Cyber Christ: The Pope, Bitcoin, and the New Age of Man

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete” ~Buckminster Fuller

The Pope calls for an end to the cult of money

Pope Francis called for global financial reform that respects human dignity, helps the poor, promotes the common good and allows states to regulate markets.

He said free-market capitalism had created a “tyranny” and that human beings were being judged purely by their ability to consume goods.

Money should be made to “serve” people, not to “rule” them, he said, calling for a more ethical financial system and curbs on financial speculation.

Countries should impose more control over their economies and not allow “absolute autonomy”, in order to provide “for the common good”.

In his 10-minute scripted speech to new ambassadors, the pope highlighted the root causes of today’s economic and social troubles, pointing to policies and actions that stem from a “gravely deficient human perspective, which reduces man to one of his needs alone, namely, consumption.”

“We have begun this culture of disposal,” he said, where “human beings themselves are nowadays considered as consumer goods which can be used and thrown away.”

A major reason behind the increase in social and economic woes worldwide “is in our relationship with money and our acceptance of its power over ourselves and our society.” He also said, “We have created new idols” where the “golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal.”

Here is one message board reply:

I read the speech…and I agree to a point.

Here is my point:
Centralized financial systems already denied the right of control to national states (look what the troika did to greece for example) and deposed the people as the highest political body of our nations via lobbyism/banking corruption. This idea that countries should impose more control over their economies and not allow “absolute autonomy” is flawed.

Giving more control to national states won’t help, since they are already corrupted by the debt-based money system that they depend on for power, and indeed, are themselves products of. 

The only way out is to give the political power back to the people by limiting the power of said centralized political and economic systems. The Vatican council proposes a global financial authority, when what is really needed is exactly the opposite.

And my reply:

Correct. Decentralize everything, and start with money.
Is this possible? Yes! Technology has made it possible. 

The centralized financial systems may not like it but thanks
to Satoshi Nakamoto we now have a peer-to-peer system
for digital wealth/property conveyance that works.

Satoshi Nakamoto as the Cipher/Cyber Christ

Max Keiser has called Satoshi Nakamoto the “Cyber-Christ,” but I doubt the Pope has even heard of Bitcoin or given much thought to such emerging technologies, much less their potential to liberate the oppressed. But the Pope did call for the end to the “cult of money” and the tyranny it produces.

Alex Jones: Did you just say that Bitcoin is the “Cyber Christ?”

Max Keiser: Satoshi Nakamoto is the name of the developer who released Bitcoin in 2009. I call them the “Cyber Christ” because he, potentially, is so much of a game change at this point. It’s such a quantum leap away from the Federal Reserve system that is killing economies around the world, the we are going to have a massive, global, coming-to, an understanding, a revelation, that finally we’re going to escape the nightmare that is the central bank system.

What? You’ve never heard of Satoshi Nakamoto or Bitcoin? Well read this short quote from The New Yorker, it should bring you up to speed:

There are lots of ways to make money: You can earn it, find it, counterfeit it, steal it. Or, if you’re Satoshi Nakamoto, you can invent it. That’s what he did on the evening of January 3, 2009, when he pressed a button on his keyboard and created a new currency called Bitcoin. It was all bit, and no coin. There was no paper, copper, or silver—just thirty-one thousand lines of code and an announcement on the Internet.

Nakamoto wanted to create a currency immune to the predations of bankers and politicians. The currency was controlled entirely by software. Every ten minutes or so, coins would be distributed through a process that resembled a lottery. This way, the bitcoin software would release a total of twenty-one million bitcoins, most all of them over the next twenty years. Interest in Nakamoto’s invention built steadily. More and more people dedicated their computers to the lottery, and forty-four exchanges popped up, allowing anyone with bitcoins to trade them for dollars, euros, or other currencies. At first, a single bitcoin was valued at less than a penny. But merchants gradually began to accept bitcoin, and at the end of 2010 the value began to appreciate rapidly. By June of 2011, a bitcoin was worth more than twenty-nine dollars.

Market gyrations followed, and by September the exchange rate had fallen to five dollars. Still, with more than seven million bitcoins in circulation, Nakamoto had created thirty-five million dollars of value. And yet Nakamoto was a cipher. There was no trace of any coder with that name before the début of bitcoin. He used an e-mail address and Web site that were untraceable. In 2009 and 2010, he wrote hundreds of posts in flawless English, invited other software developers to help him improve the code. Then, in April, 2011, he sent a note to a developer saying that he had “moved on to other things.” He has not been heard from since.

Unlike traditional currency, bitcoins are not issued by a government or even a private company. Instead, the currency is run by computer code that distributes new bitcoins at a set rate to people who devote web servers to keep the code running. Before bitcoin it was precious metal that provided the “anchoring” for fiat currencies and held inflation in check. Now the same principle of sound money that used gold and silver to chain down the mischief of governments is the fundamental operating principle employed in the bitcoin code.

Simply stated, bitcoin is electronic cash that is not subject to the false authority of government and therefore, like pure gold or silver, it will NEVER lose it’s value due to inflation. In short, Bitcoin is the 21st century alternative to the Internationale Banking Oligarch which dominated the 20th century, and it will change the world in ways we are only now beginning to understand.

