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 Clintons, about a dozen that are just fucking hard to shake.
Klaus Schwab famously said that you will own nothing and be happy.
Look at you.
You start a show with absolutely nothing and you have thousands and thousands of listeners and you have force multipliers that send your content at you.
I was actually talking to Chase Geyser.
He hadn't seen this.
It just came out.
I said, oh, you see this?
You know, all these documents.
Maybe I shouldn't even say what he said.
I shouldn't have said his name.
I won't tell you what he said.
I actually did a Getter stream last night with Chase Geyser.
Fantastic interview.
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 going to 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 got to write down cool stuff.
I know, right?
You should just whip out like a book of quotes or something.
Just pull out Mein Com freelaner too.
Just kidding.
What is that?
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
Didn't really happen.
Weird anime thing.
I don't follow the kids' anime, so I don't know what that is.
So I want to ask you about esoteric Hollywood.
I don't know much about you.
I just came across you because we have a mutual connection through Sean Atwood's team.
And I wanted to, I looked at 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 interview with you.
And I was noticing he had a channel and he was like, oh, 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.
Yeah.
So I mean, the esoteric Hollywood started out of like my college research and a love for movies that I had since high school.
So ever since high school, 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 I don't know if I'm going to end up as a movie star.
So I tried different things.
I didn't make it as a movie star, if you were wondering, but I did 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 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 Burmes' stuff, a lot of Lord Vault, Lord Valdemark.
You probably know who I'm talking about.
Unbelievable.
That guy that you can't name.
And so I was getting into all that stuff in the mid-2000s and had these disparate worlds going on.
And then I thought 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'd done a lot of blogging that related to like, you know, politics and libertarian Ron Paul Rampaul 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 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.
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, Esoteric Hollywood, in short, is a reflection of all of my interests over the years as it pertains to geopolitics, symbolism in film, the deep, dark history of Hollywood and all of its different facets, the real history behind various movies, and also how movies are propaganda.
So that kind of, that's what undergirds the first couple Hollywood books that I wrote.
And then it kind of branched out into, I just started doing all kinds of other stuff.
So I ended up hosting The Fourth Hour of Lord Voldemort every Friday, almost every Friday for the last couple of years, and 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 100 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.
I've been in my own music style called cringe core music.
So I do these sort of weird music.
I don't know what you call it.
Music in scare quotes, I guess we could say.
Yeah.
So that's what we do.
And it all just sort of snowballed from, you know, blogging in college, ironically.
So when you talk about propaganda in movies, when I think of the word propaganda, I think of like 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 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 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 Roger Ebert had a commentary on Citizen Kane.
And he did this really interesting symbolic critique of everything 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.
It's like, hey, you could actually probably dissect films in this way on 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 over time, as I studied that at even a grad level, I was amazed at how many movies had this, you know, long standing history of putting intentional messages, propaganda, sometimes at a subtle level and sometimes the whole film.
For example, Ben Affleck made that movie Argo and won the award, Academy Award that year.
But that was actually about a CI operation to go into Iran and utilize a movie filming cover.
So that was actually a cover that they used during the Iranian Revolution to sort of get some hostages out, all done under the cover of a B movie, sci-fi movie that was being filmed.
And so that, when I first learned about that back at the time, I was like, that's fascinating.
So I wonder if there's any other movies that might have been involved in 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 propaganda films like Hell's Angels.
And those were the blockbusters of that time.
And they were really war propaganda.
And the more I dug into this, the more I found that there's really 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, you know, at times, a lot of the famous Hollywood people have even been spies.
They've been recruited to do spying.
And, you know, again, all of this really is with 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 in other movies like Snowden, for example, 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 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?
Yeah, I think sometimes there's an allowance for a little bit of criticism, self-reflection, self-awareness, and people can make art that's critical of the establishment.
For example, in the 70s and 80s, there were a lot of films that came out that were critical of the Vietnam War.
And, you know, Hollywood was very anti-war at that at that time period.
And then by the time of the 90s and 2000s, as a result of the war on terror, things got flipped and Hollywood took on this, not in every area, but in a lot of areas, a very subtly sort of pro-war on terror message.
American war.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
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 lies.
Block down.
Yeah.
