WW: Hey there and welcome to Unlimited Hangout. I'm your
host. Whitney Webb. Since Trump's 2024 election win, the
rise of a particular clique of Silicon Valley CEOs and venture
capitalists has been quite obvious, at least for anyone
paying attention. The core of this clique are the most
prominent members of the so called PayPal Mafia, whose rise
to prominence in Silicon Valley was inextricably linked to their
early executive roles at PayPal, the early FinTech leader that
quickly dollarized the internet in the name of creating a new
world currency, and consulted with every American three letter
agency they could get a meeting with prior to their launch, an
unlimited Hangouts, first installment of this series
interrogating the political power of the PayPal Mafia,
entitled The Pay Pal presidency, we examined this group's
ambitions for healthcare and biotechnology and their efforts
to guide and arguably subvert the Make America healthy again,
or Maha movement toward policies and therapeutics that they
ostensibly opposed during the COVID era. Today, we will be
examining the philosophies and political theories that drive
the most prominent members of this so called mafia, namely
Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, and how these are turning into
concrete US policies through the influence of Musk personally, as
well as Thiel proteges like current vice president JD Vance.
Over the last six months, major efforts in media, both
mainstream and allegedly independent, have sought to
portray these wealthy billionaires as the quote,
unquote counter elites, arguing that they represent a major
challenge to the elites that had run things prior to the US 2024,
election, while these so called counter elites, led by the
PayPal Mafia, have sought to establish themselves as
significantly different, At least in cultural terms, is anti
woke, for example, are there political ambitions and
philosophies really functionally that different from those of the
elites they have supposedly deposed? Are Thiel and Musk
really libertarian leaning and liberty minded as they have
claimed? What motivates them and what would their ideal society
look like? It's important we find out, because now more than
ever. Between their wealth and now obvious political power,
they have the ability to shape our political realities in
unprecedented ways. Joining me to discuss this and more is Iain
Davis. Iain is an independent investigative journalist,
contributor to Unlimited Hangout, and author of several
books. He is from the UK, and his latest book is called the
Manchester attack. His recent two part series published at
Unlimited Hangout, the dark Maga, Gov Corp, technate, parts
one and two delve deep into the philosophy behind these would be
technocrats, many of the members of the PayPal Mafia and their
house, philosophers like Curtis Yarvin and Nick Land. Thanks for
joining me today, Iain, and welcome back to Unlimited
Hangout.
ID: Thank you very much, Whitney, it's a pleasure to be
here.
WW: Well, as I noted just a minute ago, since the last US
election, there's been a good amount of spin claiming that the
oligarchs now lined up behind Trump and his vice president JD
Vance, are counter elites, and somehow different from previous
elites who we have been told have now been cast out into the
shadows by American voters. So what are your thoughts on this
narrative regarding the so called counter elites?
ID: Well, they're not counter elites. They're, I mean,
they're, they're oligarchs in the, you know, the sense of, you
know, the real sense of the word, as in someone that's
converted immense wealth into political power and authority.
That's clearly what they're doing. So I think it's fair to
call them oligarchs, you know, and if we think about how, you
know, the kind of things that they're proposing in order to to
to move America forward and make America great again, and
certainly in doing so, obviously that has a massive impact around
the world. There is, there's, you know, it's the same kind of
agenda that we've that we're familiar with from, you know,
perhaps the other side of the coin, you could say the the sort
of Swabian side of the side of the coin, in terms of, you know,
rolling out top down, controlled things like technocracy, you
know, as an OP, I would say it's an operating system for a newly
proposed kind of privatized model, model of government,
which is, which is pretty much the same as the kind of
oligarchy control mechanism that that that is on the other side
of the fence, you know, if we think about perhaps, you know,
traditionally, people like George Soros and so forth, that
people are kind of very wary of, and I think, you know, in in
presenting themselves as these kind of opponents to the kind of
overreach of. Kind of globalist oligarchy that American,
certainly Republican voters, were opposed to. And I think
that's probably how that they've managed to kind of secure the
political authority within the Trump administration. To the
extent that they have, it's precisely because they are
supported by people who want to escape that kind of, what they
consider to be, you know, restricting, kind of globalist
overreach, that what they've done really is deliver exactly
that. Well, I say exactly the same. I think it's fair to say
that what they're proposing in terms of what I've called a we,
you know, we're going to go on to talk about something - The
Dark Enlightenment. And also we're going to talk about, you
know, that what technocracy really means in proposing those
kind of systems, what they are suggesting is arguably the worst
form of top down hierarchical control, oligarch control ever
envisaged. So So you know, to say that people that you know,
obviously Republican voters, have voted in opposition to
that, what they've got is, is, is just about as bad as it could
be.
WW: Yeah, I tend to agree with you on that, for sure. I really
see, like I said in the intro just a minute ago, the only
difference they seem to actually have is just sort of the
cultural veneer they put over their ambitions, and they sort
of cloak themselves in this, you know, we're anti woke and all of
these things, and that seems to be the only really major
difference at a fundamental level, but I don't really think
it really means anything. It sort of reminds me of how
Democrats and Republicans in the United States tend to
differentiate themselves largely along cultural issues, whether
that's abortion or gay rights. And you know, historically,
that's sort of been the main way to successfully divide and
conquer, and now you're having that sort of play out again. But
you know, the exact nature of the culture issues has changed
slightly and focused sort of on these DEI policies and other
things. And you know, when Trump was elected and these counter
elites had supposedly come in. You know, there were reports of
CEOs expressing relief, because now they can finally say
retarded at board meetings again. What a change. But as you
noted, a lot of the actual change for the rest of us is it
going to be very significant in terms of what this new supposed
new crop of elites really has envisioned for the United States
and more broadly the world. So you mentioned technocracy, of
course, and I think you know myself and others have mentioned
that word over the past few months. Obviously yourself
included. And so I think maybe it's a good opportunity to sort
of maybe define what technocracy is, and some of the connections
of prominent figures today, like Elon Musk to this particular
ideology. So would you mind enlightening us, not not darkly
necessarily, but enlightening us with, you know, some, maybe some
definitions there, yeah.
ID: So first, I think it's important to point out that
these people are very much on board with the idea of
technocracy. So we had a tweet. It was in october 2024, Jeff
Bezos, he posted to Musk, and he said, the network state for Mars
is being formed before our eyes, to which Musk replied, The Mars
technocracy. So in reference to the network state, that was
comes out of a book the network state how to start a new country
by Balaji sriniva. Can't pronounce the guy's name,
Srinivasan. And basically that's, that's we're seeing that
come through in policy, in the US, in the form of, because
what, what Srinivasan was, was suggesting was kind of zones of
no regulation where entrepreneurs could,
particularly tech, tech, entrepreneurs would have a free
hand to do whatever they want in these kind of an idea that has
become now within the Trump administration Freedom cities, I
WW: sort of understand it as special economic zones on
steroids, where they would basically have sovereign power,
and people that would live there would enter into agreements with
the city as sort of like a private sector entity, and it
would have its own like cryptocurrency and things like
that.
ID: Yeah. Yeah, so that's the idea of this, of this network
state, how to start a new country. That's, that's what he
was talking about. So, so obviously, in Musk's mind, that
means, you know, what would be the the way that that would be
managed, and how would that, how would that kind of
administrative zone work? Well, in obviously, Musk is saying a
technocracy. And he further wrote that, you know, I think
something that he published in 2019, you know, he made a
comment where he said, we're accelerating starship
development to build the Martian technocracy. So he's always
there. He's spoken about, openly, spoke about how much he
wants to construct a technocracy. But obviously, by
putting it in the context of Mars, you know, you're supposed
to think, well, he's not in favor of constructive one on
Earth. But obviously that that is clearly what they are doing.
So I think the most people misunderstand what technocracy
is. I think, you know, most people, when you say the word
technocracy, they they equate it to what you could call kind of
technocratic governance. So this, this idea that that you
have experts that make policy decisions. So, for example, if
we think about what happened during COVID 19, you know,
you've got people like Fauci, who's a who's a quote expert in
medical matters. That's that is seen. And I think that's
important that the public are introduced to this idea of
experts making decisions, and rather than, you know,
necessarily elected politicians. And when you speak to most
people about technocracy, if they've got any kind of concept
of what it is, that's normally what they what they think it is,
but technocracy is, is is much more than that. That is part of
it, but it's much more than that. It is a, it is a, a
system, like an operating system, if you like, for the
complete re reconfiguration of society. In fact, it does away
with society entirely, and what it, what it creates instead? Is
it what it calls a social mechanism, which, you know, it
came out of the out of the progressive era. In the 1930s it
was a movement that was headed by people like Howard Scott,
other other people, you know, certainly are people with
oligarch interest. People like Brzezinski and the Rockefellers
were looking at that idea. And the notion was that you would
break society apart completely. You would you would create a
social mechanism based on what it called the sequence of
functions. So you have the economic function, the transport
function, the industrial function. This would be overseen
by a continental control. So it so you would do away with all
nation states. You would create something called a technate on a
on a continental scale, and that would be overseen by a tiny,
small group of people, no more than 100 people, called called
continental control, and in charge of them, they would
appoint from within their ranks an overall CEO type King that
would be called the continental director. So, but there's so the
level of the degree of social control and behavioral control
that is inherent to technocracy is unimaginable. Is it's not,
it's not something that most people would could easily relate
to, because it is, it is, it is more or less pretty unbelievable
that they they are talking about, they talk about us as
human animals to be programmed so that we can perform our
function. Are what where we go, what we do, what we eat, will be
entirely controlled by a new form of monetary system and
surveillance that monetary system would enable surveillance
now in the 1930s presenting that possible kind of the scale of
the bureaucracy suggested by that was not workable in the
1930s when the original technocrats and the 40s, and
shortly, You know, briefly in the post war period, it wasn't a
feasible thing. How would you manage a system like that on
even a national scale, if we just think about the US, let
alone a continental scale? But you know, obviously oligarchs
were looking at that with interest and thinking, well,
there may come a time, and certainly burst in skis, the
Technotronic era was very much talking about the possibility of
this of technology enabling such a kind of administrative system
to function. You know, they've kept an eye on it. They've,
they've followed it. You know, five. With it over the years, I
would very much suggest that, you know, technocracy has been
trialed to a great extent in China, and now they're, they're
proceeding to roll it out everywhere, and obviously modern
computer technology AI in particular, and if we combine
that with digital ID and digital currency, then the possibility
of actually establishing technocracy is now, is it is now
a feasible, feasible prospect. And so it's no surprise really
that we've got key technocrats like and I think he is a key
technocrat Musk, you know, so, so influential now in a US
administration.
WW: Well, I think it's, it might be fair to refer to him like as
probably the first more or less formal technocrat at the
executive level in the United States, someone that's kind of
actively, actively taking that role, in the sense that his role
there is ostensibly to maximize efficiency, which, as you noted
in your piece, this idea, the technocratic idea of the human
animal. The goal was to engineer the behavior of the human
animals and the human animal masses, I guess, to maximize
their efficiency. And in general, you know, that is the
ostensible goal of this DOGE entity that he is heading and
obviously, you know, on onto that effect, of course, I think
it's pretty clear that any critic of of DOGE is immediately
being hit with claims like, Oh, you must like then and be
defending the corruption. It's exposing, um, but frankly, you
know, in the case of, like, the US, like, every time there's a
spending bill, those spending bills are full of pork, right?
They're full of all of these relatively openly corrupt and
ridiculous expenditures that shouldn't be there. And it's
kind of been a known thing that happened. So it would make sense
that there is sort of pork, quote, unquote, in the US
government at large that either came from those spending bills
or through those same types of, you know, I would say cronyist
policies. And that is what Elon Musk is exposing. And people are
focusing so much on the exposure that they're not really looking
at what what is being implemented in its place or done
with the data that Musk now has relatively open access to, and
given that Musk in the PayPal Mafia at large are very
intimately involved with mass surveillance infrastructure of
the United States, particularly as it relates to the military
and national security agencies, that probably should be talked
about, and also the fact that DOGE is Seeking to sort of
replace a lot of workers, because 10s and 1000s of workers
are being laid off, and a lot of the goal seems to be to replace
a lot of them, you know, with AI and and algorithms. But
ultimately, that has a centralizing power effect,
because whoever controls those algorithms, you know, it's not
would have the power of those 10,000 those 20,000 people in
the organization employing it, right? Whoever develops and
maintains that algorithm kind of has more power, right? At least,
that's sort of how I see it. So, you know, a lot of things are
happening right now. Changes are happening at the public policy
level, all under the name of efficiency. And Elon Musk has
kind of made himself the the poster boy for this, if you
will. But I would argue that even more important these days,
well, not necessarily more important, but definitely
equally important to sort of this technocratic role that he's
now playing in the US government, or in the Trump
administration, is also the social engineering taking place
on the large content platform He now holds, which is now owned by
his AI company, which is interesting, and you noted In
your PC and the technocracy can also be defined briefly as the
science of social engineering. So we have the idea of
engineering human animals to maximize their efficiency, that
they're programmable automatons. And so, you know, you can see
where the role of government would be in a technocratic
system to do that programming. But obviously social engineering
is a key part of that, and because we don't quite live in a
technique dominated world, yet, those are kind of separate
spheres of of engineering. So yeah,
ID: I mean, I think if you, if you look at what the DOGE is,
um. You know, it is technocracy personified, really, because the
note, as you quite rightly said, that the idea of technocracy,
and something that is common to both technocracy and what we're
going to talk about the Neo reactionary movement, is this
idea that there's, there are technological solutions for all
problems. So all problems, social, political, economic,
there, there are technological solutions, and that the only
thing that you need to do in order to solve these kinds of
problems is apply the right technology or more technology,
tech, technological kind of decision making. And this kind
of very mechanistic, kind of AI controlled, computer controlled
decision making is elevated, well, is said to be elevated
above everything else. So everything else is done through,
you know, all decisions are made in a kind of dispassionate,
logical way, and that's the best way forward for humanity, as
long as we obey the algorithms. So we just as long as we just
obey whatever the algorithms tell us, then in the in the
world of the of the technocrats and in the world of the Neo
reactionaries, will be, will be heading in the right, right
direction now the DOGE, and it's already using AI to evaluate
people's performance, and I can't remember who wrote about
it, but I've seen it. I think it might. I can't remember where I
saw it, but it's been described as post human, and that is
precisely what technocracy is. Technocracy, is post human, and
this notion of, you know, artificial intelligence, or, you
know, large language modules, actually, you know, anyway, I
think there's an argument to be had there that we're not, we're
nowhere near this suspected singularity that the technocrats
and the Neo reactionary?
WW: Yeah, I absolutely agree. I've been saying that for years
myself, but continue,
ID: yeah, well, I mean, we'll probably go but yeah, I mean
this, so this, this notion that people's lives, you know, the
workers we're talking about, in this case, across, you know,
quite a large swathe of the American civil service, that
their their futures will be determined by, you know, in a
nanosecond, by a computer. And that will, that will be in that
that's, that's the decision, the decisions made, so the on the
human element of that, you mean, obviously, that's, you know,
someone's job, someone's like, their livelihood, their housing,
their family, their you know that doesn't matter. AI has
determined you that you are inefficient, and therefore you
are gone. And that that is, that is exactly the kind of model,
you know, if you boil it down to its, its to its to the nub of
it. That is exactly the kind of idea that technocracy elevates
and venerates, and that's what technocrats venerate, and that's
what people like Musk venerate, and that's why, and that's why,
that is the world that they are trying to construct for us. And,
you know, I mean, and I think the DOGE is a very good example
of the kind of way that this future society what it would
look, what it would look like if we allow it to be
WW: installed, right? And I think also, too, you know, as it
relates to x, for really Twitter, in terms of what you
mentioned just a second ago about this idea of people to
live in this system, would need to just obey the algorithm and
submit to the algorithm. I obviously haven't been very
active on X lately, but I've heard things from people that
have been and it's generally was my impression also before I, you
know, engaged with it significantly less that there
was a major effort to kind of engineer that among a lot of ex
users, namely with the x ai, which now owns Twitter and is
Elon Musk new AI company, after he butted heads with the people
at open AI that he also helped create. You know, this basically
asking Grok, the AI chat bot of xAI, for its opinions on
everything. So, like, for example, a person would tweet an
opinion or a story or something like that, and immediately under
it, there are replies of people being like, well, this is what
Grok says, you know. Or, let me ask Grok about this. Or, Oh,
you're criticizing Elon Musk. Well, this is what Grok says
about the thing you know. And sort of, and I think chat GPT
obviously started that to a significant degree, but I think
it's becoming. Uh, extremely normalized now and then I was
also told, though I haven't seen it, that Twitter is just a wash
with these AI generated images from an open AI, you know,
Studio Ghibli engine. I guess where basically Studio Ghibli
being the Hayao Miyazaki film studio, famous for a lot of
prominent and frankly wonderful cartoon movies, that people are
sort of animating themselves and other images sort of in that
style, and that x is just a wash with it. And I think it's quite
interesting how people are sort of being that there's this
normalization on x of AI generated art and AI generated
answers to things, and that people are sort of, you know,
I've argued this before, and doing so are slowly giving away
a lot of their their agency, whether It's, it's in terms of
critical thought, or also creativity in favor of AI, or
just, you know, algorithms in general,
ID: yeah, no, I've noticed that that's, that's very true. I
mean, people do say, you know, you post something and when you
don't have to go very far in a discussion thread to see someone
saying, Well, this is what grog said, you know, and I, I mean, I
think, I think when, as with any technology, you know, there are,
there are potentially, potentially positive things
about AI. I mean, I'm not a complete Luddite, suggesting
that, you know, that we shouldn't even bother seeing if
there are any advantages to it. And certainly, you know, if you
think about, you know, how we might kind of design design
things, or design design, you know, machines that we use and
that kind of thing, and how we might analyze data and things
like that. Sure, what you know, you know, these large language
models are very, very might be very useful, and other forms of
AI might be very useful. But one thing somebody pointed out to me
on another platform, which I found very interesting, was when
we think about, you know, the conversations that we have on
social media about all kinds of subjects, anything. Think about
anything, these large language models are hoovering up all that
data and analyzing it, you know, everything, I mean, I this was
in particularly in reference to sub stack. And people saying,
You do realize that all these comments that are being made on
sub stack are being fed in, fed into these LLMs, and people are,
you know, and we are effectively teaching it. Now, one of the
interesting things so far I've noticed with things like Grok is
that, if you put in thus far, it has been quite magnanimous, if
you like, about some people that have been castigated previously
as just out and out. You know, for example, conspiracy
theorists. Grok doesn't analyze some of those people quite, you
know, people like myself and people like yourself. And you
know, it's quite, it comes back with quite fair kind of reports
on us at the moment, but, but I think, I think the problem, the
problem is, obviously that it's not some sort of self
perpetuating, random, just logical process. It's got it's
the algorithms are programmed by people with agendas. So
ultimately, while it's currently in the process of just hoovering
up as much data as it possibly can once it's completed that one
not that it could ever complete that process, but once that that
that those models have been firmly established, then if
people are Using those models instead of thinking for
themselves. Then, obviously, by manipulating those models, you
can social engineer on a scale that, you know that that
previously, I would have, you know, few previous generations
wouldn't have been able to even envisage, well,
WW: a lot of what you just brought up. Iain reminds me of,
you know, this, this book that I've referenced a few times and
actually written a piece about before that was authored by Eric
Schmidt and Henry Kissinger, who are ostensibly part of the
elites that were deposed by the counter elites. Because Schmidt,
you know, very tied up with the Democrats, right? And then, of
course, Henry Kissinger, having been a mentor to Cal Schwab,
Klaus Schwab and very, you know, aligned with the Rockefellers
and the trilaterals and all of that, right, supposedly so
different than than Musk and Thiel and those people. But in
their book, they basically chart out. How this, you know, got
this rule of all aspects of our lives by the algorithm will
happen. And they basically say that they're that we're being so
dominated by AI already. And I, you know, they wrote this book,
I think, like four years ago now, but they were basically
saying that AI is, is shaping our preferences, telling us what
music to listen to, what things to read, things like that and
that soon, it will shape our decision making so much that
will become completely dependent on AI to make decisions, pretty
much, period. And they refer to this ideas as cognitive
diminishment, that basically will be outsourcing more and
more of our of our agency and our cognitive function to AI,
then eventually we won't be able to do those things without AI,
or we will forget how to do it. And the analogy I sort of use to
explain this to people is, you know how you lose a lot of the
mental math ability if you become dependent on a calculator
or something like that. The whole idea, if you don't use it,
you lose it, kind of thing. And so, you know, it inherently, you
know, we're, I think we're still in this phase where it's still
novel, and people are experimenting with it, you know,
AI and all of that. But inherently, it's the slippery
slope. And this is outlined by these elite thinkers, right,
that it's a slippery slope, and that if we fall into that trap
of, oh, it's so convenient, I'm gonna just, you know, use Grok
all the time to analyze news stories. For me, eventually you
might forget how to do that without it, you know, over time.
And that's basically how these figures like Kissinger and
Schmidt chart out how we get to this, the system of government,
governance by algorithm and in sort of this control of society.
And another thing they bring up that I think is interesting
that's related to what you mentioned earlier, is this idea
that government by algorithm and all of that will not necessarily
lead to a fairer society. It will lead to a stratified
society. And you made that point in talking about, you know, the
continental directors being on top of the masses of of human
human animals, as it were, and they basically argue in their
book that it'll lead to this, a similar stratification, I would
call it Neo feudalism, or have in the past, where basically you
have the people who are programming and maintaining the
AI and determining the parameters and objective
functions above everyone else, And then the masses are those
who are being enacted upon by AI but can't understand what AI is
doing to them and how it's engineering and shaping them,
meaning that the people that are programming the AI do know what
those effects are and where people are being led.
ID: Yeah, no, I agree with that, and I and I also going back to
something you said earlier, with regard to, you know, currently,
these LLM kind of things seem to be building trust. I think
that's very much what, what seems to be happening at the
moment. So, you know, that's while they're in the process of
gathering the data together to to, you know, to maximize the
efficiency of the model. You know, they're doing so in a way
that is enticing people to divulge as much information as
possible, which, of course, is they would, wouldn't they? So,
so, yeah, and I think the idea that in the future, the the risk
that we run, and certainly, what the, what the the technocrats
envisaged, is that society that you, that you outline there. I
mean, in technocracy, they do. It's a strange kind of concept
that they've got in there of something called peck, peck
rights. This is so I'm going back to technocracy Inc, the
1930s original iteration of technocracy, which was published
in its study course, which was fully published, I think, in
1934 and they come up with this notion of Peck rights, because,
believe it or not, you know, and I've criticized them for what I
perceived to be their naivety. They were aiming for what they
thought would be a classless society. But they also said
that, you know, in order for for the spontaneous order that they
envisaged to emerge, it would be important that people acted in
keeping with their pet rights. Now they, they came up with this
idea after observing cow herds and chicken chicken flocks, and
they noticed that, you know, some animals are naturally more
dominant than others, and it wasn't necessarily to do with
their physical strength or anything like that. They just
seem to be more dominant. So they they had just assumed that
that was the same in across the entirety of human culture and
society, and that we we should. Yeah, pretty much follow the
same kind of thing. And so who would be those that were awarded
Peck rights? Well, that would be the people that had full control
of resources. So the people that were in control of, you know,
oligarchs, basically, and people that are in control of, you
know, the resources that we need to to live. Those were the
people that would have the peck rights. So while they were
envisaging what they were calling a classless society, it
was, it was not classes at all. What, what they were talking
about was one mass class of human humanity that they that
they refer to is the human animals, the underclass, yeah,
one, one mass of us, and controlling every aspect of our
lives and controlling our behavior, you know, to maximize
our efficiency as A function, with this kind of super class.
Who? Who would, you know, make sure that society ran according
to their design? Now, you know, when you get people like Schmidt
and Kissinger writing Warning, warning us about, you know, the
potential for this kind of disastrous potential to emerge,
you then have to think, Well, yeah, but at the same time,
while warning us about these things, we are surging ahead in
creating precisely that system. Um, we're really pausing for
thought for a moment, certainly, certainly, you know, though
Thiel and Musk are, are racing ahead with rolling out exactly
the kind of, you know, social control mechanisms that, on the
other hand, people like Schmidt and Kissinger have warned us
against, you know, and obviously Eric Schmidt is very much
involved In in rolling out that infrastructure as well. Sure,
while it's, while it's nice, while it's very nice to be
warned about it, well, surely that's a reason to stop and
think about it first then. But no, what we're, what we're
actually getting, is it, you know, is a, is a, an
acceleration towards, towards that, towards that, you know,
without, without anybody really kind of stopping and thinking
about it.
WW: Yeah, well, I think, you know, the Schmidt and kisser
book, they frame it as a warning, because they have to.
But if anyone's familiar with like Henry Kissinger as a
figure, or Eric Schmidt, either, I mean, it's hard to look at it
as a warning, especially when they say that. You know, they're
basically like, all of this will either happen, and this is the
society we'll have, and there will be a new religion around
AI, or the other outcome is, is that the current ruling elites
are deposed by a popular revolution. And which one do you
think Schmidt and Kissinger prefer that? I think it's pretty
clear. And considering that Schmidt is considered now
Kissinger's air. And Kissinger and Schmidt are major fixers at
builder, at the Bilderberg conference, where AI is
consistently a major topic. On the steering committee of
Bilderberg is Peter Thiel, as well as his co founder of
Palantir, who still leads the company, Alex cart right which
is basically becoming a global digital brain, not just for the
national security state of the US and the UK and the health
services of both the UK and the US, but also much of corporate
America and Wall Street now, all using Palantir AI products. So
quite interesting there. I don't really think it's, it's a
warning, but I think you know, to release it publicly. It's
kind of a way to maybe karmically absolve themselves a
little bit, being like, well, we warned the masses that this is
what was going to happen.
ID: Oh, they have to tell us what that what they're doing,
don't they? Apparently? Yeah,
WW: apparently. But they don't, um, I don't think they really
had any intention of stopping it, considering, you know their
their history, and also, you know, in the case of Eric
Schmidt, their current actions as it relates to what they fund
and and finance and seek to build, quite frankly, definitely
problematic stuff. Well, we've been talking about technocracy
for a while, and before we move on to things like, you know,
Curtis Yarvin and the Cathedral and Nick Land's Dark
Enlightenment and all of that, I would like to touch on the idea
of the technate, which would be the technocratic governance
system, and what that would sort of, what a world dominated by
technates would look like, ultimately, and you note, of
course, in your piece, and others have noted as well, that
the technate model for the United States specifically
encompasses Greenland, which has become a major focus of Trump
and JD Vance after the. Election. It was not a campaign
promise at all, make Greenland great again, or anything like
that. Definitely something that only happened after really,
around inauguration time and since then. So if you could
expound a little bit on what a technique is and what the model
for technates are are, I think that might be something kind of
illuminating as well.
ID: Yeah, so a Tech Night is a continental system, so of social
engineering and behavioral control with, as I said, was
saying earlier, with a continental director sitting at
the top of it. So it's and continental control would only
be a very small number of people that would, that would monitor,
surveil and distribute all resources across the technique
it would have its monetary system that would be centrally
controlled, or power distribution would be centrally
everything would be centrally controlled with the With the
continental control, this, this, you know, group that controls
everything. You know, in the original idea of the technique
proposed, you know, as I said, in the 1930s mid 1930s there
would be no names of towns or cities or anything like that.
Everything would be designated with a grid reference, a map
grid reference. So you would live in Sector four or sector
five. You know, this kind of idea. Quite why. I don't know,
but, but, but interestingly, in the original technocracy Inc
study course, they put a map on the front. It was on the back
cover, I think they put a they put a map on it, which was they
called the North American Tech Night. And sure, it encompassed
Greenland and went all the way down through Central America,
all the way down to Northern Venezuela, right down into the
northern tip of South America. So and funnily enough, Trump
made, seemingly, you know, prior to his, I think just prior to
his inauguration, started making these statements about, you
know, building this North American kind of power base that
would encompass, you know, most of Central America. Well, all of
Central America, I think, and Greenland, and you know, that
had never really been mentioned before in terms of anything
like, you know, the North American union, or anything like
that. Well, I feel
WW: like Trump made it pretty clear early on that he was
interested in basically de facto merging Canada, Mexico and
Greenland with the United States. But I don't know if
beyond Mexico, he really spoke about though. I think it is
worth pointing out that there is now another Central American
country. El Salvador is basically becoming an offshore
prison for the Trump administration, with a lot of
deportations, you know, or you know, claims have been made that
eventually American citizen criminals could be sent there,
or people that are vandalizing Teslas or accused of that could
be sent to these El Salvadorian prisons and coordination with
the El Salvador government. So it is very possible, and it's a
dollarized nation also, so it uses the US dollar, very
possible that it would expand beyond, farther south than
Mexico, to be sure.
ID: Well, I'll defer to you on that, Whitney, but I think he
did, but I but I may be right. You're probably right. You're
probably,
WW: I guess, with Panama, he was, he was making overtures
about Panama. So I guess if you take Mexico, you de facto own El
Salvador through dollarization and this prison sharing thing.
And then you take the Panama Canal, the area between Mexico
and El Salvador. And the Panama Canal was quite small, and you'd
just be like, well, well, you might as well take that too.
