The Technocratic Dark State Revealed with Iain Davis

Hello, everybody. Welcome to the parallel mic podcast, Daniel, host Mike, and on tonight's

show, we have a new guest. His name is Ian Davis. He is a contributor over at Whitney

Web's Unlimited Hangout. He's also an author and tonight we discuss his latest book, The

Technocratic Dark State. So very much in line with some of the things we've been discussing

here on the podcast in recent months and years. And, you know, I'd never spoken to

Ian before, but I just really enjoyed this conversation, not least because he's a fellow

Brit, but also because Ian is just really good at laying out precisely what is happening,

who is behind it, who are the key names and faces, and he's just a really interesting

person to chat with. So without further ado, we will get to the episode. Members, please

head over to parallel mic.com to sign in and listen to the full show. Of course, if you're

not a member yet, but you do enjoy the first part, you can find the second part over there

on parallel mic.com. In closing, my friends, I hope you're all enjoying the wonderful spring

weather. I hope you're all well, healthy and reasonably happy. And like always, I will

see you in the next one. Hi, everybody. Welcome to the parallel mic podcast. We are joined

today by a new guest. He's a researcher and author. His name is Ian Davis and he's written

a new book called The Technocratic Dark State. Ian, I was just saying just before the show,

I've been a fan of your work for quite a few years. I really enjoyed your series on Sustainable

Slavery, which was on unlimited hangout. And yeah, your new book have been kind of browsing

the topics I've heard you on Monica's show and shout to Monica for putting me in touch with

Ian to set this one up. So I think we're going to have plenty to talk about Ian. I'm really excited

to talk about the financial side of it as well that you've been looking into because that's

something that I focus on too. But maybe we're going to get started. Ian, just give a list. There's

a little bit of background information for those that haven't come across your work before,

where can they find it and what kind of topics are you focused on? Yeah, I live working in the UK.

I also have coast of England. The topics I write on are basically geopolitics, history,

economics, that kind, that kind of thing. My website is Ian Davis.com. My name's Ian

is spelled with I-A-I-N Davis.com, all one word. I also got a substack, Ian Davis.substack.com.

And then my work is also right for unlimited hangout, Whitney Webb's unlimited hangout.

And I write for it, have written for other outlets as well. If you put my name into a search

engine of your choice, you'll probably find some of my work, which has been quite widely

distributed at other places, which I'm very fortunate that that's happened. Yeah. So, I mean,

that's the kind of stuff I've been doing. I've been doing it for about, I always get this wrong.

I never remember. I got made redundant again in, I think, about 2011-12, something like that.

I can't quite remember. And then I retrained as a journalist. Prior to that, I worked in health

and social care for more than about 30 years. And then I retrained as a journalist.

I've always been interested in writing and researching and thought I would try to give it a co.

Unfortunately, things have panned out and I am able to just about get by doing what I do.

So, that's, I count myself very fortunate. How far back does this actually go? Where's the

beginning? We're talking about this new crop of people, the Sam Outmans and the Peter Teals.

But we've both studied the history and obviously, the stuff going back hundreds of years about

going towards these one-wild systems and centralization. Are they working for the same clubs and

groups that we were looking at in maybe the 40s and 50s and 60s? Are there some divergence from

that? Is it something new? I mean, I would say there's a continuum going all the way back to

Oligarchy. You know, I mean, that's one of the things that I discuss in the book, but there's

no kind of nothing particularly new. In many, there are many aspects of the dark enlightenment

that are just eugenics. There are many aspects of it that are just Oligarchy, basically.

So, what they're basically arguing for when they talk about governance as a service

is, you know, a small group controlling the population, you know, whether that, whether that would

be in what they call a realm or a city state or whatever. It's still the same idea. So, really,

there's nothing new there. Certainly, if you look at people like Thiel, you know, he's very

closely and musky on musk as well, somebody that I talk about a lot. I mean, I think it's fair to

say that musk is probably the best known proponent of technology, whereas Thiel is perhaps,

they're not known for this particularly. That's another why I wrote the book, but, you know,

they clearly must clearly famous technology. Thiel clearly famous the dark enlightenment.

So, these ideas, you know, technology, as I said, goes back to the 1930s.