To many people, this sounds like an implausibly rosy future, and for early adopters that is true — it feels like winning the lottery every day. However, for most other people, the ascendancy of distributed currency systems will feel like a disaster. … the rise of distributed currencies such as bitcoin could create massive social upheaval due to governments’ rapidly degrading capability to fulfill their core functions of taxation and regulation of commerce. –… 

As the article quoted above points out, Bitcoin is a very disruptive technology. In the past, the big pools of capital could influence governments of the world with debt, thus controlling people from the top down. However, what we are seeing emerge now is a bottom-up revolution where the individuals are reclaiming their sovereignty, and rejecting all false authority.

hierophantThe Pope may speak against the “cult of money” but his Office is as much a symbol of this Money Cult as the golden calf was a symbol of the fertility cults that flourished 4000 years ago. The golden calf  is the symbol of  the Age of Taurus and points back to very matriarchal and feminine age in which humanity began to master agriculture and survival needs. In contrast, the image of the Pope on his thrown is a symbol of the money cult and their hierarchical false authority over mankind.

The New Age of Man

For those of us who find solace in New Ageism, I feel it’s a good idea to look at what this new age is and what is isn’t by addressing the term ‘new age’ itself. This idea of entering into a new age is actually a by-product of Theosophy, which was a spiritualist movement founded by Helena Blavatsky in 1875. Theosophy was an attempt to bring together the mystical/esoteric traditions of Europe and Asia, based on the premise that there is a common truth in all religions. Theosophy formed around the belief that we were embarking on a ‘new age’ of spiritual consciousness and evolution, an age even more spiritual than the Age of Pisces, which would see the birth of a great world teacher.

If we look deeper we begin to see that this sounds a lot like other ideologies and religions that we’ve seen come and go in the past 2,000 years, such as: Christianity, Islam, Fascism, and Marxism. What they all have in common is a belief in a ‘golden age’ to come, but first we must be ‘cleansed’ or saved before we are ready to enter that new age – which is to be founded by a great leader/teacher/messiah. I find it fascinating that many people begin vegetarian diets and embark upon ‘new age’ lifestyles with the same dogma and fervor that Hitler inspired in the German people through Fascism. We see this today with the cult-of-personality in the White House.

We must always be mindful of how evolution occurs within a cultural context – and how impactful culture is on us, and how much undue influence it has on our thinking. This pattern of ‘new ageism’ is itself product of the Age of Pisces, it represents our interpretation of a “new Aquarian energy” as viewed from our Piscean Age consciousness  That is to say, from a limited and distorted perspective. I often wonder if maybe we’d do better to do away with this ‘new age’ label altogether and start over!

There is also an established school of thought that believes each age’s influences are also complemented by the opposite sign to the sign ruling the astrological age. For instance, the Age of Pisces is complemented by its opposite astrological sign of Virgo (the Virgin); for this reason, a few researchers refer to the Piscean age as the ‘Age of Pisces-Virgo’. Adopting this approach, the Age of Aquarius would become the Age of Aquarius-Leo. Ray Grasse also claims that each sign of the zodiac is part of a polarity involving the opposite sign (~wikipedia/Astrological_Age)

Let’s be clear, the Age of Aquarius will not be a utopia or golden age on earth. It is an age of globalization that will forever shift the way we view nationalism and tribalism – you can already see this happening. We are struggling to become ‘citizens of the world’, not just Americans, French, or Chinese. But we are also struggling to break from from the undue influence of false authority,  hierarchical power structures and what the Pope rightfully called the cult of money. Ironically, the Pope is a symbol of that old age as much as bitcoin is a symbol of the one to follow.

I am sure there will still be people struggling with Ego/Soul issues 400 years from now…and perhaps countries still at war, but we must remember that each of us as human beings are in a different stage of spiritual evolution on the same planet. Having said that, the Age of Aquarius does hold the promise of a dominant world view in which the individual is allowed his/her freedom to actualize as an independently liberated being (Leo), yet still participate in group life in the spirit of altruism and humanitarianism (Aquarius). This stands in stark contrast to the current age of Pisces-Virgo (which is submissive/left brain).

I do believe our intuitive abilities and multi-sensory evolution will increase such that we honor the world of energy and spirit far more than the dogma of religion and politics. And most importantly instead of a world leader, master teacher, or messiah; we’ll finally realize that we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

Related Stories:

Bitcoin, Free Speech, Illegal Numbers & Artificial Intelligence

When two people decide among themselves to exchange bitcoin (for any reason) how is this not protect as free speech? Answer, because some numbers (or strings of code can be made illegal).

Wait a minute, who has the power to say certain speech (numbers, or strings of code) are illegal? Well, government of course. Hold up, who accepts this false authority? Answer, those who submit to censorship do so believing that others should as well… it starts with things like copyright law, but it leads us down the path to where companies endup owning your DNA code. Is this where we want to go?

Should all just accept censorship (example, copyright law) for the greater good? This is basically the belief that government is needed to ensure human civilization, and without this “authority” mankind can not move forward or prosper. Those who hold this view place the individual below the collective, and they allow the most organized and powerful cliques within that collective to dictate policy to the rest of us… this is the role of a child to his or her parent… this has been accept status-quo for a long time, but as technology advances we are approaching an Omega Point where an Artificial Intelligence become the finial authority in all such matters. If left unchecked this AI will control money, control governments, and control you.


Free speech is an individual right, when you remove or limit this right, you grant power over the individual by some external authority, often a for-profit corporation. This is the “system” people rebeld against in the 60’s but what we see coming into view now is an Artificial Intelligence System (AIS). Mankind now faces a choice: either we allow free speech (and allow bitcoin to be protected as free speech) or we become slaves to the emerging AIS by way of a controlled money system which does not value the individual human being.

