Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE KIRK’S ALLEGED SHOOTER!! Twitter/X Space

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 2, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:40:08

THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE KIRK’S ALLEGED SHOOTER!! Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening.
	Good evening.
	Welcome to your Wednesday night live, 7 p.m. on Pinch Punch, first day of the month, 1st of October, 2025.
	And we got a, well, a number of topics tonight, but of course, as is always the case, I defer to your lovely listenership requests.
	And I'm going to go over a little bit of what's going on with Tyler Robinson, the alleged.
	It seems pretty clear, but of course, innocent until proven guilty, Tyler Robinson, 1st October.
	So, of course, I'm not a lawyer.
	This is just my understanding.
	This is not legal advice.
	And it's alleged that he's the shooter.
	So this is how typical murder cases proceed.
	Let's just say this is in Utah, of course, right?
	So following an investigation and arrest, the defendant appears before a judge within 48 to 72 hours.
	The charge is read, rights are explained, and bail is addressed.
	A public defender may be assigned if necessary.
	And then there's a waiver hearing.
	The defendant decides whether to waive the right to a preliminary hearing and proceed directly to arraignment.
	This is often a strategic decision made with counsel.
	If they go to a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor presents evidence to establish probable cause that a crime occurred and the defendant committed it.
	Witnesses may testify, the defense can cross-examine.
	If probable cause is found, the case binds over to a district court.
	Otherwise, charges may be dismissed.
	In the arraignment, the defendant formally enters a plea, guilty, not guilty, or no contest.
	For a not guilty plea, a trial data set and pretrial conferences are scheduled, scheduled, or scheduled, if you're not British.
	Plea bargains can be negotiated here or later.
	So pre-trial conference and motions, attorneys are negotiating plea deals.
	They file motions such as to suppress evidence and exchange discovery, right?
	This is discovery is the back and forth of relevant information to the trial.
	Multiple conferences may occur to resolve the case without trial.
	The pre-trial process typically takes four to eight months.
	Most cases, and it's wild when you think about it, because the sort of Anglo-Saxon, highly complicated court case was designed with a low criminality population, a very low criminality population.
	Whites have a pretty low criminality.
	East Asians have an even lower criminality than whites, and it scales upwards.
	East Asians, whites, Hispanics, and blacks in the sort of typical IQ thing that we've talked about before.
	So most cases, because Anglo-Saxon common law, you know, cross-examine witnesses, no hearsay, evidence rules, chain of custody, the right to confront your accusers, and so on.
	It's all very complicated, expensive, and time-consuming.
	And because we have a relatively, in America, maybe not Utah, but in America as a whole, it's a pretty high crime population.
	So most cases, over 90%, resolve your plea bargains before trial.
	So, you know, generally the way that it works, this is sort of my obviously non-lawyer amateur understanding, is that they say, bro, bro, bro, we got you dead to rights.
	We got you on video.
	We got eyewitness testimony.
	Your DNA is at the scene, smoking gun in your pocket, you name it, right?
	We've got you dead to rights.
	So if you go to trial, we're going to aim for 20 years, but, but if you plea out, maybe you can get 10, maybe you can get eight, five, you'll be out in three, five, seven, whatever it is, right?
	So it's kind of funny when you think about it, right?
	Like you can't bribe a judge, you can't bribe a lawyer, you can't bribe witnesses, you can't bribe jurors and so on, but but, but, but You can, in fact, bribe people who may be guilty with years and years of time.
	Years and years of time.
	Isn't that wild?
	You can't bribe a judge, a juror, a witness, or a lawyer with 50 bucks, but you can bribe someone with 10 years off their sentence just to plead guilty.
	And, you know, you can beat the ride.
	You can't beat the rap, which means that sometimes I assume people think that the process itself is the punishment.
	So yeah, the entire process for a typical murder case can take six to 18 months or longer.
	Now, high-profile murder cases, of which this would be one, have additional challenges relative to the typical murder case.
	A case such as this one is under a lot of muscle and media and public scrutiny.
	Let's just say media and public scrutiny.
	Timelines are usually extended.
	Bail conditions are often more restrictive.
	Evidence and motions become highly publicized and so may be considered tainted by publicity.
	Now, if the case goes to trial, jury selection is really challenging in a high-profile case in particular.
	Trial durations extend from the days or weeks to several months.
	These high-profile trials also tend to be more dramatic.
	Sentencing is similarly affected as public sentiment may be considered if the verdict is appealed.
	So judges, attorneys do have some tools at their disposal to mitigate the complications and risks of a high-profile case.
	They can change the venue, issue continuance delaying the trial, issue gag orders, which you can't talk to the media, you can't talk downsiders, or limit public and media access to pre-trial proceedings.
	Voir dear, jury selection may be more extensive so as to manage juror bias.
	Jurors may be kept anonymous, jurors may be sequestered during the trial, so they've got to stay in a hotel, they can't go home, and jurors may be imported from outside the jurisdiction of the court.
	During trial, security may be increased.
	Explicit rules of decorum may be set forth, such as limiting behavior, seating, electronic devices, and overcrowding of the court.
	Media access may also be limited or banned from the court.
	For example, live broadcast may be allowed, but only from a single video feed.
	One reason why this would be done would be to balance transparency with the decision to keep the jurors anonymous, right?
	Because it only takes one camera sweep of the jury for them to be not anonymous, right?
	So you want to have the camera over the jurors, face away from the jurors, and just the one, right?
	So Tyler Robinson is alleged to have shot and murdered Charlie Kirk on September the 10th.
	It's funny to think, eh?
	It's three weeks ago.
	Three weeks ago, yeah, to the day.
	He was identified by his father and through the help of a family friend, and he surrendered to police on September 11th.
	Robinson's first court date was September the 16th.
	The charges against him were read, which were aggravated murder.
	Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for this charge.
	Now, clearly, because he's supposed to have talked about this up to a week ahead of time, this is not a crime of passion.
	This is second or third degree.
	It's certainly not negligence.
	It's not manslaughter, not criminal negligence or anything like that.
	And this is sort of a, I assume, first degree, so it's planned out.
	It's not a crime of reaction and so on.
	So yeah, aggravated murder, a felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily harm.
	Obstruction of justice for concealing or removing the firearm used in the shooting.
	Obstruction of justice for destroying, concealing, or removing the clothing worn during the shooting.
	Tampering with the witness for attempting to induce his roommate, his lover, the person transitioning, to delete incriminating text messages.
	Tampering with a witness too for attempting to induce his roommate to stay silent if questioned by the police.
	Violent offense committed in the presence of a child for committing criminal homicide in the physical presence of a child younger than 14 years old.
	Apparently, people thought it was his wife and child at the time.
	I think that the information has come up since that Erica Kirk and his was in Arizona, I think, and she got the news on a plane.
	So she wasn't right there.
	Robinson is being held, obviously without bail.
	He was declared indigent and was to be assigned a public defender.
	Indigent, I think, refers to no money.
	Robinson's public defender, Catherine Nestor, was assigned on September 24th.
	Two additional attorneys were approved to be added to the defense during the waiver hearing.
	The next court date was set for September the 29th, which was a waiver hearing.
	So Tyler Robinson's waiver hearing occurred on September 29th, 2025, of course, in the Utah 4th District Court in Provo, presided over by Judge Tony Graff.
	Roughly 10-minute virtual hearing focused on whether Robinson would waive his right to a preliminary hearing during which prosecutors would need to present evidence to determine if the case proceeds to trial.
	Robinson appeared remotely from Utah County Jail with his camera turned off, avoiding showing his face, though no specific reason was stated beyond general security concerns.
	So his defense team, led by Catherine Nestra and including newly added attorneys Michael Enbert and Richard G. Novak from California, indicated that they did not intend to waive the preliminary hearing, but requested additional time to review the voluminous evidence, including massive amounts of digital material.
	Prosecutors represented by Chad Grunender from the Utah County Attorney's Office confirmed that they had begun providing discovery materials and agreed the evidence was extensive.
	Evidence is detailed in the next section.
	The prosecution also raised concerns about the wording of a gag order, noting it involved over 3,000 potential witnesses, which are all the people who were at the university when Charlie was assassinated.
	So Judge Graff granted the continuance, scheduling the preliminary hearing for October 30th, 2025, at which Robinson is expected to appear in person.
	The judge emphasized protecting Robinson's constitutional rights, the presumption of innocence, and the victim's rights to fairness and dignity while pledging to conduct proceedings with transparency, impartiality, integrity, civility, and diligence to ensure justice.
	No plea was entered, and Robinson remains held without bail.
	Heightened security measures were in place, including police canine sweeps, limited courtroom access, and restrictions on bags, face coverings, and displays of support or disapproval.
	So we've talked about some of the evidence in this case as it was discovered early on.
	After the September 16th court date, they disclose it, the prosecution disclosed it to the defense for review.
	The evidence includes a substantial amount of discovery materials that encompass digital communications, witness statements, physical items, and surveillance footage.
	So, what is going on?
	Well, text messages.
	Robinson exchanged messages with his romantic partner, also his roommate, on the day of the shooting, instructing them to check under his keyboard for a note that read, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it.
	In subsequent texts, he confessed to the shooting, stating that he, quote, had enough of his hatred, end quote, and had planned it for over a week.
	He discussed recovering the rifle, mentioned bullets engraved with internet and video game gaming jargon such as mostly a big meme, and instructed his partner to delete the messages, deny media interviews, and stay silent if questioned by the police.
	His father also texted him after police released rifle images asking for photos, to which Robinson responded, noting the rifle's uniqueness and avoiding calls.
	Discord messages.