One of the things that I kind of talk about is how power operates and something that I've

been looking at for a long time is how power is distributed and how it works. And personally,

my personal view is that, you know, if we think about, I mean, Derek Bros has just done a

concluded a very good series called the Pyramid of Power, where he considers a lot of these questions

about who actually controls what is what is obviously I think it, you know, I think there's no

doubt that there is a global power structure. Who sits at the pinnacle about lots of people say

it's the Jesuit's or whoever, you know, that might sit at this pinnacle of power. For me,

personally, because I think it's a network, I think there are a network of competing interests.

And, you know, just as one kind of group of people rises to the fore, another one falls away,

and then there's, you know, there are kind of internecine squabbles, I think the top of a kind of

class is probably a better term. I mean, I do refer sometimes to the Parasite class, which

is a bit derogatory, but, you know, I think that's way better than kind of nearly. So in my household,

we call them parasites. Yeah, the Parasite class. But I mean, so it's a class, I would say that

unified class. I mean, now I think that's the important thing. They might stab each other in the back,

but they're unified in defense of their own class against everybody else.

So, so, you know, they will come together and defend each other when needs must.

And one of the things that I, that I approach in, in the book is how this new class of perhaps

Silicon Valley oligarchs that are risen, that I mean, I mean, you know, they've risen with the

support of the states. I talk about the public private state feel, for example, is a big advocate

of monopoly, but as a feel well knows, you can't have a monopoly without the support of

those that are regulating markets. It's it's the regulated market that creates the monopoly.

And in his case, the support of the intelligence agencies, I mean, you know,

Palantir very much came out of, out of something called the total information awareness project.

I mean, that there's a, there's a very clear lineage there from, from, you know,

transition into the kind of privatized, privatization of what was a, an intelligence

agency led initiative. So, Palantir kind of came from that. So, it's very much about working in

partnership with the political state. And what, what I would say that with, you know,

somebody else that I talk about quite a bit in the book is the stakeholder capitalist. So,

the, the stakeholder capitalist notion, which, which arose in the 1970s was kind of an inversion

of fascism. So, we think that the fascist state is a, is a partnership between the political and

the private sector. In that relationship, what tends to tends to, we go back to the kind of,

the kind of fascist state, not the Italian fascist state in the 30s. Although the private sector

profited by working in partnership with the public sector, the public state or the political state,

the political state at the upper hand. Because ultimately, the political state would use force

to compel the public sector to do what it wanted to do. If we look at the, the notion that,

that Klaus Schwab and others presented in the 1970s of stakeholder capitalism, I argue very

strongly in the book that that's, that's very similar in that you've got this, you've got this

partnership between the public state and the private state. But it, it's inverted because the public

state government, if you like, is reduced to what is called an enabling partner. I, they create

the regulatory framework that will enable the public sector, the private sector to get what it

wants. So, it's an inversion. So, you've got this, a dominant private sector working in partnership

for one, a subservient public sector. What these guys want, which is not how, how the stakeholder

capitalists have kind of shaped the, the second half of the 20th century leading into the start,

the 21st, is to remove the public sector completely. They, they just want a fully privatized system,

which is new. And one of the things I, I, I discussed is in the book is, you know, how do we,

I mean, we don't know, obviously, it's very difficult for us to know exactly what is talked about

behind closed doors at places like Bilderberg. We don't know. I mean, we could get a good

inkling of what they're at by looking at the, the, the, the documents that they release and

their public statements. But we, and we can piece things together, but we can't know specifically.

But, you know, if you consider that people like somebody like, you know, Peter Thier or Alex

Carp, they're on that, they're on the steering committee at the Bilderberg group. As is someone

like, I know he's just been deposed because of his ties to Epstein, but Paul Gay,

Brenda, he was the former director or whatever he was called of the world economic form. So,

Schmidt and people like that, they're all together in this group. So what, so what, how does that

work or how might we speculate that that works? And I think if you look at what the neo reactionaries

with this group that aren't talking about what they're proposing is somewhat new. So they,

they come to the table, I would imagine, with, with an offer. You know, so what is the, what is the

benefit to the existing parasite class or oligarchy or whatever you want to call them? What is the

benefit that they're offering? How do they get, you know, how do they get welcomed into the fold,

if you like? And, and in their case, they're talking about massively accelerating the transformation

that was already underway. So as, as the public sector becomes kind of absorbed by the private sector,

clearly that is what the, the, the, what for one of the better expression, the oligarch class has had

in mind, certainly since kind of Rhodes, Milner, the ground table movement and forward.