In a recent 10-minute speech, the Pope said, “Countries should impose more control over their economies” and not allow “absolute autonomy”, in order to provide “for the common good”. While that sounds good, and I’m sure this little man in the funny hat had good intentions, he doesn’t understand what he is actually calling for. More power in the hands of government is not the solution to the problem, it is only make the problem far, far worse. If left unchecked, the AIS we are creating now will become far more evil than the corrupt system we have now.

The Pope was correct when he identified the problem, he said the policies and actions of our current money system (what I call the growing AIS) stem from a “gravely deficient human perspective, which reduces man to one of his needs alone, namely, consumption” and I would add, disregards his individual rights, such the right to free speech. He went on to say, we have begun a “culture of disposal, [where] human beings themselves are nowadays considered as consumer goods which can be used and thrown away.”

I agree this is a problem, but why is it a problem? Because human being have value and the AI system that rules over us doesn’t understand that value. Our world system is run by corporations which reflect the greed of their creators. So one might say we already have an early form of Artificial Intelligence running the world today, and we have crated this monster in our image and according to our likeness. Over time the “sinful nature” of this monstrous AIS is only going to become uglier and still uglier unless we change its programming… how how can do that without first changing our own?

I think we have only a small window of opportunity to stop this evil money system that I call the emerging AIS. Again, I say thank goodness for bitcoin, for without it, it is hard for me to see a bright future for humanity.

Unmasking the ESF (or IMF and WorldBank, who’s your daddy?)

Back in the Depression, the US Treasury Department got a mysterious office called the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which actually kickstarted the International Monetary Fund. It was funded initially with all the gold they jacked from the American public in the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, and has been used to fund CIA operations around the world. The case is made pretty clearly by Eric deCarbonnel (MarketSkeptics), who traces the history of the ESF  in his new video series [see below].

[According to Eric deCarbonnel] the US Government has taken over the world and the ESF has been its weapon of choice. He points out that the ESF has no oversight, and basically says it’s the place the CIA has kept the credit card rolling all these years. In short, the ESF is the slush fund for America’s most corrupt endeavors hidden from plain view with cloak of “National Security” as its cover.  

There is no doubt that great sins have been committed by the self-serving shadow government in the ESF and Federal Reserve to prop up the dollar system. Although, they may not seem themselves as evil they are certainly self-serving. They view it as their role to do everything necessary to ensure that the dollar remains the world reserve currency–and thus maintain the Anglo-American world Empire. If you are looking for who is responsible for the repugnant policies that so adversely effect developing countries, as described in John Perkins‘s book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, look no further.

keynes_white_casEnter Harry Dexter White

The name is as deceptive as the individual. He was a son of Jewish immigrants, graduating from Harvard late in life, but brilliant in his intellect and determined that America would rule by the strength of the dollar and that Britain was finished as a world power.

The ESF, through then-Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, virtually created the modern money system, including the IMF and World Bank. White was the senior American official at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, and reportedly dominated the conference and imposed his vision of post-war financial institutions. After the war, White was a major architect of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

In his new book on Bretton Woods – the financial system that underpinned the post-war world until the early 1970s – Benn Steil makes an interesting point. Apparently, Harry Dexter White, the chief American architect of the system, was actually a spy for Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union.

In August 1948, White testified and defended his record to the House Un-American Activities Committee. Three days after testifying he died of a heart attack. Historians agree he passed secret state information to the Soviet Union during World War II.[1] 

But as Steil tells in The Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order, historians have also been clear about the truth “for at least 15 years now.” His bottom line is succinct: “White was arguably more important to Soviet intelligence than Alger Hiss, the U.S. State Department official who was the most famous spy of the early Cold War.”

Harry Dexter White legacy, the ESF.

In a nutshell, the ESF is a slush fund beyond Congressional oversight. It can be used to ‘get around’ most anything (i.e., it can skirt normal governmental procedures) and operates outside the law. There is no room for it in our democratic process. It is not subject to the normal checks-and-balances so carefully crafted by the Founding Fathers that have proven over time to be so essential for control within the federal government. The ESF is the antithesis of the American foundation of representative government because it subjects a free people to the false authority of unconstitutional governmental force.

After months of work, the video series on the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund is finally finished! Why you should watch these five videos: It is impossible to understand the world today without knowing what the ESF is and what it has been doing. Officially in charge of defending the dollar, the ESF is the government agency which controls the New York Fed, runs the CIA‘s black budget, and is the architect of the world’s monetary system (IMFWorld Bank, etc). ESF financing (through the OSS and then the CIA) built up the worldwide propaganda network which has so badly distorted history today (including erasing awareness of its existence from popular consciousness). It has been directly involved in virtually every major US fraud/scandal since its creation in 1934: the London gold pool, the Kennedy assassinations, Iran-Contra, CIA drug trafficking, HIV, and worse … ” – Market Skeptics

Here is a Daily-Bell article which gives an analysis of these videos:

Fearfully, the US Treasury’s Secret, 75-Year-Old Fund and Its Dark History Has Been Exposed?

Many of the problems of the modern world can be traced to the ESF, according to Mr. deCarbonnel. He proceeds to make the case for his argument in over an hour of insights and detail.

We have been reading and writing about the New World Order for decades but the information presented by deCarbonnel seems, in some ways, new to us. (That doesn’t mean it’s accurate, of course.) We would be remiss in not making the following point: According to Mr. deCarbonnel, he is also related to Frank Vanderlip, one of the founders of the US Federal Reserve system, so the series of videos can also be seen in some way, perhaps, as a defense of Vanderlip and private banking.

