Speaker 1: We die or welcome, thank you, glad to be here.
Speaker 2: In your book Esoteric Hollywood, Sex, Cults and Symbols and Film,
Speaker 2: you take a look at a variety of Hollywood films,
Speaker 2: including films by Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock, the James Bond series,
Speaker 2: among many others, and explore the secret messaging and symbology
Speaker 2: embodied in them. Why do you use the term esoteric
Speaker 2: to describe many of these films.
Speaker 1: That's a good question. I wasn't exactly sure what I
Speaker 1: was going to toddle the book, so I had a
Speaker 1: bunch of different possible titles, and that one sounded to
Speaker 1: me the most mysterious. But I think it's also fitting
Speaker 1: because esoteric course refers to something hidden or secret, and
Speaker 1: what I try what I tried to do in the
Speaker 1: book was kind of unveil those hidden secret aspects to film,
Speaker 1: be it the symbolism that you mentioned, or be it
Speaker 1: the realities behind screen screenwriters and their connections at times
Speaker 1: to the CIA or the Pentagon and espionage, and lay
Speaker 1: it all out. I tried to come at film from
Speaker 1: a lot of different levels, and so I felt like
Speaker 1: that was the most appropriate title, And I think I'd
Speaker 1: already kind of been playing around with a podcast with
Speaker 1: a similar title.
Speaker 2: You write that Hollywood has been described as the new Babylon.
Speaker 2: What does this analogy signify, that is to say, what
Speaker 2: are the parallels between Hollywood and what is understood to
Speaker 2: have been Babylon, the ancient pagan empire?
Speaker 1: Right? Well, if we think about the way that the
Speaker 1: Book of Genesis, for example, describes the Tower of Babel
Speaker 1: and then eventually the empire Babylon during the days of
Speaker 1: many of the Prophets and the Old Testament, we have
Speaker 1: the idea of an oppressive kind of super state, right
Speaker 1: that was deified or worshiped. One of the aspects that
Speaker 1: was central to that power structure was the mythology behind
Speaker 1: those empires. Every empire has its own mythology, and I
Speaker 1: would say that that translates into the present day. The
Speaker 1: British Empire had its mythology, and the American Empire has
Speaker 1: its mythology as well. And one of the ways in
Speaker 1: which that mythology is inculcated into the population or indoctrinated
Speaker 1: into the population is their storytelling. And of course in
Speaker 1: our day that is Hollywood. So many writers, as you said,
Speaker 1: have in the past, most notably Kenneth Anger with his
Speaker 1: kind of sex scandal book Hollywood Babylon. I thought it
Speaker 1: was an appropriate image, but I wanted to expand beyond
Speaker 1: just you know, lurid sex tales and take it into
Speaker 1: the direction also of understanding how we're given our mythology
Speaker 1: by the Pentagon, by the CIA and their influence. And
Speaker 1: it's not totally the Cia, obviously Pentagon. It's also you know,
Speaker 1: people creating stories and using their creativity, but unfortunately a
Speaker 1: lot of times the state co OPI that the corporate state,
Speaker 1: and gives us messages that they want inserted into films
Speaker 1: as well. So it's a mix of both, and that's
Speaker 1: why Babylon is I think an appropriate image. And if
Speaker 1: you go to Hollywood you'll see the old sets from
Speaker 1: I think, what is it did Griffith's Griffith's Intolerance film,
Speaker 1: which is from Babylon. It's the architecture of a Babylon
Speaker 1: from films that.
Speaker 2: Well, then how would you describe the mythology of ancient
Speaker 2: Babylon and how it relates to Hollywood.
Speaker 1: Well, one analogy would be what the Babylonians were famous
Speaker 1: for was, of course astrology, you know, the Chaldeans as well.
Speaker 1: And the idea here was that we follow the stars,
Speaker 1: who are in a way representations or the pathways of
Speaker 1: the gods. And the way we would make an analogy
Speaker 1: to Hollywood is that in the twentieth century, psychological warfare
Speaker 1: and social engineers developed the pretty direct parallel to the
Speaker 1: idea that the Hollywood stars could be the new trend
Speaker 1: setters that we would follow. So they're almost like a
Speaker 1: replacement for astrology in a way, like literally following the stars.
Speaker 1: And that was actually the studied and designed by admin
Speaker 1: marketing men, a lot of whom came out of the OSS,
Speaker 1: which is of course the predecessor to the CIA, And
Speaker 1: so it's kind of a science. It's a technique. The
Speaker 1: Rand Corporation and the Tavstock is they've all studied stuff
Speaker 1: like this, so it relates to movies. And in a way,
Speaker 1: you know, you can have this idea of Babylon as
Speaker 1: the gait of the gods, right, the pantheon of the
Speaker 1: celestial deities and whatnot, and Hollywood kind of represents that.
Speaker 1: Now it's kind of a gate to the human gods, right,
Speaker 1: or the superstars that we view as gods who we
Speaker 1: think lived this far off heavenly lifestyle in Hollywood Hills
Speaker 1: or something, and really, you know, this is all concocted lies.
Speaker 2: You write that quote for Greece and in debased form, Rome,
Speaker 2: the stage was sacred, where the dramaturgical interactions of the
Speaker 2: gods were actually a form of magical invocation. Although the
Speaker 2: idea of the theater as explicitly sacred is foreign to
Speaker 2: the modernity, it was not for historic man, nor is
Speaker 2: modern man's practice any less religious in regard to the theater.
Speaker 2: Could you explain why you begin your book with film
Speaker 2: as ritual.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think that the sentence that you read there
Speaker 1: is attempting to do that. And so because the ancient
Speaker 1: world viewed the plays, you know, Sophocles or even perhaps
Speaker 1: virtuals Ania or something like this, they were all viewed
Speaker 1: as re enactments of the the actions and life of
Speaker 1: the gods. And what that did was, at least in
Speaker 1: the primitive mind, was you were you were kind of
Speaker 1: representing that reality. You were bringing it out of the
Speaker 1: Golden Age or the times past or something and bringing
Speaker 1: it back into reality kind of invocation. And even in
Speaker 1: for example, Plato's dialogues, you can read Ion where Socrates
Speaker 1: has a dialogue with some musicians and people from the
Speaker 1: theater and they talk about how what they really want
Speaker 1: to do is to become possessed by the God or
Speaker 1: to become another character. And this is essentially what method
Speaker 1: acting is if you study Stanislavsky or method acting. So
Speaker 1: there is a direct parallel, you know, whether one believes
Speaker 1: that it really is some kind of possession of an
Speaker 1: entity or just a you know, a very deep skill
Speaker 1: that that one takes on another identity or lives out
Speaker 1: another character. Either way, it's something that goes back to
Speaker 1: the ancient world, and we don't know everything about, you know,
Speaker 1: how drama was conducted in the ancient world, but it
Speaker 1: was very similar to liturgy. And if you think about
Speaker 1: a Catholic Mass, or if you think about an Orthodox
Speaker 1: a worship service, a liturgy or something like this, the
Speaker 1: ideas that we're acting out through the worship service events
Speaker 1: that sort of transcend time and space. They bring the
Speaker 1: celestial of the heavenly or the eternal down to the
Speaker 1: here and the now. And although most people don't think
Speaker 1: about movies in that way or theater in that way
Speaker 1: more properly, that is bound up with the history of
Speaker 1: theater and acting, and what.
