FLASHBACK: Jimmy Snow vs Jay Dyer Debate Esoteric Hollywood

Okay, so let me let me try to, at real quickly introduce these guys somewhat formally so that you guys can know what they're.

Doing and where they come from.

We'll start with Jay from Jay's Analysis, and he has grown to become one of the premier film and philosophy sites on the net, showcasing the talents of Jay Dyer, who's graduate focused on the interplay of film, geopolitics, espionage, and psychological warfare. Jay is a public speaker, lecturer, comedian, and author of the popular title Esoteric Hollywood Sex Cults and Symbols in Film, which made it to Amazon's number one spot its first month of release in the Film

Mister atheists, you've been making the round. How are you today?

So?

Yeah, man, it's been crazy sort short amount of time, and I feel like the prettiest girl of the dance I do.

We just passed him around. That's a.

Okay, Jay, let's switch over to you kind of introduce yourself to people who aren't familiar with you and your channel and whatever.

Else you think we need to know before we get into the meat of this.

Yeah, after the book.

Well, I'll mention that my grad work was on what you mentioned, but I also did another degree in philosophy and history, and my grad work is also my master's thesis is what you what you talked about, psychological warfare. But my my graduate thesis itself is actually my master's work is actually in philosophy and lit. So there's a whole broad variety of there of what I've studied. But I'm pure reviewed, academically published.

I have a.

Second book in the work, which will be the sequel to the first book. Hollywood Decoded is also the basis of a full production TV show, or my book is the basis for the full production TV show Hollywood Decoded. I'm also now the co host of Orski Live with Andy Worski.

And you've seen.

Me probably in a lot of YouTube debates with Richard Spencer, with JF. Gary Epp and other atheists and thinkers. And yeah, so that's what I do. Got another TV show in the works, that's we're shooting the pilot pretty soon. And that's all I can think of. There's bugs in here.

Excellent, that's quite a bit. That's quite an aggressive.

Resume.

I will say a philosophy.

Yeah, I saw it, as you said, philosophy.

I saw Steve Boning over there.

I don't know if I'm gonna be able to get.

To that's like, we don't need them. We don't need them. Go ahead, say thank to you, sir.

Everyone calls me Jimmy, and that's fine. There's no need for a more formal mister, Atheists. My CV is nowhere near as impressive content creator that came on the scene about four months ago. The production values were what set me apart, but are entirely because it's what I do for my day job. Also, and as you mentioned, I answered the questions that atheists are posed over and over again.

I clarify, and I.

Also am writing a book called Esoteric Esoteric Hollywood, which the thesis is that Jay is a member of the Illuminati and is only written the first book to cover what the Illuminati is really up to.

Yeah, and this would be clipped out as proof right here.

If you do that, you know what just happened right there?

The digital Christian just spassed out when we did that.

He puts me on his channel.

I hope he exposes me and then I'll get a whole bunch of traffic that will work fine for me. But yeah, to.

Mario still has a channel that's relevant.

Okay, go ahead, Jay, Well, I'm just gonna say real quick.

Uh. I forgot to mention too.

I do represent Orthodox Christianity, so I'll be distinct from Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in my my approach and and my belief in apologetics is that I actually have a distinct we have a distinct approach to that as well, So it's not going to be rehashed Thomas Aquinas or rehashed you know evangelical stuff.

Awesome.

Yeah, Actually, can I ask, then, in relation to that question, what your position on in relation to the Catholic churches, because this is relevant for some of the stuff down the way.

Well, I was Catholic for a long time, about ten years before I got into Orthodoxy, so I was a hardcore, committed fan of Aquinas very much Atomas. I attended the Latin Mass pretty voraciously, pretty consistently.

So yeah, Orthodoxy.

Is, you know, a completely distinct communion and completely distinct church. Certainly it shares a lot of similarities with the first thousand years of the Church, but of course in the second millennia they split and go their separate ways. So we're kind of in ways similar to Protestant and then in other ways similar to Catholic, depending on what the focus is. But but we do not believe that Romanism is the right religion.

Any any particular or special ill will towards them over others. I, for example, certainly target Mormonism more than any others on my channel because it's specifically what I came from and find the most fun to attack.

But that's people had debated Nick Fuintis over this, and he and I have had a pretty heated Catholic Orthodox debate, and only because Roman Catholics seem to get so mad and they're the only the only people that have like flagged my channel and got me banned for on Twitter are are Roman Catholics, So that that is part of the reason why there's a lot of ferocity.

So as an Orthodox Catholic, is there any any Vatican interaction at all?

Or is it entirely devoid of the Vatican.

Yeah, Orthodoxy among other things split over in ten fifty four. Roughly they split over the question of the role of the pope. So we see all bishops as equal. We believe in the ecumenical the council view of the Church, not in the idea of papal infallibility or papal ex cathedral. So that's one of the key central aspects of what we differ over. But then we also differ over the nature of Christ and who God is, how we know God, how we experience God. Everything ends up being different.

Is sorry, am I derailing things?

Is this?

How did you want? Is this okay?

Now?

Okay, this is fine?

Whenever you my phone, whenever you get ready, I'll I'll just for the first question out, but if you need context.

Go for yeah.

So for the last question, I guess is yeah, go ahead.

Well my question is just about the process. So are we going to jump right into and I don't care either way, but are we going to talk about I think you titled it what like like Hollywood occultism or Hollywood or are we going to do that or.

All of my act questions have to do with your book?

Yeah?

Yeah, Basically all of what's gonna happen is he's going to get the context that he needs.

And then what we do here is we.

Don't like they're not rigid structured debates where it's you know, you get this time, he gets this time. We kind of like to have a free flowing kind of conversation because you get more out of it.

So we're going to focus on the symbolism.

What once he gets like what he needs context, I'm gonna throw it to you and let you kind of put out the premise with what your books about and kind of what you're, what you're you're claiming and all that.

Yeah, I mean, and yeah, even my first question is largely related to to what you just stated. All all of my questions that follow, while they may deviate from the pages here and there, it's yeah, it's all related to the book.

I am curious whether or not.

And this is just pure curiosity, not about to start a fight with Orthodoxy.

Are they Young Earth.

Or are they or does it vary like with Moremanism, They're they're younger Mormons and naturalist Mormons who just believe in occasional intervention.

There are plenty of Orthodox who do accept evolution in both micro macro senses. There are pretty plenty of Orthodox who accept Old and Young Earth. So for us, it's not typically something that's dogmatic. Although I do believe in creation, so I tend to argue against a.

Big scale evolution, and.

That that part I knew. I was just curious if, as you talked.

About, I don't I don't have a dogmatic Yeah, I don't have a dogmatic nor do I have a dogmatic argument about the specific age per se of.

The Okay, cool, cool, Okay, that's I think. That's all I mean a good moment.

You're good and one more little side that I think it's it should be put out there because it's to me.

It was epic and it was just it was just a sweet thing.

Uh, with you and Richard Spencer when you you guys debated. Can you tell people what the what you guys debated over?

I mean, there's a few, but.

I know which one you're asking about, so because he's done it a few times, so I'll tell Jay he's asking specifically about which political party Jesus would have been a part of, And yeah, if that helps give a hint toward which.

You guys cut out for a second.

But but the question was what what political party would Jesus be Yeah, So he was.

Asking you about your Richard Spencer debate, and I was saying, I know which one he's specifically asking about, and it had to do with political parties. So I was just trying to give you the context before you answer, because I know you've done other debates with him, So which specific debate is before?

I thought it was a great premise. It was if Jesus.

Was all right or not?

Would be all right? How well?

How was he?

Uh? As far as somebody that you know, because he's a controversial figure.

Was that a decision that you kind of made lightly or did you get he kind of backlash from you know, entertaining having a debate with somebody like that.

I'm just curious. It seems like you'd get some flat for that.

Maybe minimal, but uh, you know, I I think pretty clearly distinguished my positions from his. So you know, I mean, Richard debates black He debates black checks on on YouTube, so you know, he debates all kinds of people.

Uh, you know, he debates Jewish guys.

I only bring that up because we just announced yesterday about Sargon coming on in bar Gone.

For some people, you.

Would have thought the world ended.

Uh you know, you get those people who could out there.

I can't believe you're giving something like that a platform.

And I just wondered if you got the same thing with with a somebody Richard Spencer, I mean very.

Nonmal I mean, I mean there was some criticism, but really it was it was hosted app based Baked Alaska's channel.

It wasn't my channel, And you know.

The question and the weird thing was that originally it was supposed to be a debate, and then the day before Richard said, would let's just have an.

A conversation and I was like, well, you already agreed to.

A debate, so and so then we we we agreed on something in between.

We called it an exchange.

But I think James also in Baked Alaska, is still called it a debate, which is fine with me, and that's what it was supposed to.