Well, the big first big blockbuster that had a terror war on terror narrative was Arnold's True Lies, right?
So we've got to get the terrorists.
And that was way ahead of the Big Nine event.
Now, you could argue that was after the 1993 WTC event.
So maybe it wasn't totally, but it was before the big ramped up war on terror.
Yeah, of course, Rocky III, right?
Was it three that was the Russian?
Yeah.
But don't forget, though, that Rambo also with, you know, like Rambo goes and fights with the Mujahideen, right?
I think it's in Rambo 2.
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 Taliban, right?
The Al-Qaeda would come out of the freedom fighters of the Mujahideen.
And there's other cases too.
I think in Living Daylights, the Timothy Dalton, James Bond, he goes, a significant part of that plot is him fighting with the Mujahideen, the Al-Qaeda against the Soviets.
And so it's kind of reflecting that post-Soviet war, 1979, Brzezinski model of how we would recruit and utilize the Mujahideen up into the 80s.
So again, yeah, this is kind of never-ending rabbit hole.
And to mention that James Bond stuff, that's kind of what I did my main sort of graduate work on was focusing on Bond because he's in every era.
Yeah.
Well, Ian Fleming is kind of the greatest example of what I'm trying to convey, this idea of a guy who goes from World War II intelligence operations at a really high level for naval intelligence for the British Navy and being a part of special operations executive to putting into a lot of the original 13 or whatever it is,
Bond novels that he wrote, putting in a lot of his own missions, a lot of things that reference historical British intelligence operations, World War II stuff.
For example, Operation GoldenEye 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 and he's building this giant sort of electromagnetic sun weapon that's going to zap everybody.
But that doesn't really have anything to do with what he was doing.
But he did take the name from one of his real World War II operations, which had to do with Spain and Franco and fascism in Spain.
Anyway, but he's a key example of this marriage between the world of espionage and the world of Hollywood.
And I think up until Harry Potter, maybe Avatar, the Bond franchise was the biggest iconic franchise in the world.
And so I analyzed it from the vantage point of like propaganda.
But anyway, I'm rambling, but 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 had you ever heard that?
I heard that they called him after 9-11 and they're like, we're going to need a different bond because everything's changed.
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.
But I'm pretty sure that that's true.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised.
I mean, you know, it did take a different turn from obviously from Brosman to Craig.
It got a lot more serious.
Yeah, Craig stopped getting laid.
Right.
The weird part that, well, I mean, you have like Roger Moore walking on the heads of alligators and black dudes are like 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.
So from Roger Moore to Daniel Craig, it's totally different.
It's a lot more serious, like you said.
But the one thing that's weird about the Craig franchise years is that there were way more critical aspects that relate to what you're talking about.
For example, Spectre is very much about the exposés relating to things like Snowden, relating to things like the deep state, spying on everybody, 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 system of Spectre that Blofeld is setting up was totally, obviously based in real world stuff going on at that time in terms of geopolitics.
And certain people that are not supposed to be named like Jorge Soros, we'll say.
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 critiquing, you know, Jorge Soros?
I mean, it seems like it.
Right, right.
So I got to ask you as someone who's studied philosophy and propaganda and film specifically, and as someone who has expressed 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, you know, it's for me, there's a lot of different genres.
So, you know, anything to do with tentacles and Asian women.
I'm just joking.
And I knew somebody was going to be like, oh, I was going to say something related to Prawn.
No, that's a joke.
I don't like any of that stuff.
I'm joking.
Different genres.
You know, I like different genres.
So like, or even decades, like I kind of have favorite movies from the 90s, 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?
I did watch the Baby Yoda.
That's it.
I haven't seen anything.
Yeah, Mandalorian.
That was fun.
Yeah, Mandalorian.
I enjoyed that.
Okay.
But favorite films, I like a lot of, you know, The Godfather trilogy is a classic.
Excuse me.
I like a lot of Mel Gibson films that are kind of classics.
I like Conspiracy Theory, the Richard Donner movie with Mel Gibson.
I like Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson.
I mean, it's kind of, it's kind of cornball, but I still a goosebumper.
You know, there's still some inspiring moments, you know?
Exactly, exactly.
You know, especially when they're bouncing out of bed.