Speaker 2: Is the method, how is that taught? What does it encompass?
Speaker 1: I have one book by if you're talk about Santezelawski's method,
Speaker 1: you know this goes by the term method acting. Many
Speaker 1: of the famous A listers are method actors. And I'm
Speaker 1: by no means any kind of expert in this. I
Speaker 1: just know that his one of his texts, he does
Speaker 1: discuss techniques and patterns for kind of letting your conscious
Speaker 1: mind sort of drift away into your subconscious and attempting
Speaker 1: as best you can to allow the character that you're
Speaker 1: trying to portray to kind of come to the fore.
Speaker 1: So and then he gives a whole bunch of other
Speaker 1: kinds of techniques of how to really perfect his craft.
Speaker 1: So you know, I'm not I'm not a super expert
Speaker 1: on Stanvezlowski. And there's plenty of people I'm sure who
Speaker 1: you know, who went to various acting academies. And but
Speaker 1: but if when you see somebody, for example, like Christian Bao,
Speaker 1: if you remember in The Machinist, when he took on
Speaker 1: that role, he got very very deathly thin, like he
Speaker 1: got sickly thin to play this role Jeremy Irons, you know,
Speaker 1: Robert de Niro. These are people who attempt to do
Speaker 1: method acting, attempt to become the character, and sometimes they
Speaker 1: can have a very deleterious effect on the body itself.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm just thinking about a streetcar named Desire and
Speaker 2: what happened to the lead actress that played that role.
Speaker 2: Was it Vivian Lee? That's right, Yeah, that affected her psychologically, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that there are several cases
Speaker 1: in the history of film where or I guess Theater two,
Speaker 1: but I'm more film that there's several cases where people
Speaker 1: have said similar things. You know, the famous story of
Speaker 1: Jack Nicholson telling Eith Ledger, beware playing the joker, it'll
Speaker 1: mess with your psyche. And yeah, there have been cases
Speaker 1: like this, and I think it's probably real. There's something
Speaker 1: to it. It's not just you know, Hollywood legends or whatever.
Speaker 2: In your book Esoteric Hollywood, the first film that you
Speaker 2: take an in depth look at is Stanley Kubrick's last
Speaker 2: film before he died, Eyes wide Shut. Throughout the film,
Speaker 2: you write, the viewers eyes are wide shut to the
Speaker 2: reality of the power structure. The power base is not
Speaker 2: the average politician, wealthy doctor or a lawyer in New York,
Speaker 2: which were the roles played by Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise.
Speaker 2: What is the film saying about the real power base
Speaker 2: in society?
Speaker 1: I think Kubrick is consistently telling us about the real
Speaker 1: power structure throughout his films. And you know, one can
Speaker 1: debate to what degree this might have been involved in
Speaker 1: his his death or not, and to what degree you know,
Speaker 1: throughout his life Kubrick had to cooperate with the power structure,
Speaker 1: like with NASA and the Air Force and making two
Speaker 1: thousand and one. You know, that's all fine and well,
Speaker 1: but I think that you know, when we see something
Speaker 1: like eyeswait, shut, I think it's a direct illustration of,
Speaker 1: as I said, the real power structure. So it's not politicians,
Speaker 1: it's not presidents. These are as, doctor Carroll quickly said, frontmen.
Speaker 1: They're the people who give the masses the impression that
Speaker 1: they have a vote, that they have power, when in
Speaker 1: fact the world is actually run by far more wealthy people,
Speaker 1: oligarchs essentially. So if we consider the power structure, for example,
Speaker 1: between behind the Catholic Church, it's pedophilia cases, and then
Speaker 1: how that has connected to a lot of very powerful
Speaker 1: politicians in various countries. This has been well documented by
Speaker 1: court cases and journalists for many decades. Now, I think
Speaker 1: that we get to see an insight in Kubrick's given
Speaker 1: us an insight into that very point that the real
Speaker 1: power structure is more like billionaires in the sense of,
Speaker 1: you know, something like Blofeld from the Bond stories, than
Speaker 1: it is you know, Donald Trump or Barack Obama. They're
Speaker 1: more so kind of front characters.
Speaker 2: Now you've used the phrase a cryptocracy, a cryptocracy of
Speaker 2: occult lie leads. So what does cryptocracy refer to?
Speaker 1: This is a term that comes from a fairly well
Speaker 1: known book by Walter Bowert, who wrote Operation Mind Control
Speaker 1: as one of the early texts on the CIA's m
Speaker 1: k lture program, right after John Marx wrote his books
Speaker 1: CIA and The Search for the Mature in Candidate, two
Speaker 1: books that are not conspiracy books for save but actually
Speaker 1: do rely on you know, a lot of sourced evidence
Speaker 1: and whatnot. So Bowert described the the secret shadow government
Speaker 1: of the US, the cryptocracy, CIA, Scull and Bones all
Speaker 1: those networks as a cryptocracy because of the fact that
Speaker 1: they do essentially a cult or secret or hide their methodology. Now,
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that everything is secret. Some things they're secret,
Speaker 1: somethings aren't. But a lot of times this stuff is
Speaker 1: made public so you can find For example, doctor Jose
Speaker 1: Delgado is one of the m culture doctors. His books
Speaker 1: are public. He has a public book called Physical Control
Speaker 1: of the Mind. And so you know, when Walter Bowart
Speaker 1: wrote his book, he's saying, look, we can we can
Speaker 1: look at what the cryptocracy has published, and even from
Speaker 1: what's public, we can get clear enough idea into the
Speaker 1: methodology of how the social engineers, how the think tanks,
Speaker 1: how the d nng o's, how the the the academics,
Speaker 1: how the technocrats, how they all kind have worked together
Speaker 1: to foster the same overall goals, even though they might
Speaker 1: at times have differences.
