Disney, MK Ultra, Subliminal Seduction with Paranoid American

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Bloundish Authenticity Podcast.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Welcome back to another episode of Boundless Authenticity. My return
guest is Thomas the Paranoid American who has worked at
Disney and MTV and knows a lot about animation and
the various industries and mind control and all kinds of
crazy stuff. It's unbelievable what this guy knows. You can

(00:27):
visit Paranoid American dot com to learn more about conspiracy
themed comic books, get some cool T shirts, playing cards,
other trinkets as well, and you can tune in to
the Paranoid American podcast. And as I'm here again, I
just want to say thanks to all of the new subscribers.
I see you, and I see that you're sharing all

(00:49):
the stuff, so that's good. I also want to remind
you that if you aren't currently a follower of the show,
you can go ahead and do so right now. And
Boundless Authenticity is available on Spreaker, Spotify, Apple, Rumble, and
sometimes YouTube when they aren't centoring me for telling you
the stuff that the Internet doesn't want you to know yet,

(01:09):
so I highly recommend you use the Spreaker app because
it's free to listen. You don't have to sign up
All you have to do is hit play. Subscribing to
the podcast is not only going to let you know
when the next episode comes out, but it will also
help the show to reach a wider audience, which means
we can attract some more of the guests that you've
been emailing me about and they're like, oh, I can't

(01:32):
come on because your show is not big enough yet,
and I'm like, okay, we'll screw you. So we got
to get those people. You can now look forward to
three episodes of Boundless Authenticity every month on the sixth, sixteenth,
and twenty sixth, some mark your calendars. What's going on,
mister paranoid American?

Speaker 3 (01:49):
Hey, how you doing? Man, it's good to talk to
you again. And just clarification, I don't sell trinkets. I
sell choch keys. Look at that, right, sir?

Speaker 2 (01:59):
Jeez oh that's hilarious. So yeah, we are going to
talk about Disney and MK Ultra, and I guess the
best way to go about it is how did that
even start? Because I run into so many non believers
They're like, oh, that's just conspiracy garbage, just not real.

Speaker 3 (02:21):
I mean, if we go chronologically, Disney came first, technically
before mk ULTRA did. And there are mk ultra papers
that specifically cite Disney films as inspirations for mind control techniques,
so both of those are documented. This is just wild conjecture,
so that's an interesting overline. But also I feel that

(02:44):
Walt Disney, it's a it's it's uh. These two subjects
are so intertwined it's actually fun to try and like
pick them apart. So let's let's start with mk ULTRA first,
just because that one is a little bit more clearly defined.
So mk ultra was the end form. This was like
the final form of this slow progression towards mind control research.

(03:07):
It basically started sometime around nineteen forty five, and this
is when the US Navy Technical Mission that was like
the name before there was a CIA and OSS and
all this this like Naval Intelligence group, they found these
papers that were used at the Dachau concentration camp that

(03:27):
mentioned the use of mescaline, and from there they start
revealing that the Germans were basically giving people all these
very strong psychedelics psychoactive substances in order to help try
and get them to find some sort of truth serum,
so that if they captured someone they would talk, even
under duress, even if it were something they would never

(03:49):
want to reveal. And while the efficacy and regardless of
how ethical it is I'm talking about, like how efficient
it was, that is still kind of under debate and
whether they stuck to that or it expanded, but that
was the very original seed that you can kind of
trace this back. The US had known about mescaline since

(04:09):
at least the eighteen eighties, when they, you know, Native
Americans were using it, they were selling payote by mail.
But it wasn't necessarily targeted or even seen as a
specific chemical at that point. It was just some weird
folk medicine and over a slow progression based on some
of the stuff that we've talked about in our last show,
that kind of like coalesced between the late eighteen hundreds

(04:31):
and then like the nineteen thirties. So now you've got
maybe ten years after that, right nineteen forty, nineteen forty five,
and like, okay, well, this compound, this mescaline that we've
already isolated, We already understand where it come from and
how it's used and how it binds with receptors, or
at least as much as they knew about it in
the forties and this they're saying, Oh, but the Nazis

(04:53):
are using this for some sort of a military edge.
They're getting information maybe they if that's even one percent
possible that they're doing that, and we're not. Now, all
of a sudden, we're behind the game. So the US
military they just start ramping up. So originally this discovery
that they got in forty five from a concentration camp,

(05:15):
that evolves into something called Project Chatter, which the name
is in that unique you know, it's to get people talking.
So they called it Project Chatter, and this was under
the guise of the Navy. Then it turns into Project Bluebird,
which gets a little bit more attention. He might have
heard this one before. And this was organized by Richard Helms,

(05:36):
who was at the CIA at the time. And then
from Bluebird, once Helms goes out and Alan Dulles comes in,
he kind of takes all this different research from Chapter
and Chatter and Bluebird and he combines it into something
called Project Artichoke. And then Project Artichoke explodes so much
in scope. Now all of a sudden, it's not just

(05:57):
about this one thing about finding a truth serum or
psychedelics and interrogation. Now it's just like, let's throw some
stuff at the wall and see what sticks. And this
is essentially what mk ultra is. Mk Ultra becomes the
massive umbrella term for all these hundreds and hundreds of
subprojects that started as just like a single subproject. So

(06:19):
that's the most like, you know, bird's eye view of
mk ultra that I think would be useful for now.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yeah, that was well said. Geez, that was well said.
It's the Disney thing, is what I think a lot
of people get wrong, because yeah, in recent times a
lot more has come out on the Internet, but it's
still just like a very small, panic driven fraction, if
you get what I'm saying.

Speaker 3 (06:46):
Well, I think so this is kind of where Disney
combines with all that mk ultra stuff, because maybe you're wondering, like,
how the hell would these two things connect. Well, interestingly enough, Disney,
a lot of the original Disney classics that put them
on the map kept them there were really just adaptations
of Brothers Grim folklore, specifically Germanic folklore, and interestingly enough,

(07:08):
the Brothers Grim they started out as historians. They weren't
fiction writers. They were actually documenting the very real, sort
of lost history of these Germanic tribes and just Germany
and Bavaria in general, and a lot of that information
had been lost to time or it was just slowly
evaporating generation by generation, and they kind of reinvigorated the

(07:33):
German people's fascination with their own history through these folk
tales and through Disney. He kind of makes that a
worldwide phenomenon. Now the entire world cares about Germanic folklore,
whereas before maybe it didn't so much. I mean, Grim's
Brother's Fairy Tales was only outsold by the Bible. For
a long period of time, it was the most popular book,

(07:55):
and I mean I would almost argue there was probably
the book that was read more often, even though if
you bought a Bible, a lot of those people that
had on the shelf maybe weren't reading it as often.
But if you add kids and Grim's fairy Tales, you're
probably open in that you're cracking that open more so
than the Bible, right, because you probably don't just have
it for appearances, you have it because you're actually reading it.

