Silicon Valley investor breaks down what you need to know about Bitcoin

While in San Francisco last week, Glenn met with Naval Ravikant, co-founder AngelList, a platform for start-ups to connect with potential investors and recruit talent. Naval's at the heart of Silicon Valley, and has invested in Uber, Twitter, Postmates, and more. Glenn wants to bring the stories of future technology being developed in Silicon Valley to people all over the country, so he made sure to talk to Naval about one of the biggest tech inventions people need to know: Bitcoin and Blockchain.

Glenn: Talk to me a little bit about Blockchain. We’ve had a conversation in the past about how right now if you go across the border, are you carrying $10,000 in cash?

Naval: You can carry it in your head. So, what Bitcoin does is Bitcoin essentially says that money and speech are the same thing. Let me give you an example. A Swiss bank account, if I know the number and I know the password to that, that is money. That is as good as money, and I can cross borders with it. So, they obviously can’t stop you from crossing the border with money if you have a bank account somewhere remotely.

Think of Bitcoin as a bank account in the cloud, and it’s completely decentralized, not the Swiss government, not the American government. It’s all the participants in the network enforcing. So, the ledger, the distributed database, it’s called a Blockchain, is held in the cloud by all the parties involved. It can be broken by any of them. It’s cryptographically too strong. You would have to compromise the entire network to take over Bitcoin. Not even the NSA can do it, and the value of the Bitcoin is a bounty on the Bitcoin.

So, if the value of all the Bitcoin in the world today is $5 billion, that’s a $5 billion bounty. Any hacker who can go break that, can collect a lot of that money, but they can’t, so it shows you how strong it is. Even the NSA couldn’t break the Blockchain today…I don’t think so. But because of that, that means that Bitcoin is protected. The value is protected. The money is protected. But notice what I said at the beginning, money is speech. That means that speech is protected. That means I can publish things into Bitcoin that no one can take away. I can publish WikiLeaks, for example, tracks of information into there that are irrevocable.

Explain that. Slow down. Explain that.

Blockchain is a giant database. That database has a $5 billion bounty on it which is the value of all the Bitcoin.

So, that’s basically a $5 billion reward. Hack me, and you’ve got $5 billion.

Correct, or something close to it. You may not get it all out, but an approximation, that’s a reasonable assumption.

I’ll take half a billion.

Sure. So, that’s the bounty that protects the Blockchain, and the Blockchain is a distributed database and with an infinitesimal amount of Bitcoin, I can write anything into that database. I think long-term, Bitcoin is a currency of the Internet. So, even if humans don’t use it, routers will use it. Web browsers will use it. Web servers will use it.

So, let me bring this to the real world.

Machines will use it.

Sony would use this for all of the contracts to be able to stop what happened to them.

Sony would use Bitcoin grade encryption, so Bitcoin advances encryption. You and I may use Bitcoin for a transaction to lock our contract or our money into the cloud. Someone in China may use it for speech. They might use it to get a message out to the rest of the world anonymously in a way that it cannot be pulled back. So, China may censor YouTube. China may censor Twitter. They won’t be able to censor Bitcoin. There’s no central authority. There’s no one you can go to and say we’re going to turn Bitcoin off. Turning Bitcoin off is the same as turning the Internet off, so the moment the Internet became truly pervasive, it was inevitable that speech would become pervasive.

Why are there such, I mean, other than the obvious—

The great firewall of China will fall.

That’s amazing.

In our lifetimes.

Why is there such pushback on Bitcoin, other than it disrupts everything?

It disrupts everything. If it works, it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. Even if it doesn’t work as advertised, it may still enable free speech and anonymous speech to a level that large states, totalitarian states, would be uncomfortable with.

So, in other words, with the Blockchain, somebody in North Korea can tell us what’s happening in the prison camps, and they can show us the videos and the pictures, and it can’t be traced back.

Well, they’d have to be careful about it, but if they’re careful about it, it can’t be traced. It can’t be pulled back. It can’t be stopped. You can’t turn off Bitcoin without turning off the Internet. That’s how it’s designed. People forget what the Internet did was it connected every human to every human, and so because of that, it reduced the power of the elites. It reduced the power of mass media. It reduced the power of controlled media. No one can control the message anymore.


Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil


Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.