And we are live. Welcome back to The Unknown Pod. My name is Jordan Bush. I'm the executive
director of TGFB Media, which exists to help Christians understand and use Bitcoin for the
glory of God and the good of people everywhere. Today, you might be thinking to yourself, wait,
there's supposed to be more Mountain Presby's. And you are right. If you're thinking that,
you are right. We are one Tim down. We are one teaching elder down. We are also an Iowan boy
down. So Oshawa is off gallivanting around the Pacific Northwest. Tim, who knows what he's doing,
probably reading a book. He's lost in the heavenlies. Lost in the heavenlies. Listen,
there's worse places to be lost. Jim, welcome. Introduce yourself for those who are unfamiliar
with your glorious work.
My name is Jim McAndrew.
I am the drone lord.
I run DroneLink.com.
Let's go.
I also am tech support at Magnolia,
which serves to orange pill the church
and Jesus pill Bitcoiners.
Let's go.
Now, Jim, normally we don't give away free ads,
but please enlighten the folks
on what DroneLink is and does.
DroneLink is flight automation software
for your DJI drone.
so this is non-military use cases you can do everything from have it follow you while you're
skiing down a mountain to take a bunch of pictures of a cell phone tower for a 3d model
jim repeated has repeatedly told the government to kick rocks rather than give them uh you know
sign a contract with them so uh that's why part of why we love him and uh just he won't he won't
give it over to palantir he's he's content to uh refuse their their moose shuck moose uh shekels and
uh, I'm like the good version of Palmer lucky. That's right. That's right. Uh, Palmer unlucky.
I don't know if that, what would that make you? But, um, again, for those of you, if you're
stumbling across this for the first time, you won't be thinking, what did I, what did I fall
into here? Basically what we do is, uh, Mike, probably like many of you, we spend time on
Twitter every week. Um, also probably like some of you, you're Christians and we are Christians.
And so we want to steward our time and basically redeem the time that we spend on Twitter.
And so we basically find things on a variety of different topics that we think are interesting,
that we think that there's some meat on the bone to talk about.
It could be on a parenting front.
It could be as husbands, as business owners, as just men in general.
We just basically find stuff, and then we bring them here, and we kind of talk about them.
And we say, hey, Tim, what do you think about this?
You're a pastor.
What do you think about this?
Jim, you're an entrepreneur.
what do you think about this? We just kind of do that kind of stuff. So this is the more sanctified
version of the All In podcast. That's kind of what our goal is. And so today, without further ado,
we're going to launch in. Elon recently came out with a bonkers tweet. I know this is a shock to
all of us. Elon's takes are normally fully hinged, and this one was far less so. Here we are.
So Elon, we will use Grok 3.5, maybe we should call it four, which has advanced reasoning to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors, then retrain on that.
Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.
Now, there's a charitable way to read that in which, you know, maybe that didn't sound like the worst thing ever.
At the same time, there's a completely, you know, slightly more dystopian take that wonders what on earth that might look like and what might, who are the people who are getting, who gets to be part of this ministry of truth that gets to decide what is actually real from history and what isn't, Jim?
What are your thoughts when you read this insanity from Elon?
I mean, Elon said a lot of things that made sense to me in the past.
he said that he wanted to do xai because all of the mainline ai research labs like chat gpt and
you know open ai were woke yeah so he wanted to create a maximum truth seeking ai which i like
but at the same time this statement doesn't make any sense to me from an information theory
standpoint you can't synthesize information out of nothing i mean if it was if it was something
closer to maybe this is what he meant maybe it's we're going to curate the most logically consistent
set of or subset of the information that's out there and just throw out the stuff that doesn't
you know it's like this this doesn't belong if there's 98 consensus on one thing we're just going
to throw out the other two percent i mean that could kind of make sense but even then you get
into trouble because it's like sometimes, especially in modern era, 98% of the stuff
is the lie.
Yeah.
And so you throw out the signal, you know?
Yep.
So again, the, the, the question that it begs is, uh, by what standard, what is the standard
that we're going to use to determine truth?
You know, like, and there's, there's certain things that are more, that are easier than
others, but I mean, at the same time, oh, you're going to have people who are going to
say, oh, well, science. It's like, well, no, all science has to be interpreted. There's always an
interpretive grid. You, you know, if you're all data has to be interpreted, you can't, there's no
one who just gets raw data and then can come to conclusions by, by definition, conclusions require,
you know, layers of interpretation. And so again, this is just, this is just part of what it is.
You're going to have at the end of the day, this process will involve having people who are,
you know basically deciding what you know they're waiting things they're gonna be doing a number of
different things and it's not going to be as simple as as just saying uh we're yeah we're
gonna give all the we're gonna find all the truth in ways that other things aren't there's still a
lot more questions here well elon's also i think he just had a tweet yesterday saying like physics
is the ultimate arbiter of truth or something like that.
Yeah.
Which obviously from a secular humanist materialist standpoint,
that's true.
We know that God is the ultimate source of truth,
but God created physics.
So there is some truth to the idea that
from a first principle standpoint,
you eventually get down to physics and you can't lie about it.
So maybe part of what Elon's trying to do
is creating things like optimist robots
that interact in the real world
and it gets down to some sort of ground truth
because he has direct sensor input,
but that still doesn't solve the problem of history.
Like you can't,
that only solves the problem going forward.
And even then it's like Elon basically saying,
trust me, bro.
So yeah, this is a humongous issue.
I think we've talked about this at several different points,
but one of the big issues
that especially secular humanists have
is we live in a world where if you're going to be a secular humanist, you're definitely going to
focus on scientific data, measurable, all this kind of evidence. You're going to like that a lot.
The problem is there's different standards of evidence for different fields. And so yes,
science, physics, all these things, that's a measurable, you're able to measure things within
these fields. Unfortunately, history also has an evidentiary standard. It also has a standard of
evidence by which you know things. The problem is it's very different than that of science.
It's no less important. It's no less real, but it is very different. And so again,
for one example of this is there's no scientific way to prove that George Washington existed,
right? Like he's like, you can't prove historical things scientifically that that doesn't work.
um and so uh so yeah i mean we can't prove jesus existed scientifically we have to move to even in
the case of science they've been measuring things like the age of the universe and they keep revising
it by billions of years you know and so it's just like okay and and this is another thing is like
all of these all of these the ways of knowing things is based on a presupposition that is
unscientific. So for example, one of the example, this would be, uh, well, uh, how do we know what
we know? Well, scientifically, well, we have evidence. Well, okay. So how do we know? Like we,
what we can see is that the earth in the universe appears to be this age, according to, if we,
you know, measure with whatever this dating standard is. And it's like, okay, well,
how do we know that the standard by which we're using the standard, like our understanding of
dating that works today has always been the case throughout all of human history. We can't
demonstrate that because that's stuff that's outside of our purview. We don't have access to
that. And so there's a limit to even the scientific knowledge and even the backward looking utility
of even just looking at what we have right now. So there's a lot of assumptions that basically
aren't acknowledged in a lot of ways when it comes down to science. We're attempting to measure all
this stuff from inside the system. I mean, the only person that can really be objective is the
person that's outside the system. And I hate to be a spoiler alert here, but his name is God.