(08:17):
So this is hard to understate how impactful and how
like burrowed if you believe in epigenetic memory. For example,
if you believe that enough of your ancestors all thought
or read the same things that somehow it just kind
of like through generational osmosis, ends up in your brain,
then this would fall directly out of that category. And

(08:38):
even if you don't believe in epigenetic memory like that,
which is maybe a pseudoscience. If you don't believe in that,
you could still say that the cultural impact serves as
like an environmental programming, so that even if your family
doesn't care about Grim's fairy tales, just it being incorporated
at such high levels throughout all of society and just

(09:00):
everything that you come in contact with, the inspirations that
brought that about show some of these traces of like
Germanic folklore. All this to say that there might not
have even been a revolt in the Weimar Republic, and
there might not even even been a rise of a
nationalist socialist party in Germany if it hadn't been for

(09:21):
Walt Disney helping sort of normalize this resurgence of Germanic folklore,
which also would have happened with the Grim's fairy Tales.
So you can draw a direct line, in my opinion,
from Grim making this resurgence to Disney making it global,
to then World War two and the Nazi Party. And
now I'm not saying that Walt was like a direct influce.

(09:43):
He wasn't any Henry Ford right where they shared framed
the pictures of each other on him in Hitler's desk.
But Walt did reinvigorate the Germanic peoples in this way.
And it's just an interesting connection that right around the
tail end of this conflict that happened because of this
revigorated interest in dramatic culture, that now we've got some

(10:06):
of the most potent Disney films that ever come out.
And the best example might be Alice in Wonderland as
the direct intersection between these two worlds, because it came
out right around the time in which mk Ultra was
at a fever pitch when they were like, all right,
we're throwing all of our money at this thing, let's
just see how far it can go. And there's even
mk Ultra paperwork that reference what they call Alice in

(10:29):
Wonderland programming. So if you had to put a single
pinpoint on where the argument is the closest between these
two worlds overlapping. I would say it's right around that time,
which I think is like fifties and sixties. And this
is also when wall is still involved enough with Disney
that you could call it like Walt Disney Productions. If

(10:49):
we talk about Disney right now, or if we're talking
about Disney in the eighties or nineties, it's Disney, but
it's the corporate eggregore of Disney. It's no longer like
the Walt Disney. And I do think that those those
two entities couldn't be more different in a lot of regards.

Speaker 2 (11:05):
Yeah, See, this is why I like having you on,
because you're better than chat GPT. You're like an encyclopedia
of stuff, and I can always ask you to clarify
on stuff that people get wrong all the time and
they don't know the history. And you know, I think
that because I've been through that phase so many years
ago in my life where I just watched a lot
of conspiracy videos and stuff. It's the same repetitive content,

(11:27):
but it's not very factual. They always just stop shy
of getting into the real deal.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
You know, it's repurposed. I mean, I know the sources
once you know the sources. You can pick this all out.
It's John Todd, and it's Jordan Maxwell, and it's Text Mars,
and it's some Leo Taxle if you go back far enough.
But it really is the exact same sources over and
over with different hot takes. So I would relate this
to the equivalent of someone that discovers they really like

(11:54):
a band. Right, you can go and collect all that
band's albums, but you might even realize, like, oh, that's
so weird. The first three sound different than these three.
And what you do is you look and see who
the producer was of the album, who, like what the
name of the person that was playing the drums on
the album or if you like the drums. And I
kind of do that with my conspiracy research, where like
you come across something you're like, well, I don't think

(12:15):
tex Mars like personally discovered this information, So where did
he get it from? And then where did they get
it from? And once you get far back along you
can kind of find out like who the producer of
that album really was, and then go and look for
all the other things that they've done. And that's kind of,
in my opinion, that's the best tip as to getting
to the bottom of some of the weird conspiracy claims

(12:38):
that come out, and then the sources just like just
trust me, bro I read it, like where did you
get it?

Speaker 2 (12:43):
Though it is the same information over and over, And
I think that in a lot of ways it's been
weaponized because then you can create a bunch of conspiracy
theorists that just regurginate and regurgitate another narrative, just like
they regurgitate every other narrative that we've ever in fit
and nobody makes any progress.

Speaker 3 (13:02):
But it's kind of a two way road in this case,
because I think people turn themselves into useful idiots. So
there is a certain point when like the masses are
no longer blameless, Like you can be ignorant, but if
you're ignorant long enough and you know to such an extent,
sometimes it is on you. And I don't see it

(13:23):
as like a victim blaming thing. For example, when it
comes to any conspiracy research MK Ultra Illuminati does any
of the different categories, there's something fun and novel about
just the headline aspect of it all. But then to
be like okay, and to verify this, here's a seven
hundred page book that's not a fun read, and you

(13:46):
got to read that whole thing, and then you'll get
the context on what the title of the thing means.
And it's like there's a huge drop off if you
were to visualize on a graph the people that start
on page one and make it the page seven hundred
and read through the entire thing, right, it's not one
hundred percent, it's not a straight line of every single
person that interacts with it. And this comes up even

(14:06):
on like conspiracy podcasts, where why is it that the
headline shows or just let's read through today's headlines and
give our quick takes on it seem to do better
than real big deep dives, And it's really just because
it's not as fun. It's not as fun to dispel
some of the rumors about conspiracy theories and start looking

(14:27):
into like the nuances. And because at a mass level,
at a wide scale, nuance isn't really fun or interesting
or entertaining. It means that you've got to take a
stop and what you're doing and like think about something
and come up with a judgment, and then there's a
really good chance that your interpretation isn't going to match
every single other person, So now you'll see like a

(14:49):
drop off an audience. So the best way to avoid
that is to just like, you know, Disney's programming your kids.
Like if you just say Disney's programming your kids, so
many people are like, oh, yeah, of course, and I
agree with that too. It's such a massive broad statement
that anyone could agree with it, which makes it popular.
But then if you start getting very specific and like, well,
how exactly what movie, what message did that movie give?

(15:11):
What were the actual real world effects, it's it's just
loses some of its novelty. So and I don't think
there's any one particular person to blame. I'm not sure
if there's like an Illuminati watchdog that's like, hey, you
better simplify that article, you know, to everyone that's writing something.
I think it's a self perpetuating issue where the masses alone,

(15:34):
they will relate to something more and more the more
like surface level it is. So why why would you
not lean into that if you know that that's just
something that we're all predisposed to. So that's why I'm
kind of saying it's like a two way street where
maybe certain types of industry lean in or they plant
really salacious stories that like will drive a headline, uh,

(15:56):
talking about something that would be easily knocked down later, right,
like just lob a nice little underhand that's like Disney's
you know, killing kids or something, and then Disney can
come out it might be back example, but Disney can
like plant that story and then come out and be like,
here's all records, We're not killing anyone. Look, if anything,
they're doing better if youve got all these money and
resources or something. If you make a specific claim, then

(16:16):
it can be denied. But if you make broad claims,
then they just have much more length to them, Like
they run for way longer.

Speaker 2 (16:23):
Yeah, I heard Disney's programming your children, and then nothing
after that. It just went Haywhere.

Speaker 3 (16:30):
The point being that people can easily make a claim
that says Disney's programming your children and everyone can agree
with it. Even if you're not a conspiracy theorist. You'd
be like, Okay, yeah, they're definitely programming my kids to
want to see the next Disney movie, for example. Right,
But when you start getting more specific, you make a
direct claim, you say, this group of animators that came

(16:53):
from this room at Caltech are all putting this specific
message into this movie for this reason. Once you get
into all those specifics, now you're inviting people or you're
almost like challenging yourself to go and do all that
research improve it, which is far less interesting than just
making the claim. And like everyone pats you on the

(17:15):
back and you move on to the next claim. You
can very easily just string together claims like Disney's program
in your Kids and go to the next one. And
there's an endless number of topics. And I think the
ultimate point being is that we also invite ourselves to
that party. Like if you entertain that even if you
agree with it, there is something more than just like

(17:37):
a top ten hits, Right, you don't know the band
if you only listen to their Greatest Hits album and
that's the only thing you've ever heard from them, right, Like,
you don't get all the extra nuance. And I think
that it's similar when it comes to like research.

