Christopher Hitchens interview on the Clintons (1999)
What IMF Policies propose for Bitcoin and Crypto
I’ve been behind enemy lines reading everything the IMF has put out in the last 2 years.
Here are 10 pieces I found most relevant to Bitcoin.
“When you are thoroughly conversant with strategy, you will recognize the enemy’s intentions and thus have many opportunities to win.”👇 pic.twitter.com/ssDWlWpDGZ
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
Let’s start with the IMF’s note titled “Blockchain Consensus Mechanisms: A Primer for Supervisors”
It might as well have been titled “Slander Proof of Work and Promote Proof of Stake”.
Here is an excerpt that sums it up in a nutshell👇 pic.twitter.com/JYAJsjnPnK
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
You read that right…the IMF hints that virtual assets are being used to finance the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Is there any evidence of the direct connection between VAs and weapons of mass destruction? 😂
I didn’t find any, but it sure does sound scary!
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
Here, the IMF explores how to regulate virtual assets (VAs).
“VAs pose a significant threat to the integrity of the global financial system, money laundering, terrorist financing, and the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
They support FATF guidelines that VASPs do due diligence on customers & non-customers for transactions that are >$1,000.
They acknowledge the threshold is lower than traditional standards, but they argue that given the “particular risks of VAs”, stricter standards are justified.
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
The IMF justifies stricter standards despite a recent report that found illicit activity consisted of 0.15% of crypto volume.
Also, don’t forget that AML policies have impacted only 0.05% of criminal finances.
This appears to be more about control rather than stopping crime. pic.twitter.com/XKbOOgIokt
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
In this IMF report, I came across a new term, “cryptoization”, which refers to the risk of currency substitution occurring in emerging markets.
The IMF now has a term for when citizens opt out of their failing local currencies into digital assets…
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
The IMF would prefer people not to have an exit at all, which is why they’re so excited about CBDCs.
This paper is an overview of 6 of the most advanced CBDC projects: China, Bahamas, Sweden, Canada, Uruguay, and the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union.
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
None of the CBDC projects covered fully protect user privacy.
Some of them offer “quantitative restrictions” in that they offer anonymity for “lower tier” people to help them onboard if they don’t have IDs.
Central banks make the rules that determine who gets privacy and why. pic.twitter.com/O7GU3JOIDb
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
This contains remarks from an IMF employee on how CBDC design choices can overcome the risks.
It displays the coercive nature of CBDCs and the power it would grant central banks. Notice the choice of words: “limit”, “restrain”, “impose”, and “capped”. pic.twitter.com/AOYgGWU6Q4
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
On CBDC development, they write, “The IMF is collaborating with the BIS, the CPMI, and the FSB to establish relevant guidelines.”
That’s multiple non-governmental organizations designing the future global financial system with zero oversight.
Who voted for any of these people? pic.twitter.com/FrztxsP3UL
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
10.)https://t.co/pXQcLnCxqI
Lastly, this interview in the IMF’s flagship magazine, proves the IMF is well aware of the real risks posed by CBDCs but is continuing with its plans anyway.Author Eswar Prasad candidly explained to an IMF employee the danger that exists with CBDCs👇 pic.twitter.com/yfOtFh6Fxc
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
This one argues for a transition to electronic money to enforce negative interest rates.
They stress that a design requirement of CBDCs is they must be interest-bearing to allow for the implementation of negative interest rates.
How about…no.🖕
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
From their own publications, one can see how the IMF attacks Bitcoin.
They scold PoW’s energy and criticize Bitcoin for facilitating illicit activity to justify regulatory overreach.
They push CBDCs and centralized PoS coins as viable alternatives cuz they’re easier to control.
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
PoW vs PoS/CBDCs and BTC vs ESG
These are the battlegrounds.
The IMF wants to push PoW alternatives because they allow them to enforce their unsound policies with impunity. Negative interest rates, surveillance, inflation, etc.
The IMF can’t exert its power & control with PoW.
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
Only Bitcoin is decentralized & censorship-resistant. Its energy use enables it to function as sound, incorruptible money.
Bitcoin consumes ~0.05% of global energy consumption.
So why all the fuss about Bitcoin?
It’s because Bitcoin can’t be controlled..and the IMF hates that. pic.twitter.com/a0imgJgP60
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
Tesla gets kicked off S&P ESG List, where Exxon Mobile holds a top spot.
Why Politics is like Taco Bell (Uneducated Economist)
06:59
let me tell you why i don’t follow
07:01
politics is because i feel politics is a
07:02
lot like going to taco bell have you
07:04
ever noticed when you go into taco bell
07:06
that everything is exactly the same
07:08
it’s like the same meat cheese
07:11
you know ingredients going into it it’s
07:12
just what kind of wrapper does it come
07:14
in i mean do you want a soft or crunchy
07:17
with or without sour cream i mean there
07:19
is no difference between the different
07:22
ingredients that go into it it’s just
07:23
how they’re going to wrap this thing up
07:25
and hand it to you politics is very this
07:27
is almost exactly the same way it’s like
07:29
taco bell politics it doesn’t matter
07:31
what you order you’re gonna get the same
07:33
thing no matter what do you want a soft
07:35
taco or do you want a spicy burrito i
07:37
mean it’s just like what difference does
07:39
it really make when the ingredients are
07:40
the same and that’s the way i feel like
07:43
politics is presented to you on the on
07:45
how you choose to want to want it like
07:48
you may not like burritos you like tacos
07:50
so you get you know you get tacos
07:51
instead but it’s going to be the same
07:53
thing on the inside
Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created
Freddie Sayers meets Larry Sanger.
Listen to the podcast version: https://shows.acast.com/lockdowntv-wi…
Read the full article here: https://unherd.com/thepost/wikipedia-…
Chances are, if you’ve ever been on the internet, you’ve visited Wikipedia. It is the world’s fifth largest website, pulling in an estimated 6.1 billion followers per month and serves as a cheat sheet for almost any topic in the world. So great is the online encyclopaedia’s influence is so great that it is the biggest and “most read reference work in history”, with as many as 56 million editions.
But the truth about this supposedly neutral purveyor of information is a little more complex. Historically, Wikipedia has been written and monitored by a community of volunteers who collaborated and contested competing claims with one another. In the words of Wikipedia’s co-founder, Larry Sanger who spoke to Freddie Sayers on LockdownTV, these volunteers would “battle it out”.
This battle of ideas on Wikipedia’s platform formed a crucial part of the encyclopaedia’s commitment to neutrality, which according to Sanger, was abandoned after 2009. In the years since, on issues ranging from Covid to Joe Biden, it has become increasingly partisan, primarily espousing an establishment viewpoint that increasingly represents “propaganda”. This, says Sanger, is why he left the site in 2007, describing it as “broken beyond repair”.