Jay Dyer Talks About Esoteric Hollywood With Chase Geiser On One American Podcast
Jay Dyer is an author, comedian and TV presenter known for his deep analysis of Hollywood, geopolitics, and culture. His graduate work focused on psychological warfare and film and he is the author of two books, Esoteric Hollywood 1 & 2 and the co-creator and co-host of the television show Hollywood Decoded. He has been featured on numerous popular shows and podcasts and in debates with some of the world's top debaters and a fill-in host for some of the largest US radio shows.
Dude, I did a deep dive research on all this mysterious deaths around the Clinton.
About a dozen that are just fucking hard to shake.
Claus Schwab famously said that you will own nothing and be happy.
Look at you.
You start a show with absolutely nothing when you have thousands and thousands of listeners.
And you have force multipliers that send your content at the time.
I was actually talking to Chase Geyser.
He hadn't seen this.
It just came out and said, Oh, you see this that you know, all these documents.
Oh, maybe I shouldn't even say what he said.
I shouldn't have said his name.
Uh I won't tell you what he said.
I actually did a getter uh stream last night.
with was it Chase Geyser fantastic interview you you you you you you We'll see you next time.
It's one American podcast live with Jay Dyer.
Jay, it's an honor and a pleasure to have you.
How are you today, sir?
I'm doing great.
I was just furiously trying to come up with cool things to say because before we started, you were like, I'm gonna edit this and chop it up, and there'll be cool stuff.
And I was like, what if I don't say cool stuff?
Now I'm under pressure, I gotta write down cool stuff.
I know, right?
You should just whip out like a book of quotes or something.
Book of cool stuff.
Just pull out MindCom free line or two.
Just kidding, of course.
What is that?
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
Didn't really happen.
I don't follow the kids' anime, so I don't know what that is.
So um I want to ask you about esoteric Hollywood.
I don't know much about you.
I just came across you because um uh we have a mutual connection through Sean Atwood's team.
And uh and I wanted to um I looked at your your channel and your content, and it's really cool.
And I wanted to ask you a little bit about how you got started in this space.
I know you've been posting content on YouTube for like seven, eight, nine years.
Where does this begin for you?
Dude, I think it actually goes back to like 2007 on YouTube, because I remember I was just thinking today I got a comedian coming on later on after this uh interview with you, and I was noticing he had a channel, and he was like, Oh, yeah, some of the earliest YouTube stuff in 2009.
I'm like, dude, my channel was in 2007, and I was uploading like totally cringe sketch comedy in 2007.
So it's been a long time.
I've been at this a long time.
Um yeah, so I I mean it the Esoteric Hollywood started out of like my college uh research and a love for movies that I had since high school.
So ever since high school, I've I've always been fascinated, big movie buff.
And all my buddies were kind of in the you know, the artsy fartsy crowd in high school.
And so when I went to college, I was like, Well, I like movies, but uh I don't know if I'm gonna end up as a movie star.
So I I tried different things.
I didn't make it as a movie star if you were wondering.
But uh yeah, I I did uh find out that there's a lot of overlaps in other areas that I like between philosophy, movies, geopolitics, history.
They all kind of overlap in a weird way, which I didn't expect.
And so when I was working on uh a philosophy graduate degree or undergrad degree, I was taking a lot of film classes, and in those film classes, we were kind of tying together literature and literary motifs and Hollywood and the way that Hollywood presents literature, and I started noticing that a lot of movies contain propaganda.
So this piqued my interest, and I was kind of getting into a lot of mid-2000s era conspiracy material online at the time, a lot of Jason Burmist stuff, a lot of Lord Vault Lord of all the mortal.
You probably know who I'm talking about.
Unbelievable.
That guy that you can't name.
Uh, and so I was getting into all that stuff in the mid-2000s, and um had these you know disparate worlds going on, and then I I thought uh by the time I got to grad school, I really wanted to combine all these.
So I just started blogging about movies pretty extensively.
I've done a lot of blogging that related to like um, you know, politics and uh libertarian Ron Paul Rampall campaigns, that kind of stuff.
And then that kind of just snowballed into this weird thing where I quit doing the political stuff and mainly was just focusing on movies, movie symbolism, and uh eventually a publisher reached out and said, You got all these blogs.
Do you have a book?
Yes, I do.
So I didn't, but I put together a book.
Uh and so then there was a part two of the book, and then we did a season of a TV show on the basis of the book.
So basically I saw Turk Hollywood in short is a reflection of all of my interests over the years as it pertains to geopolitics, symbolism in film, um, the deep dark history of Hollywood and all of its different facets, the real uh uh history behind various movies, and also how movies are propaganda.
So that kind of that's what undergirds the first couple uh Hollywood books that I wrote.
Um, and then it kind of branched out into I just started doing all kinds of other stuff.
So I ended up hosting uh the fourth hour of Lord Voldemort uh every Friday, almost every Friday for the last couple of years, and uh do a lot of lectures on what I call the global elite books.
So this is everything from Carol Quigley to Klaus Schwab today, going back a hundred years to Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells.
We kind of lecture through all those texts.
We do a lot of weird comedy, a lot of bizarre, absurdist style comedy, uh a lot of uh I've ended my my own music style called cringe core music.
So I I do these sort of weird music, I don't know what you call the music in scare quotes, I guess we could say.
Um yeah, so that's what we do, and it all just sort of snowballed from you know caught blogging in college, uh ironically.
So when you talk about propaganda in movies, when I think of the word propaganda, I think of like um in the an intentional state entity telling you know production companies what to do.
Are you talking about something like that?
Or is this sort of like is this the type of propaganda that's so sort of pervasive that it comes through on accident in all these in all these films?
All the above.
So um when I first started studying film, I was looking at it from a literary perspective.
So if you take college classes, you'll take if you take lit classes, you'll do what they call a close reading, and you can do it the same thing with movies where you watch a movie and you kind of dissect it at the level of symbolism, and you know, this scene is symbolizing this with the death of this character, and there's a cross here because it symbolizes this kind of stuff.
Now I remember uh Roger Ebert had a commentary on um uh citizen cane, and he did this really uh interesting symbolic critique of everything in in uh in that movie, probably in about 2003 is when I first watched that.
So kind of is when DVD commentaries were new, and it was like, oh, you get this DVD, you get this commentary by Roger Ebert.
That stuck in my head is like, hey, you could actually probably dissect films in this way on a you know, like a public scale.
That kind of influenced the blogging.
But then I tied it into other ways to read film in terms of like propaganda that's intentional, like you mentioned, with maybe intelligence agencies wanting certain narratives to be in films.
And uh over time, as I studied that at a even a grad level, I was amazed at how many movies had this you know long standing history of um putting intentional messages, propaganda, uh sometimes at a subtle level, and sometimes the whole film.