God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. There are three persons, one God and three persons. So technically
either three persons, Jim.
Please don't deny
Orthodox Presbyterian
especially.
You know, interestingly though,
is Jesus inside the system?
He was outside the system originally.
Yep.
Obviously for a time
he was inside the system.
Is he back out?
I mean,
he still has a real physical body
in my opinion.
So it seems like he's probably
somehow inside the system.
Maybe one foot in,
one foot out.
This is,
we're probably committing
some sort of heresy.
Will I wash two weeks here?
We get 10 minutes.
So yeah, so this is,
I mean, this is a big,
you know, again,
this could,
what Elon is describing
is no different
than what Sam Altman wants to do.
And Sam Altman is far more willing
to play ball with governments,
seems to be far more willing
to play ball with governments,
far more willing to be much more craven
and utilitarian
than somebody like Elon.
So I think there's reason to believe that this could go a lot better with Elon's Ministry of Truth than Sam's.
But again, who knows?
It still is dystopian to think about.
At the end of the day, I don't think this is the right thing to be most concerned about by AI.
Yeah.
Okay, so yeah, that's another thing.
Even if this is true or is something that could be worried about, who's deciding what's the important thing?
Who's deciding the weighting of the time and the allocation of resources and all that kind of stuff?
Just the idea that humans can control this thing is illogical to me.
And so just the idea that they're going to be able to say what it thinks is going to be true, they can't.
They don't have any control over that.
I mean, obviously, in the current level of systems, they can modify things.
Like, they can modify the prompt before you put it in to get Black Shrouding Fathers.
but I'm talking about
once we get to
super intelligence
or whatever
there is no controlling it
it's like even if you wanted
to be Sam Altman
and have it be the wokest
of the woke AI
it's like you can't
control that
yeah
which again is really interesting
as people who
you know Christians
we value the truth
and we you know
let the truth
trips fall where they may
and so it's interesting
to think about
like what if we
well that's what history
has been you know
humans have been
trying to control
the narrative
since the beginning
of humanity.
Yep.
You know?
Very good.
Yep.
So we can't.
There's only one truth.
It's the word.
Exactly.
And he is a person.
To that end,
and on that point,
here we are.
We have,
oh shoot,
we gotta show this again.
We have Dave Smith.
I don't know how many of you
are fans of Dave Smith.
I've been a fan for a while.
Dave Smith went on,
here we go,
went on Tucker Carlson's show
and surprisingly they talked about atheism jim can you believe this uh dave smith was an atheist
considered himself an atheist uh at least an agnostic and now dave smith has become a theist
dave smith believes in god and he's going to talk about what uh why that happened so this isn't super
long i think it's like three three minutes or something so we'll listen to part of this and then
and we'll just cut it off
but here we go
stuff about me
I'm not exactly sure
who Sam Harris is
but
sad atheist guy
but
he describes you as a
pure
misinformation artist
who lies
as freely
as he breathes
and as soon as I read this
I can say
Dave Smith
I don't know
whatever
but I
I feel like that's the opposite
of the truth
I feel like
maybe you lie under duress
but in general
you
you are like
very focused on what you think
is true. Well, I mean, again, I just feel like it's a, I, I benefit in a way from us having this
conversation like after COVID and after kind of all of these insane things that, okay, so Sam Harris,
what did I get wrong? Like, I don't think that if you're gonna, if you're gonna smear me as I'm
being a misinformation or which I, you know, I'll take that to, I should make t-shirts about
misinformation artist.
I'll take that.
Pure misinformation.
Everything you say is a lie.
It's like breathing to you.
Dude, I got called that
throughout all of COVID
and I was right about
everything I was saying.
So keep calling me.
To the wrong place.
Here we go.
Well, I mean,
I would say that
kind of ironically,
although not really
actually ironic,
and this kind of goes to,
you know, the conversation
that you and Brett Weinstein
were having the other day.
I really love Brett.
I think he's great.
I'm on your side of that debate,
but I think one of the fundamental flaws in atheism
is that it doesn't really exist.
Yes.
See, they think that's the flaw in believing in God.
See, they think the flaw in believing in God
is that God really doesn't exist.
God does exist.
What doesn't exist are atheists.
There's no such thing.
True.
And you could even get into,
like maybe if there was such thing as atheists,
it would be a good thing to be one. But there aren't. They don't exist. They all have their
religion. And it's almost by definition that whatever your highest thing is becomes your
religion. I don't know if it's quite by definition. And I suppose it is theoretically possible to be
an atheist, but almost no one ever is. And so what you're seeing is just that, you know,
I'm attacking their religion. And according to them, that makes me guilty of blasphemy.
But it's just so interesting.
So, yeah, we can we can just stop right here. I'm sorry for the wrong placement. But yeah,
that's the idea. And so this is this is just so fascinating to hear to hear old Dave Smith
sitting here describing this. I think he's he's dead on and right. Like the to quote Doug Wilson,
It's never whether or not you're going to worship a God.
It's which God are you going to worship.
It's not whether it's which.
And so like Dave recognizing that even if you refuse to give mental assent, refuse to acknowledge belief in a deity, you know, officially or something like that,
there is something or someone, some entity to which you will give ultimate deference.
you will trust more than any other. And so it's a hierarchical structure. And so everybody has
somebody at the top of their hierarchy of trust, of loyalty, of whatever it is. You cannot escape
that. And so to see somebody like Dave, who again, by most people is known as somebody who just
wants to know the truth, is willing to admit when he's wrong about something, to hear him coming out
this is i was again pleasantly surprised so to play the devil's advocate here for a second do it
i'm reminded of romans one they worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator
i would say the hardline atheists probably would be very willing to draw that distinction
in other words if they're worshiping the state or if they're worshiping bitcoin
or if they're worshiping themselves,
like these are all creatures in a sense,
things that were created.
So I think the atheist would just say,
yeah, but who cares?
Because like I'm worshiping something
that's inside the system.
And so it's categorically different
than your foolish opinion,
which is you're worshiping something
outside the system,
which you have no way to prove exists.
At least I'm worshiping things
that I can prove exist, you know?
Yeah, yeah.
So.
Yeah, so this, again,
And then we get down to back to epistemological questions of how do we know what we know?
And so we would, you know, like we would say, yeah, no, we actually do.
We do know real things.
They just aren't things that are, that has a different evidentiary standard.
They're not proved the same way that, you know, you're proved.
