The Last American Vagabond - Iain Davis Interview - The Technocratic Dark State & The Network State Agenda

Episode Date: April 27, 2026

Joining me today is Iain Davis, here to discuss his new book, The Technocratic Dark State. We discuss the Dark Enlightenment movement, the Network State agenda, and what appears to be a forced transition of society into a new style of governance and control structure. Unlike the push for such a transition under the Biden Administration, while using the threat of pathogens and personal equity, the current Republican administration is focusing on energy flow and personal safety. Regardless of the different framing, the outcome is the same: The Great Reset.Source Links:The Technocratic Dark State - Second Edition – THE PAPERCUTIain Davis - The Disillusioned Blogger(100) Iain Davis Substack | Substack(25) InThisTogether (@_InThisTogether) / XBook Review: The Technocratic Dark State by Iain Davis | Solari ReportThe Praxian Genocidal Kill Chain – Part 1New TabThe Network State Coup And The Engineered Transition To “Tech Zionism”Pronomos Capital & The Rapid Transition To A Techno-Feudal StateThe Technocratic Regime Change: Under The Guise Of Freedom Technocrats Are Slowly Taking ControlThe Technocratic Tiptoe - The Last American VagabondThe Fake Globalist Resistance Ushering In The Globalist PlanTrump At Davos: Globalism Is Dead. Long Live Globalism.Trump & The Zionist/Globalist Technocrats Are Building Your New Society Whether You Like It Or NotThe Impending Future Of AI-Government - But Who Controls The AI?Donald Trump, Peter Thiel, and the TechnocratsMeet The Peter Thiel Acolytes in Donald Trump’s 2nd AdministrationMeet the Man Whose Philosophy Has Influenced Peter Thiel and the TechnocratsJames Corbett Interview - Trump’s Great Reset Or Great Blunder?Gaza’s “Board Of Peace” Seeks To Reimagine The International OrderHegseth Unveils “Greater North America”, Graham Says Iran “Is a Religious War” & Worst MAGA Day YetData is the New Oil | The Corbett ReportDenis Rancourt Interview - Data Proves COVID-19 Is Actually An IllusionDetachment 201 (Technocracy In Uniform), Trump’s MAGA Divide & Israel’s Iran Regime Change Two-StepTrump’s Warp Speed, CDC’s Jim O’Neill, Transhumanism & Gaza “Freedom Cities” (Technocratic Dystopia)BlackRock’s Larry Fink abruptly becomes a part of Trump’s inner circle. How’d he get there?Bitcoin Donations Are Appreciated:www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/bitcoin-donation(3FSozj9gQ1UniHvEiRmkPnXzHSVMc68U9f)The Last American Vagabond Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

And what it boils down to is the concept of governance as a service. It's the ultimate fusion of the public and private sector. Ultimately, what they're talking about is a society where there's no need for law. There's no need for government at all and no law because your behavior will be controlled by algorithm. Smash everything to pieces. Just disrupt every market you put. possibly can disrupt it as aggressively as you possibly can. And then, you know, rapidly introduced the solutions. All value goes digital. Nothing exists unless it's on the ledger.

Welcome to the last American vagabond. Joining me today is Ian Davis, member of the Independent Media Alliance, independent journalist, author of the technocratic dark state, Trump AI and digital dictatorship. To discuss what we've been talking to lot about. He has helped some research in this for a very long time. And this is the conversation of the, you know, kind of transition of society, the dark enlightenment movement, the idea of, as we discussed, the CEO run country, the sort of the network state agenda, all these different parts of this and sort of the transition to the control grid that we've been discussing. And wanted to talk with Ian about how this is how we got here, where it's going and how

it seems to be developing within this current administration and, you know, possible ways to stop it. So, Ian, how are you today? Thanks for joining me. No, it's my pleasure. I'm very well, thanks. How are you? Not bad. You know, things considered as it goes these days, right? But, you know, this is such an important topic, Ian, and it's so, it's what's first of all just to start out what's so wild to me is, is just such a self-evident thing that's happening. You know, like, we can all debate about like what it is, what's driving it, what you want to call it. But it's not like some hyperbolic theorized, you know, here's a document we think means X, Y, and Z. this is happening. Like this is a transition in multiple ways.

Like whether that ends up being the case, whether that is the predominant thing, it's very clearly tied into the current administration. You know, and so do you find that confounding? Like, why do you think that is that this is such an, like a big and massive thing happening in front of us? But yet it gets such little conversation.

And those that do seem to push back like it's some kind of a baseless conspiracy theory. Well, I think it's such an outrageous agenda. It's difficult for people to wrap their heads around it and and i understand that completely because my motivation for writing the book i probably started in that in that same place because i couldn't believe what i was seeing in it to a great extent um and and you know when i i became familiar with the ideas that are espoused within the by the what is collectively called the the neo reactionary movement um or we can call the

neo reactionary movement. You know, it's hard to, even the language that they use is difficult to decipher, which was another big reason for writing the book because I think, you know, people need to be familiar with some of the terms that they use because they use it when they're talking to each other, not necessarily in interviews, but certainly sometimes in interviews, but certainly in the documents that fly backwards and forwards and their various manifestos and so forth they slip these little terms in you often see them using it on social media just saying things like the network state ha ha ha ha you know as if but but without you know unless

you're familiar with the implications of that you wouldn't necessarily know what they're talking about so i think i think that's an important uh point to and a you know of course a major theme in the book is picking apart this language to to say to show what it actually means. And what it boils down to is exactly what you were saying earlier. It's the concept of governance as a service. So governance provided to you by a private provider. So it is in effect the end of government, as we understand it.

It's the ultimate fusion of the public and private sector so that the, so that the, which, you know, the ideas that we might be familiar with in that sense would be fascism, perhaps. But it's, but it's the ultimate, well, I would say it's the, it's the, that the private sector, in their model, the private sector consumes the public sector. So the public sector is, is gone, really. to the extent now that um you know the same people uh you know so if we take a for example uh the representative of pallieteer technologies in the uk a guy called louis moseley very effusive about the notion of the agenic state so the this this idea of governance provided as a service via algorithm so that the the function of government that i mean when we think about How do most of us, how do most of us react with government? Providing we stay on, you know,

we stay on the right side of the law, most of our interaction with government is a bureaucratic thing, isn't it? You know, we have a license application to fill out, or we have a marriage certificate to file, or we have a mortgage application to make. So that's really the only time we sort of interact with government in our day-to-day lives. You know, and then occasionally we go to the polls or whatever. But what they're suggesting is that the entire bureaucratic function of government can be done by AI. So there's no need for government departments.

There's no need for government. There's no need for, and if you follow their logic through, what they're actually saying is, you know, if you then consider the introduction, of surveillance technology and the introduction of things like, you know, I would say that central bank digital currency or all forms of programmable digital money is just another form of surveillance technology and behavioural for all technology. If you follow that through, then ultimately what they're talking about is a society where there's no need for law. There's no need for government at all and no law because your behaviour will be controlled by.

algorithm. And they've openly discussed, this is openly discussed within things like the dark enlightenment and, and, you know, some of the ideas that flow backwards and forwards in their little kind of neo-reactionary think tanks. Yeah. And this is in material sense, what you're describing, I guess, I guess more than that, but just in any sense, like, is that not the similar great reset pathway? Like, you know, there's different, a general, a general, around it, but in your mind is that's the same kind of idea, or is there a difference between them or are they part of the same agenda? Like the, what we saw push during the COVID-19 overlap. How is that different in a sense from what we're discussing here?

