Hear a lot of talk about globalists, CBDCs, one-world government, totalitatianism, and while all that shit is probably intended by the sociopaths who purport to be in charge, I expect to win.

The *core* beef with populist leaders worldwide IMO, is that they are essentially uncouth, low class. Elites loved Obama because he spoke and joked like them, the practiced self-deprecation, the vocabulary he used, the refined tone. He was one of them. Trump is openly boastful (very low class), has gaudy taste, eats McDonalds, doesn't use the words and tone that comforts the educated. Imagine getting into debt for a worthless degree, making less money than the plumber or electrician and only having *status* to show for it. Even though you were duped, even though you are totally replaceable and live at the whims of your corporate overlords, at least you know the right protocols and pronouns to navigate elite discourse. You have no material benefit, but at least you are *superior* so you've been told. You are *righteous* and *good*. You are not *racist* or *misogynistic* or *transphobic*. You get a pat on the back from the powerful. Suddenly this person comes along who gives zero fucks about any of that, whose ascendance is counterfeiting your status payoff entirely. Even though you got screwed in a real and material way by the very elites you servilely aspire to join, you are in denial of this, and the meager status boost was keeping that denial at bay. But now this guy comes along, and you're faced with the pointlessness of your entire endeavor, the shallowness around which your entire identity was built. Of course, they hate Trump and the other populists who are exposing them to the catastrophic self-betrayal.

was talking with a Portguese friend of mine about the catastrophic socialist policies of his government (ours now that I have citizenship), and he agreed that the bureauracy and poor incentives are bad, but he differed with me on the need for a social safety net. I agreed a social safety net is important, but asked him, what’s the best way to go about building it? Is seizing significant portions of the population’s declining wealth via force and letting bureaucrats squander most of it, only to redistribute some of it, or to create the most prosperous society imaginable such that the amount needed for a safety net would be a tiny portion? I get that we don’t want to count on the beneficence of our overlords, but what if it only required 5 percent of a country’s wealth to take care of the elderly, infirm and incapable rather than 50 percent? What if that 5 percent were delivered with 80 percent efficiency rather than less than 50 percent? Per @Jeff Booth technology makes things ever cheaper over time, and an ever more prosperous and progressing society should be able to trivially take care of those who really need it. At 5 percent, it doesn’t take much beneficence to provide for those in need, but at 50 percent (and poorly managed), the immiserated many will fail the needy (as they do now) in myriad ways regardless.

Hit me the other day what would/will happen with CBDCs. Broke governments meting out resources under the guise of climate change or socialism or whatever, but they will be desperate for hard money and make all kinds of exceptions to lure people to spend it in their locality so they can tax it or even have it as part of their economy. Highly skilled people will demand payment in it, regular people will be on the CBDC UBI. Places that don’t accommodate hard money holders will see capital flight, and will quickly be seen as examples of what not to do.

Covid was a mask-off moment for the globalist order. They tried to glue it back on afterwards, but it doesn’t quite fit anymore.

I really like Portuguese people. They don’t meddle in your affairs, but they’re for the most part kind and decent, especially the regular working-class person. The problem with them — and most Europeans I’ve met — is they are so severely brainwashed it’s hard to take. They believe the news to an extent almost unfathomable to all but the most sheltered neoliberal boomer Americans. It’s really frustrating — you are having a conversation, getting to know someone, but you start to see they are part of a weird religious cult, and it dawns on you they are not persuadable or open-minded. It’s not important that you are able to persuade a particular person of your particular views — sometimes my persuasion attempts are poor, and in any event, some of my views are probably wrong. But it is essential someone be *persuadable,* that there is a possibility of getting somewhere, of recognizing truth if it presents itself. Otherwise you are talking to a wall.

Trump derangement syndrome is a kind of epistemic obesity. You gorged yourself on confirmation bias, and now you can’t do a single lap around reality’s track.

Hypothesis: Saylor keeps only a small percentage of the coins on Coinbase, mostly has a self-custody setup. Reason he doesn’t do proof of keys is he prefers people think it’s on CB, takes the target off his back.