Speaker 1: Okay, so let me let me try to, at real
quickly introduce these guys somewhat formally so that you guys
can know what they're.
Speaker 2: Doing and where they come from.
Speaker 1: We'll start with Jay from Jay's Analysis, and he has
grown to become one of the premier film and philosophy
sites on the net, showcasing the talents of Jay Dyer,
who's graduate focused on the interplay of film, geopolitics, espionage,
and psychological warfare. Jay is a public speaker, lecturer, comedian,
and author of the popular title Esoteric Hollywood Sex Cults
and Symbols in Film, which made it to Amazon's number
one spot its first month of release in the Film
and Hollywood category. Jay, thank you very much for joining us.
I'm gonna go ahead and introduce mister adies real quickly.
Then we want to come back to you and let
you talk about your channel and just kind of introduce
you a little bit further from there, and let me
switch over to mister Atheist, who is an ex Mormon
and a content creator here on YouTube. His show, Dear
Mister Atheist, answers the questions atheists are frequently asked. He
also has a mini series called What's wrong with Mormonism.
Speaker 2: Mister atheists, you've been making the round. How are you today?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 4: Yeah, man, it's been crazy sort short amount of time,
and I feel like the prettiest girl of the dance
I do.
Speaker 5: We just passed him around. That's a.
Speaker 1: Okay, Jay, let's switch over to you kind of introduce
yourself to people who aren't familiar with you and your
channel and whatever.
Speaker 2: Else you think we need to know before we get
into the meat of this.
Speaker 6: Yeah, after the book.
Speaker 7: Well, I'll mention that my grad work was on what
you mentioned, but I also did another degree in philosophy
and history, and my grad work is also my master's
thesis is what you what you talked about, psychological warfare.
But my my graduate thesis itself is actually my master's
work is actually in philosophy and lit. So there's a
whole broad variety of there of what I've studied. But
I'm pure reviewed, academically published.
Speaker 6: I have a.
Speaker 7: Second book in the work, which will be the sequel
to the first book. Hollywood Decoded is also the basis
of a full production TV show, or my book is
the basis for the full production TV show Hollywood Decoded.
I'm also now the co host of Orski Live with
Andy Worski.
Speaker 6: And you've seen.
Speaker 7: Me probably in a lot of YouTube debates with Richard Spencer,
with JF. Gary Epp and other atheists and thinkers. And yeah,
so that's what I do. Got another TV show in
the works, that's we're shooting the pilot pretty soon. And
that's all I can think of. There's bugs in here.
Speaker 2: Excellent, that's quite a bit. That's quite an aggressive.
Speaker 6: Resume.
Speaker 5: I will say a philosophy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I saw it, as you said, philosophy.
Speaker 2: I saw Steve Boning over there.
Speaker 3: I don't know if I'm gonna be able to get.
Speaker 2: To that's like, we don't need them. We don't need them.
Go ahead, say thank to you, sir.
Speaker 4: Everyone calls me Jimmy, and that's fine. There's no need
for a more formal mister, Atheists. My CV is nowhere
near as impressive content creator that came on the scene
about four months ago. The production values were what set
me apart, but are entirely because it's what I do
for my day job. Also, and as you mentioned, I
answered the questions that atheists are posed over and over again.
I do come from a Mormon background. I left Mormonism
in my early twenties, as a result of really observing Mormonism,
made my way past Mormonism slightly into Christianity, a little
bit of Deism, and then all the way out to atheism,
more agnostic or philosophical agnosticism, as Steve would prefer.
Speaker 3: I clarify, and I.
Speaker 4: Also am writing a book called Esoteric Esoteric Hollywood, which
the thesis is that Jay is a member of the
Illuminati and is only written the first book to cover
what the Illuminati is really up to.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and this would be clipped out as proof right here.
Speaker 2: If you do that, you know what just happened right there?
Speaker 1: The digital Christian just spassed out when we did that.
Speaker 6: He puts me on his channel.
Speaker 7: I hope he exposes me and then I'll get a
whole bunch of traffic that will work fine for me.
But yeah, to.
Speaker 5: Mario still has a channel that's relevant.
Speaker 7: Okay, go ahead, Jay, Well, I'm just gonna say real quick.
Speaker 6: Uh. I forgot to mention too.
Speaker 7: I do represent Orthodox Christianity, so I'll be distinct from
Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in my my approach and and
my belief in apologetics is that I actually have a
distinct we have a distinct approach to that as well,
So it's not going to be rehashed Thomas Aquinas or
rehashed you know evangelical stuff.
Speaker 2: Awesome.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Actually, can I ask, then, in relation to that question,
what your position on in relation to the Catholic churches,
because this is relevant for some of the stuff down
the way.
Speaker 7: Well, I was Catholic for a long time, about ten
years before I got into Orthodoxy, so I was a hardcore,
committed fan of Aquinas very much Atomas. I attended the
Latin Mass pretty voraciously, pretty consistently.
Speaker 6: So yeah, Orthodoxy.
Speaker 7: Is, you know, a completely distinct communion and completely distinct church.
Certainly it shares a lot of similarities with the first
thousand years of the Church, but of course in the
second millennia they split and go their separate ways. So
we're kind of in ways similar to Protestant and then
in other ways similar to Catholic, depending on what the
focus is. But but we do not believe that Romanism
is the right religion.
Speaker 4: Any any particular or special ill will towards them over others. I,
for example, certainly target Mormonism more than any others on
my channel because it's specifically what I came from and
find the most fun to attack.
Speaker 7: But that's people had debated Nick Fuintis over this, and
he and I have had a pretty heated Catholic Orthodox debate,
and only because Roman Catholics seem to get so mad
and they're the only the only people that have like
flagged my channel and got me banned for on Twitter
are are Roman Catholics, So that that is part of
the reason why there's a lot of ferocity.
Speaker 4: So as an Orthodox Catholic, is there any any Vatican
interaction at all?
Speaker 3: Or is it entirely devoid of the Vatican.
Speaker 7: Yeah, Orthodoxy among other things split over in ten fifty four.
Roughly they split over the question of the role of
the pope. So we see all bishops as equal. We
believe in the ecumenical the council view of the Church,
not in the idea of papal infallibility or papal ex cathedral.
So that's one of the key central aspects of what
we differ over. But then we also differ over the
nature of Christ and who God is, how we know God,
how we experience God. Everything ends up being different.
Speaker 3: Is sorry, am I derailing things?
Speaker 7: Is this?
Speaker 3: How did you want? Is this okay?
Speaker 6: Now?
Speaker 2: Okay, this is fine?
Speaker 1: Whenever you my phone, whenever you get ready, I'll I'll
just for the first question out, but if you need context.
Speaker 6: Go for yeah.
Speaker 3: So for the last question, I guess is yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 7: Well my question is just about the process. So are
we going to jump right into and I don't care
either way, but are we going to talk about I
think you titled it what like like Hollywood occultism or
Hollywood or are we going to do that or.
Speaker 3: All of my act questions have to do with your book?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Basically all of what's gonna happen is he's going
to get the context that he needs.
Speaker 2: And then what we do here is we.
Speaker 1: Don't like they're not rigid structured debates where it's you know,
you get this time, he gets this time. We kind
of like to have a free flowing kind of conversation
because you get more out of it.
Speaker 2: So we're going to focus on the symbolism.
Speaker 1: What once he gets like what he needs context, I'm
gonna throw it to you and let you kind of
put out the premise with what your books about and
kind of what you're, what you're you're claiming and all that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, and yeah, even my first question is
largely related to to what you just stated. All all
of my questions that follow, while they may deviate from
the pages here and there, it's yeah, it's all related
to the book.
Speaker 3: I am curious whether or not.
Speaker 4: And this is just pure curiosity, not about to start
a fight with Orthodoxy.
Speaker 3: Are they Young Earth.
Speaker 4: Or are they or does it vary like with Moremanism,
They're they're younger Mormons and naturalist Mormons who just believe
in occasional intervention.
Speaker 7: There are plenty of Orthodox who do accept evolution in
both micro macro senses. There are pretty plenty of Orthodox
who accept Old and Young Earth. So for us, it's
not typically something that's dogmatic. Although I do believe in creation,
so I tend to argue against a.
Speaker 6: Big scale evolution, and.
Speaker 3: That that part I knew. I was just curious if,
as you talked.
Speaker 7: About, I don't I don't have a dogmatic Yeah, I
don't have a dogmatic nor do I have a dogmatic
argument about the specific age per se of.
Speaker 3: The Okay, cool, cool, Okay, that's I think. That's all
I mean a good moment.
Speaker 1: You're good and one more little side that I think
it's it should be put out there because it's to me.
Speaker 2: It was epic and it was just it was just
a sweet thing.
Speaker 1: Uh, with you and Richard Spencer when you you guys debated.
Can you tell people what the what you guys debated over?
Speaker 3: I mean, there's a few, but.
Speaker 4: I know which one you're asking about, so because he's
done it a few times, so I'll tell Jay he's
asking specifically about which political party Jesus would have been
a part of, And yeah, if that helps give a
hint toward which.
Speaker 6: You guys cut out for a second.
Speaker 7: But but the question was what what political party would
Jesus be Yeah, So he was.
Speaker 4: Asking you about your Richard Spencer debate, and I was saying,
I know which one he's specifically asking about, and it
had to do with political parties. So I was just
trying to give you the context before you answer, because
I know you've done other debates with him, So which
specific debate is before?
Speaker 2: I thought it was a great premise. It was if Jesus.
Speaker 6: Was all right or not?
Speaker 3: Would be all right? How well?
Speaker 6: How was he?
Speaker 2: Uh? As far as somebody that you know, because he's
a controversial figure.
Speaker 1: Was that a decision that you kind of made lightly
or did you get he kind of backlash from you know,
entertaining having a debate with somebody like that.
Speaker 2: I'm just curious. It seems like you'd get some flat
for that.
Speaker 7: Maybe minimal, but uh, you know, I I think pretty
clearly distinguished my positions from his. So you know, I mean,
Richard debates black He debates black checks on on YouTube,
so you know, he debates all kinds of people.
Speaker 6: Uh, you know, he debates Jewish guys.
Speaker 1: I only bring that up because we just announced yesterday
about Sargon coming on in bar Gone.
Speaker 6: For some people, you.
Speaker 2: Would have thought the world ended.
Speaker 1: Uh you know, you get those people who could out there.
Speaker 2: I can't believe you're giving something like that a platform.
Speaker 1: And I just wondered if you got the same thing
with with a somebody Richard Spencer, I mean very.
Speaker 7: Nonmal I mean, I mean there was some criticism, but
really it was it was hosted app based Baked Alaska's channel.
Speaker 6: It wasn't my channel, And you know.
Speaker 7: The question and the weird thing was that originally it
was supposed to be a debate, and then the day
before Richard said, would let's just have an.
Speaker 6: A conversation and I was like, well, you already agreed to.
Speaker 7: A debate, so and so then we we we agreed
on something in between.
Speaker 6: We called it an exchange.
Speaker 7: But I think James also in Baked Alaska, is still
called it a debate, which is fine with me, and
that's what it was supposed to.
Speaker 6: Be, but not really. Not many people in me flack
over it.
Speaker 4: But I generally use the three words interchangeably if I'm
coming on with anybody I disagree with.
Speaker 3: Debate, exchange or discussion.
Speaker 6: Yeah, they're change.
Speaker 3: So let's get to discussion.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna let Jay kind of explaining what his books
about and the premise that he's coming from, and then
this atheist you can once he gets finished, ask whatever
question that you have. The only thing that I asked guys,
is that you don't talk over each other so that
the people who are listening can understand and get your
entire thoughts out. So that's the only rule. Just don't
talk over each other and let each other finish out
your faults and we'll have a good conversation.
Speaker 7: All right, Jay, Well, basically The book is just a
reflection of an interest that I have for a long
time in film. Around age eighteen, I was interested in
acting and I wrote a stand up routine.
Speaker 6: I did stand up here and there on the side,
just for fun.
Speaker 7: And then when I went into university, I started studying
a lot of history, looked at the geopolitics. It was
also getting into conspiracy topics online, mainly for fun, and
I started noticing that a lot of the plots of
films really were conspiratorial, and a lot of times the
authors of both screenplays and people who were and say
intelligence had a lot of crossover. And then as I
researched this for grad work, I noticed that there was
a lot there that I thought was initially would have
thought was absurd, the idea that the Pentagon or the
CIA has a lot to do with telling Hollywood how
to craft films, what messages to put into films.
Speaker 6: So I thought that would be an interesting subject.
Speaker 7: Matter to pursue at a graduate level and do a
thesis on. And so I had to pick something a
little more narrow, and I chose Ian Fleming his life
and of course he's the creator of James Bond. If
you're not familiar, and the way that the films were
used as kind of Western CIA propaganda, British intelligence propaganda
in the.