It's been a very gradual progression. It's been a gradual progression, not a gradual in the

great scheme of things, but certainly it's generational. It's a generational progression.

These guys are coming to the table. These oligarchs, this Silicon Valley group that I talk about,

Neo reactionaries, they're coming to the table saying go hard and fast, go go smash everything

to pieces now, throw your cards up in the air now. And, you know, Bordeaux abcai, just, just, just

do it fast and do it hard. So, and I think, you know, if we look at what's happened,

and what is happening now, I think that notable acceleration is, is something that is noble.

And there are certain moves that have certainly happened with currency, such as, you know,

what's happening with crypto currencies, the stable coins in the US. That kind of, it's, it seems

pretty clear to me that, that their approach is now all favored. So, this, this notion of going

hard and fast for substantial accelerated socio-political and socio-economic change,

might do it rapidly. And that is, that is what I think is happening at the moment.

Yeah, you know, it's really interesting, as you say that, and I'm thinking about this new crop

that you just discussed, the Alex Carp's and the Peter Teals Elon Musk, because none of those

men strike me as powerful men as having that kind of like alpha male attitude of a dominant

oligarch or, you know, when you go back and look at these ruling classes and the way that they

lived and behaved, it almost seems like these men submissive in a sense or weak,

certainly don't see them as being capable of dominating an entire system. So, I guess what they

offer to the existing oligarchy classes, you called it, that have existed for hundreds of years,

is they've got the technology and they need this technology and they need to implement it

quick, like you said, hard and fast. And so, yeah, it looks to me like you're on the right track,

now that our deal's being done. I mean, I'm sure all of those people could be done away with by

the existing oligarchy, but they probably need them. They need them to install this system and maybe

once that system's up and running, if they felt they no longer needed them, they could just be

pushed aside. Do you think that that's possible after this is all over and do you think that

they'll continue, that they'll be allowed to stay in the club, so to speak? I know he's expecting

yeah, no, absolutely. Of course, I mean, one of the things that, you know, I try to stress as

well is that a lot of these people are characters, you know, that represent networks. So, we're given

a public image of someone and they represent a network. And obviously, you know, when you're

trying to identify people that you can, you know, you can identify what they've said and what they've

done and what their companies have done. But I mean, if you think about someone like Elon Musk, for

example, his business empire is so vast, you know, he's the head of XAI, he's the head of SpaceX, he's

there, you know, he's instrumental in so many different businesses simultaneously. Obviously,

you can't manage that as one human being can't manage that. So, all of these guys are, and they are

guys, I mean, that's another point, they're almost exclusively male. You know, they are representing

a network that has an objective in mind and there's an agreement there. And sure, as individuals,

they're expendable. And I, you know, when I, when I actually called them in the book NEO nerds,

because you're quite right, you know, they don't strike you as the kind of dominant alpha male types.

But the reason that I think that, you know, I go through the book why I've used the term NEO nerds.

Part of that is about, you know, reclaiming language. Musk like does, has officially referred to

himself as the techno king of X. They talk about themselves in terms of CEO kings in terms of

being technological dictators. So they, they use the self aggrandizing language. But, but why, why not,

you know, we don't have to use it, right? So we're talking about their ideas. I've used the term

NEO nerds to describe, describe their kind of thoughts about, you know, how they could control

the rest of the world with technology. Now, that I think you, you made a very good point there,

because, because what is the offer that's on the table? These guys are in charge of the global

corporations that are rolling out the technological infrastructure that will make technology possible.

When technology started in the 1930s, let's say work, I mean, the study course,

it took a few years to write the study course, but it was printed in fall in 1934.

So the study course lays out the basic kind of concept of technology. And at the time,

it was impractical to impose that system, because, you know, they were talking about restructuring

the monetary system, for example, converting using energy units as a unit of currency, you know,

that kind of thing, which meant the total surveillance and the total control of every aspect of

society economically, everything. Now, the bureaucracy that would have been needed to make that

a practical reality, just in the United States, which is, you know, whether whether

Ferrags on a North America Canada as well, to make that a practical reality to create what they

called the North American technique, you know, at the time, you know, what people had were printed,

punch, punch hold cards, that they were physically moving about in, you know, roller dexies.

So how do you, how would you monitor every single person in the North American continent,

using a system, I mean, half of the population would have been employed monitoring themselves.

