Your Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wall Street Window dot Com and listeners like you now Shelly August seventeen, twenty twenty three, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar, and this is the show that you might have been looking for. So Sore's Day it is, and I'm live, but of course most of you catch it further on down the stream and all that good stuff because you like the podcast. Anyways, if you are hearing us live, welcome to it, and if not, also welcome to it. Sore's Day.
Who do I have with me? Well, good thing, because this week I've got Mike Swanson, the guy buy and Wallstreet Window dot Com, the author of The War State, the author of Why the Vietnam War,
a bunch of other books on Amazon. You can find two if you look up Mike Swanson, but those are the ones I always focus on, one of them having a lot to do with the military industrial complex, which, by the way, on the Sunday Show, on Aaron's Show on Sunday, we actually played the entire speech from Mike in order to go back over that and discuss it on Aaron's Show, which I thought was odd, But that was at the request of the caller, so we did that. Anyway,
the image that's a pretty long speech looks like seventeen minutes. It's actually that long. That's not that long if you think about it the whole thing. Well, no, Mike, it's not that long. Think about how long speeches are today, and think about the That was the amazing thing he is. Listening to it and listening to the attitude and the style of speech was
pretty wild to me. The first thing I noted is, Gee, it doesn't sound like the American carnage speech that Trump gave it as an inauguration doesn't. It doesn't sound like Biden, you know, it doesn't sound like George w It doesn't even sound like slick Obama, none of that. Right, It's delivered with a whole different It's obviously from a different time, you know what I mean, even though the problems a lot of them still remain the
same. Uh. You know, people worried about technological advances. What's gonna happen there? Gee, that's not something from the headlines? Is it? Chat? GPT? What's it gonna do to your job? Are you gonna be replaced by AI? Well? You you bring that up. Let me. This is off that what I was planning to talk about. No problem, that always happens. I'm here with us, Mike Swatson's with me, by the way, that's who that is the case. You guys didn't know
Wall Street, Window dot com be and the no go there. Sorry my gun. Oh so anyway, I mean, this is the the technology is running out of control. It's more dangerous than ever. And you mentioned chat gdp uh. You know. I'm just gonna tell a little story that happened to I wrote, you know, an article about someone running for office where I live and they're using to go fund me page to finance their campaign or they were right, and their financial campaign finance filings are out of order.
And I wrote an article about that. But one thing about go fund me, it's not against the law to use it if you're running for office. It leads to a big mess because it's hard to properly keep track of everything. Okay, wait a second. What you're telling me is that if I wanted to, like, say, run for mayor in my town, I could go to go fund me and set it up like hey fund me to
run for mayor, and that wouldn't be a problem. Generally speaking. No, I'm saying it's not illegal, it would still likely lead to problems, which is what happened with the spocal cator there, because you gotta properly keep track of where all the donations are coming from, and go fund me charges fees. You have to keep track of everything. Well yeah, see, now technically would that be a donation or would that be somebody you know giving
you money for a project like go fund like? How does that stand lead Well, if you're a politician and you set up a campaign page and go fund me, it would be a political donation. And if you don't put that on your campaign finance for you're violating campaign finance laws. So anyway, several months ago, someone told me this person's using a Go fund me thing and it's illegal. That's what they told me. And this is a not
very knowledgeable person, a party leader, I'll put it that way. And I went and looked up try to look it up the law, and I couldn't find where it's illegal, and it's it would be a state by state issue too. Anyway, what I did find articles saying it's highly discouraged to use it and by you know, by registrars and voting officials, electrical board officials highly discouraged use it. And this person where I lived used it and
their forms are messed up and so forth. But the jet, the chat GTP connection is that some people that were opposed to this candidate after I wrote my article, were then sending me messages saying it's illegal, it's illegal,
it's illegal. And one of the messages, the person was quoting Virginia state code, okay, the law of Virginia, you know, state code, And in that it actually said what they quoted me was that something like a politician using crowd and it's against the law to use crowdfunding to finance political campaigns. That's what was they were sending me. And it had a link to the state you know, website with all these codes on it. And I'm reading this and a lot didn't click the leak, and when I went to
the page, it didn't have that quote on it at all. It was actually about a different topic. And then I went back to the guy that said it to me and I said, well, I clicked the leak, that's not on the page. Where are you getting this from? And he said, chat GDP, oh boy, so chat GPT showing a bit of a problem here with bad references. Huh see, that's not People do that
to me all the time, by the way. They swear up and down that you know what, this proves you're you're wrong about this or that, And they send me an article and I read through the article, Mike, and this this is common actually right now, and I don't know if it's coming from chat GPT. You might be giving me a new insight into this because this happens constantly where they say, look, man, I'm going to show you something that proves what you just said on your show last night,
last week whatever is absolutely wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. Okay, let me let me see. Maybe I'm wrong, right. I go look and yeah, I'm like, there is nothing connect like what you're saying here. I get that it makes sense that it would be in the headline of this article or whatever, but this is not proving your case. I mean, like literally, they'll say that this person said exactly the opposite
thing to what you just said in an article. Right. For instance, I turn around and I say, look, I'm not quoting this person, but essentially they said this in public. So I've got a hard time believing, right because I'll go, look, it contradicts a previous statement. That's something I point out all the time where somebody says, hey, look I didn't know this person, and then it turns out they had a business relationship
with them. How did you not know them if you had a business relationship with them, especially if both of you are signings paperwork together, you know, and they turn around and they say, no, you know I did business with this person. Here I go, okay, so there's a contradiction. They send me an article and it's got nothing to do with any connection. It doesn't show that I'm wrong. It's it doesn't you know what I'm
saying. It doesn't actually pertain to it. It's loosely something like I mean, were the laws or codes on there even close to something having to do with financing or crowdfunding at all? Uh? Not on the real website. Not on the real website. I mean, have they I don't have no idea how they came up with that. Well, what did the codes have to do with? Because they showed you something technology is, well, it may not be reliable, it may not be as reliable as people want it
to be, you know. And by the way, look, do you get YouTube commercials or did you like get annoyed and picked the premium get the commercials? I'm not paying for YouTube? Okay, good, good, Yeah, yeah, I'm not giving Google a damn dyne. I'll tell you that. But anyway, look, are you getting the commercials about We've got a great business for you? I don't know. I don't what's the business I'm not paying attention? Okay, Well, there's a couple of businesses. You
know. Not only does Amazon have a great business for you. You can do this thing you get past the income blah blah blah. You've seen those right where. Look, all you got to do is set this thing up and through an app, you'll make you know, thousands of dollars every week. All right, there's that, And then there's another one that comes on and says, we have this exclusive thing through chat CHPT, through the through the AI stuff, and it's a business model that you create through them.
