Speaker 1: Bloundish Authenticity Podcast.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to another episode of Boundless Authenticity. My return
Speaker 2: guest is Thomas the Paranoid American who has worked at
Speaker 2: Disney and MTV and knows a lot about animation and
Speaker 2: the various industries and mind control and all kinds of
Speaker 2: crazy stuff. It's unbelievable what this guy knows. You can
Speaker 2: visit Paranoid American dot com to learn more about conspiracy
Speaker 2: themed comic books, get some cool T shirts, playing cards,
Speaker 2: other trinkets as well, and you can tune in to
Speaker 2: the Paranoid American podcast. And as I'm here again, I
Speaker 2: just want to say thanks to all of the new subscribers.
Speaker 2: I see you, and I see that you're sharing all
Speaker 2: the stuff, so that's good. I also want to remind
Speaker 2: you that if you aren't currently a follower of the show,
Speaker 2: you can go ahead and do so right now. And
Speaker 2: Boundless Authenticity is available on Spreaker, Spotify, Apple, Rumble, and
Speaker 2: sometimes YouTube when they aren't centoring me for telling you
Speaker 2: the stuff that the Internet doesn't want you to know yet,
Speaker 2: so I highly recommend you use the Spreaker app because
Speaker 2: it's free to listen. You don't have to sign up
Speaker 2: All you have to do is hit play. Subscribing to
Speaker 2: the podcast is not only going to let you know
Speaker 2: when the next episode comes out, but it will also
Speaker 2: help the show to reach a wider audience, which means
Speaker 2: we can attract some more of the guests that you've
Speaker 2: been emailing me about and they're like, oh, I can't
Speaker 2: come on because your show is not big enough yet,
Speaker 2: and I'm like, okay, we'll screw you. So we got
Speaker 2: to get those people. You can now look forward to
Speaker 2: three episodes of Boundless Authenticity every month on the sixth, sixteenth,
Speaker 2: and twenty sixth, some mark your calendars. What's going on,
Speaker 2: mister paranoid American?
Speaker 3: Hey, how you doing? Man, it's good to talk to
Speaker 3: you again. And just clarification, I don't sell trinkets. I
Speaker 3: sell choch keys. Look at that, right, sir?
Speaker 2: Jeez oh that's hilarious. So yeah, we are going to
Speaker 2: talk about Disney and MK Ultra, and I guess the
Speaker 2: best way to go about it is how did that
Speaker 2: even start? Because I run into so many non believers
Speaker 2: They're like, oh, that's just conspiracy garbage, just not real.
Speaker 3: I mean, if we go chronologically, Disney came first, technically
Speaker 3: before mk ULTRA did. And there are mk ultra papers
Speaker 3: that specifically cite Disney films as inspirations for mind control techniques,
Speaker 3: so both of those are documented. This is just wild conjecture,
Speaker 3: so that's an interesting overline. But also I feel that
Speaker 3: Walt Disney, it's a it's it's uh. These two subjects
Speaker 3: are so intertwined it's actually fun to try and like
Speaker 3: pick them apart. So let's let's start with mk ULTRA first,
Speaker 3: just because that one is a little bit more clearly defined.
Speaker 3: So mk ultra was the end form. This was like
Speaker 3: the final form of this slow progression towards mind control research.
Speaker 3: It basically started sometime around nineteen forty five, and this
Speaker 3: is when the US Navy Technical Mission that was like
Speaker 3: the name before there was a CIA and OSS and
Speaker 3: all this this like Naval Intelligence group, they found these
Speaker 3: papers that were used at the Dachau concentration camp that
Speaker 3: mentioned the use of mescaline, and from there they start
Speaker 3: revealing that the Germans were basically giving people all these
Speaker 3: very strong psychedelics psychoactive substances in order to help try
Speaker 3: and get them to find some sort of truth serum,
Speaker 3: so that if they captured someone they would talk, even
Speaker 3: under duress, even if it were something they would never
Speaker 3: want to reveal. And while the efficacy and regardless of
Speaker 3: how ethical it is I'm talking about, like how efficient
Speaker 3: it was, that is still kind of under debate and
Speaker 3: whether they stuck to that or it expanded, but that
Speaker 3: was the very original seed that you can kind of
Speaker 3: trace this back. The US had known about mescaline since
Speaker 3: at least the eighteen eighties, when they, you know, Native
Speaker 3: Americans were using it, they were selling payote by mail.
Speaker 3: But it wasn't necessarily targeted or even seen as a
Speaker 3: specific chemical at that point. It was just some weird
Speaker 3: folk medicine and over a slow progression based on some
Speaker 3: of the stuff that we've talked about in our last show,
Speaker 3: that kind of like coalesced between the late eighteen hundreds
Speaker 3: and then like the nineteen thirties. So now you've got
Speaker 3: maybe ten years after that, right nineteen forty, nineteen forty five,
Speaker 3: and like, okay, well, this compound, this mescaline that we've
Speaker 3: already isolated, We already understand where it come from and
Speaker 3: how it's used and how it binds with receptors, or
Speaker 3: at least as much as they knew about it in
Speaker 3: the forties and this they're saying, Oh, but the Nazis
Speaker 3: are using this for some sort of a military edge.
Speaker 3: They're getting information maybe they if that's even one percent
Speaker 3: possible that they're doing that, and we're not. Now, all
Speaker 3: of a sudden, we're behind the game. So the US
Speaker 3: military they just start ramping up. So originally this discovery
Speaker 3: that they got in forty five from a concentration camp,
Speaker 3: that evolves into something called Project Chatter, which the name
Speaker 3: is in that unique you know, it's to get people talking.
Speaker 3: So they called it Project Chatter, and this was under
Speaker 3: the guise of the Navy. Then it turns into Project Bluebird,
Speaker 3: which gets a little bit more attention. He might have
Speaker 3: heard this one before. And this was organized by Richard Helms,
Speaker 3: who was at the CIA at the time. And then
Speaker 3: from Bluebird, once Helms goes out and Alan Dulles comes in,
Speaker 3: he kind of takes all this different research from Chapter
Speaker 3: and Chatter and Bluebird and he combines it into something
Speaker 3: called Project Artichoke. And then Project Artichoke explodes so much
Speaker 3: in scope. Now all of a sudden, it's not just
Speaker 3: about this one thing about finding a truth serum or
Speaker 3: psychedelics and interrogation. Now it's just like, let's throw some
Speaker 3: stuff at the wall and see what sticks. And this
Speaker 3: is essentially what mk ultra is. Mk Ultra becomes the
Speaker 3: massive umbrella term for all these hundreds and hundreds of
Speaker 3: subprojects that started as just like a single subproject. So
Speaker 3: that's the most like, you know, bird's eye view of
Speaker 3: mk ultra that I think would be useful for now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was well said. Geez, that was well said.
Speaker 2: It's the Disney thing, is what I think a lot
Speaker 2: of people get wrong, because yeah, in recent times a
Speaker 2: lot more has come out on the Internet, but it's
Speaker 2: still just like a very small, panic driven fraction, if
Speaker 2: you get what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: Well, I think so this is kind of where Disney
Speaker 3: combines with all that mk ultra stuff, because maybe you're wondering, like,
Speaker 3: how the hell would these two things connect. Well, interestingly enough, Disney,
Speaker 3: a lot of the original Disney classics that put them
Speaker 3: on the map kept them there were really just adaptations
Speaker 3: of Brothers Grim folklore, specifically Germanic folklore, and interestingly enough,
Speaker 3: the Brothers Grim they started out as historians. They weren't
Speaker 3: fiction writers. They were actually documenting the very real, sort
Speaker 3: of lost history of these Germanic tribes and just Germany
Speaker 3: and Bavaria in general, and a lot of that information
Speaker 3: had been lost to time or it was just slowly
Speaker 3: evaporating generation by generation, and they kind of reinvigorated the
Speaker 3: German people's fascination with their own history through these folk
Speaker 3: tales and through Disney. He kind of makes that a
Speaker 3: worldwide phenomenon. Now the entire world cares about Germanic folklore,
Speaker 3: whereas before maybe it didn't so much. I mean, Grim's
Speaker 3: Brother's Fairy Tales was only outsold by the Bible. For
Speaker 3: a long period of time, it was the most popular book,
Speaker 3: and I mean I would almost argue there was probably
Speaker 3: the book that was read more often, even though if
Speaker 3: you bought a Bible, a lot of those people that
Speaker 3: had on the shelf maybe weren't reading it as often.
Speaker 3: But if you add kids and Grim's fairy Tales, you're
Speaker 3: probably open in that you're cracking that open more so
Speaker 3: than the Bible, right, because you probably don't just have
Speaker 3: it for appearances, you have it because you're actually reading it.
Speaker 3: So this is hard to understate how impactful and how
Speaker 3: like burrowed if you believe in epigenetic memory. For example,
Speaker 3: if you believe that enough of your ancestors all thought
Speaker 3: or read the same things that somehow it just kind
Speaker 3: of like through generational osmosis, ends up in your brain,
Speaker 3: then this would fall directly out of that category. And
Speaker 3: even if you don't believe in epigenetic memory like that,
Speaker 3: which is maybe a pseudoscience. If you don't believe in that,
Speaker 3: you could still say that the cultural impact serves as
Speaker 3: like an environmental programming, so that even if your family
Speaker 3: doesn't care about Grim's fairy tales, just it being incorporated
Speaker 3: at such high levels throughout all of society and just
Speaker 3: everything that you come in contact with, the inspirations that
Speaker 3: brought that about show some of these traces of like
Speaker 3: Germanic folklore. All this to say that there might not
Speaker 3: have even been a revolt in the Weimar Republic, and
Speaker 3: there might not even even been a rise of a
Speaker 3: nationalist socialist party in Germany if it hadn't been for
Speaker 3: Walt Disney helping sort of normalize this resurgence of Germanic folklore,
Speaker 3: which also would have happened with the Grim's fairy Tales.
Speaker 3: So you can draw a direct line, in my opinion,
Speaker 3: from Grim making this resurgence to Disney making it global,
Speaker 3: to then World War two and the Nazi Party. And
Speaker 3: now I'm not saying that Walt was like a direct influce.
Speaker 3: He wasn't any Henry Ford right where they shared framed
Speaker 3: the pictures of each other on him in Hitler's desk.
Speaker 3: But Walt did reinvigorate the Germanic peoples in this way.
Speaker 3: And it's just an interesting connection that right around the
Speaker 3: tail end of this conflict that happened because of this
Speaker 3: revigorated interest in dramatic culture, that now we've got some
Speaker 3: of the most potent Disney films that ever come out.
Speaker 3: And the best example might be Alice in Wonderland as
Speaker 3: the direct intersection between these two worlds, because it came
Speaker 3: out right around the time in which mk Ultra was
Speaker 3: at a fever pitch when they were like, all right,
Speaker 3: we're throwing all of our money at this thing, let's
Speaker 3: just see how far it can go. And there's even
Speaker 3: mk Ultra paperwork that reference what they call Alice in
Speaker 3: Wonderland programming. So if you had to put a single
Speaker 3: pinpoint on where the argument is the closest between these
Speaker 3: two worlds overlapping. I would say it's right around that time,
Speaker 3: which I think is like fifties and sixties. And this
Speaker 3: is also when wall is still involved enough with Disney
Speaker 3: that you could call it like Walt Disney Productions. If
Speaker 3: we talk about Disney right now, or if we're talking
Speaker 3: about Disney in the eighties or nineties, it's Disney, but
Speaker 3: it's the corporate eggregore of Disney. It's no longer like
Speaker 3: the Walt Disney. And I do think that those those
Speaker 3: two entities couldn't be more different in a lot of regards.
Speaker 2: Yeah, See, this is why I like having you on,
Speaker 2: because you're better than chat GPT. You're like an encyclopedia
Speaker 2: of stuff, and I can always ask you to clarify
Speaker 2: on stuff that people get wrong all the time and
Speaker 2: they don't know the history. And you know, I think
Speaker 2: that because I've been through that phase so many years
Speaker 2: ago in my life where I just watched a lot
Speaker 2: of conspiracy videos and stuff. It's the same repetitive content,
Speaker 2: but it's not very factual. They always just stop shy
Speaker 2: of getting into the real deal.
Speaker 3: You know, it's repurposed. I mean, I know the sources
Speaker 3: once you know the sources. You can pick this all out.
Speaker 3: It's John Todd, and it's Jordan Maxwell, and it's Text Mars,
Speaker 3: and it's some Leo Taxle if you go back far enough.
Speaker 3: But it really is the exact same sources over and
Speaker 3: over with different hot takes. So I would relate this
Speaker 3: to the equivalent of someone that discovers they really like
Speaker 3: a band. Right, you can go and collect all that
Speaker 3: band's albums, but you might even realize, like, oh, that's
Speaker 3: so weird. The first three sound different than these three.