For example, uh Ben Affleck made that movie Argo and you know won the award uh Academy Award that year, but that was actually about a CI operation to go into Iran and utilize uh a movie filming cover.
So that that was actually a cover that they used uh during the Iranian revolution to you know, sort of get some uh hostages out, all done under the cover of a B movie sci-fi movie that was being filmed.
Right.
And so that when I first learned about that back at the time, I was like, that that's fascinating.
So I wonder if there's any other movies that might have been involved in you know, this weird sort of intelligence agency espionage stuff.
And that kind of took me down a whole rabbit hole of the whole history of people in Hollywood that worked with the deep state, we could call it.
And this actually goes back way before what we think of as like classic Hollywood in the 40s and 50s.
It goes back to like the 20s, 30s, with people like Howard Hughes, who was filming these big blockbuster, you know, propaganda films, uh like Hell's Angels, and you know, those were the blockbusters of that time, and they were they were really war propaganda.
And um, the more I dug into this, the more I found that there's really just it's just flip sides of the same coin.
So that the deep state, as we could call it, has kind of always had this marriage relationship with Hollywood and with A-list actors and musicians and people like this, where uh, you know, at times a lot of the famous uh uh Hollywood people have even been spies.
They've been they've been recruited to do spying.
And you know, again, all of this really is was something that I never would have thought was the case until I went down that rabbit hole.
We do see movies that like one of my favorite movies of all time is The Good Shepherd.
Um, and in other movies like Snowden, for example, that that are critical of the intelligence apparatus.
Are those just sort of like flukes that seep through the cracks?
Or are they in and of themselves like a form of propaganda and that they like uh reinvigorate or reinspire trust in the Hollywood machine when there's like you know, like a little drip or drop here and there of criticism, but then you know everything else is like totally pro-war, right?
Right.
Yeah, I think sometimes there's uh an allowance for a little bit of criticism of self-reflection, self-awareness, and people can make art that's critical of the establishment.
For example, in you know, in the 70s and 80s, there were a lot of films that came out that were critical of the Vietnam War.
And uh, you know, Hollywood was was very anti-war at that at that time period.
And then by the time of the 90s and 2000s, through you know, as a result of the war on terror, things got a flipped and Hollywood took on this uh not not in every area, but in a lot of areas of very uh subtly sort of um pro-war on terror message for America.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Um well that's into the 2000s, but even before that in the 90s, and in the 90s there were films coming out that were kind of presaging the war on terror, like true life.
Block down.
Yeah.
Well, the big first big blockbuster that was uh had a uh terror war on terror narrative was uh Arnold's true lies, right?
So we've got to get the terror.
Uh and you know that was way ahead of you know the the big nine event.
Now you could argue that was after the 1993 uh you know WTC event, so maybe it wasn't totally um, but but it was before them, you know, the big ramped up war on terror.
So yeah, of course, Rocky III, right?
Is that was it three that was the Russian?
Yeah, um, but don't so don't forget though that uh Rambo also with uh it like Rambo goes and fights with the Mujahideen, right?
I think it's in Rambo two.
It's either one or two, but so he's fighting with the same people that Reagan called into the White House who would actually become the the Taliban, right?
The Al-Qaeda would come out of the the freedom fighters of the Mujahideen.
Um and there's uh there's other cases too.
I think in Living Daylights, uh the Timothy Dalton, James Bond, he goes the significant part of that plot is him fighting with the Mujahideen, the Al-Qaeda against the Soviets.
Uh and so it's kind of reflecting that uh post-uh Soviet war 1979 Brzezinski model of how we would recruit and utilize the Mujahideen um up into the 80s.
So again, yeah, the this this is kind of never any rabbit hole.
And to mention that James Bond stuff, that that's kind of what I did my my sort of graduate work on was focusing on Bond because he's in every era.
Yeah, I mean well, Ian Fleming is kind of the the greatest example of what I'm trying to convey.
This idea of a guy who goes from um you know World War II intelligence operations at a really high level for naval intelligence for the uh British Navy and being a part of special operations executive to putting into a lot of this the original uh 13 or whatever it is,
Bond novels that he wrote, uh putting in a lot of his own missions, his uh a lot of uh things that reference historical um British intelligence operations, World War II stuff, for example, Operation Golden Eye was a World War II operation that he was involved in.
Now the movie version of that doesn't really have anything to do with his actual World War II thing because the movie version is Christopher Lee is uh manga, and he's building this giant sort of uh uh electromagnetic sun weapon that's gonna zap everybody.
But um that doesn't really have anything to do with what he was doing.
But he did take the name from one of his real uh World War II operations, which had to do with Spain and Franco and fascism in Spain, anyway.
But um, you know, he's a key example of this uh uh marriage between the world of espionage and the world of Hollywood, and and I think up until Harry Potter or maybe Avatar, you know, the the Bond franchise was the biggest iconic franchise in the world.
And so I analyzed it from the vantage point of like propaganda, but uh but anyway, I'm rambling, but that's uh that's a long answer to your question.
No, it's fascinating.
I heard that they let Pierce Brosnan go because of 9-11.
Is that true from what you know, or did you had you ever heard that?
I heard that they called him after 9-11, and they're like, We're gonna need a different bond because everything's changed.
Uh I and I don't even remember where I heard that.
It's like one of those things that I know, but I don't know how I know.
So like there's a part of me that's really skeptical that I really know it.
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that that's true.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised.
I mean, you know, that it did take a different turn from uh obviously from uh Brosnan to Craig, it got a lot more serious, but yeah, Craig stopped getting laid.
Yeah, right.
The weird part that well, I mean, you have like Roger Moore walking on the heads of alligators, and like black dudes are like uh inflating as if like if you put a bike pump to a black dude, like he would inflate and pop.
I mean, just completely ridiculous stuff.
Yeah, so from Roger Moore to Daniel Craig, it's totally different.
It's it's a lot more serious, like you said.
And but the one thing that's weird about the um the Craig franchise years is that there were way more uh critical aspects that relate to what you're talking about.
For example, Spectre is very much about the expose relating to things like Snowden, relating to things like the deep state, um, you know, spying on everybody, the these various programs that had been in the works for a long time, and it was very self-critical.
It was very much the nine eye security uh system of Spectre that Blofeld is setting up, was totally obviously based in real world world stuff going on at that time in terms of geopolitics, and you know, certain people that are not supposed to be named,
like uh like uh Yorge Asoros, uh we'll say um, you know, he he's kind of an archetypal sort of figure that even the guardian, if I recall, was putting out articles at the time of Spectre saying, Is this is this uh uh critiquing, you know, Jorge Soros?