Be, but not really. Not many people in me flack over it.

But I generally use the three words interchangeably if I'm coming on with anybody I disagree with.

Debate, exchange or discussion.

Yeah, they're change.

So let's get to discussion.

I'm gonna let Jay kind of explaining what his books about and the premise that he's coming from, and then this atheist you can once he gets finished, ask whatever question that you have. The only thing that I asked guys, is that you don't talk over each other so that the people who are listening can understand and get your entire thoughts out. So that's the only rule. Just don't talk over each other and let each other finish out your faults and we'll have a good conversation.

All right, Jay, Well, basically The book is just a reflection of an interest that I have for a long time in film. Around age eighteen, I was interested in acting and I wrote a stand up routine.

I did stand up here and there on the side, just for fun.

And then when I went into university, I started studying a lot of history, looked at the geopolitics. It was also getting into conspiracy topics online, mainly for fun, and I started noticing that a lot of the plots of films really were conspiratorial, and a lot of times the authors of both screenplays and people who were and say

So I thought that would be an interesting subject.

Matter to pursue at a graduate level and do a thesis on. And so I had to pick something a little more narrow, and I chose Ian Fleming his life and of course he's the creator of James Bond. If you're not familiar, and the way that the films were used as kind of Western CIA propaganda, British intelligence propaganda in the.

Cold War especially. So what you see is that a lot.

Of Ian Fleming's own personal exploits in Black Ops actually became a subtle undercurrent for what's in most of the Bond stories, and there's a kernel at least of truth. You know, Flemings fans were saying everything I write his President in truth, and certainly they're fiction stories, but they also include hermetic and alchemical and occultic themes. I think that Fleming spiced his novel up with those ideas. So that became the seed for the book that I wrote,

Wells, and how HG.

Wells was actually a master propagandist as well as a science fiction author. So I went pretty deep into the metaphysics and the philosophy of film and how it conveys meaning to us at different levels. So this is a

So what the book does.

It operates on multiple levels, analyzing imagery and analyzing narratives, analyzing contexts, directors, and all of that in relationship to real world geopolitics, real world history, and real world conspiracies as far as I could verify them. So it's four hundred and four footnotes, three hundred and sixty three pages. Anybody who does grad research and does if you're a research assistant, you'll have to do a lot of footnoting.

So that's what the book is.

It's an analysis of the big directors in their films in terms of all of those levels.

I see.

I see Steed in the corner.

Every time you you make a philosophical.

Philosophical word.

What I like philosophy? Why is that so bad? See the crap? You see this?

Yeah, if you do a philosophy degree, I mean, you know, the dumb joke always heard when I was doing grad school was oor the philosophy, Uh, factories hiring.

When you get out. So you know, I mean you're pretty limited.

You can either go on and get the pH d and try to teach, or you can do what I do, and you know, go out there and write books and and do what I do in philosophy.

You have to wonder did you really get your degree? Or not to get to my degree? You did you get that?

Good?

Yeah, I'm coming around, okay, straight?

Yeah.

Hello, So I'm gonna treat this more as the hard start with the the hello to Well.

First of all, thank you Jay for agreeing to come on.

I think it's commendable anybody who has opinions that are obviously I mean, you acknowledge that you are trying to expose conspiracies or I hope I'm not doing you this service and saying that, And so that's going to be a polarizing issue. And I think it's cool that you're willing to come on have your claims be investigated.

In or criticized. I think that's awesome.

I don't mean this to be patronizing. I genuinely mean well done in congratulations on both getting a book written and published and on the Amazon number one for its category.

I don't mean that to be like a take.

It any that's awesome and it's much more than I've done. Maybe I mean this compliment to be this comment to be a slightly patronizing. I can say that of all the books I've ever read, this one is certainly the most recent.

That was my joke for the day. Okay, So the question I actually.

Want to start out with is, in reading your book, it seems like you and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's mean like you believe there is an actual underground cult behind Hollywood. But in addition, there are times in your book where you seem to talk about different and separate cults Darwinian cult, Stockanism cults, which maybe those

Via whatever pop culture or anything.

Right.

Well, now, in the world of Hollywood, there are multiple cults that are pretty well known as having a degree of influence and a well known Hollywood retinue, right, So, I mean, we can think of Scientology and all the high level Hollywood people who've been involved in scientology. We can think of the Nexium cult recently that was in the news with the Alison Mack and Keith Rinair stories of sex trafficking.

We can think of the Children.

Of God col Moses Berg, who was pedophile connected to Hollywood people who you know, this is where we get Rose McGowan, the Phoenix family, River Phoenix and so forth.

They come out of the Children of God cult.

So I mean, the Oto has obviously a quite.

A few adherents in Hollywood.

Cabbalism and the Cobbolah, quite a few people have been influenced by that in Hollywood.

People like Rosenne talk about it pretty openly.

So I wouldn't be so absurd as to say that there's there's only one cult. But if we were to come up with the idea of one overwriting cult in Hollywood, it would be actually the CIA, and the CIA is actually treated as a as a cult, and this goes into the history of intelligence agencies and how cults operate. So I'm not saying that every person in the CIA or in his history literally isn't a cultist or a Luciferian.

Forth, they do have a very occult aspect to them.

And for me, regardless of whether you believe in anything supernatural, really is just a question of trafficking in secrets, in secret information.

So what we see in Hollywood is no different. We see a lot of.

People who are high profile who can be blackmailed. This

I can't hear the word collusion without wanting to do my Trump impression.

There was new.

Collusion, but then the huge, huge, new, absolutely new collusion.

Words.

There you go.

I new where it's the best words. And now I'm actually trying.

To think you two of my favorite guests that we've had.

I'm loving this. That's good. That's good.

So uh so with the Number one cult, and again, I'm never let me straw man. I'll even let you interrupt me to prevent a straw man, even though that was the big rule with the Number one cult, or at least the thing being linked altogether, this being the CIA. I guess the concern I have and the wonder I have after reading your book is uh, Well, would you say first of all that the book is meant to expose that idea that the underlying linking.

If there has to be a number one cult, it's the CIA, or is there a specific cult you would say your book is trying to reveal or just the idea that occultism is alive and well in Hollywood.

Well, like I said, like so sometimes you'll have something like the OTO, which has a lot of adherence in Hollywood and high level finance and things like that.

I'm not saying that everybody in that group is part.

Of the exact same you know, I get that a gender, right, But there are people who do intelligence work who are and have written many books on how to manipulate and use cults. There are a lot of white papers that have been written on how to manipulate and use cults as even an experiment at times. So the purpose might

I would have thought that was crazy.

But after spending a lot of time in that and looking at a lot of other academics who've actually backed this up with their research, it's like, yeah, that's obvious to me now, right, this is why.

They're so there.

And if you look at the history of intelligence operations, you can find so many famous people who did intelligence work on the side, who were intelligence assets, like Jimmy Stewart or Carry Grant. Julia Child worked for the OSS. This is fairly prominent, right. Coco Chanel was a famous spy. So all these people did this kind of on the side at times. So it's not that everything is necessarily

Juliet Child's.

And perhaps.

She was in the osays.

So, and perhaps this is.

Where our first point of conflict is going to come, because what I'm understanding is I read this book and I'm trying to figure out who exactly it's exposing, and that's it's not actually easy to directly come up with that, And I certainly wouldn't have come out with that theme of if there is a connecting entity to expose, it

But when I see somebody actually.

Expose a cult, expose scientology, I see money followed, I see family lineage to some degree followed less important. But people are naming names and following the following them. I mean even even in non cult exposition. Or John Oliver is like my favorite person who exposes things more that we just didn't realize was going on than was necessarily a giant secret.

And that's the tactic he takes. He names names, and he follows the money.

And while there is some name naming, it's then dependent upon what if after he got done doing this work around the time that the moon landing was supposed to be happening and NASA had act sess to these Hollywood sound studios. It almost seems like the leap then is what if when he supposedly was done all of that, he wasn't actually done. That's I guess one of my primary conflicts with the book. It's a little too much of a confirmation bias masturbatory aid.

If I may be crass, it's a.

Here's how to look at it, and now if you look at it, look how obvious it becomes.

Right, Well, let me let's take you. Let's take it through some specific examples.

So let's take Kubrick and I don't say, by the way, I don't make the claim that Kubrick filmed the moonlandings.

So that's not in my book.

Yeah, but it's right. But it's verifiable that Kubrick did work with NASA. That can easily be verified. He worked with Muler of NASA because they really liked the way he shot things, and they wanted to share insight and information on how to do film work because obviously NASA is interested in camera work too, right, So whatever anybody's onions of the moon landing are, it's very easy to verify that Kubrick collaborated with NASA. Now, again, I'm not saying that that means anything beyond that.

