TFTC: A Bitcoin Podcast - #690: Why Billionaires Shouldn't Give It All Away with Johann Kurtz

Episode Date: December 6, 2025

Marty sits down with Johann Kurtz to discuss the cultural shift away from intergenerational wealth transfer, the moral framework of duty that once guided wealthy Westerners, and why building a lasting family legacy matters more than giving it all to charity. Johann on Twitter: https://x.com/JohannKurtz Johann on Substack: https://substack.com/@becomingnoble Leaving a Legacy: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0G2CK4M59 STACK SATS hat: https://tftcmerch.io/ Our newsletter: https://www.tftc.io/bitcoin-brief/ TFTC Elite (Ad-free & Discord): https://www.tftc.io/#/portal/signup/ Discord: https://discord.gg/VJ2dABShBz Opportunity Cost Extension: https://www.opportunitycost.app/ Shoutout to our sponsors: Bitkey https://bit.ly/TFTCBitkey20 Unchained https://unchained.com/tftc/ Obscura https://obscura.net/ SLNT https://slnt.com/tftc CrowdHealth https://www.joincrowdhealth.com/tftc Salt of the Earth: [https://drinksote.com/tftc](https://drinksote.com/) Join the TFTC Movement: Main YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TFTC21/videos Clips YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUQcW3jxfQfEUS8kqR5pJtQ Website https://tftc.io/ Newsletter [tftc.io/bitcoin-brief/](http://tftc.io/bitcoin-brief/) Twitter https://twitter.com/tftc21 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/tftc.io/ Nostr https://primal.net/tftc Follow Marty Bent: Twitter https://twitter.com/martybent Nostr https://primal.net/martybent Newsletter https://tftc.io/martys-bent/ Podcast https://www.tftc.io/tag/podcasts/

you've had a dynamic where money's become freer than free if you talk about a fed just gone nuts all all the central banks going nuts so it's all acting like safe haven i believe that in a world where central bankers are tripping over themselves to devalue their currency bitcoin wins in the world of fiat currencies bitcoin is the victor i mean that's part of the bull case for Bitcoin. If you're not paying attention, you probably should be. Johan Kurtz, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for having me. Excited to talk. I am as well. Thanks for those of you who are unaware of Johan's work. He's a Substack best seller, being noble. He just came out with a book, Leaving a Legacy, which I've been reading

through. Over the last week, opened it on Thanksgiving morning, read a few chapters while my children were playing, watching the Thanksgiving Day Parade. And I think it was very apt to be reading this book on that morning, particularly surrounded by my family on a holiday. Beyond, like I was saying before, we hit record. I'm very excited to be speaking with you today because I feel like this conversation will be a continuation of a long-running thread on this show throughout this year, particularly about this clash of the generations that we're seeing in the West, particularly baby boomers, first millennials, Gen Z. It's not even first, but I think it's become very clear that there has been a shift in

society philosophically in terms of how the wealthy older generations view their their duty particularly as it pertains to their kids and how they would pass down wealth and i think the work that you're you're doing and what you have been doing is really highlighting that there is something's off in terms of the societal norms that are beginning to flourish today that are very contra to what built western society over the course of of millennia so i think maybe starting there um is what how would you describe the state of this sort of positioning between the generations right now yeah i think i think we're at a very interesting point and we were discussing before the show that i'm not an expert on bitcoin but perhaps an area of shared

interest is this question of time horizons when it comes to wealth, when it comes to projects, when it comes to vision. And when I started pulling at this thread that became the subject of the book and the sort of central question of the book is, why is it wrong to give your wealth to children upon your death? Sorry, why is it wrong to give your wealth to charity upon your death rather than your own children? And this is in response to a sort of a wide range of celebrity announcements that this is what they plan to do. And also sort of mega rich billionaire announcements that this is what they intended to do. But really, as I started pulling on this thread, I realized that in many ways, we occupy this culture of impermanence now when it comes

to wealth. So it's not just the billionaires or the ultra wealthy celebrities who announced that they're planning to give their wealth away, who lose this intergenerational continuity. In fact, even ones that try to hold onto their wealth actually perform very poorly at that. So there's this very interesting book by Higani and White, The Missing Billionaires, who look at the maths across the 20th century. And if you take the wealthiest cohort at the beginning of the 20th century and you project how that wealth should have grown, if they invested and achieved normal returns, if they reproduced at the normal rate and spent at a sensible rate for someone in that wealth bracket, the thousand wealthiest families then should have turned into 16,000 billionaire families today. But there are only sort of 700. And this speaks to this wider question of why are we so bad at constructing permanent things? Why? And what is the root at the heart of all these weird manifestations of this now impulse where one of the causes of intergenerational resentment that you mentioned, I think, is older generations choosing to spend their wealth down at the end of their life, indulging in very wealthy, very expensive, you know, cruises and things like that. Why do some choose to disinherit their children? How do some lose it in other ways?

And really, there is this culture of impermanence that I think both you and I, from different perspectives, are trying to begin to resolve. And I have my theories as to how this arose, but I think there's a rich discussion to be had there. Well, having read the book, I think the story of King Edward is particularly interesting in the 1930s, fell in love with an American woman while he was king and decided to resign as king and go live a life with his lover. And the way you describe in the book, he basically had an abdication of duty. And it wasn't until after he stepped down from the throne that

he really realized what he was missing out on and the disappointment he brought the country of england specifically because he has completely abandoned his duty and i think that's indicative of what's happening at a at a wider scale here in the west right now it's not only a king sort of releasing himself from his duty and not recognizing the profundity of that but we're beginning to see see that seep into the culture more widely yeah no exactly well i think there are these behaviors, which we sort of assume must come naturally to man and must be inevitable. But it turns out that a lot of those behaviors, a lot of those healthy expressions of societal cohesion are intimately tied to our beliefs, our sort of foundational convictions about

reality. And as those beliefs shift, actually, a lot of the things that we assumed would live forever just start falling apart. You know, in the case of Edward VIII, who is one of the figures in the book who serves of this cautionary tale about divorcing the notion of wealth privilege power from this notion of duty essentially um it's it all starts very early so so there's this notion that a king should never get divorced marry divorcee they're subject to these actually incredible impositions on their personal freedom which is the other side of the coin to being such wealthy influential figures

in society you know to whom to he whom much has been given much will be demanded and as they lost faith in their own belief system they started to undermine their own position their own credibility in society so you know edward the eighth was committing adultery with uh the woman who he went on to to marry um uh an american but we won't blame you for that um and uh and as such you know wanting then to remain in his position as king when he wanted to marry her a twice divorced woman who was in fact still married at that point, just became a very messy situation in which the structures that kept society together. And in that case, the institution of the monarchy were clearly at odds with the lived values of the people who inhabited them.

