact. There will only ever be 21,000,000 bitcoin. It is divisible. It is portable (over the Internet). It is easy and cheap to verify. It is extremely hard to corrupt. It is impossible to centrally control. And it is running in a race with a bunch of chronically ill competitors. Every fiat currency is mathematically destined to be debased into oblivion. Precious metals are woefully centralized and impractical for facilitating day-to-day trade. As Michael Saylor likes to day, there is no second best. Most of the world doesn't realize this fact yet, but it doesn't negate the fact that it is a fact. Bitcoin is the best money in the world and that is an objective statement.

Boris Johnson understands this and many others like him do as well. They would like you to believe otherwise because their careers are wholly dependent on making everyone believe that the money they can print at will is the best money. Their ability to print that money at the snap of a finger is what seeds all of their power and control.

Their efforts to prevent bitcoin's proliferation will be futile in the end. They can't help but slowly kill themselves via 1,000 cuts and today's piercing of the veil was just one slash of many more to come.

Final thought...

My son's favorite game at the moment is to make me begin reciting the alphabet so that he can insert a random word between "f" and "g". "A-B-C-D-E-F-TOILET-PAPER-G" doesn't really flow well, but the giggle fits will fill your heart.

Use the code "TFTC" for 15% off

Read original post

Key Takeaways:

Tucker Carlson's groundbreaking interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin has sparked a flurry of controversy, revealing much about the current state of journalism, diplomacy, and international relations. Carlson's trip to Moscow and subsequent interview with Putin is a rare occurrence. This move has been met with both ridicule and praise, but it begs the question of why open dialogue with world leaders, even those we disagree with, has become so taboo.

The discussion in this episode offers a deep dive into the reasons behind Carlson's decision to engage with Putin, the insights gained from the interview, and the broader implications for the public discourse. It is underscored by an understanding that dialogue with opposing leaders is not an endorsement but a vital part of understanding global conflicts more fully.

Carlson's experience also sheds light on the state of American journalism, where the zeal for balanced reporting and the quest for truth appear to be overshadowed by political agendas and fear of backlash. The episode also touches on the theme of personal liberty and the paramount importance of functioning cities and societies, as Carlson reflects on his experiences in Moscow and draws parallels with the issues facing American cities today.

Best Quotes:

1. "Open and free dialogue is the foundation for a free society. It is also the foundation that peace can be built upon."
2. "Talk with everyone. You don't have to trust them, even like them, but talk to them."
3. "I'm not interested in proving I'm a good person. People can assess. God can assess. I just wanted information."
4. "I reserve the right to like anybody. I'm an adult man, an American citizen. I can like or dislike anyone I want."
5. "I'm an American citizen. I have not committed a crime. I can speak to anyone I want. And you're not allowed to use your creepy spy agencies against me because I'm your boss."
6. "I'm motivated by my loathing of the people in charge... I'm just against incompetent selfish, nasty, stupid people being in charge."

Conclusion:

The interview with Tucker Carlson post his return from Russia presents a fascinating case study in the conflicts between journalism, politics, and public perception. The episode serves as a reminder of the importance of seeking understanding even in the face of opposition and the value of challenging the status quo.

Carlson's actions provoke us to consider the true meaning of journalism and the responsibility of those who have the platform to engage with global leaders. His approach, rooted in seeking clarity and understanding, rather than succumbing to political pressures, offers a model for how we might navigate the complex geopolitical landscape of our time.

His provocative stance on the importance of conversation with adversaries, the critical examination of leadership, and the assertion of individual freedoms against overarching state control are themes that resonate in a world of polarized narratives. This episode ultimately serves as a call to remember the principles that underpin a free society and to recognize that peace, stability, and prosperity begin with informed, fearless dialogue. Carlson's experiences offer a lens through which to view our current challenges, urging us to engage with the world critically, to prioritize the well-being of our own society, and to uphold the values that have historically defined American democracy.

Read original post

Key Takeaways

The allure of centrally controlled systems can be traced back to two fundamental beliefs about humanity. Some see central control as a means to exercise their own will over others, stemming from grifter and manipulative tendencies. Others, however, believe that humanity's inherent nature is flawed or evil, necessitating external control to maintain order and virtue. This dichotomy underscores the broader debate on the role of governance and the nature of human beings.

Central to this discussion is the concept of property rights—a social construct essential for the advancement of civilization. The idea of property rights, though subjectively crafted, is objectively necessary for creating tight feedback loops, ensuring price discovery, and fostering non-violent dispute resolution. The adoption of private property is seen as a societal agreement to respect individual ownership and to disincentivize unproductive behavior such as theft.

The free market, viewed as a decentralized planning system, maximizes the efficiency of individual decision-making. By allowing people to act based on their unique knowledge and circumstances, free markets encourage adaptation and innovation. This system's effectiveness relies heavily on the protection of private property rights, viewed as the technological foundation for peace, economic prosperity, and freedom.

The podcast episode challenges the socialist premise that humans are fundamentally evil and require control. Instead, it promotes the notion that most people are inherently pro-social and that society should focus on empowering individuals rather than constraining them through centralized systems. This perspective also criticizes the intellectual arrogance that leads some to believe they can plan and control society for the greater good.

Best Quotes

1. "Property rights don't have to be absolute... They can be a tool invented for a purpose. And that purpose is we would like to live in a stellar empire instead of in grass huts."
2. "The strength to save your people lies within your people themselves. Trust them. Empower them. Don't control them."
3. "The tragedy of socialism is not that it is populated by stupid people, but that it incentivizes smart people to do stupid things."
4. "Civilization exists at all because human beings are a social animal. And the vast majority of us are pro-social."

Conclusion

This podcast episode delves into the philosophical underpinnings of societal organization, challenging the rationale behind centralized control and socialism. It posits that humanity, at its core, is pro-social, and that the key to a thriving civilization lies in respecting and protecting private property rights. The conversation illuminates the importance of freedom and decentralized decision-making as mechanisms for ensuring societal adaptability and innovation.

The episode concludes that the most profound societal change comes from technological advancements that redistribute power, such as bitcoin's potential to decentralize financial control. The overarching message is an affirmation of the human spirit's capacity for self-organization and cooperation, suggesting that the future lies in systems that empower individuals rather than constrain them.

As society continues to grapple with the balance between freedom and control, the insights from this episode offer valuable perspective, inviting further discussion on how best to harness humanity's pro-social nature for collective advancement.

Read original post

Recent reports from various media outlets have highlighted the extensive network of taxpayer-funded benefits available to both legal and illegal immigrants in the United States. The situation is causing a significant impact on public services, particularly in cities like Denver and New York.

In Denver, both the New York Post and Denver Post have reported that undocumented immigrants have strained the Denver Health hospital system. The situation has been described as unsustainable, with public schools also indicating an influx of children from immigrant families filling classrooms rapidly.

Source: CBS News

The City of New York and the state government have expanded local welfare programs to support immigrants. This includes pre-paid credit cards to ensure immigrants continue to receive cash and resources, funded by American taxpayers. Additionally, approximately 66,000 immigrants are housed in hotels and shelters, courtesy of New York and federal taxpayers.

Source: New York Post

USAToday has disclosed that colleges nationwide are receiving millions in taxpayer money to provide housing to immigrants at no charge. Similarly, Chicago's mayor has publicized the allocation of $17 million in taxpayer-funded giveaways to asylum seekers.

Source: USA Today

Source: CBS News

The Congressional Research Service estimated that in 2022, there were around 45-46 million foreign-born residents in the U.S., with nearly 24 million naturalized citizens and 12.9 million legal permanent residents (LPRs). There are also approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants, bringing the total number of non-citizen U.S. residents to about 23 million, or 51% of the foreign-born population.

Most immigrant foreign nationals are eligible for some type of taxpayer-funded public benefits. Undocumented immigrants, for instance, may legally access emergency Medicaid, soup kitchens, temporary housing, and programs for housing or financial assistance administered by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Legal foreign nationals can access most federal welfare programs after an initial five-year period, including Medicaid, CHIP, TANF, food stamps, and SSI. LPRs can collect unemployment compensation just like citizens, and applying for benefits like food stamps does not jeopardize their legal status.

Studies from the National Academies and the Center for Immigration Studies show that immigrant households use welfare programs at higher rates than native-born households. This is attributed to lower average incomes and larger families among immigrants. One CATO Institute report estimated the total cost of welfare for non-native U.S. residents in 2020 at $290.4 billion, with at least $150 billion consumed by foreign nationals.

It's clear from these reports that immigration to the United States is heavily subsidized, and the fiscal impact on the country is substantial. This information may lead to further discussions on the efficiency of taxpayer-funded programs and the management of immigration policies.

