The Delingpod - James Delingpole - Jay Dyer

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 15, 2021 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole

01:39:21

Jay Dyer

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I love Danny Paul!
	Come and subscribe to the podcast baby!
	I love Danny Paul!
	And there's another time subscribe with me!
	I love Danny Paul!
	Welcome to The Deling Pod with me, James Delingpole.
	And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I am so excited about this week's special guest.
	It is Jay Dyer.
	Now, some of you are going to be going, like, who?
	And some of you are going, wow, you've got Jay Dyer on the show.
	That is totally amazing.
	So I'm really looking forward, Jay, to going down the rabbit hole with you.
	But before I do that, but before we do the introductions, I want to cut to the chase and ask you a question, which is how totally screwed are we?
	And is there any hope of salvation in this life or is it basically over for Western civilization?
	I would say that maybe our best hope would be some kind of Collapse as odd as that might sound because I got asked Alex asked me that same question yesterday.
	He said what what's our hope here?
	What's our answer?
	I think that the system that they want to bring in is so fundamentally anti-human and and in a way irrational.
	I know that sounds odd given the fact that it's kind of a technocracy, but I think it's fundamentally anti-human and irrational.
	And so I think that that might be the weak point in what they're trying to bring in.
	So, as odd and contradictory as it sounds, I would say, yeah, there is hope.
	Yeah.
	So, by they, because I'm very conscious, in the last 12 months, I have For want of a better phrase, gone down the rabbit hole.
	In a way that pretty much every one of my... I used to be, in the mainstream media, I used to be, you know, respectable.
	And all my contemporaries in journalism have, in UK journalism, have stayed respectable.
	They've been too frightened or too...
	Uncurious, maybe?
	Or too keen to stay within the confines of the Overton window?
	Too career safe?
	All these, for whatever reason, they don't want to go where I do.
	And I'm conscious that Maybe a third of my audience is still wanting to remain in the false world, in the blue-pilled world, let's say.
	So when we're talking about they, who are we talking about?
	We're talking about the people behind the Great Reset.
	We're talking about the Triateral Commission.
	We're talking about who else?
	Who are these shadowy forces who are remaking our world against our interests?
	I would say that it would be the top banking elite families, the Fortune 100.
	And by the way, when I say this, I don't mean every single person in the companies.
	I don't mean every person in those families.
	Really, the people who run the steering committees, the international elites that meet every year at different groups such as Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg.
	Davos is one of those many meetings.
	They all, for the most part, will overlap.
	There's actually a great chart that somebody made where it shows all the people who attend the Trilateral Commission.
	And this is just for media.
	They're also the heads of like, you know, the top mainstream media magazines, networks, right?
	And they also attend Bilderberg.
	So there's an overlap of huge, you know, power elites just in one field that are all kind of working towards one goal.
	And there's a lot of this and it's been going on for a long time.
	So I think the easiest answer to that is just to talk about like what are called the steering committees, the NGOs, the think tanks, and they kind of work underneath what you could say is kind of what Rothkopf called the managerial class.
	So there's about 6,000 of those people and they pretty much set the stage for how things will be implemented in what you could call the Atlanticist Western power block.
	And are these kind of hereditary positions or are these, is it just a certain kind of person is attracted towards this to worm their way into the positions of power where they can rule the world?
	How does it work?
	There's a little bit of both.
	I mean, there is an element so people talk about the bloods and the brains and so not everybody who is part of the power structure has some sort of, you know, bloodline lineage and like that.
	In fact, that's probably less important than it used to be.
	I think.
	When we're talking about the rise of the British Empire, obviously, that would be a lot of, obviously, nobility, right?
	But with the waning of the British Empire and the rise of the Pax Americana, it definitely shifted, which is what Quigley covers in Tragedy and Hope, and then his other books as well, like Anglo-American Establishment.
	It definitely shifts over to the power base in America, which is industrial, technocratic, and as I said, Brain trusts.
	So there's a little bit of both.
	There are still old families that have a lot of power, a lot of wealth.
	I think the Queen has a lot of power, a lot of wealth, more so than a lot of people think.
	I don't think she runs the world, but she definitely has a lot of power.
	So there's a little bit of both, to answer that question.
	I mean, the first long, long discussion I saw of yours, which completely blew my mind and opened my mind was your discussion of this book by Carol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, which is a kind of, it's one of the keys to all mythologies, isn't it?
	Of those people who understand how the world really works, as opposed to the false narrative that most of us have been taught at school and stuff.
	That book explains a lot.
	And I think, I also think you did me a favor.
	I think you've saved me the bother of having to actually read the book.
	I'm not sure it's necessary to read the book.
	I think your exegesis was quite enough.
	And just going back, you think it all goes back to the 1776?
	Is that when it all went wrong?
	Or is it even earlier than that?
	Was there a golden age of civilization where you think we had it right?
	Well, I do tend to be more of a traditionalist when it comes to like how I view church-state relationships, that kind of stuff, so I do favor a stronger Relationship between the two than probably most people would nowadays, especially given modernity and liberalism and all that you can definitely find a lot of precedent for where we are today in French Revolution and American Revolution.
	That was something I study actually pretty intensely when I was in University.
	And the weird part was that the way I got into Tragedy and Hope, I'd heard people in the sort of patriot sphere in America would reference this book, and they always talked about it being an insider book, and it wasn't until I was in grad school that I actually got a found a copy in the university library, and I had it with me, and I was going through it.
	I was actually underlining it, which, you know, you're not supposed to do because it's, you know.
	Yeah, I had the book with me.
	I had the book with me in one of my grad class.
	I had this really nasty UN affiliated professor who was just completely super liberal.
	And he would always try to prod me and provoke me about this because he knew that I was studying this kind of stuff.
	And he would say stuff like, you know, there's no world government.
	This is so ridiculous.
	This is, you know, they're not trying to do this.
	It doesn't exist.
	And then one day he called me out in class, right?
	And so out in front of everybody, he calls me out and he says, He says, I'd like to, you know, give you the opportunity.
	He gave me the voice.
	Why don't you prove to me your big grand conspiracy?
	And I just happened to have Tragedy and Hope with me in class that day.
	So I pulled it out and I said, well, I've got this here.
	And he's like, he didn't expect me to have it.
	Right.
	He thought I was just going to say, well, I'll watch the YouTube video and talk about conspiracies.
	Right.
	So I had Tragedy and Hope.
	So I pulled it out and I started going to the pages where he talks about the international steering committees.
	And I saw he was getting madder and madder about it.
	He just said, you can get out of here.
	So, he kicked me out of class that day.
	So, I actually got kicked out of class in one of my grad classes for having Tragedy and Hope in class.
	Anyway, that's just a funny story, but I guess I'm just kind of a bit of an autistic type of person maybe, where I've always grown up with this, you got to prove your case type of thing, right?
	You don't have the evidence, if you can't prove it, you're gonna get laughed at.
	I've always just thought, well, I got to go read all this stuff, right?
	I got to prove it.
	So, I went, I read Tragedy and Help a few years ago in grad school.
	And you're right, it is extremely boring.
	It is extremely... Quigley was a military historian.
	So, he's not a historian proper.
	And if you ever try to read military historians, it's pretty dry, it's pretty dense.
	But what he does, the reason he's important is that he was, for example, Bill Clinton's mentor.
	So, he's the professor at Georgetown who's...
	Kind of mentoring future leaders, future government types, right?
	And it's rumored at least, I haven't been able to verify this, but supposedly the book was written as a kind of a white paper policy approach for CIA officials.
	So, it's written for kind of that higher level international relations graduate type CIA type person who's going to be running operations because people were wondering why As Americans in the Cold War, because it's written during the Cold War, why are we funding liberal causes?
	Why are we funding?
	Why is there establishment U.S.
	funding for socialist causes, leftist causes, just things that don't seem to make sense with, you know, what we're supposedly fighting with, you know, communism and Sovietism.
	And so the book is an attempt to give an apologetic defense of that.
	It's a giant tome tragedy, the tragedy being the two world wars, and then presumably the Cold War being the third war.
	The hope being Western democratic capitalism slash liberalism, aka technocracy, which he says in the middle chapter.
	So that's the hope for the world.
	And so that's what this book is.
	This is basically an apologetic.
	It's a defense of what we're doing.
	It's a defense of the establishment.
	And he's very candid.
	It's not that he's Everybody thinks when I talk about this book that I'm either promoting it or I'm saying that it's a conspiracy text.
	It's neither of those.
	It's just a policy paper.
	It's just a defense.
	It's just what else is there, right?
	Quigley's argument is there's really no other approach.
	We lost in the West everything that we could have had.
	Right.
	In terms of the Middle Ages and that kind of stuff, that's all gone.
	So all we've got left is this need to bring in via the banking elite.
	Right.
	A global government.
	That's essentially what the book is saying.
	That is that is scary because I grew up.
	I mean, I spent the first 50 years of my life imagining that I was a reasonably autonomous being, that governments were our servants rather than our masters, that they were motivated by desire to make things better for us all.
	That we were inevitably tending towards more liberty.
	I wasn't quite end of history, and I didn't believe the progressive narrative, but I nevertheless imagined that things were getting better, not worse, and that
	That, for example, Nazi Germany, Communists, the Soviet Union, whatever, were aberrations rather than milestones on the way to a global totalitarian tyranny.
	But I was living in the dream, wasn't I?
	We all have been.