Speaker 2 (17:50):
Yeah, it really is. Like the thing about the Disney
programming Your Kids' problem is that yet they've done stuff
to kind of admit to it in recent times, haven't
they like edited stuff out, I mean, like the boners
and shit out of certain characters.

Speaker 3 (18:08):
I mean, what is one of my favorite ones to
talk about though, Like the Big Castle from like Little
Mermaid is one of the examples. Right, There's also the Rescuers.
There's like a single frame that they show a naked lady,
like like a human naked lady in one of the windows.
Then there is the word sex that maybe comes up

(18:32):
in the Lion King when someone jumps on a ledge
and like dust and feathers go up in the air
and it forms this word. So like here's usually what
I mentioned when that comes up. What do you think
is worse for your kid that they saw maybe the
word sex for literally fifteen frames, so like half a
second they see this word. First of all, congratulations if

(18:54):
your kids can read that at the age where you
find that they're like so impressionable, but they see the
words and then there's like maybe a dick castle on
the back of the Little Mermaid poster. Do you think
that would be more traumatic to a kid and turn
them into like a prostitute, like now they're going to
be a sex addict for the rest of their lives.
Or is it the fact that Disney is basically doing

(19:17):
this Disney proxy thing where they kill the printal figure,
or they kidnap the kid and put the kid into
an actual state of panic in their real world life,
and then start selling them things. They start showing them
intellectual property that is then going to show up as
Happy Meal toys and lunchbox designs and you know, Halloween costumes.

(19:38):
I guess I would just argue that the ladder of
those right, conditioning someone by weaponizing nostalgia to just sell
them crap for the rest of their life is more
damaging than they might have seen the word sex like
float by in the sky for half a second somewhere.
It's not like you got to pick and choose. You
don't have to have either one of those, but it

(19:59):
just it's it seems that the Easter Egg type like
sort of insertions of these these dicks into the cartoons
and into the marketing material that if anything, I see
as like a like a subversion of Disney. Like some
artists out there was like, Haha, I'm gonna stick a
dick in in your pr and you're gonna spend millions

(20:19):
of dollars and then I'm gonna know there's a dick
in there, which is usually what a lot of those
claims come down to is they're Easter eggs that were
added by rogue animators as opposed to someone high up
in a boardroom was like, you better put a dick
in there, because we're trying to program these kids to be,
you know, like like sex ravaged animals.

Speaker 2 (20:40):
Well, I could agree with that perspective, and I also
know how these things work because I work with people,
and I've most famously given the example of the lady
that couldn't stop smoking and couldn't get her relationships together
because her favorite movie was Bridget Jones's Diary, and she
would put that on every time she wanted to self soothe,

(21:02):
and she ended up living Virgie Jones's life, you know.
And things like that happen all the time with people
because it's really just the emotional content. But when it
comes to this stuff about seeing sex, it's really more
about what the subconscious mind is doing with that repetitively
when it's exposed to that over and over. There's something

(21:24):
about the word sex that makes anybody give you their
unconscious attention for about twenty five minutes. You can tell
them whatever you want to tell him, but whatever the
animators do with that I really don't know. I agree
with you where it's just like but probably a bunch
of weirdos that were like, let's put a cock over here,
you know, and see what everybody does. But to say

(21:46):
that anybody knows for sure exactly why that was done
or what the purpose of something like that is, I
don't know.

Speaker 3 (21:53):
Well, the stories I know the official story for every
one of these instances, and the so the Lion King Sex,
the official Disney story was that this was done by
the new Special Effects department, and it was really the
letters SFX as a nod to their specific department, as like,

(22:15):
look what we're now able to do, because before that
either would have been done with like a really rudimentary
particle physics simulation, which wouldn't have looked great in that
sort of analogue hand drawn Disney revival style. But they
found a way to actually blend those two methods where
it was computer assisted but it was hand drawn particle effects.

(22:35):
So if you take a step back and watch that
scene in detail, let's say that there's no word that
comes up at all, no letters that are discernible. The
fact that that was created by hand assisted digitally was
an achievement according to that particular group of animators at
the time, Right, they were like, Wow, that was a

(22:55):
lot of work. I can't believe that we were able
to pull that off and make it look good. So
it was. So again, this is the official story. The
unofficial is that, Yeah, they put the word sex in
there to program your kids and maybe get their attention
artificially for twenty twenty five minutes. Counter, which I've heard
come up before. Does that mean that if they're just
reading the dictionary and they come up on the word sex,

(23:17):
now for the next twenty minutes, every other word they
read in the dictionary is going to have somehow like
a more profound impact on them for the rest of
their life. And if you were to just cheat code yourself,
you just had a little card that said sex on
it and you just look at it every half hour
of your day, right, Like, does this change your your
like mentality in some way? Maybe there's a secret to

(23:40):
the formula when it's done subtly, right, where like you
don't realize that you're seeing it, and then you're seeing it.
So there's all like it's hard to tell exactly what
the real answer.

Speaker 2 (23:50):
Is, right, right, And yeah, so you're correct in what
you're saying, because then you become hyper sexualized and it's
almost like that stupid drive that we all have to
act out things sometimes through sex that we didn't get
in other times from other people, other places and things

(24:12):
like that. But I think that, like there's a lot
on the subject where just using the sexual imagery embedded
and stuff is just there to get your attention. But
like you were saying, at what point does that stop working?
Or when does it get really bad? And when is
it really good? And that part I actually don't know
for sure. I know that there's a book by Wilson

(24:33):
Brian Keyes and a much older book where he talks
about subliminal seduction and he gives the example of the
Gilby's Gin commercial. Are you familiar with that?

Speaker 3 (24:43):
Yeah? This was cited heavily. Stanley Kubrick apparently had this
book on hand and it was a reason when he
was working on The Shining and according to legend, conspiracy
legend that he also took the findings of this book
and sort of like try to introduce them through his
cinematography and just through like the individual shots in the movie.

(25:05):
I think the cover of that book has an example,
it's like a glass with ice cubes, but the way
the ice cubes are melting in the glass, it forms
the silhouette of like a voluptuous woman. Right, And that
was supposed to be like, I don't know what it
is about this advertisement, but I think I would like
that product, right, that's part of it.

Speaker 2 (25:24):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that one's a weird one. And the
what is it the Skittles berry blast that says sex
or something like that. I forget now, it's been a
while since I've looked at this information.

Speaker 3 (25:38):
Well, even the color red, even adding giving things a
candy sheen to them, like a candy coating. All of
these ultimately lead to some sort of visceral reaction, meaning
that you either see like blood or you see sex,
or you could argue they're kind of one and the
same thing.

Speaker 2 (25:56):
Mm hmm. Yeah. There's a lot of stuff. There's a
lot of stuff that goes into this, and I am
sure that we're making people's heads hurt right now because
it's probably further than they wanted to think today about this,
the Disney stuff. I could see how people would be like, oh,

(26:16):
I'm not gonna let my kid watch this, and then
the kid still turns out just as screwed up as
anything else, because it's just everywhere when it comes to marketing.
And so I don't even know what's the point in
just trying to boycott Disney rnything, because I've seen a
lot of that lately.

