I Don’t Vote, I Buy Bitcoin

Walkers change the world, Talkers simply comply by the new order.

The more I grow and learn the more I start to subscribe to the good old saying “don’t talk the talk but walk the walk”. In our current age, we put so much emphasis on “oral speech”. Coming from the biggest advocate for the freedom of it, oral speech is considerably overrated. More often than not, we attach more importance to a certain speech by silencing it. If one wants to spread a specific narrative, they shall not put effort into explaining it and making sense out of it, but rather silence those who prophesize it. Good examples of this are the recent censorship on alternative MDs and scientists who had different opinions about the lockdowns and C*vid V*x on the Joe Rogan Podcast and other alternative media. The energy used into silencing a speech is highly more powerful than the energy used to create it (this is a twist of Brandolini’s law). This is very similar to the physics concept of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. The amount of energy transferred into creating oral speech is so low, it is almost negligible to the world surrounding it. From the nature’s perspective, speech is nothing but man-made words that cannot be understood in isolation. The energy that talking puts out to the world is not coming from the language itself, but rather from the intent it is trying to get by. Language is merely a mean and not an end. It can be described as a tool for energy transfer and as a tool, it precisely compresses so much of that energy to get it to the intended destination. The message itself can be so powerful, but such power could get destroyed by the means used to transmit it. It is a skill to be “good with words” that most people do not possess. The energy of speech is also very low frequency, thus speaking some words hardly ever resonates with their receivers. Oral speech also does not fall under the law of scarcity, “talk is cheap”. You can speak so much, but people will never attach value to what you say.

The alternative to oral speech is speech by action. It is always more interesting to look at what people do than at what they say. Freedom of speech can be easily quantified by the things you are allowed to say, but the freedom to act can only be quantified by the external factors laid down on the acting individual, and how much of these factors are the result of their prior free actions or man enforced realities. Being born human at a specific age and space, you are limited by nature with a set of actions. The more humans develop, the more they reach new potential and unlock more capabilities (possible actions). Prehistoric humans were basically freed by nature to act the same way modern humans are acting today, they were simply unable to figure it out yet. The real limitations on humans are those enforced by other humans, those are the artificial “unnatural” limitations. We can quantify the freedom to act by looking at how much of these unnatural limitations exist. This in turn shows how much we are able to connect with other people by transferring speech with loaded or unloaded energy. The freedom to act is the real freedom of speech. The big psy-op is giving people freedom to talk but at the same time limiting their walk. We have the illusion of freedom because we are allowed to speak but not allowed to act. This is the illusion of democracy, we are allowed to caste the vote, but we are not allowed to be real market participants.

Democracy: The Illusion of Choice

Democracy is the act of voting and choosing the outcome based on the majority. Voting can be described as a form of oral speech. When one votes, they are basically telling everyone else the outcome that they would rather see. Therefore, democracy is simply talking outcomes into becoming a reality. However, talk is cheap, it is low energy and unlike what most of us have been convinced it is hardly representative of people’s actual wants. Considering talking’s abundance, one never calculates what they say economically, like they would calculate other scarce economic resources that they own or would like to own. There are hardly any harmful consequences to the things one says. Considering the low energy of oral speech, the decisions people make when they vote do not represent their real intent, most people talk one thing but act completely different, so in democracy, we are choosing the outcomes that do not even represent the majority. Because oral cheap speech does not represent the people’s actual wants. The Democratic process can be described as big scale hypocrisy.

However, this is just the illusion within the illusion. Democratic contests are not only decided by the false unrepresentative intentions of the majority of participants, but they are more so decided by those who act to alter the decisions made by the mere talkers. They are decided by the walkers. Those who harness the more powerful energy into the democratic contest choose the outcome of it. Those who put real resources through money, media attention, setting the rules of the game, building up a narrative and creating a certain dichotomy.

With that being said, I am not completely against the majority deciding some sort of reality. In the end, culture is set by the majority, market trends are set by the majority and finally technological advancement is driven by the adoption of the majority. However, this type of majoritarian rule is enforced by people acting towards it. People live by certain cultural norms and values, they sacrifice daily life for the attainment of culture. Moreover, they factor resources in form of time and capital to set market trends and develop a technology for mass adoption. Unlike what most people tend to assume, higher demand for a product and service in a free market concludes in higher availability and lower cost of said product on the long run. In the 70s, GPS technology was highly expensive and only available for the military and specifically only the US Department of Defense had it, no one else could afford this technology. With more entrepreneurs taking on the risk to develop GPS and with more people demanding it, in 2022 any person can have a GPS on their 50 bucks smartphone. This is how the market “voted” for setting a trend and adopting a technology using expensive time and resources, not through cheap talk.

Voting for Bitcoin

In 2021, there was a huge debate in Lebanon for whether or not the Lebanese diaspora should be allowed to vote from abroad. Voting is lame and useless regardless, so I will not engage in this debate. Rather, I will describe a very interesting phenomenon.

Let’s go back a bit more in the timeline. In 2019, the Lebanese financial infrastructure completely collapsed, with bank runs and a huge hyper-inflationary episode of the national currency. This all happened because of a so-called Ponzi scheme that was being materialized as follows. Lebanese depositor loans the bank, the private bank loans this money to the government through the central bank, the government unable to pay back, so the banks pay back the depositors using the deposits of new participants who were lured in with high interest rates. A big chunk of these depositors were the diaspora. In other words, the diaspora using their hard-earned money was essentially financing the government and its status quo for 30 years up until 2019. The diaspora (along with the locals and other investors) was casting a huge vote, far more important than any electoral vote, to maintain the status quo and to maintain the vile government ways of enslavement.

We have established that voting by writing a name on a paper and depositing it in a box at best is useless/hypocritical and at worst might be destructive because of its weakling scapegoating nature. The people, in the example above, voted for the government with their dollar. They highly supported the government and its politicians with their money, instead they could have voted for the open source, inclusive, decentralized, censorship resistant, libertarian focused monetary network called Bitcoin. Through buying Bitcoin, you are essentially promoting and supporting this network, which is in its essence an alternative for the government centralization of money. Central banking is arguably the root of all government evil, it is its bloodline. By voting for Bitcoin, you are bringing the world one step further to cutting off the government main resource and advancing the world to a freer society. Through more money flowing to Bitcoin, this technology will gradually move from being used by Libertarians, tech geeks and speculators, to it being used by any person who can afford a 50 bucks smartphone, just like the GPS example.

Bitcoin is inclusive because any person can participate anywhere in the world, with zero barriers to entry. Acting and walking the walk are not at all monopolized or restricted. Bitcoin is decentralized because anyone can verify it and validate it anywhere in the world and it is not controlled by one single entity or at risk of being destroyed by one single point of failure. Bitcoin is the antidote for central banking and big government because it is the much more advanced and technologically sound alternative. I for once, will be voting for Bitcoin, in fact I vote for bitcoin every week or every other day, we call it stacking sats and I will call it, the post-democratic silent revolution. You can join in and start your own stacking sats journey too. This is the only way to put your money where your vote is at the political level. Vote right, Vote Bitcoin.