Peter Duke is a photographer, technologist, and independent media publisher. James and Peter chat about the Pacific Palisades fires (in which Peter lost his home), Rupert Murdoch, Stephen Spielberg, Richard Branson, Sharon Stone’s party technique, who decides which Hollywood scripts get made, the linguistic codes embedded within Jesus’s teaching and loads of other really, really interesting stuff. SubStack: https://thedukereport.substack.com
News Website: https://thedukereport.comPhoto Website: http://peterdukephoto.com↓ ↓ ↓If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn’t in these dark times? - then the place to go is The Pure Gold Company. Either they can deliver worldwide to your door - or store it for you in vaults in London and Zurich. You even use it for your pension. Cash out of gold whenever you like: liquidate within 24 hours. https://bit.ly/James-Delingpole-Gold
↓ ↓ 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, JD 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/jamesdelingpole
The official website of James Delingpole: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk
x
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 in one of my newly done adverts, which blindly they did need redoing.
You might have noticed that the gold and silver prices have been on a tear recently.
Silver prices especially.
Silver's gone up like a rocket and gold has been doing pretty well too.
If you bought silver when I first started talking about it a few years ago, you would have quadrupled your investment by now.
If you bought gold, you'd certainly have doubled it.
And you're probably wondering, is it too late?
Can I still get into this market and make money?
Well, there are lots of reasons why you should have physical gold and silver as an insurance against continued decline of fiat currency, the uncertainties in the conventional stock markets.
I would definitely, I mean, I'm not a financial advisor, I would definitely have some physical gold and silver.
And where do you buy this?
Well, I would go to the Pure Gold Company.
You can buy your gold and silver in the form of coins, for example, gold sovereigns or Britannias or silver Britannias.
Or you can buy bars and you can either have it delivered to your home or you can have it stored for you in vaults in London or Switzerland or wherever you feel best suits your need.
The Pure Gold Company offers a buyback guarantee, fair prices without delay.
So if you have, you change your mind at any moment, you can trade in your gold or silver.
You call their brokers to discuss your various options.
They can advise you on tax issues.
Will silver go up again?
Yes, probably.
Will it go down again?
Yes, probably.
But I would say you should have some silver and gold in some form, as long as it's solid silver and solid gold, not paper gold.
And I would go to the PURE GOLD Company, Thepuregoldcompany.co.uk.
Forward slash, James Dash, Dellingpole, forward slash, welcome to the Delling POD, Peter Duke, from California, and you were telling me about the weather there and I was I was saying, actually don't don't, because we'll save it for the podcast.
So you're saying it's a lovely morning in California right now.
Uh yeah, the last three or four days it's been 75 or 80 degrees and uh, i'm living at the beach now.
So uh it's, it's quite, it's quite pleasant.
We have a phrase for it in in England, which is that baint natural.
I think that I, I think, if you're getting nice weather now, if you, if you're getting sort of 70s and 80s okay, California used to have nice weather before they began the weather manipulation but if they're giving you what nice weather now, it probably means they're planning something.
Home Burned, Beautiful Day00:02:45
Uh it, it could be.
I mean, it was a beautiful day uh, when my house burned last year.
So I it, it was, it was quite windy, but uh, it was a beautiful day.
What your actual house burned down?
Yeah, my home burned to the ground.
Uh, my brother's home burned to the ground.
My ex-wife and daughter's home burned to the ground.
In fact uh, I think 2800 homes uh, burned to the ground.
Uh, it was.
Uh, it was the.
The Los Angeles fire department simply did not fight the fire.
There were all sorts of weird things, weren't there?
Like they couldn't get water out of the fire hydrants and things.
Well, directly across within a couple of hundred yards of where my brother and ex-wife lived, there was a reservoir that was supposed to have a million gallons of water in it that had been empty for over a year.
I write quite a bit about it on my sub stack.
One could almost become a conspiracy theorist in these circumstances, couldn't one?
Oh, you know, you know, I think I've traded in my tinfoil hat for like a lead foil hat at this point.
Yeah, I'm very effective, I'm sure.
Especially if you want to penetrate the Van Allen belt.
I'm sorry, you broke up there a little bit.
A lead hat would be very useful if you were trying to penetrate the Van Allen belt on your next space mission.
I'm sorry, I missed the beginning of the question, and I'm double-checking to make sure that I don't have any applications open.
I have gigabit Ethernet, I mean gigabit fiber.
Yeah, well, mine should be working too, because mine is provided by Elon Musk via, what's it called, TerraLink or something.
What's this Elon Musk?
Oh, the satellite.
Yeah, but that's affected by Starlink, but that's affected by clouds, I think.
Is it?
Unfortunately, you know the tragedy, Peter?
That because I made a joke, and it would have been quite a funny joke had you heard it.
But because you were constantly not hearing it, I kept having to repeat the joke.
And what would have been a charming ad lib suddenly becomes labored and unfunny.
However, you are using Riverside, and so it is being recorded perfectly on your side.
Yeah, I know.
The only thing you're going to see is my reaction.
Yes, that's exactly it.
There's no joyous recognition of the humor of this.
Nicholas Bergruin's Rebuild00:09:21
Oh, I'm so glad I'm on James Dellingpos podcast.
He's a really funny guy.
All that, that rapport-building moment that we were going to have.
I am pleased as punch to be here in any case.
That's good.
I'm absolutely delighted to have you.
No, the houses at the was it called Pacific Palisades?
Yes, it's still called Pacific Palisades.
There's just nobody lives there anymore.
The former.
The ash heap, formerly known as the Pacific.
So I shouldn't laugh.
This is your personal tragedy.
So the houses, I seem to remember, were really quite nice old houses.
You know, it was probably like the last great American neighborhood, kind of like in the form of a 1950s American television show.
You know, kids rode their bikes up and down the streets and it was completely safe and there was no crime and a pretty homogeneous neighborhood, but it had become very, what do you call it?
When a lot of money rolls into a neighborhood, it had become very gentrifying.
Gentrified gentrification.
Yeah, it became very gentrified and uh and that uh, you know that was an ongoing thing, but there there was a huge community of people who had been living there for a long time.
There was people who were.
It was multi-generational, that is.
Uh, when THE Palisades was originally founded, it was like a lot of school teachers.
It was founded by methodists, which I think is kind of a weird thing.
I don't, I don't know that much about methodism, but uh it uh so, So there was a lot of, there was a lot of people who had lived there for a long time who weren't particularly wealthy.
And those people are almost all erased now because of inflation and because of property taxes and things like that, most of those people are underinsured and are not ever going to be able to move back into that neighborhood.
And I imagine that the houses they're going to rebuild there are not going to be nearly as attractive and charming.
I don't know.
You know, it's funny.
I've got a friend who's an engineer who sent me a picture of a very attractive and charming looking house, except that instead of being using wooden two by fours, it's all steel.
And I made a joke that it looks like a monopoly house.
And he said, yeah, it's on Park Place.
Right.
Yeah.
Do you have any, well, you obviously do, have any personal theory on how they engineered this destruction?
Because it was obviously deliberate.
It was obviously because they've tried it elsewhere, haven't they?
They tried it in Lahaina.
Lahaina, yeah.
Lahaina.
In Hawaii.
Well, I've written quite about a bit about it.
So the oligarchy that runs California published a white paper 12 or 13 years ago called The Blueprint to Rebuild California.
And, you know, using the Hegelian dialectic, in order to rebuild something, you have to take it down.
So I think that part of what's going on, and I think this is global at this point, I don't think it's just the Pacific Palisades, is that I think that there's a global movement to get people to distrust their government, whatever government it is, because all of those governments are going to be taken down.
So in the case of Los Angeles, you've taken, I think that the Pacific Palisades is responsible for about a half a billion dollars in annual property taxes.
And so it was certainly one of the biggest contributors to the public coffers.
And that's basically just been erased now.
And everybody's pointing fingers at the politicians.
But as you know, the politicians are the puppets of the oligarchs.
And so that's their job.
Their job is to take the hit.
And people are very frustrated with government.
And if you read this blueprint to rebuild California, they intend on putting in a new government, which is not the Constitutional Republic, which exists now.
Yes.
Has this got anything to do with Mencius Moldbug and all that stuff?
Curtis?
Yeah.
Well, it's funny because, you know, in a previous career, I was a photographer and I actually photographed Curtis about two miles north of where I lived in a big open field that had just been burned in Malibu.
And when Curtis asked me why I wanted to shoot a picture of him there, I said, well, the intent of your philosophy is to rebuild the world after it's been burned down, right?
So I just want to shoot a picture of you in the burned down world.
I didn't realize I was shooting a self-portrait at the time.
But Curtis's solution is something he calls patchwork, which is very similar to, I think, Neil Stevenson's anarcho-capitalist world that he described in the novel Snow Crash, where you've got these things that are kind of burb claves.
They're small city-states that are all connected by a common economic protocol.
And different burb claves are different kinds of experiments, kind of like what I think the American United States was originally supposed to be.
But you make it sound almost nice.
I make it sound almost nice.
Well, I mean, the way you described it, I wasn't immediately going eek, eek.
I was thinking, well, that might work.
You return to city-states kind of thing, each with its own experiment and with its own values, not uniform.
It would be great, except I think that the values are already kind of prescribed at this point.
And that's what the point of things, the initiatives at the Bergruin Institute.
There's the guy who's kind of behind this in California is the George Soros of California, who almost no one has ever heard his name.
His name is Nicholas Bergruin.
And he's kind of a Rothschild toady who basically is funding all of these kind of new government and AI and kind of tokenized economy initiatives at his Bergruin Institute.
Right.
And where did his money come from?
Yes, that's a really good question.
Because his father was a out-of-work journalist during World War II who opened a art gallery in Paris immediately after World War II.
And we know how involved the CIA was and Operation Paperclip and became fabulously wealthy.
So he went from kind of an unemployed journalist to a guy who was worth hundreds of millions of dollars when he passed away.