Speaker 2: I'm speaking with author and radio and television host Jay
Speaker 2: Dyer today's show foreshadowing ritual and symbology in film. I'm
Speaker 2: Bonnie Faulkner. This is Guns and butter. Well, now I'm
Speaker 2: hoping that people have seen Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Show,
Speaker 2: but otherwise they wouldn't know what we were talking about.
Speaker 2: Could you sort of simplify the narrative of that film.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Basically, it's the story up two of a couple
Speaker 1: who's having marital sexual problems and their upper class, elite
Speaker 1: sort of New York socialite level. He's a doctor, very
Speaker 1: successful doctor, and she is an artist or an our teacher,
Speaker 1: if I recall. And my thesis on the film is
Speaker 1: that they view themselves as sort of the top of
Speaker 1: the totem pole. You know, where else could you go?
Speaker 1: We've got it all, we're at We're the elite in
Speaker 1: a way. But they realize that they're encountering I guess,
Speaker 1: somewhat typical marriage type issues, and the Tomkers character is
Speaker 1: sort of tempted to find sexual gratification elsewhere, and this
Speaker 1: sort of leads to a chain of events, a kind
Speaker 1: of of snowballing effect of him kind of wandering around
Speaker 1: outside of marriage on the town and encountering a series
Speaker 1: of so called coincidences that lead him to this big
Speaker 1: estate where there is a masked ball, sort of a
Speaker 1: Renaissance style orgy going on at this elite estate. And
Speaker 1: it does, I think, have very conscious satanic and Crollian
Speaker 1: elements to the mask ball. It's very much a ritual.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any question about that, and that
Speaker 1: I think suggests that many of the elite are into
Speaker 1: these kinds of occult practices, especially something like the followers
Speaker 1: of Croley. So what happens is that he goes through
Speaker 1: the ritual, but he doesn't fully embrace the ritual. He's hesitant,
Speaker 1: and he is essentially kicked out and found out to
Speaker 1: be and interloper. Right. He's not welcome there. He didn't
Speaker 1: have the secret password, the Tom Cruise character that is,
Speaker 1: and so he heads back home and we are kind
Speaker 1: of left with the unclear impression that maybe even his
Speaker 1: wife was there, because she seems to know what he
Speaker 1: was up to. She has a dream about this, and
Speaker 1: of course many people who interpret the film they debate
Speaker 1: whether or not either she had some sort of preternatural
Speaker 1: suspicion of him being there or whether she actually was there.
Speaker 1: It really doesn't matter because the point I think that
Speaker 1: the Couper is trying to convey to us, in my view,
Speaker 1: is that you know, the real world really does operate
Speaker 1: like this. This is the real power structure of extremely
Speaker 1: wealthy people who are far above politicians, and the rest
Speaker 1: of the film's narrative, without giving too much away, if
Speaker 1: you haven't seen it is that the cult essentially has
Speaker 1: at its it has basically all the powers and functions
Speaker 1: of an intelligence agency. They're able to have Tom Cruise's
Speaker 1: character survey oled followed, they know everything about him, they
Speaker 1: have moles everywhere, and they're able to even craft news
Speaker 1: stories to cover up murders that the Cult is able
Speaker 1: to engage in. And this is really what some writers
Speaker 1: have called the CIA, the Cult of Intelligence right them,
Speaker 1: that's who could pull all this stuff off. And as
Speaker 1: many histories of espionage have noted, the CIA is more
Speaker 1: like a private, private intelligence army for the Rockfellers. You know,
Speaker 1: it is the Rockfellers and British intelligence who established the CIA.
Speaker 1: So I think Cooper is roughly hinting at a lot
Speaker 1: of these different things. It's a kind of an overall
Speaker 1: portrayal of the power structure. And that's why he called
Speaker 1: it eyes White shut, because most people just think that
Speaker 1: the the world is ruled by politicians and bureaucrats, and
Speaker 1: it's not. It's ruled by you know, extremely wealthy finance
Speaker 1: capitalists and corporates.
Speaker 2: You're right that both Polanski's The Ninth Gate and Kubrick's
Speaker 2: Eyes Wide Shut were filmed in Rothschild mansions. I didn't
Speaker 2: know that, I'm sure.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think off the top of my head.
Speaker 1: I don't remember the name of the estate, but I
Speaker 1: think I mentioned it either in the book or or
Speaker 1: somewhere else. But yes, I think the Polanski one. It's
Speaker 1: not presently owned by Rothchild's, but it wasn't one time.
Speaker 1: And of course the Rothchilds owned multiple estates in Europe
Speaker 1: throughout you know, the last several centuries. So so it's
Speaker 1: not hard. It's not hard to believe, given the fact
Speaker 1: that I mean that they had, like, you know, tons
Speaker 1: of palaces. So but yes, it's also if I recall
Speaker 1: the mansion that you see in Batman The Dark Knight,
Speaker 1: the you know, Christopher Nolan, Kristen Bale Batman, that's also
Speaker 1: the Rothchild estate there, and it has a very interesting history.
Speaker 1: It's it's a in a state that the Beatles did
Speaker 1: a lot of transcetal meditation with Maharishi mash Yogi with
Speaker 1: so it's a very colorful history to that estate. And
Speaker 1: I think it's since been sold off. It's not owned
Speaker 1: by I think it's like an ucum, it's owned by
Speaker 1: the state or something. It's not probably I don't think.
Speaker 2: You mentioned in your book, and I just mentioned Polanski's
Speaker 2: The Ninth Gate. Now, not only have I not seen
Speaker 2: that movie, I wasn't even aware of it, but the
Speaker 2: photos in your book, it looks like it's similar to
Speaker 2: Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut? Is that.
Speaker 1: I think so? I think they if I recalled they
Speaker 1: both came out in nineteen ninety nine. They both have
Speaker 1: very similar themes. Kubrick's film is not really interested in
Speaker 1: the supernatural, and then the Plansky takes it in more
Speaker 1: of a consciously supernatural and Luciferian route. So this is
Speaker 1: another indicator. I would say that, you know, Polanski was
Speaker 1: telling us things about the underground networks in the US
Speaker 1: back when he did Rosemary's Baby, and I don't think
Speaker 1: that he ceased telling us kind of what was going
Speaker 1: on up into nineteen ninety nine with The Ninth Kate,
Speaker 1: and so in ways, it's kind of a version of
Speaker 1: Dante's Inferno, where the lead character Philip I think is
Speaker 1: Philip Corso or something like that. The Johnny Depp character
Speaker 1: is a book dealer who's led down into the underworld
Speaker 1: and he meets various characters who are seeking Satanic or
Speaker 1: Luciferian power, and without giving too much away, he discovers
Speaker 1: it in a way that he neither heat nor anyone
Speaker 1: else expects.