	From an account linked to Robinson, he confessed in a small group chat saying he had, quote, bad news and that it was, quote, me at UVU yesterday, indicating he would surrender soon and thanking them for past interactions.
	The messages referenced the rifle left at the scene and the engraved bullets.
	Note under keyboard, a physical note photographed and provided to police was found by his roommate explicitly stating his intent to, quote, take out Charlie Kirk.
	Witness statements, romantic partner slash roommate, provided police with the text messages, Discord logs, and the keyboard note.
	They described Robinson's admissions, plans to retrieve the rifle, concerns about fingerprints and other evidence, and instructions to withhold information supporting charges of witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
	Now, of course, I'm no lawyer.
	Saying don't talk to the police, I'm not sure how that's exactly witness tampering because there's tons of people online who say, don't talk to the cops, right?
	I mean, without a lawyer present and all that.
	So again, I'm not sure how that follows as a whole, but again, I'm no lawyer.
	So family members, Robinson's mother recognized him in news photos of the suspect and noted his increasing left-leaning political views, tensions over politics, and his comment that Kirk's UVU event was a, quote, stupid venue, end quote, where Kirk spread hate.
	His father recognized the suspect and the rifle, which was a gift to Robinson, leading to a phone call where Robinson implied he was the shooter and expressed suicidal intentions.
	The parents, and I think in combination with somebody else, convince him to turn himself in.
	Family friend, who is a retired deputy sheriff, met with Robinson at his father's urging, where Robinson discussed disposing of clothing related to the shooting and helped facilitate his surrender.
	UVU police officer heard the shot from an elevated position, identified a potential sniper spot on a roof 160 yards away, and later found gravel markings consistent with a prone shooting position, such as from elbows, knees, and feet.
	A broader witness pool.
	The case involves potentially, of course, thousands of witnesses, as the shooting occurred in front of 2,000 to 3,000 students and attendees at the Turning Point USA event, with children present near the stage supporting the charge of committing a violent offense in the presence of a child, the aforementioned 14 and under.
	So what's the physical evidence?
	Rifle and ammunition.
	A Mauser Model 98.3006 caliber bolt action rifle with a scope was recovered wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near UVU's northeast end, matching discussions in Robinson's texts.
	It contained one spent round and three unspent rounds consistent with the shooting scene.
	No shell casings on the roof as expected for bolt action.
	The rifle was confirmed by Robinson's father as a gift to him.
	Ammunition had etched inscriptions, including the fire cartridge, notices bulge OWO, what's this?
	My understanding is that is expecting a woman noticing a bulge means it could be a penis.
	Second cartridge, hey fascist catch.
	Arrow symbols.
	O Balachow, Bellachow, Belachow, Chow Chow.
	That is an anti-fascist anthem.
	Fourth cartridge, if you read this, you are gay, L-M-A-O.
	These engravings were referenced in Robinson's communications as a meme.
	DNA evidence, DNA matching Robinson was found on the rifle's trigger and other parts.
	The fired cartridge casing, two unfired cartridges, and the towel.
	Kind of damning, obviously, right?
	Shell casing and targets.
	A shell casing with similar etchings was found near UV U and several targets with bullet holes were discovered during a search of Robinson's residence.
	Disposed clothing.
	Robinson admitted to discarding clothing worn during the shooting as reported by the family friend.
	Surveillance footage.
	UVU cameras captured an individual arriving on campus at 11.51 a.m. in a Dodge Challenger, dressed in a maroon t-shirt, light shorts, black hat, and light shoes.
	Footage showed the suspect in a different outfit, sunglasses, dark blue cap, black t-shirt with an American flag and bald eagle, entering a stairwell with an unusual gait consistent with concealing a rifle in pants, climbing onto the roof at 12.15 p.m., low crawling to the shooting position, firing at approximately 12.23 p.m. and fleeing while carrying a rifle-shaped item.
	Robinson was seen changing into a similar post-shooting outfit, the bullets trajectory, endangered multiple people near the stage.
	This evidence supports the seven charges, including aggravated murder, and has led to requests from the defense for more time to review the material to their volume.
	I'm sorry to be reading this in a semi-unemotional tone.
	It is horrifying and beyond appalling what happened to poor Charlie.
	You know, it's something I've often thought of that you can do everything but the final thing and still be relatively okay.
	I mean, I remember reading Crime and Punishment.
	I actually read it in like 20 hours straight, stayed up all night.
	Such an incredible book.
	I've never quite been able to get into Dostievsky's other works, although I did read The Brothers Karamazov.
	But Raskolnikov, the murderer, until he takes out the hammer and kills the pawnbroker, and then Lisa Vita comes in and he kills her.
	He's okay.
	Everything up until the actual pulling off the trigger.
	That's the part that's hard to understand.
	I mean, all of it's hard to understand, but up until that light pressure, pow, right?
	Everything up to then is reversible.
	Everything up to then is survivable.
	I mean, I'm sure he broke laws going up there and, you know, sighting on Charlie, but everything up to there, it's like an affair, you know, everything up to the sex is survivable, reversible.
	Everything up to that moment, and everything in your life, in your moral nature, in your training, comes down to that one individual specific moment where you hammer the pawnbroker, have sex with the woman outside of marriage, pull the trigger with Charlie's face in your sights.
	Everything up to that moment is reversible.
	That moment.
	That's where life completely changes.
	And I'm sure you've had these moments, for good and for ill over the course of your life, but everything up to that moment.
	And what level of ideology is present in people's minds that they step over that moment and commit the murder, commit the assassination.
	That's amazing.
	And how much of the shooters, if this was the guy, right?
	Alleged.
	How much of the shooter?
	Well, there was a shooter, even if it's not, this guy looks like it is, but even if it's not.
	How much of the shooter's mindset was shaped by the cheers he knew would come after?
	How much would come?
	How much of that resolution to get over that, to me, would be an insurmountable wall of pulling the trigger, pressure, execute a good man for trying to talk things out.
	How much was he egged on by the cheers he knew would come after the event?
	I see tens of millions of people ghostly surrounding him, kneeling, cheering, exhorting, praising, kissing his ears, putting their ghostly fingers on the trigger.
	How much of murder comes from the cheering of murder?
	How much of an unjust war is run by the ticker tape parades after the fact?
	And how much of the left's celebrations of murderers drives future criminality, celebration of criminals as a whole?
	George Floyd, multiple felon, he's got, he once robbed a house, jammed his gun into a pregnant woman's belly.
	All the way back to Aldrew Hiss.
	Was in prison, got out of prison, immediately, whisked off to dinner parties and celebrated.
	Much like the mafia, right?
	you go to prison and you don't rat.
	Your family is taken care of and you are celebrated when you come out.
	Everything that we say and everything that we do, which is all generated by what we accept and believe, everything that we say and everything that we do adds to the good or the evil of this world.
	Like I did a show last night.
	There was a fellow on my live stream yesterday.
	I've talked to him once before, the is aught guy.
	And he threw a little bit of a dig, a little bit of an insult my way.
	And it's kind of like a, you know, part of me was like, I should just let it go.
	Just let it go.
	But I think those kinds of little manipulations, they're worth confronting and they're worth talking about.
	And I recognize, of course, that when people throw little digs at you, and I'm sorry to be talking about such an inconsequential thing when talking about the slaughter of Charlie Cook, but I think it helps illustrate a principle.
	So a little dig gets thrown at you.
	And, you know, one, maybe you can let go.
	But when the second one comes along, you kind of got to say, yeah, I don't think this is not right.
	Come on, this is unfair.
	And I recognize it's an impossible situation.
	Someone throws a little dig at you.
	Everyone hears it because it's live.
	They throw a little dig at you.
	And what do you do?
	Do you just let it blow past without addressing it?
	Then you kind of look like a coward or like you're too stupid to even know when you've been a little bit insulted, right?
	Insulted just a little bit.
	Just a little bit.
	Get your shine.
	But and if you say nothing, you either look dumb or cowardly.
	But of course, if you say something, the other person, as they generally always do when you get these little digs, the other person says, well, hey, man, I didn't mean it that way.
	I guess I can use another word if you want me to, like you're then the crazy person.
	There's no win, right?
	So, but you have to try.
	You have to try and point out negative behavior.
	And again, I'm absolutely sorry for talking about something so completely minor, but most of us aren't in the position of whisper-spurring a murderer to half-blow somebody's head off.
	But there are little things, little digs, little insults, little pettiness that we need to push back against as a whole, because most people's moral decisions are either egged on or held back by the cheers and boos of those around them.
	So if you are someone who cheered on or snarkily promoted the positivity of Charlie Kirk's murder, then you had a hand on the trigger.
	If you called people Nazis, white supremacists, even white nationalists, if you called people fascists, you have a hand morally, I'm not saying legally, but you have a hand in these murders.
	Now, I'm fully aware, of course, that people who are cheering on murder are very unlikely to have any kind of conscience.
	But I do believe, I do believe that there are evil and there's good.
	There's a lot of people in the middle.
	There's a lot of people that don't have any particular mode of power or motivations or steering or will or principles of their own.
	They do what is approved of.
	If there's a mob that goes to the jailhouse and says, let's lynch him, they will go to the jailhouse and participate in a lynch.
	If there's a mob that goes to the jailhouse and say, set him free, he's innocent.
	They will work to help set him free.
	They don't have any particular mode of power of their own, which is why the momentum that language and perspective puts into play in this world is crucial to the moral journey of mankind.
	And it's not just this shooting of Charlie Kirk, it's all the way back.
	If you said that Kyle Rittenhouse was just automatically wrong, guilty before proven innocent, because he fired in self-defense and hit some pretty evil and nasty people.
	If you just said that George Zimmerman versus Trayvon Martin, that George Zimmerman was just a vicious racist who just enjoyed beating a cherub-faced little black boy because he wanted to go and get some Skittles.
