Central Banking – A Century of Failure


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Bitcoin, Logic, Philosophy, Police State, Politics, Poverty, Solutions to Problems | Posted on 22-12-2013


The last century has been a complete catastrophe for money/currency. The criminal banksters won in a stealth move on December 23rd, 1913. Since then, they have managed to create more wars and death than at any point in history.

The central banking disease has since spread to almost the entire world. With control of the Iranian central bank now falling into the clutches of the central banksters, it seems only Cuba and North Korea remain, and they don’t need any help in creating misery – they’ve got communism to help them fail there.

But is seems appropriate that after a century of financial terrorism inflicted on the people of the world, that 2013 would be the rise of Bitcoin and crypto currency. Decentralised through a peer-to-peer network, crytpo currencies are faster, easier, and cheaper to use than the worthless digitally controlled fiat printed by the central banksters.

2014 will be an interesting year as crypto currencies consolidate their position as a sane alternative to the destruction wrought by the banks. Major retailers will begin accepting Bitcoins while smaller operations begin accepting Bitcoins and other crypto currencies.

There will be more turmoil as the banksters fight back. They will use the state as their weapon. They will push for regulations and laws. Their arguments boil down to only a few:

  • Terrorism
  • Drugs
  • Child porn
  • Tax evasion
  • Centralisation

They might come up with something else, but it’s unlikely. There is no good reason to not use decentralised crypto currency. Ultimately, it’s about control. And if they lose control of the money supply, they lose their ability to steal from people.

The banksters will use their puppets in government to attempt to create legislation that makes using crypto currency impractical. They will attempt to create new bureaucracies and legal hurdles that make complying with the law either impossible or impractical. They will use the state to attack the people as they always do. They are monopolists. They cannot compete because they have no skill sets that are worth paying for. They require the violence of the state to compel people to their will.

They won’t win. Too many people know what they are – vampires sucking the life blood out of humanity.

We’ve had a century of failure. It’s high time for the demise of the banksters and a century of prosperity. Well, more than just a century of prosperity, I hope. So long as people study what really happened in history, they’ll fight to keep the banksters staked and in their coffins.

Bitcoin and the Democratisation of the Value of Currency


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Bitcoin, Mobile, Philosophy | Posted on 06-12-2013

bitcoinI have yet to see anyone note a fundamental difference between fiat currencies and bitcoins: that fiat currency supposedly has value through the decree of a government, whereas bitcoins gain their value from the voices of the people. And that these two approaches fall into two categories: centralised control, and decentralised control. The decentralised control of the value of bitcoins is the democratisation of currency value.

This really can’t be overstated.

Fiat comes from the Latin word for “let it be done” and means an “official” arbitrary order, decree, or sanction. The value then rests in the acceptance of the authority of whatever is making that decree, or in the ability of that “authority” to enforce its decree.

Bitcoins on the other hand have no such authority to declare their value or violence to enforce their value. Their value comes purely from people voluntarily participating in the bitcoin economy by using it.

For example, as a customer you can go to many different stores. If one store only accepts bitcoins, you are free to go to another store. If you wish to use bitcoins, and a store does not accept them, you are free to go to a store that accepts bitcoins. If you wish to trade in your fiat currency for bitcoins, you can purchase them privately from someone, or you can go to an exchange, which is simply a marketplace for bitcoins.

The value of goods and services in bitcoins is then set by the market. Where one merchant may charge 0.0005 bitcoins for an orange, another merchant may charge 0.00075 for an orange. You are free to shop where you will.

But the importance of this really, really can’t be overstated. (The democratisation of currency.)

Let me recap so far:

Fiat currency: Given value because some government says so. People must obey the decree (or risk being thrown in a cage) and have no voice.

Bitcoins: Given value through the voices of countless millions of people. No government voices have any authority (though they may try to manipulate public opinion).

Do you remember Napster? It was a file sharing service. However, Napster used centralised servers. This made it possible to shut Napster down.