Yeah,
ID: yeah. And I think the interesting thing is, is when,
when the original technocrat said, drew this map. They didn't
really explain how that would happen, you know, like, why
would all these countries just go all right, we'll go along
with your crazy, hair brained ideas. I mean, I, I, you know,
that was never made clear. And I think, I think the the map that
was drawn, that was that was sent out, was so much like the
North American technate, in terms of its appearance, its
appearance, that in terms of what he was outlining, that to
me, that was a signal, you know, I felt that what that is is
really, it's almost like an insider joke, you know, saying
that the technocrats we are in control. Now, really, you know,
I mean, it's, it's, you know, we've just drawn out for you the
North American Tech Night. Now, I think there's more to it, you
know. And as you quite rightly said, you know, if we look at
people like ourselves or and also we look at the kind of the
some of the plans for Greenland, there is more to it than just
just signaling their intent. But I think it's quite. Quite
notable that that that map was drawn out in the way that it
was. And I think also, you know, when we talk about what a
technique might be, I mean, one of, one of the problems with
technocracy, as I alluded to earlier, was when it was
originally proposed, it couldn't happen technologically. The
technology did not exist. To make it a realistic prospect,
the technology does exist today to make this kind of top down
behavioral control system a realistic prospect. But
ironically, the nature of the communication technology that
enables that to happen, and the computing technology that
enables that to happen kind of renders the idea of a kind of of
a kind of geographical technate Move, really, because, because,
you know, by its nature, this kind of technology is
transnational. So, you know, you can control, you know, many,
many different regions in the world and link them together and
communicate, you know, and have central control over them. That
doesn't, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be
physical, you know. So, so the things that would the way that a
technique could operate now would be very much, I suggest,
based on kind of control of we might envisage, control of
certain markets, control of certain areas of industry,
control of certain political structures. So, you know it that
can be done without, necessarily, you know, sending
troops over borders is what I'm trying to say. Sure,
WW: I think that's absolutely true. And I mean, like, if you
look at the case of just North America and South America, you
know, in terms of just like either infrastructure of the
technology, like fiber optic cables and connectivity in that
sense, but also, you know, like the biggest, I would argue, sort
of like the PayPal acquit. Well, it's really a branch of PayPal.
I would argue, Mercado Libre is poised to basically take a
significant control over, over South America. You know, FinTech
already happening, and already it's basically, it's basically
compared to, like the Amazon of South America, and it pretty
much is, but they're making a big pay push into finance, into
the digital financial infrastructure of the future,
with stable coins and crypto and all of that. And are, you know,
they're now tied up with the satellite company that's also
linked to Howard lutnic and Steve Mnuchin and figures like
that, and kind of, you know, really expanding out, but they
ultimately tie back into PayPal. And used to be owned by or
PayPal used to own a majority of their stock and all of this
stuff, and came out of Stanford, I believe, and all sorts of
things. And is tied now to the Malay administration and all of
that, which is sort of yoking itself in some significant ways
to Trump, and also Elon Musk in Blackrock, among other entities.
So you know it, I mean, that's just one example. And then an
example you sort of bring up in the series as well is how a lot
of these same entities have basically de facto taken over
Ukraine. And as soon as peace is negotiated, a post war Ukraine
will be run by essentially those same forces, us, big tech, a lot
of them tied up with either Musk or Thiel, and then also, you
know, Black Rock, JP Morgan, and you know, banks and corporations
of that nature. So it becomes quite easy to see that now
these, these, you know, what, are becoming multinational
corporations, even if, in the case of, you know, Palantir or
Anduril, they have very America first PR are starting to sort of
tether together a lot of different countries. I guess you
could say, well, yeah,
ID: and, I mean, that's another, I mean, talking about the kind
of bait and switch idea that we were talking about earlier, then
obviously, that they've been presented through things like
Project 2025, they've been presenting this argument of
being anti elitist in many respects, or anti certainly, you
know, the certain control of certain American elites. But
when we think about the Bezos and Musk were talking about
building a network state, and we're obviously referencing
srinivalaji...
We'll just call him Balaji. it's fine.
obviously referencing his work. He, you know, envisages kind of
these freedom cities being kind of independent fiefdoms. And he
considers the US to be outdated and obsolescent. So, so to think
that that you know that this their, their pro. American. I
think he's questionable. I think there they are, pro oligarch
control, pro maximizing their independence in order to
accelerate towards, you know, the future that they've got in
their own minds.
WW: Yeah, Balaji is an interesting character because
he's been saying a lot of stuff about the turn of turning X
Twitter into, you know, a financial system, which, of
course, Elon Musk's ambition is to basically make it the
American version of WeChat. And he says half of the financial
system. And the idea would be, you do your banking and your
shopping and all sorts of things there. But Balaji not only
supports that model, but says it should basically go a step, a
step further, and that people should, you know, basically,
instead of like, necessarily, like a UBI or something like
that, they should monetize their content on, uh, you know, on X
or on on models like that. Um, in that, AI should create their
content for them. And he had this interesting tweet also,
where he said, In 2023 uh, AI is about building a new god. In
crypto is about building a new state, which is interesting in
the context of the whole network state idea that he sought to
develop. And I think ultimately the sales pitch for the technate
will come even though it's, as you've noted, an extreme
centralization of power, it's also, I think, not going to be
attractive to sell it specifically to this libertarian
base, and under these libertarian framed dialectics
that they're using as a greater centralization of power, they
have to market it as decentralized, don't they? And
so if you have a network of these freedom cities that then
knit themselves into the largest of all network states, you know,
into a technate Then, I mean, you could get to that system
that way, but have sort of what the public sees as these
decentralized patchwork of of network states. And I suspect
that's the case, because, as you and I have pointed out, for
example, in our joint work on digital ID, and also, you know,
work on, you know, the fight the digital finance of the future,
whether it's stable coins or CBDCs. Ultimately, the goal is
to have sort of a vendor agnostic system, right where you
have a patchwork of companies or vendors providing digital ID or
providing the programmable, surveillable money, whether it's
a stable coin or whatever, but ultimately, the data harvested
from that would be harvested in a centralized way, and
ultimately centrally controlled at the highest level that isn't
necessarily visible to the Public.
ID: Yeah, no, absolutely. And when we think about things like
the Dark Enlightenment and what Curtis Yavin has said about a
patchwork of realms, so the idea is that decentralization leads
to decent from these guys perspective. And I say guys,
because it is predominantly men, from their perspective,
decentralization is a process for gathering data. So if you
decentralize everything from, you know, political systems to
economic systems to financial systems, you decentralize it,
but as long as it, as long as those, the data that is gathered
is interoperable. I It's in a machine readable format that can
be centrally collated. Then by decentralizing, you can spread
this network out, you know geographically, or in terms of
you know, financially, or however you want to approach it,
you can spread this network out, and then the people, and even
you know to a certain extent, give people that are operating
in their relative realms or zones, give them autonomy. But
if you can then gather that data in a in a cohesive, single,
machine readable format, which can then be analyzed, which you
can then do at something like a universal ledger, or, you know,
if we're talking about the, you know, the World Bank have put
forward this idea for a global digital ID database, and ND40, I
think it's called, you know, that kind of idea. We're talking
about ideas here, rather than practical things that have
already been established. But this is clearly where the ideas
are going, you know, then, then that obviously what that does is
give you what. Harvard, McCall gov core control, or soft core
control, of a patchwork of realms. You You are able then to
manipulate each realm. And if you combine that with
technocracy that would done, that would be very much done
through the allocation of resources, as you see fit, from
a kind of centralized power base. And that's, that's pretty
much the kind of in terms of how they view decentral I mean, a
very good example of that would be the C40 Cities Network. So
the C40 Cities Network is, you know, which is, which is on the
other side, you know, when we're talking about the kind of
juxtaposition between the right side, if we use traditional
political kind of terms, the right and the left side of the
kind of oligarch, kind of control grid, the left side of
that, you know, the Schwabian side, if you like, they, they,
you know, like setting up things like C40 City Networks, which is
supposed to decentralize power. And we've seen across the world
the increasing power at a localized level of city mayors
who are often members of this C40 City Network, but then
they're all linked centrally to, you know, to gathering the data,
particularly from their from their city, if you like, city
realms, so that that's what they've got in mind. They've got
this, this, this kind of interoperable web that they want
to, they want to roll out, which will seem like it's
decentralized, but will actually be gathering data from as many
sources as possible. Something I want
WW: to add to that, since you're bringing up the idea of the
Unified ledger here, I mean, obviously that's going to be
some sort of blockchain ledger. It's quite clear. And there's
been signaling, of course, from this group, Musk included of
putting, for example, major aspects of the US government on
blockchain. And it's very likely that, you know that will
eventually happen at a much larger scale, and you could even
potentially have, you know, all digital IDs, or, you know, all,
you know, financial transactions on the same blockchain, which is
something that actually Larry Fink has openly expressed his
desire for, and says that, you know, in the future, I think he
said this around the time that Blackrock launched the Bitcoin
ETFs, there would be basically a single, unified ledger on
blockchain for finance, and everything would have its own ID
number or CUSIP, not just the people trading, but the things
they were transacting. And in the in considering now that
they're trying to tokenize all of these real world assets,
including the natural world, you know, all of that is going in
his vision will have, you know, these unique identifiers. And so
obviously this has the, as you noted, you know, there's the
data aspect to it, but there's also another interesting wrinkle
to it too, where people are sort of selling it as this idea of
enabling it will enable extreme transparency and end crime. And
my colleague Mark Goodwin has has raised some interesting
points about that. You know, in a recent interview he did with
Catherine Austin Fitz, basically this idea that, well, okay, if
you publish everything on a ledger like that, you know
someone looking at a blockchain explorer or something, you know
you can the data is there, and I guess everyone can see it. But
if you don't have access to all of the data to connect these
anonymized identifiers or other or other entered entities there,
you know all of these. I you know, this mess of numbers isn't
going to make sense to the common person, is it? You would
have to have access to a litany of other data, something like
Palantir, for example, in order to really understand how the
money flows are connecting and intersecting, and where the
money's really going and what's really happening, right?
ID: Yeah, yeah. And I guess if you use a permissioned ledger
rather than a permissionless ledger, if you use a
permissioned ledger, then you control the permissions, don't
you? So, I mean, I wouldn't, I would have thought if you were
intent on moving money around. I mean, the the idea, for example,
in the UK, for the UK is kind of roll out of its digital pound,
is that these payment into interface providers pips that
they will agree to be, you know, to send data from commercial
banks and store it on the ledger. And that will be
controlled through, you know, things like, know your customer
and so forth. But that will be very much controlled by this, by
the central bank, and they will kind of decree the permission
rules. Well, that's those are the permission rules that people
know about, that they're given, you know, you know, like
Barclays or whatever, are given those permission that those
permission algorithms. So what's to stop them? And doling out
other permission algorithms without anybody knowing. I mean,
sure, you know, I mean the idea, I think that that the world, I
mean, it's the same, you know, I feel the same about digital ID,
and that, in fact, the whole kind of tokenization of
everything and moving everything into a digital, a digital
platform is it's like the there are no rules that I mean so far,
it seems to me to be more like the wild west than than all the
you know, the the mythical image of the Wild West. It seems to be
more like that than than a kind of controlled environment where
everything, you know, I mean, the potential for abuse with
this kind of harvesting of data on such a scale is magnified in
my view. I mean, I you know? I mean, I don't think that we are
heading towards something that is safer and especially in terms
of criminality. I mean, I think we're heading towards something
that looks quite a lot worse.
WW: But I think the sales pitch is important because they want
to sell it as a better system. And that was true too when it
was more left leaning dialectics, you know, a fairer,
more sustainable world. And I think they also want to sell
that, you know, now that they've sort of leaned more into the
right leaning dialectics, you know, kind of want to sell that
same thing too, that it'll be a better, more efficient, more
transparent system. And I think Mark's point was that even if
it's a permissionless ledger, you know, it's not necessarily
the low hanging fruit of easy transparency that it's it's kind
of been framed as publicly but I think to your point, it's more
likely that ultimately you're going to have a mix of both
permissioned and permissionless, perhaps with the goal of making
people think that transparency has been maximized. But that
doesn't necessarily mean that money laundering and other bad
financial practices will stop, especially when you consider
that our world and in our governments and financial system
are run by people who have a history of shady financial
dealings and money laundering and other illicit activities.
It'll be money laundering for me, but not for thee. I think
will be the
ID: outcome, yeah, I mean, I have to say, I haven't it isn't
even crossed my mind that whatever, whatever system that
we will, that we're heading towards, will rule out the
possibility of, for example, selling drugs to buy weapons to
smuggle to, you know, proxy terrorist forces. I that I don't
ever envisage that happening. And I think if they were, if
there, if there was a system capable of doing that, they
wouldn't be rolling it out.
WW: Yeah, well, I think the sales pitch is going to be that
it will stop those things. Because obviously, in this new
paradigm of programmable, surveillable money, a lot of
which this particular PayPal Mafia is very intimately linked
to it's going to basically enable a major trade off between
liberty and security. You're going to be surrendering your
financial privacy entirely and a lot of your financial freedom to
the system. So in order to convince people to make that
trade off. Will be ending money laundering and crime and all
sorts of things, and the government won't be stealing
your money anymore, like DOGE is discovering. You know, all of
these financial ills will magically end if you start using
the programmable, surveillable money from the private sector
that we are now. You know, marketing is as better and not
like the cbdc at all, even though, functionally, it's
really not that different at the end of the day, in turn, from a
civil liberties perspective. So,
ID: no, not at all. No, it's, it's, it's, it comes with all
the same. I mean, the the Trump administration's kind of
fondness for stable coins is not, doesn't auger anything
better in terms of its potential for social and behavioral
control. I mean, you know, they're just as programmable as
a cbdc. So it doesn't, it doesn't make any difference into
that, in that regard,
WW: yeah. I mean, I don't know. I think people that seem to
think that it is different not only ignore the fact that it's
what you said, just as programmable and surveillance,
but that also, Trump has historically been a slave to
Wall Street bankers. And that's true from his first presidency.
It's true from his own history. When he was, you know, bailed
out by the Ross child banking interests in the early 90s. You
know, it's just been kind of a running theme with him. And you
know, pardoning long notorious Wall Street criminals and white
collar criminals like Michael Milken, among others. You know,
I mean, he seems to have an ear for for Wall Street and, you
know, people like his upper. National former money manager
and good friend, Larry Fink, for example. But don't worry, Larry
Fink is a on the way out, guys, because the counter elites are
here anyway. Sorry, it's just sometimes it's just amazing to
see what narratives have managed to stick despite having no basis
in reality. In my opinion, yeah,
ID: no. I mean, I think, I think, as well. I mean, you
know, something that we spoke about earlier is, is, is this
idea of, of, you know, the kind of the Liberty minded oligarch
that the you know that they're, they're doing this to free us,
to free us up, and to free up choice
WW: benevolent benefactors. Yeah,
ID: this, this notion, yeah. I mean, I think, you know, to a
certain extent, the things that the Republican voters were that
were angry about, you know, this kind of overreach of what they
would consider wokeism, this kind of sensor censorship and
shutdown, of freedom of speech and all this kind of thing, you
know, that is not inherent to kind of that that has been
thrown at and and considered to be a consequence of
progressivism. It's you know, that this progressive thing is
tantamount to identity politics. It's all one thing, and it all
comes from that, which, of course, it doesn't, you know, if
you think about what, you know, progressive kind of values are,
it's that is very much about social reform. So that's very
much about, you know, women's rights, it's about, it's about
gay rights. It's about, you know, it's about, it's about
moving society forward in a positive way, the stuff that's
come with it, like the shutdown of freedom of speech, the the
censorship of people online, imprisoning people for making
comments online, that's got nothing to do with progressive
Moors that, that is that has come as a consequence of those
ideas being exploited by, I would say, rapacious oligarchs
and their network now, now, and governments obviously go along
with that. I mean, ultimately, it's implemented by governments,
and it's intimate. It's implemented through policy and
legislation. But the thing that people are railing against, you
know, certainly the Republican voters that supported, you know,
things like Project 2025, and so forth, that they they are
bridling against something that has been imposed on them by one
set of oligarchs. And the solution to that is to embrace
something which is being proposed by the another set of
oligarchs. In this case, you know, we will probably go on and
talk about this, this kind of feel, the philosophical
underpinning of all this. In this case, it's they're moving
towards a privatized form of government itself, so
government, government itself, will become, practically to all
intents and purposes, a private, privatized entity. Now that
isn't going to facilitate, I would, I would be very surprised
if that enables kind of more deep rooted social problems,
like poverty, inequality of opportunity, those kind of
things that people care about, the cost of living, that kind of
that kind of thing that there's nothing within that the move
Towards a privatized form of government that promises to do
anything about any of those issues. So it's not like that
they're finding solutions for what they perceive to be the the
kind of a mutated form of progressivism. It's, it's, it's,
they're not. They're just, you know, being cajoled into
perceiving the threat in those terms, and it isn't, yeah,
WW: well, I've always seen identity politics as sort of
this effort to mainly keep people that are on the people on
the left that are unhappy with the left, to keep voting for the
establishment left. So instead of talking about the real
policies, for example, in the US with the Democrats, it's, oh,
this candidate is from this minority and of this minority
religion, and has done, you know, these things sort of in
that same you know, identity, labels and identifiers
ultimately, like, how many can you stack this makes me more
diverse, and thus the implication is, I will govern
better, but it prevents a discussion on the policies
which, in the case of the Democrats, are oftentimes really
not that different from policies presented by Republicans. Right?
Yeah, no, absolutely, yeah. And so in turn, this counter elite
group and and the politicians sort of under their influence.
Or affiliated with them, have focused on that promotion of
diversity in our in our you know, basically the focus is on
dismantling that now. But ultimately the include, the
effort to put push this diversity stuff to the forefront
was ultimately an effort to distract from the underlying
policies, and now, because they've erected all of this, you
know, the quote, unquote establishment left whatever has
erected all of this distractionary Diversity stuff
while implementing the, you know, preventing discussion of
the real policies, you have the opposite side coming in and
focusing so much on dismantling all of that diversity stuff, but
still no discussion of the underlying policies. You know,
yeah,
ID: you've said it better than me, actually, yeah, that's,
that's what I was trying to get at. I mean, that you've got a,
you've got an artificial construction of a problem which
doesn't really exist, and then you have a response to that
artificial construction of a problem that doesn't really
exist because the underlying problems are the same problems
that they've always been and they they primarily boil down to
the economic situation that people find themselves in. So
you get health inequality, you get you get inequality of
opportunity. You get unemployment. You get, you know,
all poverty, all the all the things that actually do affect
people, none of that ever that doesn't get addressed. And
there's, then, there's nothing in this platform that's coming
from, you know, Thiel and Musk and the Trump administration
that is likely to address any of that, either. And that's not me
saying that you know the other side of the fence. I mean, you
know, certainly not in the UK, with the Labor government that
we've got at the moment, who are supposedly, that's their their
forte. You know, they're doing, they're doing the opposite of,
of addressing those issues. They're making everything worse.
And it's even it seems deliberately so. So, you know, I
mean, I think that's the problem that we have these kind of
political kind of to and froze, and people get very vexed about
about, you know, basically unimportant issues, whereas the
important things that we need to address are never addressed by
government, and they're certainly not going to be
addressed by a new administration that is that is
surging ahead with these pretty crazy ideas, I
WW: would add too, that that outrage is is engineered by
these new media paradigms we have too, and the focus is
continually made on these issues, but not the broader
issues that actually have more of a direct influence on our
lives, and the ones that are, you know, the source of outrage.
You know, anyway, I, in the interest of time, since we've
talked about him a few times, I'd like to bring and, well,
them. I'd like to bring the discussion now to Curtis Yarvin
and Nick Land, who, in the introduction, I sort of
described as the house philosophers of of this group,
and in the case of the PayPal Mafia specifically, maybe Yarvin
is more more known for influencing their ideas and
being close to them, though, obviously Nick Land has had a
lot of influence on them as well. And so you referred to
Nick Land, of course, for his work on the so called Dark
Enlightenment. And Curtis Yarvin more famous for slogans like
retire all government employees or rage and his ideas of the
cathedral. But of course, you brought up in our discussion
thus far some of these other terms that are Yarvin's, but are
less associated, perhaps, with him publicly, I guess, like the
GOV Corp and the sovereign Corp and all of this. So what do you
make of Yarvin's and Land's contributions to an influence on
the PayPal Mafia, and are their ideas as anti establishment as
their Proponents claim? No,
ID: I mean, it's they cloak their their ideas in kind of
libertarian language. But there's nothing libertarian
about what they're proposing. It like technocracy. It is a, it is
an unbelievably autocratic, top down system of control that
they're proposing. So back in the mid 1990s you had this, this
place called the cybernetics culture Research Unit at Warwick
University, where Nick Land was working out of and they were
looking, they were looking at Schumpeterian Creative
Destruction. So some Schumpeter, he kind of proposed this idea
that that there's a cyclical, there's a cyclical pattern
inherent to capitalism, where technology means that new or
advances in economics and different types of technology
mean that old markets are destroyed by new ones and new
ones emerge. So, you know, good example would be the horse drawn
carriages destroyed by the internal combustion engine. So
one market is. Destroyed a new one, a new one emerges. And
attached to those markets are often significant economic and
financial interests. So this, this revolution of markets,
tends to also have an impact on, so you know, on society,
because, you know, and on, you'd have to say, on oligarch
interests, because, because certain, certain players come to
the fore, and others and others and others wane. But anyway,
they they were looking at this thing at Warwick, University of
Schumpeterian's Creative Destruction. With it the view
that we are rapidly approaching what they call the Technological
Singularity, which is the which is the point at which technology
becomes self perpetuating, or you've got aI designing better
AI, which, you know, they argued humanity at that point is lost,
because AI will ultimately supersede humanity, and will
will venture off into The cosmos and leave us behind, this, this,
this notion. So what they proposed was a system that they
called Accelerate or an idea based on those, based on those
called accelerationism, which is an extremely aggressive form of
startup investment and innovation, and that one the
idea is just to use chapters creative destruction to maximize
every opportunity from every crisis that emerges, to break
apart the institutions of capitalism so that they can be
reformed into a better system of capitalism that will enable us
as a species to cope with the fourth, you know, the on the on
rushing singularity. So what they what that ultimately meant
was that they thought that society should be broken apart
into what Curtis Yarvin called a patchwork of realms, and that
these patchwork of realms should be overseen by sovereign
corporations or sove cause because that, because the idea
of a CEO King managing a realm freeing up in a would free up
innovation and enable the kind of accelerated development of
technology that we all have to have to adopt in order to be
able to survive the inevitable singularity. Then in 2012 Yarvin
wrote as this, this character, Mencius Moldbug. And then in and
that, that was happening kind of in the in the first part of the
21st century, he he wrote from about 2007 onwards, I think, to
about 2010 2011 initially Land back in the UK, picked this up,
and he wrote something called The Dark Enlightenment, which
expanded on the ideas that Yarvin had presented as Mencius
Moldbug and those ideas, he kind of took those ideas and and took
them to even further extremes. Uh, he described in The Dark
Enlightenment that we have to merge with technology in order
to survive. He said that once we we are except that we need to be
technoplastic beings that could be programmed that will enable
us to, what he said, cross the bionic horizon. And that this
that and that once we've crossed the bionic charisma, we will be
able to pay what he calls sovereign rent, which we would
call tax. So sovereign rent.
WW: It sounds so much nicer when it's sovereign rent, though,
doesn't it? You've sound sovereign? Yes,
ID: yeah. So you're so but in all but, but in order for us to
do that, to this song, to pay this sovereign rent, because we
wouldn't be able to function in a post singularity world, we'd
just be like these useless kind of NPCs that didn't, didn't
know, could don't know anything, can't do anything. In order for
us to stay pace with it, with with the singularity of the post
singularity world, basically we have to be incorporated into it.
We have to become cybernetic organisms. So this is, this is
his notion, and that, with the that, therefore, what he, what
he further presented was this idea of an overarching a bit
like, you know, there is a big crossover between technocracy
and this Neo reactionary movements ideas. So instead of
having continental control, you would have sovereign cause, CEOs
of sovereign cause, the kings of their realms. And then then that
would over be overseen by a thing that Land called, Gov
core, which would be a kind of, if you like, a kind of corporate
government. I mean. That. And I think that the important one of
the difficulties we have in trying to kind of actually
understand these ideas is that they're talking about structures
creating new structures that we haven't even we can't even
envisage. So one of the things that you know, perhaps people
listening to this would like to, would like to try and envisage,
is there being no government, but there being a corporate
entity that oversees the administration of every aspect
of your life, because, because, because that is what they are
suggesting, instead of a instead of a political structure, it's a
corporate structure, because this would free up innovation.
So that's that is basically and Peter Thiel was cited by as very
influential by Land when he wrote The Dark Enlightenment, he
specifically cited Thiel. Thiel is very closely associated with
Yarvin. Yarvin and Thiel watched the 2016 Trump election results
together. Yarvin calls Thiel very enlightened. And obviously
we're talking about the, you know, something he's referencing
there The Dark Enlightenment. So this is what these people have
got in mind. And when we consider, you know, the the the
way that they envisage rolling out AI controlled systems, and
then we combine that with their quite clearly stated support for
the ideas of this, that that this kind of philosophy that's
been presented in The Dark Enlightenment. It's not very
edifying. Well, what, what, you know, what they're doing, what
they're basically appear to be doing, is constructing this
horrendous totalitarian control system.
WW: Yeah, you know, it's funny, because I don't want to sound at
the risk of, I'm a little worried about sounding too
nerdy, but I have been playing the remake of Final Fantasy
seven. And basically, in that game, there is a corporation
that runs every aspect of people's lives and is pillaging
the planet to power its systems and all of that. It's called the
Shinra corporation, but they're the bad guys in the movie or in
the game, you know. And it's amazing that people think that
this would be somehow a fair system if it was just a private
sector tyranny, as opposed to a public sector tyranny as just
kind of impressive, really. And I don't know it's amazing that
it's been so successful in sort of, I would argue, kind of
masquerading itself as sort of this, this fundamental change
from tyranny and departure from tyranny, like, that's how a lot
of people are sort of understanding these people now,
but really, it's really, you know, as you noted, arguably
more entrenched even, because he sort of, you know, I know that
Yarvin sort of frames, you know, there's really no difference
between a CEO and a dictator. And ultimately, if you want to
put a CEO in charge of everything, or in the case of,
you know, the technical technocracy Inc model a
continental director, you know, you're essentially saying that,
you know, they would rule as, as, as dictators, over over,
yeah.
ID: I mean, one other thing. I mean, Yavin openly said that
Americans need to get over their dictatorship phobia. And then, I
think, within a couple of weeks of him saying that, Thiel gave a
speech at Stanford, I think where he advocated, you know,
that dictatorship was, that was the right way to proceed with he
was talking about startups, you know, you know, starting up new
new industry and starting up new companies. But nonetheless, he
said, you know that we that we need to be dictators. You know
that need, there needs to be a dictatorship in order for, for,
you know, a company for
Unknown: innovation, Iain dictatorship, just cause
innovation,
WW: of innovation. Every historical dictatorship, right?
I mean, that's the thing that defines them all, not extreme
oppression of the public or censorship or tyranny, it's it's
innovation, right? Unless you're talking about innovation in
tyranny, which then perhaps that's true.
ID: Yeah, yeah, they've been great for that. But, I mean, I
think, I think one of the things is, I mean, we are, you know,
I've written these two articles, and we're talking about all
these seemingly off the wall, weird, new ideas that are being,
that are being adopted by some of the most powerful people on
Earth. But it's not new, is it? It's just. Say it's the same old
idea. It's the same old idea that a small group of people
should completely dominate everybody else. Yes, yes. I
mean, I mean, it's as old. It's as old as society itself. It's
not new,
WW: you know, it's interesting to me when you consider too
that, you know, the PayPal Mafia, right? My work has shown
and we've talked, we haven't talked that much in this
discussion about it, but the second part of your series does
touch on it that a lot of these figures, Musk and Thiel, in
particular, are joined at the hip with the national security
state. And, you know, the national security state of the
US when it goes in at coups another country? What kind of
system of government does it install there? Does it tend to
be, you know, libertarian governments? No, it tends to be
military dictatorships. So, you know, obviously the, if you look
at the CIA, as I do, is sort of a construct of, you know, Wall
Street bankers and organized crime who basically use, you
know, intelligence agencies as their secret police force. As it
were, it would make sense that this is the kind of system they
would like to have now in the United States, after imposing
dictatorships around the world. But what's interesting, too, I
think about this in particular. And he brought it up with Nick
lands work. Is that the sales pitch for creating this kind of
tyranny, or in technocracy, and what have you, or whatever you
want to call it, is this, this manufactured urgency of we have
to do this because of the approaching singularity, and
because of AI and because of where technology is taking us.
And it kind of reminds me of the same urgency that people on the
right don't like from the left about things like climate
change, for example, and how we have to make all of these
changes because this terrible catastrophe will happen, or this
terrible thing will happen, and so we have to be prepared, or
the whole species will be wiped out, and we have to change
everything about our lives. It's really dialectically quite
similar, isn't it?
ID: Yeah, yeah. And, I mean, I think that's, you know, goes
basically that, you know, the, I think it's fair to say, is it
not that, you know, the the left broadly, are on board with
things like, you know, combating climate change and sustainable
development and you know these things, they think, Oh, well,
yeah, we do have to accept this kind of technocracy that clearly
sustainable development goals are, are engineering. You know,
that's the point of them. To a large extent, they accept that.
The left accepts that because, because, you know, the climate
catastrophe, the impending climate catastrophe, the right
less so they're far more skeptical. Conservatives in the
in in Europe and in the UK and Republicans in the US are far
more skeptical. Don't kind of see this evidence as solid as as
the left claims. Realize what a terrible impact it's going to
have on the economy and themselves and their lives. So
they reject it, but they are very, very concerned about other
things, such as immigration, such as, you know, the, you
know, the cost of living, that kind of thing that really
matters. So up steps the other side of the oligarch coin, this
time represented by Thiel and Musk particularly. But there are
others and and to provide the right the Conservatives and the
and the Republicans to provide them an in to essentially
exactly the same thing, which is, as I, you know, said
earlier, is not a new idea. It's just, it's just that we're
moving into a technological era that really is, from you know, a
kind of dictator's point of view, an amazing opportunity to
just really stamp down on us and control everything we do. So
they've already got the left on board. Now they need to get the
right on board. Hence Trump it enables, it enables that, that
bait and switch to take place. And that's, you know, I mean,
that's, that's the way I view it. I don't, I don't, there is
no, I can't put a cigarette paper between, between both
sides of the coin, they're essentially going down the same
path, you
WW: know? And this kind of reminds me some of what, some of
what you just brought up, of how fascinating it has been to watch
how Teslas, which were previously the car of liberals.