	I think all of us at some point live in that dream, yeah.
	I mean, we're kind of born into that.
	We're born into that thinking that You know, the leaders are there to give us the best possible life.
	They want to make everything, like you said, they want to help everybody.
	And then you realize over time, you hear more and more about, well, there's this scandal, that scandal, this scandal, that scandal.
	And then you realize that actually, you know, con artistry is a big part of how government runs, right?
	I mean, it's almost like the art of the con is a huge part.
	Of how media works, of how government works, psychological operations, all of those things that play into the bringing in of this type of government.
	But just to give maybe a quick rundown of the book, what he says at the beginning is that The first few chapters he deals with where we are in terms of the post-enlightenment, post-scientific revolution world.
	And he says that we are under what some other philosophers like Spengler have called homo economicus, economic man.
	Man is now under the dominance of money to the extent that fractional reserve banking Lending right out in terms of interest, that is what dominates man.
	And he's not critiquing, he's just stating the facts, right?
	He's saying that that's how we operate.
	He says, we've lived under a kind of post-Renaissance international order that assumes rights, that assumes kind of basic human humanitarian principles.
	And by the time he gets to the middle chapter where he's discussing the technocratic managerial government that's going to come in for the whole world, he says that that's all going away.
	Okay, that's gone.
	And the 20th century marks the end of that because what it was really about was the removal of the Atlantis' power bloc's two main rivals, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany, and then Russia.
	So those were the two potential rivals to the Western power bloc.
	And now that they have been removed, it's the victory of what you call liberal democracy, I suppose, ultimately.
	Although it's not really that because if you've read, you know, other writings that sort of compliment this, the phrase liberal democracy is more of a selling point.
	It's more of a propaganda line because it's not liberal.
	It's very strictly rigid, ordered and tiered.
	Technocracy, aka what's in Brave New World with the alphas, the omegas, right?
	And it's not democracy, it's very much, well, ultimately run by AI.
	I mean, Quigley even said in the middle chapter that AI will actually run and govern and determine based on rationing and quantities, everything in life.
	So, they had already kind of projected back then The carbon rationing, the carbon limitations, all that kind of stuff would be implemented.
	He clearly doesn't give any dates, but later writers kind of project in the terms of the actuaries of the 10, 20, 30, 50 year plans.
	They kind of give dates, but long story short, yeah, the middle chapter is the one that's kind of overlooked because it details the technocracy and the fact that all of society will be run by AI and computers and then.
	Most famous chapter that people refer to in Tragic Hope is the one where he talks about the elite putting all this money into, of that time, particularly in the UK and in the US, putting so much money into liberal left and socialist causes.
	And so the book, he says, ironically, the Birchers, and I'm not a John Birch type of person, but he says that back at that time, the John Birch people had stumbled on basically what was going on, but they didn't know how to fit it into the narrative because they thought that it was Moscow.
	It was the Rockefellers.
	It was the elite families in the West that were putting so much money into these magazines and into the institutes, into the universities.
	In fact, this even was known in terms of the Reese Committee.
	So we actually had hearings in the U.S.
	known as the Reese Committee hearings where they investigated The funding of liberal socialist causes via the most wealthy families and foundations in the US, it's like obvious.
	I mean, it's not even disputed, right?
	But one thing that happens in the US, it probably happens in the UK too, I think with some of the inquiries that you guys have, is that people do these inquiries and these investigations, they discover a whole bunch of skullduggery and scammery and evil, and then it just gets forgotten.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	So why?
	You're absolutely right.
	I mean, almost everything that's wrong in the world, if you can follow the paper trail, then it goes back to the Rockefeller Foundation, say, or these various foundations, which I know are partly tax dodging devices, aren't they?
	But the amount of money that gets poured into liberal causes, I mean, George Soros, I suppose, is the most obvious name in this.
	What's the end goal?
	How does it work?
	Why do they do this?
	What's the benefit to their master plan of having all these activities taking place?
	Well, one thing I would add is that it's not all... I mean, I know you know this, but just for the sake of the audience, the power elite don't always just fund liberal causes.
	A lot of times that seems to be the most advantageous because they want to change society.
	So they have, for example, change agents and so this is a long term decades long plan of.
	For example, propping up and funding people in the 60s counterculture revolution, right?
	So a lot of the people who came out as these sort of troubadours of tune in, turn on, drop out, you know, Leary was a change agent.
	And that's why he got this sort of Harvard and elite funding for what he was doing and dosing everybody with LSD was because the work, it was like an evangelist, right?
	So the change agents kind of function as these evangelists.
	I think people have even talked about Obama being a kind of a change agent, right?
	Whatever time point these people exist in, it's their job is to push the narrative, to push the Overton window to the next phase of the revolution.
	And Leary was very successful with that.
	There were many other people around his time.
	Owsley Stanley, who was the guy going around with Grateful Dead, who was handing out 4 million tabs of LSD.
	With the dead.
	That was all done with establishment propping up and funny.
	That was all intentional.
	They were change agents.
	In fact, I think free tough copra another one of the big global leads you may have heard of him given the work that you do.
	Deconstructing the green agenda and the green narrative.
	Capra is one of these big global pushers who wrote a book called Turning Point.
	And in Turning Point, he said back, I think it was 1981 or two, he says the change agents are going to be crucial for transforming not just man's view of the world, but man's view of man.
	So understanding that man is a cancer on the planet, not being made in the image of God who has rights and this kind of stuff, right?
	But rather seeing man or fellow human beings as even essential and non-essential.
	I dug up via one of my buddies who sent me this old policy paper book from the 80s, early 80s, a book, it's called Millennium, and it has a selection of authors, It's got Leary's in there, Marilyn Ferguson's in there, who wrote Aquarium Conspiracy.
	It's got a couple other of these big luminaries, Wallace Harmon, who wrote Changing Image as a Man.
	Harmon wrote an essay in this book about how when the technocracy begins to come into play, He doesn't give a date, but he's singing that down in the future says there will be a classification of essential and non-essential workers.
	So they had already they had already had this sort of division planned out back in the 70s and 80s.
	And I know that that's maybe even older and fiction with like a great new world.
	But but yeah, so so I went off on a tangent there, but but yeah, that's that's what we're looking at here is a situation where they they I forgot, where were we at?
	You were talking about change agents and I was really asking the question, why do things like the Rockefeller Foundation and George Soros, why do they fund liberal causes?
	I think because liberalism itself is fundamentally the most useful for destruction, in a way.
	Yeah.
	So it's kind of like, I view it like a wrecking ball, right?
	So if you promote a bunch of liberalism, the wrecking ball kind of comes through and it clears out everything that was before, and that kind of allows you to rebuild it and re-image it in the way that you see fit.
	Harman, I mentioned, he has one of the most famous white papers called, or policy papers called, Changing Images of Man.
	And that whole document is about worldviews.
	It's about philosophy, worldviews, and how to alter everybody's view of nature and each other.
	And by doing so, this would be the means by which you could get people into that technocratic government, that technocratic order.
	And he says that it requires the change agents and liberalism is the most useful for this.
	The only time that there seems to be the funding of the right is when there's the need to have some sort of, you know, right wing extremists.
	Right?
	Like a McVeigh, right?
	So, in those kinds of situations, then you can, in my view, then you can fund the right wing or something like that.
	Soros, for example, in the Ukraine, with the State Department, put money into probably the right sector, which is the neo-Nazi movements in Ukraine.
	So, there are times in which the same power source will put money into the far right, but that's just because they're tools and patsies.
	Yeah.
	It's interesting you mentioned the Green Movement because I suppose this was my first inkling that things were not quite right.
	So I wrote this book 10 years ago now called Watermelons about, maybe longer ago actually, about Climategate and all that.
	And I sort of set out to examine if If global warming isn't a problem, if the climate changes all the time and we're not really making much difference and there's nothing to worry about, then how has this thing become one of the dominant genres in political discourse?
	genres in in in kind of the in political discourse why is it why has it become why is everyone talking about it and i i got sort of three quarters of the way there but i i hadn't realized the the bottom line which is that the whole of the environmental agenda is the purest bollocks even It is just absolutely made up.
	It is junk science.
	It is lies.
	And every time you... it's like whack-a-mole.
	Every time you respond to another piece of false information, they just come up with another one.
	And there are so many of them, and there are so few of us.
	And I hadn't realized that the climate agenda, the green agenda, is a key part of the The technocracy narrative, that they want to make us, as you say, hate humanity.
	The Earth has a cancer, the cancer is man.
	You know, the voluntary human extinction movement.
	You know, there will always be a few crazies, useful idiots, who push the narrative further, and they then pour money into these causes.
	I mean, the Green Movement is so well funded.
	I get emails every day from different I think the green movement, as I'm sure you know, has roots in Malthusianism, right?
	just pushing more bollocks.
	Yeah, it's...
	I think the green movement, as I'm sure you know, has roots in Malthusianism, right?
	I mean, the Malthusian idea that these fake crises...
	I remember when I was doing grad work, I had a few days off just sort of working in the library, and I gave myself a task, I was going to look up everything I could find with Paul Ehrlich, right?
	Who's one of these early crusaders for this stuff.
	So, I went and I found in the research databases all these old things that he had written in the late 70s and early 80s.
	These papers and...
	And he was talking about the coming ice age.
	We know that by the 80s and 90s, we're going to be, there's gonna be woolly mammoths rocking around and we're going to be like, you know, huddled up like Jeremiah Johnson or whatever.