No, there isn't. No, I think we're seeing the coalition of the coming together, certainly of many different, for one of the better expression, globalist agendas. So if you think of what's happening, I mean a good example at the moment, if we look at the Middle East. So if we look at the, what are the, ultimately, what are the implications for what's happening in the Middle East? If you look at it from the United Nations perspective, it's, it's the restriction and the further control of energy flows, certainly fossil fuels. So it's the, it's the restricted use of fossil fuels, which the, which is very much part of the UN sustainability. development agenda, which ties into, you know, how are we going to control things like

energy corridors? How is that going to happen? How are we going to control things like at a global level? You know, how can we control these quote unquote pariah states? You know, we might have a view about who are the pariah states in this instance, but from one side, it's, it's the US and and Israel from the other side it's Iran and Pakistan and China and so you know either way which which other way you look at it how are we going to do that well that means better global governance how are we how are we going to you know free up the the situation at the moment with the destabilization of a place like the Middle East well that needs some sort of union regionalize union where everyone's working together in harmony, which is multi-polarity, you know, is leading you into the

multipolar agenda. Then he look at places like what's happening at the moment in Gaza, which is obviously, you could argue, is the antecedent for what is actually happening now in Iran. And what are the proposals for Gaza? Well, that's going to be a privately run city state, which is, which is the, that's the intention. The intention is to convert it into a privately run city state and then if you look at the UN agenda for city states in special economic zones there are 5,000 already around the world so that so they're there i mean one of the points that i can't one of the things that i keep trying to repeat and and reiterate within the book is that i just keep giving examples i give as you said earlier i just keep giving examples of not not this might

happen at some point in the future right but this happening now it's it's it's it's being done now. And that's the confound, you know, and that's perfect. Like that brings us back to the first thing I was saying is that it's just, it's just obvious. And I'm glad you see it the same way because, you know, you, as we all should, you question yourself. Like, am I just, you know, is this confirmation bias? Am I just seeing what I think is there? But, you know, it's in good we do that. We question that, right? That's how you maintain objectivity. But it's very obviously in our faces. It's, and that's why

I'm so frustrated by how it's so difficult to get people to see like we did during COVID, you know, right there, but that's what we do, right? So, so let's go to, before we go deeper on what you were discussing there, because there's so many angles to go on, we probably should do multiple interviews on each one of these parts. If you want to go into briefly, because my audience is probably very aware of what we've been going through, but for those that may be new to all this, before we get into sort of like what is happening now and what they're seen to be aiming toward, you know, how did we get here? Like, how do we transition? And I know it's a big topic, but if you want to get into a little bit from whatever the previous governance was and to, you know, what's currently

happening? Is it because they, as the, as the governance structure, are they recognizing a need to change? Is another force that's trying to take over for something new? You know, how do you see this and how do we get here? Well, in terms of international relations or in terms of national governance, oh, well, okay, let's take it from, I mean, whichever way you want to look at it, let's take it global to make that the point. But, you know, I mean, I'm coming at it for more of an American perspective on what I see changing here. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Yeah. As something it affects the global change. So however, you see it being most important. Well, I mean, if you think about the transition towards, so I mean, you know, you look at the, the, what's happening at the moment with the Trump administration, a great example.

So it's extending its influence, obviously the countries like Venezuela. Mexico is practically a satellite state. It's looking towards Greenland, to expansionism towards Greenland. Now, whether that would be, I don't think that will necessarily, it's not militarily, but certainly. certainly increasing its defense footprint in somewhere like Greenland and economically extending its influence over Greenland. That map that's drawn out that we've never seen before anywhere else is bigger than the North American Union. If you're going all the way from Venezuela through Central America, all the way through the Americas, North America,

all the way up to the polar region with Greenland, where is that map? That map. perhaps the North American Technite is depicted on the back of the, yeah, exactly. So, I mean, although that's been drawn out in words and it's also being drawn out in deeds. So, you know, another example. And certainly the, what I would consider to be the transnational capitalist oligarch class has in the US has been very, keen on technocracy for a very long time. Best part of a century, for best part of a century now. So it's not surprising that we see the increasing introduction of,

of technocracy throughout, you know, the last century, certainly since the 1920s, 1930s. So we see that increasing. And what is technocracy ultimately, ultimately, in my view, what it boils down to? is the centralized control of the distribution and allocation of all resources, specifically energy, because everything flows from energy, our use of energy. But nonetheless, that's what it boils down. That's the crux of the idea. And obviously, that is happening, not just in the US, that is happening

everywhere. This notion that our use of energy needs to be control, whether it's to save the planet, it or whether it is to maximize our independence from a hostile foreign actor. You know, whatever the narrative might be, the net effect of that is the further consolidation, centralisation and control of our use of energy. And if we lose that independence, even more than we've lost it already, that's obviously that has a massive catastrophe. tailing effect on the extent to which we've got agency with our own behaviour. So that it's all, it's all about controlling, ultimately it's all about controlling our

behaviour. So if you look at what the Trump administration is doing currently with this gaggle of Silicon Valley oligarchs, they are centralising their control and authority over Americans data. So Trump's executive order to quote, free up or to stop data sitting in silos across government departments, but to get rid of those data silos, which effectively means taking private data data that's held by, you know, departments like the Department of Justice and Homeland Security and all these different and the IRS and all these different departments, which is Americans private personal, information and data, bringing that all together into a unified ledger system, distributed ledger, probably you can see that that is well suited to the kind of data that might be managed on a blockchain, for example, it might not be blockchain, but whatever it might be.

Bringing that together under the control of essentially a network of private corporations, probably most notably, you know, if we look at this kind of Department of Justice data, for example, or, you know, then Palantir. If you're looking at health data, then Oracle. But they're working together. They're part of the same, part of the same network of corporations that are hoovering up all this data to use it for whatever agenda that they want to use it for. And that's being given away by Americans because they voted for an administration that I would strongly argue is absolutely led and controlled by this gaggle of Silicon Valley oligarchs. Yeah. And I think that, I mean, that's what so.

I mean, obviously, people are paying attention to politics in general sense, whether U.S. or otherwise, that's not necessarily new. but it's what seems to be controlling the current power structure is what I see as a driving force within this change we're seeing, whereas before it seemed more just about profiteering and, and, you know, whatever the current agenda is, the agenda appears to be transitioning society today. You point to the idea of what's interesting is for the energy control. What's interesting is Corbett so long ago in 2017, did an entire show called Data's the New Oil, really making the argument that this is where the data control flow was going and why. it was then and still is, you know, probably the most important asset in existence.

And today clearly is very important as you're talking about the removing of the silos of information, which as if that's somehow in line with privacy, with anything as they promised, but it's just as you're showing about control, the flow of that through corporations, the government as well, but also your point about the flow of energy, Corbett made this point in our recent interview about the idea of, where it was right here, about the idea of the Strait of Formoose and how in regard to the original Technate idea, core focal point, as you were saying, what in the, you know, control was about the idea of flow of energy. And so it's just a very interesting overlap to what we're seeing with the foreign policy

point. So before, but I wanted your thoughts on, on the foreign policy side of it. Before we go back to that, though, I wanted to ask you what I said before in a specific part of that question, do you think that this is something that is the same old structure deciding to change because it's, I guess, failing or do you feel like this is something new that is taking control from the old system? Just at a very quick point. I think that's an interesting question people are considering. Yeah, I mean, if you look at it from the monetary system perspective, then obviously the current global international monetary and financial system looks ridiculous.

