➡ The text discusses how certain influential figures, like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, who identify as libertarians, are actually advocating for a system that contradicts libertarian principles. They aim to establish a centralized authority with no democratic oversight, using technology and artificial intelligence (AI) as tools to achieve this. The text also highlights their use of complex language and in-jokes to communicate their plans, which include transforming humans to adapt to the forthcoming technological singularity. However, the text points out that their assumptions about AI’s capabilities and the inevitability of the singularity are not yet supported by current technological realities.

➡ The text discusses the idea of control, particularly economic control, through technology. It mentions Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal, who aimed to create a new world currency to gain control. The text also talks about the launch of Libra Coin by Meta, which was intended to fail to create a new regulatory environment for privately issued currency. This led to the Genius Act, allowing private companies to issue currencies, a significant change in the international monetary system. The text ends by describing a future where individuals surrender their sovereignty to a technocratic state, with their lives controlled by AI and smart contracts.

➡ The book discusses how international financial institutions, oligarch investors, and governments do not control money, technology, or populations, but rather use deception, coercion, and force. The author suggests resisting the adoption of digital IDs and programmable digital money, which could lead to technocratic control. He encourages non-compliance, using cash, minimizing the use of digital ID products, and challenging laws and constitutions. The author believes that if enough people reject these systems, they can build better parallel systems that do not subject them to total technological control.

Everyone will live under the rule of their sovereign corporation via contract, smart contract. And that whole system will have unchallenged centralized authority exerted over it. You’re listening to the Corbett Report. Welcome friends. Welcome back to the Corbett Report. James Corbett here@corbettreport.com in a conversation that is being recorded mid December of 2020 topic that is of great concern, I know, to everyone in the audience, the Technocratic Dark State, which just happens to be the name of an entire book that has been written on that topic by today’s guest. Today’s guest. Of course you will be familiar with if you have seen our previous conversations or if you have seen his reporting at Unlimited Hangout off Guardian, other outlets besides.

He is of course Ian Davis and I’m sure you’re familiar with his work. But if not, this is a good time to get familiar with him. You can do so by going to to thetechnocraticdarkstate.com and purchasing a copy of his new book. Let’s bring him on the program. Ian Davis, thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us today. Oh, it’s my pleasure, James. Thanks very much for inviting me. Yes, I wish we could talk about happy and, and, and exciting news on the good news front. But unfortunately we are here talking about the Technocratic Dark State.

But we are talking about it because it is an impending and encroaching reality that I think we’re all starting to understand in various ways. So let’s start diving into this book and the topics of this book. I guess again, there are new people tuning in all the time. So some people will be familiar with your work and your background, some won’t. So briefly, who are you and why and how did you become interested in this topic in particular? I’m Ian Davies of journalist and author. I live and work in the uk. I first became interested in this probably when I first started reading Patrick Wood work, Patrick Wood’s work.

And ever since then I’ve been very interested in the, in Technocracy and the rollout of Technocracy. And the thing that struck me almost immediately upon reading his work initially is that once you start, once you understand what it is and you’re aware of how it could be implemented, it became evident to me pretty quickly that it was being implemented. And so I’ve kind of followed that progression over a number of years now, probably more than a, well, a couple of decades. But I’ve been writing, I’ve been writing about it for about a decade. So yeah, and this is very Much, very much about the continuation of that rollout of technocracy, which is not the, you know, we often fall.

I’ve. One of the topics that I discuss in the book is that we often fall into the trap of, you know, people want to describe it as communism or people want to describe it as fascism. Technocracy is a distinct and separate ideology for want of a better expression. And it’s obviously, it’s very much based on, on the rollout of, of more and more and more technological controls. And that is precisely what we are seeing. And you know, one of the, my impetus for writing the book was that, you know, we are getting to the sharp end of that now.

I think it’s fair to say that much of the infrastructure that would enable that system to work is now pretty much in place and we are now at the point where it’s really, now the game is on to entice us to use it. All right, let’s dive into the deep end of this conversation. I suppose we could hold people’s hand and lead them along through the concept of what is technocracy in the historical technocratic movement. But as you say, I imagine a lot of people have encountered that at some point so far, if not from my own work.