That's I'm just saying.

That's one example where you do see a clear working together. Now, let me say on the claim that intelligence agencies operate like a cult. Okay, that has been written about by many people in a mainline academic way.

So one book on that is called Cloak and Gown by Robin Winks.

This is a famous work on the history of intelligence agencies, and it's specifically the history of the CIA operating like a cult. Right, So I don't really care whether a person believes in the CIA being a cultic or not.

The main point is that they operate like a cult.

And when it comes to the way that so many people in Hollywood, especially during the Cold War, were recruited into working for the FBI, Jimmy Stewart was a famous FBI asset even may he even made movies in tan them with j Edgar Hoover. Is a famous movie called The FBI Story, and Jimmy Stewart's like playing all these different roles without throughout human history.

As the FBI. Jimmy starts the hero America and the FBI.

Right, So you can just watch that movie and you see, right, they're a clear example of that kind of a collusion during the Cold War. And so I understand that these are a lot of different specific examples, But what I'm saying is that when you go to something like the academic work, whereas it I've got it here with.

Me operation Hollywood.

Yeah, let me show you this book. So when I started looking at the question from an academic perspective, and this is all people from various universities who study.

The same stuff I do. And this is put out by David Robb and what they.

Do is basically go through the last several decades of Hollywood's revisions of scripts. So this is at a very kind of base, not conspiratorial, just an academic look at the different times of the Pentagon told movies. No, you can't do this if you want to use our aircraft carrier in the background, if you want to use our tanks, you got to do this. Oh we want this tweaked here because this doesn't portray America right in this Cold War setting.

Blah blah blah. Countless examples. There's probably seventy.

Eighty movies that they go through in this text, written by multiple scholars. Another thing I would say that that sort of backs up one side of this thesis is the famous book.

This is put out by University of Texas professor Tricia Jenkins.

Book The CIA in Hollywood. It's pretty expensive on Amazon. That's because it's like her PhD. Yeah, I think it's her PhD thesis, And she does the same thing. She goes through the history of how many times, especially in more recent times. So she for example, there's a whole chapter on jj Abrams and who's the chick from Alias, Jennifer Garner, you know, working together to consult with the

Like Wag the Dog. By the way, Wag the Dog is about what I'm telling you about.

There's a whole movie made about the CIA consulting with Hollywood and so forth. It's it's satirical, but it still, you know, kind of hammers the point home. So these are just kind of the beginning points where I started this journey this question. So I didn't immediately when I looked at these texts say, oh, then that's the illuminati that runs everything. No, I mean, I'm just saying, these

You can look at that to begin your track down this rabbit hole.

But so then what happens is if you look at the cult side of Hollywood that I mentioned early on, and you said scientology, You said, what I see is money, what I see is fame.

I would totally agree with you.

I would say, many cases when people come out of Scientology and they like Ramini and she talks about it, she says, oh, they were, you know, abusing us and this and that, and that's all true at one level. But I would say, if you've read Edward Barne's book Propaganda, one of the things that Brene says is that the greatest tool for propaganda.

The world has ever seen is Hollywood.

And so he made that a central aspect of the way that the advertising because he actually went from working with the State Department to working with advertising and mass marketing to tell them how to manipulate human psychology so that mass advertising campaigns would be successful. Brene said that

I'm certainly not going to argue that no social engineering happens in Hollywood. That would be ridiculous and ignorant to make that claim. It's more that i'm The argument I want to have is actually, what it almost sounded like you were dismissing is that this book seems to claim to expose precisely what that social engineering is geared toward toward. And it seems to me you only need to pick something different to do the exact same thing. And I could write a whole book on how these people who

Say you're wrong.

If you are so I'll grant you all of those. It seems like all I need to do is go, Okay, what if I wanted to change my lens to Hollywood is trying to program us all into a monogamous, not transform, but maintain it into a monogamous, heteronormative culture, because that is the easiest thing for them to gear their social engineering towards. Is that's what they have traditionally worked with. And then I can go through and find those themes of still monogamy.

I just have to choose different movies.

And in fact, what I found interesting about this book too is in trying to apparently expose this ginormous underlying plot, you chose a series of movies that a lot of people have seen, but I've seen less than half of them.

I don't.

Again, confirmation bias is what it feels like. The whole book is about, here's the lens I'm going to use, here's the information that does. I mean, it's a it's a lot to think about, and it's there's a lot of things where it's like, Okay, why is that? But then it's also like why do I need to make that jump? So why do you see that? You can respond to anything I said, But I'd love to see well, yeah.

So like in the second book. Yeah, so in the second book.

I bring in in the first uh several the first couple chapters, if I recall the concept of the various mafias that have had influence in Hollywood.

So again, I feel like you're trying to push me.

Into a position where I have to say that I'm consistently claiming there's only one single group that runs everything. No, Okay, well that's I mean, I'm very I try to be very nuanced, And in fact, what you're hitting on is something that I specifically did want to include in the sequel, which is the question of the mafia, and this before I looked into that was an area where I was kind of unclear how it fit in, because obviously there's been a lot of mob of influence in Hollywood.

Over the decades.

So what I tried to do was look at the the tie in between how the mafia and the CIA have actually made deals and worked together at times. This is actually portrayed by the way in Mario Puzzo's The Godfather you have in the initial installment, he deals with the way that the Mafia basically told certain directors what movies would and wouldn't be made. And I try to be fair to different mafias in their influence in Hollywood.

Maybe that's a better wady to put it.

But you'll notice that the same kind of initiation rituals for the Coast and Nostra for the Sicilian mafia, for other mafias as well.

It's very similar to the kind.

Of initiation virtuals that if you read about Skull and Bones at Gale, the kinds of initiation that they go through, the oaths that have to be made, so life or death thing.

You don't leave this, this is your whole life. You're owned by the state.

Basically, the mafia have used it the same way, and there have been documented historical instances declassified papers about the CIA and the mafia making deals together.

For example, the Bay of Pigs.

There were MOB connected people who were involved in the failed invasion, this the so called Bay of Pigs, So that was actually a deal between kind up question, there's.

A distinction that I'm now having a problem with. What is your distinction between a cult, a religion, or a cult and a political party because I'm again I'm trying to not sound like a douche through this whole thing, but honestly I will.

I don't know if I can come up with an organization the same question.

Clarified by a cult.

Right, So I mean I believe that a cult generally, yes, it has a religious connotation of some figure, some deity that everybody has to submit to. And then the representation of the leader in the cult. You know, he has supreme power. This is generally what people think of when

It just seems like the way you're using the word isn't necessarily as it certainly has its precedence and intelligence, and I think they probably had perhaps a more precise definition. I dare say, it seems like you're making the comparison useless because I feel I could use your use of act like a cult to describe virtually anything, any organization.

It does. It does feel like you very broadly.

Okay, But but if we talk about the way, for example, agents offering operates sometimes in Hollywood, if you've read any biographies of people who've had to deal with an agent who you know, kind of ran their life, and especially as you climb up the ladder, a lot of times agents have a lot of power they can they can you know, basically like in the case of Elvis and his his agent, Colonel Tom. He was who supplied Elvis with drugs, so he had a lot of influence in

But I don't think, yeah, I'm not just trying to make a silly point of like you're using the word wrong for more, especially as an atheist, I hear that word abused a lot, the word atheists and and and the stretch is made and people will use or the word faith actually is a better.

One to use, so I can go into your realm a little bit more.

The word faith is just used so broadly, but people use it interchangeably in places where you can't actually necessarily tell which power they've given that word. And so it's not just the broad use, it's then the continued use as though it has a more significant power, more significant is represented more significantly, when again it seems to be following with that the next argument now we've got cults,

And I don't think your use of the word cult.

Okay.

If a person goes against something, say that's not politically correct, right, it's not like a Hollywood agent has to stamp them out. Rather, it's known that they're not going to get the job. They get blacklisted. I mean, the idea of being blacklisted in Hollywood is very common. So so in other words, I'm not saying that that has to be like one guy at the top of a pyramid who you know, like makes the calls all day about who's who's killed, Who gets what role? What I mean in the sense

A problem with that.

But I feel like you're saying you're saying there's feel like you're saying there's no over You're saying there's no overwriting conspiracy, and I'm saying there is no but we don't have.

To do Okay, Well, I'm still not in the precise critique.

I'm saying you have come out with a precise or or a more precise conspiracy that your book seems to claim to expose the I don't think the thesis of the book is at all well stated in the title. In fact, I would say esoteric Hollywood then follows with basically, here's all of the reasons why esoteric hollywould exist. Once you already accept that it exists, here's all of the things you see from it.

So I mean the book that's not true. No, I mean okay, But but I think you're okay.