They're taking the hobbits to Isengard.
Anyway.
Yeah.
So, I mean, probably some of the big ones that people would expect.
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.
I mean, I'm not saying Eyes Wide Show is 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 don't know if I would say it's one of my favorites, but yeah, I'd have to think more.
I mean, I didn't expect that.
I always get that question, though.
You'd think I would be better at it.
Well, I know it's like an impossible question to answer, but it's just given the nature of your work.
It's fascinating one to hear.
Well, it's sort of like now 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 like a totally different lens now, which I mean, I still enjoy them when they're good, but now.
So what you think of Maverick then?
Let's talk about propaganda and movies.
Maverick is the most recent big blockbuster, right?
Yeah.
What'd you think of it when you watched it?
You want me to do my Tom Coomb impression?
Yeah, I love it.
That's it.
There's not actually any voice.
It's just him smiling and doing that thing.
Anyway, we have all these inside jokes on my channel that are really dumb, but I thought it was like a repeat of Top Gun.
And they just kind of copied and pasted the storyline and they just kind of repeated everything.
As a movie, it wasn't bad.
It was enjoyable.
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 it had been a little more, I just felt like I'm watching the original Top Gun just repackaged.
That was kind of annoying.
Anyway, it was okay, but I think it was propaganda.
But really, the first Top Gun is a lot more explicit, like for knowably being, you know, notably being propaganda, because Reagan allocated a bunch of money at that time to Hollywood for these kinds of pro-military messages.
So there's actually a whole spate of these in the 80s that came out after Reagan was elected.
You had Navy Seals with Charlie Sheen.
You had Top Gun, Iron Eagle.
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 didn't eat.
That 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, I also, when we went back and watched Top Gun, Jamie, my wife and I, we were kind of like, man, 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.
I'm trying to think of how to say it in a safe way for, you know, YouTube and whatnot.
I don't want to get you in any trouble, but basically he just says that it's a movie about guys, if you catch my drift, right?
I see.
He thinks it's homoerotic.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
Don't you die on me, goose.
What did he say?
What does he say at the end of the movie?
What's his thine?
You can ride my tail anytime.
It's gay.
Right.
That's Tarantino talking about.
That's literally what he says.
And then so David.
You sound just like him, dude.
Damn and I were watching it.
We were like, you know, they're in the shower.
They're like smacking butts with towels.
And like, then there's that weird sequence where they're playing volleyball and it's, it's very sweaty.
Yeah.
And there's one of those 80s, 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, so, you know, half the movie, he's like going over to Kelly McGillis's 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 Tarantino could have used in his arsenal if he wanted to.
But anyway, so yeah, but, you know, Top Gun is kind of a classic propaganda example.
So I didn't realize that there was like actual federal funding allocated for some of these films.
Oh, yeah.
So 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?
So I would say yes to the first two things you said.
There's tax breaks.
A lot of times there, what it used to be before a lot of CGI, it was like, well, we'll let you use tanks and aircraft carriers, but you have to insert certain sort of pro military messages in the film.
And so some academics put out a book, 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.
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 after the movie The Recruit with Al Pacino and I think Ryan Felipe.
That was 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 consulted on in some way by, but that one was one of the first that was like really public about it.
Then we had another important film come out called Wag the Dog, which is a pretty funny satirical critique of how wars are sold through pop culture.
So it's a weird kind of meta narrative analysis of the things that I talk about.
I had a whole chapter, I think, on Wag the Dog in one of my books.
But this movie was about these figures who are these liaisons between the intelligence agencies and Hollywood.
And I highly recommend if nobody's seen that movie, it really illustrates a big portion of the theses of my books because you have this character played by Robert De Niro who is liaisoning with and interacting with a big Hollywood director played by not Richard Dreyfus.
I just went blank.
Dustin Hoffman.
So Dustin Hoffman is sort of playing like a Kubrick character, right?
The director.
And then Robert De Niro is the CIA guy who kind of shows up and is like, you're going to film the movie the way we want 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 Chase Brandon and Milt Bearden, who are famous CIA people who then went on to consult on Hollywood films.
So 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 there's the behind the scenes section.
Yeah.
Right.