And people might want to start at my questions for Corbett on what is technocracy then from your work or the work of Patrick Wood at Technocracy News? I, I think people should be familiar with that term by now, but there’s plenty of resources for to catch people up to speed. But as you point out in this book and as you elaborate in great detail, there is a lot more to this term and associated terms and including terms that have been developed in the past few decades, not the century old technocracy term. And there’s such a tangled interrelated web of concepts and topics and names and peoples and ideologies and philosophies that I don’t know exactly how to disentangle them in, in the form of a question.

So let me, let me try to smush them all together instead. Ian Davis, who are the neoreactionaries of the Dark Enlightenment and why are they trying to accelerate us towards their gov corp slave state? Yeah. So the book is very much about the group of Silicon Valley oligarchs, perhaps most famously people like Peter Thiel, Mark Anderson, Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, these people that are supporting and were behind very much financially and you know, certainly in terms of propaganda in supporting the Trump campaign and in getting Donald Trump into office. And they favor something called the Dark Enlightenment, which was a treatise that was written by a UK philosopher, Nick Land in 2012 and that was based upon the kind of musings of a guy called Curtis YARVIN in the U.S.

not based upon, he. He certainly cited Yavin heavily when Yavin was writing under the. The pseudonym of Mencius Moldbug and the, the art. Essentially the idea is that they want to privatize all forms of governance under private corporations which they would consider to be sovereign corporations. So these would be, you know, multinational corporations that would have the ultimate power, ultimate sovereignty over us, controlling a digital digitally based system where we would surrender our rights via a smart contract to live in one of their controlled sovereign city states. And the accelerationism part of it is a tactic that they use because one of the things that Lan spoke about in the Dark Enlightenment and one of the ideas that the neo reactionaries have promoted quite heavily is that you could use what an economist called Joseph Schumpeter, he identified something that is called create, that he called creative destruction.

He identity identified it as a facet of capitalism, I. E. It was a. It was something that it was this, the destruction of one market to be replaced by another market due to technology. So as technology moves forward, so an easy example to give is the horse and cart gets replaced by the automobile. So there’s a technological advancement and that’s obviously ended the market for the horse and cart and created the new market for the automobile. Now Schumpeter saw that as an effect of capitalist innovation and technological innovation. What the neoreactionaries see it as is a tool to be used to destroy markets and create new ones.

But they also recognize that monopolistic control of markets comes with socio political power. You are able to exert that through control of major markets. So they therefore thought that you could use creative destruction through a very aggressive investment or venture capital strategy which they called accelerationism, which would enable you, they think, to basically change socio political structures as well through this form of aggressive application of technology. And they see that people like Thiel and Musk see that as kind of the, the aggressive application of venture capitalism in what they call disruptive technology. So if I’ve got it straight, essentially they’re attempting to apply creative destruction to the state itself in order to deterritorialize the political landscape, in order to re territorialize it with their dream of a gov corp state of some sort.

Yeah, so they often talk about this notion of governance as a service. One of the themes of the books is it one of the theme of the book is basically deception. So it’s. So they, they’ve piggybacked on what we might perhaps consider to be quite traditional libertarian concepts such as decentralization, which, which they would call deterritorialization. So literally deterritorialization, deterritorializing the reach of a market or in their view a sociopolitical system or structure or government. So you deteriorate, can’t even say it de territorialize that. And then you know, so that, so a lot of libertarians would look at that and think well this notion of decentralization is, is good.

You know, even small c conservatives would think that was good. You know, more localized governance is a good idea. But then they speak about, as you rightly say, re territorialization which is once you’ve created this kind of network of deterritorialized sovereign corporation. Yavin talked about a patchwork of realms. So what he means is these islands of, of sovereign. Of territories. Ter territories of nation states controlled by a sovereign corps corporation. But they would then be linked together to form a network. One of the formative writers in the, in the neo reactionary writers, this guy called Balaji Srinivasan, wrote something called the network state where he spoke about re territorialization exerting centralized control over the network.