Very concerned about climate change. Electric vehicles in the
US you know, are now being protected in the streets by gun
toting libertarians and Trump supporters are buying them in
mass. And you have like, you know, the Trump himself, and
also Howard lutnic, basically doing sales pitches for Tesla
publicly while in public office, and now it's being sort of
framed as like the car of the rights, which is interesting,
isn't it, because since the future, you know, outlined by
this technocratic model, and you know, affiliated entities is
interested in an EV only cars, because, you know, Tesla, as as
Musk has pointed out, is not a car company, it's a software and
AI company. But really, Teslas are like surveillance machines,
and they can be remotely turned off. And if you are driving it
and the government decides you are naughty, they can just drive
your car against your will to a police department or whatever,
ID: or into a wall.
WW: Yes, the Michael Hastings method, I guess so. It's not
necessarily better, but now it's the car of the right. And I
think, you know, I used to think before, when I saw a lot of this
stuff, you know, these shifts in these engineering efforts to get
people on the right on board with a lot of these quote,
unquote, globalist policies that they used to hate and now are
being engineered to love under different names. You know, 15
minute cities, Freedom cities, whatever you know, among other
examples that we've discussed today, not CBDCs, but but stable
coins. You know, I used to wonder, how are they going to
sell Neuralink? And now I'm like, Well, no, they're just
going to tell the conservatives that they need a Neuralink to
own the libs, and then a bunch of them will just do it. Maybe
that's a little cynical, but it's starting to feel like the
social engineering stuff has been, has been very successful
in getting people that were against the so called Great
reset of the COVID era. You know, I think they did a good
job in sort of framing it, that the great reset was a communist
plot, and it was just Klaus Schwab and a handful of other
people. And now that we've put new faces in charge, you know,
it's even though people for young global leaders of the WEF
and whatever in our you know, Peter Thiel is on the building
Bilderberg steering committee. It's different now, and things
are fine, and it's not really the same policies. Yeah, because
people tend to focus so much on the political personalities and
not the policies being implemented. Yeah,
ID: no, absolutely. And one of the things that I thought was
very interesting, was it Mark Anderson? He from Anderson
Horowitz. He wrote this thing called the techno optimists
manifesto, in which he now bearing in mind he has been he's
not officially linked to the DOGE, but he's been noted as a
key, a key influencer in in selecting staff or whatever he
was, an advisor, an advisor to the Trump administration, who
appears to have been selecting people for all kinds of
positions and everything. Now in the in the techno optimist
manifesto, he openly says, we are accelerationists now we is
obviously the network that he's, you know, he's tied to, and
accelerationists used in the way that he used it. And everything,
everything that he's written in the techno optimist manifesto
has come is pure. So the people that are advocates of The Dark
Enlightenment would call themselves Neo reactionaries.
And it is pure, Neo reactionary Dark Enlightenment stuff that
he's written there. And, you know, they call AI their
Philosopher's Stone. They're, you know, they're elevating it,
already, elevating it to, you know, mythical heights. And you
know that. So these people are undoubtedly pursuing this
twisted, I would say, ideology, it's influence on them is, is
obvious, and they are very influential, I would say, in the
current US government. So, you know, I mean, I think, I think
it's whatever Republican voters hoped they would get. I mean, if
we, if we look at things like, you know, Trump's executive
orders, that that's, that's that is purely feeding into what
these, this oligarch network, desire, you know, they're trying
to construct this technocratic game. Core, privatized form of
government and and everything that that Trump has done,
really, all these, certainly his executive orders, uh, pretty
much facilitates that. So or is, or is intended to facilitate
that. So, yeah, sure, while people are focused on the DOGE,
you know, making its efficiency savings, apparently, although
that, I think that remains to be seen, but, but while it's
supposedly making its efficiency savings, as you said right at
the beginning of this, what people aren't noticing is that
it is in it is deploying AI to make decisions over people's
lives. That's what it's that's what it's also doing, and the
people that are behind it, particularly in this case, Musk,
that's what they that's the kind of society they are trying to
construct. But as we, as we also said earlier, ultimately, the
idea that the fundamental idea that underpins everything is
1000s of years old. It is about top down control, that's that's
what it's about.
WW: Well, yeah, I think it's absolutely very old. It's like,
you know, the oligarch families are like, hey, remember in the
Middle Ages, when they were a bunch of serfs and they were
ruled by kings, wasn't that great? How do we go back to
that, but then prevent the serfs from ever rebelling again, kind
of thing. But, I mean, I don't know. We can't hate on them,
right? They're techno optimists. They're optimist Iain, are you
against optimism? Are you black pilled. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's
kind of funny, but that's the best pushback they have anymore,
is we'll
ID: just call it optimism. When you read it, you'll be
terrified, but we'll call it optimistic.
WW: It's more like the would be, you know, robber barons of this
era that instead of oil barons, of course, they're they're data
barons. They're very optimistic about the prospects of all of
this. Yeah
ID: for themselves. Yeah. But to highlight the point that we were
just talking about, about you saying that you know about how
that they're, they're cajoling people and getting people to go
along with it, with the with the other side of the, you know, the
Republic and the conservative side of this agenda. In in the
techno optimist manifesto, Anderson says he lists a whole
load of things. I think he lists the World Health Organization,
the World Economic Forum, uh, stake stakeholder capitalism,
and a whole, whole load of things that that he identifies
as the enemies, the enemies of the techno populists, of the
techno kings, which is how they sometimes refer themselves their
enemies. And then says because, you know, and then go ahead,
doesn't say it outright, but he kind of very, kind of firmly,
kind of infers it that they're all rooted in communism. I
thought was like what we go back to, sort of McCarthyism now, is
this just kind of, that's
WW: what happened during the COVID era. A lot of the figures
that were promoted very heavily as as as the leaders, quote,
unquote, or thought leaders of dissent during the COVID era. A
lot of them claimed that and ignored the fact that the WEF is
of the global promoter, self described, of the public private
partnership,
Unknown: yeah, and ignored
WW: what stakeholder capitalism actually is and does. And it
basically became kind of this mccarthyist style thing, in a
sense. But again, it was about sort of creating this label,
sort of in the same line of what we talked about earlier with
identity politics and not really having people look at the
underlying policies, which ultimately, you know, of the
great reset in the West is digital transformation in the
fourth industrial revolution, which is a merging of of our
biological and digital selves, which is essentially what this
group is also arguing for, right? And so again, it's like,
oh, well, we've defeated the communists. We're not
communists. We are something else. But we're still going to
give you the Fourth Industrial Revolution and all the policies
of the great reset. We're just going to use different sales
pitches for them, which is, ultimately, I think, where,
where we are in that sense, which is why I urge people all
the time to focus on the policy and not the political figure,
not the celebrity, not the identity right of the identity
politics, or these, you know, these manufactured celebrities,
or, you know, front men that have been, you know, are now the
richest men in the world, or whatever. But focus on.
Policies, because you'll find a lot of the policies are the
same, and someone like Elon Musk is now a hero among the
ostensible right, but he's a major proponent of universal
basic income, of carbon pricing. You know a who's who of you know
great reset policies, but I guess we're supposed to believe
it's it's different now, or he'll frame it differently. And
you, you know, in your piece, gave this quote from Yarvin
about the humane alternative to genocide, and really, it could
have come out of any of these Neo eugenicist groups affiliated
with the WEF. Or Yuval Noah Harari, you know, from the COVID
era, this idea of basically having people waxed in pods
instead of killing them. They can be in pods and be in virtual
worlds enjoying themselves, like the metaverse or something like
that. But I guess in this case, it will be a corporation that
will put you in the pod and feed you bugs, Freedom cicadas, and
you'll get your UBI Liberty stipend. I don't know. I'm sure
they'll change the names of all of these things now that 15
minute cities are, are freedom cities, Freedom cities. And you
know, just have to cloak it the right way and sell it to them.
And, you know, and be like, well, get in the pod, and you'll
own the LIBS that way in your pod. I don't know. I mean, a lot
of the policies they advocate for really aren't different.
It's just the sales pitches and the means to, you know, get
people to consent to them are and ultimately, again, it's just
like the COVID era, where so much was invested in getting
people to consent to things and manipulate them to consent to
things they otherwise want to consent to. I would argue the
same thing is happening now. Yeah, absolutely.
ID: And I think the interest, I mean, one of the things that the
quote, I just took a section out of that of that essay that he
wrote, the lead up to the quote that I've that I've given,
because it does stand out in the in the in the piece he was
talking about converting us into bio fuel. Says, you know, the
the most useful thing that a lot of these people are any use for
is to be converted into bio fuel. But we can't do that. I
mean, when he's talking about these people, what he means, and
I think it's important to stress, this is us. That's who
he means. He means all of us that we are not. We're not ready
for the the singularity. You see, we're not, we're not
equipped for it. So we're useless, in their view. So, so,
you know, the best thing for us, really, he argued in this piece
was that we should be turned into bio fuel. But then, but
then he said he was just joking. He was just, he was only joking
about that. So what he really means is, and I'll, we'll quote
this, but it says our goal, in short, is a humane alternative
to genocide. That is the ideal solution achieves the same
result as mass murder, the removal of undesirable elements
from society, but without any of the moral stigma. So that so
Yarvin's main problem with genocide is it's bad PR, that's,
that's his, that's his. Yes, that's, that's his. Problem with
it other really,
WW: he's really, Yuval Noah Harari with mop hair. I feel
like the more I think about it, yeah,
ID: so, so bearing in mind that this there's, you know, Thiel is
very close to Yarvin, you know, I mean, he's, you know, they've
spent a lot of time to together. Thiel has referenced him a
number of times. They share the same shape, same ideas. So you
know, when you think that how influential he has become in the
current Trump administration and and his networks, you know
across I mean, look at look at the conduct. Bear that in mind
what we've just heard Yavin say and think about the conduct of
Palantir in Ukraine and then Israel. It seemed pretty clear.
