The PayPal Presidency Part II: Building the “Dark” Technate with Iain Davis

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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,

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?

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

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,

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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,

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,

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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,

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,

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,

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,

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

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,

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.

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.

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.

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

mean, I mean, it's as old. It's as old as society itself. It's not new,

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?

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

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,

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,

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.

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

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

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.

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,

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?

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.

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.

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,

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

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.

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.