	And some cave and all, it's all this nonsense, right?
	It was all pure baloney.
	And then you could see, cause I was a child of the eighties.
	I remember in the eighties when the narrative shifted to, uh, The ozone layer.
	It's got a hole in it.
	We're all going to get cooked.
	We're going to microwave and we're going to, you know, pop like an egg in the microwave or something like that.
	And it's all nonsense, right?
	And then the narrative shifted to global warming.
	Right in the 90s, 2000s, and then it shifts into, so you could tell that they were just like PR rebranding it, just giving it a new rebranding each.
	Yeah.
	And so that started sticking out to me.
	And I remember you on Alex back in, when your book came out, I remember hearing those interviews where you were talking about this.
	I listened to a lot of the interviews with, and documentary work that Lord Monckton had done.
	And it was obvious to me that was right around the time I was reading a lot of these Global League books and I noticed that this is exactly what their plan does is it creates the idea that man is a problem if you read that document, First Global Revolution.
	That the Club of Rome put out, it says, we have decided that the problem will be man.
	Man is the pollutant.
	Carbon is the problem, right?
	And what is carbon?
	Carbon is life, right?
	So, once you understand the anti-human, anti-natalist movement now, you mentioned Extinction Rebellion, that has all the same top funding, all the same people funding the vegan movement, by the way, which is also a big part of this agenda now.
	I found some of the global elite writers back in the 70s were saying, Stanford Research documents were saying that we'll promote veganism.
	We'll tie it to anarchism.
	We'll tie it to punk movements, because that was at the time when punk was new.
	They were saying, oh, look, let's let's co-opt this punk movement, get them into anarchism and veganism.
	And he said that that'll be a big factor for control in the future because like Plato, Plato even said this back in the Republic, Plato said, don't feed the proles meat, give them grains, right?
	We get them, get them carb bloated and, and, and because meat, you know, the belief was, and I think it's true, it makes you virile.
	It gives you a lot of the nutrients that you actually need.
	So, um, yeah, I think that diet is huge when you go and you read these guys that, Like Bertrand Russell and a lot of the Malthusians, the eugenicists, when you read Galton Darwin, when you read H.G.
	Wells, you know, they all just wrote all of this into their books.
	And so I just kind of went down this project, like you said, a rabbit hole dive of reading all of these people.
	I've gone through about 50 of the books.
	And they all say the same thing.
	They all start their books.
	I'm saying all, generally speaking.
	They'll start it with crisis.
	We are in a crisis.
	The world is in a crisis.
	We've got so many people.
	How are we going to solve this crisis?
	And they'll even blame people for things that they've done.
	They'll brag that the elite have created, for example, Nuclear weapons, right?
	This is what Russell does this versus we've created atomic weapons where we are the height of human evolution.
	And then he turns around a few chapters later.
	He's like, but because man has created these disastrous atomic weapons, we must kill off most of the people because we can't get, we can't let them.
	So he's, it's like a back and forth blame game.
	Right.
	And you'll notice that a lot.
	Anyway, long story short, they'll do this sort of, Crisis scenario.
	Oh, we're all in crisis.
	Then we've got to have this plan put in, right?
	And it's just, it's the same.
	Every one of the books, it's like, I was talking to Alex yesterday.
	He's like, he said, I read all these books, you know, 15, 20 years ago.
	And then I realized I'll just say the same thing.
	Yeah.
	It's just a, it's just a repeat.
	They'll just restate what the other guy says.
	And that's another way that, you know, it's a coordinated plan.
	Is that you wouldn't have all of these, you know, high-level policymakers, elites, wealthy people, social engineers, saying the same things over at least a century, if there wasn't a coordinated plan.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Once you've taken the red pill or whatever, it becomes so obvious, doesn't it?
	I mean, for example, I look at, if you come across the concept of ocean acidification, Ocean acidification, it's just complete bollocks.
	There is no evidence for it.
	The oceans are not turning acidic.
	There might be a sort of a slight change in their pH value, but it's not causing the fish to melt and the corals to dissolve.
	This is not happening.
	And yet there are respectable university departments dedicated to promulgating this absolute lie.
	And I saw through it straight away, because, you know, you get used to it after a while, that ocean acidification was basically the Siegfried line.
	You know, if the forward defenses failed, which was CO2 being a driver of catastrophic climate change, If somehow that narrative were to get derailed, then they had a secondary problem also illustrating that CO2 is bad.
	I'm so glad you mentioned veganism, because I've become very conscious of that.
	that you think about, but before I became awake, as it were, 10 years ago, I probably would have believed the stories that you read in the mainstream media ad nauseam about how meat gives you cancer.
	Okay, you can eat a little bit of meat, but not too much, because it's like having plutonium on your plate.
	You know, you should really be eating vegetables.
	And it's so ubiquitous, this narrative, that it's very hard not... Well, they wouldn't say this shit unless it was true, you'd think.
	But when you understand that veganism is a, yeah.
	Did you see that fascinating documentary, the propaganda documentary about the guy, it starts with the guy in the gym doing skipping, with his skipping rope.
	And he, and he used to- Is it Game Changers?
	Game Changers.
	Tell me, that's a, that's a, that's, that's complete, I mean, gladiators at vegetables.
	Tell me, do you know, do you know anything about that?
	Well, yeah, one of my good buddies, he does a channel dedicated to paleo, keto and carnivore based diets.
	And I got into his material actually, because I was having my own gut digestion issues from having a bad diet growing up.
	I mean, in America, we have just the worst.
	You do!
	You know, diet is terrible or foisted upon you from you.
	You don't even know it.
	Right.
	And so I had to, you know, confront these problems myself.
	And I got into this because I heard Jordan Peterson on with Joe Rogan talking about carnivore.
	And then his daughter, Michaela, was talking about it.
	And I had some of the same problems that she has.
	So I thought, well, I'll look into this.
	I tried everything else.
	I was having, you know, no luck fixing the problems.
	And then I got into my buddy's channel and we got to be good buddies, Tristan, over at the Primal Edge Health.
	He did a whole deconstruction of that documentary.
	Like he just went, you know, point by point by point from the documentary, deconstructing all the propaganda.
	I was never really taken in by veganism.
	I knew it was a suspect.
	I could, I just always loved steak growing up.
	So I was like, yeah, I can tell that that's good for me.
	I don't, I don't need like, you know, a documentary to tell me that I shouldn't eat something that, you know, I know is good.
	But then, when I did go carnivore for a while, for about a year, over a year, I'm still 90-95% carnivore.
	I have a little bit of carbs, but long story short, it did fix my gut issues.
	And so, that's one personal, just subjective way that I know that that's all BS, is that I was having problems when I was eating a largely grain or even vegetable-based diet, and I couldn't fix the problems.
	I I had, um, I had Lyme disease.
	And and I went to this clinic in Germany for some stem cell therapy, you know, you you try everything when you get Lyme disease, because it's it really screws you up.
	And and it's like having, right, every week, you've got a different manifestation.
	It's called the great mimic, it mimics other diseases.
	Anyway, um, When I was having this treatment, I was encouraged to go on a vegan diet for three months.
	And it was the most, all you think about every day is how you're going to be able to eat something.
	Because there are so, going vegan you cut out so many basic stuff, like eggs you can't eat, you can't eat cheese, you can't have milk, you can't have meat, above all you can't have meat.
	Why would anyone do this?
	It is lunatic.
	Absolutely.
	I did not feel better at all.
	You know, people say it's anti-inflammatory.
	I mean, there's so much absolute rubbish talked about these things.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Just tell me...
	We're sort of well into the podcast now, and I haven't really introduced you, because I just wanted to cut to the chase and ask you that question first.
	But Jay, just tell me a bit about yourself.
	Tell me about your background, your awakening, and how it all came about.
	Yeah, I'm just an American-born, Southern-born actually, guy.
	My dad was in the Navy, so I grew up in San Diego for many years.
	He was at the base there.
	Had a weird experiences out there and that's like a test tube for weird educational models out there.
	So I was put into some weird classes when I was a kid out there.
	Good weird or bad weird?
	Bad weird.
	They had these sort of, these programs that were geared towards, it was a United Nations connected program for gifted kids where they were, they basically trying to groom, Future globalists, to be frank.
	That's what those programs were for.
	I later researched this as an adult, looking back on those programs.
	But anyway, nothing bad happened to me.
	I wasn't molested or anything like that.
	It was just a weird... I could tell that they were already grooming people for stuff, even when I was a kid.
	Uh, so, uh, no, I grew up in the, ended up back in the South, grew up in the South, went to just a local state university, uh, studied, uh, English philosophy and history.
	And then, uh, about 2002, three, I started questioning the events, the big nine event.
	Uh, if this is going on YouTube, I'll use my, my safe code words.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I started, started questioning the big nine and then, um, Watched some documentaries at that time.
	I was really into theology and philosophy.
	I hadn't really gotten into the geopolitical espionage conspiracy world yet.
	I read a little bit, but then I think about my, about 2004 or 5, I just went in a deep dive of studying about the history of skull and bones, studying about secret societies, all that kind of normal so-called conspiracy stuff that's kind of At that time, Templar stuff was everywhere and Da Vinci code was everywhere and I was never taken in with any of that stuff.
	But because it was everywhere, it just kind of.
	You know, you go in a Barnes & Noble bookstore and you would see like a whole shelf of the Templars, the secret of the Templars and all this.
