How the Bitcoin argument morphed into a political theater

Ever really take the time and listen to the arguments of these anti-Bitcoin zombies? I mean first off, why on earth would anyone even be anti-Bitcoin to begin with? What do you care? If you don't believe in it, move on. If you do believe in it, then either take time to first learn and understand more or directly jump aboard. It really is that simple.

But there is this particular group of weirdos who makes a hobby out of being anti-anything. Don't get me wrong, there is a certain logic in being e.g. anti-racist, anti-imperialist or even in using an anti-virus.😁 But Bitcoin? Might as well go create an anti-snow group while you're at it. Merch available now.😜


Their arguments make little to no sense as well. For anyone who's been keeping an eye on state-level propaganda, their logic and motives (cough)shameless lies(cough) as to why they have to take a hostile approach to a certain issue or country always morphs from phase 1 all the way up to phase 9999. Meaning that it's never really about the why, it's mostly about the who. If this sounds like gibberish, just take these past real world developments into consideration:

In the 1960s/1970s Nato members, particularly England and the United States just had to "save" the people of Afghanistan from the "oppressive socialist government". This government was the closest thing to a democratic government Afghanistan has had for decades and was ruling the country both free form forced religious attributes along with a comprehensive future plan for social equality and infrastructural development in hopes of eliminating poverty. All this was of course put on halt as the country descended into war and terror when "the hearts of the free world" send in thousands of foreign terrorists to rally Muslims and ignite a religious war aka holy war in the country. The movement they formed back then is today known as the Taliban and most of you are old enough to have witnessed this next part as a decade or so later, the same countries who literally caused the rise of the Taliban now just had to "liberate the women of Afghanistan from the radical terrorists". As if they somehow didn't expect Sharia law fundamentalist to discriminate against women. This of course was not as liberating as some portrayed.



I've heard a lot of reactions and conclusion regarding Afghanistan, but this one Afghan friend said it best "they came dropping bombs of freedom from their planes on our people, and left dropping our people who wanted freedom from their planes."


Bottom line is that they just want to control Afghanistan no matter what the argument. We had people back then in the 70s arguing that supporting terrorists, ohh sorry "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan was a good idea. Three decades later those same people were now arguing why it was a good idea to start a war and eliminate those same freedom fighters. Oh no wait, by then they were "terrorists". Nowadays these people are arguing why sanctioning and starving a population, who mind you would by now be poverty free had these savages just stayed out of Afghanistan to begin with, is a good idea.

So don't go arguing with a facade some lying ****** is putting out there, expose their hidden motives. They are not anti-Bitcoin because of "money laundering, terror support, energy waste, pollution" hocus-pocus talk. No more often than not, they will have an ulterior motive. You think if Greenpeace US' real concern was pollution their focus would be on Bitcoin's code rather than their country's banking sector, military or tech industry?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a honeybee doesn't go arguing with a dungfly that nectar is sweeter than sh!t. So if the argument is with someone who already accepted every single excuse as to why Bitcoin is bad for society, then why bother and waste your time on this person who's obviously bias and thus incapable of understanding? Sure, quickly counter their false arguments but don't go fooling yourself that you can actually make them believe. It's like those stupid debate scenarios we had to do in class where you'd pick some random topic and then randomly either had to be pro or con. No matter what the topic, how dumb it was or how much you were really against it, you now had to go arguing why you were in favor just to get a passing grade. No one thought they were actually convincing the other side right? No one even cared and I found these to be the dumbest classes and lowest forms of debate possible. It's what political leaders have to do when they themselves are in favor of something but the party majority votes against it so now they have to go in front of the cameras and argue for something they were once adamantly against. If you think this is normal and in no way destroys a person's credibility or party's reputation, just look at what it did to the English Labour party and it's former pro-Brexit leader Corbyn.

Not that this was the only reason of course. Anyone who'd followed the events back then couldn't possibly ignore the anti-Corbyn mob of degens and their pathetic "news" headlines even if they wanted to.






So yeah, you just keep working with that sweet Bitcoin nectar🍯🐝, and let those others soak up all the💩.

How do you rate this article?


Geo-Political & Economical developments
Geo-Political & Economical developments

Things are almost never as they seem. If you sincerely think that world powers would spend their money and resources in order to just "help" citizens from foreign nations, you might want to ask yourself why they've been neglecting and out right murdering their own citizens for decades. What are their true motives for wanting to fund foreign (terror) groups, start global confrontations and wars? I'll let you in on a little secret; It has NOTHING to do with "human rights" nor "democracy".

Send a $0.01 microtip in crypto to the author, and earn yourself as you read!

20% to author / 80% to me.
We pay the tips from our rewards pool.