Speaker 1: We're not to its gentlemen, thanks so much for joining
Speaker 1: us as Dani Australa and welcome to Australia media. Tonight
Speaker 1: is not entertainment. Tonight is not gossip. Tonight is not
Speaker 1: about tabloid scandal. Tonight is about power. It's about protection.
Speaker 1: It's about silence and about a question that refuses to disappear.
Speaker 1: Why does accountabilities stop where influence begins. We're told the
Speaker 1: Epstein case is over. We're told that the perpetraator is
Speaker 1: dead and associate is in prison. The system worked, but
Speaker 1: children were traffic, children were abused, and powerful names intersected
Speaker 1: with that world. That's not speculation, this is court record,
Speaker 1: and so the real question is not where the crimes occur.
Speaker 2: The real question is who.
Speaker 1: Shielded it, who benefit from the silence, and why does
Speaker 1: exposures seem to it a ceiling? Because when institutions protect
Speaker 1: their own, even in cases involving minors, something deeper is revealed,
Speaker 1: not just corruption, but hierarchy, a hierarchy where stability out
Speaker 1: ranks truth, where reputation at ranks innocence, where power out
Speaker 1: ranks justice. And so tonight we're not here to accuse
Speaker 1: recklessly We're here to ask whether what we witnessed was
Speaker 1: a scandal or a glimpse of how leverage operates at
Speaker 1: the highest levels of influence. Because if powerful individuals can
Speaker 1: be compromised, if culture makers normalized version, if silence becomes survival,
Speaker 1: then not dealing with isolated pathology, we're dealing with architecture.
Speaker 1: An architecture demands examination. My guest tonight is someone who
Speaker 1: doesn't shy away from structural questions.
Speaker 2: His name is my friend who.
Speaker 1: Mike Jane Dyer is a cultural analyst and author known
Speaker 1: for I guess you could say, dissecting the intersections of intelligence, networks,
Speaker 1: media power, and institutional influence. And for years he has
Speaker 1: examined how modern systems operate beneath the surface, not just politically,
Speaker 1: psychologically and symbolically. He's written extensively. We're going to talk
Speaker 1: about his books later. But intelligence agents is their relationship
Speaker 1: to culture, but soft power, but narrative control, But how
Speaker 1: compromise can function as currency. Now, Jay doesn't approach these
Speaker 1: topics as gossip. He approaches them as systems, and tonight
Speaker 1: we're going to explore whether blackmail has become a parallel
Speaker 1: governance mechanism Hollywood functions as more than entertainment, and whether
Speaker 1: the protection of powerful predators reveals a deeper moral fracture
Speaker 1: within leite institutions. Again, this is not about Histerio. It's
Speaker 1: about moral clarity. Jay, thanks so much for a time.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the show. Let's begin with the I guess
Speaker 1: you could say the simplest question, if children were trafficked
Speaker 1: within elite proximity, why didn't justice stop where it did?
Speaker 2: I can't hear you, Jay, I can't hear.
Speaker 3: You well, simply because there are untouchables, there are people,
Speaker 3: people who are a class above the law. They're the
Speaker 3: ones that make the law really to protect the elite class.
Speaker 3: And I think there's no better example than what we've
Speaker 3: seen with the recent Epstein files. Have been following the
Speaker 3: Epstein case fairly closely since about twenty sixteen seventeen. Of course,
Speaker 3: Whitney Webb's books are classic Part two especially, and I
Speaker 3: think you know what we've seen is the banking network,
Speaker 3: the intelligence networks Middle Eastern countries especially is Reel, British intelligence,
Speaker 3: the CIA, they all play a role in all these
Speaker 3: Five Eyes countries having a secret intelligence network establishment that's
Speaker 3: above the law.
Speaker 4: They can pretty much do whatever they want.
Speaker 3: I think, you know, even have people saying in the
Speaker 3: public sphere that really intelligence work is typically just doing
Speaker 3: things in other countries for your country that are just
Speaker 3: simply illegal, that this is ten times that this is
Speaker 3: an international specter blow Field level organization. Again, Rothschild level stuff,
Speaker 3: vindicating what people thought was crazy conspiracy theories. I was
Speaker 3: reading a rereading Rothschid's biography by Morton, and within the
Speaker 3: first sixty pages they brag about advanced intelligence about Waterloo
Speaker 3: that allowed them to buy up the London stock market. No,
Speaker 3: everybody thinks that's perhaps a legend, but it's actually true.
Speaker 3: And lo and behold when we come to the most
Speaker 3: recent exchanges between Ariana to Rothschald and Jeffrey, we find
Speaker 3: out that it's the exact same, get advanced intelligence nowhere
Speaker 3: to put your money, buy up the markets. In fact,
Speaker 3: even cause the chaos where you can buy up these
Speaker 3: fire sale type markets. And this was the case with Ukraine.
Speaker 3: There was emails where he's there present a month before
Speaker 3: Zolensky comes to power. Zelenski's then texting and saying I
Speaker 3: need to get me Jeffrey on the vote. I need
Speaker 3: to Jeffrey, you need consultation.
Speaker 4: He's needing consultation.
Speaker 3: We have discussions of the Greek bailouts and how to
Speaker 3: profit from that with Arenander Rothschild. We even have emails
Speaker 3: about Somalia land and how to buy up the land of.
Speaker 4: The resources there on and on and on.
Speaker 3: He explains about it can bank to Larry Summers in
Speaker 3: one of these emails, which is kind of surprising to me.
Speaker 4: So long story, short and rambling. You get the idea that's.
Speaker 3: A class of people that are a breakaway security establishment
Speaker 3: of the Western powers, tied into banking, celebrities, all of
Speaker 3: that at the highest level, and they're above the law.
Speaker 1: So crimes against children that's not just illegal, there are
Speaker 1: civilization ending morally. So when minors repeatedly appear on these
Speaker 1: high level scandals, we have to ask, is this merely
Speaker 1: depravity or is it the most powerful form of leverage imaginable.
Speaker 3: Good way to put it. Yeah, what a most somewhat
Speaker 3: healthy societies value. Will they value their youth the next generation?
Speaker 4: For sure?
Speaker 3: So to invert that, to pervert that, to damage that,
Speaker 3: to destroy innocence, I think most native moral sense that
Speaker 3: people have is that's the most heinous thing.
Speaker 4: That you could do.
Speaker 3: And so to protect these people, who again are the law,
Speaker 3: who are compromising people that want to be in this
Speaker 3: elite class as you know, Yeah, that's the most powerful part.
Speaker 3: I can't think of anything more damaging or more controlling
Speaker 3: than something like that.
Speaker 4: That's pretty much the most heinous.