	So, I did get deeper and deeper into studying that stuff, but I always wanted to do it from more of an academic perspective.
	So, when I was doing my undergrad, I was focusing on film theory and philosophy and the interplay between the two and decided to try to write on Ian Fleming.
	So, I got deeper and deeper into British intelligence, the history of Ian Fleming, what all he was up to.
	in his own personal life and operations and how he wrote that into the Bond stories.
	So, focused on that in my graduate work and that led me into a lot deeper geopolitical stuff, right?
	So, at the same time I was, you know, so I basically just trying to integrate a lot of different fields and stuff I was looking at researching.
	Always loved literature, always loved, you know, Southern Gothic, Flannery O'Connor.
	Faulkner, that kind of stuff.
	And so it was just, it was just a mix of fields.
	I wanted to, I wanted to study what I was reading in British spy fiction and put that into what I was studying with psychological warfare and how that works in terms of advertising.
	A lot of people don't know there's an overlap between, there's a lot of the people who went into advertising when it was, you know, if you think about the show Mad Men, right?
	That's kind of roughly based on some of the guys who, Have been in the OSS and then they went into the ad world.
	So I was reading and studying that kind of stuff and then, you know, put it into this thesis about bond and how bond function as a cold war.
	tool.
	I think Bond was a tool of the Cold War, basically, to help fight this so-called ideological battle.
	But anyway, so that just led me into Hollywood stuff.
	And the more that you read about Hollywood stuff, you start, oh, a lot of these people are doing other things.
	A lot of actors are actually intelligence assets, which blew me away when I first heard that.
	I was like, that's crazy.
	What?
	But yeah, it's actually, there's a long history of this.
	I'm not the only person who's, there's a lot of academics beyond me that have written theses about this.
	Tricia Jenkins wrote a whole book on this from UT.
	Operation Hollywood's another academic book that covers this.
	But anyway, so I was just noticing a lot of these parallels and sort of cross disciplinary connections.
	And then I started blogging about 11 years ago, just for fun.
	I didn't have any intention of doing this.
	I just thought, well, I'll blog and.
	I wanted to be a professor.
	That's really all I cared about.
	Had that big falling out with that professor when I was writing my grad paper, my thesis, and then ended up quitting.
	I was like, I'm done.
	I'm not doing this.
	So I just started doing my own media.
	I was like, why don't I just do that?
	That'd be fun to do.
	And I just kept up with the research, the different fields that I'm into.
	And so then here we are a few years later, it led to, we did a couple of books based on my Hollywood analysis.
	We did a TV show on the basis of the first book.
	And then now, you know, doing all this.
	So that's how we got to where we're.
	It's just a kind of a snowball that just turned into its own thing.
	In a way, you've carved out the career that you wanted, but in a slightly different way.
	I never would have expected it to go this way.
	There would have been, surely what you must be aware now, there is no place for people like you or me in academe because academe has fallen.
	I mean, could you?
	Oh yeah, that's why I left.
	Yeah.
	I realized, so what I realized was that when this guy, so he was the head of the department, just a super, super liberal green.
	He's actually a huge guy in the green movement.
	I realized that he wasn't going to approve the paper that I put a year into writing unless I went along with and agreed to the agenda.
	It's a very cliquish, right?
	So academia is very click driven.
	You don't get into the click unless you accept the dogma, which.
	Yeah.
	People think that aren't in academia, they think that, oh, you go to academia to show off how brilliant your ideas are, and if you win the argument, you will win everybody.
	No, no, no, it doesn't work like that.
	It's a top-down click.
	It doesn't work the way people think.
	So, that's how I got a lot of exposure firsthand to the way academia really works, how peer-reviewed publishing really works, how my mom was an editor.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So, I'm sure you know, having researched all that stuff, that the peer review is kind of a joke.
	It's not everybody, but I'm saying that it's not what people think that it is, right?
	I mean, there are loads of documents and papers published in peer review that are pure garbage, and this has been exposed, right?
	There have been people who've exposed all of this peer review fraud now, scientific fraud.
	There's, in fact, whole websites dedicated to just documenting Science fraud.
	And my mom, as I said, she was a long time editor for, a copy editor for the biggest science publisher in the US, Harcourt Brace.
	And then, so what I learned from that growing up with her doing that job was that it's not a matter of like, you just put your paper out there and then all of the objective altruistic scientists come and read the paper and then, oh, well, we're all going to bow down to the evidence.
	It doesn't work like that.
	Harcourt Brace is a billion dollar company.
	Right.
	And so they have a huge say in what gets published and what doesn't get published.
	And most people don't think about billion dollar corporations having a say in the science realm, but they absolutely do.
	Right.
	So, uh, and I'm not trying to allege that every scientist is in on some conspiracy.
	I don't think it works that way.
	I'm just saying that peer review doesn't work the way people think.
	And hence why the Lancet can say what a few years ago that upwards of 50% of peer review papers are full of garbage.
	Yeah.
	Yes, that editorial in The Lancet was written by a guy who was nevertheless, you know, balls deep in the whole scientism and junk science.
	It's extraordinary.
	You see, everything becomes much clearer, you know, conversations like this, that my research is with other people in the last year or so.
	Um, things that previously puzzled me, for example, this is just this whole COVID-19, you know, pandemic, this fake scare.
	The thing that really struck me was how very early on in this so-called pandemic, shops all over the country were very, very eager for you not to use cash.
	And I was thinking, where the hell did that come from?
	And also, every, I don't know whether you had this in the US, but every petrol station had a pre-printed sort of banner going around it saying stuff like, we salute our NHS heroes, we just, the propaganda operation It was almost ready to roll before people even dropping dead.
	It was bizarre.
	And I kept asking people, do we know who's responsible for this banner campaign?
	And where are the orders coming from for this don't use cash?
	And then I have a friend who manufactures this very effective zinc, zinc sulfate drops, which are very, very powerful, much better than you can get over the counter.
	And this stuff had been proved to disrupt cytokine storms.
	So the very thing you want when you've got a viral respiratory infection like COVID-19, you know, this would stop you dying.
	And I was...
	Ringing around, I mean, these guys in government now, these are my university contemporaries.
	I mean, I am a creature of the swamp, if you like.
	I mean, I am very establishment in my education.
	I was at Oxford with two prime ministers.
	I've got friends in the cabinet and stuff.
	These are guys that were my mates and I thought they were on the same page as me.
	We had the same values.
	So I was ringing them up or using contacts to get this stuff to them and wondering why they weren't going, yeah, this is fantastic.
	We can now stop people dying.
	We can get the economy back running again.
	And it's only really 12 months later that I realized they don't want this to be cured.
	They don't want ivermectin.
	They don't want hydroxychloroquine to work because that was never the plan.
	The vaccine passports were always the plan.
	But so many people don't want to know this stuff.
	I mean, they want to call people like you and me tinfoil hatters, don't they?
	I mean, how do you cope with this?
	I read a good essay the other day by a guy talking about why that is, and obviously there's many reasons why, you know, people have fear and whatnot, but this was making a good point that people.
	Kind of are trained to see the government, like you said at the beginning of the interview, as the big daddy that's there to help you, right?
	And so to undermine, they see it as an undermining of a kind of security blanket that they feel that, well, look, those people over there in Washington, those people over there, you know, in parliament, they're there to make good decisions, to help us.
	They want the best for everybody.
	And to undermine that is to cause a kind of It shakes the paradigm of that person.
	And as somebody who's done many, many years of debate, I've seen firsthand in hundreds of cases what happens when you shake somebody's paradigm.
	The reaction is anger.
	The reaction is, I can't have been wrong all these years.
	You are the problem, right?
	So it's just like Allegory of the Cave, when Socrates goes around and starts questioning people's paradigms, and he's pointing out that they have shaky foundations for their beliefs, and they get mad at him.
	And so he becomes All right, shoot the messenger type of situation.
	So, I think that that essay I'd read was a really good insight that the real problem that people have isn't with the information or the so-called tenfold hat person or the conspiracy theorist.
	It's their own insecurity in terms of how they have perceived daddy figures, authority figures, right?
	Because it's almost like they didn't mature in their thought process to a certain level to where they just sort of default over to that Figure right in the big daddy government, big daddy state, big daddy corporation.
	They're going to save me or the people at Microsoft.
	They have my best interest.
	Joe Biden has my best interest.
	They're going to do what's best for everybody.
	And if you shake that confidence that I have, I mean, how could it be wrong?
	We have we have iPhones, we have refrigerators.
	How could this be wrong?
	Right.
	That's the sort of I think the infantile kind of thinking that goes on.
	I don't know whether you can answer this question.
	Jay, we could talk for about, I reckon, two or three weeks comfortably and never exhaust the possible avenues of conversation.
	It's brilliant.
	There's so much to talk about.
	I mean, I feel born again, actually.
	I feel like, you know, even though it's terrifying, I feel like I've discovered the world in you.
	I'll have to come lay hands on you.
	I'll talk and talk.
	I'm joking.
	Am I right in thinking you are Eastern Orthodox?
	I'm Orthodox.
	Yeah.
	You see, I'm not an evangelical TV preacher.
	I was just joking.
	Put your hands on the screen and pray with me.
	But it's interesting.
	I sometimes think that Events in our lives were there for a reason, that nothing is accidental, that we're on a journey and I think that Events in my life have led me to this point that I've got a key role to play.
	And it's a good role to play.
	I think you're playing a good role as well.