Speaker 3 (26:33):
I feel that the boycott aspect is more of a
personal signal. I mean, it's virtue signaling from the other
side of the aisle essentially. I don't think there's anything
wrong with that because clearly, in my mind, Disney's biggest
offense is just that they are printing money, and they
will do anything in the pursuit of more money. So

(26:57):
the only way you really can hit back is to
just boycott or to not purchase any Like maybe I'm
a good example. I haven't paid for anything Disney almost ever, right,
Like even when I worked there, I was taking money
from them, So technically I'm still like they're in the black.
I guess a little bit on me. But one person

(27:18):
not going to see one movie or rented off of
Net or watch it on Netflix and they don't get
their like forraction of a penny from someone watching it
and put on their kids, it immediately gets dwarfed by
someone in the park that just bought like a forty
dollars Hamburger. Right, So it's the boycott would have to
be so multifaceted. It wouldn't just be about the movies.

(27:40):
And this is actually leading into what Here's where I
put my tin andfoil hat on. When it comes to Disney.
I might not care as much about if your kid
can read three letters and gets traumatized because he read
a word that maybe that's a little bit on you.
But what Disney is doing is that they are so
large and so profitable now and own such a large

(28:02):
portion of real estate in your actual brain. Even if
you boycott them, they still own They get free rent, right,
Disney gets free rent no matter you like them or not,
just because of how large and influential they are. And
I think that allows them to maybe not care about
how much profit this next movie makes, or even this
next quarter makes, or this next ten years makes. Obviously

(28:24):
there's people on the board that care about that stuff
for the shareholders, But I'm talking about Walt Disney, his
DNA and just the DNA that he passed on. As
Disney became like a corporate eggregor it realizes almost in
a Fabian society way. I don't care about profits over
the next thirty years. I care about that your great

(28:44):
great grandkids when I say Cinderella or snow White or
any other public domain thing that's been around for four
centuries or more in some cases, I care that when
I say that, you think about Disney owned proprietary ip
that I can trademark, I can own, and I can
charge you money for just conjuring that particular one up
or in a more nuanced version, when you go into

(29:07):
your metaverse VR world and you want to role play
as Alice in Wonderland, like you're buying the Disney trademarked
version of that Alice in Wonderland. And I feel that
that is probably the scariest thing that they're doing, is
that they're literally owning, like like they are trademarking folklore
that predates any of us, predates our great parents and

(29:28):
you know, great great grandparents, and the fact that they're
able to like literally own that, you know. Little Mermaid
wasn't a Disney creation. It was a Hans Christian Anderson book.
It has actual occult, deep meanings to it about the
nature of the human spirit, and how all these other
monsters like mermaids are they're monsters are really just trying
to steal the human soul because they don't have enlightenment

(29:51):
or you know, like a knowledge of God or whatever
you want to fill in that hole. It's just all
about this natural world that's constantly trying to steal what's
unique to humans. That gets glossed over. And again, I
would argue that that's probably more damaging to us as
humanity as a whole, that they're removing these deep messages
that were in these original properties and now it's just

(30:13):
about dick castles and now it's just about dei and
like selling you the next Krabby Patty, you know, like
happy meal to me. That's way more egregious, that has
far more reaching damage that's going to last for generations
more so than like, oh there's a dick on that
poster the right, Like now we don't really understand the
nature of human consciousness because it's been weeded out. It

(30:36):
didn't sell Coca cola as fast, so they just cut
that part. And that's really that is Disney DNA. Even
Old Wall he did the exact same thing when Jungle
Book they adapted it. He told everyone on his team,
don't read If you've never heard about this before, great,
don't read it. I don't want anything about the original story.
We're just leveraging these known characters and a setting and

(30:58):
a title, and we're just gonna shoehorn in our own
mythology into that. And that's really what Disney has been doing.
And I feel that's the most dangerous part of Disney.

Speaker 2 (31:07):
Mm hmm. I would agree with you as well, Like
talking to you was so hard sometimes because it's like
I want to ask these questions that are going to
get you to outpour all of this cool information, and
now you're stumping me because because it's like I started
off thinking, Okay, this is what I want to get
him to talk about, and now we've gone so far

(31:28):
it's like, oh shit, let's take a circle backwards to
something you said earlier. Because it's kind of like how
they sell people ozempic for example, they're tapping into something.
Maybe you've heard the original song that they've changed for
that commercial. You know, like there's something about these art

(31:48):
forms or whatever, whether it's a nice piece of art,
a song, you know, a crazy record that did really well,
but everybody knows it and it gets downloaded somehow into
everybody's consciousness. So every baby that comes playing out in
this world, they're gonna be like, how zimbic because the
song has been downloaded into our consciousness just by pure

(32:13):
popularity alone. Does that make sense to you?

Speaker 3 (32:15):
Yeah? I mean this is common. Like if like you
can tell what age group a car commercial is targeting
based on what music that they're adapting and changing to
be about selling the car. Right, So when me and
you were younger and the car commercials were targeted our parents,
it were these like oldies kind of songs. It was

(32:37):
something that you'd listen on the radio in like the
fifties and sixties, right, and then it slowly started turning
seventies and eighties, and now car commercials are like remixing
boys to men and like sir mix a lot right,
Like now they're into like the nineties era, and you
can just tell it's like, oh, they they're targeting you know,
forty and fifty year olds. Now that's all it is.
And it's such a genius way of doing it because

(32:59):
they'll just find some earworm that everyone was forced to
listen to no matter where you were at, right if
you went to a school function or a bowling alley,
or you went grocery shopping, Like you're hearing this damn
song over and over again, and now that exact song
is gonna sell you a zimpic and it's gonna sell
you a no new like you know, four f one
fifty or whatever the thing is. And it's just like

(33:21):
the most bear basic NLP anchoring. It's saying like, hey,
here's a sound that you liked, and it brings you
back to a point in time when you didn't have
back pain. Isn't that great? Hey? By the way, Coca
Colas on sale on Aisle seven, Right, Like, that's sort
of how that whole trajectory works. And right now, audio
is probably the easiest way to do that because you

(33:44):
can't really shield yourself from that. You maybe put like
ear plugs in or something, right, but if it's visual,
you can look away. If it's audible, you can't. Like,
there's no version of look away from that until we
all have some sort of AI ear sets that will
like dynamically filter stuff out. The next iteration of this,
it's still fairly untapped, is like your old factory sense

(34:05):
because your old factory sense ties to memories way deeper
than any other of our senses. It's like a shortcut
to it. But it can only affect a certain area.
And also like there's a certain nuance, Like you can't
just drop like a crazy amount of smell on someone
and overwhelm thems their senses, because even if it's a
pleasurable smell that links them back to you know, Grandma

(34:27):
or going being in church as a kid, or something
very specific, if it's too much, then your body's like, whoa,
this is too much, Like it'll it'll overflow, it'll saturate
your senses. So one of the examples that I think
they think they mentioned this in Food Nation, but if
you go by like a fast food restaurant, for example,
some of them actually just emit. They have like a

(34:49):
send of what a burger grilling smells like. They're not
actually grilling burgers, or if they are, it doesn't smell great,
and it's just like a steam that evaporates within like
a hundred foot radius, right, But they will find like
a chemically created version of fresh fries or fresh chicken
or whatever this food is and then emit that into

(35:10):
the air. So now as you drive by, you're smelling
it and it's like, oh, man, I remember the last
time I had a burger or whatever like it, like
it'll link you back to that. So audio is the
easiest way to do that. But I think that like
they're constantly finding ways to make that a full sense experience.
But I think we notice it way easier when it's

(35:31):
like an earworm or a song.

Speaker 2 (35:34):
Yeah, I would agree with you. I usually like try
to explain to people, like the Starbucks when you're walking
through the mall type thing. You know, that's how they
get you. You just walk through the mall and you're like, oh,
a coffee smells so good. Next thing, you know, you're
buying a bagel or something that you really shouldn't have.

Speaker 3 (35:52):
You know, Well, there's two which is genius about Starbucks
is their consistency. And not just because you want to
make sure that you like, if you get a Starbucks
on the West coast or the East coast or your overseas,
that it roughly tastes exactly the same and you know
what you're going for, but in terms of like literal
programming someone, consistency is key. So every time you walk

(36:15):
by a Starbucks. If it just smell a little like
it smell a little more burt in this day or
a little sweeter on that day, or they like mixed
up the formula here and there, it wouldn't have the same,
uh like very potent effect that it does when it's
very consistent, because it's like drilling the exact same old factory,
like programming the same anchor you over and over, just
like a magical ritual. Right, the more you do it,

(36:38):
the stronger it gets over time.

Speaker 2 (36:39):
M hm yeah, Okay, So that's no circle back around
to like the Disney thing where they put like pedo
symbols and stuff in things like I've seen that. No,
that one I'm not very familiar with, but I have
seen it the claims of like Moana or something where
there's like the pedo boilerver or whatever symbol in there.

Speaker 3 (37:00):
I'm a little dubious on this one because are we
saying that that pedophiles now own spirals like they have
they just co opted the symbol of which is also
golden ratio we're talking about fi here. That is it's
a spiral, right, So does that mean that pedophiles now
just own for how However, long sacred geometry. Are they

(37:22):
that powerful of a group that they've the same way again,
I guess like the Germans right now, the Nazis for
maybe the rest of our lifetimes, and I don't know
how much longer they own one of the oldest shapes
of the procession of the equinoxes that humankind has ever known.
If you just sit down and plot the equinoxes over
and over, you get this swastika symbol. Right, But because

(37:45):
a reprehensible group did something so bad and associated themselves
with it in such a way, like we're just it's
hands off for us, Like we just have to be
ignorant of the procession of the equinoxes for another couple
centuries until that the heat died down. And I just
don't know if I'm willing to give up the golden
ratio to pedophiles so easily. And if anything, this was

(38:07):
something denoted by like an FBI handbook, And I get like,
if we're talking about like Podesta pizza or whatever the
hell the name of it was, right, that had like a.

Speaker 2 (38:18):
Little pizza whatever it comment pizza.

Speaker 3 (38:20):
Right, if we're talking about something that specific, Yeah, But
I don't I'm not ready to give up all spirals
to pedophiles at like, you know, blank check style like that,
but blank check, maybe I didn't mean that. That's also
a Disney movie about a pedophile, ironically.

Speaker 2 (38:37):
Right, I tend to agree with you on that, because
now you're just looking for things that may or may
not be there. And I hear, like when you mentioned
the Alice in Wonderland programming, I hear people who claim
to have been undermine control ooh googlieve woo. They talk
about that kind of stuff and Peter pen programming and

(39:02):
Disney Princess this type stuff. And I'm like, okay, yeah,
so to a turn degree, I could see what you're
talking about, but I don't see the facts in front
of my face. You know what I mean?

Speaker 3 (39:14):
Well, I mean Peter Pan programming. A lot of those.
You could almost trace a lot of those between John Todd,
but more specifically Fritz Springmeyer. He writes about these exact
things within like Monarch programming, which as far as I
know that one hasn't really been proven on paper, Like
there's no declassified documents that talk about Disney Princess programming

(39:36):
and Monarch and Peter Pan and all this stuff, it's
sort of assumed based on for example, CIA documents really
mentioning this Alison Wonderland programming. I think this was from
a declassified document from like nineteen sixty three or so,
and the Alison Wonderland in particular. It's an interesting one. Basically,
it's just giving someone a whole bunch of random synchronicities

(40:01):
and like false patterns and such a large amount. I
think if this were like a logical fallacy, there's something
called the Gish gallop fallacy, and this is when you
just drop like factoid after factoid. If I just drop
fifty factoids at you now all of a sudden, the
onus is like on you to sit there and go
through every one of those fifty things, and you're obviously

(40:22):
gonna get caught up, especially if I've got them all
pre rehearsed and I have cherry picked them in such
a way. And it also completely distracts whatever we were
talking about. Now, well, guess what. Now you're just gonna
have to go through and knock down these fifty things
that I just dropped on your ass. That's sort of
a Gish gallop. It's a very useful rhetorical technique. But
it kind of negates the original conversation. And that's sort

(40:44):
of what this Alice in Wonderland programming is. It's dropping
so many different things on somebody that they no longer
have the ability to find like a pattern in it.
And then you use them in that state when they're
grasping the fine logic and so thing, and now you
give them the actual programming, Like you give them something
that just has a modicum of logic and they can

(41:06):
kind of grasp on to that, like a person drowning
at sea getting thrown a life raft, right, even the
life raft is made out of like barbed wire and
like razor blades. I mean, like your mind has gone
into a completely different mode when that's secondary, Like that's fine,
I'll cut my hands up or whatever. Maybe it's a
strained analogy, but it's sort of what happens in this

(41:26):
Alice in Wonderland programming. But one of those references, the
fact that the CIA was referencing Disney, does make it
more easy to be like, oh, now there's Peter prarin
programming and Disney Princess programming. I think the difference, which
I'm still looking for, is at any point did Disney
play into that feedback loop. Did Disney say, oh, here's

(41:49):
CIA mind control programming, let's take that and put it
into our movies. I don't think they did. I think
Disney was already so much better at programming than the
CIA ever could have hoped to be. The CIA was
just taking notes. They're just analyzing what other people in
the world are doing that's effective and trying to repeat

(42:09):
that in different you know, like like military related settings.
But I don't think that Disney needs the feedback loop
of the CIA. They don't need to take CIA technology
and put it into their movies. Like their leagues ahead,
they don't operate under the same limitations as the CIA does.
So that's where these two worlds combining get a little odd.
But it also meet like if you were to take

(42:31):
Fritz Springmyer at his word, let's say there's Peter Pran
and there's Disney Princess programming. Of course there is, dude,
because it's an archetype. If you're releasing a product into
the market, right anyone that's ever tried to do this before,
if it's a new product, there's a phase call. I
think it's like customer education, and this is where you've
got to spend time and money to just tell people

(42:52):
about what your thing does before you even try and
sell them on it. They might have a problem that
they don't even know about, so you got to like
educate your customer base and then be like, Okay, now
here's the solution to this thing that you just that
you now know about. And I think that's kind of
where all this this power would go into. It's like
educating them about what the thing is going to be

(43:13):
before you even present the solution to them.

Speaker 2 (43:16):
Yeah, I gotta be honest, I never really believe the
damn word that Fritz Springmere said, to be honest with you,
because it came across to me is more. I don't
want to use the word conjecture really, but he's just
saying a bunch of stuff that he pieced together.

Speaker 3 (43:32):
Kin of Well. So I came across his book in
the nineties, which I think it came out in the
early nineties, and I think I came across it in
like ninety seven or ninety eight just because of how
cool the title was, which was like the formula for
creating an undetectable Illuminati mind control slave or something along
those lines, and it's like, oh, hell yeah, I'm definitely

(43:53):
reading this. And when I read it in the late nineties,
to me, I was like a teenage I was like
thirteen or fourteen probably I was reading it and I
was just now starting to become familiar with computers, and
there was so much of that book that he was
relating to actual computer programming that did make sense. So
and I don't even know if Fritz Springmyer himself was

(44:15):
a computer programmer. He clearly knew someone else that was
if he didn't have this knowledge, But the way that
he was able to explain the human mind and how
to program the human mind direct like with a direct
analogy with real computer programming, it gave it this extra
credit in my mind, not in that it made him

(44:35):
more right, but the things that he was saying it
seemed like it made more sense to me. It wasn't
these crazy things a conjecture. And then when I discovered NLP,
which actually came before him. If anything, Fritz probably was
familiar with NLP and then incorporated some of that without
directly citing a lot of it because it was fairly unknown.
So you could almost seem like you're this authority on

(44:58):
this new novel thing. You're like, oh, by the way,
I got that from these three books by Richard Bandler
and John Grinder. But like, after I discover NLP somewhat
close to reading Fritz Springmeyer, I kind of realized, like, oh,
this is more of that, but without talking about like assassins.
Now we're just talking about how can I sell you
like a printer or something, right, how do I sell

(45:20):
you a timeshare? But it's the exact same programming, and
it's the same way of thinking about things and compartmentalizing
stuff and making these like keywords and triggers. So I
think Fritz was like released that book at the perfect
time because it could speak to like total skitzzos, but
it also had some credibility. But like what you're saying,

(45:41):
you actually try and dig deep, Like he makes claims
about where some of these Project Monarch facilities were under ground,
under like the Denver International Airport. Like once you get
into those specifics and then it kind of falls apart.
But again, it's not fun to drill into those specifics
and disprove conspiracy. That's kind of like like you're being
a bummer at that point, right, you're being the sober

(46:03):
guy at like a party if you're like, hey, wait
a minute, like can't we actually disprove this part?

Speaker 2 (46:08):
But you know, isn't that what it feels like to you?

Speaker 1 (46:11):
Though?

Speaker 2 (46:11):
Like just knowing all this stuff. I feel like that
all the time when people are talking about just about anything,
and I just get that moment where it's kind of
like I'm Homer Simpson just going backwards into that bush.

Speaker 3 (46:23):
Yeah. Well, I think it's about like what is the environment?
Are people talking about this? To have fun and just
to like have engaging small talk, because it's the same
thing with small talks. Someone's like nice weather we're having today,
you know, and then if you start like, well, actually
the barometric pressure is actually probably you know, murder on

(46:44):
someone with like a nasal infection right now, if you
start getting into like the specifics. But no, it's more
about the niceties and about relating to someone else. So
someone's like, man, Disney's programming us and you're like, yeah, man,
that mwana spiral right, And someone else is like, yeah,
bro Epstein, Bro did you hear like Disney had someone
to do with Epstein? And if you can just kind
of kick that ball around. It's sort of fun, right,

(47:05):
But if you're trying to like sharpen your teeth, if
you're actually trying to convince a noormy that walks by
and they're like, you guys are skitzos? Right to actually
be like no, no, no, wait a minute, there's something
to this. It might not be at your behest to
be like, all right, look at this FBI symbol and
now look at this Mowana logo. Isn't that just enough proof?

(47:26):
Like you're probably not gonna get someone unless they're already
so far down the rabbit hole. So I think, if anything,
over the years, my fascination has become more on like
how do you get the surface level normies into the
fold so that they can at least be confronted with
like the Mowana pizza symbols. I don't know if that's
the thing that's gonna sell anyone. That's when like you're

(47:48):
already sold in on everything, but you can definitely get
them and be like, oh, maybe teaching my child that
their toys have souls and to not throw them out,
and that only like license Disney toy This is the
premise of Toy Story, by the way, that only licensed
toys from the manufacturer have souls, and that if you're
using like offhand ones, or if you're that weird creepy

(48:11):
kid that takes broken toys and reassembles them into new toys,
you're Frankenstein right, Like you're creating monsters that are going
to hurt you out in the world. Be safe. Go
to the store and buy like the licensed packaged you know,
like buzz Lightyear that has all the working buttons and everything.
Otherwise you're putting your family in danger. Like that's an

(48:32):
actual message that gets conveyed over toy story one, two
and three, and I feel that that's the real damage.
That's something that they're actually doing to us.

Speaker 2 (48:42):
Yeah, yeah, I agree with you once again, Like the
purpose of this show is really okay, on me backtrack.
I'm the kind of person where I want the facts.
So I am going to go read the seven thousand
page thing study report or whatever and see what it
says in reality. So there's this thing that happens all

(49:04):
the time. We just talk about this, but I'll talk
about it again. Whereas like everything gets summarized and I
learned to be that way, but againing my ass kicked
in like academics. Because there's an example from my school
days where we had to do this Shakespeare presentation and
the teacher was like, you can use the cliff notes

(49:25):
if you want, and I knew it was a trick
because everybody went out and bought the cliff notes and
everybody failed, right, And I learned that if you try
to take the shortcut on something, then you're not going
to get anywhere near close to being able to answer
any real questions about it, and you're going to get
into a lot of trouble. Right. So I think that

(49:46):
got me at an early age, and so I've always
been kind of like, Okay, whatever it is, I better
go read about it. Like I was having this conversation
with a client just this morning and somehow they started
talking about transgenders and how it's a genetic problem and
all this stuff, and I'm like, oh, God, you don't
know what. You don't know because you haven't read anything, right,

(50:07):
you just heard it somewhere and you agree with it.
And that's how it is most stuff.

Speaker 3 (50:11):
Yeah, that's an easy one, uh to gravitate towards two.
And it's to me, it's the same dynamic of like
looking for spirals everywhere, and now you're just like a
like a pedophile hunter. In your normal daily life, you're
going grocery shopping or you got to get like your
tire worked on, and you're just like all over the place.
You're just like, there's a pedal there, there's a pedal there.

(50:33):
And people do that with like the transgender stuff too,
like the transvestigators, where they're just out in public or
they're just reading magazines or watching TV or whatever, and
it's like that bone structure. I bet that dude's a chick,
and I bet that chick's a dude. And like, what
you're doing, though, is you're actively training your brain to
become an expert. Might be the wrong word here, but

(50:53):
you're training your brain to like make it so you're
always in that mode and now you're gonna to process
all information through this very weird lens. And that is
that is actually changing the way that your brain works
and how you're perceiving the world in a non reversible way.
There might be like a year or two some of
these people were like, man, all I was thinking about

(51:14):
was just like who has a dick or not? For
two full years, what else could I have been learning
in that time, right, you didn't learn how to fix
the carburet or anything. You're just learning how to like
check out chicks dicks like out in public. And I
think that it's its own programming, right like that, Like
when when you were saying maybe some of this is
planted or is this like designed? That very well could

(51:37):
be like planting that seed to make people obsessed with
spirals and dicks NonStop, like just them being obsessed with
it might be the only programming they're looking for, because
now that's what's going to be on the mind of
a non zero segment of the population. And all that
ever does whenever they like they segment or compartmentalize us,

(52:00):
it's just for the convenience of targeting. In my mind,
that's the only thing they're doing. So now they can
target you with like, hey, are you afraid everyone's got
a dick? Here's you know, here's a product for you.
That's kind of what it's going to come down to. Yeah,
is that a cameltal or is that a bulge? If
you have a special X ray glasses will light up
a rat or light up green to let you know

(52:21):
if you're looking at a real guy. Or a real girl,
like you know what I mean, that's that's like a
farc farcical version of that, But it's it's content. Content's
the actual product. Because now it's just so much easier
to be like, oh, here's something that you'll sit your
ass down and watch two hours of.

