After the fall of MT Gox and the crash that followed, America was preparing a crackdown as they moved to effectively choke exchanges through numerous requirements that the then startups couldn’t possibly meet for at least many years.
The New York Bitlicense attracted considerable backlash, but the regulator has the law and at that point America was pretty much the only relevant country for bitcoin.
Until someone remembered the rivalry between New York and London in financial services and called the UK Treasury to ask for their approach towards bitcoin.
Expecting at the other end a cold reception from a clueless civil servant, what they got instead was a happy puppy jumping with joy at someone asking about bitcoin.
The tone said it all, with it revealed the UK Chancellor, that followed the one from the genesis block, was to outline bitcoin measures in the next budget.
At that point some realized this space has allies at the highest places. The stage was set for roaring Fintech and booming London with this space used as a symbol of innovation as George Osborn became the first high ranking official to buy some bitcoin (pictured above).
When the IRS was called, the cold reception from a clueless civil servant is what was received. On the other side, UK declared “a beautiful friendship” with bitcoin, ethereum and cryptos in general in 2016.
That started returning optimism, with the economy booming and a generation looking at a roaring 20s when children no longer watch the news.
Except war was raging in Arabia. Arab nationalists, under the pretext of religion and all the rest, wanted to force a united Arabia with tribal forces unleashed that hopefully have now been sent to the pits of hell.
A potential common realization after the assassination of the Russian ambassador in 2016 by what looked like a westerner, was perhaps that we can’t fight these people, we have to end the war and get back to the pen.
Thus Trump rose. Some say it was the old who brought him to power, but it was the young shouting USA USA both online and offline.
Independents, of course, in the end decided the outcome. They went with Trump because Hillary offered no chance for peace.
It was a gamble, and where war and peace is concerned it did pay off, but in other areas Trump has disappointed.
Was it Really Yellow?
UK’s historic backing of this space at a time when it did really need it was initially credited to the civil service.
The land of Magna Carta, the rulers of the waves, the inventors of modern democracy, and that of perhaps the greatest invention ever in social matters: the rule of law.
It couldn’t possibly be fickle politicians, and one perhaps unintentionally biases himself from crediting them because politicians come and go.
Yet to be is to think, and as facts changed so did the analysis of reality. The best interpretation is that civil servants were willing, but it was the politicians who made them be willing in the first place.
When Cameron left, the civil service stopped flying the crypto flag. It still had it on, but it wasn’t waving it with passion.
The conclusion thus was that Cameron and Osborn deserve the most credit as the civil service under Theresa May had become a bit different as far as this space is concerned.
Yet Cameron and May are both conservatives. Why would their approach change when they’re under the same book generally speaking? Was it some other change that could explain the subtle, but still important, difference in attitude as far as this space is concerned? Did the fact that Libdems, who back then were in a coalition with conservatives and now are no longer, have something to do with it?
Trump, Not Even a Peanut
A decisive election was facing America and much of the world. We looked where they stand, prioritizing the war and peace question, and just about swayed towards Trump.
As a conservative, we hoped he’d champion this space. The British conservatives had, why wouldn’t the Trump administration?
We thought he’d be obliged to at least throw a peanut in gratitude, instead we got Jay Clayton as chairman of SEC, a bankers’ lawyer whose wife works for Goldman Sachs.
He unleashed a regulatory attack, which this space overcame, but we were expecting a beautiful friendship from Trump not a regulatory attack worse than even democrats gave.
And then you look at Australia, where conservatives were also given credit for effectively following Britain 2014 as far as this space is concerned.
Yet, you look back and you see it was actually the Liberal Party, which has been described as classic liberals or basically Libdems.
And then you find out Macron is of a party of yellow, a Libdem. You then remember France’s enactment of what has been described as the most friendly regulatory framework towards this space in history.
Looking at the whole picture, therefore, you start concluding it is actually Libdems who are the natural allies of this space and the ones who came to its aid every time it was needed. The reason too, of why, is also very clear.
Liberalism v Nationalism
Nationalism is somewhat simple in theory. It begins with the premise that a nation is founded by one person, say Romulus of Rome. He then makes a family which extends and extends to become millions of people from the same person.
It’s like third cousin, but going to three hundredth million. With the idea then being the state is the father. As the father, of course, he has the right to tell you whatever he wants, to order you to do whatever he wants, with the general populace being children.
As such nationalism is effectively totalitarianism based on ethnicity and a struggle between ethnicities where anyone non native is more loyal to his own ethnicity as all nationalists are loyal to their own.
Distrust is at the core of this ideology for it is the only way to make you obey the state who is one of you, even if such obedience means sacrificing yourself in war.
Quite naturally, nationalists hate bitcoin for bitcoin is global, uncontrollable, bridges all nationalities and ethnicities and religions, and because bitcoin is freedom. While nationalism is basically the rule of a king dictator.
Liberalism has a different view, starting with the premise that at a certain point a family becomes too distant for rigid lines.
Taking Strasburg, for example, everyone thinks it’s a German province, but it is under French borders. Northern Ireland is another example where it’s so Irish and British that you can’t quite set a wall.
The Balkans is another example where you have fluid Greek communities in Macedonia and Bulgarian and an outright mash potato that can’t quite have some rigid line.
Then in Arabia too you have those fluid wedges, with ethnicity itself being just as much fluid. Starting with what nationalists tell themselves, the merger of Neanderthals with Homo Sepiens.
From that premise, liberalism says we are all one family, for if there was a Romulus, then there was a father of Romulus and so on.
From there, you then build tolerance. Black is just a color from the sun. Islam is just a copy pasta of judaism mixed with a bit of Christianity.
More importantly, liberalism says whether Strasburg is in France or in Germany doesn’t matter because people can move freely between France and Germany.
That freedom then extends to bitcoin. You’re free to have your own money, why not, why should we fight. While nationalists would of course say only the state can decide such matters.
The children grow up, however, and at some point you can’t order them any longer. To the contrary, they order you in what at a state level would be called a revolution.
Hence nationalism tends to fall sooner or later. It is too stifling, too restricting, too demanding, and it tends to leave people without bread.
And most ironically, it may well be immigrants who actually know what nationalism is and have actually lived through it rather than just reading it in books, who may stand for the principles of europa more than any native.
Such privilege is not afforded to many other places, but it is just an example of how diversity can lead to resilience and a strengthening of a common people.
Moreover it is only liberalism that can stand to religion, of whatever stripe.
Looking back you can say liberalism got a bit too complacent and arrogant in its approach towards arguing its case where religion is concerned.
Provocation and shouting and even pretty much scapegoating shouldn’t be the approach of a thinker as arguably was the approach of Dawkins and all the rest.
Religion deserves respect for very good reasons, not least because it has survived and even thrived for 2,000 years.
It gives meaning and discipline and aim and focus. Much of it does need to be updated of course, but some unsavory “art works,” whether concerning Jesus or Mohamed, are very close to scapegoating.
While liberalism stands for tolerance, many who speak in its name have been intolerant, or stupid.
One must appreciate and understand what they criticize. It is humans on the other end, not cattle.
The pen lifts, it doesn’t bury. The pen persuades, it doesn’t shout. The pen enlightens, it doesn’t scapegoat. And above all the pen shows the analysis, it doesn’t conclude save for very meekly.
And if the pen is challenged then the pen stands to show why it is right. And the pen never stays silent to the gun, for light can not be touched by darkness.
It is time true liberalism returns in all our lands where intellect can once more speak and freely with humility not arrogance.
We shall save Britania and we shall save Arabia and we shall lift Europa and we shall lift America with yellow.
They all look up to us. Every single one of them. Even the devil himself looks up to light. So rise in confidence you liberalism of mankind.
Editorial Copyrights Trustnodes.com