And I think something like that has happened more broadly to all of us. And I think, you know, say what you like about Christianity, and I am a Christian, but at least Christianity gave the wealthy men of the West an entire integrated framework of duty, a way of understanding their place in the world, why they had what they had, how they were morally responsible for their children and, you know, charity and so forth. It was a time-tested framework. And now that an entire class of people has ascended to a position of great wealth, essentially the boomer generation and some of those who came after them um outside the context

of that moral superstructure of of christendom uh if not christianity and you know i'm a bit partial here but if not christianity we do need to form this entire uh coherent philosophy of duty as to the the nature of the affluence we've built like what is its purpose it can't just be creating more and then indulging more because there's this this sort of very unattractive culture of the hedonism of the aged that i think strikes us all as a sort of beneath our elders um that is doing great damage to to society no it really is and it's perplexing as a christian myself uh it trying to get out of the phrases because i was actually reading something this morning uh maybe that we'll just lean into it is um do you think a lot of what we're seeing in terms of

this this hedonism uh this sort of we're going to spend our wealth before we die and if we have more leftover. We're going to give it to charity because we don't want to spoil you kids. You need to work hard. Is the root problem of this issue seeped to the fact that we've fallen away from Christ as a society broadly in the West? Because that's one thing I loved about the book is all the biblical passages you have throughout it that really anchor these sort of core building blocks of of a flourishing society um that are being completely thrown to the wayside these days yeah well i mean it's there's there's this phenomenon that takes place in really all areas of society you can see some reflection of this which is the enlightenment comes and it

challenges as it the sort of enlightenment tenants become popular amongst different areas of society they challenge the the sort of foundations of belief long-held convictions traditions and so forth and in some ways that has incredibly positive effects um you know the the separation of science from kind of natural science where there's all kinds of like dubious philosophical priors um that that are actually inhibiting the evolution of science in some ways there are benefits there in other ways it has i think fairly detrimental effects on society but that is not immediately obvious but because people just have ways of doing things they have certain assumptions they grow up in a cultural milieu that still basically inherits all its traditions

and all its assumptions from from what came before and so the kind of the kind of instability at the very base of society at the very base of existence is not immediately apparent and i think something like that has happened with with property with private property which is that when when jung comes in and sort of establishes this this very formalized notion of private property to oversimplify a complex transition. And, you know, he says, this is mine, that is yours. To intermix those two things, we have to enter into a consensual contract together.

You know, my private property is mine to do what I like with. Nevertheless, people still use their property and assume they had to use their property as Westerners always had. But interestingly, actually, if you look at the philosophy of John Locke as it regards to children and the sovereignty of the individual, he has a lot of trouble integrating this unchosen bond of like children's deference to their parents and parents irrevocable

duty to their children into his framework of sort of what becomes liberalism. But yeah, I mean, I think one's relationship to property is really part of this. The kind of older notion that I refer to in the book is not private property as we now understand it. It's this concept of dominion, which i think is a rather wonderful one which is yes it is licit it is justifiable for some people to have this tremendous wealth and power in society but dominion as as the theologian andrew willard jones uh but it carries with it the burden of rule it's much closer to this notion of of kingship than merely being rich as in you have your wealth for a purpose it comes with demands upon you um and and you know dominion the root word there this is the biblical term that sort

of transforms into our contemporary notion of property through the enlightenment the root word there is is domus it's house like it's a living relationship with what you have and it implies the necessity to nurture the inhabitants of that house be they children or servants or you know even animals it is this living relationship of mutual dependence that the king has with his subjects. And as we transition into private property and it becomes more about, well, I earned that thing and therefore it is mine to use as I please. And the way that it pleases me to use it is, is indulgence. And we sort of lose all natural restraints on the extent to which, you know, people feel ashamed about indulging in themselves. You end up with, with very strange

things. Like there's this book that, that I really don't like, although I think, you know, um well it's it's called die with zero i imagine it's a very popular book i imagine many of your listeners have read it it's by a guy called bill perkins who's a who's a energy trader hedge fund guy and in a way he's trying to grapple with the same root issue which is like we have all this abundance we only have a limited time on this earth what are we trying to do with it what what do we want to accomplish before our days are through and i think that provocation is actually very good like the the instinct at the heart of the book is the right one but he just like without this deep anchoring in philosophy and history and theology and the kind of very

foundations of, of reality, he can't come up with good answers. So he starts talking about these amazing birthday parties he had on a beach in the Caribbean, which gave him memories, which will last forever, which is like, it's great. You had a birthday party and it's great that you had your favorite band come and play with you, but that is not the calling that is, that cannot be the central message of existence of life. Like we have to get back to something more profound to come up with a notion that is compelling enough to get the wealthy older generation to start using their wealth in a more righteous fashion. So freaks, this rip of TFTC was brought to you by our good friends at BitKey.

BitKey makes Bitcoin easy to use and hard to lose. It is a hardware wallet that natively embeds into a two or three multi-sig. You have one key on the hardware wallet, one key on your mobile device, and Block stores a key in the cloud for you. This is an incredible hardware device for your friends and family, or maybe yourself who have Bitcoin on exchanges and have for a long time, but haven't taken a step to self-custody because they're worried about the complications of setting up a private public key pair, securing that seed phrase, setting up a pin, setting up a passphrase. Again, BitKey makes it easy to use, hard to lose. It's the easiest zero to one step,

your first step to self-custody. If you have friends and family on the exchanges who haven't moved it off. Tell them to pick up a big key. Go to bigkey.world. Use the key TFTC20 at checkout for 20% off your order. That's bigkey.world, code TFTC20. What's up, freaks? When you take Bitcoin seriously, you start with custody. You want to control your keys, avoid single points of failure, and make sure your savings cannot disappear because you or someone else screwed up. That is what Unchained has been focused on since 2016. Unchained is the leader in collaborative multi-sig custody and Bitcoin financial services that keep you in control. They secure over $12 billion dollars in bitcoin for more than 12 000 clients that means about one out of every 200

bitcoin sits inside an unchained vault their model is simple you hold two keys they hold one key and it always takes two keys to move bitcoin meaning their single key can't access your bitcoin on its own just resilient shared custody that gives you institutional grade security while keeping you sovereign unchained also lets you trade straight from your vault access bitcoin back commercial loans open a bitcoin ira where you hold your own keys and set up personal business trust or retirement vaults they even offer inheritance solutions built for long-term hodlers or opt for the highest level private client service with unchained signature and get a dedicated account manager discounted trading fees exclusive access to events and features and much much more

if you want a partner that helps you secure and grow your bitcoin without giving up control go to unchained.com and use the code tftc10 at checkout to get 10 off your new bitcoin multi-sig vault that's tftc10 at unchained.com it seems like the the older wealthy of today they like these ephemeral experiences it's it's you'll have those memories forever but you'll have them and they're ephemeral for not only you if we're zooming out and putting your your life on a longer time scale but for society at large and you talk about the concept of dominion in the beginning of the book too which i think is important to dive into you really dissect what the bible meant by the concept of neighbor too and talk about the story of the good samaritan and i think that's

another thing that's been lost and if you look at the nuval rich of of today particularly in the tech sector um really trying to give all their wealth to these international charities as possible they're really losing sight of what's most important which is having a dominion and loving your neighbor which is somebody living within that dominion and there's just this whole trend of thinking that you can save the world by giving all your money to charities that are completely disconnected from your local dominion yeah and when you refuse to recognize this so the core question here is is what's called partiality in philosophy it's can it ever be defensible to to preference those to give especially to those who are close to me

either relationally or geographically, just because they're close. In other words, if I have five pounds, can I ever defend giving it to my son as opposed to giving it to someone who's starving in Africa? And I'm convinced the answer is yes. And it's funny when you start, and I can explain that, but when you start ignoring that principle, you very quickly run into these crazy paradoxes, which I think are at the heart of why America is suffering, Britain is suffering right now. You know, there's this famous example in effective altruism. I think it was Peter Singer other put this forward, but it might've been another philosopher. But the essential question is the provocation is if I'm walking by a river and I'm wearing a very expensive coat and I notice

a child drowning in that river. And if I climb into the river, I will ruin that jacket and therefore destroy its resale value. But I do manage to sell the one child, save the one child. is that preferable to going to the nearest shop selling the jacket sending the money by an effective altruist charity to africa uh where it could save 10 children and some of the people in the effective altruism movement because they've lost this moral foundation of partiality their answer to that question is actually yes and they they present this as some kind of like uh checkmate against anyone who wants to who thinks of themselves as like a patriot or thinks of themselves as someone who's rooted in a particular community which is they try to expose

hypocrisy using this example like it's essentially always preferable to earn as much money as possible to send that money to africa i think actually when you start dissolving the we can we can go into the the richer theological and and philosophical version of this if you're interested if you like um but the core question here is one of love like if you walk past a child and you don't save them and you instead turn to this cold rational calculation about you know effect maximalization you've lost love and it's it's really love for those around us love for those in our family love for those in our community and our nation that is the fundamental animating principle in the very bonds of society and of selflessness at all and if you yes it is true