Ryan McMaken, executive editor at the Mises Institute, has highlighted the economic implications of these subsidies. His work sheds light on the broader economic theories that suggest the government's role in subsidizing immigration can lead to a higher number of migrants than there would be in the absence of such subsidies.

The current state of immigration and its financial implications on the United States remain a topic of discussion among policymakers, economists, and the general public. The reports underscore the complexity of the issue and the challenge of balancing humanitarian concerns with fiscal responsibility.

[

How the US Regime Subsidizes Immigration—both Legal and Illegal | Ryan McMaken

In recent months, stories from both the legacy media and the independent media have continued to pile up on how undocumented foreign nationals—also known as “migrants” and “illegal aliens”—are able to take advantage of a vast network of taxpayer funded benefits in daycare, medical care, housing, and

Mises InstituteRyan McMaken

](https://mises.org/wire/how-us-regime-subsidizes-immigration-both-legal-and-illegal?ref=tftc.io)

Read original post

Key Takeaways

Getagripa, the guest, is an architect with a 36-year residence in London and a 30-year tenure running her own architectural practice. She chose to appear as an avatar due to the potential risks to her business that could stem from openly expressing her dissenting views on climate change narratives and proposed government interventions, which she finds unrealistic and unhelpful for humanity.

Getagripa's journey into climate skepticism began in the early 2000s, catalyzed by an article featuring views of Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, challenging the consensus on global warming. Lawson's book "An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming" became a cornerstone for Getagripa's perspective, wherein Lawson posits that human-induced warming is negligible and potentially beneficial. The discussion also delved into the media's role in shaping the discourse, highlighting institutions like the BBC and their internal policies that shaped coverage on climate change.

Getagripa's skepticism intensified when she observed the educational system indoctrinating children with one-sided views on climate change. She noted the adverse reaction from the public and her peers when she questioned the prevailing climate change narrative, even leading her to hide climate crisis books from students to prevent what she considered brainwashing.

Getagripa criticized the construction industry's response to climate change, including the demand for architects to undertake additional reports and courses on sustainability and the environment, which she views as propaganda. She expressed her intention to challenge the compulsory courses by attending and providing critical feedback.

A positive note in the podcast was Getagripa's engagement with a group of students who were open to alternative views on climate change, suggesting that there's hope for more balanced discussions in the future.

Best Quotes

1. "I do not agree with the current popular discourse on climate. I do not agree that the proposals suggested, the restrictions the governments are proposing are realistic or helpful for humanity." - Getagripa, expressing her core disagreement with mainstream climate policies.
2. "I resent the word 'climate denier'... Nobody's denying there is a climate. What does that mean? It's just to put people like me down, just to bully us, actually." - Getagripa on the pejorative labeling of climate change skeptics.
3. "It is literally impossible to build and not omit CO2. It just isn't possible." - Getagripa on the unrealistic expectations of the construction industry in the context of climate change.
4. "I used to pick [climate crisis books] up, fold them, and hide them so that the kids wouldn't be brainwashed because they were brainwashing the children." - Getagripa, sharing her concerns about the one-sided education on climate issues.

Conclusion

The podcast episode with Getagripa provided a nuanced perspective on the climate change debate, highlighting the challenges faced by professionals who hold contrarian views. Getagripa's experiences and observations underscore the social and professional risks associated with questioning the established climate change narrative. Her story is a testament to the need for open discourse and critical examination of widely accepted beliefs and policies. The episode serves as a reminder that dissenting voices can play a crucial role in combatting destructive climate policies around the world.

Read original post

In the shadowy realms of dystopian literature, George Orwell's "1984" stands as a chilling prophecy of a future where freedom is but a word in the annals of history. The contemporary resurgence of Orwell's work is far from coincidental; it speaks to a growing unease as our societies inch closer to the oppressive realities he envisioned. The Academy of Ideas delves into this phenomenon, exploring the relevance of Orwell's predictions and juxtaposing them with those of Aldous Huxley, another luminary in the dystopian genre.

Orwell's speculation that Western societies might descend into totalitarianism is rooted in two emerging trends: the rise of collectivism and the proliferation of hedonism. Collectivism, the prioritization of group goals over individual aspirations, is the bedrock of ideologies such as socialism, communism, and fascism. Orwell, despite his socialist leanings, critiqued collectivism's dark potential to birth oligarchical collectivism – a totalitarian regime masquerading as a collective haven.

Orwell's paradoxical stance – a socialist who warned of socialism's descent into totalitarianism – stems from his belief in the inevitability of capitalism's demise. He envisioned that its fall would pave the way for collectivism, and his hope lay in the prospect of democratic socialism, a system preserving civil liberties while moderating economic disparities. However, the absence of successful democratic socialist precedents and the historical evolution of collectivist states towards totalitarianism painted a bleak picture.

The second trend, the escalation of hedonism, amplifies the totalitarian threat. Orwell posited that a society indulging in pleasure and shunning discomfort is vulnerable to domination. As people become preoccupied with pleasure, their resistance to authoritarian control diminishes, leaving them susceptible to those who would readily trample freedoms in pursuit of power.

Yet, as the Academy of Ideas points out, it is Huxley's "Brave New World" that might have more accurately foreseen the Western trajectory. Huxley's antipathy towards hedonism was founded on its potential as an instrument of oppression. In his eyes, a society that could satiate its hedonistic urges would trade freedom for pleasure, allowing control through conditioning and persuasion rather than overt force.

Huxley's foresight appears to resonate with today's reality: a world awash with distractions, where screens eclipse human interaction and medication is the go-to remedy for life's discomforts. People seem to embrace the very chains that bind them, lulled into complacency by the ceaseless pursuit of pleasure.

Yet, Orwell's apprehensions cannot be entirely dismissed. He acknowledged the possibility of a Huxleyan hedonistic phase, but only as a precursor to a more severe authoritarian rule – a rule that preys on the weakened state of a pleasure-seeking populace. As the Academy of Ideas warns, the emergence of a societal crisis could be the catalyst that thrusts us into the totalitarian nightmare Orwell envisioned.

As we stand at the crossroads of potential futures, the choice between the invisible shackles of a pleasure-drenched tyranny and the iron fist of an Orwellian state looms large. The Academy of Ideas invites us to reflect on this possibility and to consider the role we play in shaping the path forward.

Quotes:

1. "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell
2. "The world's stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can't get." - Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World"
3. "What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one." - Neil Postman, "Amusing Ourselves to Death"

In pondering these quotes and the arguments presented, we are confronted with a stark vision of the future and urged to choose our path wisely. The Academy of Ideas beckons us to engage with these philosophical debates and to consider the implications of our societal choices. As we look ahead, we must ask ourselves: will we succumb to the seduction of pleasure or awaken to the value of liberty?

Read original post

On January 28th, 2021, a seminal moment occurred in financial market history; Robinhood, and other brokers, turned off the buy button on $GME. The price, which had been moving parabolic above $500, cratered within hours. This exposed deep underlying truths about the stock market that have reverberated for years to come.

In September of 2019, a user named u/DeepFuckingValue begins posting on Reddit about a wild YOLO bet he makes using long-dated options and shares on the video game retailer company, Gamestop. Most thought he was half-crazed: the positions amounted to more than $50k!

In August of 2020, activist investor and founder of Chewy, Ryan Cohen, begins buying shares of Gamestop. He believes that $GME has massive untapped potential as a retailer, and even notes later in public filings that the stock has a large short interest in it.

That same month, u/DeepFuckingValue, who goes by RoaringKitty on Youtube, publishes his $GME long thesis, discussing the evolution of the gaming industry, the structure of the business, and what needs to change.

He notes that 95% of stores were EBITDA positive in 2019! By late December 2020, the stock had risen from $1 in the summer to the $3-5 range. DFV began doing more livestreams, and WallStreetBets begins to catch on to the hypetrain.

In early January, the stock ripped to $10. Then $20. Frantic options and share buying began to unfold, with many users posting screenshots of buys on Reddit. On the 11th, Ryan Cohen joins Gamestop's Board with a new vision of how the company should be run. Short-sellers begin to panic. Andrew Left, who runs Citron Research, is first to get run over, but continually insists that his thesis is correct and retail investors are "dumb money" who will be proven wrong.

Two weeks later, Citron would close its short position allegedly.

On Friday, January 22nd, the price would swing wildly, running into the $80 range before slamming down. News spread of the cornered shorts over the weekend. 