Speaker 2 (52:37):
I feel like this makes me laugh to say out loud.
I feel like a lot of people just are guilty
because they thought Sandra Bullock was really hot when they
were young, and now they're like, God, that's a tranny,
and because somebody said so, and they feel shame about it,
so they're extremely paranoid. But also, like, if we circle

(53:00):
back to the Alison Wonderland thing, I knew a girl
when I was growing up that she had all these
different problems at home and stuff, and Alice in Wonderland
was her favorite movie, the one with is it Johnny
Depp was in that one. I never actually yeah, yeah,
I never actually saw that a version more than five minutes,

(53:21):
and so I don't know what I'm talking about when
it comes to that. But she would constantly put it
on cover to her place and she would just be
walking around like cleaning the house or doing whatever. Regular
chores and it would be playing and she would be
talking along with it. Every line, line by line worked
for a word, no mistakes, and I didn't I don't

(53:41):
want to say that something was clearly wrong with her,
because I don't like to say that something's wrong with
somebody just like that. But she had a lot of
issues with her parents and stuff, and I can't really
remember what the full story was, but I saw that
as like a trauma response somehow. And I feel though,
even though that was really weird to experience, I feel
like that's the way that a lot of people live
their lives anyway. With anything else, they're just parrot the narrative,

(54:05):
parent the narrative.

Speaker 3 (54:06):
I mean, good example, because that also is a book
that was essentially written about bio pedophile maybe about pedophilia
in a way, and just drug induced trances. Right, every
single thing that Alice goes through, she ends up affecting
herself and the outside world based on things that she's consuming,

(54:27):
different pills and tea's and tinctures. And this is in
my mind, if you were to say, like, well, what
would be the bad version, like what's with the swat analysis, Well,
like the cons of this is that it is on
a deep, subconscious level is kind of baking in this
idea of it. Whatever you're going through, there's a substance

(54:48):
that you can ingest which will somehow counteract the thing
that you're going through. If the world seems too big,
you can take a pill that now you're as big
as the world, and vice versa, and all of these
different aspects it and this concept that you're always under
the gun. You've got the rabbit that she's constantly chasing
and he's constantly late for things like all the like
that this is just adding stress, right, but this is

(55:12):
a common theme in TV and movies and just everyday
life is that ticking this ticking timer dynamic and all
of this combined into this one story made visceral through
like all of these cartoons, I think that this one
really does have the possibility. And even if we're talking
about the story or the original Disney animated version or

(55:34):
the Johnny Depp you know, Tim Burton style remake, it's
still the exact same archetypes that are going over it.
And like the Johnny Depp one, it just adds a
little bit on top because now if you know, if
it's we're talking about a girl that you knew she
had like an attraction of Johnny Depp because of Edward
scissor Hands or Sleepy Hollow or any of this other thing.
Like he's on Tiger and teen Bop magazine, and he's

(55:57):
also in this thing that already occupies really state in
your brain. So now it's like doubling down. Now the
six or the nine year old version of you is
just as interested in as the fifteen or the twenty
five year old version because of this like Johnny Depp link.
So again, it's Disney constantly making sure that they own
real estate in your brain. Like they they've actually got

(56:18):
a non zero portion of your thoughts at these different
phases of your life. There's a very real chance that
like as we get into our fifties and sixties, there's
like a much more adult version of Alice in Wonderland.
I believe that was one of the unreleased projects from
Marilyn Manson was he was also working on his own
version of Alice in Wonderland, which would have been like
this adult iteration of it, which would kind of like

(56:41):
fill that gap, right, you'd have like the baby's version,
the angsty teen early twenties version and then like an
adult version. Coh Man, you just said the wrong thing.
Marilyn Manson's another guy that you could just go off on. Well,
he actually did this knowledgeably. There was an with him

(57:01):
that I think was genius, and he was talking about
the remix they did of Sweet Dreams, which was originally
by the Rhythmics, right, and I can't remember the name
of the album. It was like Smells like Candy or something,
but the entire album was was Willy Wonka themed, and
he knew in this interview he was like, I know

(57:22):
that us covering this Rhythmics song is what's going to
get our foot in the door. Like your ten year
old is going to be singing along to this, and
as a parent, you'll be like, oh, I know this
song sweet Dreams, and this is like a cool remix,
not realizing that like every other song on an album
that's like kill your Parents, workship Satan, you know what
I mean, like had like much darker themes to it.

(57:44):
But he realized that that one song was the foot
in the door because it was so innocuous. It was
so like family friendly in a way, even though it
was Marilyn Manson. It was like candy coated and bright colors,
and it had like a Tim Burton esque kind of
feel to it, and it was the perfect trojan horse.
So then like you know, the gateway drug into listening

(58:04):
to Antichrist Superstar, right. So, like it was a very
conscious way of saying, Hey, I know that this is
my least offensive thing that has the most mass pop appeal,
and even though this the one thing doesn't represent what
I'm really about, it's the best way to get my
foot in the door. And I kind of see that
as exactly what we're talking about and all these other
iterations and stuff.

Speaker 2 (58:25):
Hmm. Yeah, it's true. And it's actually very scary how
much people underestimate people like Marilyn Manson and Maynord, James
keenan stuff like that. You know they're actually like genius
level people that they have a totally different image.

Speaker 3 (58:43):
This is like thinking like how dangerous could George W.
Bush be? He's an absolute idiot? Right, Like what if
that's the perfect role. If you can play the fool
card and everyone buys it, now you're sort of justified
in anything that you do because oh he didn't mean it.
He's just out there goofing around, you know, same thing
with like Marilyn Vanson. It's like, oh, just some angsty
teen like if you know he got beginner's luck and

(59:05):
he's soon to nail this. But if you realize that
someone had actually had like a full scaled out plan
of all right, we're gonna find the perfect song that
is going to not offend people, and then we're gonna
release it this way and make that the highlight and
then get them to buy albums. Like, once you realize
that there's like a master plan behind some of it,
then that's kind of where conspiracy comes in. Right now,

(59:26):
It's like, oh, how far back does this go? Who
is in on this?

Speaker 2 (59:31):
Interscope Records with their spiral exactly? God damn, Jimmy Iovien,
I don't know. So what do you think is the
purpose of the Barbie movie? Because that was weird? Dude, Really, the.