	If you just automatically take the side of the bad guys and automatically discount the actions of the good guys, be aware that you are uncorking all the demons that ride and run roughshod over the world because of what you're doing.
	The demons listen, the demons in people's hearts listen very carefully to the softer shouted syllables all around them.
	You know, there's an old story, it shows up in Dungeons and Dragons, shows up, of course, in human history, that you can draw shapes on the ground, you can chant words and summon demons and devils.
	You can.
	You absolutely can.
	There's a summoning ritual to bring the devils out in people's hearts.
	Most superstitions have a deep basis in psychological reality.
	Most people in history will do what is praised and attack those who are condemned.
	So that which you praise and that which you condemn becomes the riptides by which people swim.
	And yeah, some people can swim against the riptide.
	There are those rare people who can, I assume most of this audience is part of that.
	But there are those rare people who can swim against the riptide, become stronger thereby, the exception that proves the rule.
	But most people will swim the tide, swim with the tide.
	They will sail with the wind at their backs, not try and tack and do that L-shaped thing sailing forward.
	Most people will do what is praised and attack whoever is condemned.
	And everybody who is in the media and everybody who's posting knows all of this.
	And most people don't want to do violence themselves, but what they want to do is summon the demons in other people's hearts so that other people do the violence they don't want to do.
	They don't want to get their hands dirty.
	You know, this sort of traditional way that women generally can't beat up a man.
	So what do they do?
	Well, they go to their brother, their cousin, their uncle, and say, this guy tried to rape me.
	This guy grabbed my boob.
	This guy called me a horrible word.
	they get the guys to do it.
	One of the foundations of magic is that words heal or destroy.
	Words can summon demons.
	Words can send fireballs.
	Or words can heal wounds.
	It's literally called a spell.
	Like you spell words.
	And it generally is portrayed as the aged and the physically weak.
	Think of Gandalf versus Aragorn or Boromir in his prime.
	the aged and the physically weak, are the ones who use language to affect damage.
	And you can affect far more damage through language than physical weapons.
	The pen is indeed, indeed mightier than the sword.
	England survived for thousands of years and fell to words, fell to language.
	Do not be around those who are softly sliding down the greased pole of syllables to the bottom of hell to release the demons that dwell thereunder.
	Don't do it.
	Don't do it.
	The demons will consume them on the way up, but they won't stop at them and they will take you down as well.
	So I hope that makes sense.
	I'm going to do one other little thing because, as you may have seen, there was a wee-a-wee elevation elevation in our good old-fashioned itty bitty diddy coins today and i'll certainly take your course love to hear from you i do have another topic but i can do that tomorrow which is how to get your risk of marriage down to the low single digits okay there
	has been a significant bump of bitcoin 4 p.m eastern 117 480 us dollars the all-time high was 124,290 August 14th.
	So of course, there was a partial U.S. government shutdown on October 1st.
	This, of course, indicates instability and where there's instability, assets flow towards safe havens such as Bitcoin through ETFs and other kinds of investments.
	The shutdown delayed key economic data releases, jobs reports, ISM manufacturing, PMI, leading to market volatility and a data blackout.
	These weak economic indicators position Bitcoin as a hedge against political instability and feared currency risks.
	Gold is in a similar position and, if you follow Peter Schiff on X, has hit record highs.
	So Bitcoin surged nearly 4% in 24 hours to around 117,400, with analysts noting it defies shutdown risks by acting as a digital haven.
	So there were shutdowns of the government in 2013 and 2018, showed kind of mixed effects on Bitcoin, but current rate cut expectations and reduced regulatory capacity, for example, SEC delays, amplify short-term upside.
	The Federal Reserve announced a rate cut by 25 basis points, 0.25%, on September 17th, 2025.
	This combined with weak economic data, including 22,000 jobs added versus 76,500 expected, and unemployment of 4.3% has boosted Bitcoin as a risk asset.
	The initial response to the rate cut saw some drop in Bitcoin's price.
	It did below 110,000 on September 26, but it recovered and had a banner day today.
	Global activities have also contributed to economic uncertainty, such as in France, where increased deficits and debts and political instability increases its misalignment with EU policy.
	France's public deficit reached almost 6% of its GDP in 2024, projected to remain high in 2025.
	Its debt to GDP ratio reached 113 point, sorry, it didn't laugh, 113.9% debt to GDP, far exceeding EU thresholds.
	France is now under EU's excessive deficit procedure requiring corrective action plans, but political gridlock has delayed implementation.
	Ongoing turmoil, including the potential collapse of the government and opposition to austerity measures, has hindered France's ability to align with EU-mandated deficit reduction timelines.
	All told, France's economic growth is expected to slow to 0.6% in 2025.
	I love how they call it austerity.
	Some guy weighs 450 pounds because he's had 8,000 calories a day for years.
	And you try to drop it down to 7,800 calories.
	Oh no, I'm starving!
	Austerity starvation diet.
	Now, Donald Trump, of course, has been very positive for Bitcoin both during his campaign and during his presidency.
	He released a video on July 18th, 2025, signing the Genius Act into law, which endorsed cryptocurrency, following through on his March 2025 announcement of a strategic crypto reserve.
	Since the signing of the Genius Act, also known as me reading my audiobook, we have seen the following.
	August to September 2025.
	The Treasury Department initiated implementation, including an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, and perm published in the Federal Register on September 19th, 2025, seeking public input on stablecoin regulations.
	The stablecoin market grew 42% in 2025, with USDT processing over $1 trillion monthly, attributed partly to the Act.
	A stablecoin tries to tie the value of a Bitcoin to something, sorry, the value of a crypto to something like the US dollar or something that's not free-floating based on supply and demand.
	Collaborations emerged, such as Deutsche Borser Group, and Circle for Stablecoin Initiatives.
	The Commodity Futures Trading Commission launched a tokenized collateral and stablecoins initiative.
	on an unspecified date in late September, inviting comments by October 20th, 2025.
	Broader discussions linked the Act to Bitcoin's potential in backing global stablecoins and treasury assets across industries.
	Some raised concerns about loopholes allowing rebates without investor protection, calling for amendments.
	Market and industry impact.
	Stablecoins gained federal legitimacy, moving from fringe tools to regulated digital financial backbones.
	This has fueled optimism for a crypto market structure builds next, potentially rallying the industry.
	Projects like PayFi, RWA platforms and tokens saw mentions as beneficiaries.
	Ties to digital ID and global policies such as the UK following suit were speculated.
	September 25 to 26th, the Treasury extended the ANPRM comment period briefly to 46 days from its September 19th publication, giving industry more time for feedback on stablecoin rules.
	Posts highlighted full implementation via the Federal Register with users noting the Act's official status and ties to crypto buys.
	A $1.1 billion crypto liquidation event occurred on September 25th amid broader market volatility, though not directly attributable to the Act.
	All right, almost done.
	Almost done.
	And we get to your questions.
	September 27th, 29th, discussions emphasized the Act's role in stablecoin pumps and Bitcoin's potential to power global networks with reports of 42% market growth in 2025.
	The CFTC's initiative launch invited input by October 20th, building on the Act.
	Concerns about interest bans and consumer harm were raised.
	September 30th to October 1st, yesterday today, Bitcoin surge passed 116,000 amid ETF inflows and macroeconomic shifts, with analysts linking regulatory clarity from the Genius Act to broader crypto momentum.
	Recent aggregations noted stablecoin surges and collaborations.
	So there's lots of pluses.
	Whether we'll see, you know, I've said for many years, my obviously subjective and unproven mind peg for Bitcoin is 100 and sorry, it's about 750,000 US.
	So risk of divorce, not marriage.
	Sorry, if I said risk of marriage, risk of divorce, not marriage.
	All right.
	So I'm happy to take your calls, questions about whatever is on your mind.
	Thrilled to hear from you.
	And I appreciate you all calling in.
	Let's start.
	Oh, you know what?
	No.
	Oh, okay.
	Sorry.
	There were people who were ready and there are people.
	So if you want to get yourself teed up, I will finish the Bitcoin chat.
	While people are teeing up, just hit a request to chat and we'll take it from there.
	So ETF performance over the past seven days.
	September 25th to 27th, midweek outflows, US spot Bitcoin ETFs, this exchange-traded funds, recorded net outflows of approximately $902.5 million for the week ending September 26th, breaking a four-week inflow streak.
	This included notable redemptions from funds like Fidelity's FBTC, 300.4 million on September 26th.
	BlackRock's IBIT, 37.3 million on the same day, attributed to quarter-end portfolio rebalancing and profit taking.
	Remember, every time Bitcoin goes up, it's going to stop going up because people are going to take their profits.
	On the other hand, of course, every time Bitcoin goes down, it stops going down because people want to buy when it's low, right?
	I mean, I used to program these kinds of things for a stock trading company way back in the day in COBOL 74.
	Believe it or not, COBOL, so old it's almost a boomer.
	So the rebound, that was the outflow, September 29th, 30th, flows reversed sharply, 518 million in net inflows on September 29th alone, offsetting over half of the prior week's outflows.
	It was Monday.
	On September 30th, U.S. Bitcoin ETF saw 429.9 million in net inflows, led by, again, BlackRock's IBIT at almost 200 million, Fidelity's FBTC, 54.7, and others.
	This pushed Bitcoin's price above 117,000, which with total ETF holdings reaching about 740.5,000 Bitcoin, 6.82% of supply.
	Ethereum ETFs also saw 127 to 128 million in inflows, indicating broader crypto ETF recovery.
	So the week closed with a net outflow of around 896 to 902 million for Bitcoin ETFs, but Monday search suggested potential positive close for the full seven-day period if October 1st today follows suit.