Maybe this is a difference in epistemology because you seem to think that there's a way to enter into investigations with neutrality, and I don't believe that there's such a thing as neutrality, Like there's no way to investigate a thing from a purely neutral stance and to determine oh well, I have.

No prior experience of this thing.

Let me then look at it, size it up, smell it, and through the sense data, I can make my final declaration.

As to the truth or falsity of this thing.

Now I'm not against empirical data, but that's a very naive approach to epistemology or how we learn and study things. So again, when I started this track, I did not believe that there was a significant amount of overwriting conspiracy in Hollywood, or that there were powerful cults in Hollywood. That was a later conclusion that I came to after a lot of years of reading on the subject. So I didn't come into it with that. By the way, the book's thesis is just simply that film and that

Essays, and I understand that it just it seems to me I'm not representing the idea that it again, because I already said at the very beginning that it doesn't name names, it doesn't follow the money.

But as far as your point about.

Remaining, I do name names, so I'm not sure.

Sure, yeah, you do specifically which directors were doing what or which movie creators are making for Hollywood and NASA.

There are names definitely in the book.

What I'm talking about is there is no While it implies this grander conspiracy, it doesn't tie all the conspiracy together with a bow, which I don't think you're claiming,

We're tying back into confirmation bias. Again. I'm also not saying that there aren't obvious symbols in these movies, but there are lots of stretches made.

Okay, well, I mean made. You've made a lot of these claims, which is fine. I'm open to criticism, but again, I wasn't conceding that the book was written from my own perspective. I was saying that I think that's a

And I wouldn't say that represents it completely, but certainly anybody who relies on that, as well as other fallacies. For example, in the intro of your book, however, as I think you will find the popularity of my film analysis will lend some credence to the fact that I am onto something.

Now we've got a new fallacy regarding popularity.

So I would say, with that and the other part of the intro that included the and I can find for you, because I've highlighted.

Much of this book, if you'd like, I can find for the.

Yeah, first of all, there's different ways to write different things.

Right, So if I could take a Dostyevsky novel and I could pick it apart for finding fallacies in different characters or even trying to find a foul.

Okay, so this is not strictly speaking a book.

Yes, it is written to expose, but there's different types of writing, right, Prose, you're not going to investigate prose. And I use a lot of prose and a lot of satire, a lot of sardonic type wit and goofiness in the text on purpose. And so I think to try to dissect that as if that was fallacy is a little bit absurd, because that's not.

No.

I'm sorry if you're trying to call the fact sentence of satirical, I mean this is you literally setting up the book. Your next sentence is actually where the confromise nation bias comes in. Thus the reader will travel with me on a mental journey into the psychosphere, understand the semiotic system I use, and in turn be able to interpret the film in a deeper esoteric sense of their own.

You're setting You're saying it's.

A fallacy because I said my book, my analyzes are popular, and it's onto something. So you're going at a prosaic, popular, gave it, creed.

Each other, each other, finish ahead.

Yeah, yeah, but yeah, I'm not.

When you write an introduction to a book, you're not always making an argument.

Do you not understand that?

Yes, I understand, I understand you setting yourself up for again, it's the intro to the book asks the reader to skip a lot and skip straight forward to here's my analysis. Now, I'm sorry if you guys are getting win stuff, but my outside just went like crazy. But here's here's where I'm at. Now I need you to start where I've already gone. You don't even make a quicker or a quick case for here's this, here's you've done more so in this.

Actually, actually I include I include a film scholar at the very beginning, quoting Orson well so that the first quote is about Orson Wells talking about genre and the way genre affects our perception. And then I go into talking about uh, semiotics.

And and and and Yeah.

I don't have no problem admitting that I have presubpositions and I come to the table with my own biases. But again, I think we all do that. And I mean again, you could your your approach could have pick apart any work of literature. And this is I grant you that my book is a little bizarre because it's also and that's that's part of the appeal, by the way, is that it's not just academic, it's not just written in a popular level. It's it's a kind of a

I would say, Yeah, perhaps, I think I think you're you're saying that it does rely on a lot of presuppositions, so sort of makes my point for me, which is that those pre but I will continue that point that those presuppositions aren't justified well enough by your one quote that you were talking about at the very beginning, which precedes it by a few paragraphs, to ask the reader to make those presuppositions themselves.

And because it just sort of goes on.

I think there are a lot of people who will read this book and naturally make those presuppositions.

In fact, I think this book at times makes.

It Neil Degrass Tyson.

This sounds like Neil Degrass Twicon trying to dissect interstellar I mean this that's not the context of what this is. This is not a book that's just about me trying to prove my case to you, as if it was a you know, a law setting with the judge up there, and can I prove my case to you?

I mean a lot of people are not going to.

Book means to expose, doesn't mean to prove.

Are you Are you aware that there's different ways to go about exposing things. I mean, not everything has to be done in a a legal court case situation. And by the way, here's a little, a little, a little advice for you. If if you want to have a book one day, your editor is going to tell you this needs to be written. I'm not being a dick. I'm just saying, like what you'll go through. Your editor will say, you've got to write this in a way that is going to be fun to read, and people

Of science facts or something like that. It's not going to work.

I wonder if you would encourage me to this future editor, if I write this future book, to not write a book based on so many large presuppositions that I won't have in common with many of my readers, but ask them.

You haven't specified.

I mean, I'm sitting here with like fifty books around me that that basically back up any claim that I've made, and you've not specifically told me anywhere that I'm wrong. You basically just said that I've had presubpositions. But we all have presubositions.

So what? So where am I from?

I haven't read just a second Steve, I think, did you want to kind of tag tag into what? Because I think we're kind of getting to the point where we're going just you know, kind of going to servers a little bit with the back and forth. Steve has kind of a thing to tag onto that I think, to Jimmy's point, I believe, well.

Yes, sort of. I mean, I mean, I'm actually kind of the way Jay's describing it, And again I have not read anything by you, Jay, I don't know your book. For the way you're describing things, I'm actually siding with you at the moment on how you did an introduction to your book. I don't see an issue about how you formulated the structure of what was going to be introduced in the book, because you don't make an argument in a an introduction of book. I do agree with

Yeah, this is a book written about the arts. It's basically a culture commentary that touches on a lot of different genres. So, like in the first chapter and then the first sections, we're dealing with specific Kubrick films.

And I pick Kubrick just because he's so.

Prominent and relevant, and he does, you know, pretty obviously pack his films full of a lot of symbolism. So when I investigate Eyes White Shut, I look at Kubrick's experience, what we know about Kubrick, things he talked about in interviews. I look at the way that he places the camera.

I come from.

And that's why when I write about eyes white shut, I'm tying it into you know, the the Tom Cruise connections to scientology. You do have the parent you know, reference to the sea, the sea or soldier there. In Nicole Kidman's sex Dream, you know, there's references to the Garden of Eden in her sex dream. We have the

So is Kubert trying to tell us something?

I think so, I don't think that's much of a stretch, especially given all of the news that's coming out about Hollywood in the last several decades that this has been a real problem in Hollywood.

So did your book mean to claim that it is exposing that and it is the one exposing it, because it sounds like we're My main disagreement with you this is getting lost is how it's being treated like it's exposing something new and then and at times that seems to be the case, and then at times it seems to be. Really I'm just summarizing the fifty books behind me. So where is it landing on the exposing a new truth?

I mean?

Or is it just the summary of other exs this?

No, I mean, I think I guess the fact that the book was successful and has you know, over one hundred plus five star reviews, means that it's not a piece of ship book and it's not just me regurgitating what the other people said.

I mean.

To be a successful writer and to have the book made into a movie, excuse me, into the TV show, I think it requires a little bit of skill. It's not just regurgitating. So that's a little bit of a low blow, but that's okay. I can take it just given I just answered your question by saying that the book is a bunch of different kinds of things. So you keep asking, I'm getting is it an expose? And I'm saying there's an element of expose, So no, it's not.

To you understand that it seems to represent itself with a title like Esoteric Hollywood, as though that is what it is, and that that is what Most people, by the way, are aware that.

You can be an interesting Are you aware that you can't the cover and then to and then to sell books that helps to have sex in the title.

Yes, I agree, is that I actually the sex quire?

But that part's true.

Let's go beyond the cover that the introduction seems to imply.

I agree that it has that it's going to be a book of a great expose A do you acknowledge that that is I think commonly among the people who are going to buy your book thinking they are going in about to read about the exposure of something that wasn't presently obvious, and that that actually wasn't the intention of the book, or that it's the intention of the book was many many things.

It sounds like, well, everybody, do you feel you've answered that question?

Everybody has the title.

I think we're kind of going back and forth on this a little bit. Jay, let me try to rephrase this a little bit. How much of your book do you think is speculative and how much do you think is actually factual? As far as your conclusion that we all think we all agree to symbolism in Hollywood, I don't think that's even a controversial thing, and then it can all agreed book I.