Speaker 2: You know, you mentioned Polanski's Rosemary's Baby. That was a
Speaker 2: powerful thing. I've seen that several times. That was really creepy.
Speaker 1: It is pretty creepy. I had, In fact, we did
Speaker 1: an episode of Hollywood Dakota, my TV show on it,
Speaker 1: and I think they cut that one, which kind of
Speaker 1: sucks because I think it would have been a really
Speaker 1: really cool episode, but it never it never made it
Speaker 1: to airing, so and I think they cut it because
Speaker 1: they decided it was too dark for Guya's streaming network, So,
Speaker 1: you know whatever. But it is a creepy film. I
Speaker 1: think in ways we've got back and watch it now,
Speaker 1: it's kind of silly, it's kind of cheesy, but there
Speaker 1: still is a creepy element to it, especially when you know,
Speaker 1: you look at the Dakota Building where it's filmed, and
Speaker 1: the weird history of the Dakota Building with the assassination
Speaker 1: of John Lennon and other weird films that have been
Speaker 1: filmed there. If you watch Vanilla Sky, I don't think
Speaker 1: it's accidental that they put Tom Cruise is kind of
Speaker 1: fancy condo in the Dakota building, which isn't a weird element.
Speaker 1: I haven't really gotten to Vanoskay yet, but it definitely
Speaker 1: deserves someone else's. And then of course you have the
Speaker 1: the overtly you know, satanic element of trying to bring
Speaker 1: in the Satanic aon with the impregnation of the mia
Speaker 1: Faro character. And but I think we can't forget the
Speaker 1: other element that a lot of people forget, which is
Speaker 1: that her husband, who's in on it, his whole reasoning
Speaker 1: for all of this is because he wants to make
Speaker 1: it in Hollywood. So he wants to be a famous
Speaker 1: actor in Hollywood. And part of his reason for going
Speaker 1: along with this is that the Satanists in Hollywood can
Speaker 1: hook him up if he goes along with, you know,
Speaker 1: with the plan, with their plan for Rosemary.
Speaker 2: You know, what I thought was very interesting and original
Speaker 2: about Rosemary's Baby was the portry of the Satanists. They
Speaker 2: were almost comical and sort of pedestrian, right, which was
Speaker 2: a real kind of an interesting twist some people. Yeah,
Speaker 2: a couple that could actually blend in with the general population,
Speaker 2: and you would never suspect a thing.
Speaker 1: That is an interesting point. Yeah, most of the time
Speaker 1: you kind of had this cartoonish, silly portrayal. And if
Speaker 1: I recall, I think Anton Levy was the consultant and
Speaker 1: is who's wearing the beast costume in the in the
Speaker 1: scenes with Rosemary so in the bed. So yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that probably in the mind of Leavey, who was
Speaker 1: also a very cartoonish character, he would wear you know,
Speaker 1: satanic costumes and whatnot, look like something from a B movie.
Speaker 1: But maybe at the same time he was also you know,
Speaker 1: consulting that look. Satanism can also take on a very subtle,
Speaker 1: mundane appearance as well.
Speaker 2: That's very interesting. I didn't know that Levey was associated
Speaker 2: with that film. I had no idea about that. You know,
Speaker 2: while we're on the subject of Roman Polanski, in my view,
Speaker 2: he's such an excellent, excellent director and one of the
Speaker 2: greatest movies ever made in my opinion, is Chinatown. Chinatown,
Speaker 2: and he directed that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We actually, surprisingly the Hollywood Decoded episode that did
Speaker 1: make it through from Polanski was the Chinatown episode. So
Speaker 1: I'm very proud of myself and Jay Widner in terms
Speaker 1: of the episode that we filmed about Chinatown, which if
Speaker 1: you're not aware, I have a TV show with filmmaker
Speaker 1: Jay Widner on The Guy at TV Network, which you
Speaker 1: can you can watch on Amazon Prime or through Guy
Speaker 1: or whatever. But we did I think twenty something episode
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty episodes of film analysis, very similar to what's
Speaker 1: in the book, and one of the episodes plans Ky's Chinatown,
Speaker 1: and I think, once again, you know, whatever you think
Speaker 1: of Polansky, we do have an insight into the power
Speaker 1: structure because there it's the Los Angeles power structure William
Speaker 1: Holland and kind of a commentary on how Los Angeles
Speaker 1: in the I think it's in the twenties, if I recall,
Speaker 1: came to be through corporate subterfuge, through the privatization of water,
Speaker 1: and it was just a very crazy, wild story which
Speaker 1: is loosely based in reality. That's not exactly true, but
Speaker 1: there are some weird parallels as well, with the fact
Speaker 1: that William Holland is played by John Houston or the
Speaker 1: guy who stands in for William moholland who and John
Speaker 1: Houston the actor director was, according to Steve Hodell, the
Speaker 1: son of George Hodell, the famed suspect in the Black
Speaker 1: Dolly ritual killings. It's actually John Houston was in the surple,
Speaker 1: very close friends with with George Odell and supposedly participated
Speaker 1: in these sort of ritual orgies and satanic celebrations that
Speaker 1: George George Odell was involved in. So you know, again,
Speaker 1: what is Polanski telling us here?
Speaker 2: So who was making these claims about John Houston.
Speaker 1: Well, it's in two different books. If you read the
Speaker 1: Dave McGowan's book Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon, there's an
Speaker 1: extensive discussion about the likely thesis that George Hodell was
Speaker 1: the Black Doll or one of the Black Dollia murders
Speaker 1: as long, along with Man Ray. And I don't think
Speaker 1: that the accusation is that John Houston was a murderer
Speaker 1: per se, but that he was a participant in their parties,
Speaker 1: and that that also is corroborated in Steve Hodell's book
Speaker 1: Black Dahlia Avenger, which is the central argument that he's
Speaker 1: you know, he's I think a police detective for something,
Speaker 1: but he's saying that it was my dad, my dad
Speaker 1: was the Black Dahia killer or him and other people
Speaker 1: like surrealist artist Man Ray.
Speaker 2: But anyway, certain people think that this is true and
Speaker 2: are making these claims.
Speaker 1: Okay, right now, this is not my accusation. These are
Speaker 1: again this is in Day McGowan's book, and it's in
Speaker 1: Steve Hodell's book Black Dolia Vendor.