And that’s where we need to be very careful about the way that they use language because they talk in kind of libertarian terms and often are self styled libertarians. You know, Thiel has openly, you know, styled himself as a libertarian and certainly he has been assisted in that endeavor by the media. But what they are suggesting is the antithesis of any kind of libertarian principle that you can think of because they are talking about exerting centralized sovereign authority with no chance of any kind of, you know, even, even representative democratic oversight such as that is. But I mean even that they, they want to do away with.

Everyone will live under the rule of their sovereign corporation via contract, smart contract and big. And that whole system will, will have unchallenged centralized authority exerted over it. So it’s. So it is the opposite of libertarianism. Right. I think the, the tip off that this isn’t quite libertarian in nature is the fact that the CEOs of these gov corps are going to be techno kings, which. Let me check my anarcho capitalist book. No, I don’t think that that term is one that should be used for anyone who actually believes in human liberty. Yeah, no, I mean, and they, I mean it’s another reason for writing the book is that they use so much jargon they use a Sopian language to.

To so that they can make in jokes to each other that other people don’t quite cotton onto. So you know, one of the reasons that I, that one of the things I talk about is that it was just an exchange on X with between Elon Musk and this guy called Ghislaine Verdon who runs this thing called the E Accelerationist movement, which is kind of like a more techno, even more technological based wing of the neo reactionary movement. And you know, looking at it from the outside, you wouldn’t necessarily spot what they were saying. But Ghislaine Verdon said building the network state on Mars now.

So you need to know what the network state is all about first to know what they’re talking about. Building the network stake on Mars where Elon Musk then comes back and says technocracy kind of question mark. And Verdon comes back and says, count me in. So another interesting quote from Verdon, he said, if you knew what I was building, you would make it illegal. Or you. Oh, it’s words that effect on paraphrasing. If you knew what I was building, you wouldn’t allow it or something like that. So. And then there’s all these little, these terms that they use.

Well, what’s in the name? As you point out, it may be an aside, but as you point out in the book, doge has multiple potential meanings and the Doge father himself, Musk seems to have embraced that term for reasons that we. I don’t know if we know exactly, but what are some of the speculation around that term? Well, yeah, it could be that he’s referencing the dogecoin, which was a meme coin that was, that was lit. I mean the interesting part of the dogecoin for, for me is that it is, it was literally a parody meme coin.

It was a, it was a parody, it was a joke. The two guys that, that put it out did it for a laugh. But, but through his social media reach, Musk took the value of that coin, I think up in, in 2014. It was 2020 or no, in 2021. He took it to I think a market cap or something like, I don’t know, I can’t remember now. It was either 14 million or 40. It was, it was, it was an exorbitant market cap that they, that they managed to get for this coin, which was a joke.

But the interesting thing about that is that Musk’s team and I very much. One of the things I talk about is that These people are representative of networks. They’re not. They’re characters. They’re not. You know, obviously Musk is an individual, but he’s representative of a network. But none. His team knew that they could just say things online and have a massive market influence on the valuation of a fake. Of a fake product. And I think that they then subsequently, you see Musk doing that in a much broader context. So in, for example, in the uk, you know, sticking his oar in to suggest that, you know, for political reasons, suggesting that, you know, perhaps we should have a revolution in the uk, a violent revolution, this.

This kind of thing. So he understands the impact of his words. So Doge could be a reference to that. But obviously the Doge was also the. The. The appointed head of the mercantile Venetian Republic. So, so. And that. And the Venetian Republic is a model, Model island city state. Peter. Peter Thiel is very much. He was in. He was sort of very interested in the sea, in seasteading. I. Reclaiming the oceans and building kind of autonomous. Autonomous city states in the oceans, which, if you look at. If you think about Venice of old, that was a load of islands in the middle of the middle of the sea.