So like the idea would be if there is a God of the system, if there is a God who actually
is outside of the system, can enter in anytime he wants to, who created the system, well,
then there's no problem with the idea that God could reach in and communicate to his creatures
you know through through whatever means he wants to uh you know including well i would argue this
is why the incarnation is so important yeah because it's yep it's really the only way that
we as creatures made in his image as human beings can fully and truly interact and relate to him yeah i mean obviously in the old Testament you got Christophanies and burning bushes and things like that but those are all shadows of what to come eventually
right? It's not fully realized until we see Jesus. And until we see Jesus,
we can't fully understand it. Yeah. Yeah. For those who are watching,
maybe who don't know. So incarnation just means the taking on, it's when Jesus took on the human
body, uh, took on flesh. Uh, and so carne, if you're know a little bit of Spanish, that means,
you know, meat or, or body, um, in, in this case. And so basically you, you have, you know,
Jesus takes on a body. He, you know, he, he, God doesn't just communicate information. He's not
just content to, he does this in the beginning. He does, you know, he does send, uh, he, he does
send messages. He basically has information that he wants to communicate, but he always sends these
via either angels or via people in the form of prophets. And so ultimately in the capstone of
this revelation of God communicating what's called special revelation. So information about him and
what he desires that can't be discovered by what would be called the book of nature, which is by
you can't learn things. There's certain things that you can't learn about God by just looking
around the world. And so God sends prophets, including again, ultimately Jesus to communicate
what he's like, what he wants and to illustrate through their lives, uh, you know, what, what,
what God desires. Uh, and so, so this is, this is something that again, requires it, it, it had,
it's good. It's going to come from outside of you. It requires you, uh, to acknowledge it.
This isn't something you're going to come to, you know, the understanding of by yourself.
It doesn't work that way.
I would say to caveat that, I think you can.
So everybody that is saved is saved through Jesus, but there's different levels of knowledge of Jesus, right?
So it's like Abraham is saved by faith.
He knows that there's going to be a Savior that comes.
That's what his faith is in, and that's what is saving for him.
I don't know if he knows explicitly that it's Jesus of Nazareth and he's going to be there at a certain date.
No.
Yeah.
We don't think.
I think, yeah, there's room for the Pacific Islander that only saw the stars and God sort of revealed in a more general way.
I think it's theoretically possible for those people to be saved in the new heavens and the new earth.
Yeah.
So, yeah, interesting.
I mean, that's a whole, we should do that topic at some point.
Well, I mean, this is the case for like aborted babies, right?
Obviously as an aborted baby, you don't, you die before you even are born.
So there's no way you can know the name of Jesus.
Yep.
But it also seems to fit within God's character that he would save all those babies through faith in Jesus.
So there is some ways that can happen.
Yep.
But again, this depends on who you ask, but there's the vast, I mean, vast majority of Christians who are alive right now.
I think for most, most faith positions would, would agree that would again, reason just like
Jim did that, uh, that babies who die prior to being born or, you know, infants who die.
Uh, look at the same time though, as a Calvinist and a Presbyterian and reformed person that
believes in double predestination, it is totally within God's right to also damn said souls.
Yeah. So, you know, we can't, we, we can't fully plumb the depths of God and his mercy and his
justice, but we can trust in his promises and we can rest easy in that, that justice will be done
and that he is merciful. Yeah. That the judge of all the earth will do right. Um, you know, this is,
this is something, I mean, just the reality of like, just, I mean, how much do we really understand?
Like, there's so many things that happen every day where my evaluation of their rightness or
wrongness, their goodness or badness is totally wrong.
Where I'll, I'll want something that I think is good to happen, or I don't want something
that I think is, seems only categorically bad to happen.
And then, you know, God, God just sees things differently.
So even just last week we were at GA, Tim was not able to address the floor.
Yeah.
Why don't you kind of explain this?
This is a, we weren't putting a talking about this, but this is a good.
I mean, we can hit on it a little bit.
Yeah.
Yeah, we could come back and do it more fully when Tim's here, but I'll just give a high level.
So Tim and I are ordained officers in the PCA, it's the Presbyterian Church in America.
It's the more conservative reformed split off of the original Presbyterian Church, which is now the PCUSA.
So PCUSA is kind of the main line.
PCA is the denomination that we're in.
We meet once a year at General Assembly.
It's called GA.
It was in Chattanooga this year.
the reason that we went and the reason that this GA was interesting was that there was an overture
on the agenda, which is just a way to say we're asking the General Assembly to consider something
and possibly do something. In this case, the overture was, hey, we think that it would be
good and right for Presbyteries, which is just groups of churches in a local area and individual
churches to study Bitcoin. That's not to say that we were forming a study committee. That's not to
say that we were requiring anybody to study. It was just, hey, we think it would be good for you
if you consider and study Bitcoin. When that overture came up, it was put into an omnibus,
which was just, it was grouped with a bunch of other overtures to vote them all in the favor of
what the overtures committee recommended, which in this case was to vote that overture down.
So it wasn't going to be a recommendation for churches and presbyteries to study.
tim stood up and asks so any anybody that's voting member in this ga can pull one of the
overtures out of omnibus then when it comes up for discussion they set a 60 minute topic clock
and then you can stand up to one of six microphones and each person that stands up gets three minutes
to talk now there's certain rules about how you can talk another gentleman stood up at microphone
one. Tim was standing up at microphone four. The moderator happened to call on gentlemen at
microphone one. He moved the previous question, which just means, hey, I want to go ahead and
just take this thing to a vote right now without any further discussion. So in typical Presbyterian
fashion, since we're so orderly, we have to vote on whether or not we want to vote. So a vote was
taken to move the previous question. It was answered in the affirmative. So then they actually
voted on the overture itself, the original question, which was, should we recommend to study?
And that got voted down. That all happened before Tim was able to give his speech.
Tim had prepared a three minute speech, which had he been able to give it,
we probably would not have, it would not have occurred to us to post it on Twitter.
But now that it is a censored speech, we post it to Twitter and it ends up going viral. It got like
12,000 views in the first 24 hours, which is six times more people reading or hearing this speech
than would have otherwise heard it in the General Assembly, which had 2,000 people in it. So
in the moment, it felt kind of not great, but obviously the Lord had his own plan for it to
get that speech out there. Again, as sunny as that is, impressions aren't views as anyone
who's paying for ads on Twitter will tell you. But again, with that being said, again, and also
So these 2000 people will have the voting power for, you know, representing hundreds of thousands of people.
But with that, I think there was an aspect, though, that because it was censored, people wanted to read it.
You know what I mean? Sure. Sure. Sure. Could be.
So anyhow, so that didn't get to go forward.
Tim did say in the he explained this in a in a text group that we're in and basically said that might turn out to be the costliest mistake in the history of the Presbyterian church.
Yeah.
So we posted up, there's an expo hall at GA,
which even if you're not a PCA or Presbyterian,
it's totally a raucous thing to come to if you're a Christian.
I highly recommend coming.
Whoa, wait, raucous.
Wait a second.
Hang on.
Raucous might be a strong word.
I know you weren't there, but I'm just saying,
opening night worship,
there was like 5,000 people in this room,
most of whom are men,
and they had a full orchestra.
And it was like, I mean, I'm telling you,
it's one of the closest feelings I've gotten to being in heaven.
Like it's just listening to everybody busting out the hymns.
Totally, totally granted.
I'm not saying it was not incredible.
The word raucous, I don't think the word raucous has ever been used
in corresponding with a GA in the history of Presbyterianism.
We're a little buttoned up.
Sometimes they call us the frozen chosen,
but man, people were belting it out.
Anyways, there was an expo hall.
We had a booth there.
We're going to be posted up there next year as well.
You should come by, just participate in the worship, go to the expo.
There's a lot of families there.
People bring their kids.
We got a lot of super positive feedback at the booth as well and made a lot of great connections.
And I think ultimately it's God will redeem the work that we're doing there.