And we're not going to tell you what it is exactly here, but you got to come and sign up for a video or whatever, right, and we'll show you how this works. And pretty much the AI does all the work for you, right, So they tell you this and it's like look and then they say, oh, look I just got ten thousand dollars. I'll show you my PayPal screen. And they show you a PayPal screen with this balance, a brand new deposit for you know, X thousands of dollars.
Hey, look here's ten thousand one day, and then there's like a camera effect and then it comes on again. Look today I got to fourteen thousand dollars. And they say, you know, look, we've got business opportunities for you. You can you was the new AI. I know everybody's worried about their jobs, but you can have a brand new business and not too many people know about it get in on it. I get those all the time. So I get that I'm getting a new I'm getting car commercials
now because the car broke down again. But but but I mean I get you know, all that and fast food, and I mean, I'm constantly bombarded by commercials on there. But I find it funny that there's a lot of people out there saying that you could make plenty of money with chat GPT, because this thing is a great force multiplier. It's a great way to uh, you know, increase your productivity, to have it do a lot of the hard work for you, to create businesses for you, to help
you through businesses. Like you've got a business problem, like Mike. You know, we've been discussing you and me and sometimes openly and sometimes privately on here, right, Uh that that you've got a couple of business ideas. Well. What a lot of people are saying is run it through chats EPT and see what chat GPT writes for you. Well, that's stupid. I'm not saying it's stupid or it is or isn't. I'm just saying I don't
know if that works. I'm not gonna try it, but I bet a lot of people are trying it. I know the South Park people wrote a script with it, or part of a script with it. Anyway, did you see that months ago? All right? Well, they they got them set, They wrote half a script and then they let chat GPT write the rest of the script on South Park. Okay, so I don't know, I don't know what to say about it. Well, I'll step back for a second on that. What you just you know, right, they let
the chat GP write the script. I started to get a feeling, like a few years ago that a lot of these Netflix series and productions movies are almost computer scripts. They're so so cookie cutter or something. Yeah, they're so formulaic. The formulaic. Yeah, that's the word for it that I felt. I started to feel like they're just uh, yeah, the formulas are generating these scripts, and it almost feels like even that good they suck.
Yeah. No, it feels like there's a lot of television production nowadays that already feels like because that's the thing, you know that we got that strike going on with the writers, right yeah, And to me, I'm wondering if it's because they know something that we don't, which is that a lot of the alleged writers currently are not real writers, and it's just somebody pitching an idea to an AI who says, look, here, I want
to write a bad guy this way. I want the world to be, you know, in this particular year or whatever, and give me this city, like given, give a few pieces of information, and then here go write me a script. And I'm wondering if a lot of those scripts have not been just generated in that way, and yeah, you save a lot of money that way, if you don't have to pay a scriptwriter, you pay a pitch guy to pitch, to chat and GPT or one of these other ais. And you know, look, you could give me five hundred
bucks a week. I could probably do that one hundred times and I'd sit here and do it. And I guarantee you that would cost you a lot less than having people try to make a living off of scriptwriting and if it works. See. That's the funny thing too, is that Netflix at one point had something like one hundred and six productions going supposedly during the pandemic, right like over one hundred productions they were in some stage of working on.
I'm sitting there going, how the hell do they have that many people employed? You know, doing that just the writing alone, I mean, forget about the actors, and who knows if the actors are being generated. And it's really funny because you know that a series Black Mirror, right, you remember that series? I didn't see that one. What's that about? Oh
you never saw a Black Mirror? Okay? Black Mirror is all about how technology can get out of control, or at least it was a lot of the strange things that we might be doing with AI consciousness and copying people's consciousness and people being way too hooked into the Internet and the virtual world and recording
their lives and all kinds of things like this. Uh from It's it's pretty outlandish and outrageous and a pretty good series, and to be honest, I was entertained by it a lot, but it's been very inconsistent in the last
season that they just surprise put out like like six episodes. Again. One of the things begins with somebody watching and AI generate a script based on this person's life, who is just this person who is like, you know, nobody's special, but they're they're just like, you know, whatever her name is, she just sucks, and they follow her through her life and they're literally generating her life into a Netflix series, like as it's happening through some
sort of AI that is just picking up on one viewer and it's it's a very weird concept. But they recently released this thing, and I'm going, I wonder if that's somebody trying to tell us that, yeah, you just hand parameters to an AI and maybe they are just generating scripts this way. I'm not saying they do all of it. That way. But I mean it wouldn't be hard to imagine, especially with the comic book movies and the
fact that they're just reusing intellectual properties over and over again. That right, look script, you know Genus mentioned Star Trek. I read a book about the originals, you know how ten years ago. I don't I read some book about the making of the original Star Trek TV series. And which one because I read a few of them. Oh, I don't remember the name of it. The one by William Shatner is really actually pretty bad. It wasn't by one of the actors. Well, the one by William Shatner is
really good. It's called Star Trek Memoirs. And he actually goes and interviews a lot of people that were involved in it, and Roddenberry's wife and all that, and gets a lot of the behind the scenes stories and a lot of the lore, if you will, the stuff that we know about the development of the show and all that is well built into that. If you want to get yourself an audiobook copy of it, I'm sure you have an
audiobook subscription or something somewhere. Get that one by Shotton or Star Trek Memoirs. I think it was put out in the nineties. It's very good talking about the original series and a lot of the stuff that they did to get it done. Gene Roddenberry's history as a sickly child to start with, and later on he's working as a cop and he turns around and almost acts like he's going to arrest a studio guy and drops the script in front of him for you know, that's how he gets it to be a TV writer.