Speaker 2: I'm speaking with author and radio and television host Jay
Speaker 2: Dyer Today's show foreshadowing ritual and symbology in film. I'm
Speaker 2: Bonnie Faulkner. This is Guns and Butter. Getting back to
Speaker 2: Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. What is the symbolism of the
Speaker 2: pillars in the film? For example, you have a picture
Speaker 2: in your book Esoteric Hollywood that in the beginning Nicole
Speaker 2: Kidman is standing between pillars.
Speaker 1: Well, admittedly this is a little bit of kind of
Speaker 1: a loose interpretation on my part, but we do know
Speaker 1: from Kubrick's films and his commentaries that he was very
Speaker 1: attentive to detail and very very meticulous about what images
Speaker 1: and symbols appeared in the films. So there's no question
Speaker 1: about that. And he was, you know, again, a freak
Speaker 1: for detail and continuity. So I don't think the scenes
Speaker 1: are shot accidentally or just because they look good. I
Speaker 1: think they do have a significance and I think that
Speaker 1: the opening sequence with the two pillars could suggest, you know,
Speaker 1: the ideas of masonry, the idea of the lodge with
Speaker 1: the two pillars Jacin and Boaz, which derives ultimately from
Speaker 1: Solomon's Temple in the Old Testament. That's how the the
Speaker 1: Freemasonic lodges adopted the two pillars in their system. And
Speaker 1: it's really kind of a it has a multiple layer
Speaker 1: aspect to it, towards interpreted to be different things. Sometimes
Speaker 1: it's day and night. Sometimes it's you know, ealectical tensions
Speaker 1: between good and evil. Sometimes it's just male versus female. Again,
Speaker 1: it's just really suggesting duality. Two sides of the of
Speaker 1: the Cabbalah, for example, the two pillars, the two mercy
Speaker 1: and severity sides of the cobblistic tree. You know, Albert
Speaker 1: Pike says that this is all what masonry is based on.
Speaker 1: So I think that perhaps Kubrick is suggesting that. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of evidence that, for example, two thousand
Speaker 1: and one is based on cobblistic ideas and imagery. So
Speaker 1: I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility
Speaker 1: that Kubrick is including that in Eyesweight Shut as well.
Speaker 1: So the idea of you know, Nicole Kidman sort of
Speaker 1: being half naked there. And then the idea here is
Speaker 1: that you're looking into the secrets of how the occult
Speaker 1: elite or the social engineers, how they rule us is
Speaker 1: in many ways through controlling our sexual desires through the libido.
Speaker 1: That's a Fortian theme at least, and there's no doubt
Speaker 1: that there's Forty in elements throughout kubrick films, absolutely, and
Speaker 1: so I think perhaps what he might be saying is
Speaker 1: that you know, you in a way, you're peering into
Speaker 1: what you think is the sex lives of other people.
Speaker 1: There's kind of a meta fourth wall level analysis that's
Speaker 1: broken here. And with the fact that at the time
Speaker 1: Tom Cruise and Nicole Kimmen actually were married, and you
Speaker 1: know that the paparazzi were always talking about their sex
Speaker 1: lives and crazy stuff like that. So so there's that
Speaker 1: element too. There's a lot of different layers going on here,
Speaker 1: but you know the fact that we're looking through the
Speaker 1: two pillars and to see the bare naked woman, the
Speaker 1: A list star or something. I think this suggests that
Speaker 1: you know, Kubrick is saying you are a sort of
Speaker 1: a porn obsessed society. You're you're controlled by these by
Speaker 1: this libido desire and you don't even realize it.
Speaker 2: And also the setting, the time of year, this ease
Speaker 2: and where eyes wide shut takes place is Christmas. What
Speaker 2: is the significance of that?
Speaker 1: Do you think that's a good question. I'm still not
Speaker 1: positive that I have that figured out, but you know,
Speaker 1: it could be Kubrick is playing on the idea of
Speaker 1: the commercialization of Christmas, that this is another aspect to
Speaker 1: to how we are controlled through consumerism, this idea that
Speaker 1: the whole holiday is supposed to be about giving of
Speaker 1: gifts and and and you know, self sacrifice and that
Speaker 1: kind of stuff giving, and it's all been inverted to
Speaker 1: be about consuming, about you know, think about the the
Speaker 1: the lines of people that that stand outside of you know,
Speaker 1: to get the latest plastic thing from China or whatever.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a never ending kind of consumer black hole.
Speaker 1: That's what Christmas represents. And it also could be that
Speaker 1: he's saying that, you know that from the perspective of
Speaker 1: the social engineers, Uh, it's it's an it's an attempt
Speaker 1: to invert the message of Christmas because a lot of
Speaker 1: Satanic imageries of course based on inversion. You invert the
Speaker 1: thing to give it its dark power.
Speaker 2: Well, yes, sort of a jarring to watch that movie
Speaker 2: with all the Christmas lights and the Christmas parties and
Speaker 2: the decorations, and yet at the same time the film's
Speaker 2: message is so dark.
Speaker 1: It is very dark. Is it perhaps talking about you know,
Speaker 1: pre Christian times of you know, solstice and that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. You know, it could be.
Speaker 2: Right now in ice wide shut. There are many mirrors.
Speaker 2: You point this out in your book, Our mirrors symbolic
Speaker 2: and if so, what are they symbolic of?
Speaker 1: They are? Yeah, I mean this is kind of a
Speaker 1: prevalent symbol in literature, There's no doubt about that. And
Speaker 1: most of the time it refers to the self or
Speaker 1: the soul or the psyche and self reflection, self actualization,
Speaker 1: perhaps depending upon what context it's used, but I would
Speaker 1: say that in the context of ours watch shot, one
Speaker 1: of the layers of the film is about the individual's
Speaker 1: realization of what he really is, what he really represents. So,
Speaker 1: for example, the beginning, seeing that when they're having an
Speaker 1: argument about sexuality within marriage and attraction, Nicole Kimmen actually
Speaker 1: catches Tom Cruise in a lie. She says, were you
Speaker 1: tempted or attracted by the two girls that hit on
Speaker 1: you at the party? And he's like, oh no, I
Speaker 1: would never And she's like, you've never been attracted to
Speaker 1: another woman? And Tom Cruise insists that he hasn't, and
Speaker 1: he's lying to himself, and she knows that he's lying,
Speaker 1: and he knows that he's lying. So there's another element
Speaker 1: a lot of people miss throughout the film when you
Speaker 1: get focused on the esoteric stuff, which is about reflection
Speaker 1: and about realizing how we all wear masks. That's another
Speaker 1: theme throughout the film that's kind of I would say,
Speaker 1: grounded in the existentialism of Jean Paul Sartre, which you
Speaker 1: know Sartre said that we're all kind of wearing masks
Speaker 1: and we're we're not admitting that our true authentic selves. Right.