Well, swamp, actually. But I mean, it was. It was nonetheless, it was. You know, you can see that there are parallels there. So maybe Doge was again, one of these in jokes that they like to. They like to throw around amongst themselves. And Doge, Elon, I mean, even Elon Musk. Elon’s name was famously part of Wernher von Braun’s story about the leader of Mars was called Elon. Anyway, what’s in the name, I suppose, but getting more to the heart of this ideology and what is really being talked about here? What role does AI play in the plans of these accelerationists? Well, you know, a very prominent member of this group, Mark Andreessen, who’s.

Who’s kind of one of the partners of Andreessen Horowitz, which is arguably. Is it the biggest technology venture capitalist firm? It might. If it isn’t, it’s. It’s up there with the. The biggest. He said that A. AI is our philosopher’s stone. So the. The notion being that, you know, the philosopher’s stone, the elixir that changes. Changes matter from one substance to another, you know, the art, the idea that it is transformative. So it’s a metaphor for transformation. And they are absolutely convinced that AI is the transformative elixir that they can use to bring about what Peter Thiel said was the end of politics in all its forms, again, ostensibly on the surface, something that libertarians might support, but what he means is replacing it with autocratic rule.

That’s what he, that’s what he means. So it’s not quite as, as libertarian as it first sounds, but. Yeah. So they see AI as their, as the. Is the key to transforming the world. But again, again, going back to deception, which, which is thick. It goes throughout there, the whole kind of neo reactionary kind of perspective. You know, when Land first came up with the Dark Enlightenment, the assumption was that the Singularity was going to happen. This, the Singularity being the point at which technology, you know, becomes self perpetuating and surpasses humans ability to adapt to it.

That’s an assumption that lies at the heart and they’re at the heart of the Dark Enlightenment. And therefore we must be adapted to cope with the Singularity. So they are transhumanists, they’re all very avid transhumanists. So it’s, that’s why we see people like Thiel and Musk investing so heavily in things like, you know, neural interfaces and that kind of thing, that kind of technology, because they believe that the only way we can support, we can survive the forthcoming Singularity, which inevitably AI is going to produce. Then, you know, then we need to be transformed into kind of genetically enhanced cyborgs.

This is, this is, this is their belief system. I’ll get to belief in a moment because I did question that in the book. But nonetheless. So AI for them is this is this magic, magic thing, this magic entity that’s going to make everything brilliant. But if you, if you look at the development of AI, we are some way off it becoming, you know, the, the kind of sentient, sentient entity that they think it’s going to be. You know, there are many, many hurdles that have to be overcome first before it even becomes what they call theory of mind.

AI, AI, which would be the next step along that path if we head in that direction. There are things like catastrophic forgetting problems that it has. It’s. You sometimes hear the term brittle AI. It can’t. You know, there are massive technological problems that have yet to be solved to even get us to progress beyond basically LLMs, which are just big calculators. So, so their whole basis is B, Their whole, their whole premise is based upon assumption. They’re assuming that these things are going to happen at the same time, whilst warning about the potential risks of the Singularity.

All of their companies and all of their investment and all of their kind of technological drive is that they’re pushing us as hard as they possibly can, accelerating us towards trying to create the thing that they’re warning us against. So it’s, it’s just, it’s just, you know, I suppose if there is one major theme of the book, it is deception. It is the, it’s the degree of deception that these, these characters have taken us through. I would say another major theme of the book is the quest for control and the quest for control of humanity down to the genomic level and everything else.

And that can be accomplished technologically in a number of different ways. And a lot of these different characters have different things to say about it. One key aspect of that is control of the economy down to the economic atomic level, AKA the monetary level. And of course in that regard we have to look at a character like Peter Thiel who of course was known as one of the co founders of PayPal along with Elon Musk. But Thiel had his own particular vision for PayPal and what it was going to accomplish, which I think is now being accomplished through stablecoin and other means CBDC World that we’re stepping into.

So can you tell us a little bit about that vision for how the economic life of the Gov Corp will be managed at the, at the base level? Yeah. So I mean when, when PayPal was first set up, Thiel around the same time Thiel said that the purpose of it was to create what he called, quote, a new world currency. And the, the. Not shortly after that. I may be getting my years mixed up but it was, it wasn’t, it wasn’t long after he said that then he, that he also said that a sovereign currency destroys nation states.

