Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after
the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after
Christ.
The
Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate — Part 2
In continuing to unpack
the ideologies of the oligarchs who are part of the new Trump
administration, Iain Davis examines how their ideas are being
translated into policy. He considers the consequent infrastructure
rollout that is preparing the US and the world for an imminent Gov-corp
Technate within a multipolar world.
In Part 1 of this series,
we explored the political philosophies that have long been adopted and
promoted by Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and considered the implications,
given both men’s obvious influence on the Trump administration. Musk is
a high-profile advocate of Technocracy, and Peter Thiel is an
accelerationist neoreactionary who favours, in particular, the Dark
Enlightenment. Before you read this article (Part 2), I urge you to
familiarise yourself with the explanations of Technocracy and the NRx
(the neoreactionary movement) provided in Part 1. Otherwise, many of
the references here will lack context.
As we noted in Part 1, Thiel and Musk are part of the oligarchic class
by virtue of being invited to join a network led by other oligarchs
whose stratospheric wealth far surpasses that of the names published on
the “richest people in the world” lists. Welcomed into their exclusive
club, Thiel and Musk are made men. In Part 2, we will explore how the
political philosophies and the associated economic theories of Thiel
and Musk are shaping public policy. Keep in mind that these two men are
far from alone in attempting to create an American gov-corp Technate.
Libertarian Technocrats?
Although they borrow some libertarian ideas, there is nothing truly
“libertarian” about either technocrats or accelerationist
neoreactionaries. Their convoluted theories, once applied, could not be
more authoritarian, more anti-liberty. Just as it is an oxymoron to
describe Musk as a “libertarian technocrat,” so is it absurd to think
of Peter Thiel as an “anarcho-capitalist.” Yet propagandists persist in
encouraging us to see them in these terms. Witness a 2014 article in The Atlantic titled “The
Libertarian Capitalist’s Case for State Power and Making No Money.”
It is possible that people like Thiel and Musk self-identify as
libertarians because they think “liberty” means freedom granted by —
and to — the oligarchy.
In Part 1, we referenced the Venetian
Republic. The Doge of Venice was the ruler of the banking, finance,
and commercial empire of the Venetian Republic. That is to say, the
Doge was given the liberty to rule by the oligarchs of the day. We
might wonder if the naming of the Department of Government Efficiency
(the DOGE) that Musk leads deliberately references the Venetian
magistrate. Some say it does, while others suggest another possibility.
Created as a joke in 2013 by
cryptographers Billy Markus and Jackson Palmer, the Dogecoin, a
memecoin, has seen its price and market cap soar and fluctuate wildly
thanks in no small measure to Elon Musk’s comments about it. Much of
Musk’s talk about Dogecoin has been deliberately provocative. For
example, in 2019 he declared himself the “former CEO of Dogecoin,”
though that was never the case. His social media posts alone have
provoked major changes in the price of Dogecoin. Musk has also
aggressively hiked its value by, for instance, hinting it might become
the basis of the proposed “X pay” payment system on his newly acquired
‘X’ platform — formerly Twitter.
Musk encouraged bullish investment in Dogecoin. Of course, just because
someone encourages you to do something that doesn’t negate your
personal responsibility to conduct due diligence. When some investors
lost their shirts, as Dogecoin prices tumbled, they tried to sue Musk
in 2022 with a potential $258 billion class action lawsuit. The case
was dismissed last year. The
judge ruled that Musk’s comments were just “aspirational and puffery,
not factual and susceptible to being falsified.” Though it is worth
noting the offhand comments of one man took the Dogecoin from a literal
joke — a crypto parody — to achieving a market capitalisation of $14.5
billion in 2021.
If there is an in-joke to the naming of the DOGE, nominally led by Elon
Musk, some argue it is Musk’s fondness for the Dogecoin that is
reflected in the D.O.G.E acronym. Yet, the symbolism of “the Doge ”—
one who is granted the liberty to rule by oligarchs — is perhaps more
conspicuous. Just as with the term “Accelerator” — meaning high-impact
investment to accelerate the growth of a startup — an obvious
underpinning ideology is implied, even if rarely discussed.
In the introduction to his 2012 treatise, “The Dark Enlightenment,” political
philosopher Nick Land highlighted the importance of an article written
three years earlier by oligarch Thiel.
Land wrote:
One milestone was
the April 2009 discussion hosted at Cato Unbound among libertarian
thinkers (including Patri Friedman and Peter Thiel) in which
disillusionment with the direction and possibilities of democratic
politics was expressed with unusual forthrightness. Thiel summarized
the trend bluntly: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are
compatible.”
In a related article Thiel penned, titled “The Education of a Libertarian,” he
was describing himself, and yet the personal philosophy he outlined in
it was pure accelerationist neoreactionism.
Thiel opined that “the prospects for a libertarian politics appear grim
indeed,” given that the government’s response to every crisis was “more
government.” He also claimed that the post-WWI deflationary depression
in Western nations was the last “sharp but short” shock to have allowed
the alleged advantages of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” to
flourish. After that depression, he said, so-called “democratic”
politics had stifled the opportunities to capitalise on crises. As a
result, Thiel said he no longer believed “that politics encompasses all
possible futures of our world.”
Asserting, in so many words, that democracies were useless, Thiel
announced he had found a new life goal:
In our time, the
great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all
its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to
the unthinking demos that guides so-called “social democracy.” The
critical question then becomes one of means, of how to escape not via
politics but beyond it.
For Thiel, the “unthinking demos” is us: the holders of the
“neo-puritan faith” in progressive “social democracy” — the acolytes of
the Cathedral (and the people whom Nick Land considers “inarticulate proles”).
In Thiel’s view, we must embrace our “technoplastic” future, become
intelligible, move beyond politics, and liberate capitalist innovation
by swearing fealty to the gov-corp model.
To this end, Thiel identified three “technological frontiers” upon
which he could construct his darkly enlightened aristocracy.
[1] Cyberspace was the first frontier he identified. There, Thiel
focused on creating “a new world currency, free from all government
control and dilution.” Cyberspace would enable “new modes of dissent
and new ways to form communities not bounded by historical
nation-states” — and would result in a new world that would “force
change on the existing social and political order.”
[2] Outer space would be another Thiel frontier, where the “libertarian
future of classic science fiction” could be built.
[3] Seasteading
would be his interim frontier, where the unclaimed oceans
could be settled by humans. He called seasteading “more tentative than
the Internet, but much more realistic than space travel.” Seasteading
would at least give us the time to develop the outer-space ideas on
earth, prior to colonising the stars.
These frontiers are necessary, Thiel insisted, because “we are in a
deadly race between politics and technology.” He concluded:
We do not know
exactly how close this race is, but I suspect that it may be very
close, even down to the wire. Unlike the world of politics, in the
world of technology the choices of individuals may still be paramount.
The fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person
[Trump?] who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes
the world safe for capitalism. [Emphasis added.]
Between 2006 and 2012, Thiel was instrumental in organising the
Singularity Summits convened by the Machine Intelligence Research
Institute — originally the Singularity Institute for Artificial
Intelligence (SIAI) — in partnership with Stanford University. Thiel
provided much of the funding.
Thiel cannot be both an advocate of accelerationist neoreaction and
simultaneously an anarcho-capitalist — a libertarian. The two
philosophies are mutually exclusive.
In Part 1, we noted the technocrats’ rejection of the notion that “all
men are created equal.” In a similar vein, Land, Yarvin, Fisher, and
other accelerationists consider it essential to have a ruling entity,
which can only be comprised of a few human beings exercising an
unequal, additional right to rule. Both the technocrats and the
accelerationists fundamentally misunderstand, or misinterpret, what the
Preamble to The Declaration of
Independence means. They completely ignore the second clause of the
relevant declaration — namely, “that they [human beings] are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
“Equality,” in real libertarian thinking, does not infer a held belief
that everyone is the same — though that is certainly how technocrats
interpret the word.
Libertarian “equality” doesn’t deny that people have relative strengths
and weaknesses. It is not a rejection of either leadership or possible
forms of meritocracy. It self-evidently means that every human being
has an equal right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
These rights are unalienable — or inalienable.
Our rights are not decided for us by others or limited by others, and
no one on earth has any more or any fewer “equal rights” than anyone
else.
This idea is not difficult to grasp. It is central to the political
philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, as clearly enunciated by Murray
Rothbard (1926–1995):
[N]o man or group
of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This
may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the
initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person
or property of anyone else.
Anarcho-capitalism wholeheartedly rejects the initiation of the use of
force — the aggressive imposition of claimed authority — by the state
to coerce individual persons or seize their property. An example is the
threat of fining or imprisoning someone who hasn’t paid taxes to the
“proper” authorities. Anarcho-capitalism resoundingly rejects the state
and all its dictatorial demands.
By contrast, the proponents of Technocracy and the proponents of the
Dark Enlightenment, such as Musk and Thiel, are not interested in
restricting state power, though they may say otherwise. Instead they
wish to move the state from the public to the private sector and expand
its power once sufficiently privatized. True, they oppose
“representative democracy” and characterise it as both a “democracy”
(which it isn’t) and a bureaucratic system riddled with problems (which
it is), but the solutions they offer, to all intents and purposes,
magnify the power of the very state they supposedly condemn.
What the believers in Technocracy and the believers in the Dark
Enlightenment both propose are compartmentalised, hierarchical
sociopolitical power structures that couldn’t be more state-like or
more authoritarian. They seek to expand and maximise the power of the
state, though in slightly different ways. Calling their new model of
the state either a Technate (as technocrats do) or a gov-corp (as
accelerationist neoreactionaries do) doesn’t change the nature of the
tyrannical statism they desire to foist on the rest of us.
The term “technopopulism,” coined by
political theorists Christopher Bickerton and Carlo Accetti, has
increasingly been bandied about.
While the US voters who elected Trump were offered technopopulist
promises, this was clearly a sales pitch to entice them to support a
gov-corp Technate.
“Populism” can be broadly defined
as a political attempt to “appeal to ordinary people who feel that
their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.”
“Technocracy” is commonly said to mean
“a government or social system that is controlled or influenced by
experts in science or technology.”
Neither left-wing nor right-wing, technopopulism promises a new kind of
politics based on the belief that the more limited role of elected
politicians is to put the appropriate teams of experts together to
guide policy and to find technological solutions to social and economic
problems, thereby benefiting “ordinary people.” But the apparent
technopopulist offer to retain democratic accountability in the US is a
deceit.
The technopopulists say they want to unleash “technocracy” — with a
small “t” — for the public good. But the new government system they
propose is constructing “Technocracy” — with a big “T” — to serve the
interests of the “American elites.”
This is evident from The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 (aka The
2025 Presidential Transition Project), Promise to America. It claims its
purpose is to “defang and defund the woke culture warriors who have
infiltrated every last institution in America.” While defanging and
defunding woke warriors holds allure for American voters, the Project
2025 methodology actually subverts US “representative democracy.”
The Trump administration
is evidently closely allied with Project 2025 — denials
notwithstanding. One such obvious tie: Trump has nominated Russell
Vought to return to the post of director of the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), and, by no coincidence, Vought was
a key
figure in convening the Project 2025 initiative. Project 2025
contributors were influential in Trump’s first administration and are
no less conspicuous in his current picks
for office.
Project 2025 sets a presidential agenda for the first 180 days in
office that seeks to empower the executive branch to meet these key
goals: dramatically reduce the size of the public sector bureaucracy;
privatise and deregulate the functions of the state; and liberate
American technological innovation by “shuttering” it off from the China
tech sector’s alleged infiltration.
Thus, according to Project 2025, US technology can, if applied
properly, be used to resolve all manner of social problems—from
anti-American inequality of opportunity in the education system to woke
propaganda infesting the media. In other words, American technology
produced by Americans and for Americans can supply every long-sought
answer to America’s ills. The power of American AI can
be set free to, for example, police social media and tackle abuses
such as Medicare fraud. Project 2025 offers the additional
justification that the US is in an AI arms race with China and,
therefore, must invest in AI accordingly.
Trump issued a slew of executive orders following his inauguration.
These days, this is not an unusual practice for an incoming US
president. However, Trump’s EOs were clearly heavily influenced by Project 2025.
Ironically, The Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025 are bankrolled
by some of the “elites” the project accuses of betraying Americans. The
Coors, Koch, Uihlein, Barre Seid, Bradley, and Scaiffe families are
among the financial backers of both the Foundation and Project 2025.