Amen.
And Lord willing, I'll be there next year.
I wasn't able to be there because I was with my kids at music camp.
We were basically learning how to sing in parts and do all kinds of fun stuff, so we couldn't make it.
We will.
It looks like I was just talking to Stan Reeves.
It looks like TGFB will be represented at the Founders Conference, which I believe is in February, January or February of this coming year.
Stan and I are going to be representing TGFB, be there, have a booth.
So if you're going to be there, we'd love to, again, similar to the GA thing, we'd love to have you come over and chat and bring all of your salty no-coiner friends, and we'll be happy to orange pill the living daylights out of them.
Yeah, we're going to try and go to the SBC one next year, too.
I think it's going to be in Orlando, but then ours is in Louisville in June.
Okay.
You can also turn that into an ARC excursion.
they've built the replica of the ark which actually we happen to be going to in october
but we we yeah my mom wanted to take the grandkids so we're going there in october but we may end up
going back so it's a it's not that far from louisville if you want to go down there and check
it out okay well cool yeah do that that'll be fun all right we're gonna move along here we've got
uh let's see david perel i don't know if you're familiar with him he is not this is not perel of
the hand soap, at least that I'm, uh, at least that I know of, uh, David Perel was known for,
let's see if this pops up here. Uh, yeah, there you go. So the writing guy, uh, he's a Christian.
I grew up as a, uh, grew up, um, um, Jewish and then became a Christian a number of years ago.
He has done a number of things, uh, to help people learn to be better writers. I actually
took one of his courses about a year ago, um, was, was, you know, thoroughly enjoyed it. I
actually need to get on there and share with people. They have like an online community where
I can just share about the Orange Abro, which we'll talk about in a little bit.
But so David has, he's one of the best followers on social media. Go get him. He's a super
thoughtful guy. He said this, calling it now, the swing away from optimization culture is going to
be one of the bigger trends of the next decade. Now, this might seem like you might be thinking,
what in the world is optimization culture? It's the culture of just making things as efficient
as possible. Okay. So an example of this would be something like, I don't know if there's any NBA or
sports fans who are listening to this. But one example of this would be the trend in the NBA
where you basically, you've seen a move in the last probably 10 years to where more and more
teams are shooting more and more three-point baskets. Because if you do the math on the
expected point value for shooting three-pointers versus shooting two-pointers, you're almost always
better to just shoot as many threes as possible, which again, this is, it makes sense mathematically,
but it's horrible to watch. And so that adds, you know, a component to this. And the same is true of,
you know, the same thing has happened to lesser degrees in football, baseball, baseball, it was
one of the places it really started, the whole money ball phenomenon. So again, you just have,
it's things where it's like higher, the heights are higher. So everyone in baseball right now is
trying to hit home runs. So you either hitting home runs or you're striking out. That's a lot
more, it's kind of an all or nothing proposition, um, less, um, you know, less, um, middle class
at bats, if you will. Uh, and so this is one of these things. So he's, he's saying the same
thing is happening, uh, you know, technologically in a number of different fronts. And so he's just
basically saying we're going to get to the point where we just realize that just living for the most
efficient way to do things according to one measure, we're just going to get sick of it.
And people are going to start going away from it for, you know, in favor of other things that
maybe are at least nominally less efficient, but a better and more healthy experience overall.
Jim, I don't know if you have anything to add to this one, but.
Yeah. I mean, you could argue from a money standpoint that people do it in a sort of shrinkflation kind of way, right? You're trying to get things for as cheap as possible because you're trying to make your dollar stretch further because it's been debased.
Yep.
And maybe he's saying this because Bitcoin's going to fix that? Or does he say why he thinks this is happening?
No, I think it's more, at least again, knowing him a little bit, I think he's just thinking from a standpoint of this efficiency that's being sought after, it's monetary efficiency or time efficiency.
and and so like that it makes sense to a point but there comes like there's like a tipping point
where the the human like the i mean one of the things that we that i've talked about before on
some some capacity is like efficiency is a means to an end there there is a type of efficiency that
is actually godless and anti-human uh and so there's we're kind of he i think that's what he's
getting at is like, there is an optimization. There's a level of optimization and a type of
optimization that's actually anti-human and unhelpful in the grand scheme of things.
And so I think he's just basically saying, we've kind of reached the tipping point
where, you know, we've gotten, people have seen, we've seen all this optimization that,
you know, we're going to see. And now people are starting to recognize, wait, this actually costs
me on a number. If you're going to, if you're denominating the cost in human experience or
whatever it would be relationships uh you know whatever it is there's a number of other ways that
you could dominate uh optimization and according to those things where where we're at is not
enjoyable it's not actually healthy for the long term so i think that's kind of what he's what he's
getting at yeah i mean i personally went through this myself uh i used to do like software consulting
by the hour.
Yeah.
And then I kind of went away from that
because it was almost like the way
that you're measuring it
incentivizes you to act in a certain way.
It was all about
spend the maximum number of hours,
especially when I was working at home.
It was always like,
well, you know,
I could go mow my yard
or I could pay a yard guy
way less per hour than I can make
if I just walked down into my office.
Yeah.
And so I ended up making all these decisions
that...
at the end of the day,
weren't great,
uh,
in the longterm for my soul or the souls of my family members.
Um,
so I think we do have to be careful,
especially as Christians about how we set up our lives and the incentives that it creates for us.
Um,
so I think it's different for everybody.
Yeah.
Like we all have different,
um,
temptations that we give into more easily.
Sure.
So for me,
it was just being a workaholic.
So, yeah, I'm going to, I'm going to see if we can get David on the podcast.
David is, uh, let's see how many followers David have here.
Let's see.
He's got a, he's got a bunch.
461,000.
Yeah.
He's, he's a really respected dude.
Uh, he's interviewed a ton of really important people.
I think you, his, his company was called rite of passage.
It looks like he's disassociated himself with it.
Um, but go find his YouTube channel.
Look him up on YouTube.
He's interviewed a bunch of good people.
Um, let's stop sharing that.
let's move on here. Here we are. This is about Jim's favorite topic, which is AI. Jim is a
humongous fan of vibe coding, his life. And so we're going to take a peek at this one here.
Just a huge fan of AI. All right, here we go. Try this. Ask it to draw a picture of a group of
watches showing three minutes after 12. Okay, so the minute hand and the hour hand are very close
together. What you will get is 10 after 10. And if you do try to do 628, where the hands are very
close together, you'll get 10 after 10 again. And the reason for this is that the pictures of
clocks and watches on the web are dominated by 10 after 10 because it's the most attractive
look. Everybody in open
NBF knows about this and they have been
unable to... Really? That's
everything. This is a widespread example.
The thing they use to deal
with problems like this is called reinforcement
training, but the reinforcement
training hasn't worked. Probably
because there are too many
times other than
10 after 10 that would have to be
reinforced. I'll give you a
second example. Ask a chat
GBT to draw a picture of somebody
writing with their left hand.
you always get a right hand i tried various tricks to get out to do a left hand i've been
able to get it to do a left hand but it's not been easy
elon's gonna fix this yeah this this brings to mind uh the those uh great philosophers of yore
uh namely the band me without you i don know if any of you are familiar with Me Without You They were like a spoken word kind of post rock kind of real whole interesting band of my youth But they have this
famous song where they utter the phrase, a glass can only spill what it contains.