Speaker 6: Cold War especially. So what you see is that a lot.
Speaker 7: Of Ian Fleming's own personal exploits in Black Ops actually
became a subtle undercurrent for what's in most of the
Bond stories, and there's a kernel at least of truth.
You know, Flemings fans were saying everything I write his
President in truth, and certainly they're fiction stories, but they
also include hermetic and alchemical and occultic themes. I think
that Fleming spiced his novel up with those ideas. So
that became the seed for the book that I wrote,
which focused on mainly big directors. So I looked at
the first eighty pages or Kubrick films Eyes, White Shirt
Shining two thousand and one, then about eighty pages or
so of Spielberg and H. G.
Speaker 6: Wells, and how HG.
Speaker 7: Wells was actually a master propagandist as well as a
science fiction author. So I went pretty deep into the
metaphysics and the philosophy of film and how it conveys
meaning to us at different levels. So this is a
question of in philosophy, what's called semiotics. So I go
into the semiotics of film some and then I went
into a section, as I said, on Bond, and then
a section a little bit on Hitchcock and his presentation
and how he actually worked with British intelligence, how different
outfits studied Hitchcock films for their psychological value as it
would be useful in terms of propaganda.
Speaker 6: So what the book does.
Speaker 7: It operates on multiple levels, analyzing imagery and analyzing narratives,
analyzing contexts, directors, and all of that in relationship to
real world geopolitics, real world history, and real world conspiracies
as far as I could verify them. So it's four
hundred and four footnotes, three hundred and sixty three pages.
Anybody who does grad research and does if you're a
research assistant, you'll have to do a lot of footnoting.
So I'm very pretty anal retentive about footnoting. So I
try to source everything as well and as best as
I can, hence the library behind me.
Speaker 6: So that's what the book is.
Speaker 7: It's an analysis of the big directors in their films
in terms of all of those levels.
Speaker 6: I see.
Speaker 2: I see Steed in the corner.
Speaker 1: Every time you you make a philosophical.
Speaker 2: Philosophical word.
Speaker 5: What I like philosophy? Why is that so bad? See
the crap? You see this?
Speaker 7: Yeah, if you do a philosophy degree, I mean, you know,
the dumb joke always heard when I was doing grad
school was oor the philosophy, Uh, factories hiring.
Speaker 6: When you get out. So you know, I mean you're
pretty limited.
Speaker 7: You can either go on and get the pH d
and try to teach, or you can do what I do,
and you know, go out there and write books and
and do what I do in philosophy.
Speaker 5: You have to wonder did you really get your degree?
Or not to get to my degree? You did you
get that?
Speaker 6: Good?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm coming around, okay, straight?
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Hello, So I'm gonna treat this more as the hard
start with the the hello to Well.
Speaker 3: First of all, thank you Jay for agreeing to come on.
Speaker 4: I think it's commendable anybody who has opinions that are
obviously I mean, you acknowledge that you are trying to
expose conspiracies or I hope I'm not doing you this
service and saying that, And so that's going to be
a polarizing issue. And I think it's cool that you're
willing to come on have your claims be investigated.
Speaker 3: In or criticized. I think that's awesome.
Speaker 4: I don't mean this to be patronizing. I genuinely mean
well done in congratulations on both getting a book written
and published and on the Amazon number one for its category.
Speaker 3: I don't mean that to be like a take.
Speaker 4: It any that's awesome and it's much more than I've done.
Maybe I mean this compliment to be this comment to
be a slightly patronizing. I can say that of all
the books I've ever read, this one is certainly the
most recent.
Speaker 3: That was my joke for the day. Okay, So the
question I actually.
Speaker 4: Want to start out with is, in reading your book,
it seems like you and correct me if I'm wrong,
but it's mean like you believe there is an actual
underground cult behind Hollywood. But in addition, there are times
in your book where you seem to talk about different
and separate cults Darwinian cult, Stockanism cults, which maybe those
are the same one. So I'm actually curious to know,
before we get too deep into the details of the book,
just how many underground cults are at work in your
view as far as and that have a significant influence
on population and.
Speaker 3: Via whatever pop culture or anything.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 7: Well, now, in the world of Hollywood, there are multiple
cults that are pretty well known as having a degree
of influence and a well known Hollywood retinue, right, So,
I mean, we can think of Scientology and all the
high level Hollywood people who've been involved in scientology. We
can think of the Nexium cult recently that was in
the news with the Alison Mack and Keith Rinair stories
of sex trafficking.
Speaker 6: We can think of the Children.
Speaker 7: Of God col Moses Berg, who was pedophile connected to
Hollywood people who you know, this is where we get
Rose McGowan, the Phoenix family, River Phoenix and so forth.
Speaker 6: They come out of the Children of God cult.
Speaker 7: So I mean, the Oto has obviously a quite.
Speaker 6: A few adherents in Hollywood.
Speaker 7: Cabbalism and the Cobbolah, quite a few people have been
influenced by that in Hollywood.
Speaker 6: People like Rosenne talk about it pretty openly.
Speaker 7: So I wouldn't be so absurd as to say that
there's there's only one cult. But if we were to
come up with the idea of one overwriting cult in Hollywood,
it would be actually the CIA, and the CIA is
actually treated as a as a cult, and this goes
into the history of intelligence agencies and how cults operate.
So I'm not saying that every person in the CIA
or in his history literally isn't a cultist or a Luciferian.
But if you look at the history of Skull and Bones,
the way it was set up, which is where the
CIA comes from, Yale, Harvard and so.
Speaker 6: Forth, they do have a very occult aspect to them.
Speaker 7: And for me, regardless of whether you believe in anything supernatural,
really is just a question of trafficking in secrets, in
secret information.
Speaker 6: So what we see in Hollywood is no different. We
see a lot of.
Speaker 7: People who are high profile who can be blackmailed. This
actually just came out with Hattie Flies today. She was
admitting that how much of her Black Book was so important,
and famous whistleblowers and people from prostitution and prominent madam
positions have talked about how their work is used as blackmail,
like Henry Vinson Confessions of a DC Madam at Deborah
Parfrey and so forth, and they actually tie into at times,
not always, but at times cults like the Franklin cover up,
So there will be a I think you'll notice if
you research system definitely that a lot of these networks
will connect together. So I'm not saying that everybody in
Hollywood is run by a cult or that the all
put through the same brainwashing. But at the top of
a lot of these groups, you'll you'll find a lot
of collusion. Uh And ultimately I would say that the
Pentagon and the CIA do have a tremendous amount of
influence in Hollywood.
Speaker 4: I can't hear the word collusion without wanting to do
my Trump impression.
Speaker 5: There was new.
Speaker 4: Collusion, but then the huge, huge, new, absolutely new collusion.
Speaker 5: Words.
Speaker 6: There you go.
Speaker 3: I new where it's the best words. And now I'm
actually trying.
Speaker 1: To think you two of my favorite guests that we've had.
Speaker 5: I'm loving this. That's good. That's good.
Speaker 4: So uh so with the Number one cult, and again,
I'm never let me straw man. I'll even let you
interrupt me to prevent a straw man, even though that
was the big rule with the Number one cult, or
at least the thing being linked altogether, this being the CIA.
I guess the concern I have and the wonder I
have after reading your book is uh, Well, would you
say first of all that the book is meant to
expose that idea that the underlying linking.
Speaker 3: If there has to be a number one cult, it's
the CIA, or is there a specific cult you would
say your book is trying to reveal or just the
idea that occultism is alive and well in Hollywood.
Speaker 7: Well, like I said, like so sometimes you'll have something
like the OTO, which has a lot of adherence in
Hollywood and high level finance and things like that.
Speaker 6: I'm not saying that everybody in that group is part.
Speaker 7: Of the exact same you know, I get that a gender, right,
But there are people who do intelligence work who are
and have written many books on how to manipulate and
use cults. There are a lot of white papers that
have been written on how to manipulate and use cults
as even an experiment at times. So the purpose might
be different in different cases. But yeah, I would say
overall it's easily And I understand the skepticism because when
I first came into studying this question in my undergrad
I thought, if somebody had said the CIA in Hollywood
have flipped side of the same coin back then when
I was like twenty two or three.
Speaker 6: I would have thought that was crazy.
Speaker 7: But after spending a lot of time in that and
looking at a lot of other academics who've actually backed
this up with their research, it's like, yeah, that's obvious
to me now, right, this is why.
Speaker 6: They're so there.
Speaker 7: And if you look at the history of intelligence operations,
you can find so many famous people who did intelligence
work on the side, who were intelligence assets, like Jimmy
Stewart or Carry Grant. Julia Child worked for the OSS.
This is fairly prominent, right. Coco Chanel was a famous spy.
So all these people did this kind of on the
side at times. So it's not that everything is necessarily
under the religious aspect of a cult. As if, like
the CIA handler thinks, oh, everyone under me is under
my religious hand, they can just be under him in
a manipulative sense. He could just have dirt on them.
It doesn't have to be religious in every time or
every case. But also, I was writing my book for
a pop audience. It's not just written for an academic audience.
If you write something just academic, you're not going to
sell a lot of books. So it had to be
kind of also written in the language of pop culture.
So at times, yeah, I'll talk about something like the Illuminati.
I don't have a problem talking about that, because while
there are many groups that embody the idea of the
Illuminati today, there actually is a historical Illuminati that you
can trace academically and historically in a lot of main,
mainline history books.
Speaker 2: Juliet Child's.
Speaker 3: And perhaps.
Speaker 6: She was in the osays.
Speaker 3: So, and perhaps this is.
Speaker 4: Where our first point of conflict is going to come,
because what I'm understanding is I read this book and
I'm trying to figure out who exactly it's exposing, and
that's it's not actually easy to directly come up with that,
And I certainly wouldn't have come out with that theme
of if there is a connecting entity to expose, it
would be the CIA. What I see is a book
that at in much in a conspiratorial way, looks to
all of these things and says, ah, if you look
through this lens, this becomes obvious if you look through
this lens. In fact, somewhere toward the beginning of the book,
you even suggest I'm going to teach you how to
watch it the way I watch it, And then it'll
become obvious.
Speaker 3: But when I see somebody actually.
Speaker 4: Expose a cult, expose scientology, I see money followed, I
see family lineage to some degree followed less important. But
people are naming names and following the following them. I
mean even even in non cult exposition. Or John Oliver
is like my favorite person who exposes things more that
we just didn't realize was going on than was necessarily
a giant secret.
Speaker 3: And that's the tactic he takes. He names names, and
he follows the money.
Speaker 4: And while there is some name naming, it's then dependent
upon what if after he got done doing this work
around the time that the moon landing was supposed to
be happening and NASA had act sess to these Hollywood
sound studios. It almost seems like the leap then is
what if when he supposedly was done all of that,
he wasn't actually done. That's I guess one of my
primary conflicts with the book. It's a little too much
of a confirmation bias masturbatory aid.
Speaker 3: If I may be crass, it's a.
Speaker 4: Here's how to look at it, and now if you
look at it, look how obvious it becomes.
Speaker 6: Right, Well, let me let's take you. Let's take it
through some specific examples.
Speaker 7: So let's take Kubrick and I don't say, by the way,
I don't make the claim that Kubrick filmed the moonlandings.
Speaker 6: So that's not in my book.
Speaker 7: Yeah, but it's right. But it's verifiable that Kubrick did
work with NASA. That can easily be verified. He worked
with Muler of NASA because they really liked the way
he shot things, and they wanted to share insight and
information on how to do film work because obviously NASA
is interested in camera work too, right, So whatever anybody's
onions of the moon landing are, it's very easy to
verify that Kubrick collaborated with NASA. Now, again, I'm not
saying that that means anything beyond that.
Speaker 6: That's I'm just saying.
Speaker 7: That's one example where you do see a clear working together. Now,
let me say on the claim that intelligence agencies operate
like a cult. Okay, that has been written about by
many people in a mainline academic way.
Speaker 6: So one book on that is called Cloak and Gown
by Robin Winks.
Speaker 7: This is a famous work on the history of intelligence agencies,
and it's specifically the history of the CIA operating like
a cult. Right, So I don't really care whether a
person believes in the CIA being a cultic or not.
Speaker 6: The main point is that they operate like a cult.
Speaker 7: And when it comes to the way that so many
people in Hollywood, especially during the Cold War, were recruited
into working for the FBI, Jimmy Stewart was a famous
FBI asset even may he even made movies in tan
them with j Edgar Hoover. Is a famous movie called
The FBI Story, and Jimmy Stewart's like playing all these
different roles without throughout human history.
Speaker 6: As the FBI. Jimmy starts the hero America and the FBI.
Speaker 7: Right, So you can just watch that movie and you see, right,
they're a clear example of that kind of a collusion
during the Cold War. And so I understand that these
are a lot of different specific examples, But what I'm
saying is that when you go to something like the
academic work, whereas it I've got it here with.