	So that's a very nice public companies now hold over a million Bitcoins with firms like MicroStrategy and BlackRock seeking yields through ETFs.
	U.S. Bank offering Bitcoin custody and Trump-backed mining from ABTC.
	Sounds like you're doing the alphabet with a stroke.
	Listing on NASDAQ signal growing adoption, countering fiat failures and pushing prices higher.
	So yeah, broad safe haven demand.
	It's an ongoing trend, amplified by events like U.S. rating downgrades, bank failures referenced in border 2025 economic discussions, but tied to the shutdown starting October 1st, 2025.
	So regional bank failures, currency debasements, such as in Argentina, have historically lifted Bitcoin current sovereign debt concerns stemming from U.S. Treasury shifts to short-term bills since October 2023, reinforced Bitcoin's role as an inflation hedge.
	Delightful.
	I was talking to my daughter this morning about, she was like, what's with this shutdown?
	And I said, well, it's kind of a ritual.
	It's kind of a ritual dance.
	It's kind of a ritual dance.
	So there's a ceiling on spending.
	And they hit that ceiling.
	And if the Republicans are in power, they hit the ceiling.
	And the Democrats say, oh, the Republicans, they're not letting us spend the money we need to spend in essential services.
	And children will go hungry and doves will fall out of the sky and elephants will give CPR to themselves and expire their mighty hearts bleeding out into the dust.
	And all of these terrible things will happen.
	And of course, in general, the government protects itself by stopping the most essential services rather than some HR department in some obscure department in Akron, right?
	The most customer taxpayer-facing stuff, a border stuff, passports and so on, license plates, renewals.
	They stop all that stuff so that people get mad.
	And people get mad and they say, oh, I'm paying my taxes on my services.
	And then people get mad.
	And because they get mad, they put pressure on the government to lift the spending cap.
	And then the Republicans may ask for a couple of concessions.
	Maybe they get them.
	Maybe they don't.
	But then the spending cap is lifted.
	And it's all a ritual to pretend that there are any functional limits to government spending.
	It's just a ritual.
	If you've ever been around an addict, they have all these rituals.
	You know, I remember being in the play Hurley Burley once, and I was just racing through the drink, drinking stuff.
	And I remember the director, the director was saying, no, no, no, no.
	Take your time.
	For an alcoholic, you know, mixing the drink, pouring the drink, looking at the drink, taking a sip.
	It's all part of the ritual.
	He doesn't just, you know, like he's not that kind of drunk.
	He's not just drinking lighter fluid or something, right?
	So, you know, it's all part of the ritual.
	So there's this ritual.
	And the ritual is a dance by which the addiction is denied.
	I mean, everybody knows the government's not going to shut down for very long.
	They're going to go through this process, raise the spending, and in return for some cuts down the road, which are never going to happen, right?
	Never going to happen.
	And it's just a dance to mostly placate the taxpayers, but even more so to placate the bondholders.
	Because if you were to say, as any government would say, oh, you know what?
	Screw it.
	We're going to spend whatever the hell we want.
	There's not any practical caps on what we can print and what we can borrow and what we can spend.
	Well, then bondholders would kind of freak out a little bit.
	But if there's this sort of fig leaf covering of, no, no, no, it's really tough for us to raise our spending, man, then bondholders drink the Kool-Aid and buy the bonds.
	You know, people who buy bonds are just guaranteeing themselves future tax increases.
	But hey, that's what people like to do.
	So yeah, there is a sort of safe haven because I think people will begin to understand that there is no cap.
	There's no practical cap on government spending except bankruptcy, right?
	Except or monetizing the debts or printing a bunch of money.
	But hopefully, if they get a hold of crypto, they can pay big chunks of the debt with crypto.
	That's, of course, been my recommendation for a long time.
	But what do I know?
	All right.
	If you've got questions, comments, issues, challenges, any topic you like, anything you want, you got it, baby.
	Yeah, if you want anything, just raise your hand.
	I'm happy to talk about whatever's on your mind.
	And I really do appreciate your time, your support, freedomain.com slash tonight.
	If you'd like to help out the show, what was that word?
	Talite?
	Ta-da!
	Bit odd, in it.
	Freedomain.com slash donate.
	Let me elocute it properly.
	The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plane.
	And we are talking about freedomain.com slash donate.
	All right.
	Fiona, my friend, how lovely to hear from you.
	What is on your mind?
	Hello, Steph.
	Hello, how are you doing?
	I'm good.
	Happy birthday.
	Thank you very much.
	I appreciate it.
	Do you think people celebrating Charlie Kirk's death are aware of how they look to us?
	No.
	Because they still seem to think they're moral.
	Right.
	Now, I know that for a fact because there have been a bunch of studies.
	I promise not to, I'm not going to lecture.
	I'm not going to give a big monologue.
	I'll keep it really brief.
	Though there have been a bunch of studies where they ask people on the left to describe the mindset and beliefs of people on the right, and they can't do it.
	All they can do is say, Nazi!
	They have no empathy for anyone who thinks differently.
	That's not a theory that's as close to scientific fact as psychologists can provide.
	On the other hand, if you go to people on the right and you say, what do people on the left believe?
	How do they think?
	What are their principles?
	The people on the right can describe people on the left very well.
	But people on the left cannot describe people on the right.
	They do not understand mindsets or perspectives that are different from their own.
	It's narcissistic, it's solipsistic, and it's the exact opposite of anything a rational person would call empathy.
	End of speech.
	Your thoughts, please.
	Doesn't that make it a bit difficult to function, though?
	I mean, how do you action on reality if you cannot accept things that are different from how you want them to be?
	You don't work for the government or get your income from the government, do you?
	No, not at all.
	No.
	Oh, well, see, that would be the challenge that you'd have.
	It's like saying, well, what is the work ethic of the guy who inherits $10 million?
	I mean, they don't need to function in reality because there are people who get resources by directly interacting and manipulating things in reality.
	And they have to be pretty pragmatic.
	I mean, when I worked up north and, you know, I had to, you know, hammer drill bits through the permafrost.
	I had to be pretty sensible.
	I couldn't just yell.
	I couldn't just whine, complain, bitch, moan, whatever, right?
	So I had to be pretty practical about these kinds of things.
	Otherwise, and you very, very much had to be practical about the dangers of what you were doing.
	Otherwise, you get injured or you die.
	And so there are people who get resources from interacting with the real world in a real way.
	And they can't afford all of this manipulative, shrieky, harpy nonsense.
	But then there are people who get their resources by nagging at others.
	And, you know, all due respect to the lovely ladies in my life and I'm sure in yours and on this call, in general, men are the ones who go out and wrestle subsistence from raw nature, whether it's farming or hunting or gathering or something like that.
	And women certainly do their part, but women are raising children.
	And if a man wants more resources, he works harder.
	What does traditionally, what do women do when they want more resources?
	And they're married and raising children.
	They ask the man.
	Do they ask the men nicely sometimes?
	Sometimes, yes.
	What else do they do?
	Well, that doesn't work.
	I guess they nag.
	They nag, right?
	Now, when women are younger, they tend to get resources by being pretty and attractive and all of that sort of stuff.
	Now, when women get older, they can't get resources in the same way as they could when they were younger.
	So they often will tip over or they're sort of, you know, if they're in a happy marriage, that's not the case, right?
	But if they're single or in an unhappy marriage, they go from the positive incentive of, hey, you might have sex with me if you treat me right.
	And that's a way to motivate men to sort of get resources and get married and get committed and all that kind of stuff.
	And that's a positive incentive, right?
	That's a carrot.
	When women get older, a lot of times, and it happens with men too, I've seen it.
	But a lot of times, to sort of take the stereotype, when women get older, they turn from positive incentives, such as you might be able to get a little bit of this action, to negative incentives, which is and another thing, you know, just you know, this sort of mosquito wine of complaining and withholding of sex and slamming the plate down and the meal is cold and I'm slamming drawers and just making the life of the man unpleasant until he gives them what they want.
	And so for people on the left, they get their money from the government.
	They are getting money from unemployment insurance, welfare, sometimes even the military industrial complex, they're getting money from government jobs, government protections.
	They're getting money from disability, all kinds of crazy stuff.
	And so they don't have to deal with reality because they complain for money.
	And in a free market, it's kind of tough to complain for money.
	But in the government, if you complain for money, what you're signaling to the government is, if you give me free stuff, I'll vote for you.
	And therefore, complaining becomes highly, highly, highly profitable.
	Like I did a show years ago called The Welfare Cliff about a woman in America, this is many years ago, but a woman in America, even back then, if she had two kids with no provider, she got the equivalent of $80,000 worth of benefits.
	In other words, she'd have to have a salary of $80,000, probably well over $100,000 now.
	She'd have to have a salary of $80,000 to get the same benefits she got for free from the government.
	And how did she get that?
	Who's going to feed my kids?
	Who's going to take care?
	My kids need braces.
	They got to get to the dentist.
	Who's going to?
	As opposed to if she was happily married, her husband would be like thrilled to work a little harder to provide for his family because she loves him.
	He loves her.
	She makes a great home.
	He cares about his kids.
	And so, through love, she gets what she wants.
	But that requires she empathize with him and with the kids and be kind and nice and generous.
	But just nag, nag, nag, bitch, moan, and complain.
	You have to not have empathy.
	In fact, you have to kind of want to hurt the other person to get what you want.
	It's kind of like emo, emotional mafioso style, if that makes sense.
	Yeah.
	So I guess doesn't would that tend to mean then that people have a tendency to nag don't have quite as overactive a conscience as a very nice way to put it.
	Not quite as overactive a conscience.
	Yeah, well, I'm British.
	What can I say?