And so that's really kind of what's being described here is, you know, AI is really just
data compression. It's just taking what it has, taking the raw materials it has and using that.
And so if you have a dominating percentage of images in the case of the watches where they're
showing one time to try to get to, to try to get it to show another time is just not as easy as,
it's just not very simple because it's, it's drawing on what it has. You can only,
you know, you can't, you can't make an apple pie from potatoes. It doesn't work.
do you think that's true of humans and from what standpoint we can only spill what's inside of us
like i don't know einstein comes up with the theory of relativity did that come from outside
of him i i think it would depend on i guess i think there's well i think from the standpoint
of uh out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks i think that that that kind of thing uh
it's true of that whether it's true of information i i wouldn't say that i would say information
comes from god and so like that comes from like i think reason is i mean i don't think that
everyone knows like reason is every christian would say reason is a gift from god it's it's
divinely inspired it's given to us by god so i i don't think i would i i know i wouldn't say it
comes from us um well when einstein thinks up the theory of relativity it's like is it an
invention or is it a discovery and does he discover it via reason or does he discover it just via
pattern matching with information that he's already consumed previously and is there a
difference between the two you know it's i mean this is like the classic processor versus memory
debate in computer science you know you can save on memory by having to reprocess it and come up
with the answer again
or you can
pre-compute the answers
and put them in memory
and then it saves you
on CPU time
later
so
I guess
somehow
being a human
I feel like we're special
and
our minds
are doing something
that is beyond
what's just measurable
in the physical
world
yeah
maybe even to the
extent of tapping
into
the divine
yeah
like
that's what
that's part
or at least what part of separates us from the animals.
Yep.
Just thinking to like the idea of Adam in the garden
and the Lord giving him the task of naming everything.
Yeah.
Like where do those names come from, you know?
Yep.
So yeah, it is fascinating.
And there's, and there's a number,
I think we've talked about this too.
It was like, there's a number of examples
where like the apostle Paul,
he says he describes sinful humanity as,
he says like unreasoning animals,
they do whatever they do.
And so basically he is using reason as the thing that distinguishes between man and animals.
When Israel, as one example, is in sin in the Old Testament, God says to them, come, let us reason together.
He's basically appealing to them to use and steward their reasoning faculties faithfully to see the consequences of what they're doing.
Well, these latest LLMs they claim are reasoning models now, you know, and they have a new button like Grok.
you can click the button that shows you its chain of reasoning to how it got to its answer,
which is, you know, they're trying to like reclaim that for the LLMs and not just,
it's like more than humans.
Other things can reason besides just humans is kind of what they're saying,
which I don't know if I buy into it.
Yeah, it's a good marketing gimmick.
Whether or not it's actually true, that remains to be seen.
All right, here we go.
So Pleditor, that great tweeter of your, let's see here, 29K followers.
How am I not following Pleditor?
He shared this video from David Sachs.
Here we go.
Let's see what David has to say.
Not pass on interest to the token holders.
Why is that?
Look, I mean, I don't know if there's a great principled reason.
This was a compromise that was necessary to get the support of the banking industry, quite frankly.
Ah, they see it as competition on betting.
Well, there was a lot of concern from community banks
that if stablecoins were paying 5% interest,
it would put them out of business.
Personally, I think that that concern,
although understandable from them,
I don't think that that's what would have happened.
But these are the types of compromises, quite frankly,
that you need in order to pass legislation.
I hope that at some point in the future,
we'll revisit that and allow stablecoin issuers
to kind of just do what they want to do.
And that'll be easier once the banks
get into the act
and they're participating
in this industry.
Got it.
But right now,
they're total outsiders
and you can understand
the fear factor.
All right, facts.
What is that?
All right, Jim,
do you want to kind of
unpack this maybe
for people who don't get it?
Yeah.
So there's legislation
going on right now
in the Genius Act
that regulates stable coins.
Stable coins are things
like Tether,
which is essentially
just a company
that creates
a cryptocurrency
that trades
at $1 par.
Like it doesn't really go up and down.
I mean, sometimes it goes up and down a little bit, but the way that they do this is when you put money into and you buy tethers, they've met new tether tokens.
And then they back each one of those tokens by a treasury essentially.
Uh, and so their business model is, I mean, before they weren't paying interest, I guess, I guess they were trying to pay interest or they, they are paying interest, but their business model was you just get dollar exposure because you live in Argentina and you're not allowed to buy dollars.
And then you just don't have access to it.
You don't have access to it.
We make all the interest off the treasuries.
And so that's their profit.
I guess maybe they're trying to pass through some of that back to their customers to offer them a yield to convince them to buy Tether versus other stable coins.
The banks don't like this, of course, because now it's competing with a CD or a high yield savings account.
And competing directly with them for attention and for investment capital.
Like if you have people who are storing money with Tether or with Circle or whatever they're doing, then they're not storing it with these other banks.
And so as part of their condition for their support, the bank said, hey, yeah, you guys can – we could pass this.
You guys can still exist, but you're not going to be able to pay out these effectively interest for holding Tether.
Let's say if you're holding $50,000 worth of Tether, you're not going to be able to pay out interest to these guys, but we are.
I think it's pretty clear that we're moving into a world where banks are going to custody Bitcoin.
Oh, yeah, definitely.
But I think the more interesting question is kind of like MicroStrategy got out of the gate first and they have a massive first mover advantage with being a Bitcoin treasury company.
Does Tether have a first mover advantage with being?
First stable coin.
I mean, I guess you can argue that like CDs at a bank are kind of like a stable coin.
so
um
Tether is famously
one of the
most profitable
or like the most
profitable company
per employee
they literally just
print money
it's insane
how much money
they're printing
and they've turned around
and put all that back
into Bitcoin now
essentially with
uh
what's this company
21
Capital or whatever
they've funded it
with like a hundred
billion dollars worth
of Bitcoin I think
is it a hundred
thousand Bitcoin
that they're putting in
I don't know
it's a lot
yeah it's
it's insane
so the alternate take is the Adam Livingston
tweet
I said to you on Signal
oh on Signal
we talked about doing that beforehand
so
Adam's take is that
Tether is essentially the Trojan horse
that's going to usher in
the flippening between Bitcoin and the dollar
so what's interesting right is as tether rolls more of the interest from the bonds into bitcoin
and the value of the bitcoin goes up the question becomes at what point does their bitcoin holdings
which kind of makes them look like a bitcoin treasury company become more valuable than the
bond holdings that represent the dollar backing for the stable coin like when that happens then
it be then the question becomes well why is the token being backed by the weaker currency or the
thing that's smaller on the balance sheet so he argues that what you may end up seeing is
tether actually trading at a premium like 1.2 or 1.5 instead of one which is what it should be
That's what it was supposed to be. And when that starts happening, it sort of turns into a runaway train and accelerates the flipping. So, you know, everybody in the government's this train, Jim, nothing stops this train.
he's just arguing that the government's being all chum chum with these stable coin providers
because they think it's going to keep dollar hegemony going but it actually accelerates the
transition to the bitcoin standard which ultimately in the end is the demise of the dollar yeah so
this is i mean here's the here's the thread uh yeah just basically exactly what jim laid out
I'll let you guys find this
what we should do
he's got a video version of it too
at the bottom
yeah yeah but his videos
he talks really fast and uses really colorful
analogies that are hard to understand so
okay is that
oh right here there you go okay yeah yeah
and who does he work for
is it a he wrote a book
the AI
for the smarter web
company no
no
he just came on
dude he just came on
Twitter like
a couple months ago
and he's already almost
50,000 followers
or something
it's like
guys let me translate
what that means
what Jim is saying
is he's accusing
Adam Livingston
of being a spook
I'm pretty sure
that's what
that's pretty sure
that's what's going on
it's like Jason Lowry
he appeared out of nowhere
no he's real
yeah
no I'm just kidding
but yeah no
Adam was the one
who recommended
the smarter web company
as like the
Bitcoin treasury company
He just basically said they're going to be the next one.