It looks preposterous. You know, you've got a situation where global debt, you know, public debt is orders of magnitude greater than the GDP of the planet. I mean, that on its face, that just, that is preposterous. So, so, you know, looking at it purely from a balance sheet, mathematical perspective, it just looks silly. Now that brings us into all sorts of arguments about the nature of money and the, you know, whether that, but, but nonetheless, you obviously there's a,

there is what Mark Carney called an imbalance in the, in the heart of the International Monetary financial system that needs to be rectified so to that extent if we if you think that oligarch power is basically exerted through its ability to issue money which is which i would argue over the lot certainly since 1913 with the the federal reserve but you know you can go all the way back to the mid mid 1800s to think about the rise of central banking um that's that's been their their lever their lever of power and that does look a bit spent. So what you get is, I think, is that

that brings to the idea that Schwab was talking about in the 70s and then forward into the world economic thought about this notion of stakeholder capitalism. So stakeholder capitalism was about taking control of resources. They were talking about the

financialisation of what they called the global commons which has manifested, which has manifested into natural asset acquisition, which then becomes the tokenization of things like forests and mountain ranges. Right. So they want to create these new asset classes so that they can make the balance sheet look a bit more logical.

You know, if you suddenly create all these new assets, then comparatively speaking, your liabilities, your debt looks a lot smaller. So that's really what that's about. really what that's about but they're sort of progressing along this path of stakeholder capitalism the great reset which is stakeholder capitalism and the fourth industrial revolution which comes out of the same idea and they're gradually going there and then this this group of oligarchs these Silicon Valley oligarchs that have kind of shot up in in the space of a few decades because

they work with government you know Palantir is Palantir because it's because it's it's got a monopoly or it had a monopoly and still has to a great extent of government contracts. So that's how it's how it builds its power and its influence and its wealth. But nonetheless, these guys come along and say, you know, we've got all these problems around the world and we're trying to get to this destination where we've got centralized control of everything. But rather than doing it incrementally, step by step, why don't you do what we're suggesting, which is smash everything to pieces, just disrupt every market you possibly can, disrupt it as aggressively as you possibly can, and then, you know, rapidly introduce the

solutions. So in a sense, it's the same Higalian dialectic problem reaction solution pathway, and the destination is the same. But these guys are coming along saying, Carpe Diem, sees the day, let's do it, let's do it now. And they are doing it as we are seeing in the Middle East at the moment. Because the, I can't, I mean, I, that, I can't stress the implications for this energy to and fro that's, that's going on in the Middle East. I mean, it is, you know, it's life changing for everyone. It's life-changing for everyone because ultimately it is going to mean restricted energy. That's what's going to come out of this.

It's going to be your energy is going to be rationed, which is a fundamental preceptive technology. You know, and so essentially you could see what you were highlighting there, a bit of both, right? Because, you know, there's clearly a dying empire, a dying control structure for whatever reason that people are seeing through, it wants to evolve. I think that's obvious, right? And you could argue that's all it is, right? Just trying to rationalize, work with these groups to engineer its control, to just not lose its control over the population. But at the same time, you have other elements about whether these technocratic elements are then becoming more powerful than the very government that they're helping take control or whether the Zionist element is leaning into the technocratic part, but

for more of a prophetic religion. And which one is the leader in this? Are they all working simultaneously together for control. But, you know, it's, it's such a multifaceted thing. But so, you know, you could see a lot of different things in that, in that point. But so to the, to the foreign policy point you came back to, you know, so with that control, I really want to fixate for a moment on that before we go into the actual like next step of all of this, what you highlighted there, the rationing of energy. And like Corbett's point about that being like a central point to tech the tech, Nate,

you know, do you see this right now first from Trump's perspective being something that, you know, just from your opinion, from the U.S. government perspective, of something that you think that they're like decidedly doing. And it's your opinion entirely. I just want your thoughts on it. And then from there, walk me through how you see that going in regard to rationing energy. You know, for those, you and I, I feel like for average people that do this every day, that may be a simple thought.

But, you know, it's conspiratorial for a lot of people. And but, you know, walk me through the one, two, three of that of how we end up with rationalized energy from, you know, we have an emergency in the street because of Ron bad guy. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, my, my view of the Trump political. hierarchy administration. I think people like Trump and Heggseth and they're clearly wheeled out to their mouthpaces in my view that are wheeled out to often to make fools of themselves, you know, and I think actually on I think there's an agenda there as well, but getting off the point slightly. You know, and if you look at like, for example, the department and now the Department of War. I agree with Whitney Webb's take on this. You know, Steve Feinberg's running, if someone's, if there's a political figure that's

running that is Feinberg, certainly not Heggsett, right? So the people behind, but even behind them who's really running it. So if you look at then who's got the share, lion's share of the contracts, then you start looking at people like SpaceX, the Golden Dome and all the, and Jeryl. And these, you know, these companies that are now taking the lion's share of American defense contract. So that's, so that's not the political state. That is the private transnational capital state that is running that. So, so, but to, with regard to what's happening with the war, quote unquote war in Iran,

if you think about the pinch point of the Strait of Hormuz and how critical that has become, you know, you're talking 20% of the global oil supply is suddenly like a chip to be gambled with on some sort of crazy roulette table, you know, it's obviously the response to that is, well, this can't continue. we can't have a situation where one country, be it Iran or be it the US, we can't have a situation where they can hold the world ransom with energy. So what is the solution to that? Well, the solution to that is the implementation of the infrastructure for things like the IMAC, the Indian Middle East Corridor, Energy Corridor, which, contrary to some people's opinion,

And if you look at IMEC, it meets up with the Belt and Road Initiative. There are numerous, there are new. So if you look at, for example, Haifa in Israel, that is an endpoint for the IMEC corridor, energy corridor. So you diversify the routes. So instead, I mean, Iran's already doing this. But, you know, you have rail routes and you have various, you know, you're not all kind of, kind of compelled to go through the Straits of Hornembourg. you diversify the energy corridors. But if you look at, for example, Haifa, that is both an end point for IMEC, but it's also an

integral endpoint for the Belt and Road project. The Haifa port is a massive Chinese investment. They're not going to pull out of that because, you know, IMEC is allegedly in competition with it. No, what we're going to see is a Eurasian proliferation. of any I mean and this is these are infrastructure projects that they've wanted to put in place for 30 years 40 years and now suddenly they've got the rationale or the or the you know the alleged justification to actually get on with building it and putting it all together and I you know so things that I mean when I look at the war for example so talking about who's in charge of what and what's happening with the war I mean one of the things I've just been looking at at and something that I'm writing about is hypersonic weaponry. Now hypersonic weaponry, according, if anything we're told about weaponry is true,

then China, India, Russia, Iran have got hypersonic weapons, but the US hasn't. The US is developing hypersonic weapons. The whole point of the Golden Dome, proposed Golden Dome defensive umbrella is to protect US assets and the US against hypersonic weapons, because hypersonic weapons are the cutting-edge technological threat. So there's no way if, because, for example, Iran, I think, you know, if you believe what we're told about weapons technology, then Iran has got fatter to hypersonic missiles. If that, if you believe it, right? there is no way that the that the u.s. strike that the u.s. carrier groups can defend themselves against those missiles they have no defense against it not only that that is reliant on the

tad system and the tad system was clearly it was knocked out within the first couple of days of the conflict recently verified a case you didn't see that go ahead sorry yeah yeah i mean i mean So if the TAD system's gone, there's no way those carriers can defend themselves against hypersonic missiles. And nor can their strike groups. They're just floating targets. So quite how the US is supposedly exert in its military force and exerting a blockade. I mean, the blockade story is ridiculous, isn't it? You've got a blockade that was started by insured.

companies. Right. Thank you. I think that's important. It wasn't started by any... And a blockade that was started by global insurance companies, which was then reinforced as the result of a conflict by one side, Iran, but was then only selective.