Speaker 1: That's a part of this film too that people overlook.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you talk about that. Actually, you have some of
Speaker 2: photographs from Eyes Wideeshet in your book where there are
Speaker 2: masks on the walls of the different interior scenes in
Speaker 2: the movie.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Whoreror Domino, when Tom Kers visits her apartment
Speaker 1: when he's you know, when he comes really close to cheating.
Speaker 1: He doesn't do it, but becomes close with the prostitute,
Speaker 1: and we see the masks everywhere, and so you know,
Speaker 1: it's very This prostitute has a line of books dealing
Speaker 1: with the sociology and psychology, which is, i would say,
Speaker 1: a little bit out of place for the average prostitute.
Speaker 1: And in my view, that suggests that she was actually
Speaker 1: part of the ritual. So it would appear that throughout
Speaker 1: the story, and this is my thesis on the film,
Speaker 1: it would appear that the characters that Tom Cruise keeps
Speaker 1: sort of interacting with and by chance meeting, it's not
Speaker 1: by chance. He's actually being led to the ritual.
Speaker 2: Is human sacrifice the theme in Eyes Wide Shut.
Speaker 1: It is because the beauty queen, whom Tom Cruise's character
Speaker 1: had earlier sort of checked on and helped through an overdose.
Speaker 1: At the beginning of the film, she has overdose in
Speaker 1: the upstairs apartment, cheating with Ziegler at the party. She
Speaker 1: later sees him and realizes that he's come to the ritual.
Speaker 1: My theory is that he was brought to the ritual
Speaker 1: on purpose. The whole thing was kind of organized. But
Speaker 1: she has said the whole time that she wants out
Speaker 1: of it. She's a drug addict because she doesn't want
Speaker 1: to be in this cult. But there's no out of
Speaker 1: this cult. And so whatever her sort of strange laws
Speaker 1: or rules this cult has, she has to offer herself
Speaker 1: as his redemption. And she does because you know, she
Speaker 1: wants she wants out in the most extreme sense, like
Speaker 1: she's willing to die. She's already been, you know, trying
Speaker 1: to overdose, and so she says, well, I'll just give
Speaker 1: it up and you know, he can have my place
Speaker 1: or whatever. So that's my theory on is that this
Speaker 1: is a class of elite. There's a strict class system.
Speaker 1: This is part of it as well. You know, Kubrick
Speaker 1: is a pretty constant critic of the class system, going
Speaker 1: all the way back to Spartacus. Kubrick is saying that
Speaker 1: you're not going to reach a certain level no matter
Speaker 1: who you are, right, I mean, in other words, you
Speaker 1: can if you're Tom Cruise in your upper middle class,
Speaker 1: you know, lower bourgeois whatever, You're not ever going to
Speaker 1: be in this class of people. And that's what Tom
Speaker 1: Cruise can't fathom. He's being inducted into the cult. That's
Speaker 1: kind of one of the debatable topics the end of
Speaker 1: the film.
Speaker 2: Why do you think Stanley Kubrick's final movie, Eyes Wide Shut,
Speaker 2: is important.
Speaker 1: Because it shows us what really goes on. As I
Speaker 1: said earlier, we have been exposed to this kind of
Speaker 1: ritual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, this kind of
Speaker 1: pederasti in other situations like Penn State, Jimmy Savile and
Speaker 1: if you think back to the Dutreux affair in Belgium
Speaker 1: and the elite of Belgium that we're involved in. That
Speaker 1: I think Kubrick's giving us a window into what really
Speaker 1: goes on. That's why it matters.
Speaker 2: Can you discuss some of the movies that included foreshadowing
Speaker 2: of nine to eleven?
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are a bunch of those. One of the
Speaker 1: clearest ones is The Matrix. You have Neo's information file
Speaker 1: that Agent Smith has on him. This of course takes
Speaker 1: place in the future. Neo's date of birth is nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, two thousand and one, and that's I think
Speaker 1: a curious thing just randomly stick in there, especially given
Speaker 1: the fact that the second Matrix film includes. Now the
Speaker 1: Matrix came out in nineteen ninety eight or nine, but
Speaker 1: the second Matrix film includes a giant terror attack on
Speaker 1: a building that is you know, controlled demolition. So there's
Speaker 1: some weird stuff in there. Other films are a little
Speaker 1: clearer than this, I would say, like the pilot of
Speaker 1: the Lone Gunman series, which is the XOLE spin off.
Speaker 1: The pilot air I think six months or so before
Speaker 1: the events of nine to eleven, and you have hijacked radio,
Speaker 1: hijacked airlines that are attempting to be flown into the
Speaker 1: World Trade towers by a rogue shadow group within the
Speaker 1: US government. Again, I think that's very clearly hinting at something.
Speaker 1: We also have a lot of films that were preparing
Speaker 1: us for the idea of the large scale Arab terror attack.
Speaker 1: The first of these that's a blockbuster, is true lies
Speaker 1: the James.
Speaker 2: Cameron was that an Arnold Schwarzenegger mood. I saw that
Speaker 2: that was upsetting.
Speaker 1: It's the first blockbuster Arab terror villain attack film. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that that means that that James Cameron,
Speaker 1: or I think it was James Cameron, but I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that that means that he was secretly involved in it.
Speaker 1: That doesn't have to It doesn't have to be to
Speaker 1: be like that. I mean, what can happen is you'll
Speaker 1: get consultant, you know, like if you want to use
Speaker 1: aircraft carriers or military equipment. There's a great book on
Speaker 1: this about the Pentagon and the CI in Hollywood, David
Speaker 1: rob His book on this describes how the usage the
Speaker 1: military equipment requires that you kind of go along with
Speaker 1: certain narratives that the Pentagon might want, like we want
Speaker 1: you to portray the military good in your film, and
Speaker 1: then you can use our tanks and helicopters or whatever
Speaker 1: in the back round. Or it might be something like,
Speaker 1: you know, if you want to use our equipment, we'd
Speaker 1: like to go ahead and start maybe easing up the
Speaker 1: American population to the idea of the Arab terror attack.
Speaker 1: We think that the Arab terrorists are coming to get us.