I’m paraphrasing that slightly but it was, it was words to that effect. So he knows that monetary control has total control over. I mean let’s be honest, he knows that it has control over pretty much everything. So he set about creating and he was also. He was. I think this is an important thing thing. He was an, an active serving board member on what was then Facebook but now Meta. When, when Meta Loin launched Libra coin which was a. The. The point of it was that it would be a stable coin at a time when Meta had 2 billion users.

And this, this is the. And one of Meta’s now dropped this, this, this kind of pr. PR logo that or PR quit that it uses. But it used to, it used to be its PR message was move fast and destroy things. Which is the, which is the epitome of accelerationism. That is what Dark enlightenment, neo reactionary accelerationism is all about. So, so when they launch Libra Coin, the notion of creative destruction is that you do you use technology to create a paradigm that, that requires some sort of fracturing new, new response. So Libra Coin, which Theo was very obviously was sitting on the board and so was Anderson, actually librecoin when they launched it, they knew it was going to fail.

They, they had no expectation of Libre Coin succeeding. And that’s quite clear from, from documents that, you know, Facebook, that meta themselves have published that they knew it wouldn’t work. So what. Why did they do it? Well, because what it meant was that they had to create a regulatory environment, a new monetary regulatory environment for the management of privately issued currency. So the notion of a sovereign state is that it cannot work unless it has the authority to issue its own currency, and that will be a programmable digital currency. So Libra Coin is a really good example of how these guys operate because they created a threat that required.

Well, I mean, it’s also working in partnership with regulators as well. That’s also a big part of it. So it’s not as if they’re working in opposition, but they create a threat, requires regulatory change that culminates ultimately in the Genius Act. And the Genius act enables, for the, for the first time, really since we first had a record, well, certainly since the IMFS came out of Bretton woods, for the first time, we have these privately issued currencies being distributed globally in the monetary system. Now that is, I cannot stress what a massive, massive change that is to our international monetary financial system that is enormous if you’re going to allow, you know, we supposedly have a quote, unquote fiat monetary system.

And now through the Genius act, private companies, and there’s an aspect of them Circum, circumventing the U.S. constitution here to do this, because the U.S. constitution gives Congress the power to, and there therefore the people supposedly the power to oversee the issuance of money. But not now because they’ve said that they’re not a national currency. Therefore private companies like Tether have got the ability effectively to issue the dollar. They’ve been, they’ve been given that power. Now that is, that is huge. That is huge. But of course, they, as you say, they’re working hand in glove with those regulators who are keeping them in control, who are now literally stewarding over them through the SEC and the treasury and the various branches of the government are working hand in glove with these people.

And it is, we are getting closer and closer to the Encirclement of this technocratic dark state around all of us, whether we know it or not. So let’s break it down for people. What does the average day to day life of not a citizen, but a customer of this future Gov Corp state actually look like for the average person? So firstly, when Land wrote the dark Enlightenment, one of the things that really stood out for me was he, he said that our, meaning us normal, you know, the people, that our sovereignty would be treated with derision.

So we have none, you would have none in the network state or under a sovereign corporation. You would agree a contract, a smart contract to live there, to live in one of these sovereign states and you would hand over all your individual sovereignty to the CEO, techno king of the sovereign state and you would agree to accept governance as a service. You would have to put all your assets and everything, your assets, even your rights, everything into a smart contract structure that would be placed onto a unified ledger which would be controlled by the founders of the sovereign state.

And thereafter anything that you were permitted or allowed to do would be controlled by AI that would, that would, that would be done through, you know, the oversight of your digital rights and your digital assets when they, when they’ve set up and, and everyone would, you know, you would need to use the sovereign currency that is issued by the sovereign corporation which you agree to live in. And the whole idea of governance as a service, which is what they’re talking about is that if you didn’t like it, you would be free to leave and go and live somewhere else, you know, and buy, buy a, buy a governance service from somebody else from another provider.