I mean, it seems like it.
Right, right.
So I gotta ask you as someone who's studied philosophy and propaganda in film specifically, and as someone who has expressed uh a love for film, what's your favorite movie?
And I know that's an impossible question to answer, but what's one of your favorite movies to make it a little bit easier for you to fire one off?
Yeah, I mean, uh you know, it's for me, uh there's a lot of different genres.
So, you know, um anything to do with um tentacles and Asian women, I'm just joking.
I knew somebody was gonna be like, oh, it's a pro.
No, it's a joke.
Uh I don't like any of that stuff.
I'm joking.
Um different genres.
Uh you know, I like different genres, so like um or even decades, like I kind of have favorite movies from the nineties, favorite movies from the 2000s.
I mean, I grew up with Star Wars, and so I've always appreciated the original trilogy.
I don't like any of the anything to do with the Disney stuff.
But you still watch the Disney ones though, even though you don't like them.
Uh I did watch the baby Yoda, that's it.
I haven't seen anything.
Yeah, Mandalorian.
Uh that was fun.
Yeah, Mandalorian.
I enjoy that okay.
But um favorite films, I I like a lot of uh you know, the the Godfather trilogy is a classic.
Um I excuse me.
I like um a lot of Mel Gibson uh films that are kind of classics.
Uh like conspiracy theory, the Richard Donner movie with Mel Gibson.
Um I like um Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson.
I mean, it's kind of it's kind of cornball, but uh I still it's still a goosebumper, you know.
It there's still some inspiring moments, you know.
Exactly, exactly.
Uh you know, especially when they're bouncing the bad man they're taking the hobbits to eyes and go.
Uh anyway, uh um yeah, so I mean, uh probably some of the big ones that people would expect.
Uh I think I think at least for what I talk about, some of the classics that are revelatory would be things like Eyes Wide Shot, you know, a lot of Kubrick stuff is really good, Doctor Strange Love.
Um I mean, I'm not saying uh uh eyes why shows my favorite movie, I'm saying that for the purposes of illustrating kind of elite control and cults and you know espionage and blackmail, something like Eyes Wide Shut is great for that kind of stuff, but and I think it is a well-made deep movie.
I I don't know if I would say it's one of my favorites, but yeah, I I'd have to think more.
I mean, uh I didn't expect that I always get that question though, you'd think I would be better at it, but well, I know it's like an impossible question to answer, but it's it's just given the nature of your work, it's fascinating one to hear.
Well, it's sort of like now you you go into a different mode when you watch movies, you kind of you're watching them now for propaganda symbolism, this kind of stuff.
And so it's Almost like I don't watch movies in the same way as I did, you know, when I was a teenager or even in my 20s.
It's it's like a totally different lens now, which I mean I still enjoy them when they're good, but now so what do you think of Maverick then?
Let's talk about propaganda and movies.
Maverick is most recent big blockbuster, right?
Yeah, what'd you think of it when you watched it?
Um let me do my Tom Tom Coom impression.
Yeah, I love it.
That's it.
There's not actually any voice, it's just him smiling and doing their thing anyway.
Um we have all these inside jokes on my channel, so that are really dumb.
But uh, I thought it was like a repeat of Top Gun, and they just kind of crop copied and pasted the storyline and they just kind of repeated everything.
Uh, as a movie, it wasn't bad.
Uh, it was enjoyable, it was inner, it was entertaining, it was fun.
I wish they had done a little bit more in terms of diversifying, I don't mean affirmative action.
I mean they need to have more affirmative action people.
No, I mean in terms of diversifying the plot.
I think if if it had been a little more I just felt like I'm watching the original Top Gun just repackaged, that was kind of annoying.
But um anyway, it was okay, but I think it was propaganda, but uh really the first Top Gun is a lot more uh a lot more explicit, like for knowably being you know, notably being uh propaganda because Reagan allocated a bunch of money at that time to Hollywood for these kinds of uh pro-military messages.
So there's actually a whole spate of these in the 80s that came out after Reagan was elected.
Um you had Navy SEALs with Charlie Sheen, you had uh Top Gun, um Iron Eagle, those are all so like there's like each branch of the military has a franchise that was promoting that branch, right?
So like Iron Eagles promoting Air Force with Lewis Gossett Jr., I think, and then Navy SEALs was supposed to promote the Navy and the Navy SEALs, which I don't think that did any good.
There was kind of a bomb.
It had Charlie Sheen and Michael Bean, and then you had Top Gun for Navy as well, and then I guess also kind of Air Force since they fly the Jets, but yeah, I mean, um I also when we when we went back and watched Top Gun, uh Jamie, my wife and I, we were kind of like, man, uh, you know, Quentin Tarantino's thesis is kind of vindicated.
There's a lot of like I don't know if you've seen that famous clip of Quentin Tarantino talking about Top Gun.
No, I haven't.
Tell me about it.
Um I'm trying to think of how to say it in a uh safe way for you know YouTube and whatnot.
I don't want to get you in any trouble, but they basically he just says that the it's a movie about guys, if you get if you catch my drift, right?
I see.
He thinks it's homoerotic, yeah.
Exactly, exactly.
Yeah, so don't you die on me, goose what did they say?
What does he say at the end of the movie?
What's his dime?
You can ride my tail anytime.
It's gay.
Right.
That's Tarantino talking about.
It's you know that's literally what he says.
And then so Danny.
You sound just like him, dude.
We were like, you know, they're in the shower, they're like smacking butts with towels, and like they then there's that weird sequence where they're playing volleyball and it's it's right uh very sweaty.
Yeah, and there's one of those 80s, uh, you know, guys hanging with the boys, you know, that song is playing.
It's just really weird.
A lot of leather.
Well, he does this thing where uh so you know, half the movie, he's like going over to Kelly McGillis' house and like taking showers.
It's like he doesn't mac on her until you know three-fourths of the way through the movie.
It's like he's over he's over at his house, she's coming onto him, and he's like, I need to take a shower.
He goes to take showers for half the movie.
So I don't know.
That was another argument that uh Tarantino could have used in his arsenal if he wanted to, but anyway, so yeah, but uh, you know, Top Gun is kind of a classic uh propaganda example.
So I didn't realize that there was like actual federal funding allocated for some of these these films.
Oh, yeah.
So so like is every single does every movie that Hollywood produces major box office movie, does it have like a little taste of federal funding or like tax forgiveness, or is it just some of them in certain times?
How does that work?
Uh so I would say yes to the first two things you said.
Uh there's a lot of times there's there's tax breaks, a lot of times they're well, they used to be before a lot of CGI.
It was like, well, we'll let you use tanks and you know, aircraft carriers, but you have to insert you know certain sort of pro military messages in the film.
And so I see.
Um, some academics put out a book, uh, I think in about 2003 called Operation Hollywood.
And that was one of the first books to call attention to this angle of it, where it was like, hey, wait a minute.
You know, they're actually putting a lot of money into messages in a lot of these films.
And they're actually editing the screenplays.
And so then it came out uh after the movie The Recruit with Al Pacino and I think Ryan Felipe.
Um that was the one of the first movies that openly was consulted by the CIA.
Now I think that a lot of films already were for a long time consult consulted on in some way by but the but that one was one of the first that was like really public about it.
Then we had another important film come out uh called Wag the Dog, which is a a pretty funny satirical critique of um how wars are sold through prop pop culture.
So it's it's a weird kind of meta uh uh narrative analysis of the the things that I talk about.
I had a whole chapter, I think, on uh on Wag the Dog in one of my books.
But um this movie was about these figures who are these liaisons between the intelligence agencies and Hollywood.
And uh I highly recommend if nobody's seen that movie, it it really illustrates, you know, a big portion of the theses of of my books because you have this character played by Robert De Niro, uh, who is le liaisoning with and interacting with a big Hollywood director played by um not Richard Dreyfus, uh I just went blank.
Um Dustin Hoffman.
So Dustin Hoffman is sort of playing like a a Kubrick character, right?
Uh director, and then Robert De Niro is is the CIA guy who kind of shows up and is like, you're gonna film the way the movie that we the way we want, uh for you know, for our benefit.
And so that was a big revelatory film.
A lot of people felt like that movie might actually be based on some of the real liaisons between Hollywood and the CIA, like uh Chase Brandon and Milt Deardon, who are uh famous CIA people who then went on to consult on Hollywood films.
So, you know, a lot of this was sort of in again DVD commentaries of all places, right?
So I would I've always been a movie, like I said, movie buff.
And so I would buy these, you know, DVDs when they came out and to the behind the scenes section, yeah, right on the disc.
And I'm I'm watching the commentaries uh on these, and I'm like, hey, wait a minute, they got CIA guys commenting on the fact how they helped create create this movie.
And then over time that just became more and more public and more and more, oh yeah, sure.
Well, yeah, we all know that.
But here's the weird part.
When I talked about that stuff, I think I first learned about this in 2007.
When I would talk about this stuff back then, I mean, people would just like, oh, you're good nut ball, look at this dude, crazy skizo, Timfo.
Right.
I mean, every name in the book for years.
And I'm like, this isn't you could go find this and you go to your library, go to your local college.
Or just look at the red scare.
I mean, weren't there actors during that time that were constantly being like uh accused and criticized of having attended communist meetings and there was this whole like fear that Hollywood had been infiltrated by the communists.
So there's there's certainly a very public and well accepted history of government involvement in in Hollywood.
The question just then becomes like how pervasive is it and how continuous has it been for the last 100 years.
And it sounds it seems to me like we're talking about what you're saying, that it's been basically a common thread, and sometimes it's a little bit more on the surface and obvious than others.
Yeah, there was uh a FOIA request uh maybe two or three years ago, um, done by some guys who asked for uh declassified documents in regard to um Pentagon funding for movies, and they got back like a box of of information and uh I cited it in my book, uh second book on the first page.
Uh their book is called uh National Security Cinema.
Uh and I cited their their research in that book because you know, they had like thousands of pages of stuff relating to uh according to their uh research, hundreds of movies and TV shows over uh multiple decades getting, you know, Pentagon funding for things like um put in messages pro military, even in even in shows as innocuous as cupcake wars.
So yeah, turns out this is like a super pervasive thing.
Um I would I would venture to guess that most blockbusters probably have some degree of this kind of a thing.
Uh I don't think that that necessarily means everybody obviously involved in the films because that's hundreds of maybe thousands of people, especially in big blockbusters.
They don't know this, right?
Uh a lot of this is taking place at a very high level, and it's you know, very uh, you know, Fortune 100 people are consulting and getting consultation, you know, on okay, we like your screenplay, but you know, we'd like you to insert, you know, something positive for uh, you know, military industrial complex, Raytheon, bowling, whatever.
Something like this, right?
Um, so it kind of ranges, right?
So it ranges from that to even in some cases, uh, entire film productions being covers for intelligence operations.
There's actually a couple of those that have been documented.
Um one of those uh appears to have been a uh a Dolph Lundgren film.
So I'm not accusing Dolph Lundgren of being part of some vast conspiracy, right?
I mean, people may not know exactly what all's going on, but um, yeah, there's another uh section of my book where an entire like I think the FBI in California had created uh one whole film, a film company, so basically a creation of a film company for the purpose of um surveilling, I don't know, somebody who was engaged in some kind of uh high-level Hollywood money laundering.
So again, uh the a lot of this stuff is a lot more common than I would have ever expected, but you know, I try to be nuanced, and you know, I don't think everybody who makes movies is part of some vast conspiracy.
It doesn't really work like that, and that's that's not what I'm saying.
Are there any examples of the government coming in and uh just shutting down a movie altogether?
Like the movie's done, they're about ready to release it, and the government's like, nope, not this one.
Well, you know, in recent years, there were a couple examples pretty close to the city.
Fountainhead got shut down.
I don't know if that was a conspiracy or not, but um Zach Schneider was gonna do a version of the fountain head by Ayn Rand.
Oh, I didn't know and it got the plug got pulled on it because it was too divisive of a time or political climate.
That was the excuse.
Uh yeah, there's there's well, there's one I didn't even know about.
I mean, there was the a lot of skullduggery around the um North Korea satire thing of sat uh Seth Rogan when all that came out.
Yeah, the great dictator, or not the great dictator, but the dictator, I think is just what it was called.
There was there was a case where uh similar stuff happened when they leaked the ending of the Bond film, if you remember that the Sony uh hacks and leaks from uh several years ago.
I no, I don't know that didn't shut down the film, but um there's a lot of suspicious things about that.
I'm sort of running through my memory about this.
Um the remake of Red Dawn, uh that was shut down because the government didn't want uh China has a lot of interest in uh Hollywood studios, and so um they didn't want Red Dawn to explicitly name anybody in relationship to the old Red Dawn.
So they didn't want to name China, especially.
Uh so that was a big one that that happened in recent uh years.
Um other shutdowns.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Just because the first the first red dawn was so explicitly anti-communist that it would be hard to get a new one made that seemed anywhere close to authentic, and also would be able to be played in Chinese theaters.
There's no way now I also remember there's a couple uh supposedly a couple uh Oliver Stone films that were supposed to get made that never got made.
Um I don't know to what degree they were shut down by the deep state, but uh, you know, something he's able to make that JFK documentary though, and basically shat it shat on the uh the intelligence community for four hours.