Speaker 1: So if a politician takes a bride, he can recover.
Speaker 1: If if a CEO has an affair, he can he
Speaker 1: can spin it. But crimes involving minors, that's annihilation level exposure.
Speaker 1: So uh is abuse of miners the ultimate control mechanism
Speaker 1: because it creates irreversible dependency.
Speaker 3: That's a good way to put it. We might wonder why,
Speaker 3: and I think that makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 4: Why would it be that.
Speaker 3: Well, again, you know, that's the most heinous and also
Speaker 3: can't come back from that, right you're done. If that
Speaker 3: comes out, it's it's total control. It's the strongest form
Speaker 3: of blackmail. So I think you're right.
Speaker 1: So if you if you have two powerful individuals and
Speaker 1: they share knowledge of an unspeakable crime, whether we're talking
Speaker 1: about Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, and so, that bond
Speaker 1: is not ideological, it's existential. So is mutual destruction potentially
Speaker 1: stronger than loyalty. Does shared guilt create elite cohesion in
Speaker 1: a sense of all these people together. Like a friend
Speaker 1: of mine, Nick Brian, said, you're in this big yacht,
Speaker 1: luxurious one hundred foot yacht, and I'm not yet. You
Speaker 1: can have anything you want, anything you want, but you
Speaker 1: can never get off the yacht.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Nick brought that exact same thing up the other day.
Speaker 3: We were chatting about this. So though that was a
Speaker 3: great analogy. Yeah, that you know, it reminds me of
Speaker 3: a Machiavelli that the prince is better to be feared
Speaker 3: than to be loved because for the sake of state
Speaker 3: craft and ruling, that's that's your go to, right. So
Speaker 3: if you've got dirt on everyone else, and I know
Speaker 3: this from the religious world, is the same way, right.
Speaker 3: A lot of the people might be surprised to know
Speaker 3: that in the religious world, Catholic bishops, even Orthodox bishops,
Speaker 3: many of them have dirt on all the other bishops
Speaker 3: and so it's no different in the other Now it
Speaker 3: may not be hopefully well in the case the Calay Church,
Speaker 3: it might actually be child child related stuff, but in
Speaker 3: many cases it's usually like you know, gay gay stuff
Speaker 3: or something like that. But so if it happens in
Speaker 3: every era of society, people get blackmail and other people,
Speaker 3: and of course it would be you know the norm
Speaker 3: uh in the political sphere. But I think people don't
Speaker 3: realize how common and prevalent it is. I did a
Speaker 3: bunch of read a bunch of books recently on the
Speaker 3: history of sexpionage, and you know, this is what a
Speaker 3: huge role in empires toppling, you know, people being in trapped,
Speaker 3: usually by women, but it could be other things too.
Speaker 3: You can be in the case of you know, Japan
Speaker 3: versus China, there was a guy who was a military
Speaker 3: intelligence guy named Kenji O'Hara.
Speaker 4: He set up a whole network of brothels.
Speaker 3: And opium dens throughout China and it helped basically win
Speaker 3: the war between Japan and China. And but he learned
Speaker 3: that if you could get the generals to come to
Speaker 3: the prostitution houses and get them and some pillow talk,
Speaker 3: he could get a lot of advanced information. So that's
Speaker 3: again that's just how state craft works. Unfortunately, it's a
Speaker 3: big part of how the state works and how it runs.
Speaker 3: And it's not just the state it's private corporations. Do
Speaker 3: they do the same type of stuff with corporate intelligence?
Speaker 3: So yeah, this is how it works. This is the
Speaker 3: ultimate blackmail. It's better to be I think if your
Speaker 3: people at that level, they see it as better to
Speaker 3: be feared than to be loved.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is a huge thing. So many people
Speaker 2: are involved in so many levels.
Speaker 1: We talked about high level politicians, royalty, SEEO, some of
Speaker 1: the biggest, if not the biggest corporations in the world.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if it's top five, founded in one thousand,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. All of them are in on this thing.
Speaker 1: Are you surprised that all that, like, none of this
Speaker 1: really has come out. No one has decided, you know,
Speaker 1: to switch ranks and actually come out and start talking.
Speaker 1: This caused a no stra kind of thing. Are you
Speaker 1: surprised that is still you know, a secret as well?
Speaker 3: It's funny you mentioned the mafia analogy, because yeah, I
Speaker 3: did some interviews with Sammy the Boll who is John
Speaker 3: Gotti's underboss, and you know, he talked a lot about
Speaker 3: how the criminal syndicates were structured and how the Sicilian
Speaker 3: Mafia would sometimes consult other organized crime groups on how
Speaker 3: they should set things up, and of course Lucky Luciana
Speaker 3: went to Mayor Lanski to learn how to set up
Speaker 3: the Sicilian mafia in America. So Jewish mafia played a
Speaker 3: key role in that as well. And the point here
Speaker 3: is that, yeah, I think that it's it's more they
Speaker 3: fear the syndicate more than they fear the possibility of
Speaker 3: anything coming from getting the word out. You know, so
Speaker 3: often getting the word out just doesn't do anything. And
Speaker 3: especially if the justice system itself is corrupted and you've
Speaker 3: got corrupt judges and things like that, which I think
Speaker 3: are definitely the case, there's not really any any incentive
Speaker 3: to come out unless there's some sort of you know,
Speaker 3: religious conversion or they you know, have want to clean
Speaker 3: their conscience or something like that. That's really the only time
Speaker 3: that we get people really coming out. And then people
Speaker 3: oftentimes meet their demise when they come out. You know,
Speaker 3: there's quite a few death surround the Clintons around you know,
Speaker 3: the Epstein case. So I wouldn't be surprised if that's
Speaker 3: enough incentive to keep people quiet. And it is a
Speaker 3: lot like organized crime, where you have an omerta, you
Speaker 3: have an oath, and you don't go against that or
Speaker 3: else you pay the penalty when.
Speaker 1: Someone crosses the deepest moral boundary, in other words, harming
Speaker 1: a child. I think something breaks internally in a human being.
Speaker 1: Does that fracture make them easier to control?
Speaker 2: Are they still human?
Speaker 4: I think you're absolutely right.
Speaker 3: And of course it's a dark subject, but it's been
Speaker 3: studied from a psychological scientific perspective. You know, quite a
Speaker 3: bit of the mk Ultra stuff dealt with trauma, dealt
Speaker 3: with fracturing of the personality. They even did studies on psychopaths, criminals,
Speaker 3: homeless people to see how easily you could engineer things
Speaker 3: like serial killers. Phoenix program was about creating serial killers.
Speaker 3: So we know there's been quite a bit of study
Speaker 3: and research on those subjects.
Speaker 4: How advanced they.