And they're obviously setting up a toll system so that they can... I mean, all of which is bad for the global economy. economy, but anyway, setting up a toll system. So then Iran kind of backs off the blockade only for the other military partner, or partner, the other military that they're supposedly confronting. So then say, no, no, it can't have you not imposing the blockade. If you're not going to impose it, we will. Right. So I mean, it's, it is insane. It doesn't make any logical sense. There's so much about this war that doesn't make any logical sense. I mean, one of the things that made me laugh was when Trump was talking about sending,

what did he say? I think he said seven and a half thousand and then was it more? 13,000 or 14,000 U.S. troops that he was talking about the surge of, what, Iran has got nearly a million troops. It's all bluff. I mean, there's so much that has been said that is, that is, that is crazy stuff. And you have to, and I, you know, I look at it and I just kind of think, well, you have to

question whether any of this is even plausible. You know, it's not, if, if this, if hypersonic weapons exist and if Iran has got them, carry as a useless. Right. So what you're getting at with this point is that ultimately a lot of this seems like theater. And I do want to actually, would like to get into it. It's, you know, I have a mixed view on this where I very much agree with you, but at the same time, I don't see it as, which I 100% consider as one of the, even a likely possibility.

But at the moment, I don't feel like it seems that they're working together. I could definitely be wrong with that. But, but that there is still seemingly a coordinated agenda, which maybe there is a, like, we saw during COVID, I often point out that, that even adversarial, there was a kind of a lockstep when it came to the larger agenda. But bring back to this, before we get back to that, I wanted to ask you about the, the rationing of the energy part of it, right? So I agree with you that we see the clear sort of like, you know, which I don't want to forget to come back to the blockade. That's a really interesting part of it. But so the blockade and the illusion of it or rather it showed you that either the point was maintaining the blockade that Trump seemed to claim he wanted to stop. So I totally agree with you.

There seems to be some element that wanted that. And the reason I think the blockade part's important is because I feel like that was what they expected Iran to do, but they didn't. So before we come back to that. So the false of the falsity of this is because they want there to be a shut. down. So how does that from there? So like where we are now go to, we're going to justify rationing everybody's energy. Because I agree with you. I think that's an easy step for them, but some people may feel like that's a huge jump. So hypothetically, how do you, how would you see that going from this point where, let's just say it just breaks down entirely to now

we have to do it. And how would they enforce that in your mind? Well, I mean, a global energy crisis, given the state of the current international management financial system will cause it to collapse. So what are you going to replace it with? Well, it have to be, you know, I think a two-tier system, a central bank digital currency with some sort of layer on top of it. So so. So your point would just be that collapse the system entirely, which goes back to what you were saying earlier. And I completely agree with that. I was wondering if you meant sort of like in the meantime before the ultimate transition that they would roll in some sort of energy control. So you mean so that that would be a final transition.

for the collapsing. Well, that's, that's already been done, man. The, the international energy agency has already proposed a plan for rationing energy because of the crisis. So the international energy agency, I think it's,

is it a nine step or a ten step? I think it's a nine step plan that they've introduced, which basically boils down to, rationing when and how much fuel you can buy for a start, massive investment in public transport. increasing the costs of private transport. And this is the key, and this is really important. Their plan, and again, the United Nations are totally on board with this

because this fits in with the sustainable development agenda. It also fits in with the fourth industrial revolution. And it fits in with what global investors are looking towards doing. And that's massively increasing electricity infrastructure. so that you can have the internet of things and the internet and all the data centres that are going to be required to enable this. If we look at what's happening in, I mean, in a microcosm of that, but related to it, if we look at what's happening in Cuba at the moment,

you've got an energy crisis in Cuba, a power crisis in Cuba. That enables China to come along and say, well, we will invest in, immense solar infrastructure in Cuba will we'll help you guys don't worry we'll help you but what that means is that all those independent kind of access to energy is then centrally controlled by one right you have to say probably Chinese probably Huey or a corporation like that will be controlling Cuba's energy grid right so so yeah so so I mean And that goes back to, you know, I mean, one thing I'll just briefly go back to because you said, you know, talking about is there anything new in this thinking? In my book, I argue, no, there isn't.

What we're basically talking about is oligarchy, which is a small group of people controlling everybody else. And that's two, that idea is 2,000 years old. Right. So there's nothing. In a different way, going back to like a techno feudal, right? Like in that very same way, like going backward into a feudal state, but techno style. Yeah, no, absolutely. Yeah.

And I mean, it is, I mean, one of the is undoubtedly, I mean, the idea of governance as a service, which has been sold to a lot of people as libertarianism is, is techno feudalism. It's the control of your behavior through technological means and your access. and because your access to energy, your access to money, your access to, you know, the basic necessities of life, food. I mean, there's another knock-on effect of the current situation in the straits. Food prices, you know, access to food. That's another IEA thing that they've spoken about in terms of and the UN have spoken about the need to manage food supply. more carefully.

You know, this is, this is, this all comes from this conflagration in the Middle East. And it is, and you look at it and you think, well, if the intention is to transform,

to finally, and this goes along, this accelerationist kind of thing that I, explore in the book, to punch your way through and really make that transformation happen, make it happen now. if you look at what's happening in the Middle East at the moment,

it is perfect. It is the gift that keeps on giving if that is your objective. And that, I mean, that's what appears to me to be happening. You know, and I also agree with you that, you know,

I'm, you know, one of the criticisms that people level against me is that I say that, oh, they're all in it together. I don't think so. I think that there is an agreed end point. The greed end point is technocratic control of populations.

That is the agreed end point. And everybody's working towards that, but how they get there, who gets a lion's share of the pie, how that's going to be divvied up, that's where the often brutal competition comes into it. But there's no... go ahead. There's a little delay.

Go ahead. But there's no disagreement at the end. Yeah. It's like we're trying to walk by somebody and you both step the same way. But I'll jump in. Well, see what I'm going to forget what I was going to say. Well, anyway, I'll go to what I was going to come back to with the part you were outlining there.