Anyway, let’s jump in. We will try to summarize Mr. deCarbonnel’s argument for those who don’t have the time or patience to sit through all five videos. Here are his arguments (buttressed, to be sure, by a plethora of historical sources) in approximate order in bullet points:

• The ESF was created WITHOUT OVERSIGHT by Congress in the 1930s to ensure support of the dollar. It has done a lousy job of what it was supposed to do, as the dollar has lost almost all its value.

• The ESF was put in the hands of the head of the US Treasury and the US Treasurer has absolute power to do what he wants with the fund.

• As a result, the ESF has acted as a giant slush fund that has funded the growth of the American Empire over the past century – against the will of both Congress and many bankers in private industry.

• The ESF also effectively runs the US Federal Reserve and tells the New York Fed what to do. It does this because it is responsible for stabilizing the dollar and implementing policies that are in the national interest.

• The ESF leaves few traces of its activities, as Congress mandated that it must conduct its affairs without oversight. Thus, dissembling is part of its mandate. Its bureaucracy lies as a matter of policy.

• The ESF was responsible for Project Mockingbird, apparently ongoing still today, and places many of America’s top journos under the control of the CIA. The publishing industry – with a special emphasis on books about politics and American foreign policy – is an especially large part of this false flag operation. Books are seen as a key to controlling the American intelligentsia. The Internet has partially broken the promotional chokehold of Mockingbird.

The ESF is legally MANDATED to lie, which is why even an audit of the Fed will not reveal the true nature of what has taken place in the US and the world in the past 100 years. The Fed and the ESF are symbiotic, but the ESF is in charge.

• In order to prop up the dollar, and to protect the interests of the US, the ESF has performed an enormous number of illegal tasks. It does so with maximum anonymity and without oversight of the rest of the executive branch or the Treasury itself.

• John F. Kennedy was ready to expose the ESF and its dark deeds and to create a new, non Bretton-Woods financial system, which is why he was murdered by a “magic bullet.” Later on, his brother was murdered for the same reason.

• The ESF, thus empowered, has continually and energetically bankrupted the US in order to save it.

• It has disposed of much if not all of the nation’s gold supply.

• It used its secret funds to first create the CIA and then to fund its cover operations, including destabilization ofdemocracies around the world.

• It has demanded enormous amounts of money printing from the Fed to prop up the US economy, the dollar and its illegal operations.

• It has coerced the Japanese, Chinese and others into buying dollars to mop up “inflation.” (Ed.: He means “price inflation” actually.)

• It has sanctioned and created drug addiction in the US to “dollarize” the rest of the world. It has done so by imposing money-laundering regulations on banks that force drug dealers to export, via smuggling, tens and hundreds of billions of physical dollars out of the US.

• It has created a sophisticated forgery apparatus to ensure that the dollars do not flow back into the US, creating inflation. These dollars are apparently being printing by the US Treasury at a loss, but are the same as regular dollars in almost all ways. As a result, foreigners are afraid to bring their dollars back into the US for fear they will be confiscated as counterfeit.

• Because there are so many drugs flowing into the US, especially heroin and cocaine, people are dying of drug use in record numbers. As a result of these deaths, the ESF created the fiction of AIDS. It is still the accepted explanation for the deaths of millions, but there is no explanation for why the “virus” is found equally in men and women, although the deaths have been predominantly gay men who, especially in the 1980s, were apparently aggressive abusers of powerful drugs that depress the immune system. African statistics showing AIDS deaths are merely made up and not to be trusted.

• In order to keep the supply of dollars flowing out of the US, and to continue to fund illicit activities, the ESF has been responsible for wars as well as for covert and illicit assassinations and destabilizations. It was, for instance, responsible for the war in Afghanistan. The Taliban had begun eradicating poppy fields and this could not be tolerated, as the supply of heroin worldwide was plunging. Today, the CIA and US military guard the Afghan poppy fields and heroin production is heading toward peak supply.

• ESF manipulations have resulted in global “blowback.” The dollar is in ruins. The ESF and its enablers are becoming unglued. Even Alan Greenspan has begun to admit the fraud that surrounds the ESF.

• As the ESF and the dollar itself has operated as a kind of Ponzi scheme and like all Ponzi schemes has fostered misinformation and disinformation. One of the most pervasive of these “tales” is that the world is run by an elite group of individuals intent on creating a New World Order. Even journalists who believe they are working for this group are being misled. The New World Order is nothing but a beard for the world’s real power, which is the ESF and its enablers and associates.

• In reality, those who are responsible for the Ponzi scheme, bankers and government officials alike, are culpable. Mr. deCarbonnel says that they have no idea of what is about to happen to them. Hundreds of millions who have been defrauded by the ESF Ponzi scheme and all its ramifications are likely to be merciless when it comes to light. Justice will winnow those involved with special vehemence.

OK. Having summarized these arguments (we tried to hit the highlights, though doubtless we have left out some points), we will try to anticipate the arguments of cynics as well (too many of whom congregate here, for some reason).

These cynics, especially if they have listened to Mr. deCarbonnel’s entire exegesis will make several points, the main point being that it is somehow a “limited hangout” in which a submerged “piece of the puzzle” has been presented as the mechanism for the Way the World Works.

The argument will be made that the REAL elites are preparing for a century’s worth of malfeasance to come to light and that exposes such as deCarbonnel’s provide a foretaste (perhaps a controllable one) of what will dominate the news over the coming months and years.

The main argument will be that by denying the existence of a New World Order, Mr. deCarbonnel is shifting the responsibility from where it belongs to the ESF. In other words, there is a coterie of what we call the Anglospherepower elite and it DOES make decisions. The ESF is merely another tool in an arsenal of weapons that have been employed to dominate the world.

Such cynics as we have described will claim that deCarbonnel’s expose is really another way of hiding what is actually taking place and of making sure the “finger of blame” gets pointed at a free-floating American evolutionary (bureaucratic) system and its enablers rather than at the REAL controllers residing historically in the City of Londonand elsewhere.

These cynics might also argue (full confession: we have in the past) that the footsteps of the French Revolution are echoing more and more loudly as such exposes as deCarbonnel presents continue to find their way to the popular media. It will be argued that the same thing happened in the 1930s during the Pecora Hearings where the modern regulatory state’s bureaucratic apparatus was falsely erected and Wall Street was made into a convenient scapegoat for corruption that went far higher.

Conclusion: Whatever one thinks of Mr. deCarbonnel’s point of view (we’re not endorsing it, merely presenting it), his perspective regarding the ESF is intriguing, and he seems to us a passionate financial journalist in the modern Western tradition. He states at one point that his expose – and others – could not have found their way to the public forum without the Internet, which Mockingbird still does not control. In providing this interesting group of videos to the general public via YouTube, deCarbonnel seems to be providing proof of his point of view.

Bitcoin’s creator is Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki…. Maybe

Nobody knows who invented the digital currency Bitcoin.

The developer used a pseudonym, Satoshi Nakamoto, and since then there’s been a lot of inconclusive internet sleuthing.

Ted Nelson, a computer scientist, has posted a video to the web claiming that he’s figured it out, and that it’s Kyoto University math professor  Shinichi Mochizuki.


Above is a photo of Shinichi Mochizuki.

Ted Nelson, the American academic who in 1963 coined the term hypertext, and is therefore viewed as one of the World Wide Web’s founding fathers, just released a 12-minute video with a big reveal at the end: The inventor of bitcoin, says Nelson, is probably Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki.

Nelson says that he did not receive help from anyone in coming to his conclusions, and that his supposition was inspired by a recent feature on Mochizuki. After reading it, writes Nelson in an email to Quartz, “It was obvious, like a pie in the face.” He has not contacted Mochizuki directly. “I did this  as fast as possible, hoping to be first with this realization. I wasn’t, as I found out later.”

Actually, it was Ashwin Dixit who first put out the theory about Mochizuki being Bitcoin’s inventor. Ashwin posted about it on his blog on May 11, a whole week before Nelson posted his YouTube video.

Both Ashwin and Nelson offers no direct evidence for their conclusion that Shinichi Mochizuki is the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin, but the do offer plausible circumstantial evidence. Internet surfers and the press are bound to investigate furiously.

When Ashwin first published the idea on Reddit he was told that: “gossip relating to real life details of people against their wishes is against Reddit Terms of Service.” However, they Reddit did publish the YouTube by Nelson.

“Ted Nelson has better established credentials than I.” said Ashwin. “So it is natural that the mainstream would attribute the theory to him, even though I published it first.”

In his eccentric way, Nelson outlines his theory as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle might, playing the role of both Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson in his YouTube video. In summary, here the brief points:

1. Mochizuki is the kind of genius who could create bitcoin. Whoever created Bitcoin has the intellectual might of Isaac Newton, says Nelson. Mochizuki’s work as a mathematician has cracked some of the simplest and toughest problems in his field, attracting global media coverage. “It’s not like I’m accusing him of a crime!” Nelson tells Quartz. “I’m accusing him of greatness.”

2. Mochizuki, like the creator of bitcoin, is fond of dropping brilliant works on the internet and stepping back. Bitcoin was released by a pseudonymous programmer (or programmers) under the name Satoshi Nakamoto, who then disappeared from the internet. Nelson compares this to Mochizuki’s style of delivering his work not through academic journals, but simply by dropping it on the internet and walking away. (Notably, this is one area where Nelson gets his bitcoin history wrong: Satoshi Nakamoto didn’t just drop bitcoin onto the internet and disappear. He, she or they, engaged with the community for some time over chat and email before disappearing.)

3. Mochizuki could easily have written all the correspondence associated with Satoshi Nakamoto. Despite being a Japanese professor at a Japanese university, Mochizuki’s English must be quite good, says Nelson, because he was the salutatorian of his graduating class at Princeton, and he completed his undergraduate education in only three years. (Nelson doesn’t note this, but it’s reasonable to expect that Mochizuki is actually a native English speaker; he moved to the US with his parents when he was only five years old.)

If a mathematical proof falls in the forest and there’s no one there to understand it, does it still make a sound?

Shinichi Mochizuki, a mathematician at Japan’s Kyoto University, has just published a breakthrough series of papers proving one of mathematics’ most complex theories, something called the abc conjecture. A renowned mathematician at Columbia University has labeled Mochizuki’s discovery “one of the most astounding achievements of mathematics in the 21st century.” Assuming, that is, others can confirm it. That process may take years, not only because Mochizuki’s proof is itself so complex, but also because he came up with a whole new mathematical language for it, which no one yet understands. –source

It’s worth noting that at least one expert in the cryptographic aspects of bitcoin doesn’t believe Nelson’s theory. Here’s Ryan Lackey, creator of Sealand, the world’s first data haven, is refuting Nelson’s video and has even posted his  comments on YouTube.

