Exposing Simon Dixon's Double Standards: Beneath the Mask of a Sovereign Individual presents himself as a champion against elites, a Bitcoin defender through self-custody, and an anti-imperialist urging everyone to "follow the money." But when you dig deeper into his views, what emerges is a web of contradictions: principles of freedom applied selectively, with criticism driven by personal and religious biases. 1. Selective History in Geopolitics: He passionately condemns Zionism as colonialism marked by displacement, genocide, and apartheid, framing Israel as a proxy for American military-industrial imperialism. At the same time, he completely overlooks similar historical actions by Arabs and Muslims—from the 7th-century conquests (seizing the Levant and Palestine "by right of the conqueror") to Ottoman expansion, which involved cultural shifts and subjugation. He rails against Western or Zionist empires but stays silent on Muslim ones. This isn't genuine anti-imperialism; it's biased selectivity with an anti-Western and pro-Islamic tilt. A real libertarian would reject all conquests equally as violations of individual rights. 2. One-Sided View of Islam: Dixon portrays Islam as a personal path of peace, tolerance, and resisting oppression (quoting verses like "no compulsion in religion" and limiting jihad to self-defense). Yet he never mentions the dhimmi system—the institutionalized subjugation of non-Muslims in Islamic societies: jizya tax for "protection," restrictions on bearing arms, building new places of worship, equal court testimony, or criticizing Islam. This creates a clear hierarchy where non-Muslims are second-class citizens, involving economic and social coercion that's incompatible with true equality and non-aggression. By glossing over this, Dixon romanticizes Muslim history as "harmonious," implicitly justifying domination. As a Muslim, his drive comes from a religious sense of duty to "serve humanity," but it makes his anti-oppression stance selective—freedom only on his terms. 2. Fixation on Saylor and Dictating the "Right" Way to Bitcoin: Day after day in posts, podcasts, and videos, he accuses of serving elites, centralizing Bitcoin via debt, and sabotaging the revolution (custody vs. self-custody). He claims $MSTR is a tool for price manipulation through FUD and potential forced sales. But on a free market, a sovereign individual should be free to handle their capital any way they choose—whether through leveraged treasuries, ETFs, or derivatives. The risks are theirs alone. Dixon doesn't just highlight dangers (which could be helpful); he passes moral judgment and prescribes the "one true path" (self-custody only). His manipulation theory falls apart under scrutiny: $MSTR shares drop in response to BTC stagnation, not the reverse—the market naturally punishes leverage. This obsession comes across as fixation, perhaps psychological or tied to promoting his own agenda/business. Conclusions: Behind the "follow the money" mantra lies not objective insight but a subjective ideology—anti-Western, pro-Islamic, laced with collectivist tendencies. Dixon excuses historical hierarchies (like dhimmi), condemns others' choices, and pushes a "revolution" where freedom is reserved for those who align with his vision. He's valuable for pointing out risks in centralization and leverage, but his stance isn't libertarianism—it's propaganda riddled with double standards. True freedom means no one dictates your choices: how to hold BTC, whom to criticize, or which history to focus on. No one owes the "revolution" anything against their will. Always test these gurus for consistency—otherwise, their "truth" is just a disguise for control. #Bitcoin #Libertarianism

My father

ENDdependence

...and not limited in time...

My node is my property. I have the right to harm anyone who spams it. Claire Ostrom's proposal isn't confiscation, but a warning shot followed by lethal force. The scoundrel should pay me for spamming, not the miners. Pay me if you dare :) #bitcoin #bitcoin_knots

“If I put $100 in #Bitcoin in 2010 I’d have $2.8B now.” No. If you bought $100 of Bitcoin in 2010 and watched it go to: $1k → $100k → $1.7M and did nothing Then watched $1.7M go to $170k and still did nothing Then watched $170k go to $110M and still did nothing Then watched $110M wither to $18M and still did nothing Then watched $18M surge to $390M and still did nothing Then watched $390M deteriorate to $85M Then watched $85M climb to $1.6B and still did nothing Then watched $1.6B shrink to $390M and still did nothing Then watched $390M surge to $2.8B and then for some reason finally decided to do something… Then yes, $100 in 2010 would be worth $2.8B today. Vivek Sen

"Only the tiniest fraction of mankind want freedom. All the rest want someone to tell them they are free." — Irving Layton