Disagree with book.

Yeah, but that's a great question.

I would say again again, I mean, I try to any of the times that I make a claim that I think is substantiated, there's a footnote. So again, there's three hundred and sixty three footnotes throughout the book. And yeah, again, in terms of interpreting symbols, they're polly valent. So there's always going to be an area of fuzziness when it comes to exactly what it means, because, for.

Example, I don't always know Kubrick's intention.

I don't know the set director's intention, I don't know the cinematographer's intention.

And again, I mean.

I wouldn't be in a documentary with you know, Shan Stone and Oliver Stone if there wasn't something to it. I mean, they read the book, it resonated within, and I'm not making an appeal to authority that they're but I'm saying I've talked to a lot of people who are in Hollywood, so it's not just me speculating. It's also people who who are Hollywood insiders and famous in Hollywood have read the book and liked the book quite

How is Oliver Stone in real life?

I'm just curious. I haven't spent a lot of time with him.

I've spent a good bit of time with Shanstone, and you know, I was in that documentary with Oliver. But I think Oliver's a smart, smart guy. I think he's I don't agree with all of his political opinions, but you know, I think he makes really good films at times that have been pretty conspiratorial.

That's one reason I like him is.

That he's not afraid to delve into Hollywood conspiracy and history conspiracy and actually one of the things that prompted the book was I took a college course.

One of my film classes was.

Hollywood history and the point of the class was to compare historical events as best we can trace them with the way Hollywood represented them.

And there was a fascinating.

Class, and quite obviously a lot of those were Stone films. So that was kind of what produced me to the real Oliver Stone canon of films. And I think he's pretty phenomenal in that regard. But you know, this is a working premise that Stone has, so you know this wasn't all just my idea. You know, he gives a lot of interviews where he talks about the same kind of stuff, very critical of American foreign policy.

That was the point of a lot of the war films.

But but no, I spent more more time hanging out with Sean Stone than.

Oliver brought something up. I love he's very good, no question about it. But you brought something up earlier. Maybe we can dive into a little but you had actually mentioned something about these symbols being from a hermetic approach. Why do you think these symbols are out there from a her medical approach? To what to what consequence, What is the goal of these symbols existing for that reason in these films?

Right, That's another thing I would say is determined by context. So sometimes there's directors who are pretty self consciously interested in her meticism, and they're open about it they put in their films. I mean, Darren Aronofsky, I've done a bunch of analysis. I don't think any of his analysis made it into the first book. But you know, Aeronofsky is pretty consciously influenced by Cobbolism.

You know, he talks about that. It's very clear, I would.

Say in most of his movies, especially something like The Fountain, I think, or his version of Noah, which was influenced by cabalistic tradition about Noah.

A lot of other directors will talk about it.

You know.

Kubrick I think, has a lot of esoteric symbolism in his films. There's a quote by Kubert where he talks about it, and he's a little ambiguous as always to keep that air of mystery as to what his real views are on these things. But I would say, again, the purpose of why you would use alchemical symbolism could be manifold.

So a lot of people in Hollywood are part of Freemasonry.

That's pretty easily verified, and Freemasonry has a pretty wide scope of symbolism. I view it as kind of another version of again like intelligence agencies. If you look at the history of Freemasonry, it's really the British Empire's extension of its spy network. There's a famous book, Jacobson, Builders

Between these two entities.

And then you have in Hollywood again a lot of Freemasons. So when you watch movies that self consciously I would say, are Masonic, a lot of times there's Masonic symbolism quite you know, like self consciously, the square and compass.

This comes up in films quite a bit.

It's therefore a reason and it just depends on the context as to what that reason is. But I would say, like if you're watching a film like something, trying to think of something that's specifically alchemical, I would say, I would say two thousand and one is an alchemical evolutionary notion of apotheosis that that man will evolve to being star child. I don't think that's too controversial.

Arthur C. Clark, you know, says that's that's.

The normal way of viewing that movie, right right.

So I would say in that sense, alchemy could be read as the story of man's progress from ape to you know, divinity, and that can be read alchemic. That's the great work of alchemy, according to some alchemists.

Jimmy, do you want to do Yeah?

Yeah, So is the purpose of presenting the idea of ape to man to robot figure in the future is that I don't understand what the correlation is with the motivation for the conspiracy. Are we talking about trying to program people to believe in evolution, which definitely is something you reject later in your book. In fact, you call Richard Dawkins and his cult silly, their classical notions of

Yeah, absolutely, I think that. I argue, if I recall from that section, that people like H. G. Wells have had a lot more influence in determining people's perception of their origins than any sort of scientific diatribe.

And certainly scientific diet tribes can have an influence, but I would say somebody like HG.

Wells has had a lot more influence than somebody like even Dawkins, because ah C. Wells has just been It's hard to believe the degree to which he influenced so many storytellers, so much science fiction, so much of Hollywood.

Spielberg, right, you know.

Spielberg makes movies dedicated like you know, he remakes War of the World. I mean, obviously, yes, it's a cash cow, but but a lot of these people are not just doing cash cow stuff. There's a famous white paper from the Brookings Institute from the sixties. I can get the book if you want me to. I'll tell you what it is, but they'd studied the effects of promoting the

In fact, i'd always try to debunk.

Them that you made that point in the book as well, that you don't believe. I mean, it seems like you don't even believe in the possibility of life being anywhere on Earth. And you even I don't know how this exactly ties into the book, because it did. It seemed

It came from, would also be of natural origin.

Yeah, and that's because I was making.

The point I was making was that Dawkins is very hostile to the Christian idea of theism generally speaking, but not hostile to the idea of aliens.

And I find that laughable personally.

But why do you find that laughable? One of those has a natural explanation.

The other thing I would say is that that section is not there out of place.

It's not out of nowhere.

That section is there because that chapter was dedicated to talking about the influence in ag Wells. And one of the things that hgu Wells influenced a lot of people towards was scientific naturalism, right, And I'm very critical of that. I have countless debates and and essays critiquing naturalism. So to answer what you just asked, No, I don't find that to be a more naturalistic explanation at all, because naturalism itself, that I think is philosophically indefensible.

We can we clarify, just for purposes of clarification, are you talking about ontological naturalism or mythological naturalism or both?

I mean in the metaphysical sense that what exists is essentially material.

Reduction. So with that.

Regard, then you would not see any distinction in how laughable the claim of panspermia is compared to the idea that some chemical process on Earth without any sort of asteroid bringing it from somewhere else, resulted in a self replicating molecule that was able to adapt over time and

Richard Dawkins is saying.

No, I find them both laughable, okay.

And so, and I'm not gonna I won't bring it back to the point of the introduction, because it seems like everybody was tired of talking about now. Later on in the book, it again seems like the way you choose to use language is to establish things without context so that they go straight to the conclusion of Because a lot of people, when they do hear pansperm me at first, that does seem absurd and crazy. And I'm not going to fault you for not creating every distinction.

That's That's what it comes down to it. Look at it this way.

Just these things as silly, and you get my book completely and as long as.

You commit to I mean, it will be a super dope weed trip.

I have a whole bunch of essays that are written from the vanta's point of arguing and confirming a case in a strict logical sense. So, for example, I have a paper on uh, transcendental arguments and relationship to numbers. Okay, I have papers on number theory, right that those are strictly logical arguments. They're not written in the style of

Sure, and it's largely spective and that part's fun. And I don't. Again, I don't disagree there's this.

I don't.

I'm not agreeing that lots of the thaims you're making actually come to that end. But I do think that the symbols oftentimes were used purposefully.

However, not for the.

Ends of of sort of brainwashing a society into being either accepting or an unaware member of this cult.

Because again, then.

You you need only change which lends you look through to make the exact same case for literally anything.

So the problems I have.

Are these where let me make, let me make let me put this to you in an easy way. Do you know what ethnography is I'm not I'm not, you know.

So if you read about the CIA, what they'll do is that when they go into any culture to try to figure out what's going on to manipulate it, they'll do ethnographic studies.

This is one of the major things that the CIA does.

So Margaret Meade and people like that there classic is that I'm not saying she was working with the CIA necessarily.

I think she was part of other.

Philosophical groups, but a lot of anthropologists have actually been working for the CIA, and what they do is they produce studies that are called ethnographies, and what they'll do is they'll figure out everything in a people group, down to their linguistic idiosyncrasies and how they'll pronounce things in a strange way. And the reason that you do in ethnography to that extreme extent is to figure out how to engage with that culture and how to move.

Them in the direction that you want.

So again, this is something very easily verified on the part of the CIA, and I think if you think about their perspective of America and how they would like to sway American opinion, you know, with people with so many people in media that have come out of the CIA, Robert Behar, Anderson Cooper, well known people. There's I don't think it should be even contentious that they're going to look at film. They're going to look at those kinds of things in the same way to try to sway opinion.