On Monday the 25th, $GME begins to move parabolic, ripping up by $59, or 167%. The WSB subreddit gets even more active. Internet virality took over. Twitter joined in, and memes began to abound targeting the massive short sellers and users created analogies to describe the process of a short squeeze to new investors.

Shockingly, users discovered short interest was 140%!

The shorts had shorted more shares than even existed. If retail bought enough of the shares, and held onto them, this could prolong the squeeze and ensure price rising into the thousands of dollars. On the afternoon of the 26th, Elon Musk tweeted Gamestonk! to his 100M+ twitter followers and the sub took off, gaining millions of followers in 24 hours. The price continued to rip upwards. Melvin Capital, staggering from losses, receives a $2.8 billion bailout from Ken Griffin and Steve Cohen.

A day later, the WSB discord was overwhelmed with users as well as "inflammatory comments” and Discord decided to shut it down. The mods put out a call for help on the WallStBets subreddit, explaining that they were overwhelmed. On January 27th, $GME price soars to $347.51/share, and the pressure continues to build on the shorts. Robinhood and Citadel begin secret calls. Ken Griffin is hugely underwater.

Credit to u/ringingbells for the graphic;

Melvin Capital publicly claims that it has closed out its short position.

In the early morning of Jan 28th, 2021, the price goes truly exponential. $400, then $450, then $500 a share. Users celebrate ecstatically, it appears that the shorts are truly trapped.

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l8mzow/welcome_to_the_endgame/

In the final moments of the run-up, some users report selling fractional shares of $GME for $2600 a share. A potential generational wealth transfer is at hand.

Another user posts fractional sales ABOVE $5k!

reddit.com/r/Superstonk/c…

https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/12gjugb/fractional_gme_shares_were_selling_for_512450_per/

The price goes truly parabolic and reaches $500 a share. The sub is in disbelief. Then, the unthinkable happens. A few minutes later, Robinhood releases a statement that it is turning off the buy button.

The app no longer allows purchases of new positions, and the security becomes position close ONLY. The internet immediately goes into uproar. Twitter and Reddit both explode. Here are some examples:

The CEO of Interactive Brokers goes live on CNBC and claims that the buy button had to be shut off because the market was at risk of collapsing.

Due to the buying craze of meme stocks, clearing houses were exposed to double-digit billions of losses and due to concerns of potential defaults and market integrity concerns, restricted buying was enacted across platforms.

Etrade, IBKR, eToro, Merril Lynch, WeBull and more all prohibit buying. 

NSCC, the National Securities Clearing Corporation, waives capital premium charges for ALL MEMBERS.

Funny enough, the links to this statement on the NSCC website and the Fed's website are broken. 

This margin exclusion includes negating a $2.2B margin call on Robinhood. 

Robinhood wasn't the one who got the largest margin call. Instinet was- and it was waived $50 BILLION in Excess Capital Premium Charge!

User u/VerySlump hypothesizes that we were very close to "setting off a market nuclear bomb"

reddit.com/r/wallstreetbe…

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l7bpf5/30_seconds_from_triggering_market_nuclear_bomb/

Rage continued on the internet. The kings of high finance had been caught with their pants down, and retail was poised to profit to the tune of billions. At the last second, they changed the rules to save themselves.

The next day, the internet is still abuzz. Robinhood and other firms slowly lift the ban on the buy button, but still restrict purchases of shares. 

Michael Burry comes out of the woodwork. He also tweets that it took weeks for them to find his shares, and many firms were likely naked shorting the stock. 

Class-Action Lawsuits are filed all across the country. S3 Partners Claims 113.31% $GME Short Interest on the 29th. This countered CNBC who claimed the shorts were all closed

The sub bands together. Many users had lived through 2008 and recall the tough times caused by bank mismanagement of financial assets.

Retail was not bailed out last time. The financial media appears to be completely in the pockets of the large firms Robinhood is forced to raise $1B in additional capital on Friday the 29th. Many politicians promise investigations. Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas Launches Investigation Into Robinhood. 

Much happens over this weekend, including massive spikes in the silver price, which the media claimed was due to the "reddit crowd". In reality, silver posts were virtually non-existent on WSB.

When trading opens again on February 1st, the price begins to plummet. Over the next few weeks, negative articles abound and the press begins to claim that "the squeeze is over". 

However, in late February, the price rips upwards again. This time, no massive retail buzz was occurring beforehand, so WSB "mass buying" does not appear to be the culprit. Several learnings are clear from the Jan 2021 events with $GME.

First, shorting mechanisms are badly abused in our markets. Some securities, like $GME, were able to be sold over 100% of the float. The 140% short interest on the stock was later found to be the maximum that the system could report. In reality, the stock was shorted around 220%, and even that might be conservative. S3 Partners changed how they calculated SI to ensure this couldn't happen again:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/too38h/wondering_what_all_the_hype_is_about_gamestop/

Second, financial media takes the side of the institutions, every time. The appeal to "retail investors" is a facade- it's a wonder that these news channels can even retain any of their legitimacy after this, with a notable example being Jim Cramer.  Third, the clearinghouses, NSCC, and DTCC worked together to protect the brokers, short-sellers, and other firms who had been caught in this trade.

"Free and fair markets" was now clearly shown for what it was- A LIE. 

An SEC report released later announced a startling find-

https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf

THIS WAS NOT A SHORT SQUEEZE.

Short buy volume represented a small fraction of overall buying.

The Game is NOT Over.

This article was originally written on The Dollar End Game.

Read original post

What does it mean to “GetOnZero dollars”?

(Originally published on Sahil's Substack)

GetOnZero is a movement that’s challenging the belief that we need to hold dollars. That’s right: this means holding 0 dollars at all. Zero. None. With GetOnZero, you use bitcoin instead of the dollar as your money.  GetOnZero as a framework helps to reframe the function of the dollar in our lives. (No, you don’t need to actively hold on to dollars to pay taxes.)

In adopting this framework, you are upgrading the money in your bank from one that can be printed and devalued at will (your dollars) to one that cannot (bitcoin). As I describe in my article Rethinking the function of fiat currency, removing the need to hold fiat for more than a millisecond allows us to completely sidestep financial debasement via monetary inflation.

Notably, “Getting on zero” doesn’t mean owning 100% bitcoin and nothing else. It just means holding 0 fiat. Having a roof over your head, a car to get around, a piece of a business (equity), ammo, and gold all have a place.

You might think this is impossible, crazy, or even radical. I believe it’s the opposite. Rethinking the function of dollars (and holding none) is beautiful in its simplicity. Holding zero dollars allows us to avoid the traps of timing the market (“buying the dips”) and frees us up to produce more value, thus earning more bitcoin. In this series, I aim to make a case for Getting On Zero dollars being rational and being much more achievable than you may think_._ 

Bitcoin’s journey in a portfolio

For many of us, the start of our bitcoin journey involved “getting off zero” bitcoin–just dipping our toes in the water. Just a 1% hedge, “in case it catches on”, in the words of Satoshi Nakamoto. 

As we start to dive down the rabbit hole–listening to bitcoin podcasts, reading articles, going to meetups and conferences–our conviction in bitcoin grows. Naturally, our exposure to this “investment” grows along with it–5% to 20% to 50% to 80% and more. Sound familiar?

The next step for bitcoin in your portfolio is learning from Pierre Rochard and Bitstein that bitcoin is a form of savings that can’t be debased rather than an “investment.” So the next morning after realizing this epiphany, you wake up and convert 100% of your stock and bond “investments” into bitcoin savings. 

At this point,  we’ve naturally reached the final logical step of upgrading 100% of cash in your checking account as well. It shouldn’t be, but in some ways this is the most challenging step. Let’s explore why we’d want to do this.

Playing “hot potato” with Weak Money

Say you’re visiting family in Spain, for a month-long vacation. How many dollars are you going to convert into euros? Likely, just enough for your trip. Why hold more of a currency that isn’t otherwise useful to you? 

On the other hand, say you were visiting Venezuela instead. How much would you convert to bolivars? Likely just enough for the week, if not less. The rapid depreciation of bolivars means you’d come out ahead holding the stronger money (dollars) for as long as possible, and converting to the weak money (bolivars) only when needed.

The purchasing power of Weak Money always depreciates

Let’s take this idea of playing hot-potato with Weak Money to its logical extreme. What if you could convert the Strong Money into the Weak Money, but only the amount you need for the day? 

What about just enough for the hour? 

What about for the millisecond?

That’s what GetOnZero means–upgrading your money to the maximum extent possible. Save in Strong Money (bitcoin), and convert just as much as you need at the time of transaction (a millisecond) into Weak Money (dollars). 

Dollars are a payment rail to move bitcoin

The dollar and bitcoin are both monetary assets that can be transferred, or sent, with the help of payment rails. Dollars can be moved around with the help of payment rails like the PayPal network, the ACH network, or the transfer of physical bills. Sats (smallest unit of a bitcoin) on the bitcoin network can be moved over bitcoin-native payment rails (on-chain, lightning, sidechains). Therefore, shouldn’t bitcoin–upgraded, Strong Money–be able to be moved/sent using any payment rail? 

In the last section, we talked about converting Strong Money to Weak Money only at the time of transaction and no longer, to protect ourselves from Weak Money debasement. Going further and abstracting away that last millisecond, we can now see that the dollar is not an asset to hold. Rather, the dollar’s utility is really as a payment rails (alongside PayPal, lightning, ACH and physical bills) to move money (bitcoin). By distinguishing between holding the asset and using the rails, we can now envision a world where we have bank accounts that look familiar to what we see today, but using upgraded Strong Money–bitcoin–all the while remaining interoperable with legacy payment networks via the dollar.

Holding dollars just to spend with merchants who haven’t upgraded yet

Using the dollar as a payment rail to move bitcoi

As I describe in Rethinking the function of fiat currency–whether you are paying your mortgage bill or buying a cup of coffee–you and your counterparty have a choice to use bitcoin-native payment rails (superior) or legacy fiat payment rails (inferior). This way, your base money is bitcoin, but you are fully interoperable with the legacy fiat payment rails.

Should everyone do this?

To be clear — none of this should be dogmatic. This isn’t a purity test of who’s a “better bitcoiner”. At the end of the day, all of us who own bitcoin will win. That said, whether you’re considering your family’s balance sheet or your business’s, once the mental model clicks and you upgrade your money, there's no turning back.

Individuals & families

Eventually, everyone is a good candidate for getting “on zero” dollars. Upgrading your money to bitcoin however, definitionally requires both understanding and faith in bitcoin’s superior monetary properties. One must first understand (or at least, trust) why bitcoin’s monetary properties can be credibly enforced, before converting all of their weak money to strong money. It's a journey.

For example: if you are earlier on in your bitcoin journey and are allocating 2-10% of your “well-balanced” portfolio, GetOnZero may sound extreme (for now). On the other hand, if you’re been in bitcoin for some time and already have, say, 75-90% of your savings in bitcoin–YOU are who I am speaking to. I am speaking to those who have a level of conviction where going from 90% to 100% bitcoin is simply logical.

Businesses

Some take the view that businesses should not “speculate” on bitcoin, and should instead let shareholders buy bitcoin on their own. Those same people, however, don’t bat an eye when they tell you their business holds Weak Money (which is guaranteed to depreciate) on their balance sheet.

In principle, I don’t see much of a difference in operation between businesses and families, other than scale. You may need more working capital for a business compared to a family, but the logic is the same.

The same principles of Strong Money apply: dollars are a legacy payment rail to move Strong Money, rather than an asset to hold on your balance sheet. Michael Saylor (CEO of MicroStrategy) goes farther than most businesses, and puts all company savings in bitcoin. However, he currently still holds (and advocates for holding) Weak Money for operational expenses.

My guess is, at the moment, the tools don’t yet exist to quickly convert large amounts of working capital between Weak and Strong Money. If/when they do, I imagine Saylor would change his tune on currencies, and hold only Strong Money (while using Weak Money as a legacy payment rail).

The time to GetOnZero dollars is now

Why is now the time to upgrade your money? 

It’s getting easier

I often hear that juggling between dollars and bitcoin is inconvenient. Today, this is honestly a fair point. For many who are 99% bitcoin, 1% dollars, it may not be worth the manual effort of buying, selling, tracking cost basis for tax purposes. However, where there’s a will, there’s a way - tools like Fold, Strike, Base, and Cash App are building features at a rapid rate that are increasing the convenience and usability of Strong Money. Very soon, it will be a no brainer.

Everything gets cheaper

As I say in Rethinking the function of fiat currency: on average, every dollar held loses purchasing power, while every sat held gains purchasing power. Bitcoin can also be sent instantly and without permission from any authority. In other words, bitcoin has superior salability across both time and space compared to fiat currencies.

Everything gets cheaper when you upgrade to Strong Money.

When governments print Weak Money, they inflate the price of goods and services, denominated in that Weak Money. On the other hand, the price of those same goods and services go down in Strong Money terms. In other words, on average, your cost of living gets cheaper on a daily basis when you upgrade your money.

Source: @muststopmurad There’s no reason to wait.

I’m a fan of this graphic from Murad showing different phases of adoption of money. With that said, there’s absolutely no reason to wait for some vague notion of “hyperbitcoinization”, or bitcoin to be declared legal tender by your government. Once you understand that bitcoin is a superior store of value, it’s simply logical to go all the way and completely opt out of monetary debasement. 

Why hold Weak Money at all? 

Handling volatility

Volatility, specifically referring to exchange rate volatility against US dollars, doesn’t have to be scary. Bitcoin is upgraded money, and on average, your purchasing power will increase over time. 

Regardless, there are ways of minimizing the impact of exchange rate volatility. For example, as long as your expenses are less than your income, spending on credit (eg. a credit card) allows you to pay off the line-of-credit from your income, directly as it comes in. This way, you sidestep exchange rate volatility completely. Over time, as your savings balance increases (and time goes by), you are more easily able to absorb that volatility (thanks to exponentially increasing purchasing power). 

There are few cases when ignoring volatility can be easier said than done. Someone living paycheck to paycheck who upgrades their money to bitcoin at the “top” of a 4-year cycle (eg. $69,000 in 2021) may (reasonably) be terrified when bitcoin’s dollar exchange rate inevitably draws down 80% from its peak. 

For that person, it’s true that for a short period of time, the purchasing power of their savings would decrease. It would also mean that their paychecks would acquire more units of upgraded money -- as the exchange rate goes down, you get more units of bitcoin. Once the exchange rate recovers, as it always does, they would end up with even greater savings. Remember that we cannot time the market, and on average, our savings will grow in purchasing power thanks to bitcoin’s immutable scarcity. 

{Insert chart from Dylan I think? Showing people in profit even if they bought the top}

Reasonable minds can disagree on the approach here. One strategy is to make a decision like this gradually. In a way, we can upgrade our money over time, rather than all at once. For example, someone who has no savings at all may want to save up a year’s worth of Weak Money before upgrading, to be able to absorb any exchange rate volatility. Once they have a buffer for emergencies, then upgrading all your money becomes an easier sell.

We can upgrade our money over time

A different strategy employs the argument that monetary inflation impacts those with little-to-no savings the most, anyway. This is because a greater percentage of their (small) net worth is held in Weak Money.  If someone has little-to-no savings anyway, monetary inflation impacts them the most since a greater percent of their net worth is held in Weak Money. Inflation is a regressive tax. These families are exposed to all the downside of fiat depreciation, with none of the upside of bitcoin. Is there really much to lose?

To say that the poor cannot save upgraded money is, frankly, condescending. Everyone should be able to save the fruits of their labor in the strongest form of money, rather than in a form that faceless bureaucrats quietly steal from. 

Saving in Upgrading Money is the best hope of getting out of the paycheck-to-paycheck cycle.

Stop trying to “buy the dip” or “DCA”

Those who hold a dollar balance in order to “buy the dip” (i.e. when bitcoin’s exchange rate against dollars temporarily drops) are tacitly acknowledging that they are trying to time the market and behave like an active trader. Instead, think from first principles. Ignore the noise of market distractions, and stay laser focused. Stay humble, stack sats, and upgrade your money! If you GetOnZero, you will definitionally spend less time trying to time the market which will free up your time and energy to produce more value, thus earning more bitcoin.

Dollar-cost averaging (DCA), on the other hand, is a fair strategy for those who haven’t fully upgraded their money to bitcoin yet. Especially if you have self-awareness that you are not as able to handle the volatility of exchange rate fluctuations. However, DCA implies holding Weak Money for longer than you need to.

Beauty in simplicity

There’s something beautiful in the simplicity of upgrading your money. There’s no “hedge”, no complex basket of assets that make up your savings. There’s no need to differentiate between your checking account, savings account, emergency fund. It’s all just cash savings–as it used to be!

Pierre Rochard talks about the purpose of cash savings, as a hedge against future uncertainty. Bitcoin is the perfect form of cash. As a system, it perfects every property of money. By upgrading our money to bitcoin, we return to traditional wisdom of the golden ages. Cash savings are critical to hedge against future uncertainty. In other words: do your job, spend less than you make, save the rest. There’s something truly liberating in the simplicity of completely upgrading your money to bitcoin.

“The greatest gift bitcoin could give you is to stop thinking about bitcoin” 
- ProgrammableTx

Michael Saylor (CEO of MicroStrategy) often shares his advice about curating your environment to achieve laser focus. By upgrading our money to bitcoin, we are achieving a similar end goal of radical simplicity. With so many distractions in our modern, over-financialized world, as Parker Lewis says, “bitcoin is the great definancialization”. 

Freedom to spend (not sell)

Many fear becoming the “10,000 BTC pizza guy”. In 2010, Laszlo bought two pizzas for 10,000 bitcoins. To avoid this future regret of “spending” multigenerational wealth, many instead choose to “spend fiat, and stack sats”. In other words, they choose to spend their Weak Money and save in Strong Money. 

Which makes sense, if you hold any Weak Money at all. 

Unfortunately, in addition to ending up with less bitcoin, this also leads to a lack of incentive to spend bitcoin in peer-to-peer, bitcoin-native, privacy-preserving ways.

When you hold no Weak Money, and only hold Strong Money, all of a sudden you aren’t psychologically pinned down by the weight of your Weak Money. Tautologically, when you only have bitcoin to spend, you can only spend bitcoin! The psychological friction in spending Strong Money disappears overnight, and you feel more open to pay in bitcoin using bitcoin-native rails, helping to kickstart your local circular economy and protecting your financial privacy along the way.

In other words, you don’t “sell bitcoin” (for dollars). Instead, spend bitcoin when you need to, whether via bitcoin-native payment rails or via legacy rails (dollars).

Upgrading your money enables the bitcoin circular economy, one balance sheet at a time.

When you upgrade your money, spending bitcoin goes from being ideological to logical.

When to hold Weak Money

One of the reasons we want to upgrade our money is to sidestep financial debasement. In other words, to protect ourselves from fiat currency inflation, which is a hidden form of theft and lowers our purchasing power.

If there’s a large, fixed-amount expense in the very near future that is not affected by monetary inflation, and you want to protect yourself from short term volatility, I could see holding that amount of Weak Money. If you do that, you won’t benefit from the purchasing power increase of holding Strong Money, but you protect yourself from the short-term downside risk of exchange rate fluctuation.

This is an acceptable tradeoff in some circumstances where the amount is large, fixed, and in the near term. For example: you’re looking to put a $50,000 down payment on a house in the next few months. It’s unlikely that the purchasing power of $50,000 will radically depreciate in such a short period (at least, at the time of writing this article). You also miss out on the potential upside of holding Strong Money, but some may consider this a reasonable tradeoff for the short term promise of maintaining purchasing power.

OK, so how do we actually do this?

At this point, you may be wondering how the mechanics of this work. 

• How do you actually pay bills denominated in dollars while holding bitcoin?  
• What does it actually mean for dollars to be a payment rail to move bitcoin?
• What about taxes?
• How does this actually work under the good?

We’ll explore all of this and more in Parts 2 and 3 of the Zero Dollar Manifesto.

Engage & learn more

Have specific questions? Find me on Twitter @SahilC0 for Part 2 and 3, and join the GetOnZero Telegram group here.

Read original post

I spent a cup of coffee at Spotify after Anchor was sold to the Swedish streaming giant. Picture the deal from Succession but a lot of actually smart people and no drama. One behind-the-scenes story though is I don’t think anyone told me and the deal was done months prior because I would have popped off on Twitter about it. I definitely would have so it was very smart to not tell me. The new 250 MILLION dollar deal Joe Rogan just signed proves that the internet never loses. Let me explain.

So why would Spotify give Joe Rogan $250 million and let him post the show to every platform? To quote the late great Omar Little, “Money ain’t got no owners, only spenders”

2.8 billion long-form views before they shut down the long-form version of the show on YouTube.

2.8 billion/1,000 (this is how you calculate a CPM) *$50 (it’s going to be way more because he is the top dog but let's make this simple) is 140 million dollars. Spotify is betting on what everyone in this game already knows you are NOT BEATING YOUTUBE ON DISTRIBUTION anytime soon. See below.

The only way YouTube is ever beaten (no it won't be Tiktok) is if there is a major AI breakthrough and you can search with your mind or some other wacky SciFi shit. The second biggest search engine on the planet is owned by the first, Spotify knows this and is betting on the scale of the advertising for the show vs their owned and operated. Smart move.

Having a show on one "station" made sense during the Howard Stern days via Sirius because there was no distribution. Now "distribution's" total addressable market is every person on the planet.

However, Joe Rogan is 56. He was not going to be the guy who rocks the boat but the NEXT Joe Rogan (my bet is Pat McAfee) won’t do any deal with any platform. The real future of this is going beyond platforms.

Eventually, we won’t talk about platforms anymore. When Bitcoin wins everything will be everywhere and you will pay in SATS to do everything on the internet. Listen to Joe Rogan for only 15 minutes? You pay less than the guy who listens for 2 hours. Want to interact with your favorite author as you are reading their book? Pay them a few SATS and his AI LLM will tell you exactly what he meant writing a specific chapter. The internet with a universal payment layer becomes the first value-for-value frontier ever created and we are starting it with Mash. I am not as bullish as Marty (frankly because I am not as smart and he is probably right it happens sooner than we all think) but I do think it will happen in my lifetime (I am closer to 40 than 30 so you can do the math). We will see an internet that resembles something vastly different before I die and Bitcoin will be the driving force behind it. Joe Rogan indirectly just started this future because distribution has just won over a closed system subscription-based approach to content monetization.

And who knows, with the amount of alien content Joe Rogan does, maybe the whole universe can listen to his show. That is a lot of distribution....

Read original post

The Darien Gap is a geographical region that has garnered significant attention in recent years due to the massive movement of migrants attempting to traverse its challenging terrain. This article aims to dissect the nature of the Darien Gap, the migration patterns through it, and the implications of this phenomenon as described by Dr. Brett Weinstein on a recent interview with Tucker Carlson.

The Darien Gap Defined

The Darien Gap is a dense jungle located between Panama and Colombia, serving as a break in the Pan-American Highway, which extends from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, to the southern tip of South America. The gap is not a canyon but rather a 60-mile stretch of impenetrable jungle that has remained undeveloped due to both the difficulty of constructing a road through such a landscape and the dangers associated with the area.

Migration Through the Darien Gap

Despite the treacherous conditions, including mountainous terrain, heavy rainfall, and a lack of proper trails, at least 520,000 migrants crossed the Darien Gap in the past year alone. The hazardous journey often leads to injuries, hypothermia, and even death. This migration is notable for its diversity; migrants originate from various regions, including South America, the Middle East, and Asia.

Conditions and Influences

Migrants typically arrive unprepared, often losing their belongings to robbery or the elements by the time they reach the Darien. Many have reportedly encountered corpses along the way, underscoring the perilous nature of the trek. Upon reaching Panama, migrants encounter transit camps where they can recover and prepare for the next leg of their journey. These camps often display emblems of international NGOs and the flags of contributing nations, including the United States, indicating external support for the migration process.

Speculation on Chinese Migrants

One camp in particular, San Vicente, is noted for its predominantly Chinese population. These migrants are described as reticent and appear to bypass much of the Darien Gap's dangers due to having the financial means to travel by boat. The distinct characteristics of this group, including the lack of children observed and their military-age demographic, have led to speculation that their migration may be part of a coordinated effort by the Chinese government.

Potential Impacts and Concerns

The influx of migrants through the Darien Gap presents multifaceted challenges. From an environmental perspective, the routes through the jungle are littered with debris and have disrupted the local wildlife. Economically and politically, the migration has raised questions about the role of international organizations, national border policies, and the potential for foreign influence on domestic issues. Moreover, the humanitarian crisis resulting from the dangerous journey is compounded by the lack of a cohesive strategy to address the migrants' needs once they reach their destination.

Conclusion

The Darien Gap is a critical component in understanding the current migration patterns to the United States. The complexities of the situation, including the involvement of international entities, the diversity of the migrant population, and the potential geopolitical ramifications, necessitate further investigation and an interdisciplinary approach to develop comprehensive solutions. The ongoing migration through the Darien Gap remains a testament to both human resilience in the face of adversity and the urgent need for a global dialogue on migration management.

Read original post

The accurate recording and interpretation of historical temperature data are critical for understanding climate trends. This article aims to scrutinize the adjustments made to historical temperature records and how these modifications may impact the perceived trends in global and United States temperature data. The manipulated data is often used to fear monger about cataclysmic climate change that does not exist.

Historical Temperature Coverage

Coverage of historical temperature data varies significantly across regions. In the United States, the coverage since 1895 is comprehensive, but in contrast, regions such as South America, Africa, the Middle East, and much of Asia have sparse historical data. This discrepancy poses challenges for calculating reliable long-term global temperature trends.

Temperature Records and Predictions

In 1984, James Hansen of NASA predicted substantial global warming, with specific forecasts for the United States. However, by 1999, Hansen noted a declining temperature trend in US data, which did not align with the lower-quality global temperature trend that was showing warming.

Data Adjustments: The US Temperature Record

Early data adjustments, around 2005, mainly impacted data post-1960, with a modest total adjustment of about half a degree Fahrenheit. These adjustments were primarily attributed to time of observation bias, a factor with some scientific validity. Yet, recent adjustments have increased significantly, now estimated to be four to five times greater than those made 20 years ago, with time of observation bias accounting for only a minor component.

Impact of Data Adjustments

Adjustments made by NOAA and NASA have turned a cooling trend in the United States temperature record into a warming trend. The original data showed a strong correlation between average summer maximum temperatures and the frequency of days above 90 degrees Fahrenheit (r-squared of 0.91). After adjustments, this correlation weakens substantially (r-squared of 0.56), suggesting that the data adjustments may undermine the credibility of the temperature dataset.

Examination of the Data Tampering Allegations

Allegations of data tampering suggest that historical temperatures have been cooled by more than one degree Fahrenheit, while recent temperatures have been warmed by a similar amount. The extent of these adjustments has reportedly increased by approximately 400% over the past two decades.

Forensic Analysis of Temperature Data and Carbon Dioxide Correlation

Analyses indicate an apparent correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the degree of adjustment applied to US summer temperature data (r-squared of 0.97). This suggests that adjustments could be aligning more closely with carbon dioxide theory rather than with empirical temperature data.

Global Temperature Record Concerns

The global temperature record is considered to have lower quality compared to the US record, with limited data availability and documentation of historical observation practices. Despite this, five different scientific groups have published global temperature trends with remarkable agreement, showing minimal variance. This poses questions about the reliability of these trends given the stated inadequacies of global temperature data coverage.

Conclusion

The analysis of historical temperature data and subsequent adjustments made by scientific authorities raise critical questions about the integrity of climate datasets. While adjustments to account for biases such as time of observation are scientifically justified, the scale and rationale for recent modifications to both US and global temperature records warrant further investigation. It is essential that temperature data adjustments maintain transparency and adhere strictly to scientific methodologies to ensure the credibility and reliability of climate change research.

Read original post

Nobel Prize winner in Physics, John Clauser, has recently provided invaluable insights into the importance of careful observation in the pursuit of scientific truth. Addressing a gathering of young scientists, Clauser shared his perspective on the current state of science, the dangers of pseudoscience, and the critical role of proper experimentation in distinguishing real truth from perceived truth.

The Role of Experimentation

Clauser, an experimental physicist, emphasizes the significance of posing mathematically based questions and making careful measurements of natural phenomena. Through his work, he has been able to settle debates between historical figures in physics, such as the disagreement between Einstein and Schrödinger and their contemporaries, Niels Bohr and John von Neumann. His findings underscore the idea that real truth can only be discovered through direct observation and experimentation.

The Perils of Pseudoscience

The spread of pseudoscience and misinformation is a primary concern highlighted by Clauser. He warns of 'technocons,' or the use of scientific misinformation for opportunistic purposes, which can easily mislead business managers, politicians, and others who may lack a deep understanding of science. Clauser argues that well-educated scientists are needed to act as fact-checkers and to prevent the spread of such misinformation.

The Role of Fact-Checking in Science

Fact-checking in science can be challenging, Clauser notes, due to the widespread dissemination of false perceptions of truth. He underscores that reality is not malleable; it can only be discerned through careful observations and well-tested laws of physics. Clauser criticizes entities that manipulate the perception of truth for marketing, political, or opportunistic ends, often at the expense of actual scientific understanding.

The International Panel on Information Environment

Clauser mentions the formation of the International Panel on Information Environment by the Nobel Foundation, which aims to combat the spread of pseudoscience. However, he expresses skepticism regarding its potential effectiveness, citing his personal view that the UN's International Panel on Climate Change is a source of misinformation.

Recommendations for Young Scientists

Clauser advises young scientists to base their work on careful observations of nature and to look for the 'elephant in the room'—the obvious truths that are often overlooked. He emphasizes the need for good science to be politically neutral, even if that leads to politically incorrect conclusions. Clauser confidently states that there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events, though these views are contentious and not widely accepted in the scientific community.

Conclusion

In his address to young scientists, John Clauser stresses the fundamental need for careful observation and experimentation in the pursuit of scientific truth. He cautions against the dangers of pseudoscience and misinformation and calls for a reinvigoration of the peer-review process to maintain the integrity of scientific publications. As scientists continue to explore and understand the natural world, Clauser's insights serve as a reminder of the importance of empirical evidence and the scientific method in the quest for knowledge.

Read original post

Key Takeaways

This interview from the Tucker Carlson Network takes a deep dive into the concerted efforts to silence Russell Brand, a comedian turned podcaster, who has been critical of Western government policies. The discussion reveals the following key points:

1. Russell Brand's Controversy: The media storm that branded Russell Brand as a "sex criminal" was, according to the podcast, the culmination of a multi-year campaign by Western governments and their intelligence services to silence him due to his influential and divergent views on major issues such as economic policy and war and peace.
2. Brand's Impactful Voice: Brand's unique position as a former left-wing cultural figure with the ability to persuade people across the political spectrum made him a perceived threat to establishment narratives.
3. Censorship Campaign: The campaign against Brand began covertly, with government bodies and intel services targeting his content, particularly his views on Ukraine and the pandemic, as disinformation.
4. Codastory's Role: Brand was accused by Codastory, an organization linked to the UK government and the CIA, of being an agent of Chinese propaganda due to his commentary on Ukraine.
5. Surveillance and Deplatforming: It was revealed that Moderna and other corporations were monitoring Brand’s content, deeming it high-risk and pushing for its de-amplification. Furthermore, the UK government's Department of Culture, Media, and Sport contacted social media platforms requesting Brand be demonetized.
6. Globalist Agendas and Independent Media: Brand discusses how independent media is under threat due to its potential to inspire independent politics and thought. He underscores the importance of independent media in providing alternative perspectives to mainstream narratives.
7. Crisis as a Pretext: The discussion touched on how crises are used to justify certain measures that often lead to the public giving up freedoms for the sake of safety and convenience.
8. Spirituality and Connection to Land: Brand emphasizes the need for a spiritual understanding of the current socio-political landscape, highlighting the importance of connection to nature and land, and a resistance to the centralization of power.

[

WEF Goes Full Throttle on Totalitarianism

Klaus Schwabb and his team at the World Economic Forum are hosting a meeting of the most corrupt and delusional of minds to brainstorm about how they can con the global public into accepting Totalitarian policies that will erode civil liberties and sovereignty.

TFTC – Truth for the CommonerMarty Bent

](https://tftc.io/wef-totalitarianism/)

Best Quotes

1. On Influence and Censorship: "Russell Brand had the capacity to win people over from the other side...and that was the threat."
2. On Being Targeted: "It seems to me ridiculously grandiose to even imagine that I would stir and arouse the interests of such powerful agencies and groups."
3. On Independent Media and Politics: "Independent media itself is an extraordinary threat. That independent media inevitably leads to independent politics and independent thought."
4. On Authoritarianism and Liberalism: "The threat of authoritarianism is far, far greater from those that use the language of liberalism."
5. On Personal Attacks and Family: "My son was born with a heart condition... I was able to maintain what is really important in life. And as you have actually said, we all know how this ends."
6. On Globalist Agendas: "There's no question that a rise in nationalism is an understandable response to rampant globalism."
7. On Spiritual Warfare: "Clearly what we're watching are the fruits of spiritual war."

Conclusion

This interview from the Tucker Carlson Network with Russell Brand reveals an alarming narrative of how powerful entities can conspire to silence voices that challenge the status quo. It paints a picture of a world where independent thought and media are not only necessary but are also under siege by those with vested interests in maintaining control over public discourse. Brand's personal experience, juxtaposed with his reflections on spirituality and societal issues, offers a compelling call to recognize the larger forces at play. The overarching message is clear: societies need to be vigilant about protecting free speech and must be wary of the consequences of allowing authoritarianism to masquerade as liberalism. The episode serves as both a cautionary tale and a beacon of hope for those who believe in the power of independent thought and the necessity of connecting with our shared humanity and the natural world.

