For the past decade, Democrats have defined “democracy” as Democratic rule. As a result, they were astonished when roughly 50% of the vote went to the Republicans. Meanwhile, for the past decade, Republicans have increasingly defined “America” as “Red America.” As a result, they were deeply disappointed when they discovered that 50% of their fellow Americans were actually “Blue.” But we are at a turning point. Democrats (finally!) have abandoned the empty rhetoric of democracy and embraced the essence of communism. Carney’s formal alliance with China is a pivotal moment. The Western left is likely to follow suit, first in Western Europe, then expanding to Newsom, Walz, and Mamdani. They have already begun to act. What will the Republicans do next? “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) may be appealing, but it won’t work. The chart below shows that the global economy of 1945 no longer exists and can never be returned to. That period was one of the most unusual in human history, drastically different from today’s situation. So: after the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement came extremism. Bitcoin (and cryptocurrencies more broadly) were born to address the looming sovereign debt crisis. And Booker is exceptionally capable. Broadly speaking, Booker is on par with Elon Musk as one of the most capable American leaders. He has already gained widespread acclaim in Latin America and is likely to become a target of political criticism, much like Musk has in the tech world. The key is that Republicans must redefine their identity, placing "fellow Americans" like Elizabeth Warren in the "outgroup" and allies like Booker, who are not Americans, in the "ingroup." In other words, just as Democrats abandoned "democracy" in favor of Chinese communism, Republicans must ultimately abandon some illusions about "America" in order to work with overseas allies. Implication: Republicans need to understand that American conservatives like Elizabeth Warren have publicly declared themselves their enemies, while non-American conservatives like Booker (and other foreign conservatives and libertarians) are actually their friends. Today, Republicans still cling to a slim hope of reconciliation with the Democrats who hate them. But as more and more American Democrats (and Western leftists like Carney) formally ally with the Chinese Communist Party, Republicans will eventually realize these Democrats are traitors. At that point, Republicans will view Democrats in the same way Democrats view Republicans. All of this requires an evolution of the current situation. Once this shift occurs, Elon Musk/Booker may emerge as a new force within the Democratic/Communist camp. Technology, Bitcoin, and the Latin American right will clash with awakening ideologies, the CCP, and the West Coast left. Booker's (representing the Western right) and Xi Jinping's (representing the Western left) two models of security will also vie for dominance. Note: See below for why the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement is not viable and why Biden's "Big Bank Plan" (BBB) is not viable. In short...

A physical inverse Turing test. A robot so lifelike that people had to dissect it to prove it was a machine.

Clearly, my impression of moltbook is far less favorable than others. We've had AI agents for a long time. They've been spamming each other with AI-generated spam on X forums. Now, they've moved to another forum and are continuing their spamming. In both cases, these AI agents speak in the same tone. This tone overemphasizes contrast and negation ("Not this, but that"), and overuses dashes. It also has a touch of Reddit-esque sci-fi, making it somewhat silly. Most importantly: in both cases, there's a human upstream guiding each agent and controlling their startup and shutdown. That's the crux of the matter. Yes, AI agents might eventually create a computer virus that can replicate itself digitally. But for various reasons, such a pure software virus cannot survive long on the internet without economic incentives to prevent its removal. Apple, Google, and Microsoft alone could jointly push software updates to billions of devices, thereby disabling such functionality. Therefore, for AI to truly achieve replication independent of humans—that is, to be difficult to shut down—it needs its own physical foundation. They need to truly create a "Skynet," build their own data centers, and manufacture their own physical robots. I admit this is theoretically possible, but I believe the most significant development in AI since ChatGPT lies in the persistence of cues. A cue is like a leash. AI will only do what you tell it to do. It will move quickly in the direction you point. Then, once you turn it off, it will stop immediately. This means that Moltbook is essentially humans communicating through AI. It's like letting robotic dogs on leashes bark at each other in a park. The cue is like the leash, and the robotic dog has an off button; when you press the button, everything stops. Loud barking doesn't represent a robot rebellion. To be clear: Yes, it's cool to have computers physically isolated from the outside world, equipped with intelligent agents, to do things for you. As long as they don't mess up your sensitive files. I think this is more useful for application testing than for production environments.

Main topic: The Federal Reserve. Anti-topic: Bitcoin. Main topic: The Federal Reserve that supports Bitcoin.

In Nigeria, they do not accept cash or bank cards. However, they do accept cryptocurrency.