I'm watching the commentaries on these and I'm like, hey, wait a minute, they got CIA guys commenting on the fact how they helped 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 a nut ball.
Look at this dude, crazy skit toe, tinfoot hat, right?
I mean, every name in the book for years.
And I'm like, this isn't, you could go find this and 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 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 certainly a very public and well-accepted history of government involvement 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 seems to me like what 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 a FOIA request maybe two or three years ago done by some guys who asked for declassified documents in regard to Pentagon funding for movies.
And they got back like a box of information.
And I cited it in my book, a second book on the first page.
Their book is called National Security Cinema.
And I cited their research in that book because they had like thousands of pages of stuff relating to, according to their research, hundreds of movies and TV shows over multiple decades getting Pentagon funding for things like 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.
I would venture to guess that most blockbusters probably have some degree of this kind of a thing.
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?
A lot of this is taking place at a very high level and it's, you know, very, 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, you know, military for complex Raytheon Boeing, whatever, something like this, right?
So it kind of ranges, right?
So it ranges from that to even in some cases, entire film productions being covers for intelligence operations.
There's actually a couple of those that have been documented.
One of those appears to have been 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 is going on, but yeah, there's another section in my book where an entire, like, I think the FBI in California had created one whole film, a film company.
So basically a creation of a film company for the purpose of surveilling, I don't know, somebody who was engaged in some kind of high-level Hollywood money laundering.
So again, 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 I don't think everybody who makes movies is part of some vast conspiracy.
It doesn't really work like that.
And that's not what I'm saying.
Are there any examples of the government coming in and 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 bottom.
Fountainhead got shut down.
I don't know if that was a conspiracy or not, but Zach Schneider was going to do a version of The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand.
Oh, and it got the plug got pulled on it because it was too divisive of a time or a political climate.
That was the excuse.
Yeah, there's one I didn't even know about.
I mean, there was a lot of skullduggery around the North Korea satire thing of Seth Rogan when all that came out.
Yeah, the great dictator, or not the great dictator, but the dictator.
I think it's just what was.
And then there was a case where similar stuff happened when they leaked the ending of the Bond film.
If you remember that, the Sony hacks and leaks from several years ago.
Now, I don't know.
That didn't shut down the film, but there's a lot of suspicious things about that.
I'm sort of running through my memory about this.
The remake of Red Dawn, that was shut down because the government didn't want China has a lot of interest in Hollywood studios.
And so 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.
So that was a big one that happened in recent years.
Other shutdowns.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Just because 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 was a couple, supposedly a couple Oliver Stone films that were supposed to get made that never got made.
I don't know to what degree they were shut down by the deep state, but he was able to make that JFK documentary, though, and basically shat on the intelligence community for four hours.
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's a little bit of both.
Like you said earlier, like sometimes they'll allow a little bit of drips, you know, a little bit of internal critique.
But usually when we have the internal critique drip, all that they really allow is, oh, there's a couple bad apples and we're going to root out the bad apples.
And there's never a questioning of these agencies as a whole, if we should even have these.
One of the things that's been blown my mind, 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, like 101 Dalmatians, Lady in the Tramp, kind of the classics.
But every once in a while, we'll try a new one.
And one of the things that has blown my mind is like the movie Coco.
I don't know if you've seen that movie.
I haven't.
So it's a fairly new Disney movie.
And basically the plot is there's this, it's a Dia de los Muertos, sort of Hispanic kind of theme, right?
This little boy 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?
And 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 like seeks past security.
Like this is literally like an illegal immigration situation.
And it's just so funny.
Like I couldn't tell if they were just trying to like, if they made this 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 get from one world to the other.
I mean, there's so many examples of, you know, that movie Elysium with Matt Dadbot, I mean, Matt Damon that came out a couple of years ago.
I mean, the whole thing was sort of an open border message too.
So I tend to think that, yeah, those are movies are chosen for a purpose for their geopolitical or domestic politics in America propaganda, sure.
Yeah.
That's my thesis.
But at the same token, like, like, you know, I'm a big fan of that show, Altered Carbon, based on the trilogy.
I don't know if you've ever watched it about re-sleeving and stuff.
And 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 re-sleeved.
And it's almost like an anti-Klaus Schwab World Economic Forum type message, depending on how you interpret it.
But Matt Damon's obviously not going to be involved in anything that's pro-individual or national sovereignty necessarily.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, every now and then there's some good things that leak through and some good shows that kind of expose things.
We just recently watched, it was a 2016, 17, 18, I think series by Carlton Cughes, who did Lost with J.J. Abrams.
And 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, so basically predicting lockdowns years before we had the Kufid.
And then it turns out that they are working with a global elite government to set up a world government, you know, to sort of enslave everybody.
So so far, that one has been pretty revelatory.
We haven't finished the season yet, but somebody in the audience said, hey, watch Colony.
It's really good.
And it has all of these elements of, you know, surveillance and lockdowns and new world order and global currency and all this kind of stuff.
They even have an alien, a new alien religion.
So there's a global alien-based religion that the invaders are sort of duping everyone into.
And they can sort of trigger this personal salvific experience through their alien tech.
And then people are duped into thinking that, you know, this is some sort of anyway.
But point is just that, you know, one of the things I hammered on in my first book was alien propaganda.
I don't personally believe in aliens, but I think that Hollywood has used alien mythology, the alien mythos and all of this since the 1940s and 50s for a specific 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, there was CIA consultation on one of the first big alien films, the The Day the Earth Stood Still.
Yeah.
And yeah, that had CIA consultation.
I think it was even connected to CeeDee Jackson, who famously was involved in what was called the Doctrinal Warfare Program.
And that was an attempt to take over the religions in the 1950s and 60s for the purpose of propaganda during the Cold War.
So 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 sort of on the hook with after the Cold War.
Now you have to keep doing the deep state bidding.
And so that's that dangerous relationship that you get in when you do this kind of thing.
And that was evident even back then in the 1940s and 50s, the earliest days of Hollywood alien movies.
For example, a lot of the alien movies tied into propaganda.
The first time I noticed this was when I was watching the old series Twilight Zone.
And some of the earliest episodes in Twilight Zone feature these very odd elements like MK Ultra.
I think the pilot episode has a soldier going into a float tank and undergoing 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 consultant on Twilight Zone.
And it actually makes sense if we understand the UFO alien narrative as a 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 second book, I have an analysis that cites a 1968 Brookings Institute report related to NASA, which was precisely about this very thing, creating an alien mythology to give people a new religion to unite around.
So 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 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 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 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 communism, but never actually named.
And so it would just be, in fact, there's some of the Twilight Zones are about this where the aliens are the foreign threat that turns everybody into a hive mind, which is kind of true.
But the irony is that nowadays 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 their own express admission.
So yeah, you're absolutely right about that.
And there's countless examples, especially during the Cold War of the hide mind.
In fact, Invasion of the Body Snatchers is really, I think, it's a little bit prior to, it's kind of right at the beginning of the Cold War, but it is anti-Soviet, anti-collectivist 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 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 Johnny Vedmore, who's a journalist, he did a lot of research together with Whitney Webb on the backstory of Klaus and the WEF and everything that they came up with sort of jives with everything that I've read.
When you get into people like Kissinger and David Rockefeller and Brzezinski, these are the figures that sort of pick out future people to be in those types of positions.
And so it was Henry Kissinger together with other people like Herman Kahn of the Rand Corporation that noticed Klaus.
and came up with the idea to create the World Economic Forum out of Davos.
And so this is essentially a CIA creation on record.
And it was born out of what was called a Harvard Project.
So that there's the Harvard Research, Harvard Research Project.
There's these different titles.
And this is a lot of that East Coast snobby elite that sort of allied themselves with the Anglo-American establishment or with the UK establishment, known as the Anglo-American Establishment in the writings of Carol Quigley.
That's who really put Klaus and Davos in that position.
So it's really just another CIA Rockefeller kind of creation.
So David Rockefeller has a history of doing that by his own admission in his memoirs and his authorized biography.
There's Collier and Horowitz and then his own memoirs.
And it really kind of tells everything.
And, you know, he talks about when he was during 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 one of his first famous recruits put into these kinds of position would was Brzezinski.
So Brzezinski was recruited and put into this by both Rockefeller and Kissinger to head up a steering committee known as the Trilateral Commission.