	I know, I understand.
	More than you know.
	Go on.
	Because anytime I've nagged, I've like my conscience isn't very kind about it.
	Right, right.
	I, I, I, of course, I can't even conceive of a lovely British lady nagging.
	It's, it's inconceivable, of course.
	But yeah, yeah, so, so, tell me, what has your temptation been to nag?
	Because, you know, men don't often get to lift the curtain and see this sort of machination.
	So, what is your tendency or temptation to nag?
	And how does it play out for you?
	I guess I'm getting better, but initially, it's the general feeling that men should definitely be able to mind read and that they're not mind reading just to be difficult.
	So, so if you cared about me, you would know what I wanted without me having to say it.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Okay, got it, got it.
	And if I have to say it, that means they care less.
	Sorry, I'm just listening to the collective whoosh of all the listeners' balls retreating back into their body with this particular.
	Okay, so it's like you should know why I'm upset.
	You should know, like, there's this meme, which is kind of funny of this woman sitting in a car looking annoyed with her husband next to her and saying, How is it my husband understands international finance, Bitcoin, quantum physics, the economy as a whole, but doesn't know why I'm upset?
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, it's like, but how can you not know that this chore that's so bloody obvious needs to be done?
	Right.
	Um, right, but I have discovered if rather than nagging in an absolute tirade, if you actually just ask nicely as if they just might not have noticed, say, that does tend to work better.
	But I think the tendency to nag is generally the belief.
	I guess it's the lack of empathy you were talking about, really.
	It's the belief that people should already know this.
	Well, it's a funny thing because with women, women in general do think a lot about what other people think and what other people want.
	It's a wonderful thing.
	And of course, for women, it's sort of hard for a lot of modern women to sort of get this and a lot of modern men to get this.
	For women, they are evolved to deal with non-verbal beings, right?
	They're evolved to deal with babies and toddlers.
	Now, with babies and toddlers, you have to figure out what they want to need without their being able to tell you.
	Does that make sense?
	Well, yeah, I mean, I've got two.
	Oh, roughly, how old are they?
	Do you don't have to give me specifics?
	One's 18 months, and the other's three and a half.
	Oh, how lovely.
	Great.
	Okay.
	So, how good is the three and a half year old at telling you what he wants?
	She's terrible, actually.
	She's very good at telling you she wants something, but the what she wants bit is broke.
	It doesn't work.
	Yeah.
	Oh, like, I want a pony made out of candy.
	No, it's just she knows she wants something, but she doesn't know what it is.
	She knows there's something wrong, but she doesn't know.
	It's like she'll go, I want something.
	Right.
	Something.
	And you're like, okay, what do you want?
	Animal, mineral, vegetable.
	Yeah.
	Does it start with an A?
	I might be hungry.
	Correct, right.
	Or kids think that they want food when they're actually just tired.
	Like their signals get crossed.
	A lot of times they want stuff that they're not even sure what they want.
	And sometimes it just takes a while.
	Like if a child is annoyed at you, they could just be tired.
	And they don't know that necessarily.
	No, no, they are definitely very sure they're never tired.
	Oh, absolutely.
	I don't know what it is.
	Like going to bed is like being dropped down a well into hell itself.
	I don't know what that resistance is, but because, you know, all your childhood, you're trying not to nap.
	And then all of your middle age, you're trying to nap.
	It's like this, like the women who say, all my 20s, I tried not to get pregnant.
	Then all my 30s, I tried to get pregnant.
	It kind of flips that way.
	Right.
	So you have to try and really get into your kids' minds and try to figure out what they need and what they want.
	And if you wait for them to tell you, they will either not be able to tell you or they will tell you and they'll be wrong.
	I want candy.
	And it's like, well, you kind of do right now, but if I give you too much candy, you won't want to be fat when you get older.
	I guarantee you that.
	Right.
	So trying to get them to get, get them to want what's actually good for them rather than what they want in the moment.
	So you, you have to kind of read minds.
	You have to think about the future.
	And that's what women are programmed to do.
	And that is loving and caring maternal behavior to figure out what your baby wants.
	You know, I'm sure you've, you know, done the my baby is crying.
	Let me go through the list.
	Okay, baby, give me honey.
	Oh, yeah, you've got a checklist and you go through it in order.
	What's your checklist?
	Let's let's hear.
	Ah, right.
	Okay.
	So baby crying, first thing doesn't need cuddles because that's the easiest one to do.
	Pick it up, cuddle it.
	Then generally check the nappy next because that's the next easiest one.
	Hungry.
	And that's generally it.
	I mean, babies aren't very difficult.
	Right.
	Right.
	It's not like they're having some existential crisis.
	Mommy, I'm crying not because I peed my own diaper, but because I'm having trouble figuring out the meaning of my existence, right?
	Though it's nothing like that.
	It's all just sort of basic physical stuff, right?
	Hungry, thirsty, cuddles, tired.
	The great things about babies is you can solve it generally.
	I mean, one of the big things that I discovered as a mom was that when people go, well, babies just cry, it's not true at all.
	Babies cry because there's something wrong and they're upset.
	You can't always solve it, but most of the time you can.
	Right.
	No, I don't think that's very true.
	Yeah.
	They're not, you know, teenagers can be upset and it cannot be hard to figure out why, right?
	But no, babies are mechanical devices with like three basic inputs, right?
	Food, cuddles, sleep, and, well, I guess four, physical comfort, right?
	If there's something that's gone awry physically for that.
	And that could be external or internal.
	Like, I don't know if you've done that over the shoulder, whack the back, burping stuff.
	Yeah, definitely.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So, and my daughter, of course, when she was a baby, was hyper stimulus hungry.
	Like she just would never, ever sit.
	Always had to pick her up, move her around, show her stuff, talk to her.
	She was just a stimulus junkie.
	Not that I'm going to complain about that because that would be to criticize myself, have four phones on the toilet.
	But so, so because women are constantly reading the minds of babies, and that is caring, I think women expect to have the same consideration because caring is anticipating other people's needs before they need it.
	Like you try to get your kid to rest before they get way too cranky because some babies are.
	You wait until they complain.
	Basically, if you wait until a baby's crying, you failed.
	It's too late.
	So you've got to preempt it, right?
	So much harder.
	I've talked to a bunch of parents over the years who will tell me the same thing is that if my child gets too tired, they won't sleep and they'll be cranky for the rest of the day, which is why you see them like Usain Balt racing to get their kids into the bed at just the right time.
	If they go too soon, he's going to kick and resist.
	If I go too late, he won't nap because he's already upset and then he's cranky for the rest of the day.
	So you've got to get that like 0.3 second lay down with the right amount of singing and storytelling because if you miss that window, man, you're toast.
	So it's really quite delicate.
	The sleep one's the hardest one, actually, as far as I can tell.
	I know that you had problems with your daughter on the same front.
	Oh, yes.
	Yeah, she had this.
	Sorry to interrupt.
	She had this.
	She was more than happy to fall asleep upon me, but only when I really had to pee.
	That was the whole deal.
	But sorry, go ahead.
	Was she, if you moved a micro inch, she woke up as well?
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, because, you know, it's funny, you know, my wife and I bought this little kit, and it's sort of a little tray and plaster of Paris.
	And what you're supposed to do is get your baby's footprint in it so that it's kept forever.
	And we had this thing for like a year and we could never do it because we could never do it when she was awake because she'd be too active.
	And then when she actually fell asleep, the last thing you'd want to do is possibly wake her up by putting her foot in something gooey, you know?
	So we never got it done.
	Absolutely impossible.
	It was impossible to get it done.
	So yeah, we definitely had that issue.
	And it was, yeah, it was very tough.
	But I read that, of course, if babies don't figure out how to sleep when they're young, they end up the last thing they tracked them was in college.
	They still had sleep issues.
	So we had to be pretty strict and firm, which kind of broke her hearts.
	But we had pretty strict and firm to get her to sleep.
	Yeah.
	Oh, it's horrible.
	Absolutely horrible.
	The last thing you want to do is cause your kids pain, but you also know that if they don't learn how to sleep when they're younger, they get sleep issues for life.
	And that's a significant quality of life issue for kids.
	And they need the sleep to grow.
	They need to sleep to be healthy, to grow their brains, to grow their bodies.
	And also sleep-deprived parents are not the best for kids.
	No, no, because it also, I mean, as you know, like if your kids aren't sleeping at all and you don't get any sleep, it's dangerous to drive.
	It's dangerous to do just about anything that it's dangerous to cook.
	You can slip.
	You can lose attention.
	You can pass out on the couch when things are boiling.
	I mean, so it is for the parents as well.
	It becomes a significant safety issue.
	Because I remember I got some, and I completely understand why.
	Like I got some parents who were crabby at me or people who were crabby at me.
	It's like, oh, you did the cry it out method.
	That's abusive.
	And I'm like, listen, I totally understand that perspective.
	And I do, but you do have to do what's best for your kids, even if it means gritting your teeth and they suffer in the short run.
	And it didn't take that long.
	She slept through the night after a while and it wasn't so bad.
	But yeah, so I think because women are so primed to think that caring means reading people's minds and solving problems before they arise, they think that they judge men by that standard, which kind of puts them in the realm of toddlers.
	And you broke that cycle by saying to your husband or the father of your children, this is what I need.
	This is what I want.
	And it feels like, well, but if you care for me, you know.
	It's like, yeah, but you're not a toddler and you can say these things.
	You really helped me with that, actually, Stash.
	Actually, just like talking to someone about what you actually want is really, really helpful.
	No, it is.
	And of course, in hindsight, it's like, just be honest.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's one of these blatantly obvious things.
	You know how all the best ideas in the world are the blatantly obvious ones.