Rather than technopopulists it is the “TechnoKings” (see Part 1) who
have been “assisting” Trumps selection of his administration’s
personnel. Musk’s influence is well known but Marc Andreessen, the
venture capitalist co-founder of Andreessen Horowitz, is another influencer. Andreessen
has not just been involved in making Trump’s picks for technology and
economic related positions — areas where he perhaps has some expertise
— but also for US defense and
intelligence posts.
Andreessen’s Machiavellian reasons for supporting Trump are obvious. As
reported by the Verge, in July
2024 Andreessen spelled out that he and his partners were backing
Trump, not because they shared any of the concerns voiced by Republican
voters, but because they could use the Trump administration to deliver
the regulatory environment they wanted for their project to succeed.
That project is a gov-corp Technate. Not technopopulism but
Techno-Optimism.
In 2023, Marc Andreessen published The
Techno-Optimist Manifesto. He explained precisely why he and his
TechKing partners have seized their opportunity:
We can advance to
a far superior way of living, and of being. [. . .] We believe that
there is no material problem – whether created by nature or by
technology – that cannot be solved with more technology. [. . .] We
have a problem of poverty, so we invent technology to create abundance.
Give us a real world problem, and we can invent technology that will
solve it. [. . .] Combine
technology and markets and you get what Nick Land has termed the
techno-capital machine, the engine of perpetual material creation,
growth, and abundance.[. . .] We believe in accelerationism – the
conscious and deliberate propulsion of technological development – to
[. . .] ensure the techno-capital upward spiral continues forever. [. .
.]
We believe
intelligence is in an upward spiral, [. . .] as people form symbiotic
relationships with machines into new cybernetic systems. [. . .] We
believe Artificial Intelligence is our alchemy, our Philosopher’s
Stone. [. . .] We believe in Augmented Intelligence just as much as we
believe in Artificial Intelligence. Intelligent machines augment
intelligent humans, driving a geometric expansion of what humans can
do.
This is pure
accelerationist neoreaction strongly influence by Technocracy. It is
Nick Land and notably not Curtis Yarvin that Andreessen considers among
the “Patron Saints” of Techno-Optimism.
People like Thiel, Andreessen, and Musk are serious. They want to
implement the Dark Enlightenment and are hell-bent on establishing
gov-corp Technates. Their oligarch network is indistinguishable from
the Trump administration. Currently, the most powerful nation on earth
is in their hands.
In true technopopulist fashion, it is perhaps Andreessen’s
identification of gov-corp enemies that is most revealing:
Our enemies are not
bad people – but rather bad ideas. Our present society has been
subjected to a mass demoralization campaign for six decades – against
technology and against life – under varying names like “existential
risk”, “sustainability”, “ESG”, “Sustainable Development Goals”,
“social responsibility”, “stakeholder capitalism”, “Precautionary
Principle”, “trust and safety”, “tech ethics”, “risk management”,
“de-growth”, “the limits of growth”.This demoralization campaign is
based on bad ideas of the past – zombie ideas, many derived from
Communism, disastrous then and now.
The eradication of these “enemies” reads like an American voters’
wish-list. Ridding themselves of the globalist’s overreach exercised
through institutions like the WHO, the WEF, the UN and even NATO, is
what they seemingly voted for. Andreessen attempt to associate ideas
like “sustainability,” “stakeholder capitalism” and even “social
responsibility” with communism is, at best, wrong, but appears to be
disingenuous and mere pandering. This is the Dark Enlightenment’s
technopopulist sales pitch.
Escaping the grasp of the oligarchs was obviously a vote winner. But
the American public has not escaped, on the contrary it has fallen into
the clutches of the most authoritarian oligarchs imaginable. Oligarchs
who, perhaps for the first time in history, not only have the political
authority but the technology to make their gov-corp Technates a reality.
This is a clear and present danger to all of us. Not just Americans.
The same commitment to accelerationism and creative destruction is
evident everywhere. In essence, gov-corp is the ultimate public-private
partnership — a kind of inverted fascism where the private stakeholders
use the claimed authority and violence of the state to achieve their
goals.
The construction of Technates is not limited to the US. Arguably China,
for example, is already operating a public-private
Technocracy. What is happening under our noses is no libertarian
dream realized. It is the construction of an all-cognizant,
all-controlling, all-consuming global network of gov-corp Technates
overseen by a bureaucracy of multiple poles.
On the surface, the new brand of technopopulist politics we’ve been
examining seems to be anti-Establishment. At least, that’s how it’s
being presented. It will use high-tech solutions and AI analysis to,
for instance, deliver “lower
taxes, much cheaper energy (green and fossil), faster growth and a
productivity revolution.” Lest we forget, it will “make America great
again” (MAGA).
The trouble with this pipe dream, though, is that the ostensible
“technopopulists” and avowed neoreactionaries behind it are actually
installing Big “T” Technocracy and gov-corp as their solution. Not
MAGA, but “Dark MAGA.”
American Gov-Corp Technates
In 2020 Pronomos Capital, a venture capital firm backed by Peter Thiel,
Marc Andreessen , and Coinbase established the low tax, low regulation
nascent city state called Próspera on the island of Roatán in Honduras.
The promotional blurb for Próspera
read:
Próspera is a
startup city with a regulatory system designed for entrepreneurs to
build better, cheaper, and faster than anywhere else in the world.
The current Honduras
government considers Próspera’s claim to enjoy special economic and
regulatory status illegal. The previous Honduras administration under
Juan Orlando Hernández (JOH) — who was later convicted of drug
smuggling in the US — initially created three so-called Zones for
Employment and Economic Development (ZEDEs) of which Próspera is one.
The initiative was fiercely opposed by the people of Honduras.
The ZEDEs create a “special regime” where investors — Pronomos Capital
(Thiel, Andreessen, etc.) — have absolute control of “fiscal, security
and conflict resolution policy.” For all intents and purposes, the
ZEDEs are startup gov-corps.
In 2022, the incoming administration of Xiomara Castro Sarmiento
started the process of repealing the ZEDE legislation. This is proving
difficult because the Próspera ZEDE framework has a fifty year “built
to last” clause in it guaranteeing the project for that period.
Gov-corp investors instigated an $11 billion law suit to stop the
Honduras government’s attempts to stymie their ambitions.
The technocrat oligarchs deployed the World Bank’s International Centre
for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) mechanism against the
elected government of Honduras. It is not unreasonable to describe
their action as a direct threat to bankrupt the entire nation. As we’ll
discuss, these oligarchs are not “nice” people. Whether they call
themselves Christian or not.
Many of the Próspera trademarks are held by NeWay
Capital LLC, founded by Erick Brimen and Trey Goff. NeWay Capital
formed the Freedom
Cities Coalition (FCC) which is similarly backed by Pronomos
Capital — Thiel, Andreessen, Coinbase et al. In 2023, Trump proposed establishing ten so
called “Freedom Cities” in the US. The mainstream media focused on his
comments about “flying cars,” but he was really talking about embryonic
gov-corp Technates.
Reportedly, the FCC is now
supposedly “in discussion” with the Trump administration to create
gov-corp Technates across the US. Trey Goff said “the energy in DC is
absolutely electric” and the ambition was to create “not just ten, but
as many as the market can handle.”
If approved by Congress, these “startup nations” — neoreactionary
realms — will be city states like Próspera. The FCC calls these
“special districts” Prosperity Zones. The technopopulist offer is to
unleash innovation, onshore employment opportunities and revitalise the
American economy. The FCC objective is to “accelerate the development
of new urban centers.”
Freedom Cities will operate in de facto US ZEDEs. The objective is to
remove all regulation and allow tech-oligarchs the freedom to do
whatever they like. These will be cities without limits, say
the FCC and will be “zones of regulatory clarity and economic
dynamism, [. . .] allowing entrepreneurs and builders to move at the
speed of human ingenuity.”
The accelerationist neoreactionaries and the technocrats are racing
ahead. As evidenced by Andreessen’s Techno-Optimist Manifesto, there is
no doubt what they have in mind.
In 2022, Balaji
Srinivasan — former Andreessen Horowitz general partner and former
chief technology officer for Coinbase — published his book The Network
State: How to Start a New Country. In it, he outlined the
neoreactionary strategy to “escape politics in all its forms” and
enable tech-billionaire oligarchs to form their own sovereign
states—sov-corps.
There is nothing pro-American about the NRx’s collective vision.
Srinivasan wants the proposed “startup nations” to secede from the US
and considers the US outdated and obsolescent.
Shortly we’ll discuss Trump’s peculiar and seemingly unilateral
declaration that his administration is intent upon grabbing Greenland —
and Gaza apparently. We are supposed to believe that it is Trump who
wants Greenland (and perhaps Gaza); that Trump is the great strategist
playing some sort of 5D geopolitical chess game. But it is Peter Thiel
and his oligarch network that wants to build a gov-corp Technate called
Praxis on Greenland. The people of Greenland should be wary. There is
no legal limit to the “built to last” territorial expansion of Próspera
and the TechnoKing oligarchs have the backing of the World Bank to make
sure their project does last.
A Humane Alternative to Genocide?
Following Trump’s inauguration, The New York Times published an
adversarial interview with aforementioned political theorist of the
neoreactionary movement (NRx) Curtis Yarvin.
Outlining Yarvin’s contention that the US should be run as a corporate
monarchy (gov-corp) under the leadership of an all-powerful CEO
(Trump), Times‘ writer and interviewer David Marchese formulated his
arguments on the suspected racist aspects of Yarvin’s ideology.
The pair debated nothing of notable interest. The piece allowed Yarvin
to forward some of his ideas to a wider public — but without disclosing
any of their appalling implications. Meanwhile, the Times‘ Marchese
posited a practically irrelevant counterargument.
The legacy media is not going to point
out those appalling implications. But this is what Yarvin, the leader
of the NRx admired by Peter Thiel and other neoreactionary oligarchs,
had proposed in 2008 under his
pen name, Mencius Moldburg:
Our goal, in
short, is a humane alternative to genocide. That is: the ideal solution
achieves the same result as mass murder (the removal of undesirable
elements from society), but without any of the moral stigma. The best
humane alternative to genocide I can think of is not to liquidate the
wards [people]—either metaphorically or literally—but to virtualize
them. A virtualized human is in permanent solitary confinement, waxed
like a bee larva into a cell which is sealed except for emergencies.
This would drive him insane, except that the cell contains an immersive
virtual-reality interface which allows him to experience a rich,
fulfilling life in a completely imaginary world.
The suspected racist streak in Yarvin does matter when we consider the
implications of his gov-corp philosophy. But to imagine that identity
politics provides any kind of intellectual basis to tackle the NRx
dooms all such opposition to failure. If the objective is to resist
accelerationist neoreaction, then harping on about the divisions
between the progressive left and the right-wing — or “alt-right” —
serves no useful purpose. Such arguments don’t even come close to
comprehending what the Dark Enlightenment is. They only deflect the
public from paying vital attention to real threats.
The Dark Enlightenment is not racist. It is anti-human race. Its
advocates do not care what colour gov-corp’s customers are. They seek,
rather, to transform all of humanity, to bring an end to what it is to
be a sovereign human being.
Government Customers
Musk has already stated his desire to transform his X platform into a
payment service provider and finance portal that, he hopes, could become “half of the world’s
financial system.” Thanks in part to the headway made by Facebook’s
Libra (Diem) project — more in this shortly — in 2023, Musk was able to
start applying for the necessary regulatory
approval for his financial domination project.
Via its “Digital State” — again, we’ll cover this in a moment —
Ukrainians are the Digital State’s “customers.” Musk wants to X to form
the basis of a worldwide Digital State in which all users will be
customers.
Citizens as customers of government services is a key component of the
gov-corp structure that neoreactionaries like Thiel and Andreessen
desire. Just as we see the rise of the accompanying “accelerators”
everywhere, so to the description of us as “customers” is seeping into
the lexicon of governments the world over.
In 2019, the US multinational corporation IBM, whose operations make it
the largest industrial research organization in the world and whose
chequered history includes assisting
the Nazis to perpetrate a holocaust, explained why we all need to
consider ourselves the customers of our
governments:
Today’s society is
changing at a record pace as companies worldwide develop innovative
solutions designed to make the world a more efficient and sustainable
place. [. . .] Apps provide us with personalized information based on
geolocation; we can shop online from the comfort of our couch, and
organize our finances on our smartphones.[. . .] [I]t’s time to rethink
and reinvent public sector services, [. . .] a digital reinvention
helps build trust in the public sector as a brand: the government has
your back. [. . .] At IBM, we’re there to guide you through the current
age of digital reinvention.
IBM, alongside CIA-linked Oracle, is a
partner of the UK government’s Department of Work and Pensions
(DWP) and is assisting it to “accelerate transformation” to a new
digital DWP service. For its part, as it proceeds to make a £6 billion cut, the UK DWP has
stopped winter fuel payments to pensioners and has committed to
freezing and restricting access to disability payments to the disabled.
It is effectively lowering unemployment benefits for the sick and
disabled and tightening the eligibility criteria for nearly all state
benefits. At the same time, the UK government is pushing through the
Terminally-ill Adults (End of Life) Bill — commonly referred to as the Assisted Dying Bill — to make it
easier for the state to kill people who just can’t take it any more.
All of this, according to the DWP,
is part of its drive to provide a better “customer experience.”
[. . .] every
person who pays taxes or uses Medicare is a customer of the federal
government. Every veteran who uses a VA facility is a customer, every
government employee that fills out their timesheet is a customer. The
“customer experience” is how people experience and perceive our
government services. It is what happens at the touchpoints when someone
interacts with a government service. The customer experience can be a
single touchpoint or several over a longer relationship between the
“customer” and government. Each touchpoint is an opportunity for a
positive interaction that adds up to a positive customer experience.
The mainstream media is avidly pushing the idea that politicians like
Trump are in charge. But, not
only does EO 14058 illustrate the clear shift towards NRx gov-corp
aligned thinking, it also shows that the transformation is not
dependent on whatever administration happens to be in office at the
time. Gov-corp represents the underlying philosophy driving this
governance reinvention. Technocracy is the operating system for the
impending Technates, regardless of who you vote for.
The shift to digital money and “digital states” is key to the
reimagining of society. Rather like the WeChat “everything app” in
China, which operates as a public-private
partnership between the government and Tencent — enabling the
technocratic state to directly influence an estimated 1.3 billion
Chinese customers –– the size of the X user-base gives Musk’s network
an opportunity to construct his version of an everything app digital
state.
With an estimated 600 million users,
Musk’s team is ready to launch his platform’s X-money payment system.
It seems Musk doesn’t anticipate any regulatory problems, as another
building block of the X-digital state is dropped into place. As X moves
toward becoming a “comprehensive financial services hub,” working in
partnership with Visa, the plan is to reportedly integrate
digital currencies into the X-money system by the end of the year.
The new interoperable global
monetary system that is emerging has been designed to perpetuate the
same old monetary game with the added benefit of AI surveillance and
behavioural control. Investors can speculate — engaging in creative
destruction — while protecting their digital finance empires by storing
value in new digital reserve assets, almost certainly bitcoin. A
so-called Synthetic Hegemonic Currency can and is being created,
primarily using USD-denominated stablecoins underwritten by US debt. In
contrast to the investor experience, it is unlikely to benefit many of
its customers.
SWIFT
presentation on “Creating interoperability for the financial industry”
– Source
Gov-Corp
Technocrats Are Not “Nice”
Contemplating new methods of genocide to rid yourself of whomever you
find “undesirable” is something we associate with tyrannical
megalomaniacs not egalitarian democratic “leaders.” Unfortunately,
certainly in the US, it seems the maniac tyrants have the upper hand.
As many Unlimited Hangout readers already know, Thiel received
investment funds from the CIA’s In-Q-Tel to accelerate Palantir. Part
of that arrangement was for Palantir to establish a public-private
partnership that would rescue a US Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) project called Total
Information Awareness (renamed the Terrorism-IA program in 2003).
The purpose of the TIA was to create an all-pervasive US surveillance
and population control system, with a heavy focus on pre-crime and
other “predictive” interventions that would allow the state to justify
any policy it chooses.
The TIA project faltered
when the US public learned of
its intentions. State funding was officially withdrawn — which simply meant
that the “less controversial” aspects continued under the guise of
combating terrorism while the controversial projects went darker still.
Ever since 9/11, “terrorism” has been the convenient PR buzz word for
covering up a multitude of illegalities. The TIA program continued, unabated, to spy on the entire US
population as a public-private partnership.
Shortly after incorporating Palantir in 2003, Thiel and Palantir
co-founder and CEO Alex Karp reportedly
met with the TIA’s chief architect, John
Poindexter. The pair apparently impressed upon Poindexter that they
shared his vision of a US domestic digital gulag. Yet, unlike TIA,
which had been housed at the Pentagon’s DARPA, they would develop the
TIA system as a private entity. According to New York magazine, Thiel
and Karp convinced Poindexter that Palantir would “pull together data
collected by a wide range of spy agencies — everything from human
intelligence and cell-phone calls to travel records and financial
transactions.”
Evidently, In-Q-Tel’s seed funding followed
soon thereafter. The CIA remained Palantir’s sole client until 2008.
That is to say, Palantir enjoyed a monopoly due to its partnership with
the state.
Although Thiel’s cadre at PayPal — often called the PayPal Mafia — is
supposedly responsible for ousting Musk from the company’s CEO spot,
the rift between the two men seems somewhat
overstated. Just as it is clear Musk hankers to install
Technocracy, Thiel’s passion for the Dark Enlightenment is equally
unambiguous. Both ideologies are mutually reinforcing. While there are
some apparent tensions between Musk and Thiel, they are on the same path. Yarvin, for one,
certainly values Musk’s contribution.
Thiel and Musk are already megarich magnates on the order of the robber
barons of old. As such, their respective Dark Enlightenment and
Technocracy dreams, when realized, are intended to make them
“sovereigns” of what Yarvin calls a “patchwork of realms.”
The shared view of technocrats and neoreactionaries that society would
be better if it were ruled by the likes of Musk and Thiel is an absurd
and dangerous folly. We shouldn’t labour under any illusions that
they’re nice.
Anduril Industries CEO Palmer Lucky is another Thiel protégé who,
having sold his Oculus VR headset business to Mark Zuckerberg, moved
into the war business with the help
of Thiel’s venture capital firm, Founders Fund. Through Anduril, Thiel
is investing in a defence technology that maximises AI’s ability to kill.
Peter Thiel and Elon Musk
have both been instrumental in the development of AI. They combined
forces in 2015 to accelerate Thiel protégé Sam Altman’s OpenAI as a “non-profit” research
company. Today, propelled by the success of its ChatGPT generative AI
chatbot, OpenAI is valued at around $160
billion. Consequently, its “for profit” subsidiary, OpenAI Global
LLC, is poised to make fantastic profits.
OpenAI was pitched as a tool for developing AI to “benefit humanity as
a whole.” Presumably, OpenAI’s defence
contracts and its participation in the Silicon Valley consortium
bid to dominate the US military-industrial complex reflect this
principled commitment. Or perhaps the ethical stance of the team behind
OpenAI is about as plausible as their “non-profit” pretensions.
There is every reason not to trust hypocrites like Thiel and Musk. One
of those reasons is Palantir’s encroachment into national health-data
systems, which is creating a virtual healthcare data monopoly in some
countries — including the UK.
This is extremely concerning, because it is obvious that patient care —
or even basic human compassion — is not a priority for Thiel’s
Palantir. There is nothing “Christian” about Thiel’s conduct.
On the contrary, Palantir has actively participated in Israel’s
Palestinian genocide and in the almost-complete destruction of the
Palestinians’ healthcare system. In January 2024, Thiel and Palantir
CEO Alex Karp agreed to a strategic
partnership with the Israeli Ministry of Defense and signed a deal
with the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) to “harness Palantir’s
advanced technology in support of war-related missions.”
Of this deal the British Medical Journal observed:
IOF operations have
been described as a “war on hospitals” because of the systematic
destruction of Gaza’s entire health system and 943 IOF attacks on
healthcare. Hundreds of health workers have been detained, tortured,
and killed.
In addition to
directly attacking healthcare, ongoing bombardment, forced displacement
of Palestinians, and near complete siege of Gaza, the IOF has created a
severe health and humanitarian crisis with high rates of malnutrition,
infectious disease, famine, and dehydration.
Several Thiel-backed companies — Palantir (seed-funded by In-Q-Tel),Anduril and digital
surveillance company Clearview AI — have all evidently used the
Ukraine-Russia conflict as a test bed for their technology. As noted by
Stavroula Pabst in her Unlimited Hangout article, “How
Peter Thiel-Linked Tech is Fueling the Ukraine War,” these
companies are “taking advantage of the conflict to develop
controversial AI-driven weapons systems and facial recognition
technologies, perhaps transforming both warfare and AI forever.”
Despite Thiel’s
self-described libertarian and Christian beliefs, Pabst noted that the
net impact of his venture capitalism couldn’t be more inhuman:
[T]hese
Thiel-backed groups’ involvement in war serves to develop not only
problematic and unpredictable weapons technologies and systems, but
also apparently to advance and further interconnect a larger
surveillance apparatus formed by Thiel and his elite allies’ collective
efforts across the public and private sectors, which arguably amount to
the entrenchment of a growing technocratic panopticon aimed at
capturing public and private life. Within the context of Thiel’s
growing domination over large swaths of the tech industry, apparent
efforts to influence, bypass or otherwise undermine modern policymaking
processes, and anti-democratic sentiments, Thiel-linked organizations’
activities in Ukraine can only signal a willingness to shape the course
of current events and the affairs of sovereign nations alike.
Though Pabst’s piece was written in October 2023, her prescient
observations have certainly been playing out. As we embark on 2025, it
is clear that Thiel and Musk are among a troop of tech titans who have
ingratiated themselves with the Trump administration.
While the war in Ukraine has evidently been used by the “TechnoKings”
behind Trump to develop AI weapon systems, the Trump administration has
hypocritically positioned itself as peace broker.
On their own, the
ideologies of communitarianism, stakeholder capitalism, Technocracy,
the Dark Enlightenment, and any other political ideology amount to
little more than academic musings. Once implemented through the power
and authority illegitimately claimed by the state, however, they
couldn’t be more significant.
Thiel has heavily backed current (Roman
Catholic) Vice President JD Vance and other
Republican political candidates, such as Blake Masters, who co-authored
Zero to One: Notes on Startups, Or How to Build the Future with Thiel
in 2014. There is a nexus of Thiel protégés surrounding the new Trump
administration. It is hard to see how Vance could rise to what some
call the second-most-powerful position in the US were it not for the
career-long support he has received from Thiel.
As Thiel’s man, Vance’s
admiration for the Dark Enlightenment is transparent. Adopting Yarvin’s
“Retire All Government Employee” (RAGE) motto, which now seems to be
embodied by the DOGE, Vance
suggested that a future Trump administrator should “fire every
single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative
state, [and] replace them with our people.”
JD Vance gets ashes
for Ash
Wednesday from from Roman Catholic priest
In 2017, Buzzfeed published extracts from the dump of an email exchange between Curtis
Yarvin and Milo Yiannopoulis. In one email, Yarvin revealed that he had
watched the 2016 US election results with Thiel and said that Thiel was “fully enlightened, just
plays it very carefully.” In his 2021 book, The Contrarian: Peter Thiel
and Silicon Valley’s Pursuit of Power, Bloomberg Technology writer Max
Chafkin describes Yarvin as the
“house political philosopher” of the “Thielverse,”
according to a July 2024 article by Gil Duran in The New Republic.
Of course, Thiel does not want it widely known that he supports the
Dark Enlightenment of the NRx. With its aim to destroy the political
realm and replace it with a corporate monarchy, the Dark Enlightenment,
if fully understood by the public, would outrage them and would be, for
Thiel, a PR disaster. Despite the potential for that to happen,
Yarvin’s ideas continue to influence him.
One such crazy notion was revealed by Yarvin in his talk at the March
2012 BIL Conference (an alternative to TED). Speaking as Mencius
Moldbug, Yarvin advocated
for gov-corp:
There is no
difference between a CEO and a dictator. If Americans want to change
their government, they’re going to have to get over their dictator
phobia.
Just a few weeks later,
Thiel gave a lecture at Stanford, where he said:
A startup is basically structured as a monarchy. We
don’t call it that, of course. That would seem weirdly outdated, and
anything that’s not democracy makes people uncomfortable. We are biased
toward the democratic-republican side of the spectrum. That’s what
we’re used to from civics classes. But the truth is that startups and
founders lean toward the dictatorial side because that structure works
better for startups.
Ten days prior to Trump’s inauguration, Thiel used the Financial Times
as an outlet to pontificate about the second-term President’s
second-time promises to disclose details of the Kennedy assassination
plot and to protect free speech, etc. Time will tell if these promises
are kept.
In the same article, Thiel laid
bare the lineage of his own philosophy:
Darker questions
still emerge in these dusky final weeks of our interregnum. [. . .] The
future demands fresh and strange ideas. New ideas might have saved the
old regime, which barely acknowledged, let alone answered, our deepest
questions — the causes of the 50-year slowdown in scientific and
technological progress.
Certainly from 2009 onward, Thiel has viewed politics as a vehicle to
promote his accelerationist NRx-aligned objectives. Not because he
particularly shares the values of any political party, either Democrat
or Republican — or, for that matter, Libertarian — but because he
recognises that people are programmed to feel comfortable as long as
they believe whatever they support has something to do with
“democracy.” Remember, Thiel calls us the “unthinking demos.”
In 2014, reporting the evidence of some of the other links between
Yarvin and Thiel, Corey Pein, writing for The Baffler, accurately lumped
Thiel in with the NRx and called them collectively a bunch of “mouthbreathing Machiavellis.”
Responding to Pein’s piece, Thiel said,
according to an article published shortly thereafter in The New York
Times:
Actually, I found
that vaguely flattering. [. . .] It was the full-on conspiracy theory.
In truth, there’s nobody sitting around plotting the future, though
sometimes I think it would be better if people were.
This was blatant baloney. Thiel well knows there are people “sitting
around plotting the future.” He himself maintains a web of connections
with the plotters of which he speaks — and is obviously one of them.
Thiel, as President of Thiel Capital, sits on the Bilderberg Steering Committee. The
steering committee sets the agenda for the secretive Bilderberg
Meetings where around 130 selected globalist delegates debate policy
initiatives behind closed doors. Palantir CEO, Thiel’s associate Alex
Karp, is also on the steering committee, as is former chair and CEO of
Google Eric Schmidt and the President of the World Economic Forum (WEF)
Børge Brende. Consequently, it isn’t surprising that the main topic for
debate at the last 2024 Bilderberg
meeting was Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Peter Thiel
defends the Bilderberg Meetings’ notorious secrecy in 2016
Former NATO Secretary
General Jens Stoltenberg has been selected as the chair for the next
Bilderberg Meeting and will also serve as chair of the next Munich
Security Conference (MSC). The UK
Guardian reports that his appointment marks a moment where the
“influential” Bilderberg group is contributing toward the
“concentration of control at the top of the Atlantic alliance.” Noting
that Bilderberg brings together “prime minsters, EU commissioners, bank
bosses, corporate CEOs and intelligence chiefs,” it was ridiculous for
Thiel — a senior Bilderberger — to feign ignorance of those who
evidently are “plotting the future.”
Yarvin, in the earlier-referenced interview with David Marchese in The
New York Times, was asked what he meant when he said Thiel was “fully
enlightened”:
Fully enlightened
for me means fully disenchanted. [. . .] It’s a disenchantment from
believing in these old systems. And the thing that should replace that
disenchantment is not, Oh, we need to do things Curtis’s [or Peter’s]
way. It’s basically just a greater openness of mind.
Sure, the Dark Enlightenment rejects the “old systems” — i.e.,
representative democracy — but Yarvin’s diplomatic response cannot hide
the fact that Thiel and other members of the NRx evidently know what
they want to replace it with: gov-corp overseeing a network of
sovcorp-managed functional sequences in a Technate instead of within
existing nation-states.
The US Satellite Gov-Corp Technate In
Ukraine
While the war in Ukraine has evidently been used by the “TechnoKings”
behind Trump to develop AI weapon systems, the Trump administration has
hypocritically positioned itself as peace broker. Obviously, any sane
person would welcome the end of hostilities, but there is a clear
subtext to the US policy shift.
The Trump administration has emphasised the US potential deal with
Ukraine to access Ukraine’s possible rare earth metal deposits as a
“win” for US voters. He told
the US public that there were “$500B worth of rare earth” in Ukraine.
This is highly speculative.
While Ukraine certainly has a lot of coal, oil, gas and uranium, much
if that is in territory currently occupied by the Russian Federation.
The estimates of rare earth metal deposits in extant Ukrainian
territory were made around half a century ago and some, such as
independent energy and mining consultant Tony Mariano, have significant
doubts about the commercial viability or even the presence of the alleged deposits:
As far as I know,
there are no economically viable rare earth deposits in Ukraine. I have
evaluated clay deposits that I thought had potential, but I found that
they are not viable. This does not mean that there are none, but that
more exploration and evaluation is needed.
With regard to the minerals deposits that are known to exist in
Russia’s “new territories,” including any possible if unlikely
rare-earth deposits, Russian president Vladimir Putin has indicated his
willingness to collaborate with the US again. In the spirit of
public-private partnership (stakeholder capitalism), Putin told
journalist Pavel Zarubin that Russia was
ready “to offer [cooperation] to our American partners – when I say
partners, I mean not only administrative and government structures, but
also companies.”
While Russians and Ukrainians continued to die, Kirill Dmitriev, former
Goldman Sachs, McKinsey & Company and WEF investment guru, and the
current CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund — appointed in 2023
by Putin as special representative of the Russian president for
investment — said that US energy corporations would
welcome “access to Russian natural resources.”
In 2014, the US enabled and supported Ukrainian Nazis
(the Right Sector and others) to orchestrate the violent Euromaidan
Coup that overthrew the elected president Victor Yanukovich. Ukrainian
Nazi atrocities in Odessa and
Mariupol immediately followed and marked the start of an eight-year-long
war that Russian forces officially entered in 2022.
From the moment Russia began its so-called “special military operation”
in Ukraine, the US response was focused on seizing economic, financial
and resource control of Ukraine in exchange for bolstering its
military. It is not unreasonable to observe that Russian intervention
enabled the US public-private partnership to capture Ukraine. With the
Russian government now looking forward to working with its US partners,
and given that the US state was instrumental in instigating the current
conflict, one has to wonder what this war has really been about.
Large US corporations, such as Microsoft and Amazon, began the process
of digitising the Ukrainian
government on February 24th 2022, the day Russia is said to have
“invaded” Ukraine. This process has since seen Ukraine become a world
leader in “digital democracy.” Ukrainian citizens are being coerced
towards accepting digital ID, digital payments and into total reliance
on digital infrastructure for many of their everyday needs. This has
been met with great enthusiasm from globalist think tanks, such as The Centre for International
Governance Innovation.
As Ukrainian energy and technological infrastructure became more
reliant on US corporations,
global investors — through the asset management giant BlackRock
— agreed to deals with the Ukrainian government to “structure the
nation’s reconstruction funds.”
BlackRock FMA
[Financial Markets Advisory] will advise the MoE [Ukraine Ministry of
Economy] on establishing a roadmap for the investment framework’s
implementation, including identifying design choices for the envisioned
setup, structure, mandate and governance. The MoU [Memorandum of
Understanding] formalizes the discussions the President of Ukraine,
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and the Chairman and CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink,
held in September on the possibilities of driving public and private
investments into Ukraine.
The WEF arranged further meetings between Zelensky’s administration and
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon alongside a consortium of investors
represented by executives from BlackRock, Bridgewater Associates,
Carlyle Group, Blackstone, Dell, ArcelorMittal, and others. With the
financial architecture in place, and US and other multinational
corporations set to capitalise, the emphasis shifted in early 2024
towards reducing the investment risk.
Larry Fink (on
screen) attends a meeting with Ukraine’s Zelensky in December 2022 to
discuss “rebuilding investements” in the war-torn country – Source
War is the preferred business model for private military contractors
(PMCs – mercenaries), or International Defense Companies (IDCs) as they
are called in Ukraine. With Ukrainian government legislation in the
pipeline to legalise IDCs operating in post-war Ukraine — coinciding with
the Pentagon’s decision to ease
restrictions supposedly placed on US PMCs (IDCs) working in Ukraine —
US PMCs are just one corner of the US military industrial complex set
to exploit the thirty-five-fold increase in the Ukrainian defence
market created by Russia’s “invasion.” This is yet another tantalising Ukraine war opportunity for
multinational financiers, such as BlackRock’s investors for example.
Obviously, a “post-war” Ukraine is needed to turn these investment
opportunities into solid ventures. With the US public-private stakeholder
invasion of Ukraine complete, and the Russian public-private
stakeholders ready to do business, Ukraine finds itself in a precarious
position. It is almost completely in the hands of US corporations.
For example, Ukraine is now heavily reliant on Musk’s Starlink for its
internet connectivity and other communication systems. Indeed Ukraine’s
“digital democracy” is now largely controlled by oligarchs like Musk.
The Ukrainian Diia
app is the product of a joint
project between the CIA front organisation USAID and the Ukrainian
Ministry of Digital Transformation which named Diia the literal Digital State. Diia is an
“everything app.” It ties Ukrainian citizens to a centralised digital
control system (Diia) through which they access government services.
Their digital IDs and digital passports, driving licenses, fine levies
and payments, their tax returns, tax accounts, their mRNA vaccine
certificates and more can all be overseen by the Digital State.
Of course, the
overwhelming priority is to end the war. From a humanitarian
perspective, at this point, nothing could be more important. Trump will
almost certainly be credited if his apparent diplomacy succeeds and
this will surely be perceived as more evidence of his great leadership
by his supporters.
We are supposed to believe that the Ukraine government’s stalling over
Trump’s deal for US corporations’ access to Ukrainian rare earth
deposits is the reason why the US has reportedly threatened to cut off
Ukraine’s Starlink connectivity.
The privatisation of a state like Ukraine couldn’t be more dangerous
for its people. Musk was quick to point out that he could personally end Ukraine’s war
effort, claiming the Ukrainian military’s “entire front line would
collapse if I turned it off.” He later added this is something he would
not do. Though obviously, given the Dogecoin debacle, Musk’s team fully
comprehend the impact his comments have.
In truth, there is a vast network of international investors looking at
a post-war Ukraine with avarice. The rare earth deal is a sideshow to
keep the public bemused. The whole nation state of Ukraine is ripe for
the picking and the transition to a US satellite gov-corp Technate is
already well underway.
The New World Currency
As previously noted, one of Peter Thiel’s long-term ambitions has been
to create “a new world currency.” Fortuitously, one of Trump’s first
executive orders was aimed at strengthening US leadership in digital financial technology. In
it, he promised his voter base that he would prohibit “the
establishment, issuance, circulation, and use of a CBDC [Central Bank Digital
Currency] within the jurisdiction of the United States.”
But there is a caveat: The order “shall be implemented consistent with
applicable law.” As we know, legislative “laws” are subject to change
at any time.
Trump included in this EO a US government commitment to promote and
protect “the sovereignty of the United States dollar, including through
actions to promote the development and growth of lawful and legitimate dollar-backed stablecoins worldwide.”
[Emphasis added.]
As extensively reported in the four-part investigative series on the
cryptocurrency industry published last November by Unlimited Hangout
writers Whitney Webb
and Mark Goodwin, rather than averting the societal risks
associated with CBDC, Trump’s January 23rd executive order arguably
portends something far worse.
As Webb and Goodwin pointed out:
[T]he policy of
the Federal Reserve since last year has made it clear that they favor
“private stablecoin issuance rather than official CBDC issuance.” With
stablecoins being just as programmable and surveillable as CBDCs, and
some stablecoin issuers like Tether already allied with U.S.
intelligence and security agencies, the current stablecoin bill is
poised to pave the way for the U.S.’ de facto CBDC and to ensure that
Wall Street and well-established titans of digital finance like PayPal
have the advantage.
In particular, Thiel, PayPal, Facebook (now Meta), and US financial
regulators have, for some time, been preparing for “a new world
currency.” In order to understand the process they have been setting
up, we first need to consider how this public-private partnership has
apparently shaped the financial regulatory framework in the US.
Thiel emphasised the “new
world currency” idea in his aforementioned 2009 article, “The Education of a
Libertarian” (the piece, you may remember, that influenced Nick Land’s
conceptualisation of the Dark Enlightenment). In that piece, he wrote:
[T]he founding
vision of PayPal centered on the creation of a new world currency, free
from all government control and dilution — the end of monetary
sovereignty, as it were. In the 2000s, companies like Facebook create
the space for new modes of dissent and new ways to form communities not
bounded by historical nation-states. By starting a new Internet
business, an entrepreneur may create a new world. The hope of the
Internet is that these new worlds will impact and force change on the
existing social and political order.
Peter Thiel sat on the Meta (Facebook) board of directors until 2022,
when he left to reportedly
“focus on political endeavours.” Upon his departure, Meta CEO Mark
Zuckerberg offered his personal
gratitude to Thiel for “teaching me so many lessons about business,
economics, and the world.”
In 2019, under Thiel’s evident influence, Facebook announced its
intention to launch a stablecoin payment system called Libra, which it
soon renamed Diem. The project was co-headed by David A. Marcus, who
moved to Facebook from PayPal in 2014, and by Morgan Beller, who
migrated from the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
Libra appears to have failed. But, as Whitney Webb and Mark Goodwin explain,
that interpretation depends upon what one views the purpose of Libra
(Diem) to have actually been.
With an estimated two billion-plus Facebook users worldwide, if Libra
had succeeded, it would have represented the potential “end of monetary
sovereignty” as far as central banks were concerned. Apparently, the
mere announcement of Libra’s proposition sent financial regulators into
an tailspin. The unregulated issuance of “money” couldn’t be allowed to
happen! Hence, Zuckerberg had to be seen being quizzed by pretty much
the entire global financial and political “elite.”
The Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC)
In May 2019, Thiel protégé Sam Altman wrote a blog post in which he said:
Although I don’t
think the US government can stop cryptocurrency, I do think it could
create the winner — let’s call it “USDC” for US Digital Currency — and
fix some challenges that governments currently face with
cryptocurrency. I think the first superpower government to do something
like this will have an enviable position in the future of the world,
and some power over a worldwide currency.
In August 2019, at the G7 central bankers symposium in Jackson Hole,
Wyoming, the main topic of discussion was what the Bank of England’s
then-Governor Mark Carney
called a growing “destabilising asymmetry at the heart of the IMFS”
[International Monetary and Financial System].
Carney told the gathered bankers and financiers that the “world economy
was being reordered.” He said that the US dollar remained “important”
in the short term but that “the game” must change to suit a “multipolar
world.” Therefore, “the global reserve currency”—the US dollar (USD) —
needed to transform into some sort of “Synthetic Hegemonic Currency”
(SHC).
While the
likelihood of a multipolar IMFS might seem distant at present,
technological developments provide the potential for such a world to
emerge. Such a platform would be based on the virtual rather than the
physical. [. . .]
Technology has the
potential to disrupt the network externalities that prevent the
incumbent global reserve currency [the USD] from being displaced. [. .
.]
The most
high-profile of these has been Libra—a new payments infrastructure
based on an international stablecoin fully backed by reserve assets in
a basket of currencies including the US dollar, the euro, and sterling.
[. . .]
The Bank of England
and other regulators have been clear [. . .] the terms of engagement
for any new systemic private payments system must be in force well in
advance of any launch. As a consequence, it is an open question whether
such a new Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC) would be best provided by
the public sector, perhaps through a network of central bank digital
currencies. [. . .]
Even if the initial
variants of the idea prove wanting, the concept is intriguing. It is
worth considering how an SHC in the IMFS could support better global
outcomes, given the scale of the challenges of the current IMFS and the
risks in transition to a new hegemonic reserve currency like the
Renminbi.
So, here is Carney saying that the Libra stablecoin raised the
“intriguing” possibility of creating a new SHC “backed by reserve
assets” but that Libra itself was “wanting” due to the lack of clear
“terms of engagement.” However, if the requisite regulatory “terms of
engagement” were “in force well in advance of any launch,” Carney
raised the potential to create an SHC using Libra-like stablecoins.
This, he proposed, could stave off challenges from new possible
hegemonic reserve currency alternatives, such as China’s Renminbi, and
create a USD SHC suitable for a “multipolar IMFS.”
A month after Jackson Hole, in September 2019, Zuckerberg met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill
to discuss “future internet regulation.” He was also invited to the
White House for a “surprise” meeting.
Then, in October, Zuckerberg testified before the House Financial
Services Committee about the aforementioned Libra (Diem) and was
invited again to the White House — this time for dinner and this time
accompanied by then Facebook board member Peter Thiel. The Trump
administration didn’t think it necessary to disclose what was
discussed, according to an NBC News
report.
Immediately thereafter, Zuckerberg’s Libra project began to shift away
from a stablecoin based on “a basket of currencies,” and by 2020 it was
more closely aligned with the USD. The Financial Times reported in late November 2021
that Libra would initially launch as “a single coin backed one-for-one
by the dollar.”
Webb and Goodwin speculate, with good reason, that the whole point of
Facebook’s purportedly aggressive pursuit of Libra (Diem) was not so
much about the stablecoin itself but rather about creating a threat
that would appear to warrant regulatory change. It appears the team
behind Libra always anticipated the failure of Libra and the resultant
formation of a regulatory framework for a potential USD Synthetic
Hegemonic Currency.
Going back to July 2019, two months before the Jackson Hole symposium,
Facebook stated in
an SEC filing:
Libra has drawn
significant scrutiny from governments and regulators in multiple
jurisdictions and we expect that scrutiny to continue. [. . .] These
laws and regulations, as well as any associated inquiries or
investigations, may delay or impede the launch of the Libra currency.
[. . .] As such, there can be no assurance that Libra or our associated
products and services will be made available in a timely manner, or at
all.
The fact that Facebook (now Meta) knew Libra might fail and was
counting on new regulations that would open new digital financial
markets could cause careful observers to conclude that Zuckerberg’s
Libra project was intended to be an embodiment of “creative
destruction.”
While the Libra (Diem) stablecoin didn’t make it, the stablecoin market
as a whole has done quite well, if one measures by market
capitalization. The leading stablecoins are Tether’s USDT ($140
billion), Circle’s USDC ($44 billion), and the Ethereum
blockchain-based “decentralised” DAI ($3 billion). Then we have FD121
Ltd.’s FDUSD ($1.8 billion) and USDD ($750 million), initially issued
on the TRON blockchain.
PayPal stablecoin PYUSD, issued by the Paxos Trust Company and
currently at $480 million market cap, stands apart because Paxos is a
fully regulated US custodian. What’s more, PYUSD is perhaps the most
firmly 1:1 USD-pegged stablecoin, backed as it is with a mix of USD
deposits, short-term US Treasurys, and cash equivalents.
When the Nixon administration closed the gold window in 1971, ending
the monetary system formulated at Bretton Woods in 1944, the USD became
fully disassociated from any real intrinsic value (gold), though
fractional reserve banking had already practically relinquished the
dollar-and-gold association. The subsequent fiat currency monetary
system has led to an enormous expansion of the money supply and
ballooning of global debt. Those inevitabilities ultimately caused what
Carney described as the “destabilising asymmetry at the heart of the
IMFS.”
Carney recognised that the world’s leading holders of US debt were
Japan and China. Both countries have been accelerating the process of dumping US Treasury securities
(government bonds). Their bond market moves further threaten the
dominance of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Now Trump
has come to the White House with a fiscal policy package promising low
domestic taxes and higher international trade tariffs at the very time
that his country’s “exorbitant
privilege” — the US economic advantage gained by funding its own
deficit by issuing the reserve currency every other nation needs to buy
— is receding.
US public spending is fuelled by borrowing — by issuing government
bonds. The traditional monetary view would suggest that the only option
available to the US is to massively inflate the money supply — again!
But, with its staggering $36 trillion national debt, and with other
national governments increasingly unwilling to buy that debt (creating
a lower demand), US borrowing costs seem set to rise and exacerbate the
mounting debt problem.
Bluntly put, the US dollar and the US economy would appear to be
screwed. Unless, of course, the US can find some other outlet to absorb
its debt. If it can, there’s no reason why the monetary Ponzi
scheme can’t carry on. Obviously, it will continue to have a
terrible impact on people around the world, especially the poorest —
including the poorest Americans. But when have rapacious oligarchs ever
cared about social deprivation?
The total supply of stablecoins has now eclipsed $200 billion. In the
US, Tether is currently the third-largest buyer of US 3-month
Treasuries and the 16th-largest
purchaser of US government bonds globally. Because they absorb US
debt, stablecoins are seen as the key to stabilising US interest rates.
The proposed Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act has led some to suggest that it might
become a regulatory requirement for USD-denominated digital tokens
(stablecoins) to back their coins with nothing but US Treasury bills.
If so, under Paxos’ custody,
PYUSD is already well-placed to take advantage.
The bitcoin (BTC) hard cap, embedded in its code, ensures that no more
that 21 million BTC can ever be “mined” (that is, issued). Every four
years “halving” occurs, thereby theoretically reducing bitcoin
issuance. This is the polar opposite of the fiat monetary system, in
which the money supply can, realistically, only expand. The resulting
inflation persistently devalues fiat currency. Bitcoin, however, is inherently deflationary. It is a
tempting store of value for oligarchs who have treated the fiat
currency system as if it were their own fiefdom to control and have run
it into the ground.
Currently the top 21 holders of
bitcoin collectively possess 2.3 million BTC, representing around
11% of the total bitcoin supply. At today’s prices, that is the
equivalent of $236 billion in BTC holdings.
The presumably pseudonymous
Satoshi Nakamoto, author (or authors) of the original bitcoin white
paper and possessor of perhaps as much as 1.1 million BTC, is
officially the 19th wealthiest individual on the planet, worth around
$91 billion. He may not be an individual but a collection of bitcoin
founders. Some believe the name was made up by intelligence officials
who could be behind the creation of bitcoin.
MicroStrategy, which provides business intelligence and mobile software
services and whose leading shareholders
are Capital Group, Vanguard, Morgan Stanley, and BlackRock, is the
second-largest holder of bitcoin after Nakamoto. The third largest are
the combined governments of the US and the UK, which reportedly hold
$19 billion and $6 billion of bitcoin, respectively. Block.one — backed
by Thiel — is the fourth
largest, with more than $15 billion. The fifth-largest holder is
Tether, owner of the USDT stablecoin, which has $8 billion and is the
world’s largest trader of cryptocurrency. Tether has committed to
investing 15% of its annual profits in
bitcoin.
MicroStrategy founder and Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, grilled
last March by Yahoo Finance, called BTC “the
most valuable asset in the world” and “the endgame for anybody that
wants to own the greatest property in the 21st century.” And, according
to a blurb last October by Forbes senior contributor Billy Bambrough,
who has the magazine’s bitcoin and blockchain beat, “Saylor has
revealed [MicroStrategy’s] endgame [. . .] to become a bitcoin
investment bank—and to buy up to $150 billion of bitcoin.”
MicroStrategy investors are presumably eager to see that bid succeed.
They’re aware, as is Saylor, that being bullish on bitcoin further
stimulates demand for BTC and brings “the endgame” closer.
BlackRock apparently agrees. The multinational investment company has
seen its global asset portfolio increase to approximately $11 trillion,
thanks in no small measure to its pivot toward digital currencies.
Hitherto cool on cryptocurrencies, as other large investment houses
have been, BlackRock now considers bitcoin in particular to be a
digital asset. “We believe,” said
CEO Larry Fink last October, that “bitcoin is [an] asset class in
itself, an alternative to other commodities like gold.” Also, BlackRock
is now among those advocating digitizing
the dollar.
Trump’s executive order establishing the Presidential Working Group on
Digital Asset Markets has tasked that group with developing “a Federal
regulatory framework governing digital assets, including stablecoins,
and evaluating the creation of a strategic national digital assets
stockpile.”
Simultaneously, the trajectory toward setting bitcoin as the “new gold alternative” is well
underway. Notably, the Swiss
government has already started the formal process of amending
Article 99 of the Swiss Federal Constitution to allow the Swiss
National Bank (SNB) to hold BTC reserves.
“On-ramps” are payment services that allow users to exchange fiat
currency for digital assets like stablecoins. “Off-ramp” services allow
users to convert digital assets back into fiat currencies. Using
stablecoins, pegged 1:1 to the USD, greatly simplifies the process if
you want dollars. That said, in a “multipolar IMFS,” Chinese and
Japanese customers, for example, might not want USDs. Advances in
decentralized finance technology (DeFi) are homogenizing global
currencies. An effective SHC, with the USD set to dominate, is rapidly
approaching.
Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer
Protocol (CCTP) facilitates cross-border payment in USDC. This is
fine if you want to off-ramp into fiat USDs, but if you want Euros, you
still need to deal with the USD-Euro exchange rate (market price). This
additional exchange reduces speed and increases the cost of the
transaction (gas fees), thereby limiting scalability to non-USD
customers.
Decentralized exchanges (DEXs), such as Uniswap, make use of Automated Market Maker (AMM) DeFi.
This better enables cross-border transactions between stablecoins
backed by different fiat currencies. Cross-chain interoperability protocols
facilitate communication and data-sharing between different
blockchains. Combined with AMM advances, cross-border stablecoin
transactions are consistently becoming faster and cheaper.
Circle’s EURC is a Euro-backed stablecoin
fully compliant with the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets
Regulation (MiCA). In 2024,
researchers from Warwick Business School on-ramped in USD (USDC) and
off-ramped in Euros (EURC) using Circle’s AMM.
Given that EURC is
pegged to the Euro and USDC to the US dollar, trading in the EURC/USDC
market should closely track developments in the traditional EUR/USD
market. Indeed, we found that the blockchain market operates
efficiently, with EURC/USDC prices staying within 20 basis points — or
0.2 percentage points — of traditional EUR/USD market prices.
Furthermore, blockchain prices responded to macroeconomic information,
such as interest rate announcements from the US Federal Reserve.
The USD-backed stablecoins have primacy, and a USD-denominated SHC
seems by far the most likely outcome. That said, some experts, such as
former Binance.US CEO and 1Money founder Brian Shroder, predict a
multicurrency stablecoin future. In a recent interview with CoinTelegraph,
Shroder said, “We envision a global network powered by stablecoins
representing all major currencies.”
Equally, if interoperability protocols and AMM DeFi development
continue to accelerate, such a multicurrency system is still likely to
protect the USD. Those pushing USD dominance, such as the Thiel-led
consortium behind the Global Dollar
Network’s USDG stablecoin, with its proposed cross-chain
interoperability, evidently have the edge.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Committee on Payments and
Market Infrastructures (CPMI) runs The Taskforce on Cross-border
Payments Interoperability and Extension (PIE Taskforce). The committee
was formed in response to the G20 Roadmap for Enhancing Cross-border
Payments (established in 2020 with the final stage three report
published in 2023 — hereafter referred to as the G20 Roadmap), which,
the BIS notes, seeks to enhance
“cross-border payments’ speed and transparency, while increasing access
to cross-border payment services and reducing their costs.”
The G20 — short for Group of 20
— is an international forum comprised of 19 member states (including
the US, the UK, Russia, China, and India) plus the European Union (EU)
and the African Union (AU). Formed in 1999, it is structured as a
multipolar global forum of five internal groups with the aim of
coordinating economic policy. The finance ministers and central bank
governors of the respective G20 member states and of the EU and AU
dominate G20 deliberations.
An important contributor to the G20-and-BIS-aligned CPMI-PIE taskforce
is Coinbase, which was accelerated into existence by Y-Combinator (see
Part 1). Coinbase responded to the recent PIE consultation by making
the point that all the G20 Roadmap targets could be met by properly
regulated stablecoins. Coinbase observed that “a mixed-payments
ecosystem” that supports “traditional bank rails and wholesale
payments” can benefit from stablecoin adoption.
The global digital
ID network is being created from a range of “interoperable” but
“vendor-agnostic” digital ID products. There won’t be just one global
digital ID card or biometric ID product—such as a single facial
recognition system. Instead, all such products and systems will export
data using an agreed-upon machine-readable format. In the case of
digital ID products and systems, they will comply with ISO/IEC 19794
Series and ISO/IEC 19785 biometric data interchange formats.
Thus, it is entirely possible that a single global database, perhaps
the World Bank’s ID4D or some
similar global solution, could collect data from all the interoperable
vendor-agnostic digital ID products and systems worldwide. The ID4D
project is supporting the introduction of global interoperability
standards that will be “capable of facilitating transactions in the
digital age.”
The International Organization for Standardization, abbreviated as ISO
(not IOS), has an international standard for electronic data
interchange between financial institutions. This standard, called “ISO 20022,” is explained as:
[. . .] a global
messaging standard designed to improve communication between financial
institutions through structured, machine-readable messages. [. . .] ISO
20022 facilities interoperability and efficiency across payment
systems, securities markets, and other financial domains. Its rich data
fields and extensibility make it a cornerstone for modernizing global
financial infrastructure.
It goes without saying that the BIS — specifically its Committee on
Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) — is eager to embrace the
ISO’s “payments data harmonisation,” which it announced last month. As
noted by CentralBank.com, “A key factor in achieving more efficient
cross-border payments is the use of the same data standards by all
countries, and the ISO 20022.”
ISO 20022-compliant stablecoins and underlying blockchains are
emerging, according to a December 2024 article in CryptoNews.com. This
innovation is being propelled by the multipolar G20 Roadmap and raises
the potential of establishing a global “unified ledger” — or “shared
ledger” — that effectively oversees every digital financial transaction
on earth.
In 2024, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication, recognizable by its acronym, SWIFT, reported:
The concept of a
new, universal shared ledger for digital payments and assets is gaining
interest as a way of transforming how transactions are recorded and
settled. [. . .] In its Annual Economic Report 2023, the BIS presented
its blueprint for a future monetary system, envisaging a new type of
financial market infrastructure—a “unified ledger”—which could “capture
the full benefits of tokenisation.” [. . .] [T]he shared ledger model
could potentially help to improve the cost, speed, predictability and
accessibility of cross-border payments — thereby supporting the G20
roadmap. [. . .] [A]n ISO 20022-based messaging layer will enhance the
shared ledger proposition.
A Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC) is being constructed, but, like
its global digital ID counterpart, it is very unlikely to be one
stablecoin or one digital asset or token. Rather, as Coinbase
developers put it, the SHC will be a “mixed-payments ecosystem.”
The SHC is going to be an interoperable network of “vendor-agnostic”
digital tokens. Stablecoins are accelerating the SHC’s development.
Interoperability, enabled by machine-readable data harmonisation, will
revolutionise business-to-business (B2B) transactions.
The race is on to seize control of the “new world” of regulated
stablecoins. Peter Thiel and his protégés, working in partnership with
Musk and others, have established a global network of tech and
tech-finance companies that have been key drivers in creating a “new
world currency.” That we find ourselves where we are today is no
accident.
The Public-Private SHC Surveillance State
In 2023, Tether’s new CEO, Paolo Ardoino, was under investigation by
the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs for
potential sanction-busting financial activity. He submitted a letter to
the committee in which he reported yet more evidence of the close
relationship between leading players in the financial technology
(FinTech) development community and the US defence-and-intelligence
complex.
On December 1,
2023, we launched a wallet-freezing policy designed to significantly
enhance the tools available for law enforcement agencies seeking to
combat illicit use of stablecoins. [. . .] Tether recently onboarded
the United States Secret Service into our platform and is in the
process of doing the same with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI). These strategic relationships reinforce our commitment to
supporting law enforcement. [. . .] We have assisted in freezing, as of
the date of this letter, approximately 326 wallets totaling
approximately USDT 435 Million for the Department of Justice, US Secret
Service, and FBI. [. . .] We look forward to maintaining a close
working relationship with law enforcement, policymakers, and regulators
in shaping a secure, compliant, and resilient future for digital
currencies.
During the Canadian trucker protests against pandemic mandates in early
2022, commercial banks and payment providers facilitated the Canadian
government’s demand to freeze protesters’ financial assets and disable
supporters’ ability to donate to fundraising
campaigns for the truckers. Similarly, the UK government is
currently forming legislation that would allow authorities to access
citizens’ bank accounts and seize control of their finances
— under the guise of combatting fraud.
In both of these examples of the public-private abuse of claimed
authority, two mechanisms were and are needed to enforce tyranny:
agreement (that is, the banks and payment providers’ willingness to
collaborate) and legislation (either existing or new). But in a world
of solely digital money, neither policy debates nor the passing of
legislation are strictly necessary. Total surveillance of our use of
money and the ability to programme our spending is innate to the “new
world currency” —USD SHC.
From humanity’s perspective, no matter where we reside, the most
alarming aspect of digital currencies — stablecoins, retail CBDC, or otherwise — is
their surveillance capabilities and, in particular, their
programmability feature. Trump’s new executive order on digital finance
suggests that instead of elected officials programming our money, this
task should be handed over to multistakeholder partnerships.
To understand why programmability is a risk to all of us, consider the
words of Bo Li, the former Deputy Governor of the Bank of China and the
current Deputy Managing Director of the IMF. In October 2022, Bo Li said:
CBDC can allow
government agencies and private sector players to program — to create
smart contracts — to allow targeted policy functions. For example,
welfare payments; for example, consumption coupons; for example, food
stamps. By programming CBDC, [. . .] money can be precisely targeted
[to] what kind of [things] people can own, and [the kinds of ways] this
money can be utilised.
Digital “money” can be
programmed to automatically bar us from donating to the “wrong” cause
or from transacting with certain “undesirable”individuals. Every
transaction we make and all funds we receive will be recorded on the
corresponding “ledger” (likely to be a blockchain) from which our
financial activity will be monitored, analysed, and inspected. Such a
system obviates the need for legislation to snoop into our bank
accounts.
China’s digital states — WeChat pay, and the similarly popular Alipay —
are fully integrated with
China’s e-CNY retail central bank digital currency (r-CBDC). China’s
stakeholder capitalist approach to controlling its “customers” payments
is not dissimilar to that currently being pursued in Ukraine—using its
e-Hyrvnia r-CBDC—and a similar system is proposed by the Russian
public-private state.
The head of the State Duma Committee on Financial Markets, Anatoly
Aksakov, told the news outlet Rossiyskaya
Gazeta that the battle against cybercrime and financial fraud meant
that the Russian retail CBDC — the digital ruble — would allow accounts
to be blocked, depending on “certain rules.” Payment restrictions could
be applied, transactions inspected and control measures taken “if
necessary,” he said.
Also adopting the stakeholder capitalism model, Aksakov said Russia’s
“major telecom operators, cybersecurity experts and key IT companies,”
alongside the commercial banks, would partner with the Russian
government to put together these “new measures.” Looking to the future,
he suggested “joint ventures” could include the “American banks,”
adding that “Visa or Mastercard” could assist with the rollout of the
digital ruble control measures.
Like Bo Li, Anatolov also emphasised the social engineering potential
of the digital ruble:
Payments in the
digital ruble can be linked to smart contracts, where the transfer or
remuneration to the contractor is regulated by a computer program, not
a person. [. . .] We are now focusing on using the digital ruble to
control the targeted spending of the [fiscal] budget. [. . .] Should we
convert maternity capital or child benefit into the digital ruble and
make it so that they cannot be spent on alcohol and cigarettes? In my
opinion this is a justified measure and such restrictions are necessary.
The US is evidently taking a different path towards its proposed
digital state, preferring cryptocurrencies and stablecoins for
programmability. But irrespective of whether your government and its
partners opt for the retail CBDC or the approved stablecoin route, the
outcome is a digital surveillance and control system.
The Programmable Digital State
Stablecoins are certainly no less programmable than CBDCs. Global
outsourcing digital employment agency Rise observed:
The programmability
of stablecoins through smart contracts opens avenues for innovations
such as machine-to-machine payments in IoT applications. [. . .] The
future of stablecoin payments is bright, with ongoing innovations and
increasing adoption promising to transform how we conduct financial
transactions.
These technological innovations portend much more than simply
transforming “how we conduct financial transactions.” In its totality,
interoperable, AI-controlled digital technology threatens to change
every aspect of our lives. If it does, we should not lose sight of the
fact that AI is programmed by motivated human beings who hold
ideological beliefs.
The Internet of Things (IoT),
the Internet of Bodies (IoB);
advances in machine-to-machine
(M2M) payments — with AI algorithms automatically deducting digital
money from our digital wallets absent any human interaction –– and an
interconnected network of smart homes on smart grids paints a dystopian
future few of us wish to contemplate. Unfortunately, the enabling
gov-corp Technates are being built.
The digital currency powered smart home concept has already arrived. This is achieved
by linking IoT powered homes to digital wallets overseen by
surveillance of the smart grid to which they are attached. Howard
Lutnick’s—Trump’s pick for secretary of commerce — investment in
Satellogic, via Endeavour, places him and his partners in prime
position to capitalise on what the WEF calls the “trillion dollar
opportunity” presented by the Earth
Observation industry (EO). Orbiting satellite networks harvest data
from digital devices and the subsequent AI analyses of the gathered EO
data is set to revolutionise pretty much every industrial sector.
Now in office, Lutnick
can be confident in his assertion that Satellogic and its investors,
including Tether, are “uniquely
positioned to dominate the Earth Observation industry.” Just as
cryptocurrencies, stablecoins in particular, are providing space for
expansion of US debt, so to they are enabling accelerated
investment in the development of the emerging “digital states.”
Brain-computer interface (BCI) technology, such as that being developed
by Musk’s Neuralink, is bringing us closer to becoming “technoplastic
beings.” It comes as no surprise that Peter Thiel is a Neuralink investor. Thiel also
invests in Musk’s BCI competitors — Blackrock
Neurotech is one. Again, Tether is also an investment
partner of Blackrock Neurotech.
There is evidently technological competition. On the one hand we have
Musk’s Space X, Neuralink and X-pay, on the other we have Sattelogic,
Blackrock Neurotech and Tether. But as we can see from Thiel’s
investment strategy, it is the transhumanist
and neurowarfare
potential of BCI technology that excites technopopulist oligarchs.
Competition stimulates development until the winning monopoly
establishes itself.
The programmable nature of the so-called “digital money,” combined with
smart devices on smart grids, enabling precise monitoring of our energy
use means that, de facto, “Energy Certificates” are being rolled out.
Trump’s digital finance executive order does not nullify the threat
posed by CBDCs. It simply diverts public attention away from the
immense threat posed by programmable digital currency in general.
Programmable, privately issued stablecoins are intended to avert the
looming US debt crisis by absorbing US debt in cryptocurrencies. But
the evident additional hope is that this tactic will give the US a head
start in the race toward Technocracy.
When Technocracy was designed in the 1930s, the scale of the
surveillance and control system it proposed was soon discarded as
unworkable. The idea of creating a bureaucracy capable of monitoring
the energy use of every citizen and every business across a continent,
using the technology of that day, was a fantastical proposition.
Measuring a citizen’s or business’ energy usage via any kind of
manageable monetary system, with expenditures controlled by linking the
currency to identity, was simply not feasible.
But today, not only is Technocracy finally technologically possible,
the infrastructure for the rollout of Technocracy is ,as a result,
being actively constructed.
Technologically, such a dystopia is well within the realm of
possibility. Do you imagine that the oligarchs behind the construction
of the necessary infrastructure would never implement this digital
panopticon? If so, perhaps it is time to ask yourself why they are
building it. Is it simply because people like Elon Musk want us to live
“lives of abundance”?
To be clear: programmable money combined with digital ID is likely to
enable oligarchs, via public-private partnership, to oversee “the
science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire
social mechanism”—that is, Technocracy. It will potentially give them
total control of the distribution of “goods and services to the entire
population.” In short, technological innovation has made a Technate
eminently possible.
The American Multipolar Technate
The newly not-elected prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney, is among
the few, in the current crop of politicians, who is closely and
directly connected to the globalist
oligarchy. In a interview with Juno News, given shortly before he
became prime minister, Mark Carney argued for the alleged benefits of
said global oligarchy:
I know how the
world works, I know how to get things done, I’m connected. [. . .]
People will charge me with being elitist or a globalist, to use that
term, which is, well, that’s exactly, it happens to be exactly what we
need.
Carney’s proposed Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC) is intended to
position the West in preparation for the emerging multipolar world
order. It is obvious, therefore, that multipolarity poses no threat to
globalist oligarchs.
The so-called “global elite” have always been quite open about their
ambitions, but Carney’s words suggest that they feel extra-emboldened
at the moment. There is nothing new about their concept of a world
split into more manageable “regions” or “poles,” but we do seem to be
approaching the end of an inexorable path toward it.
We do not have to take that path. It is not yet set in stone.
Carney has openly told us that he and his globalist cronies have not
haphazardly stumbled into his proposed
SHC, nor have they randomly meandered into the clutches of a
multipolar world order or its new IMFS. Conscious, deliberate decisions
have been made, and specific steps have been taken, to bring about this
state of affairs.
There are people who insist that the push toward multipolarity is being
led by the BRICS+ nations — in particular, the Russian and Chinese
governments. President Putin and Paramount Leader Xi Jinping have been
prominent advocates
of multipolarity, for sure. Speaking in October 2024 in the lead-up
to the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia, Xi explained the multipolar
vision. He said it is about fostering “inclusive economic
globalization.” This can be done, he noted, by building “solidarity and
cooperation” between countries.
The BRICS (now BRICS+) project forms a bloc, or “pole,” of
nation-states. It has already started to redesign globalism. As pointed
out by former Brazilian President Dilma Rouseff, who now chairs the New Development Bank (NDB) at the
heart of the BRICS+ project, “measured by GDP, the BRICS countries have
already surpassed the G7 in importance.”
In truth, a multipolar world order has always been the penultimate
destination prior to establishing full-blown, centralised global
governance. The evidence supporting this conclusion is abundant.
Renowned American historian, professor, and author Carroll Quigley
meticulously catalogued the activities of the British/American oligarch
network that was inspired by the imperial vision of the early-20th
century Rhodes-Milner Group (also known as the Round Table Group). In a
1974
interview with Washington Post reporter Rudy Maxa, Quigley spoke
about the “three-power world” that the network envisaged prior to WWII.
The idea was that a transatlantic bloc and a united European bloc and
an Eastern Soviet bloc would dominate a global “balance of power”
structure.
Following a 1956 Special Studies Project directed by Henry Kissinger at
the request of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a 500-plus-page document
titled Prospect
for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports emerged (its copyright
spans 1958–1961). The five reports in it aimed to define the problems
and opportunities the US faced in the late 1950s, clarify national
objectives, and develop a framework on which national policies could be
based.
The United Nations had already been established in 1945 (the UN
headquarters was built on land donated by the Rockefellers), but,
according to some of the panel report researchers, this international
organisation hadn’t delivered on its goals. So, these researchers
returned to the original prospect outlined by the Rhodes-Milner Group
and suggested “a world divided into smaller units” [page 26] that would
“consist of regional institutions under an international body of
growing authority” [page 26]:
The most natural
multination arrangements are frequently regional. [. . .] Fully
developed, they imply a joint accord on monetary and exchange
arrangements, a common discipline on fiscal matters, and a free
movement of capital and labor. [. . . ] We believe that this regional
approach has world-wide validity. [. . .] What is needed immediately is
a determination to move in the direction they imply. Regional
arrangements are no longer a matter of choice. They are imposed by the
requirements of technology, science, and economics. Our course is to
contribute to this process by constructive action [pages 188–190].
In October 1968, the Rockefellers supported the foundation of a
globalist international policy think tank — the Club of Rome — to implement the
“regional arrangements” that they had declared seven years earlier to
be “no longer a matter of choice.”
The 1973 third symposium of the WEF is considered by the WEF to have
been an important moment in its
history. At this event, Club of Rome co-founder Aurelio
Peccei outlined the Club’s concept of the “sustainability of global
economic growth” which, WEF delegates were told, required society to
reconcile “economic development and environmental constraints.”
Consequently, with this in mind, the WEF adopted “Klaus Schwab’s
stakeholder concept.”
In same year, September 1973, the Club of Rome wrote a confidential
report titled “Regionalized
and Adaptive Model of the Global World System.” It proposed that
the world be divided into ten “Kingdoms”—comparable to blocs, or poles.
Though presented simply as an analytical computer model, the Club of
Rome added a vision statement to its report:
Our efforts in the
immediate future will be concentrated on further use of the already
developed [Kingdoms] model. [. . .] Implementation of the regional
models in different parts of the world and their connection via a
satellite communication network [will be] for the purpose of joint
assessment of the long-term global future by teams from the various
regions [Kingdoms or “poles”]. Implementation of the vision for the
future outlined by leaders from an underdeveloped region in order to
assess with the model existing obstacles and the means whereby the
[multi-Kingdom or multipolar] vision might become a reality.
Proposed
“kingdom” model from the Club of Rome – Source
More recently, World
Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab co-wrote, with Thierry
Malleret, COVID-19:
The Great Reset. One point they made in their book is that global
supply chains are fragmenting due to global existential crises. They
pinned the blame on a lack of cohesive global governance and offered a
solution:
The most likely
outcome along the globalization–no globalization continuum lies in an
in-between solution: regionalization. The success of the European Union
as a free trade area or the new Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership in Asia (a proposed free trade agreement among the 10
countries that compose ASEAN) are important illustrative cases of how
regionalization may well become a new watered-down version of
globalization. [. . .] In short, deglobalization in the form of greater
regionalization was already happening. COVID-19 will just accelerate
this global divergence as North America, Europe and Asia focus
increasingly on regional self-sufficiency rather than on the distant
and intricate global supply chains that formerly epitomized the essence
of globalization [page 79].
Roman Catholic Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Roman Catholic ash
cross on forehead
Shortly before the 2025 Munich Security Conference, Trump’s pick for
Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave an interview to Megyn Kelly where he
said:
[. . .] it’s not
normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. [. . .] That was
an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually
you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar
world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet. [. . .]
[F]oreign policy has always required us to work in the national
interest, sometimes in cooperation with people who we wouldn’t invite
over for dinner or people who we wouldn’t necessarily ever want to be
led by. And so that’s a balance, but it’s the sort of pragmatic
and mature balance we have to have in foreign policy.
Casting the multipolar world order as a confrontation between great
powers but also a “pragmatic and mature balance,” Rubio’s comments were
congruent with the view of the globalist think-tank the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR)—which has consistently promoted multipolarity. The CFR
believes the international rules-based order (the unipolar model) is
“disintegrating at an accelerating pace.”
CFR fellow Thomas E. Graham sees five potential
regional poles in a multipolar global governance system consisting
of the US, China, India, Russia, and Europe. The CFR line of thinking
is that the US can contribute to multipolarity through foreign policy
that seeks to constrain China as a great power; nurture India as a
power, preserve Russian power and promote European power.
Europe is considered the greatest challenge by the CFR because, despite
its economic and possible military might, it “lacks political
cohesion.” Therefore, in January 2025 the CFR argued for a new US
foreign policy mindset “to encourage Europe to assume the
responsibilities of a great power [. . .], one that has the hard power
needed to deal with most security contingencies in its immediate
neighborhood.”
In March 2025, the Trump administration’s very public press
conference spat with the visiting Ukrainian president Volodymyr
Zelenskyy was immediately followed by the US supposedly withholding military
aid to Ukraine. This was met with seeming condemnation from the US’
European partners who responded by publicly announcing an €800 billion
($841.5 billion) “ReArm
Europe” plan. This gives further impetus to the EU’s long-held
desire for European
military unification.
It seems that Trump’s order not to supply US arms to Ukraine doesn’t
apply to Thiel-backed enterprises like Anduril. While Trump was telling
American and European voters that the US would not supply arms, Anduril
was finalising a deal with the UK government to send their Altius 600m
and Altius 700m attack drones to
Ukraine.
It is hard to say if the press conference between Trump (the former
reality TV personality) and Zelenskyy (the former actor and TV
comedian) was entirely
staged or not. Obviously, both presidents were, at the very least,
briefed prior to their quite extraordinary public row. What is not in
doubt is that the trajectory of the global policy response is precisely
as modelled and suggested by the think-tanks.
Elon Musk’s ‘X’ social media platform is, at the time of writing,
heavily promoting Trump as the global peace maker who just wants to
stop the slaughter in Ukraine. Consequently, the public debate swirling
across the entire western media and social media landscape is
polarising opinion between those who want peace and those who argue
this is short-sighted appeasement and Ukraine must keep fighting to
stave off “Putin’s aggression.” Meanwhile, the globalist plans for a
multipolar world order are surging ahead regardless of which of those
two, pre-determined options is championed by the US or any other
government.
Political leaders, influential financiers, and representatives of
policy think tanks across the West have evidently been planning for
some time, even enthusiastically endorsing, construction of a
regionalised multipolar
world order. Their fundamentally globalist project is the latest
iteration of the oligarchs’ persistent dream: global governance under
their exclusive control.