But sure, that, that, you know, that’s because they’ve got no concept of humanity. Well, you know, I would strongly argue that they, they intensely dislike humanity, but they, but they, because they’ve got no concept of the human condition and they think that everybody has the means to just get up and leave where they live and go and live somewhere else, which for very many reasons billions of us don’t be it, be it we don’t have the financial means to do it or be it that we’ve got friends and families that we support and we don’t want to leave or be it that we, you know, that this is our home.

We, we don’t want to leave. Their only, only offer to us would be if you don’t like it, get out. That, that is, that is it. That is the full extent of what they think about how they would control us. So we would be controlled. You know, I Mean when one of the guys that was one of the lawyers that was involved in rolling out this, this potential freedom city in Iceland called Praxis, he said, he said that won’t it be great? All our assets will be online, everything will be controlled, will be policed by AI, robots will be policed by and there’ll be no.

So hence there’ll be no crime because it’d be great because if you step out of line AI will immediately identify you and they’ll send round the robots to, to get, you know, to do whatever, put you in prison to the extent that that land. Who is the kind of, the kind of leading kind of thinker if you can say that behind this kind of ideology that they’ve adopted. He said that I’ve lost my train of thought escapes me now. Yeah, Moving on Ian. Befitting a book on the technocratic dark state. I mean this is a dark subject with a dark vision for humanity.

As you lay out there and obviously you go into so much more detail on all the different aspects of this in the book and, and the various characters behind these ideas and who are pushing these ideas etc. Not just the well known ones like the Teals and the Musks and the Elezins but the lesser known ones like the Yarvins and the almost unknown ones like the Nick Lands and others. But there are quite a cast of characters here that you go through. But as I say it is obviously a dark subject. Thankfully you do not end the book on a dark note.

So let’s try to see if we can get grasp something of a. Well, I want to say light note here but something along those lines you, you’ve towards the end of the book you write despite what we’ve been systematically indoctrinated to believe, international financial institutions do not control money. Oligarch investors do not control technological development. Governments do not control populations. Only deception, coercion and the use of force keep us mired in these myths. We do not have to believe in any of these mythological control mechanisms. Ian Davis. What, what is the way out of this technocratic dark state? Well, very interesting actually.

I just attended a protest in the UK standing against Digital id. But the reason that I attended a protest, which is very unusual for me because I don’t believe in protesting against something you can’t change, namely the government, is that this wasn’t about that this was about non compliance. This was about encouraging people not to comply with the rollout of things like Digital id. Digital ID is if you like, the gateway into this system, once we’ve adopted digital ID that could potentially be linked programmable digital money, then you know, that’s, that’s when technocracy will start to have a massive controlling infants over our lives and we simply don’t have to use it.

The, the infrastructure has already been, been erected around us, but it’s, it is of no value if we don’t use it. So there are just very simple things that, I mean, it, it’s perhaps been said ad nauseam, but it’s true nonetheless. If we, if we focus on using things like cash, if we keep our use of digital ID products like bank cards, like payment cards, like store cards to an absolute minimum, if we keep that to a minimum, if we trade with each other, if we put the brakes on, or at least try to make things as awkward as possible for those that are demanding things like taxes from us.

I’m not advocating not paying tax because obviously that can get you in a lot of trouble legally. But that doesn’t mean that we have to jump through every hoop in order to pay it. We can do things like say, well, do you have an alternative? And try and retard the rollout of these things as much as possible. If we do that, hopefully that will give us some time to look at things like lawful and legal challenges, constitutional challenges that will, that will certainly show people, or certainly show them that we’re not going to adopt these systems.

And that is essential. I mean, there’s the old 3% thing. About 3% of the population can change everything. If enough of us do that, then we can start building better parallel systems that we can use that are not going to involve us subjecting ourselves to total technological control, because that’s what they’re trying to foist upon us. So, you know, and another important thing that I stress throughout the book is none of this is new. This is not new. The only aspect of this that is new is the technological capability that they now have at hand. Other than that, you know, for example, Land talks about this concept of hyper racism, which is, which is just eugenics.