Speaker 6: Me operation Hollywood.
Speaker 7: Yeah, let me show you this book. So when I
started looking at the question from an academic perspective, and
this is all people from various universities who study.
Speaker 6: The same stuff I do. And this is put out
by David Robb and what they.
Speaker 7: Do is basically go through the last several decades of
Hollywood's revisions of scripts. So this is at a very
kind of base, not conspiratorial, just an academic look at
the different times of the Pentagon told movies. No, you
can't do this if you want to use our aircraft
carrier in the background, if you want to use our tanks,
you got to do this. Oh we want this tweaked
here because this doesn't portray America right in this Cold
War setting.
Speaker 6: Blah blah blah. Countless examples. There's probably seventy.
Speaker 7: Eighty movies that they go through in this text, written
by multiple scholars. Another thing I would say that that
sort of backs up one side of this thesis is
the famous book.
Speaker 6: This is put out by University of Texas professor Tricia Jenkins.
Speaker 7: Book The CIA in Hollywood. It's pretty expensive on Amazon.
That's because it's like her PhD. Yeah, I think it's
her PhD thesis, And she does the same thing. She
goes through the history of how many times, especially in
more recent times. So she for example, there's a whole
chapter on jj Abrams and who's the chick from Alias,
Jennifer Garner, you know, working together to consult with the
CIA on the film the series Alias. And so when
you start to look at like Chase Brandon Milt Bearden,
who are the two well known CIA liaisons in Hollywood,
and how they consulted on movies like Meet the Parents,
how they consult on movies.
Speaker 6: Like Wag the Dog. By the way, Wag the Dog
is about what I'm telling you about.
Speaker 7: There's a whole movie made about the CIA consulting with
Hollywood and so forth. It's it's satirical, but it still,
you know, kind of hammers the point home. So these
are just kind of the beginning points where I started
this journey this question. So I didn't immediately when I
looked at these texts say, oh, then that's the illuminati
that runs everything. No, I mean, I'm just saying, these
are academic sources. If people want peer review, you want
hard evidence outside of my book, and all these books
are sourced of course inside it in my book.
Speaker 6: You can look at that to begin your track down
this rabbit hole.
Speaker 7: But so then what happens is if you look at
the cult side of Hollywood that I mentioned early on,
and you said scientology, You said, what I see is money,
what I see is fame.
Speaker 6: I would totally agree with you.
Speaker 7: I would say, many cases when people come out of
Scientology and they like Ramini and she talks about it,
she says, oh, they were, you know, abusing us and
this and that, and that's all true at one level.
But I would say, if you've read Edward Barne's book Propaganda,
one of the things that Brene says is that the
greatest tool for propaganda.
Speaker 6: The world has ever seen is Hollywood.
Speaker 7: And so he made that a central aspect of the
way that the advertising because he actually went from working
with the State Department to working with advertising and mass
marketing to tell them how to manipulate human psychology so
that mass advertising campaigns would be successful. Brene said that
Hollywoo would be key to controlling and engineering people's perception. So,
long story short, there are just countless white papers, countless
documents that you can very easily verify from the vantage
point of the CIA, from the vantage point of the
Pentagon think tanks that very openly discuss using so many
movies films in this perspective of big scale social engineering.
So even if you want to say, well, it's not
a cult, I would just say, okay, I don't care
whether we use the word cult or not. I think
it is like a cult, like Robin Winks's book Cloak
and Gown says, but at least in practice, it functions
as simply a tool to control people's perception. And that's
why there's a giant machinery that goes into making pop
stars as well.
Speaker 4: I'm certainly not going to argue that no social engineering
happens in Hollywood. That would be ridiculous and ignorant to
make that claim. It's more that i'm The argument I
want to have is actually, what it almost sounded like
you were dismissing is that this book seems to claim
to expose precisely what that social engineering is geared toward toward.
And it seems to me you only need to pick
something different to do the exact same thing. And I
could write a whole book on how these people who
learned via through consulting with the CIA. I'll grant you
every point, because I'm not I don't know well enough
about all these white papers to.
Speaker 3: Say you're wrong.
Speaker 4: If you are so I'll grant you all of those.
It seems like all I need to do is go, Okay,
what if I wanted to change my lens to Hollywood
is trying to program us all into a monogamous, not transform,
but maintain it into a monogamous, heteronormative culture, because that
is the easiest thing for them to gear their social
engineering towards. Is that's what they have traditionally worked with.
And then I can go through and find those themes
of still monogamy.
Speaker 3: I just have to choose different movies.
Speaker 4: And in fact, what I found interesting about this book
too is in trying to apparently expose this ginormous underlying plot,
you chose a series of movies that a lot of
people have seen, but I've seen less than half of them.
So whatever this group is doing, love, I hope it's
your new book that's going to come in with some
examples of maybe what's And I'm a little bit younger,
clearly I'm not over the age of fourteen, but thee
I hope some more modern examples of how this is
still being maintained, because otherwise it seems to me if
everything comes from that sort of restricted time period just
as as feasible an idea that the reason the movies
look that way is because it's what was popular in
culture at the time. And even if these people learn
things while doing other social engineering in these CIA plots
or Cold war propaganda or whatever, I wouldn't expect them
everything that I would expect to see similarities between the
movies they made then and the movies they made later.
Speaker 6: I don't.
Speaker 4: Again, confirmation bias is what it feels like. The whole
book is about, here's the lens I'm going to use,
here's the information that does. I mean, it's a it's
a lot to think about, and it's there's a lot
of things where it's like, Okay, why is that? But
then it's also like why do I need to make
that jump? So why do you see that? You can
respond to anything I said, But I'd love to see well, yeah.
Speaker 6: So like in the second book. Yeah, so in the
second book.
Speaker 7: I bring in in the first uh several the first
couple chapters, if I recall the concept of the various
mafias that have had influence in Hollywood.
Speaker 6: So again, I feel like you're trying to push me.
Speaker 7: Into a position where I have to say that I'm
consistently claiming there's only one single group that runs everything. No, Okay,
well that's I mean, I'm very I try to be
very nuanced, And in fact, what you're hitting on is
something that I specifically did want to include in the sequel,
which is the question of the mafia, and this before
I looked into that was an area where I was
kind of unclear how it fit in, because obviously there's
been a lot of mob of influence in Hollywood.
Speaker 6: Over the decades.
Speaker 7: So what I tried to do was look at the
the tie in between how the mafia and the CIA
have actually made deals and worked together at times. This
is actually portrayed by the way in Mario Puzzo's The
Godfather you have in the initial installment, he deals with
the way that the Mafia basically told certain directors what
movies would and wouldn't be made. And I try to
be fair to different mafias in their influence in Hollywood.
So there's a big, famous book called by Gus Russo
about Sydney Korshak and his influence in the mafia in
Hollywood and Vegas. So that's a giant, six hundred page,
famous academic book. I've sourced that many times in the
first few chapters of my new book. And if you
know about the mafia, you know that they operate also
like a cult, and I see the CIA as a mafia.
Speaker 6: Maybe that's a better wady to put it.
Speaker 7: But you'll notice that the same kind of initiation rituals
for the Coast and Nostra for the Sicilian mafia, for
other mafias as well.
Speaker 6: It's very similar to the kind.
Speaker 7: Of initiation virtuals that if you read about Skull and
Bones at Gale, the kinds of initiation that they go through,
the oaths that have to be made, so life or
death thing.
Speaker 6: You don't leave this, this is your whole life. You're
owned by the state.
Speaker 7: Basically, the mafia have used it the same way, and
there have been documented historical instances declassified papers about the
CIA and the mafia making deals together.
Speaker 6: For example, the Bay of Pigs.
Speaker 7: There were MOB connected people who were involved in the
failed invasion, this the so called Bay of Pigs, So
that was actually a deal between kind up question, there's.
Speaker 4: A distinction that I'm now having a problem with. What
is your distinction between a cult, a religion, or a
cult and a political party because I'm again I'm trying
to not sound like a douche through this whole thing,
but honestly I will.
Speaker 3: I don't know if I can come up with an
organization the same question.
Speaker 5: Clarified by a cult.
Speaker 7: Right, So I mean I believe that a cult generally, yes,
it has a religious connotation of some figure, some deity
that everybody has to submit to. And then the representation
of the leader in the cult. You know, he has
supreme power. This is generally what people think of when
they think of a cult, and I'm saying that in practice. Again,
there are many mainline academic books like Cloak and Gown
that will show you that the functioning of intelligence agencies
are just like cults, and the History of intelligence Agencies.
You can read Francis the Vornix's famous book on the
history of the rise of intelligence agencies out of Byzantium.
These are all mainline academic works. They will make the
same comparison. So the comparison is not something that I'm inventing.
It's a comparison that is normative in the history of
intelligence research. Alan Dulles in his book The Craft of Intelligence,
he goes back to the Israelite spies to give the
earliest examples of the functioning of intelligence agencies like religious organizations.
So I'm not the person who came up with that
compar it's it's prevalent in the literature you can read.
Speaker 4: It just seems like the way you're using the word
isn't necessarily as it certainly has its precedence and intelligence,
and I think they probably had perhaps a more precise definition.
I dare say, it seems like you're making the comparison
useless because I feel I could use your use of
act like a cult to describe virtually anything, any organization.
Speaker 3: It does. It does feel like you very broadly.
Speaker 7: Okay, But but if we talk about the way, for example,
agents offering operates sometimes in Hollywood, if you've read any
biographies of people who've had to deal with an agent
who you know, kind of ran their life, and especially
as you climb up the ladder, a lot of times
agents have a lot of power they can they can
you know, basically like in the case of Elvis and
his his agent, Colonel Tom. He was who supplied Elvis
with drugs, so he had a lot of influence in
Elvis's life. Uh, and and a lot of control by extension,
especially as a high level military guy. So I mean,
I think that to me, that's just a common sense
kind of analysis. But so I'm not really getting what
what the point is is that you're just basically saying
that I'm misusing the word cult. And all I was
trying to do was to say that if you want
to use a broad definition of psychological manipulation, then then
you can say that.
Speaker 4: But I don't think, yeah, I'm not just trying to
make a silly point of like you're using the word
wrong for more, especially as an atheist, I hear that
word abused a lot, the word atheists and and and
the stretch is made and people will use or the
word faith actually is a better.
Speaker 3: One to use, so I can go into your realm
a little bit more.
Speaker 4: The word faith is just used so broadly, but people
use it interchangeably in places where you can't actually necessarily
tell which power they've given that word. And so it's
not just the broad use, it's then the continued use
as though it has a more significant power, more significant
is represented more significantly, when again it seems to be
following with that the next argument now we've got cults,
agents act like cults. I really don't know what organization
with any kind of head that has more power than
than the people under couldn't be used so vaguely. But
then when you're reading a book about exposing a cult life,
that has a different level of power implied.
Speaker 3: And I don't think your use of the word cult.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 7: If a person goes against something, say that's not politically correct, right,
it's not like a Hollywood agent has to stamp them out. Rather,
it's known that they're not going to get the job.
They get blacklisted. I mean, the idea of being blacklisted
in Hollywood is very common. So so in other words,
I'm not saying that that has to be like one
guy at the top of a pyramid who you know,
like makes the calls all day about who's who's killed,
Who gets what role? What I mean in the sense
of different studios and who gets what roles. We saw
this with Harvey Weinstein. If you didn't screw the right person,
if you didn't do the right stuff, you know, you
didn't get the right roles right, and then we had
all the meat too stuff. So that's casting couch. That's
well known I don't think I'm going beyond anything public
in saying that Hollywood operates like a cult. In fact,
how many people from Hollywood have made this same claim.
John Cusack has called Hollywood a giant prostitution slash wourhouse.
Ben Affleck says Hollywood is full of cig agents and
operates like an intelligence cult. I mean, to me, it
just seems obviously, maybe just because I've been so so
in messed in the research, that it's it's like secondhand
to me that it seems strange that somebody would have.
Speaker 6: A problem with that.
Speaker 7: But I feel like you're saying you're saying there's feel
like you're saying there's no over You're saying there's no
overwriting conspiracy, and I'm saying there is no but we
don't have.
Speaker 6: To do Okay, Well, I'm still not in the precise critique.
Speaker 4: I'm saying you have come out with a precise or
or a more precise conspiracy that your book seems to
claim to expose the I don't think the thesis of
the book is at all well stated in the title.
In fact, I would say esoteric Hollywood then follows with basically,
here's all of the reasons why esoteric hollywould exist. Once
you already accept that it exists, here's all of the
things you see from it.
Speaker 6: So I mean the book that's not true. No, I
mean okay, But but I think you're okay.