Speaker 1: So this would begin to be put into films another
Speaker 1: film that not just me, but actually a professor Elliott Gaines,
Speaker 1: who's a professor at something like University of Iowa. Maybe anyway,
Speaker 1: he wrote an essay a long time ago that's since
Speaker 1: been i think published into a book about symbology and
Speaker 1: film and pop culture. And he also noticed a long
Speaker 1: time ago that the imagery and symbolism of Independence Day,
Speaker 1: which came out prior to nine to eleven, is chalk
Speaker 1: full of imagery, kind of preparing the public for large
Speaker 1: scale terror events and specifically the demolition of big scale
Speaker 1: buildings in New York by this quote alien threat. And
Speaker 1: again if you think, well, yeah, but it's aliens, it's
Speaker 1: not Arab terrorists, well, actually, if you go back to
Speaker 1: the Cold War, you can study how the military was
Speaker 1: using the alien phenomenon in science fiction as part of
Speaker 1: psychological warfare. Because in the mind of the average viewer
Speaker 1: when they're watching, for example, the Twilight Zone and you're
Speaker 1: seeing all these alien threats against the US military. The
Speaker 1: reason that the Twilight Zone quite literally had Department of
Speaker 1: Defense consultation was that it was seen to be part
Speaker 1: of the Cold War. Because the human mind associates any
Speaker 1: external threat as an external threat, doesn't matter whether it's
Speaker 1: in fiction, it's aliens, and then the news tells you
Speaker 1: it's you know, the commis or the the the are
Speaker 1: of terrorists. That's the way psychological warfare works. They know
Speaker 1: that the subconscious will associate the two, so you can
Speaker 1: actually use fictional aliens as a staged fake threat to
Speaker 1: control the population.
Speaker 2: I'm speaking with author and radio and television host Jay Dyer.
Speaker 2: Today's show foreshadowing ritual and symbology in film. I'm Bonnie Faulkner.
Speaker 2: This is Guns and Butter. Now we're talking about examples
Speaker 2: of predictive programming in movies. There's also television. Now, you
Speaker 2: mentioned The Lone Gunman. I saw that that was just
Speaker 2: an incredible example, right down to who the perpetrators were.
Speaker 1: I would I don't doubt that there's absolutely one or
Speaker 1: percent CIA connection between between these groups, and that's how
Speaker 1: the messages put into fiction. In fact, Dean Hagland from
Speaker 1: The X Files and The Lone Gunman has given interviews
Speaker 1: where he said that when you know, when we were
Speaker 1: on the set of X Men, we would have CIA
Speaker 1: consultants telling us what they would like to see in
Speaker 1: the episodes, you know, on set. So you think what
Speaker 1: that's crazy, Now, just go look up Chase Brandon, Look
Speaker 1: up Milt Bearden. They are famous CIA liaisons and consultants
Speaker 1: for calltless films, everything from The Meet the Fowkers, if
Speaker 1: you've seen the Ben Stiller comedy, either Chase Brandon or
Speaker 1: Milton Beard and consultant on that The Recruit with al
Speaker 1: Pacino and right Felipe that was a CIA made film,
Speaker 1: Kathleen Kennedy and her Zero Dark thirty and these are
Speaker 1: all quite literally CIA movies.
Speaker 2: Right. I was about to ask you, what are some
Speaker 2: of the movies and TV shows influenced by the military
Speaker 2: and the CIA.
Speaker 1: There are thousands of them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and why do you think they have such a
Speaker 2: strong and broad influence on Hollywood?
Speaker 1: Well, because Eberberne said, Hollywood is the most powerful engine
Speaker 1: in propaganda the world has ever known. So if you
Speaker 1: are a military, Pentagon, CIA person, you want to influence culture,
Speaker 1: You want to influence minds, You want to do the
Speaker 1: basic kind of stuff that Sun Zoo talked about, making
Speaker 1: sure that people do what you want them to do.
Speaker 1: So what better way than conditioning them through fiction. How
Speaker 1: many people are going to see James Bond as opposed
Speaker 1: to reading some World War two history book?
Speaker 2: Exactly? Can you describe some of the ways the cartoon
Speaker 2: show Gi Joe revealed certain military technologies we have today.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is a very striking and kind of one
Speaker 1: of one of the most amazing aspects of the whole thing.
Speaker 1: Blued or Not was because I grew up with with
Speaker 1: G I Joe in the eighties. I was a kid
Speaker 1: of the eighties, and and every kid who grew up
Speaker 1: in the eighties, you know, play with g I Joe.
Speaker 1: And so one of the first tier level one conspiracy
Speaker 1: things that you learned about this is that that's military conditioning, right,
Speaker 1: and that that's not too far fetched when you start
Speaker 1: to think about, well, yeah, I guess that does make
Speaker 1: sense why g I Joe was introduced to, you know,
Speaker 1: give the idea of join Uncle Sam in the fight
Speaker 1: against all the bad guys, and that makes sense. But
Speaker 1: why is that crazy? Well, it gets a lot deeper
Speaker 1: than that, because in the narrative of G I Joe
Speaker 1: in the cartoon series in the eighties, I mean you
Speaker 1: actually have episodes that are dealing, for example, explicitly with
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve of all things, and how the fiat
Speaker 1: money isn't real. And there's actually an episode where Cobra
Speaker 1: institutes Cobra currency and he goes into this this rant
Speaker 1: about how the Federal Reserve is a fiat money, it's
Speaker 1: not real, and Cobra currency will be backed by gold
Speaker 1: because gold is you know, the true true standard for
Speaker 1: how currency should be back I remember when the first
Speaker 1: time I saw that years ago, I was like, well,
Speaker 1: that's kind of weird. Why would that be in G
Speaker 1: I Joe? And then I started rewatching the G I.
Speaker 1: Joe cartoon episodes and I started noticing consistently, Oh, well,
Speaker 1: here's one episode that's about sky Neet and the creation
Speaker 1: of like global surveillance you know. Okay, well that's kind
Speaker 1: of a science fiction thing, and I guess that's too weird. Well,
Speaker 1: then another episode we start seeing a geoengineering weather modification.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, well, that's a little bit stranger. Why would
Speaker 1: that be a G I Joe? And then the next
Speaker 1: episode you're watching it, it's about quite literally mkulture. They're
Speaker 1: referencing the military study in My Control Now. Of course,
Speaker 1: most of the time in the G I. Joe cartoons
Speaker 1: it's Cobra. It's the bad guys that are doing it,
Speaker 1: but in some cases there's even episodes where the good
Speaker 1: guys and the bad guys have to link up. For example,
Speaker 1: Cobra is a terrorist organization in the narrative of the
Speaker 1: G I. Joe, but there are some episodes where G I.