It’s just eugenics. The basic concept of the sovereign state is one tiny class ruling everybody else. And that’s just oligarchy that is thousands of years old. So this is nothing new. They’re just reinventing the wheel. But unfortunately, and this is why it’s so important, this is why it’s pressing, they do now have the technological ability to do things that they have hitherto only dreamed possible. So, you know, that’s the problem, the acute problem that we’ve got now. But if we don’t adopt that technology or if we, you know, and we already have adopted most of it, most of us have already adopted the things that could be used to, to control us, our fondle slabs as you are very wisely and fond of saying.

We don’t have to use them. We can. There’s nothing to stop, we don’t. Just because we’ve got them now doesn’t mean that we. I used to have a smartphone, I don’t have a smartphone anymore. It’s that simple, you know, so, so we, if we, if we reject this stuff, they can’t control us with it because they won’t have access to us. This is it. We can’t comply our way out of this because we know that the path of least resistance and the one that will be set before us is the one that leads us to directly into the maws of this technocratic dark state.

So we have to go the other way and that will involve non compliance and you end I think quite appropriately with a quotation from a gentile boity. So I will let people delve into that at their own leisure. I hope that they do get this book. It is a lengthy volume. There’s a lot of detail in here that we can only begin to scratch the surface of in a conversation like this. But Ian Davis, what would you like people to take away from this book? I refer to these people in the book as Neo nerds because you know, they refer to themselves as techno kings.

They refer to themselves as CEOs of sovereign corporations operations. This is all self aggrandizing power grabbing. It is the in it and it is an illusion. They are there. They’re just human beings just like the rest of us. They’ve got a plan that they want to subject us to. Once we are aware of that plan, which is the, the point of the book, once we can see it and once we understand it, their power is gone because then we can do what we need to do in order to reject their system. And if we reject their system there is very little other than just brute force.

There is very little that they can do about it. They’re not all powerful, they’re not all seeing. They’re a very small group. They’re one class of people and there are billions of us. And I have now remembered that land quote and this is quite salient. What he said was that if we were, if we were going to not exit if we tried to oppose their diktats Then all that would demonstrate is our semi criminal proclivities. So he believes, and the Neo reactionaries believe that they have the right to rule us and anyone that objects to their rule is a criminal.

These are not the kind of people that we, we should ever allow to have significant influence over our lives. So. And we don’t have to. That’s the point. Well said. Yes, yes, Elon might call himself the Doge Father, but we know what he really is, him and his ilk. So yes, calling things by the right name. Let’s call them for the Neo nerds they are and laugh them into the dustbin of history. I hope people will pick up a copy of this book. I think there’s a lot in here that is worthy of study and not.

It is the Technocratic Dark State and It is at thetechnocraticdarkstate.com that link will of course be in the show notes for this if people need it. But finally, Ian, I note that you are being published here by Papercut Publishing house. Tell us about that. Yeah, no, Papercut Publishing, that’s Whitney Webb and Mark Goodwin’s new publishing house. I’m honored to have been the first book that they’re publishing. They’re also planning to roll out Papercut magazine which, and I applaud that as well because obviously everything we’re talking about is digital control and they are very wisely moving into physical media and I fully support that.

And they’ve got a lot of very exciting projects underway. So please check out Papercut Publishing and of course Unlimited Hangout as well where there’s, there’s a lot more information about Papercut there. And you know, there’s, they’ve got, they’re, I couldn’t support their, their, their intentions more. We need, we need to distribute physical media because in the short term the likelihood is that many of the digital channels that we’ve currently got open to us will be shut down. But then we’ll, you know, obviously we’ll adapt and we’ll, we’ll create new ones. But, but you know, physical media is going to be increasingly important, I believe.

I definitely think that that is the way that things are going. So I’m glad to see this is a real deal, physical book that will be available in the real world offline so that people can actually do reading at any time. Anyway, let’s leave it there for today. Ian Davis, the technocratic Darkstate.com thank you very much for your time today. Thank you very much, James. It’s my pleasure.
[tr:tra].

See more of The Corbett Report on their Public Channel and the MPN The Corbett Report channel.