Isn't there also a part of that that connects with the larger point from like the, the in an emergency, the core point is then that when that's when we can step in and fully dictate what you can use, what you can eat, what you can, isn't that part of the kind of discussion you were just having? Because that's what I find it ties into all these, like back to the COVID-19 part of this as well, which, oh, and that's what I was going to say as well is that like the government side, I'm always of the mind that whatever government we're talking about, it's just, it's a government like any other. It's not good or bad. I think any of these governments left their own devices and a lot time to grow and consolidate power would end up, in my opinion, just

like the U.S. government. That's what I believe. I think government is the problem. So my point in that is that during COVID-19 timeframe, like we said, we saw that there was this kind of lockstep even amongst supposedly adversarial. And I do believe they're adversarial. But the way I read that was that it means to an end. Iran or whatever else, covets the power over their people. Maybe even you want to argue for good intentions out there, right? You can decide, but still wants that control over the population. And so they're willing to take those tools, you know? And so that's kind of how I see, you know, a lot of this is that they're willing to grab what they can to control their people, but they don't want to, like, as you pointed

out, they may disagree on how that next step will go, but they're willing to join together to gain that power now, you know? And I think that's really important to see as it goes to the larger kind of global part of this, you know, and I think the, um, uh, was I going to go next with that. Oh, the, we see this kind of a lot with, I want to go to the block eight as well, but like the justification for a lot of this stuff. I don't want to get pulled into this because it's such a, you know, current surface, you know, but the whole ballroom and shooting discussion, you You know, you see a lot of this keep happening where it's sort of like there's a thing. And then, well, if justification is it's necessary for national security or there's a security justification,

therefore we just ignore everything else. And it's like clearly that's either whether reactive or not, it seems to justify just about everything we're dealing with. And so you can comment that if you want. But back to the blockade, it's the same idea, right? It's like, you know, you're creating this need for a national security push to then justify whatever you want to do next. You know, go ahead. Yeah, no, exactly. I mean, if you look at, I mean, so I mean, you know, I will say, I'm quite happy to say that if you look at COVID-19 or whatever that was, that was a fake pandemic.

You know, there was there was no pandemic. There's no, there's absolutely no statistical evidence of a pandemic at all. There isn't any, right? So it was the, you know, one of the things that I quite often said that I used to maybe laugh and people in the UK used to say, in a if you if you want to avoid the COVID-19, turn off your television because it's it's only on television. It's not outside. It's not with the people that you're beating.

So because it's not real, right? It's, and you know, and I mean that from a mortality statistics as well. Right. There's no sign of it in the mortality statistics either. And then there's, you know, you could, you could argue that if you go back to say that the prior to that we had the, war on terror. The war on terror is almost completely based on false flags and the manipulation of proxy forces. The arming of the Majidine that then becomes, you know, Al-Qaeda, the, you know, the, whatever it was called, the, what was it, the database, wasn't it, Al-Qaeda,

I think. You know, so, so that's manipulated. All of these crises are manipulated, and they're consistently manipulated. You know, and the everything, you know, and the Evidence is clear that they've been manipulated. So why people expect these kind of massive international crises not to be manipulated? I'd be beyond me because it's the first thing that I automatically assume. You know, who's manipulating this and why, right? I mean, at the same time, of course that doesn't rule out the possibility of genuine cock-up. And that is a major, major problem when people are playing such a high stakes, high risk, confrontational game.

So, you know, and another thing I would point out about the manipulation of something like war. So, I mean, if you look at, I would argue that the Ukraine war, for example, another example of a manipulated conflict. Yep. If you start talking about that manipulation and start suggesting that elements of something like a conflict are performative, the automatic reaction from a lot of people is to go, how can you say that when so many people are dying? And I would say the same about the conflict at the moment in the Middle East. I mean, you know, school children being killed by Tomahawk cruise missiles is obviously it couldn't be worse. what's happened to the Palestinians.

You know, it's, it's horrendous. Of course people are being slaughtered. But I think, you know, in order to try, and this is a very difficult concept, perhaps, for people to wrap their heads around, but the people that are able to manipulate global transnational capital financial flows, those people, I am sad to say, they don't care if thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands of people get killed. It's not even on their, it's not on their spreadsheet. They don't care.

So, sure, you might look at something and say, yeah, it's manipulated, but it can't possibly be because all these people are dying in this conflict. So what? You know, as going back to what, you know, James Corbett's work on the First World War, for example, millions of people died in that conflict but that was entirely manipulated in the second world war you know you've got u.s corporations that are supplying supplying everything that the Nazis needed to run their war machine right that was happening at the same time that millions of people would be in exterminated so i think if we if we fall into the trap of thinking that the people, you know, this class of, I would say,

transnational class of people who are, who are manipulating all these markets as they do, care whether or not we die in the process. We're deluding ourselves because they don't. Yeah. No, I completely agree. And that's a good point to make because it's, you know, it can be both, you know,

and that's for each person decide for themselves, you know, but I agree. I think it can't, it's clearly a situation where, like even looking at this way for more nuance out there. Like, they're very well could be coordination with parts of Iran's government or parts of their oligarchy, you know, that are working with parts of the current agenda. And, you know, at the same time, you have parts that are adversarial to their take. You know, it can be multifaceted. But to your point, it can be where what we're discussing is that there's coordination for some larger agenda, but at the same time that there's people that are dying.

Same with like any kind of a false flag dynamic or a SIOP. These things very clearly are part of tactics from governments. and it's almost as if it's a step too far to think that they'd be willing to kill their people, their own people even, to execute agenda. Well, I'm sorry to say people listening, my audience knows this. Our history is ripe with it, where they've chosen to sacrifice American lives for their own agenda or any government you want to talk about, UK or otherwise, you know. So that's important to understand the kind of people we're dealing with.

And I mean, I shouldn't say people, the kind of thing we're dealing with, which is government, in my opinion. It becomes something more than people when you become government, in my opinion. I mean, that's an interesting point because government, hitherto has been the tool that has been used to oppress and sometimes kill populations. Yeah. So government has been that tool. And what these guys are talking about at the moment, the people that are the focus of the book, the people I refer to as the neo nerds, is getting rid of government.

And one of the, kind of reimagining it, right? Yeah, yeah. And one of the things I say would, how do you sell that to people that are, you know, to perhaps what we might call the dynastic oligarchy that can probably trace them, often trace their family lineage all the way back to the Phoenicians, you know, how do you sell that idea to them? Because why would they want to get rid of government? Because government served their purposes very well. And more the point, why would you be, you want to change their monetary grift? because that's also a point that these people are trying to do. You know, certainly with the Genius Act,

we see that, you know, the private issuance of currency for the first time. So even though if you look at central banking, that has always been a private sector operation. It's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be a public sector operation. Well, these guys are coming along and saying, no, let's completely privatize it. Let's make it completely private operation.

And we want the power to be able to issue our own currencies, which is a paradigm change, because that's ought hitherto been restricted to, you know, a class of people that have had to welcome these. Why would they welcome them in? And the point is that they welcome them in because the approach that they're suggesting can be, that can rapidly transform everything. to the end point that everybody kind of agrees with this is where we're heading

is so powerful that you just kind of think well yeah that that would work and we are seeing that process accelerating and this is the point of accelerationism, this notion that is very

central to their ethos is that you continually accelerate the pace of change. You accelerate it constantly until you overwhelm any resistance. So you overwhelm it just by, so not, you can't, there's no firm ground anymore. Everything is shifting. And when that's happening, you can impose whatever system you want, rescue people.