that in this instance if you sold your coat you might save 10 children's lives and who knows what circumstances they're going to be raised in you have nothing to do with them you'll never meet them but as soon as you sever that that sort of animating principle of love it is only a matter of time before everything falls apart and i think that's what you're seeing now which is like this trend of of the kind of oligarchs distancing themselves from actual rooted communities living in societies as as the kind of kings that they should be like actually personally responsible for networks of of less well-off people around them you know talking to them about their problems and so forth instead living in these slightly uh atomized bubbles with increasingly weird ideas

about the right thing to do with their wealth like that question of love and the philosophy theology and and history there is is a very interesting and important one to to explore yeah well let's dive into it because i believe i recall correctly like the biblical etymology of neighbor the greek word agape right like that's really what it seeps in this and there's three types of of love in christianity agape being one of them um but this is i think it's an important topic to dive into like what are the different types of love and particularly why should you love your neighbor and what does that do to help build not only a legacy but a functioning society in the long run yeah it's a great question i mean it's it's kind of this

every so often you come across an assumption that deserves to be challenged and as soon as someone questions it you sort of smack your head and you'll be like oh yeah of course like that's that's an assumption built on a really shaky foundation and everyone the kind of core um there are a few but one of the most important biblical passages on charity is is the parable of the good samaritan which most people are familiar with and that parable tells us to love our neighbor and in common parlance everyone says everyone uses it as if that phrase says something different which is you have to love everyone everywhere the same all the time and that is actually not the same thing at all like we at least should question that the parable of

the Good Samaritan, the word it uses for neighbor is derived from the coin Greek, plesion, which is akin to proximity. It's akin to, it means basically it's a spatial component. It means who you're close to. And the parable of the Good Samaritan, that's actually, that theme is integral to the entire parable. It is someone who meets someone else, who has an encounter with someone else. And as a result, inherits these diverse responsibilities for their well-being because of that personal encounter. So it's not about a financial transaction. Money is a small element of it later on when he pays the innkeeper to look after him before returning to the destitute man. But he pours oil and wine on the man's injuries. He puts him on his own donkey. He personally takes

him to the innkeeper. In other words, again, there's this relational component. And that, of course, is integral, not just to the word neighbor, but to the word charity. Charity is derived from the Latin caritas, which is in turn exactly as you say, derived from the biblical Greek agape, which is this higher expression of love. And so again, you sort of discover when you start probing into these terms that are at the very root of our thought, people operate on these very shaky foundations to justify these grand projects, these philanthropic projects of foundations which they present as obviously moral good and and everyone you i mean i probably you and many of your listeners look at some of these foundations and you think like you have this

instinctive negative reaction like there is something that is really off about what they're doing but because of the compute the confused term of the the language and therefore that kind of poisons the philosophy that that builds off language you're kind of robbed of any moral language to to question or or criticize those activities short of like obvious conspiracy theories or just like obvious misdoing but some of which exist of course and i go into some of that in the book but more than that the like actual foundations of the project is is pretty questionable well this whole concept of locality i mean it's applicable to a number of things not only your duty to your neighbor another human being but in the context of this neglect of

duty to build legacy over your dominion within a dominion i think another place in which it manifests is the physical architecture it's something we've we've covered over the years here is is urbanism and how the physical environment sort of affects your mentality And I think pulling on the thread of loving your neighbor, like I think it highlights the importance of really focusing on a locality for your neighbor. It's like, hey, you have to live with this person and these people and you should make sure that they're taken care of and living good lives and aspire to be something greater. And that manifests in the architecture as well to an extent where if you basically abdicate yourself of any duty to build long-lasting, aesthetically beautiful and sound architecture that's inspiring and makes people feel good to live in a certain place, it's not going to be conducive for a productive society either. yeah architecture is this wonderful sort of canary in the coal mine that something is really wrong really sick at the heart of our society which is just that like most cities now are so spiritually

innovating like you walk around and you're just confronted with a sense of ugliness of cheapness that you are in some sense being treated like a completely dispensable cog in a machine that can just inhabit any old thing that's as cheap as possible to erect. And it's getting to the heart of why that has happened is so interesting and so important. And I think it pulls in a lot of related themes here. I think my most basic observation is anyone that builds in that way does not have a conviction that their family will be inhabiting the same spot next to that building for generations to come. In other words, the most beautiful buildings in the UK tend to be the great aristocratic estates, which Britain is famous for, the lovely country houses,

precisely because they were constructed as a recognition of the dignity of the estate that was handed to the builders and the fact that the builders' future generations would inhabit the same spot. But why, if you're not tied to the land in some way, if you're just a floating entity that could live anywhere in the country or internationally, why would you bother to invest in something heavy and beautiful and lasting, something that sort of speaks of the timelessness of values, which I think is this other thing I've written about this elsewhere. If you look at the great architectural marvels of the West, to give an example, the Cluny abbey which is very very famous and influential uh abbey in france that influenced a lot of

cathedral design monastic design across europe in in the 10th century uh and was really one of the reasons that europe looks like it like it looks that the land the duke of aquitaine who commissioned that he spoke of wanting to transform his temporal goods into something lasting like he had this notion that his beliefs connected him with eternity but not just looking forwards in time it wasn't a sort of progressive vision of the world it was an eternal vision of the world in both directions like that which has always been beautiful and that which always will be beautiful it was this kind of um the statement of values interwoven into the physical world through this commission and the sense of the permanence of morality and the human condition

and man's struggles and the need for beauty is this kind of this kind of breakthrough into something into something transcendent and without those values without you know the kind of like tension between the solidity of existence and place and rootedness and belief in the higher world that you can manifest uh through the creation of beautiful things the kind of ethics of aesthetics and and value belief it's very difficult to build beautiful things and even like if you think about the way most people build companies now they build them to sell them so there's no conviction that like a corporate building will be in your family's possession 30 years from now so again why invest in it as something beautiful the best thing to do

is to build it as cheaply as possible so that your company has the you know the best uh uh you know balance sheet possible can therefore be sold for the maximal sales number and then your family can move somewhere else and who cares about the people who have to inhabit that building because you have no personal connection sorry i keep knocking the microphone you have no personal connection to them no moral responsibility to them over and above providing jobs precisely because you've lost this agape the sense of love for a neighbor so i think it's i think it's all deeply interlinked here but i i like you i just lament the built environment that we live in now i think i think it's one of the great sadnesses of our time that really is that's why i feel

fortune i recently moved back to the philadelphia area which certainly has its uh areas where it's lacking in beautiful aesthetics but we're we're spoiled with quality builds throughout the city particularly in the part that i'm living in right now it is and it's truly inspiring driving driving around i was driving back from dropping the the boys off at school today and i always take the scenic route on the way home because there's beautiful stone homes and it is inspiring it makes you really think like wow this is something worth preserving and something i hope i can contribute to what's up freaks this rep is brought to you by good friends at silent silent creates everyday fair day gear that protects your hardware we're in bitcoin we have a lot of hardware that

we need to secure your wallet emits signals that can leave you vulnerable you want to pick up silence gear put your hardware in that i have a tap signer right here i got the silent card holder, replaced my wallet. I was using Ridge wallet because it secured against RFID signal jacking. Silent, the card holder does the same thing. It's much sleeker, fits in my pocket much easier. I also have the Faraday phone sleeve, which you can put a hardware wallet in. We're actually using it for our keys at the house too. There's been a lot of robberies. They have essential Faraday slings, Faraday backpacks. It's a Bitcoin company. They're running on a Bitcoin standard. They have a Bitcoin treasury. They accept Bitcoin via strike. So go to slnt.com