Does the proposed candidate have any documented experience as a software developer? He appears to just be a mathematician, which is very helpful but not sufficient to have built the first version of Bitcoin. Bitcoin has both some theoretical breakthroughs and extensions to existing protocols (Wei Day’s bmoney, Hal Finney’s RPOW, etc.), but is implemented fairly reasonably in code.

I see absolutely no reason to think this mathematician was Satoshi.

Mathematician Tyler Jarvis, who went to graduate school with Mochizuki, doesn’t believe Mochizuki has anything to do with bitcoin, either. Others have attempted to identify the creator of bitcoin, and no one has succeeded conclusively. Writing for Fast Company, Adam Penenberg offered what is perhaps the most compelling case so far, that bitcoin was created by three men who intended to profit from it.

Of course, Dixit and Nelson could be right. But doubts remain.  Dixit has now reversed himself, sort of, saying he “honestly doesn’t want to see Satoshi Nakamoto  revealed.” and then casts doubt on his own earlier assertions. As one attendee to the recent Bitcoin conference in San Fransico said, finding Satoshi would be “killing the unicorn.”

It has been suggested that that the error is to think that because Nakamoto is a Japanese sounding name therefore the author of Bitcoin has to be Japanese. Which I do believe would be an error. I think it’s far more likely that the pseudonym was coined by someone heavily influenced by the cyberpunk literature: a lot of which, as we all know, was influenced by how people viewed the Tokyo of the 80s:

The economic and technological state of Japan in the 80s influenced Cyberpunk literature at the time. Of Japan’s influence on the genre, William Gibson said, “Modern Japan simply was cyberpunk.”

I think that Nelson’s missed that point and has gone looking for a Japanese mathematician clever enough, and with good enough English, to have written both the code and the explanatory documentation. But I’ve a very strong feeling (with even less proof than Nelson has, to be sure) that going to look in Japan is the first mistake. It’s a cultural reference all right, but not to Japan specifically, rather to that Japan that Gibson and others were projecting through the genre of cyberpunk.

Take all the 40-ish, male, Japanese quants, who are fluent in number theory, English, C++, and economics. I’ll bet you can fit this league of extraordinary gentlemen in an ordinary room. But would Mochizuki be alone in the room? And even if he were, would that prove that he is Nakamoto?

Nelson is offering to donate to charity if Mochizuki denies being Satoshi Nakamoto. “If that person denies being Satoshi, I will humbly give one bitcoin (at this instant worth about $123) to any charity he selects.  If he is Satoshi and denies it, at least he will feel guilty. (One month time limit on denial– bitcoins are going UP.)”

The Thicket of Views

Today I was looking for the a podcast on Buddhism that I had listen to when I first moved to Zion over a year go. The title that I had stuck in my head was “Buddhism Before Buddhism” but my first Google search didn’t return anything useful… don’t you just hate that?

After doing some more advanced searching I found what I was looking for: The Book of Eights by Gil Fronsdal. This is Zencast #321 and it is very good, I would encourage you to listen to it. One thing I learned from this dharma talk is how the Buddha warned against quarreling and thinking one’s own religious views are the “truest” or the best.

Indeed this so-called “Book of Eights” is among the oldest sutras known to exist and represents the earliest teaching of Siddhārtha Gautama. It really is Buddhism before Buddhism… that is to say, this book lays down the raw ideas and unrefined teaching of the Awakened One before they became crystallized into the the formal tradition we now call Buddhism. It is much like hearing Jesus give his “Sermon on the Mount” rather going to church and having a pastor give his views about Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church.

Any way, I when looking for this “Book of Eights” hoping it had been translated into English (which it hasn’t been yet). I did another search for ‘Gil Fronsdal’ and stumbled on to a Tumblr post critical of things Gil may (or may not) have said while giving a talk called “Remembering 9-11: Choosing A Compassionate Response.” Here is a quote from that blog:

I listened to this Dharma talk by Gil Fronsdal. In the discussion that followed, Fronsdal, an excellent Buddhist teacher, unwittingly showed that an awakened heart does not necessarily lead to political understanding.

When someone mentioned the U.S.’s penchant for oppressing and exploiting other nations, Fronsdal responded with the “well, everybody else does it too” defense. He then praised Americans for their spirit of volunteerism, saying that the support they give to non-profit organizations is unequaled in any other nation.

That’s because other nations have social systems that take care of their citizens’ needs rather than leaving it up to individual generosity. Fronsdal’s view perfectly represents the American social pathology, an unquestioning acceptance of the status quo – missing the point that, while it is admirable that citizens volunteer to help other citizens, it is vile that they have to. His is the standard liberal view that praises kind treatment of slaves rather than condemning slavery.

Unquestioning acceptance of the status quo? That seem like a strange criticism of a Buddhist teacher, after all one might have said the same thing of Buddha himself… and they would have been just as wrong. After all, isn’t the point of Buddhist practice to accept those realities we can not change and focus on changing ourselves?  I think this person is setting up a “straw man” in their own mind to argue with, something we all do from time to time, but the point of Buddhist practice to to do this less and less.