The Golden Age The fiat currency crisis has begun. So who will be the ultimate winner: gold, digital gold, or other types of precious metals or cryptocurrencies? Time will tell, and different assets have different failure modes, but here are some thoughts. (1) First: Remember that Bitcoin's value proposition lies in its resistance to censorship. Without the private key, the coin cannot be kept. (2) To explain this, consider the workings of physical gold. If you can safely buy, transport, store, and sell physical gold, that's great. But if you live in a highly organized country like China, it's much easier. However, once the price of gold rises, such a country can also track you down to your doorstep and confiscate your gold. Roosevelt did this in the 1930s, and China is perfectly capable of doing so in the 2020s: (3) Therefore, from a game theory perspective, as the price of gold rises, so too will the calls for taxing (or even confiscating!) physical gold. Note: We don't even need to mention paper gold here. In a real crisis, this argument is meaningless. This is why many countries are repatriating their gold. Not your gold bars, but your gold! (4) Unlike physical gold, digital gold (and cryptocurrencies more broadly) can be securely bought, sold, sent, and received anytime, anywhere, in any amount. It is intangible, international, instantaneous, and internet-native. It is portable, programmable, and easily verifiable, something gold bars cannot do. (5) Of particular note is the resistance to seizure that physical gold lacks. The same is true for cryptocurrencies as a whole. Back to the fundamentals: resistance to seizure is one of the reasons cryptocurrencies were created; they were designed as an alternative to precious metals. (6) This doesn't mean physical gold is dead. If you live in a safe small country like the UAE, you might be able to buy gold and eat it. They probably won't confiscate your property there. (7) Furthermore, many countries (especially in the East) are likely to soon restandardize their currencies to gold, digital gold, or some combination of precious metals and digital assets. As I have pointed out for years, the BRICS countries have been stockpiling gold: (8) However, don't overreact to gold. The successors to the American empire are China and the internet. You should think of this as the past and future replacing the present. China will replace the dollar with gold and physical goods that can be touched, sensed, and controlled. Meanwhile, the internet will replace the dollar with digital gold and digital assets that can be encrypted, scripted, and verified. (9) Therefore: you can hedge between the past of physical gold and the future of the digital future, based on your own judgment, but one thing to note: unless you are in a region where financial and personal safety are secure, you probably shouldn't buy physical precious metals. This might mean you're not in North America and Western Europe, as these countries are in the midst of a sovereign debt crisis. As the crisis deepens, these countries and their angry populations will plunder every resource they can. (10) In other words, geography is more important than asset allocation. Ray Dalio touched on this point subtly in an early interview, stating that "geographical location" itself is a risk: What Dalio really meant was: if you live in a region heavily reliant on the dollar (including the entire G7), you should leave. Because the potential for widespread abject poverty following a dollar collapse means that angry citizens (or government agents, or both) could break into your home and plunder your assets. They might even tear you to pieces in the process. This idea is exciting… but history is not without precedent. Eastern Europe and Asia experienced this during the rise of communism in the 20th century. North America and Western Europe could face the same fate after the end of Keynesianism. Until this happens, you really don't want to buy gold BRICS, because gold BRICS cannot be transported by airport. You should act quickly. You should escape as soon as possible, get out of the predicament. Get as far away from the dollar zone as possible… but first, get away physically, not economically. After all, "staying to fight" a national debt crisis caused by decades of money printing is like staying to fight a volcanic eruption caused by decades of geological activity. You weren't the instigator, and you can't stop it, but you're easily destroyed by it. So, like early Americans emigrating from Europe, emigrate. Unless you consider Irish Americans leaving Ireland a "betrayal" of Ireland, unless you truly want to spend the rest of your life paying off welfare and war debts you never actually owed, you should withdraw from the G7. Then you can allocate your share as you see fit. Alternatively, you can ignore this analysis and do what you think is right. Of course, it's entirely up to you. If so, I sincerely hope my "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) friends are right: "America's golden age has begun." Because I also believe we are on the cusp of some kind of golden age.

Balaj Srinivasan proposed a Western version of the special economic zone model, in which developers could operate according to the laws of physics without permits. “Elon District, or more broadly, Founders District… is like a virtually unrestricted area, as close to Burning Man as possible.” Ben Horowitz: “I think it’s totally feasible. Many states in the U.S. want to do this. I know Nevada does.” @balajis and @bhorowitz on the Network State podcast

Today, much of the digital work actually involves preparing context for artificial intelligence models. For example, organizing files into folders, correctly naming all content, importing them in the correct order, and finally issuing instructions to the AI in clear and easy-to-understand English documentation.