Speaker 3: And what you do is you look and see who
Speaker 3: the producer was of the album, who, like what the
Speaker 3: name of the person that was playing the drums on
Speaker 3: the album or if you like the drums. And I
Speaker 3: kind of do that with my conspiracy research, where like
Speaker 3: you come across something you're like, well, I don't think
Speaker 3: tex Mars like personally discovered this information, So where did
Speaker 3: he get it from? And then where did they get
Speaker 3: it from? And once you get far back along you
Speaker 3: can kind of find out like who the producer of
Speaker 3: that album really was, and then go and look for
Speaker 3: all the other things that they've done. And that's kind of,
Speaker 3: in my opinion, that's the best tip as to getting
Speaker 3: to the bottom of some of the weird conspiracy claims
Speaker 3: that come out, and then the sources just like just
Speaker 3: trust me, bro I read it, like where did you
Speaker 3: get it?
Speaker 2: Though it is the same information over and over, And
Speaker 2: I think that in a lot of ways it's been
Speaker 2: weaponized because then you can create a bunch of conspiracy
Speaker 2: theorists that just regurginate and regurgitate another narrative, just like
Speaker 2: they regurgitate every other narrative that we've ever in fit
Speaker 2: and nobody makes any progress.
Speaker 3: But it's kind of a two way road in this case,
Speaker 3: because I think people turn themselves into useful idiots. So
Speaker 3: there is a certain point when like the masses are
Speaker 3: no longer blameless, Like you can be ignorant, but if
Speaker 3: you're ignorant long enough and you know to such an extent,
Speaker 3: sometimes it is on you. And I don't see it
Speaker 3: as like a victim blaming thing. For example, when it
Speaker 3: comes to any conspiracy research MK Ultra Illuminati does any
Speaker 3: of the different categories, there's something fun and novel about
Speaker 3: just the headline aspect of it all. But then to
Speaker 3: be like okay, and to verify this, here's a seven
Speaker 3: hundred page book that's not a fun read, and you
Speaker 3: got to read that whole thing, and then you'll get
Speaker 3: the context on what the title of the thing means.
Speaker 3: And it's like there's a huge drop off if you
Speaker 3: were to visualize on a graph the people that start
Speaker 3: on page one and make it the page seven hundred
Speaker 3: and read through the entire thing, right, it's not one
Speaker 3: hundred percent, it's not a straight line of every single
Speaker 3: person that interacts with it. And this comes up even
Speaker 3: on like conspiracy podcasts, where why is it that the
Speaker 3: headline shows or just let's read through today's headlines and
Speaker 3: give our quick takes on it seem to do better
Speaker 3: than real big deep dives, And it's really just because
Speaker 3: it's not as fun. It's not as fun to dispel
Speaker 3: some of the rumors about conspiracy theories and start looking
Speaker 3: into like the nuances. And because at a mass level,
Speaker 3: at a wide scale, nuance isn't really fun or interesting
Speaker 3: or entertaining. It means that you've got to take a
Speaker 3: stop and what you're doing and like think about something
Speaker 3: and come up with a judgment, and then there's a
Speaker 3: really good chance that your interpretation isn't going to match
Speaker 3: every single other person, So now you'll see like a
Speaker 3: drop off an audience. So the best way to avoid
Speaker 3: that is to just like, you know, Disney's programming your kids.
Speaker 3: Like if you just say Disney's programming your kids, so
Speaker 3: many people are like, oh, yeah, of course, and I
Speaker 3: agree with that too. It's such a massive broad statement
Speaker 3: that anyone could agree with it, which makes it popular.
Speaker 3: But then if you start getting very specific and like, well,
Speaker 3: how exactly what movie, what message did that movie give?
Speaker 3: What were the actual real world effects, it's it's just
Speaker 3: loses some of its novelty. So and I don't think
Speaker 3: there's any one particular person to blame. I'm not sure
Speaker 3: if there's like an Illuminati watchdog that's like, hey, you
Speaker 3: better simplify that article, you know, to everyone that's writing something.
Speaker 3: I think it's a self perpetuating issue where the masses alone,
Speaker 3: they will relate to something more and more the more
Speaker 3: like surface level it is. So why why would you
Speaker 3: not lean into that if you know that that's just
Speaker 3: something that we're all predisposed to. So that's why I'm
Speaker 3: kind of saying it's like a two way street where
Speaker 3: maybe certain types of industry lean in or they plant
Speaker 3: really salacious stories that like will drive a headline, uh,
Speaker 3: talking about something that would be easily knocked down later, right,
Speaker 3: like just lob a nice little underhand that's like Disney's
Speaker 3: you know, killing kids or something, and then Disney can
Speaker 3: come out it might be back example, but Disney can
Speaker 3: like plant that story and then come out and be like,
Speaker 3: here's all records, We're not killing anyone. Look, if anything,
Speaker 3: they're doing better if youve got all these money and
Speaker 3: resources or something. If you make a specific claim, then
Speaker 3: it can be denied. But if you make broad claims,
Speaker 3: then they just have much more length to them, Like
Speaker 3: they run for way longer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I heard Disney's programming your children, and then nothing
Speaker 2: after that. It just went Haywhere.
Speaker 3: The point being that people can easily make a claim
Speaker 3: that says Disney's programming your children and everyone can agree
Speaker 3: with it. Even if you're not a conspiracy theorist. You'd
Speaker 3: be like, Okay, yeah, they're definitely programming my kids to
Speaker 3: want to see the next Disney movie, for example. Right,
Speaker 3: But when you start getting more specific, you make a
Speaker 3: direct claim, you say, this group of animators that came
Speaker 3: from this room at Caltech are all putting this specific
Speaker 3: message into this movie for this reason. Once you get
Speaker 3: into all those specifics, now you're inviting people or you're
Speaker 3: almost like challenging yourself to go and do all that
Speaker 3: research improve it, which is far less interesting than just
Speaker 3: making the claim. And like everyone pats you on the
Speaker 3: back and you move on to the next claim. You
Speaker 3: can very easily just string together claims like Disney's program
Speaker 3: in your Kids and go to the next one. And
Speaker 3: there's an endless number of topics. And I think the
Speaker 3: ultimate point being is that we also invite ourselves to
Speaker 3: that party. Like if you entertain that even if you
Speaker 3: agree with it, there is something more than just like
Speaker 3: a top ten hits, Right, you don't know the band
Speaker 3: if you only listen to their Greatest Hits album and
Speaker 3: that's the only thing you've ever heard from them, right, Like,
Speaker 3: you don't get all the extra nuance. And I think
Speaker 3: that it's similar when it comes to like research.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it really is. Like the thing about the Disney
Speaker 2: programming Your Kids' problem is that yet they've done stuff
Speaker 2: to kind of admit to it in recent times, haven't
Speaker 2: they like edited stuff out, I mean, like the boners
Speaker 2: and shit out of certain characters.
Speaker 3: I mean, what is one of my favorite ones to
Speaker 3: talk about though, Like the Big Castle from like Little
Speaker 3: Mermaid is one of the examples. Right, There's also the Rescuers.
Speaker 3: There's like a single frame that they show a naked lady,
Speaker 3: like like a human naked lady in one of the windows.
Speaker 3: Then there is the word sex that maybe comes up
Speaker 3: in the Lion King when someone jumps on a ledge
Speaker 3: and like dust and feathers go up in the air
Speaker 3: and it forms this word. So like here's usually what
Speaker 3: I mentioned when that comes up. What do you think
Speaker 3: is worse for your kid that they saw maybe the
Speaker 3: word sex for literally fifteen frames, so like half a
Speaker 3: second they see this word. First of all, congratulations if
Speaker 3: your kids can read that at the age where you
Speaker 3: find that they're like so impressionable, but they see the
Speaker 3: words and then there's like maybe a dick castle on
Speaker 3: the back of the Little Mermaid poster. Do you think
Speaker 3: that would be more traumatic to a kid and turn
Speaker 3: them into like a prostitute, like now they're going to
Speaker 3: be a sex addict for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 3: Or is it the fact that Disney is basically doing
Speaker 3: this Disney proxy thing where they kill the printal figure,
Speaker 3: or they kidnap the kid and put the kid into
Speaker 3: an actual state of panic in their real world life,
Speaker 3: and then start selling them things. They start showing them
Speaker 3: intellectual property that is then going to show up as
Speaker 3: Happy Meal toys and lunchbox designs and you know, Halloween costumes.
Speaker 3: I guess I would just argue that the ladder of
Speaker 3: those right, conditioning someone by weaponizing nostalgia to just sell
Speaker 3: them crap for the rest of their life is more
Speaker 3: damaging than they might have seen the word sex like
Speaker 3: float by in the sky for half a second somewhere.
Speaker 3: It's not like you got to pick and choose. You
Speaker 3: don't have to have either one of those, but it
Speaker 3: just it's it seems that the Easter Egg type like
Speaker 3: sort of insertions of these these dicks into the cartoons
Speaker 3: and into the marketing material that if anything, I see
Speaker 3: as like a like a subversion of Disney. Like some
Speaker 3: artists out there was like, Haha, I'm gonna stick a
Speaker 3: dick in in your pr and you're gonna spend millions
Speaker 3: of dollars and then I'm gonna know there's a dick
Speaker 3: in there, which is usually what a lot of those
Speaker 3: claims come down to is they're Easter eggs that were
Speaker 3: added by rogue animators as opposed to someone high up
Speaker 3: in a boardroom was like, you better put a dick
Speaker 3: in there, because we're trying to program these kids to be,
Speaker 3: you know, like like sex ravaged animals.
Speaker 2: Well, I could agree with that perspective, and I also
Speaker 2: know how these things work because I work with people,
Speaker 2: and I've most famously given the example of the lady
Speaker 2: that couldn't stop smoking and couldn't get her relationships together
Speaker 2: because her favorite movie was Bridget Jones's Diary, and she
Speaker 2: would put that on every time she wanted to self soothe,
Speaker 2: and she ended up living Virgie Jones's life, you know.
Speaker 2: And things like that happen all the time with people
Speaker 2: because it's really just the emotional content. But when it
Speaker 2: comes to this stuff about seeing sex, it's really more
Speaker 2: about what the subconscious mind is doing with that repetitively
Speaker 2: when it's exposed to that over and over. There's something
Speaker 2: about the word sex that makes anybody give you their
Speaker 2: unconscious attention for about twenty five minutes. You can tell
Speaker 2: them whatever you want to tell him, but whatever the
Speaker 2: animators do with that I really don't know. I agree
Speaker 2: with you where it's just like but probably a bunch
Speaker 2: of weirdos that were like, let's put a cock over here,
Speaker 2: you know, and see what everybody does. But to say
Speaker 2: that anybody knows for sure exactly why that was done
Speaker 2: or what the purpose of something like that is, I
Speaker 2: don't know.
Speaker 3: Well, the stories I know the official story for every
Speaker 3: one of these instances, and the so the Lion King Sex,
Speaker 3: the official Disney story was that this was done by
Speaker 3: the new Special Effects department, and it was really the
Speaker 3: letters SFX as a nod to their specific department, as like,
Speaker 3: look what we're now able to do, because before that
Speaker 3: either would have been done with like a really rudimentary
Speaker 3: particle physics simulation, which wouldn't have looked great in that
Speaker 3: sort of analogue hand drawn Disney revival style. But they
Speaker 3: found a way to actually blend those two methods where
Speaker 3: it was computer assisted but it was hand drawn particle effects.
Speaker 3: So if you take a step back and watch that
Speaker 3: scene in detail, let's say that there's no word that
Speaker 3: comes up at all, no letters that are discernible. The
Speaker 3: fact that that was created by hand assisted digitally was
Speaker 3: an achievement according to that particular group of animators at
Speaker 3: the time, Right, they were like, Wow, that was a
Speaker 3: lot of work. I can't believe that we were able
Speaker 3: to pull that off and make it look good. So
Speaker 3: it was. So again, this is the official story. The
Speaker 3: unofficial is that, Yeah, they put the word sex in
Speaker 3: there to program your kids and maybe get their attention
Speaker 3: artificially for twenty twenty five minutes. Counter, which I've heard
Speaker 3: come up before. Does that mean that if they're just
Speaker 3: reading the dictionary and they come up on the word sex,
Speaker 3: now for the next twenty minutes, every other word they
Speaker 3: read in the dictionary is going to have somehow like
Speaker 3: a more profound impact on them for the rest of
Speaker 3: their life. And if you were to just cheat code yourself,
Speaker 3: you just had a little card that said sex on
Speaker 3: it and you just look at it every half hour
Speaker 3: of your day, right, Like, does this change your your
Speaker 3: like mentality in some way? Maybe there's a secret to
Speaker 3: the formula when it's done subtly, right, where like you
Speaker 3: don't realize that you're seeing it, and then you're seeing it.