Read original post

Introduction to Global Temperature Measurement Challenges

The concept of measuring a singular "global temperature" is inherently complex due to the natural vast temperature variations across different geographical locations. To derive an accurate average global temperature, extensive data from a multitude of locations is required. This raises questions about the methodologies used by organizations such as NASA when attempting to construct historical temperature data sets.

Historical Temperature Data Analysis

In 1884, NASA generated a detailed temperature map indicating a general global cooling with a specific hotspot in West Africa. This analysis was primarily based on the data from a single thermometer in Freetown, Sierra Leone. The data from this thermometer began in approximately 1850, but there were significant gaps, including a lack of data from August to December in 1884. Despite these gaps, the area was denoted as a hotspot in NASA's map.

Data Gaps and Concerns

The issue extends beyond Africa. In 1884, there was minimal to no data available for vast regions such as South America, Asia, most of Australia, the Arctic, large portions of Canada, Russia, Greenland, and all of Antarctica. The lack of data from these regions casts doubt on the accuracy of the global temperature map for that year and, by extension, any conclusions drawn from it.

Historical Media and Scientific Perspectives

A 1978 New York Times article highlighted the lack of data, specifically from the southern hemisphere, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about global temperature trends. Similarly, the Climatic Research Unit in England's map for July 1884 exhibited significant regions with missing data, further compounding the challenge of constructing an accurate global temperature map.

Possible Data Collusion Among Research Groups

Five different research groups have calculated the global temperature for 1884 within a narrow range, despite the acknowledged scarcity of data. Given the extensive gaps in data coverage, one would expect a wider variance in the calculated temperatures if these groups were acting independently. The close alignment of their results despite the acknowledged data limitations suggests the possibility of collaboration or collusion, raising concerns about the objectivity of the temperature records.

Criticism from NASA's Own

Criticism has also arisen from within NASA itself. Several prominent individuals associated with NASA's Apollo moon program have expressed their discontent with the agency's climate change claims. They argue that the assertions about the catastrophic impact of human-generated carbon dioxide on climate change are unsubstantiated, thus challenging the credibility of NASA's current climate science division.

Conclusion

The pursuit of understanding historical global temperatures is fraught with challenges, most notably the paucity of historical temperature data. The reliance on incomplete and regionally isolated data points to construct a global temperature map for the year 1884 raises significant questions about the scientific validity of such representations. The existence of potential collusion among research groups to present a unified narrative despite insufficient data further undermines the reliability of these historical temperature assessments. These concerns resonate with the broader scientific principle that authority should not be blindly trusted at the expense of truth, as articulated by Albert Einstein. The discrepancies and limitations in historical global temperature data underscore the need for a more rigorous and transparent approach to climate science.

Read original post

The January 6th, 2021, event has been the subject of extensive media coverage and government commentary. Initially, it was depicted as a violent insurrection with numerous claims regarding the events that took place. One of the most notable claims involved the death of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, which was widely reported as being the result of a violent attack by protestors. Additionally, there were reports of pipe bombs being planted at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC) headquarters. Over time, some of the initial claims have been contradicted by emerging evidence, raising questions about the accuracy of the early narratives.

The Case of Officer Brian Sicknick

Initial reports suggested that Officer Sicknick was fatally injured after being struck by a fire extinguisher during the January 6 protest. These reports were circulated widely and contributed to the characterization of the protestors as a violent mob. However, subsequent investigations revealed that Officer Sicknick died of natural causes the day after the event. He had reportedly been in contact with his family and did not go to the hospital immediately after the events at the Capitol.

Fatalities on January 6th

Contrary to initial reports, it was later confirmed that no one died during the events of January 6, except for four protestors. Two of the individuals suffered heart attacks, one died of an amphetamine overdose, and one, Ashli Babbitt, was shot by a Capitol Police officer. The revision of these details has led to significant scrutiny of the early accounts provided by the media and government sources.

The Pipe Bomb Narrative

The government and media also reported the planting of pipe bombs at the DNC and RNC headquarters. Despite the intense surveillance in Washington, D.C., particularly around the Capitol and major government buildings, the individual responsible for planting these devices has not been identified. The narrative around these pipe bombs added to the sense of threat and urgency on January 6 and was used to bolster the characterization of the event as an act of domestic terrorism.

Emerging Evidence and Analysis

New video evidence, believed to have been obtained by Revolver News founder Darren Beatty, from footage provided by Congressman Thomas Massie, casts doubt on the level of danger posed by the pipe bombs. The footage reportedly shows Secret Service agents and law enforcement responding with a lack of urgency after being informed of the bomb, suggesting they may have been aware that the device was not a viable threat. This contrasts sharply with the typical protocols and reactions expected from the Secret Service, especially given that Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris was reportedly in proximity to one of the devices.

Political Implications and the Role of Fear

The reporting and subsequent debunking of various claims related to January 6 raise questions about the role of fear in influencing public perception and the political response to such events. The anthrax attacks following 9/11 are cited as an example of how fear can be escalated to shape public opinion and justify government actions. In the case of January 6, the discrepancies in the narrative potentially reflect a broader pattern of exaggeration to amplify the perceived threat and seriousness of the event.

Conclusion

The evolving understanding of the events of January 6 highlights the importance of scrutinizing initial reports and narratives, especially when they have significant implications for public policy and the exercise of government authority. As new evidence comes to light, it necessitates a reevaluation of the incident and the narratives that have been constructed around it. The discrepancies in the accounts of Officer Sicknick's death and the pipe bomb threats underscore the complexity of discerning fact from fiction in the immediate aftermath of such events.

Read original post

In an unexpected turn of public opinion, immigration has vaulted to the forefront of American voter concerns, surpassing the persistent issue of inflation, according to a recent Harvard Harris poll. As the nation edges closer to the 2024 presidential election, the rising anxiety around immigration policy harkens back to the issue that first propelled Donald Trump to the White House. Despite this, the Biden administration seems to maintain its course, favoring the interests of globalist advocates over the electorate's growing disquiet.

The poll indicates a notable shift in priority, with 35% of voters citing immigration as their primary concern, edging out inflation at 32%, followed by the economy and jobs at 25%. Other issues such as crime and drugs, the national deficit, national security, corruption, and the environment trailed in voter concern.

This change in public sentiment is particularly poignant considering inflation's direct impact on voters' personal lives. However, the influx of undocumented immigrants into communities across the United States is poised to reshape the landscape of voter priorities. The Harvard Harris survey underscores a broad consensus that the current situation at the U.S. border is deteriorating, a sentiment shared by 81% of Republican voters, 68% of independents, and even a plurality of Democrats.

The poll also reveals a significant desire for stricter immigration policies, with 68% of Americans favoring more stringent entry requirements into the country. This includes a commanding 85% of Republicans, a strong 71% of independents, and a divided Democratic base, split evenly on the issue.

Despite this clear message from the electorate, the Biden administration continues to push for policies that would effectively grant legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants already in the country. This proposed legislation is coupled with additional funding for border facilities, while concurrently dismantling physical barriers erected by the State of Texas—a move currently contested in the courts.

The undercurrents of this debate point to powerful special interests that seemingly hold sway over the administration's immigration stance. These range from the progressive factions that seek to reshape the electorate to the bipartisan lobby of businesses, particularly in agriculture, that rely on inexpensive labor. The costs, however, are often offloaded onto taxpayers to cover healthcare, education, and social services.

In sum, as the 2024 election draws near, immigration is shaping up to be a defining issue, setting the stage for a clash between the will of the people and the agendas of lobbyists and activists. With an overwhelming consensus among voters for change, the coming months will be critical in determining whether political leaders will heed the democratic call or continue to navigate the tumultuous waters of immigration policy under the influence of special interests.

Read original post

Do a quick search for “how to cook the perfect steak” and you’ll have a seemingly infinite number of people purporting themselves to have found the best method. And with good reason - mastering the art of preparing a steak is an important achievement to unlock, and worth celebrating.

What will follow is my personal distillation of insights and techniques for cooking the perfect steak, cobbled together through years of research and testing. While there is no “one way” to cook a steak, knowing why you choose to do something (or not do something) is critical to the goal of elevating the centerpiece of your dinner.

A word on sourcing

In almost all the steak articles and recipes you’ll find online, what gets overlooked is the source of the meat itself. Sure, you can go to the fancy butcher in town and get a beautiful steak for $50-80, but when buying in bulk you can pay closer to $20 for that same cut. This approach guarantees you both variety and quality without breaking the bank.