So so again I'm just not saying, let.

Me, let me interject, it's not as good where it stops. Go ahead, because we're hitting close to the.

Right the ninety minute mark, and I think this will be a good time to there's some questions that the people in the live chat have. We're going to get to those real quick. I have a couple of my own. Mine are always the questions that I always come up with our silly based though they're just having to be random questions that I think about as we go along. Since you're a conspiracy theorist, person while we get while

Kyle speak's conspiracy you're talking about, Like, Like, I've read Graham Hancock's book on that and I thought there were some interesting things, but I don't, Yeah, I don't, I don't have.

I don't have a committed opinion on that. I don't know.

I thought.

I thought the book was interesting, but.

But yeah, it is interesting.

I don't.

I don't go as far as as as he does, like in terms of because he's got some out there, but like beliefs in terms of the Annaki and the beer and all that.

But it's just the Sphinx that I buy into I'm I'm sold on the.

I thought the map, the peri RAS map chapter was interesting and the lay lines are interesting, But you know, I don't I don't have any committed opinion on that.

It is odd how everything is on that one line around the globe, how every mega structures.

Another question is, uh, do you think that.

The with with the way that the CIA and FBI operated in Hollywood, do you think that had any kind of effect on what happened with Marilyn Monroe? Would you say that kind of you know, did she get caught up in something that she was taken out, you know, because a lot of people say that she was killed she did an overdose.

I think that's very likely. I mean, she did work for the Department of Defense. That's verified. You can look up her DoD badge that she used.

She was a.

Frequent visitor to Laurel Canyon Studios, which, if you're familiar with my book, I put that in there from Dave McGowan's book. So that was a secret Air Force studio, by the way, which wasn't really known about until pretty recently. That and I went and visited this place firsthand, by the way, So I have empirical evidence. I got a picture right out in front of it with my girlfriend.

And I and that's now Jared Ledo's house. By the way.

He owns the old Air Force studio in Hollywood, which was actually the cutting edge studio of his time. They produced the atomic bomb footage and everything. So Laurel Canyon is a good thing to look at for older Air Force CI a collusion with Hollywood, but I would say

I think Britney Murphy was probably killed.

Kyle, do you mind if I ask a couple now that we're on the committed or the conspiracy's topic, because because you bought them.

But sure, I just want to say that sounds like that that's such a jered thing to do.

Oh yeah, yeah, it's a full house too. It's awesome.

OK.

I'm curious if you have a committed opinion on You brought it up, but you already said that that wasn't a representation of any You weren't committing to anything on the moon landing, conspiracy or the studio. I want to know if you have a committed opinion on the moon landing and the use of the studio. But as you do in the book, at least mention I'm pretty sure you say that some of the footage for sure was done from the studio. But if I'm wrong, correct me.

I don't mention any specific studio.

I say that I think it's likely that it could have been Lookout Mountain or something like that. But no, I tend to disagree. I tend to doubt the images and the photography that we've seen. I find Dave mcgawan's book Wagging the Moon Doggie to be the most convincing. I don't really go into the look at the angle of the shadow on the flag, or rather, what Dave does in his book is just source it from NASA's own claims over the years, claims of different astronauts over

Do you believe we.

Ever even if it, have we ever been in the moon?

Right?

That would be the simple I.

Have not seen I've not seen anything that that's convincing.

Uh.

And I know that may sound out landish, but when.

You look at the the the possibility of you know, what is it two hundred and something thousand miles has been a while since I've looked at the moons that you two hundred and forty two hundred thousand and then back.

I mean, have you ever have you ever driven?

Like?

No, But I also haven't driven at the speed of a rocket.

Yeah, I wasn't going that fast. Well, if if if we do go back to the moon, yeah, planning, I know that, But would it be devastating to your your pistological framework if, for example, the Chinese went there, and would you then say, oh, yeah, we've probably been there before or matter.

I'm just making my claim based on you know, what's in Dave's book and and what I when I look at those images and the idea of playing golf on the moon, I think that's other utterly preposterous. I mean, you have this life threatening situation, you have a life threatening situation, and the and the I mean that's the that's most obvious to me. That's that's uh, that's cold

Just say, wait, guys, I think we need to I think we need to to table this because this this sounds like a.

I've been wanting to.

Always kills the fun.

I'm just going to say one thing. I didn't really have any commitment on this position. I believe aerospace is real. I believe rockets are real. But I find I find Dave's book, which you can get free pdf online Wagging the Moon Doggie.

I find it to be pretty convincing.

So if anybody's read that book and they're still defending it, uh, I think the jokes on you.

So what about the debate that I've wanted to have eventually since we started the show.

I can't never find anybody that's willing to, uh to.

Come on to defend the position that we didn't go to the moon. So I don't know if you if you ever want to come back and do that, that would be excellent. But guys, if you're out there and you, uh, you don't think it went to the moon, getting in contact with us because I would love to. The space debates are my favorite, Like I get all into those.

So maybe this is this is not something that that's that important to me.

Really, Yeah, I mean, I mean, yeah, I don't. I don't think we should put him on the spot if that's really not what.

He but but yeah, I mean I could want I can ponder it, and yeah, maybe down the road, Yeah.

I'd like to know.

I'd like to know if you have an opinion on the size of the universe and the idea that we are seeing stars that exceed millions of years to get the light to us.

It's big, very big.

I don't. I don't.

I don't believe any anything now, anything associated with flat Earth. If that's what you're asking, Do I think that their print picture the pin pricks in a.

In a asking more young Earth?

You know he's asking, I'm actually this is creationism? Is the universe's science? Ponders it to be.

Yeah, well I don't. I don't see that as out of a chord with UH with creation personally.

I guess the way we if you believe the universe originated at the moment of in Genesis, what would then be the explanation for and I don't know exactly the age you believe, so I'll take a million years because that certainly covers if it's only six thousand or ten thousand, anything that's beyond a million years of For the amount of time it takes light to travel, what would be the explanation for that light having traveled over?

That problem?

The problem with that view is that it assumes that you have a fixed point in space and that light is traveling at a consistent rate over the over.

Basically, you have an assumption of consistency, and there's not a.

Way to prove that the ratio or the rate of light's travel has been the same throughout throughout all time. So I think that's highly speculative as well. I think it's one of the weakest arguments for the idea of the expansion of the universe. So in other words, everything has to be expanding in a certain direction, and it assumes that there's a fixed point and there's not.

There's not a fixed point in space.

I mean, it's met the burden of predictive power and being able to actually say, if the Big Bang happened, for occurred, for example, we would find this stuff in this place at this distance, as they did when they measured the background radiation.

So yeah, I mean I don't see that as good.

Well, I mean I've had college astronomy classes, and I know about how they measure, you know, background radiation, and I think a lot of those methods are actually flawed. I don't find them to be very convinced. But that again, that's a whole other debate. I'm not opposed. I'm not opposed to having that debate.

But yeah, Joe, I know I get you, and I think that probably should be tabled for another time on those types of things. It's a kind of a whole off topic kind of thing. And I get that. So we do have we do have questions from the audience, quite a few actions, but try to get as many as I can. But don't get you a question. Please don't take a personally. But I did want to add on your geenographic research. You know, that's that's something that's

Yeah, this gets into you know, different theories about human psychology and how the brain works and how our mind you know, subconsciously picks things up.

Things up. Excuse me?

So, uh, you know, there are certain archetypal forms, and if you study something like the trivium or the quadrivium, which is the classical forms of education, which I'm a big proponent of, you'll notice that there are there are are I believe there are archetypal forms.

So things like.

Principles in geometry like the hexagram or the square, or the platonic solids.

These are things that are very real and they're they're present in nature.

So I would say that it's actually natural to man to be influenced by these things and interpret these things even and almost in an.

Intuitive way without even knowing it.

So, and I think infant infant research has has confirmed this. We've even known this then, this since p P figured out that that infants actually pick things up and can be conditioned, so to speak, whether you want to call it programmed or whether you want to use you know, mass laws of terminology or be of skinner terminology of of uh of conditioning. Condition doesn't matter because it's essentially

But that's a whole other, big, long discussion.

But do you think they have an intrinsic meaning? Do you think these symbols literally have some kind of intrinsic meaning that so they're not descriptivism. It's it's you think it falls under prescriptivism, then absolutely prescribe.

Okay, Yeah, I believe meaning and level. Yeah.

I believe in the reality of immaterial invariant objects and entities.

I believe. Yeah, I believe in a kind of a psychosphere. I mean I had.

Plants.

I mean I'm not a flat Yeah.

Okay, let's see here something. I don't know what this means, so pretty please forgive me, but I'll ask it. Ask Jay his thoughts on number stations. Do you know what they're referring to?