Speaker 3: So there's all like it's hard to tell exactly what
Speaker 3: the real answer.
Speaker 2: Is, right, right, And yeah, so you're correct in what
Speaker 2: you're saying, because then you become hyper sexualized and it's
Speaker 2: almost like that stupid drive that we all have to
Speaker 2: act out things sometimes through sex that we didn't get
Speaker 2: in other times from other people, other places and things
Speaker 2: like that. But I think that, like there's a lot
Speaker 2: on the subject where just using the sexual imagery embedded
Speaker 2: and stuff is just there to get your attention. But
Speaker 2: like you were saying, at what point does that stop working?
Speaker 2: Or when does it get really bad? And when is
Speaker 2: it really good? And that part I actually don't know
Speaker 2: for sure. I know that there's a book by Wilson
Speaker 2: Brian Keyes and a much older book where he talks
Speaker 2: about subliminal seduction and he gives the example of the
Speaker 2: Gilby's Gin commercial. Are you familiar with that?
Speaker 3: Yeah? This was cited heavily. Stanley Kubrick apparently had this
Speaker 3: book on hand and it was a reason when he
Speaker 3: was working on The Shining and according to legend, conspiracy
Speaker 3: legend that he also took the findings of this book
Speaker 3: and sort of like try to introduce them through his
Speaker 3: cinematography and just through like the individual shots in the movie.
Speaker 3: I think the cover of that book has an example,
Speaker 3: it's like a glass with ice cubes, but the way
Speaker 3: the ice cubes are melting in the glass, it forms
Speaker 3: the silhouette of like a voluptuous woman. Right, And that
Speaker 3: was supposed to be like, I don't know what it
Speaker 3: is about this advertisement, but I think I would like
Speaker 3: that product, right, that's part of it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that one's a weird one. And the
Speaker 2: what is it the Skittles berry blast that says sex
Speaker 2: or something like that. I forget now, it's been a
Speaker 2: while since I've looked at this information.
Speaker 3: Well, even the color red, even adding giving things a
Speaker 3: candy sheen to them, like a candy coating. All of
Speaker 3: these ultimately lead to some sort of visceral reaction, meaning
Speaker 3: that you either see like blood or you see sex,
Speaker 3: or you could argue they're kind of one and the
Speaker 3: same thing.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Yeah. There's a lot of stuff. There's a
Speaker 2: lot of stuff that goes into this, and I am
Speaker 2: sure that we're making people's heads hurt right now because
Speaker 2: it's probably further than they wanted to think today about this,
Speaker 2: the Disney stuff. I could see how people would be like, oh,
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna let my kid watch this, and then
Speaker 2: the kid still turns out just as screwed up as
Speaker 2: anything else, because it's just everywhere when it comes to marketing.
Speaker 2: And so I don't even know what's the point in
Speaker 2: just trying to boycott Disney rnything, because I've seen a
Speaker 2: lot of that lately.
Speaker 3: I feel that the boycott aspect is more of a
Speaker 3: personal signal. I mean, it's virtue signaling from the other
Speaker 3: side of the aisle essentially. I don't think there's anything
Speaker 3: wrong with that because clearly, in my mind, Disney's biggest
Speaker 3: offense is just that they are printing money, and they
Speaker 3: will do anything in the pursuit of more money. So
Speaker 3: the only way you really can hit back is to
Speaker 3: just boycott or to not purchase any Like maybe I'm
Speaker 3: a good example. I haven't paid for anything Disney almost ever, right,
Speaker 3: Like even when I worked there, I was taking money
Speaker 3: from them, So technically I'm still like they're in the black.
Speaker 3: I guess a little bit on me. But one person
Speaker 3: not going to see one movie or rented off of
Speaker 3: Net or watch it on Netflix and they don't get
Speaker 3: their like forraction of a penny from someone watching it
Speaker 3: and put on their kids, it immediately gets dwarfed by
Speaker 3: someone in the park that just bought like a forty
Speaker 3: dollars Hamburger. Right, So it's the boycott would have to
Speaker 3: be so multifaceted. It wouldn't just be about the movies.
Speaker 3: And this is actually leading into what Here's where I
Speaker 3: put my tin andfoil hat on. When it comes to Disney.
Speaker 3: I might not care as much about if your kid
Speaker 3: can read three letters and gets traumatized because he read
Speaker 3: a word that maybe that's a little bit on you.
Speaker 3: But what Disney is doing is that they are so
Speaker 3: large and so profitable now and own such a large
Speaker 3: portion of real estate in your actual brain. Even if
Speaker 3: you boycott them, they still own They get free rent, right,
Speaker 3: Disney gets free rent no matter you like them or not,
Speaker 3: just because of how large and influential they are. And
Speaker 3: I think that allows them to maybe not care about
Speaker 3: how much profit this next movie makes, or even this
Speaker 3: next quarter makes, or this next ten years makes. Obviously
Speaker 3: there's people on the board that care about that stuff
Speaker 3: for the shareholders, But I'm talking about Walt Disney, his
Speaker 3: DNA and just the DNA that he passed on. As
Speaker 3: Disney became like a corporate eggregor it realizes almost in
Speaker 3: a Fabian society way. I don't care about profits over
Speaker 3: the next thirty years. I care about that your great
Speaker 3: great grandkids when I say Cinderella or snow White or
Speaker 3: any other public domain thing that's been around for four
Speaker 3: centuries or more in some cases, I care that when
Speaker 3: I say that, you think about Disney owned proprietary ip
Speaker 3: that I can trademark, I can own, and I can
Speaker 3: charge you money for just conjuring that particular one up
Speaker 3: or in a more nuanced version, when you go into
Speaker 3: your metaverse VR world and you want to role play
Speaker 3: as Alice in Wonderland, like you're buying the Disney trademarked
Speaker 3: version of that Alice in Wonderland. And I feel that
Speaker 3: that is probably the scariest thing that they're doing, is
Speaker 3: that they're literally owning, like like they are trademarking folklore
Speaker 3: that predates any of us, predates our great parents and
Speaker 3: you know, great great grandparents, and the fact that they're
Speaker 3: able to like literally own that, you know. Little Mermaid
Speaker 3: wasn't a Disney creation. It was a Hans Christian Anderson book.
Speaker 3: It has actual occult, deep meanings to it about the
Speaker 3: nature of the human spirit, and how all these other
Speaker 3: monsters like mermaids are they're monsters are really just trying
Speaker 3: to steal the human soul because they don't have enlightenment
Speaker 3: or you know, like a knowledge of God or whatever
Speaker 3: you want to fill in that hole. It's just all
Speaker 3: about this natural world that's constantly trying to steal what's
Speaker 3: unique to humans. That gets glossed over. And again, I
Speaker 3: would argue that that's probably more damaging to us as
Speaker 3: humanity as a whole, that they're removing these deep messages
Speaker 3: that were in these original properties and now it's just
Speaker 3: about dick castles and now it's just about dei and
Speaker 3: like selling you the next Krabby Patty, you know, like
Speaker 3: happy meal to me. That's way more egregious, that has
Speaker 3: far more reaching damage that's going to last for generations
Speaker 3: more so than like, oh there's a dick on that
Speaker 3: poster the right, Like now we don't really understand the
Speaker 3: nature of human consciousness because it's been weeded out. It
Speaker 3: didn't sell Coca cola as fast, so they just cut
Speaker 3: that part. And that's really that is Disney DNA. Even
Speaker 3: Old Wall he did the exact same thing when Jungle
Speaker 3: Book they adapted it. He told everyone on his team,
Speaker 3: don't read If you've never heard about this before, great,
Speaker 3: don't read it. I don't want anything about the original story.
Speaker 3: We're just leveraging these known characters and a setting and
Speaker 3: a title, and we're just gonna shoehorn in our own
Speaker 3: mythology into that. And that's really what Disney has been doing.
Speaker 3: And I feel that's the most dangerous part of Disney.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. I would agree with you as well, Like
Speaker 2: talking to you was so hard sometimes because it's like
Speaker 2: I want to ask these questions that are going to
Speaker 2: get you to outpour all of this cool information, and
Speaker 2: now you're stumping me because because it's like I started
Speaker 2: off thinking, Okay, this is what I want to get
Speaker 2: him to talk about, and now we've gone so far
Speaker 2: it's like, oh shit, let's take a circle backwards to
Speaker 2: something you said earlier. Because it's kind of like how
Speaker 2: they sell people ozempic for example, they're tapping into something.
Speaker 2: Maybe you've heard the original song that they've changed for
Speaker 2: that commercial. You know, like there's something about these art
Speaker 2: forms or whatever, whether it's a nice piece of art,
Speaker 2: a song, you know, a crazy record that did really well,
Speaker 2: but everybody knows it and it gets downloaded somehow into
Speaker 2: everybody's consciousness. So every baby that comes playing out in
Speaker 2: this world, they're gonna be like, how zimbic because the
Speaker 2: song has been downloaded into our consciousness just by pure
Speaker 2: popularity alone. Does that make sense to you?
Speaker 3: Yeah? I mean this is common. Like if like you
Speaker 3: can tell what age group a car commercial is targeting
Speaker 3: based on what music that they're adapting and changing to
Speaker 3: be about selling the car. Right, So when me and
Speaker 3: you were younger and the car commercials were targeted our parents,
Speaker 3: it were these like oldies kind of songs. It was
Speaker 3: something that you'd listen on the radio in like the
Speaker 3: fifties and sixties, right, and then it slowly started turning
Speaker 3: seventies and eighties, and now car commercials are like remixing
Speaker 3: boys to men and like sir mix a lot right,
Speaker 3: Like now they're into like the nineties era, and you
Speaker 3: can just tell it's like, oh, they they're targeting you know,
Speaker 3: forty and fifty year olds. Now that's all it is.
Speaker 3: And it's such a genius way of doing it because
Speaker 3: they'll just find some earworm that everyone was forced to
Speaker 3: listen to no matter where you were at, right if
Speaker 3: you went to a school function or a bowling alley,
Speaker 3: or you went grocery shopping, Like you're hearing this damn
Speaker 3: song over and over again, and now that exact song
Speaker 3: is gonna sell you a zimpic and it's gonna sell
Speaker 3: you a no new like you know, four f one
Speaker 3: fifty or whatever the thing is. And it's just like
Speaker 3: the most bear basic NLP anchoring. It's saying like, hey,
Speaker 3: here's a sound that you liked, and it brings you
Speaker 3: back to a point in time when you didn't have
Speaker 3: back pain. Isn't that great? Hey? By the way, Coca
Speaker 3: Colas on sale on Aisle seven, Right, Like, that's sort
Speaker 3: of how that whole trajectory works. And right now, audio
Speaker 3: is probably the easiest way to do that because you
Speaker 3: can't really shield yourself from that. You maybe put like
Speaker 3: ear plugs in or something, right, but if it's visual,
Speaker 3: you can look away. If it's audible, you can't. Like,
Speaker 3: there's no version of look away from that until we
Speaker 3: all have some sort of AI ear sets that will
Speaker 3: like dynamically filter stuff out. The next iteration of this,
Speaker 3: it's still fairly untapped, is like your old factory sense
Speaker 3: because your old factory sense ties to memories way deeper
Speaker 3: than any other of our senses. It's like a shortcut
Speaker 3: to it. But it can only affect a certain area.
Speaker 3: And also like there's a certain nuance, Like you can't
Speaker 3: just drop like a crazy amount of smell on someone
Speaker 3: and overwhelm thems their senses, because even if it's a
Speaker 3: pleasurable smell that links them back to you know, Grandma
Speaker 3: or going being in church as a kid, or something
Speaker 3: very specific, if it's too much, then your body's like, whoa,
Speaker 3: this is too much, Like it'll it'll overflow, it'll saturate
Speaker 3: your senses. So one of the examples that I think
Speaker 3: they think they mentioned this in Food Nation, but if
Speaker 3: you go by like a fast food restaurant, for example,
Speaker 3: some of them actually just emit. They have like a
Speaker 3: send of what a burger grilling smells like. They're not
Speaker 3: actually grilling burgers, or if they are, it doesn't smell great,
Speaker 3: and it's just like a steam that evaporates within like
Speaker 3: a hundred foot radius, right, But they will find like
Speaker 3: a chemically created version of fresh fries or fresh chicken
Speaker 3: or whatever this food is and then emit that into
Speaker 3: the air. So now as you drive by, you're smelling
Speaker 3: it and it's like, oh, man, I remember the last
Speaker 3: time I had a burger or whatever like it, like
Speaker 3: it'll link you back to that. So audio is the
Speaker 3: easiest way to do that. But I think that like
Speaker 3: they're constantly finding ways to make that a full sense experience.