Sourcing is discussed at length in previous articles on this website. I encourage anyone arriving here for the first time to go back through the archives, in particular this one on how to find a good producer:

[

Shake a farmer’s hand

Sourcing tips and resources for your bulk purchase of beef (and food in general)

Primal Cut SheetJevi

](https://www.primalcutsheet.com/p/shake-a-farmers-hand?ref=tftc.io)

Aside from cost, another often overlooked advantage of buying in bulk is the ability to provide custom specifications for the cutting of your steaks. While many steaks, particularly ribeyes, are typically cut to a standard 1-inch thickness, opting for a heftier 1.75 to 2-inch cut allows for a more controlled cooking process, ensuring a juicy, evenly cooked steak.

With a great cut of meat procured, the task at hand is to honor the animal by executing on the preparation. Before going through my primary strategies for getting great results every time, I want to briefly touch on some of the cooking methods I don’t recommend.

How not to cook a steak

Traditionally, cooking a steak has meant placing it on high heat, either in a pan or over a grill, to develop browning or a crust on the exterior. Then, it's moved to a lower temperature to allow the inside to cook until the desired doneness is reached. The problem with this method is that in order to cook the interior to the desired medium-rare, you will have a large portion of the steak that is overcooked. What’s missing from this method is temperature control.

Enter the "sous vide"method. A French term that translates to “under vacuum”, the steak is placed in a plastic pouch or a glass jar and then cooked in a water bath at a precisely regulated temperature. However, there are two critical factors that make me uninterested in sous vide.

Cooking meat in a sealed plastic bag eliminates the ability for the steak to concentrate its flavors through the evaporation of moisture - the juices will remain in the bag and the steak submerged in liquid. When you subsequently sear the steak before serving, the moisture content will still be high and will lower the surface temperature while steaming off the liquid, lowering the potential for a great crust.

Another significant issue with sous vide is cooking food in a plastic environment. We're surrounded by plastic – it's in our food, water, and clothing - leading to an unprecedented saturation of microplastics in our bodies. While it is often argued that the plastic used in sous vide doesn't leach byproducts or chemicals into the food until it reaches a higher temperature, I'm not willing to take this risk. Frankly, there are better methods to achieve the same temperature control without using plastic.

The good news is that you can get the benefits of temperature control like you would from sous vide without the plastic, but more on that later.

But enough with the preambles. What follows is my step-by-step guide to cooking an incredible steak, along with explanations as to why to take this approach.

Step #1 - dry brine

Brining is a term used to describe soaking a cut of meat in salty water. Dry brining simply removes the water from that equation by applying the salt directly to the cut of meat and letting it sit in the refrigerator. This method has gained significant interest in recent years due to being a far superior method, and here’s why:

Your average cut of beef is about 75% water with lots of water-soluble flavor compounds. When you submerge a steak in a briny liquid, there is an exchange of fluid that will unfold, resulting in some salt being imparted into the meat at the expense of flavor compounds getting flushed out into water bath.

In contrast, when salt is applied directly to the surface of the meat, it starts by drawing moisture to the surface and the salt is dissolved. After about an hour, the now salty moisture will be reabsorbed, drawing that salt deep into the steak. If left uncovered in the fridge, the steak will then start to evaporate any remaining moisture from the surface.

Method: To dry brine, use approximately 1 gram of salt per 100 grams of meat (or 4.5 grams per pound). Apply evenly to all sides of the cut, then place uncovered on a metal rack nested in a sheet pan or plate in the fridge.

How long? At least a few hours, ideally overnight. Most steaks can handle 2-3 days before the outside starts to toughen and the meat begins to effectively cure.

Step #2 - get a digital thermometer

I don’t understand the fascination with people wanting to cook meat without the use of a temperature probe. Sure, if you’re a line cook and are making the same dish hundreds of times a week, you start to build muscle memory on how long it should take. But it’s 2023 and humanity has created instant-read thermometers that allow you to literally look inside your food as it cooks. The gold standard is the Thermapen by Thermoworks, although there are upstart competitors that could also be worth trying. Either way, this is a tool you should absolutely have in your toolbelt. Another very useful thermometer is a leave-in probe, which allows you to keep tabs on your meat while it’s in the oven and ensure you don’t overshoot your desired temperature.

Step #3 - low and slow at first

It may seem counterintuitive to place a steak uncooked in a lukewarm oven, but that is exactly what I’m suggesting you do. By starting out in a low temperature environment, the steak is allowed to come up to your desired internal temperature with greater uniformity than slamming it in a hot pan. Using a temp probe to monitor the temperature is critical in a standard oven because the temperature fluctuations can be 30-60° above and below that setting.1 However, if you set the oven to its lowest temperature, it won’t rise much above 200°F and you can still avoid the worst of the grey banding.

For those looking to upgrade this part of the cooking process, I have used an Anova Precision Oven for the past three years and have been thoroughly impressed. It allows for the same temperature control as you would get from a sous vide bath, but without the plastic.

Another option for this step is to use a smoker, which can be appealing for those who love the wood flavor normally imparted by a grill. However, be aware that pellet smokers can fluctuate in ambient temperature more than a standard oven, requiring close monitoring to prevent overcooking.

A word on temperature carryover

Reaching your desired internal temperature is largely dependent upon the ambient temperature outside your cut of meat. For example, if you are cooking a steak in a pan where the surface is 400°F, you can expect there to be a significant amount of carryover meaning that the force being exerted on the cut of meat is so substantial that it continues to push that heat into the meat even after you've removed it from the heat source.

You can think of the surface of your steak like a battery - the longer you apply extreme heat, the more that heat potential is stored for future deployment.

Conversely, when the ambient temperature is 130°F there will be almost no carryover as it reaches that desired temperature. It’s another reason I appreciate the steam oven so much - when it arrives at the temperature that I want it at, I can simply turn it off and know that I have achieved that temperature.2

Step #4 - rest the steak

Once your steak has reached the optimal desired internal temperature, putting it directly into a hot pan to sear will continue moving the cooking forward and result in an overcooked steak. Instead, put it back on the rack inside the sheet pan and let it rest in the fridge. The goal here is to reduce the surface temperature. (Don’t worry, the interior temperature barely drops.) And in doing so, it means that once you are ready to sear, that sudden shock of intense heat is not overcook the steak.

A thicker steak can hang out in the fridge for up to an hour without losing internal temperature, but 20-30 minutes is plenty.

After resting, pat the meat dry to remove any excess moisture. Moisture will undermine the ability to quickly form a good crust because the steam emitted with lower the surface temperature.

Step #5 - the final sear

The Maillard reaction is defined in this Serious Eats article as: “many small, simultaneous chemical reactions that occur when proteins and sugars in and on your food are transformed by heat, producing new flavors, aromas, and colors.“ It’s where huge amounts of flavor development occurs, and a critical part of making a basic steak into a magical sensory experience.

There is a lot of contention as to whether a cook is better when grilled vs pan seared. Unless you have an Argentine grill that you intend to keep hot for the whole day, or you’re cooking a Beefsteak for 200 people, getting the final sear on a steak that has been reverse-seared is going to be impractical. For an average weeknight dinner, pan seared in cast iron is the way to go. And while I love the flavor developed by cooking over open fire, this is just as easily achieved by reverse searing on the smoker first.

Does a hotter pan create a better crust?

People will often believe that the only way to get a good crust is to get a pan absurdly hot. Yet hotter doesn’t mean better - in fact, quite the opposite. Once you go beyond 400°F, charring will begin to happen. And while a bit a of char flavor might be desirable, too much can mask the fantastic flavors that were created by the Maillard reaction. By cooling the surface prior to searing, you give yourself more time to build a crust without ending up with too much char. Plus, if you have any desire to make a pan sauce, you’ll want to avoid the burned flavor in your fat and fond. (Your spouse will also appreciate not having the whole place smell like smoke.)

To sear, get your pan heated to about 380-400°F3, then add a healthy fat with a high smoke point (tallow or ghee are my personal favorites for this task), enough fat to cover the bottom of your pan. Place the steak into the pan and leave undisturbed for 30 seconds, then flip every 30 seconds for 4-6 minutes. It may not seem like much is happening at first, but patience will be rewarded.

Another advantage of the reverse sear: upon finishing the final sear you can carve and serve right away. Resting your steak is normally required to ensure better moisture retention, but this is largely a result of the heat continuing to increase and constricting the muscle fibers. Because the final sear doesn’t have a massive impact on the internal temperature, this step is no longer necessary.

1 https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66367/how-much-thermostat-range-in-oven-temperature-is-too-much

2 A great video on this subject was created by Chris Young: Why Ripping Hot Is Too Hot?

3 A basic infrared thermometer is great for checking surface temperatures. Many available options on Aamzon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN317X6Z/

Originally published in Primal Cut Sheet