	I mean, it's just great talking to you.
	But I have this American, one of my best buddies at Oxford was this American guy who was doing a post-grad.
	He now teaches literature at one of the North Carolina universities.
	So as you can imagine, he's much more of a liberal left liberal persuasion than I am.
	Otherwise, he wouldn't, I suppose, have a place in the academy.
	Right.
	But he was a great traveller and we went on these amazing road trips and did all sorts of things.
	And one of the weird things he decided that we were going to do together, we were going to go to Mount Athos.
	Have you been to Mount Athos?
	Actually, I was planning to go this year.
	It's just, I'd like to go to Mount Athos again.
	Yeah, it's amazing.
	It is absolutely amazing.
	And I remember going to this, you know what a skeet is?
	A skeet, like it is a mini monastery.
	So we went to this skeet.
	I think it was, it might have been Ukrainian Orthodox.
	It was, it was, it wasn't Greek Orthodox.
	So it was one of the minority ones.
	And There was a guy, the holiest guy I've ever met, was called Father Seraphim and he, you know, knocked on this heavy medieval wooden door and this tiny sort of, the post and gate I think they're called, opened up and an acolyte came out and then Father Seraphim appeared with these
	piercing blue eyes, and we were given this cup of well water with a bit of sherbet at the bottom.
	And it was, I really felt like I was in the presence of God.
	And I just think Eastern Orthodoxy seems to have it in a way that, I mean, the Catholic Church has been, the Pope is just, it's been infiltrated, hasn't it?
	By the enemy.
	Oh, yeah.
	It was in question.
	Yeah.
	When did that happen, by the way?
	I was listening to one of your talks where you had the Anglican minister on, where you guys were talking about that, and I have put a good bit of time into that.
	I think that it was earlier than Vatican II.
	I think Vatican II is kind of the flowering of a longer kind of problem.
	I mean, for an Orthodox person, we would date the problem about a thousand years ago, around 1054, or earlier, actually.
	The West and the East were kind of going in different directions from about the time of the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries, but I would say that in terms of this more so subversion and infiltration, there was a long period of that going on since the founding of the Masonic Lodges in Europe.
	And you can see this by the papal encyclicals that were being written even in the 1700s about Freemasonry.
	And there's a series of those, there's about 10 or 15 encyclicals and apsolic writings, so-called, by the Pope that have been addressing this problem.
	And all of the things that they have been addressing in their encyclicals, particularly Humanum Janus by Leo XIII, describes the attempt to change the Christian religion into a, just kind of, almost a New Age kind of cult, right?
	Well, we're all just brothers and let's all just get along.
	And so masonry, he says in that encyclical, is kind of the, It's the competitor Catholic religion.
	Okay.
	So what Rome Catholicism is in terms of the claim of being the universal Church, he says in that encyclical Freemasonry is a naturalistic attempt to be the real true skeletal over umbrella religion, basically.
	So he warns about it as a Infiltrating counterforce to the church and there's other there's a long history to this but long story short I'm not saying it's all Freemasons, but I'm saying there is a big role to play for for that But there's an important book that you're gonna want to read written by a Catholic lawyer.
	Who's a really solid guy His name is David Wim Hof and he wrote a book about the The usage of the Catholic Church on the part of the intelligence agencies, it's called the CIA's doctrinal warfare program.
	And so, what happened was that around the time, right before and after Vatican II, Western intelligence establishment had decided that, including basically Rockefeller had tried to have these meetings with Paul VI, and they wanted to try to get the Catholic Church on board with the depopulation program.
	And initially the Pope at that time still was hesitant.
	No, we're not going to do that.
	We can't do that.
	So what they did was they sent in a lot of people who were change agents for the Roman Catholic Church.
	And one of those most famously, not the only one, but many of those was the famous Jesuit, John Courtney Murray.
	And John Courtney Murray was working directly with C.D.
	Jackson, Claire Booth Luce, and multiple people in the intelligence establishment and part of the CIA to change the Catholic Church.
	So basically, long story short, to make it an engine like an NGO.
	Let's use the Catholic Church as an NGO for Americanism, for democracy, and for basically in the long-term population control.
	Right.
	As wild as that sounds, yes.
	And so, it's taken many, many decades to get to Francis, but Francis is really kind of the end result of a long-term attempt to subvert and use the Roman Catholic institution.
	And that's not unique to Rome.
	It's the same model of buying and funding seminaries that the Rockefellers really pioneered.
	This is how they were able to change.
	And there's a whole chapter in the Rockefeller's authorized biography.
	I'm not making this up.
	They brag about the fact that they were able to subvert and change the Protestant denominations to make them into basically just liberal social gospel entities, to turn them into NGOs, basically.
	It's about the middle chapter, I think, of the Authorized Biography of the Rockefellers by Collier and Horowitz, where they discussed this, and they did that through the ecumenist movement.
	So, they funded the ecumenism movement, watered down World Council of Churches, National Council of Churches, waters down the Protestant world, and it just took a lot longer with Rome than it did with the Protestants.
	Protestants were able to be taken over within a couple decades of the 1920s and 30s and 40s.
	And then Rome, it took a little bit longer, but by the time of Vatican II, I just see Vatican II as the expression of that.
	of acquiescence basically to this doctrinal warfare program.
	And then over time, it gets even wilder and wilder and wilder.
	And you're not going to see in terms of Rome, any pullback.
	You're not going to get a Cardinal Serra.
	You're not going to get some conservative bulldog trad Cardinal because that doesn't exist anymore.
	All the traditional, the last traditionalist pre-Vatican II Bishop just died the other day.
	So everybody who presently exists as a Cardinal to elect the next Pope is not going to elect anybody traditional.
	So, there's not much to hope for in terms of the Roman Catholic world.
	And that partly, long story short, is why I started looking at orthodoxy about 10 years ago.
	It took me many years to convert.
	I didn't want to do it haphazardly, but I spent a long time studying and researching orthodoxy before I finally made that move.
	But yeah, so the real story of Rome is best discovered in David Wimhoff's book, John Courtney Murray, CIA, Time Life magazine, John Courtney Murray and the doctrinal warfare program.
	Okay, okay.
	That sounds, yeah.
	My reading, I'm wondering whether there's going to be time to read all these books because That's an excellent book.
	Before the apocalypse.
	But one thing I do, well, two things I want to read are your Hollywood books, which I haven't got yet.
	Because I'm fascinated that there have been these movies with, well, some movies which operate as kind of propaganda operations.
	But presumably, are there also movies made by white hats, as you might call them, showing us what's really going on?
	So slipping information under the radar.
	It's always hard to know everybody's motives.
	And of course, obviously, any movie has a lot of people working on it, has a lot of hands, a lot of minds going into that work.
	Um, you know, you can't, you can't paint it with a completely broad brush, but I think at times maybe some, and some actors or, or excuse me, artists might be conflicted figures.
	I think maybe Kubert was a conflicted figure who In his earlier days had definitely made some compromises with the system.
	And then I think later on kind of regretted some of those compromises that he had made with the system.
	And I don't have any specific conspiracy theory about him being killed.
	I mean, he could have been killed.
	I don't know.
	But I do think that he's kind of telling people in the films what's going on.
	Which films are you thinking of particularly?
	Well, for example, Well, if you look at, there's that thread of the PEDO, you know, throughout Kubrick films, right?
	If so, from Barry Lyndon, to The Shining, to Lolita, to Eyes Wide Shut, and probably even a couple more, I'm forgetting.
	I mean, he's consistently talking about this problem of elite pedophilia, right?
	I think he was highlighting that.
	That's just my own opinion.
	That's interesting.
	Yes, I mean, this is this is this is one of my sort of new discoveries about, you know, since going down the rabbit hole.
	I mean, this tell me about the pedophilia thing.
	Why is it so huge?
	Is it because it's compromising?
	Is it because it's kind of it feels so dirty and wrong that that that that elites are attracted to the dirty and wrong things or what?
	I think it's a multi-layered thing as well.
	I think that some families are evil.
	I think that they believe in generational propagation of evil, as odd as that may sound.
	I think that evil usually wants to replicate and create more evil.
	Jesus describes evil like leaven, and he says you have to watch out because it'll spread.
	So I think that there's a desire on the part and I've read enough of the accounts of people who've undergone this kind of stuff.
	A lot of books on trauma, a lot of books on SRA, ritual abuse.
	I don't mean from conspiracy theories, I mean from MDs, from psychiatrists and psychologists.
	Dr. Colin Ross has a lot of good books on this.
	And it seems to be that some of these people are legitimately committed to evil as a worldview, as a system.
	They think that it is an empowering thing.
	Um, a lot of wealthy families, uh, are committed to this.
	And so I think that there's that level, which is, it's seen as a, uh, one of the most quote empowering acts is the destruction of innocence.
	So to, if you can destroy and remove innocence, uh, that power that's believed to give a lot more power.
	Um, I've been recently researching a lot of the serial killers, uh, just as a side project.
	as well as organized crime.
	And I'm noticing a lot of overlap between the attitudes, right?
	The attitudes of the psychopathic sort of narcissistic attitudes that serial killers have.
	That's very similar to the attitude that a lot of high powered elites have wealthy billionaires have as well as, you know, organized crime figures, right?
	Hit men, assassins, that kind of stuff.
	And so, the tendency seems to be, you know, kind of obvious abuse when they were young.
	And in many cases, I think that abuse was intentional.
	There's an intentional...