And stab ruler perhaps wrote an excellent piece about this. But
the Palantir, you know, used Ukraine as a as a test bed for
not just Palantir, you know, other open AI. And you know,
there were, there were a lot of people involved, but they used
it as a test bed to develop AI, weapon development, targeting,
targeting and and things like that. And then they, then they
were invited to really kind of use what they'd learnt in Israel
for, you know, a real genocide, so that they could partner with
the Israeli occupation forces to to commit a real genocide. Yeah.
So, so although, and then I think, a lot of times, and one
of the things that I've tried to focus on in the pieces is the
use of language that these people are using. They they
often, and, you know, do it in a flip and off hand joking manner.
You know, that's the way, that's the way they present their
ideas. Oh, it's all just a laugh, really. But when we see
the culmination of those ideas, as we've seen in Ukraine and
Gaza, it's not so funny after all, is it?
WW: No, not at all. And I think that's something that's been
overlooked entirely in talking about, you know, Palantir's
influence in the United States, for example, is that all of
these things are intended to be used domestically, and Palantir
is the repurposing of a program that was created for that
purpose. And it's meant to be a pre crime system, which is why
Palantir ever since, you know, it was originally total
information awareness and privatized as Palantir, Palantir
has been at the forefront of predictive policing, as it's
called now, you know, throughout the United States, and I believe
beyond as well. And the idea, you know, is that the algorithm
determines if you may be guilty of a crime in the future and
that you can be prosecuted, because the algorithm thinks you
might do something that you haven't done yet, which is
obviously horrible and dystopian. But certainly shows
this whole idea of, well, you know, could be used to
effectuate this, this idea that, you know, people, of the useless
eaters and all of that, because a lot of the, for example, LAPD,
which used to use Palantir for predictive policing, and then
moved to this other program, the program they use more, most
recently, called PredPol, was found to be half a percent
accurate, half a percent. Yeah, so that's like, infinitely worse
than a coin toss. It's basically a way to go in a community and
send as many of the people there to prison as possible. So if you
you know are Yarvin, and you want to say who are
undesirables? Well, you know, undesirables are criminals,
right? Or perspective, criminals. And so if you have a
combination of these algorithms, especially when now you know the
algorithms have your social media history, so anti semitism
is now, you know, hate speech under Trump, whatever. Well, it
was before too, but they're sort of taking, using AI to kick
people, to deport people, and kick people out of college based
on what they've said about, you know, Israel, or the Israel Gaza
war, more specifically, what happens if, you know, they take
kick that up a notch and it can become a crime, or, you know, in
a pre crime paradigm, staying things like that is a precursor,
is an indicator that you may commit an anti semitic act in
the future, or something like that. That's where things get
absolutely bonkers, and it's completely insane. And I think
people just don't really realize that. And you know, a lot of you
know, in my case, you know, I've attempted to warn about Palantir
and Thiel, and then later JD Vance as vice president, because
of his ties to, you know, Thiel and Palantir and all of that,
you know, quite vocally, and I don't, I don't know, it just
doesn't seem to resonate with people, with what Palantir is
meant to become, and now, because they are tied up so much
with the health system in the Us at HHS, and also, of course, in
the UK, with NHS, they have access to mental health data.
And in the first Trump administration, they tried to
create a program called Safe homes, where AI would go through
your social media and determine if you're showing early warning
signs of neuropsychiatric violence and should be, you
know, put on, placed under house arrest and things like that, you
know, preventatively and Trump, you know, framed it as part of
this thing, like we have to stop mass shootings before they can
happen in all of this. And it's definitely not liberty minded,
to say the least, um, but would definitely, you know, I could
see where that could easily interlink with some of these
viewpoints from yard and others, this idea of sort of putting
undesirables in the pod. Well, we won't kill the undesirables,
but we can put them under house arrest, and they can go and be
in the metaverse or whatever. I mean, I know that sounds really
dark, but unfortunately, Palantir and this whole system
being constructed that also includes these AI, you know,
weapons and the generation of AI kill lists that are being used
to slaughter whole families in Gaza. The fact that that has now
happened, and Palantir has now enabled that, and that a
government is allowing that to happen, and there is no
international condemnation or effort to really prevent that
from continuing, shows that it will continue to happen, and the
fact that Palantir was always intended to be used domestically
in. Or against, you know, dissidents within the West via,
you know, its previous incarnations. You know, people
should be very, very aware of, of how of a slippery slope this
is, and how and how much this particular group should be,
certainly not cheerleaded. And I guess let's put it that way.
ID: Yeah. And I think you know, one thing that I sort of else
would sort of stress as well is that this is a protect the
potential that they are pursuing, the potential of the
of the system that they are trying to construct. When you go
all the way back to a guy called Frederick Winslow Taylor, who
was the kind of, the initial kind of, I guess, kind of
driving force for the for the technocrats of the 1930s who
said the system must be first so, so they're constructing this
system. And one of the questions I ask in the articles is, if
it's not intended for the purposes that we've just been
discussing, and we're already seeing it being used for those
kinds of terrible reason, purposes, why are they building
it? Why are they constructing it in the manner that they are
constructing it, if they don't intend to use it? And we know
that they do intend to use it because they're already using it
for, for that, for that kind of inhumane, inhuman, just, you
know, terrible, terrible kind of things that they that they're
using this, this, these systems for. So, you know, another point
though, that I would point out is that it doesn't we don't have
to accept it. We just don't have to accept it. We're not
compelled to go along with any of this. We really aren't, but
we but unfortunately, I mean that you know that's the way.
Certainly I would suggest that the propaganda has worked in the
US in this lead up to the recent election. Is to convince people,
as you rightly said earlier, is to convince people to go along
with it, based on based on a complete misapprehension. Of
what, of what is being proposed. You know, it's what is being
proposed is not what I would suggest Republican voters
thought was being proposed. It just isn't.
WW: Well, certainly not. And there's a lot of influencers
now, uh, trying to keep people in the pen being like, just give
it more time. Trump needs more time. And I mean, people should
remember, we've heard this before with Obama and Trump in
his first term, the trust the plan. I mean, they just
basically want you to sit and wait and do nothing and keep
giving your consent until what the system they're building has
been built. And exactly they're Manufacturing Consent for the
system. They've been very successful in doing it, and a
lot of that is because of how successfully they manipulate
media. And something I've said for a very long time, and it's
very true, is that the PayPal Mafia fund a lot of independent
media voices in attempt to, even if they don't overtly fund them,
they attempt to recruit them to speak at private events that
involve the Thiel Foundation, for example. And I know that
personally because I was extended an offer, even though I
had just written a book slamming Palantir in Peter too. No
thanks. But if I got an offer like that, which, of course, I
did not even respond to, I'm sure plenty of other people have
as well in independent media. And that doesn't, you know,
there's Thiel funding people directly, like Tucker Carlson,
and also, you know, via rumble, for example, JD Vance is also a
shareholder in and a lot of other examples. But if you look
at these big promoted voices and the so called mainstream
alternative media, they're not critical of Thiel and Musk and
they they're extremely boosted by the algorithm. At this point,
it should be abundantly obvious to people, and so they're using,
you know, those voices to keep people in the partisan box. Yes,
all of these things are happening. They'll talk about
suppressed or controversial information, but their answer
is, sit and wait. Trump will fix it, or Robert F Kennedy, or any
of these other figures will fix it. And ultimately, it's up to
us to extricate ourselves from the system. Because whether it's
Trump or Thiel or Musk or anyone else like you said, the system
is it must be first, right? It's not really about us, and so if
we don't want to live under the system, our best shot is to
extricate ourselves from it and become as independent of it as
possible. Because if we're dependent on it and consent to
become. And even more dependent on it, which is about to happen
over the next, you know, four to five years or so, arguably less.
You know, it'll be much harder to extricate yourself from it in
the future. And you will, you know, become a human animal to
be programmed by these people, which is what you know, the
effort ultimately is leading us to consent to so in the interest
of time. Iain, any last thoughts, either on that or on
the topic of discussion at General, yeah,
ID: one thing, there's no doubt about the way they perceive us.
You know, the land spoke about our sovereignty should be
treated with that they've got this idea of auditing the
functions of society that's part of the Dark Enlightenment, and
they would audit everyone's sovereignty and land. Said that
our sovereignty was so pitiful, so meaningless, that it should
be treated with derision so and I think that it's fair to say
that that is how we are seen. Certainly land referred to us as
the inarticulate pros. Javin thinks we ought to be waxed up
in a virtualized world like bees inside a honeycomb. If you know,
seen as genocide is bad. PR, you know, feel calls us the
unthinking demos. These people are not our friends, and we need
to be very clear on that. Well, thanks
WW: so much for your time. Iain, if you could let our viewer or
listeners know where to find your work. Of course, I'm, as I
mentioned earlier, you're a regular contributor to Unlimited
Hangout. But of course, you have your own website. You have your
own books and and other projects. So if you could let
you know our listeners and supporters know about that, it
would be greatly appreciated. Yeah,
ID: you can find me at Iaindavis.com All one word. My
name's spelt with two I's. It's i-a-i-n davis.com Also I write
at Substack, which, again, is IainDavis.substack.com I also
fortunate that a number of my articles are republished by the
offGuardian, which is a great place to go for a variety of a
lot of writers there that are producing some good stuff at
offGuardian. I'm very fortunate to have my articles published by
yourself, Whitney, at Unlimited Hangout. I've also got some
articles published with Geopolitics & Empire. Yeah, my
book, my latest book is The Manchester Attack, and that is
freely available to subscribers to my website. And you can also
purchase a physical copy if you want at my website.
WW: Well, thanks so much, Iain, thanks so much for your work,
particularly on the elites now controlling us Society, who are
obviously poised to have a major influence well beyond the US
just because of the unipolar paradigm that has existed in the
post world war two era. And also for your work on a litany of
topics, there were other things covered in this series too that
I wish we had time to talk about, like your work on
synthetic hegemonic currency, and how this is playing into the
new digital finance paradigm that we are rapidly being herded
into, among other things. So I would definitely encourage
people to check out not just Iain series for Unlimited
Hangout, but some of his past work on these issues as well
more relevant than ever. And thank you to everyone for
listening and for especially to the people that support this
podcast, and we'll catch you on the next episode as we continue
our series on the PayPal Presidency.