Speaker 3: But I think we notice it way easier when it's
Speaker 3: like an earworm or a song.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would agree with you. I usually like try
Speaker 2: to explain to people, like the Starbucks when you're walking
Speaker 2: through the mall type thing. You know, that's how they
Speaker 2: get you. You just walk through the mall and you're like, oh,
Speaker 2: a coffee smells so good. Next thing, you know, you're
Speaker 2: buying a bagel or something that you really shouldn't have.
Speaker 3: You know, Well, there's two which is genius about Starbucks
Speaker 3: is their consistency. And not just because you want to
Speaker 3: make sure that you like, if you get a Starbucks
Speaker 3: on the West coast or the East coast or your overseas,
Speaker 3: that it roughly tastes exactly the same and you know
Speaker 3: what you're going for, but in terms of like literal
Speaker 3: programming someone, consistency is key. So every time you walk
Speaker 3: by a Starbucks. If it just smell a little like
Speaker 3: it smell a little more burt in this day or
Speaker 3: a little sweeter on that day, or they like mixed
Speaker 3: up the formula here and there, it wouldn't have the same,
Speaker 3: uh like very potent effect that it does when it's
Speaker 3: very consistent, because it's like drilling the exact same old factory,
Speaker 3: like programming the same anchor you over and over, just
Speaker 3: like a magical ritual. Right, the more you do it,
Speaker 3: the stronger it gets over time.
Speaker 2: M hm yeah, Okay, So that's no circle back around
Speaker 2: to like the Disney thing where they put like pedo
Speaker 2: symbols and stuff in things like I've seen that. No,
Speaker 2: that one I'm not very familiar with, but I have
Speaker 2: seen it the claims of like Moana or something where
Speaker 2: there's like the pedo boilerver or whatever symbol in there.
Speaker 3: I'm a little dubious on this one because are we
Speaker 3: saying that that pedophiles now own spirals like they have
Speaker 3: they just co opted the symbol of which is also
Speaker 3: golden ratio we're talking about fi here. That is it's
Speaker 3: a spiral, right, So does that mean that pedophiles now
Speaker 3: just own for how However, long sacred geometry. Are they
Speaker 3: that powerful of a group that they've the same way again,
Speaker 3: I guess like the Germans right now, the Nazis for
Speaker 3: maybe the rest of our lifetimes, and I don't know
Speaker 3: how much longer they own one of the oldest shapes
Speaker 3: of the procession of the equinoxes that humankind has ever known.
Speaker 3: If you just sit down and plot the equinoxes over
Speaker 3: and over, you get this swastika symbol. Right, But because
Speaker 3: a reprehensible group did something so bad and associated themselves
Speaker 3: with it in such a way, like we're just it's
Speaker 3: hands off for us, Like we just have to be
Speaker 3: ignorant of the procession of the equinoxes for another couple
Speaker 3: centuries until that the heat died down. And I just
Speaker 3: don't know if I'm willing to give up the golden
Speaker 3: ratio to pedophiles so easily. And if anything, this was
Speaker 3: something denoted by like an FBI handbook, And I get like,
Speaker 3: if we're talking about like Podesta pizza or whatever the
Speaker 3: hell the name of it was, right, that had like a.
Speaker 2: Little pizza whatever it comment pizza.
Speaker 3: Right, if we're talking about something that specific, Yeah, But
Speaker 3: I don't I'm not ready to give up all spirals
Speaker 3: to pedophiles at like, you know, blank check style like that,
Speaker 3: but blank check, maybe I didn't mean that. That's also
Speaker 3: a Disney movie about a pedophile, ironically.
Speaker 2: Right, I tend to agree with you on that, because
Speaker 2: now you're just looking for things that may or may
Speaker 2: not be there. And I hear, like when you mentioned
Speaker 2: the Alice in Wonderland programming, I hear people who claim
Speaker 2: to have been undermine control ooh googlieve woo. They talk
Speaker 2: about that kind of stuff and Peter pen programming and
Speaker 2: Disney Princess this type stuff. And I'm like, okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: so to a turn degree, I could see what you're
Speaker 2: talking about, but I don't see the facts in front
Speaker 2: of my face. You know what I mean?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean Peter Pan programming. A lot of those.
Speaker 3: You could almost trace a lot of those between John Todd,
Speaker 3: but more specifically Fritz Springmeyer. He writes about these exact
Speaker 3: things within like Monarch programming, which as far as I
Speaker 3: know that one hasn't really been proven on paper, Like
Speaker 3: there's no declassified documents that talk about Disney Princess programming
Speaker 3: and Monarch and Peter Pan and all this stuff, it's
Speaker 3: sort of assumed based on for example, CIA documents really
Speaker 3: mentioning this Alison Wonderland programming. I think this was from
Speaker 3: a declassified document from like nineteen sixty three or so,
Speaker 3: and the Alison Wonderland in particular. It's an interesting one. Basically,
Speaker 3: it's just giving someone a whole bunch of random synchronicities
Speaker 3: and like false patterns and such a large amount. I
Speaker 3: think if this were like a logical fallacy, there's something
Speaker 3: called the Gish gallop fallacy, and this is when you
Speaker 3: just drop like factoid after factoid. If I just drop
Speaker 3: fifty factoids at you now all of a sudden, the
Speaker 3: onus is like on you to sit there and go
Speaker 3: through every one of those fifty things, and you're obviously
Speaker 3: gonna get caught up, especially if I've got them all
Speaker 3: pre rehearsed and I have cherry picked them in such
Speaker 3: a way. And it also completely distracts whatever we were
Speaker 3: talking about. Now, well, guess what. Now you're just gonna
Speaker 3: have to go through and knock down these fifty things
Speaker 3: that I just dropped on your ass. That's sort of
Speaker 3: a Gish gallop. It's a very useful rhetorical technique. But
Speaker 3: it kind of negates the original conversation. And that's sort
Speaker 3: of what this Alice in Wonderland programming is. It's dropping
Speaker 3: so many different things on somebody that they no longer
Speaker 3: have the ability to find like a pattern in it.
Speaker 3: And then you use them in that state when they're
Speaker 3: grasping the fine logic and so thing, and now you
Speaker 3: give them the actual programming, Like you give them something
Speaker 3: that just has a modicum of logic and they can
Speaker 3: kind of grasp on to that, like a person drowning
Speaker 3: at sea getting thrown a life raft, right, even the
Speaker 3: life raft is made out of like barbed wire and
Speaker 3: like razor blades. I mean, like your mind has gone
Speaker 3: into a completely different mode when that's secondary, Like that's fine,
Speaker 3: I'll cut my hands up or whatever. Maybe it's a
Speaker 3: strained analogy, but it's sort of what happens in this
Speaker 3: Alice in Wonderland programming. But one of those references, the
Speaker 3: fact that the CIA was referencing Disney, does make it
Speaker 3: more easy to be like, oh, now there's Peter prarin
Speaker 3: programming and Disney Princess programming. I think the difference, which
Speaker 3: I'm still looking for, is at any point did Disney
Speaker 3: play into that feedback loop. Did Disney say, oh, here's
Speaker 3: CIA mind control programming, let's take that and put it
Speaker 3: into our movies. I don't think they did. I think
Speaker 3: Disney was already so much better at programming than the
Speaker 3: CIA ever could have hoped to be. The CIA was
Speaker 3: just taking notes. They're just analyzing what other people in
Speaker 3: the world are doing that's effective and trying to repeat
Speaker 3: that in different you know, like like military related settings.
Speaker 3: But I don't think that Disney needs the feedback loop
Speaker 3: of the CIA. They don't need to take CIA technology
Speaker 3: and put it into their movies. Like their leagues ahead,
Speaker 3: they don't operate under the same limitations as the CIA does.
Speaker 3: So that's where these two worlds combining get a little odd.
Speaker 3: But it also meet like if you were to take
Speaker 3: Fritz Springmyer at his word, let's say there's Peter Pran
Speaker 3: and there's Disney Princess programming. Of course there is, dude,
Speaker 3: because it's an archetype. If you're releasing a product into
Speaker 3: the market, right anyone that's ever tried to do this before,
Speaker 3: if it's a new product, there's a phase call. I
Speaker 3: think it's like customer education, and this is where you've
Speaker 3: got to spend time and money to just tell people
Speaker 3: about what your thing does before you even try and
Speaker 3: sell them on it. They might have a problem that
Speaker 3: they don't even know about, so you got to like
Speaker 3: educate your customer base and then be like, Okay, now
Speaker 3: here's the solution to this thing that you just that
Speaker 3: you now know about. And I think that's kind of
Speaker 3: where all this this power would go into. It's like
Speaker 3: educating them about what the thing is going to be
Speaker 3: before you even present the solution to them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I gotta be honest, I never really believe the
Speaker 2: damn word that Fritz Springmere said, to be honest with you,
Speaker 2: because it came across to me is more. I don't
Speaker 2: want to use the word conjecture really, but he's just
Speaker 2: saying a bunch of stuff that he pieced together.
Speaker 3: Kin of Well. So I came across his book in
Speaker 3: the nineties, which I think it came out in the
Speaker 3: early nineties, and I think I came across it in
Speaker 3: like ninety seven or ninety eight just because of how
Speaker 3: cool the title was, which was like the formula for
Speaker 3: creating an undetectable Illuminati mind control slave or something along
Speaker 3: those lines, and it's like, oh, hell yeah, I'm definitely
Speaker 3: reading this. And when I read it in the late nineties,
Speaker 3: to me, I was like a teenage I was like
Speaker 3: thirteen or fourteen probably I was reading it and I
Speaker 3: was just now starting to become familiar with computers, and
Speaker 3: there was so much of that book that he was
Speaker 3: relating to actual computer programming that did make sense. So
Speaker 3: and I don't even know if Fritz Springmyer himself was
Speaker 3: a computer programmer. He clearly knew someone else that was
Speaker 3: if he didn't have this knowledge, But the way that
Speaker 3: he was able to explain the human mind and how
Speaker 3: to program the human mind direct like with a direct
Speaker 3: analogy with real computer programming, it gave it this extra
Speaker 3: credit in my mind, not in that it made him
Speaker 3: more right, but the things that he was saying it
Speaker 3: seemed like it made more sense to me. It wasn't
Speaker 3: these crazy things a conjecture. And then when I discovered NLP,
Speaker 3: which actually came before him. If anything, Fritz probably was
Speaker 3: familiar with NLP and then incorporated some of that without
Speaker 3: directly citing a lot of it because it was fairly unknown.
Speaker 3: So you could almost seem like you're this authority on
Speaker 3: this new novel thing. You're like, oh, by the way,
Speaker 3: I got that from these three books by Richard Bandler
Speaker 3: and John Grinder. But like, after I discover NLP somewhat
Speaker 3: close to reading Fritz Springmeyer, I kind of realized, like, oh,
Speaker 3: this is more of that, but without talking about like assassins.
Speaker 3: Now we're just talking about how can I sell you
Speaker 3: like a printer or something, right, how do I sell
Speaker 3: you a timeshare? But it's the exact same programming, and
Speaker 3: it's the same way of thinking about things and compartmentalizing
Speaker 3: stuff and making these like keywords and triggers. So I
Speaker 3: think Fritz was like released that book at the perfect
Speaker 3: time because it could speak to like total skitzzos, but
Speaker 3: it also had some credibility. But like what you're saying,
Speaker 3: you actually try and dig deep, Like he makes claims
Speaker 3: about where some of these Project Monarch facilities were under ground,
Speaker 3: under like the Denver International Airport. Like once you get
Speaker 3: into those specifics and then it kind of falls apart.
Speaker 3: But again, it's not fun to drill into those specifics
Speaker 3: and disprove conspiracy. That's kind of like like you're being
Speaker 3: a bummer at that point, right, you're being the sober
Speaker 3: guy at like a party if you're like, hey, wait
Speaker 3: a minute, like can't we actually disprove this part?
Speaker 2: But you know, isn't that what it feels like to you?
Speaker 1: Though?
Speaker 2: Like just knowing all this stuff. I feel like that
Speaker 2: all the time when people are talking about just about anything,
Speaker 2: and I just get that moment where it's kind of
Speaker 2: like I'm Homer Simpson just going backwards into that bush.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I think it's about like what is the environment?