And then they exploded.
Now they've shrunk back down, much to Jim Chagrin.
And now who knows what's going to happen in the future.
But all right, let's keep going on here.
Speaking of making products out of Bitcoin or products that are offered for Bitcoin, we have this one right here.
All right. So from Gilded Pleb, friend of the program, former future and former guest. Why isn't this working? There we go. He's talking about what CJ Konstantinopoulos, Konstantinos, basically his new business, People's Reserve, which basically offers Bitcoin-backed mortgages, at least nominally.
Well, it looks like when you dig down into how that actually works out and how they're choosing to do that, apparently they have an ERC-20 token, basically token built on Ethereum that you can buy to give you preferred lending rates, something to that effect.
So Gilded Plug basically asks these questions.
Here he goes.
How is this not an ICO, that coin?
Sully circa 2017.
It seems pretty,
pretty,
very similar to it.
Whose idea was this?
CJ has been on some of the largest Bitcoin podcasts.
I've communicated with CJ,
had no idea that this was going to be part of their business model.
He's been on Preston Pish's podcast,
friend of the program,
Preston Pish,
been on,
I believe Jimmy's podcast.
He's been on some of the biggest podcasts in all of the,
I think all of the biggest Bitcoin podcasts.
I don't think anybody knew that this was going to be part of the thing.
how is this Bitcoin mechanism?
I don't think it is.
Why do you do this at all?
That's a great question.
What is the purpose?
I think it's just to allow them to make more money.
So, hang on.
Back up.
So the mortgage is still backed by Bitcoin,
but you're buying down the rate
by holding an ERC-20 token in their custody?
I think that's the idea.
Because there's a sale for these tokens,
tiered stages that they're offering these things.
So to qualify for diamond,
which is a certain,
I believe a certain mortgage rate or something,
you have to own a certain number,
a certain number of a certain percentage
or a certain number.
Yeah.
So they're giving you a discounted rate,
but then they're turning around probably
and taking that token and yield farming on it
to make it up.
Potentially.
Yeah.
We, again, we don't want to accuse without knowing,
But it's definitely certain that there's an Ethereum token involved in this thing, which just really surprises me.
I mean, I don't know what to say.
If you're creating a product and targeting Bitcoin maximalists, you just shot yourself in the foot.
Yeah, it just doesn't make sense to me.
But I mean, I'm sure there'll be people who are out there who take advantage of this.
there's obviously humongous demand for um there's going to be humongous demand for uh for bitcoin
mortgage products i just i just don't well that that story just came out a couple days ago right
like they're recommending that uh banks take bitcoin as collateral oh yeah yeah pulte came
out and was talking about that yeah yeah who who who reached out to him i can't remember who it was
but I mean,
I'm,
if that actually plays out,
I'm ecstatic about that.
Yeah.
A hundred percent.
Being able to collateralize your mortgage with Bitcoin that you're already
just holding in self custody for forever.
I mean,
no brainer.
Well,
and then there's,
there's other ways to do this too.
Like there's other ways to,
to make this happen.
I mean,
there's like,
um,
I'm trying to think of,
uh,
I can't remember what the other,
like proof of funds there's,
there's somebody who just was on Marty Ben's podcast.
and they were talking about this.
I can't think of what the guy's name is.
Yeah, I saw somebody linked to that product.
I'll be curious to see how they actually do it.
Yeah.
Or if it can only be in like an unchained vault or something.
Yep.
And then you've also got friend of the program,
Rob Hamilton, who does Anchor Watch,
which is like Bitcoin insurance
and uses Miniscript.
And there's some interesting things
that you can potentially do.
you know, to this end to kind of give proof of funds
while we'll still maintain in custody.
So again, you want to get the benefit of both worlds if possible.
And man, sadly, this does not seem like it's going to be something
that I'm interested in using
and that I know a lot of Bitcoin people are going to be willing to use given.
Well, it seems like a double whammy
because not only are they shooting themselves in the foot,
but supposedly normal banks are going to be hot on the heels
just taking Bitcoin's collateral anyways.
So what's the incentive to go with these guys?
Exactly.
If you're competing against somebody and, you know, yeah, I just don't see how this helps them at all.
I'm willing to hear him out, but it definitely feels slimy.
Yeah.
Moving on.
We are, we've got, let's see, this is Matthew Cratter.
Hopefully we're going to get Matt on the program.
I reached out to him.
We have some friends in common.
and so hopefully we're going to do this.
This is humongous news
that people just kind of moved past pretty quickly.
The ECB coming for your money.
Again, we won't watch this 11 minute
and 35 second video,
but basically you have convicted criminal Christine Lagarde
who's the chief of the European Central Bank
who is basically talking about doing a bail-in
and just taking customer deposits
in order, basically as a loan
and then paying them out for it,
paying them some sort of return. This is insane. Just absolutely atrocious. This has happened other
places. And just the fact that they're trying, you know, just openly talking about this is
utterly unhinged and an argument and reason Bitcoin exists and an argument for Bitcoin,
if I've ever heard one. Well, this was the whole Keynesian trope to begin with, right?
Keynes was saying, oh, we have to have inflation to incentivize people to spend. Otherwise,
the economy will grind to a halt and so they're basically just parroting hey savings are bad
essentially you guys are horrible for our economy by hoarding your money we need to essentially
steal your money so that we can quote reinvest it but we know that's not what's happening they're
just spending it on government programs that don't add any value to the economy exactly i think what
the question i have is why don't they just keep printing money like why why do they need to steal
people's balances when they can just run the money printer other than just they know that's
inflationary. And so that's, and they're all, they're already doing that. And so it's like,
it's not that they're not, it's let's do both. Yeah. It's, it's that again, they, you basically
stealing other people's money allows you to continue to do the money printing without it
being, having the, and as inflationary, correct. It just heightens it rather than it being something
that is or isn't happening. Yeah. Which, you know, effectively one way to think about this is
their bond sales are going no bid. And so that's what this is effectively,
we're forcing you to bid on our bonds. Yes. Yeah. That's basically what this is. You're,
they basically forcing you to lend them money at a return They forcing you to buy their bonds Yeah Which is just a bond I mean that what it is Yes exactly And so again this is an argument for Bitcoin if there ever was one Again
to paint this in Christian parlance, this is an attempt to deny sowing and reaping.