Yeah? I think I can't remember if I mentioned in the book or not.

But I have a couple of essays I wrote in a number stations, and these come out of the Cold War. They were set up, oftentimes by the n Essay and they were basically stations to relay information to agents out in the field. So you would have like a number station set up in say Norway or somewhere in the A lot of these still exist, by the way, and they still put out their signals and they would just put out something like beeps.

Or a song just play on repeat.

And the idea was that during the Cold War, the other side wouldn't know what your code was, and if you wanted to activate a cell in a certain area, then you would put the message into the relay, into the whatever's being sent out. And so like if you watch the Americans that that show on Fax, which I thought was pretty good. I mean, it's obviously Hollywood, but it's based on a lot of real world Soviet Cold

That's how he knows what Moscow is telling him to do.

So that's very real and that still exists in number stations, by the way, play into how we got cell phones and internet and wireless technology because all of that comes out of Cold War cryptography.

It's a badass show too.

Yeah, it makes sense, and maybe maybe Jimmy can kind of wig in this one as well. If this is the case, if you answered the student of the affirmative, but does Jay believe that CIA has an agenda to sway individuals and Satanism? In other words, does JA believe that the agenda is to move people away from God in some way? Do you think there's some kind of underlying thing to move away from a from a deity belief, to promote some kind of either atheism or satan Satanism.

I think that Satanic cults definitely play a role in the CI's overall strategies and plans. I don't know that it's necessarily uh to get everybody into Satanism. I do think they use occult groups and occult ideologies UH to be to be popularized. And I would say, yeah, overall, that does play a role in moving mass populations, but it's certainly not the only.

Ideology that they peddle.

Well in that scenario with Satanism, in that scenario with Satanism include anything that is in direct opposition to Orthodoxy, or would other Christian in other words, would would they be doing so via other Christian symbols, just not the right Christian symbols.

Would that?

I just meant it in a very very precise sense. I wasn't speaking it in the sense of yeah, okay, spiritually speaking, Yeah, we believe that that anything that's not Orthodox ultimately can be used in that way. That doesn't mean that everybody who's not Orthodox is evil or Satanic. It just means that those things can fit into that agenda. I mean, for example, not every Marxist is a Satanist, but I would say it root Marxism is in my view, Satanic,

Okay, I think we got two two.

More tew more questions. Okay, ask him what he thinks of Mark Hamill and Kathy O'Brien, and I'm not sure the relevancy, but we'll ask.

I think I think Luke Skywalker is al Luke is an inceel in the new.

No. Oh no, he's on an island and he's milking. He's milking sister.

So yeah, I mean he probably I was mostly traumatized.

After that.

I wouldn't be done with it. Have you seen my sister.

Kathy O'Brien. I mean, I don't know.

A lot of her claims are hard to substantiate, so I've never really relied on I'm not saying she's a bad person. My girlfriend knows Kathy O'Brien. She's friendly with her, she thinks she's sweet. But I don't have any pro or con argument about Kathrie Oro. I've never really paid any attention.

Okay, and uh, well ahead, Steve, last one, your your mud to state.

My bad. The Alumnimonnadi didn't want me to get this out. He said, how does Jay make the distinction between normal

Yeah, again, I don't try to say that like everybody who like David Rockefeller, if you read his memoirs, he will talk about conspiracies. For example, he will admit I've got his memoirs here somewhere.

Yeah, right here.

So David Rockefeller and his and his memoirs, and I think he's a very powerful, famous individual who's had a lot of influence on American culture.

And then if you look at chapter I've got it marked here.

Chapter twenty seven called the Proud Internationalist, where he basically says that the people who accuse him of conspiracy are correct, and he says that I am proud to be a globalist and not a populist. So he's quite he's quite clear about the goals. Chapter twenty seven Dave Roulers and Memoirs of the Internationalist and their idea to create a global government and so forth. So I would say that David Rockefeller is very open I don't have any evidence

I'm well aware of that.

I'm well aware of Michael Lokino's Temple of Set being more serious about it Satanism. So I think I'm pretty fair and clear in the distinctions that I've made.

So you don't think worship Satan or Jimmy to you, well, the three of us, we're not Satan worshippers to you.

Right, I don't know you guys, so I don't I mean, I assume you do. I don't know.

Answer, I guess, I mean.

And then the last, the one last question, what conspiracy theory do you absolutely disagree with?

I hate the flat earth big time.

Flat Earth is silly. You hear that flat earth is a simple expert guy. He thinks flat earth is born.

I had a like, actually a giant band of them attack my channel one day and just like thumbed down and it was just all a boy kissed me off.

I had a question or something along the same light. That's relevant because it's relevant to uh C I A driven conspiracies. I'd love to know what his if he has a truth riism position, the idea about September eleventh being an inside job.

Oh, absolutely, yeah.

I think that's unquestionable, unquestionable that it was an inside job.

Is that what you're saying?

Okay, sorry, I've I've done word games before where someone asked do you have a position, and I say, yes, I do, and that's where I left it.

So I just made sure you weren't doing the same thing I've done before as a joke.

No, I haven't. I haven't covered it. I haven't covered in a while just because it hasn't come up. But no, I think that was pretty clearly an inside job collusion between Western intelligence, the PNAT group, Neo conservatives, probably Israeli intelligence, and groups like that.

So that's who really did it. I don't think it's been lot and been laden was a long time.

CIA said, So how attached would it be this pooh, are we out of time?

Yeah?

How attached to that? No?

No, no, not you.

I want to know how attached this group, these groups would be to these same groups that exist behind the symbology in movies.

Simpolis.

Well, I think that when I when I do my talks, for example, on global power structures geopolitics, I'm going to cover pretty standard works that that.

Shouldn't really be.

Too debatable, Like you know, we're going to do the big ne Brazienski's Grand Chess Board. You know, he was obviously the guy who created al Qaeda under Jimmy Carter, that's very easy to verify.

I cover uh, his other book.

Between Two Ages, which is written in the seventies and talks about creating basically a giant technocracy.

But the main sort of central work that I focus.

On that answers your very question about power blocks is Carol Quigley's Tragy and Hope. So I have eight lectures on the totality of all thirteen hundred pages, and this is one of the most famous geopolitical treatises of the twentieth century, and he describes, you know, large power blocks, and for him, we live in the atlantisist power blocks. That would be the US, the UK, and Israel, and so they pretty much control the Western world in a

In a large part controls Hollywood.

And we're gonna have to because the same people that created the CIA is the CIA is actually a creation of the Rockefellers and British intelligence. I mean, they're not going the Hollywood's not going to do something different than what this overall power structure wants, which is why, for example, they demonize Russia. Hollywood across the board demonizes Russia, Russia, collusion, Trump, all that stuff.

That's all pretty much top down.

We're gonna have to be wrapping it up. So how about we kind of let you guys.

We're going to have to come back to UH to finish that. Well yeah, hell yeah, that.

Was definitely be a conversation. I'd be way more excited by.

At two hours. But I would love to hear the rest of where you're well.

Can I ask m yeah, oh yeah, yeah, if you want to ask questions, we have a little bit of time for that, that's fine, go ahead, please.

Well, no, I was just gonna say, I was just gonna say, like, have you guys looked at Brazenski or like Jock out to Lee? Like what I do is basically just cover all these guys books and and I mean.

They're they're No, Honestly, I didn't actually read the book. I just like to post it notes in there.

I don't actually, you know, some research, but I don't look at any of them.

I haven't, But I find the I find the uh arguments that like stuff like when I say that I'm not conspiracy seriraucly minded, I still like to hear what everybody's society is. Like, I'm fascinated by the arguments that people put forth.

Yeah, like the last book that them two.

Yeah, that's actually going to be in my new book because there are movies that have geoengineering.

So I'm actually going to include that in the second book.

Right now, I would love to have a chemictry episode.

I'll come on a debate debate that uh.

Right now, I'm covering uh Annie Jacobson's pretty famous book on the history of DARPA, which is Pentagon's Brain. Uh, and there's actually a chapter that gets into geoengineering. Now, she's a mainline journalist, just chronicling the history of DARPA. She's not a conspiracy theorist. So this was actually Pulitzer nominated. So I always try to go from the mainline sources to make my case. That's kind of my whole my whole bag.

You you do your research, and that I can. I thought I can say that you don't don't do your research, that's for sure.

But uh, I find the the the While I don't agree with most conspiracy theories, I still like to hear the the arguments from both sides.

I think it's fascinating to have.

And you know, I don't see why people make such a big deal about having things like the Kim Trail debates.

Are the anti factor, you know, any of those kinds of things.

I think it's it's important to have those kinds of discussions out in the open.