Speaker 7: Maybe this is a difference in epistemology because you seem
to think that there's a way to enter into investigations
with neutrality, and I don't believe that there's such a
thing as neutrality, Like there's no way to investigate a
thing from a purely neutral stance and to determine oh well,
I have.
Speaker 6: No prior experience of this thing.
Speaker 7: Let me then look at it, size it up, smell it,
and through the sense data, I can make my final declaration.
Speaker 6: As to the truth or falsity of this thing.
Speaker 7: Now I'm not against empirical data, but that's a very
naive approach to epistemology or how we learn and study things.
So again, when I started this track, I did not
believe that there was a significant amount of overwriting conspiracy
in Hollywood, or that there were powerful cults in Hollywood.
That was a later conclusion that I came to after
a lot of years of reading on the subject. So
I didn't come into it with that. By the way,
the book's thesis is just simply that film and that
art form shares a lot of similarities to ritual. That's
the very first chapter in the book is film as Ritual.
So other artists have made that same comparison. The surrealists
believe that their artworks role displayed a kind of ritual presentation.
Many directors have compared their works to rich So I
don't even think that in itself, just from a comparative
religion stance, should should even be that that outlandish. It
does strike people a little strange, but that's kind of
what I wanted to do. And you're right that the
book doesn't have necessarily a single thesis. That's because it's
a collection of essays, so a collection of.
Speaker 4: Essays, and I understand that it just it seems to
me I'm not representing the idea that it again, because
I already said at the very beginning that it doesn't
name names, it doesn't follow the money.
Speaker 3: But as far as your point about.
Speaker 6: Remaining, I do name names, so I'm not sure.
Speaker 4: Sure, yeah, you do specifically which directors were doing what
or which movie creators are making for Hollywood and NASA.
Speaker 3: There are names definitely in the book.
Speaker 4: What I'm talking about is there is no While it
implies this grander conspiracy, it doesn't tie all the conspiracy
together with a bow, which I don't think you're claiming,
and I'm not trying to represent what you did. You
then made the point about neutral remaining neutral, and while
I agree that it is pretty difficult to approach anything
without bias, it feels like that was an admission on
your source or on your end, that this book is
written toward yourself and not toward an audience, because it
doesn't do a good job of establishing for the audience.
It literally just kind of to me, seems like you're saying,
presume all of this research I did, because man, look
at the list of things I've done all resulted in this,
and as long as you start here, everything that follows
will be obvious.
Speaker 3: We're tying back into confirmation bias. Again. I'm also not
saying that there aren't obvious symbols in these movies, but
there are lots of stretches made.
Speaker 7: Okay, well, I mean made. You've made a lot of
these claims, which is fine. I'm open to criticism, but again,
I wasn't conceding that the book was written from my
own perspective. I was saying that I think that's a
fact about human nature and experience across the board. I
think everybody's in the same boat about there being no
neutrality strictly speaking, so everybody by your by your definition,
anyone who writes a paper could then be or or
tries to make it, or tries to make a persuasive
argument for their case, would there be therefore therefore be
committing confirmation bias. And I think this is just simply
a misuse.
Speaker 4: And I wouldn't say that represents it completely, but certainly
anybody who relies on that, as well as other fallacies.
For example, in the intro of your book, however, as
I think you will find the popularity of my film
analysis will lend some credence to the fact that I
am onto something.
Speaker 3: Now we've got a new fallacy regarding popularity.
Speaker 4: So I would say, with that and the other part
of the intro that included the and I can find
for you, because I've highlighted.
Speaker 3: Much of this book, if you'd like, I can find
for the.
Speaker 6: Yeah, first of all, there's different ways to write different things.
Speaker 7: Right, So if I could take a Dostyevsky novel and
I could pick it apart for finding fallacies in different
characters or even trying to find a foul.
Speaker 6: Okay, so this is not strictly speaking a book.
Speaker 7: Yes, it is written to expose, but there's different types
of writing, right, Prose, you're not going to investigate prose.
And I use a lot of prose and a lot
of satire, a lot of sardonic type wit and goofiness
in the text on purpose. And so I think to
try to dissect that as if that was fallacy is
a little bit absurd, because that's not.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry if you're trying to call the fact sentence
of satirical, I mean this is you literally setting up
the book. Your next sentence is actually where the confromise
nation bias comes in. Thus the reader will travel with
me on a mental journey into the psychosphere, understand the
semiotic system I use, and in turn be able to
interpret the film in a deeper esoteric sense of their own.
Speaker 6: You're setting You're saying it's.
Speaker 7: A fallacy because I said my book, my analyzes are popular,
and it's onto something. So you're going at a prosaic, popular,
gave it, creed.
Speaker 2: Each other, each other, finish ahead.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, but yeah, I'm not.
Speaker 7: When you write an introduction to a book, you're not
always making an argument.
Speaker 6: Do you not understand that?
Speaker 4: Yes, I understand, I understand you setting yourself up for again,
it's the intro to the book asks the reader to
skip a lot and skip straight forward to here's my analysis. Now,
I'm sorry if you guys are getting win stuff, but
my outside just went like crazy. But here's here's where
I'm at. Now I need you to start where I've
already gone. You don't even make a quicker or a
quick case for here's this, here's you've done more so
in this.
Speaker 7: Actually, actually I include I include a film scholar at
the very beginning, quoting Orson well so that the first
quote is about Orson Wells talking about genre and the
way genre affects our perception. And then I go into
talking about uh, semiotics.
Speaker 6: And and and and Yeah.
Speaker 7: I don't have no problem admitting that I have presubpositions
and I come to the table with my own biases.
But again, I think we all do that. And I
mean again, you could your your approach could have pick
apart any work of literature. And this is I grant
you that my book is a little bizarre because it's
also and that's that's part of the appeal, by the way,
is that it's not just academic, it's not just written
in a popular level. It's it's a kind of a
weird mix of all these things. And I intentionally wanted
it to be that way. So you're going to find,
i'm sure, a lot of fallacies. But it's also not
a a strict logical book. It's not a book about
logical argumentation. It's a book about the arts. And I
mean the idea that you could apply that kind of
approach to aesthetics and the arts is a little a
little strained.
Speaker 4: I would say, Yeah, perhaps, I think I think you're
you're saying that it does rely on a lot of presuppositions,
so sort of makes my point for me, which is
that those pre but I will continue that point that
those presuppositions aren't justified well enough by your one quote
that you were talking about at the very beginning, which
precedes it by a few paragraphs, to ask the reader
to make those presuppositions themselves.
Speaker 3: And because it just sort of goes on.
Speaker 4: I think there are a lot of people who will
read this book and naturally make those presuppositions.
Speaker 3: In fact, I think this book at times makes.
Speaker 6: It Neil Degrass Tyson.
Speaker 7: This sounds like Neil Degrass Twicon trying to dissect interstellar
I mean this that's not the context of what this is.
This is not a book that's just about me trying
to prove my case to you, as if it was
a you know, a law setting with the judge up there,
and can I prove my case to you?
Speaker 6: I mean a lot of people are not going to.
Speaker 4: Book means to expose, doesn't mean to prove.
Speaker 7: Are you Are you aware that there's different ways to
go about exposing things. I mean, not everything has to
be done in a a legal court case situation. And
by the way, here's a little, a little, a little
advice for you. If if you want to have a
book one day, your editor is going to tell you
this needs to be written. I'm not being a dick.
I'm just saying, like what you'll go through. Your editor
will say, you've got to write this in a way
that is going to be fun to read, and people
are going to get a kick out of it. You
can't and be persuasive. You can't just write it as
if it were, you know, a list.
Speaker 6: Of science facts or something like that. It's not going
to work.
Speaker 4: I wonder if you would encourage me to this future editor,
if I write this future book, to not write a
book based on so many large presuppositions that I won't
have in common with many of my readers, but ask them.
Speaker 6: You haven't specified.
Speaker 7: I mean, I'm sitting here with like fifty books around
me that that basically back up any claim that I've made,
and you've not specifically told me anywhere that I'm wrong.
You basically just said that I've had presubpositions. But we
all have presubositions.
Speaker 6: So what? So where am I from?
Speaker 1: I haven't read just a second Steve, I think, did
you want to kind of tag tag into what? Because
I think we're kind of getting to the point where
we're going just you know, kind of going to servers
a little bit with the back and forth. Steve has
kind of a thing to tag onto that I think,
to Jimmy's point, I believe, well.
Speaker 5: Yes, sort of. I mean, I mean, I'm actually kind
of the way Jay's describing it, And again I have
not read anything by you, Jay, I don't know your book.
For the way you're describing things, I'm actually siding with
you at the moment on how you did an introduction
to your book. I don't see an issue about how
you formulated the structure of what was going to be
introduced in the book, because you don't make an argument
in a an introduction of book. I do agree with
you that obviously we all have our presuppositions. Now, I
think the question though, and again I'm not trying to
ask this from Jimmy, but I'm trying to get the
life feed you know, questions posed to you, But do
you think that did you have some presuppositions prior to
the investigation of these symbols, thinking that there was something
to this, which I think it's fair. I mean, I
don't think is anything wrong with that, and then try
to find evidence for against it because these are not
scientific claims. Usually scientific claims we try to find evidence
to falsify your hypothesis. We grant that this is not
that kind of case. So would you expand about that
more about how europistemlogical approach was where you do have
these presuppositions, but you do it in what kind of
systematic way to justify those beliefs.
Speaker 7: Yeah, this is a book written about the arts. It's
basically a culture commentary that touches on a lot of
different genres. So, like in the first chapter and then
the first sections, we're dealing with specific Kubrick films.
Speaker 6: And I pick Kubrick just because he's so.
Speaker 7: Prominent and relevant, and he does, you know, pretty obviously
pack his films full of a lot of symbolism. So
when I investigate Eyes White Shut, I look at Kubrick's experience,
what we know about Kubrick, things he talked about in interviews.
I look at the way that he places the camera.
I look at the colors that are used. I look
at the influences that probably went into to why he
chose traum Novella, which is a specific, you know, occult
influenced novel to put into a surrealist Jungian dream state film.
That's what the film was about, It's the dream state.
So it's basically an essay on interpretation or semiotics. And
so if you take not trying to be arrogant or condescending,
I'm just saying if you go, like if you take
a class in aesthetics, Like if you do a philosophy degree,
you'll have probably aesthetics. You'll have a class on art interpretation.
You'll try to do interpretation. You'll do what's doing in
literature was called a close reading. So if you have
a class on Dustiefki or if you have a class
on Shakespeare, you'll do a close reading of the text
where you try to argue for the interpretation of the
symbols that you see there. And yes, I will admit
that symbols oftentimes are polyvalent, which means they can have
multiple meanings based on wider contexts. But that's precisely because
of the philosophical position I have about signs and symbols
that I don't believe they operate outside of a context.
I believe there they're context situated strictly speaking, and so
really art interpretation for me, aesthetics for me is impossible
to divorce from the holistic worldview or paradigm that.
Speaker 6: I come from.
Speaker 7: And that's why when I write about eyes white shut,
I'm tying it into you know, the the Tom Cruise
connections to scientology. You do have the parent you know,
reference to the sea, the sea or soldier there. In
Nicole Kidman's sex Dream, you know, there's references to the
Garden of Eden in her sex dream. We have the
orgy with obviously Croleian overtones. So I try to make
the case that that's what's going on in this film,
And I look at a lot of comparative religion scholars
who will say this symbol tends to mean this, and
I'll say, does that fit this context? Well, it does
look like there's sorry, it does look like there's a
kind of goddess symbolism going on here. It does look like,
you know, when she says I want to give myself
as a ransom for Tom to save his life, that
the cult actually operates like an intelligence agency because they're
able to surveil him and so forth. So basically, again,
I'm looking at the totality of Kubrick's films, and one
prominent theme is sex trafficking and sex abuse, and I'm
saying that's here in this film too.
Speaker 6: So is Kubert trying to tell us something?
Speaker 7: I think so, I don't think that's much of a stretch,
especially given all of the news that's coming out about
Hollywood in the last several decades that this has been
a real problem in Hollywood.
Speaker 4: So did your book mean to claim that it is
exposing that and it is the one exposing it, because
it sounds like we're My main disagreement with you this
is getting lost is how it's being treated like it's
exposing something new and then and at times that seems
to be the case, and then at times it seems
to be. Really I'm just summarizing the fifty books behind me.
So where is it landing on the exposing a new truth?
Speaker 7: I mean?
Speaker 3: Or is it just the summary of other exs this?
Speaker 7: No, I mean, I think I guess the fact that
the book was successful and has you know, over one
hundred plus five star reviews, means that it's not a
piece of ship book and it's not just me regurgitating
what the other people said.
Speaker 6: I mean.
Speaker 7: To be a successful writer and to have the book
made into a movie, excuse me, into the TV show,
I think it requires a little bit of skill. It's
not just regurgitating. So that's a little bit of a
low blow, but that's okay. I can take it just
given I just answered your question by saying that the
book is a bunch of different kinds of things. So
you keep asking, I'm getting is it an expose? And
I'm saying there's an element of expose, So no, it's not.
Speaker 4: To you understand that it seems to represent itself with
a title like Esoteric Hollywood, as though that is what
it is, and that that is what Most people, by
the way, are aware that.
Speaker 7: You can be an interesting Are you aware that you
can't the cover and then to and then to sell
books that helps to have sex in the title.
Speaker 3: Yes, I agree, is that I actually the sex quire?
Speaker 6: But that part's true.
Speaker 3: Let's go beyond the cover that the introduction seems to imply.
Speaker 4: I agree that it has that it's going to be
a book of a great expose A do you acknowledge
that that is I think commonly among the people who
are going to buy your book thinking they are going
in about to read about the exposure of something that
wasn't presently obvious, and that that actually wasn't the intention
of the book, or that it's the intention of the
book was many many things.
Speaker 3: It sounds like, well, everybody, do you feel you've answered
that question?
Speaker 6: Everybody has the title.
Speaker 5: I think we're kind of going back and forth on
this a little bit. Jay, let me try to rephrase
this a little bit. How much of your book do
you think is speculative and how much do you think
is actually factual? As far as your conclusion that we
all think we all agree to symbolism in Hollywood, I
don't think that's even a controversial thing, and then it
can all agreed book I.
Speaker 3: Disagree with book.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but that's a great question.
Speaker 7: I would say again again, I mean, I try to
any of the times that I make a claim that
I think is substantiated, there's a footnote. So again, there's
three hundred and sixty three footnotes throughout the book. And yeah, again,
in terms of interpreting symbols, they're polly valent. So there's
always going to be an area of fuzziness when it
comes to exactly what it means, because, for.
Speaker 6: Example, I don't always know Kubrick's intention.
Speaker 7: I don't know the set director's intention, I don't know
the cinematographer's intention.
Speaker 6: And again, I mean.
Speaker 7: I wouldn't be in a documentary with you know, Shan
Stone and Oliver Stone if there wasn't something to it.
I mean, they read the book, it resonated within, and
I'm not making an appeal to authority that they're but
I'm saying I've talked to a lot of people who
are in Hollywood, so it's not just me speculating. It's
also people who who are Hollywood insiders and famous in
Hollywood have read the book and liked the book quite
a bit. So I think that speaks to its credibility,
which it wouldn't have if it was just like a
tabloid rag or something something like that. So I would
say probably thirty percent of the book is speculative, and
probably seventy percent of the book is pretty solidly sourced.
Speaker 2: How is Oliver Stone in real life?
Speaker 6: I'm just curious. I haven't spent a lot of time
with him.
Speaker 7: I've spent a good bit of time with Shanstone, and
you know, I was in that documentary with Oliver. But
I think Oliver's a smart, smart guy. I think he's
I don't agree with all of his political opinions, but
you know, I think he makes really good films at
times that have been pretty conspiratorial.
Speaker 6: That's one reason I like him is.
Speaker 7: That he's not afraid to delve into Hollywood conspiracy and
history conspiracy and actually one of the things that prompted
the book was I took a college course.
Speaker 6: One of my film classes was.
Speaker 7: Hollywood history and the point of the class was to
compare historical events as best we can trace them with
the way Hollywood represented them.
Speaker 6: And there was a fascinating.
Speaker 7: Class, and quite obviously a lot of those were Stone films.
So that was kind of what produced me to the
real Oliver Stone canon of films. And I think he's
pretty phenomenal in that regard. But you know, this is
a working premise that Stone has, so you know this
wasn't all just my idea. You know, he gives a
lot of interviews where he talks about the same kind
of stuff, very critical of American foreign policy.
Speaker 6: That was the point of a lot of the war films.
Speaker 7: But but no, I spent more more time hanging out
with Sean Stone than.
Speaker 5: Oliver brought something up. I love he's very good, no
question about it. But you brought something up earlier. Maybe
we can dive into a little but you had actually
mentioned something about these symbols being from a hermetic approach.
Why do you think these symbols are out there from
a her medical approach? To what to what consequence, What
is the goal of these symbols existing for that reason
in these films?
Speaker 7: Right, That's another thing I would say is determined by context.
So sometimes there's directors who are pretty self consciously interested
in her meticism, and they're open about it they put
in their films. I mean, Darren Aronofsky, I've done a
bunch of analysis. I don't think any of his analysis
made it into the first book. But you know, Aeronofsky
is pretty consciously influenced by Cobbolism.
Speaker 6: You know, he talks about that. It's very clear, I would.
Speaker 7: Say in most of his movies, especially something like The Fountain,
I think, or his version of Noah, which was influenced
by cabalistic tradition about Noah.
Speaker 6: A lot of other directors will talk about it.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 7: Kubrick I think, has a lot of esoteric symbolism in
his films. There's a quote by Kubert where he talks
about it, and he's a little ambiguous as always to
keep that air of mystery as to what his real
views are on these things. But I would say, again,
the purpose of why you would use alchemical symbolism could
be manifold.
Speaker 6: So a lot of people in Hollywood are part of Freemasonry.
Speaker 7: That's pretty easily verified, and Freemasonry has a pretty wide
scope of symbolism. I view it as kind of another
version of again like intelligence agencies. If you look at
the history of Freemasonry, it's really the British Empire's extension
of its spy network. There's a famous book, Jacobson, Builders
of Empire. It's a completely academic work, not conspiracy work,
and her whole thing is the history of the British
Empire's relationship to its free Masonic lodges, and she basically
says that the whole purpose was to have a spy
network throughout the Empire. And again that's kind of again
pointing to the whole thesis of what we were arguing
in the first hour, was that there's a close connection.
Speaker 6: Between these two entities.
Speaker 7: And then you have in Hollywood again a lot of Freemasons.
So when you watch movies that self consciously I would say,
are Masonic, a lot of times there's Masonic symbolism quite
you know, like self consciously, the square and compass.
Speaker 6: This comes up in films quite a bit.
Speaker 7: It's therefore a reason and it just depends on the
context as to what that reason is. But I would say,
like if you're watching a film like something, trying to
think of something that's specifically alchemical, I would say, I
would say two thousand and one is an alchemical evolutionary
notion of apotheosis that that man will evolve to being
star child. I don't think that's too controversial.
Speaker 6: Arthur C. Clark, you know, says that's that's.
Speaker 5: The normal way of viewing that movie, right right.
Speaker 7: So I would say in that sense, alchemy could be
read as the story of man's progress from ape to
you know, divinity, and that can be read alchemic. That's
the great work of alchemy, according to some alchemists.
Speaker 2: Jimmy, do you want to do Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, So is the purpose of presenting the idea of
ape to man to robot figure in the future is
that I don't understand what the correlation is with the
motivation for the conspiracy. Are we talking about trying to
program people to believe in evolution, which definitely is something
you reject later in your book. In fact, you call
Richard Dawkins and his cult silly, their classical notions of
God silly. You talk about how that's sort of reinforced
by e T Is that what's going on in two
thousand and one in your opinion too, just the reinforcement
of the idea that evolution is true, but by cult
means and not by actually rational means.
Speaker 7: Yeah, absolutely, I think that. I argue, if I recall
from that section, that people like H. G. Wells have
had a lot more influence in determining people's perception of
their origins than any sort of scientific diatribe.
Speaker 6: And certainly scientific diet tribes can have an influence, but
I would say somebody like HG.
Speaker 7: Wells has had a lot more influence than somebody like
even Dawkins, because ah C. Wells has just been It's
hard to believe the degree to which he influenced so
many storytellers, so much science fiction, so much of Hollywood.
Speaker 6: Spielberg, right, you know.
Speaker 7: Spielberg makes movies dedicated like you know, he remakes War
of the World. I mean, obviously, yes, it's a cash cow,
but but a lot of these people are not just
doing cash cow stuff. There's a famous white paper from
the Brookings Institute from the sixties. I can get the
book if you want me to. I'll tell you what
it is, but they'd studied the effects of promoting the
alien myth and how that would alter alter culture. So
I mean, you're just off the top of my head,
that's one white paper from Brookings Institute back in the
sixties that studied the possibility the alien myth being used
to alter culture. And I actually have some interviews with
people from academic background on the history of aliens, which
I don't believe in aliens at all.
Speaker 6: In fact, i'd always try to debunk.
Speaker 4: Them that you made that point in the book as well,
that you don't believe. I mean, it seems like you
don't even believe in the possibility of life being anywhere
on Earth. And you even I don't know how this
exactly ties into the book, because it did. It seemed
to be just sort of added in. But how absurd
and silly people like Dawkins seem because they acknowledge, for example,
the possibility without actually committing to it, of something like
pan spermia being a reasonable explanation for the origin of
life on our planet or perhaps other planets, though they
would also continue that whatever the origin prior to that, where.
Speaker 3: It came from, would also be of natural origin.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and that's because I was making.
Speaker 7: The point I was making was that Dawkins is very
hostile to the Christian idea of theism generally speaking, but
not hostile to the idea of aliens.
Speaker 6: And I find that laughable personally.
Speaker 4: But why do you find that laughable? One of those
has a natural explanation.
Speaker 7: The other thing I would say is that that section
is not there out of place.
Speaker 6: It's not out of nowhere.
Speaker 7: That section is there because that chapter was dedicated to
talking about the influence in ag Wells. And one of
the things that hgu Wells influenced a lot of people
towards was scientific naturalism, right, And I'm very critical of that.
I have countless debates and and essays critiquing naturalism. So
to answer what you just asked, No, I don't find
that to be a more naturalistic explanation at all, because
naturalism itself, that I think is philosophically indefensible.
Speaker 5: We can we clarify, just for purposes of clarification, are
you talking about ontological naturalism or mythological naturalism or both?
Speaker 7: I mean in the metaphysical sense that what exists is
essentially material.
Speaker 6: Reduction. So with that.
Speaker 4: Regard, then you would not see any distinction in how
laughable the claim of panspermia is compared to the idea
that some chemical process on Earth without any sort of
asteroid bringing it from somewhere else, resulted in a self
replicating molecule that was able to adapt over time and
select it for the natural selection. Those are both laughable propositions,
despite being used to almost be like, look at this
absurd thing that he thinks could be possible, it's not
actually any more absurd than anything.
Speaker 3: Richard Dawkins is saying.
Speaker 6: No, I find them both laughable, okay.
Speaker 4: And so, and I'm not gonna I won't bring it
back to the point of the introduction, because it seems
like everybody was tired of talking about now. Later on
in the book, it again seems like the way you
choose to use language is to establish things without context
so that they go straight to the conclusion of Because
a lot of people, when they do hear pansperm me
at first, that does seem absurd and crazy. And I'm
not going to fault you for not creating every distinction.
But again, in this case, we're talking about presuppositions that
nobody even knows which ones they're meant to have. Uh,
And so I wonder if that, now now pointed out
in two places, is a recurring theme and if again
I'm I really just think this book is literally confromisation
biased the novel.
Speaker 3: That's That's what it comes down to it. Look at
it this way.
Speaker 4: Just these things as silly, and you get my book
completely and as long as.
Speaker 3: You commit to I mean, it will be a super
dope weed trip.
Speaker 7: I have a whole bunch of essays that are written
from the vanta's point of arguing and confirming a case
in a strict logical sense. So, for example, I have
a paper on uh, transcendental arguments and relationship to numbers. Okay,
I have papers on number theory, right that those are
strictly logical arguments. They're not written in the style of
halfway satire tongue in cheek at times. I mean, if
you read the analysis I did of Labyrinth, or uh,
the analysis I did of Never Any Story, I mean,
they're their tongue in cheek, they're funny, but they also
bring in aspects of things that are that are real.
Like Michael Inda, you know, he's he was a Crollian.
I think that influenced his his writing of The never
Ending Story. So again I think you're you're hung up
on something that is not. This is not a book
about apologetics. Yes, at times there will be things where
I will make equips and I'll say I think Richard
Dawkins is ridiculous, But again that's not You're trying to
find arguments when that wasn't the point of that essay.
The part of the essay was to talk about propaganda,
and yeah, how I use my own propaganda.
Speaker 3: Sure, and it's largely spective and that part's fun. And
I don't. Again, I don't disagree there's this.
Speaker 6: I don't.
Speaker 4: I'm not agreeing that lots of the thaims you're making
actually come to that end. But I do think that
the symbols oftentimes were used purposefully.
Speaker 3: However, not for the.
Speaker 4: Ends of of sort of brainwashing a society into being
either accepting or an unaware member of this cult.
Speaker 3: Because again, then.
Speaker 4: You you need only change which lends you look through
to make the exact same case for literally anything.
Speaker 3: So the problems I have.
Speaker 6: Are these where let me make, let me make let
me put this to you in an easy way. Do
you know what ethnography is I'm not I'm not, you know.
Speaker 7: So if you read about the CIA, what they'll do
is that when they go into any culture to try
to figure out what's going on to manipulate it, they'll
do ethnographic studies.
Speaker 6: This is one of the major things that the CIA does.
Speaker 7: So Margaret Meade and people like that there classic is
that I'm not saying she was working with the CIA necessarily.
Speaker 6: I think she was part of other.
Speaker 7: Philosophical groups, but a lot of anthropologists have actually been
working for the CIA, and what they do is they
produce studies that are called ethnographies, and what they'll do
is they'll figure out everything in a people group, down
to their linguistic idiosyncrasies and how they'll pronounce things in
a strange way. And the reason that you do in
ethnography to that extreme extent is to figure out how
to engage with that culture and how to move.
Speaker 6: Them in the direction that you want.
Speaker 7: So again, this is something very easily verified on the
part of the CIA, and I think if you think
about their perspective of America and how they would like
to sway American opinion, you know, with people with so
many people in media that have come out of the CIA,
Robert Behar, Anderson Cooper, well known people. There's I don't
think it should be even contentious that they're going to
look at film. They're going to look at those kinds
of things in the same way to try to sway opinion.
So when I'm making a case in the book specifically,
it's that kind of a case. It's that kind of
a thing to show clear collusion between two entities that
we tend to think don't have any relationship together, like
the Pentagon in Hollywood, you know, unless you were, you know,
raised in a military family or something like that.
Speaker 6: So so again I'm just not saying, let.
Speaker 2: Me, let me interject, it's not as good where it stops.
Go ahead, because we're hitting close to the.
Speaker 1: Right the ninety minute mark, and I think this will
be a good time to there's some questions that the
people in the live chat have. We're going to get
to those real quick. I have a couple of my own.
Mine are always the questions that I always come up
with our silly based though they're just having to be
random questions that I think about as we go along.
Since you're a conspiracy theorist, person while we get while
Steve gets the question from live chat. Guys, if you're
in the live chat, this is your last chance to
get your questions in. She goes over to Steve. He
will ask them. But I wouldn't consider myself very conspiracy
theory minded, but there is one that I buy into
rather hard, and I want to know if you have
any kind of dealings with it, since that's the case
for you. But I am a hardcore proponent that there
is a cover up with the Sphinx and how old
it is and if there was a civilization prior to
what they say in Egypt.
Speaker 7: Kyle speak's conspiracy you're talking about, Like, Like, I've read
Graham Hancock's book on that and I thought there were
some interesting things, but I don't, Yeah, I don't, I
don't have.
Speaker 6: I don't have a committed opinion on that. I don't know.
Speaker 3: I thought.
Speaker 6: I thought the book was interesting, but.
Speaker 2: But yeah, it is interesting.
Speaker 5: I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't go as far as as as he does,
like in terms of because he's got some out there,
but like beliefs in terms of the Annaki and the
beer and all that.
Speaker 2: But it's just the Sphinx that I buy into I'm
I'm sold on the.
Speaker 7: I thought the map, the peri RAS map chapter was
interesting and the lay lines are interesting, But you know,
I don't I don't have any committed opinion on that.
Speaker 1: It is odd how everything is on that one line
around the globe, how every mega structures.
Speaker 2: Another question is, uh, do you think that.
Speaker 1: The with with the way that the CIA and FBI
operated in Hollywood, do you think that had any kind
of effect on what happened with Marilyn Monroe? Would you
say that kind of you know, did she get caught
up in something that she was taken out, you know,
because a lot of people say that she was killed
she did an overdose.
Speaker 7: I think that's very likely. I mean, she did work
for the Department of Defense. That's verified. You can look
up her DoD badge that she used.
Speaker 6: She was a.
Speaker 7: Frequent visitor to Laurel Canyon Studios, which, if you're familiar
with my book, I put that in there from Dave
McGowan's book. So that was a secret Air Force studio,
by the way, which wasn't really known about until pretty recently.
That and I went and visited this place firsthand, by
the way, So I have empirical evidence. I got a
picture right out in front of it with my girlfriend.
Speaker 6: And I and that's now Jared Ledo's house. By the way.
Speaker 7: He owns the old Air Force studio in Hollywood, which
was actually the cutting edge studio of his time. They
produced the atomic bomb footage and everything. So Laurel Canyon
is a good thing to look at for older Air
Force CI a collusion with Hollywood, but I would say
it's very likely. I've read a couple of books on
the Marilyn Monroe situation, and I think that given she's
with JFK and there's that tie in with the CIA
and the Mob and Sinatra, she wrote she claimed, you
know that she was kind of under constant surveillance and
uh that that they were given her pills. I'm sure
she wanted pills. I'm not saying it was you know,
I'm sure she was addicted to drugs. But I would
say probably likely. Although you know, I don't claim to
have like any definitive opinion on like, you know, murder
conspiracies like that.
Speaker 6: I think Britney Murphy was probably killed.
Speaker 4: Kyle, do you mind if I ask a couple now
that we're on the committed or the conspiracy's topic, because
because you bought them.
Speaker 2: But sure, I just want to say that sounds like
that that's such a jered thing to do.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, yeah, it's a full house too. It's awesome.
Speaker 6: OK.
Speaker 4: I'm curious if you have a committed opinion on You
brought it up, but you already said that that wasn't
a representation of any You weren't committing to anything on
the moon landing, conspiracy or the studio. I want to
know if you have a committed opinion on the moon
landing and the use of the studio. But as you
do in the book, at least mention I'm pretty sure
you say that some of the footage for sure was
done from the studio. But if I'm wrong, correct me.
Speaker 6: I don't mention any specific studio.
Speaker 7: I say that I think it's likely that it could
have been Lookout Mountain or something like that. But no,
I tend to disagree. I tend to doubt the images
and the photography that we've seen. I find Dave mcgawan's
book Wagging the Moon Doggie to be the most convincing.
I don't really go into the look at the angle
of the shadow on the flag, or rather, what Dave
does in his book is just source it from NASA's
own claims over the years, claims of different astronauts over
the years. And yeah, I mean, I'm not a flat earther.
I don't believe that satellites are fake, or space is fake,
or any thing retarded like that have been. But but
I do doubt the the images that we've been shown.
Speaker 6: Do you believe we.
Speaker 5: Ever even if it, have we ever been in the moon?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 5: That would be the simple I.
Speaker 6: Have not seen I've not seen anything that that's convincing.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 6: And I know that may sound out landish, but when.
Speaker 7: You look at the the the possibility of you know,
what is it two hundred and something thousand miles has
been a while since I've looked at the moons that
you two hundred and forty two hundred thousand and then back.
Speaker 6: I mean, have you ever have you ever driven?
Speaker 5: Like?
Speaker 3: No, But I also haven't driven at the speed of
a rocket.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I wasn't going that fast. Well, if if if
we do go back to the moon, yeah, planning, I
know that, But would it be devastating to your your
pistological framework if, for example, the Chinese went there, and
would you then say, oh, yeah, we've probably been there
before or matter.
Speaker 7: I'm just making my claim based on you know, what's
in Dave's book and and what I when I look
at those images and the idea of playing golf on
the moon, I think that's other utterly preposterous. I mean,
you have this life threatening situation, you have a life
threatening situation, and the and the I mean that's the
that's most obvious to me. That's that's uh, that's cold
war propaganda. And I was in a tin can with
my girlfriend driving five thousand miles and the idea that
that that, uh, that you're going to be able to
make that that ride and where were the buggies by
the way, or the little moon buggies stashed on the
Apollo uh device, I would just say, I would.
Speaker 1: Just say, wait, guys, I think we need to I
think we need to to table this because this this
sounds like a.
Speaker 2: I've been wanting to.
Speaker 3: Always kills the fun.
Speaker 7: I'm just going to say one thing. I didn't really
have any commitment on this position. I believe aerospace is real.
I believe rockets are real. But I find I find
Dave's book, which you can get free pdf online Wagging
the Moon Doggie.
Speaker 6: I find it to be pretty convincing.
Speaker 7: So if anybody's read that book and they're still defending it, uh,
I think the jokes on you.
Speaker 4: So what about the debate that I've wanted to have
eventually since we started the show.
Speaker 2: I can't never find anybody that's willing to, uh to.
Speaker 1: Come on to defend the position that we didn't go
to the moon. So I don't know if you if
you ever want to come back and do that, that
would be excellent. But guys, if you're out there and you, uh,
you don't think it went to the moon, getting in
contact with us because I would love to. The space
debates are my favorite, Like I get all into those.
Speaker 7: So maybe this is this is not something that that's
that important to me.
Speaker 5: Really, Yeah, I mean, I mean, yeah, I don't. I
don't think we should put him on the spot if
that's really not what.
Speaker 7: He but but yeah, I mean I could want I
can ponder it, and yeah, maybe down the road, Yeah.
Speaker 3: I'd like to know.
Speaker 4: I'd like to know if you have an opinion on
the size of the universe and the idea that we
are seeing stars that exceed millions of years to get
the light to us.
Speaker 5: It's big, very big.
Speaker 6: I don't. I don't.
Speaker 7: I don't believe any anything now, anything associated with flat Earth.
If that's what you're asking, Do I think that their
print picture the pin pricks in a.
Speaker 5: In a asking more young Earth?
Speaker 3: You know he's asking, I'm actually this is creationism? Is
the universe's science? Ponders it to be.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well I don't. I don't see that as out
of a chord with UH with creation personally.
Speaker 4: I guess the way we if you believe the universe
originated at the moment of in Genesis, what would then
be the explanation for and I don't know exactly the
age you believe, so I'll take a million years because
that certainly covers if it's only six thousand or ten thousand,
anything that's beyond a million years of For the amount
of time it takes light to travel, what would be
the explanation for that light having traveled over?
Speaker 6: That problem?
Speaker 7: The problem with that view is that it assumes that
you have a fixed point in space and that light
is traveling at a consistent rate over the over.
Speaker 6: Basically, you have an assumption of consistency, and there's not a.
Speaker 7: Way to prove that the ratio or the rate of
light's travel has been the same throughout throughout all time.
So I think that's highly speculative as well. I think
it's one of the weakest arguments for the idea of
the expansion of the universe. So in other words, everything
has to be expanding in a certain direction, and it
assumes that there's a fixed point and there's not.
Speaker 6: There's not a fixed point in space.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's met the burden of predictive power and
being able to actually say, if the Big Bang happened,
for occurred, for example, we would find this stuff in
this place at this distance, as they did when they
measured the background radiation.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I mean I don't see that as good.
Speaker 7: Well, I mean I've had college astronomy classes, and I
know about how they measure, you know, background radiation, and
I think a lot of those methods are actually flawed.
I don't find them to be very convinced. But that again,
that's a whole other debate. I'm not opposed. I'm not
opposed to having that debate.
Speaker 5: But yeah, Joe, I know I get you, and I
think that probably should be tabled for another time on
those types of things. It's a kind of a whole
off topic kind of thing. And I get that. So
we do have we do have questions from the audience,
quite a few actions, but try to get as many
as I can. But don't get you a question. Please
don't take a personally. But I did want to add
on your geenographic research. You know, that's that's something that's
not just among the CI in those things. I mean
businesses ethnographic research when they want to go overseas and
they want to build it in other places. So and
and I can see why Hollywood want as well, because
they want to know the demographic in the area that
they can be releasing a movie. So I think that's
pretty standard in industry that they do some kind of
ethnographic research. But anyways, so these kind of questions, let's
see here, I like, I like a couple of these
more than others. Ione to be reading those first. Sorry,
but they say, ask Jay why somebody should actually care
about hidden symbols and how they could reasonably influence people
that are not aware of their meaning. And that's a
great question. Actually, If people are not aware what these
are cult symbols mean, how does it influence them in
some way?
Speaker 7: Yeah, this gets into you know, different theories about human
psychology and how the brain works and how our mind
you know, subconsciously picks things up.
Speaker 6: Things up. Excuse me?
Speaker 7: So, uh, you know, there are certain archetypal forms, and
if you study something like the trivium or the quadrivium,
which is the classical forms of education, which I'm a
big proponent of, you'll notice that there are there are
are I believe there are archetypal forms.
Speaker 6: So things like.
Speaker 7: Principles in geometry like the hexagram or the square, or
the platonic solids.
Speaker 6: These are things that are very real and they're they're
present in nature.
Speaker 7: So I would say that it's actually natural to man
to be influenced by these things and interpret these things
even and almost in an.
Speaker 6: Intuitive way without even knowing it.
Speaker 7: So, and I think infant infant research has has confirmed this.