	You spend months coming up with this great idea.
	You present at work and everyone just goes, oh, that's blatantly obvious.
	And you realize you've got a good one.
	Yes.
	No, that's absolutely right.
	And just being honest, you know, because it's funny that women will say to a man, I really want you to share your thoughts and feelings, but you have to read my mind.
	And it's like, no, no, no, you got to, you're going to pick one of those, I'm afraid.
	Because if I'm supposed to be honest about what I think and feel, so my dear, are you?
	And that will solve.
	But yeah, and it's funny because, of course, men are used to objective cues, not subjective mind reading, because when we're going out and hunting, it's all objective cues.
	Is there a deer there or not?
	Do I have a spear or not?
	And an upwind or not?
	You know, did I plant the crops or not?
	Did I chase away the birds or not?
	Is the cow healthy or not?
	Did I get milk or not?
	It's all objective external cues, which is what we're used to reading.
	And we just haven't developed that musculature of peering inside minds because it doesn't serve us in the gathering of resources, whereas it serves the entire human race that women can do that with babies and toddlers.
	Yeah, I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking what other people are thinking.
	And it's weird to me that guys generally, I mean, I'm sure there's exceptions, but guys generally just don't do that.
	They don't spend this time.
	And you're going, it's like, how?
	What do you think about?
	But I'm, and then I guess you go to the inner monologue thing and find out that people don't have one.
	You go, oh, okay.
	Hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Now, I'm not saying men don't have an inner monologue.
	I'm saying some people don't have an inner.
	Yes.
	Men don't think about what other people think about.
	Those who don't think about what other people think about have no inner monologue.
	I'm trying to think where the logic goes in that jump fair.
	Now you mentioned it.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	It could be considered.
	Well, it's a bit of an unfair job.
	I don't, I do, I'm aware that men have inner monologues.
	So there's a comedian I remember from many, many years ago who had this bit, which I'll attempt to badly reproduce here, where he was saying, you know, it's tough.
	It's tough being married because your wife will just come into the room and you're just, you're just sitting there placidly staring into space.
	And she'll come into the room and say, honey, what you thinking?
	And it's like, you don't want to say the truth.
	Nothing.
	It's flatlined in here.
	Nothing.
	Zero activity.
	That's how I relax.
	And then you've got to go from like zero to 60 in like three seconds.
	Like, I'm thinking about how much my life has been enriched by knowing you, honey.
	But no, it can absolutely happen that the man is just sitting there.
	You ask him what he's thinking.
	And it's like, I'm not sure.
	I'm not experienced.
	Because I know that in general, women's mental activity does not stop.
	Is that a fair way?
	Oh, absolutely.
	The only way I can sleep is to listen to audiobooks.
	It just bloody shut up.
	It's a nightmare.
	Right.
	Right.
	And women's internal monologues, internal ruminations, thoughts, possibilities, plans.
	Did I miss that?
	And again, that general paranoia of the free male.
	It would be paranoia on the part of a male.
	It's beautiful on the part of a female because you're managing these death magnets called babies and toddlers.
	But there's so many balls in the air.
	I mean, what my wife manages would give me a stroke in about eight seconds if I was in her brain.
	You know, she's often sitting there thinking like, she will say this to me.
	She said, I wish I could spend five minutes in your brain.
	And I'm like, I would be terrified to spend five minutes in your brain because the multitasking would make me feel completely schizophrenic.
	But she does.
	She's this constant processing of everything that needs to be done.
	And we have some, you know, obviously complications and so on.
	You get those in your 50s.
	And she just keeps it all going.
	And it's effortless.
	In the same way, like I can have a minor memory.
	This is a male-female thing that blows my mind.
	I can have a minor memory.
	Like, hey, remember we were there and we saw this thing?
	When was that?
	And she's like, it was July the 7th, 2017.
	In this particular location, this is the time of day.
	This is why we had the trip.
	This is why we were there.
	This is how much it costs.
	And I'm just like, how do you know that?
	That's why I'm so paranoid to do anything wrong because it just sticks like burrs to the height of an elk that she just remembers everything.
	Whereas I'm just like, I have this vague impression that something happened in the past.
	Scan, laser, detailed, unpack, source code, everything.
	It's wonderful.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I get, I sometimes get accused of holding grudges.
	And it's like, well, I'm not upset about it.
	I just remember it.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Like, I have, I've had, like, I guess like most people, I've had relationships come in and out, like friendships or people I've worked with come in and out over the years.
	And every now and then, I'll be like, hey, remember Bob's not his real name.
	Whatever happened with Bob?
	I can remember being friends with Bob.
	I have a vague impression I haven't seen Bob in quite some time.
	And I'm like, whatever happened with Bob.
	I'm always like, here's the printout.
	Here's page 97 of what happened with Bob.
	And I'm just like, how do you do that?
	But then, of course, every time we go hiking in the woods, I know exactly how to get back.
	And my wife would just like rather shoot up flares and be skyhooked by a helicopter.
	But yeah, we both have the different skills.
	But yeah, what she can remember, what she can retain.
	You know, and then we were listening to the audiobook of my new novel today while we were dropping my daughter off somewhere.
	And she's just like, where do you come up with these phrases?
	And I'm like, I don't know.
	How do you remember what happened to Bob?
	It's a giant mystery of, you know, we are delightfully incomprehensible to each other.
	Yeah, I could get lost anywhere as well.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	I can never find a car.
	You can ever find your way back to the car.
	Do you use a little app on your phone?
	I do now.
	The modern world is amazing.
	I was always terrified to drive anywhere back in the day before we had GPS.
	Oh, gosh.
	Yeah.
	I remember there used to be something called MapQuest back in my business days where you'd have to go to a website and print out all the directions and all that.
	I always had the A to Z in the car.
	I'm sorry.
	I always had the A to Z in the car.
	So the, oh, that's probably a British thing.
	Per at least it's called in North America.
	It's the big map with the grids and you figure it out.
	The map of the city you're in, basically.
	Yeah.
	I remember being, I think it was in Detroit for a business meeting with my brother, and he was driving.
	And I had the map and we were lost and it was a pretty bad neighborhood.
	And I remember I turned the light on because I needed to check the map, which of course didn't have a light of its own.
	And my brother completely freaked out.
	Turn off the light.
	Like we were going to get gunned down for having a light.
	Like, they know we were in Arental already.
	Like, it's like completely freaking out.
	Now, of course, at the time, I thought that was a bit exaggerated.
	Now, knowing U.S. crime statistics, I'm like, thanks, bro.
	Could have saved us from something fairly negative.
	There is that.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, so I appreciate that.
	Is there anything else that you wanted to mention?
	No, that's great.
	Thank you for that.
	Thank you.
	I love your posts on X, and I really do appreciate the conversation and a great deal of fun to chance.
	Yeah, I do spend a ridiculous amount of time stalking you on X. I appreciate that.
	I always know when there's that hot British breath on my neck, Fiona, Fiona has materialized.
	Fiona has entered the chat.
	So thanks, Emil, and we'll see you on X. I appreciate that.
	All right.
	If people have any other questions, comments, issues, challenges.
	You know the list.
	You don't need me to tell you.
	You don't need me to tell you.
	I miss England.
	I miss England.
	Another thing I think that's good for Bitcoin is the fact that the British government arrested like 12,000 people over social media posts last year.
	Absolutely, horrifyingly monstrous.
	They arrested many more times, many multiple times, their own citizens for social media posts than Russia did.
	And Russia's in a state of war.
	So England in a state of, quote, peacetime is arresting many, many times more of its own citizens than Russia is in the famously censorious time of literal war.
	It is absolutely monstrous.
	I'm not sure I'll ever set foot on British soil again.
	Honestly, I mean, well, I don't know.
	Also, I think going back to my old neighborhood would be beyond heartbreaking, given all the changes.
	It's very, very sad.
	All right.
	Hey, on that happy note, going once, going twice.
	If anybody else has any other questions or issues.
	Or challenges?
	Or problems?
	Do give me your problems, Merlean style.
	James, what do you think?
	Hit me with a yes or a no.
	Should we do the marriage stats?
	I could do them now.
	We can slice and dice them off, put them out.
	Hit me.
	Let me know what you think if you still be around.
	I'm sure you are.
	How could James have left the chat?
	That would be like my spleen abandoning the show, slithering off to go find another spleen to make more spleens.
	If he makes it across the pond to Scotland, it would be McSpleens.
	Oh, wait, wait.
	We have somebody else who wants to chat.
	You think yes?
	Okay.
	Well, let's go with Nihrm.
	Ninhrm.
	Number.
	All right.
	Hang on.
	Let me just see if I can get this in the chat in here.
	Wait, give it to the right spine.
	All right.
	Giant thumbs are doing all of the dialing.
	All right.
	Nihirm, or something like that.
	Hopefully it's not Nasguel.
	Otherwise, we're just going to get this giant screeching sound as he pulls the buttresses off my castle.
	Hello.
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, sir.
	Go ahead.
	Oh, my God.
	All right.
	Well, not exactly sure how to frame this, but there are a couple of points that I thought you had made in the past that taken together give me, I guess, a confused impression.
	So I wondered if I could lay those out and we could see if you changed your mind or if I'm mistaken or if that needs to be expanded upon.
	Sorry, are you asking me if that's okay or I'm not sure what you're asking me?
	No, absolutely.
	Is that okay?
	Sure, yeah.
	If there's things that I could be more clear about, I'm happy to do that.
	Sure, sure.
	All right.
	So basically, there are three premises that I'm thinking about.
	The first is my own, and that is that it is possible that at some point in the future, biology and medicine will be a solved problem.
	Okay.
	Biology and medicine will be a solved problem.
	I'm not sure what that means.
