← Simon Dixon Hard Talk
Simon Dixon Hard Talk
Opting Out of the Grid: Parallel Systems, Hard Assets, and the Fight for Freedom
01:44:10
Loading summary
Transcript119 lines
- [00:00]
Simon Dixon
Trump was installed with significant funding from Elon Musk and the technical industrial complex, significant funding from the Mellon banking family and the financial industrial complex. And then the third largest was Mariam Adelson, the connection to Israel and the military industrial complex.
- [00:19]
Host (Kyle)
Three of the sharpest minds in finance, intelligence and surveillance research in one room for the first time. And what they laid out should terrify every single person watching.
- [00:32]
Catherine Austin Fitts
From 1998 to 2015 that we know of, there was 21 trillion of what's called undocumentable adjustments. And there's no way to know without auditing the New York Fed accounts for the US government how much money is missing.
- [00:49]
Host (Kyle)
That's Katherine Austin Fitz, former Assistant Secretary of housing under George H.W. bush, then offered a seat at the Federal Reserve Board and she turned it down. She's the woman the Feds tried to bury for asking where the money went. Besides her, Simon Dixon, the banker who called the FTX Celsius and Luna collapses before they happened.
- [01:14]
Simon Dixon
Don't listen to anything anyone says. Let's look at what they do. So whatever Elon says is rubbish. Whatever Trump says is rubbish.
- [01:21]
Host (Kyle)
And Ian Davis, the British investigators, investigative journalists documenting the public private partnerships nobody else will touch. They mapped the control grid, the trillion dollar print they say is coming, the crypto bill they call a Trojan horse. And the one move you have left before BlackRock owns your entire neighborhood.
- [01:44]
Simon Dixon
They're deliberately trying to manufacture civil unrest.
- [01:48]
Host (Kyle)
Catherine calls it the Mr.
- [01:50]
Host (Carl)
Global system.
- [01:52]
Host (Kyle)
Simon calls it the worst crisis we've ever seen. Ian call it the dark enlightenment. By the end of this, you'll know what to call it. And most importantly, very, very importantly, you
- [02:04]
Host (Carl)
will know what to do about it. And again, remember, nothing in this video is financial advice.
- [02:10]
Host (Kyle)
It's for educational purposes only. Guys, without further ado, let's bring these three titans to the stage.
- [02:17]
Host (Carl)
All right, Ian, Katherine, Simon, everyone, thank you guys so much for taking the time to be here. Really appreciate it. It was hard to coordinate all three of you busy schedules, but thank you. Really appreciate you being here. And without further ado, let's, let's get into it. So palantir, they decided $300 million deal with the US Department of Agriculture. They're now involved in food systems, healthcare, weapons, immigration enforcement and space force. When one private company starts doing this many government jobs without voters having a say, are we already living under a corporate government?
- [02:54]
Catherine Austin Fitts
So I just have to jump on on this because when I was Assistant Secretary In 1989, I used to have massive fights with the defense contractors to give me the data that I needed to run my operation and they would refuse to. And we used to call it the data beast and the war with the data beast. And that was in 1989. So at that time there were 24 covered agencies. And in fact all of their bank accounts were consolidated into a few banks and all of their data providers and payment systems were consolidated into a few corporate entities. So Palantir is a new phase of something that's been building for a long time. If you look at so many years ago, Amazon put together a cloud for the CIA, but integrating all 17 intelligence agencies. And now deep DOD has done a similar sort of cloud contract using Amazon, Oracle, Microsoft and a few others. So if you look at the integration of the federal government through corporate cloud contractors and IT payment contractors, that process has been going on for a long time. And of course Palantir is just taking it to a whole new level. Cause you're connecting it up to the satellites, the WI fi and integrate it with the surveillance system and the AI data centers. So this is a new phase of something that's been going on for a long, long time.
- [04:19]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, absolutely. I'll jump. In this whole public private partnership, we're really hitting the critical mass here where effectively central banking dumps the bill on the people and then that's rerouted through the bond markets and stock markets into these private public partnerships. And Palantir really is the chosen one, as it were, particularly in collaboration with the other members of the PayPal mafia. So we seem to be getting our artificial intelligence, police and surveillance date. And it's going through a bit of a recognizable pattern. So some of the early beta tests were done through the Palestinian laboratory. So we had surveillance as a service in west bank, we had genocide as a service in the in Gaza. And then it tends to come around and you beta test it on the uk. So in UK there was a lot of social media scraping data, pre crime arrests, classification of resistance and any protests as domestic terrorists and open borders, closed borders, and then a desire to tackle, for example, ensuring that you are of the correct age to be consuming adult content online at the moment. The latest one that we're getting in UK is Tenancy Protection Acts, which in the middle of a manufactured crisis that we're seeing with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, you're starting to see that now all of a sudden Palantir is moving deeper into the US infrastructure through agriculture and food, in the middle of manufacturing food insecurity. So Palantir is really aggressively moving to effectively a privatized version of the US Government. Police and surveillance, state training, ICE agents, classifying groups, any resistance as domestic terrorism. And it's getting incredibly noticeable and aggressive right now.
- [06:37]
Ian Davis
Yeah, I would echo both, both of what's just been said because another way of looking at this is there was some research that was done by a couple of political scientists in 2014 called Gillens and Page and they looked at 1800 policy decisions or policy initiatives over a 30 year period in the US so they published in 2014. So they were going back to the 80s, the late 70s, early 80s, and they concluded that what the way that the, the government was functioning in the US at that time was what they called a functional oligarchy. So there were, there were different model, different models of potential democratic models. One of them is elite domination. Another one is, I can't remember the different, the different models but their analysis of how policy functioned was that it effectively amounted to what they called a functional oligarchy. I think MIT put a study out as well in 2021 where they were just considering what they were, they were just essentially considering foreign policy. So they were looking at how foreign policy, whose interest does foreign policy reflect? And they consistently found that it was reflecting whatever the agenda was of the corporate lobby at the time. So in this, this was Again, this was U.S. foreign policy. But we see exactly the same everywhere else in the world where we look, you know, going back to the idea that public private partnership is very much driving policy agendas everywhere. And I mean a classic example of that is if we look at how sustainable development as developed over the years with the, the significant input input of globalist think tanks which let's face it represent corporate interests, often represent corporate interests, then then what we are seeing is a move away progressively a move away. And I, and you know, in my opinion that as that the speed of that, of that transition away from what we might call an I, you know, I, a traditional view of what we might consider to be political government decision making being driven by political concerns moving towards what are the pressing concerns of the private sector. I think that's accelerated notably since the, not probably the 1990s. And now as you know, as we're saying, Palantir is really representative I would say of, of that system. And one of the, one of the really interesting things observation that Simon made actually and something that I've discussed in, in my book is how bold they are now. It's, it's all, it's almost as if what we, we don't care anymore. We don't, we don't care. The gloves are off now. We are, we are quite and in and in a sense there is a, there is a, an agenda there. What they the Palantir often talk about of representatives of Palantir often talk this notion of the agentic state where government itself is eroded and replaced by private governance of some kind. So I guess at some point some corporation has to stand up and say well we can run things better than government. And maybe I think we're starting to see Palantir move into that, that role at least.
- [10:20]
Host (Carl)
Yeah, we'll get into the, the, those kind of CEO government CEO ran states in a bit. But Ian, you briefly just mentioned agentic kind of sovereign agentic cities or states or whatever. But you specifically talk about sovereign AI cities being built right now. Nigeria I guess has one already, potentially Gaza. The pitch essentially is that residents get everything taken care of for them. Food, water, shelter, necessities. But the catch is that they have to sign away all their assets and their rights essentially actually to live in this kind of society. So maybe you can just because I, I had never heard of that before and it's pretty wild, especially considering the fact that I don't as someone who uses AI frequently, I don't think that AI is quite there yet in the, in the, you know, in the capabilities of being at, you know, it's coming. It is coming. AGI asi. You know, I mean I'm pretty sure we can do an entire show on how we're birthing this new species that probably makes everything we're talking about obsolete in the future because it will be an apex species. That's my opinion. But curious to get your thoughts Ian, if you can elaborate a little bit more on how far along are we in these kind of AI sovereign states or cities being built.
- [11:38]
Ian Davis
Well, just to start off by saying there's a lot of flim flam in the talk around AI in my view, as you rightly said, it's not as close to being the thing that they say it is yet in my view there's a lot of catastrophic forgetting and all these kind of technical technological problems that need to be overcome first before it is even close to being theory of mind AI in, in a, in a word, in a workable sense. So I think there's a lot of sales pitch around AI. But yeah, I mean so if you look at somewhere like Etan and ratana started in 2020 so it this very much tied up with these economic free zones or special economic Zones SEZ or, and there's a, and there's a, there's a model of economic zones or rather there's a, there's a range of economic zones. At one end you've just got the sort of very kind of basic freeport which is, you know, a zone where warehousing costs might be subsidized or you might get sort of relief on import and export duty all the way up to the charter city and the smart city state. So at one end you've got kind of the free ports that are currently being constructed in the UK for example, BlackRock have got an investment with, with the British government to develop 12 free ports in the UK all the way up to Shenzhen for example in China, which is a, a smart city of, in a special economic zone of 17 million people. So Atana at the moment, I think there's, it's currently got, I think that, I think they say that it's currently got about a thousand or so or, or more than that. Companies registered in Atana for the regulatory relief that they get by by doing so. So it's very much to attract in this case foreign investment there. There is a proposal that there'll be about 1 to 2,000 people living in, in Atana. If you look at what the UN says about the deployment of special economic zones around the world, it is currently saying that there are more than 5,000 that are actively being installed. So they're at various stages of development. If we look at what is proposed for Gaza for example, or the new Gaza that is obviously, I mean if you're charging people a billion dollars or charging corporations a billion dollars to buy into your new city state project, which is what it's proposed to be, then obviously that buy in comes with, you know, there has to be value there and that value is going to be the deregulation that comes with. And if we think about Israel's very prominent role in kind of the tech industry, you can see that, that being extended to Palestine or the. I, you know, I, I hate even saying it, but the, but the new Gaza and, but interestingly when you look at the development plans that they've got for Gaza, they're splitting it up into four zones and, and the industrial and retail and the, and the kind of urban sort of spaces for development spaces for, for leisure activities are far, there's something like 75% of what's left. So there's not much scope for, for human habitation to, to be in that new plan. So unfortunately, you know, we are in A situation at the moment where one of the, one of the things that I, you know, that I. One of the reasons that I recently wrote the book about that is, is that, you know, these plans are progressing in front of our eyes. They are a bit like when we were just talking about Palantir. All the, all the kind of things that we might think are theoretical. They're actually, we can actually see them. They're. They're actually doing it now.
- [15:49]
Host (Carl)
Yeah, thanks, Ian. And do you think, just real quick before we go to the next question, do you think these are being set up kind of as like test beds and then. Because it sounds like big players are involved.
- [16:01]
Ian Davis
Yeah. No, Yeah. I mean if you've got, for example, you've got Prospera in Honduras, which I think the current population of that's about 2,000, so. Or 1,000 to 2,000 people. So that's, that's combining development or special economic zones, attracting foreign investment with in this case some residential spaces. So they're looking to, to bring the two, bring the things together as I said, all the way. You know, you can, you can look at the progress of special economic zones in China the, since the, you know, the late 70s to today. I mean that is a mass that's been a massive experiment in smart city design and, and the potential for smart city kind of. Well, these things achieved.
- [16:46]
Host (Carl)
Yeah, these things are all like, you know, from what I understand, my perspective has always been like things like Prospera and Charter cities. You know, especially when you guys got guys like Patrick Friedman in there who you're kind of taking the charge. My, My understanding, because I, I was a fan of the Sea Setting Institute long ago what they were doing. I like the idea of, you know, sovereign governments being set up all around the world with, you know, kind of competing for citizens and residents. I thought that would be a complete paradigm shift. So everything that, that you said so far sounds to me pretty utopian. But I'm curious, like your whole thought on this and why you wrote the book on this, is this like a good thing that's happening or is this, you know, is there something that you haven't told us yet that this is
- [17:29]
Ian Davis
actually, I think, I think like any, the use of any technology, it's not the technology itself or it's not even the necessarily the idea itself, which is, which is bad. You know, so the, the potential for, for governance as a service, obviously that appeals to libertarian minded people and there'll be a lot of people that are libertarian minded that are very interested in what's happening in places like Prospera.
- [17:56]
Host (Carl)
Yeah.
- [17:56]
Ian Davis
And rightly so. And what. Why wouldn't they be? But if you start getting down into the nitty gritty of something like the network State, which is the basis for the, the model that they're trialing in, for example, Prospera, that is a. That is a. One of the things that I noticed in the Network State, written by Balaji Srinivasan is there's no clarity in there about what kind of unified ledger he's talking about. There's no mention in there whether it's. Whether it's permissioned or permissionless. It is a subject which isn't touched. Why? Because you change the nature of the project depending on what model you've got in mind. Now, in Srinivasan's case, he says all value goes digital and nothing exists unless it's on chain.
- [18:47]
Host (Carl)
Yeah.
- [18:48]
Ian Davis
Now he. And now if you look at what other people like, people like Lewis Mosley in the uk, who's a representative of Palantir, when they're talking about all value going digital, they literally mean. Or Larry Fink, another good example, they literally mean everything.
- [19:06]
Host (Carl)
Yeah.
- [19:07]
Ian Davis
Everything going digital. Now, if that includes our rights, our, you know, even the functional things like the licenses that we use, every. Everything only existing in a. In a functional capacity on a ledger of some kind, and therefore controlling access to that centralizes power. It doesn't decentralize it, which is that. Which is the antithesis of the libertarian ethos, if you like.
- [19:37]
Host (Carl)
Yeah. My guess with Balaji is that, you know, he built a framework and the intention was for people to deploy their own network states and, you know, maybe build those into charter cities. And so maybe leaving some things ambiguous was intentional, allowing whoever's heading up these projects to decide on their own. And I guess that's part of the interesting thing about it. But I want to get to the next question, because my audience is mostly a crypto audience, and there's a lot of people trying to rooting for the Clarity act right now. We had Genus act passed last year, Clarity act right now. And, you know, it hasn't seemed to gone through right now, but a lot of people that are going to watch us are rooting for Clarity act because they believe it'll make their bags appreciate in value. Right. Their holdings go up because we'll get all kinds of, you know, more buying and things like that. But from my understanding is that I think all three of you guys believe that there's a lot of that, that act would do more Harm than good. If any of you guys would like to step in and elaborate, please, please go ahead.
- [20:46]
Simon Dixon
Well, I, I guess I could give a quick summary of where we're at. I think it's important to understand, you know, the, the background and like, you know, originally you had Bitcoin, this project. You know, I personally believe, I've always said Satoshi was Hal Finney and Len Sasserman, both who were connected via David Chom in Netherlands through their cryptography work. And that led to what I think was, if you think about what the project was and David Chom's project Digicash, it was effectively a mechanism for creating private transactions on top of a banking layer. And it was shut down because they did private transactions. And the choke point was the banking layer. And so from there you had Bitcoin, Bitcoin took out the banking layer and then you had an open source project that was effectively funded by providing electricity into miners. And then rules were enforced by nodes and then new code was suggested in an open source way by developers. But if you look back what we've seen through the Epstein files, there was interest around about this was 2009 and 2011. Jeffrey Epstein tried to contact some of the early developers like Amir Toki and Gavin Andreessen. Gavin Andreessen, if you look back at it, he left the project. Sorry, Satoshi left the project when Gavin Andreessen said that he was going to meet the CIA. Also Len Sasserman after one month after that was, was allegedly, you know, hung himself. And also later you had, you know, accident with Hal Finney as well. And so that's kind of like the, the history and the early infiltration attempts with Jeffrey Epstein were Gavin Andreessen, Amir Taki and what were the projects that Amir Taki was working on? Well, it was coin joins and private transactions. So how you can obfuscate your transactions by using a wallet that joins all the different dots together. There was the privacy layer, the open source layer, the decentralized layer. Then you had Peter Thiel come along in the Epstein files and he was saying, how is our, I forget the word right now. How was our info, you know, our destabilization project going in Bitcoin and it was talking about unit of account, median of exchange. The Bitcoin community are confused. They don't know whether it's money or store of value. But this is when Brock Pierce came on the scene. And Brock Pierce was the one that paid for some developers to create stablecoins. And stablecoins later became the precursor for central bank digital currencies. And Brock Peers, on multiple occasions, was facilitating investments for Jeffrey Epstein into various companies. Some were like Blockstream, which employed a bunch of the developers and various other things. So we had this whole background. But clearly one thing I've always said, Brock Peers, I remember from the early bitcoin conferences, he was the one that tried to tell me that Dr. Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto, and that was obviously the hard fork into a more centralized version of Bitcoin called Bitcoin Cash. So when you look back at all these things, you can see that the real project was a gateway drug into a stablecoin, which is the precursor for centralized.
- [24:26]
Host (Carl)
Just real quick, just to make sure I heard you, because I always associate Craig, right, with bitcoin sv.
- [24:36]
Simon Dixon
I know he started with bitcoin cash and then he forked off a bitcoin cash with bitcoin sv.
- [24:40]
Host (Carl)
So Craig Wright, I didn't know this. So Craig Wright and Roger Ver were working together.
- [24:51]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. So if you look right back in the early bitcoin days, the big advocates for bitcoin cash were Jihan Wu, which was the creator of bitcoin cash, Bitcoin ABC, it was called then. And then he was funded by Sequoia Capital via Beijing, his company in Beijing, which was doing ASIC miners. Then you had Roger Ver, who was an early investor. And then you also had Dr. Craig Wright, who was supported by John Matonis. John Matonis was from the Bitcoin foundation and he was the one that introduced Dr. Craig Wright and said he's Satoshi Nakamoto. And then if you remember, Gavin Andreessen, the developer, said, I've got inequivocal cryptographic proof that he is. He does control the Satoshi wallet, which then was proven false. So you had John Matonis. Wow. You had Gavin Andreessen. You had Dr. Craig Wright. And then later Roger Ver said, I think he's satoshi and he's part of Bitcoin Cash, which was created by Jihan Wu out of China. And so that was like that, that kind of fork off project. But really then there was the other project, which was the Brock Beer side. So he came in, started facilitating investments into Coinbase and Blockstream via some of the garage band, different funds that Jeffrey Epstein was involved with.
- [26:15]
Ian Davis
And.
- [26:16]
Simon Dixon
And then you had obviously his contact with Gary Gensler, the head of the sec, that then came from mit. And MIT was the one that when the Bitcoin foundation went bust and they tried to take over some of the Funding and their project became forks, stablecoins and central bank digital currencies. So now if you forward to where we are now, Trump was installed with significant funding from Elon Musk and the technical industrial complex, significant funding from the Mellon banking family and the financial industrial complex. And then the third largest was Mariam Adelson, the connection to Israel and the military industrial complex. So those were like his three funding. And the first thing he said is he infiltrated the bitcoin conference and said we're going to turn America into crypto capital. Then he started making significant wealth by launching meme coins, by launching World Liberty Financial, by selling off presidential pardons to Justin sun, started engaging in probably $6 billion of fraud, alleged very questionable activities, tripled his net worth just through his crypto investments and didn't do anything for bitcoin. But what was the first thing we got? We got genius act. Genius act effectively was stablecoin legislation that tilted the favor for a covert central bank digital currency to JP Morgan. Because in order to launch a stablecoin and pay yield, you had to get a banking license. Now there were then lots of controversy around could stablecoins pay yield? And then you had Clarity Act. In order to give clarity, are you regulated by the occ, the currency commission, are you regulated by the SEC as a security or are you regulated by CFTC as a commodity? And right now we got a markup which was from the banking lobby which effectively made it where the only way to pay straight up yield is to have a banking license. But the crypto lobby through the Trump administration got it where you could connect stablecoin yield to a rewards program or a loyalty program. But at the same time he started issuing banking licenses for the various crypto stablecoin issuers. So really these are the COVID favorable terms to get a banking license. And obviously the end goal of all of this is the precursor to what Larry Fink, what the World Economic Forum want, which is the tokenization and the programmability of that. And we started to see lots of freeze functions in defi contracts, freeze functions in stable coins. But you know, the bitcoin in self custody via, you know, has not been able to be frozen. And so we started to see new infiltration attempts into new implementations of Bitcoin. And you can start to see some of the core developers, there's been a lot of controversy where people have been chucked out, fired and people are starting to really re look which members of the bitcoin core developers might be alternative agendas. And we've had competing implementations. So all of that to say is that stablecoins combined with social credit scores, which is Elon Musk's part of the play in X. And the reason that things are starting to become more obvious right now is because they want us talking. They're deliberately trying to manufacture civil unrest. They're drawing us into our most radical version of ourself through content and control of algorithms. And then they want the unrest to implement the police and surveillance state, which has been a long term project through Patriot act, through Genius act and now Clarity act in order to essentially replace the Constitution with this programmable 1984 Orwellian state. And Palantir is the other part. AI, social credits, stable coins. You got the complete control grid.
- [30:36]
Host (Carl)
I wanted Simon, on some note, because it might be a little confusing for some of the viewers who haven't maybe watched our previous interviews, but you did, you did say that folks like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk and others essentially kind of are controlling Trump or you know, funded the campaign and have a lot of influence over there. And then it would seem that when we look at like a central bank, digital currency and social credit scoring systems and a control state, that that would be the wish of the government, would be the first thing that most people look at.
- [31:17]
Catherine Austin Fitts
So can I jump in and just describe this from the consumer standpoint?
- [31:22]
Host (Carl)
Yeah, let me just finish the question Captain, and then you assignment can answer. But just so it's clear for the audience. But Simon, in the past you had said that even guys like Elon Musk are, has been vassalized or taken over because of, you know, by the essentially the financial industrial complex or the proof of weapons system. So, so I get the question is here is that if Elon has more power than Trump or the government in some degree and Elon has been so vocal about freedom and censorship resistant and was building X money originally before Bitcoin to try to build a permissionless or like a peer to peer system that can circumvents the banks and stuff. It doesn't seem like Elon's nature to want to release something like a credit scoring system. Right, A social credit scoring system. But I was wondering if you guys can clear this up so people understand what's, what's being talked about here.
- [32:18]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, I'll say stuff. And then let's have, let's hear from Catherine because she's got some brilliant stuff to say on this as well. It's important a few things you have to understand. Don't listen to anything anyone says, let's look at what they do. So whatever Elon says is rubbish. Whatever Trump says is rubbish. You just got to follow their money and understand what they're investing in and what they're doing. And you'll realize they're doing the exact opposite of what they're saying. And so it's not correct to say Elon controls Trump. It's correct to say that the political system is a pay to play system. And if you want policy, you write policy, as Ian talked about earlier, via NGOs and think tanks. And then they look like government policy, but they're actually privately funded. And then your policy becomes an auction. And various Congress members, Senate members and presidents will say, how much are you willing to pay me to do this? And so then it becomes a monetary auction. And the job of the President is to make it look like it's in support of the American people or an American first agenda or to make America great again. But that's just narrative to put something acceptable. So politicians play a couple of roles. They're a battering ram to take the blame for all the things that happen as a result of corporations using us as collateralized debt obligations. But also they're there to just spin narratives to make you think something else is happening. And again, Elon is an entrepreneur. An entrepreneur is subordinate to capital. And so his net worth is tied to his share option program. You know, Elon being the richest person in the world doesn't mean he can write a check for a trillion dollars. A Saudi prince can write a trip for a trillion dollars. Somebody that's got a billion dollars in Bitcoin can send a billion dollars in Bitcoin. Net worth in the American system means that you have options programs, you have debt, you have leverage, and your net worth is very much paper for compliance with the blackmail operation and a capital requirement structure. He works for financial capital, but he also gets money from Pentagon and government budgets. And then, so if you look at the top of it, it really is the, what I call the financial industrial complex now, just on the cbdc. Then we'll go over to Catherine. CBDC is a goal for China, it's a goal for Europe, it's a Bank for International Settlements, European Union project. America is where you extract all the privatized value via the stock market. But everywhere else, they get centralized states that plug in. And the project for central bank digital currencies, it started with Enbridge at the bank for International Settlement. It moved over to uae and it's plugging uae, Saudi Arabia, Thailand China and Hong Kong together, which are all the big nodes for a lot of the drug cartels and drug trafficking routes as well. And so if you look at the Iran operation right now, all of the laundering and circumvention of sanctions for Iran, for Russia, happen via uae. So UAE is kind of becoming a new node in this control grid as well.
- [35:37]
Ian Davis
Wow.
- [35:37]
Host (Carl)
Catherine. Sorry. Go ahead.
- [35:39]
Catherine Austin Fitts
Yeah, so I agree with everything that Ian and Simon have said so far. I just want to make sure that the individual, you know, the citizen or consumer can understand it from their point of view.
- [35:50]
Host (Carl)
Thank you.
- [35:50]
Catherine Austin Fitts
So let's look at some models. The U.S. government spends six to seven trillion dollars a year, and it receives four, approximately four trillion dollars in revenues and taxes and tariffs and fees. And that means it goes to the bond market for 2 to 3 trillion dollars a year. And that's what controls the White House and the President are not in control. And I would say that Trump was put in, you know, as Simon described, the President does the marketing. Trump was put in to market the control grid using election fraud, immigration, child safety, some of these other things. And that's what he's been doing. So day one of the administration was data centers. Because if you're going to do that social credit system, you're going to collect and manage and analyze in real time enormous amounts of data. The way you can see where this started to go immediately in the administration was what they did with Doge and that describes Elon Musk's role in Palantir. What did Doge do? If I was going to stop financial fraud or lower the deficit in the government, there are certain places I would automatically go. I would automatically go to the government accounts at the New York fed, particularly for DOD and HUD, where 20 plus trillion dollars is missing. You know, there are certain places I would go to stop the fraud and to stop the drain on the deficit. That's not where Doge went. If you wanted to build AI with high quality payment system for the purpose of building, whether it's social credit systems or control systems, you would go exactly where Doge went. And what was interesting is the moment that Doge got the first three or four immediate downloads of agency data, it did a deal with Palantir and Palantir stock just went to the moon. And that deal was Doge AI and Palantir AI. And from then on, now that gives them tremendous amounts of data, but managing that data takes, takes equipment, it takes people, it takes machinery. And that's when the Department of Defense and other agencies started doing enormous high margin contracts with Palantir, presumably to help manage that data and integrate it with other things. Okay, now let me take the next step. The important thing to understand about public private partnerships, and if you read Ian's book, he's written a lot about this, Public private partnerships are designed to use public money to transfer technology, authority and other things to private companies where they couldn't possibly do it on an economic basis in the market. And the problem with that system is it's evolved over the decades and decades is it's highly uneconomic. I have an online book called Dylan Reed and the Aristocracy of Stock Profits and it talks about how you use taxpayers money to fund private companies, drive their stocks up, they generate capital gains, that money goes back to Congress's capital gains. And so that's part of the machinery that we're seeing. And the problem ultimately for a society is if you're doing and growing these public private partnerships and we are exploding them as we speak, you need to subsidize them. The reserve currency can help subsidize. But one of the reasons we're seeing so much more violence happening globally and abrogation of sort of our global COP obligations is it's taking more and more plunder to keep a highly uneconomic series of public partnerships going. So there's a fundamental economics here that is driving you one, towards the competition over cost of capital and energy with China, but also driving you into this control grid because that's going to facilitate the ultimate plunder, particularly in the Western world. So let's look at this from a consumer's point of view. What you're doing with stablecoins in the Genius act is it's sort of a phase to get in ultimately to a pure CBDC system. But what you're doing is you're moving the consumer from what I call, and it was the escape key substack that first described it this way, from two lock money to three lock money. So very simply, if I'm banking and I'm a consumer, there are two people who get to agree to transaction. One is the buyer and the other is the seller. That's the two locks. The financial institution can intercede, you know, as they did with the Canadian truckers, for know your money or sanctions or other things. But generally it's a two lock system. The power of moving everything onto the distributed ledger, whether it's through the Genius act with stablecoins or digital tokens with the Clarity act and the rules on yield for stable coins. So those Two acts are trying to get the consumer to move out of two lock money to three lock money. What is three lock money? Three lock money is between the buyer and the seller is literally a third lock which is being engineered with AI up to real time. It can not only have highly complex algorithms and rules, but those rules can change dynamically in response to rigid behavior. And it can be done on a custom basis, one on one. This is why we need the explosion of data centers to manage the data. So we're talking about a very highly customized system. Now what does that system do? That system can literally give the bankers not just control of monetary policy, but now they can not only control fiscal policy, but implementation fiscal policy and strip all legislatures and executive branch of all their power. That doesn't mean they'll go away. They may continue to use them as theater as they now do. But we're looking at a system, if it goes live and we go to an all digital system means that the consumers, every transaction is subject to, let's call that third lock Mr. Global. Mr. Global has a say in every transaction in the system. But now we're talking about a world where there's absolutely no representative government. They can decide what the taxes are and just take them out of your account, including stripping you of all your assets. So what do we see in Gaza? Because I think Gaza is a perfect example of the prototype. Gaza is a method. And what they're saying is we take your land and we give you a token. And that token, what will it be? It will be literally the equivalent of your governance system. It will come with your governance system. And so from a consumer standpoint, you do not want to go into a three lock system. In other words. And so if you go to Solari right now, we just published the day we filed comment to the OCC on Friday, who are taking comments on the Genius act because there's a rulemaking process and so there is still time at the state legislators and with the regulators to put up guardrails against that third lock. And that's the question, if you're a consumer or anyone, how do you stop that third lock from going into effect and literally plundering all your assets to keep the system going.
- [43:14]
Host (Carl)
Yeah. Toward the end of this in a little bit, I want to ask all of you guys about what this world looks like that we're building and how to opt out of it if anyone wants to.
- [43:22]
Simon Dixon
But before what Catherine said, just so there's some action on the Clarity act right now, it's currently had all of its reviews. The bank lobby have just put forward their draft, which is the Bankers Association. But what's going to enter now is a political process. Because Trump has committed so much fraud with World Liberty Financial, the Democrats are going to push back because of the ethics clause. And the ethics is going to be about politic politicians engaging in crypto and doing one. And so that's the next phase of any type of delay or political process for anybody that wants to involve themselves in it.
- [44:05]
Host (Carl)
Thanks, Catherine. One of the things that I, I mean, sure stood out, what you were just talking about, I'm sure the viewer will too, is you talked about $20 trillion of money missing. And I know that you've been speaking about the fact that there's parallel societies being built, built out right now that most people don't aren't aware of. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that?
- [44:31]
Catherine Austin Fitts
Yeah. So if you come to Solari, we have a website called missingmoney.solar.com and we have.
- [44:38]
Host (Carl)
How do you spelling that? Solari.
- [44:39]
Catherine Austin Fitts
So people know S O L A R I. So it's Solar with an I at the end.
- [44:44]
Ian Davis
Okay.
- [44:44]
Catherine Austin Fitts
And we have seven briefing papers that describe the financial and monetary laws related to financial management. The federal government. A process began in fiscal 1998 where the federal government started to massively ignore the laws related to both the constitutional laws and the legislative laws and regulations as to how money's supposed to be managed from the federal government. And from 1998 to 2000, 2015 that we know of, there was 21 trillion of what's called undocumentable adjustments. And there's no way to know without auditing the New York Fed accounts for the US Government how much money is missing in terms of credit and cash? I suspect it could be more than that. Now that 21 trillion of undocumentable adjustments can be money coming in and going out. So, for example, when we went to Iraq, we changed the rules, so Iraqi oil revenues are deposited in the New York Fed. So that could be incoming as well. What happened was there was a major blow up after 2015, which was the largest amount that went missing, and pressure on the government to obey the audit laws of the government. And the resolution of that in the first Trump administration was to adopt a policy called Federal Accounting standards advisory board 56, which basically said the government can keep secret books. And when you combine that with the classification laws and the national security laws, it also means that large contractors and banks doing business with the federal government can also keep secret books. Now, what that means is if you and I look at the large cap stock market or the equivalent in the bond market, the disclosure is meaningless. If you're an investment advisor, you have no idea what the actual finances are. It's one of the reasons I love listening to Simon and Ian, because you'll get a better sense of what the financials are from listening to them describe what's happening than reading the financial statements. Anyway, so from then on, we've sort of been in never never land where the federal government is completely out of control. Now, it's not just that there was 21 trillion in undocumentable adjustments. We know during the bailouts, according to the Levy Institute, 29 trillion got loaned or given. The TARB inspector general said it was 23 trillion dollars. But suffice that when you add that to the 5 trillion injected during the going direct reset during the pandemic, not even counting quantitative easing, you're talking about $55 trillion. So the question is, where is that money gone and what has it done? And my theory is, and you would hear this during the 90s, the bankers would say, democracy, the republic form of government, no longer works. We, the bankers need to control monetary policy centrally. And I think what they started to do is implement a financial coup where literally you move money out of the existing entities and you move it into other entities. We know the offshore havens ballooned tremendously during this period as the money went missing. And then you use that money to build a new system. And what is that new system? That new system is a system where the bankers control fiscal policy as well as monetary policy. How do you implement that? You implement that with very expensive and very luxurious public private partnerships that lead you into what Simon was describing with the social credit system. Now, there was tremendous pushback against cbdc. And the Fed chairman has said clearly we need authorizing legislation in the United States to do cbc. The weakness of the central bank from the banker's point of view in the US is it's a creature of Congress and Congress has the power to pull the rug on it. And so I think what they've decided to do is go with the stablecoin digital token construct. At some point, they will reach the point where they can then implement a straight CBDC if they want to. They may not need to, but they've been very cagey about making sure no legislation would pass in the United States that would prevent a CBDC after 20. So I'm assuming that the fight they've been making to stop legislation against CBDC is to protect ultimately that ability to do it. And the important thing to understand is, you know, as we've described, this is a global process. What you're watching, you know, the, the constructs of how the EU will do it is different than how the Chinese will do it. But what we seem to have is a global agreement on using an all digital system to implement a frightening level of central control of all citizens. And that's why it's very, very important that anybody listening to this understand what they can do to shift us from going into a state of what's really to me, a slavery system.
- [49:59]
Host (Carl)
So when you talk about parallel societies and how what you just explained really benefits the folks at the top, are you talking about something just more like a K shaped economy or are you talking about like literally this money's going missing and people at the top are building some other sort of their escape hatch or some way for them or what's. What does that mean?
- [50:23]
Catherine Austin Fitts
So I think, I think you're literally talking about a financial coup where you shift the resources. So, so I think that 21 and 29 trillion was shifting as much as you could shift through financial assets. The big play is if you look at the balance sheet of the United States, our real assets on the balance sheet in the United States are much greater than the money's been shifted out. So when people say we have $39 trillion of debt, we have hundreds of trillions of dollars of real assets on that balance sheet. And I think the big play is how do you get that shifted into private hands? We've shifted money, if you look at the technology we've shifted since World War II into corporate and private hands. It's, the value is astronomical. I don't even begin to know how to totally value it. But there's still plenty of real assets to be moved, particularly the national lands, you know, and all the minerals and other resources on it. So, you know, the coup is far from over. Now where have they shifted it? I don't feel like they've shifted it necessarily to another place place it's in accounts separate from the government. So it's a, you know, it's literally a financial coup. You move it out. I always said the pandemic was that money breaking back in. What we saw during the pandemic was an effort to shut down Main street and consolidate massive market share upstair into the publicly traded stocks. So this is a process and it's ongoing and it's far, far from over.
- [51:53]
Host (Carl)
Yeah.
- [51:53]
Simon Dixon
Thanks, Carl. As you point out you got the K shape side which is all the on balance sheet stuff. That's perpetuated by the fact that all currency is debt and therefore it's a Ponzi scheme because the money to pay the interest on the debt doesn't exist and therefore you always have to roll over the government, individual and corporate debt which creates that K shaped economy which is the concentration of all legitimate reported assets. But then you have the black ops economy. This is the remnants of the Dutch East India Company, the British East India Company, all of those drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, human trafficking, sex trafficking routes, those are all off balance sheet. And so the amount of fraud that happens off balance sheet via the deep state intelligence networks that is run by shadow governments, you could think of it as massive centralized concentration and centralization of power at the state level. Then you get the deconstruction of the state into private interest through private public partnership. And then through the black ops you have this one world government agenda.
- [53:07]
Catherine Austin Fitts
So Simon, I've always wanted to ask you if you thought they were going to run a two database system, all the COVID stuff on an open database and all the overt stuff on the distributed ledger. Because I just don't see them putting that stuff on a distributed ledger.
- [53:23]
Simon Dixon
It's why I know that privacy and self custody and the two tiered system they're building in Bitcoin right now will exist because it's a bit like you have the UK and then you have the islands. The islands exist because elites want them to exist in Bitcoin for everyone. They want Bitcoin in custody through a BlackRock ETF via strategy and a Treasury company and they want you to leverage against it, borrow against it. So you mine fiat currency using your crypto in a Wall street wrapper. But then the elites, they want the exit, they want to be able to take their wealth and they want to coin join it and they want it in self custody where they can transport it wherever they want to go. So it's kind of that two tier system.
- [54:12]
Catherine Austin Fitts
I had a great laugh thinking that you were right when the US Marshals and BlackRock decided to use the same custodian for Bitcoin. Okay, now I see it.
- [54:28]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, they turned like Coinbase into a public company and then under the Trump administration you had all of these companies go in public and then that's leading into clarity act, genius act and then bringing it all under bank secrecy act and various other things.
- [54:44]
Ian Davis
I mean one thing I'm going back to what Catherine was saying about, you know, we, we we can look at kind of where budgets and where money has gone missing in budgets and we can try and work out where it might be now if we knew. But if you, even if you just step back and just look at the nature of what the global economy is supposed to be, you know, if, if, if we, if we think about, you know, the average. And I'm not, don't want to get into the weeds of talking about whether GDP is a realistic thing at all, but, but nonetheless, if we just look at the numbers, so GDP supposedly globally is about 100 trillion. Ish. Ish. Then you take into assets, you know, maybe 500 trillion in total, you know, on an annual basis in terms of money sloshing around. Then you start looking at things like the derivatives market, and then you look at the debt and on its face it's absurd. On its face, you know, on its face there isn't enough money on the planet to cover any of those debt obligations.
- [55:46]
Catherine Austin Fitts
Yeah, but the debt obligations are contrived. We could have just issued greenbacks and we didn't need to have any debt. But let me just bring up one thing which is to me the little secret here, and that is in the 90s when I was first discovered, relational databases. I downloaded all the US federal data on spending and credit and taxation and I started to look at it by place and I took, I had, we had this program with MIT. So I took my smartest MIT PhD and I asked him over the weekend, please figure out if we could just re engineer all this money to make things as wonderful as possible, you know, what's possible. So we were stimulating what was possible if we re engineer all the money. And he kept coming back to me and I kept saying, it's impossible. That's too, you know, I mean, the pie was growing. So I mean he was just creating massive amounts of wealth. And I just said, that can't be true. Finally said, look, you got to take some days off and go look in my numbers and get into it. And what I discovered, and it's much worse. Now words cannot express to you how financially expensive tyranny is because you not only encourage enormous waste, but you, you pay people to become progressively more unproductive, which they do. You know, everybody develops bad habits, both the low and middle and upper. You know, everybody develops bad habits because you can just go plunder and get more money, especially if you have the reserve currency and a big military. But words cannot express to you how much wealth could be theoretically created if we reduce, steadily reduce tyranny tyranny is unbelievably expensive. And that's the little piece of good news in all of this, is that in theory we could have a pretty amazing world.
- [57:39]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, the thing on the. Absolutely agree with that. Just an incredibly inefficient use. And the human capital costs, the psychological costs, these psychological operations, they are really dehumanizing. And I can see that in the relationship. The breakdown of the family, birth rates, like suicide rates, drug addictions, career choices, like in every matrix you can see the human cost of this system. I wanted to point out as well one other thing. In the derivative market, it's important to understand that the west, like the collective west via London and New York, has significantly more paper contracts on gold and silver and even Bitcoin now than there is gold, silver and Bitcoin in existence. And structurally that's playing into a lot of the changes that we're seeing right now. So China by definition in Shanghai is accumulating as much real gold as possible without having paper derivative contracts on top of it, while the west is losing gold and losing silver and losing real commodities while increasing the number of paper contracts. That creates a structural instability in the Western financial system that China is very aware of. And so if you look at like the legacy history, UAE is becoming the new Switzerland. It's pulling, it's kind of forming every relationship. On the front end it looks like UAE is a proxy of Israel, but at the same time it does all of the money laundering operations for Iran while normalizing with Israel. It hosts cop like climate change conferences while being the third largest oil producer. It's come out of OPEC now at the same time as being creating new energy markets with brics, it hosts Russian oligarchs as well as American colonels. And so in the Western side you kind of see one side of it, but there's, they're being formed. But if you look at uae, it's where a lot of these, the, the ones with the largest gold markets are the ones where the legacy black op operations to gold markets exist. So you know, for example, if you've got dollars, you can buy gold with your dollars and then you can go to UAE and then you're able to buy discounted oil in the sanctioned countries. And then the gold ends up through this transfer in the Shanghai market, which makes sure that it doesn't get out because it's got capital controls. And so more and more derivatives contracts are being constructed. And if you look at for example, Hong Kong's, another one that was the Remnants of the opium wars and the drug trafficking routes and effectively those gold to drug and black op markets, they still exist in these, in these havens. And all of that gold is going eastwards and the paper contracts are going westwards, which kind of, it creates a structural rug pull on the entire economy the moment China wants to use it.
- [60:55]
Catherine Austin Fitts
So, Simon, when you say that UAE runs Enbridge, what does that mean? What's their role in Enbridge?
- [61:02]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, it's interesting because it is framed as a federated network of nodes where every country effectively runs a node. But there was this really weird handover from being a Bank for International Settlements project to kind of UAE being like the one that was leading the project. And it kind of reminds me of like the European Union. It was like, it was always like the bank for International Settlements always wanted to centralize Europe into a single currency. And then suddenly it became the European Union and these unelected officials. And it's just a very weird handover that doesn't quite mean anything. And so uae, all of the different countries, they're running these federated nodes. They have their own central bank digital currencies. And it requires this network of federated nodes to verify transactions in a more centralized way, but with a decentralized infrastructure so that not one of the countries has more, more, more power than the others.
- [62:08]
Catherine Austin Fitts
Okay.
- [62:09]
Ian Davis
I mean, I, I was, I was interested that, I mean, I would. When we consider about, you know, what the, the underlying kind of technology that is kind of pushing all this, the development of AI, if we, I think deep seat V4 has just come out, hasn't it? So deep seat V4 is kind of the kind of agentic, the, the, the long chain kind of agentic AI that, that people have been, been sort of anticipating, waiting for. And if you look at the development of that, that couldn't have happened without Western. Well, basically Nvidia GPUs, it couldn't. The development of. It couldn't have happened without that sharing of technology or transfer of technology. Now, when the Trump administration, I mean, going back to what we were mentioning earlier about how, and what something Simon said about how the narratives we are given are meaningless. They are. Well, they're not meaningless. There's an intent to them, there's a propaganda intent to them, invariably, but they're not. If we believe what we're told, we are barking up the wrong tree completely. Because Trump, Trump said at the time that, you know, that they had to do something about specifically Deep Seat using, using Nvidia GPUs. We can't have that anymore. That's not happening anymore. We're, we're stopping all that immediately. And, but what he didn't mention and what, what people didn't know perhaps was that he, he just signed an agreement, a supply contract agreement with the AI development hub in the United Arab Emirates that he called, I think he called it the, the U.S. uAE AI accelerator. And, and the agreement was that these Jeep, that these Nvidia GPUs would be sent on mass to the UAE for AI development. And that is outside of China. That is China's primary hub for AI development, you know, outside of China. So, so, so the development was ongoing. They've moved to Hawaii ships now. And I think it's the accent. Is it the accent chip? They've moved to a gpe. They've moved to. But, but nonetheless that development. And one of, one of the things that we're, another narrative that we're given is this notion that there's this competition at a global level between, you know, advert, what appear to be adversarial nation states, blocks even, or, and, and when you start looking into how things such as AI development play out, collaboration is far more common than adversarial confrontations. There's far more collaboration that goes on, especially when we're talking about something that has such an enormous global impact. So for example, Enbridge, looking at the future of the international monetary and financial system, how is, how is this, how is this system going to work? So you get international collaboration between, you know, nations more or governments more often than not than you see the, any kind of confrontation and we are laboring under the. Or given the given to believe in these narratives that are based on confrontation. But most of the time when you look at it, the confrontation is not there.
- [65:40]
Simon Dixon
Ian, I wanted to completely agree with that. Sorry, Carl, we're just. Conversation off. I hope you're okay with this.
- [65:46]
Host (Kyle)
No.
- [65:46]
Host (Carl)
Good, go ahead.
- [65:47]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, but a couple of points. The precursor to the UAE Nvidia chip deal as well was that Trump launched World Liberty Financial in his new stable coin and they invested $2 billion which went into the stable coin. The stable coin is investing in Treasuries that kicks off 60 to 80 million dollars worth of yield and then invested it into Binance. And Binance was then regulated within the uae. And remember what was the precursor to Binance under the Biden administration? Well, it was taken out in Operation Chokepoint 2.0 and the condition of the settlement was CZ only got four months in prison, but the US Department of Justice had to take over the compliance department. Now, that's 285 million accounts. And one of the first thing they did during the Gaza genocide is they started to say that Palestinian accounts are frozen, Lebanese accounts are frozen, Turkish accounts are frozen. And that was on request of the, you know, Israel, Israel for Israeli forces. And so, and then you had CZ come out, then you had World Liberty Financial, then you had that investment in Binance, Binance gets a license in UAE, UAE invest $2 billion in Trump stablecoin and then CZ gets a presidential pardon and Justin sun comes along who's, you know, who basically revamped the ICO that was failed. And then the Trump administration engaged in all these interesting investments that are deeply connected to fusion and energy and all sorts of stuff and energy plays. And then if you think about it, what's happening in Iran? Well, Iran, UAE and Russia are the largest sovereign bitcoin miners in the world. And, and it's believed that Iran was powering its bitcoin mining with nuclear energy. You know, hence the whole nuclear conversation. And then Trump's public company suddenly becomes a nuclear fusion company and starts becoming a bitcoin strategic reserve company. And then you just see all these, because I know all the different relationships in terms of the companies that they partnered with. You can see all the corruption there. And then one more to your point on collaboration. I talked about the structural rug pull that China has with the derivative market. There is also another one on the AI market. So what I think is happening here, this is my theory, is that we've just manufactured the pricing and energy and food crisis. This is going to be the worst crisis we've ever seen. It's not factored into the market right now. Food insecurity, this is pricing people out of the market in a major, major way. We have to have structural higher prices. Those that are on the bread line, they'll have to sell their assets, meet their living costs. This is you will own nothing and be happy World Economic Forum agenda to the highest degree. But the interesting thing is what does it actually lead to? Well, the stock markets are at new all time highs. And what are we getting? What is the narrative now? China's about to win the AI race. Energy is national security. And so therefore energy and AI is the justification for the ginormous money printing. Bailout yields are going through the roof, that's affecting mortgages, that's pushing higher bankruptcies. We've got Palantir integrated with the U.S. department of Agriculture. You've got all of these mass bankruptcies of Businesses just like Covid, just like tariffs, just like this one. So this is massive concentration of wealth upwards, massive merger and acquisition activity, massive bankruptcies. You engineer that civil unrest and then eventually the yields go out. And so the Fed needs to start buying the yields. So you have regime change at the Fed, which we've got now, and regime change at the Fed is that you need to probably increase the Fed's balance sheet. What's the narrative and justification national security for artificial intelligence? We need to bail out the AI companies because they can't afford these energy costs. And so the all of the jobs are coming from building out data centers. So then you get that narrative, you get your big print, you get your 7 to 10 trillion dollars, whatever it's required. But what have we already seen? Anyone that's engaging or doing anything with AI right now knows that China has figured out how to do what America's doing at 1/5 the cost. And they're using completely different infrastructure. And America's using this bailed out incredibly expensive ginormous data center grids that we're building. And so when you want to do another rug pull, you just say, by the way, all of that was wasted, but we might as well repurpose it and use it right now. Because China's got, you know, they're doing all the alternative energy we're going to get, obviously the big renewable energy investment across Europe. We're going to be doing windmills, nuclear, we're going to be doing hydro Cuba type of energy. So that picks up again, blackrock's making record profits on the final parts of oil and energy, record profits on renewable energy. And then it's going to have a massive concentration of power into BlackRock portfolio companies with each rug pull.
- [71:30]
Catherine Austin Fitts
Right, but you're back to this dynamic of the plunder model is getting less and less economic, requiring more and more plunder. And the question is, can they hold that together with the programmable money? Sorry, Ian, go ahead.
- [71:44]
Ian Davis
Well, no, but war is the gift that keeps on giving, isn't it? If that's what you want to do. I mean, war is fantastic for that. I mean, we saw that the Crystal leader, George A.A. from the IMF as pretty much as soon or about a couple of weeks after the conflict with Iran started, she gave a speech in which she said, going back to what you were saying earlier, Catherine, that obviously what this means is that the tight fiscal space that governments have got has got to be more clo. More closely coordinated with monetary policy. So we better put the central banks in charge of government policy and government spending commitments. That has to happen in order. I mean, this speech was unbelievable. In order that we can ensure that sustainable development goals are met. That our new partnership with the International Energy Agency, which means that basically we're going to ration energy on a global scale through a centralized mechanism with the bank for International Settlements.
- [72:42]
Catherine Austin Fitts
Well, if you look at programmable money, it's very much, much designed to, you know, to do one on one resource and energy allocation with the programmable money rules. I mean, that's at the very heart of social credit.
- [72:57]
Ian Davis
And it's the, and it's the heart of technocracy. Because when you think about it, I mean from, in my, in my view, technocracy is the, is the, it's the control of the distribution and allocation of all resources right down at the individual level. It's, it's, it's. And that is how, and when we think about how programmability work within the kind of monetary system, that essentially is what it would achieve. I think, as Simon was alluding to earlier as well, that, you know, it would enable, I mean, I don't think, and I think one of the problems that sometimes that people like us have in trying to articulate this is that it's almost beyond imagination for people to kind of, to realize what can be achieved with the system that they're creating. I mean, the notion, as you said in real world, in, in real time that a decision can be taken at an instant that a transaction is made about whether or not that transaction, transaction will be allowed in your case. And that will be based upon the, you know, the AI's reading of your basically social credit data that you've accumulated that's building your digital twin of you that's going to run parallel with your life for, I mean, it is, I mean, dystopian doesn't even really start to start to explain it. And, and I think that is one of the problems that we've got in trying to get people to, I mean, we're going to go on, I know later we're going to talk about, potentially talk about potential solutions.
- [74:25]
Simon Dixon
Yes.
- [74:25]
Ian Davis
But even getting people to wrap their heads around the nature of the problem because, because it is almost, it is almost beyond comprehension. But it, you know, the, the fact that, you know, you've got systems like for example, Palantir Gotham, that, that governments around the world have bought, I think the, the US government's bought it, the uk, the British government's bought it, the German government's bought it, that enables the Unification of disparate databases. So when you've got something like Trump's EO saying that they're gonna eliminate information silos, how is that going to be done in a, in a technological sense? And people think, you know, if you're imagining teams of bureaucrats sitting around, you know, which people probably do, thinking that this is some sort of bureaucratic exercise, it isn't. AI changes all that. So systems like Gotham can take all data from, you know, the Department of Justice, all the data from the irs, all that can take it and unify it into a single searchable database that can then when a token is applied to you as a representative within that, within that, that effectively unified system, every single aspect of your, every single part of your data can be pulled out of that in real time by systems like Palantir Gotham. That's what, that's what it, what they're building, that infrastructure that's being rolled out and governments are just adopting it. Most people don't even know that their governments have got this stuff. And the, and the objective is quite clearly, you know, the thing that we, that we've all been kind of trying to warn people about for a while, which is this totally unbelievable control system and it is happening, you know, it doesn't really matter where you look.
- [76:17]
Catherine Austin Fitts
So Ian, I just have to tell you. So, you know, we've been working with state legislators to try and put up guardrails on programmable money, but we have three one minute videos that show three central bankers telling you they're going to do this. And what's remarkable is with those three one minute videos we can take a legislator who doesn't even know that this exists and you know, within, within three minutes they can say, oh my God, this is real. Because they are telling you what they're going to do.
- [76:47]
Ian Davis
Yeah, I mean, that's one of the things that I often point out is that you know nothing that I, you know, nothing in our work and you know, I'm sure nothing in Simon's work as well. I mean when nothing that we're in is hidden, it's all public domain information, right? It's all, it's all, you know, you've got people that, you know, bankers and you know, people like Georgie Average, she just stood up and gave a speech where she said we're basically going to control the planet.
- [77:12]
Catherine Austin Fitts
Right?
- [77:13]
Ian Davis
I mean, so, so you just, you just kind of think, well this, people are saying this stuff. They're not joking, they're not joking, they're serious.
- [77:23]
Host (Carl)
Ian, I think I just want to get this across because I think it's important. You talk about the dark, you talk about dystopian, they talk about the dark Enlightenment. And then you've got this kind of, it's this political philosophy being run out of Silicon Valley and you've got guys like Peter Thiel, JD Vance and Dreeson behind this. Can you just elaborate on that a little bit?
- [77:44]
Ian Davis
Yeah, I mean, I mean, I think an interesting way to look at that is. So Mark Anderson is the head of Anderson Horowitz, part partner at Anderson Horowitz. He wrote a thing in 2023 called the techno Optimist Manifesto within and within it he said we are accelerationist and we use the plural we. So he said we are accelerationists. And he's now, he then subsequently ended up being, you know, largely in charge of appointments to the Trump administration from all accounts. And now, you know, the group of people also, we might think about him, the Anderson, Larry Ellison, Palmer, Lucky, you know, Sam Altman, these guys that, that have got an outsized influence obviously over the current Trump, over the current US Government. So, so what when he said we are accelerationists, it's important. What does that mean? Well, accelerationism really is a, an aggressive investment strategy in disruptive technology. And start. So you, you aggressively invest in a startup, you know, more or less to see what would happen. But the, but the, but the point is that, that it, that you focus particularly on disruptive technology. So for example, Sequoia Capital invests in robot dogs and then they, you know, because they can then be weaponized and, and you know, change the face of, of armored warfare. So, so that, that, so you, you, that's the point of accelerationism. And that comes from this idea of the Dark Enlightenment, which was a treatise that was written by a guy in the year in the UK called Nick Land, just based upon the ideas of this, of another group of people who might loosely refer to themselves as neo reactionary thinkers, people like Curtis Yarvin, very close to Peter Thiel and they, and they believe in this notion of using disruptive technology to it. It kind of stems from Joseph Shumpler's argument of creative destruction, is that you can use that to shape markets. And because markets have got a, an associated sociopolitical power goes with that, you can also use it to disrupt socio political structures, governments. You can start shaping things through this aggressive use of venture capitalism.
- [80:12]
Catherine Austin Fitts
So can Ian, can I just jump in? And part of that is if you're going to operationalize disruptive things in government, if you can bring in a group, as Ian is describing, who will ignore the laws and the regulations. So part of the Doge operation was bringing in teams of people who can shift the government operations out of line control, where they will not implement things that are in violations of laws and regulations and shift them into private contractors who will then just simply ignore the laws and regulations. So that's part of the acceleration.
- [80:50]
Ian Davis
Yeah, certainly. Yeah. I mean, if you can. I mean, I explored thinking about whether or not. Personally, I don't think that there is much of any kind of what you might call a philosophical, philosophical underpinning to the way these, these guys, and they are mainly guys the way they think. I, I think it's more expediency, whatever suits our agenda. Because the agenda is the same as we were just talking about globally. You know, it's, this is the imposition of technocratic control on population. That's what they want, how they get there, you know, And I think basically they've just pounced on the ideas that have come out of the dark enlightenment. Because that works.
- [81:35]
Host (Carl)
That's.
- [81:35]
Ian Davis
Oh, well, let's use that idea. We will give that a go. But they, but they have extensively put it into practice and they're, you know, and they're clearly doing that at the moment with, you know, for a, you know, a good example might be the use of. So Mark Zuckerberg, very close to the same group, I think Facebook, when it was still Facebook before it became meta. It might have been when it was meta. I think it's, it's sort of kind of PR spiel was move fast and break things. Which is, which is the, which is the epitome of the kind of accelerationist view view of things. They release Libra Coin knowing full well it's not going to fly. That, you know, their, their filings that they filed with the SEC where they more or less admit we know this isn't going to work, but they invested a lot of money in it. So why did they do that if they know it's not going to work? Because that's what creative destruction does. It. Creative destruction is to create a threat in this case of unregulate, of the unregulated issuance of effectively money, which then causes the, the, the result that you're actually looking for, which is the creation of a regulatory framework for the future of digital currency, which is we end up with, you end up with the genius act. So, so that is, they are, have applied this and they are applying it consistently to change and shape, not Just markets as I said. But you know, the, the wider implications of, of shifting global markets as they can. Musk quite obviously uses social media. And one thing going back to what you were saying earlier when we were talking about these people like Thiel and Musk and Anderson and all these different people, to my view their characters, they're not, they're not fiction cartoons. They're just, they're just Personas that are, that are from worship.
- [83:40]
Simon Dixon
Like they're there for idol worship.
- [83:42]
Ian Davis
Yeah, they're Personas that are fronting networks for whatever agenda.
- [83:47]
Catherine Austin Fitts
Their goal is to make control look fashionable.
- [83:50]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, yeah.
- [83:51]
Ian Davis
I mean one of the things that Musk has done this politically, but he, he did this with the dogecoin as well is, is you know, the kind of experiments that would be of particular interest to this gag of Pete Oligarchs is, is that you know, if you just make offhand comments on, on social media, if you're Elon Musk and you say oh the dogecoin is the best kind, best thing since sliced bread, what market impact will that have? And they're constantly hoovering up this data and analyzing it and, and looking at what, you know, how they can manipulate things. So he took that coin from a joke to I don't know what market cap ended up being $14 million or whatever it ended up being. But, but it, but, but it's, it's not that, that they're particularly interested in in this case the value of the, of the joke meme coin. It's. It's the effect of manipulating information. How can, how can we manipulate that to get what we want which is to, is to aggressively alter, alter the trajectory of things as they currently stand.
- [85:03]
Simon Dixon
That you're seeing that with Mosk in on X like at many of the attempted color revolution and regime change operations. So yeah, you know he was pushing Tommy Robinson in UK to manufacture civil unrest for social media scraping and pre crime arrest. He was involved in Maduro with Venezuela, he was involved in Lulu Brazil. Like you know, if you look through the neo regime change has been create a narrative use algorithm in order to create a radicalized version of the narrative and then platform various characters and you know, if anyone has done any studying like just in terms of you know, Tommy Robinson and his connection to Israel and various other civil unrest campaigns, those are obvious. But also if you look at the final part that you were asking about Kyle is JD Vance for those that don't know, just for completion, I'm sure everyone on here knows, but J.D. vance is not J.D. vance's name. He claims he's a veteran but I think he was like in marketing or something like that. He was a young venture capitalist that was groomed by Peter Till with no experience in investing. And then suddenly he becomes the the Vice President of United States. You know, after a being groomed by Peter Thiel and Palantir.
- [86:32]
Host (Carl)
Wow. Simon, I want to circle back to something you said earlier because I think it might be useful for viewers. You talked about the fact that we've had the military industrial complex and has had stimulus check essentially next is that in the tech and you start talking about the bailouts. And the only way is for kind of the Fed to print their way out of this and we have the new Fed installed. What is that going to mean and look like and when and what does that do to assets? People watching this, what should they be aware of? I mean is there a way that they can position themselves for this? And you did say it would be bigger than that printing would be bigger than Covid.
- [87:15]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. The whole point here is that we're in the fiscal dominance stage. What that means is that you create justification to print as much money as possible which is creating an affordability crisis. That affordability crisis is sending small to medium sized private businesses, farmers, those types of low margin business. It's either driving them into capital distress, sell or bankruptcy. But the real value is concentrating up into the magnificent seven technology companies, the S&P 500. There is also a global multipolar world operation. Prior to the Iran war most foreign stock markets were outperforming the S and P and those foreign currencies, with the exception of a few, were outperforming the dollar. And so that was creating massive capital outflow. Now as soon as the Iran war started, we reversed that trend. We started getting the strengthening of the dollar again because there was all of these new budgets, these new stimulus into increase the military budget from a trillion to a trillion and a half. The, you know, we also looked at the, the massive profits that the energy companies are are creating now you're getting a lot of the price gouging. But also we started to get a bit of a blowout from foreign countries and central banks selling their U.S. treasuries. But that led to an open a real reform within the system. Like again uae, uae. It was framed in the media that UAE is in distress. But all of the retail they were selling their houses, all of the local population they were selling their gold for bitcoin to flee. We had a big correction in the Price of the assets. But it was massive increase in institutional ownership of UAE assets in the UAE etf. And so UAE was like this engineered disaster. The financial industrial complex took over more and more of those assets. And then even though they got $270 billion of US dollars and $1.4 trillion of assets and US equities and various other things, we were told that they might need an FX swap line. What that means essentially is you're doing what happened to Japan, where FX swap lines is how you get the hedge funds that have this Japan carry trade where effectively you can borrow. The UAE can now create dollars like euro dollars, like the European Bank. That's a very exclusive club. The ones that get FX swap lines currently right now are the Swiss Central bank, the Canadian Central bank, the European Central bank, the Japanese Central bank, and the bank of Japan. Now it went over to uae. Why did it go over to uae? Well, UAE was saying, look, we could sell our bonds because they're a big part of the bond vigilante group, or we could sell our equity, we could crash your stock market, or we could pump the yields on your, on your bond market. That would then kill your mortgage market, your auto loan market, your credit card market. And so they said, well, you can't sell them, so we have to give you an FX swap line. Now, UAE can create dollars just by printing their own currency depositing at the Fed. And then new dollars are created and handed over to uae. This is Rails.
- [90:58]
Catherine Austin Fitts
You also have a marvelous way to toggle back and forth east to west on the COVID side in very free liquid forms. Quietly.
- [91:09]
Simon Dixon
Absolutely. And then at the same time, they come out of opec. But opec. And now effectively prior to this, there was the announcement of the new energy market cooperation via bricks.
- [91:21]
Catherine Austin Fitts
Right.
- [91:21]
Simon Dixon
And so they were coming out of OPEC anyway, but they used the disaster to do it. They framed that. Even right now, we're getting escalation between UAE and Iran, and yet the largest trading partner for Iran, number one, is China. Uae. So, you know, there's such a theatrical element to the headline that this is an engineered and manufactured crisis. Look, when you follow the money, if right now the China was genuinely in a war with America, they just say, your military industrial complex is over. We'll stop exports, it's done. And they can't manufacture another weapon without, like China. Russia could say, we'll stop enriching uranium, uranium for your nuclear program. UAE would say, we'll stop trading with Iran. And you could go into nuke, you know, and isn't it very convenient by the way, that all of the targets that have been destroyed were U.S. military industrial complex targets in the Gulf countries that are now being renegotiated energy contracts that force majeure. But what happened to Qatar's energy infrastructure? Oh, it just so happened that prior to this there was a new company called Golden Pass. Golden Pass is getting all the LNG contracts from Texas. 70% owned by Qatar Energy, 30 owned by Exxon. Also, where does the Venezuelan oil refinement happening in Texas? There's only one company that can do it. It's a subsidiary of Saudi Aramco 100 owned by Saudi Aramco. So if you look at this, the U.S. military Industrial Complex is a for rent militia to get resources for transnational global capital. And transnational global capital consists of the largest sovereign wealth fund, China, the largest manufacturing base, all of the sovereign wealth funds at the key strategic choke points, whether it be uae, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Norway and Europe and the privatized Financial Industrial Complex, BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, and now the Federal Reserve is being opened up as we transition to this multipolar world where what was opec, OPEC was. There were two parts to the petrodollar. One part was the oil and pump controller pricing and then the other side was the purchasing of US Treasuries. And so if you break opec, you break the purchase of US Treasuries. If you break the euro dollar, you break the purchasing of US Treasuries. If Japan starts increasing their interest rates, you break the Japan carry trademark. And all of this creates financial stress that concentrates wealth upwards. BlackRock's assets under administration, that's gone from 12 trillion to 14 trillion.
- [94:21]
Catherine Austin Fitts
Okay, so Simon, the institutional is rejecting Treasuries. The whole goal of stablecoin is to go globally and capture some of that market back with be successful.
- [94:36]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. So what, what I think they're trying to do with stablecoin again, you're having a bit of a regional focus. So immediately you saw Iran when they started saying, okay, the straight for Morse is closed, but anyone can pay with Bitcoin. And that wasn't confiscated. Anyone can pay with Stable coins. Those were a free function. They called, they called Tether. They got frozen at the same time we had the defi hit from some of the hacks. Whenever you hear North Korea and Lazarus, think Israel. And when you see Zach xbt, recognize that he's an agent of Israel. And so when Zach XBT is exposing something and they say it's North Korea, Lazarus, that's the Israeli crypto hacking operations. I couldn't prove it. There's lots of circumstantial evidence that I believe that to be true. And then also many of the Chapter 11 bankruptcies you had Mezinski and his connection to Israel and all the people that got away with it, they're doing business with the Prime Minister's office of Israel. So cybersecurity hacking. When you hear North Korea think Israel and so that's, you know, I forgot where I. Oh yeah. So stablecoins then you had the defi like freeze functions and arbitrum and the layer 2 as a result of these confiscations everything went into either bitcoin in self custody or a BlackRock Bitcoin ETF after that and then you got the acceleration of clarity act as well. And so you can see that I think what they're doing with the stable coin is they're saying we'll dollarize Central and Latin America will CBDC Europe America to a regional power after this war, after we price everyone out and manufacture a crisis. It will lead to a deal. It will be Pakistan which is essentially a front for China. The financial industrial complex might get a piece of the straight up Hormuz, but you'll get this new opening up of Iran opening up of the energy. There'll be pipelines between the Gulf countries and Iran and suddenly the IRGC will be a regionally integrated version and you've got UAE and Israel, Israel being the technical industrial complex, UAE being the financial industrial complex. And now they're just building military new contracts across transnational capital. So you're getting all these regional agreements signed where US bases were destroyed. So now you've got Saudi, Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan forming a defense corridor and then you've got uae, Israel, India forming an alternative defense corridor.
- [97:30]
Catherine Austin Fitts
Right.
- [97:31]
Simon Dixon
You can see the strategic tension set up for the next multipolar world order as we speak.
- [97:36]
Host (Carl)
Simon, just, just, just to be, just to kind of bring it back to the. What does this money printing look like, you know more than Covid? Just so it's crystal clear, are we going to see markets, bitcoin stocks, things like that look like 2021 post Covid. So for the viewer watching this or are you basically. Yeah. Is that positioning in bitcoin for example? Do you expect a big kind of rally coming soon?
- [98:04]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, look the idea here is that for the average person you're not going to be able to get on the right side of these trends. The market manipulation is insane. Like we've seen this with Jane street with ETFs also all sorts of stuff. The average person, if the only way you can defeat this financially is to own assets and the only way to beat the market manipulators is to dollar cost average. So you just have to pick your assets and there's different things you can do there, but it's the only way you're going to financially survive this. So whenever they're crashing markets, your dollar cost averaging into cheaper prices and you're just not picking the, you're not trying to guess these geopolitical market manipulations. Markets have no bearing on reality right now. Look at Palantir. Palantir is the highest performing stock because it's geopolitically strategically important and it's chosen to be the new surveillance state government. There's no reality in markets right now. It's all geopolitical strategic importance. It's all ETF passive flow via BlackRock and managing all the money. And it's all media narratives.
- [99:16]
Ian Davis
Right.
- [99:17]
Catherine Austin Fitts
But the, the individual person can't solve. We're going into, we've been in an environment where you could solve your problems by having money. We're going into, into a bifurcation with hard assets where, you know, money helps. But if you don't take action locally, particularly with respect to food and health, yeah, you, you are going to find yourself dependent on a food system which is poisoning you and a health system which is poisoning you. So you've got to start to organize locally. It's a much longer conversation. But you can't solve that problem with food. You're going to have to solve that problem with local organization. And it's going to be critical because you can have all the money in the world. But if you're poisoned, you're going to lose. So you have got to deal with what I call the great poisoning. And that's going to take local organization. So get off the couch and start building the kind of independent systems you need to be successful.
- [100:20]
Simon Dixon
Connecting those two dots, I've looked around my local community and I've looked at every supply chain and I've asked people, what investment do you need for us to work together and build our local parallel systems? So if we've got farmers that are struggling, I'm investing in farmers. We need the food, right. And, and you know, I'm, I'm getting to know my neighbors and my local community and I'm saying, right, what, what parallel systems can we build together? You know what, under this scenario, what are we all going to do collectively? Because on my island, we already ran out of diesel.
- [100:53]
Catherine Austin Fitts
There are a lot of farmers going bankrupt and they are an opportunity. They are absolutely an investment opportunity for many people, particularly if they're willing to switch to much healthier food.
- [101:04]
Simon Dixon
I agree. Because BlackRock's either going to own them or your community is going to own them. There's no in between.
- [101:10]
Ian Davis
Yeah. And one of the things I would, I would just say, you know, we often think that, you know, when we're talking about these subjects, people often accuse me, and I'm sure they accuse you as well of being black pills. Right, that you do. You're just talking about all the problems and you're not offering solutions. The only solutions that can come, can come, can only come from us. They can only come from us. So unless, as Catherine just rightly said, unless you are willing to act to do something to improve your lot, then everything is black pilled. Everything is black pilled because as Simon just said, you've got two choices. You either going to submit to what's coming down the road or not. And that means doing something. And that does mean getting together with people in your local community, trying to maximize your independence from this thing that's coming towards us. Because that maybe the black pilled element of it is that there is no choice in to that extent. But that doesn't mean by any extra, the imagination that we have to succumb to a single aspect of it, not one we can resist every single bit. But we must do something. You have to do something.
- [102:28]
Host (Carl)
I think that, I mean, this is something that I've been thinking about for a long time. I mean, without even knowing everything that you guys have talked about, because I learned from each of you and Simon and I have had multiple conversations in the past where I learned a ton. But for anyone who's paying attention, doesn't really need to know necessarily all the depth of the things that we've covered to understand that it's probably pretty important that you start taking action to, to protect yourself about what's coming. The world obviously is changing very fast and it's. For anyone who's paying attention, it's pretty easy to see the direction that we're moving in. Catherine, like you rightfully called out, it deserves a bigger conversation and we don't have any more time today, but I would love to invite you guys back either together, collectively, if you, if we can make it work, or individually to see how we can individually take care of ourselves, our family, our loved ones, things like that. Because Ian, as you point out. We're see this conversation seems like a black pill conversation, but the intention is to help people. Intention is to learn what we can do about this. So thank you for all the little tidbits each of you guys gave but I think so important that we have a full conversation on the opt out mechanisms and protecting ourselves in the future. So I'd love to invite you guys back. I really appreciate each of your time today. Thank you so much. It was enlightening conversation and I know you guys had more to say as well, but I'd love to do a part two.
- [103:48]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. Carl, thanks for setting this up. It's great to have all of us on one panel. You got a star lineup. And I really enjoyed listening from Catherine and Ian as well.
- [103:58]
Host (Carl)
Same.
- [103:59]
Catherine Austin Fitts
Yeah. Thank you.
- [104:01]
Simon Dixon
Thank you.
- [104:02]
Ian Davis
Thanks very much. Anytime mate. Invite us anytime.
- [104:05]
Host (Carl)
Awesome. Thank you guys.