Speaker 3: Are people talking about this? To have fun and just
Speaker 3: to like have engaging small talk, because it's the same
Speaker 3: thing with small talks. Someone's like nice weather we're having today,
Speaker 3: you know, and then if you start like, well, actually
Speaker 3: the barometric pressure is actually probably you know, murder on
Speaker 3: someone with like a nasal infection right now, if you
Speaker 3: start getting into like the specifics. But no, it's more
Speaker 3: about the niceties and about relating to someone else. So
Speaker 3: someone's like, man, Disney's programming us and you're like, yeah, man,
Speaker 3: that mwana spiral right, And someone else is like, yeah,
Speaker 3: bro Epstein, Bro did you hear like Disney had someone
Speaker 3: to do with Epstein? And if you can just kind
Speaker 3: of kick that ball around. It's sort of fun, right,
Speaker 3: But if you're trying to like sharpen your teeth, if
Speaker 3: you're actually trying to convince a noormy that walks by
Speaker 3: and they're like, you guys are skitzos? Right to actually
Speaker 3: be like no, no, no, wait a minute, there's something
Speaker 3: to this. It might not be at your behest to
Speaker 3: be like, all right, look at this FBI symbol and
Speaker 3: now look at this Mowana logo. Isn't that just enough proof?
Speaker 3: Like you're probably not gonna get someone unless they're already
Speaker 3: so far down the rabbit hole. So I think, if anything,
Speaker 3: over the years, my fascination has become more on like
Speaker 3: how do you get the surface level normies into the
Speaker 3: fold so that they can at least be confronted with
Speaker 3: like the Mowana pizza symbols. I don't know if that's
Speaker 3: the thing that's gonna sell anyone. That's when like you're
Speaker 3: already sold in on everything, but you can definitely get
Speaker 3: them and be like, oh, maybe teaching my child that
Speaker 3: their toys have souls and to not throw them out,
Speaker 3: and that only like license Disney toy This is the
Speaker 3: premise of Toy Story, by the way, that only licensed
Speaker 3: toys from the manufacturer have souls, and that if you're
Speaker 3: using like offhand ones, or if you're that weird creepy
Speaker 3: kid that takes broken toys and reassembles them into new toys,
Speaker 3: you're Frankenstein right, Like you're creating monsters that are going
Speaker 3: to hurt you out in the world. Be safe. Go
Speaker 3: to the store and buy like the licensed packaged you know,
Speaker 3: like buzz Lightyear that has all the working buttons and everything.
Speaker 3: Otherwise you're putting your family in danger. Like that's an
Speaker 3: actual message that gets conveyed over toy story one, two
Speaker 3: and three, and I feel that that's the real damage.
Speaker 3: That's something that they're actually doing to us.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I agree with you once again, Like the
Speaker 2: purpose of this show is really okay, on me backtrack.
Speaker 2: I'm the kind of person where I want the facts.
Speaker 2: So I am going to go read the seven thousand
Speaker 2: page thing study report or whatever and see what it
Speaker 2: says in reality. So there's this thing that happens all
Speaker 2: the time. We just talk about this, but I'll talk
Speaker 2: about it again. Whereas like everything gets summarized and I
Speaker 2: learned to be that way, but againing my ass kicked
Speaker 2: in like academics. Because there's an example from my school
Speaker 2: days where we had to do this Shakespeare presentation and
Speaker 2: the teacher was like, you can use the cliff notes
Speaker 2: if you want, and I knew it was a trick
Speaker 2: because everybody went out and bought the cliff notes and
Speaker 2: everybody failed, right, And I learned that if you try
Speaker 2: to take the shortcut on something, then you're not going
Speaker 2: to get anywhere near close to being able to answer
Speaker 2: any real questions about it, and you're going to get
Speaker 2: into a lot of trouble. Right. So I think that
Speaker 2: got me at an early age, and so I've always
Speaker 2: been kind of like, Okay, whatever it is, I better
Speaker 2: go read about it. Like I was having this conversation
Speaker 2: with a client just this morning and somehow they started
Speaker 2: talking about transgenders and how it's a genetic problem and
Speaker 2: all this stuff, and I'm like, oh, God, you don't
Speaker 2: know what. You don't know because you haven't read anything, right,
Speaker 2: you just heard it somewhere and you agree with it.
Speaker 2: And that's how it is most stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's an easy one, uh to gravitate towards two.
Speaker 3: And it's to me, it's the same dynamic of like
Speaker 3: looking for spirals everywhere, and now you're just like a
Speaker 3: like a pedophile hunter. In your normal daily life, you're
Speaker 3: going grocery shopping or you got to get like your
Speaker 3: tire worked on, and you're just like all over the place.
Speaker 3: You're just like, there's a pedal there, there's a pedal there.
Speaker 3: And people do that with like the transgender stuff too,
Speaker 3: like the transvestigators, where they're just out in public or
Speaker 3: they're just reading magazines or watching TV or whatever, and
Speaker 3: it's like that bone structure. I bet that dude's a chick,
Speaker 3: and I bet that chick's a dude. And like, what
Speaker 3: you're doing, though, is you're actively training your brain to
Speaker 3: become an expert. Might be the wrong word here, but
Speaker 3: you're training your brain to like make it so you're
Speaker 3: always in that mode and now you're gonna to process
Speaker 3: all information through this very weird lens. And that is
Speaker 3: that is actually changing the way that your brain works
Speaker 3: and how you're perceiving the world in a non reversible way.
Speaker 3: There might be like a year or two some of
Speaker 3: these people were like, man, all I was thinking about
Speaker 3: was just like who has a dick or not? For
Speaker 3: two full years, what else could I have been learning
Speaker 3: in that time, right, you didn't learn how to fix
Speaker 3: the carburet or anything. You're just learning how to like
Speaker 3: check out chicks dicks like out in public. And I
Speaker 3: think that it's its own programming, right like that, Like
Speaker 3: when when you were saying maybe some of this is
Speaker 3: planted or is this like designed? That very well could
Speaker 3: be like planting that seed to make people obsessed with
Speaker 3: spirals and dicks NonStop, like just them being obsessed with
Speaker 3: it might be the only programming they're looking for, because
Speaker 3: now that's what's going to be on the mind of
Speaker 3: a non zero segment of the population. And all that
Speaker 3: ever does whenever they like they segment or compartmentalize us,
Speaker 3: it's just for the convenience of targeting. In my mind,
Speaker 3: that's the only thing they're doing. So now they can
Speaker 3: target you with like, hey, are you afraid everyone's got
Speaker 3: a dick? Here's you know, here's a product for you.
Speaker 3: That's kind of what it's going to come down to. Yeah,
Speaker 3: is that a cameltal or is that a bulge? If
Speaker 3: you have a special X ray glasses will light up
Speaker 3: a rat or light up green to let you know
Speaker 3: if you're looking at a real guy. Or a real girl,
Speaker 3: like you know what I mean, that's that's like a
Speaker 3: farc farcical version of that, But it's it's content. Content's
Speaker 3: the actual product. Because now it's just so much easier
Speaker 3: to be like, oh, here's something that you'll sit your
Speaker 3: ass down and watch two hours of.
Speaker 2: I feel like this makes me laugh to say out loud.
Speaker 2: I feel like a lot of people just are guilty
Speaker 2: because they thought Sandra Bullock was really hot when they
Speaker 2: were young, and now they're like, God, that's a tranny,
Speaker 2: and because somebody said so, and they feel shame about it,
Speaker 2: so they're extremely paranoid. But also, like, if we circle
Speaker 2: back to the Alison Wonderland thing, I knew a girl
Speaker 2: when I was growing up that she had all these
Speaker 2: different problems at home and stuff, and Alice in Wonderland
Speaker 2: was her favorite movie, the one with is it Johnny
Speaker 2: Depp was in that one. I never actually yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: I never actually saw that a version more than five minutes,
Speaker 2: and so I don't know what I'm talking about when
Speaker 2: it comes to that. But she would constantly put it
Speaker 2: on cover to her place and she would just be
Speaker 2: walking around like cleaning the house or doing whatever. Regular
Speaker 2: chores and it would be playing and she would be
Speaker 2: talking along with it. Every line, line by line worked
Speaker 2: for a word, no mistakes, and I didn't I don't
Speaker 2: want to say that something was clearly wrong with her,
Speaker 2: because I don't like to say that something's wrong with
Speaker 2: somebody just like that. But she had a lot of
Speaker 2: issues with her parents and stuff, and I can't really
Speaker 2: remember what the full story was, but I saw that
Speaker 2: as like a trauma response somehow. And I feel though,
Speaker 2: even though that was really weird to experience, I feel
Speaker 2: like that's the way that a lot of people live
Speaker 2: their lives anyway. With anything else, they're just parrot the narrative,
Speaker 2: parent the narrative.
Speaker 3: I mean, good example, because that also is a book
Speaker 3: that was essentially written about bio pedophile maybe about pedophilia
Speaker 3: in a way, and just drug induced trances. Right, every
Speaker 3: single thing that Alice goes through, she ends up affecting
Speaker 3: herself and the outside world based on things that she's consuming,
Speaker 3: different pills and tea's and tinctures. And this is in
Speaker 3: my mind, if you were to say, like, well, what
Speaker 3: would be the bad version, like what's with the swat analysis, Well,
Speaker 3: like the cons of this is that it is on
Speaker 3: a deep, subconscious level is kind of baking in this
Speaker 3: idea of it. Whatever you're going through, there's a substance
Speaker 3: that you can ingest which will somehow counteract the thing
Speaker 3: that you're going through. If the world seems too big,
Speaker 3: you can take a pill that now you're as big
Speaker 3: as the world, and vice versa, and all of these
Speaker 3: different aspects it and this concept that you're always under
Speaker 3: the gun. You've got the rabbit that she's constantly chasing
Speaker 3: and he's constantly late for things like all the like
Speaker 3: that this is just adding stress, right, but this is
Speaker 3: a common theme in TV and movies and just everyday
Speaker 3: life is that ticking this ticking timer dynamic and all
Speaker 3: of this combined into this one story made visceral through
Speaker 3: like all of these cartoons, I think that this one
Speaker 3: really does have the possibility. And even if we're talking
Speaker 3: about the story or the original Disney animated version or
Speaker 3: the Johnny Depp you know, Tim Burton style remake, it's
Speaker 3: still the exact same archetypes that are going over it.
Speaker 3: And like the Johnny Depp one, it just adds a
Speaker 3: little bit on top because now if you know, if
Speaker 3: it's we're talking about a girl that you knew she
Speaker 3: had like an attraction of Johnny Depp because of Edward
Speaker 3: scissor Hands or Sleepy Hollow or any of this other thing.
Speaker 3: Like he's on Tiger and teen Bop magazine, and he's
Speaker 3: also in this thing that already occupies really state in
Speaker 3: your brain. So now it's like doubling down. Now the
Speaker 3: six or the nine year old version of you is
Speaker 3: just as interested in as the fifteen or the twenty
Speaker 3: five year old version because of this like Johnny Depp link.
Speaker 3: So again, it's Disney constantly making sure that they own
Speaker 3: real estate in your brain. Like they they've actually got
Speaker 3: a non zero portion of your thoughts at these different
Speaker 3: phases of your life. There's a very real chance that
Speaker 3: like as we get into our fifties and sixties, there's
Speaker 3: like a much more adult version of Alice in Wonderland.
Speaker 3: I believe that was one of the unreleased projects from
Speaker 3: Marilyn Manson was he was also working on his own
Speaker 3: version of Alice in Wonderland, which would have been like
Speaker 3: this adult iteration of it, which would kind of like
Speaker 3: fill that gap, right, you'd have like the baby's version,
Speaker 3: the angsty teen early twenties version and then like an
Speaker 3: adult version. Coh Man, you just said the wrong thing.
Speaker 3: Marilyn Manson's another guy that you could just go off on. Well,
Speaker 3: he actually did this knowledgeably. There was an with him
Speaker 3: that I think was genius, and he was talking about
Speaker 3: the remix they did of Sweet Dreams, which was originally
Speaker 3: by the Rhythmics, right, and I can't remember the name
Speaker 3: of the album. It was like Smells like Candy or something,
Speaker 3: but the entire album was was Willy Wonka themed, and
Speaker 3: he knew in this interview he was like, I know
Speaker 3: that us covering this Rhythmics song is what's going to
Speaker 3: get our foot in the door. Like your ten year
Speaker 3: old is going to be singing along to this, and
Speaker 3: as a parent, you'll be like, oh, I know this
Speaker 3: song sweet Dreams, and this is like a cool remix,
Speaker 3: not realizing that like every other song on an album
Speaker 3: that's like kill your Parents, workship Satan, you know what
Speaker 3: I mean, like had like much darker themes to it.
Speaker 3: But he realized that that one song was the foot
Speaker 3: in the door because it was so innocuous. It was
Speaker 3: so like family friendly in a way, even though it
Speaker 3: was Marilyn Manson. It was like candy coated and bright colors,
Speaker 3: and it had like a Tim Burton esque kind of
Speaker 3: feel to it, and it was the perfect trojan horse.
Speaker 3: So then like you know, the gateway drug into listening
Speaker 3: to Antichrist Superstar, right. So, like it was a very
Speaker 3: conscious way of saying, Hey, I know that this is
Speaker 3: my least offensive thing that has the most mass pop appeal,
Speaker 3: and even though this the one thing doesn't represent what
Speaker 3: I'm really about, it's the best way to get my
Speaker 3: foot in the door. And I kind of see that
Speaker 3: as exactly what we're talking about and all these other
Speaker 3: iterations and stuff.
Speaker 2: Hmm. Yeah, it's true. And it's actually very scary how
Speaker 2: much people underestimate people like Marilyn Manson and Maynord, James
Speaker 2: keenan stuff like that. You know they're actually like genius
Speaker 2: level people that they have a totally different image.
Speaker 3: This is like thinking like how dangerous could George W.
Speaker 3: Bush be? He's an absolute idiot? Right, Like what if
Speaker 3: that's the perfect role. If you can play the fool
Speaker 3: card and everyone buys it, now you're sort of justified
Speaker 3: in anything that you do because oh he didn't mean it.
Speaker 3: He's just out there goofing around, you know, same thing
Speaker 3: with like Marilyn Vanson. It's like, oh, just some angsty
Speaker 3: teen like if you know he got beginner's luck and
Speaker 3: he's soon to nail this. But if you realize that
Speaker 3: someone had actually had like a full scaled out plan
Speaker 3: of all right, we're gonna find the perfect song that
Speaker 3: is going to not offend people, and then we're gonna
Speaker 3: release it this way and make that the highlight and
Speaker 3: then get them to buy albums. Like, once you realize
Speaker 3: that there's like a master plan behind some of it,
Speaker 3: then that's kind of where conspiracy comes in. Right now,
Speaker 3: It's like, oh, how far back does this go? Who
Speaker 3: is in on this?
Speaker 2: Interscope Records with their spiral exactly? God damn, Jimmy Iovien,
Speaker 2: I don't know. So what do you think is the
Speaker 2: purpose of the Barbie movie? Because that was weird? Dude, Really, the.
Speaker 3: Barbie move is. It's so crazy you mentioned the Barbie
Speaker 3: Move and we were talking about Fritz Springmeyer because, uh,
Speaker 3: in my in my opinion, the Barbie Movie is the
Speaker 3: absolute best representation of what Fritz spring Meyer is talking
Speaker 3: about when he's describing how you can create multiple personalities
Speaker 3: in someone. Largely, what Fritz spring Meyer's book that we're
Speaker 3: talking about amounts to is how can you traumatize someone
Speaker 3: in such a way that their psyche can no longer
Speaker 3: handle it and it'll actually split away from itself. It'll
Speaker 3: create a new version of paranoid American that doesn't have
Speaker 3: the recollection of this horrible thing that he just went through.
Speaker 3: And now, like, my name is Sally, and then something
Speaker 3: horrible happens to my fake personality Sally, and now there's
Speaker 3: like a Jimmy, right, and Jimmy can store information that
Speaker 3: Sally doesn't know. And it's a way of compartmentalizing somebody
Speaker 3: and stuffing them full of memories or programming or whatever
Speaker 3: it is. And Fritz spring Meyer's version of this, it
Speaker 3: gets really dark. And actually recreate this somewhat in one
Speaker 3: of my comic books and Times Samplers issue three, it
Speaker 3: kind of details this entire process, but at a high level.
Speaker 3: Spring Mere talks about snatching up these kids, either like
Speaker 3: right after they're born or grabbing them off the streets
Speaker 3: basically when they're still developing, like the world around them,
Speaker 3: and they would put them in this thing called a
Speaker 3: woodpecker grid, and the Woodpecker grid, similar to what we
Speaker 3: were talking about the Alison Winterland programming, where you just
Speaker 3: like randomly throw stuff know what's coming next. The Woodpecker
Speaker 3: grid did this at a physical level, where I had
Speaker 3: electrified cages that would just shock you at random intervals,
Speaker 3: random in that you couldn't attact the pattern and like
Speaker 3: brace yourself, like up, it's been five minutes and embrace myself.
Speaker 3: There was no pattern to it. So if you spent
Speaker 3: enough time in one of these electrified Woodpecker grids that
Speaker 3: your mind would just give up. It would just be like,
Speaker 3: you know, I don't know when the next time I'm
Speaker 3: getting shocks coming. I give up. Just whatever you're gonna
Speaker 3: do to me, just do it to me, because I
Speaker 3: can't handle this anymore. As soon as that would happen,
Speaker 3: they would send in the programmer or this perceived authority
Speaker 3: figure which would save them from this Woodpecker grid. So
Speaker 3: now they've got this like superhero savior bond they're developing
Speaker 3: with the subject, and as the subject is looking at
Speaker 3: them like you know, you're my savior, thank God, you
Speaker 3: saved me. Everything's good now, then the programmer does something
Speaker 3: horrific to the person and it's a complete inversion. They
Speaker 3: went from looking at someone as if they were their
Speaker 3: savior and now they're doing the worst possible thing ever
Speaker 3: to them. In the Barbie movie, they reenact this in
Speaker 3: kind of a genius way. It's the very end of
Speaker 3: the movie and Barbie is realizing that Ken has been
Speaker 3: programmed by like toxic masculinity out in the real world
Speaker 3: and he's bringing it into Barbie world. And it's like,
Speaker 3: you know, like go make me a sandwich, babe, or like, oh,
Speaker 3: you know, I'll give you, you know, seventy cents out
Speaker 3: of the dollar if we do this job. It's very
Speaker 3: very much like the most cliche version of this toxic
Speaker 3: masculinity patriarchy thing, and Barbie's like, how do we unprogrammed Ken?
Speaker 3: And the way that they do it is they invite
Speaker 3: Ken over to play her song and it's like all
Speaker 3: these different like the Black Canon, the Asian Can, and
Speaker 3: the Hispanic Can, like all the different Kens match up
Speaker 3: with their corresponding barbiees, and Barbie is like inviting him
Speaker 3: to serenade on the beach and he like learns how
Speaker 3: to play guitar, and essentially it's a tender moment like
Speaker 3: Ken amongst this, this patriot, this patriarchal like toxic masculinity
Speaker 3: ego that he's taken on and adorned. Like the most
Speaker 3: vulnerable he can make himself is like sitting down and
Speaker 3: singing a sweet song to his girlfriend. So Barbie kind
Speaker 3: of like pushes this right and feeds into it and like, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: open up to me, Ken, you know, be vulnerable. That's
Speaker 3: what I need right now. I need a guy that's vulnerable.
Speaker 3: And he does all this and as soon as he
Speaker 3: finishes his song, she basically laughs in his face and
Speaker 3: it's like, wow, your that song sucked. You are such
Speaker 3: a weak, like poor excuse for a man like does
Speaker 3: the exact opposite of what Ken was hoping for. Regardless
Speaker 3: the fact that his guard was completely down. He made
Speaker 3: himself so vulnerable, and at that most vulnerable moment, Barbie
Speaker 3: goes on for the attack and does not let up.
Speaker 3: She's absolutely brutal to him. This is about as viscerals
Speaker 3: they can make in the Barbie movie, Like she's not
Speaker 3: like physically assaulting him, but you can extrapolate what this
Speaker 3: would look like in like a dark sea ungeine right,
Speaker 3: like someone at their most vulnerable you go and save them.
Speaker 3: You get them into their safe space, and then you
Speaker 3: attack them in their safe space. And as soon as
Speaker 3: that happens in the movie, you actually see Ken like
Speaker 3: glitch out, and then Barbie starts planting all of her
Speaker 3: programming what she wants Ken to act like into this
Speaker 3: new like personality that gets created by this absolute schism.
Speaker 3: Fritz Springmeier describes this as a divide by zero, so
Speaker 3: she gets Ken to divide by zero like he was
Speaker 3: a calculator that glitches out. And now here's what you
Speaker 3: should really be acting like, here's what your thoughts should be.
Speaker 3: So I mean, that's what I think about the Barbie
Speaker 3: movie is actually pretty phenomenal, and that it explains in
Speaker 3: a g rated way how this programming really can work,
Speaker 3: how you can create a personality in someone like monarch style.
Speaker 2: Again, I agree with you, because when that came out,
Speaker 2: I saw how people act and I realized that the
Speaker 2: vast majority of people have no idea what they've just witnessed.
Speaker 2: And back to the Fritz Springmeier thing. As a person
Speaker 2: who works every day with people doing this kind of work,
Speaker 2: it's like somebody had to be feeding him information or something,
Speaker 2: because some of the things that he says, like, how
Speaker 2: would you know that? You know, like he didn't read
Speaker 2: that anywhere else.
Speaker 3: Well, and even if he made it up, the fact
Speaker 3: that so much of what he was let's say he
Speaker 3: made it all up right, it was all work of fiction.
Speaker 3: He was kind of on the money for a lot
Speaker 3: of it. So now he's almost like a prophetic sci
Speaker 3: fi writer that predicts, you know, like like Dick Tracy's style,
Speaker 3: or like, oh, everyone's going to have a little wristwatch
Speaker 3: that they can like see who they're talking to and
Speaker 3: talk through it and order lunch and stuff, and it's like, okay,
Speaker 3: let's let's let children's cartoons be children's cartoons. But yeah,
Speaker 3: frit Fritz either have sort of inside connection or he
Speaker 3: was just an absolute prophet, And I would probably air
Speaker 3: towards the former, right that he probably came across some
Speaker 3: sort of documentation, heard something, was privy to how things
Speaker 3: were actually working, and then was able to sort of
Speaker 3: retell it like there's there's absolutely a game of telephone
Speaker 3: quality to the book that he put out right, like
Speaker 3: like he's rehashing so much and he's blending things in,
Speaker 3: but it also has like for the early nineties, it
Speaker 3: has kind of groundbreaking revelations that just get ascribed to
Speaker 3: sort of things that would be hard to prove. But
Speaker 3: the techniques that he describes are are efficient, like they
Speaker 3: actually work.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it boggles my mind, honestly. I see a lot
Speaker 2: of stuff with a lot of people. I think that
Speaker 2: there's two different parts of me that live inside my head,
Speaker 2: not in a split like we were just talking, but
Speaker 2: there's a part of me that's really compassionate because I've
Speaker 2: heard so much terrible stuff and I see a lot
Speaker 2: of stuff that is just blatant mind control. But you
Speaker 2: can't you can't necessarily tell your client, yeah, you're under
Speaker 2: mind control, or you hypnotize them sometimes and stuff just
Speaker 2: comes out. And it hasn't happened to me yet, but
Speaker 2: I wonder when that day is going to come where
Speaker 2: I'm just in somebody's mind and then there's like a
Speaker 2: government cap on something, you know.
Speaker 3: Like a like a they start beeping and they're like
Speaker 3: leave the room in ten seconds, will self destruct?
Speaker 2: Yeah, any anything like that or worse, Because I've come
Speaker 2: close to a lot of things just coming out of
Speaker 2: somebody's mind and it gets it gets dark, and it
Speaker 2: gets scary real fast. To be honest with you, I
Speaker 2: just had something like that happened this morning, so it's fresh.
Speaker 3: In my mind.
Speaker 2: Anyways, let's move on to the Simpsons. How does that
Speaker 2: even work? Like, what do you think is the agenda
Speaker 2: with the Simpsons really, because it annoys me these days
Speaker 2: when everybody's like, ah, predictive programming, they're telling you what
Speaker 2: they're going to do, well are they?
Speaker 3: Or well, this is the Simpsons is still current, right,
Speaker 3: They're still creating episodes of the Simpsons. So the Simpsons
Speaker 3: has this weird benefit where they're seen as but then
Speaker 3: they can take things that have happened and then illustrate
Speaker 3: them and put them into a show and through mendala
Speaker 3: effect or just like people's poor memories. One of the
Speaker 3: best examples is the scene of like Donald Trump coming
Speaker 3: down an escalator, right, and it's like, oh, my god,
Speaker 3: the Simpsons predicted that. Well, actually that episode came out
Speaker 3: after Donald Trump came down that escalator. It was it
Speaker 3: was a Simpsons animating something that had already happened. But
Speaker 3: then it just gets clipped by one person that says, oh,
Speaker 3: this came out a year before, which isn't true. But
Speaker 3: everyone kind of jumps on board because The Simpsons has
Speaker 3: made so many I mean, the South Park had an
Speaker 3: entire episode called Simpsons Did It or They're just like
Speaker 3: any idea? And this was the South Park creators like
Speaker 3: they're frustration of they would come up with this funny
Speaker 3: gag or like a really funny episode idea and start
Speaker 3: fleshing it out just to realize like the Simpsons had
Speaker 3: already done that episode idea like ten years ago. Because
Speaker 3: they've had like hundreds and hundreds of episodes, they've kind
Speaker 3: of gone through the full gamut of every single trope
Speaker 3: you can come up with. But the Simpsons also has
Speaker 3: a very real access to things that are coming. And
Speaker 3: this is one of my fun connections is Bohemian Grove.
Speaker 3: So the guy that does the voice for mister Burns
Speaker 3: and Auto and a whole host of Simpson's characters from
Speaker 3: day one, right, this guy, Harry Shearer, he's the one
Speaker 3: that does Mister Burns most recognizably, and he was a
Speaker 3: guest member of Bohemian Grove, which means that he got
Speaker 3: to go and attend to Lakeside Talk. And if anyone
Speaker 3: isn't familiar with this, you've probably heard of Bohemian Grove.
Speaker 3: This is the place that Alex Jones infiltrade in the
Speaker 3: nineties and he got footage of all of these industry
Speaker 3: titans and politicians like literally wearing hooded robes and participating
Speaker 3: in this pagan sacrifice ritual where they burn an effigy
Speaker 3: and the voice of Walter Cronkite literally comes through these
Speaker 3: redwood trees and talks about, you know, how they're chasing
Speaker 3: away the cares of the world. It's very very pagan.
Speaker 3: It's very like you just worked, like walked in on
Speaker 3: like a Phoenician ritual to Molik essentially, like it's a
Speaker 3: very old school sort of ceremony. But at this when
Speaker 3: they're not doing that ceremonial stuff, they have talks. It's
Speaker 3: like going to a convention. And one of those talks
Speaker 3: is called Lakeside talks, and it's when politician or a
Speaker 3: president or someone at the height of industry comes and says,
Speaker 3: here's what we've been working on, and here's what you
Speaker 3: can expect over the next five to ten years. And
Speaker 3: you act like this is some deep insider knowledge, like
Speaker 3: I guarantee you there's people making like stock buys based
Speaker 3: on the stuff they hear at these Lakeside talks. But
Speaker 3: ultimately it's just to say like, hey, you're in the club,
Speaker 3: and here's one of the benefits of the club is
Speaker 3: you get a heads up on these sweeping changes they're
Speaker 3: going to be going through industry and culture and government
Speaker 3: and everything. And if you've got a writer of The
Speaker 3: Simpsons at one of these Lakeside talks taken notes, it's like, oh,
Speaker 3: here's all the things that are happening in the next
Speaker 3: five to ten years. So now working some of those
Speaker 3: changes they heard about into their storylines not only lets
Speaker 3: them write about something where they can get the jump
Speaker 3: start where now they're not competing with South Park writers
Speaker 3: because they actually know something crazy that's about to happen
Speaker 3: that they'll they'll be topical by the time they're done
Speaker 3: working on it, right, But it also means that there
Speaker 3: is a member of the Simpson at least one, probably
Speaker 3: a lot more than one, that gets inside better knowledge
Speaker 3: and can incorporate this into And now you can feed
Speaker 3: into this idea that The Simpsons is more than just
Speaker 3: a cartoon. It's a prophecy, Like why would you not
Speaker 3: lean into that if you get a royalty check from
Speaker 3: every single time someone references it or every time someone
Speaker 3: watches like a repeat, especially if you were in there
Speaker 3: since season one, right if you're the original mister Burns
Speaker 3: and auto. So I think that there's like a self
Speaker 3: serving aspect of that that yeah, they are prophetic, but
Speaker 3: also the general population feeds into that. All they got
Speaker 3: to do is like make the most general and vague
Speaker 3: of claims, and the internet does the rest of the
Speaker 3: work for them. They'll put together all the little pieces
Speaker 3: and be like, here's the proof, right, and no one's
Speaker 3: going to stop them from doing that because it works
Speaker 3: out for everybody.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but the same thing's happen when somebody says XYZ
Speaker 2: study was done over here that proves that this thing
Speaker 2: is the reason for this thing. That equation is used
Speaker 2: all the time on the internet, and then when you
Speaker 2: go actually read this study, they tell you, okay, there
Speaker 2: was an agenda here. We actually set out to prove
Speaker 2: this point. That's what we paid for. We did whatever
Speaker 2: we could to find it. Or you go read it
Speaker 2: and you're like, okay, yeah, well we found out this information,
Speaker 2: but it was actually inconclusive, right.
Speaker 3: But just the fact that someone did the study and
Speaker 3: to give credit that the claim of the study is
Speaker 3: accurate just because someone was willing to spend money and
Speaker 3: time on it, which is a dangerous precedent to train
Speaker 3: yourself into accepting as proof.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, exactly.
Speaker 3: Honestly, this relates directly back to mk ultra too, Like,
Speaker 3: out of the one hundred and sixty some odd subprojects
Speaker 3: that we know about, I mean, I don't know what
Speaker 3: your experience is with the government, but every single thing
Speaker 3: the government tries isn't necessarily successful. It's not even always
Speaker 3: based on something factual. It's just if you throw one
Speaker 3: hundred pickles at the wall, you hope they just few
Speaker 3: of them stick and then you can like move on
Speaker 3: with those ones. So this comes up in mk ultra,
Speaker 3: where just because the military did a study on a
Speaker 3: particular thing doesn't mean that that thing is valid or
Speaker 3: even efficient. In fact, one of the and I guess
Speaker 3: into like the boring debunking area where it's like I
Speaker 3: don't want to hear that, man, I don't want to
Speaker 3: hear that every single thing I've ever read about mk
Speaker 3: ultra is just all true because that makes the world
Speaker 3: more fantastic, right, But even one of their sort of
Speaker 3: like star programmers, Doctor Lewis Jollyton West. They just call
Speaker 3: him Jolly West. He kind of made a claim, dubious
Speaker 3: claim because his dubious person, but he basically stated that
Speaker 3: out of all the weird mk ultra like torture and
Speaker 3: interrogation techniques and drugs and everything that they could do
Speaker 3: to a person, sleep deprivation was like the most reliable,
Speaker 3: Like you didn't have to go and farm out or
Speaker 3: get a chemist in the room or sort of like
Speaker 3: weird hypnosis techniques. If you just prevent someone from sleeping
Speaker 3: for about seventy two hours by just randomly waking them
Speaker 3: up with loud noises or lights or not allowing their
Speaker 3: body to even figure out its normal circadian rhythm, like
Speaker 3: they don't know if it's night or day. After about
Speaker 3: three days, the human mind just becomes a sponge grasping
Speaker 3: on again. It's like that drowning man at sea that'll
Speaker 3: just grasp onto anything. Three days of no sleep, you
Speaker 3: can just start planting ideas in someone's head and they
Speaker 3: won't even remember it afterwards. And if you can develop
Speaker 3: like an actual technique, like a structure, and put someone
Speaker 3: on a regiment of doing this constantly, that's just as
Speaker 3: potent as any weird like strange chemical that they might
Speaker 3: come up with in some rainforest, right, just don't let
Speaker 3: them sleep for three days. So I think that that's
Speaker 3: something to keep in mind too, is that it's not
Speaker 3: always complex and just every single study that's ever been
Speaker 3: done is in proof of that study.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I haven't said all of that. You mentioned the
Speaker 2: Donald Trump thing. The Donald Trump thing is a phenomenon
Speaker 2: in itself because I remember watching the music video for
Speaker 2: that Rage Against the Machine song. I can't remember what
Speaker 2: it is. This is when that came out when I
Speaker 2: was a kid, and somebody in the crowd tolling up
Speaker 2: a science is Donald Trump for president? Right?
Speaker 1: You?
Speaker 3: I even realize is it like Boson Parade or something.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's Boson parade, And it's not killing
Speaker 2: in the name of either I can't remember, but there
Speaker 2: was a music video for it, and there's stuff like
Speaker 2: that that has happened basically in pop culture, in music
Speaker 2: videos repetitively where they allude to Donald Trump being president,
Speaker 2: or even a movie like Home Alone, where he's present
Speaker 2: in that movie and then you see like the American
Speaker 2: flag behind him conveniently, and things like that. Now I
Speaker 2: have a very different perspective on Donald Trump because from
Speaker 2: the age of four to fourteen, I spent every single
Speaker 2: one of my summers in Manhattan with my uncle and
Speaker 2: he basically lived near Trump Towers, and so I've seen
Speaker 2: Donald Trump come out. He'd wave at us. So I've
Speaker 2: seen the actual person in real life, whereas the most
Speaker 2: people that talk shit about Donald Trump's never actually seen
Speaker 2: him in real life and never been acknowledged by him
Speaker 2: as a person at all in any way big or small.
Speaker 2: So I've come across people that, you know, my uncle
Speaker 2: knows and stuff that they call, yeah, Donald Trump's a
Speaker 2: really nice guy, you know, and you get all these
Speaker 2: different conflicting opinions. So it's just it's weird just talking
Speaker 2: about Trump. I'm not pro Trump, but it's just weird
Speaker 2: when I hear people.
Speaker 3: Talk that's funny too, because of Donald Trump that comes
Speaker 3: out and waves to you as like a kid, Like
Speaker 3: there's a very real chance that like that day or
Speaker 3: that week, he was making deals with the mafia right
Speaker 3: in order to get some building like put up or something. So, yeah,
Speaker 3: he's as nice as a guy that works with the
Speaker 3: mafia could possibly be, right, And I think that he
Speaker 3: also represents this like the there's a version when the
Speaker 3: four five hundred comes out, or like the Richest People
Speaker 3: in the World lists come out, right, and it's like
Speaker 3: there's the people that are rich and their name is
Speaker 3: in the magazine, and then there's people that are rich
Speaker 3: and their names not in the magazine that are probably
Speaker 3: even richer than the ones that do have their names
Speaker 3: in it. And Donald Trump is like one of those
Speaker 3: people that still looks like a human because he's willing
Speaker 3: to be like, hey, it's me, I'm the rich Donald
Speaker 3: Trump guy. Like he actually plays the same persona instead
Speaker 3: of being this like behind the shadows kind of figure.
Speaker 3: And I think that that is its own archetype, Like
Speaker 3: that's a more powerful archetype for the normies because he
Speaker 3: gets to be a figurehead of capitalism in this way. Right,
Speaker 3: he's like the rich real estate New York developer guy
Speaker 3: that really likes gold. Like that just becomes his persona
Speaker 3: and now he's like a household name. Now he's like
Speaker 3: a brand name, Like he was an actual brand name
Speaker 3: for you before he even runs for president. Like you're
Speaker 3: mentioning like why was he in home alone? Why was
Speaker 3: he in people? Why did rappers constantly throw his name
Speaker 3: out there because just by being like Donald Trump, it
Speaker 3: conjures up the idea of gold and power and like
Speaker 3: ruthless business acumen and just embracing capitalism. So I think
Speaker 3: that he kind of realized at a certain point, like, oh,
Speaker 3: I'm an archetype, Like my reputation of my name and
Speaker 3: my brand precedes me as a person. And it was
Speaker 3: a genius stroke to like convert that capital into political
Speaker 3: capital because now he has an actual dynasty that's he's
Speaker 3: building towards that can outlast generations. Right now, there's a
Speaker 3: much better chance. And one hundred years from now World
Speaker 3: War three aside, Right, But like if someone with the
Speaker 3: last name and lineage of the Trump family and one
Speaker 3: hundred years from now, after we're all dead and our
Speaker 3: grandkids are dead, if they run for president, they have
Speaker 3: a much better chance than someone with a name that
Speaker 3: no one's ever heard of before, just just brand recognition.
Speaker 3: And I think that he's enough of a capitalist to
Speaker 3: understand how the markets work that it's not going to
Speaker 3: change that much in one hundred years, Like people are
Speaker 3: still going to fall for the same brand recognition techniques
Speaker 3: that they would today.
Speaker 2: Well, I would argue that he does that on purpose
Speaker 2: as well, because he was trained by Norman Vincent Peel
Speaker 2: in NLP and all that stuff. So Donald Trump knows
Speaker 2: exactly what he's doing all the time, whereas there's people
Speaker 2: that have this perception of him where he's just dumb it.
Speaker 2: Like we were saying, it's easy to play the dumb
Speaker 2: guy because then people won't suspect you of evils.