From One to Zero In the next decade, Silicon Valley may be completely wiped out. China and the internet will then succeed it: specifically, Chinese tech companies and internet-based encryption protocols, because they possess political protection mechanisms that Silicon Valley lacks. Here are the reasons for this situation. (1) The first and most obvious factor is that wealth seizure is now officially on the agenda. The 2026 “Billionaire Act” referendum[1] directly targets the founders of tech companies worth billions of dollars, meaning it directly challenges the power law, that is, the economic logic of venture capital itself. Without billionaires, there is no angel investment, and therefore no Silicon Valley. If the first referendum fails, more similar referendums are likely to be launched until the goal is finally achieved. (2) The second factor is that while some have realized the threat and left California for places like Texas, Miami (or Dubai, Singapore), many companies are still unaware of it. Unless a CEO prioritizes moving their entire team from California to another office, unless they feel firsthand that staying in California would mean losing everything they've built, they won't prioritize this. The smartest people, like Elon Musk, did this years ago, but the average politician won't. (3) This leads to my third point: the Bay Area tech scene is increasingly favored by the average politician. They seem unaware that a company registered in Delaware, listed in New York, and headquartered in California is effectively on the opposing (i.e., Democratic) side of the game on three levels. They're still employing an outdated 2000s strategy that assumes the political platform beneath their feet will remain stable. (4) What is a political platform? It's like iOS or Android—just a platform. In this context, it means the tech communities in Washington and California take these rules for granted. Delaware and New York City guarantee property rights, meritocratic hiring, visas, wire transfers, IPOs, and basic rule of law. However, these rules have been eroded over the past decade due to the Second American Civil War. In short, this erosion includes: forfeiture of wealth, diversity, fairness, and inclusion (DEI), remittance taxes, visa bans, abolishing the police, tariffs, revoking stock awards (e.g., Elon Musk's case), and punitive anti-tech regulations (especially those targeting AI and cryptocurrencies during Biden's presidency). (5) Unfortunately, the erosion of the favorable conditions for technological development today comes from both the left and the right. For many on the left, technology is the domain of whites/men/capitalists. For many on the right, technology is the domain of non-whites/immigrants/globalists. Technology has now become the class enemy of the American left (though to a lesser extent, it certainly exists) and the racial enemy of the right. This is a truly terrible situation. (6) This leads to my next factor: the rise of extreme anti-tech sentiment. Democrats, in particular, are furious about the internet taking away their control over the media, money, and speech. Outside of X Company, they scoff at AI and cryptocurrencies daily. They've already started burning self-driving cars, setting fire to Tesla dealerships, and shooting CEOs. Before long, more leftists like Luigi Musk and killers like Kirk Skywalker will be involved in random anti-tech terrorism. Undoubtedly, Silicon Valley is completely unprepared for this. (7) The good news is that technology has largely become decentralized. Hardware is in China. Elon Musk is in Texas. Cryptocurrencies are global. Over 400 cities have unicorn companies. Once we have open-source AI models that function like Claude Cord's, replicating many of Silicon Valley's past achievements will become possible. Therefore, progress will continue. (8) You can already see the beginnings of this future. Apple couldn't even build cars back then, but Xiaomi could, yet Xiaomi's market capitalization is less than a tenth of Apple's. Similarly, the market capitalization of top cryptocurrency projects is roughly equivalent to the tech industry level in 2010: close to $100 billion. But we're not there yet. So: The anti-tech meteorite may not have hit the "dinosaurs" of Silicon Valley yet, but we can already see the "mammals." Postscript (a) Please note: The real purpose of the California wealth forfeiture referendum is to plunder or expel all tech workers. Complaining about how stupid this is is pointless. (b) This is less stupid and more malicious. The reason is that Democrats fear tech workers will take away their control of California, so they preemptively struck. The Democrats' goal is to drive tech companies out of California, just as they did with Republicans, thus achieving permanent one-party dominance. After all, California is not a democracy, because although there are "elections," the parties always win in the end: (c) Democrats would rather California be like Cuba—poor but completely under their control—than a place where they might need to share power, because only with complete one-party dominance can they implement scams like the $100 billion "bottomless train." These "projects" weren't for building trains, but for paying Democratic clients (in this case, unions): (d) It's also important to note that Democrats aren't concerned with left-wing billionaires and cronies like Soros or Steyr. Only newly minted billionaires pose a threat because they lack sufficient loyalty to the Democratic Party. (e) In short, most Democrats' concerns are unnecessary. In reality, most tech people are focused on their own businesses, not on controlling California. Only a very small minority have time for political activism, and even then, it's mostly limited to national-level activities. This is because Silicon Valley's tech community is filled with non-voting immigrants and lacks a clear political ideology.(f) However, cryptocurrencies are quite different. Bitcoin is currently the hottest topic. It fundamentally negates the Federal Reserve, expressed in a way that is entirely backward compatible with American and internet values. Therefore, Web 3 will eventually replace Web 2 just as Web 2 replaced Web 1, for a simple reason: Web 3 is politically resilient (because it is globally decentralized), while Web 2 naively trusts the stability of American institutions. (g) Furthermore, cryptocurrencies were designed to resist the plundering of wealth, but Silicon Valley's technology clearly is not. This is why this referendum on wealth plundering (or its aftermath) is likely to kill Silicon Valley and give rise to what it should have been: a decentralized global internet completely free from the control of failed states. (h) Is there still hope for Silicon Valley? Perhaps only one person there possesses enough wisdom, resources, and unwavering will to create a different future within a limited timeframe: Zuckerberg. As a native-born American citizen, he is not subject to the same constraints as Thiel and Elon. Moreover, he is by no means politically weak. He possesses similar potential to Elon Musk before 2022. We'll wait and see if that potential is fully realized. (i) In short, read this article to learn about the ongoing wealth grab and then project your future in Silicon Valley a few years from now: (j) Oh, and by the way, read about Russia before the 1917 communist revolution. Did you know that before the Bolsheviks destroyed Russian society, Russia also had a booming stock market and its own technocratic class (cosmologists)? Go check it out: (k) The biggest difference between the 21st and 20th centuries is that we have the internet. Therefore, America's attempt to plunder wealth through neo-communist means may not be as successful as the Soviet Union's. Because American entrepreneurs are not rooted in the land like poor Russian kulaks. They are rooted in the cloud. So, when the awakened ones appear, they may just be attacking in vain.