It was an unfeasible proposition. But these guys have now come forward with the kind of

technological infrastructure, you know, certainly with distributed ledger technology.

And I think this partnership between distributed ledger technology and AI, which AI is the

game changer for distributed ledger technology, because you can now have these massive

block, whether it's a blockchain or whatever, whatever they use, you can now have these

massive data sets, which ordinarily wouldn't be a lot of use in of themselves.

But AI can interrogate those data sets and make meaningful sense out of data with tokenisation.

So, you know, if we're represented as a token within that data set, it can pick us out

instantaneously or pick our data out instantaneously. So, that's the difference. And these guys are

presenting, these guys are presenting what we might call the Parasite Classical Tradition

Royal Agarchy or whatever you want to call them. I'm presenting them with the technological

capability to make technology real, to make it, to make it happen now. And certainly, if you look

at any kind of conflict or anything like that or a pandemic or COVID or whatever, then what is

the ultimate result? Always, always, it's the consolidation and centralisation of power,

authority and invariably resource control. And that is, that is just happening all the time.

So, you know, I think that's that's that's the situation at the moment that there's no doubt

that the technological infrastructure that is being rolled out around us, things like digital

identity and so forth are geared up to enable technology to work on a global scale. But how you

would divide that up into and and and combined with these guys, these neo-reactionaries, you want to

run that as a privatised network. So, that's the new bit of it maybe, the new bit of the

technology is that they say, now do away with the state, run the whole thing as a privatised

network. That's that's the new part of the deal I suppose. Yeah, I found that bit really interesting

when I was looking at your book because that's the bit that seems a little bit weird. Why would they

have these little private fiefdoms and why would anyone want to go into it? But I guess attaching

it to libertarianism and saying, oh, we can do away with the state, which we're now exposing as

being riddled with pedophiles and satanists and all kinds of terrible things that the everyday

man and woman on the street usually wouldn't have known about. We might have known about it. It

was obvious to most most of us, but the everyday man and woman on the street would not know those

things. But I've kind of got a sneaking suspicion that the goal is to do away with the entirety of it all.

The central bank, get rid of that, hand that over to AI, get rid of the governments,

hand that over to AI, and I guess the bit that you was just talking about might be what attracts

the first wave of people that feel like the libertarians or that they've got some ideological

attachment to anarchism because they'll say, oh, at least that's decentralized. And then, yeah,

maybe that's the first experiment, but I do believe that they're engineering it now so that

everybody will eventually want that or 90% of the population will want that because it just looks

so rotten. It looks so unsalvidable right now. And I guess if you can get everyone's mind to

the point where they actually think, oh, just let it all burn, well, that makes it easy to let it

all burn. Exactly. I mean, you don't get these kind of things happening by chance.

If you consider the concept of the agentic state, so the concept of the agentic state is that

the administrative parts of governance, you know, the things that you and I do every day

are interactions with governance, you know, like applying for licenses or filling in your tax

returns or marriage lock, you know, that those kind of things, which is often really, you know,

what most of us, a lot of us, is the only bit of the state or the political state that is

of any use to us or it's a necessity, you know, we've got this necessity that we have to fulfill

its own arrest, but we have to do it. And that's the only time we really interact with the state,

you know, we don't have unless we fall foul of it. That is the only time we really interact

with it. So the agentic state suggests that none of that should be done by government.

That should all be done technologically by AI. And you can see how people would

well, that's easier, isn't it? Ukraine's a very great example of that, and you're absolutely

right, a conflict starts, and that runs in tandem with the development of this act called

rear, which is it's literally called the digital state. So it's so everything, you know,

that in Ukraine is called the digital state. So the idea is that everything, your

birth certificate, your financial details, your banking, your every functional thing that you

need to do sort of day in, day out, whether you might need to have some sort of reaction with

authority, is digitized and you won't run it through one app on your phone. Essentially,

you've got this one thing called the dear, the dear app, which you just, that's everything.

You can do pretty much anything through it. Well, that is very much the notion of the agentic

state. So if you, if you don't mix up, what else do you need government for? It would be the question

that these guys are asking these neo-ratches, well, what else do you need? Now that, of course,

appeals to many libertarian-minded people because they're saying, well, you don't really need

government. So when you think, well, what, what travesties does government commit? Well,

it does stupid things like start wars. Does anybody want a war? Does anybody want, you know,

what's going on at the moment in Iran, for example, what's happened in Gaza? I mean, one of the

things I noticed about what, what happened in Gaza, and again, we're seeing it with Iran,

is that the Western media is normally, you know, it's still most of it is, is gung-ho war

mongering pro-state, you know, pro-western state objectives. But even, even Western media is starting

now, the question, the state. I mean, one of the things that really struck me in the UK, I mean,

we've got the BBC in the UK, which is an out and out state propaganda organization. That's

what it is. It does, it's a state propaganda group. That's primarily its role.

Even the BBC, when this action started in Iran, was questioning the legitimacy of the war,

of the conflict. Now, why suddenly, why suddenly is that coming, becoming into the mainstream?

The release of the Epstein files, the exposure of leading establishment figures. So, you know,

in the UK, you know, the US, the guy who was the ambassador to the US,

guy called Peter Madelson, exposed in the UK, a stalwart of the establishment exposed in the UK,

from his relationships with Epstein, very publicly arrested. People are, you know, the talking

points that have arisen from the release of the Epstein files, that we are essentially rolled

by a paedophile class, which is what, which is what millions and millions of people are

starting to believe, because of that, those disclosures. Why, why are they now shooting at the

government? Is it an agenda, and I argue very strongly that it is? Is it an agenda to undermine

government, government itself? And I think that is clearly happening. I think, I think the

notion is that at some point in the not too distant future, and you can see that some kind of event

might happen, you know, heaven forbid, you know, a nuclear event or something like a massive cyber

attack or something like that, where, you know, government, government confrontation has got

out of hand, what are we going to do about it? We need to move away from this idea of government,

and towards this idea of governance as a service in, in kind of these city states, which, which

is very much what they're presenting in, sorry, a phone call, I'll be apologise. No, that's

funny. Yeah, it seems to me like that's where he's heading, for sure. I saw the same

strangeness with the recent narrative that Donald Trump was taking on the Federal Reserve,

and that it was having this back and forth, and I'm like, that's obviously scripted, but what's

the intention of the scripting? What's the intention of the narrative? And the way that I,

sorry, it was yeah, the probably going to do away with the central banks when the financial

system is brought down, and they do a controlled demolition of blame on the central banks,

they'll blame our problems of society on the governments, and then of course, they'll have

the solution, which will be the private sector taking over lots of our lives, and yeah, I think

people will accept it at that point. In fact, it's already happening. You know, I've got a friend

Ian and she works for a corporation, and I spent a day with her, and it blew my mind that

hell life was pretty much being ruined through an app that her company gave her, and this

app would give her an allowance every day to buy dinner, to go to a coffee shop. She had a part

of that app where it would pay for a fitness, a health, a spa or a gym. It gave her money to go

on holidays, it gave her money to go on dates with her partner, like a special allowance, and I'm

like, what is this app? And she was like, oh, instead of getting paid just a decent salary,

they give you so much of your salary, and then they run everything else through this app, but

most of her recreation, most of her food was going through this app, so I think they're already

conditioning people for that, trust that they're going to need to have in these companies.

They're already doing that now, making that dependency, I guess, on them, and people will say,

well, the state doesn't give me anything, and these companies are giving me something. So, yeah,

it seems to be happening fast. What's your kind of time frame on this thing? Do you feel like

like it's like a five-year thing, a two-year thing, a 20-year thing? I don't know. I mean, I

always kind of think that, you know, it's one of the key things that these, these neo-reactionaries,

this group of Silicon Valley colleagues, I've got in mind, is this notion called accelerationism.

Accelerationism is key to their view of things. So, this goes back to an economic idea that

was presented by the economist Joseph Shumpeter, who spoke about creating this thing called

e-identified as creative destruction. So, creative destruction was the replacement of, because of

the advancement of technology, the replacement of one market by a new one. So, for example, classic

example would be the steam train gets replaced by the diesel engine. So, that's just, and he

Shumpeter very spoke about creative destruction being a inevitable consequence of capitalism,

and the forward progression of technology. So, it was a consequence of capitalism, if you like.

These guys see creative destruction as a tool to be used. So, they see creative

destruction as a tool to be used to disrupt markets. So, they invest aggressively in

what they call disruptive technology. Now, their purpose is to disrupt monopoly markets and

monopolistic markets. Now, because they know, and they're quite right about this, the socio-political

and socio-economic power is associated with the control of markets. So, if you can control

smash up markets and control how they evolve, you can do the same to socio-political structures,

the associated socio-political structures. So, you can look at, and what's more, as I discuss

quite a bit in the book, governments are applying this accelerationist principle of which literally

is, you know, the whole idea of order out of chaos. They have smashing up political structures,

smashing up, you know, the things like, I mean, one of the example that we might use is, and this

goes back to the neoliberalism. So, going back to the idea of things being in some sort of time

this goes back to the idea of neoliberalism as well, the deregulation of markets,

breaking things apart to create new opportunities for investment. This, this kind of idea,

which has a massive impact, as I said, socio-politically as well. And they're applying this,

they're applying this now, and we were seeing it now geopolitically, I would suggest,

we're seeing that same notion being applied geopolitically, certainly if we look at the Middle East.

I would say that that is creative destruction of the Middle East. That's what it looks like to me.

With Iran tacking its some of its allies in response, because it's got no choice,

because that's where the US bases are. So, this is accelerating all the time,

accelerating this notion of creative destruction. Now, I thought probably in my own lifetime,

maybe I might see the firm establishment of, you know, I'm 56 now. So, maybe, and obviously,

23, he's supposed to be some sort of little point, but I'm thought maybe in my own lifetime,

I might see the firm establishment of, of technology. Now, who knows? I mean, I,

you can envision one major massive cyber event, but let's say a cyber event that takes out

the financial system. If that happened, the, the, the solutions that would be offered would be digital

digital payments, it would be digital ID linked to programmable digital currency. Once that is

in, once that is in, largely that's it, largely that is it, that, then they've got,

they've established technology. So, so, that could happen tomorrow. You know, I mean, I used to

think it was miles, well, in my lifetime possibly, but now I'm thinking, well, this could happen.

This afternoon, for all I know. It could, it could be that fast. They've already implemented all of

the structures, the infrastructure in the digital realm to achieve that. Obviously, Bitcoin and the

acceleration of cryptos and blockchain. I don't know how you see it, but to me, that was actually a part

of it. It was not something that came about organically. It was a part of the rolling out of this,

and obviously, now they've just expanded it. So, they could do it tomorrow. And yeah, if you do

a financial cyber attack, which I was discussing on my recent show, the, obviously, we know that

there'd been one war game in all of these things for years, but there was one in 2021 that was

doing in Jerusalem, Israel. And it had the IMF, the Bank of International Settlements, about 10

different key nations from different parts of the world from Asia, the Middle East, obviously,

America, UK. And they were games that a state actor, so Iran, or somebody like that, did a cyber

attack that affected the global financial system, and the solution was a global bank holiday.

Well, now you've got everybody out of the bank account, so everyone's going to be mad, angry,

stressed, panicked. And then you just say to them, well, listen, we have to prove who you are to

get back into the new system, because the old system is dangerous. It's dangerous here, and you

can't access it. Yeah. Ten shun, you can't access your benefits. Well, I would guarantee 99.9% of

people would go back into the new system immediately, because you need your money to live. And if you

don't go into it, well, now you're a pariah. And where do you go after that? Well, you need to be

pretty damn independent. And most of us can't achieve that, at least, not yet. So yeah, I think it

could happen really fast. And I just think the financial part of it is the critical element,

because that's the bit that affects every person on planet Earth. Nobody can survive without

access to finances. And if they take away the physical means of exchange, like currency,

obviously, the currency is a dog shit. Nobody wants fear of currency, but it's better than no

currencies, better than having no physical means of exchange. Once that's gone, it is kind of the

mark of the B system. That's pretty much what it is. Yeah. No, I mean, one of the things that I argue

about long and well, you know, is, you know, economics, finance, monetary systems. That is it.

That is the, that is the gain for all the marbles, as James Corbett would say. You know, that,

that is, that is the, the crux of it. You really, you know, one thing I actually broached this topic

in the book, and I actually say in the book, so right, in order to get a wrap our heads around

this, we are going to have to talk about the monetary system. And I think I'll make a joke in the

book that this is about as interesting as watching Planck's War. Right. So it's, it's, but we've got

to, we've got to grasp this. We've got to get our heads around it because I mean, one, it's almost

like it's made deliberately obscure and deliberately boring, which is one of the things that the dark

lineman's very much like that. It's, it's deliberately objuves. You kind of look at it and think,

oh man, that's crazy stuff. And, and it's difficult to read and everything. Why? There's no need for

it to be like that. Why is it like that? Bro, it's to put people off. It's to put people off,

getting stuck into it. And exactly the same is with the management system and the financial system.

They use all this jargon and all these acronyms and all these different, you know,

difficult hard to understand concepts. Precisely because it detours people from familiarising

themselves with what's going on. But when you, when you break it down, it's not that hard to

understand what's going on. You know, the, the notion that all fiat currency is debt is not difficult,

is not difficult to grasp. We, you know, we can wrap our heads around that. So then that follows

the question, who controls the debt? And so forth. So, you know, we, so we, it's easy to, to,

all right. And I very much talk about the concept of reverse engineering, this stuff. So if you

reverse engineer the debt, who holds the debt, well, those are the people that are

controlling the strings, right? Well, that's the, that's the sad moment where you're like,

but who are we paying the damn debt to then? Why don't we just bring the debt to those guys and

create the currency? You know, and once you get to that point, you've broken it apart. And obviously,

they don't, they don't want people to get to that point. It could, it destroys the illusion.

Exactly. I mean, one of the things I point out is the current international monetary financial

system looks ridiculous. It looks ridiculous. It's absurd. I mean, we've currently got things

like the derivatives market. Nobody really knows. I mean, when the 2008 financial crash happened,

one of the, the, the, I can't remember which department it was of the, the Treasury, U.S. Treasury,

kind of remember, they did, they did a report on what caused it. And it was wild speculation in

the derivatives market, basically. And they just admitted in that paper that nobody knows about

how much it's worth. Right? So that, so people like the SEC don't know how much money to, right?

So you're just going to be, and they, and that's what's the term they use? Because most of it,

because most of the training is over the counter. So it's not going through the regular exchanges.

And they, what do they call it? Dark and unknown, I think. Dark and unknown.

This is like the SEC or someone like that saying this. So then you kind of think,

what is it? So people say, well, maybe the, the national value of the debt in the derivatives

market, some people say it's one quadrillion plus. I mean, the, the bank for international settlements

will say it's, it's 700 trillion plus. So, so it's safe to say that one quadrillion plus is

a reasonable estimate. Right? So that is, you know, in terms of total GDP, global GDP is,

let's say it's about 100 trillion a year, right? So it's 10 times that probably. And even if you

take in the value of all the assets, so say real assets, some people say that's about 500 trillion.

So it's twice the size of the total GDP and all the assets on earth. So how can that, I mean,

obviously, how can that possibly be, how can that possibly be true? There is not that amount of

wealth, supposedly, on earth to account for this volume of off the charts, ridiculous trading.

How can the two things don't match up? So when you look at the, look at the monetary and financial

system, big parts of it look ridiculous. And that's the point that that's the point that I made in

the book. Is it just on paper? It looks stupid. And then that max, that's, you know, probably a big

part of the thing that they want to cover up because obviously it's non, it's nonsensical. It

doesn't make any sense. Now, I would suggest it in the book that there are mechanisms by which

they can keep what is essentially a Ponzi scheme going. They can keep it going by, by, basically,

using natural assets, by converting everything into a tokenized asset, which is a big part, I think,

of what they're proposing in terms of, you know, the post, the post next crash solution, which

will be tokenized assets. So tokenizing forests, tokenizing mountain ranges, tokenizing ocean

beds, that kind of thing is tokenizing photosynthesis. It gets completely esoteric. It's like,

what, what can we conjure up? And yeah, tokenizing fresh air and all kinds of nonsens.

Yeah. So I mean, that's, that's their short to medium term fix for the preposterous

financial system, which currently exists, which looks like it has to go belly up.

And that looks like that's the short term kind of, it's the narrative, it's the narrative fix,

but it does enable also, you know, I mean, I looked it again and thought, well, that would

technically enable the continuation of the expansion of the monetary supply. But the monetary

supply now will be digital, rather than it being, you know, fear as we know it, it will be digital.

And who controls the, the issuance of digital money now? It's not, I mean, I argue in the book

that there's no such thing where the virtually no such thing as a public sector central bank,

anyway, they're all private sector banks above you. But nonetheless, normally they're supposed to

be public sector, instead of financial institutions. But even that now, with the things like the

issuance of stablecoins in the US and the passing of things like the genius fact, which, which

is a sea change in my view, in terms of the monetary system, although it's still kind of quasi-regulated

by the Fed, which I would argue is not a central bank and is a private entity anyway. But even though

it's quasi kind of regulated, essentially you're giving private corporations like Tether,

the ability to issue in effect because it's one-on-one backed. The dollar on global markets.