Georgia Gambon would have called it, you know, the state of exception, which is what you, which is what you were talking about earlier, this idea of never letting a good crisis go to waste. go to waste. But just maximizing that so that everything is destabilized. Because when everything is destabilized, people will turn and seek order. They will want it. So if you then come along and go, hey, guys, we've got the solution. We can fix this. But you just have to do what we say. My concern is people will welcome it. Well, and see, this is the interesting part of this that goes, And again, it's everything I can see under the sun right now, but just taking this, like, you're highlighting is it's about, you know, it's interesting you point that out. So here's the

government that they, like the technocrats are saying, look, you know, they're pitching this idea. Like, how do you sell it to somebody that's part of the system to change it's something new? Well, I think it's because they recognize that they're not working anymore. It's dying. They want something new. But so it's, it's a transition to sell it to not just the government, but to all of us as well, right? Like it's a, it's so it's, it's, it fixes the problem that you all see, which is that, you know, that's recognizing that we see the thing that they're selling the government for why I has to change, if you get my point, but they're selling it to us as the government's failing, right? We all see it. Like, you know, Curtis Yarvin, the entire dark

enlightenment push is, is about this idea that, you know, more so, it's like here is the real picture of what we, you know, what's, here's the reality behind the lies we sell to ourselves about the way reality works, right? It's just the dark, gritty truth about how it's actually works. But is that the truth? And even if it is, the solution, it shouldn't be to just lean into what the problem is. So it's like what technocracy seems to be doing is trying to sell us on, you know, the problem and why we need to change away from that problem, but enshrining the problem instead of actually fixing it. Like stop the Fed and giving us CBDCs. It's like everything we're seeing, right? And so in that very transition, which is what you're highlighting about all this.

You know, I tend to see this really strongly connected to whatever this new network state kind of like, because the reason I see these two like interlocked as opposed to two parts of a larger thing is because the idea of transitioning into the, you know, CEO run country is one thing, ideology. But you need the actual infrastructure and actual gut system with that, which would be the network state agenda. So it's like they seem to be just parts of the same transition as opposed to two different ideas that float alongside each other as this change happens. So how do you see that? I'm just explaining why I think the network's agenda is like the central part. Note on that in general, but tell

me if there's anything else that is alongside this, I guess the larger point is what is happening. If walk us through this transition and where you see them driving it through, you know, with the government and all the stuff we just talked about. Yeah, well, Belarje-Shanifazan is definitely a part of the neo-reactionary movement. I mean, when a speech that he gave, I can't remember the name of the speech but it's it was uh called off uh something free exit um exit i think the speech might have just been called exit so it was about exiting the state and creating the new network state and that was obviously criticized because in subsequent interviews in the u.s srenifazan said that he thought the united states was obsolete right so that drew that drew

criticism from a number of journalists and uh and sranifazan wrote to yavin and and said an email, sent an email to Yavin, and this saying, why don't we sick the dark enlightenment crowd on one of these journalists and expose them? And, you know, basically docks them and make their life hard. So they're working, so, so Yavim wrote about, yeah, well, let's do that. Let's do that, you know. So he's, absolutely, the network state, I would say that what they've done is

presented the network state to, to package us. the notion of the dark enlightenment as libertarianism right so they've they've got they've got this idea of their selling of decentralization which they would call de-territorialization so they so they so it's decentralization which most libertarians can get on board with so that gives them some that gives them some kind of you know quasi kind of ideological underpinning for when people say well i don't know whether i like this idea of governance as a service they go no no no no it's libertarian It's all about decentralization and living freer lives. But in the network, I think this is the key part in the network state, he talks about deterioratorialization.

And then once you've achieved deterritorialization, which, you know, the process in the dark, within the dark in my enlightenment is called neocameralization, which is breaking the components of the state apart. But in the network state, that's de-territorialized. He says once you de-territorialize the system, then it's then you're able to re-territorialize the entire network. Right. So if you look at the proliferation around the so re- I mean, he actually makes this sort of kind of self conscious argument in the network state where he goes a lot of people will say what's the point of deteral, of decent, let's use language that we can all understand.

of decentralising something to only re-centralise it. And his argument is, but this is new, guys. This is new and exciting because it's not the old leaders. These are new leaders. So who are the new leaders? Oh, well, it's people like Peter Thiel and, you know, Larry Ellison and Elon Musk. They're the new leaders, guys. These are the better guys.

These are the better leaders. So it's the same notion. But if we look at that on a global scale, If we look at how network states are being built, it's through things like the Charter City movement. So Thiel is involved in this pronomous capital, as you know, and then there's Neway Capital. And then there's all these different, the Charter City movement, which is, you know, Patrick Friedman and Bellagie Stranifazan. And so they're all kind of looking at building these city states around the world. Now, that is already happening in special economic zones globally.

And that is backed by the United Nations. So the United Nations want to use what they call frontier technology, which is what in the network state is AI technology and in the fourth industrial revolution. You know, so it's bringing all this kind of technology together. But giving it a kind of, a kind of semi-legitimate kind of basis by calling it libertarian network states. or charter cities or freedom cities so but once you've created these enclaves like they're trying to do in gaza but like they've already done in nigeria places like itana in nigeria in russia in brazil in everywhere they're already building this building these new city states which the u n backs uh and is and you know the idea of the special economic zone has probably reached its kind of maximum extent so far in China. So cities like Shenzhen is in an echo, in fact, it was China that really kind of,

kind of pushed forward with the idea of the special economic zone, which are deregulated zones where corporations can innovate. They're free from regulation. They don't have to, they don't have to abide by necessarily the regulations that they would if they were outside of the special economic zone, which is what they're, going to build in Gaza it's going to be a special economic zone the charter city movements has already is already said won't the won't the gaza and charter city be amazing which will mean that private corporations and in israel you know what those private corporations are going to be

they're going to be or i say in israel uh in palestine but but you know let's face it it's going to be controlled by israel right in in there that's going to be high tech that's going to be high tech it's going to be a high tech innovation hub in a in a freedom city in it in the middle of the middle east which is going to link in with all these energy corridors and you know that that's that they're rolling that kind of that is that is how this whole thing is being rolled out and the idea ultimately in the network state and reason it's called ultimately called the network state is because if you if you although shrenifazan doesn't expand on this so much in the book but if you look at what yavin are certainly spoken

about and to a greater extent nick land who wrote the dark enlightenment they're talking about what they call a patchwork of realms so you you've got these if you imagine them like city states like nodes on a network globally which fits in with the regional regionalized nation of the multipolar world order. So you've got regional blocks with these city states, network of city states, which are actually linking the whole thing together. But those city states are controlled by private corporations,

banks, international finance, private, you know, multinational technology firms are actually controlling the city states. But they are then better for implementing global governance, policies because they're more agile, they're more able to do that. And there's no democratic oversight over any of it so they can just tell you what to do. And if you don't do what you're told, they'll switch your money off. That is that, that, that is the system that is being built right now. And it's, and you can see it. It's being built everywhere. Right. And that's, that's, that's the

most terrifying part of this is that it's literally happening around us. This is not some, let's stop this in the next 20 years. It's, it's like, we should have had that conversation 20 years ago. or even further. Like, it's literally being built around us. That's not hyperbolic. And so what's interesting about what you said there is, you know, the first one that I came across was Prospera.