And there's actually a museum in Berlin called the Bergruin Museum.
And he became, Nicholas Bergruin became famous as the homeless billionaire because he kind of very famously sold all of his worldly possessions except for his G6 and his iPhone.
And of course, to call him homeless is kind of ridiculous because his foundation owns two luxury apartments in the Sierra Towers on Sunset Boulevard in the Sunset Strip.
And he bought William Randolph Hearst's mansion.
His foundation bought William Randolph Hearst's estate in Beverly Hills.
So he has a bedroom there.
Technically, he doesn't own it.
His foundation owns it.
So he's still kind of homeless, but, uh, you know, it's, it's in the thing is my problem with you, Peter, is that there are so many different directions we could go off in because I realized that, you know, so much.
And I probably don't know as much as you, but for the last five years of my life, I've been on the crash course.
I mean, I have really explored the rabbit hole.
And I know there are some I haven't explored yet, but I have a reasonable degree of familiarity with the layout of the rabbit hole.
And things like Bergruen, characters like Bergruen.
I mean, you must be familiar with the idea of the bloodline families.
The 13th satanic, according to Springmeier, he tells us that there are 13 bloodlines.
But then, if you listen to other people, they say, actually, there's 14 bloodlines, and the 14th is the Muslim one.
Jewish Banker Bloodlines00:05:14
And then you discover that there are some other bloodlines.
There are the sort of the Jewish banker bloodlines like Kuhn and Loeb and Warburg.
And then you hear about the black nobility, the Orsini family.
And then you hear names like Peser.
And apparently that is the name, Peser, that really counts.
Have you ever kind of, have you got a handle on this?
Have you tried to, who does run the world?
Well, it's a great question.
And it's funny because on my show last week, I ran into this woman who contends, and I think that she brings a lot to the table.
Basically, she was a Silicon Valley engineer.
And in the 1980s, she and her husband realized that they were surrounded by evil.
And they took their money right when the internet was taking off.
They took their money and they moved east.
And they started home.
They had five kids and they homeschooled their kids.
And this woman started doing research.
I'm going to answer your question.
I'm going to try to not spurg out here.
And she spent 30 years reading history books that were published over 100 years ago because they were all in the public domain.
And she came to a conclusion many years ago that I've come around to, and that is that it's the Phoenicians.
And the Phoenicians are a thalassocracy.
And if you kind of take a if you use money and see and then control of the sea kind of as a rubric, and you go back in history, you can go back from Wall Street to London to Amsterdam to Venice to Rome to Greece to Phoenicia, which is one country north of Israel.
And they happen to use the same alphabet as the Hebrews, which makes things, you know, confusing because you start to see, you start to see a lot of things with ancient, what you assume are Hebrew letters.
And then you start to realize, well, maybe it's not Hebrew.
You know, maybe it's Phoenician.
And as she calls herself Mrs. Heritage History, as Mrs. Heritage History explains, the way that the Phoenicians basically infiltrated in a very Fabian, we call it Fabian permeation today, but it's probably older than Fabius, that they marry into families.
So that's why the bloodlines wind up becoming so important.
And they take their pretty daughters and they marry them off to the wealthy and powerful people.
And that way they maintain, it's a very secret, it's a great way of maintaining a secret network because it's not just 13 names, right?
We talk about, it may be 13 bloodlines, okay, but it's hundreds or thousands of different names.
And Berg Gruen is mountain green.
So you can assume that when Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany, perhaps Nicholas Bergruen's family name was Gruenberg or Greenberg.
But then you've got people like Michael Bloomberg.
Bloomberg means flower mountain.
In Italian, that's Montefiore.
Monte Fiore is one of the 13 bloodlines, I think.
And then you have to ask yourself the question, like, what is it about mountains?
Because you've got Spielberg, which is Game Mountain.
You've got Zuckerberg, which is Sugar Mountain.
You've got Bloomberg, which is Flower Mountain.
Like, what is it about the flowers?
I'm not sure.
So I'm spurging, so I'm going to stop talking here.
And what is it about the mountain?
Is it Mount Evil Mountain?
It's not Mount Hermon, is it?
What's the one?
There's one deep in enemy territory, which is one of the bad mountains in the Bible.
I'm not remembering it.
No, no, no.
But Mount Hermon supposedly is the mountain that is in the Paramount Studios logo.
And the 22 stars are supposed to be the 22 fallen angels, supposedly, in that logo.
Okay.
I'm just thinking of one of the psalms I've learned.
Like as the dew of Hermon that fell upon the hill of Zion, for there the Lord promised his blessing and life forevermore.
So in that particular psalm, Hermon seems to be a good thing rather than a bad thing.
Yeah, I'm not sure it's all bad, kind of like you're talking about city-states.
Capturing Academe00:05:28
Because the thing that I struggle with, and I'm still struggling with it at this moment, is that I specialize, the area of focus for me, and I've been working on a book for six years now called Reframing Reality.
But my focus is on something that I refer to as epistemological warfare.
That is, how we know we know turns out to be the battleground that this oligarchy, this millennia-old oligarchy uses in order to control us.
And what's ironic to me is like, is that you went to Oxford, right?
Yeah.
I think Oxford is like the pentagon of epistemological warfare.
I think you could be right.
Certainly in terms of from what I recently discovered about its history departments, that you know about the Milner Group, which was responsible for the First and Second World Wars.
And a key part of their modus operandi, if you like, was not just capturing the media and not just capturing politics and capturing the money, banking, but also capturing academe.
And the Milner Group appointed the Regius Professors of History, ensuring that not just at the time, but in the future, their narrative would prevail.
And that people who wanted to investigate other aspects of the narrative, more accurate ones, would be denied access to the kind of academic system.
They'd be just shut out of it.
Right.
And to that end, there's a book by Charles.
I have it right here.
His name is Charles Grant Miller, who wrote this book called The Poisoned Loving Cup, which documents how Rhodes scholars from Oxford were sent back to the United States.
This is like the first project of the Rhodes Scholarships to take over the history departments of American universities in order to rewrite all the history books that were being put out by American universities.
Connects to that guest who, by the way, I hope you don't mind, I'm I'm very keen to have her on my podcast, because I did.
I was listening to the podcast before this, this.
I did this and I was thinking wow, she is a good guest, she's a great, she's a great guest.
And I had to coax her out because I was talking about the Phoenicians one day and she was telling me about all of these things that I was missing.
And you know, one of the ways that I think I differentiate myself from a lot of people uh, who do podcasts is, I don't pretend that I know things that I don't know, and I'm not afraid to ask questions and to tell people that I, that I have a giant hole in my, in my, in my knowledge base.
And she jumped to the fore and and said hey, you're missing a, b and c.
And uh, she started, you know, sending me these long text messages and I said, just come on to my show and tell me what i'm getting, what i'm what i'm not getting correct, because my entire audience wants to hear it too, and um and, and so I had to coax her into it uh, but I, I she's coming around to it at this point uh, because she's been she.
She's been sitting on this stuff for 25 years waiting for somebody, uh to show some people like us, to show up and say, how did you find her?
I um, so there's a guy that I do shows with named George Webb um, and George is uh, a a curious character.
He's a uh I.
I could go on and on about George, but George um is a.
He's a citizen journalist and there was a um an event that happened in Idaho where some fireman got called to a fire and then got assassinated.
This happened several months ago and she lives nearby and so she was following the story uh, of the fireman that being assassinated that George was covering.
And then George came and did a podcast with me because um, you know every, every once in a while, George will call me up and say hey, you want to do a podcast, and I always say yes, because he's an interesting guy and um, and so I and, and George and I also don't agree on everything.
Like, one of the things that I think is kind of a sickness in the blogosphere is people who disagree and call each other names instead of disagreeing and uh, talking about their disagreements in person um, in in a civil way um, and so uh, she was watching me talk to George Webb and she said oh, this guy understands the things about the Phoenicians that I understand, and then she just started texting me um, and then,
after she started texting me, I started trying to coerce her into into coming on the show and I finally got her to go on the show and she's a she's an amazing resource.
Like I said, she's been studying this.
What you and I have been working on for five or six years, she's been working on for 30.
Sega's Billion Dollar Gamble00:06:13
so okay yeah you don't need to sell it to me anymore peter if do you think she'll do it do you think she'll speak to an Englishman.
I do.
Again, she's got a bunch of grandchildren and all this other stuff.
And she built this amazing website, which is heritage-history.com, which is, so I started doing the same thing about, if you go to dukereportbooks.com, whenever I find in, find a book that's telling a part of the story that is missing from current curriculum, I started collecting these books and I thought, well, I might as well put this into a website because that's kind of my history.
I built the first commercial website on the World Wide Web.
I was the creative director for 20th Century Fox and I built thexfiles.com in 1993.
I thought, I must say, I could tell fairly early on into our conversation that you were super bright.
And tell me more about your hinterland.
All right.
Long story short, my father gave me a camera when I was a kid and I wanted to be a photographer.
And I went to university and my father told me that he wouldn't, I wanted to go to a school called Art Center, which is a famous art school in California.
And he wouldn't pay for it.
So I went to UC Santa Barbara and I became a computer science major because literally the College of Creative Studies computer science department was across the lawn from my dorm room.
That's how lazy I was.
And I became a computer science major because I could sleep later and make my own hours.
And I did that.
And I dropped out of school because I wanted to be a photographer.
And I got accepted to Art Center.
My father wouldn't pay for it.
I became a photographer.
I did that for like 20 years and when, or 15 years, and when the internet happened, people started asking me questions about computers that I knew the answers to because I had done that stuff before.
And unlike the photography business, which was kind of a dog-eat-dog business, I found that people were just throwing money at me to answer their questions about computer stuff.
And a friend of mine got a job at 20th Century Fox and I became the director of design for NewsCore.
And I did that until I long story short, I worked at Newscore for a while.
Then I met this guy named Max Kaiser, who's the Bitcoin guy.
And he and I built some, I helped him build something called the Hollywood Stock Exchange, which was arguably the first cryptocurrency, the Hollywood dollar.
Then I went on to build video games for Steven Spielberg at a place called Sega Game Works.
I was on the lot at Universal.
And then after that, I, what did I do after that?
Just stop you there.
Did you ever meet Sonic the Hedgehog?
No, no, but Sonic was a big Sega.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, I used to love playing Sonic the Hedgehog.
Is that bad?
No, it's not bad.
And it's funny, though, because I started to get it.
That's when I started to get an idea that the world wasn't exactly the way that I thought that it was.
I mean, I ran into a lot of different things.
When I was a photographer, I spent quite a bit of time with young Sharon Stone.
Okay.
And that was the first time that I ever ran into somebody who had a reality distortion field around them.
That is, they were creating their own reality.
And so when I went to work at Sega Game Works, I realized one of the guys I was talking with at work one day was talking about how the reason that Sega wanted to get game arcades back in business was because in the 80s, the game business was like a $20 billion a year business.
And after the PlayStation came out, it collapsed to like about a $5 billion a year business.
And the reason was, is because in the 80s, video games were based on quarters.
I don't know what they were in Great Britain, but in the United States, it was quarters being dropped into arcade machines.
And so people who owned arcades were taking huge bags of cash to the bank every day.
And so it became quite obvious to me that the video game business in the 1980s was the mob.
Okay.
It was a money laundering business.
And when the game consoles came out, the money laundering collapsed.
So it went from a $20 billion a year business to a $5 billion a year business.
And they were desperately trying to get arcades going again.
And so Sega Game Works was a joint venture between DreamWorks Universal and Sega to kind of reinvigorate the arcade business.
So, you know, that's when I started to learn that, you know, things weren't, it wasn't all, it wasn't all fun and games.
It was fun and games and the mob, right?
And then I went to work.
Then after that, I ran e-commerce at Virgin for Richard Branson.
So I worked for Rupert Murdoch.
I worked for Steven Spielberg.
I worked for Richard Branson.
And of course, these guys are all oligarchs, right?
They're all on the top tier.
But I was just a happy, C. Wright Mills refers to people like me as happy robots.
You know, I was a happy robot, you know, just trying to do the things that I was doing.
Your problem, Peter, is that you are too interesting.
And my head is exploding about, again, all the possibilities of things I can ask you about.
Tucker On Parties00:07:22
I've got to pick you up on your Sharon Stone thing.
What do you mean about this sort of wall of alternative reality that she erected around herself?
How does it work?
Well, Sharon Stone, like she was going to a party one night and I asked her, I said, are you going to, or she, I don't know, I brought some clothes over to her.
She and I were doing some photos and I said, are you going to a party?
And she goes, I don't go to parties.
I work parties.
And I'm completely convinced at this point that she's an MK Ultra monarch presidential model.
Like that's my, I didn't know what that was until five years ago.
But in retrospect, like looking at all of these things that I thought were quirky behaviors, they're not quirky.
If you read Kathy O'Brien's book, there's nothing quirky about what Sharon Stone is or does or how she acts.
Yes.
And it's all torn from a script.
And she would say, I don't go to parties.
I work parties.
And I said, what do you mean you work parties?
And she goes, well, I'll go into a party and I'll find out who the most important man is in the party.
And I said, yeah.
And she said, and what I'll do is I will make eye contact with him.
And then I will walk deliberately across the floor into the party straight at the guy.
And right when I get up to him, I'll turn to the person next to him and I'll start a conversation and I will completely ignore the guy.
And I said, yeah.
And she goes, nine times out of ten, I can get the guy to go home with me.
Because they're psychopaths with small penises.
It's malice of yeah, psychopaths with small penises yeah, but it's complete malice of forethought right yeah, that's extraordinary.
But what's what's even more extraordinary almost, is that she told you this.
Why did she vouchsafe this information to you?
At one point, I asked her to describe what our relationship was and she said, partners in crime and so um.
So have you always had this kind of air about you of something you're sort of?
I started studying hypnosis about five years ago and what I realized was that when I was a photographer, I was an amateur hypnotist without actually even understanding what hypnotism was.
Because in order to get a good picture of someone, you have to put them into rapport.
And that's exactly what you do, what a hypnosis does when he wants to put you into a trance.
And I was studying neurolinguistic, I've been studying neuro-linguistic programming for about five years now.
And what I realized is that they're always talking about these things called microexpressions in neuro-linguistic programming.
And what I realized in, you know, kind of trying to refactor all of this stuff and try to figure out what microexpressions were, it's like, oh, that's when I push the button.
Like when you say something to someone, because what a lot of people don't realize is that 99% of great portrait photography is about the relationship between the person who's taking the picture and the person who's in the picture.
Richard Avadon once said that in a way that all good portraits are self-portraits because they're about the photographer.
They're about what the person is seeing when he's pushing the button.
And there's a lot of manipulation that goes on between photographers and subjects in order to get to that picture, right?
And so I never really realized that I kind of was a hypnotist.
And so I think that what wound up happening is that there were enough of these MK Ultra, I'm just going to call them victims because I was shooting fashion.
There was enough of these MK Ultra victims that I was having rapport with, right?
That they felt comfortable with me, you know, that I made them feel at ease.
I gave them a sense of calm or security that they probably didn't have with other people.
And that was part of my shtick.
You know, that was just kind of the way that I dealt with models in order to get them to look the way I wanted them to look in the photographs.
I wasn't going out of my way to do anything special.
I thought I was taking good pictures.
And what I realized when I started studying neuro-linguistic programming is that there was a part of me that was being a hypnotist.
Okay.
Have you been consciously or unconsciously using your skills on me?
Am I now under hypnosis?
No.
And it's funny.
And it's funny because my wife, at one point, she accused me of being using hypnosis.
And the thing is about hypnosis is that it requires a great deal of practice.
So when I was shooting catalogs and I was shooting pictures every day, I mean, I had, I call it shtick now, which is Yiddish, I guess.
And so there are certain things that I would just always do in order to try to get pictures out of people.
But hypnosis requires it requires practice.
So I'll give you an example.
So, and again, I'm not accusing anyone of being bad.
My ontology doesn't work that way.
Tucker Carlson uses a strategy whenever he starts his monologues and he's not alone.
Rachel Maddow does the same thing and Bill Maher does the same thing and Jon Stewart does the same thing, which is called a mirror agreement frame, which means that Tucker Carlson has a reasonable understanding of who his audience are and what they like to hear.
And one of the things that you can do in this form, that is this digitized video form of hypnosis, is that you can say a bunch of things at the beginning of your monologue that you know that the audience already agrees with.
And it's a way of putting them into a rapport, which makes them suggestible to whatever it is that you're about to say.
So because Tucker Carlson was doing his show five days a week for years or decades, right?
He's really good at it.
Like Tucker, and in conversations like you and I are having right now, somebody might ask Tucker a question and where Peter Duke might have to pause and think about it or say, uh, because I say uh a lot.
Then Tucker Carlson will just boom, go right into a suggestion.
And I marvel at his ability to do that.
Yeah.
But that's some, I mean.
Shakespeare's Incantations00:14:59
Global warming is a massive con.
There was no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem, that it's 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 of my 2012 classic book, Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in, well, 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 scam 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, okay, 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 out.
I think it's a good read.
Obviously, I'm biased, but I'd recommend it.
You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop.
You'll probably find that one.
Just go to my website and look for it, jamesdellingpole.co.uk.
And I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring around all those people who are still persuaded that, oh, it's a disaster.
We must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother God.
There we go.
It's a scam.
Yeah.
But that's some, I mean, it could just be, it could just be he's got very quick processing speed.
Again, all of this stuff is practice.
And I was a photographer who was trying to take pictures, and I didn't realize that I was developing my hypnosis skills.
He's a journalist who's trying to develop his broadcasting skills.
Now, none of this stuff is new.
I mean, when I started to study neuro-linguistic programming, I very quickly realized, because I kind of look at things through this epistemological frame, that Jesus was doing a lot of the same things that Richard Bandler and John Grinder were suggesting and a guy named Robert Diltz were developing as a strategy for getting people to reframe people's belief systems.
That is, there's a neuro-linguistic component to the New Testament that I think a lot of people miss because they get into the nuts and bolts, the dogma or the ability to recite psalms like you just demonstrated.
But if you look at the way that the language is actually put together, kind of like the frameworks that are being used, then there's a lot of symmetry.
And I don't think that's an accident because when NLP was developed, they modeled effective persuasion techniques.
And I don't think there's probably any better model than Jesus.
Tell me more about, about his techniques.
How does he, well, um, so in, I'll try to make this quick.
Noam Chomsky, I'll bring Noam Chomsky and Jesus into the same idea.
So Noam Chomsky.
Jesus is not going to like that.
Well, Noam Chomsky was probably, again, all of these things are modeling, right?
So Noam Chomsky in the 50s wrote this book called Syntactic Structures, and he described this thing that he called the deep structure of memory.
And the deep structure of memory is basically all of the ideas that James Dellingpole has in his head need to get filtered in order to turn into the next question that he's going to ask Peter Duke.
And the process by which we do that is that we delete, distort, and generalize our deep structure in order to fit it into something that will be a few words that will come out of our mouth and become a cogent question.
So what people who learn neuro-linguistic programming do is that they listen for deletions, distortions, and generalizations, and then they form questions that are based on whether or not the person has deleted, distorted, or generalized their reality.
Well, if you take a look at Jesus and you look at all of his conversations that he has with people, you know, the one that comes to the top of the head is, should we pay taxes to Caesar?
Okay.
He reframes, when he says, show me a coin, what he's doing is that he's taking the false dichotomy, which is a structure that NLP can address, and he's going meta, right?
He's changing the frame of the question out of the dichotomy into a higher level, right?
And his answer is, give unto Caesar what's due to Caesar, give unto God what's due to God, right?
That's a reframing technique.
That's a neuro-linguistic reframing technique.
Okay.
And so one of the things that I think is unsaid, and I write about it, is that Jesus's technique is dogma notwithstanding.
that his technique is dangerous to an oligarchy that practices epistemological warfare because he gives people a rubric for discerning truth in a fact-free environment, let's say.
I'll just leave it there.
I like that.
So, for example, the rubric is, and it's Mike Jones that actually kind of steered me in this direction.
He wrote this book called, E. Michael Jones, he wrote this book called Logos Rising, where the opening idea in the, now I don't agree with everything in the book, but it's a great book and he's a great scholar.
His conceit at the beginning of the book is that the word logos is mistranslated in English and Latin in the Bible.
So in John 1.1, Logos is in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word is God.
And the only problem with that is that the word logos, which is the Greek, doesn't mean word.
It means that which can be done with words.
That's my interpretation.
Because if you go and you look up the word logos in the Little Scot lexicon, there's actually five pages of definitions for the word logos.
And so if you think of John 1-1 as in the beginning is that which can be done with words, and that which can be done with words is with God, and that which can be done with words is God, then God becomes a self-evident truth.
And the proof of that is that Peter Duke is able to have a conversation with James Dellingpole right now, that that is the Holy Spirit flowing through us, that our ability to use language is in and of itself proof of God.
Yes.
On a slightly less rarefied level, but this confirms what you're saying.
I've often been struck by why is it, for example, that poets are so revered?
And you read the Romantic poets particularly, and they see themselves, well, Baudelaire in L'Abatros sees himself as this seer rising above the clouds like an albatross and above the common man.
And you get this sense in Coleridge as well, in Xanadu, this sense that weave a circle round him thrice and close your eyes in holy dread, for he on honeydew hath fed and drunk the milk of paradise.
It's all this kind of this sense that the user of words can cast incantations.
Well, I mean, that's what incantations mean, doesn't it?
Spelling.
They are magic spells.
Words are magic spells.
And so I totally get what you're saying about epistemology.
And I mean, I think, do you know what?
I think that's how I ended up doing what I'm doing.
I used to, you mentioned Oxford and I and I read English literature.
And I, for years afterwards, I was trained by the culture which wanted to promote this notion that STEM subjects were the only thing and that sciences were everything.
I now look at the sciences and I think you suck.
You've just completely made up Shakespeare.
Scientists.
You know, Tolstoy, he was probably not as Tolstoy was not Einstein, and that's a good thing.
Have you ever read his essay on Shakespeare?
He doesn't like Shakespeare, does he?
I haven't read it.
I heard.
No, in fact, I wish I had brought it to the desk with me, but I just got this book on Shakespeare.
Yeah, Shakespeare is a psyop.
Shakespeare, huge psyop, the biggest in literature, anyway.
Maybe the biggest in all history, mankind.
Yeah.
Yeah, we could perhaps go there in a moment.
I'm not an expert.
I follow this guy on Substack named who's got a Substack called The Hidden Life is Best.
Yeah, he's fantastic.
I love him.
Funnily enough, only this morning I had a request from somebody saying, it's been a while since we heard from Hidden Life is Best.
Let's have him back again.
I mean, yeah, his argument is essentially Gnosticism, Francis Bacon.
They needed a voice of literature to represent their values and stuff and to mess with the minds of everyone.
And Shakespeare, they created this thing called Shakespeare's.
Well, Gnosticism winds up being the tell, right?
It's like, you know, Gnosticism winds up being the what?
The tell.
Like, you know, so my friend Scott Adams just passed away a couple of days ago.
You know, and I made friends with him.
Again, I didn't mean to do this.
And it's funny because you and I have kind of a little overlap is that I started to become aware when I met Andrew Breitbart.
And I met Andrew Breitbart right before he passed away.
And I know your name because of Andrew Breitbart.
But Andrew, I had quit photography when I went into the technology business and I hadn't picked up a camera in like 20 years.
And I met Andrew at this little thing on the beach in the Pacific Palisades.
And he was banging his politics is downstream from culture drum.
And I thought, well, I'm pretty good with the camera.
I shot some pictures for Vanity Fair once.
I can make people look good.
And so I simply just started taking pictures of people and making them look good and who were saying things that I agreed with.
And I was never famous when I was a fashion photographer.
I was kind of a down-in-the-trenches guy who shot catalogs, you know.
But as soon as I shot pictures of people like Scott Adams and a few other people, the New York Times sent somebody out to do a hit piece on me.
And they branded me the Annie Leibowitz of the alt-right.
And I had never been famous as a photographer in my first photography career, but in my second photography career, I saw the headline and I thought, man, she's going to be mad.
And somebody said, why is that?
And I said, because she took 20 years or 30 years to become Annie Leibowitz.
And I became Annie Leibowitz in one headline.
You know, it's like, it was pretty funny.
So, so anyway, so I kind of like kind of just edged my way in.
I didn't realize there was a rubric.
I had a business partner for a while who it turned out was an intelligence asset who was very tight with Peter Thiel.
How did you find out he was an intelligence asset?
Because he wasn't very he wasn't very clever about not letting people know.
He's in jail right now, so which is for contempt of court.
You might have known him if you were at Breitbart, Chuck Johnson.
Did you know Chuck Johnson?
I knew the name, I think.
Yeah, so he was my business partner for like four years.
And I learned a lot about how the intelligence agencies work because I thought we were building journalism websites.
And what we were really working on was, I think, intelligence honey traps was what we were really building.
I didn't know that at the time.
I was an asset.
I was an unwitting asset.
But, you know, there's a whole kind of like weird what I found out when I got into journalism is that there's a whole bunch of intelligence assets, a whole bunch of journalism is just intelligence assets.
Magazine's Unseen Assets00:06:04
They're just people who are there in order to kind of steer the conversation in one direction or another.
Piers.
All of, I mean, almost anybody who's mainstream at this point.
Yeah, So, and, you know, and what happened to Bright, what happened to Andrew, I have this book here sitting on my desk, the Breitbart the Breitbart Corner.
This is a book.
This is a book that I had never heard of before a couple of days ago.
But did you know that the corner technician, so I guess Susie Breitbart asked for a independent autopsy.
And the person who did the autopsy also died right after he did the autopsy on Andrew.
Did you know that?
I did not know that, which rather preempts my next question, which had going to be, do you think Andrew Breitbart died of natural causes?
No, I don't.
No.
No, I don't.
I mean, because I think the initial autopsies, the coroner's report said he died of a heart attack, didn't it?
Or something like that?
Yeah, yes.
And then the person who worked on the non-corroborating investigation dropped dead.
Do we know what the non-corroborating investigation is?
I'm not sure that we do, but the guy who wrote this book just texted me a couple of days ago, and he said that he's coming out here to California in the next couple of weeks.
So I intend on asking him.
Sorry, which guy?
The guy who wrote this book, The Bright Bridge.
Yeah.
His name is Press Gray.
P-R-E-S-S-G-R-A-Y-E.
And he was kind of a hard guy to find.
I went onto a website and I left a comment and a couple months later, he got back to me.
Sounds like me.
I'm terribly bad at replying to people's people's inquiries.
Not deliberately.
Yeah, I can't remember what I was going to ask you.
That is.
No, it's gone.
It's gone.
Tell me something.
Yeah, we were.
I don't know.
I started talking about my photography career because what wound up happening is that I wound up.
So intelligence agencies have this acronym that they call MICE, which is Money Ideology Compromise Ego.
Yeah.
Which is, and the one that they leave out, though, is Family and Bloodline, which is interesting, right?
That they leave that one out.
My Seth Boo.
Myself.
Acronymically, it's not so good.
Yeah, it's not great.
I always write it as Mice plus F.
And of course, then the CIA had to update it to Rice, which is reward, because it isn't always money.
Sometimes it's just a reward, right?
But these are what they call the vectors for controlling assets.
And so what I didn't realize when I picked up my camera, because I was a true believer, I believed in conservatism, whatever that meant.
And I simply, I saw this magazine cover of Michelle Bachman.
And the first time I ever saw Michelle Bachman, A, I like what she was saying.
And B, I thought she's pretty.
Yeah.
You know?
And I could take good pictures of her.
And then the Newsweek did a story on her.
And the cover photo made her look like a lunatic.
And I had been an advertising photographer.
When I went to go shoot a picture of someone, I never thought about anything except trying to idealize them, like try to make them look as good as possible.
The idea that there were photographers out there in the world that were deliberately trying to shoot bad pictures of people to put them on the cover of a magazine was something that I was naive.
I just, I had never really considered it.
And so I simply just started taking pictures of people who are saying things that I agreed with and tried to make them look good.
And because I had this other career where I was like in technology and stuff, I wasn't really, I wasn't charging people because there's this weird dynamic.
When you shoot pictures of models, they're getting paid by somebody else, right?
And they know that you as a photographer are there to try to make them look as good as possible.
When you're shooting editorial, if I'm shooting a picture of somebody for a magazine, that person who's the subject of the photograph, they're not paying the photographer.
It's not like a wedding, right?
Or you're getting your headshot taken for because you want to be an actor, where the relationship, so that relationship of somebody getting paid, right, is different.
And so I wasn't charging anybody and I made an agreement with everyone.
And I've stuck to that agreement, which is that I will not sell your pictures to anybody who's going to do a hit piece on you.
I just won't.
So my pictures are not with Getty.
My pictures are not with Corbis.
And I'm sure that I would be much more famous as a photographer if they were.
But the people that I shoot pictures of are generally lightning rods.
And I don't want my photographs used as the fodder for hit pieces.
But what that bought me was access.
So I became friends with Scott Adams.
I became friends with Mike Cernovich and Jack Bisobic and Roger Stone and all of these people who are lightning rods.
Who are also likely assets as well.
Access Through Lightning Rods00:14:02
Many of them.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And but what I was, oh, I'll bring it back to Scott.
Scott wrote this book.
And now the sun is coming up and it's hitting me in the face.
Scott, Scott wrote this book called God's Debris.
I'll bring this back to Gnosticism.
And I read the book and it was an interesting thought experiment.
It's kind of framed as a thought experiment.
And here, maybe if I turn my light up, I can fix this sun.
I'll overpower the sun.
Maybe that works.
I don't know.
Anyway, Scott wrote this book called God's Debris.
And I was studying Rosicrucianism a couple of years later, and I realized that it was kind of a crib from a story that was written by this 15th century guy named Jacob Bohm, who was one of the founders of Rosicrucianism.
And I thought, ah, this is very interesting.
Scott is kind of, and you know, he had the struggle.
He made Pascal's wager when he passed away.
Like he agreed that he would accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior as he took his last breath.
And that's indeed what he did.
But largely, I think Scott was a materialist.
His last book that he wrote, I did not read because the name of the book was Reframing Your Brain.
And I don't believe that my soul, my consciousness, exists in my brain.
It may use my brain as a vehicle for communicating with this material world, but I don't buy that materialist frame.
And so this is kind of a long-winded way of my saying that I think Scott was a Gnostic, you know?
Right.
Okay.
How do you think it works?
I mean.
Well, I think, how do I think?
I think that our nervous system is an antenna.
I think that there is some transcendent way that we communicate.
There's a philosopher who I just discovered a few years ago.
And I was so sad to find out that he only lived a few miles from me.
And he was very old when I discovered him.
His name is Wolfgang Smith.
And Smith says that we have something.
He was a physicist who went to, he graduated from Cornell when he was 18 years old with a degree in math, a degree in physics, and a degree in philosophy.
And then he went on to Purdue and got a master's degree in physics.
And then he taught math at MIT.
And he was also a philosopher.
And he thinks that the reason that Einstein was wrong, basically, is that he created time as another dimension.
And Smith was a Catholic.
And he thinks God is out of time.
And so the ontology of Einsteinian physics is fundamentally broken because of how Einstein dealt with time.
And I think that our nervous system, however it's manifested, has what Smith would refer to as vertical causation.
That is, we have a connection to God.
And it may connect through our nervous system, but our nervous system is not our being.
It's our connection to this, what Smith would call the corporeal world, the world of atoms.
The world of atoms exists, but it is not, but God is outside of this time and space continuum.
And so we have a connection to it.
Our nervous system is the way that we are connecting to it.
But I'm not sure how it works, and I'm not sure how it's measured.
Can you hold that thought?
I'm just hearing noises outside.
I just want to check there's nobody broken into the house.
i'm going to close my blind you do that i think it must have been a cat or something um but what Where are you?
Are you a Christian or do you have a religion?
Yep, my wife is Catholic.
I was baptized a Catholic.
I used to go to the Latin Mass with her when they were still doing it.
And I consider myself a linguistic Christian or a Matthew 18, 20 Christian.
I believe that you and I are in church right now by virtue of Matthew 18, 20.
What does he say in 1820?
Where two or more are gathered, I'm there.
And I think that Christianity is best served by people having individual conversations about Christianity and what it means.
Yeah.
Amen.
I'm with you.
Yeah.
I'm totally with you.
Yeah.
Well, that's Matthew 8.
So I consider myself a Matthew 18, 20 Christian.
Yeah.
I think it's been one of the great joys.
In fact, possibly of all the joys, the greatest of becoming a Christian is the conversations I have with my fellow Christians.
Indeed, extraordinary.
And so using this kind of linguistic breakdown, again, the opening shot for me was Mike Jones' Logos Rising.
Understanding that Logos doesn't mean word, it means that which can be done with words.
One of the great gifts of being alive right now is that these large language models do such a good job of translation.
And I find myself constantly, my wife and I read the Bible every morning.
We read a chapter from the Old Testament and a chapter from the New Testament.
And I'm constantly stopping her and writing things down or going on to GPT because I don't use, I use large language models a lot, but I don't use them the way that most people use them.
You can, if you find a passage in the New Testament that you are trying to figure out what the actual meaning of it is, you can use a prompt.
And the prompt is, do an interlinear translation of this chapter and verse with no hermeneutics and use the Liddell Scott lexicon.
If there's more than one definition for the word, list all definitions.
And what it will do is it will give you a complete word-for-word breakdown of what the original Kony Greek version of the Bible said.
And in many cases, you'll find that it doesn't read exactly the way that it does in English or in Latin.
And in doing that and kind of combining it with my linguistic frame of trying to discern truth, I think that Jesus taught a Christian methodology for discerning truth, and it is this.
He is Logos incarnate, right?
So one of the things that I do when I read the Bible is that when Jesus is named or when Jesus is doing something, I substitute Jesus or he, which is capitalized, with the word logos because he's logos incarnate, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
So if you understand that by taking logos and you put logos on the cross of discernment, okay, logos is that which can be done with words.
You cross that with discernment, right?
You use another word that's mistranslated is the word meek.
In English, we think of meek as kind of weak or cowering or, you know, the word in Greek is prous, and prouse means reserved strength.
So what you're doing right now in waiting for Peter to finish saying whatever he's going to say, okay, is that you, James, you are practicing prouse, okay?
Strength, it's calm strength, okay?
So you use logos on the cross of discernment, okay, with prouse, okay, in the direction of love, okay?
This is the techno, this is the technique, this is the Christian, what I call the Christian operating system for discerning truth, because in a world where we're in epistemological war where we don't know what's true because how we wind up learning things has been controlled for millennia,
then what Jesus is delivering to people is a rubric for discerning truth in a truth-free environment.
Yeah.
That makes him existentially dangerous.
And that's why you have to kill that guy.
Because he's teaching people something that can undo that thing that you and I are dealing with today.
Yes.
He is certainly the only religious force that they're afraid of.
You never see them bothering with Islam or Buddhism or any of the other stuff.
Well, it's the only free will religion.
I think it's the only free will religion.
Right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's.
I mean, one of the things that Wolfgang Smith, so Wolfgang Smith, like I said, he was this super genius, I think smarter than Einstein.
And he isn't.
And I think Einstein might agree.
But Smith spent a lot of time.
He graduated from Cornell and then he went to India and he spent a lot of time with the, you know, studying the Vedas.
And he did that for like 20 years.
And then he fell in love with this woman who was Catholic.
And he spent most of his career trying to reconcile his Eastern philosophy belief system with his Christianity.
And the conclusion that he came to is that all Eastern religions are about the destruction of the self.
And that only Christianity is about the perfection of the self.
The Eastern religions can be summarized as turning yourself into a drop of water that gets dropped into the ocean, which is interesting because it winds up becoming the conceit of a Apple TV series that's called Pluribus.
I don't know if you've seen this show.
Tell me about Pluribus.
I didn't like it very much.
Again, I don't usually try.
I don't watch movies the way that I used to because I have no suspension of disbelief anymore.
I'm always kind of analyzing them on a meta level.
And so Pluribus has got this Eastern philosophy where this virus goes around the planet and it turns everyone into the same person walking in a different body.
Well, that's kind of the material manifestation of Eastern religion, right?
Yes.
Where everyone becomes the one.
And so there's this tension in the TV show about the one last person who's the woman who's, I can't remember what her name is, who she curses and she's got a bad temper.
But she's got free will.
Right.
And she's the only person left on the planet.
One of the only people left on the planet who actually has free will.
Yes.
She's a grumpy old lesbian, a grumpy middle-aged lesbian.
And yeah, she's not having any of it.
Obviously, one likes the idea that she's showing some spirit against this Eastern oneness sort of touchy feeling, whatever it is.
But it doesn't really go anywhere dramatically, I find.
I only stuck it to about four episodes and I gave up.
Well, again, I don't think that these shows are really about entertainment.
I think they're about mind control.
And so if you kind of look at them, like there's a, I've become very fixated on the Phoenicians lately.
And there was a movie that came out six months ago called The Phoenician Scheme, which is a Wes Anderson film.
The Power Structure of the World00:08:40
And I think it's Wes Anderson.
And I own it.
I've watched it twice because I'm still, and I and I think what the meta idea is, is that this is the way the Phoenicians run the world.
And there's a woman who's a nun who winds up becoming the controller of this oligarch's world.
She's his only heir.
I think she clearly represents the Catholic Church.
And he clearly represents the Phoenician bloodlines.
That's who he is.
And people are always trying to kill him in the movie.
It's actually, I'm reminded of Jason Horsley when I watched the movie because the first time I watched it, I kind of didn't get it.
And now I've watched it twice.
And now I want to watch it again.
And it's kind of like a Kubrick movie where you don't really understand it the first time.
And then you start to realize, oh, this is a psyop.
Okay.
And you have to look at it on a meta level.
And when you look at it on a meta-level, then you can kind of understand what the movie is.
But then that makes me think, okay, well, what's the meeting that Wes Anderson is having?
Okay.
When somebody's telling him, oh, this is going to be your next movie.
Because when I work, because at one point in the 80s, I worked for Joel Schumacher as a creative director, and I worked in the producers building at Universal.
And we used to read scripts.
We would get piles of scripts every day.
And I used to ask the guys in the office, like, how do they decide which one of these movies to make?
You know, because we would have thousands of scripts.
And I never knew what the decision-making process was in one building over, which was the Black Tower, which is where they greenlight the things.
Was it called the Black Tower?
The MCA Universal building that Lou Wasserman built and had his office in the top floor of, we called it the Black Tower.
Yes.
And it was next door to the producers building where Joel Silver and Joel Schumacher and all of the other guys had offices.
So, Peter, you're absolutely in the perfect position to answer one of the questions which has been plaguing me.
I mean, you've already asked it in a way.
To what degree do the people in the industry know that they are part of the psyop?
I mean, how much creative autonomy do they have?
Are they all working to an agenda?
I think, well, I write about this.
There's an article, a couple of, I usually write articles three times.
I write the article like a regular article.
And then because I've been so fascinated with, I should use a different word than fascinated, because I've been so interested in Notebook LM, which is, I don't know if you're familiar with it, but it's a Google product that you can take anything and drop it into it, and it'll turn it into a half an hour long podcast or an eight-minute explainer video.
So if you find a book that you want to read, that you know that you want to read that book, and you don't, and you need to, and you need to read it before the next podcast because you're interviewing the author.
Yeah.
You can drop the thing into Notebook LM.
It will turn it into a half an hour podcast and an eight minute explainer video that will explain all of the most cogent points of the book.
It's not perfect, okay?
But for people who are time constrained, it's amazing.
And so what I'll do is I'll take, I know I'm going off on a bird walk.
I'll bring it back to power and I'll answer your question about Hollywood.
It will, it's a great time saver.
So I write an article, I write a post, and then I drop it into Notebook LM and I turn it into a half an hour podcast and then I'll publish that and then I'll render it out as an eight minute explainer video and I'll publish that.
And, you know, people complain because they don't like AI and they think that it's a slop or whatever the epithet is that they'll use.
But I basically, if you want to read it, you can read it.
If you want to listen to it, you can listen to it.
And if you want to watch it, you can watch it.
I don't care.
Like I don't.
So to answer your question, I wrote an article called The Power Structure of the World.
And on the bottom layer, I think you've got the prisoners of the cave.
This is Plato.
Right.
Above that, you have true believers.
These are the people who are politically motivated and controlled by their frustration.
They're the people who populate the left and the right.
And then above that, you have assets.
Assets are recruited out of the true believer layer.
Assets don't know that they're working to the ends of the power elite, which is, again, true believers comes from Eric Hoffer.
Prisoners of the Cave comes from Plato.
Assets come and handlers are above the assets.
So I differentiate.
There's assets and there's handlers.
These are intelligence terms.
Assets are people who are working for, let's just call them the power elite.
Assets are people who are working for the power elite who don't know that they're working for the power elite.
Handlers are people who are working for the power elite who know that they're working for the power elite.
So do I think James Cameron is an asset or a handler?
I think he's a handler.
Okay.
Do I think that who's the Batman guy?
The director.
Anyway, I think he's a handler.
Ridley Scott, he's a handler.
Okay.
I think these guys know.
I think they know what's up.
Steven Spielberg, he knows what's up.
He's even higher than a handler.
I mean, Spielberg is just like he's bad.
He's next level bad, I think.
Yeah, he's an interesting guy, though.
I had one meeting with him when I worked for him, and he's really spectrum-y.
And he does have like a whole like it's interesting because, you know, I worked, I worked, I worked at GameWorks and I worked with a bunch of engineers.
And like one day, he was working on the second Jurassic Park movie.
And this guy that I shared a desk with got called in to go fix one of the dinosaurs because it wasn't working.
And so I went over and, you know, with my friend, and he's sitting with a computer in front of this big dinosaur trying to make the dinosaur work.
And Spielberg's an interesting guy because he has kind of a cocoon of people that are always with him.
And he doesn't ever, he doesn't really confront people who he has an issue with directly.
If somebody isn't giving him exactly what he wants, he'll whisper to somebody.
And then the next day that guy will be, that person will be replaced by somebody else.
It's never, you know, it's always kind of a, it's very polite.
Let's just say it's very polite.
But I had one conversation with him and he started to ask me some details about things.
And I started to answer his question.
And within about 30 seconds of my starting to explain something to him, the president of my company and the chairman of the board of the company physically went in between me and Spielberg, turned him around and walked him away.
So it was kind of a surreal, weird thing.
was your take from that um that i again you can be a handler and still also be somebody else's asset um And so I think that he kind of lives in that limbo world where he does what he's told.
And when he does what he's told, he gets to make whatever movie, make a movie with as many toys and as much stuff.
I think he really likes making movies.
Inauguration Bleachers00:02:56
Yes.
And so as long as he does what he's told, he can keep making the movies that he wants to make.
That makes total sense.
Absolutely.
I can understand that.
Where would you fit Scorsese in this?
I think Marty is I think Marty probably was an asset for most of his life.
But the thing is, is that he when he started to reframe the Catholic Church, then I started to think that maybe he was really, he's read in.
So again, I think that the degree thing is real.
I think that people go up through degrees.
And I think that you can be on one level and think that you know what's going on.
And then at a certain point, if you want to advance, you're going to have to, you know, kowtow.
And I mean, you always give something to get something in this hierarchy.
That is, you give something up, you give up some kind of autonomy.
So, for example, a lot of people don't understand what Donald Trump is doing right now.
I don't trust what Donald Trump is doing because I don't think Donald Trump is in control of Donald Trump.
I think Butler was fake.
Oh, Butler was fake.
I mean, it was all fake.
Yeah, yeah, Butler was definitely fake.
I mean, I was the official photographer for Stop the Steel.
This is when my awakening happened.
And so I was on the east side of the Capitol.
All of the action was taking place on the west side of the Capitol underneath the bleachers.
The bleachers had been set up for the inauguration.
And so all of the photos.
What are bleachers?
Bleachers are where the crowds sit.
They're the temporary seating.
Oh, yeah, This is funny because I worked at Virgin for five years and my job at Virgin was to make sure that the people from London, Cape Town, Auckland, and other and Belfast all understood what the other people at the table were saying.
But anyway, on the west side of the Capitol, all of the breaking of the windows and the breaking into the Capitol, that all took place on basically a soundstage because nobody from the outside could see that.
Okay.
But on the east side of the Capitol, there was no bleachers.
And so I was supposed to take pictures of Donald Trump, Alex Jones, and Ali Alexander on the east side of the Capitol after the ellipse speech by Donald Trump.
Clearview AI Revelations00:03:43
I had a schedule, like I knew where it was supposed to go.
And so I went to the east side of the Capitol after Donald Trump speech, and I saw people who were what I would refer to as high and tight and squared away, meaning they looked very military, okay, taking all the fences down.
And there were two kinds of people.
Again, I didn't actually put this together in real time.
I was just taking pictures.
In retrospect, I went back and I edited my pictures and I realized, oh, there were two kinds of people there.
There were people who didn't know what was going on and there were people who knew what was going on.
And it turned out that just by virtue of my senses, I just started taking pictures of the people who knew what was going on.
And I can share those pictures with you.
And I made those pictures available to the FBI within a day of my returning to Los Angeles, all 1,300 pictures.
None of those people were ever contacted.
Also, by virtue of my intelligence asset business partner, I had access to this facial recognition program called Clearview AI.
And I had some of the photographs that I took run through Clearview AI and they got no results.
And one of the things that I know about having worked with Clearview AI, I was working with them on their interface.
So the CEO of Clearview AI gave me a copy of Clearview to use on my phone because he wanted me to tell him what I thought of how the interface worked.
That was, you know, that was my relationship with them.
And so I still had contacts at Clearview AI.
didn't have the app to run the pictures through, but I knew from my relationship with the president of Clearview AI that they worked with law enforcement to take faces out of their database.
So if somebody's an undercover informant or if they're an operator, they're not in the facial recognition database.
They've been taken out.
And so I had very good pictures that I took with a very expensive camera with very expensive lenses, okay, of people who were controlling the retreat of the police department and the crowd surging up the stairs.
And the guy had an earpiece in his ear.
They're doing military hand signs.
They're doing all of this other stuff.
They've got the crew cuts, you know, and their gear is all kind of very squared away.
And so I provided all, I checked the pictures with facial recognition.
I provided all of the pictures to the FBI.
And I got no, no one from the FBI contacted me.
No one from the January 6th committee contacted me.
Okay.
There was zero interaction between Peter Duke and the United States government.
And I'm convinced at this point, it's because I had pictures of the perps and the perps were working for the government and they don't want anyone to talk about this thing.
So was that your wake-up call moment?
That was my moment when I looked around and I said, this thing is fake and choreographed.
Joe Biden's Secret?00:04:07
It doesn't mean people aren't getting killed.
No, that woman.
I think there are blood sacrifices.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Which is all this stuff is very, very hard to take on, take in when you've been brought up to believe in the paradigm.
And I thought, well, I work in the media.
I know how the world works.
And I realized that everything I'd been told was a lie.
I think you're one of the very few people I've, because my experience was not dissimilar to yours in that it was the stolen presidential election and all the all the fakery surrounding it that took me down the rabbit hole.
I mean, I'd already been skeptical of global warming, so I dipped my toes into the water.
But it was the actually, it was trauma, really.
I'd call it trauma.
I think most of us end up where we are through trauma.
It wasn't so much that I could see the elections being stolen in front of me.
It was that all my colleagues in the media, the guys that I thought were there to sort of point out when the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes and to speak truth to power and all these other lies we tell ourselves about what the function of journalism is.
They were saying, yeah, Biden won the election fair and square.
Trump was just, he just wasn't as popular as the guy who strokes little girls' hair and has a son with a laptop and shits himself.
That was the real shock for me.
And there was no looking back on it.
Yeah, I mean, the funny thing, too, about Joe, I mean, you mentioned Joe Biden is that, you know, Joe Biden was a kid in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
And if you read Kathy O'Brien's book, that was a hotbed for all that MK Ultra monarch stuff going on.
And Joe Biden was a little kid when apparently when Mengele made his way to the United States on his way to South America.
And I wonder whether or not Joe Biden literally is a Manchurian candidate.
I mean, you look at his history.
When he was a freshman congressman, his family, most of his family, his wife and his daughter, his entire family was in a car accident, right?
Where his wife and his daughter were killed.
Okay.
And his sons, Hunter and Bo, survived the car crash.
But, you know, the way that Joe Biden tells the story about why that, how that happened is completely false.
Okay.
His wife drove over the center divider and hit a truck in a head-on collision, and there was no alcohol involved in it.
And that sounds like Michael Hastings to me.
You know what I mean?
That sounds like somebody who wasn't doing what they were told who was being sent a signal.
Right.
And so I wonder whether or not Joe Biden is actually a Manchurian candidate and that he's been managed for his entire career.
Yes.
Well, that was the other question I wanted to ask you.
What percentage of these people, these players, are bloodlines?
And what percentage are kind of made men, people who've come up through the ranks, just people like you and me, maybe.
I mean, if we'd wanted to become made men, could we have done?
You know, it's funny because I think there were a couple of times, like I said, I worked for Murdoch, I worked for Spielberg, and then I worked for Branson.
And I think that there probably were moments when I was being tested and I didn't know I was being tested, right?
Battle for Knowledge00:15:19
And I failed the test.
I mean, I know for sure that I mean, one story I could tell you is that I was in charge of this multiplayer online game that was called Game Market at GameWorks.
And the CEO of GameWorks was a guy named Skip Paul, who was kind of Lou Wasserman's conciglieri.
He was like the attorney guy at MCA who ended up becoming the CEO of this game company.
I mean, the chairman of this game company.
And Quake is a game where people run around with rocket launchers and they blow each other up.
Everybody, it's kind of a, it's a meritocracy because everybody has got the same weapons and everybody has got the same goal, which is to kill as many people as you can, right?
But it's this imaginary world.
And there was a game that they wanted me to replace Quake with that was called Redneck Rampage.
And Redneck Rampage is a game.
And the conceit of the game is that aliens, body snatchers, come down to Earth, to Mississippi, and they body snatch a bunch of hillbillies.
And so the conceit of the game is to kill as many hillbillies as you can.
That's fine because they're aliens.
It's fine because the aliens have, yes, they're really aliens, right?
And Skip was also on the board of directors of the Shoah Foundation Institute, which was in a building that was next door to the soundstage where I had an office.
And he was the majority stockholder in this game company that made Redneck Rampage.
Right.
And I told him that I didn't.
Now, my job was to pick a game, right?
Hey, can you control the dog, please?
My dog Quigley is, I have a dog named after Carol Quigley.
He's decided that he wants to play with this guy.
Anyway, he wanted me to put this game Redneck Rampage in.
And I told him that I had a problem with it.
And he said, what's the problem?
And I said, well, it's about killing hillbillies.
And he said, what's wrong with that?
And I said, well, what if the aliens landed in Poland in a small town that was occupied by Jews?
And the conceit of the game was that you went around killing Jews because they were really aliens.
And he got really, really angry with me.
And he kind of furled his brow and he said, Peter, just put the game in.
Just do it.
And I feel like if there was a moment that I had to translate, I failed desperately at that point.
So, yeah, that was my big point of failure.
Peter, that was very forthright and brave of you, if I may say.
Did you have a relationship with this guy?
I mean, to be able to say such things.
You know what?
I believe in the truth, you know, and I, you know, one of the things that I, you know, I had a big problem with.
And I worked with the military in the game business.
I worked for this as a contractor for this company, RL Leaders.
There's a USC has a relationship with the Pentagon.
It's something called the Institute for Creative Technology, ICT, which is in the same building that DNS server number one for the internet is in in Marina Del Rey, California.
And I worked as a consultant for these guys.
And, you know, I learned a lot about like kind of how all of this kind of military and game stuff works.
And I was very angry at one point because the Pentagon, there were two big military shoot up, shoot-em-up games.
And at one point, I was being considered as a creative director on one of them.
One of them is Medal of Honor, and the other one is called Call of Duty, right?
Yes.
And these are kind of like the big EA.
I played both of them.
I used to love them.
Yeah, EA and Activision, right?
Yeah.
And so I, so there was this game that got announced by the Pentagon called America's Army.
And America's Army basically was free.
It probably still is free.
And you could go download it off the internet.
And the difference between America's Army and Call of Duty is like there's no respawning.
Like if you get shot and killed, your game's over.
Like that's it for you in that game.
And so, but I was, but it used all of the same engines.
It was, I don't know if it was using Unreal.
I can't remember what engine it was using.
But they were putting this game out into the into the marketplace that was free for people to go play that was directly competing with Medal of Honor and Call of Duty.
And I thought, EA and Activision are spending millions and millions of dollars in order to create these products that they're trying to sell in an American capitalist economy.
And here comes the United States government offering this game that's free, which is obviously going to impact, I thought, my logic.
It was going to impact the bottom line of EA and Activision.
Not that I really care at this point, but I thought, well, why are they doing that?
And it's basically to get young kids hooked on the military so that they'll become cannon fodder when they turn 18.
Is that the real purpose of shooting?
Yeah, that's it's a recruit.
Yeah, it's paid for by the out of the America's Army was paid for out of the recruiting budget of the United States military.
But do you think that Medal of Honor and Call of Duty serve the same function?
I do.
I do.
Right.
Yeah.
Because everything has an ostensible purpose and a real purpose, doesn't it?
Underlying purpose.
Yeah, I mean, as a kid, you know, I've told this story on my show, but my mother worked at Rand.
My next-door neighbor worked at Rand.
I learned how to play games when I was 10 years old, made by a company called Avalon Hill, which were all these kind of military simulation games, you know, like simulating like the Battle of Waterloo or the Battle of the Bulge or Midway.
And I was playing these games when I was, you know, 10 or 11 years old.
And, you know, I went, I wound up growing up like loving all the military hardware.
Like I could tell you, I could tell, I could tell you the name of any British ship in World War II by looking at it.
Like I didn't, you know, and it turns out that getting kids to fall in love with projection of power and the hardware winds up becoming a very sexy thing.
It's a very, you know, it's a it's a way to get people to go risk their lives for bankers, ostensibly.
You've just explained my childhood.
Because what did I read?
I remember my brother got for Christmas a book called Hitler's War Machine with all the tanks and stuff.
I was so, so jealous that he'd been given that book and I'd been given, envious rather, and I'd been given a book on pond life, I think it was, or something like that.
And we consume those books voraciously.
Right.
Anything to do with military hardware, hardware, knowing that a tiger tank has an 88 millimeter gun.
Right.
Details like that.
And then there were games, weren't there, like Top Trumps, where you sort of have cards and you beat the other card based on the thickness of the armor or the caliber of the gun.
Yeah, I played all those games.
Panzer Blitz.
And I played with little lead ships, a game called the Game of Admirals that was based on something called the Fletcher Pratt war game, which was developed by the U.S. military.
I was playing all those games and I would go to these big game conferences where my brother and I and a couple of other kids were there with a bunch of guys who were in their middle ages.
They were like 40 or 50 years old and we were playing with all these guys who were playing these games.
It was a nerd fest.
Yeah.
To think that we were just being because I really wanted to be a soldier at one point.
I think I did rubbish.
No, no, yeah, I did too.
I wanted to be a naval aviator.
And I used to, I made my parents take me to the United States Navy Recruiting Center in Echo Park, which was a long way from where we lived when I was like 13 years old.
And I had just gotten my first pair of glasses because my eyes started to go bad.
And the Navy recruiter told me that I was never going to be an aviator if I had to wear glasses.
Thank you, God, for your practice.
Indeed, indeed.
Yeah.
But you know, But you know, I have a, you know, I have lots of friends who are in the military, and I used to say, you know, I used to say thank you for your service.
And I, I, you know, people get mad at me now, but I'm sorry for your service at this point because now that I understand what all of these wars were all about.
Have you had a chance to interview John O'Dowd or Jim McGregor about their book, Two World Wars in Hitler?
Have you?
Do you know what?
They are on my list.
I haven't done them yet, but that book was a, it blew my mind.
Yeah, Putzi Hofstangle.
Putzi Heifdangle.
Exactly.
That book is essential.
I gave it for Christmas to a friend of mine who read history at Oxford.
I mean, he's much older than me.
This chap, lovely chap, but is a proper kind of chap.
He was the wrong generation to have been called up to fight in World War II.
He missed out the Korean War, but so he was looking for action.
So he joined the parachute regiment and then realized that there was nowhere for him to go.
So ended up fighting in Rhodesia and places like that.
So he got to see the elephant.
He got his experience.
So he's that kind of.
And during the during the Vietnam War, I think in 1972, he found himself in the US and he went into a recruiting office and volunteered to go and fight out in the Nam.
And they told him, well, you can't say you're not an American citizen.
And they said, but if you get yourself on the draft list, you can actually get in that way, get put on the job.
Anyway, I thought he'd be a perfect candidate for this book because he believes in all the narrative and stuff.
And I gave it to him and then I tested him on it over lunch.
And he clearly had not done any of the reading because he said to me, I still think that Hitler, Hitler knew what the deal was, that as soon as he invaded Poland, Britain had made it clear to him that he would be at war with Britain.
I was thinking, you just didn't read the book.
You're just regurgitating Normie history to me.
This has got nothing to do with what was written in the book.
People are so comfortable in their accumulated historical knowledge.
They don't want anything that confounds those prejudices.
I'm going to bring this back to Jesus, okay, and give you a couple of other things that you could do with this guy.
I think that one of the I've studied a lot of books on the history of education.
And I don't know how much you know about the Prussian education system and the Battle of Jena.
And so basically, the Prussians got their butts kicked at the Battle of Jena, which also happened to be the battle where Amsel Rothschild got his largesse to work with.
But after that battle, the elector of Prussia said, what happened?
And it turned out that the Germans had the most highly educated population in the world at that moment.
And the reason that they lost that battle is because the Germans were a lot less likely to stand in a line and get shot at in a Napoleonic set battle.
And so they changed their education system in order to reduce the amount of critical thinking that the population had.
It's called the Prussian.
They jumped down in order to get better at war.
To change people's behavior from being based on thinking to based on knowing.
That's – is there a book you can recommend that says that – Yeah.
Yeah, it's Charlotte Thompson Iserbet, and it's called The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.
Americans, yeah.
Richard Grove writes about it, and John Taylor Gotto in their underground history of American Education.
It turns out that there are many, many books.
This is, I mean, you've probably already discovered this, but it turns out that there is many, many books that are written about all of this stuff.
They just never become New York Times bestseller lists.
And then you're dependent upon people like me or Richard Grove or James Corbett or Mrs. Heritage History to go and kind of stumble into these things because they're not really well organized.
So the Prussian education system is about reducing, getting rid of the trivium.
And it's funny because I was talking to, I don't know if you follow this guy who's got a substack called Ethical Skeptic.
But he's very learned in the ways of the trivium.
And I suspect that linguistics has always been left out of the trivium because there's something about understanding the structure of language that leads people on a path to critical thinking.
Manipulating Language Patterns00:15:33
And let me just give you an example.
Logical and scientific fallacies.
On the ethical skeptic website, he's listed the 3,000 logical and ethical, logical and scientific fallacies.
But if you learn the meta-model, which is built on top of Noam Chomsky's deep structure, the patterns of deletion, distortion, and generalization, there's only 10 patterns.
So you can learn 3,000 logical and scientific fallacies, or you could learn 10 linguistic patterns.
Which one do you think is easier to do?
Yeah, we're dealing with the linguistic patterns.
Right.
But linguistics isn't taught.
I could teach this stuff to eighth graders.
You know, it's not that complicated.
Well, actually, on that, can you, okay, can you give me a formula for stage?
Yeah, the easiest one is what's called a universal quantifier.
A universal quantifier is a word like any, all, never, always.
And if you think about the way that people use, that's called the generalization.
And if you think about the way that most people use that word in most cases, it's not true.
So, you know, if somebody said all women are fickle, you wouldn't have to know anything about what a woman is or what the word fickle means to return to reply with a question, all of them?
Yeah.
Okay.
So by understanding linguistics, you can start to look at, I, you know, it's like at Christmas time, you order stuff from Amazon and you get a bunch of stuff in one day in a bunch of different boxes and you look at the boxes and you go, oh, well, that one's the book that I bought for Aunt Mary, you know, and that, and that one's the ray gun I bought for my nephew.
Linguistics allows you to kind of like look at the way that sentences are put together.
And so when I was learning hypnosis, there was a hypnotist that I was talking to, and I told him I wanted to learn hypnosis.
And he said, do you want to be a therapist?
And I said, no.
And he said, do you want to, are you trying to do self-help or are you trying to quit smoking or lose weight?
And I said, no.
And he said, well, why are you trying to do it?
And I said, I want to learn how hypnosis is used in politics and media.
And he said, ah, that's easy.
And I said, what do you mean it's easy?
And he goes, they only use one pattern.
And I said, what are you talking about?
And he goes, they only use one pattern.
It's actually two patterns that are put together.
And the pattern is a cause-effect statement, which means this happens because is the word that you look for, right, in a cause and effect statement, combined with a complex equivalence.
I'm sorry, I may be switching this up.
Because is the complex equivalence.
Cause-effect is this made this happen.
Okay.
And so if you realize that a statement like get the vaccine because it's safe and effective.
And if you don't, you'll be threatening the life of your grandmother.
Okay.
This is a classic cause-effect complex equivalency.
Okay.
And by understanding how those words are put together, you can call them spidey senses or whatever it is.
Your alarm bells will go off because you'll realize that this is a manipulation.
When you take a cause-effect statement and then you marry it to a complex equivalency, you don't, and the power of it is that you don't have to have any domain expertise.
You don't really have to know what a virus is or how a virus works or what a vaccine is or how a vaccine works or whether or not you're really an existential threat to your grandmother or not.
You don't have to really know that.
You can recognize that the structure of the sentence is a manipulation in and of itself.
And you can just start there.
And then you used a Christian framework.
You used logos and discernment and prouse with love in order to move yourself into closer to the truth, to the father.
Well, I think it helps one also in issues like, is it that formula?
Yeah, I think it is.
It's the with love formula.
For example, why are the Gnostics, how do we know that the Gnostics are wrong?
Because after all, some of the cleverest people throughout history have been Gnostics.
Surely they know that they ought to be onto something.
Maybe God is within us and et cetera, et cetera.
And I suppose the reason you know it is because we know that the God, our Creator, is benign, loving, made us in his image.
The Gnostic path is one of secrecy, exclusivity, which are not behaviors that one expects of God.
Knowing God, as little as one does, that's not how he operates.
Is that fair?
Yeah, it's totally fair.
And if you understand that belief is the battleground, so the point of epistemological warfare is to control people's beliefs because that ultimately winds up become becoming the most powerful mechanism that one can use in order to control large groups of people in order to get them to do what you want them to do.
And so the blocking and tackling of Gnosticism is to create a gatekeeping system.
I mean, for example, like the inverse of the inverse of the degree system is what I call a castle-keep strategy of defense of the truth.
So Charlie Kirk dies.
Now, whether or not he really died or not, you and I can disagree on that, but it doesn't matter because at the point, the media story is that he died, right?
And then what happens is the zone gets flooded with a bunch of, I'll bring this back to your Gnostic question, okay?
The zone gets flooded with, there was a guy 12 feet away from him with a gun.
There was a guy on the rooftop with a 30-odd 6.
There was a guy running around screaming saying that he did it.
There's Candace Owens opens up a whole different set of vectors for the story.
And so what happens is that the zone gets flooded to use an American football term, right?
With all of these different narratives and counter narratives, some of them are pointing in one direction.
Other ones are pointing in another direction.
And at the end of the day, people wind up being confused.
To step back and to look at it on the meta level and you go, okay, here is this story of a murder, okay?
And the story of the murderer is surrounded by all of these counter narratives.
That's a signal that there's some kind of operation, a mind control operation in play going on right there.
Gnosticism, again, creates this gated entree to elevated wisdom, right?
You go up in degrees.
I mean, my jaded, one-sided, biased opinion is that the reason that they have the degree system is that if they want to trust you with more largesse, with more power, they have to build up a thicker compromise book on you so that they can control you and take you down if you don't do what you're told.
Okay.
That, to me, is a Gnostic mechanism of material control over the planet that you need, at the end of the day, to answer your question, Gnosticism is about control of this material world, okay, by whatever means possible.
And the problem with Christians who believe in what Wolfgang Smith would refer to as a vertical causation, a connection with God that is not part of this material world, is that they're not controllable using the same mechanisms.
They'll let themselves be eaten by lions before they'll do what you want them to do.
And that's because they're operating on a level that you can't control, which is the transcendent level.
And they don't like, the Gnostics just don't like Gnosticism in general is about control of the material world.
And they need to have that control.
And people who believe in a transcendent God who's loving become problematic because they'll let go of the knowing and they'll embrace thinking.
And then they'll try to figure out a way out of whatever it is that is being used to control them.
Peter, apart from being extremely enjoyable, this conversation has made me think, we've got to do another podcast.
There's so much we can talk about.
It's great.
I've loved it.
Will you tell us where we can find you?
Yeah, I have a substack that you can get to.
I had a feed aggregator.
At one point, before the fire destroyed my home, I had built a website that was aggregating different RSS feeds because I thought that what was going to happen, which is happening now, which is the censorship happened.
And somehow that website got destroyed and my house burned down and it was everything that I could do to kind of like get back up and running.
And so I moved over to Substack.
And so I publish on Substack, which is the dukereport.substack.com, which you can find by just typing in the dukereport.com.
It'll take you to the same place.
I have a book library with about 700 hard-to-find books.
For every book, I have 1,500 word summaries.
For most books, I have half an hour podcasts generated with Notebook LM.
For over 200 of them, I have eight-minute explainer videos.
I was going to tell you that for your friend who didn't read Two World Wars in Hitler, I have a half an hour podcast and I have an eight-minute video.
Those are available on Substack.
The podcasts are also available on SoundCloud.
I don't put things behind a paywall.
I depend on the kindness of strangers.
People support my channel through paid subscriptions, and I have many paid subscriptions on Substack, and that's the best way to support me.
But I'm trying to get this information out to as many people as possible.
And so the different ways.
I also wrote a book.
I'm working on a book now called Reframing Reality, but I published a book three years ago called Stealth Power in the Illusion of Democracy, where I took all of I took I used AI and I took all of the cultural references out of the protocols of the learned elders of Zion so that I made it not a naughty book so that anybody can go read it.
And it's called Stealth Power and the Illusion of Democracy.
You can get that at Amazon.
That's great.
Thank you.
I'm still on Substack.
I don't know how long it's going to last.
It's a honey trap.
My traffic is being, my subscriptions have gone down.
I don't think for any particular obvious reason.
I haven't suddenly got more.
It is a honey trap.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Maybe, Peter, you can tell me after the show what I should be doing to like RSS feeds.
I don't know.
Yeah.
But yeah, if you want to.
Self-hosted WordPress is probably the best way because it supports RSS.
And I think RSS, look, I mean, I could go on and on about RSS.
I was involved in the technical creation of the Blogosphere at one point, just tangentially, but RSS was deliberately destroyed.
They attempted to destroy it.
It's an open standard, so they can't destroy it.
And it's a very, very simple protocol.
So it's very difficult to kill.
But it will be the only way that people are going to be able to actually wind up getting the news that they want when they want it at this point, technically, I think.
Oh, okay.
Well, thank you for that, Tim.
And self-hosted WordPress.
So not on WordPress.com, but there are providers out there.
I use a company called Nexus, N-E-X-C-E-S-S, which I think became Liquid Web.
But a self-hosted WordPress site on that will support RSS.
And I would suggest if you want an escape plan to just start cross-posting.
Substack supports RSS.
So the name of your URL, which is, you know, I don't know if it's Dellingpod or whatever it is, .substack.com slash feed is your RSS feed from Substack.
So people can subscribe.
If you're behind a paywall, your paywall content won't go out.
But if you're not behind a paywall, people can just suck your content out of Substack that way.
So maybe transition from being paid to unpaid on Substack and then move over to WordPress.
And then you have to rejigger your business model.
Yeah, yeah, I do.
I do.
Okay.
Well, at the moment, if you want to go the extra mile and support me financially as well as just like with your friendly ears and eyes, you can still support me on Substack.
Or you can buy me a coffee or support my sponsors or all those things.