Yeah.
But that was I don't think that was a theatrical release.
That was something that was just like a showtime exclusive, and then I think now it's on a couple different platforms.
I'm not sure.
Yeah, I think that it's it's a little bit of both, like you said earlier.
Like sometimes they'll allow a little bit of drips, you know, a little uh a little bit of uh internal critique, but usually when we have the internal critique drip, all that that they really allow is uh oh, there's a couple bad apples, and we're gonna root out the bad apples.
And there's never a questioning of the these agencies as a whole, it do if we should even have these.
One of the things that's been blowing my mind, my my wife and I have a two-year-old, and so we've been watching a lot of Disney, mostly the old stuff, like from 60s and like 1001 Dalmatians, Lady in the Tramp, kind of the classics, but you know, every once in a while we'll try a new one.
And one of the things that is blown my mind is like the movie Coco.
I don't know if you've seen that movie.
I haven't.
So it's it's a fairly new Disney movie, and it basically the plot is there's this this it takes it's a Dia de los Muertos sort of Hispanic kind of theme, right?
And This little boy um inadvertently winds up in like the world of the dead, and he's frantically trying to find his like great grandfather the whole time.
And if anybody in the world of the dead realizes that he's not dead and he's alive, he gets kicked out, right?
And it's like really obviously an illegal immigration metaphor, right?
In the whole story, you're like rooting for him to be able to stay, you know, until he does what he needs to do to like reunite his family.
And it's like it's like there's even like a border and everything, and like he likes seeks past security.
Like this is literally like an illegal emigration situation.
And I it's just so funny.
Like I couldn't tell if they were just trying to like if if they made the story because it resonated with like the market that they were trying to reach, or if they were just trying to push like sympathy or empathy for like anybody going through that experience of like trying to drop them one role.
I mean, there's so many examples of you know, that movie Elysium with with uh Matt Dadbot, I mean Matt Damon that came out a couple of years ago.
I mean, that the whole thing was uh and sort of an open border message too.
So uh I tend to think that yeah, that those are movies are chosen for a purpose for their geopolitical or or domestic politics in America propaganda, sure.
Yeah, that's my piece.
But at the same token, like like you know, I'm I'm a big fan of that uh show Altered Carbon based on the trilogy.
I don't know if you've ever watched it about resleaving and stuff.
And they're like you could say that it's like an open border message, but you could also make the case that it's like an anti-globalist message because you have like these globalist elites that have lived 300 years because they keep getting resleeved and and like it's almost like an anti-cloud schwab world economic forum type message, it depending on how you interpret it, but you know, Matt Damon's obviously not going to be involved in anything that's you know pro necess pro-individual or national sovereignty necessarily.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, there every now and then there's some good uh you know things that leak through and and some good shows that uh you know, kind of expose things.
Um we just recently watched uh it was a 2016, 17, 18, I think, series by uh Carlton Qs, who uh did um Lost with JJ Abrams, and uh he did the series called Colony, which is which is really fascinating because the aliens we think they come and they set up basically a global new world order and everybody's sort of on lockdown under for you know all of the it's so basically predicting lockdowns years before we had the coup fiddle.
Um, and then it turns out that they are working with uh a global elite government to set up a world government, you know, to to sort of enslave everybody.
So far that one has print been pretty revelatory.
We haven't uh finished the season yet, but but uh somebody in in the audience said, Hey, watch colony, it's really good.
And it has all of these elements of you know, um, surveillance and and lockdowns and new world order and global currency and all this kind of stuff.
That's they even have a uh an alien, a new alien religion, so that there's a global alien-based religion that the that the uh invaders are sort of duping everyone into, and they can sort of trigger this uh personal uh salvific experience through their alien tech, and then people are duped into thinking that you know this is some sort of so anyway.
But point is just that you know, I one of the things I hammered on in my uh first book was alien propaganda.
I I don't personally believe in aliens, but um I think that Hollywood has used uh alien uh mythology, the alien mythos and all of this since the 1940s and 50s for a specific um psychological warfare purpose, and so there's a lot of there's a lot that backs that up too when you get into the history of Hollywood's relationship to alien movies.
In fact, uh there was CIA consultation on one of the first big um alien films, the uh uh The Day the Earth Sits Still, yeah.
And yeah, yeah, that had uh CIA consultation.
I think it was even connected to CeeDee Jackson, who famously was involved in what's called what was called the doctrinal warfare program, and that was an attempt to take over the religions uh in the 1950s and 60s for the purpose of uh propaganda during the cold war.
So the the rationale was that the doctrinal warfare program would force the churches in America to promote Americanism contra the Soviets.
Now, okay, I guess in the setting of the cold war, we could see that that makes sense.
The problem is that you then have a new master that you're you're sort of on the hook with after the cold war.
Now you have to keep doing you know the deep state bidding, and so that's the that dangerous relationship that you get in when you when you do this kind of thing, and that was evident even back then in the 1940s and 50s, the earliest days of Hollywood uh alien movies, um, for example, a lot of the alien movies tied into propaganda.
The first time I noticed this was when I was watching the um the old series uh Twilight Zone.
And some of the some of the earliest episodes in Twilight Zone feature these very uh odd uh elements like MK Ultra.
I think the pilot episode has a soldier going into a float tank and undergoing um mind control where he thinks he's going back to his hometown and all this kind of stuff.
And as you progress through the series, you see that a lot of the credits, they cite the Department of Defense.
So the Department of Defense consulted on Twilight Zone.
And it actually makes sense if we under if we understand the the the UFO alien narrative as a uh new mythos to be manipulated to try to steer people in a potential new direction for their ideological reference point.
So in one of my my second book, I have an analysis that uh cites in 1968 Brookings uh institute report uh related to NASA, which was precisely about this very thing, creating an alien mythology to give people a new religion to unite around.
So um whether that will be successful, I don't know.
I'm not saying necessarily that they will go in the direction of creating a new world religion based around aliens.
That's that's a that's theoretical, but there are white papers that discuss this, and that's the point.
That's interesting.
Well, one of the things that I think of when I think about aliens in cinema is similar to the approach with uh the transatlantic accent, right?
So there was this sort of accent that was developed for television that was not associated with any sort of geopolitical status, right?
Like this just in, right?
Like that no one sounds like that in real life, but if you do it on TV, then there's no stereotype associated with it.
So you can, you know, sort of it's a blank canvas with the character development, right?
And so it with the alien thing that's convenient from a creative standpoint is you can have an enemy of the United States that isn't another country in the world, right?
So it doesn't have to be an anti-China or an anti-Russia narrative, like Independence Day.
It's just America, it's obviously a pro-America sort of movie, but the enemy is like there's no global enemy, it's just this like totally like detached enemy that comes that seems overwhelming, right?
No, and and that's actually a fundamental aspect of the, especially during the Cold War, for example, you would have a lot of propaganda that came out during the Cold War of the alien threat being basically loosely anything to do with the Soviets or the or or communism, but never actually named.
And so it would just be, in fact, there's some of the um Twilight Zones are about this where the the aliens are the the foreign threat that turns everybody into a hive mind, uh, which is kind of true.
But the irony is that nowadays that that hide mind threat isn't coming out of Moscow and Soviets, it's actually you know, World Economic Forum and Davos and Klaus, who want everybody to be microchipped and part of the hide mind by by their own uh express admission.
So um, yeah, you're absolutely right about that.
And there's there's countless examples, especially during the cold war of the hive mind.
In fact, invasion of the body snatchers is really, I think um, it's a little bit prior to it's right, kind of right at the beginning of the Cold War.
Um, but it is anti-Soviet, anti-collectivist uh ideology.
Sure.
So how is it that Klaus Schwab has wrangled so much influence?
I mean, I don't I don't know the details, but whenever I try to research him, it's impossible to find anything.
I don't think he's actually personally, at least not on paper, incredibly wealthy.
I don't understand this guy came out of nowhere, and all of a sudden he's got every world leader going to his his conferences, and he's just got this like totally disproportionate amount of global influence for who he is.
Like what is going on, man?
Yeah, so I think that uh Johnny Vedmore, who's a uh journalist, he did a lot of research together with Whitney Webb on the backstory of Klaus and the WEF and uh everything that they came up with, sort of jives with everything that I've read.
Um when you get into people like Kissinger and David Rockefeller and Brzezinski, these are the figures that sort of pick out uh future people to be in those types of positions.
And so it was uh Henry Kissinger uh together with other people like Herman Kahn or the Rand Corporation that noticed Klaus and came up with the idea to create uh the World Economic Forum out of Davos.
And so this is essentially a CIA creation on record.
And uh it was born out of what was called the Harvard Project.
So that there's the Harvard Research, Harvard Research Project, there's the these different titles.
Uh, and this is a lot of that East Coast uh uh snobby elite that sort of allied themselves with the Anglo American established or with the UK established, known as the Anglo American establishment in the writings of Carol Quigley.
Um that's who really put uh Klaus and Davos in that position.
So it's really just another CIA Rockefeller kind of creation.
So um and and Deb Rockefeller has a history of doing that by his own admission in his memoirs and his in his authorized biography.
Um there's Collier and Horowitz and then his own memoirs, uh, and it really kind of tells everything.
And you know, he talks about uh when he was during in world wartime, he was he worked in intelligence and this allowed him to figure out how to network with a lot of people at a lot of different levels and how to recruit people and how to put them into these kinds of positions.
And so um one of his first famous recruits put into these kinds of position would was uh Brzezinski.
Uh so Brzezinski was recruited and put into this by both Rockefeller and Kissinger uh to head up a steering committee known as a trilateral commission.
And so the same people basically, this sort of Kissinger uh Rockefeller circles picked Klaus to head up this uh World Economic Forum Davos outfit.
So it's more like a um a public version of the Bilderberg group is essentially all it is.
And David Roger has a you know a whole chapter on the Bilderberg group in his memoirs where he talks about being involved and and helping to set that up and get it going and it being this uh you know high-level corporate uh sort of debating steering committee.
So that's kind of what they do is just sort of create these uh these steering committees, these societies, these NGOs, these think tanks, and they just sort of it's like a fractal, like they just they just come out of David Rockefeller's body like a fractal.
There's just like so many of these, right?
Um and in my view, uh, which is you know based on a lot of the writings of uh Dr. Carol Quigley, for example, uh this is really uh, you know, some of the wealthiest families that are behind this uh in the world, but particularly in the US and the UK.
And you know, they have a they have adopted a Malthusian ideology and they've adopted a um you know strategy for a long-term technocracy based on depopulation that's in all of their books.
Uh one of the things we do at my channel is we lecture, as I said, through dozens of these.
So I think to date we've lectured through about 40, 50 uh official writings of the elite going back about a hundred years.
Um, and so that's why Klaus is there.
Klaus was picked to be in that position and given this sort of uh public face of a Bilderberg type of group to promote um to ultimately just a technocratic post-human world.
You know, it's interesting that you mentioned the the depopulation aspect of it because I was looking through some uh pictures of evidence from uh Epstein's uh property.
And some of the pictures sort of unintentionally have like bookcases in the background.
And if you zoom in, you can see some of the books that he had.
And a lot of the books.
What if you zoomed in?
It was exactly the books that I have back here.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Oh my gosh, this dude.
But it's just interesting that a lot of the books that he had are based off of like, oh, the earth's overpopulated, how do we depopulate the planet, you know?
And yes, exactly.
You know, which doesn't seem necessarily associated with, you know, just some guy who's, you know, got a fetish for you know underage massages.
Like this is like this guy was a globalist, right?
Yeah, he he was uh working closely.
It eventually came out in the New York Times with uh Gil Bates uh with uh MIT.
There was a whole project at MIT.
There was a lot of experimentation with um genetics with offspring.
I mean, all of this stuff, you know, it came out that uh uh Jeff Stein McEffery was involved in in terms of allocating money um as well as uh you know the the blackmail stuff.
So uh it seemed to be something that was operating, you know, in multi-tiers, multi-levels involving the Bond villain type of stuff, right?
And I don't I don't I don't think he was at the top of the pyramid.
I think he was he was a high up sort of fixer organized person.
Um and you know, assuming if if the story of his death is correct, you know, then he took the the hit, he took the fall, if that uh death story is correct, um, which obviously I think he was killed because of what he could potentially expose.
But um yeah, I mean this is this is the odd part about that whole stuff is that I didn't actually know a whole lot about his stuff.
I hadn't I'd never heard of that until um RT, uh Ben Swan at RT did a report on Jeff Stein McEfrey, I think in 2018, 2017, maybe even 2016.
And I remember hearing that report, but I'd never heard of him or knew anything about this.
But I had been familiar with earlier cases that were the exact same type of thing.
So you know you can go back into the 70s, the 80s, and you know, there were these there was these older models of uh sexual compromise uh going on in you know deep state politics for decades like the Franklin cover up uh boys town and the franklin cover up is is one that's very well known there's other examples of these kinds of things you know all over the world actually um the UK for a long time and in their intelligence apparatus had their own kind of uh compromise operations going on with Elm guest house that uh was connected to you know the the uh MI6 MI5
there and compromising high level MPs and officials.
So, you know, from my separate research of the history of espionage and intelligence operations, I had, you know, covered this many, many times.
I've seen this in many, many books.
You know, there's tons of books out there if you, if you get into this research.
So, you know, for me, it was kind of like, on the one hand, it was surprising, but it wasn't because I knew about it.
But then to see it exposed and coming out at such a big scale with, with our boy, Jeff Stein, McEffrey, I always say his name all mixed up to kind of trick the algorithm.
So I speak in codes anyway, but yeah, I, you know, I've written about this kind of stuff as well.
You know, from a movie analysis standpoint, because I, you know, when I did my eyes wide shut analysis, which is a big chapter in the first book that came out in 2016.
And I had written that analysis, I think in 2011, talking about this kind of sexual compromise that goes on at a high level because of,
books like Franklin cover up because of the you know documentary about uh boys town that was on the Discovery channel and all that kind of stuff um McMartin preschool trial this kind of stuff that had been uh in the alt media situation a long time and so again you know just to have the basically the thesis of that essay vindicated to me was was kind of wild.
So what incentive would the intelligence community, particularly the CIA, have in empowering a globalist institution?
Because just like as a layman, intuitively, it seems counterproductive for an agency responsible for national security to promote any sort of globalization and waning of national sovereignty.
Like, can't this only weaken our own intelligence if we sort of, I don't know, just give away our power and let it be subject to a committee?
international committee right yeah I mean uh you would think uh but my view is that really entities like the OSS and the CIA were set up always with the intent of being essentially operatives for international global elite interests and um the reason I say that is that if you get into the people who helped to set up the OSS like Bill Donovan or excuse me uh with Bill Donovan they they came from British intelligence to to over here to do that and from Canadian intelligence.
So William Stevenson, who was Canadian intelligence, came as well as did Ian Fleming, as well as did Noel Coward, as well as did a bunch of the Irregulars.
And so if you watched, as you mentioned, Good Shepherd with Matt Damon, that's actually showing you that because I'm trying to remember, is it Stephen Fry?
I forget who plays the, or maybe somebody, it's another British actor that plays his handler because he goes to learn training.
Well, there's Alec Baldwin's kind of his handler, but he's also got that college professor.
It's when he goes to England, I'm saying, right?
So he gets a British professor who's kind of his British intelligence handler, who's the gay guy that propositions him and all that.
And he's the one that teaches him tradecraft.
I think that's supposed to express that the US OSS apparatus was set up essentially by these UK British intelligence operatives.
That was actually done by design, if you get into the history of British intelligence, because the Milner Society, Lord Milner, who had a huge, huge amount of influence on the British intelligence apparatus from the time of 1900 all the way up until even into the 20s and 30s.
Milner, along with Cecil Rhodes wanted a, to bring the US back under the aegis of the Anglo American establishment.
And they wanted America to be an engine for global interests because the British establishment had already, even in the 1890s, I've now found older versions of global interests.
new world orderism before even um uh the 19 uh 20s and 30s you can go back to the 1890s when this is dreamt up with um what's called the Milner Circle and that's where we get a lot of these steering committees like the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, they're modeled on the Royal Institute for International Affairs, which was an old Fabian institution, which had the idea of creating and promoting Fabian socialism as the ultimate model for world world government.
So uh the the tweak there is that it's not identical to classical Marxism because the Fabians had the idea that Marxism would be a lot more successful if it allied itself with monopoly capital.
And that's exactly how that's the thesis by the way of uh Quigley and tragedy and hope and in Anglo American establishment that's how we got to World War II with the OSS basically being created under the auspices of wartime intelligence but it becomes this private secret deep state that in the analysis of uh two uh famous geopolitical writers who I think are correct uh Servando Gonzalez in his book Psychological Warfare New World Order and uh F. William Ingdahl in his book uh
full spectrum dominance, they basically posit the CIA is the private army of the Rockefellers.
And so I think that that's the best way to understand it.
It was always really for these people.
It was never really about the national interest.
You can even go back further prior to OSS and CIA to at the time of Woodrow Wilson.
The intelligence apparatus at that time was called the inquiry.
And the inquiry was a bunch of academics working under Wilson to push, even at that time, the Federal Reserve and we all know about if you know about Giover Griffin right uh Colonel Edwin Mandelhouse and Woodrow Wilson and how the Federal Reserve Act got pushed that was all the same people that I'm talking about behind the sort of uh you know Fabian empire that they want to construct this Federal Reserve model is this is their model.
This is what they wanted.
That's what I wanted to ask you about next was how how this because you mentioned 1890s that's you know in the scheme of things right before the establishment of the Federal Reserve.
I mean exactly feasibly feasibly linked.
And so I wanted to ask you what what your thoughts were on how the Federal Reserve plays into this because it at first it looks like a national centralized you know fractional reserve banking system.
But as we as we've seen play out over the last you know century more than a century now it seems that it's intimately connected with globalist interests in terms of what we do impacts every other currency where the we're the formal you know reserve currency and we were on the gold standard and then we weren't people think Nixon brought us off the gold standard but maybe it was really FDR,
you know, like who knows what and so there's it's so complicated but it seems like not a coincidence that you know within a handful of years of establishing the Federal Reserve we have World War I and then within a decade or so we have the Great Depression and then we have World War II again and then we have this you know this c this Keynesian conference in the 50s or whatever, right?
To establish the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.
And then with a handful and then it's Nixon after that taking us off the gold standard and then it's hyperinflation after that and then it's the Cold War after that.
And it's like everything that every problem that we've had globally the last hundred years seems to be inevitably linked to the fact that we have a fucking Federal Reserve right and I don't know if I'm just like like a dumbass, but like what are your thoughts on that in terms of that?
I mean, so in Quigley's tragedy and hope, he posits that the the locus of this system goes back to the gold notes, the promissory gold notes model where they could basically just create as many gold notes as they wanted to inflate the currency.
While this is all used to basically buy up everything and the central banking elite have the actual assets, they have the actual gold and silver or assets, land, whatever.
Meanwhile, they're inflating the currency with gold notes.
And then he says that the central bank model that was utilized by throughout Europe and then eventually spread to other countries like the US, as you're talking.
I mean, that is a Fabian style.
It's a quasi Marxist because if you remember in Marx's Communist Manifesto, he talks about a central central bank model.
Right.
But the difference is that it's not owned publicly by the people as it's portrayed to be.
It's a private central bank.
bank, as you know.
But here's the key point.
Quigley says that the central bank of central banks is the bank for international settlements.
And it was set up to be the central bank for all of the world's central banks, including the American Federal Reserve.