slash TFTC to get 15% off anything, or simply just use the code TFTC when shopping at slnt.com. Patented technology, special operations approved. It has free shipping as well. So go check it out. Sup freaks, healthcare open enrollment has started. It will roll through the end of January. Opt out of traditional health insurance, which doesn't care about you. It's impersonal. It's expensive. They deny an increasing amount of claims. Premiums are going up. You don't have to live this way. You can opt out. I opted out four years ago and joined CrowdHealth. I've been a CrowdHealth member, a very happy CrowdHealth member for four years. I've had two children, a couple of health events in that time period and crowd health has been there you pay a monthly fee

you contribute to the crowd we were paying eighteen hundred dollars on cobra as a family of three now we're paying around nine hundred dollars a month as a family of five and that's with crowd health and direct primary care you can opt out of health insurance go to join crowd health.com slash tftc you're going to get ninety nine dollars a month for the first three months if you use the code tftc join crowd health.com slash tftc i mean on the point of business building too. There's, I think there's a great example of the book of a dynastic American family that made a very poor decision. Maybe we can jump into this topic of the importance of an individual family, particularly leaders of a family controlling the wealth and controlling what happens with your

money as you pass it on and you tell the horror story of the ford family and the henry ford foundation that um they were sort of forced to start because of a new tax policy but over time slowly but surely gave up control at the board level and that foundation turned into something that is that would be unrecognizable to henry ford and his sons today yeah no exactly Exactly. One of the central contentions of the book, one of the central sort of philosophical arguments as to why dynasty is necessary, is that there are certain projects, the kind of projects that built the West and our most beautiful buildings, cathedrals and so forth, which are necessarily intergenerational in nature. They take a long time, great resources and careful stewardship of a chain of custodians with the same transcendent values to achieve. The Ford Foundation is a good example of what happens when you commit to a seemingly benign endeavor in the most massive way, assuming that good effects will result, but you lose that sort of virtuous family at the heart of the whole thing. So the Ford Foundation, essentially what happens is Edsel, Henry Ford, the elder, are confronted with the Roosevelt administration tax policy that you mentioned, which demands 70% of large inheritances.

they're then presented with this very difficult situation because they risk losing literally everything in that they have their fortune yes but they also treasure i think quite rightly control over the ford motor company this incredibly important institution in america at that time which bears their name and which which is really transforming the world and the experience of american life and they want to continue in that legacy and if they have to sell 70 of their estate they lose the controlling factor in that. So what they decide to do is they decide to give away 70% of their estate preemptively as a tax exemption and retain basically only the controlling shares, the voting shares

and the Ford Motor Company and some other assets. But what they think is, okay, there is a way of doing this that allows us to sort of retain power, charitable control over what we're giving away at least. And that's the motivation for setting up a foundation with their name on it. So they can't spend this money on themselves anymore, but at least they can sort of control how good is done in the world. Henry Ford II becomes the chairman of that upon the death of Edsel and Henry Ford the Elder, and he becomes quite literally one of the most powerful men in the world. Ford Foundation is the largest foundation in the world, immensely wealthy and powerful. Henry Ford II is a very wealthy and powerful person in his own right with his personal fortune.

And the only other people on the board of the Ford Foundation are men who are employed by Henry Ford, essentially, the Ford Motor Company employees. And the future seems bright. But then what happens is, is Henry Ford II starts doubting the importance of continual family control of this chain of custodians with a family legacy, with a name, with values in common. And he becomes persuaded that he has to democratize control of this foundation as a result. And to cut a very long story short, what happens is the board grows, different people with different values, many of which conflict, enter the board. And essentially, Henry Ford II loses control of the Ford Foundation, and the Ford Foundation becomes what Dwight MacDonald, the historian, described as a great pile of money surrounded by people who want some. It just becomes this kind of like totally unmoored, but massively powerful due to its wealth factor in society. And it just, it starts finding completely contradictory things, many of which, I mean, I, and I imagine you would just view as like morally reprehensible. There's Douglas Ensminger in the 70s establishes this massive sterilization infrastructure in India, elsewhere, which becomes made mandatory by Indira Gandhi's regime. So there's a sterilization of literally millions of men a year using the infrastructure set up by the Ford Foundation. This kind of weird eugenics, completely false theory about the so-called population bomb, which gripped the world, this kind of Malthusianism, which gripped the world in the 70s.

there's there's loads of other weird stuff they do i mean ns lions who's a who's a prominent substacker um and and a very intelligent guy did this investigation a few years ago and there's this huge amount of money going to defunding the police department in minneapolis going to uh building grassroots muslim power going to building a esg system with chinese characteristics all this just weird stuff and that is totally like all of this is essentially political stuff it's governance stuff uh but it's totally unaccountable to anyone it's unelected it's it's like they don't the gates foundation for example doesn't accept any proposals uh to them they have to like handpick the people who they're going to make donations to to go on

projects so it's like totally inscrutable totally out of control but massively powerful and i think basically whatever your politics that's just such an unhealthy influence on on society so my conviction is um that yeah i mean you you need this this kind of dynastic control this careful set of of uh stewardship responsibilities intergenerational values and you really need a conviction about what you're trying to achieve which i think is is really the key thing that's that's lacking here well it's also indicative of what happens when you when you sort of neglect dominion right because another consequence of this is i think at least partly consequence of this was the degradation of detroit which obviously the ford family helped build up

and once they ceased control of the board of the ford foundation that's when it began going out and doing these these things outside of the dominion of detroit michigan and detroit is now completely hollowed out. Yeah, quite so. Yeah. I mean, the Ford family, say what you like about Henry Ford, the elder, and I'm sure people have their issues with him, possibly justifiably, but he was loyal to his city. I mean, he built the Henry Ford Hospital, he bought Dearborn Village, he hired a huge number of different communities, including African-American communities at strong wages over and above what he had to pay. And indeed, often when he didn't have good work for them to get these communities like Inkster through the depression. And there was

that sense of stewardship there, a relationship between a man and his city. And I'm not going to present myself as an authority on what happened to Detroit because I know it's complex. There's an interesting dimension of this that's covered in the book Strong Towns, which is very good as well, which is about the financialization of the infrastructure. But a lot of it has to do with this complete divorce of people and wealth from sense of place, like the globalization of the market, reduced tariffs, but also like when wealthy families stop viewing themselves as rooted in a particular community whose generations are intimately tied to the future of that community and who have to live in the center of that community, then you get these security

issues. I mean, imagine if there was a family worth whatever the Ford family would be worth today, tens of billions of pounds, who had to live in the center of Detroit and was responsible for the security situation there. And the security situation, once that goes, just means that you get tremendous flight of all kinds of productive communities, businesses, and so forth. And it just massively accelerates the process. Charles Murray has a good book about this coming apart, which is like all the kind of intractable problems that come when you move from this model where the elites are dispersed throughout the country each bringing elite competence and resources to bear against the problems of a diverse array of communities to just concentration and you

know martha's vineyard and a few other places in in in the community and then they can get away with the most ridiculous luxury beliefs because they're totally insulated from all of the consequences of those beliefs and the rest of the country is kind of left to rot so yeah no i i think you're absolutely right to to to call out that what happened to to detroit was just this travesty yeah strong towns another great book make sure you read it chuck marona that that was another book that really opened my eyes and i think if you're looking for a sort of playbook on how to build a strong town particularly if you are somebody with a lot of wealth who would like to bring back some of these core concepts um and build a legacy that's definitely a must read but

on this subject of building a legacy i think um one concept that you touch on in the book that people uh have a natural aversion to is the concept of nepotism and you make the case for for why it's good why is why is nepotism good so that's a great question um one thing one One thing that I really encourage people to do is not to reason about claims, like, like to reason about the most important issues in their life, using these terms that they only tenuously understand and that have this uncertain history that have all kinds of like hostile claims smuggled into them. And then without that, that sort of deep reflection on what they're actually saying and believe