Speaker 1: Joe has to link up with Cobra to fight a
Speaker 1: common enemy, and I'm thinking, well, that's that's very bizarre,
Speaker 1: because did the military have to supposedly link up with
Speaker 1: the jiahaties right to fight the Soviets? That was the
Speaker 1: American narrative even into the eighties. In fact, the Living
Speaker 1: is it's either I think it's Living Daylights, the episode
Speaker 1: the Bond film in the eighties eighty seven, I think
Speaker 1: with Timothy Dalton. In that film, Timothy Dalton teams up
Speaker 1: with a quite literally a bin laden character and then
Speaker 1: mujah Haden to fight the Soviets. So even into the eighties,
Speaker 1: you know where they were still promoting the narrative of
Speaker 1: the Jihad and the Musja Hadeen as the freedom fighters
Speaker 1: to good guys, and even in Gi Joe at times
Speaker 1: the terrorists are our allies. So it gets crazier and great,
Speaker 1: you can keep going and keep going with nanotechnology and
Speaker 1: all this this really far out future tech was placed
Speaker 1: into the eighties g I Jo series.
Speaker 2: How has the subject of mind control been portrayed in movies?
Speaker 1: Well, that's a very big question y. When when Hollywood
Speaker 1: began to consciously work with, you know, the narrative of
Speaker 1: something like mentoring candidate if if you've seen The man
Speaker 1: tred Candidate, you kind of get the presentation that the
Speaker 1: Soviets are up to this and the commedis are going
Speaker 1: to brainwash all of our POW's and all that. And actually,
Speaker 1: Walter Bower and his great book Operation My Control, he
Speaker 1: makes a very powerful argument that that that was itself
Speaker 1: kind of a sile, that that what the American military
Speaker 1: was doing was trying to have a justification for their
Speaker 1: own large scale psychological testing and my control experiments known
Speaker 1: generally as MK Ultra, under the guise of saying, well,
Speaker 1: the comedies are going to do this to us, right, Well.
Speaker 2: You brought up you brought up The Manchurian Candidate, the
Speaker 2: original one, which is one of my favorite movies. That's
Speaker 2: an incredibly good movie. Yeah, it does good movie, Oh,
Speaker 2: unbelievable starring Angela Lansbury. And that came out right before
Speaker 2: the Kennedy assassination, didn't it exactly prefigured that whole thing?
Speaker 1: Oh? Absolutely yeah. I think we did a long time ago,
Speaker 1: we did an article or a video, I can't remember,
Speaker 1: it's been several years where we discussed just that very thing,
Speaker 1: that the similarities between what you're talking about and Jeff
Speaker 1: k There's also if you think of the Gene Hackman
Speaker 1: film The Conversation, which is a very Yeah, that's a
Speaker 1: very well done surveillance film where he kind of goes crazy.
Speaker 1: That actually came out right before the Watergate stuff, and
Speaker 1: other people have noticed the strange parallels to the Watergate
Speaker 1: surveillance and Conversation. So the predictive programming aspect of things
Speaker 1: appearing in fiction before they appear in so called mainstream reality,
Speaker 1: it goes back a long way, you know, it doesn't.
Speaker 1: It's not something that started in the nineties or two thousands.
Speaker 1: I'm all the time funny examples like this, and and yes,
Speaker 1: it's absolutely similar. When it comes to assassination attempts. There's
Speaker 1: another great example of this that kind of hearkens to
Speaker 1: JFK and maybe the other assassinations or attempted assassinations in
Speaker 1: the Warren Batty movie, The Warren Batty movie, The Parallax View,
Speaker 1: The Parallax View. Yeah, thank you.
Speaker 2: Yes, I always get mixed up about that movie, and
Speaker 2: I've seen it twice, but I can never remember the
Speaker 2: narrative of the thing.
Speaker 1: Well, he is a reporter who goes into investigating this company,
Speaker 1: this this shadow private entity that appears to be recruiting psychopaths,
Speaker 1: people with the you know, murderous and sort of psychopathic tendencies,
Speaker 1: and he's very curious as to what is the purpose
Speaker 1: of all this, and so he ends up applying to
Speaker 1: to go through this company's program. It turns out it's
Speaker 1: a giant mind control program and they're they're wiping people's
Speaker 1: brains and they are looking for the perfect Patsy, And
Speaker 1: of course turns out Warren Baty fits the profile of
Speaker 1: the perfect Patsy. So spoiler alert, I'd kind of give
Speaker 1: it away, but it relates to the assassination of a
Speaker 1: i think a populist politician or something to that effect.
Speaker 1: So there's definitely some meat there in ways similar to
Speaker 1: kind of a clockwork Orange another Kuber film, where Kubrick
Speaker 1: is telling us about the Tavistock style brainwashing attempts to
Speaker 1: condition the public and the masses to have no to
Speaker 1: have no virility, no drive, no desire for change, to
Speaker 1: just be to be passive and apathetic. That's essentially what
Speaker 1: they do with the the udlum character Alex in the
Speaker 1: film that you know, they turn him into a docile,
Speaker 1: sort of sort of zombie.
Speaker 2: And finally, could you describe what happened to your word
Speaker 2: Press account.
Speaker 1: I was basically I'd been with WordPress, I think for
Speaker 1: nine or ten years, and they had a very strong
Speaker 1: reputation for free speech. You know, my blog didn't include
Speaker 1: anything significantly dangerous or violent, never call for violence, no
Speaker 1: no affiliation with any fringe radical groups or anything like that.
Speaker 1: So there wasn't really any any cause for removal or
Speaker 1: in terms of violation of their terms of service. But
Speaker 1: basically the site was just removed one day. So they
Speaker 1: give you seven days to export your site to some
Speaker 1: other place. And after a long time, I did finally
Speaker 1: get an email from WordPress explaining what it was. And
Speaker 1: the email had no substantive explanation. It just said it
Speaker 1: said basically the same thing that I was told when
Speaker 1: it was taken down, which was that your site violates
Speaker 1: our in terms of service. So no example, I don't
Speaker 1: I was never told what violated terms of service. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'd been there for ten years. I was not just
Speaker 1: a free customer. I was a long time paying customer
Speaker 1: with the premium platform. But none of that got me anywhere.
Speaker 1: So I was removed at the same time as a
Speaker 1: lot of alternative journalist media sites were removed the same day.
Speaker 2: Jay Dyer, thank you so much, thank you.
Speaker 1: It was a pleasure.