And that, to me, is like, that's massive. That is a massive change.

I mean, that is a money printer. Like, a private company has the money printer. I mean,

they say it's one-to-one backed. Nobody's ever audited them. We have no idea actually what's in

the closet there could be nothing. But yeah, can you imagine, Ian, that we just started a company

now together and said, well, we'll just print our currency digitally. And then the state comes in

and says, oh, good on your lads, continue. That's just mild to me. It is wild. It is absolutely wild.

And that's what we're going back to a bit earlier in the conversation. We're saying about bringing

an offer. Why? Why? Because traditionally, certainly since Central Banking really kicked off

in the 19th century in Europe and then soon in the US, the control of the issuance of currency

is the thing that enabled those with that power to control markets, global economy, economies,

and therefore government and therefore policy. So that is a thing that is a very precious

power to those that have got it. Now, with the current developments with things like the

Genius Act and the private issuance of, in this case, the world's leading reserve currency,

why would they give that away? Why would they allow these companies to do that?

You know, there must be a reason for it. And I think that's where it comes down to the offer.

They come along with this offer going, look, we can essentially save the dollar. I mean,

that's obviously a big part of it. We can move short to them debt into these vehicles, into

these stable coins. But we can also spread the dollar around the world with these stable coins.

We can basically spread the debt globally with these stable coins. But also, if you let us

into this little kind of clique and let us issue our own currency, that means we can start rolling

out our network states, our private city states where we issue our own money. If we do that,

then you will have this network of city states, instead of nation states, what a guy called

Kerr is Yavin called a patchwork of realms, which will lead us towards this thing that we're

all aiming for, which is the privatized private corporate controlled global governance. I mean,

you know, it's not them. It's almost like the shape that these guys have changed the shape

of what many of us have talked spoken about for many years, the new world order.

You know, we perhaps have in our mind what what what global firm global governance might look

like. These guys have come along and said, no, no, no, we can change the shape of that. This is what

it can look like. You've been going along the notion that we need these kind of nation states

controlled in these regional blocks like the year you and then the Asian union, which you know,

obviously is being proposed. You know, we, we, well, that's what you think that what you're

heading for all this global governance centralized control. But we can change the shape of that

through technology and through and we don't actually need government. We can do away with

government. We can do this technologically. And that's that seems to me what we are, what we're

what the game is. Okay, everybody, that's it for part number one of this interview with Ian

Davies. Thank you so much for listening. Please do check out his new book, The Technocratic DAG

State in part number two in part number two. We pick right back up where we left off. So looking

forward to seeing members over there on parallel mic.com for everybody else. Thank you so much for

listening. Take care of yourselves and we'll see you next time.

What you are basic.

Deep, deep down, far far in.

He is simply the fabric and structure of existence itself.

He's for all men and women. He's for all men and women. He's for all men and women.

Not nearly peace in our time. He's in all time.

Honestly, I'm stressed in this life.

He's for all men and women. He's for all men and women.

Not nearly peace in our time. He's in all time.

The fabric and structure of existence itself.

Not one man, not a group of men. But you know all men and you, you the people have the power.

He's for all men and women, he's for all men and women, he's for all men and women.

The fabric and structure of existence itself.

Honestly, I'm stressed in this life.

He's for all men and women, he's for all men and women, he's for all men and women.

Not nearly peace in our time. He's in all time.

What you are basic, deep, deep down, far far in,

is simply the fabric and structure of existence itself.

He's for all men and women, he's for all men and women.

Not nearly peace in our time. He's in all time.

Honestly, I'm stressed in this life.

He's for all men and women, he's for all men and women.

Not nearly peace in our time. He's in all time.

The fabric and structure of existence itself.

The fabric and structure of existence itself.

The fabric and structure of existence itself.

In the 17th chapter, it says, look at the written.

The kind of of goddess within man.

Not one man, nor a group of men.

But in all men, in you, you, the people, have the power.

He's for all men and women, he's for all men and women.

The fabric and structure of existence itself.

Honestly, I'm stressed in this life.

He's for all men and women, he's for all men and women,

he's for all men and women.

Until he's in our time, he's in all time.