make these very consequential decisions. so like nepotism i let's say everyone uses that term they throw it around right like oh so-and-so is a nepo baby and that's this incredibly personal slight but why should that be so i mean like acting has always been a family business right 100 years ago two three four five hundred years ago these these particular domains these cultural domains are always family businesses uh and and business families have this unique capacity to to to bring forth genius in their children like if you go and and look at the great geniuses of history and perhaps unfortunately many of the most contemporary examples are like sporting stars many of them were raised in the

context of a family business of being raised from a young age to achieve tremendous things and being raised amongst other people who are excellent in that domain this is actually the theory of of a hungarian figure who's interesting called laszlo polgar who was the father of judith polgar who's by far the strongest female chess player to ever live and whose sister zuza was the second strongest uh chess player in the world after uh and and judith was such a strong player she's almost a living refutation of the idea that women can't be, uh, as, as good as the very top men in chess, which is like, she's the only paradox that somewhat brings that, that assertion into, um, into question, which does speak to this conviction of Laszlo that a young specialization

has all these, uh, factors which bring forth excellence. So if we're going to reason about nepotism, we should at least understand what it is because there, there seem to be all these confounding factors. Like family businesses outperform publicly traded companies in the marketplace. Like this is actually a well-established financial phenomenon. You can look at the work of John A. Davis, who's a former professor at Harvard Business School, MIT Sloan School of Management. It is pretty well reflected and well understood that family businesses have these unique advantages like their ultra long time horizon planning, carefully managed and planned succession strategies uh like the fact they have an intrinsic loyalty to the institution that is not simply a

mercenary one that people can count on being with the same institution in 5 10 15 20 50 100 years and so are willing to make sacrificial decisions in the short term that pay off in the long term there's a variety of reasons that so in the face of this observation that like a many of the best sporting players of our age floyd mayweather uh you know max verstappen i give many examples tiger woods williams sisters etc etc you can really go on to like the greatest of all time in pretty much any sport and you'll find that they were raised by a family who played the sport given that this is reflected in sports and business we should really question the idea that like nepotism breeds incompetence and raises ineffectual people to the top

so what actually is nepotism nepotism means something specific and it doesn't mean what the way that almost everyone uses it today nepotism comes from this this very interesting work called Il Nipotismo di Roma, which is the nephews of Rome, but it's a reference to, it's a Gregorio Leti book in the 17th century. It's a reference to this very specific and interesting history, which is this institution called the Pope's nephews. And it's always been in the Catholic church up until quite recently, a tradition to bring in a family member of the Pope, traditionally a nephew to the papal court, because it was understood as a place of intrigue and inherent instability that required someone of absolute loyalty close to you to help you

navigate that court to bring stability in. At a certain point, which had radical ramifications in pretty much every domain of Western life, there was a string of popes who were quite clearly corrupted in their role. And they had illegitimate sons, and they brought them into the church under the pretense that these were pope's nephews. And they basically ransacked the church using this illicit connection. And that was what became nepotism in the English language. In other words, it was a practice of deception, of infiltration of institutions that were intended to be public by private families in order for enrichment of the individual family under a practice of deception. In other words, it's much closer to what we would now term

corruption as in political corruption than it is merely familial preference within a particular industry for one's own children and if you stop and think about it like of course if you have a particular excellence within a particular field it is advantageous to pass on that excellence to your children you have a unique understanding that you have that you can potentially pass on using your incredibly high fidelity high bandwidth relationship to your child you have relationships that it would be a tremendous shame and it would be a universal loss if you didn't pass on. And, and you have, you have, as I argue, this particular moral responsibility to your child and done correctly that echoes outwards as this tremendous advantage to society at large.

And so, and so, yeah, I mean, like nepotism means something specific and there are instances in which corrupting factors conducted under the table can undermine the integrity of a necessary institutional domain, and we should be very cognizant of that. I think quite rightly it's been brought up in, for example, deceptive practices. I think there's a family in the States, obviously this isn't my country, that has basically been applying for loans fraudulently

And I think this is in the motel industry has been using a whole financial infrastructure to enrich their own family under the pretense that this is an objective policy that is suspect. But the basic idea of helping your children into the industry that you are excellent in and trying to ensure that they are also excellent in the industry is like a cornerstone of Western society. Like up until about 1950, that is how literally the entire West was built. Well, this gets back to duty and dives into the topic of how do you actually pass along this knowledge? What should the relationship with your children look like? How do you fulfill your duty of making sure that you have a legacy? Because it just doesn't happen. You need to actually work towards it.

and what are the best practices to make sure that your children understand the the gravity of of what you're passing down to them yeah great question so this was a dimension that i didn't anticipate being an integral part of the book when i started that i thought it would be a philosophical defensive at a conceptual level of dynasty of generational wealth of a stable upper class. But actually what I realized as I went on was that it was actually not possible to defend that proposition if people did not have a framework to pass on stability, virtue, an ambition for greatness in the context of wealth. And that's something that I think we've really lost in our society for reasons I'll go into in a second. So what I did was I went and

looked for the great families of the west who had successfully passed on wealth stably they'd grown it over many generations typically these aristocratic families although they're not exclusively aristocratic families and who had achieved the kinds of things that i argue we need in the book these kind of great projects beautiful architecture artistic patronage cultural sophistication concepts like fair play manners etiquette taste the upholding of the physical and spiritual health of particular communities and there really are examples of that so i tried to distill out of them these principles for raising healthy families uh that are capable of these things and without that if you if you don't have access to a framework like

that i do actually totally understand why people like uh why people feel like disinheriting their children because they're conscious that they simply don't have a methodology to ensure the children raised in the context of wealth that experienced these tremendous wealth events will be able to be virtuous, will find purpose, will find discipline and drive and entrepreneurship. I get it. If the only way you know how to pass those virtues on is by putting someone in this kind of dog-eat-dog competitive marketplace, then that's the only way of ensuring you have hardworking children. And I understand why that's your instinct. However, history shows that that is not necessary. And indeed, if that is the route that you pursue, you can never have these

multi-generational great works, which I argue is a tremendous shame. I think basically what's happened is it used to be that society was naturally set up so that you could pass on wealth to your children without corrupting them. In other words, if you go back to 1819 before in the US, almost every family, 90% of families are agrarian workers, typically working small personally held farms. And when a patriarch passed on his wealth to his children, what he was actually doing was passing them a farm and some other assets, perhaps a house, et cetera. And so, yes, you're passing them on wealth, but this isn't highly liquid wealth. This isn't wealth that it's easy to squander. This is wealth that makes the bonds

of the children. They then have to work that land. They have to use it for its purpose. What happens is in the 20th century, there are these two overwhelming trends, which have healthy upsides, which are why they're accelerated, but which also have these unforeseen downsides. Those two trends are a massively increased class mobility. So you get people who come from quite humble backgrounds to being some of the wealthiest men in history, particularly in the tech sector, but elsewhere as well. And those people don't have the rooted aristocratic practices, which I talk about in the book, the traditions, the ways of raising children in the context of wealth, because they're first generation wealth. They have no contact with

tradition of raising healthy, wealthy Western children. The second thing is this overwhelming trend towards the liquidity of wealth. So it used to be that, yes, even aristocrats were very wealthy, but again, their wealth was bound up in physical estates that they couldn't sell, productive land around the estate that had to be managed if not actively worked, art, which was particular to their family and was therefore not liquid, etc., etc. So they had some liquid wealth, but they were basically inheriting these assets that were tremendously luxurious, but made, again, these great demands of stewardship, of dominion. That all changes in the 20th century. So you can now pass on wealth in entirely liquid assets, as is in fact

now the norm. It's expected that children will sell their parents' house. If they even inherit a house, they might just inherit liquid cash or stocks and shares, which are easy to, and even during a patriarch's lifetime, it's likely if they start a family business, they'll sell it. so it really is essential to to actually ask at a foundational level how can we achieve a level of stability in the midst of all this chaos and uh and i have a few chapters on this um uh and they basically fall into three categories let me sign my uh contents page here so i can accurately describe um the first is is raising children worthy of empires uh that's a that's a chapter name um and the the principles there are essentially how to raise children