Are you familiar with BitTorrent? It’s a P2P file sharing protocol. However, it is decentralised with no central servers. It cannot be so easily shut down. Just ask the fellows at The Pirate Bay about that.

Is the parallel between Napster/BitTorrent and fiat/bitcoins becoming apparent?

As centralised systems, both fiat currencies and Napster are subject to a single point of failure. They are not resilient and quite fragile.

As decentralised systems, both bitcoins and BitTorrent are resilient with no single point of failure. A failure in any given node is pretty much irrelevant to the system as a whole. (I don’t mean the technical aspect of bitcoins here, although that is also decentralised and highly resilient. Here I specifically mean the way in which bitcoins obtain value is decentralised, and highly resilient. i.e. Free market.)

Some will point out the volatility in bitcoin exchanges as evidence that it isn’t resilient or that it is subject to failure. This doesn’t follow. Volatility only illustrates that the system is in fact working, and that there are competing voices speaking out about how much bitcoins should be valued at. The system itself is agnostic as to its own value.

That is, the “volatility” objection confuses the output of the system (the value of bitcoins) with whether or not the system is working.

This does not mean to say that bitcoins will skyrocket up to $1,000,000 per bitcoin. Much less that bitcoins will continue to grow at a rate of an order of magnitude per year, which would value bitcoins at $1,000,000+ sometime during 2016. (The actual growth is around 1 order of magnitude every 9~10 months. We’re being pessimistic here.)

What this does say is that it is far harder to collapse bitcoins as a currency than it is to collapse a fiat currency. No single node can declare a value for bitcoins. All nodes participate in its valuation. Provided those nodes decide that bitcoins are valuable, and that more nodes are added, the output of the bitcoin system will value bitcoins cointinually higher. (Pun intended.)

We are looking at the democratisation of currency here. No more dictatorial edicts. No more authoritarian force. No more being told how you can earn a living and how you can spend your earnings.

V is for VoluntaryThis is the end of authoritarian power in currency.

This is the voice of the people.

You have a real vote.

You have real power.

You can put the fruits of your labour into the trust of mathematics and the fundamental principle of the universe that guarantee those mathematical equations.

With bitcoins, the choice is entirely up to you. If you wish, you can vote for its value and purchase bitcoins. If you don’t want to participate, nobody is forcing you, which you cannot say about your local fiat currency.

This is a revolution and an evolution in what currency is. You now have to ask yourself which side of history will bitcoin and crypto currencies fall on, and which side of history do you want to be on.

Peter Schiff on Gold vs. Bitcoins Misses the Point


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Logic, Money, Philosophy, Security | Posted on 22-11-2013


Peter Schiff is absolutely one of the smartest guys out there, and I have a lot of respect for him. However, he’s still missing the point about bitcoins and how they have intrinsic value. But first, here’s his most recent video on the topic:

bitcoinPeter is stuck on how gold has intrinsic value through physical usage where bitcoins have no physical usage and therefore no intrinsic value. He is quite correct if he means that bitcoins have no physical intrinsic value. However, this is not what he means. He means that they have no intrinsic value whatsoever. This is where he misses the point. Read the rest of this entry »

Killing Cops is OK. Sometimes.


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Cynicism, Philosophy, Police, Police State, Politics, States | Posted on 08-09-2013

Tags: , ,

V is for VoluntaryThe topic of violence really sets a lot of people off. Those that love it, get upset when you point out that they participate and endorse it. Those that abhor violence, get testy when the topic of defense comes up.

The first of those is easily seen in any discussion of tax with a statist. Lots of those out there, and not hard to find.

The other case, where people advocate violence for defense (outside of the state), isn’t so common. But there are 2 good examples out there.

The first, and best known, is Larken Rose’s “When should you shoot a cop?” (Video at CopBlock)


He raises some good questions.

A more recent phrasing of the question is by Chris Cantwell in his article, “Concord Police, Go and Get Your Bearcat“.

Chris says the obvious when it comes to defending yourself:

So what to do? It’s a terribly unpopular thing to say, but the answer, at some point, is to kill government agents. The government agents know that, and that’s why they want a tank.