The Munich Security Conference (MSC) is ostensibly a transatlantic
forum where hi-ranking so-called “thought leaders” engage in a
“marketplace of ideas.” The self-appointed glitterati discuss, plan and
agree security and defence policy trajectories. The theme of MSC 2025
was “Multipolarization.”
In the executive summary for
the Munich Security Report 2025 we are told that “multipolarization is
a fact.” Again, presenting us with the idea that things just happen
organically: there is no design.
We are given to understand that those who are positive about
multipolarity see “opportunities for more inclusive global governance
and greater constraints on Washington.” Whereas, those who are more
pessimistic believe it “increases the risk of disorder.”
The report notes the international enthusiasm for the United Nations
2024 Pact for the Future,
replete with its Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future
Generations. Following the UN’s “quiet revolution,” the Pact is
grounded in stakeholder capitalism’s public-private partnerships and
“draws on the energy and expertise of governments, civil society and
other key partners.”
The UN Pact promises more public-private global censorship,
centralised world economic and financial control partnerships (global
taxation), and firmer mechanisms for global governance partnerships to
seize control of nation states as deemed necessary. The MSC thought
leaders conclude
“for this cooperation [UN Pact] to materialize, the world could well
use some ‘depolarization’.”
The evident plan is for the global order to undergo a process of
creative destruction to deterritorialize
it in its current form and reterritorialize
it as a more efficient multipolar global governance structure. To this
end the MSC report notes:
The next four
years will show whether a more selectively engaged US fuels or contains
global disorder. As other actors will (have to) step up to fill the
gap, the multipolarization of the international system could accelerate.
Despite US policy decisions supposedly being designed to confront and
oppose China, again, as a result of the same US policy decisions, China
has shown it is ready to “fill the gap.” In his MSC speech the head of
China’s Central Foreign Affairs Commission — China’s foreign minister —
H.E. Wang Yi said:
[. . .] we should
work for an equal and orderly multipolar world. [. . .] China will
surely be a factor of certainty in this multipolar system, and strive
to be a steadfast constructive force in a changing world. [. . .] The
U.N. is at the core of practicing multilateralism and advancing global
governance. [. . .] We have firmly upheld the authority and stature of
the U.N.
J.D. Vance address to the MSC has been reported as harsh criticism of
European censorship of its citizen’s and its media, especially with
reference to the censorship of US commentators. Within his criticisms,
Vance also advocated construction of a European “pole”:
[. . .] the Trump
administration is very concerned with European security and believes
that we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine,
and we also believe that it’s important in the coming years for Europe
to step up in a big way to provide for its own defense. [. . .] [W]e
think it’s an important part of being in a shared alliance together
that the Europeans step up while America focuses on areas of the world
that are in great danger.
The extremely rapid response to the US foreign
policy shift toward Ukraine has stimulated EU military unification and
rearmament. This is entirely in keeping with the strategies and plans
laid out by globalist policy think-tanks.
Perhaps random events collide and every decision is nothing more than a
reaction, but the weight of evidence thoroughly contradicts mere
“coincidence theory.”
We are supposed to believe that US isolationism is the pessimistic
response to multipolarity while the more positive multilateral approach
is closer aligned to the essence of the UN’s Pact for the Future.
Either way, both pessimistic isolationism and positive multilateralism
seem likely to accelerate multipolar global governance.
Despite the different approaches, the geopolitical outcomes are
seemingly indivisible. Both portend a regionalised world order
bureaucracy and this has always been the planned administrative
reorganisation of the planet prior to imposing firm global governance
and, ultimately, global government.
The Trump administration is blatantly declaring its isolationism. Trump, has publicly
withdrawn from the World Health Organisation, the Paris Agreement, and
the US pact with the OECD to work on a Global Tax Deal. He has imposed
international trade tariffs and his toughening of US border security is
apparently one of the primary reasons he was re-elected.
A lot of what
Trump and his staff say is rhetoric and horse-trading.
A lot of what Trump and his staff say is rhetoric and horse-trading.
OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann has already said Trump’s
posturing was interpreted as “concerns raised.” Cormann also said the
OECD would “keep working with the U.S. and all countries at the
table
to support international cooperation that promotes certainty, avoids
double taxation, and protects tax bases.” Trump may be haggling for a
stronger negotiating position, and we should certainly take his grand
statements with a pinch of salt.
That said, if we put all this together, what we see is a distinct
narrative shift toward polarisation. It is important to stress that
we’re witnessing a full-on propaganda offensive. Nevertheless, we are
supposed to believe that there are real geopolitical tensions between
the EU and the US, not just in relation to Ukraine, but in relation to
Greenland. The European Council President António Costa said Denmark
had the EU’s “full support” in the Danish government’s alleged
confrontation with the US government.
Trump has also made aggressive gestures toward BRICS+, warning that
tariffs will rain down if the group dumps
the USD.
Meanwhile, one of he BRICS+ leading nations Russia has said that
Trump’s “withdrawal” from the WHO risks “dangerous consequences.”
Alexei Kurinney, deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Health,
said
that “from the point of view of protecting exclusively the
interests of the United States, this is an isolationist step.”
In response to seeming US isolationism, the Chinese government has also
criticised the US withdrawals from the WHO and from the Paris
Agreement. As we’ve just highlighted, China has offered itself as a
reliable global partner to these two entities. China’s Foreign Ministry
spokesperson Guo Jiakun said:
China is concerned
about the US announcement to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. [. . .]
Climate change is a common challenge that all of humanity must face. [.
. .] The role of the World Health Organization should only be
strengthened, not weakened.
The stage is clearly set for the final push toward the multipolar world
order. But, strange as it may seem, this very push toward multipolarity
is bringing the nations closer to a single global political, economic,
and (perhaps most notably) financial and monetary “union.” In other
words, multipolarity, as it is presented to us, appears to be a
monumental psychological operation (psyop).
There have been many attempts over the years to form a North American
Union (NAU), which would be composed of Mexico, the United States,
and
Canada. This geopolitical goal received a boost in 1994 with the
signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but the
plan stalled after receiving strong resistance by the populace of all
three countries.
On and off, the US government has made numerous attempts to pry
Greenland away from Denmark —
more often than not citing US defence
needs. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of
Denmark. Its inhabitants are therefore citizens of Denmark and, by
extension, of the European Union. In 1951, the US and Danish
governments signed the Defense of
Greenland Treaty, which ostensibly
appeased US national security concerns. The US maintains the Pituffik
Space Base — formerly known as Thule Air Base — on the island of
Greenland.
SHILL
WORLD ORDER!
HOW MAGA CONSERVATIVES FELL RIGHT INTO THE GLOBALIST'S TRAP!
Greenland has never been mentioned with respect to any proposed
versions of either a North American Union or a free trade agreement.
The prospect of building the Praxis gov-corp Technate on Greenland has
evidently reignited enthusiasm.
The original
American technocrats, however, did include Greenland,
along with Caribbean island states and Central American states — as far
south as the northernmost territory of South America’s Columbia and
Venezuela — in their proposed model of a North
American Technate.
Prior to this year’s inauguration, Trump outlined his dreams of
establishing what can only be described as a plan almost
geographically identical to Technocracy Inc.’s original North American
Technate. In a series of off-the-wall-sounding statements — not unusual
for him — Trump indicated that he wanted to add Greenland, Belize,
Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama to
a NAU of Mexico, the US, and Canada. He even threatened the use of
force, both economic and military, to construct a geopolitical map that
is exactly mirrors the aforementioned North American Technate.
Map of the
Technocracy Inc. proposed Technate of America – Source
There is no realistic
prospect, in any geopolitical sense, of this imaginary North American
Technate actually being formed. But, as we have already discussed, the
Dark Enlightenment and Technocracy portend a kind of geopolitics more
reminiscent of the system of city states ruled by the Venetian bankers.
The Venetian city state was perhaps the most powerful seasteading project the world has ever known.
Trumps seemingly weird ideas about seizing control of Gaza
and Greenland, as if they can simply be acquired as sovereign states,
and where the sovereignty of the people living there is considered
“with derision,” is the epitome of the Dark Enlightenment thinking.
Forced displacement of the “unthinking demos” is meaningless if you
fervently believe “the system must be first.”
The North American Technate map that Trump appeared to deliberately outline first appeared on the cover of the Technocracy Study Course. Yet even the original technocrats didn’t explain how all these nation-states would fall in line with their unhinged ideas.
Ironically, the technological advances that have today made the
prospect of a Technate feasible have also rendered the concept of a
geographical Technate moot. By its nature, global communication
technology globalises. The technocrats’ notion of a geographically
bounded political Technate has largely been subsumed by the globalist
oligarchs’ rollout of global governance architecture and technology.
The Club of Rome’s Ten Kingdom model was precisely that: a model. While
it is obvious there has been a global effort to make that model a
functioning reality, it is clear that the gov-corp Technates under
construction will first and foremost be economic and financial
administrative zones rather than physical or geopolitical nations as we
understand them. The technology used to construct each digital state is
common to all.
Gov-corp realms may be distinct, with, for example, Amazon dominating
its sov-corp realm in the West and the Alibaba-Group dominating its
sov-corp realm the East, but the “patchwork of realms” will be global.
The decentralisation toward the digital city state is the network
enabling centralised control. The formation of regionalised poles looks
more like bureaucratic reorganisation in preparation for a simplified
global governance administration of realms.
Nonetheless, the symbology of Trump’s otherwise bizarre imperial
statements seems relatively easy to interpret. Trump and/or his close
advisers want to make it clear that Technocracy and the Dark
enlightenment are the ideas driving the administration. I suspect Trump
will say whatever he is told to say, within reason, on this subject or
any other. In my opinion, posturing as a would-be emperor probably
appeals to his ego. Personally, I doubt Trump even understands what a
gov-corp Technate is, but he may.
Whatever the case, the communicated signal could not be made more obvious: The neoreactionary technocrats are in control.
Thiel and Musk are not the leading architects of the project to
establish the global gov-corp Technate. But they are firm believers
and, as made men, have been positioned to lead the US in that
direction. Ultimately, the digital transformation of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution renders the very concept of the nation-state
superfluous. The technocrats and accelerationist neoreactionaries know
this.
Oligarchs have never had an affinity for one nation more than for any
other. The system they seek ignores nation-states completely. If their
plan succeeds, the only borders that will still have any relevance to
them will be those delineating the “Kingdoms” or “poles” of a
much-simplified multipolar global governance structure overseeing a
network of realms.
Once the mycelium-like global financial network is thriving and once
seamless cross-border transactions are instantaneous — enabled by a
digital SHC fit for a multipolar world — then geographical political
borders will cease to have any economic or monetary meaning. As Peter
Thiel observed in a 2001 PayPal all-hands meeting:
The ability to move money fluidly and the erosion of the nation-state are closely related.
The global system of gov-corp Technates that is emerging represents the
most oppressive, totalitarian system of absolute behavioural control
ever devised. There will be no need for government policy when entire
populations — comprised of millions of individual human beings who were
born to think for themselves — can be mentally hijacked and literally
programmed by corporate behemoths.
But of all the psyops foisted upon us, the greatest among them is the
millennia-long propaganda campaign to make us believe we are powerless.
This is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the “representative
democracy” charade.
Recognising the staggering audacity of the globalists’ plans and the
enormous resources they presently have under their command is not to be
“blackpilled.” On the contrary,
it is the first step toward liberation. In order to resist the maniacs,
we first have to understand what they’re doing and how and why they’re
doing it. After that, the only hurdle we must surmount is that of
putting all of our own solutions into effect.
Our solutions do not have to reimagine the world, we just have to reimagine our tiny portion of it.
You don’t need to worry about energy costs if you are energy self
sufficient—or as close to it as you can be. You don’t need to be too
preoccupied with food prices if you grow it yourself or barter goods
and services with those that do, and you don’t need to be overly
concerned with exchange rates if you choose your own medium of exchange
and trade with other like-minded people in your own community.
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
ensures these false perceptions. Deception works by bombarding people
with propaganda and psyops. Coercion and manipulation are designed to
convince us to accept that which we can — and must — decisively reject.
Force will almost certainly be used if we do, but there are also eight
billion of us.
There are better alternatives
to top-down oligarch control. Despite the hopes of Musk and Thiel and
their ilk, gov-corp Technates are not inevitable. We need only
peaceably decline to obey their demented edicts, quit subscribing to
their insane schemes, and build something better.
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; 2 Corinthians 12:7 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.