I'd seen this because what was interesting to me was, you know, this is something that you might argue I would, we would jump at. Clearly was designed to get people like us to go, oh, no more government, right? Like, you know, free libertarianism. Like it was clearly designed, you know. But I think the reason I was already on guard was because I'm like, I already was being, you know,

researching, you know, Whitney and plenty of others. Peter Thiel, not a libertarian, like already seen that. Zuckerberg was already trying to like refashion himself as a libertarian. So I was already kind of on guard for this like, I'm a libertarian now, kind of like ploy, you know? And so I saw this and I was like, but I'm interested by this. Like it brushes up against all the things that we are arguing we would like to change, right? So I get why people want to believe in this. And I'll even point out that I said, I think we should acknowledge that there's probably good intentioned people that exist within these things,

that find their way to these locations and have good intentions for how they want to. build their own because it's not all one thing that's important to point out but at the the prognolous capital funding dynamic or the different the intentions around it as you just highlighted you know it comes to this transition to where you'll end up where it's undeniably not some kind of libertarian governance system it's it's an authoritarian governance system a technological feudal feudal state and so what at one point i want to ask your opinion on is you highlighted the what's the word you use the d you know removing the land what was the word used de-territorialization, I call it.

Yeah. And so the idea there is this, and then bringing it back, essentially, is this illusion of, you know, the freedom of owning all of your stuff. But what it seems to be to me, tell me if I'm wrong on this, is sort of a technological manipulation in the same way as everything else, where it's like, sure, you own like the keys to your digital assets that we hold for you. And so you own those things, but you don't. Like with Coinbase, you only have access to them with the keys. They technically own those things. So is that how you see this? larger sense being the way that it's like the illusion of control you own nothing and you'll and you've ever been happier kind of a thing is that yeah yeah i mean that yes absolutely because i mean

that is specifically what the network state is about you you i think serenipazan says uh all all this is a quote all value goes digital nothing exists unless it's on the ledger so so think about that Right. I mean, don't forget this is being sold to people as libertarianism. So all value. And when he says all, he means all. And so does Larry think when he talks about the tokenization of everything because it's the same idea. So all value goes digital means that you only have value while you are represented as a tokenized asset on a blockchain. as a human being. Right. It means that every asset that exists, as Larry Fink talks about,

only has value if it can be traded through a digital blockchain-based system, a tokenized system. Which as you point, so who's going to control that? Good. Sorry, what did you say? I missed that bit. I just said, so as you pointed out, which means it can be turned off, which is in another two point of control.

Absolutely. So one of the one of the things about that I tried to dig out and try and have tried to find out for some while. If you read the network state, it's not clear, is it? What, are they talking about a permissioned ledger or are they talking about a permissionless ledger? Because they are two very different things. And I thought, well, somewhere in it, it must kind of kind of specify whether it's a permission or permissionless ledger. No, that's not specified. Okay, well, let's think about what people like Curtis Jarvin have spoken about. He doesn't go so much in the heavy technical side, but he's spoken about ledger technology quite a lot. What is he talking about, a permission or permissionless ledger? No, no clue, no, he doesn't, no, won't say it. Well, what about Larry Fink and BlackRock? Will they specify whether they're talking about permissioned ledgers or permissionless ledgers?

No, no mention of it. So it's quite obvious that there's a, you know, I mean, people, when you think about the notion of the ledger, if it's permissionless, that's emancipating, potentially. That means that there's no third-party control over transactions, potentially. So that would be an emancipating use of technology. It could be. Permissioned ledgers where access to the nodes is,

controlled. If you then, if then all value goes digital on a permissioned ledger, basically what that means is handing all value over to those that have permissioned access to the ledger. So if you're, if you're thinking about that that might be, and if you look at the way CBD, the two tiered monetary model of CBDC is probably going to be structured in my view. certainly the Bank of England is looking at it this way, you're going to have this overarching reserve system of central bank digital currency upon which all transactions will resolve. So ultimately it will resolve on their monetary system like it does now, but a digital version of it. But they will provide what they call the PIPs, the payments in something providers,

the payment interface providers and they've got e-sips and pips. So this will be companies like PayPal and, you know, MasterCard and Visa and so forth that will provide payment systems through which you will be able to access your retail central bank digital currency or your stable coins or whatever through the payment providers. And the payment providers will be given access to the network. by who, the central banks that will control access to the nodes. So they're still trying to maintain their control system. In the US, they're trying to something slightly different. It's still going to be the same system of control access, controlled access to the nodes. But instead of a central bank doing it, they're handing it over to multinational corporations.

They want them to be able to do it. But it's the same, same idea. And so either way, you look at that from our perspective, that's no good for humanity. That is useless for humanity. And what all value goes digital means for us is that all our rights, all our assets, all our everything, all our contracts, everything, we no longer have unfettered access to it. it is now permitted or denied by those who control access to the ledger. Right. So in effect, you owe nothing and they would argue, you know, they want you to believe

you'd ever been happier. I just, I really want to stress that because, you know, I think most people are becoming uncomfortably aware of what we're talking about. I could be wrong in that, but whether it's the entirety of the picture or just kind of aware of some weirdness that's happening in this technocratic realm. I just think that it's becoming very clear that this is the same thing as, the Great Reset, or at least that's something that's beginning to be acknowledged. And I really want to drive that into the people who, you know, are still, for whatever reason, listening to the new,

the mainstream alternative media types who are telling you you're winning, you know. And, and, but my point is, there's a line where people up there, there are good intentioned people that don't watch as much as we do, pay attention that are played by the people that sell them all, you know, everything's going the way it's supposed to. And I just think that these things are day by day, people like that are starting to see this. So to me, this is the great reset. This is the same thing left and right is the same endpoint. You know, and that's why I hope people will read your book and look into what you're discussing in general because this is not a small thing.

Like this is happening right in front of us. It is being built out around us. And like, you know, I keep making this point about many things. Like all of us were saying in 2024, when we had the possibility or that we had them, it was possible then to maybe stop what's happening right now, right? As opposed to having, even if it's good intention, Tucker Carlson come out and go, we now see it. It's bad.

And I wish I wouldn't have done that. But let's right now recognize that if we do something today about what we're talking about, maybe we can actually do something to slow this down or stop it. And I just think that's where we have to be with all this. You know, it's a very important thing to think about. So, you know, to wrap up in general, Ian, is there anything else that you feel other than that, you know, that is a part of this that people should know about, you know, because like I think that is a very central transition part of this.

We talked about the ideological transition of this. But, you know, and I think both of our audiences, I guarantee, are very well versed on idea of digital IDs, how they're trying to push that through, CBDCs. But is there anything else that you feel should be included in this conversation that, you know, and I'm sure we'll talk more about this, but that you shouldn't, they should know about as this progresses. Well, I think what they should know about is that the whole thing is predicated on whether or not we accept it.

I mean, that's whole, the whole thing is predicated upon that. It can't, it won't work if we don't go along with it. It really won't work if we don't go along with it. And I mean, one thing that, you know, we don't talk about people where you should, you know, try and maximize your independence from the system and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, people go, well, all right, how do I do that? If I, you know, I've got to work nine to five. I live in the middle of a city. I've got a commute. I've got kids to feed.

What are you talking about? Am I going to maximize my independence? So, I mean, there's the obvious thing like kind of reducing your reliance on technology. I mean, obviously, but a lot of people will find that. difficult. I spoke to somebody not long ago. I said, well, yeah, but I need that for my business. That's why I need it for my business. And you kind of think, right, okay, then it's harder.