Well, I'll tell you what challenge. Here's the challenge real quick, then I'll shut up. If you go to my YouTube page, there's a list of titled a playlist titled Globalist book series.

And then that's just my arguments from the different geopolitical texts about you know, so called conspiracies that I think are.

Real awesome, and I'll look at I'll tell you what, I'll look into one of yours.

If you at some point check out the Spinks, just.

Go and and read a little bit about the the Sphinks and and tell me what you think I'm I have.

I have people that are.

Point ancient point collector that we have come on here. All of them think that I'm just that shit crazy for bringing up But I think.

There's guys think got bat shit crazy if you think of colors don't exist though, so welcome to my work.

I don't think you're crazy for that.

Yeah, I know, I agree upon this.

I want to say I appreciate, uh, I appreciate the challenge, mister atheist. I appreciate you conducting it in a very civil way that I thought it was a very fruitful conversation.

I liked the critique.

I thought you do have a point there about uh, you know, maybe and then maybe in the second book, what I'll try to do is frame it in a more uh like, let me prove.

My case to you from the outset rather than assuming. So I'll take that.

I think that would be I think that would be important.

And I genuinely don't mean this in any way disparaging, but I do think, especially toward the end of the conversation, uh, where we started talking about other stuff, now, I would almost need that just to get past that. It seems the case that you have at the very least a conspiratorial brain. Not say you embrace every conspiracy, but I have new concerns because of some of the conspiracies you do embrace. So I would want that second, second level

Can I make one more point on it.

So yeah, Well, so the last part of the conclusion was the other thing, the other issue I have with the book that's now been exacerbated by our discussion or

I mean, in fact, again, the positions that I believe now or not positions I was raised with, or not ones that I elected long ago to defend to the death. I've changed my mind multiple times in my research and academic career, so I just have a lot of different interests, and I never came to any of these topics with

You're forced to defend your positions.

You can't just have a thing where you go to the professors when you have to defend your case, and you just say, well, here's what I want my argument to be, and I'm only going to list the.

Sources that I want. Now, the first thing that you do is you debate the other side.

And so the only way that I would have ever changed my mind, I'm just given an existential experience kind of account here.

I'm not saying this proves anything.

I'm just saying that that I think I've been fairly open minded. I've listened to, you know, tons of debates from various perspectives. I don't think science is bad, nor do I I disregard science effects. One of the things that I focused on in grad school was the science of cognition and the philosophy of science. So that's actually something that's very crucial to a lot of the essays

Different philosophy is over over the years.

So I would say I'm pretty pretty open minded to being corrected or critiqued. Otherwise I wouldn't have come to a position that's a so called conspiracy. But I think when you look at big time globalist players and you read their books, and I do a talk on that guy's book and what he says, I mean, that's just research, that's just citing the sources.

I don't see how that's even How can you even.

Say it's a conspiracy theory if you're if you're looking at what Brazenski himself says, and if you don't know Brezenski and how important he's been.

You know, I'm not dissing you.

I'm saying theoretically, if a person doesn't know his important role, then that's really their own ignorance.

It's not my fault.

I won't because I said I would, But I did want to say I'd love to come back.

And do Evolution with you sometime if you're down for it.

Yeah, we could probably fit that down eventually if I can get free, Yeah for sure.

And we definitely want to have you back with Kim Trosty.

But I'm gonna let you guys kind of take us out with uh, something about your your channel, what you've got coming up. And also I wanted to ask Jay when does your new book come out?

Right now, I'm in the process of finishing up the sidebars and the citations, so I would say, and that the best bet would probably be two three months.

Cool.

Yeah.

The only thing I want to add is I think doing made a good critique on that that I think that Jays actually is incorporating, which I think is a brilliant thing, is that you know, your first book had this one specific approach with I, by the way, don't see a problem with I don't have an issue how you approached it at all. But I also think that the second book, if you're going to do it the way Jimmy suggested that says, here's what my argument will be. This is what I want to prove to you. Let

I do want to specify without rehashing the argument.

My argument more to do with whether what the book represents itself as versus what the book actually delivered in that regard, but again not to reactually already imagine them to make sure that that was clear.

Sure, okay, and did you want to talk about the episode? Look before I've seated everything to close it out.

Oh yeah, before we before you end, our wonderful producer who amazingly did such a great job on our audio levels this time. People, you have noticed and they really did a lot of work prior to this episode to get off being normalized, so kudos to you. He will be running an after show on the Great Debate Community Channel, which is the community channel that we all kind of just go to for various things. It will be streamed from the non secord.

To Show Discord.

However, links will be in the video description, so if you want to be a part of that, anybody can join. Just you need a discord, you can use it from downloading it or to go on the web. So go to the non sec non secuor to show discord and be a part of it, or just listen in. But that'll probably be some time between fifteen to twenty minutes after this episode ends. But we'll continue on the carricters continue on the conversation there.

Yeah, okay, Jimmy will start with you just to tell everybody what you got coming up if you wanna plug anything.

And yeah, so obviously my page is mister Atheist. We talk about all the questions that atheists are asked over and over again, especially those ones that are the large misconceptions are made about. So we recently did one called why are atheists so arrogant? We did why do atheists hate God?

It's awesome, awesome, and it's fun.

It is fun. I on this weekend some point I will post.

I was on Steve's show the other day and we had an awesome debate with.

Victor Or Woton and if you guys have seen him in the flatter stuff, I'm not want time. Yeah, yeah, it was all about flatter Earth. It was awesome I'm gonna be isolating just that.

Part of the stream and posting it to my channel uh here in the coming days.

And I know I have another debate coming up, but I can't think of what it is.

But it will be about a topic that is I'm not saying this wasn't a fun topic.

Uh it was.

And I enjoyed a lot of the symbols in the book and going I wouldn't even notice that was in the background. But it'll be something more along than normal things I do, which is evolution, flat Earth, those sorts.

Of things out your boxton I, which I think is commendable though I mean going out to a you know, an area that you're.

Not I mean, Okay, my my goal here, and so I want to make sure this is stated. My goal here was I had a book that I read that I had questions for. I think Jay answered the questions. I don't think that means I agree with him. I wasn't bothered by a lot.

Of his answers. There are a few things here and there.

But my goal here was ask the questions about the red flags I saw in the book.

And I think I think we I think we did that.

Yeah, I mean we come from a I'm a I'm a paradigm thinker.

So my view is I believe in the transcendental argument, which is obviously connected to the idea that all worldviews are paradigms, and so I don't believe in the possibility of neutrality. That doesn't mean I believe that all knowledge or or logic or facts are relative.

No, not at all.

I believe in objectivity, but I just simply believe that ultimately big picture questions are solved by comparisons of paradigms. But unfortunately that also influences the way that we come to books, or we write things, or we do things. And so this wasn't a polemical book. This was a book that was written to be fun. It was written to be conspiratorial, it was written to be kind of sexy, and that's what I wanted for it, and I think

So I appreciate it. And in fact, I think that.

When I read, when I look back and I look at the book because this is actually some of these essays, you know, for things I wrote my twenties, some of them are are years old.

I kind of cringe.

So, I mean, I'm proud of it because it was my my freshman outing. But yeah, some of the some of the chapters are kind of weak. So but that's what happens as you get older and you look back at stuff that you wrote when you were younger.

But hopefully the second book will be a little.

From the book was sexy. It was sexy. There were books if.

I achieved that, I achieve that that's cool, must read now.

Yeah, so as with Boobs Illustrations, Yeah, the.

Second book will be out in the next couple of months. I should have a new TV show hopefully in the works. That's all I can say on that, based on the non disclosure agreement, and I'll be hosting uh Andy Worski's Orsky Lives the foreseeable future. We'll have Ryan Dawson on Friday. So he's of course a big proponent of nine to eleven. Was an inside job, one of the one of the better debaters of that topic. But I think actually we're going to be talking comic books and the influence of

That's great, Well, we'll in the in the description you'll find the links to Jay Channel will also link to Andy Orski so that you can catch that. Uh.

I think that's interesting with the comic.

Book guys, I like that. Oh yeah, of course, mister.

Links are down there below as well. Remember, guys, we'll beat back tomorrow at eight o'clock with Nightmare Fuel on Saturday at eight with Russell Placer from The Athe's Experience and Matt Powell the our our favorite.

Uh what did I say? I keep forgetting my said Steve, our.

Favorite, our our favorite, twenty two year old pastor that wants to kill kids. And it's by the way, but you know what were once they needed Mario needs a screenshot of this. Come on, everybody. Oh yeah, Mari knows the shot over your eyes, the moment.

It over your eye.

Bro over there you go, Okay, both eyes.

Kyle doesn't quite get it, Kyle photo.

Shot stuff yet.

I'm just gonna put binoculars in your

We'll see you tomorrow at Fuck you, missus, We'll see you tomorrow at