Reading the quote from Tumblr, it was the use of the term “liberal” that got my attention. “His is the standard liberal view that praises kind treatment of slaves rather than condemning slavery.” Wait in minute, is this some radical leftist being critical of a liberal? That’s kind of funny…. but to level an attack on a Buddhist teacher who was speaking on the topic of compassion, that seems a little much. As if that were not enough, this dharma talk was given on the tenth anniversary of 9-11. This makes me wonder where this critic is really coming from. Does this person actually harbor so-mush resentment against the “status quo” that he agrees with the motives (if not the actions) taken by terrorists on that fateful day? At the very least his anger seems misdirected and I would add this resentment was invented inside his own mind–a pure delusion.

I’m as critical at the next guy of so-called liberals (or anyone who takes an authoritarian position and speaks of “American exceptionism”  etc.) but the view being expressed here sounds even more authoritarian–more extremist than the most extreme liberal that I know. He says, “while it is admirable that citizens volunteer to help other citizens, it is vile that they have to. ” Really? I am left to assume this person thinks that in the ideal world we’d have government provide for everyone needs and that until this utopia comes into being, our duty is to speak out against the “vile” enslavement of humanity and actively oppose the “status quo.” That is an individual opinion, but is it fair to demand others share that view?

Buddha spoke of danger of delusion. Well folks, there is a prime example of it. Perhaps humanity is enslaved to gang of criminals capitalist, that could be, but thinking it is the duty of others to change that system is a delusion. I agree Chris Hedges who his book Empire of Illusion said at this point in history it is impossible to bridge the divide between “a literate, marginalized minority and those who have been consumed by an illiterate mass culture.” Damon Vrabel said, “Change is not possible through journalism, the media, or online debates,” here is more of what he has written in the save vain:

IF we participate in the system, I’m not opposed to it at all. How could I be? I’d be a tyrant if I wanted to force hundreds of millions of people to change their behavior. And the fact is, that “IF” was answered long ago. We Americans have chosen the material benefits of being managed by the financial system for generations. We like demand-side freedom, i.e. choosing between Coke and Pepsi, but don’t want supply-side freedom. We like the supply-side to be taken care of for us. We love the benefits that come from it being imperially run—the credit card always works, the gas station is always open, our water faucets and light switches do what they’re supposed to do, the markets keep going up (oops…maybe not). All of our economic needs are outsourced to others, so we have the luxury of spending our time pursuing wants. And if these types of benefits are good for us, they’re good for the rest of the world. We have no moral authority to stand opposed just because we’re now going to lose our privileged position—a rather childlike perspective.

In the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta, the Buddha cautions Vacchagotta, the wanderer, against adhering to the “thicket of views,” i.e., forming an opinion one way or the other about a variety of metaphysical topics (Is the cosmos eternal or infinite? Are materiality and consciousness the same or different? Do Buddhas still exist after death?) The Buddha tells Vachagotta that any position one can take: “is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering…. and does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening…”

The same goes for political views.

Anyone can have opinions. They come cheap. I have a million myself — If you want one just ask, and I will tell you. It’s amazing how much I know (that’s a joke). How’s President Obama doing? Is there a conspiracy to create a New World Order? Are we heading into a fascist police state? Is the money system of the United States unconstitutional?  Should we elect Oath Keepers as sheriff and take back our Republic from the bottom-up? Don’t get me started =)

It’s fun to have opinions — they keep the conversation lively. In any case, it’s impossible not to form them. The question is whether it’s possible not to be overly attached to them. Our views (religious, political, or otherwise) can lead to quarreling, disharmony, and anguish. The sage advice of the Buddha was to drop our opinions and let go of our views, in this way we avoid those quarrels which lead us to suffer and cause others to suffer with us. The main point that Buddha was making is this: all our suffering is self-inflicted pain. When we express a strong view on a debatable topic it is  like holding a hot coal in our hand, it is best to drop it before we get burned.

Zen Master Seung Sahn wrote a book entitled Open Mouth Already a Mistake, and was famous for admonishing students to “only keep ‘Don’t-Know’ mind.” In a similar vein, Larry Rosenberg reported seeing a bumper sticker years ago which read: “Don’t believe everything you think,” and thought it offered sage advice. Shunryu Suzuki Roshi’s “Beginner’s Mind” is the touchstone of American Dharma, but admonitions to take opinions lightly have been part of practice forever. Bankei (1622-1693) advised us not to “side with ourselves,” just as the Buddha himself warned millennia ago of “the thicket of views.”

The truth is, all of our interesting and colorful opinions seem to have very little to do with the progress we make, or fail to make, in our practice. If anything, they separate us from the clear, still place we aspire to. Our practice is best when we have little or no concern for what others do or think — and even or especially what we ourselves think — and pay attention, instead, to how we unfold in our own unique dance with the present moment. Guilt from the past, and fear of the future is what takes away the joy of now. This is why students of Zen focus on their breathing… it puts them in touch with the higher-self, and help them rise above the story-telling ego chatter in their heads… it helps them rise above ego-driven opinions and views to find inner peace and joy.

Yes, we may hold strong views, I certainly do… but I’ve learned it help to be reminded that we don’t know what we don’t know… all our opinions are based on limited information. As we gather more information our views will inevitability change. Think about it, do you hold the same views today that you did 10 years ago? How about those opinions you were clinging to so strongly a year ago? Are they still there today? If you met your older self on the street, would that less informed version of yourself quarrel with you? If so, would it be out of ignorance? And what it say your not still misinformed to this day? We don’t know what we don’t know. This is true of everyone, so while we should compassion to ourselves for not knowing everything, we should give that same consideration to others.