All that stuff is contained in that book. But go ahead, tell me about what you read about the making of Star Trek. Well, one of the things I remember was it talked about Roddenberry writing scripts, and he had a book and I bought it. I don't again, I don't have these books sit in front of me, but it said that Roddenberry bought this book about writing plays, and you know, maybe it's written in the thirties or
forties or something. And I went and bought that book and read it, and then I had basically make a long story short for what I remember the most of I mean, you can tell if you really think about it. The original Star Trek shows, they all have a very similar structure to them, the way the story structured that the beginning is very simple to see that, and and each beginning, you know, before the credits start, there's some crisis situation that's revealed. And almost every single episode, I mean,
yeah, you go back into the world of Star Trek. Okay, something goes on where they're now going to encounter an antagonist of some type. Yeah, there's trouble right away of some sort, some kind of problem needs to be handled. And now go to the intro of the show, and then it goes you know, Okay, they lay out the rest of the conflict in detail. You get to get introduced to the antagonist a bit more. What is the solution? Okay, the people involved in the crew have to
get involved in the solution, very Shenani gets insue, et cetera. Conflict resolution at the end lesson basically handled by the crew. They discuss it fade to black. I mean, that's pretty much the structure of the original Star Trek, right, yeah, yeah. And the thing about is we just described a structure you know that's really yeah. I can't think of an episode that's not like that, right, But the thing is, here's the formula.
Here's a structure to every single episode, which is very similar, and yet you don't feel like you're watching something that's generated by an AI bought. No, it's not plain. You're looking for the wrinkles because is this a conflict that is, you know, a straight up military problem. Are they being attacked? Is it a difficulty with There's something they don't understand that's happening, Something weird is going on that might cause danger. There were all sorts
of different elements that came in that came from these different script writers. Some of them were science fiction writers, you know that wrote long form science fiction, right, you know, like Ellefson and uh you know, there was an ASTHMOV script that was supposed to have been adopted. Various writers went in and out and did and added their own little twist of these things, right, So you could definitely see there was some form of dynamic in there.
And especially when you get to the third season, it gets really weird and they're just you know, swapping k Kirk's body with a with a woman for some reason. Uh right, remember that episode, like all of a sudden, he's a woman. Oh yeah, and uh yeah, I mean that episode sucks. I mean it's almost as bad as Fox Brain. You know,
and the spots brain thing where an alien stole spox brain. But somehow they can keep him alive with these you know, like a funky metal almost headphones on the side of his head, right, and he's walking around like a zombie because they got a remote control on him. I mean either way, some of the premises were you know, a bit screwy, but yeah,
yeah, look it was, but it was formulaic. It was based on a formula and it was also based on a bible that that Roddenberry had, Right, here's what you can do with these people, Here's where these people come from. Here's the rules of the world, so to speak. Right, all that stuff was built into what he called a show Bible,
which, by the way, later on you could buy these things. They printed him for the public too, where it gives you all the background, all the history, all that kind of stuff, so that everything could be
consistent even when you brought in new writers. Right. So that's how they kept it in the same realm and with the same structure, but very much based on what they call a teleplay, which meant that, yeah, you had a structure where you had a you know, a protagonist and antagonist, a conflict, conflict resolution, and each of these things will be broken down into acts which were split up by the commercials. Right, I mean that's just the way it was done, yes or no, Yeah, that's right.
Sure. And look, by the way, when you when you go through these writing exercises, I mean, how many people have I heard from that wanted to write their first book? So they get a book on how to write a book? Uh, you know, whether it's a novel or it's a nonfiction book. You can find these things how to write a book, or how to write a novel or etc. How to write a play.
Those books continue to exist even beyond Roddenberry getting his and the thirties or from the thirties or forties and then getting his role going in the fifties and writing in the Golden Age television writing for the Rifleman and the Lieutenant and uh these other TV shows. Right. So it's interesting to see that, and
of course it's it's part and parcel of that. But you're right, you don't get a sense though that even though there is a formula, there's a standard, there's a world established, there are characters established which are supposed to be consistent and all of that, you still don't get the feeling that you're dealing with a cookie cutter. Do you well? That there was a movie I mentioned it once, I know, on your show, but it's what really soured me on this. Told I've Netflix and all these things. It
was a Spike Lee movie. Okay. It came out in twenty twenty, and it was called The Five Bloods Five Bloods. Okay. Yeah, it was a Vietnam movie. And the story was as all these you know,
older actors all black. Deloy Lindo was one, Clark Peters, Isaiah Whitcock, Whitlock anyway, anyway, six or seventies guys, and they're all Vietnam veterans and they're going back to Vietnam today and and they're looking for somehow they there's a treasure of gold buried some you know, one of the battles they were at next to uh a falling officer that they served with, and they're
going back to find this. And so they're in Ho Chi Minh City and going to bars and all this kind of stuff to get up a team and do this supposed mission. And I couldn't watch it for like forty minutes. So this thing was nominated for an oscar and I just couldn't take cliches. It doesn't sound very entertaining. It was awful. It was just complete awful.
So like, for instance, what has to happen, Well, it turns out one of these veterans has has to go visit uh this what's a woman that you know, a Vietnamese lady that she was a prostitute of bar girl or whatever you call. So let me guess he knocked her up and they got knocked of course. You see how I'm guessing she has a black child. You see, I'm guessing these plot points already. Go ahead,
sorry, And and what do you know? Well, now somehow she herself is this wealthy, powerful woman that helps them, you know, get some resources for their mission. And then when they do go out to do to find this gold, there's a old hugheye hellicat that you know that they find out in the jungle. And oh and one of them steps in the land mine that's still active. Oh wow, okay, I have to defuse it.
I just couldn't watch it anymore. Okay, landmine cliche. They're trying to get ahold of a helicopter that's just been sitting in the jungle all this time, but it's still intact. Okay. The woman who was a bar girl who was just trying to make a living and sleeping with soldiers, she has tons of money now so she hooks them up. Yeah, okay, yeah, all right, And I'm getting the gist of this thing already, and I could see how it sucked. Yeah. I never heard of this.
By the way, the last movie that I knew about Spike Lee doing outside of that HBO special on nine to eleven, right, was was what the Black Clansman. Well, yeah, this this was not like that movie I saw that one. That's not bad. That's not a bad movie.
Black Okay, it's like the greatest movie in the world. But but it's okay, and it tells a real story, right, which which I you know, you know me, I'm partial the true history when it comes to watching movies, which is the next thing that you and I are going to get into in a moment. We might take a quick break before we get there. But but the thing is, I love movies that tell true you know, based on a true story or you know, biopics things like this.
I love that stuff. Uh, do you do you you kind of have a soft spot for that too, where you go to see history? Okay, yeah, I thought so you and I have this in common. I mean, if you and I live closer, we might actually go to some movies together once in a while, because I bet there are movies you and I would both want to see, Like like, if they do pull this together, this fourth Star Trek movie, you might want to go see it. Anyways, forget about Star Trek. We're off Star Trek. But
okay, the four Bloods, the five bloods? How many bloods? Five? Okay, this sounds terrible, And I gotta be honest with you. It's Spike Lee. As much as he's celebrated by tons of people. Uh, he's done some very good movies, you know, like Do the Right Thing is a very good movie, sure to me. But he's also done some really bad movies. Uh that that I look at and I go, all right, well, this isn't even cartoony. This is just terrible. I thought he did an adequate job with Malcolm X. Did you ever see
the long Malcolm X movie? Yeah, he did a good job with that, right, And like I said, Black Klansman's good but a lot of his other stuff is awful, and I mean just awful. And I know, you know, at the time he first came out, there was very few you know, black directors and very few black people that ran their own movie sets. That's no longer the case, but at that time it was. He was kind of rare, right in the in the nineties, you know what I'm saying. But nowadays this is not rare. And he's not
even really that good as a director. I don't know. Maybe maybe it's just so I'm looking at his list of movies. Is this five Bloods. This is the last one he's made just three years ago. Well, you know what, and I paid zero attention to it, and it looks like I did the right thing. You know, it just came and went, yeah, good thing. But but it was not. That's happening is because of streaming and aline video. Things come and go and they vanished. Oh
yeah, Like I'll give you a good example of that. You know that, Uh what was it? Everybody waited for twenty years or thirty years almost for what another Uh well it was a Tom Cruise Top Gun, right, Everybody wanted to see another Top Gun movie, and uh, you get it. It was only in the theater a short amount of time and next thing you know, it's on streaming. Tell you something else funny is that I don't care what anybody says. I'm not going to see the new Indiana Jones
movie. Awful. It looks absolutely terrible. And even when people are trying to tell me it's good and trying to talk to me about it, they explained it to anything they explained to me sounds awful, And I'm going,
how do you like this? This sounds absolutely terrible. I get it's an interesting idea that you know, you have this, Uh, everybody loves I mean not everybody, but commonly people appreciate time travel stories right where somebody goes back in the past, you know, the back to the future so to speak. I mean, that's like classic cinema to a lot of people, right because you get to go back in the past and correct something. Almost
anybody's got that wish because we all live our lives with regrets. Boom. That's the entire formula as to why that's attractive and a good hook as a movie. But this whole Indiana Jones trying to go back, I don't want Indiana Jones to go back into the future. You know, I mean, that sounds just incredibly stupid and pointless. You know, what are you gonna
do? I mean, unless you're going to take Indiana Jones back to the time the Ark of the Covenant was constructed so that he can try and you know, take it before we get to Raiders somehow, or at least figure out the rest of the mystery, long before we get to the part where the Nazis are getting their heads blown off by the crazy mystical light show. Yeah. I don't care. I really, I don't care what any you
know, I thought we were done with this Harrison Ford. It's just like they want to squeeze the last little bit out of him before he drops dead. Let's get him back in his Han solo. Let's get him back in his Indiana Jones. Why don't we just make another fugitive movie with him? What the hell? I mean? Yeah, he's really old, but this time he can fly a plane maybe, I mean, come on, it's
just stupid. Anyways, Mike, you know what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna take a quick break because you and I are already doing media analysis and you didn't intend to talk about this tonight, but we'll get into one of your more intended topics after this short break on Ocelli dot com, the Ocelli effect here on a Thursday. Mike Swanson is with me, and we'll be right back to talk about it is slightly more current events, although we did
discuss chat chpt awhile. Anyways, stick around Wall Street, Streetindow dot do go silver, the stock market, Wall Street, Greindow dot dot. You're invested deeply, Perhaps you're not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started Wall Street, Windows, dot com, do dot com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, understood these trends professionally for many
years, and now he gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wall Street, Street, Indow, dot dot go there, now go there, now go there? Now did he was expressed like coiler schools? There anyone else who happens to get on the air. Its only dot com. You'm not necessarily replying views of which we are not responsible for getting stupidity which might dwork.
Hey, look, I actually have a little offer that I want to drop to everybody who's on here and anybody listening if if you don't mind, mister Cooper, I'd like to take a minute and make a little offer and uh and ask of everybody watching, listening and participating. No, all, okay. Look, I am continuously building my little network, and I've got a twenty four seven radio station okay online, it's got a bit of reach.
It's been interesting. I've had it running steadily without interruption for I don't know, five seven years something like that. But here's the thing I would love to get, because some people are going to start paying to run things on my radio station, but I don't. I'm not looking for money here today. Uh well, I mean, you know, I'll take it if anybody's got something they want to give it up, but you know, because I could use it, but I'm not looking for that right this minute.
My offer is simple, Actually, if you have short audios that you would like because you have a presentation of tight five ten minutes worth of something that you think is absolutely worthy of the world hearing. Okay, Because I have listeners all over the world to that radio station. They're not in huge numbers all at one time, but they're constant twenty four seven. Every country you could possibly think of tunes into my radio station at one point or another.
It's not huge. It's not like, oh, I've got millions of listeners, but we do have thousands, and we have thousands of people that tune in and catch get mad with Chris Graves and catch the replays and catch my show, which is the o'chelli effect, and they catch the replaces, and they catch Aaron Fronz as the age of transitions. Pretty soon they're going to be catching the called Priestess on there anyway. And I've got offers to other people to join us, you know, working on it. But here's the
thing. I don't care if you're a podcaster, or if you're a musician, or if you're somebody who's got some great thoughts, so you take the world needs to hear. Do me a favor, record them, make an MP three and send them on over to me. I want to start populating the stream for the next little while with stuff that I'm not charging anybody to run. It's just good stuff. Send me your good stuff, okay,
blind JFK researcher at gmail dot com. Just email it to me. All right, you got music, Maybe you're a musician, maybe you're a podcaster, and you want to do an ad for your podcast because you want other people to listen. You haven't been a guest on my show. Maybe you have been a guest on my show. I don't care. Throw me together a couple of minutes. Tell me why people should listen to you. Tell me why people should pay attention to something else. Why should they pay attention
to what's going on in congress? I don't care. Send it over to me, Okay. I want to populate this with anybody who's got good ideas. Okay, it is outside of them mainstream for the next little while. We'll still run our replays, we'll still run our regular shows, Okay, but I want to see what happens if I open it to everybody. I'm not asking you to pay for ads. And again, you could do an ad for your podcast. You could do an ad for your rock Finn channel.
You can. I don't care. Send me something that is of interest, that moves information forward, that helps to educate people, whether it's your project, your song, your poem, your article, you want, your your a writer you like to write, read me your article, send it to me. Okay, do any of this and send it to blind JFK researcher at gmail dot com. If you can't remember that, go to Shelley dot com, click on the email thing there. It might go to that
email address, it might go to infooto Shelly dot com. We're listening to the Ocelli dot Com radio network Ochili dot com Revelation to Conversation and the second segment of the Ocelli Effect begins now at o'ceelli dot com. But of course you could be anytime, any place listening to us via the podcast Mike Swanson with me Wall Street Window dot com being the no go to Wall Street Window
dot com now. Of course, in the past few weeks, I'm sure Mike has put out articles in his emails that have something to do with, I don't know, the rising cost of just trying to survive here in the US. I think the latest figures, which, by the way, as per usual, underreported saying that what it costs you about seven hundred more dollars a month just to live. Yeah, yeah, I wish, I wish because I probably could have dealt with that. But as I go, things
are not going well. My income goes down, my expenses go up, and yeah, I know, Chuck, welcome to the planet Earth at this time. But by tonomics are supposed to save us, right, Yeah, anyways, that's going on Trump being indicted. What are we up to for? I think we're up to four the ridiculousness of what's happening in Georgia. They're talking about plotting out trials that are never going to get done because there's gonna be all sorts of appeals, resistance motions to separate all that good stuff.
All that stuff's coming up. And everybody looking forward to the twenty twenty four selection, aren't they. I'm pausing for sarcasm, by the bye. Anyhow, all of that is happening, true, but we're not going to discuss that tonight. We would talk about the markets. We could talk about the movements, we could talk about the lack of it. We could talk about maybe it's a good time to buy gold and silver. And I'm still not going for this cryptos crap, by the way, still not doing it.
I know I lost out on a lot of money, but I also lost out on a lot of headache. And oh, by the way, I can't even find the key to my crypto wallet anymore. Maybe you can and maybe you're doing well, and I hope you are, and by the way, more than happy to accept the donation at Ocelli dot com if you
want to help us out and keep us on the air. But back to a guy who does keep us on the air, and a guy who does help us out and also is generous enough to give us his time on a lot of Thursdays nowadays, a few less than it used to be, but every other Thor's Day at least we get Mike Swanson. Next week, we'll have Larry Hancock with us. By the way, Mike, are you gonna
be around next week? Yeah, I'll be here all right. So we'll do a double show next Thursday. Next Thor's Day, we'll do a double show with Mike and Larry, And I've got an interesting discussion with Larry playing. And who knows what'll be on Mike's mind, because I just go with what's on Mike's mind on a day today when he shows up on a Thor's
Day. However, I am interested in something Mike's view on a new movie, because what did we hear about in the news for a little bit when they had nothing else to report and they didn't want to tell us about cluster bombs. They didn't want to tell us about Ukraine, They didn't want to tell us about Trump's indictments. Nope, just before the rash of Trump's indictments,
they released Oppenheimer and Barbie to the movie theaters. And apparently this was all the rage and all anybody wanted to talk about and Oppenheimer, it evokes some interesting thoughts in my mind, just the title alone. But Mike, a historical piece. I just asked you a last segment. Do you like historical movies? Do you like things that are based on real history, real people, biopics? And I already knew the answer. Of course you do.
Like I said, you and I could probably go to some movies together. Oppenheimer, I would have loved to have gone to the theater with you because I would have loved to see what you thought and what I thought afterwards. Even who knows, we could have made a whole podcast out of that. But instead, Uh, tell me about it, man, what did you think? Obviously you didn't go see Barbie, and I'm not going to ask you about that, because if you went to see Barbie, Mike,
Uh, unless you have a niece, somewhere. I don't know about that you had to take to the theater. I'd be worried for you. So I know you went to see Oppenheimer. What's up? I mean? Is this a good movie? I haven't seen it yet. Is it a decent movie? Is it something worthy of me going and finding a bootleg weight of you? Uh? Tell me about it? What do you think? Oh? Yeah, it was really it was really a well done movie. And
uh, it's it's really worth watching. Okay, So historical background, this is a key figure in developing the Manhattan Project, right, which is all about charge the Manhattan Project. The scientists and charged the man at project.
Leslie Grows was a general who created the pen He was in charge of building the Pentagon, and when that was complete, they put him in charge of, you know, the Manhattan Project as far as getting the resources, doing the engineering and the military men and Oppenheiger picked a team of scientists across the United States to help, you know, figure out how to build the atomic bomb. Now, two years ago I went back and read a book.
You know a lot of people conspiracy world always talks about it. But the Carol quickly tragedy and hope book. I had actually read it when I was like twenty years old. When I went back and reread it, I was gonna say, you read it when you went to college, right, yeah, I was community college, but when I read it. But anyway, but reading it a second time, he has a whole section of the book devoted pages of the book, a big, big, big portion of it
devoted to Robert Oppenheiher. In the nineteen fifties, he lost his security clearance due to accusations that he could have been a communist. Okay, well, yeah, let's let's pause for a second here, because this is significant couple
of things. One, you have various stages of Oppenheimer right where he's like a secret hero in US history, and part of the official story about how the bomb was created, right, the thing that helped us win World War two, according to legend, and the thing that was developed through the Manhattan Project. Now I suspect, Mike that that maybe that's not the whole story,
that maybe that's the official story they share. I'm almost certain that this was developed, you know, probably with some some let's say stolen information. This was developed you know, by scientists, maybe in other parts of the world. Simultaneously there were other things going on, but there was an American operation. This guy was at the center of it, and clearly somebody was in a sensitive position, if indeed that story is even remotely true, right,
the official narrative. And then later, just like many many, many others, is dragged into the McCarthy era where it's like, right, and so during the war, would I say he's in charge of developing it. He was more like a supervisor of the other scientists. And with the movie shows and I actually, after reading the Quickly thing, I actually read the
book that this movie is based on. Right, So I had already read it, you know, a year or two ago, but because the Quickly stuff is so interesting to me. So to make a long store short, before the US entered World War two, Oppenheimer was a left wing fella, and he was he He didn't join the Communist Party, but he would attend beings that had Communists there, which at the time, you know, in
the nineteen thirties, wasn't that out of the ordinary. Well, there was a lot of wild things going on in the nineteen thirties, and not the least of which was the American boomed. Uh, you know, the German organization, right, and and there was another, uh, the Silver Shirts society there that guy in Hollywood created. There were literal Nazi parties in the US. There were literal Communist parties in the US. Uh. There was a wide range of things that you would think wouldn't exist today at all,
right, because nobody would ever let that get away, you know. I mean we got extremists now, but they're not like this where it's like, hey, you know communism Nazism directly, But that existed in the thirties, So I mean you had a greater amount of access. I mean literally, by the way, the Nazis had a rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City in the nineteen thirties. That's a true story. Uh, you know what I'm talking about, right, the guy called Yeah, yeah,
people should look that up. It's there's a video of it called Night of the Garden. You just typed it in on YouTube. So what happened to the Oppenheiger? The basic story is yeah, I'm just saying though, that he had access to a lot of things that would have been a lot more wild politically than you might see today. And literally this is about people getting together. It's not Facebook pages, folks. I mean, yeah, yeah. You go to homes, you go to beings, you go to a
big hall. Uh you know, maybe somebody rents out a high school gym locally, or it gets bigger, you might rent out a small indoor sports stadium, a basketball arena. Whatever. People got together and actually had you know, little rallies and discussions and open forums and demonstrations and yeah, it was it was a little bit of a different time period. So this guy, of course, he goes to a couple of things that are more far left than he is. Uh maybe, and uh yeah. So so this
is what made him suspect, I guess, and he was. That's what I want to get at. What what triggered what really made him suspect. So once the tomic bomb is dropped, he becomes, you know, celebrity, his pictures on Time magazines, in the media of the place. You know, the scientists invented the bomb, so to speak. Well, he's a hero because exactly, and World War two quickly that that's always been the big legend, right, is that we dropped the bomb on Japan. Even
though by the way, the savage bombing of Tokyo and another city. Well, that's a whole lot more, whole other topic. Well, but in truth, I'm just bringing up some context here is that the fire bombings that were done by you know, by a guy named LeMay by the way, uh, you know, we're a whole lot more devastating, caused a lot more casualties, caused a lot more death straight up than even the nuclear bombs.
But the nuclear bombs, the atomic bombs excuse me, that were dropped you know, big Man and Little Boy or whatever the hell they called them, those were the big headline that ended the war, right, The Japanese surrendered because we bombed them, and although it was the most horrible thing ever loosed on earth, it was necessary to end this horrible you know. Speaking about the bombings, the movie in one sense is sanitized because they showed the
trinity test, that's the test of the first bomb. But there's not a single image of the destruction of nagasakr Hiroshima at all. You see, there's a scene where Oppenheimer and some scientists are looking at footage of this buttbably film. You probably look at their their faces and the flashing on their faces. Yeah, yeah, but you don't actually see the images. And I gotta say, I got a book I bought a couple of years ago that is
full of pictures of those two bombings that had never been released before. And what happened was after the bombings happened, the military, the US military sent people there to take pictures and to study, you know, what happened to these people that survived basically, well any whole other stories. Well, anytime the military has used any sort of weapon, especially if it's considered to be quote new end quote, they always send people to study what the results were
once it's been used, right and after action report what happened. So this is normal, all normal, but interest thing that they didn't show any of that they probably showed the launching of the Enola Gay right like where they showed, they didn't do that. I see. These are my guesses because I didn't see the movie, all right, but we'll go ahead. No,
they didn't show the picture to make the arc of this Oppenheimer quick. So after the war, after the after World War two ends, he becomes very fearful of a coming arms race and there's an aborted you know, he tries to encourage control of the nuclear weapons, not you know, just to prevent an arm race, to have international control of of the weapons. And there
were other scientists interested in that. Of course it went nowhere, and then several well, the other scientists they wanted to develop the hydrogen bottom okay, and Oppenheimer was against doing that and tried to work behind the scenes to not develop the hydrogen bomb and to put you know, limit the arms race basically. And that's was in the Quiggly book, which was you know, I know quite a lot about the Cold War, and that was a story he
was making really important and significant. And what the way he described it is that, you know, obviously the Air Force wanted the development of the hydrogen bomb, and Oppenheimer was aligning himself with some people in the US Army who
actually didn't. They were just assume, well, we can just use these atomic bombs and they're like tactical nuclear tactical atomic weapons, uh, you know, use artillery or whatnot, and we don't want or need all these massive hydrogen bomb size explosions, and and and and it was really the Air Force that was driving that. So this so they end up creating a scandal and using this issue of communism, to revoke his security license order to discredit him
completely. Well, it would have been right, Yeah, it would have been useful to undermine a guy who's saying, look, let's stop and think about this a little bit instead of escalating the weaponry, because there are some people that would say, look, what we need now is this is where the phrase the doomsday weapons come into play, because there were people that said, look, and we can figure out a way to wipe out a city,
why not wipe out a whole country in one shot. We can always hold that as a threat, and we have it, you know, and we have it even if we don't have to use it, some people would say. And then other people would say, well, maybe we do have to use it. We might have to wipe some scourge off of the planet, so maybe we'll need it to absolutely obliterate an entire section of the planet.
And some people might have said, hey, hold up, stop, And those that wanted to benefit from that, those that wanted that development, that wanted the bigger bang, so to speak, would have sought to undermine him, especially if he was publicly out there saying, look, this is dangerous, this is a problem. I mean, if the public wasn't made
aware at all. They probably could have went about their business and developed whatever they wanted and people would have never even known that they were supporting the development of bigger and badder bombs, right, and bigger and badder things. And so his efforts obviously maybe that this is exactly what happened. They decided to discredit him. Now that's an interesting story, not just because of Oppenheimer, but it also shapes a huge portion of the character of the Cold War and
what is to follow for the next half a century. Mike right? Or am I wrong? Oh? So the way I described it to is very detailed in the in the book this movie is based on. Also, however, I don't you know the people governess movies' how long was that movie? Two hours or it was it was close to three. And you know what this issue I just described about motivations about weapons development as a reason to acts, you know, to do this to create the scandal. People watching the
movie wouldn't know that. I mean, I know enough of the details of the history that I can see a couple of things that they refer to real briefly, just skip right by the screen and know that's what they're referring to, but the people watching the movie would have no clue. The way the way this is presented in the movie is that it's a personality clash between Oppenheimer and another scientist that you know, is the main person that gets him off
the you know, creates the scandal. But it doesn't say anything about who he's allied with, you know, in any way that any one can understand it well the way the movie head so, the way the movie presents it is that it's just this very personal sort of conflict as opposed to yeah, yeah, okay, well but that makes sense because they might take that one person that they're using there and try and have them represent so to speak.
This is where you take a little bit of creative license with a movie, right You turn a character into a composite or a representative of a bunch of other people, and he could be representing in an artistic way. Uh, the the the pushback against the guy, which makes some sense to me.
Okay, but but if you're watching this movie and you're not well read in and you only have a vague understanding, and you're going to this movie to learn something new, what you're telling me is they're leaving a lot of stuff out. Huh yeah. Yeah. Another another issue is and you touched on it already and it's really not touched on in the movie at all, or I would say a misleading way, okay, is the question of worth tomic bomb dropping on Japan was even necessary and the war? Yeah, that's a
supposed debate. Now now they accurately quote Oppenheimer, they do show that there are scientists that developed atomic bomb with that ract. She didn't want to drop it on Japan. They tried to get a letter to the I think the Secretary Defense, but uh, Oppenheimer didn't didn't carry it to him. Well, my understanding is Oppenheimer was on board with using it, was he? Or yes, okay, he was on board for using it. Now his
reason wasn't in the war though. His actual reason was that if the weapon is used, he thought people would realize how terrible it would be and then they would never want to use it again and be scared of it. Yeah. See, that was that was the double edged thing that was presented. I think Quigley's book presented that idea. The first place I ever saw it is the idea that he had the concept in hand, they'll see the terror
of this weapon and two things will result. One people will say, well, we better not do that again one and two people will say, holy crap, the US has this, and that would actually ensure that people would not screw with us, basically because it's like, hey, look they got
that. Well that yeah, that wasn't Oppenheimer's idea. That was the idea of his mind slipping me now, one of Truman's closest advisors, whose Secretary of State at the time, that was his real idea about why to use it was that if we use it against Japan, that would basically help us shape how the post world will post war world would be, in particular intimidate the Soviet Union. It didn't really work, but that was one of the
main motivations for doing it. And they do have a quote in the movie where someone I don't remember what character, but someone says, this was the first shot in the Cold War, And that's an argument that I believe now.
As far as the idea that it saved all these lives of American soldiers who would have had to invade Japan, that's actually that's not touched on in the movie at all I know, Well, that's weird because that's like the longest standing, like you know, historical reality that they've always presented is that in order to prevent a full scale invasion of Japan, which would have seen a lot of dead servicemen on our side, this is what was done,
which always seems strange to me. Once I learned about the fire bombings and I said, wait a minute, they caused the pot it this way. The movie has one or two sentences where they say that was the reason that quote a character saying that I think it was a secretary defense. But in reality that's actually very controversial. For example, General Lamy, I mean, there's all these quotes of the top military leaders saying it wasn't necessary. General
LeMay was one of them, using what you just said. He said, we're just firebomb the whole place anyway. They're they're already defeated. People in the Navy, I think that the Nimitz made the argument that well, all we gotta do is blockade them. They're dead, they're they're just defeated, they're all destroyed, and they'll just eventually surrender. And then the estimates of how many people if we did invade Japan, how many would die would end
up happening? Was the estimates got ratchet up up, I'm knopping up as years went by, and it was it's been a long time since I read this stuff. But it was by the time you and I were kids, like twenty thousand people or something. Yeah. But by the time you and I were kids and we saw, yeah, the original estimates were like twenty thirty thousand people in Japan anyway, and then the troops, our troops being
lost was another number. But by the time you and I were kids, our troops was like less than fifty And then when when Truman retires, he starts saying it's a hundreds of thousands, half a million, and Jack raises the number up. So by the time in our you know, I don't remember what it was like to live, you know, my memories are the eighties, you know, when we were children, that was just commonly accepted.
That was exactly that was commonly accepted. If you and I watched the TV show that described World War two, right, it would always conclude with we used this bomb. Yes it was terrible, but it had to be done because right, that was like if you watched the thing on just a broadcast TV, if you watched PBS, if you read one of those ridiculous history books, and we were in school in grade school, even and they brought up World War Two, they would always say this, this was necessary
so that we didn't have to invade Japan. Right, That was the whole thing. That was like the crux of it. Why did we use nuclear bombs, especially because it became so scary when we equated it with the missiles and the arms race that was going on in the Reagan era. Again, you and I are still kids then, but this was the thing, right, like, why are we doing this? Oh, well, we need
it because this will prevent other people from wanting to invade us. We need to maintain being a superpower in the world, because right, I mean, that was the whole thing. The bomb was a key issue. And look, there's a lot of radical ways to look at it, but it was a given thing. It was like common knowledge that this was done to save lives. That yes, it was horrible, but it would have been more horrible to do it another way. Which that was just the I'm an idea.
I thought, maybe I'm wrong, What do you think? No, that that that was when we in nineteen ninety five, I'm looking at the dates these things took place, but that was the fiftieth anniversary of Hiroshima Nagasaki, right yeah, And because I mean, I'm going back to look at these things. And there is this huge controversy about exhibiting the Noah Gay that was the bomber that dropped it in Washington see the Smithsonian National Space Museum.