Speaker 3: Actually are in doing that, I'm not sure, but it's
Speaker 3: probably pretty advanced, especially within the ranks of the military
Speaker 3: or the Navy something like that. And so yeah, I
Speaker 3: wouldn't be surprised if you know the criminal syndicates that
Speaker 3: Epstein was involved with, which AGA again include multiple intelligence services.
Speaker 3: I'm sure that they have end depth knowledge of the
Speaker 3: the effects of doing such actions on a person to
Speaker 3: degrade the person, and that being such an extreme type
Speaker 3: of action. I have no doubt, you know, coming from
Speaker 3: a religious perspective, I would say absolutely, there's something demonic
Speaker 3: about it.
Speaker 4: It definitely almost makes the person well.
Speaker 3: In the scriptures, Paul talks about, for example, being given
Speaker 3: over to a reprobate mind, and so at a certain
Speaker 3: point you can kind of just commit yourself to evil.
Speaker 3: And you may not be religious, but I'm just saying
Speaker 3: as an analogy, we could understand something like that in
Speaker 3: this domain the psychological. I think, yes, it's possible to
Speaker 3: completely give yourself over to evil and they really just
Speaker 3: sere or burn the conscience out. I mean, was it
Speaker 3: the story of you know, Bohemian Grove is something like,
Speaker 3: you know, sacrifice your conscience when you come here or
Speaker 3: something like that.
Speaker 4: So I would imagine, yeah, that's that's probably the case.
Speaker 1: You've done a lot of work on on Hollywood. I
Speaker 1: want to ask you about Hollywood's obsession with with.
Speaker 2: The with the youth.
Speaker 1: So Hollywood has this long documented history of exploiting young performers.
Speaker 2: Uh, it's not a rumor, it's been documented. So why
Speaker 2: does an industry.
Speaker 1: Built on storytelling repeatedly revolve around hyper sexualized youth?
Speaker 2: For example, casting a.
Speaker 1: Couch, exploitations, power imbalance between minors and executives is just
Speaker 1: is this just corruption or is it structural?
Speaker 3: It's structural, it's institutional capture. All the institutions essentially been
Speaker 3: captured by you know, this organized crime syndicate. They're not
Speaker 3: all occultist and Satanist, but many of them are, and
Speaker 3: you know, they they're committed.
Speaker 4: To, you know, these perspectives.
Speaker 3: You know, if you think about the Epstein Bannon interviews,
Speaker 3: we live stream that whole thing, and I was kind
Speaker 3: of surprised that the degree to which Epstein did have
Speaker 3: interest in certain esoteric and occult topics, and I wouldn't
Speaker 3: be surprised. And then of course we're not surprised that
Speaker 3: we see that, you know, all through Hollywood. So I
Speaker 3: think again the same ideas of control. For example, there's
Speaker 3: a lot of stories with prisons and prison gangs, or
Speaker 3: even with people in Hollywood and with directors and producers.
Speaker 4: With the way that they will sort of approach a man.
Speaker 3: So a male director or a producer might even approach
Speaker 3: a fully grown, middle aged man, grab their balls and
Speaker 3: basically say you're going to let me, you know, hump
Speaker 3: you in the bot or else you're not going to
Speaker 3: get the role. There's are many stories about this. Why
Speaker 3: would this be Well, if you think about the way
Speaker 3: that this is studied with prison structures and control, it's
Speaker 3: a control, dominance, control situation, so you're learning that you're
Speaker 3: completely owned.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: In the case of Diddy, we saw several situations where
Speaker 3: he was doing something basically kind of a smaller scale
Speaker 3: type of Epstein operation. But the stories, at least if
Speaker 3: they're correct, and I think they probably are, is that
Speaker 3: you know Diddy would do the same type. I think
Speaker 3: he would say, look, you're gonna let me do what
Speaker 3: I want with you. It's filmed, and now we own you.
Speaker 1: Justin Justin Bieber, I mean, I don't know anything about
Speaker 1: Justin Bieber beyond what we see. But what you see
Speaker 1: is is you know, it's it's it's eye opening, I think,
Speaker 1: jaw dropping.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think he's a great case where this seems likely
Speaker 3: many of the everybody knows that a lot of the
Speaker 3: young Hollywood child actors have grown up to be very
Speaker 3: damaged to Corey Feldman has talked about this for many
Speaker 3: years and his books, his documentaries. You know, so many
Speaker 3: people from the eighties TV shows, you know, the different strokes.
Speaker 3: People like that those actors grew up to be damaged individuals.
Speaker 3: So many people from the music scene, the children are musicians, rotmans.
Speaker 4: This is this is.
Speaker 3: A rampant problem and it is systemic. I think you're
Speaker 3: absolutely right, and I think that the idea of damaging
Speaker 3: or traumatizing the youth is also what they try to
Speaker 3: do on a mass scale.
Speaker 4: And you know this.
Speaker 3: You've written your book on Tabastock. I think I read
Speaker 3: all your books. You know you wrote about this in Tabistock.
Speaker 3: You can you can kind of take what they studied
Speaker 3: the individual, and you can just magnify that and use
Speaker 3: these techniques on a mass skill.
Speaker 1: Is there an unspoken reality in elite entertainment socless that
Speaker 1: advancement requires compromise, not talent alone, but submission, and is
Speaker 1: exploitation the filtration mechanism in the sense.
Speaker 4: Absolutely. I'm glad you said that because I caught out.
Speaker 4: Nobody else has noticed this, but.
Speaker 3: I caught in an old Diddy interview from it was
Speaker 3: a stupid TV shows, his reality show back like twenty
Speaker 3: years ago, and it was something like he's hired all
Speaker 3: these people to be his assistants and then you have
Speaker 3: to go do whatever he says. Anyway, there was this
Speaker 3: amazingly insightful sequence one time where somebody was like, oh,
Speaker 3: by the way, Diddy, I found a whole bunch of
Speaker 3: really talented rappers.
Speaker 4: I've got all their mixtapes.
Speaker 3: I'm ready to you know, let you see the best,
Speaker 3: and he goes, hold on, I don't want to hear
Speaker 3: anything that's based in talent.
Speaker 4: And the guy's like mystified, like what he's like.
Speaker 3: I want you to find the untalented the non talented,
Speaker 3: because those are the ones that you can control. A
Speaker 3: talented person can immediately go and start his own record
Speaker 3: company and make his own money.
Speaker 4: That's not what I want.
Speaker 3: I want a person who doesn't have the talent, but
Speaker 3: I can make them into a star and control them.
Speaker 4: That's Hollywood right there.
