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