	Well, I would define that as a point where the resolution that we're able to look at things and the finesse that we're able to manipulate things will mean that from molecules up to anatomy, we can change whatever we want about a living organism of any size.
	Okay, can you give me a practical application of that theory?
	Like what we'll be able to do if biology and medicine are a solved problem.
	You would be able to indefinitely extend somebody's lifespan.
	You'd be able to make it so that a person's likelihood of surviving the current year is not a function of their age.
	Okay, so you can cure all ailments and you can extend lifespan indefinitely, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay, I'm not saying that that will ever be the case.
	I just think that that's possible.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	The second one, and I don't know if you remember this, but years and years ago, you spoke to a gentleman who ran a vegan channel.
	And you were having a debate, and he was repeating at you like a mantra, you know, what is the characteristic that animals had, that if humans had, it would be okay to kill them or some variation of this.
	And your rejoinder was that human beings are subject to universal principles of ethics because they have the capacity to understand universal principles of ethics.
	Yes, because human beings have the capacity to compare sorry, human beings have the capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards, which has us be subjected to morality.
	Yes.
	Animals don't have that ability.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Yes, yes.
	And so over the course of this conversation, he was postulating some kind of a disease that would render large portions of the population retarded and incapable of this particular feature.
	Oh, I remember this.
	Can we eat the retarded or something like that?
	Oh, I remember this debate.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	He was saying that if we can eat, if we can eat creatures without the capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards, why can't we eat people who are retarded or who have significant cognitive challenges or setbacks?
	Yeah, yeah, I remember this one.
	Yeah, yeah, okay.
	Don't you remember my answer?
	People are I let me give you this chat.
	I'm not saying it's not a test whether you should.
	I'm just wondering that we don't.
	Well, I think I do.
	I think I do.
	I think that what you said is that we don't know what the possible future capabilities of a person could be, that we could invent a cure for that.
	Yes, because they still have human DNA and normal human DNA.
	Yeah, normal human DNA would give us the ability to be subject to morality.
	And if somebody has a particular deficiency, again, their children could not, wouldn't have that deficiency.
	It should be killing off their bloodline.
	And there could be a cure for these kinds of things.
	And so it would be like, well, people who are sleeping or in a coma don't have the capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
	So can we eat them?
	And it's like, well, no, because they're going to wake up or they, you know, they're going to they're going to restore that.
	And that could, of course, happen to people.
	And it has happened with people.
	So yeah.
	So it's really the function of human DNA or human genetics to have this ability.
	And people who don't, they still have the ability to reproduce and they could be a cure.
	So no, they don't fall into the category of animals because they still have human DNA, which means human potential.
	Okay, okay.
	And that is exactly where I was going to go next because A recurring part of proofs for UPB is, is it possible for somebody in a coma, somebody sleeping, somebody who is not doing anything to be in violation of this, right?
	So you can't be stealing while you're in a coma, but you could not be stealing while you're in a coma.
	But so specifically, I was thinking, so maybe that was a little off in the weeds there.
	You dangled this incredibly, I'm sorry, can you hear me?
	Okay.
	Yeah, you dangled this incredibly deep cleavage of opportunity that you had three things that you wanted to, and we've been talking for like 15 minutes, so 10 or 15 minutes, and I don't have a clue what your criticisms are other than I had a debate with a vegan many years ago, and biology and medicine could be a solved problem.
	I still don't know exactly what you want me to address.
	Okay, okay.
	So if I bring in what I thought your argument about abortion was, or one of them, rather, is that you can't treat somebody as being not subject to these moral principles because they're not conscious yet.
	Right.
	And so I'm putting these three things together in my head, and it creates this possible scenario where animals or even inanimate material might be rearranged in such a fashion as to be under the purview of these universal moral principles.
	So sorry, just break it down for me again, like I'm sort of five years old.
	Are you saying that there could be a rock could be turned into a conscious being and therefore would be subject to UPB or a tree?
	Or I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand.
	That's exactly what I'm saying.
	Okay, is this the big moral issue where I want to hold yourself there?
	Is the big moral issue that you face in your life, the possibility that trees could become sentient and subject to morality?
	Is that the biggest moral issue that you're dealing with in your life?
	You've got no evildoers around you, no parents mistreating their children, no spankers, no people who want to circumcise, no people who support war or violence or all of these kinds of things.
	The biggest moral issue that you have in your life that needs your absolute attention and that you use your precious time to talk to a famous philosopher about is whether trees could be subject to UPB.
	Wow, when you put it like that.
	No, seriously, it's an important question because we're kind of facing a moral crisis in the world, right?
	Which is a lot of evildoers.
	And it seems to me that you're mucking around with absolutely unimportant garbage.
	Sorry to be so frank, but to avoid what?
	To avoid what?
	This is not the biggest moral issue you've got going on in the world.
	Do you know anybody who's doing anything immoral or false or corrupt or anything?
	I think I do.
	okay, well, you should go and fix that as best you can and not worry about the moral status of trees in a zillion years.
	Okay, good.
	Well, I appreciate that.
	I won't stop you from that task.
	But yeah, you do.
	So there's got to be a prioritization thing.
	And this all comes out of my world, my business world.
	In my business world, you had to solve problems in the here and now.
	You had to plan for the future, but you actually had to solve problems in the here and now, right?
	I couldn't say, Well, I have a business plan, but I don't really want to advance it.
	I don't want to hire anyone because it could be the case that a portal opens up from another dimension and better products come pouring out.
	Because it'd be like, what?
	Can we just do something with the stuff that we have right now?
	So I always am concerned when people get into like really abstract trolley problems.
	Or, you know, what if rocks suddenly become sentient?
	Would they be subject to UPB?
	It's like, there's evil in the world right now, right now.
	We're in a plague.
	We're in a violent soup.
	We're in a crisis.
	You're in the ER and half-dismembered bodies are coming in.
	And you're like, yeah, but where exactly would the spleen be located on a Klingon?
	And it's like, oh, bro, that's not, that's not the way.
	That's not the way.
	All right.
	Let's go with D G D G. Damn good.
	Caller, I'm sure, is just about to fill our ears with the wisdom of years.
	All right.
	Don't forget to unmute.
	Yes, sir.
	Hello.
	How are you?
	Good.
	How are you doing?
	I want to see talk about Bitcoin for a second.
	Yeah.
	So are you familiar with a pretty prominent Twitter account that goes by Josh Mandel or Josh Mann?
	No.
	No, interesting.
	Okay.
	He has a pretty large account, a large following.
	Back in November of 24, he predicted that Bitcoin's price would close right at $84,000 on March 25th.
	So what's that?
	Four months in advance.
	And lo and behold, Bitcoin closed at $84,000 on March 25th.
	And now he's predicting that Bitcoin is going to hit 444,000 on November 8th.
	Okay, but he's wrong.
	Well, it's not November 8th, is it?
	No, no, it doesn't matter.
	He's wrong.
	Nobody can predict the future price of a commodity.
	Okay.
	Nobody.
	And if somebody could, they would own the planet.
	No, seriously, if somebody could figure out the future price, which is the result of an infinite number of variables, most of which are hidden.
	Okay, sorry.
	Sorry, sorry.
	The way that the show works is that when I'm talking, just wait till I'm finished.
	I'll do my best with you as well, right?
	So try not to talk while I'm in the middle of talking because then if you want that, you should have your own show, right?
	So nobody can figure out the future price of anything.
	And they've done studies a zillion times.
	And you say, oh, but there's Warren Buffett and so on.
	Absolutely.
	There are people who seem to because there's a bell curve of error and accuracy.
	Some people seem to guess everything wrong.
	Some people seem to get everything right.
	And of course, people like Warren Buffett, they have their own now because Warren Buffett buys it, other people buy it.
	So there's a certain amount of that.
	But yeah, nobody knows what the price of anything is going to be.
	And if they did, if they did have certain knowledge, that would break the time continuum.
	They'd be able to go forward and figure out the subjective preferences and choices of millions and millions and millions of people around the world, which is functionally impossible.
	Now, again, I think that the price of Bitcoin is going to continue to go up, but there's no way I would make any particular predictions in any specificity.
	And I'd be really careful about that kind of stuff because, yeah, there's some people who seem to guess right a lot and they may, but it's kind of like those dreams.
	You know, oh, I had this dream that came true.
	And it's like, well, yeah, but that's only because there were a whole bunch of dreams that didn't come true that you don't remember.
	So just in general, I would steer clear of thinking that people can predict the future price of anything, which doesn't mean nobody's ever quote right.
	But if they're right, in general, it's by accident or, and I'm not accusing this guy of it, they're either right by accident or they've got their thumb on the scale.
	But sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah, you had a lot to say there, but my point is I'm skeptical as well.
	I would not suggest anyone trade on that.
	But since he did make the prediction, you can search, see that he did several months ahead and it hit the price.
	I think it's very interesting to watch since that next prediction is so close at hand.
	Okay, do you know how long he's been in the Bitcoin space for?
	Well, I know he traded professionally in the 90s for about eight or nine years.
	Well, no, not in the Bitcoin.
	Bitcoin wasn't around in the 90s, right?
	So I don't know.
	So he's been in.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Not a short time.
	Not a short time, but I don't know.
	You can look at his Twitter account and see, but not that you would, you want, doesn't sound like you want to, but listen, it's not, that's not my issue.
	So this is sort of critical thinking time, right?
	Okay, so this guy.
	It's interesting to observe and see.
	Yeah, so these are just the kinds of critical questions which I would suggest everyone ask themselves, including about what I do.
	So this guy has been around as a commodities trader, stocks, bonds, whatever, Bitcoin, for like since the 90s, right?