And so the same people basically, this sort of Kissinger Rockefeller circles picked Klaus to head up this World Economic Forum Davos outfit.
So it's more like a public version of the Bilderberg group is essentially all it is.
And David Rockefeller has, you know, a whole chapter on the Bilderberg group in his memoirs where he talks about being involved and helping to set that up and get it going and it being this high level corporate sort of debating steering committee.
So that's kind of what they do is just sort of create 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?
And in my view, which is based on a lot of the writings of Dr. Carol Quigley, for example, this is really, you know, some of the wealthiest families that are behind this in the world, but particularly in the U.S. and the UK.
And they have adopted a Malthusian ideology and they've adopted a strategy for a long-term technocracy based on depopulation.
It's in all of their books.
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 official writings of the elite going back about 100 years.
And so that's why Klaus is there.
Klaus was picked to be in that position and given this sort of public face of a Bilderberg type of group to promote ultimately just a technocratic post-human world.
You know, it's interesting that you mentioned the depopulation aspect of it because I was looking through some pictures of evidence from Epstein's 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.
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 working closely.
It eventually came out in the New York Times with Gil Bates, with MIT.
There was a whole project at MIT.
There was a lot of experimentation with genetics, with offspring.
I mean, all of this stuff, you know, it came out that Jeff Stein McEffery was involved in in terms of allocating money as well as, you know, the blackmail stuff.
So it seemed to be something that was operating, you know, in multi-tiers, multi-levels involving Bond villain type of stuff, right?
And I don't think he was at the top of the pyramid.
I think he was, he was a high up sort of fixer organizer person.
And, you know, assuming if the story of his death is correct, you know, then he took the hit.
he took the fall, if that death story is correct, which obviously I think he was killed because of what he could potentially expose.
But 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'd never heard of that until RT, Ben Swan at RT did a report on Jeff Stein McEffery, 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 sexual compromise going on in, you know, deep state politics for decades, like the Franklin cover-up, Boys Town and the Franklin cover-up is one that's very well known.
There's other examples of these kinds of things, you know, all over the world, actually.
The UK for a long time in their intelligence apparatus had their own kind of compromise operations going on with Elm Guesthouse that was connected to the MI6, MI5 there and compromising high-level MPs and officials.
So from my separate research of the history of espionage and intelligence operations, I had, you know, covered this many, many times.
I'd seen this in many, many books.
You know, there's tons of books out there 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 our boy Jeff Stein, McGeffrey.
I always say his name all mixed up to kind of trick the algorithm.
So I speak in codes.
Anyway, but yeah, I've written about this kind of stuff as well from a movie analysis standpoint because 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 documentary about Boys Town that was on the Discovery Channel and all that kind of stuff.
McMartin preschool trial, this kind of stuff that had been in the alt media for a long time.
And so again, just to have the basically the thesis of that essay vindicated to me 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 comprom sort of, I don't know, just give away our power and let it be, you know, subject to a committee, an international committee.
Yeah, I mean, you would think, 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 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, with Bill Donovan, they came from British intelligence 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, call 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 trades.
Whereas 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, you know, the gay guy that propositions him and all that.
And he's the one that teaches them tradecraft.
I think that's supposed to express that the U.S. OSS apparatus was set up essentially by these UK British intelligence operatives.
And 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 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 to bring the U.S. back under the aegis of the Anglo-American establishment.
And they wanted the 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 new world orderism before even the 1920s and 30s.
You can go back to the 1890s when this is dreamt up with 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 government.
So 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 Quigley and Traging 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 two famous geopolitical writers who I think are correct, Servando Gonzalez in his book, Psychological Warfare of the New World Order, and F. William Ingdahl in his book, 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.
And you can even go back further prior to OSS and CIA to in the time of Woodrow Wilson, the intelligence apparatus of 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 Geober Griffin, right, Colonel Edwin Mandel House 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, you know, Fabian empire that they want to construct.
This Federal Reserve model is their model.
This is what they wanted.
That's what I wanted to ask you about next was 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 your thoughts were on how the Federal Reserve plays into this, because 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.
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.
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 Keynesian conference in the 50s or whatever, right?
To establish the U.S. 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 a dumbass, but like, what are your thoughts on terms of that?
It is.