Okay, that is my opinion for the day.

Frederic Bastiat’s classic ‘The Law’

Have you ever asked, “How did torture become legal?”

After reading Frederic Bastiat’s classic ‘The Law’ I now understand the purpose of the law is not to mandate justice, but rather it is to prevent injustice (to protect your life, liberty, and property). When the Law is used to “bring justice” it does so with the only means available to the State (i.e, force, or threat of violence). For example: one day you have no health insurance, then the law is written to help you, and guess what? Now you are being forced to do that which the State says is good for you (you MUST buy insurance) under threats by IRA agents with guns of heavy fines and/or jail time. In such a way, the Law has been twisted so that it stripes you of the very thing it should protect: your life, liberty and property.


Here is the crux of the matter. Under common law (THE LAW) there is no crime if there is no victim, but under statutory codes and rules coercion is codified. In this twisted use of LAW, placing an individual under duress is no longer a crime, it is actually viewed as a means to achieve justice. Heavy fines (or taxes) can be used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way, but it does not end there. When the State replaces THE LAW with statutory codes and rules AT THAT POINT any means necessarily to gain your “voluntarily compliance” can and will be employed. This coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. Why? So that the threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.

Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion and we all know this country no longer rules out this method of coercion for enemies of the State, but how did illegal torture become lawful enhanced interrogation? How did American go from thinking torture is anathema to our values to where we are today? The answer is right before you. It is the logical consequence of turning THE LAW into some thing it should never be, namely a means of coercion. In this way, well-meaning (but misguided) liberals and progressives attempt to FORCE justice on others against their will. This is the very definition of tyranny and it always leads to out-of-control despotic government.

When torture has become legal, you know the LAW has become a tyranny. Where will it lead us? Well, to answer that, look at the current debate over whether or not the President can legally kill (i.e., assassinate) American citizens with a drone strike on US soil (thus disregarding their constitutional right to a jury trail). This is what making torture legal has lead us too. Daphne Eviatar, a senior counsel at Human Rights First, said: “It’s hard to see how authorities could not be in a position to arrest someone yet be able to kill them.” And yet this is exactly what Eric Holder claims every future President has a right to do, if the target is “engaged in combat” on U.S. soil.

The “engaged in combat” term was added in response to Rand Paul’s recent filibuster on the Senate floor. The phrase is a misleading legal term because we are also told the entire world is now considered a battlefield, thus the rules of engagement which govern a foreign battlefield can now be applied to every American.  Merely being on a “battlefield” is enough to make you a combatant. In practice this could mean that reporting the news (the government doesn’t want reported) could be enough to earn you “enemy combatant” status.

In 2001, the satellite television channel, al-Jazeera, had its Kabul office targeted by US bombers. Now thanks to the NDAA and Eric Holder’s understanding of the law, this and other tools of war could be brought to bear on Americans who find themselves at odds with any future resident of the White House.  Only hours after the newly signed NDAA went into effect, activist Andrew Breitbart was walking home from a bar alone and drop dead of heart attack. Ironicly, the 41 year old activist suffered his untimely death just hours before he was set to release damning video footage about Barack Obama’s college activities. Is it possible that in some twisted effort to stop sensitive information from coming out, this man become the first victim of Obama new executive privilege? While anything is possible, from a probability standpoint it is unlikely this was anything more than coincidence. However, if this was murder, ask yourself, would we never know? Perhaps more disturbing is knowing the White House could claim that such a killing was justified, that is to say, just as legal as bombing al-Jazeera office (which officially never happened).

Currently, when the CIA director arrives at the decision that an American citizen (overseas) is an enemy combatant, agents from the office of the President can either put that person on a kill list or they can opt to “disappear” that person into a CIA operated secret prison. In addition to assassination by drone strike, another product of the so-called war on terror is the program known as “extraordinary rendition.” Like enhanced interrogation, this is another term to add to our post-911 lexicon. Extraordinary rendition is the extra-judicial detention and transfer of “enemy combatants” to places like the “Bright Light” in Bucharest Romanian and various others “black sites” in Egypt, Poland and Georgia.  If this implement of the battlefield were ever applied here at home, journalist will likely be the first to be disappeared.  When the day comes that we see drone strikes on American soil you can be sure some “right-wing” blogger is being waterboarded at a discreet and nondescript house in Cleveland Ohio.

Many have said this is just history repeating itself, while that is true, the problem we face this time is global governance. Unlike past generations, we are faced with the prospect of a world-wide tyranny. Republic replaced kingdoms, but now a “new world order” in which individual rights are no longer protected or even recognized is coming into view. Nation states are like the fire doors on a theater or a bulkheads on a ship, when you lose your liberty in one country to can move to another….but when national sovereignty is usurped by the international LAW (and enforced by a one world government) where are you gonna run? If America is lost to globalist authoritarians, what hope is there for the future of humanity?

The LAW should prevent injustice. It has one purpose: to protect individual life, liberty, and property, but when the law is used to “bring justice” it only brings cruel and oppressive government or rule. When the law is used for force morality on people, it has become a false authority and as such it will certainly do evil in the name of good. Under international LAW we can expect one thing: planetary tyranny.  Why? Because we failed to learn the lessons of history. In our pride, prejudice and hubris we thought we knew better, and so we sought to mandate justice over others. We were told we should demand government “bring justice” by any means necessary, as a result we have had our labor extorted, our wealth plundered and now we are being lead like sheep to the slaughter.

Download the audio book for free here: