Jasun Horsley is an author, podcaster and host of the Children of Job Substack. He chats to James about his late artist brother Sebastian, the perils of inheriting money when you are too young, the secret life of Leonard Cohen, the dubious cult of the serial killer and whether or not there really is a Grand Universal Conspiracy. His latest (erudite but readable) book 16 Maps of Hell*: The Unraveling of Hollywood Superculture finds - according to James - the perfect balance between red-pilled Normiedom and unashamed rabbit holery. 16 Maps of Hell: The Unraveling of Hollywood Superculture↓ Good Food Project is hosting a Barbara O’Neill event at Cranage Estate in Cheshire from the 20th to 24th May.Visit www.goodfoodproject.co.uk, find the event link at the top of the homepage, and use code delingpole15 for 15% off your virtual ticket.↓ Monetary Metals is providing a true alternative to saving and earning in dollars by making it possible to save AND EARN in gold and silver.Monetary Metals has been paying interest on gold and silver for over 8 years.Right now, accredited investors can earn 12% annual interest on silver, paid in silver in their latest silver bond offering. For example, if you have 1,000 ounces of silver in the deal, you receive 120 ounces of silver interest paid to your account in the first year.Go to the link in the description or head to https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/ to learn more about how to participate and start earning a return on honest money again with Monetary Metals.↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children's future.In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, James tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming’.This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original’s sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists’ sinister master plan.Purchase Watermelons by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/↓ ↓ ↓Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpoleThe official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.ukxxx
Welcome to the DellingPod with me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest.
But before we meet him, let's have a word from one of our sponsors.
Gold and silver.
They've been going like rockets recently, especially gold.
I think silver will follow.
But I'm no expert.
What do I know?
I just know that I've got some gold and I've got some silver and I'm very happy to have some.
There are two ways of owning it.
Either you can buy physical gold in the form of gold and silver bullion or in the form of coins.
Or you can take the Monetary Metals option.
Monetary Metals is a company.
I've had the CEO...
It's a way of owning physical gold and silver, but you get paid interest on your holding.
Now, this is different.
When you hold gold in a vault, you have to pay a fee, a management fee.
But if you buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you get paid interest.
So you don't have to pay storage charges.
You're actually earning income.
On your gold, which is paid in the form of more gold and silver.
It sounds like it doesn't make any sense, but actually it works because the jewellery industry pays money to monetary metals, which enables it to pay you interest on your gold.
it does work so if you want to buy gold and silver through monetary metals you go to monetary metals monetary hyphen metals dot com forwards
You can even earn higher yields if you are an accredited investor.
They let you earn income on their ounces paid in more ounces of physical gold.
The interest you earn is paid in ounces of physical gold or silver, which you get in addition to any price of appreciation from gold and silver during the year.
Join thousands of investors earning interest in physical gold and silver every month with Monetary Metals.
Visit monetary-metals.com /dellingpole To earn more.
Welcome to The Delling Pod, Jason Horsley.
I'm glad we finally got it together.
Because you're a very interesting character, and I love your book.
So that's a good start, isn't it?
It is, that's a great start, absolutely.
Although, I'll be honest with you, I kind of wish I hadn't, I mean I haven't finished it, but I sort of almost wish I hadn't read it.
The problem about reading somebody's book is that you then start engaging with the details rather than having a general conversation which meanders in any direction.
And I don't like my conversations to be kind of preconceived.
But apart from that, no, I mean, 16 maps of hell.
I highly recommend it.
We can talk about that in a bit.
But tell me about yourself first.
I mean, I'm familiar with your name, obviously, from...
I don't think I ever met him, but he was a thing in the period.
When was his sort of...
Was it the 90s?
Well...
He died in 2010, and he was pretty much at the peak of his fame when he died, although it was going a bit weird for him, which I won't go into all the details, like he wasn't too comfortable with the way it was going, I think.
But he'd just released his memoirs three years earlier, Dandy and the Underworld.
Stephen Fry had bought the options for Hollywood.
He was hanging out with Stephen Fry.
So in a certain sense, yeah, he was on the way to making it.
He had Salman Rushdie.
We're backing his cause because he got rejected entry to the US for his book tour and so yeah so but so it's the period between his death in 2010 and when he got crucified literally in 2000 and wait 2000 in the year 2000 that's that was the other thing I remember about him he got he he chose to get himself crucified is that right In the Philippines, yeah.
Well, you can do it at Easter.
Well, they do it.
The locals do it at Easter and you can sign up.
And did he have nails driven into his...
I mean, it's not symbolic.
Not his ankles, though, or not his feet, or wherever they went down there, we don't know, but through the palms, yeah.
Through the palms?
But isn't that anatomically inaccurate?
I know that some of the early Renaissance painters did it through the palms, but you wouldn't, you couldn't support...
I agree.
I think it must have been through the wrist, but obviously they don't want to destroy a person's body completely.
It's meant to just be initiational.
Sorry to be talking about your brother.
when I should be talking about you, but, but just, but I'm, I'm curious.
What did you, Well, that's quite a big question, a big answer.
I actually wrote a book about him just before he died.
It was in the mail to him when he died, which is amazing timing.
So he never received it.
I managed to get the mall person to put it in his coffin.
But it was about how much I felt oppressed by him and bullied by him and how he had installed himself in my psyche, like sort of domestic MKUltra kind of relationship.
And I don't know how much he wouldn't have liked that book, I know that, but I don't know how much he would have acknowledged it.
He does acknowledge in his memoir that he was really horrible to me, so he acknowledges it to that degree.
But I think he wouldn't have really sympathized with my attempt to put it in a psychological frame and so on.
But anyway, we were very close in a certain sense.
In many ways, I'd say he understood me better than just about any other man and that we could really talk about stuff, philosophical stuff.
Problem of God and the problem of existence.
And in this way, our interests were very similar, but our take on them were polar opposites.
They were polar opposites.
I take it he was the older brother.
Yeah.
Yeah.
How many years?
Four and a half years.
Right.
Yeah, that's tricky.
I mean, I've got a younger brother, and, well, I've got more than one younger brother, but it's kind of...
Yeah, well, he was threatened by me from the start, by his own acknowledgement, and there's pictures, or there's one picture of us as very young, where you can see the dynamic, there's hostility on both sides, but it started, I mean, he started it, right?
And did he talk to you about what it's like being crucified?
Yeah, yeah.
And what is it like?
Well, the specific thing he taught, because he wrote about it, of course, I mean, it was his ticket to fame, but specifically he said to me that, because he fainted on the cross, he passed out, and then he fell off the cross, like the support under his feet gave away, but somehow he fell forward rather than down, so his hands weren't destroyed.
And so anyway, so he was in an altered state and he said that one of the first things he thought was that he'd done me wrong.
So I had a specific, he had something specific to say about his crucifixion, that he had a kind of change of heart about me.
It didn't last because we weren't speaking when he died.
So that's very personal.
In terms of more generally speaking, he said it was unimaginably painful.
He had no idea it was going to be that painful.
I don't think he talked much about what kind of state he went into when he was unconscious or what have you.
He didn't go into that.
I don't know how honest he was about his experience.
Because he was very...
it turned into a publicity stunt in a way.
Like he reframed it and he did paintings and I think that was a mistake that in the end killed him He did have a sense of a Christian sense, even though he was a nihilist and an atheist.
He had some yearning to embody Christ, I would say, at a deep level.
Sorry about that.
I'm back now.
Oh, I was wondering what happened there.
Was that your...
I'm going to do what I can to prevent it happening again by closing everything else.
Am I still coming through yet?
which is close all the other day.
So it's not a disaster.
I think we are.
I think it's recording.
Right.
Oh, no, we're not live live.
No, sorry.
I assume you don't mind editing a little bit if you have to.
I'm just worried if I close this tab, what will happen?
There's two tabs open in Chrome for this meeting.
Is that normal?
No, that's wrong.
I normally get a message telling me that...
So I've closed one of them.
Let me just close audacity.
If I close everything, hopefully this won't happen again.
I don't need to hear the details, do you?
Alright, I think that's pretty much everything I can close.
Alright, reset.
Where were they?
We were talking about your...
His choice, yeah.
He was friends with Nick Cave at the time, and Nick Cave didn't like that.
He didn't like the fact he got crucified, and I thought he was just jealous.
But now I think maybe Nick Cave, because Nick Cave is pretty Christian, maybe he was aware of this problem that I'm talking about.
I don't think he is.
No.
Nick Cave.
No.
He's awesome.
Oh no.
No, don't say.
Say it isn't so.
I'm afraid.
I agree.
He's quite an interesting character, Cave, in that he flirts with a lot of biblical imagery.
He's always talking about the red right hand and stuff, you know, and the Bible talks about the right hand of God and stuff.
But I think it's a means to an end.
I think a lot of people on the dark side flirt with with Christian iconography and use it to their to their ends.
We can talk about.
Oh, yes.
Before we go.
I mean, Horsley, you say that when you were 21, you inherited a large sum of money.
18. 18?
Yeah.
Where did the Horsley fortune come from?
It came from, my grandfather started Northern Dairy, started very small, legend has it, or history has it, like a dairy, a local dairy.
But he built it up into a fairly large company.
It started in 1934, or 37, I think.
My father was born in 1934.
And my father took it over like 20 years later, right after he got married to my mother in 1958 in New Orleans.
He was trying to be a writer and he was traveling around, but I think once he got married, he thought, oh, I better, I better, you know.
Do the responsible thing, and so he reluctantly joined the family business, but it turned out he had a real neck for business, even though he wanted to be a writer.
And so with his input, Northern Dairies really grew and flourished into Northern Foods, which was a multinational conglomerate, providing meat to McDonald's, and it had an alliance with Marks& Spencer's, so first-packaged sandwiches was an innovation of Northern Foods.
Etc.
And so by the time I came along in '67, the company was well established and that had become his thing.
So we inherited, all of us, we inherited shares, but it was to the value of about half a million quid or something back then, the shares.
And I inherited even earlier because I knew I was going to inherit, so I got a tab with my sister.
In advance.
So at 17, I was just, I had all the money I could ever want.
Yes.
Half a million when you were 18 is probably the equivalent of about three or four million now, I'd say.
Except it was in shares, so it was just dividends.
We were just getting dividends.
But yes, it was more than I could spend unless I was going to do crazy, stupid things.
I mean, crazier and stupider than I did do.
Do you think, I mean, if you could have your time over again, would you still have your inheritance or do you think it had a negative impact on you?
You know, hindsight is 20-20.
So if I had that 20-20 hindsight, I would essentially, maybe I would have arranged it with my father, I'd say, look, don't let me have that money until I'm 25 or 30 or something like that.
But one of the things you did was you went to LA.
Because it was kind of your dream you were infatuated with.
Probably young men particularly.
well not with LA Polanski was my identification figure so I was definitely into sort of It started when I was born, pretty much, with Bonnie and Clyde.
I was into that whole thing, but then Polanski, so I was into kind of European arty stuff as well.
And Pauline Kael was my main influence, the critic.
But yeah, basically, I just translated into that.
I want to make movies.
I want to be one of these power elite.
Didn't think of it back then, but I want to be like that.
I want to be one of these great artists who are shaping culture.
Yeah.
Because I sense from reading your book that between the time you started it, and you've written loads of books about movies and stuff, but this latest one, I sense that between the time you started it and the time you finished it,
you had quite a shift in your opinion or understanding of Hollywood, that maybe you were more infatuated with the glamour at the beginning and you were very realistic by the end.
Well, because you haven't finished the book, so you don't know how it ends up.
But actually there was a shift, but it's not the one you're referring to because, I mean, it's kind of...
even by writing the book.
But I certainly knew, I had all of these ideas and theories and all of this information when I started the book, that Hollywood is a den of iniquity and the abomination of desolation and all the rest of it.
I knew it was a hellhole and if I'd ever made it, I would have lived to regret it.
But it's one thing to know it intellectually, it's another to really have a change of heart and to...
So that was going on.
But I honestly, I don't think even writing that book did it.
You know, I'm still, The illusions there were gone.
But in terms of the appeal, so I'm still reading about these things.
I'm still kind of fascinated.
I'm still trying to get to the bottom of it.
It's just that it shifted from wanting to You can't literally infiltrate it that way because you get killed.
Yeah, you would, wouldn't you?
Lots of people do.
Did you by any chance see a fascinating series on drama?
Drama series on Paramount called The Offer.
No.
About the making of The Godfather.
Oh, I heard about it, yeah.
Was it fascinating?
Okay.
I'll tell you what's really interesting about it, especially in the context of what we're going to discuss.
So it was written by the guy who produced The Godfather, and it was his first big project.
I forgot what his name was.
Al Ruddy.
Al Ruddy, exactly.
And it's set in that era, or sort of the end of that era.
I mean, I suppose that era started in about, what, 68, 67, the whole Easy Rider stuff.
Yeah.
And so Al Ruddy is trying to get this picture made with his...
Bob Evans is played by Andrew Scott, who's a very attractive actor, a very versatile English character.
And you love Bob Evans.
He's a very seductive character.
And the whole image it gives of Hollywood is this place where...
Everything happens on a wing and a prayer.
But if you get it right and if you kind of surf the zeitgeist and you surf the wave, you can make it.
And everyone's kind of beautiful and cool and sexy.
And there's a sort of element was, oh, in order to get the movie made, we have to kind of engage with the mob.
But the mob are these kind of innocents abroad.
They're these kind of stereotypical Italian people.
I love this series.
It's really good but I realise reading your book that it's absolute bollocks.
This is Al Ruddy's gloss, his Hollywood gloss on what actually happened.
For example, you demonstrate in the book that Hollywood is owned by the mob, to a greater or lesser degree.
Bob Evans certainly was.
I'd say so.
I mean, organized crime intelligence community, there's no clear dividing line there.
And then there's other elements that we can get into that are harder to map, like I'll call it societies and stuff.
But, yeah, I mean, and then Godfather was...
I mean, I haven't been able to really confirm this, They said, yeah, we love it.
And you can see why.
You can completely see why they would approve it, because it glorifies and glamorizes and romanticizes.
And, yeah, it's a great movie.
So, yeah, that's why I didn't watch that show, because I hate being slimed by the, you know.
The myths that they create about themselves.
You would have felt tainted.
Yeah.
Because what it does is make you wish that you'd lived in that era and you'd hung out with these beautiful people.
But you were describing...
Oh, BBS.
Yeah.
Tell me about them.
Well, Bert Schneider, I mean, they just, speaking of this kind of thing, they just did a show about him as well, because Bert Schneider backed the Black Panthers.
So they just made, I don't know which streaming service it was, but you would have probably heard about it.
Again, I couldn't watch it.
I watched half an hour and that's it.
There's something, there's a certain quality to TV shows and movies, often the biographic, the biopic kind.
There's the cultural celebration, obviously.
Reject that, react against that.
But there's just, I can't really put my finger on it necessarily, but you touched on it with your description.
Anyway, the way they spin, there's a spin going on.
You could feel they're not really just telling the story.
They're framing.
Anyway, it's like that.
I just couldn't watch it.
But anyway, so Burt Schneider, Bob Rafelson was one of, there were three.
I've forgotten the third guy.
They were Jewish.
And they were like Jewish Mafia, but whether that was a literal thing or not, but they certainly acted like Mafia.
They were rich guys.
I mean, Bert Schneider was the son of, I guess, I don't have the facts at my fingertips, but Abraham, Abraham Schneider, who was the head of one of the major studios, I forget which one, Columbia, I think.
So Schneider was actually the scion of, you know, the power elite, but he managed to create a persona and a kind of lifestyle where he didn't seem like that.
He seemed like a rebel, right?
Jim Morrison, you know, he was the son of a colonel, right?
No, no, he was the son of the admiral who started the Vietnam War.
Exactly, right?
So it's a bit like that.
I mean, you see this kind of recurring.
Anyway, so yeah, Schneider, Obviously, it was kind of meant to be ostensibly a fuck you to dad, but really, behind the scenes, you can bet he was getting some sort of support, because, well, he had the money at the very least.
And for some reason, American Independent Pictures, the Roger Corman thing, whatever that's called, AIP, I think.
They didn't want to do Easy Rider, I think, because they've done so many biker movies.
So anyway, they did Easy Rider and that made them.
But, I mean, I write about them because they seem like a microcosm, the way in which they were very intersexual.
Freedom and experimentation on the one hand, and, you know, there's lines in Biskens, but the Easy Rider's rating boards about how they basically would, any kind of sex was up for grabs, you know, they just wanted to fuck anything and everything, right?
So without the specifics, obviously that opens a lot of possibilities.
Back in the 60s, you know, it was a lot more permissive time, in quotes.
And then on the other hand, that they were kind of thuggish, that they were really mean.
I mean, I quote Harry Gitz, who was Jack Nicholson's closest friend at the time, just saying they were the meanest motherfuckers that he'd ever met.
Yeah.
Have you come across the theory that one of the reasons that the...
the Godfather got made and promoted by Hollywood, was it wanted to promote the false idea that the Italian mob was the, was the thing.
Whereas in fact, the Jewish mob is much more powerful and then it suited, it suited the Jews in Hollywood to, Right.
and Crime Inc.
And the relationship with the...
But yeah, are you familiar with that theory?
I hadn't heard that, but it's not particularly surprising.
Of course, Mayor Lansky is a character in Border World Empire, interestingly enough.
But I do make the point, there's a broader point and doesn't require such historical research to back it up, that it clearly is in the interest of organised crime.
To control the depictions of organised crime in the movies and TV shows in such a way that we get a completely false picture of them.
And it's not, we might assume, if we're naive, we would assume, oh, well, they'll whitewash it or they'll glamorise it in this obvious way or they'll downplay it or whatever, you know, but it's going to be much more subtle than that.
It's just as long as they can control the picture that we get, we're not going to be able to identify it.
Because it's going on and we've got this preconception.
What do you think they hide?
What do they spin us away from learning?
Well, I suppose, I mean, the main thing is that even if you, even the idea of sort of isolating organised crime from the culture, what I call the superculture, Itself is a misrepresentation, because organised crime isn't this separate entity that's infiltrating or pulling strings or doing parallel operations, right?
It's actually created the culture that we're swimming in.
I think that's true.
Well, you worked at the BBC, didn't you?
No, I haven't.
I appeared on the BBC.
I've worked for them.
But still, you've been inside.
Yeah, I have.
I think that these things are conducted on a need-to-know basis.
I think a lot of people working within the system are blissfully unaware, as I was, what the nature of the organisation they're actually working for.
I mean, for example, I worked on The Telegraph for 20 years, maybe, on and off.
I had no idea that really I was working for the kind of the broadsheet propaganda outlet for MI6 and MI5.
Yesterday, there was a headline in the Telegraph saying something like, PM prepares country for nuclear attack by Russia.
Well, something similar to that.
And you're thinking, this is so irresponsible and so completely untrue.
But what it is doing is manipulating the population to the state that the intelligence services want them to be manipulated into, whether a state of fear, a sense that Russia is the threat, a sense that they're being prepped for the coming war, which the intelligence services and what other vested interests Are arguing for on behalf of their paymasters.
And so it goes on.
I had no idea that.
But I don't know about Hollywood.
I think there's a very interesting point in your book where you talk about on what level movie directors know that they are acting in the interests of the intelligence services, the organized crime, and the The kind of satanic elite.
And you sort of have it, you have your cake and eat it, I think not unreasonably, by saying, well, it's a bit of both.
Yeah.
Well, it's in different cases as well.
Obviously one has to take, with all things, I think, one has to take case by case rather than trying to generalise.
And this is, I mean, there's a lot of problems with conspiracy.
Media, which, as you know, has now gone mainstream, really.
Conspiracy consciousness has been streamlined and mainstreamed.
And part of that process, I call it the second matrix, is creating this dumbed-down, chunked-up, super-simplified version of what's going on, which paints everything with the same brushstroke.
And it simply doesn't add up.
It just doesn't make sense.
It's not just that...
Well, it is that, but that means, you know, others don't know also.
Therefore, you can't paint it all with the same brushstroke.
So, I mean, I use the example of David Finchner.
He's one of my case studies in the book and although I can't prove it and I don't necessarily argue it, my overall sense of something like David Finchner is that he He must be an asset, a conscious asset, or Ben Affleck.
You've got actors where you can just say, or George Clooney, I mean he's CFR I think.
You just know, they have to know, but they're still somewhat deluded or ignorant because they probably believe that they're doing Something that's necessary for the greater good.
I suppose that we could say they all do at some level, but I mean, they may be naive.
Obviously, if you go all the way into satanic ritual, there's no way you can spin it, right?
They just basically craven, depraved individuals.
But that's incredibly hard to point the finger at any particular individual there.
So we're just talking at the first level, really, which is their agents of propaganda.
Disseminating disinformation and so on and there you have you definitely have conscious agents of that because you know whatever the climate is there's usually war going on in some sense or another they can feel justified and this is going to help the war effort figuratively or literally right so So, yeah, characters like this, David Fincher, you can see that he's kind of a technician and a workman.
He is a bit of an artist, but he's also just more of a, you know, cinematographer and what have you.
He's good at what he does.
As compared to the auteurs of the 70s, 60s and 70s, someone like Polanski or Coppola, I think it's pretty hard.
I have some friends, Psyop Cinema, who are arguing that Taxi Driver was a Psyop and that it wasn't written by Schrader.
I just find that goes too far.
Having immersed myself my whole life in this, I'm looking at the Beatles through this lens currently.
I just can't buy this that the Beatles were a Tavistock Psyop.
It's much subtle in that.
Well, tell me about Fincher.
Right, so, well, I mean, Fincher grew up, he was George Lucas's neighbour.
He came into movies through music videos and advertising, like Ridley Scott.
I mean, Ridley Scott's another guy, you could say.
He's probably, he probably knows quite a bit about the fact that he's working for intelligence.
And I think these characters would be proud of it.
I mean, I think they would feel they were doing their duty and what have you.
So yeah, and then Finchner.
Well, I don't know.
What do you want to know about Finchner?
I mean, the proof is in the pudding.
Like, Finchner made Zodiac.
First of all, he made Seven, which is okay.
It's a good movie, but it's serial killer mythologizing, which I cover a lot in the book.
Phoenix program, Vietnam.
serial killers are never independent agents.
I mean, maybe, maybe there's, But the original serial killers, they're all agents of this larger program from what I can research, understand.
So even something like Seven, you could say, well, that's pushing the mythology.
You could say that about Tax Driver 2. But then when he does Zodiac, it's just a tissue of lies.
It's just a complete cover story about covering up what the Zodiac killings really were, which was a large psychological operation.
And then you have Mindhunter.
So clearly he's the guy to go to for keeping the serial killer spin going.
And he's a very smart guy, Finch.
and he wouldn't be as good as what he does if he wasn't.
So you have to, at a certain point, you have to, You research, you know, and you find out there's all these anomalies, and okay, we've got to leave all them out, because this is the story we're going to tell.
And it's not a better story, it's the thing.
Like the Son of Sam or the Zodiac Killer, they're far more interesting stories if you take Maury Terry's research and the rest of it, and Douglas Valentine's.
The Vietnam stuff.
And you try to uncover what was really going.
It's a far more compelling story, right?
So that's no excuse.
I read in your book, I was quite surprised, you said that 5,000 people, I'm not sure, I can't remember over what period, 5,000 people are reckoned to have been killed by serial killers in the US.
That was Time magazine.
I was just quoting Time.
I mean, that's a lot.
It feels not like a kind of niche activity, but something that's...
Well, I mean...
I mean, that's the thing.
It's an industry.
the cartels, the drug trafficking, it's the snuff, which we don't really know much about, obviously, but child trafficking, it's organized crime and intelligence communities doing their thing, and they've got these ground agents that some of them get identified, whether they're happy about this or not, as serial killers, and they become famous, but they also end up being electric
gone rogue, or have been encouraged to do so.
Why would it be in the interests of the elites to have serial killers knocking around?
Well, first of all, it's just touched on with organised crime.
Obviously, there's a huge industry there in terms of drugs, prostitution, child pornography and child trafficking.
What else have I left out?
You know, it's all intersecting.
There's no money in serial killing?
right the actual killing no but a lot of the victims of somebody like Ted Bundy or allegedly Ted Bundy um to use one example are uh they're not random right they're like so you've got mob killings that they disguise as serial killings right for example but the other I mean the other angle which is just as valid and is more uh it explains it more uh better I think is
that it's coming and wherever because it again it can be oversimplified and dumbed down but maybe also was doing about this in the early 70s um that when you have a plan to implement more increasingly to croat draconian uh level of And obviously it was partly a response to the student protests and all that stuff and the rioting.
But it was also, that was when the serial killers were coming up.
I mean, 66 was the turning point because Richard Speck, Charles Whitman were in the same month in July 66. And that was a turning point, like this mass shooter plus serial killer killed eight nurses in one night, apparently.
Not very convincing stories, but they were taken as a face value.
But anyway, this corresponded with the Vietnam Phoenix program.
They had these terrorist operations in Vietnam that then seemed to get imported into the US.
So yes, it generates more, you were saying about the Ukraine, what they're doing with the telegraph, but this is more on the ground kind of fear, not a fear of bombs flying, but a fear of Right, which is where the first Dirty Harry movie came in, to reinforce that narrative.
Exactly, yeah.
Who made the first Dirty Harry?
Don Siegel, who insists he was an anti-authoritarian liberal.
And you know, I believe him, kind of.
I believe he...
But it's not hard for me to believe, right?
Because you can see the movie, you can see how a person could kid themselves.
It's very cunning, you see, the way they do it.
Dirty Harry is not just a great movie, a good movie, but the character himself is kind of rebellious, he's got long hair, he's a bit of a counter-cultural hero.
It's Clint Eastwood as well, so you can't help but love the guy.
But he's pushing against the system.
It's just the way he's pushing against the system is saying it's not fascist enough, really.
I mean, that's implicit, right?
Yeah, he's like Judge Dredd.
Exactly.
Yeah, because you do.
I mean, you really do hate the serial killer guy in Dirty Harry is so horrible that you really do want to get him.
You want him to be summarily executed because the town hall.
So he's kind of anti-establishment and at the same time a complete fascist.
Yeah, he's embodying this spirit, you could say, that they are introducing into it.
So it's a kind of slate of hand.
We wouldn't identify, if we were seeing the government doing it in a movie, there'd be the bad guys, right?
But because it's embodied as an individual, it doesn't matter, you know, to the sort of sleeping brain that gets sucked into the manufactured reality, we're identifying with what we think of this rebellious, attractive, cool character, but actually we're being lured into identification with what that character represents, which is the power of the state.
Tell me.
Just going back briefly to what we were saying about the Paramount series, The Offer, and about Albert Ruddy.
I have to say that when I started enjoying the series, I did a quick read-up on Albert Ruddy, and I wanted to check, is he or isn't he Jewish?
And of course, duh.
He sort of presents himself as this ordinary guy who wanted to make a movie, and he'd done some crappy comedy series quite successfully, but then he got the job of The Godfather.
But it wasn't like that.
It seems to me, tell me if I'm wrong, that if you're not Jewish, you're not going to make it in Hollywood production, or you've got to have Jewish connections.
And why is that?
That, I don't know.
I mean...
right?
I don't know how many times I used the word Jewish in there.
Now, but when it comes, and there's definitely some there, there, let's say, there's this fire behind the smoke, but there's also a smoke screen.
So this is a very large question, and it's a very, I think it's a very important question because, again, people are being tricked, I think, into chunking up and dumbing down something.
So, But anyway, back to the specifics of Hollywood, right?
It's an open secret, or you can't even call it a secret at all, that yes, the Jews have run Hollywood since the beginning.
There's a book, Neil Gabler's, An Empire of Their Own.
It's been a point of pride, really.
Like, why not?
You know, why not?
Why keep it a secret if the Jews created Hollywood?
I mean, the Jews is a problem, actually, that phrase.
But if the people who created Hollywood were mostly of the Jewish persuasion.
Which itself is a bit problematic, because were they religious Jews?
Are they even Jews?
Are they even Jews?
Is it Ashkenazi, or is it right?
We don't know what the hell Jews are, really.
But anyway, there was an acknowledgement that these characters had some sort of Jewish ancestry and they didn't hide it.
They had an opportunity to not hide it, as it were, because this was a...
So it was a point of pride, let's say, and people who love Hollywood can just say, OK, the Jews did it.
Well, great.
Thank you, Jews, right?
Just as there's lots of writers and artists throughout, you know, there's a disproportionate number of Jewish influences.
You could say thank you, Jews, if you were, say, Toby Young.
Or, you know, if you're one of those, on the level of, or who's that?
Mark Kermode, you'd say that.
If you're a film critic, on a certain level, who believes in the myth, you could say, that's great.
And isn't it great, all this entertainment?
But once you're at the level that we are, where you know that the purpose of the entertainment industry is not primarily to make money, it's a psyop.
It's about manipulation of minds.
It's about money laundering, yes, sure.
Manipulation of mind, money laundering and occult ritual.
Those three, it's the trifecta of money laundering, brainwashing and occult ritual.
You can't then go, thanks guys.
No, that's right.
But the tendency would be to swing the other way and then to blame, to point the finger and say it was the Jews that did it.
I don't think that would be very accurate and helpful.
I mean, what I found was why I wanted to go into the Jewish question was because it doesn't help by ignoring, and you can't dismiss it.
Like, there's this thing called noticing now, right?
People are noticing, oh, the Jews really do seem to have some sort of influence and so on and so forth.
So it's a sort of red pill moment.
But as someone like James Lindsay has pointed out, I'm a fan or anything, but somebody needs to point it out.
There is this woke right thing.
I think that's bollocks.
Sorry, I think anything, James, the whole woke right thing is utterly dishonest.
I shouldn't have mentioned James Lindsay, but I say second matrix.
And there's this whole second matrix thing where people are jumping aboard a bandwagon because they want to have a position and they want to push against the woke thing or whatever else it is, or Hollywood in this case.
And so they want to be able to take a really secure, strong position and say, we know what the problem is and we know who it is and so on and so forth.
So, this is the thing around the Jewish thing.
I don't think we should maybe get too sidetracked by that specific thing, but my point is that it has to be addressed in order to be understood.
Like, if you say, I'm not going to talk about it, we're never going to understand it, which is, you know, the mainstream point of view.
You can't talk about the Jews.
But then this other, now this new thing is we've got to talk about the Jews, but there's already this frame about the Jews.
And I'm saying, well, no, the frame isn't accurate.
We need to really question it.
I think where you and I would agree is that once a phenomenon, a social phenomenon, acquires a name, in this case, noticing, you know that the people who are noticing are being played on some level.
It's a bit like when alternative right people suddenly woke up to the fact that the trans agenda was destroying our culture and they started satirising LGBTQ plus and stuff and things like that.
That was the so-called right.
Being drafted into a cause so that they could notice this thing and not notice all the other bad stuff that's going on.
So yeah.
So it gets weaponized.
Information is weaponized and then people get weaponized and movements get created.
It's social engineering through social media.
But we were talking about Fincher.
He's not Jewish, is he?
I don't think.
I don't know.
I don't think so.
I don't know.
I mean, you can't always tell, can you?
I don't go through the directors going, he's Jewish, he's not Jewish.
The thing is, we know that there are definitely Jews who aren't in on it, and there are also people who are in on it who aren't Jews.
So there's not a one-to-one correspondence.
At the end of the day, one has to just acknowledge this.
There's an influence here.
I think Spielberg might be Jewish.
I don't know why.
So there's some big fish out there, for sure.
And there is a Jewish ideological push if we get into the Holocaust and all that stuff.
So absolutely, it has to be identified.
But there's something broader going on as well.
Did you do, probably too early for you, you didn't do Ben-Hur, did you, in the book?
Didn't do Ben-Hur?
No, I haven't mentioned Ben-Hur, no.
Why?
You know when Ben-Hur is riding his chariot?
Yeah.
Chariot race.
You know what he's got around his neck?
No.
He's got the Star of David.
The Star of David was not around then.
this is basically Eastern European Jewish producers pushing an agenda, inserting their symbols into a very fine movie.
But it's very difficult looking at, As you were when you were younger, I used to be infatuated with all this stuff.
I watched all the stuff on video from the local video store.
I was really into it, everything about the culture.
I mean, I watched Apocalypse Now, you know, 10 times and used to love Butch and Sundance and all the classic films, Easy Rider and stuff.
It's only recently that I've woken up to the fact that one's being subverted in somewhere.
I mean, Rosemary's Baby, which I watched again the other day.
Whoa!
That is a really frightening film.
And you say you were a Polanski fan once, but you're not anymore, are you?
I mean, not morally anyway.
Well, no.
How can I be?
Like, the stuff I found out about Polanski while writing 16 Maps of Hell, well, it was why he ended up on the cover.
Like, I suppose, Charles Manson, they're the same height.
And basically, I end up, I think, the book makes a pretty good case that, of the two characters, Polanski is more sinister than Charles Manson, really.
Yeah, he's probably more implicated in the death of Sharon Tate.
Yeah, I guess you could go that far.
I mean, the things that it seems he was involved in.
And funnily enough, Dennis Hopper was the only character in Hollywood who seems to have actually spoken out about what the Polanskys were up to and what was going on in that house.
Because as such as I might, the only real direct reference to Polanski and Sharon Tate and what was going on in that house involving filming of perverse sexual rituals and stuff, the only person to really talk about that apparently was Dennis Hopper.
talk to the police.
Anyway, that's just that kind of seems somewhat significant he was probably anyone crazy enough Do you think Manson is actually innocent?
Well, I wouldn't go that far, no.
I don't think Manson was any more innocent than Ted Bundy, really, because I think he was involved in these operations.
He was definitely a useful ground agent who then became a celebrity.
But his involvement in the Process Church and the Church of Satan, I can't say well documented, but it does seem as though, like, you know, there's this Netflix documentary, Errol Morris, the famous documentarian, just made the thing based on Tom Neill's book, Chaos.
And it turns out, I think, pretty conclusively, I'd say that Tom Neill's version of the Manson thing, which is in some ways very close to what I was writing about.
20 or more years ago that there was an MKUltra element to Manson, and it was to do with sabotaging the counterculture and stuff.
But that's now become the new, sort of the official, unofficial story.
But it completely leaves out all the satanic cult stuff.
And the really dark stuff that Manson was into, I mean, besides the murders, obviously.
Give me the TLDR.
So it was Cielo Drive, wasn't it, where the killings happened?
Yeah.
And this was being used as a...
So you've got...
Roman Polanski, who's obviously a Satanist, I mean, you only have to look at...
I don't really say that, but what...
The devil's the prince of lies, come on, I mean, you're not going to be saying, oh yeah, I'm going to fess up.
I know, I know, I know that.
And maybe I'm just falling for the spin.
But I also think there's something, like Satanism, I think, like I was saying about all night's crime, it creates pictures of itself so that we won't recognise it.
I'd say the same about Satanism as well.
I think Satanism, the levels we're talking about, it probably is practised by atheists who don't even necessarily believe in Satan.
And maybe they don't, I mean, also eyes wide shut.
I mean, Christ, does that really help people become more conscious of what's going on?
I don't think so.
I don't know, maybe sometimes they have ropes and incense and stuff, but I think mainly it's this kind of technology that they're wielding that's terrifyingly effective and just practical and pragmatic in obviously a very destructive way.
Okay, well we can agree or disagree on whether or not Polanski is actually a Satanist.
mean by saying this but anyway yeah sorry yeah but um so you've got the cielo drive which is being used Like, you mentioned the Mamas and the Papas, John Phillips and Michelle Phillips.
So I remember fancying Michelle Phillips, something rotten on the back of my, my best of the mums and papas album.
She's, she was very, you know, Do you think she was probably an MKUltra?
I mean, they were all children of intelligence operatives or ex-military, weren't they?
I mean, I know Laurel Canyon, Dave McGowan, with the music scene, yeah.
I'm not sure about Hollywood.
I mean, I didn't try and follow those.
It's obviously Sharon Tate, the son of a colonel.
So I haven't looked into Michelle Phillips.
She was with Dennis Hopper for a week, and then she ended up with Jack Nicholson.
So clearly she was getting passed around at the high levels.
But anyway, back to the Cielo Drive, the home, yeah.
I don't know exactly about occult rituals, but certainly they were doing sexual rituals or sexual orgies in film.
I mean, certainly, allegedly.
I mean, what Hopper was claiming and what Manson himself was claiming.
Celebrity porno films.
Yeah, they were filming stuff.
And that, I mean, I found a number of different sources for that, that they did find.
The police found films, footage and videos and stuff that Polanski had filmed.
So, you know, I hypothesized that this was a Jeffrey Epstein style.
thing going on, and that was part of how Polanski made it as Polanski.
Obviously, Rosemary's Baby was the movie that made his name.
It just happened to be about Satanism and child sacrifice.
Coincidence, I don't think so.
But also Frykowski, or Frykowski, one of his friends that was killed that night, was involved in bringing MDA to, from Poland.
To California or to the US.
And MDA, I didn't know this actually, but it was one of the big drugs in the late 60s.
Was it a precursor to MDMA?
Was it related?
It was a precursor to MDMA.
And it was in the period when it was shifting from pot, weed and LSD to cocaine and heroin.
MDA was one of the drugs of choice in that period.
So yeah, they were involved not just in movies but drugs.
You remind me, I read a very good book by Simon Napier-Bell, the guy behind the producer of Wham!
Well, the manager of Wham!
And other people.
In the 60s as well.
Yeah, I mean, his career went back a long way, and he was talking about the intimate relationship between the prevailing drug of the era and the music scene, the sort of symbolic relationship and the culture and so on.
But actually, knowing what I know now, I'd say this is always part of the plan.
These drugs didn't sort of become fashionable organically.
It's what they, the powers that be, that when they want to engender a mood shift in the culture, then when they want to move on to the next stage, they bring in speed for punk or LSD, you know, before that LSD for music.
Yeah.
Cocaine for the 70s.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
It is sure.
It's like psychosocial engineering.
Yeah.
Sorry, I tend to flit around, but just because when I remember interesting points you've made, you use a word, which I'd never encountered before, which is very interesting, where...
What's that term?
Is it cryptonesia?
Cryptonesia.
Tell me about that.
Well, you just summed it up.
I mean, cryptonesia is just about the phenomena that we experience, like we think we've come up with an idea, but it turns out that we heard it somewhere and then forgot conveniently, so we don't know that we're plagiarizing.
That's kind of the context it's used in, but I put it in the context as you just described, seeding the culture in such a way that people, individuals, They become delivery devices for these trends and things, rather than it being obviously top-down manipulation or introduction of ideas.
It's a bit like the parasite thing in Alien, right?
It gets inside you and then you think everything's fine and there's nothing to see.
And the next thing you know, right, boof, it's come bursting out of your chest.
Yeah, I was thinking one of the ideas that's seeded in...
The baddies are going to win.
If you try and tell somebody it's either going to get you off or it's going to turn out like Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers that he's been one of them.
He's been I suppose three days of the Condor, he gets away with it.
Sorry, spoiler alert.
But that's when Max von Sydow doesn't kill him at the end.
But generally, conspiracy thrillers induce this state of like...
There's no hope.
Do you think that's deliberate?
Do you think that's designed for us conspiracy nuts to sow the seeds of despair within us?
I think there is something going on there, yeah, although it's, again, probably much subtler and interestingly, a really good example of this is Chinatown, because Chinatown was Polanski's, you know, it's considered his masterpiece, and it was the movie he made.
Robert Towne wrote an ending that evil didn't triumph.
In Robert Towne's ending, Noah Cross, the evil puppet master, who played by John Huston, gets killed and his daughter and his granddaughter survive.
But Polanski changed it.
The opposite.
The Faye Dunaway character gets killed.
And the granddaughter that, you know, the father had sex with his daughter to give birth to his granddaughter, that one, she ends up back with the grandfather.
So it's the worst, most nightmarish ending for a nightmarish story.
And Polanski absolutely insisted on that ending, and Robert Towne resented it forever after.
And it was considered, well, A, it was just inevitable because Polanski had had the experiences he'd had throughout his life.
He was going to want to paint this blacker picture.
But B, it was considered the right ending in the end, that this was more realistic and it was going to leave people thinking more afterwards.
And I always agreed with that.
That's what great art must represent, reality in this way, that good doesn't triumph over evil in this very Hollywood fashion.
So it's a kind of irony because the 60s and the 70s, the new Hollywood.
They did bring a new level of realism to movies and a new level of artistry.
And it's pretty much inarguable that these were superior movies to before and after, I mean, with exceptions, of course.
But generally, like what's considered the classics now are these movies made in the late 60s and early to mid 70s, and partly because they had this very realistic treatment and they represented the reality with the Vietnam War and everything else that was going on.
Right?
It was like Hollywood grew up.
But, absolutely, I do think there's a subtler game going on here.
And, well, it's more than just, I think, what you're underscoring now.
Because it is fairly accurate to say with the intelligence communities, you can't beat them.
But their own game.
You can't just write to the New York Times, as he does at the end of Three Days of the Condor, and say, hey, look, they're doing this stuff, right?
The things that we turn to to save us, or that Hollywood might present as the saving forces, it's true, right?
Well, not least because the New York Times is part of the evil system.
Exactly, exactly.
So it's a bit of a conundrum, isn't it?
And, you know, Hollywood and the arts...
It doesn't represent goodness very well.
I mean, it never has, actually.
Very interesting you mention Paradise Lost.
I was actually thinking about introducing it or not.
Have you come across Christopher Booker's masterpiece, The Seven Basic Plots?
No, I haven't.
Okay, so it's a classic and it's studied by screenwriters and, you know, It's a tour de force.
So Christopher Booker is an old friend of mine, now suddenly dead.
He analysed all the plots from literature.
So The Odyssey, Beowulf, Jaws.
Jaws is basically Rear, is, is, is, is Beowulf.
It's, you know, Killing the Monster, I think it's called.
So Beowulf has to go and kill Grendel and Grendel's mother.
What's he called?
The Roy Scheider character has to go and kill.
Brody.
Brody and Quint have to go and kill Jaws.
And he analyzes all the seven basic plots.
The return.
I forgot what they're called now.
But interestingly, the anti-hero, Doesn't really appear until the 20th century.
I mean, there are exceptions, like you could argue that Milton's Satan is the first great anti-hero from literature.
Almost unbeknownst, I think, I'm not sure that Milton was consciously celebrating Satan.
What about Shakespeare?
Oh, what, Iago?
Oh, well, like Beth.
Yeah, okay, fair enough, yeah.
But then that's a tragic hero.
So, I mean, Lucifer in Paradise Lost is a tragic hero.
So it's probably a subtle difference.
I suppose what I'm saying, that the censorship committee in Shakespeare's day wasn't...
is he an anti-hero?
I'm talking about heroes who are kind of...
I mean, there's definitely a sort of a moral arc to the tragic heroes, where you don't finish Macbeth thinking, yeah, he's a great guy.
And if only he'd, you know, he's obviously, you know, has his comeuppance and you go, yeah, he's...
The difference is, for example, in Nightmare on Elm Street...
He's the car.
Or, you know, he's that car that shuts down on them and kills them.
Or he's the Terminator who comes back.
That's what I'm really saying.
Sure.
This element where evil triumphs is a relatively recent Bit of spin from our dark overlords.
They realise that they don't have to have a happy effort.
They don't have to be Jane Austen.
They don't have to.
Well, you know, I mean, because the production code, Jack Valenti, he annulled it in 67. So right before this period we're talking about, it was very...
It was about these kind of things.
What can you represent in a movie that won't erode the moral core of the country and of individuals?
So that crime can't pay, for example, and certain things you're just not allowed to see.
And even you can't mention the word abortion and things like this.
And so you could say it was...
Even if crime does pay, you don't want to, sometimes, you don't want to normalise the idea, you don't want to make it become sort of viral.
And even if people do have abortions, the more you represent it, the more normalised it becomes, and so on, right?
So I'm not saying it was well done, because if it had been well done, there wouldn't have been this pushback.
That led to the opposite, right?
It's the pendulum.
And that's how they social engineer.
like the Inquisition obviously wasn't a good idea even though there are witches and demons so but I'm just saying that there is this does happen that you can see that I mean, it's confusing.
Because McCarthy was the communism.
Was he right or was he wrong?
I grew up thinking that Joseph McCarthy was just this demented guy who saw communists everywhere and was persecuting innocents or even was an agent.
No, they were all there.
They were all there.
But everything we were taught was a lie, Jason.
Well, I know.
But so is what we're being taught about how what we were taught was a lie.
Like, that's what I'm getting at.
Because now we've got a new kind of communists that are everywhere, I think.
Even my wife's infected.
Like, the Marxists are everywhere.
well yes but that that lens is also a way to control us so Yeah, so social engineers, they know what they're doing, obviously.
They know how we would react to it if we knew, so they keep us in the dark.
But then also, it's like a sort of preemptive thing.
They make these many steps ahead, like a chess player who can anticipate.
Because they plan these things.
They plan these things centuries.
Decades or centuries in advance, right?
So, yeah, if they want a permissive society, which clearly they did, I don't like to use the word they, but I have to keep it simple.
If that was on the agenda, then one way to ensure it is to have an overly repressive one because they know there's going to be reaction against that.
And then when it comes time to open the floodgates, essentially.
It's outdated.
Well, of course, it was never going to work.
I knew that already.
And then we actually received gratefully this new Hollywood, and we're completely blindsided.
We don't actually realize that the production code, even though it was badly applied and badly formulated, it was serving a function that we needed.
Like Mary Whitehouse, she was a bad guy when I grew up.
Now I look at her and I think, my God, Mary Whitehouse, she knew what she was talking about.
Of course, but all these characters are, I think you sort of dismiss the term, but they are to a greater or lesser degree lifetime actors.
that they're just Well, exactly.
There can't be all of them, can it?
But I suppose what I mean is that, whether wittingly or no, she was playing her part in the film.
Yeah.
These figures are not promoted without reason.
Well, yes.
That's true.
But how far do we take that view?
because I've taken it all the way to the bank whereby if somebody's got more than 2,000 followers on Twitter, more than I have, I'm like, I can't trust them, right?
So, but...
Well, that's low.
I'm exaggerating.
I think it was 200,000.
No, 20,000.
I can't remember.
But anyway, where do we draw the line?
How many have you got?
I definitely qualify as a baddie in your schemata.
So you've been allowed to thrive to some degree.
Yeah.
Yeah?
Yeah, but I think I could...
I wish they'd allow me a bit more, I have to say.
Right.
But at what point would you start to worry, wait, I must be useful, because...
I think I'm too uncontrollable.
I'm not consistent in the way that Mary Whitehouse was.
I'm not ramming home a sort of monolithic agenda.
But she didn't think she was either.
So the question is, at what point would you start to wonder simply because you were being promoted?
I mean, you would think David Icke would wonder, wouldn't you?
You'd think, well, how come I'm not dead?
No.
I wouldn't because I don't think he's genuine.
Well, exactly.
Well, okay.
But I think he believes that.
I don't get that impression with Ike.
I would say Alex Jones, yeah, he's a liar, I think.
But Ike seems quite sincere, so I suspect he's just really naive.
I think he's a not very clever person who's been put in a slot, been given a role, and promoted beyond his intelligence.
And that's what I think.
We haven't got time to talk about this.
We'll have to have another chat.
Are you going to have me on your podcast?
Sure.
Well, yeah, because I think that this is a conversation we're not going to complete now.
I wanted to just say before we, because I can tell my wife's going to come and come at.
She's quite strict.
Does she control your podcast lengths?
Well, it's not so much that.
Yeah, I suppose it is that.
The fact that we've been doing it this time of day is...
So actually, I don't think you've lost out.
But I think an hour and a half is about my preferred time anyway.
I'm not Joe.
What haven't we got to then?
The thing, what I wanted to briefly enlarge upon, because we didn't properly, is how utterly distasteful I find it, and I suspect you do too, but I didn't before.
The whole cult of the serial killer, you know, Manhunter to start off with, and then Silence of the Lambs.
It's kind of a, it's sort of a blue chip, blue ribbon.
Role, isn't it?
Making the serial killer film du jour.
You mentioned Seven, which was...
Oops, sorry.
And then we had...
Series on cable TV and similar about where the hero is the serial killer.
Like Dexter.
And there's the other one.
What was the one with that Norwegian actor?
Or was that Dexter?
Well, there was Mads Mikkelsen.
Who did he play?
Hannibal Lecter.
Yeah, so...
So you've got people from the Phoenix program having come back from the Nam, murdering Vietnamese citizens to provoke just general sense of terror in Vietnam, came back to America, bumped off a few sort of girl students and stuff.
And meanwhile, you've got...
And you've got, meanwhile, Hollywood promoting serial killers as this once this terrifying thing and this kind of cool, sexy thing.
Because you've got you've got Anthony Hopkins sucking through his.
So, well, I mean, that took a couple of decades, didn't it?
Yeah.
And in the interim, what you touched on earlier, was the anti-hero.
Because initially...
I still love them, right?
They're surely beyond criticism, aren't they?
Well, where you have the villain, you have a hero who in a previous hero would have been closer to the villain.
Like, he's dirty and scuzzy and ruthless and he...
So that's the man with no name, roughly.
I mean, he does become a hero, but initially he's sort of set up in that way.
And then, so then you have a villain who has to be therefore also reduced, you know, in character.
So he's just a slavering sadist, really.
and that balances it out.
But yeah, so the net result, and then Dirty Harry of course, like the villain is And of course, this is the age-old justification in war that you have to do.
You can't be a nicer, more honorable, more honest, more ethical person than your enemy because then you will lose if you're not willing to do the things that your enemy is willing to do.
That's the rationale that goes back centuries or millennia.
and so that's in microcosm.
You've got Clockwork Orange, Film I Hate by Kubrick, you've got Dirty Harry, you've got Straw Dogs in which Benjamin Braddock, Dustin Hoffman, right, just kills a whole bunch of people because he wants to defend his house and because he's pussy whipped.
Got Macbeth came out that year as well, Polanski.
So definitely it's the year of the anti-hero, but also the year of the fascists, you could say.
the sort of fascist push.
And so those characters, and that, there was a progression there where the, at a certain point anyway, to sum up, the hero, I mean, Freddy's never the hero, but he is the main character.
You don't remember any other characters.
He's the one you go to see, basically, and you kind of do want him to win at the end.
I mean, you kind of enjoy it.
So, and then Silence of the Lambs, well, he's like a superhero, Hannibal Lecter, right?
Totally.
He's the Ubermensch.
So, you know, I could bring up a dozen examples if I had the time, but I won't try.
But that, I mean, you can just trace that to the point, well, now we have, in the last 10 years or so, post-Dexter, there's been a number of films and TV shows about, there's one about Ted Bundy,
I didn't watch it, but they are, I mean, they're not necessarily making, The character's a hero, per se, because everybody knows it's Ted Bundy, and what he did was absolutely abhorrent.
I mean, the stuff he actually did do.
But they're still making the protagonist, and it's in this very slick package, and it's funny, and it's, I don't know, funny.
Well, once upon a time in Hollywood, let's use an example, I've actually seen it.
what's going on there?
I mean, that's such a, the whole thing is so twisted and weird, but one of the net results in, right?
So, he I thought that the idea that it's okay, once you stick the Nazi tag on people, it's okay to kill them in any manner of disgusting, gruesome, hideous fashions.
Yeah, it's sick.
It's a sick culture, but you can't see the sickness until the scales are falling from your eyes.
No.
Well, it's been a slow creep, but yeah, the net result is you end up...
It's actually the slow and sadistic torture he did in Reservoir Dogs as well.
I mean, that was all.
That was really sick, the way he did that torture scene right at the beginning.
And, of course, this is, you know, what the state is doing.
We've seen this in the, maybe I shouldn't use the term, the state, because it's old-fashioned, but torture did become de rigueur in all these different shows after 9-11, right?
Because we know the spiel, right?
So, but it's more than just that.
It's actually, it's a sensibility, which we could use the word satanic here at this point.
There's a sensibility, if that's the right word for it, or a proclivity, that, We're being lured into through these delivery devices of the narratives and the characters where you identify with the character and you hate the victim.
So you're with it.
You're actually grooving on the sadism.
And the harm that that can do psychologically, I think, is difficult to estimate.
It'd be hard to exaggerate the harm that that can do, I think.
Yes, you're right.
If you identify this guy, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, then waterboarding suddenly made an acceptable, even desirable option.
Yeah, and the movies work with that.
I wanted to...
Because you've written a whole chapter about Leonard Cohen and I think, like me, I was a Leonard Cohen fan.
I like that lugubrious voice.
Yeah, I still play his songs on guitar.
I like Suzanne and Bird on the Wire and I remember you well in the Chelsea Hotel.
I mean, they're particularly good for playing when you're...
And I think a lot of people use it for that.
Yeah.
And I think a lot of people, I remember when I was a music critic on The Telegraph for a long period.
And the guy who gave me my first job, he was a massive Leonard Cohen fan.
And he always used to enjoy the kind of the irony and the ryaness and the sardonic humor.
But knowing what you and I know now, tell us what you found about Leonard Cohen, for those who don't know.
Yeah, I wonder how widespread this new view of Cohen is, because I'm one of them.
Well, okay, this frame, this understanding.
Anyway, it was through Anne Diamond, who I interviewed some years back on The Limit List, who knew Cohen, was one of his girlfriends, you could say, or his concubines, if she wouldn't object to that phrase.
She believed that Cohen was She knows for the fact that she was, but she also, having known him, and then also this photograph that she believes is Cohen as one of the subjects.
So that's where her story about Cohen begins, that he volunteered for those experiments.
in the, I suppose it would be the early 60s, and that soon after that his career began.
He started out as a poet, but then he changed his mind, a novelist, and then he changed He was, you know, his stuff was given attention, an unusual degree of attention.
And he was from this wealthy family, just for, there's a Montreal, I forget exactly what, they were clothing manufacturers, but according to Anne Diamond, he was growing up in this, I suppose it would be Jewish Mafia, but anyway, the Montreal Mafia side of town.
Anyway, and as soon as he chose to become a musician, which was around 65, there's this photo spread of him in Life magazine, some guy that we're not supposed to have even heard of, really, Leonard Cohen playing guitar.
So it definitely seemed like his career was turbo boosted.
And you mentioned in the book, briefly, tell us about the role of life in the PSYOP.
Yeah, so Henry Lucci, lifetime life.
Well, it's Project Mockingbird, isn't it?
Operation Mockingbird.
I mean, it's fairly well documented because even Carl Bernstein, you know, of Woodward and Bernstein, wrote about it for Rolling Stone a few decades ago.
But it doesn't seem to have really taken root in the mainstream awareness.
But anyway, time life was just one of the main instruments of Mockingbird, which was...
CIA intelligence using journalism as a Yeah, so, and Time Life was promoting, I think even the late 50s was promoting psilocybin.
It was definitely, you know, Henry Lucci was down with LSD and psychedelics, you know, go figure, right?
Obviously an open-minded guy.
So anyway, there's another example that they were clearly being used to promote certain things that were required to be promoted.
And maybe Cohen was an example of this.
It is a little odd.
It was in Hydra, I think, in this Greek island that he lived.
Anyway, what else?
Because it's a full chapter.
Why was he on Hydra?
Remind us why he was on Hydra.
Who sent him there?
Oh, well, see, you've read it more recently than I have.
You remind me.
His first name's Jacob.
Oh, was it Rothschild, wasn't it?
That's right.
It was the Rothschilds.
One of the Rothschilds.
Yeah, sent him to Hydra.
said go to Hyder, I mean didn't give him orders but He seemed to have this tendency to showing up right before a revolution, or a CIA operation, I should say, rather than a revolution, but yeah, a colour revolution, perhaps.
Yeah, and then he has these various songs.
I mean, a lot of it is passing through lyrics.
It's sort of juxtaposing his career trajectory and how he ended up here or there and why, and with his own lyrics, which seem to have these veiled confessions within them, sometimes not veiled at all, like Field Commander Cohen was their most important spy, parachuting acid into cocktail parties.
Of course, it's irony, but post-Jimmy Savile, to get that reference you just used, you have to reassess what irony is, right?
It does seem part of the MO.
I think there's a whole essay to be written, probably on Substack or somewhere, about how irony is one of the main tools of self-deception.
Self-deception or deception of others?
Irony as a concept has been fostered by the elites, by the powers that be, as a way of persuading the intellectuals to deny the truth.
So, for example, when you've got Leonard Cohen singing First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin.
He's absolutely sincere in this, but because he's got these sort of slightly croony female backing vocalists and it's got this electro score and it's got deadpan Leonard, it's like this kind of older guy who's kind of hip.
In the same way that Lee Hazelwood was in Sun Velvet Morning, you know, this older guy with these younger women co-opting a genre, i.e.
retro pop that, that, that sort of post dates his, his, his pop heyday, all this stuff, it lay, it, it, it creates this aura whereby rock critics, like the person I was and, and like my, Tim, who commissioned me, still probably is.
They listen to this stuff and go, yeah, it's just Leonard being...
Don't you just love the irony?
It's so drenched with irony.
And so much can be explained away.
It's ironic.
They don't really mean it.
But they absolutely do mean it.
He was intelligent stuff.
He was probably more sad.
I mean, it's the main difference between Mossad and CIA, frankly.
They're all one kind of uni-intelligence service, really.
But, but look, I mean, there's a chapter in your book, which we're going to argue about some other time where you kind of fight against the idea of a grand universal conspiracy theory.
But look, you've written a bloody chapter on on how one of the pop icons of our era was actually a.
And he was doing this stuff.
So then you start asking, okay, well, who's controlling this?
Are they just doing it for a joke?
It's just like a kind of wheeze.
Hey, let's penetrate popular culture with one of our guys.
It's obviously deeper than that, more serious than that.
There is a presiding evil genius behind all this shit.
It's not random.
Well, there's Satan.
I mean, if we go metaphysical, then...
Well, I wouldn't even argue...
Yeah, I mean, not metaphysical.
Okay, so if you go sociopolitical, parapolitical, if we keep it parapolitical, then...
well my main, there's two points really here, one is if it is unified then we don't If it is a pyramid and there's something at the top, we don't know.
He's got horns.
Well, there you go.
So you've gone metaphysical.
So we don't know.
Like CFR, we can name a bunch, you know, Bilderberg, etc.
We can name a bunch of different institutions, but even there, the individuals are changing, so we're not naming individuals.
But certainly we can't.
Identify the individuals, you know, someone like Kissinger, or if somebody is well known, chances are they're not at that higher level.
I mean, some of them go public, but et cetera, et cetera.
So what I'm saying is that it's above our pay grade.
It's out of our depth.
you know, we're out of our depth.
If we speculate there, I feel, and I was kind of a half insider with what I grew up, the family I grew up in, like I write a lot about the Fabian Society I can recognise.
So that's point one.
But the second point is that if it's more important, I think it's more subtle, that insofar as saying about the superculture, insofar as these forces create the culture that shapes us, we're at such a massive disadvantage and we can't separate, like the conspiracy about it.
So but then who has agency?
Are these conspirators somehow beyond the realm of all this social?
You know, outside of the realm that we're in, like pulling strings, they're in it.
Like, Lennon Cohen is down on the ground.
So does he have agency?
Is he not being manipulated?
Like, at what point can we identify agents that themselves aren't being manipulated and controlled?
So then it gets very subtle and complicated, is what I'm saying.
Conspiracy theory flattens it down into something I feel is, it's, One of the problems with the Jewish conspiracy theory, or the theory about Jewish conspiracy, is that actually I think that it's part of the method of a conspiracy, is to create the idea of it.
So you can see specifically with the Jew, there was a Jewish element that if they get persecuted or named or scapegoated, that empowers them.
They get empowered by that, right?
The Jewish, the Zionists and so on, because they can say it's anti-Semitism and so on.
So that's true also with the conspiracy.
If we say it's them, it's the elite, they can use that.
They can use that.
So I say that the conspiracy, the mindset, the conspiratorial mindset that we are working with is partly the one that we've been given.
And it's actually playing into the hands of the conspiracy, quote unquote.
That's why I feel I have to do some sort of martial arts here with this and move through it in a way that is not customary.
I think you're fighting a phantom enemy in that chapter because you're fighting against this notion that actually.
It's interesting that the people you cite as examples about two of the big examples you give of when conspiracy goes wrong or.
You cite Alex Jones and David Icke.
The biggies, yeah.
But I would say that anyone who is sophisticated, which probably means most of the people listen to my show, which is not, you know, not vast, but, you know, enough, they would all go, yeah, well, Alex Jones is...
Alex Jones is Bill Hicks.
And they'd go, David Icke is a psyop.
They wouldn't be going, oh yeah, and they don't believe in the white hat thing, what's it called?
QAnon.
They don't believe in that.
you're speaking for a lot of people I mean I have listeners that have got Yeah, but of course there's going to be a percentage.
I mean, maybe 10% of my audience have faith in the Donald and stuff.
But what I'm saying is, but you see, I encounter arguments like yours a lot.
And I naturally think about them quite a lot because...
Surely the burden of proof is on you.
I mean, I'm...
No.
The burden of proof is not on me.
That is what I call the you haven't provided me with an affidavit signed in triplicate by top lawyers fallacy.
It's in the nature of conspiracy.
Conspiracy is...
It's secret.
It's very hard to...
Well, only because you're arguing something.
Like, if you've got a theory, I mean, my approach is to work with facts as well as I can, obviously I'm disadvantaged because I'm not down on the ground interviewing people, and just present the fact and keep the theory to the minimum.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but I would say that you are When you make sweeping statements like, well, I can't remember.
I mean, you put a comment in the chat, which I thought was astute, that I'm cunningly bridging the gap between the normie and the non-normie.
Which you are.
I'm playing devil's advocate.
I'm writing for readers who don't believe in any conspiracy, so I want to bring them on board.
And that's why I think your book is an absolute triumph.
And I would just have cut maybe about a paragraph or two from your...
Yeah, this is the sentence.
This sentence just...
Accurate interpretations of reality that are illegitimately arrived at are worse than worthless.
Now, A, that's a sweeping overstatement.
And B, it depends on your definition of it illegitimately.
I'd say it's a combination of a sort of the cope of somebody who knows deep down he is a conspiracy theorist, but can't quite, doesn't quite want to be...
I don't remember that was in there, but I'd like to see the context.
But that's similar to things I've said about David Icke, for example, or Alex Jones.
We're not here to bury him, not to praise him.
No, but I know people who like David Icke.
I just spoke to one, and I know people who think Alex Jones is a hero, and they're not dummies, right?
So you don't want to underestimate the power of the spellcasters.
But about that statement, it was blunt, but it has to do with unearned opinions or unearned...
If you're getting people's theories, second or third hand, and you yourself aren't doing the heavy lifting of the research.
Like, I'm confronting this with the Beatles thing, because I spoke to this Mike Williams about Beatles' Tavistock, and he's absolutely convinced that the Beatles are Tavistock-engineered, you know, sci-art.
And I wanted to believe it, so I tried to believe it, and I listened to him, and I thought, well, he's got some good points.
But then I spent just a few weeks reading about the Beatles, the mainstream stuff, But it's well written.
And I'm just like, there's no way.
So if you want to, but I'm still working on it, if you want to try and understand what the Beatles were, you've got to read a lot of books.
There's a whole lot of research to do, rather than just going, well, Tavistock and John Coleman.
That's a bit like saying.
Sorry.
I don't want to argue with you, Jason, because A, I've got to go for this coffee and fag soon.
But B, I don't like arguing with my guests.
But I've just gone and got rid of, A, not to put too fine a point on it, a fuckton of military history books that date from my period in my life when I was massively into the Second World War.
I've got more military history books than you could shake a stick at.
I've got Andrew Roberts's book about the Second World War.
I've got the thing is, once you realize that that that everything we're told about the Second World War is a lie and that one of the main agents of this lie is the publishing industry.
And the books that are promoting the lie get published and the books that don't promote the lie by people like.
So you don't necessarily have to read Revolution in the Head, which I agree is good for presenting the official case, and all the books that Hunter Davis wrote about the Beatles.
What do you know about Hunter Davis?
Do you agree that Revolution in the Head is a good book, though?
I loved it at the time, but I'd like to revisit it now, knowing what I know now.
And I'd like you, look, these characters, Hunter Davis, do you believe...
I'm not going to read everyone.
Or Maureen, whatever her face.
These people who knew the lovable mop tops when they were...
and it's like that show the offer.
I don't want to be slimed, but I'm just saying that So for decades, we believe the Beatles.
We believe the official story.
We feel that something's not right because it isn't.
It's a huge relief to just be able to go, oh, it was all a psy-op.
But I just say it's lazy.
It's lazy.
Can we only give you some more or chat some more on a future podcast?
Because there's loads, I mean, not least the Fabian.
Society stuff I'd love to talk to you about.
And I think that we kind of agree with each other, really.
it's just that you don't realize how much you agree with me and you've got to, you've got to, you've just got to move out to that, that next stage of, I hope so.
will get further.
I hope so.
Yeah.
We doubt that.
Yeah, you do, though.
Some people love the confrontation.
Some people thrive on it, like the audiences that went to see The Warriors that you quote in the book, you know, fighting in the aisles.
And some people go, well, why didn't he just kind of listen to...
But these are conversations.
They're not bloody...
Oh, they do.
They do.
I get criticism.
But they dare.
Jason, I get Les Majesté all the time.
It's very frustrating.
And I haven't got my kill button that I can go where the trap doors open and they get fed to the sharks, unfortunately.
Well, I don't think you've been confrontational at all.
I can take a lot of confrontation.
And I do like disagreement as long as it's productive.
I feel it's been being productive in this current conversation.
And, yeah, I'd be glad to continue.
I can probably even get my publishers to send Vice of Kings your way because, you know, they're very obliging in that way.
That would be good.
Vice of Kings, the Fabian one.
That's right, yeah.
That'd be great.
Let's do that.
In the meantime, if we do part two on my podcast, you don't have to do any research.
Although I hope you'll finish 16 months now because, you know, the last chapter is a bit of a head twister.
I've been reading it at lunch.
I only read the Bible at night.
Oh, I read that to my wife currently.
She sends her to sleep every time.
I mean, among the many reasons to read the Bible is that it's interesting, but you're not so gripped that you can't put the lights out at some point, which is good.
Jason, tell us where we can find you and where you'll find your stuff, and tell us the name of your book again and where we can buy it.
Okay.
So yeah, my activity is currently exclusively on Substack, children of Job, substack.com, so I write, two short essays a week and a weekly podcast there and you can become a paid subscriber if you want to get the full meal deal and then there's also a link there to Now, 16 Mounts of Hell was a self-published, or crowdfunded, rather.
I crowdfunded that.
It was the only time I made money off one of my books, actually, pretty much, or significant money.
And that came out in 2020.
You can order that at Barnes& Noble.
I think it's now on Amazon.
I didn't want it on Amazon, but I think it is.
maybe if you put a link, then they can go straight to that.
And then, well, But there's about ten books I've written over the years, which I would say all come under the rubric of mapping hell, more or less.
Well, thank you.
And if you've enjoyed this podcast, which obviously you have, do consider subscribing to my sub-stack as well, supporting me.
You know, you don't have to because you get my stuff free if you want.
You can freeload.
It's fine.
But I really appreciate those of you who do make the effort.
Thank you.
Thank you, all of you.
Or you can support me on Locals or on Patreon or...
Support my sponsors.
They're good.
And if you don't want to do that, just buy me a coffee.
We love you, James.
Just buy me a coffee or ten.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you again.
Jason Horsley.
And let's have a return match.
Thank you.
Absolutely.
It's a day.
Global warming is a massive con.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Man-made climate change is a problem that is going to kill us, that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it.
It's a non-existent problem.
But how do you explain this stuff to your normie friends?
Well, I've just brought out the revised edition to my 2012 classic book, Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in 2011 actually.
The first edition came out.
And it's a snapshot of a particular era.
The era when the people behind the climate change scan got caught red-handed, tinkering with the data.
Torturing till it screamed in a scandal that I helped christen Climategate.
So I give you the background to the skullduggery that went on in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us, we've got to act now.
I rumbled their scam.
I then asked the question, OK, if it is a scam, who's doing this and why?
It's a good story.
I've kept the original book pretty much as is, but I've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought.
I think it still stands up.
I think it's a good read.
Obviously I'm biased, but I'd recommend it.
You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring round all those people who are still persuaded that it's a disaster, we must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother Gaia.