in a context where they intensely feel this sense of duty this call to greatness from a young age and that takes on a variety of forms it takes on uh faith and the and the very presence of virtues in their lives it takes on their intensity of their contact with family heroes that the greatest men of the family and civilization that they're particular to who have went on before. It takes on the playing of dangerous games, sports. The aristocracy have always engaged in more dangerous games than the rest, precisely because they need to learn to master self-discipline in the face of risk, of pain, of hardship. That's why the aristocracy have always engaged in this paradoxical relationship where they have the most to lose, and yet they frivolously, it seems, engage in

hunting wars and jousting and combat tournaments and so forth, uh, because it brings out this self-sacrificial, um, relationship with, with difficulty that is necessary. The importance of ritual, uh, which is the assumption of these lived practices, which your forefathers did before you, which your, your generations, which follow you will, will take on themselves. And so it shifts you from this this moment into eternal time and i talk particularly about christmas as this very interesting example of an institution in which all generations are sort of contemporaneous like they all return for one day a year to the same practices the same values the same vision of the world um and and there's there's a lot else i mean i'm not just going to provide you with a huge list

but um tell me tell me where you want to go with that and uh but this was the most fun series of chapters to write just because like researching all these all these strange aristocratic families that had achieved tremendous things was was very fun well how much importance does the extended family come into this because i think of my family i feel very fortunate i come from a large irish catholic family my mom was the youngest of eight and they started this tradition of bringing the whole family down to the beach every summer and we still keep that going to this day where now between myself aunts uncles cousins and now their children uh we've got a pretty big group that never turns to the beach and i like to think this is sort of anchoring us in this ideal of like hey

we're a strong family and this is how we do things yeah i'm not sure um and this is the first time i thought about this so don't take this as a canonical answer i'm not sure it's it's the fact of the size of the family itself that is the important factor there it's the two things that are implied by that large families tend to have a series of values and often transcendent religious beliefs which are motivating the family to to like that they are they are making sacrifices for higher ideals having a large family is a difficult thing uh i've got a few kids myself uh and i've had them since i was quite young and it it i mean it certainly makes your life more challenging it's a wonderful and rewarding experience but but in my in my case and as in the

case of many of my friends um we although we knew it would be inconvenient to have children young before our careers were fully formed we did feel this divine mandate to have children to sort of create new souls to worship god now that might not be your religious conviction but nevertheless it is a common observation that these very large families are motivated by transcendent ideals which they are placing their family at the service of and whenever you do that whenever you have this this transcendent framework that the family is subject to you again build this capacity for stability for greatness of vision um for discipline in the face of temptation. The other thing is that it's a very healthy behavior, and it's the sign of a

well-functioning family when they make an effort to all get together several times a year. It shows that they value family, they value their identity as members of the family, that they place personal investment in the sort of integrity of the family, the honor of the family name, that their self-conception, their identity integration is well-established. and also it's, it's just like a logistic chart, uh, task. Like a lot of people have this inertia when it comes to family, like, yeah, I'll call my dad a few times a year, but it takes a motivated disciplined family to all get together, uh, several times a year, especially to enact these very healthy sort of civilizationally affirming rituals. Like, again, I'm not American, but

I really appreciate the, the, the importance of something like Thanksgiving where the family gets together they inhabit these rituals that every other family in the country shares that their forefathers have before them that hopefully their children will after them and in so doing society and the family attains a solidity and an integration uh metaphysically speaking which which i think is tremendously important yeah it really is and it's it's i mean this dovetails into what i think is one of the biggest problems in society right now particularly in the united states and i imagine in england as well is this delay in family formation which many are attributing to the economic stress that younger generations are under and others would

extend that further and attribute it to the fact that the older generations refuse to throw millennials and generation z a bone financially to help get them on this their feet and again going back to duty it seems like there's a dereliction of duty on the older generations to seed um the continuation of their families for lack of a better phrase there Yeah. No, I think this question of family and society's very ability to reproduce the sort of natalism birthright question is intimately tied up across every generation in different ways to this question of wealth and duty being divorced from each other. um so in some sense well let me let me let me give you an example there's a very important demographer in the in this exact space called lyman stone he's the one of the common sources whenever you see a study on um you know the effects of x and y on birth rates it's often

lyman stone or the institute of family studies which is where he works that is the root of that so he does very important work and i'd encourage people to check him out um it's his conviction and i don't totally share it but it's his conviction that almost all of this is reducible to the fact that fewer people are getting married now that birth rates tend to be downstream from the marriage rate and the marriage rate is but like if you isolate like married couples especially couples who married young they're still having children at a at a relatively high level uh that is broadly representative of our of our forefathers and so actually what is happening is that we're downstream of a relationship recession as it were rather than

a total lack in having interest in having children in and of itself because actually if you poll people the majority although it is going down but the great majority of people still say that they want to have children uh and yet most of them will go on to never have children i think that that's like there are a range of reasons for this but in my opinion a central reason for it is you know it's often lamented now that oh i wish people just had this instinct for marriage like previous generations that like weren't the novels of jane austen so wonderful because there was such a lived sense of romance and people just had this instinct for marriage and stable relationships and so forth but actually if you look at the civilizational practices of those prior generations the whole

of society was making a huge investment in ensuring that institutions were maintained and patronized that got young people together in these stable pairings again and again until they pair bonded. So in Georgian London, which is the context of the novels of Jane Austen, there was this whole marriage circuit. There's what was called the marriage season where all people from the same social class would coalesce around london for three months there would be a specific calendar of events which was maintained and patronized funded by the older generations who would expect their own children to participate and they would make it attractive to do so by you know introducing an element of luxury to these balls to the opera to social

visits to visits to pleasure gardens and so forth and they would you know there was a compact yes the young would be expected to pair bond and to produce marriages and grandchildren to make their parents happy. But at the same time, it was understood that the parents were expected to make a tremendous financial and personal investment in maintaining this infrastructure. And I think it is true that the younger generation, especially, you know, they've lost their faith in the single importance of marriage, taking that oath in front of a community of eternal, you know, commitment to your spouse, they've lost their faith in that. And I think that is, that's a travesty in and of itself. But, you know, for anyone older out there,

I would really encourage you to think carefully about all the ways in which you're not helping your children getting married and having children that you could be, because that is of civilizational importance. Yeah. And I mean, this gets into the effect of tech technology on the interpersonal relationships particularly of younger people because the jane austen scenes that you just described i mean they don't really happen anymore people are literally looking at their phones looking for a partner to potentially pair up with and meet 101 these sort of long-held traditions of i mean here in the united states remember when i lived in the south i went to cotillion you had the debutante balls um you were sort of forced to go learn

etiquette manners and learn how to dance with a girl um and you were expected to go to those classes and then eventually when you get old enough you had the debutante ball um i think that's still alive and well in parts of the south but i think of here up north i guess we have dances and things like that but particularly for children or like later teens early early 20s it seems like those types of events are have been completely replaced with this sort of fast moving dating scene enabled by these these apps which i think are terrible for men and women of this age And again, I don't want to harp on my family too much, but I met my wife. My wife's best friends and my cousin.

My mother and father-in-law are friends of my aunts and uncles. We often joke we're as close to an arranged marriage as you can get. But there was, and we met participating in the tradition of my family going down the shore, going to the beach in the summer. and i think we did have conditions that sort of led us to each other um which are being lost definitely yeah i mean there's there's this there's this odd thing now where it's it's the upper classes who are able to weather the storm best to impart to you know rob henderson who calls this luxury beliefs this idea that they're making very bad social and and ethical decisions, but they're able to insulate themselves from the worst effects of that

by a share of resources. And it's really the people further down the socioeconomic ladder that really feel this the worst. When poor people get divorced or are never married in the first place and have children, whether intentional or not, it creates all kinds of stresses that you just can't escape from. And that becomes a very destructive cycle. But if you actually isolate the top elements of society many of them are still quietly making sure that a lot of that infrastructure is there for their own children there's a very interesting example in france france the kind of it's actually unlike other countries there's an element of the french elite who are quite radically conservative they're not necessarily outspoken about it but unlike in

england where the the wealthy elite are very liberal same in germany same in america largely although obviously there are geographic divides in america the french old aristocracy are still quite conservative and uh pascal emmanuel gobry who's a commentator on twitter and substack who has sort of proximity to this class he wrote he wrote this this essay that i reference in the book on his publication accelerationist about how these people act in private and it's very very interesting they have a system called which is like a calendar of social events carefully happens under the table invite only to introduce their children to each other from quite a young age uh to do dancing cultural activities exactly as you describe etiquette

and still quietly they they recognize the enduring necessity of these institutions but i think you know the whole of society would just be a better place if we if everyone engaged in something like this i mean you know you read bowling alone by robert putnam which is about the social fabric in 1950s america people are going out multiple times a week to social events to civic associations to local you know performances they're just the the social fabric is so intense so interconnected that it's just this incredibly life-affirming existence and you know if you go back into old england there's this whole calendar of festivals fates pranks you know it's this wonderfully colorful intensely social environment that we've really lost um so yeah anything

anything that people of means can do and again it's rooted in a community it's rooted in love it's rooted to personal relationships all of these like that's how you thicken the social fabric around you anything you can be to to not maximum not be maximally sort of transient and ephemeral and that's very poisonous uh so this this question of like rooted patronage patronage becomes uh becomes essential so what are the first steps to get back to this how do we climb out of this morass that society seems to be stuck in right now i you know there's there's there's there's sort of two things two two core themes to the to the book The first is, uh, the first is about raising children who the book is sort of framed in

raising children in the context of wealth to go on to achieve great things. But really it's, it's universally applicable in that we all live in an incredibly material, uh, materially abundant culture now, even if a lot of those material abundances are in kind of cheap and disposable items like TVs and who knows what on the internet and so forth. um and and that brings intense temptation that really it was it was only some members of the upper classes that would have had uh in the past i mean if you think about the temptations of lust now every young man has that in his pocket all the time and young women whereas you know that

kind of like seeming scale of choice would have been available to a very select few members of previous generations the point there is to say that there's actually a lot we can learn all of us can learn from the great families who raised virtuous children in the face of temptation from generations that went before. And some of this is incredibly basic. It's fun, life-affirming stuff. It's not grueling. It's having dinner with your children, talking to them, teaching them values and so forth, which a surprising number of people don't do, including in the nouveau riche, there's this kind of accepted thing of grinding, working super long hours to make as much money as possible to maximize shareholder value.

and uh and you know the glorification of the 6 a.m to to you know 9 p.m grind which is actually very destructive to raising children and you won't be able to pass that wealth on to them if they're not ready to receive it so uh so there's that element of it there's like raising children and then i think i think the second thing is like there's a lot of very wealthy people who i consider to be fundamentally well-intentioned but misled due to this uh slightly pathological uh culture of philanthropy that has arisen and it really does concern this rootedness of community this love of neighbor as a as a proper understanding of charity and the final chapter in the book is like attempting to provide inspiration on all of the ways that you can start

reviving the social fabric of your particular community and family looking at examples from contemporary charity and the great families and men of the west um but i think those two things like children and place are neglected in today's society to our great detriment yeah that's i mean particularly the tech elite and i tweeted this out on thanksgiving i saw that you saw it but that's all i could think of after reading a few chapters that morning was if you look at the tech class the billionaire class there it's a lot of uh childless men who have billions of dollars that are extremely philanthropic no connection to any particular locality and i didn't mention this in the tweet but there's a lot of them are transhumanists it seems like they're trying to

separate themselves from our humanity and it is actually incredibly frightening when you think that the wealthy elite um the upcoming wealthy elite of our age think this way yeah i couldn't agree more yeah it's sort of like one step removed from being um being removed from your community is actually being removed from the very essence of the self you know and attempting to transcend your your mortal existence um and there's a lot i could say about that that that's a that's a whole that's a whole other let's expand on because i think it's important and i hope some of the individuals in this particular class would be introspective about this and it is like i watch you like that brian johnson guy he's trying to live forever

he's doing all these experiments live streaming himself doing five grams of mushrooms like it's some sort of public experiment that people are going to get value out of. It's like, what are you doing? What is the purpose of all this? Well, for me, it's difficult to discuss this subject in a compelling way to people who don't already believe what I believe. And the reason for that is when it comes to morality and this life, fundamentally, I believe what I believe and I act what I act. and I argue what I argue because of the most foundational truth claims that I hold dear about the world. And those are basically theological convictions, faith. And I can

nevertheless go out and I can argue on secular podcasts. I've been on some finance podcasts and so forth with non-Christians quite confidently because I believe in natural law. In other words, I believe that like every aspect of our material reality is in some way reflective of fundamental truths which is why even from the pre-christian cultures you know the culture of aristotle aristotle had so much access to the truth to correct ideas about the good the beautiful and so forth despite not having a christian faith because he was he was an intelligent perceptive contemplative person who looked about and he saw the sort of reflection of the divine in creation itself and was able to reason from there now because of the fact that existence itself sort

of aligns with divine truth you can therefore make these kind of like secular practical arguments with people who don't believe about like why it's right to believe certain things the problem is is that when you start talking about eternity itself like in some sense i believe that it is good to die and even i mean you know god willing should i should i die not in a state of mortal sin it would be a good thing to die like you want to you want to ultimately meet your maker gaze upon the beatific vision in eternity forever more um but it's difficult to argue with someone that believes that like death is it it's the end uh there's nothing after that when it comes to life itself you know and so like that is not to say that there is no discussion to be had

on the subject of transhumanism it's more to say that like the discussion that needs to be had is is a really deep philosophical and theological discussion about the very substrate of existence itself which is difficult to sort of casually transition into i mean you can of course make observations like um it's very unclear to me what good a lot of these people are actually doing in the lives of the people who surround them um but uh but yeah that i mean that's that's a that's a big discussion yeah it's funny well i'm sure you've seen the trend too a lot a few most famously nicole shanahan of the ex-tech wives i think they're beginning to have this realization i mean she very publicly converted to christianity in the last couple of years and more recently i believe

last week was opining on how disappointed she was in herself for thinking that she could change the world through the world economic forum specifically and i do have optimism and hope that we are getting to such an extreme uh polarized part of i guess the pendulum swing of of time where people are beginning to wake up there's there's there's something innate and um intuitive that comes into play when things get off track too much and i feel like we're reaching that point where people are really beginning to become more introspective and think what are we actually doing here is this the right path moving forward which is a good sign in my opinion definitely yeah i mean the the kind of uh devil's bargain of philanthropy is we're not going to take care

of our like personal relationships first and foremost uh because the classic model of like community-centered religious charity is essentially palliative in that it goes to people who are suffering in society and tries to ease their suffering so it typically takes the form of like arms giving to the poor or donations to hospitals or like feeding the needy sheltering you know so it's like taking someone who's suffering and trying to ease their suffering as an expression of love and kindness what philanthropy does is it says actually like we're going to dispense with the theological convictions this comes out of like andrew carnegie the gospel of wealth a whole set of interesting changes um and we're actually going to go to what we perceive to be

the source of these problems because we believe in our fundamental power now that we have these sciences of sociology psychology and so forth uh to actually like alter the fundamental things which are giving rise to suffering in the first place. So we can actually eliminate poverty. It's like a fundamental claim of someone who's a committed philanthropist. The problem there is that once you do that, you are no longer engaging in charity. You're basically engaging in like macroeconomic management, politics, and so forth. And as soon as you make that transition in your mind, you are faced with this tremendous temptation that I think many great men of our age have fallen prey to, which is like, you're like, oh, if I only had a bit more power,

then i could really solve these root issues if only i had a bit more power i could really you know what maybe maybe my foundation's not big enough maybe i should convince other people to donate their billions to my foundation as well and maybe i can partner up with the world economic forum and maybe i can and it just becomes this like it becomes this this centralization of power this this this confluence in their minds of some misconception of charity plus bureaucracy plus very spurious scientism plus uh you know like powerful government centralized institutions actions international action that is like at a certain point you have to stand back and be like oh yeah wait there's actually more people living in absolute there's there's twice as many people

living in absolute poverty in africa as there was in the 90s like what are we doing like people all over america are dying deaths of despair what are we doing like clearly whatever this is is not it's not only spiritually dead it's like materially bankrupt like i'm sure i'm sure you could point to victories right because there's just there's so much effort and so much money going around that i'm sure there are defensible and important lines that some of these foundations have done but fundamentally their model of the world is broken and that's leading to a lot of harm yeah my favorite uh my favorite sort of larp in the uh the realm of us americans we're gonna go save africa i believe it was the actor ashton kutcher ran this big uh malaria net uh drive