There really isn’t anything very controversial about what they’ve said, i.e. If the state initiates violence (aggresses) against you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself or resist that violence with violence.

If someone is trying to kill you, or attacking you and could kill you, you’re a complete moron if you refuse to use lethal force to save your own life (or that of another person).

Rudolph Rummel is a political scientist that has done a great deal of research on democide (governments murdering people).

He estimates that in the 20th century alone, about 262,000,000 people were murdered by various states/governments.

Those 262,000,000 people stand as a testament to the moral validity and moral imperative of defending yourself and/or other people with violence, and with deadly violence if necessary.

To put that somewhat into perspective, the Nazi murder of Jews represents about 2% of the total number of civilians murdered by government. About 50x more people were murdered that people never talk about.

Ignoring the topic of using violence against the state because violence is detestable, is simply irresponsible. Those that say, “it can’t happen here,” are most likely the ones that most need to discuss the topic. Larken Rose goes over the topic in detail in his video, “It Can’t Happen Here“.


The debate on the topic needs to happen. People need to think about defensive violence against the police and the state.

Nobody is saying, “Run out and kill the first cop you see.” Nobody is saying, “Kill every cop you can.” Nobody want to run around killing people. Well, that’s not really true – it appears that our governments love killing people and really get off on it, but let’s assume we’re talking about sane people – you know – voluntarists and anarchists. 😉

“Legalize Gay Marriage” is the Wrong Question


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Philosophy, States | Posted on 06-09-2013

Tags: , , ,

V is for VoluntaryI often wonder why people ask such idiotic questions or debate such moronic issues, like legalizing gay marriage.

The state has no business telling you who you can love or who you can marry. (Let’s assume consenting adults here and not go off on the retarded statist tangent. That actually needs to be said for some people… sigh…)

I actually had to get PERMISSION from the government of Canada to marry my wife. Similarly, she needed permission as well. Huh? No. Not joking. Really.

Nobody should ever have to ask the state for permission to love anyone.

Nobody should ever have to ask the state for permission to marry someone.

The state should play no part in the equation at all. It’s perverse and sick when it does.

The maximum role that any state should play is to passively accept information from people who do get married. That is, if you want to tell them, then fine. If not, then they have no business in your love life.

To allow the state to participate in basic human emotions is a gross over-step of any imaginable legitimate role. (Not that the state is legitimate, but let’s just pretend for a moment.) Even entering the debate on “gay marriage” is perverse. It lends credibility to the authority of the state to dictate who can love/marry who, which is surrendering fundamental natural rights that are so much a deep part of being human, that it is essentially surrendering your humanity to the state.

Whether or not anyone believes that it is right or wrong is entirely up to them. If you don’t want a gay marriage, hey… don’t have one. But leave other people alone to live their lives as they see fit. And don’t try to use the state to force people to conform to your whims.

Governments have no business meddling in love.

The question people should be asking is “why do we let government meddle in love?”

Consumers Are Not Job Creators


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Business, Money, Philosophy | Posted on 26-08-2013

It’s rather annoying to hear the worst nonsense constantly paraded around like some kind of eternal truth. That “consumers are job creators” is some of that drivel. It only takes a moment to understand why.

I, along with billions of other people, am a consumer. I want a time machine. So do a lot of those other consumers. Where’s my time machine? Here’s my money to create all the jobs in the time machine industry… I’m still waiting…

But that’s an extreme example. Take a simple commodity like fish. There’s a market out there for fish. But it is probably more accurate to say that “hunger” plays a larger role in creating the market for fish than the consumer does. Jobs are created by businesses that supply people with fish. The consumer can certainly choose not to eat fish, but they still need to eat. And if they do stop eating fish, it’s likely that the business that supplies fish to people will shift to supplying them with what they want to eat. But the jobs aren’t created by the consumer – the business is responsible.