	Knowledge of that you can propagate evil via abusing people, right?
	Because if someone's abused, they're probably going to be an abuser when they grow up.
	And I don't think that's a, you know, recent discovery.
	I think people have known that for a long time.
	So that's 1 level.
	And then I think there's, as you said, the other elements of compromise.
	There's other situations that are just like Epstein situation.
	There's the North Fox Island case that.
	Has just come to light in the 70s in Michigan, which was an Epstein operation being run out of Michigan by very wealthy people.
	There's all the connections to Savile, the Savile case, which I've gotten pretty deep into.
	That's obviously a lot of compromise and contract killing, it would seem.
	So, I think that's what's really going on here is a multi-layered thing.
	And ultimately, it's evil, right?
	I mean, it suggests that there is a real power The force of evil.
	In my view, I think Satan's real.
	I think you're right.
	I think you're right.
	And that saying, you know, the devil's best trick was convincing us that he didn't exist.
	I think is very true.
	I think going back to the themes about liberal democracy being a chimera and so many of the things we're taught.
	I think so much of our education has been designed to steer us away from the notion of evil.
	That, for example, serial killers, as you said, are a product of damage.
	They're not really responsible for their own actions, but what they do is not evil.
	Only deeds are evil.
	People can't be evil.
	And I'm not sure that that's true.
	I think that people, some people seek out evil.
	And I think, I mean, we could go, we could go really down the rabbit hole.
	You know, we could talk about the transmigration of souls.
	I mean, you must have heard this theory that the power elite have this.
	They have that view.
	Reincarnate themselves.
	That is, I mean, do you think what's being played out now is really the perennial battle between good and evil and that we are approaching some kind of apocalypse?
	I think we're definitely in the battle, perennial battle of good and evil, but as to whether it is for sure the last days, I don't make any predictions about that.
	It could be, I don't know.
	I mean, I take the Orthodox view that as many of the Orthodox saints and elders say that when we do approach that end, we will know, the church will know, so we don't have to We don't have to necessarily worry about that, but there's definitely some things occurring that look like, I mean, the QR codes that everybody's going to, you know, they're going to try to have everybody have this, the idea of a total internet of things where everything's going to be tracked and traced.
	I mean, that does seem pretty apocalyptic, so I wouldn't be surprised.
	But again, I'm going to refrain from, you know, kind of Jumping and being rash in my assessments, but it's definitely the playing out of good and evil.
	I don't believe that there is the real transmigration of souls.
	I think that that's a view that many of the elite do have.
	They do think that they can do that.
	This is part of the reason for their rituals.
	It even ties into The attitudes towards transhumanism.
	They think that they'll be able to achieve that ultimately by a technology.
	As an Orthodox Christian, I don't believe that.
	I believe that God creates the soul.
	And then after death, there's the judgment.
	So I don't believe in that, but I do believe in the reality of possession.
	And one thing I've noticed after this deep dive into the serial killers is that there's a recurring pattern that's been completely lost in the So-called profile of serial killers, which is that many of them are explicitly involved in satanic cults.
	They're directly involved in some other form of occultism and they most of them have either had military assassin training or they've been traumatized or are MPD DID and that has that's you don't ever hear this.
	This this, you know, the mainline narrative is the opposite of all that nobody ever talks about that.
	Uh, and, and the reason I bring that up is that, is not to be morbid or to have some weird fixation on serial killers, but just that it, it points to the direct evidence of evil, a spiritual evil.
	I mean, I was reading about Cyril Smith and Ed Heath.
	I mean, those guys are evil, like legitimately seriously evil.
	There's still so little that's come out about Ted Heath.
	I mean, Cyril Smith, unquestionably, we've got the evidence, we've got eyewitness accounts of his disgusting behavior.
	Have you got stuff on Ted Heath that you find that... Probably not anything beyond what you, just what was out in kind of the mainstream British press, but I mean, I've gotten pretty deep into some other killers that are lesser known, that are probably some of the most evil stuff I've ever seen.
	I'll hesitate to say what it is and who it is and all that, but there is some evidence that I have uncovered on some of these guys, yeah.
	Right.
	Now, this is a person, by the way, who's not known.
	He's he was a contract killer who is in jail for the rape of a minor.
	He's almost dead.
	But but he confesses to in interviews that have just recently come to light.
	That he did in the 90s for foreign publications.
	He confesses to many things that line up with the actual series of events.
	So I think 99% sure that he's the one that did these horrendous murders.
	And it was never sort of dealt with in the media?
	It was never really?
	No.
	Interesting.
	Interesting.
	One reason that could be is that in the case of some of these people, I think that they actually work for the government.
	Now, I don't know what your view of Myra Hindley and Ian Bradley and all that is, but my suspicion is that they perhaps could have been contract killers.
	I can't understand why.
	Who was it?
	Lord Longford, Lord Astor are lobbying for Myra Hindley to be freed for years and years and years.
	Well, of course, but before I went down the rabbit hole, my explanation would have been, well, Lord Longford was a kind of wishy-washy liberal duke.
	But now, I just don't know anymore.
	I mean, yeah.
	Yeah, well, do you know a couple of serial killers in the US?
	Henry Lee Lucas was commuted by Bush.
	The most famous of what, according to the numbers, Henry Lee Lucas, I think, has the top numbers in the U.S.
	Why would W, pardon him, commute him?
	And I think in Florida, his cohort, Otis Toole, also received a commutation from, I think, Jeb.
	Well, I could say one reason that you might get that kind of a commutation is that you work for the government.
	You work for somebody.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Well, you see, again, like when I was first, when I was doing these interviews with Alec Jones about the Green Movement, and he was talking about false flags and stuff, and he was talking about it in a kind of matter-of-fact way, and I was thinking, well, you know, here I am, Dealing with the crazies.
	I'm just giving a bit of truth, you know, about the Green Movement to this crazy guy who does this crazy show for tinfoil hat people.
	And of course, now I realize that no, I mean, this is, it is quite shocking.
	I think going back to that point we made about People don't like having their father figure suddenly taken away from them, being told that dad, the government, big government, their friend, is actually Jimmy Savile.
	He hasn't got their best interests at heart.
	Yeah.
	But the weird thing that I just noticed on that point recently with people is that I delved into two different subjects that everybody likes that doesn't relate directly to the New World Order.
	The mafia organized crime and the serial killers, right?
	So, here's two different things that everybody loves true crime.
	Everybody loves mafia movies and mafia stories.
	Now, everybody believes that this goes on at the local level, right?
	Everybody knows there's local gangs.
	Everybody knows there's killers.
	We have around here in Tennessee, at least two or three famous killers, right?
	That were, we have the vampire killer who was from Kentucky.
	Uh, we have, uh, the Memphis, uh, West Memphis killings of the kid that was supposedly Damian Eccles and all that fiasco.
	And yet people don't think that You could extend that to the highest levels of power, right?
	So you believe that this stuff goes on locally.
	You believe in local corruption in government.
	Good old boys, right?
	In the South, we have this notion of the local corrupt kind of boss hog figure being called, right?
	The boss hog, the good old boys, right?
	But that doesn't go on at that higher level.
	And it doesn't go on at an international level.
	Of course it does.
	Yes.
	Actually, I wanted to ask you about the movie thing.
	Do you watch Netflix at all?
	Are you a fan of...
	I've watched quite a few things on Netflix.
	I personally can't stand Netflix, but I've seen a lot of productions of Netflix.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Actually, this isn't a Netflix production.
	I don't know what it comes under.
	My favorite, my all-time favorite TV series, you know, better than The Sopranos, better than Breaking Bad, is a series called Gamora.
	Have you ever seen it?
	Gamora is about the... Gamora.
	It's set in Naples.
	And it's, it's incredibly bleak.
	I mean, it's about, you know, it's about the mob.
	And it makes it clear that life is nasty, brutish, and short.
	And even even the heads of the of the Kimura clans live Well, it was written by the guy who now lives in America, Roberto Saviano.
	He's a, he's a lecturer, you know, he studied, he grew up in Naples, he lived, he, you know, he was at school with these people.
	But it's very, it's very, the vision of the world is very nihilistic.
	These people have Squalid lives.
	All they can get for their money is kind of heavily armoured vehicles.
	They live in crappy housing projects, just with glitzier furniture and stuff.
	But this is part of a development in our kind of culture, isn't it?
	Whereby we've become inured to extreme violence.
	And whereby, whereby we're encouraged, actually probably a better example, we're encouraged to, have you seen Narcos?
	I did watch the first, almost first season, I think, yeah.
	Yeah, okay.
	So, Narcos, where do your sympathies lie?
	I mean, certainly not with the DEA.
	You know, you want to, you're with the drug kingpins, aren't you?
	You know, you want to be Pablo Escobar with your fantastic zoo in The flamingos and the hippos and stuff.
	And I was just wondering, does this accord with, this is part of the plan, presumably, this kind of desensitization towards violence, this glamorization of the bad guys at the expense of the notional good guys, the cops.
	Is that a thing?
	I think there is some of that, yes, and that does fit into the psychological warfare.
	I mean, I remember when I was reading about, so the way I originally got into that topic was noticing the trends in spy fiction, especially the British spy fiction.
	I think partly because you guys have the National Securities Act where you can't talk about anything, but you can put it in fiction, right?
	So I think like Graham Greene and people like this, right, they would put into the stories things like false flags and this kind of stuff.
	And you would notice that in the fiction, they're putting more truth than what would come out in the media.