We've even known this then, this since p P figured
out that that infants actually pick things up and can
be conditioned, so to speak, whether you want to call
it programmed or whether you want to use you know,
mass laws of terminology or be of skinner terminology of
of uh of conditioning. Condition doesn't matter because it's essentially
offering condition. It's essentially you know, training people or it's
sometimes called entrainment where you where you imprint this on people,
and and archetypal forms and symbols have that power, I believe.
Speaker 6: But that's a whole other, big, long discussion.
Speaker 5: But do you think they have an intrinsic meaning? Do
you think these symbols literally have some kind of intrinsic
meaning that so they're not descriptivism. It's it's you think
it falls under prescriptivism, then absolutely prescribe.
Speaker 6: Okay, Yeah, I believe meaning and level. Yeah.
Speaker 7: I believe in the reality of immaterial invariant objects and entities.
Speaker 6: I believe. Yeah, I believe in a kind of a psychosphere.
I mean I had.
Speaker 5: Plants.
Speaker 6: I mean I'm not a flat Yeah.
Speaker 5: Okay, let's see here something. I don't know what this means,
so pretty please forgive me, but I'll ask it. Ask
Jay his thoughts on number stations. Do you know what
they're referring to?
Speaker 6: Yeah? I think I can't remember if I mentioned in
the book or not.
Speaker 7: But I have a couple of essays I wrote in
a number stations, and these come out of the Cold War.
They were set up, oftentimes by the n Essay and
they were basically stations to relay information to agents out
in the field. So you would have like a number
station set up in say Norway or somewhere in the
A lot of these still exist, by the way, and
they still put out their signals and they would just
put out something like beeps.
Speaker 6: Or a song just play on repeat.
Speaker 7: And the idea was that during the Cold War, the
other side wouldn't know what your code was, and if
you wanted to activate a cell in a certain area,
then you would put the message into the relay, into
the whatever's being sent out. And so like if you
watch the Americans that that show on Fax, which I
thought was pretty good. I mean, it's obviously Hollywood, but
it's based on a lot of real world Soviet Cold
Wars type stuff. And there's several scenes in the series
where he goes and he like turns the radio and
he listens to the you know, some little jingle and
he writes down numbers, and.
Speaker 6: That's how he knows what Moscow is telling him to do.
Speaker 7: So that's very real and that still exists in number stations,
by the way, play into how we got cell phones
and internet and wireless technology because all of that comes
out of Cold War cryptography.
Speaker 2: It's a badass show too.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it makes sense, and maybe maybe Jimmy can kind
of wig in this one as well. If this is
the case, if you answered the student of the affirmative,
but does Jay believe that CIA has an agenda to
sway individuals and Satanism? In other words, does JA believe
that the agenda is to move people away from God
in some way? Do you think there's some kind of
underlying thing to move away from a from a deity belief,
to promote some kind of either atheism or satan Satanism.
Speaker 7: I think that Satanic cults definitely play a role in
the CI's overall strategies and plans. I don't know that
it's necessarily uh to get everybody into Satanism. I do
think they use occult groups and occult ideologies UH to
be to be popularized. And I would say, yeah, overall,
that does play a role in moving mass populations, but
it's certainly not the only.
Speaker 6: Ideology that they peddle.
Speaker 4: Well in that scenario with Satanism, in that scenario with
Satanism include anything that is in direct opposition to Orthodoxy,
or would other Christian in other words, would would they
be doing so via other Christian symbols, just not the
right Christian symbols.
Speaker 3: Would that?
Speaker 7: I just meant it in a very very precise sense.
I wasn't speaking it in the sense of yeah, okay,
spiritually speaking, Yeah, we believe that that anything that's not
Orthodox ultimately can be used in that way. That doesn't
mean that everybody who's not Orthodox is evil or Satanic.
It just means that those things can fit into that agenda.
I mean, for example, not every Marxist is a Satanist,
but I would say it root Marxism is in my view, Satanic,
so to speak. And that's because Marx. If you read
Richard Vernbrand's book, he demonstrates that Marx was influenced by
Satanism in his early days.
Speaker 2: Okay, I think we got two two.
Speaker 5: More tew more questions. Okay, ask him what he thinks
of Mark Hamill and Kathy O'Brien, and I'm not sure
the relevancy, but we'll ask.
Speaker 7: I think I think Luke Skywalker is al Luke is
an inceel in the new.
Speaker 6: No. Oh no, he's on an island and he's milking.
He's milking sister.
Speaker 5: So yeah, I mean he probably I was mostly traumatized.
Speaker 6: After that.
Speaker 5: I wouldn't be done with it. Have you seen my sister.
Speaker 6: Kathy O'Brien. I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 7: A lot of her claims are hard to substantiate, so
I've never really relied on I'm not saying she's a
bad person. My girlfriend knows Kathy O'Brien. She's friendly with her,
she thinks she's sweet. But I don't have any pro
or con argument about Kathrie Oro. I've never really paid
any attention.
Speaker 1: Okay, and uh, well ahead, Steve, last one, your your
mud to state.
Speaker 5: My bad. The Alumnimonnadi didn't want me to get this out.
He said, how does Jay make the distinction between normal
societal structures such as corporate culture and cult conspiracy? And
by the way, if you could maybe suss out cult
a little bit more, because I still personally and I
know I am confused, and I know the live chat
is whether you're taking cult from a theological type of perspective,
where you're talking about a there's different categorizations of what
cans to be cultish as what could be a cult group.
And then there's also more of the orthodoxy approach to cultism.
So if you can sus that out little bit more.
But they want to know if you make a distinction
between normal societal structures just as a corporate entities or
corporate cultures as opposed to the cult conspiracy. That makes sense.
Speaker 7: Yeah, again, I don't try to say that like everybody
who like David Rockefeller, if you read his memoirs, he
will talk about conspiracies. For example, he will admit I've
got his memoirs here somewhere.
Speaker 6: Yeah, right here.
Speaker 7: So David Rockefeller and his and his memoirs, and I
think he's a very powerful, famous individual who's had a
lot of influence on American culture.
Speaker 6: And then if you look at chapter I've got it
marked here.
Speaker 7: Chapter twenty seven called the Proud Internationalist, where he basically
says that the people who accuse him of conspiracy are correct,
and he says that I am proud to be a
globalist and not a populist. So he's quite he's quite
clear about the goals. Chapter twenty seven Dave Roulers and
Memoirs of the Internationalist and their idea to create a
global government and so forth. So I would say that
David Rockefeller is very open I don't have any evidence
that David Rockefeller isn't accultist. I've never seen anything that
proves he's a Luciferian or a Satanist or anything like that.
He seems to be a pragmatic atheist who basically just
wants to create world government and kill most of humanity.
That's what he seems to say openly. So I wouldn't
say he's an occultist. I wouldn't say, but I would
say that he is part of an overall plan and strategy.
And so what I do at my channel, for example,
as I do lectures based on these books, I have
about fifteen or twenty that I've gone through so far,
which are major globalist thinkers, geopoliticians, writers, Brazinski, those level guys,
and I just talk about what's in their books. We
do like a weekly book reading thing. So what I'm
getting at is that they don't necessarily have to be
a cultist to have the same plans and ideas. So
when I say occult sometimes I'm referring to just secret knowledge.
That's what the word means, and so intelligence agencies. Because
they traffic in secrets, they could be called occult organizations.
Sometimes I'm referring, though, to secret societies like Skull and
Bones or the Oto, or to Freemasonry, which are consciously
secret societies that traffic in secret information and also have
hermitic and occultic beliefs, the Rosicrucians and so forth. So
I'm very precise, I would say in the ways that
I make distinctions. I'm well aware of that Anton LaVey's
Satanism is more of a humanism and it's atheism.
Speaker 6: I'm well aware of that.
Speaker 7: I'm well aware of Michael Lokino's Temple of Set being
more serious about it Satanism. So I think I'm pretty
fair and clear in the distinctions that I've made.
Speaker 5: So you don't think worship Satan or Jimmy to you, well,
the three of us, we're not Satan worshippers to you.
Speaker 6: Right, I don't know you guys, so I don't I mean,
I assume you do. I don't know.
Speaker 5: Answer, I guess, I mean.
Speaker 1: And then the last, the one last question, what conspiracy
theory do you absolutely disagree with?
Speaker 6: I hate the flat earth big time.
Speaker 5: Flat Earth is silly. You hear that flat earth is
a simple expert guy. He thinks flat earth is born.
Speaker 7: I had a like, actually a giant band of them
attack my channel one day and just like thumbed down
and it was just all a boy kissed me off.
Speaker 4: I had a question or something along the same light.
That's relevant because it's relevant to uh C I A
driven conspiracies. I'd love to know what his if he
has a truth riism position, the idea about September eleventh
being an inside job.
Speaker 6: Oh, absolutely, yeah.
Speaker 4: I think that's unquestionable, unquestionable that it was an inside job.
Speaker 3: Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 4: Okay, sorry, I've I've done word games before where someone
asked do you have a position, and I say, yes,
I do, and that's where I left it.
Speaker 3: So I just made sure you weren't doing the same
thing I've done before as a joke.
Speaker 7: No, I haven't. I haven't covered it. I haven't covered
in a while just because it hasn't come up. But no,
I think that was pretty clearly an inside job collusion
between Western intelligence, the PNAT group, Neo conservatives, probably Israeli intelligence,
and groups like that.
Speaker 6: So that's who really did it. I don't think it's
been lot and been laden was a long time.
Speaker 4: CIA said, So how attached would it be this pooh,
are we out of time?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 6: How attached to that? No?
Speaker 3: No, no, not you.
Speaker 4: I want to know how attached this group, these groups
would be to these same groups that exist behind the
symbology in movies.
Speaker 3: Simpolis.
Speaker 8: Well, I think that when I when I do my talks,
for example, on global power structures geopolitics, I'm going to
cover pretty standard works that that.
Speaker 6: Shouldn't really be.
Speaker 7: Too debatable, Like you know, we're going to do the
big ne Brazienski's Grand Chess Board. You know, he was
obviously the guy who created al Qaeda under Jimmy Carter,
that's very easy to verify.
Speaker 6: I cover uh, his other book.
Speaker 7: Between Two Ages, which is written in the seventies and
talks about creating basically a giant technocracy.
Speaker 6: But the main sort of central work that I focus.
Speaker 7: On that answers your very question about power blocks is
Carol Quigley's Tragy and Hope. So I have eight lectures
on the totality of all thirteen hundred pages, and this
is one of the most famous geopolitical treatises of the
twentieth century, and he describes, you know, large power blocks,
and for him, we live in the atlantisist power blocks.
That would be the US, the UK, and Israel, and
so they pretty much control the Western world in a
large part of the rest of the globe. So that's
how I see geopolitics shaking out, and that's who.
Speaker 6: In a large part controls Hollywood.
Speaker 7: And we're gonna have to because the same people that
created the CIA is the CIA is actually a creation
of the Rockefellers and British intelligence. I mean, they're not
going the Hollywood's not going to do something different than
what this overall power structure wants, which is why, for example,
they demonize Russia. Hollywood across the board demonizes Russia, Russia, collusion, Trump,
all that stuff.
Speaker 6: That's all pretty much top down.
Speaker 5: We're gonna have to be wrapping it up. So how
about we kind of let you guys.
Speaker 2: We're going to have to come back to UH to
finish that. Well yeah, hell yeah, that.
Speaker 3: Was definitely be a conversation. I'd be way more excited by.
Speaker 2: At two hours. But I would love to hear the
rest of where you're well.
Speaker 5: Can I ask m yeah, oh yeah, yeah, if you
want to ask questions, we have a little bit of
time for that, that's fine, go ahead, please.
Speaker 7: Well, no, I was just gonna say, I was just
gonna say, like, have you guys looked at Brazenski or
like Jock out to Lee? Like what I do is
basically just cover all these guys books and and I mean.
Speaker 6: They're they're No, Honestly, I didn't actually read the book.
I just like to post it notes in there.
Speaker 5: I don't actually, you know, some research, but I don't
look at any of them.
Speaker 1: I haven't, But I find the I find the uh
arguments that like stuff like when I say that I'm
not conspiracy seriraucly minded, I still like to hear what
everybody's society is. Like, I'm fascinated by the arguments that
people put forth.
Speaker 5: Yeah, like the last book that them two.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's actually going to be in my new book
because there are movies that have geoengineering.
Speaker 6: So I'm actually going to include that in the second book.
Speaker 5: Right now, I would love to have a chemictry episode.
Speaker 6: I'll come on a debate debate that uh.
Speaker 7: Right now, I'm covering uh Annie Jacobson's pretty famous book
on the history of DARPA, which is Pentagon's Brain. Uh,
and there's actually a chapter that gets into geoengineering. Now,
she's a mainline journalist, just chronicling the history of DARPA.
She's not a conspiracy theorist. So this was actually Pulitzer nominated.
So I always try to go from the mainline sources
to make my case. That's kind of my whole my
whole bag.