To be certain, consumers play a pivotal role in maintaining jobs. If nobody buys a product or service, the business that provides it will soon find itself in deep trouble.

Consumers merely dictate certain demands. (Well, that’s not entirely true, but the topic of manufacturing markets only further illustrates that consumers do not create jobs.) Businesses create jobs and fill those demands.

How some people get this so backwards is entirely a mystery to me.

The Rise of Voluntaryism/Anarchism


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Philosophy, Politics | Posted on 01-06-2013

Tags: ,

I just noticed that the Adam vs. the Man logo now uses the voluntaryist “V”.

He used to espouse strong libertarian ideas, but now seems to be a flat out voluntaryist. Good on him!


Christianity and Anarchism/Voluntaryism


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Philosophy, Politics, Religion | Posted on 31-05-2013

Tags: ,

For quite a while I’ve been mulling over how Christianity is anarchistic, and even necessarily so. Then I came across this:


When you think about it, it makes sense. Christianity doesn’t force anyone to be a Christian. The entire point is to freely choose. Freewill is paramount. This is pretty much what you get with voluntaryism – choice.

1 More Reason to Use Bitcoin – Feds Steal Mt. Gox Dwolla Funds


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Money, Philosophy, Police State | Posted on 16-05-2013


The irony here is simply sickening. The Feds have stolen funds from Mt. Gox’s Dwolla account. Don’t they see that what they are doing only gives 1 more reason to use bitcoin? They can’t seize bitcoins, so that danger is eliminated. Governments can steal your fiat stored in banks or payment processors, but they can’t steal your bitcoin unless they steal your wallet.dat file and threaten, coerce, or torture you to get the password for it.


Feds seize money from Dwolla account belonging to top Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox

Mobile payments service won’t move money to and from Mt. Gox post-court order.

The Department of Homeland Security has apparently shut down a key mobile payments account associated with Mt. Gox, the largest Bitcoin exchange.

Chris Coyne, co-founder of online dating service OKCupid, tweeted out an e-mail he received from Dwolla this afternoon. The e-mail states that neither Coyne, nor presumably any other Dwolla user, will be able to transfer funds to Mt. Gox.

Dwolla confirmed the change to the New York Observer, which first reported the story. Dwolla received a seizure warrant from a federal court.

“The Department of Homeland Security and US District Court for the District of Maryland issued a ‘Seizure Warrant’ for the funds associated with Mutum Sigillum’s Dwolla account (a.k.a. Mt. Gox),” a Dwolla spokesperson told NYO’s BetaBeat. “Dwolla has ceased all account activities… for Mutum Sigillum while Dwolla’s holding partner transferred Mutum Sigillum’s balance, per the warrant.”

It isn’t yet clear why this seizure happened, and Dwolla isn’t saying anything beyond confirming the court order. Mt. Gox didn’t immediately respond to an inquiry from Ars about the seizure. A user on Bitcoin StackExchange published this short reply received from an inquiry to Mt. Gox about the shut-down: “Thank you for the e-mail. We can see that the Dwolla transactions are not getting processed right now. We will contact Dwolla and post an announcement regarding this. Your patience is appreciated till then.”

I’m certain the irony will be lost on the technocrat bureaucraps (not a typo) who fundamentally don’t understand bitcoin, let alone what “money” and “currency” are.

The crypto-anarchists are sounding better all the time…

3D Guns Banned by Tyrants


Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Philosophy, Police State, Politics | Posted on 11-05-2013

Tags: ,

Information is now officially illegal in the United Police States of America.

Cody Wilson’s 3D printed guns and gun parts have been shut down. Well, kind of. Truth is, the cat is out of the bag.

You can get a torrent of it here:


Now is the time to download it. Pump up the download and seeding stats to show the corrupt politicians that freedom of speech is out of their control. They have failed to muzzle the beast of freedom.

Patrick Henry said:

Give me freedom, or give me death.

This is entirely about freedom. Stand up. Do what you can. Make your voice heard before you are silenced. This is not about guns. This is about freedom and free speech.

For more information, visit: