6 min readApr 8, 2019

Capturing the meme

In modern parlance the term “denier” as a denigration was first used by those (often antisemitic or anti-zionist not always overlapping) who wished to label those who denied the horrors of the Holocaust that occurred in German/Axis held territories during WW2. This denial could be in the event in its totality or merely to be skeptical about the numbers that have been reported. It was an effective meme to (rightly) label those who did deny such events as an easy way to make them social pariahs.

This meme has also been successfully migrated into evangelical left circles to be used to create pariah status for ANYONE that cast doubts on any aspect of the anthropomorphic global warming theocratic dogma. Those who attempt to engage in debate, correct or not, are immediately branded “climate denier” and debate is shut down.

I don't believe in the suppression of speech or debate and conversely believe that Bitcoin is only made stronger through such debate. I do however recognize the power of the meme and much of Bitcoin’s early success was the 0melding of economics/tech with successful memes.

What Is a Bitcoin Denier?

A Bitcoin Denier at their most basic is someone who denies the economic superiority over current or historical forms money that is inherent in Bitcoin.

Deniers can meet one or any of these criteria in their attack on the efficacy of Bitcoin as a monetary system.

  1. Disbelief in “Hard Money”.

2) Central Banks are a “net positive” to the economy and society (adherence to Keynesian/MMT style theories).

3)Centralized systems are superior to decentralized ones (decentralized systems upset the superior order).

4)“Dark” money is inherently dangerous (If you don’t have anything to hide you have nothing to fear)

A common thread among every Bitcoin Denier is one that strongly adheres to the concept of the need for central authority in society and life (although interestingly most if not all would reject spiritual authority in any aspect of societal life). This belief in coercion as a tool of good in society provides the basis for the need of the state to establish central banking practices and regulations to enforce “good” on society.

The evangelical nature of both the neo-liberal/neo-conservative and Hard Left progressives to rid society and the world of perceived sin is a strong motivating factor in these belief systems. These ideologies all believe in the need for a strong central authority as a tool to engineer society as they see fit. Decentralization or subsidiarity is an evil as it removes power to enact stringent criteria for good to flourish in their eyes.

A central bank is critical for any authoritarian ideology as with every change in society that a group wants to impose it requires money to accomplish. Whether its hiring more cops and bureaucrats to enforce new rules and punish those who don't comply or its simple overt bribes involving tax credits and subsidies to “encourage” the correct moral behavior.

Hard money imposes restrictions on these impulses of the evangelical as it creates a wall of “no” to the full extent of an idea where a paper printing central bank can offer a short term “yes”

With control of a “democratic” society the usual outlets for individuals in that society to voice their opposition is usually in the form of voting via ballot, feet or money. Voting via ballot does have some effect as we did see discontent manifested by non coastal states in the 2016 election. Regardless of your feelings on the outcome it was not an outcome that resulted from feelings of contentment with the post recession America. More often than not that outlet is carefully crafted to allow for “outrage” to be funneled into establishment approved “outsiders”.

Voting via your feet (aka moving) is a tried and true method as a steady stream of people are constantly moving from California, New York, etc. into states that seem to embody the opposite of their ideals (1980’s Colorado, Arizona, etc). The issue with voting with your feet is that most people will move only as far as is necessary to slightly improve their well-being and never out of the larger federal state itself (as if there were better options worldwide anyways). As states become more and more homogeneous with the larger nation state and less independent as they have in the past, moving becomes somewhat mute.

Voting with your money is the most true method of enacting change in a free market (and yes I know we don't have one). Consumers are able to pick the winners and losers of products and services vying for their attention and money. In terms of political change, voting with your money is probably the most effective thing you can do. “Dark Money” is extremely effective in choking out totalitarian states effectiveness and war chests. In North Korea, the worlds foremost example of total authoritarianism we are seeing the birth of a vibrant free market in “black” form that never existed prior to more modern times. The reasons being are complicated, but the fact it exists and is outside the direct control of the ruling regime means there is an outlet for voting where non existed prior.

Dark Money is always dangerous for those who wish to control. If they don't know who you do business with, what you buy and sell these regimes cannot steal your money directly via taxation on a wage slip or sale. They cannot prove you owe them money because they have no idea it even happened. They must rely on their continue existence via funding that individuals VOTE they are worthy of with voluntary donations.

If you feel it's your purpose in life to rid the world of sin and individuals having money you can't track that means they can sin without you knowing about it. The surveillance of money is much more pervasive than the physical surveillance of cameras or phone tracking. If you have dark money you can purchase items to counter those issues, but if your money is 100% tracked you cannot. Dark Money is always a danger to authoritarians and always and fulcrum of freedom for the individual.

Why is Bitcoin a danger?

Bitcoin offers a path that empowers the individual. You can choose to hold your wealth yourself, with your private keys in your wallet. You can choose to conduct commerce with whoever you want when you want. There is no VISA or MasterCard that can shut down payment processing because activists pressure them to based on a company or individuals political beliefs. There is no list that can be imposed on the Bitcoin network to stop funding to a specific wallet.

Bitcoin requires consent and voluntary interactions to function. That is why it is dangerous and that is why Bitcoin Deniers must resort to making moral and ethical arguments to discredit it. They don't say it doesn't work or it will be hacked or that it will steal money from your wallet.








You have to understand that the mind of the Denier is one that is ideologically driven the same as our own is. We place the rights of the individual and voluntary interactions based on mutual agreement as the greater good. They place the “collective” whether its “society” or “the globe” as the greater good and no moral wrong that is conducted against the individual is “wrong” because in the macro of “society” it becomes a “good”.

They believe they are right as strongly as we believe we are. This is not an economic argument or a technical one. It's a moral and philosophical battle.