Speaker 3: That's the music industry right there is at least much
Speaker 3: of I'm not saying nobody has talent, but you know
Speaker 3: what I'm saying. That's a great example window into Diddy's mindset,
Speaker 3: even back in the late nineties or two thousands when
Speaker 3: he said this. So he had figured out the game,
Speaker 3: and of course he came out of an organized crime
Speaker 3: his family was involved early on in black gangs, an
Speaker 3: organized crime. His wife, his mom had to to flee
Speaker 3: some of those gangs to get away from them, so
Speaker 3: he understood that, you know how the world really works
Speaker 3: type of attitude. But no, you're absolutely right that a
Speaker 3: lot of these celebrities, and it might even go into
Speaker 3: something crazy, perhaps with Brittany. I even thought with Britney
Speaker 3: Spears it was a little much to think that she
Speaker 3: might be like monarch mind control. But after a lot
Speaker 3: of these older interviews and you see her seemingly switch
Speaker 3: different personalities, and then when all that stuff came out
Speaker 3: about the conservatorship, I was a skeptic even though I
Speaker 3: thought it's possible, But I tend to think, no, she's
Speaker 3: probably actually is a you know.
Speaker 1: Absolutely absolutely you know it's going back and thinking back
Speaker 1: to the Me Too movement with Harvey Epstein, It's like,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if Epstein is any.
Speaker 2: Of the Epstein what's his name.
Speaker 1: Weinstein is in any of the files. At least his
Speaker 1: name hasn't come up. But in any case, it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, he screwed raped a lot of women, But
Speaker 1: I mean, this is several levels. I'm not excusing needless
Speaker 1: to say what Harvey Weinstein did, but this is like
Speaker 1: several many more levels of magnitude, you know, more horrible
Speaker 1: then what you know, Harvey Weinstein did.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think a lot of people were speculating that
Speaker 3: when the me Too movement happened, that was actually to
Speaker 3: deflect away from people beginning to investigate underage things in Hollywood,
Speaker 3: because you had certain directors. There was that documentary that
Speaker 3: came out I can't remember if it was a Spotlight
Speaker 3: or the other one. One of them was about the
Speaker 3: Romancalloy Church, and there was another one that came out
Speaker 3: about Hollywood and various directors like Bryan Singer and people
Speaker 3: like that, I think who had had these scandals. Some
Speaker 3: of the people in Nickelodeon, Dan Schneider, these kind of
Speaker 3: the pop star people who were, you know, basically trying
Speaker 3: to get with all the.
Speaker 4: Boy bands. You know, so this scandal keeps kind of happening.
Speaker 3: You have all these creeps in Hollywood, especially in the
Speaker 3: domain of anywhere where there's youth, Nickelodeon type stuff, and
Speaker 3: that seemed to be sort of derailed by I think
Speaker 3: perhaps some women who wanted to just sort of capitalize
Speaker 3: on me too I'm not saying that Harvey Weinsteon didn't
Speaker 3: do anything. I think he was, like you said, probably
Speaker 3: you know, essentially making a lot of the women if
Speaker 3: they want the role, you know, the casting couch stuff.
Speaker 3: That's essentially what was probably going on there. And I'm
Speaker 3: not saying that's not bad, but like you said, like
Speaker 3: the Epstein stuff is ten times worse. And I suspected
Speaker 3: that people were beginning to look into Hollywood PDF stuff
Speaker 3: and then it got deflected into to me too.
Speaker 4: But also I think that Harvey weinst was I'm sure
Speaker 4: he was doing casting couch stuff.
Speaker 3: So yeah, this is essentially, you know, I don't want
Speaker 3: to say something on YouTube you can't say, but graping
Speaker 3: of the youth and damaging the youth, and not just in.
Speaker 4: The arts but through the arts.
Speaker 3: Wilhelm Reich, for example, was one of that you mentioned
Speaker 3: the hyper sexualization. Well, he was one of the Frankfurt
Speaker 3: school guys who argued that in order to really have
Speaker 3: a revolution, you have to attack the foundations of society,
Speaker 3: namely the male, male and family. And he said, if
Speaker 3: you can destroy those, then you really have a revolution,
Speaker 3: and to do that you need sexual revolution. So he
Speaker 3: was perceptive enough to understand that weaponizing the passions is
Speaker 3: a very effective strategy. For example, I think people know
Speaker 3: about the IDF would beam you know, are x rated
Speaker 3: movies into like the Palestinian areas back in the past.
Speaker 3: There's a great clip of net and Yahoo from a
Speaker 3: I think about two thousand and one or two, and
Speaker 3: he says, if.
Speaker 4: You really will to change the golds River, run just
Speaker 4: beam in nine O two one zero.
Speaker 3: He actually says soft power, right, if you want to
Speaker 3: change your in, show them, you know, sex and the city.
Speaker 3: Start beaming sex in the city to the culture.
Speaker 2: You know, Hollywood exports values globally.
Speaker 1: Now, if that industry blurs moral boundaries, especially around sexualization,
Speaker 1: is that accidental decadence or does destabilizing moral clarity benefit
Speaker 1: power structures?
Speaker 3: Oh, it absolutely benefits the power structures. In fact, again,
Speaker 3: you know, you go back to you know, Marcavelli has
Speaker 3: a book called Art of War Separate from Yeah, and
Speaker 3: there's there's two chapters on trickery. I think it's book
Speaker 3: six and maybe seven, and it includes all kinds of
Speaker 3: tricks for warfare. You know, this is like the book
Speaker 3: The Birth Modern Warfare. Around the time of the Renaissance,
Speaker 3: and he's.
Speaker 4: Basically saying, look, you know, you can do all kinds of.
Speaker 3: Things that demoralize the opposition, right Kenji Dohara in Japan,
Speaker 3: he sets up houses of.
Speaker 4: Ill repute everywhere. It's this is a known strategy.
Speaker 3: In fact, the Fabian Socialist in the eighteen hundreds also
Speaker 3: said that we're going to change Britain.
Speaker 4: In the eighteen nineties, I think they said we're going.
Speaker 3: To start having public displays of bestiality and degrading art,
Speaker 3: and that was a form of esthetic terrorism. But they knew,
Speaker 3: they were perceptive enough to understand that that would scandalize
Speaker 3: the Victorian minds so much that it could move the
Speaker 3: Overton window, even if not immediately towards solar generacy, but
Speaker 3: you know, you can begin moving it. But no, that's
Speaker 3: exactly what The arts have been studied as a form
Speaker 3: of brutalizing and degrading the masses one hundred percent. That's
Speaker 3: also part of Mcultra, Tavis Sahak, all these things have
Speaker 3: studied that.
Speaker 2: So let's talk about the fear of of collapse. Here's
Speaker 2: the hard possibility.
Speaker 4: What if.
Speaker 1: Full exposure, okay, would implicate political leadership, media executives financial
Speaker 1: lead culture like punts.
Speaker 2: Would institutions choose moral clarity or institutional survival in the
Speaker 2: Western world because these t is different.
Speaker 3: I think, because the institutional capture is so systemic and
Speaker 3: so widespread, it would choose institutional survival. And I think
Speaker 3: we're already beginning to see that, because you know, I
Speaker 3: don't spend a whole lot of time in normy politic
Speaker 3: kind of boring to me. But Bill Clinton giving a
Speaker 3: statement before a hearing, Oliver North giving a statement before
Speaker 3: it ran contra hearings. I mean, I remember being a
Speaker 3: kid and Oliver North was on the TV talking about rank.
Speaker 4: But did anything happen to Oliver North?
Speaker 3: I think he eventually ended up being like a Fox
Speaker 3: News commentator, So I mean, I not. I don't remember
Speaker 3: anything ever happening from hearings. So I don't know that
Speaker 3: anything will come out of this other than just sort
Speaker 3: of the appearance of concern. But I don't think that
Speaker 3: it would actually lead to the collapse of the institutions.
Speaker 3: I think that's an excuse. It's the same type of
Speaker 3: excuse that we had for the bailouts. We have to
Speaker 3: build the banks out because the whole civilization will collapse.
Speaker 4: Well, why should I be on the hook for their gambling?
Speaker 4: Makes no sense.
Speaker 3: Why should an institution be that is systemically corrupt be
Speaker 3: propped up well because it will collapse.
Speaker 4: Well, maybe it needs to collapse.
Speaker 1: If justice stops where power begins, Jay, if institutions prioritize
Speaker 1: stability over truth, if silence protects influence, then we are
Speaker 1: dealing obviously with corruption or are we witnessing a ruling
Speaker 1: class that has forfeited moral authority? And if that is true,
Speaker 1: what does real reform even look like?
Speaker 3: It's a great question, And also it's a difficult question
Speaker 3: because you know, you've had people who studied civilizations pretty intently.
Speaker 3: You've got Twin B You've got H. G. Wells, and
Speaker 3: you've got people like Osrald Spangler. And Spangler sees these
Speaker 3: civilizations having a lifespan and then they get to a
Speaker 3: certain point where they begin their decline. And the decline
Speaker 3: is often attended with certain recognizable patterns, no matter what
Speaker 3: the civilization is. And so I don't agree with Spangler
Speaker 3: and everything. I think he's an insightful figure, but he
Speaker 3: does seem to notice certain patterns like the importation of
Speaker 3: other groups of people at mass levels. The elite class
Speaker 3: of that civilization begins to get degenerate and lazy. They
Speaker 3: don't fight for themselves anymore. They sort of allow the
Speaker 3: migrants that have been intentionally brought in or perhaps just
Speaker 3: came in, they just sort of surrender and they just
Speaker 3: sort of give up because they become lazy and decadent,
Speaker 3: and then a new civilization begins to emerge. So what
Speaker 3: forms this will take in this wild and crazy transhumanist
Speaker 3: world are going to I don't know, but you know,
Speaker 3: we've got a lot of competing ideas and systems. We
Speaker 3: have Dark Enlightenment Peter Thiel types who want to set
Speaker 3: up their own sort of feudal technate where you have
Speaker 3: mega capitalists John Galt Kings of some sort. We have
Speaker 3: you know, international socialists still that think that there'll be
Speaker 3: some sort of resurrected form of Marxism. We have the
Speaker 3: neocons and all of that, which is still you know
Speaker 3: pretty much. I guess what's driving you know, the war
Speaker 3: right now, it's just the classic neo conservative you know,
Speaker 3: Israeli Greater Israel project strategy.
Speaker 4: It's it's being played out.
Speaker 3: So again, who knows where this is going to go
Speaker 3: and how you how how justice comes?
Speaker 4: I I suspect that we will probably just.
Speaker 3: See, uh, the decline of the West into some some
Speaker 3: new form that we don't know.
Speaker 2: Jay.
Speaker 1: When people use the phrase satanic Hollywood, they often mean
Speaker 1: something literal. But if we strip it down, you know,
Speaker 1: to first principles, what does Titanic in the sense mean Symbolically,
Speaker 1: it means inversion, the inversion of order, the inversion of innocence,
Speaker 1: the in version of of moral of moral hierarchy. And
Speaker 1: here's the uncomfortable observation. Hollywood repeatedly glorifies transgression and markets
Speaker 1: as as as liberation. Is that accidental decadence or is
Speaker 1: its structural inversion?
Speaker 4: No, it's structural verse. And Timothy Leary is a great
Speaker 4: example of this.
Speaker 3: He said that when I wanted to get people to
Speaker 3: experiment with LSD, I figured out the way to get
Speaker 3: him to do it was to tell them that it
Speaker 3: was being hidden from them and they had a right
Speaker 3: to it.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: And this right's philosophy, you know, out of the Enlightenment,
Speaker 3: this whole idea that I have all these inherent natural rights,
Speaker 3: I have a right to whatever I want to do
Speaker 3: with anyone that's essentially the core I would say of
Speaker 3: the Satanic I will not disagree with the things that
Speaker 3: you listed. All those things are you could say, boiled down,
Speaker 3: stripped down and still Satanic. But do what thou wilt.
Speaker 3: You are your own God, and you serve yourself. You
Speaker 3: don't have any duties to anyone else, no obligations to
Speaker 3: anyone else, to society, to your family. It's really all
Speaker 3: just your own individual pleasure principle. That is the ultimate
Speaker 3: sort of utilitarian moral calculus of the Enlightenment. That is
Speaker 3: essentially what Hollywood teaches. That's kind of, you know, the
Speaker 3: Crolean ethos, do what thou wilt. You know, if you're
Speaker 3: if you are in a difficult situation as a wife,
Speaker 3: you pray, love, go, do whatever you want, right, all
Speaker 3: the messages if you feel like you're a woman, become
Speaker 3: a woman.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: So all of this nonsense, right, which is really just
Speaker 3: the individual is his own little atomized deity. That is
Speaker 3: the ethos of Hollywood, and it is absolutely weaponized.
Speaker 2: A lot of We've heard a lot about ritual humiliation.
Speaker 2: How does that work? I mean, again, you've done a
Speaker 2: lot of research on a lot of different areas. Hollywood
Speaker 2: is one of them.
Speaker 1: But not only that, how does ritual humiliation work so
Speaker 1: the people can to understand what it is.
Speaker 3: Great example that I just saw the other day, which
Speaker 3: I usually forget about, is think about fraternities, right right,
Speaker 3: fraternity There was this video going around was viral of
Speaker 3: fraternities engaged in some sort of weird hazing ritual with
Speaker 3: a bunch of dudes all sort of half naked or
Speaker 3: whatever in a laundry mat or something. I don't know
Speaker 3: what was going on, but the police showed up because
Speaker 3: everybody thought was weird, and none of the inductees to
Speaker 3: the fraternity at some college would even speak even to
Speaker 3: the police, and so they were sort.
Speaker 4: Of bound by this oath to.
Speaker 3: Beta Kappa whatever it was, over even you know, explaining
Speaker 3: what was going on to the police when they came.
Speaker 3: So I thought that was illustrative because whatever's going on,
Speaker 3: it's obviously humiliating. They're basically standing there in their whitey
Speaker 3: tidies on a live stream with millions of people and
Speaker 3: the police show up.
Speaker 4: And so humiliation I.
Speaker 3: Think has the effect of basically removing our defenses of
Speaker 3: our self and then we become sort of opened up
Speaker 3: and susceptible too, bonding with our new found sort of
Speaker 3: Stockholm syndrome handlers. So once that those self defenses have
Speaker 3: been removed through the ritual humiliation, you're now bound to
Speaker 3: the new thing, the new organization, the secret society, whatever
Speaker 3: it is you're involved in. And I think that's just
Speaker 3: the basic psychology about works. So that's why this is
Speaker 3: used in all these areas. You know we mentioned earlier
Speaker 3: prison gangs. Right, you might have even have a situation
Speaker 3: where the prisoners are not even necessarily homosexual, but they
Speaker 3: will induct a person through this action to show dominance
Speaker 3: and ownership and then humiliate the person and now they're
Speaker 3: part of this prison gang.
Speaker 4: Right, So that that ritual.
Speaker 3: Humiliation I think has been studied expropriated, goes back to
Speaker 3: I'm sure to the ancient world. I think ancient priest
Speaker 3: priest crafts, priestcraft priest class knew how to do this
Speaker 3: to people as a control mechanism.
Speaker 4: And yeah, it's it's done on an individual level too.
Speaker 3: Uh, that's what's going on with a lot of the
Speaker 3: sex calls, a lot of you know, intelligence handlers, that relationship.
Speaker 4: It can all be the same way.
Speaker 1: Like in that the We've seen a lot of images
Speaker 1: from the Epstein Island archives. There was George Bush and
Speaker 1: women's dress. I think Donald Trump lying on a bed
Speaker 1: in women's dress. What's the thing about, you know, dressing
Speaker 1: up as women?
Speaker 4: Like the Bill Clinton picture that had like in a
Speaker 4: blue dress.
Speaker 2: It was Bill Clinton. You're right, you have blue dress?
Speaker 4: Yeah, good question.
Speaker 3: I don't know exactly what was in Epstein's mind. He
Speaker 3: seemed to have a weird, sort of perverse sense of humor.
Speaker 3: It could be that, but it also could.
Speaker 2: Be existed version as kind of a culture.
Speaker 3: It could be in version, That's exactly what I was
Speaker 3: going to say. Could be the idea that you know,
Speaker 3: we've seen. And of course Tavistock was at the tip
Speaker 3: of the spear for the promotion of the trans movement
Speaker 3: in the last twenty thirty years, so there could be
Speaker 3: some connection there. Because of course there were emails where
Speaker 3: Epstein was talking to geneticist biologists people like that, talking
Speaker 3: about how to get even younger age transitions, three year olds,
Speaker 3: just insane level stuff. So I would I would imagine, yes,
Speaker 3: that amongst the elite class, it's all just sort of
Speaker 3: a sick joke, and it is an example of inversion.
Speaker 1: So it's like in version as a kind of a
Speaker 1: cultural signal if you look at the recurrent patterns in
Speaker 1: modern entertainment. So Wece presented his virtue, moral confusion, presented
Speaker 1: a sophistication, transgression presented as courage.
Speaker 2: Do you think that's organic.
Speaker 1: Or does inversion create a psychological destabilization because the stabilized
Speaker 1: people are easier to.
Speaker 3: Shape exactly right, brutalized and humiliated. It's basically making everybody
Speaker 3: go through the humiliation ritual of accepting nonsense.
Speaker 4: Right. So remember twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3: I think that was a pivotal fork in the road
Speaker 3: for our society and civilization because here you have the
Speaker 3: mainstream media basically saying this man is the woman of
Speaker 3: the aar Bruce gender is the woman of the ear.
Speaker 3: And so the rest of society, all the normies had
Speaker 3: to say, I either must accept that at an institutional
Speaker 3: level they lie in gaslight me or I double down
Speaker 3: and accept that the institution dictates reality and truth. Right,
Speaker 3: like Winston and O'Brien in nineteen eighty four saying, basically,
Speaker 3: the party is what's true. If the party tells you
Speaker 3: four tipos to is five, it's the case, not whether
Speaker 3: you think it is, it is the case.
Speaker 4: So that's what.
Speaker 3: That was, was a divide in society, in the culture,
Speaker 3: and I think a lot of people double down, triple down,
Speaker 3: et cetera. We saw the same thing with the COOOF
Speaker 3: the COVID syop people were, especially the Boomers, that their
Speaker 3: minds broken with another higher level institutional deception and why
Speaker 3: all the time constantly just contradictory nonsense, right, which is
Speaker 3: again it can be a technique, right, you can actually,
Speaker 3: if you're a power structure, you can actually intentionally contradict
Speaker 3: to mind f the person that you're intending to mess with,
Speaker 3: kind of.
Speaker 4: Like gaslighting on a smaller scale. Right.
Speaker 3: So so no, you're absolutely right, it's intentionally by the
Speaker 3: one thing that I came across that I.
Speaker 4: Didn't expect in C. S. Lewis's Space Trilogy.
Speaker 3: I've been revisiting a lot of his texts lately because
Speaker 3: there's a lot more depth in those than I initially
Speaker 3: thought that, well, this is kid's literature, But the Space
Speaker 3: Trilogy is a lot more in advanced is more of
Speaker 3: an adult literary work. And in the third book he's
Speaker 3: actually talking about the Tavasak institute and things like that
Speaker 3: in the UK that he was aware of.
Speaker 4: And one of the characters.
Speaker 3: Who's just sort of an army who's brought into Nice
Speaker 3: is the name of the institution in Ice. So it
Speaker 3: has this funny name that's, oh, it sounds innocuous, but
Speaker 3: it's actually this evil organization that's working to mass depopulate
Speaker 3: the world.
Speaker 4: Mark, I think the character name is Mark.
Speaker 3: When he joins Nice, as he begins to spend time
Speaker 3: at the organization, there's an actual ritual.
Speaker 4: Humiliation that he has to go through.
Speaker 3: And he doesn't understand why, but he later understands that
Speaker 3: that was them essentially making sure that he had no
Speaker 3: more self defenses and basically burned out his moral conscience
Speaker 3: so that he could be owned and controlled.
Speaker 4: And I think that's exactly what you're saying.
Speaker 1: So, if culture shapes morality, a morality shapes the law,
Speaker 1: then what happens when the culture making class they is
Speaker 1: morally compromised? Can it produce healthy norms or does it
Speaker 1: export instability and abnormality?
Speaker 3: Institutional subversion I think means then that they will want
Speaker 3: because the goals of this elite are not in any
Speaker 3: way beneficial to the society. The goals of this elite
Speaker 3: are only hyperfixated on themselves. It's the ultimate form of selfishness.
Speaker 3: Probably elites have always been that way. But what's unique
Speaker 3: in this situation is I don't know that all the
Speaker 3: elites in the past, the corrupt emperors or whatever, that
Speaker 3: they necessarily wanted to completely get rid of their populations.
Speaker 3: Here we have a situation where essentially we have a
Speaker 3: Malthusian elite that has technological capabilities to even perhaps achieve that.
Speaker 3: So I think the difference here is that they want, uh,
Speaker 3: you know, to get rid of everybody and perhaps to
Speaker 3: have you know, in the case of like Epstein and
Speaker 3: Mits or all ranch stuff, perhaps have his.
Speaker 4: Own seed everywhere.
Speaker 3: I think some of the technocratic Silicon Valley elites want
Speaker 3: something like that or some sort of you know, transhumanist situation.
Speaker 3: You know that probably better than I do. You've been
Speaker 3: reading about that for many years. So yeah, that's that's
Speaker 3: they will. They will create in society the the image
Speaker 3: that they have of the of themselves, and so if
Speaker 3: they see themselves as the sort of supreme beings, then
Speaker 3: it dictates then that everyone else.
Speaker 4: Must be gotten rid of.
Speaker 3: By the way I was just I was reviewing Jonah
Speaker 3: Saux's book from the nineteen sixties, Survival of the Wisest.
Speaker 4: He says he says that, he says.
Speaker 3: We're the priests class. Nothing wrong with experimenting on a
Speaker 3: maskill with an oculations, and if it gets rid of
Speaker 3: most people, that's what needs to happen. So I'm just
Speaker 3: reminded of the fact that, you know, Epstein has essentially
Speaker 3: the same worldview, right, He's exchanging emails with Bill Gates saying,
Speaker 3: how do we get rid of all the poor people?
Speaker 2: Well man, what Prince job? What Prince Philip used to say?
Speaker 4: If you have Oh yeah, I wish I was a virus, right,
Speaker 4: come back as a virus.
Speaker 1: Are you surprised after reading all these files and are
Speaker 1: you surprised at the level of moral depravity.
Speaker 3: I'm surprised at the candidness of the discussions. You know,
Speaker 3: he must have seen them, They must have seen themselves
Speaker 3: as just totally untouchable, right, because even what's spoken of
Speaker 3: in the emails, sometimes there's code, obviously, but when it's
Speaker 3: even when it's not code, it's just sort of like
Speaker 3: I would I would think I need to whisper this stuff.
Speaker 3: You know what I mean, So my phone doesn't hear
Speaker 3: me talking about it, but like Jeffrey Epstein just can
Speaker 3: type it out on an email and it's like all garbled,
Speaker 3: terrible grammar.
Speaker 4: It's like he doesn't even care.
Speaker 2: So pictures of them people, yeah.
Speaker 3: I think it's uh yeah, the the untouchable, candid, we're
Speaker 3: above the wall, we don't care.
Speaker 4: That was what surprised me.
Speaker 3: I would have thought would be a little more subtle
Speaker 3: or coded or something like that. But the depravity itself
Speaker 3: didn't surprise me, because you know, it's a topic that
Speaker 3: we've both been studying for.
Speaker 4: A long time.
Speaker 3: I read I read my first book on ritual abuse
Speaker 3: in the Catholic Church back in two thousand and three,
Speaker 3: so I was first introduced to that idea, you know,
Speaker 3: twenty three years ago, and since then I've read, you know,
Speaker 3: a lot of books on that. So if I was
Speaker 3: new to this stuff, you know, now, I can't imagine
Speaker 3: what's going on in the minds of ormies that are
Speaker 3: seeing this stuff.
Speaker 4: It just must be totally just mind blowing.
Speaker 3: So I think I think there's already a lot of
Speaker 3: disinformation people out there ready to sort of corral those
Speaker 3: people into total nonsense.
Speaker 1: But a quarter or maybe more of these documents are
Speaker 1: totally false, And oh, I have a hard time. You know,
Speaker 1: I get I haven't really paid too much attention, not
Speaker 1: because I'm not interested, because you understand what these people are,
Speaker 1: because I look at a macro level and I don't
Speaker 1: really care about who did what. I have enough people
Speaker 1: out there who are studying them. But I think there's
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff that I've seen. You can just tell, well,
Speaker 1: this isn't a real document, but you know, so it's
Speaker 1: there's tons of stuff.
Speaker 2: I get.
Speaker 1: I don't know the percentages, but I think, you know,
Speaker 1: along with the real stuff, there's all kinds of other
Speaker 1: stuff which is there to discredit the researchers, you know,
Speaker 1: to to.
Speaker 2: And so you were like, we're running on a time.
Speaker 2: You have a couple of questions left. How do we
Speaker 2: make them afraid?
Speaker 1: Because again, it's like one of the things about them
Speaker 1: being so outfront about this stuff, they're not afraid.
Speaker 2: How do we make them afraid?
Speaker 1: Like, for example, you look, you look at Israel right now, okay,
Speaker 1: and they're terrified of what's going on there. They're getting
Speaker 1: their askct by byrad and they're afraid they're scared shitless.
Speaker 2: Okay, how do we make these people afraid of us?
Speaker 3: The people, Well, if the documents themselves, in the case
Speaker 3: of say Epstein as an example, if they're a window
Speaker 3: into concerns that they have. They did talk about people
Speaker 3: in media that needed to be taken down or legally
Speaker 3: taken down, gotten rid of. You know, they bitched about
Speaker 3: Alex Jones at one point, because Epstein was aware of
Speaker 3: who Alex was, and other people as well. They mentioned
Speaker 3: Nick Bryant, So they do mention that people calling them out.
Speaker 4: Here and there. They do have a concern in that regard.