So once the U.S. went on the Federal Reserve model in uh, you know, the at the turn of the century, last century, that is what allowed the uh power elite out of those London circles to then have the wherewithal to steer the US into creating the OSS and the CIA, which is what put us in the deep state problem to begin with.
So that was it was a direct connect.
You're absolutely right.
And the other thing too is that it's the same, these are the same entities funding both sides of World War One and World War II, right?
Quigley says that as well.
And you mentioned Keynes, uh Keynes was it was a fabia uh by self-profession.
And so he was instrumental, as you said, Brent Wood system.
Um, and that was intentional to create a global dollar-based system, but a not a dollar-based system based on anything like a hard asset.
So you're absolutely right to go back to FDR too, because if you read Quigley's chapter on FDR is amazing.
It's one of the overlooked chapters because he talks about in that chapter that FDR was really just putting the whole country for the public works projects into debt to the banking league.
And all that did was kick the can down the road and then make the next generation in debt.
So nobody it wasn't a public works project that just went into debt and somehow paid for everything.
It was uh kick the can down the road, which is what we still do, right?
The whole Federal Reserve system, all the quantitative easing, all of these boom busts, basically the boom bust cycle is a rigged game, is the point.
That's the whole point.
Yeah.
It's it's it's just absolutely insane how irresponsible this this has ultimately been.
But it's the part of the problem is our leaders know that they'll be gone before the account gives accountability, right?
But that we're coming, it seems like we're coming to a head though, where like somebody's gonna be here, like so.
Who do we blame when it when it when this pops who gets blamed?
As you know, every country that has the you know Federal Reserve fiat system eventually goes bankrupt.
Right.
They eventually go into this, you know, hyperinflation, you know, it takes you it takes 7,000 Zimbabwe dollars to buy a donut, right?
Yeah, but but traditionally when like if you look at the Weimar Republic, they had an insane hyperinflation problem.
And basically with a new government, you know, for better or for worse, they were able to just say fuck all of that problem and start a whole new currency, you know, like 1933.
They're like, all right, you know, no more inflation.
We got these new banking system, right?
Like and it, you know, everything changed.
And I'm not saying that that was like, you know, ethical or the right way to do it, but it does seem like when these collapses happen with a certain type of leadership, which is typically very autocratic and problematic, you can actually solve it.
So like if our dollar collapses, you know, are we talking about like decades of global collapse and famine?
Or are we just talking about a power vacuum that catalyzes autocracy and the problem immediately being solved within you know a handful of years?
Yeah, that's that's a tough one.
I'm not sure how it will play out.
I mean, I definitely think that um there is uh potential economic collapse in the cards in the next five to ten years.
Uh that that seems to be something that they talk about quite often.
And you know, if you read Klaus's stuff, he kind of talks about it like, you know, the more of the crises that we have, the better for us because it'll it'll be the catalyst for bringing in the next business phase of you know the new world order.
Uh, you know, he's even said that publicly in in talks about the next pandemic will be the cyber pandemic and it'll be like nothing before, and it'll be the greatest step forward to the new world.
You know, he has these actual quotes uh about this kind of stuff.
So um probably something, you know, he he caught he talks about Cyber Polygon, maybe that that's what it'll be that triggers a kind of a uh eco collapse.
Uh I don't know, but I mean, it does it definitely seems like that's in the cards, and it wouldn't, it doesn't seem like it'd be that difficult given the fact that the whole the whole system runs on debt.
It's like debt based on debt based on debt based on debt.
I mean, look if you look at FTX, the recent crypto uh exchange crash, which is all a big a big scam.
I mean, that's kind of like the way the dollar runs, right?
I mean, that that's like a micro scale version of what the Federal Reserve system is, right?
Yeah.
So that that's one of one of the things I wanted to ask you about on this on this uh Federal Reserve thread was what are your thoughts on the origin of cryptocurrency?
Do you think that this was something that was a plant by the intelligence apparatuses that exist?
Or do you think that this is a rogue sort of uh protest to the establishment monetary system?
Uh I think that uh Bitcoin is the solution uh at an economic level to the Federal Reserve scam system.
Um I can't, I mean, I I put a lot of time and research into this.
Uh I did change my mind on Bitcoin some years ago.
Um, about 2016, I changed my mind.
I used to think it was a scam and you know, kind of like promoting the uh electronic, you know, central bank model.
Well, it kind of was until it wasn't.
Well, then you notice that uh according to a lot of these uh you know, global lead, they they hate Bitcoin, like they can't stand it.
They want it to go away, and they want you on this other thing, right?
Oh, come over here to this to Klaus Coin, come over here to Fed Coin, come over here to C C B D C and all this kind of all of those things I think are ultimately uh versions of war on Bitcoin.
So that it's true that the origin of Bitcoin is uh somewhat mysterious, but I think that the originators of that did that on purpose and they were wise to do that because then it couldn't be pinned on any single person in an ideology because the idea was let's create uh the most ethical, the most fair, the most um energy resilient form of currency that man could have.
And so um that's I I think that's what Bitcoin is.
There are a potentially, maybe there's a couple other projects that will end up sh uh making it and that are good.
Um I know at Rockfin we have a native currency at uh token, which which uh I support that, but you know, typically um I'm I tend to just favor Bitcoin.
Do you think uh because this is just my intuition, so this is me just shooting shit, okay.
The more time goes on, the more I think Elon Musk is at least partially Satoshi Nakamoto.
Just because of his association with PayPal and he was really an innovator in the online financial transaction tech space 10 years before, and he left PayPal and then you know his non-compete probably would have expired right right around the time that PayPal's white paper was.
He's obviously got the intelligence and the skill set and the network to accomplish.
I don't necessarily believe it's one person.
I find it kind of hard to believe that Musk wasn't involved.
Yeah, I was gonna say I I tend to favor the thesis that it was probably you know a group of people, and uh yeah, he he certainly could have been uh been one of those people.
Definitely possible.
So where can people find you, follow you, and engage with you?
Yeah, I'm on uh YouTube under my name, Jay Dyer.
Um I host uh you know the fourth hour of Lord Voldemort most every Friday uh on average.
Um that's over at at uh at his uh sites.
Um I'm on Rockfin under my name J Dyer, which is a good free speech-based platform that uh that I love and support.
And uh I have some unique content over there.
I also have a uh subscription service where people can subscribe to my lectures and and interviews and archives that we've, you know, like I mentioned, the global elite book series.
We also do a lot of debates with uh with various people out there on the internet.
So you know, we do a lot of different stuff, and you can find all that at uh my website, Jasonalysis.com, and uh I have uh two books on Hollywood and two books on philosophy, and you can get those at the shop uh at my website.
Well, it's been an honor and a pleasure to have you on one American podcast, and uh I hope we'll stay in touch and you'll come back and join us again.