The European Central Bank wants to have the benefits of responsible, they want to have the
benefits of their citizenry, trusting them and lending them money, despite the fact that they,
because of their poor stewardship,
no one trusts them
and nobody wants to lend them money.
They're trying to get the benefit
without undertaking the self-control
that would be required
to get this in a licit, normal way.
And so-
Well, right.
We have to work our butts off
to get a high credit score
to be eligible to get loans.
They don't have to do anything.
No, they can just steal your money.
Literally steal your money.
That's literally what they're throwing out there
as if this is totally normal
and you're just a hater
and a conspiracy theorist
if you object to this in any way.
So you're, yeah, you're just,
you're my girl.
Okay.
You're anti-European union.
You're against growth.
You're against all the good stuff
we're trying to do
to help the environment
and keep our companies competitive
in the global landscape
and all the things they say,
you know, and what's sad
is that there's probably
a lot of people in Europe
that totally buy the line.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, it's, it's,
these people are liars. They are, they are absolutely liars who, again, Christine,
she's a convicted criminal. She's a convicted felon. She got out of jail and they literally
put her back in the role. Like what in the world, if this were to happen anywhere else,
we'd be getting all kinds of, if you made her the CEO of DroneLink, Jim, again, you'd be getting
looked at. Nobody would trust you. Uh, it would be, it would be, it'd be like, why is Jim, what,
Why does Jim value the skills, the very particular set of skills that Christine Lagarde has?
What does she have to contribute?
And the reality is she's good at doing this kind of thing.
And she's willing to do horribly immoral things for the right amount of money,
which is what the European Central Bank is willing to pay her.
So go watch this.
Matthew Cratter is the man.
Again, we're trying to get him on the podcast here soon.
And as soon as we get more information about that, we will let you know.
Here we go.
Jake Gosselin, friend of the program.
Share this tab.
This is the last one.
We've got a couple more, but we're not far.
Jake Gosselin, he's the founder of Real Church Front.
Basically, he helps basically mega churches set up like basically sound systems and visual
things and all kinds of stuff.
Jake's a good dude.
He has a YouTube channel, does Bitcoin videos as well.
But he posted this the other day.
Bitcoiners get it.
Church leaders and pastors don't.
This is very sad.
This is from Jack Mallers speaking at Bitcoin Prague.
The control and issuance of money
are first and foremost ethical questions.
It's not an economic problem.
It's a moral one.
This is something that we literally
beat our heads against the wall
to try to help people understand.
This question of the ethics of money production,
this is not some,
we should not just leave this to economists,
to central bankers.
You know, this is a very, at the end of the day, ethical, moral concern to which Christians of all people and pastors should be speaking to.
They should be talking about the underlying moral, ethical, biblical issues that are undergirding government actions.
And perhaps no one has better illustrated this than somebody like Jorguito Holtzman, Nicholas Erezme, who was a 15th century bishop.
Jorguito Holtzman wrote the book, The Ethics of Money Production, based on primarily Nicholas Erezme's work.
And he was basically this bishop who objected to the whatever, I can't remember, it wasn't Bulgaria, it was somewhere in Europe.
Somebody, one of these princes of this nation was basically introducing baser metals into the monetary supply to be able to create more currency units and enrich himself.
and Nicholas Aresme, a bishop, confronted him and basically said, sir, you're violating this
obscure Old Testament passage known as the Eighth Commandment. You're stealing from your citizenry
and it's wrong. It's not just less than ideal. This is sinful and wrong. And so good on Jack,
our man in Chicago, for speaking in these terms. And again, hopefully this will be something that,
you know, again, more and more of us can raise, an issue that we can raise with church leaders to
help them see the reality of, you know, what's undergirding this issue.
I think that framing it in the ethics of money production is the critical point there. I think
a lot of Christians would be quick to admit that, yeah, there's a lot of ethics around money,
but they usually think about it in terms of using the money and consuming the money,
and like the avarice and the greed and all the pitfalls.
Well, not your prostitutes is bad.
Everyone would acknowledge, yeah.
So they just spend 99.9% of the airtime
on the ethics of that side of money,
and then the production side
just gets a total pass for some reason.
Yes.
We'll just let governments positivistically
just decide whatever they want to do
in terms of...
I mean, probably the average Christian,
if you ask them,
hey, is 2% inflation good?
They'd say, well, yeah,
because that's what the Fed says.
Yeah.
All right, here we go.
we're going to move
let's see
we got one more here
we'll save this
we'll save this good one
we'll save the
the spiciest one
we'll save this one for Tim
when he's
we're holding out
yeah
this is
and what I'm referring to is
Peter Thiel's interview
with Ross Douthat
we may have to watch
the whole thing
because it's just so good
it's so wild and unhinged
that it might be worth
doing a full watch along
that'll be fun
but to finish here
we have
Stefan Moenu
He is like a internet person, internet personality, uh, provocateur.
He's had, you know, YouTube channel for a long time, 422,000 followers.
He's a brilliant guy.
Uh, again, I definitely not a, not a Christian.
He's kind of more of a, I don't think he's an atheist, but like agnostic.
Uh, but other than that, I mean, there's tons of things where he's just a very, uh, brilliant
mind and, and able to parse things and the logic of things very clearly.
So we have Diego Trombone repeating something that we hear a lot in Bitcoin that, what's the actual phrase? Bad men create hard times, that whole idea. I can't remember what it was.
Bad men create hard times, hard times create strong men.
Strong men, yeah.
Yeah, the whole dichotomy of strong men and hard times and easy times and weak men, that whole thing.
and so um we have this uh Diego Trombo saying it'd be like that hard time hard times are created by
weak men who let women lead uh this is this is big if true and it's been true since Genesis 3 so we
would agree uh and then Stefan responds to that and says the strong men were wiped out by World
War I and governments bribed women with the vote to keep the peace so women turn to the government
instead of husbands and children for income and security this is talking about in the aftermath
of World War II. This is a very fascinating way to think about the dynamic of what's happened over
the past century. Again, if you think about, I mentioned this in the group chat that we're in,
if you think about the incentives, one of the established things is that governments frequently,
when they get to the point where they've run up significant debts, they go to war to basically
print money and inflate away these debts. And so the idea of, you know, entering into war,
at least the possibility of entering into war, both to inflate away your debts and to potentially,
you know, use your strong men as cannon fodder to, to fight them. And then the result is you're,
whoever, you know, you're left with less men and potentially a weaker populace, a populace that's
weaker and lesser, less able to resist whatever insane thing that governments want to do,
um, or whatever, you know, totalitarian thing that the governments want to do.
It's just, it's a very, I've never thought about it that to that degree.
Uh, but when you think about the incentives that are there, that is a heck of an incentive
alignment, uh, to continue to do that over, over time.
So, um, I just thought that was interesting.
Anything you want to add there, Jim?