Speaker 3: But they also mentioned things like religious institutions that may
Speaker 3: not be fully co opted. They mentioned people that they
Speaker 3: want to take down, like Putin. I'm not saying that
Speaker 3: that means Putin's flawless or some angel or hero. I'm
Speaker 3: just saying that they do seem to have concerns about
Speaker 3: other countries leaders, situations where people might go off script.
Speaker 2: You know, Okay, putting this putting in. You know some
Speaker 2: of these leaders are you know.
Speaker 1: They're they're they're they're There are a few of them,
Speaker 1: but there's a billion of us.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a great point I'm just trying to think
Speaker 3: of the things that they listed as.
Speaker 1: Whatever her name is, okay, the witch. She walks down
Speaker 1: the streets with two bodyguards. Two bodyguards, okay, and so
Speaker 1: because she's not afraid. Okay, if she was afraid, she
Speaker 1: wouldn't come out. You have an army around her. She's
Speaker 1: not afraid that you'd be killed in the street.
Speaker 2: The roth child. I remember one of the build over
Speaker 2: your meetings. I can't remember what year it was. Okay,
Speaker 2: you know, just somebody came up to him and asked
Speaker 2: him a question. He just answered, they're not afraid. Yes,
Speaker 2: they're not afraid.
Speaker 3: I guess the elite class sees it as the masses
Speaker 3: are never going to wake up enough to be a
Speaker 3: significant threat, and their only concern is with other power blocks, right.
Speaker 3: That tends to seem to be what's going on? How
Speaker 3: do we make them afraid? I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 4: Other than to contend you.
Speaker 3: Of what we're doing, I would say that I've never
Speaker 3: seen this many people begin to kind of be awake
Speaker 3: and aware of what's going on. I don't know what
Speaker 3: you think about that. I mean, have you ever have
Speaker 3: you ever seen this many people? I mean, for example,
Speaker 3: on Twitter, and the numbers might be off, but even still,
Speaker 3: like millions and millions of people are seeing just the
Speaker 3: most insane level conspiracy stuff be vindicated on a daily basis.
Speaker 2: That is, you have a lot of information out there.
Speaker 1: I know, yeah you don't, but people don't know how
Speaker 1: to put it together.
Speaker 4: To put it together.
Speaker 1: It's like, imagine you have a puzzle, okay, and there's
Speaker 1: like one hundred thousand pieces to this puzzle, except that
Speaker 1: it's not one puzzle, but it's like, you know, fifty
Speaker 1: different puzzles that somebody decided to mix up and you
Speaker 1: have to make sense to it, and you don't have
Speaker 1: the You don't have the It's not that you're stupid
Speaker 1: or you're smart, you don't have the tools to make
Speaker 1: to make that puzzle fit into the big picture, which
Speaker 1: is one of the reasons why I don't really care
Speaker 1: about the you know, the Epstein documents. I care about
Speaker 1: the big picture and the macro level. Okay, I don't
Speaker 1: care about the guy who pulls the trigger. I want
Speaker 1: to know the name of the guy who buys the bullet. Okay,
Speaker 1: On the macro level, how does this fit into this
Speaker 1: global structure and people understand, you know, as in the
Speaker 1: secret size they say, you know, to make you know
Speaker 1: the the the the unseen scene. Okay, how do you
Speaker 1: how do you make what you cannot see? How do
Speaker 1: you make it visible? This invisible world visible? You make
Speaker 1: it visible when people start are able to see. Okay,
Speaker 1: we have eyes, we see, but we're blind. We have
Speaker 1: no idea what we're looking at. And so you know,
Speaker 1: people go from that to entertainment to you know, foot
Speaker 1: kinds of not you.
Speaker 2: Know, stupid, nonsensical garbage.
Speaker 1: And it is so easy because people for the most part,
Speaker 1: unfortunately a stupid okay, we don't have the level of
Speaker 1: education for the most part to understand and to keep
Speaker 1: a moral compass.
Speaker 2: Long enough to say this is important and this is not.
Speaker 2: And that's the whole thing. You have too many tractions
Speaker 2: out of that which I yes, whether it's Alex Jones,
Speaker 2: you know, it's left.
Speaker 1: Right dialectic, you know, do I divide divide everything into
Speaker 1: the devil divides?
Speaker 2: Okay, And we need to understand that.
Speaker 3: It's a challenger, absolutely right. I mean I don't know.
Speaker 3: That's that is the difficult question too for anybody. It's
Speaker 3: a great question.
Speaker 2: Jay were at the time of before. How can we
Speaker 2: follow you, How can we help you? Where can we
Speaker 2: get your books? We need to read your books.
Speaker 1: You have amazing work and it's you know, I've read
Speaker 1: your books on Hollywood and your publisher is my publisher
Speaker 1: in the United States, Chris Milligan.
Speaker 4: So the floor is yours, thank you. Well. The new
Speaker 4: one is strictli with three.
Speaker 3: I wanted to cap off this trilogy because there's so
Speaker 3: many films that I didn't get to in the first two,
Speaker 3: and so many sub you know, sub niche themes b
Speaker 3: movies and things that were worth covering. I never got
Speaker 3: to the Marvel propaganda. So the first eighty pages. So
Speaker 3: it deals with you the.
Speaker 1: Cover because it's the same cover as the first one
Speaker 1: that I have. It's the same book, except you put
Speaker 1: number three right just as atery.
Speaker 3: No, this one has uh this is the first one's
Speaker 3: eyes white shot like here you can compare that. Here's
Speaker 3: the two, here's one and three. This is again because
Speaker 3: of Marvel. Chris stuck the doctor Strange on there. And
Speaker 3: then there's a bunch of like Rosemary's Baby and all
Speaker 3: this kind of stuff. So does a lot with inversion,
Speaker 3: a lot of you know, true Detective Season one, which
Speaker 3: I didn't get through, which has a lot of occult,
Speaker 3: secret society themes, et cetera. So I think it came
Speaker 3: out good because it's there's a lot more films in
Speaker 3: this one than the first two. So rather than having
Speaker 3: twenty page essays on one film, this is more like
Speaker 3: five pages on.
Speaker 4: Every film, so there's a lot more movies in it.
Speaker 4: You can get that at my website Jason olsos dot com.
Speaker 4: Signed copies in the shot.
Speaker 2: You can also email what's your your Twitter handle?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Jade I are on Twitter, jad Ir on YouTube,
Speaker 3: jade Ire, Jason Alysis on Instagram.
Speaker 4: Website, Jason Olss.
Speaker 2: You have stuck uh some I don't.
Speaker 4: Don't put a lot on there, but I need to
Speaker 4: do it more.
Speaker 2: Okay, listen, thanks so much for having for for me.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, pleasure, love your work. Take care
Speaker 2: of you too many