Speaker 3: Right, that's dangerous, bro, because if you're assuming someone else's
Speaker 3: is dumber than you, there's no risk to them. It's
Speaker 3: win win for them, really, because either they are dumber
Speaker 3: than you and now like you're acknowledging it and you
Speaker 3: might treat them differently, or you're wrong about it, and
Speaker 3: now you're the dumb one right out of the two.
Speaker 3: If I'm like, oh, George W. Bush is such an idiot,
Speaker 3: now I'm the dumb one because I'm underestimating someone that
Speaker 3: clearly has more acumen than I'm giving them credit for.
Speaker 3: And if you train yourself to be that way, to
Speaker 3: just look around and be like, everyone's so much stupider
Speaker 3: than I am, it might be self serving, but now
Speaker 3: you're gonna get swindled way easier, right, because you're assuming
Speaker 3: that you're like a leg up on everybody. So if anything,
Speaker 3: assume everyone is way smarter than you. Assume you're the
Speaker 3: dumbest one in the room. And then at least it's
Speaker 3: like you can pleasantly surprise yourself maybe, but at best
Speaker 3: you can be on guard more. You can actually be like, damn,
Speaker 3: dude I'm about to talk to is probably an NLP
Speaker 3: freaking master right now. You can kind of have your
Speaker 3: defensive up a little bit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. That's kind of how I live my life,
Speaker 2: just assuming that everybody out there might actually be a sorcerer.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: That's how I drive. I drive like I assume that
Speaker 3: everyone on the road is actively trying to kill me.
Speaker 3: Like that guy swerving in it out of the lane,
Speaker 3: he's not just distracted, he's testing me, like he wants
Speaker 3: to off me, right, And it makes you a better
Speaker 3: defensive driver as opposed to just like, oh, things will
Speaker 3: work out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, precisely. And back to the Donald Trump thing. I
Speaker 2: just love how everybody was like, oh, Donald Trump's going
Speaker 2: to depour everybody. He hates Mexicans. And again, I grew
Speaker 2: up in an environment where I was exposed to people
Speaker 2: that work for him because they were friends and my
Speaker 2: uncle and they're like, Donald Trump's the coolest guy you've
Speaker 2: ever met, Like he's you know, it's just weird. It's
Speaker 2: weird how things turn out with this kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: You never really know who's who and what they're religenda is,
Speaker 2: especially if they have a lot of money and people
Speaker 2: are right now they're losing their shit. I haven't even
Speaker 2: really bothered to pay any more attention to what's going
Speaker 2: on because they seem to be phrasing things in a
Speaker 2: way like it's it's Donald Trump and it's only Donald
Speaker 2: Trump alone that's doing these things to America.
Speaker 3: I mean, the worst assumptions that you might have about
Speaker 3: and let's say he's like a killer and a rapist
Speaker 3: and a cheet and and it fell in and like
Speaker 3: all of the worst things. Like I kind of think
Speaker 3: that those are the qualifications to be a president. The
Speaker 3: only the only thing that would be disqualifying is that
Speaker 3: if you are so much those things and have such
Speaker 3: little pr poll that you can't overcome them, then that
Speaker 3: disqualifies as being president. It's not being a rapist or
Speaker 3: a criminal. I mean, look at Bill Clinton, right, Bill
Speaker 3: Clinton was a rapist, and a criminal, but he just
Speaker 3: knew how to play those cards and like, ah shucks,
Speaker 3: here listen, he played saxophone and he saw me up
Speaker 3: on the mediaccenttro right, Like he can play that stuff
Speaker 3: off with like this weird southern charm, which I would
Speaker 3: argue that's just NLP, but maybe naturally, he just naturally
Speaker 3: has charisma and knows how to build rapport with people
Speaker 3: without halving to take an NLP class. But someone else
Speaker 3: can learn how to do those things and achieve sort
Speaker 3: of the same goals. But I think you want that person.
Speaker 3: You don't want someone that isn't a killer. That's kind
Speaker 3: of what he came out with the first time that
Speaker 3: I'll like, oh, this guy is a little bit different.
Speaker 3: Someone asked them was like how dare This was before
Speaker 3: he ran in twenty sixteen, I think, And it was like,
Speaker 3: are you saying that our CIA has you know, done
Speaker 3: horrific things that they're war criminals? And he paraphrasing, he
Speaker 3: was like, the CIA are killers? You think killers don't
Speaker 3: do killers?
Speaker 2: Shit?
Speaker 3: You know what I mean? Like it was such a
Speaker 3: raw acknowledgment of like, of course they do these bad
Speaker 3: things that you're trying like if you think you're trying
Speaker 3: to trick me into like being an American by claiming
Speaker 3: the CIA criminals. You're like, let me just say it,
Speaker 3: the CIA murderers and criminals. But like we need them
Speaker 3: to do that job, because if we don't, if America
Speaker 3: doesn't have murders and criminals out in the world, then
Speaker 3: like we have a we're not a leg up on
Speaker 3: Russia and China and all the other countries that have
Speaker 3: no qualms about that. So part of it is like,
Speaker 3: do you want me to just lie to you and
Speaker 3: your face right now? Is that what you're really looking
Speaker 3: for or are you trying to gauge whether or not
Speaker 3: I know about this? And I think that Trump in
Speaker 3: a way like he's making the so eric exoteric in
Speaker 3: some ways, Like I'm sure he's got his own secrets,
Speaker 3: and I'm sure like his like his art of the
Speaker 3: deal in the Roy Cohne training, like he's probably not
Speaker 3: going to let that out of the bag as easily
Speaker 3: as some of the other things that he's got going on.
Speaker 3: But I think that he's like, I'll be your gangster prince.
Speaker 3: I think that's what Alistair Crowley called it in one
Speaker 3: of his works where the breakdown of like the Golden
Speaker 3: Bow or the Golden Bough. Shout out to my friend
Speaker 3: David Charles' plate that put me onto all this, But
Speaker 3: like the Golden Bough is essentially when a challenger from
Speaker 3: a foreign kingdom comes the challenge a new king, and
Speaker 3: the Golden Bow is like he's pulling down this branch
Speaker 3: on this family tree and ripping that branch off. That's
Speaker 3: him like removing the current king and sitting in his place.
Speaker 3: That's you taking over a kingdom, and that over time.
Speaker 3: Alistair Crowley argued that this challenger could no longer be
Speaker 3: someone that was like fully virtuous. It can't be the
Speaker 3: fool that's like never done anything wrong in his life
Speaker 3: and has no dirt to be like an al Capone.
Speaker 3: It needs to be a Robin Hood, like someone that
Speaker 3: is literally like, yeah, I'm out here stealing, but I'm
Speaker 3: stealing from rich people and I'm giving it to poor people.
Speaker 3: I'm doing like the right kind of stealing. I'm the
Speaker 3: right kind of criminal. And that's sort of the archetype
Speaker 3: that I think Donald Trump represents and which is a
Speaker 3: stark contrast to every other person's run for president. They're like, oh,
Speaker 3: I'm virtuous. I've never even like coughed without excusing myself.
Speaker 3: I would never do anything bad. You know, I wouldn't
Speaker 3: be a war criminal, no way, I wouldn't support any
Speaker 3: of that. And then Donald Trump comes out, He's like, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: I think I am. I think I am a war criminal.
Speaker 3: But it's good for me and it's good for you.
Speaker 3: Like he has this different energy to him, and I
Speaker 3: think that's the dangerous part. And I also think that
Speaker 3: that is seen as more egregious than anything that he
Speaker 3: actually does, is the fact that he's willing to own it,
Speaker 3: and it's he's seen his crass right, He's seen as
Speaker 3: like not fit for office. But I do think that
Speaker 3: like that's the version we need. We need like the
Speaker 3: al Capone style president at a certain point, and people
Speaker 3: are ready for it. Clearly they're ready for it.
Speaker 2: So in closing, where do you think this whole shit
Speaker 2: show is going to You think positive things are coming
Speaker 2: or you think we're just going to be as screwed
Speaker 2: as error.
Speaker 3: For me, I see it as net positive. I do
Speaker 3: think that the world's going to get harder to live
Speaker 3: in and more moral decline is going to continue on
Speaker 3: the same trajectory I don't think that Donald Trump's the
Speaker 3: one that comes in and fixes the decline of morality
Speaker 3: across the board. If anything, he might be a little
Speaker 3: bit of gas on the fire. But if I'm doing
Speaker 3: that same swat analysis and I'm listing pros and cons
Speaker 3: for me in a selfish way, the pros are people
Speaker 3: are now more interested in the JFK assassination than they've
Speaker 3: ever been in my entire lifetime, maybe excluding the release
Speaker 3: of the Oliver Stone movie with Kevin Costner. There was
Speaker 3: like a slight peak for maybe like five or six
Speaker 3: years when people cared about JFK assassination, and then it
Speaker 3: went back to like, ah, that's my grandpa cared about that.
Speaker 3: I don't care about that. Now that's back in sort
Speaker 3: of the news. And I think that it's a net
Speaker 3: positive to have an inherent distrust and intelligence agencies, just
Speaker 3: as like a blanket statement, And I don't know if
Speaker 3: we would have had that same sort of scrutiny the
Speaker 3: same thing where like now people are being forced to
Speaker 3: talk about the merits of completely dismantling the irs. Right,
Speaker 3: This isn't something that has even been part of public
Speaker 3: discussion since JFK was in office, and I can't remember
Speaker 3: what happened to him, but for some reason they didn't
Speaker 3: get rid of the irs while he was president. I
Speaker 3: think he got voted out or something. But now this
Speaker 3: is now the very first time ever that these conversations
Speaker 3: are being had again, and I feel that they're like
Speaker 3: long overdue. So in that selfish regard, like from a
Speaker 3: conspiracy theorist standpoint, I feel that this is like the
Speaker 3: golden era of conspiracy theories, for better or worse. But
Speaker 3: I like that. I think that that's a net positive
Speaker 3: for all of us. I don't know if he's going
Speaker 3: to make eggs free or eggs are going to cost
Speaker 3: like a dollar eighty nine. I don't know if that's
Speaker 3: on the trajectory. I think that he would be an
Speaker 3: idiot not to make the claim, not to make that promise,
Speaker 3: and if it would help him get some extra votes,
Speaker 3: but I don't think that he's he's writing you know,
Speaker 3: checks or letters to the grocery stores. It's like, all right,
Speaker 3: knock off ten bucks off those eggs, guys, like let's
Speaker 3: get this in order. I don't think that's really his role.
Speaker 3: And if you if you voted on him because you
Speaker 3: thought that was then he did his job right, like
Speaker 3: the campaign did its job and making you think that,
Speaker 3: But really he's here to do something different.
Speaker 2: He's here to set up a new dynasty for his family, right.
Speaker 2: I cannot argue with any of that. Thanks for being
Speaker 2: on the Bonus Authenticity Podcast. Just tell everybody where they
Speaker 2: can find you again, Paranoid.
Speaker 3: American dot com mostly comics and books and shirts and
Speaker 3: all that stuff. And then I've also got a podcast,
Speaker 3: same places that you can find where you're listening to this.
Speaker 3: If you just search for Paranoid American podcast, it'll come up.
Speaker 3: And I actually talk about a wide variety of topics,
Speaker 3: not all just conspiracy theories and stuff like I've got X,
Speaker 3: like homicide detectives come on and we break down like
Speaker 3: murder cases. I do tarot card reviews. We talk about
Speaker 3: video games and movies and all the things. So, yeah,
Speaker 3: come over and listen to some of the stuff that
Speaker 3: I got.
Speaker 1: Awesome, you're listening to the Boundless Authenticity Podcast, where we
Speaker 1: discuss everything related to the evolution of human consciousness. At
Speaker 1: the very least, us we need to understand in the
Speaker 1: United States builds bunkers, which are basical cities on your ground.
Speaker 2: Every three months, basically into your self conscious, your loves, intuition, will, creativity.
Speaker 3: And imagination unshamed, so conscious and lit all.
Speaker 2: Real life soul.
Speaker 3: I have cultious cultures of the right.
Speaker 2: We live in a multi dimensional reality, whether it comes
Speaker 2: through the enteric.
Speaker 1: Information in the spiritual realms, or the UFO.
Speaker 2: People experiences, or mainstreams and on the physics and through
Speaker 2: natrem science, and now realizing that parallel dimensions probably exists.
Speaker 3: We're all spiritual means. We're all having these human experiences.
Speaker 3: We've heard that place over and over and over, but what.
Speaker 2: Does that really mean? And all of the questions about
Speaker 2: we have these answers inside of ourselves.
Speaker 3: We're ultimately studying the nature of what it is to
Speaker 3: be human, good and evil, of our psychology, how we
Speaker 3: fit in our health.
Speaker 1: That's why I love Bruce Lee's great quote all knowledge
Speaker 1: is ultimately self knowledge.