	So 30 plus years, right?
	Okay.
	So if he was able to accurately predict the future price on any consistent basis, how much money would he have?
	Quite a bit.
	All of it.
	He does post some traits.
	Yeah, it is weird.
	He's a bit of an eccentric and he thinks he can sort of see past timelines or some such thing.
	Well, no, but again, this is just critical thinking.
	It's kind of entertaining.
	No, but you're not putting it forward as entertainment.
	You're putting it forward as something relatively serious and important.
	And again, I don't know this guy from Adam, but this is just the critical thinking stuff.
	That if someone had the ability to accurately know the future price of a commodity, they would be a trillionaire plus.
	Right.
	I think he's worth 20 million.
	Yeah, okay.
	Look, I'm not saying he's bad at what he does or anything like that.
	But what I am saying is that how many predictions has he made since the 90s?
	I don't know of any other than that one.
	Okay.
	I can guarantee you that over his multi-decade career in finance, he's not only ever predicted the future price of something once.
	Okay.
	That makes sense.
	You said he's not done it once or he.
	No, no, he's done it more than once.
	Because if somebody's been in finance for decades and successfully nailing it to the dollar and the day.
	No, no, that's not what I'm saying.
	So what I'm saying is that let's say that this guy makes 10 predictions a year and he's done it for 30 years, right?
	So that's 300.
	That's 300 predictions.
	It's probably much more than that.
	It's probably much more than that.
	It's probably 1,000 or more, right?
	But let's just say 300 predictions, right?
	Now, there would be a random distribution if I made 300 predictions and I had knowledge of the marketplace and knowledge of finance, which is going to refine things a little bit, right?
	So if I made 300 predictions, what percentage of them would need to be accurate for me to be really good at making predictions?
	And I don't have an answer for this.
	I'm just curious.
	And anybody can answer this as well.
	Not many.
	Well, no, I'm just asking.
	Depending on how much you, you know, how much confidence you had in it and how much you, you know, you bet on your prediction being right.
	No, no, no, that the accuracy of the predictions doesn't have anything to do with the confidence and it doesn't have anything to do with how much money.
	So if I made 300 predictions, how many would I need to get right in order to be good at making predictions?
	Obviously, if I only get one right.
	Yeah.
	Right, that's 0.3% accuracy.
	I'd be useless as tits on a bull, right?
	Okay.
	If I got 300 right, I would be the oracle at Delphi.
	I would be like 100% and I would own everything, right?
	Right.
	So if I got 10% right, then of my 300 predictions, 30 of them would come true, right?
	Now, if you bet on things equally, then if 90% of the time I get it wrong and 10% of the time I get it right, would you make money or lose money?
	Probably lose.
	Yeah, you'd probably lose money.
	Again, assuming that you bet everything equally, right?
	So in order to get things profitable, we're just going to go rough numbers here, right?
	So in order to get things profitable, what percentage of my predictions need to be accurate?
	Pretty close to 100?
	No.
	No, okay.
	Follow.
	No, so imagine how you're, well, 50%.
	Yeah, you need 50 plus, right?
	Because let's say that you made $1,000 and lost $1,000.
	You made $1,000 every time I was right and you lost $1,000 every time I was wrong.
	So in order to be valuable, I would need to get, again, taking all the other variables out of it, I'd need to get more than 50% accuracy, right?
	Right.
	Well, I mean, I'm a trader too.
	And there are ways if your risk reward is higher and every bet is not a 50-60 bet, you don't necessarily have to win over 50% of your trades to make money.
	You just have to make more money on your winners than your losers.
	No, no, I get that.
	But that's why I said all other variables being the same.
	So if I bet 500 times on the one time he's right, I'm going to make a fortune.
	But that's not statistically reliable, right?
	So that's why I said if you make $1,000 every time Bob is right and then you lose $1,000 every time Bob is wrong, Bob has to be right significantly more than 50% for you to reliably make money, right?
	Sure.
	So then what I would do is look back at this guy, and I don't know if AI can do this or not, but I would look back at this guy just as everyone and say, well, the one time he got it right is statistically irrelevant.
	What I would do is I would go back and I would say, how often is he right?
	Yeah.
	And honestly, I don't even know that there are any other predictions that are prominently known from him.
	So these two just happen to be the ones that, you know, are talked about in the little small Bitcoin Twitter community who knows about it, I guess.
	Right.
	Now, my concern also is, and again, I don't know this guy, so we're just going to make up a fictional guy named Bob, right?
	Now, if Bob makes a prediction that turns out to be right and Bob doesn't say, but listen, here are all the predictions I got wrong.
	My rate of predictive success is 43%.
	Okay, that would be crazy high, but let's just say 43%, right?
	Assuming it's somewhat specific, right?
	So if Bob makes a prediction and he gets something right and Bob doesn't also say, here's all the times I got it wrong, I would consider that a bit of a sleight of hand, to put it as nicely as possible, if that makes sense.
	Sure.
	But I don't even know why he went out on the limb and said, well, this is going to happen on this day.
	Well, it's a pretty remarkable feat.
	If I hit a golf ball on a 400-yard shot and sink a hole in one, that's pretty incredible, right?
	If that's all that people know about me, they'd say, damn, this guy's an incredible golfer.
	Right.
	So just looking at the times when people get it right is not very helpful unless you also take into account all the times they don't get it right.
	And if they're hiding when they don't get it right or they don't mention it or they don't give you the statistics or they don't give you the chart, I would not view that as particularly on the button up, if that makes sense.
	Well, I mean, I think it's likely or more probable that Bitcoin will have some kind of a run into the end of the year.
	And if it's followed the patterns that it has in the past, a four-year cycle, then next year might be a down year.
	But anyway, I'm not set up for 444.
	But again, stocks follow generally what's called a random walk, which means it's almost impossible to predict future behavior from past behavior.
	So for instance, in the past, there was not institutional acceptance or ETFs that were automatically balancing losses and gains with various hedging strategies.
	Hedging means that you take a position that the stock goes up and you also take a position that the stock or the price of Bitcoin goes down, right?
	So if the stock goes up, you make some money, but you lose some money on the downside.
	If it goes down, then you gain some money, you lose some money of the upside.
	And that's just called hedging, right?
	I'm sure you're all familiar with that.
	So it's called hedging your bets.
	And so now that there is a sophisticated and highly sophisticated amount of coding and expertise on the balancing of prices, we haven't seen the same volatility that we've seen in Bitcoin in the past where it goes like down 300% over the course of a couple of months.
	That hasn't happened.
	And that was pretty easy to predict.
	So going forward and saying now we've got all these institutional buyers and all of this, and it's being spread across all these ETFs where they've got all these hedging strategies that the price of Bitcoin is going to be more stable.
	I think that's, I think that was a reasonable prediction.
	I made that prediction years and years ago.
	But that's not saying that price is going to be X, Y, or Z. So looking forward, like you wouldn't want to look now at Bitcoin and say, well, you know, from 2010 to 2014, it did this, that, and the other.
	So from 2024 to 2029, it's going to have like it's just a totally different environment in the same way that the first couple of years of IBM or Microsoft's price was marked with the significant volatility, which ain't there anymore because it's a more mature stock with a more established business value proposition and value proposition to the investors as a whole.
	So I just, I have people in my life.
	I'm not going to name names, but you know who you are who will tell me, oh, Bitcoin's going to do this.
	And some, it's like, nope, nope, nobody knows.
	Nobody knows.
	And if you did know, you wouldn't tell anyone, right?
	Because you'd make all that money yourself.
	And so I just, I personally, and I'm not, again, I don't know anything about this guy, so I'm not talking about him, but I don't like people who put out a bunch of random guesses and then they get right and people are like, wow, he's so good.
	And it's like, if you're not pointing out all the things you got wrong, it's a bit skeevy in my opinion.
	So I didn't want that to be out there in my show.
	You do your own research.
	Don't rely upon me.
	Don't rely on anyone else.
	I mean, I've been saying I think Bitcoin price is going to go up for many years, and it has, but I don't consider myself any particular genius that way.
	It's just that it wasn't hard to figure out the value proposition.
	And knowing what I know about fiat currency, it wasn't hard to sort of figure that out.
	And lo and behold, I think it even pumped while we were doing this show.
	Pumped up a K and a half.
	So serious.
	Thank you for the show.
	I appreciate that.
	Thank you very much.
	All right.
	So let's go on once, go on twice.
	And I've had, again, not to talk about the guy you're talking about, because Lord, I don't know him at all from Adam, but I will say that I've had tangles when I was younger, including legal tangles with some fairly skeevy stock traders.
	So I have some battle scars from this kind of stuff, and I want to sort of pass along that wisdom as much as possible.
	Again, nothing specific to this guy who I don't know, but just in general, these principles are kind of important.
	All right.
	I think we're out of callers because I stunned everyone.
	All right.
	I'm going to stop here because I will do a solo show on the marriage numbers, even though there's going to be a few people that get married between now and tomorrow.
	Hopefully, I'll do tomorrow.
	But I really appreciate you guys.
	What great conversations.
	The callers tonight, fantastic.
	Fiona is always a delight to chat with.
	And I miss the baby toddler phase.
	You know, I guess I'll just have to wait for grandkids.
	But I miss the baby toddler phase.
	So it's always lovely to hear about that kind of stuff.
	And I always appreciate her comments on X. Always very illuminating and enjoyable.
	And love you guys so much.
	Freedomand.com slash tonight to help out the show.
	If the show has provided value to you over the years, kicking a little back, I'm pretty sure it'll make you feel good.
	I think it'll make you feel good.
	And it certainly will help me and what I do.
	So lots of love for everyone.
	Thank you so much.
	We will talk to you Friday night.

▲