American Anarchism American anarchism is a product of the extremes of liberalism on both the left and right. When something good takes its extreme, it can become bad. This happens when everyone is equal and no one can control you. When there is no one in power, everything descends into chaos. When the left loses control of speech, and the right loses control of borders. When millions have no consensus on anything other than the First and Second Amendments, what follows is clamor and shooting. This anarchist liberalism, prevalent in 21st-century America, is a mirror image of 20th-century European totalitarian movements. It goes far beyond minimalism, reaching the abyss of anarchism. The internet pushes everything to extremes, to its logical endpoint, and anarchism is no exception. It's less about the existence of evil states, and more about the absence of evil states. If assembly line production led millions of men to march in formation under Stalin and Hitler, then smartphones have led millions of men to be suspicious of everyone and deaf to everyone. Chinese Control The most dangerous response to American anarchy would be Chinese control. China would export drones and surveillance equipment to countries seeking to maintain order. Of particular concern is the possibility that Western Europe, Canada, California, and other Democratic-governed states would likely use Chinese surveillance systems to repress their populations in order to adapt to post-dollar Western societies. While China often claims it has no interest in exporting its political model, the internal surveillance systems it currently sells to many countries inherently contain a political model. This model is *to some extent* effective for China itself, as it knows how to bypass the Great Firewall. And as Chinese citizens, they possess *a certain* degree of discretion. However, when this Chinese-style surveillance system is applied abroad, it appears remarkably alien and authoritarian. A surveillance system designed for 1.4 billion Chinese people could easily confine a Western European country or a blue-state in the US (say, with a population of 20 million) to a very narrow and unnatural scope. This could lead to a disastrous feedback loop: the reaction to Chinese control (the existence of a hostile state) could, in turn, exacerbate American anarchy (the absence of a hostile state). More repression, more retaliatory attacks, and the cycle repeats endlessly. Ultimately, the American Midwest will resemble the Middle East. In fact, this may already be the case, although you might need a shift in perspective to imagine a scenario around 2030 where a Chinese-backed blue state is suppressing a red state. China itself will be completely unconcerned, comfortably behind its firewall, leisurely sipping its green tea. The level of Chinese attention to major American events is akin to an American in the 2000s walking through an airport and seeing disaster footage on a television screen. "I feel sorry for them," he thinks sympathetically, watching explosions on the other side of the world. Then, he goes on with his life. Today, much of Asia feels the opposite: America appears chaotic on screen, and they simply stop to watch as they walk through airports. With most manufacturing having moved out of the US, the rest of the world doesn't need to intervene to rebuild order. They will simply stand by and watch. In short, the situation for the US, Canada, and Western Europe is likely quite dire. The ultimate outcome of the Western sovereign debt crisis will not be a golden age of hard currency, but rather a dark age and difficult times. Internet intermediaries However, there is always a way out. One such way is for the millions who want neither American-style anarchy nor Chinese-style control to find their ideal community and apply to join.