They've raised millions of dollars to get malaria nets, I forget in exactly what country, in Africa, and they came to find that they just use the nets as fishing nets and drained part of the area of all their fish. And it highlights, again, if you have this dislocation physically from dominion, and it goes back to central planning more broadly, which is something I like to focus on a lot, particularly as it pertains to monetary economics and the effects of central planning on monetary economics have very perverse negative externalities. No one individual or small group of individuals should be able to control the most important tool, arguably, that we use as humans, which is money, which is the lack of proximity to the actual problems that are hurting everyday Americans, particularly in the middle of the country that cannot be solved by a bunch of people in the Eccles building making minute lever pulls on what the interest rate should be or how much money should be in the system at any given point in time. And similarly with the malaria in that case, it's like you do not know what's actually happening on the ground and the very nuanced variables of the problems that exist and how the introduction of another variable will be received. where ashton kutcher thought like oh they're all just gonna use the malaria nuts to protect themselves from from mosquitoes and it turned out to be a laughable sort of example of the uh the hubris of somebody to think that they could actually know what is needed to solve the problems in that exact locality thousands of yeah i mean my my conviction is like it's not that

we should be ignoring Africa. It's just like, if you feel that's your calling, then move there. And I'm like completely serious about that. I mean, there's, there's someone, um, there's someone who's quoted in the book called Robert Lupton and Robert Lupton is a career charity guy. And I think he's a real hero. And he, he runs this, uh, organization called FCS focused community strategies. And he wrote this expose called toxic charity, which actually looks at the real world effects of these very large philanthropic endeavors and often they cause like complete chaos i mean like the classic model that they all follow is something like uh you know people in uh sudan south sudan need clothes so we're going to ship uh you know 500 tons of clothes into south

sudan and you just wipe out the entire textile industry of south sudan and they never recover from that it's it's just like these silly blunders like that and what robert loughton does is he he actually just moves to whatever community and lives in the middle of whatever community he wants to improve. And he commits to like 10 years. He, yes, he solicits donations. Yes. He deploys financial resources, but never without having a deep and intimate relationship with everyone who is interacting with those resources and their downstream effects. And it's a gradual process. It's a layered nuanced complex process. It's a, it's a process which never divorces cause or effect or shies away from complexity it's iterative and uh and yeah it's just like

where's the spirit of adventure i mean there's always been eccentric westerners who have moved to like remote remote places in the world and and try to achieve great things and i think you know the age of adventure is upon us again so uh so yeah i mean people should do that yeah if you want to solve the problem you got to be close to the problem then i guess just to wrap up i know you mentioned before we hit record you're not really well versed in bitcoin but i do think we both agree that um to achieve some of these legacy goals you need to be able to store wealth and pass it on and i think that's where we align very tightly is this idea that being wealthy is not a bad thing it is virtuous especially if you're bringing good things into the world doing

good things within your dominion and following your duty, living up to your duty to do good in the world and love your neighbor. And I think one of the ways in which that's been corrupted is the fact that it has actually been harder for people to build and more importantly, preserve wealth, to lower their time preference, to think about legacy and improving their dominion. And And that's one thing I truly believe and have witnessed within my own life and observing others who have been in Bitcoin for a while. I think it is possible to use Bitcoin to build wealth and then focus on these legacy questions and really be intentful about it. And I think it's actually one of the biggest parts of the equation is how do you actually preserve that wealth? One of the mechanisms, to your point earlier, the wealth that's passed down these days is in completely liquid assets that are certainly liquid, but they're being continuously debased because we're just printing money and debasing the unit by which we measure wealth more broadly.

And so I think there is a very important role for Bitcoin to play in all this. Yeah, I buy that. I mean, I think two things are in tension. The first is like, to the extent that Bitcoin can protect you from inflationary pressures, where a centralized institution is essentially devaluing your money in order to pursue their own agenda, that could be a very good thing for the empowerment of specific communities, because you actually have sovereignty over your wealth. On the other hand, there is a tension that I see in Bitcoin, which is one's relationship with money can become pathological when one loses sight of the fact that it is ultimately intended to bring about real world goods.

in and of itself money is not a moral quality it's not a moral good in fact it's a source of temptation but lived as a tool to achieve real world effects that do good for the people around you to whom you have a moral responsibility and whom you can uplift and love it's a very powerful tool so um i think like bitcoin is a fascinating endeavor and potentially one that can do a lot of good but but like conviction in bitcoin alone is is possibly not enough it has to be accompanied with a vision of how to transform uh that that asset into real world goods and what those goods should be and why they should exist and so forth so so avoid the sin of i mean this is turning into a sermon i don't mean it to be a sermon but if you know avoid the sin of avarice which is like

obsession with money qua money and like have i think greatness of vision a very invigorating thing is to imagine the things you can actually do in the world to work no i'm very happy you said that i think it's very important because there are many within bitcoin and view it as like um i mean michael saylor most famously i'm gonna buy as much bitcoin as possible and then i'm burning my keys when i die um another childless billionaire um and i and and i completely disagree with that um that view of bitcoin or that perspective on what bitcoin is and what it's meant to achieve i think uh i think it's incredibly important to use it as a tool to do good in the world and so i'm very very happy that you brought that up and uh for our audience

particularly which is filled with a lot of bitcoiners to think about that because it is important um there's many people too focused on the end state of bitcoin's full monetization it's like well you can use it as this that's this tool to do good along the way because who knows how long it will actually take to reach the the full potential that you believe it will yeah absolutely leaving a legacy inheritance charity and thousand year families we get on thousand and your families, but maybe we can do that another time. Johan, this was an incredible joy for me. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for writing the book. Thank you for all the work that you do with your sub stack, Becoming Noble. It's incredibly important work. I truly believe

that. I think we need a shift in the mentality, particularly in Western society, in terms of what are we doing here? How are we building for the long term? And what is our legacy going to be for our generation particularly as millennials gen z boomers it's not too late to start thinking about it either um i think uh there's a lot of a boomer hate out there but i know there are many good good uh boomers out there that are they're thinking about this stuff as well but we just need i think these ideas to become more popular and uh people need to think more intently about these things well it's uh it's been a complete pleasure and i'm i'm really really grateful for the invitation so thank you well you enjoy your night and uh that's all we have today

peace and love freaks okay thank you for listening to this episode of tftc if you've made it this far i imagine you got some value out of the episode if so please share it far and wide with your friends and family we're looking to get the word out there also wherever you're listening whether That's YouTube, Apple, Spotify. Make sure you like and subscribe to the show. And if you can leave a rating on the podcasting platforms, that goes a long way. Last but not least, if you want to get these episodes a day early and ad free, make sure you download the Fountain podcasting app and go to fountain.fm to find that $5 a month

gets you every episode a day early, ad free, helps the show, gives you incredible value. so please consider subscribing via fountain as well thank you for your time and until next time