Yeah, I would, from a theological standpoint,
I probably changed the word bribed to tempted. And I'm not sure if I would agree with the keep
the peace aspect of that. Um, obviously we've kind of had forever wars, so there hasn't really
been peace. Maybe, maybe they're talking about peace kind of like internally within our society,
not externally. Correct. Yeah. That's, but yeah, government's tempting women with the vote,
uh, innocence playing into what you mentioned there and their curse, their desire will be for
your husband uh what it's talking about is uh to usurp his correct god-given role of leadership
um you know i think that it didn't take much to tempt women into that and obviously there's been
hundreds and even thousands of years of just atrocities of men committing horrible acts of
violence against women. And so I'm not excusing any of that. That's men not living out their
God-given role to lay down their lives for their wives, um, you know, and serve them just like
Christ served the church. So, um, it is a sad state of affairs that we've gotten ourselves into.
And I think, um, a lot of men have become, uh, you've been told that masculinity is a
bad thing.
So we need, we need strong men.
We need strong women too.
Amen.
Yeah.
We need, we need people to be, to seek out and then to be content in the roles that they,
that they, you know, that God has given them.
Uh, and yeah, just to, to act like any, any men using authority and being comfortable with authority is, is illicit is insane and ahistorical and, you know, allows basically creates a situation where awful strong men are able to rise up and do horrible things.
even just the whole gender war thing
in the first place is a twisting
by Satan.
There's a absolutely
amazing section of
the second book in C.S. Lewis
Space Trilogy's Paralandra
where they kind of get
taken up to this
cosmic heavenly dance
between the Oarsas
that are like the angels that protect
the different planets and
there's a whole description
I'll have to pull the section out
I'll send it to you
but it's a whole description
around the masculine
and the feminine
kind of
Ransom
who's the main character
sort of has the wool
pulled back from his eyes
and sort of sees
the true versions
of these things
that are kind of
behind the scenes
the full vivid
in color version of them
that we will see
once we get to heaven
you know C.S. Lewis
has kind of described
heaven as sort of
finally seeing things in color
for the first time
and like the full expression
of what those things actually
are and by comparison
how much they've been twisted
and this was like C.S. Lewis
writing about this back in the
40s or 50s right
super prescient so
I think that's another example of just like
we're
as human beings we're tapping into
something that's not just in here
you know
You're muted.
even hundreds of years separated from present day. With that, we will come to an end. Last thing
we're going to show here, again, just by way of reminder, we have the orange umbrella. We are 11
days out from the end. We have 95 backers, $10,304 raised of our $12,500 goal. I am super encouraged
by that. If you are basically, many of you have already, I would imagine, have already supported,
Again, we would love for you to share this with your friends.
This is a great resource,
even if for people who aren't into Bitcoin
or don't know about Bitcoin,
we don't mention the B word in this book.
It's just a great kid's book.
It's a great thing that you can give as a gift
to covertly orange peel people.
You know, just you can be doing it secretly.
We have some different bundle packs.
There's one where it's got, I think.
You got inscriptions, right?
You can buy an inscription.
Yep, you can buy an inscription.
Yeah, oh my gosh.
We had somebody concerned that we were actually doing like Bitcoin inscriptions.
All we meant is we're willing to sign it.
Every copy gets signed.
Every copy gets-
An actual inscription.
An actual inscription to Jim, please sell all of your ETH.
You know, that kind of inscription.
But we do have some sections.
Let's see, where's our rewards here?
There's a couple of versions where we have the Gould Pack,
which includes one premium legacy edition,
super premium boards and paper
and all that kind of stuff.
And then 10 founder head covers.
Hard covers, not head covers.
And then we have another one that includes,
I believe it's, is it 20?
I can't remember how much.
I just have to laugh.
Every time I see the Gould pack,
did you ever watch Stargate SG-1?
No, I did not.
Dude, the little alien symbioses
that take over people's brains
are called Goulds.
Oh, yeah, here we go.
This is the, oh shoot, it didn't show it.
Anyhow, we do have the, it just disappeared.
Where'd that go?
I have a little bug.
I have the, another no free ads,
but we have the opportunity cost add-on.
And so that's showing, displaying the sat value
of all these things.
Oh, nice.
Yeah.
Can you put that in sailor mode?
Oh yeah, I totally will do it.
Let's see, you have it.
Yeah, here it is.
Okay.
I put it in sailor mode the other day.
If you don't know what sailor mode is,
it basically displays what the value will be
of whatever thing it's showing the price of
when Bitcoin's at $21 million.
So let's turn this on here and we'll see.
So effectively, we are trying to raise $2.39 million
worth of Bitcoin.
And let's see if we can see some of these things.
Yeah.
So this 11 book pack, the Gould pack,
you'll be, that'll be worth $65,000, almost $66,000 worth of Bitcoin, with Bitcoin at $21
million. So with that being said, ignore all that. Don't turn on staler mode. Run over to Kickstarter.
Just buy and replace. Buy and replace. Exactly. Kickstarter.com slash projects slash TGFB,
the Orange Umbrella book. Just search for the Orange Umbrella. You'll be able to find it.
Get us over this 12,500 so we can get these out. We can give these books to our kids,
put them in their hands, help them learn good things about Bitcoin. Again, we'd really appreciate
that. And with that said, Jim, any final words? I'll give you the last words here.
You know, I would say keep searching for the truth. You're a Bitcoiner and you're out there.
You're not far from the kingdom. We can help.
Amen. We would love to chat. Hit us up in DMs. Again, we actually do this. We get people who
hit us up and ask his questions pretty regularly.
Tim is actually hosting a seminar, salon.
I don't know what we want to call it.
He's going to be in Austin in August.
So if you're a Bitcoiner and you're Jesus curious,
he's going to be hosting a theological debate
with some Bitcoin OGs down there.
So definitely if you're interested in that, reach out.
What?
Can we give a little more information here?
What's a way of such a thing?
I'm not sure how much we can say yet,
but definitely if you're interested,
just reach out to us and we can get you more details.
We'll see if we can talk about it publicly next week.
Oh, let's go.
I like this.
Okay.
All right.
Well, that does it for episode 17 of To the Unknown Pod,
which is really like episode,
I think it's 59 or 60 of the TGFB pod.
So this is like a sub series.
Don't ask questions.
We're just trying to, we're vibing it.
We're vibe coding it, much to Jim's chagrin.
we are grateful for you guys. If you guys like what you're hearing, then reach out on,
you know, leave us a review, subscribe and like on YouTube, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify. Those are
the ones that matter. If you get, if we get reviews and we get subscriptions on those places,
those make the biggest impact. On top of that, we recently just, I just mentioned this, we changed
our podcast hosting to fountain.fm. If you are listening to this and you are a podcaster, you
should be going and doing likewise. These guys are Bitcoiners. They're doing lots of great work.
They have a great product. So go switch it over. They allow you to basically bring
Patreon-esque services. People can sign up to give monthly or get a monthly subscription.
You can also stream sats in real time. So go find out what they're doing. We really appreciate them.
I had a call with their CEO and I think they're both of the founders, UK-based guys, and they're
They're doing really good work.
So if you're podcasting,
you're out there already spending money
for podcast hosting,
go put it in the hands of Bitcoiners.
So again, grateful for you guys.
We will see you on the next episode
of To the Unknown Pod.
We'll be back on, I believe on Tuesday
with should be the Island Boys.
And we'll look forward to seeing you.