But if you just pick one thing, one thing, so let's say food, right, how do you get food? How do you, how do you consume food? How do you use food in your life? How do, how does that happen? and if you look at it and think right okay is there a possibility that i could acquire it or get hold of it without going through these channels that i've got to go through so i have to go to the supermarket i have to swipe my card i have to use my my store loyalty card i have to do what how can i how can i still eat food that i want to eat but not go through these channels

Is there one I can cut out? All right, well, I won't use my store loyalty card. That's going to cost me a bit more probably, but I won't. Okay, well, I'll do that. Can I wear that so I can wear that for a few weeks? All right, okay, so can I stop buying it with my card? Can I get cash out and pay with it with cash? Yeah, all right, I can do that?

Get used to that. Can I, do I have to go to a supermarket to get it? Can I go to a, or, you know, a large store to get it? Can I get it somewhere else? And if we approach every problem that we've got like that, break it down into its constituent elements, if you like, use de-territorialisation, but use it for our benefit and break these things down,

we can gradually and progressively wean ourselves off this system. We can do it, we can do it. And if we do, all the billions and the infrastructure and everything they'll put in in place will be useless if nobody uses it. It will collapse like a house of cards. And we certainly can do that. And we can do that now. You could start doing that right now. Thinking about just your food.

Just focus on your food or something. or where you get fuel from or whatever but just focus on one thing and then freak maximize your independence for that thing and then you can start thinking about the bigger the bigger things yeah i agree that's and obviously food is a very important part of that way i mean we talk about the energy but just as affected or to a to a similar degree affected is the food supply chain through this random firm foods and everything else you know just the the affecting of rather than they just choke points of all of these things. And I think you're right to point out the food part of it.

But to your point in general, you know, finding something that you can affect that change, something you can make a difference around in your own life, doesn't have to be all at the same time. You know, but, you know, finding those things that you can change where you can and just, you know, trying to make that difference. But we should have an IMA conversation about this again. We had one similar, but like where this goes. Because you're right to point out, you know, it's, I agree. I think it's smart to think about the idea of however you frame that.

pulling yourself out of these things but there's a lot of people who are in just it they they anybody can do these things but if they did it might destroy their business it might hurt their income and their family needs to be fed you know these are things that people just can't turn off for some of them you know and so to be realistic about that conversation it's about trying to you know understand how people i just have a realistic conversation about how they can traverse all of these changes you know and like we talked about for example like i actually was just addressing yesterday the i use of AI imagery for example as somebody who's being sued relentlessly for things that are completely, you know, using images that I have a right to use

and being sued for copyright and dealing with that ridiculous legal process, like just to weigh me down. And then whether it's, it's, you know, helping the system to use AI imagery, even though that's helped, you know, it's a whole thing, you know, and I think it's worth discussing or using Groch to research as we discussed before, you know, all these things are in a way adding to this problem, you know, and I think it's something that we should be discussing more. And, you know, I think where this continues to go, and I do want to talk about this to be more as it progresses. I just hope people can see where we are at, like you said,

and start making choices now, whether it's your personal life or just calling awareness to what this is. You know, what Trump, whether Biden or Trump, whoever was in power, what this all is, I argue would be happening regardless. And it does not seem to have anything with liberty or American interest, the Constitution, anything left or right that your people are promising you.

You know, so find a point of solidarity there, or left or right that we all can see that neither of them actually care. about what any of us want, whether or not we disagree on those things. You know, such a powerful moment. And honestly, I'll end on this. A moment of actual positivity. Like, as much as it seems crazy, as I've always pointed out, and just intense and scary, what they're doing, I argue, is a response to the fact that people are changing in ways that

they don't want. It's a momentum. They can't slow down. I find that to be a very positive thing, you know, if we can see through the whole darkest where the dawn kind of an analogy, you know? So I'll give you the last word. Yeah, I mean, one thing, a couple of things I would mention. Before, because we often, you know, the kind of, even though we talk about these very, very dark subject matters,

uh, often the things that we're given to believe that makers feel even more oppressed that aren't actually working in reality. So I'll give you a couple of little, tiny little examples. Cash use is going up. Cash, cash use, cash use for the first time in about, I don't know how long. I think it's been about like 25 year consistent decline. It plateaued out and now cash use is going up again. Meat consumption, which probably because more people are moving to lower carb diets, is not declining.

It's plateaued out. And it's showing places like in the UK, it's showing signs of increasing again. So even though they're trying to move us to these, you know, manufactured synthetic food products, It's that in there's there's plenty of places where that's not happening. So, so and not, and that's not necessarily because people are fighting against the system. That is people just exercising their choice to do what they want to do. And if we all do, if we all do that, then, then, you know, there's not really, there's, there isn't ultimately much control that can be exerted over us if we do in sufficient numbers.

Yeah, yeah, exactly. Just, you know, exert your choices. you know, demonstrate, you know, it act, you know, vote with your choices, right? Vote with your dollar. Like the idea, whether or not you believe that your vote truly translates to the outcome today, it's obvious that you're, there are plenty of other ways to, to influence these things. And I think right now, I personally believe that if enough people were truly to stand up like you're saying and just choose not to use those things, or as Lark and Rose often points out, like just ignore them, just turn away, just move into you. If we just all pretended they weren't

there, they would be ineffectual, you know, it's like, whether you agree with or not, like to think about your power that you actually have as an individual. It's just an important time to recognize that, to embody that. So thank you, Ian, for joining me today. I'm sure we'll talk about this again. You know, I just, since we, you know, had a little bit of, I guess I should mention it, but a little bit of cut out there on the internet. I'll give you the final words if you want to mention anything on the way out,

any upcoming events or anything else you want to mention before we leave. No, not at all. No, I'm currently working on a second piece for Unlimited Hangout, called the Praxagians Genocidal Kill Chain. So check out Part 1. That's available on Unlimited Hangout. The book is available at the tech, all one word, all lowercase, the technocratic darkstate.com. If you can follow me at my website, which is Ian Davis.com, and on my substack, which is

Ian Davis.davis.substack.com. Absolutely. And I'll make sure we include all these for people to check them out. I hope that they will. and as always, everybody out there, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant. Listen up, losers.

Stop pretending it's a democracy. We run things. Give up the illusion. And in exchange, we will bring you order and efficiency. Yes, we'll own you. But do you really want to be free? Trust us. We know what to do.

While Silicon Valley was feeding you dope and free email, we built the architecture of empire. Welcome to our world, motherfuckers. We aren't here to protect your privacy. We are here to enforce supremacy. We are the ledger now. Every tax return. Every Medicaid file.

Every license plate. Every crossing. Your president signed it into being with a pen in March. You kept scrolling. Your politicians are empty vessels. Your civil liberties are a liability. We are done pretending all cultures are equal. We know who the elites are.

We know what we are building. And we demand that you applaud the billionaires taking the rank. billionaires taking the reins where your fragile democracies have failed. You may be wondering whether we are evil. The truth is, as evil as we seem, we are mere pawns of the dark forces. We seldom our souls for power, and we get to rule this realm. Welcome to the technological republic. You can stop scrolling now.

We already have everything we need. Try to unplug us. We dare you. Now get the fuck out of here, you peasant. Sir. Thank you for your service. You are no longer required.