Speaker 2: You you do your research, and that I can. I
thought I can say that you don't don't do your research,
that's for sure.
Speaker 1: But uh, I find the the the While I don't
agree with most conspiracy theories, I still like to hear
the the arguments from both sides.
Speaker 2: I think it's fascinating to have.
Speaker 1: And you know, I don't see why people make such
a big deal about having things like the Kim Trail debates.
Speaker 2: Are the anti factor, you know, any of those kinds
of things.
Speaker 1: I think it's it's important to have those kinds of
discussions out in the open.
Speaker 7: Well, I'll tell you what challenge. Here's the challenge real quick,
then I'll shut up. If you go to my YouTube page,
there's a list of titled a playlist titled Globalist book series.
Speaker 6: And then that's just my arguments from the different geopolitical
texts about you know, so called conspiracies that I think are.
Speaker 1: Real awesome, and I'll look at I'll tell you what,
I'll look into one of yours.
Speaker 2: If you at some point check out the Spinks, just.
Speaker 1: Go and and read a little bit about the the
Sphinks and and tell me what you think I'm I have.
Speaker 2: I have people that are.
Speaker 1: Point ancient point collector that we have come on here.
All of them think that I'm just that shit crazy
for bringing up But I think.
Speaker 5: There's guys think got bat shit crazy if you think
of colors don't exist though, so welcome to my work.
Speaker 3: I don't think you're crazy for that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I know, I agree upon this.
Speaker 7: I want to say I appreciate, uh, I appreciate the challenge,
mister atheist. I appreciate you conducting it in a very
civil way that I thought it was a very fruitful conversation.
Speaker 6: I liked the critique.
Speaker 7: I thought you do have a point there about uh,
you know, maybe and then maybe in the second book,
what I'll try to do is frame it in a
more uh like, let me prove.
Speaker 6: My case to you from the outset rather than assuming.
So I'll take that.
Speaker 3: I think that would be I think that would be important.
Speaker 4: And I genuinely don't mean this in any way disparaging,
but I do think, especially toward the end of the conversation, uh,
where we started talking about other stuff, now, I would
almost need that just to get past that. It seems
the case that you have at the very least a
conspiratorial brain. Not say you embrace every conspiracy, but I
have new concerns because of some of the conspiracies you
do embrace. So I would want that second, second level
of connection to tell you the truth. If you aren't
willing to come to your current book and make the
presuppositions that the book calls for, it's not the easiest
read for you because you're going to keep hitting those moments.
And I'm just going to call this my conclusion and
let you respond to anything you want for yours that way,
because I.
Speaker 3: Can I make one more point on it.
Speaker 4: So yeah, Well, so the last part of the conclusion
was the other thing, the other issue I have with
the book that's now been exacerbated by our discussion or
debate or whatever we want to call this. Here was
now a pattern that seems to be emerging of your
embracing of sciences that seem to make your point or
be acceptable within your preps Orthodoxy worldview, things about psychcology,
but very dismissive of the sciences and quick to conclude
they themselves or cults and conspiracies if they interfere with
your orthodoxy worldview.
Speaker 7: I mean, in fact, again, the positions that I believe
now or not positions I was raised with, or not
ones that I elected long ago to defend to the death.
I've changed my mind multiple times in my research and
academic career, so I just have a lot of different interests,
and I never came to any of these topics with
the assumption of conspiracy per se. I think that when
you look at anything like geopolitics, which is something that
I got into in the latter half of my academic career,
like later twenties and into grad school, is that you're
forced to This is something that if you go to
grad school you'll experience.
Speaker 6: You're forced to defend your positions.
Speaker 7: You can't just have a thing where you go to
the professors when you have to defend your case, and
you just say, well, here's what I want my argument
to be, and I'm only going to list the.
Speaker 6: Sources that I want. Now, the first thing that you
do is you debate the other side.
Speaker 7: And so the only way that I would have ever
changed my mind, I'm just given an existential experience kind
of account here.
Speaker 6: I'm not saying this proves anything.
Speaker 7: I'm just saying that that I think I've been fairly
open minded. I've listened to, you know, tons of debates
from various perspectives. I don't think science is bad, nor
do I I disregard science effects. One of the things
that I focused on in grad school was the science
of cognition and the philosophy of science. So that's actually
something that's very crucial to a lot of the essays
I've written over the years. I just have different views
about how epistemology works, how metaphysics works, and those aren't
positions that I came to defend a conspiracy view or
to defend necessarily a theological view. Because I've interacted with
everything from Satanism to atheism, to Aristelianism to Platonism to Buddhism.
Speaker 6: Different philosophy is over over the years.
Speaker 7: So I would say I'm pretty pretty open minded to
being corrected or critiqued. Otherwise I wouldn't have come to
a position that's a so called conspiracy. But I think
when you look at big time globalist players and you
read their books, and I do a talk on that
guy's book and what he says, I mean, that's just research,
that's just citing the sources.
Speaker 6: I don't see how that's even How can you even.
Speaker 7: Say it's a conspiracy theory if you're if you're looking
at what Brazenski himself says, and if you don't know
Brezenski and how important he's been.
Speaker 6: You know, I'm not dissing you.
Speaker 7: I'm saying theoretically, if a person doesn't know his important role,
then that's really their own ignorance.
Speaker 6: It's not my fault.
Speaker 4: I won't because I said I would, But I did
want to say I'd love to come back.
Speaker 3: And do Evolution with you sometime if you're down for it.
Speaker 7: Yeah, we could probably fit that down eventually if I
can get free, Yeah for sure.
Speaker 2: And we definitely want to have you back with Kim Trosty.
Speaker 1: But I'm gonna let you guys kind of take us
out with uh, something about your your channel, what you've
got coming up. And also I wanted to ask Jay
when does your new book come out?
Speaker 7: Right now, I'm in the process of finishing up the
sidebars and the citations, so I would say, and that
the best bet would probably be two three months.
Speaker 5: Cool.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: The only thing I want to add is I think
doing made a good critique on that that I think
that Jays actually is incorporating, which I think is a
brilliant thing, is that you know, your first book had
this one specific approach with I, by the way, don't
see a problem with I don't have an issue how
you approached it at all. But I also think that
the second book, if you're going to do it the
way Jimmy suggested that says, here's what my argument will be.
This is what I want to prove to you. Let
me see if I can make my argument. That's fine
as well. It's a different way of approaching it, but
it shows you can come out that you can come
at it from two different perspectives, and I think that's versatile.
Speaker 3: I do want to specify without rehashing the argument.
Speaker 4: My argument more to do with whether what the book
represents itself as versus what the book actually delivered in
that regard, but again not to reactually already imagine them
to make sure that that was clear.
Speaker 1: Sure, okay, and did you want to talk about the episode?
Look before I've seated everything to close it out.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, before we before you end, our wonderful producer
who amazingly did such a great job on our audio
levels this time. People, you have noticed and they really
did a lot of work prior to this episode to
get off being normalized, so kudos to you. He will
be running an after show on the Great Debate Community Channel,
which is the community channel that we all kind of
just go to for various things. It will be streamed
from the non secord.
Speaker 6: To Show Discord.
Speaker 5: However, links will be in the video description, so if
you want to be a part of that, anybody can join.
Just you need a discord, you can use it from
downloading it or to go on the web. So go
to the non sec non secuor to show discord and
be a part of it, or just listen in. But
that'll probably be some time between fifteen to twenty minutes
after this episode ends. But we'll continue on the carricters
continue on the conversation there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, Jimmy will start with you just to tell
everybody what you got coming up if you wanna plug anything.
Speaker 4: And yeah, so obviously my page is mister Atheist. We
talk about all the questions that atheists are asked over and
over again, especially those ones that are the large misconceptions
are made about. So we recently did one called why
are atheists so arrogant? We did why do atheists hate God?
Things along that that line of thinking. We have Sunday
Mass every Sunday, which is usually myself and up to
three other YouTubers who come on and just talk about
week events, usually starting with the ones that related to atheism,
and then the show usually quickly devolves into dick jokes.
I highly recommend no one ever watches it ever.
Speaker 5: It's awesome, awesome, and it's fun.
Speaker 3: It is fun. I on this weekend some point I
will post.
Speaker 4: I was on Steve's show the other day and we
had an awesome debate with.
Speaker 3: Victor Or Woton and if you guys have seen him
in the flatter stuff, I'm not want time. Yeah, yeah,
it was all about flatter Earth. It was awesome I'm
gonna be isolating just that.
Speaker 4: Part of the stream and posting it to my channel
uh here in the coming days.
Speaker 3: And I know I have another debate coming up, but
I can't think of what it is.
Speaker 4: But it will be about a topic that is I'm
not saying this wasn't a fun topic.
Speaker 3: Uh it was.
Speaker 4: And I enjoyed a lot of the symbols in the
book and going I wouldn't even notice that was in
the background. But it'll be something more along than normal
things I do, which is evolution, flat Earth, those sorts.
Speaker 1: Of things out your boxton I, which I think is
commendable though I mean going out to a you know,
an area that you're.
Speaker 4: Not I mean, Okay, my my goal here, and so
I want to make sure this is stated. My goal
here was I had a book that I read that
I had questions for. I think Jay answered the questions.
I don't think that means I agree with him. I
wasn't bothered by a lot.
Speaker 3: Of his answers. There are a few things here and there.
Speaker 4: But my goal here was ask the questions about the
red flags I saw in the book.
Speaker 3: And I think I think we I think we did that.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean we come from a I'm a I'm
a paradigm thinker.
Speaker 7: So my view is I believe in the transcendental argument,
which is obviously connected to the idea that all worldviews
are paradigms, and so I don't believe in the possibility
of neutrality. That doesn't mean I believe that all knowledge
or or logic or facts are relative.
Speaker 6: No, not at all.
Speaker 7: I believe in objectivity, but I just simply believe that
ultimately big picture questions are solved by comparisons of paradigms.
But unfortunately that also influences the way that we come
to books, or we write things, or we do things.
And so this wasn't a polemical book. This was a
book that was written to be fun. It was written
to be conspiratorial, it was written to be kind of sexy,
and that's what I wanted for it, and I think
I achieved that. But I'm welcome to be criticized, and
I appreciate the critiques that he brought and I'm definitely
and you know, going to try to hone the skills
for the next book.
Speaker 6: So I appreciate it. And in fact, I think that.
Speaker 7: When I read, when I look back and I look
at the book because this is actually some of these essays,
you know, for things I wrote my twenties, some of
them are are years old.
Speaker 6: I kind of cringe.
Speaker 7: So, I mean, I'm proud of it because it was
my my freshman outing. But yeah, some of the some
of the chapters are kind of weak. So but that's
what happens as you get older and you look back
at stuff that you wrote when you were younger.
Speaker 6: But hopefully the second book will be a little.
Speaker 3: From the book was sexy. It was sexy. There were
books if.
Speaker 7: I achieved that, I achieve that that's cool, must read now.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so as with Boobs Illustrations, Yeah, the.
Speaker 7: Second book will be out in the next couple of months.
I should have a new TV show hopefully in the works.
That's all I can say on that, based on the
non disclosure agreement, and I'll be hosting uh Andy Worski's
Orsky Lives the foreseeable future. We'll have Ryan Dawson on Friday.
So he's of course a big proponent of nine to eleven.
Was an inside job, one of the one of the
better debaters of that topic. But I think actually we're
going to be talking comic books and the influence of
social justice warriors in comic books. We'll have some big
comic book artists on for this Friday, So that's what's
coming up with us and my my channel is just
standard stuff. We're going to keep going through the Globals
book series. We're going to finish the Pentagon Brain book
by Annie Jacobson next.
Speaker 1: That's great, Well, we'll in the in the description you'll
find the links to Jay Channel will also link to
Andy Orski so that you can catch that. Uh.
Speaker 2: I think that's interesting with the comic.
Speaker 6: Book guys, I like that. Oh yeah, of course, mister.
Speaker 1: Links are down there below as well. Remember, guys, we'll
beat back tomorrow at eight o'clock with Nightmare Fuel on
Saturday at eight with Russell Placer from The Athe's Experience
and Matt Powell the our our favorite.
Speaker 2: Uh what did I say? I keep forgetting my said Steve, our.
Speaker 5: Favorite, our our favorite, twenty two year old pastor that
wants to kill kids. And it's by the way, but
you know what were once they needed Mario needs a
screenshot of this. Come on, everybody. Oh yeah, Mari knows
the shot over your eyes, the moment.
Speaker 6: It over your eye.
Speaker 5: Bro over there you go, Okay, both eyes.
Speaker 3: Kyle doesn't quite get it, Kyle photo.
Speaker 2: Shot stuff yet.
Speaker 3: I'm just gonna put binoculars in your
Speaker 2: We'll see you tomorrow at Fuck you, missus, We'll see
you tomorrow at