	So I was kind of tying that into what was going on with Bond.
	So I think on one level, there's just the kind of, it's not that everybody's in on it, but there are people who study The way to manipulate people's minds through fiction that, for example, when when Hitchcock premiered Psycho, that was actually studied.
	People studied the reaction of the audience to the the first slasher movie.
	And it had a profound effect on people.
	Right.
	And nowadays they've got it to the point where, I mean, the military, I mean, they hand out movies and the U.S.
	military resemble if you watch that movie.
	At the end of the movie they're actually figuring out what DVDs to hand out, I think in Iraq, because they're going to flood the country with American pop culture to do psychological warfare.
	In fact, there's an entire satire movie based on this principle.
	It's a ridiculous film, but it's worth watching just for this point.
	It's called Josie and the Pussycats.
	It came out in about 2002 or 2003.
	I think it has Rosario Dawson in it.
	And the whole purpose of that movie is pop culture as social engineering.
	So, it's not like there's one guy who, you know, every time I talk about this, people mischaracterize and straw man the position.
	Oh, you think there's one guy who tells everybody what to do in the entertainment?
	No, no, I'm not saying that.
	It's more so, if there's a movement, for example, that pops up, it can organically pop up, but what happens is that people who study culture, people who do social engineering, they'll watch and study and see how to steer it.
	So that's how it works, right?
	I believe this happened with the 60s stuff, the counterculture.
	Why would Time Magazine, Atlantic Record, the top corporations at that time in media and record production, They begin to promote the most avant-garde bizarre stuff, right?
	Now, you could say, well, it's just to make money.
	It's not just to make money, right?
	They weren't hurting for money.
	It's to have change agents, to change and move the culture.
	And if it was just about money, they wouldn't do these things at a loss.
	Many of these companies will operate and do these things at a loss.
	It's not just about money.
	It's not a money problem.
	It's a higher level plan of social engineering.
	And there's countless white papers to document this.
	Developer Underground, for example, I suppose, would have been a change agent, wouldn't they?
	Maybe there's some weird things about, uh, uh, Nico and, and who she was connected to.
	And so I, I hesitate to say for sure that now I can say with, um, so, uh, Jackson Pollock, uh, he received a CIA money to produce the art that he did.
	Um, Warhol got CIA money, and so this was part of a thing called the Congress for Cultural Freedom.
	Now, I'm not saying that the CIA runs everything, but the argument was, as has come out in many pieces and even UK media, I think the Independent or the Telegraph has put out articles about abstract modernist art being funded by the CIA and the auspices were the Cold War.
	Oh, well, we got to have this This psychological warfare argument that we got to have freedom in art, total unrestricted freedom in art, to combat Soviet realism and cosmism.
	Because, you know, so there's one easy example, there's an academic Frances Stoner Saunders wrote her whole book.
	This is what I wrote my master's thesis on.
	Her whole book, I'm going from memory, but her whole book is on this, the usage of the arts during the Cold War.
	This is what I wrote my master's thesis on.
	So I know this topic very well.
	And that's just one example of the tie-in between social engineering, pop culture, you could call it the deep state.
	And it's not just government.
	There's also a corporation's tie-in.
	This is what corporations pay for, you know, messages to be put into films.
	In fact, there was a declassified Foyer request that I put in my second book that was some, I think, 5,000.
	There was a Foyer request put into the U.S.
	government.
	5,000 TV shows and movies.
	I'm going from memory.
	Maybe it's not 5, but it's in the thousands that the Pentagon had specifically paid to have messages in, right?
	So, everything from Cupcake Wars, the TV show, to Jay Leno TV show, to all the blockbusters.
	It really is that expansive.
	What kind of messages?
	It could be all kinds of things.
	It could be messages relating to moral changes.
	It could be recruitment propaganda.
	For example, in the 80s, Reagan did this whole move where he put allocated money towards Hollywood.
	To put out all of these kind of pro-military recruitment movies.
	Top Gun is one of the most famous ones in that regard.
	Some of them are really bad stink bombs.
	There's one, I think, Charlie Sheen's movie Navy Seals.
	It's pretty bad.
	But what you realize, and again, there's a good book on this called Operation Hollywood.
	Where they they documented the connection between just in that case, just the Pentagon and movies.
	That's not all there is.
	There's also the longtime consult consultation between the CIA and Hollywood.
	There's a movie that came out around right after 9 11.
	With Ryan, is it Ryan Felipe?
	No, it's Colin Firth and Al Pacino called The Recruit.
	And that's the first movie that we know was basically a joint project of whatever studio and the CIA.
	The CIA literally helped make that movie.
	And it's surprising because you would think it would be a totally pro-CIA propaganda movie in a roundabout way it is, but in the movie, Al Pacino plays the corrupt handler.
	So it actually has a negative view of Al Pacino as the CIA handler who's corrupt.
	But the message that you come away with is that, oh, well, it's just a few bad apples here and there, right?
	So, the system is good, it's gonna weed out the bad apples, don't worry, but we do admit there's some bad apples here and there, right?
	So, not everything, we mustn't think of propaganda, I know you don't, but we mustn't think of propaganda as being that simplistic to where it's just gonna be some, you know, Uh, like Lone Survivor was a big one of these propaganda films.
	I think that's the one with Mark Wahlberg or where he goes and he like can snipe, you know, 50 Afghanis.
	That's all pretty blatant propaganda, right?
	That our boys can easily snipe, you know, 50 of their guys.
	But there's more, but, but other movies, uh, the Bin Laden, uh, uh, zero dark 30, that was completely a CIA consulted maybe.
	So we started to realize that this goes a lot deeper and I want to be sensitive to that.
	I'm not a pacifist.
	I'm not an anti war person who never, I'm not a left liberal.
	I'm speaking of this just as a person who's objectively looking at the way, um, the, the, the stage has worked with, Well, it's entirely possible to enjoy a propaganda movie while knowing it's propaganda, but enjoying the war movie.
	I mean, Red Dawn.
	Virgil's Aeneid is propaganda.
	It was propaganda written for the Roman Empire.
	Yeah, well, exactly.
	Which reminds me, I must get Victor Davis Hanson on the show sometime.
	He'd be a good one, I think.
	What about The Matrix?
	I mean, The Matrix just seems so good at explaining the shit that's going on.
	I mean, it is the best analogy, isn't it?
	The red pill, blue pill thing.
	It's a good analogy.
	I think it's limited because the ultimate presupposition of that film is Gnostic.
	So the idea being that we live in a, if you take it in a metaphysical sense, it's Gnostic, right?
	That we live in a, in Plato's cave in a literal sense.
	And like, we got to get out of this world.
	And I don't think that's true.
	I think that would be just to reaffirm ancient Gnosticism.
	But if you, if you use it as kind of a governmental or moral analogy, yeah, absolutely.
	Yeah, okay.
	So yeah, I suppose on that basic level, it's like you either know that everything we're experiencing is a kind of a construct of propaganda or you don't.
	Yes.
	And most people don't want to, just don't want to accept that.
	Can we, we should do another, we should do another podcast sometime if you're willing.
	But there's a question that's been puzzling me and it's, It's one of the great barriers when I'm trying to explain what's going on, or even, you know, if I even dare talk about what's going on to kind of people who are still living in Blue Pill world.
	And that is, we know from reading books like, from reading Hayek, That big government is a very poor allocator of scarce resources.
	It's really, really, really shit at just kind of organizing stuff.
	And yet that is the principle of technocracy, that experts know better than we do what's good for us and what we want.
	Um, and so a lot of people say to me when I, when I talk about the stuff that we're talking about, they say, yeah, but what's their motivation?
	Why would, why would these rich people want to live in a world where there aren't free markets, where people aren't, you know, happy and enjoying themselves and, and, Why would they want everything to be operated by this kind of global central committee?
	It makes no sense.
	Is it simply that the elite mentality is sort of psychopathic and malthusian?
	Is it that basic?
	Well, that and I think, again, that a human being can opt into evil.
	So, you can kind of contract yourself in a way to spiritual evil.
	So, you know, the way scripture speaks about this is that, you know, you're either kind of seeking God or you're following the other side, right?
	And if you go the other route, You will be more and more progressively united with that force or that principle.
	And so, I think that people who have adopted that worldview, that paradigm, are locked into it.
	And it really is kind of a conversion experience.
	It really is.
	I mean, we would say that repenting, converting, turning to Christ is a miraculous thing.
	It's not...
	Purely human effort.
	It's not just an intellectual thing.
	It requires grace and that's a big part of it, right?
	I mean, if it was just merely intellectual, then all you'd have to do is present people the information and they would see what's true, right?
	Yeah, but people don't do that because people It's almost like you have to be given the glasses to see, right?
	Like in They Live.
	I love that film.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, and this is particularly puzzling for me.
	I mentioned I was at university, but a lot of the people now In the UK government, in the cabinet, and so on.
	These are my friends, or were my friends.
	I thought we had the same values.
	They must know what's going on.
	They must get given this information at some point.
	Why do they go along with it?
	I mean, given that they probably went into politics to do good rather than evil, why do they get Personally, I don't think most people do know.
	And one reason for that is because of the compartmentalization.
	I think this whole system thrives on compartmentalization of information.
	So for example, if you look at the way education works, the whole Western education model is derivative of the Prussian model.
	And the Prussian model 100, 200 years ago was basically a strict regimented compartmentalization like a military structure.
	And so it's a need-to-know basis.
	And by the way, you're actually discouraged from making cross-disciplinary connections, right?
	Because, well, you're not an expert in that field.
	Maybe you know a little bit in this field.
	So how dare you try to speak of a connection between biology and logic that you should never make?
	You can't do that.
	That's literally been encouraged, or discouraged, I should say, for centuries.
	There's books that have been written on the compartmentalization of education.
	Louis Dupre from Yale has a whole book about this, about how the West went in this direction for education.
	Of all people, Gary North, he has a whole lecture series on how modern education went this route.
	Charlotte Iserbit talks about this.
	So this is intentional as well, because It's just evil.
	I don't know how else to describe the system except that it's evil.
	So, I think that a lot of people go into public service, civil service, military.
	I have family members that were in the military.
	I know people who work in, you know, intelligence and all these kinds of things.
	The knowledge, the information they have is compartmentalized, right?
	So, for example, if somebody is a Russia analyst, They'll know everything about Russia.
	And I'm not talking about any specific friend.
	I have a friend who's a good friend of mine who's a Russia analyst who knows the whole story.
	He's very, very well versed and adept at all this.
	But typically speaking, a person who might go to an Ivy League school and focus on it, like that's all they know.
	I mean, I've talked to professors who have a PhD, I've debated people with PhD in biology, neurology, and they don't know what a fallacy is.
	They don't know what a logical fallacy is.
	And so, that's how compartmentalized education is.
	You can get a PhD.
	You can be a brain surgeon.
	You can know everything about the brain and you don't know that you can't do a non sequitur in a debate, right?
	So, that's how the system works is that it has people... I mean, my dad was involved in Gulf operations, right?
	So, he was not as a high-level person.
	He was just a E3 which in the US Navy is like a...
	It's the highest that you could be as enlisted.
	So he wasn't an officer, right?
	And he was the guy who pushed the, he worked on this highly advanced gun, the SeaWiz, which would shoot, I don't know, a hundred bullets a second or something crazy like that.
	And so he was stationed over in the Persian Gulf during the 80s Gulf crisis and Reagan had them sink a wall platform, right?
	So my dad was the guy who pushed the button to sink the wall platform of this gun, right?
	So he knew everything about this gun.
	But he didn't know the coordination that was going on for that operation in the Gulf.
	Yeah.
	So I think, I'm just using it as an, I think that's how the system works with all of this kind of stuff.
	And we're at this weird venue now where, you know, 30 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years ago, the only people that would read Tragedy and Hope would be people who got a PhD in international relations, right?
	People who were getting that higher level research and study, or if you studied under Professor Quigley or something like that.
	Nobody else is going to be reading that book, but we're in this weird situation now where because of the free access of information, I mean, well, I guess until the algorithm changed to where we're hiding everything, but prior to that, right?
	I mean, anybody now can access and make these cross disciplinary connections, which 30 years ago, only a high, high level person could do that.
	Yes.
	I was wondering whether, um...
	I mean, what we've seen during the pandemic, it's like they've become much more overt about plans which were hitherto very well-concealed.
	My only happy take-home from the last 12 months is that they're so blatant, so increasingly blatant, that more people are being awakened to what's going on.
	Yeah, I think so.
	I hope, I pray at least, that this was a big misstep in regard to being too heavy-handed.
	A lot of people have seen through this.
	Hopefully it's enough.
	The problem of course is, as Brzezinski said, In the future, the public won't remember the news cycle from two weeks ago.
	So, I mean, so that's what my concern is that people are not going to even care to remember and they're going to be too dominated by fear.
	I mean, I had a person the other day, I was showing them the Spars document and we were almost in a fistfight.
	I mean, that's how crazy people are getting over this stuff.
	You show them, you've got the document on your phone, you're scrolling, you know, and these people are in your face over mass.
	And if you're not going to get the jab, you're killing, you're a murderer, you're a serial killer, and you need to have your face punched in.
	So, I mean, I was this close to a fistfight with somebody over this the other day.
	And I didn't provoke it.
	It's just that people are losing their mind.
	So hopefully, I don't know.
	I don't know what to say about that.
	Well, you know, it would be nice to end the show on a bit of optimism there, wouldn't it?
	Because I think a lot of people are in a dark place.
	A lot of people who see are thinking, well, this is a kind of, you know, you've already had a coup conducted in America.
	You know, your presidency has been stolen.
	But this is happening on a global scale and people are looking around and feeling like Jews in the early 1930s and thinking, is this the time to flee somewhere else?
	But where would you go to?
	I mean, this is the problem.
	It's global for once.
	Exactly.
	This is the first time that we've really seen it roll out as global.
	And to me, that suggests that I mean, if you don't believe in the at least nascent form of a global government to come, then how did this all roll out globally?
	Obviously, it's here.
	We're in the dystopias now, and my hope, my optimism would be, I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, who was formerly a kind of libertarian atheist, who got into this via the diet realm.
	He went down the diet rabbit hole, and now he's ended up converted as an orthodox Christian.
	And he said, you know, for me, what it was was a, it was the red pill.
	And that got me out of the blue pill land.
	And he says, then I went through a phase of black pill where I was just, uh, forget it.
	It's all worthless.
	The words are all screwed.
	And he says, then the black pill led me to the God pill, the white pill.
	So that would be my optimism is that the way I retain my sanity is that if the Christian paradigm and narrative is true, it sure does have a lot of explanatory power.
	Like it makes sense why we're saying what we're saying.
	If Christianity is not true, if that paradigm isn't correct, There's not really, I don't, I mean, I guess I would be a nihilist.
	I don't know.
	But, but that paradigm to me makes perfect sense.
	It has, it has tremendous explanatory value.
	I think you're, I think you're right, Jay.
	I don't think the black pill is, is a good place to be.
	I think the God pill is, is, is much better.
	And I, and I think also that we need, we need that spiritual dimension because we can't, you know, I don't think human clay is going to do this on its own.
	I think we need more than that.
	We need supernatural forces to help us win this fight.
	Well, I was reading secular psychologists, some of their articles about the serial killers, and even they were starting to notice pretty recent articles that they started realizing, all these serial killers, they seem to talk about having these personalities that take them over.
	Maybe there's demons, right?
	So it's almost like, yeah, exactly.
	It kind of sounds like what Jesus says, right?
	So even secular, I think, psychologists who don't even have any Yeah, I think so.
	Jay, thank you so much.
	Hey everyone, if you've enjoyed this podcast, don't forget to support me on Patreon or Subscribestar.
	I'm absolutely useless at plugging my... Are you better than me at that, Jay?
	I'm just crap at it.
	I guess because I'm an American, I'm used to selling, right?
	So I'm used to doing the sales pitch.
	Can you give me some tips?
	I mean, I should have done the pitch at the beginning, shouldn't I?
	I just repeat just a basic look.
	Remember everybody to like, subscribe, and share, and be sure and support me on the website.
	Go to jaysandals.
	I just repeat the same thing.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, don't forget to support Jay as well, everyone.
	But yeah, support me because I'm more desperate because I'm crapper at the promotion.
	Can I get you to come on sometime and let me interlocute you and get some of your pick your brain?
	It would be an absolute pleasure.
	It really would.
	And cross-pollination is always a good thing.
	And we are so few.
	I mean, I don't want people to be downhearted, but we are a kind of band of brothers.
	I mean, that's the other good thing that's come out of this.
	I have met the best people.
	I think it's like we become magnets, don't we?
	Absolutely, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, talking about this stuff has, like you said, one of the greatest benefits has been meeting some of the best people, hands down.
	And just becoming better informed.
	That's quite exciting.
	The life of the mind.
	I mean, that's the other thing I'm thinking.
	I want to do a parallel.
	You've already done this.
	You know, I was talking to my wife about this today, that I don't just want to be the guy with the tinfoil hat who rabbits on about, you know, esoteric stuff.
	I want to actually talk about art, literature, stuff that from our old world, which we need to preserve and protect and cherish.
	Because these are some of the finest flowerings of mankind and so I suppose an expression of God, you know?
	Absolutely, yeah.
	What did Nietzsche say?
	Arts will save the West or something like that?
	Well, the Nietzsche was probably, yeah, I mean, they are.
	You look at the fan vaulting in Ely, I mentioned this before, in the Ely Cathedral or whatever, you look at the stuff that we transcend ourselves by creating this stuff.
	And I don't want to lose that.
	I was listening to an extract from Desert Island Diss, you probably know, it's a show we get in the UK, listening to Beethoven's 7th.
	And I'm thinking, well, I don't want to be in a world where the technocrats can erase everything of value about mankind.
	A mankind that could create the Beethoven's 7th symphony.
	And if you read Brave New World, Mustafa Mahan, the world's socialist controller, says that his job is precisely to do that, to erase those things.
	And we are seeing that happening everywhere, all around us.
	In the Academy, it is about destroying... It's kind of anti-knowledge.
	Absolutely.
	Bertrand Russell said, you won't read Shakespeare.
	When the technocracy comes, you're not going to be reading Shakespeare.
	Ain't that the truth.
	Well, we've got to fight for the world where we still get to read Shakespeare.
	We have to.
	Jay, thanks.
	I'll definitely do your show.
	It'll be very exciting.
	And thank you.
	Alright, thank you very much.
	I'm honored to be on.
	Have a nice day.
	Okay, bye bye.
	Alright, you too.
	Keep up the good work.
	Bye.

▲