And the debate was whether it was too harsh of a view of what we did and anyway that this went on. You know, this, this was a big debate just over this exhibit because they were with this controversy. There's a book written, i think called it's called I Got It. I think
it's called The Decision to Drop the Tonk Bomb. But it makes the argument that it's very convincing because again it's using historical record and quoting all these military people saying that wasn't necessary, and just the very existence of the book, you know, I'm sure was deemed an American and then so forth. Honestly, I'm not. It's not a thing I have an emotional tie to one way or the other. I'm just trying to say that this is a controversial
question, and it's one you know, this Oppenheimer movie completely avoids. Now that all that said, you know, anyone who makes a book or a movie or whatever, you're not gonna put everything in it. You've got your own teams that you want to hit one and you can't possibly for every single aspect. So I'm not I'm not trying to You're not trying to say, oh, they left us out just on that basis, But I'm just I could just I just know enough of the history to say that the movie's not
controversial, you know, and probably purposely not. However, what it accomplishes, and I can tell that from reading what people of saying about the movie, including just YouTube comments and people that have watched it, is that what the movie is done, which is necessary, is it's helped to make many people who go to the movie and come out of it to realize that the
dangers of nuclear war are real. And they I mean, I've read these YouTube comments, they said, people I'm sure are younger than me, and they come out like they you know, they write like they never even never considered it a possibility, like they can never consider it was a problem. Yeah, Yeah, exactly how did you feel about it? Do you feel as though it adequately just displayed the dangers and the problems with the nuclear arms?
I mean, do you do you think it made you go, ah, wait a minute, you know, this is something that we should always consider. I mean, did it it succeeds in doing that? And that's why that's one resists. It's it's a movie. Everyone should really watch it. It's it definitely, that's really the message of the movie, and it's it succeeds at it. And and that was the you know, it shows
it's it's a good movie. But those risks are well those and they were nineteen eighty three, I would say, absolutely, And we lived in a time when people were worried about a mistake might cause this and that. And that's exactly I've told the story before. I wrote the letter to President Reagan about it and got myself an FBI file opened. You know. But the thing is I was not alone, and I was, you know, twelve
years old at the time. Now you were slightly younger, but you lived in that age and you know that that was one of those realities that was upon us. And it is strange that younger people today don't even think about, you know, nuclear war or nuclear weapons. Somebody brings it up, and it's like it's almost as foreign to them as you know, well, we might be worried that, you know, Darth Vader is going to come down, you know, like that's how far removed they are from that reality.
They don't even consider it. So that's true. And if it adequately makes people question, uh, you know, whether we have dangerous weapons on the planet and they could be loosed for bad reasons and we could end up with a lot of death and destruction and somebody might want to pull back the hammer before they drop it. Uh, you know what, I can't object to it. I gotta say I think that that sort of consideration should always be reintroduced, because, as you just adequately mentioned, you know, people
will forget if you give them enough time, they'll forget about it. The reality of it won't be there, they won't be considering it. And that's exactly when the worst things happen when people assume no sort of interest in something that's dangerous. Isn't that usually when the dangerous thing rears its ugly had on
planet Earth? Or my mistake in Mike I mean, really, isn't that Usually when the big problem comes along common sense, if you're not being vigilant about something that's dangerous, that makes many more opportunities for it to come and take hold or come and take a bite out of you. So that's something that needs to be remembered. And if that's what that Oppenheimer movie accomplishes, not a bad thing. So anyway, Mike, I'm taking you over the
hour a little bit. I'm sorry about that, but I want to give you a chance to say anything you want. And closing here, we covered you know, TV and movies in general, and then this Oppenheimer movie, the history of the Cold War, the bomb, the questionable stuff about the use of it in Japan, and again if you people don't know that Tokyo was a firebomb before Hiroshima Nagasaki happened, and you don't know what that city and another city that were bombed fairly savagely, which by the way, we
did this in Germany too, where we fire bombed two cities in Germany as well, just saying, but yeah, if you take a look at that and you realize that the death, destruction and damage was actually more intense with these coordinated fire bombings. Okay that our good friend Curtis LeMay coordinated. Yeah, you might want to get into that history a little more and get a get a more of a feel for it. Now. That's not to say
that atomic weapons are not dangerous. That's not to say that that technology was not dangerous, or that they didn't even fully know what might happen when those two experimental pieces were dropped, because you know, the story I've always understood is that's the only two bombs we actually had fully developed and ready to fly. But that wouldn't be the case a couple of decades later, and nowadays we have them all over the place and people are generally not even thinking about
them any longer. But they still exist. Once you build these things, they don't just evaporate, you know. They're not like the glaciers melting. They're still around and somebody's managing them. And you might want to consider that there are terrible weapons. Plus, you know all of our friends that have developed chemical and biological weapons of all sorts that we're supposed to not be developing,
and everything else. There's a lot of ugly, a lot of terror that can be released upon the planet and the people in a matter of seconds if need be. And these things should all be considered quite well before anybody decides to let them loose. But Mike, anything you want to say in closing tonight, I'll think that pretty much sums it all up. I just say this movie's worth watching. I don't really watches because in the movie theater
anymore. I think this is the first one I've seen in four years, and the one I saw before that maybe not want to go for a long They're just as much worth coming out. I got you. And you know what, I haven't seen much worth coming out either, because it's a lot of regurgitated and repeated stuff. And you know what's funny about that is you might have actually given me the thought as to why we've seen that for years. Maybe they had these AI programs cutting out the cookie cutters for the past
fifteen twenty years. You know how more rich people get ahold of stuff before the rest of us. Maybe they've been using this in Hollywood for a while, and that's why all they had to do is feed comic books into it, and it's spit out, you know, ninety comic book scripts, and therefore they just went with it. Maybe that's the point, and maybe that's why everything seems to be a so formulaic and consistently unoriginal, because it is.
But maybe I'm wrong about that too. I don't know. I'm not entertained, but I will tell you, Mike, you're gonna have to check out Strange New Worlds because that's a Star Trek. I think you'll enjoy. It's not as formulaic as the old Star Trek, but it's reminiscent like the very cool and good parts of Star Trek, even though you had to get over the cheesy nineteen sixties looking stuff, and you and I could do that in the nineteen seventies when we were kids because we didn't have a whole lot
of better options anyway, right on TV. But I think you'll enjoy Strange New Worlds. But we've gotten your view on Oppenheimer and the AI circumstance and creativity and all that. So there it is, B and the no go to Wall Street Window dot com. Check out what Mike's got over there, and sign up for those newsletters because interesting articles coming out every weekday. Mike, anything else you want to say real quick before you go out to hollers.
Just see you next week. Absolutely, and next week I'll have Mike Swanson and Larry Hancock with me. So the Ocelli effect is done for tonight. No matter who you are, where you are, when you are, I'm merely Ocelli, all of you, or indeed the effect. Good night,