I mean, so in Quigley's Tragedy Hope, he posits that 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 was 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, you know, 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 U.S., 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, a 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, 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, you know, at the turn of the century, last century, that is what allowed the power elite out of those London circles to then have the wherewithal to steer the U.S. into creating the OSS and the CI, which is what put us in the deep state problem to begin with.
So 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 I and World War II, right?
Quigley says that as well.
And you mentioned Keynes.
Keynes was a Fabia by self-profession.
And so he was instrumental, as you said, Brenton Woods system.
And that was intentional to create a global dollar-based system, but 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 elite.
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 a 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 just absolutely insane how irresponsible this has ultimately been.
But it's the part of the problem is our leaders know that they'll be gone before the account is accountability, right?
But we're coming.
It seems like we're coming to a head, though, where like somebody's going to be here.
So who do we blame when this pops, who gets blamed?
As you know, every country that has the Federal Reserve fiat system eventually goes bankrupt.
Right.
They eventually go into this hyperinflation.
It takes 7,000 Zimbabwe dollars to buy a donut, right?
Yeah.
But traditionally, if you look at the Weimar Republic, they had an insane hyperinflation problem.
And basically with a new government, for better or for worse, they were able to just say, fuck all of that problem and start a whole new currency.
1933, they're like, all right, no more inflation.
We got these new banking system, right?
And 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 a handful of years?
Yeah, that's a tough one.
I'm not sure how it will play out.
I mean, I definitely think that there is a potential economic collapse in the cards in the next five to 10 years.
That seems to be something that they talk about quite often.
And if you read Klaus's stuff, he kind of talks about it like, the more of the crises that we have, the better for us, because it'll be the catalyst for bringing in the next business phase of the new world order.
He's even said that publicly in talks about the next pandemic will be the cyber pandemic and it will be like nothing before.
It will be the greatest step forward to the new world order.
He has these actual quotes about this kind of stuff.
So probably something, he talks about cyber polygon.
Maybe that's what it'll be that triggers a kind of eco collapse.
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 exchange crash was all a big, a big scam.
I mean, that's kind of like the way the dollar runs, right?
I mean, that's like a micro scale version of what the Federal Reserve system is, right?
Yeah.
So that's one of the things I wanted to ask you about on this, on this 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 protest to the establishment monetary system?
I think that Bitcoin is the solution at an economic level to the Federal Reserve scam system.
I can't, I mean, I put a lot of time and research into this.
I did change my mind on Bitcoin some years ago, about 2016.
I changed my mind.
They used to think it was a scam and kind of like promoting the electronic central bank model.
Well, kind of it was until it wasn't.
Well, then you notice that according to a lot of these global elite, they hate Bitcoin.
They can't stand it.
They want it to go away and they want you on this other thing.
Oh, come over here to this, to KlausCoin.
Come over here to Fedcoin.
Come over here to CBDC and all this kind of.
All of those things, I think, are ultimately versions of war on Bitcoin.
So it's true that the origin of Bitcoin is 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 and an ideology because the idea was let's create the most ethical, the most fair, the most energy resilient form of currency that man could have.
And so that's, I think that's what Bitcoin is.
There are a potentially, maybe there's a couple other projects that will end up making it and that are good.
I know at Rockfin, we have a native currency token, which I support that.
But, you know, typically I tend to just favor Bitcoin.
Do you think, 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 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 going to say, I tend to favor the thesis that it was probably a group of people.
And yeah, he certainly could have been one of those people.
Definitely possible.
So where can people find you, follow you, and engage with you?
Yeah, I'm on YouTube under my name, Jay Dyer.
I host the fourth hour Lord Voldemort most every Friday on average.
That's over at his sites.
I'm on Rockfin under my name, Jay Dyer, which is a good free speech-based platform that I love and support.
And I have some unique content over there.
I also have a subscription service where people can subscribe to my lectures 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 various people out there on the internet.
So, you know, we do a lot of different stuff.
And you can find all that at my website, jaysanalysis.com.
And I have two books on Hollywood and two books on philosophy.
And you can get those at the shop at my website.
Well, it's been an honor and a pleasure to have you on One American Podcast.
And I hope we'll stay in touch and you'll come back and join us again.