Speaker 3 (59:45):
Barbie move is. It's so crazy you mentioned the Barbie
Move and we were talking about Fritz Springmeyer because, uh,
in my in my opinion, the Barbie Movie is the
absolute best representation of what Fritz spring Meyer is talking
about when he's describing how you can create multiple personalities

(01:00:07):
in someone. Largely, what Fritz spring Meyer's book that we're
talking about amounts to is how can you traumatize someone
in such a way that their psyche can no longer
handle it and it'll actually split away from itself. It'll
create a new version of paranoid American that doesn't have
the recollection of this horrible thing that he just went through.
And now, like, my name is Sally, and then something

(01:00:28):
horrible happens to my fake personality Sally, and now there's
like a Jimmy, right, and Jimmy can store information that
Sally doesn't know. And it's a way of compartmentalizing somebody
and stuffing them full of memories or programming or whatever
it is. And Fritz spring Meyer's version of this, it
gets really dark. And actually recreate this somewhat in one

(01:00:50):
of my comic books and Times Samplers issue three, it
kind of details this entire process, but at a high level.
Spring Mere talks about snatching up these kids, either like
right after they're born or grabbing them off the streets
basically when they're still developing, like the world around them,
and they would put them in this thing called a

(01:01:11):
woodpecker grid, and the Woodpecker grid, similar to what we
were talking about the Alison Winterland programming, where you just
like randomly throw stuff know what's coming next. The Woodpecker
grid did this at a physical level, where I had
electrified cages that would just shock you at random intervals,
random in that you couldn't attact the pattern and like
brace yourself, like up, it's been five minutes and embrace myself.

(01:01:34):
There was no pattern to it. So if you spent
enough time in one of these electrified Woodpecker grids that
your mind would just give up. It would just be like,
you know, I don't know when the next time I'm
getting shocks coming. I give up. Just whatever you're gonna
do to me, just do it to me, because I
can't handle this anymore. As soon as that would happen,
they would send in the programmer or this perceived authority

(01:01:56):
figure which would save them from this Woodpecker grid. So
now they've got this like superhero savior bond they're developing
with the subject, and as the subject is looking at
them like you know, you're my savior, thank God, you
saved me. Everything's good now, then the programmer does something
horrific to the person and it's a complete inversion. They

(01:02:16):
went from looking at someone as if they were their
savior and now they're doing the worst possible thing ever
to them. In the Barbie movie, they reenact this in
kind of a genius way. It's the very end of
the movie and Barbie is realizing that Ken has been
programmed by like toxic masculinity out in the real world
and he's bringing it into Barbie world. And it's like,

(01:02:39):
you know, like go make me a sandwich, babe, or like, oh,
you know, I'll give you, you know, seventy cents out
of the dollar if we do this job. It's very
very much like the most cliche version of this toxic
masculinity patriarchy thing, and Barbie's like, how do we unprogrammed Ken?
And the way that they do it is they invite
Ken over to play her song and it's like all

(01:03:00):
these different like the Black Canon, the Asian Can, and
the Hispanic Can, like all the different Kens match up
with their corresponding barbiees, and Barbie is like inviting him
to serenade on the beach and he like learns how
to play guitar, and essentially it's a tender moment like
Ken amongst this, this patriot, this patriarchal like toxic masculinity

(01:03:22):
ego that he's taken on and adorned. Like the most
vulnerable he can make himself is like sitting down and
singing a sweet song to his girlfriend. So Barbie kind
of like pushes this right and feeds into it and like, yeah, yeah,
open up to me, Ken, you know, be vulnerable. That's
what I need right now. I need a guy that's vulnerable.
And he does all this and as soon as he

(01:03:44):
finishes his song, she basically laughs in his face and
it's like, wow, your that song sucked. You are such
a weak, like poor excuse for a man like does
the exact opposite of what Ken was hoping for. Regardless
the fact that his guard was completely down. He made
himself so vulnerable, and at that most vulnerable moment, Barbie

(01:04:04):
goes on for the attack and does not let up.
She's absolutely brutal to him. This is about as viscerals
they can make in the Barbie movie, Like she's not
like physically assaulting him, but you can extrapolate what this
would look like in like a dark sea ungeine right,
like someone at their most vulnerable you go and save them.
You get them into their safe space, and then you
attack them in their safe space. And as soon as

(01:04:26):
that happens in the movie, you actually see Ken like
glitch out, and then Barbie starts planting all of her
programming what she wants Ken to act like into this
new like personality that gets created by this absolute schism.
Fritz Springmeier describes this as a divide by zero, so
she gets Ken to divide by zero like he was

(01:04:47):
a calculator that glitches out. And now here's what you
should really be acting like, here's what your thoughts should be.
So I mean, that's what I think about the Barbie
movie is actually pretty phenomenal, and that it explains in
a g rated way how this programming really can work,
how you can create a personality in someone like monarch style.

Speaker 2 (01:05:09):
Again, I agree with you, because when that came out,
I saw how people act and I realized that the
vast majority of people have no idea what they've just witnessed.
And back to the Fritz Springmeier thing. As a person
who works every day with people doing this kind of work,
it's like somebody had to be feeding him information or something,

(01:05:33):
because some of the things that he says, like, how
would you know that? You know, like he didn't read
that anywhere else.

Speaker 3 (01:05:40):
Well, and even if he made it up, the fact
that so much of what he was let's say he
made it all up right, it was all work of fiction.
He was kind of on the money for a lot
of it. So now he's almost like a prophetic sci
fi writer that predicts, you know, like like Dick Tracy's style,
or like, oh, everyone's going to have a little wristwatch

(01:06:00):
that they can like see who they're talking to and
talk through it and order lunch and stuff, and it's like, okay,
let's let's let children's cartoons be children's cartoons. But yeah,
frit Fritz either have sort of inside connection or he
was just an absolute prophet, And I would probably air
towards the former, right that he probably came across some

(01:06:22):
sort of documentation, heard something, was privy to how things
were actually working, and then was able to sort of
retell it like there's there's absolutely a game of telephone
quality to the book that he put out right, like
like he's rehashing so much and he's blending things in,
but it also has like for the early nineties, it

(01:06:43):
has kind of groundbreaking revelations that just get ascribed to
sort of things that would be hard to prove. But
the techniques that he describes are are efficient, like they
actually work.

Speaker 2 (01:06:57):
Yeah, it boggles my mind, honestly. I see a lot
of stuff with a lot of people. I think that
there's two different parts of me that live inside my head,
not in a split like we were just talking, but
there's a part of me that's really compassionate because I've
heard so much terrible stuff and I see a lot
of stuff that is just blatant mind control. But you

(01:07:19):
can't you can't necessarily tell your client, yeah, you're under
mind control, or you hypnotize them sometimes and stuff just
comes out. And it hasn't happened to me yet, but
I wonder when that day is going to come where
I'm just in somebody's mind and then there's like a
government cap on something, you know.

Speaker 3 (01:07:39):
Like a like a they start beeping and they're like
leave the room in ten seconds, will self destruct?

Speaker 2 (01:07:46):
Yeah, any anything like that or worse, Because I've come
close to a lot of things just coming out of
somebody's mind and it gets it gets dark, and it
gets scary real fast. To be honest with you, I
just had something like that happened this morning, so it's fresh.

Speaker 3 (01:08:03):
In my mind.

Speaker 2 (01:08:04):
Anyways, let's move on to the Simpsons. How does that
even work? Like, what do you think is the agenda
with the Simpsons really, because it annoys me these days
when everybody's like, ah, predictive programming, they're telling you what
they're going to do, well are they?

Speaker 3 (01:08:17):
Or well, this is the Simpsons is still current, right,
They're still creating episodes of the Simpsons. So the Simpsons
has this weird benefit where they're seen as but then
they can take things that have happened and then illustrate
them and put them into a show and through mendala

(01:08:39):
effect or just like people's poor memories. One of the
best examples is the scene of like Donald Trump coming
down an escalator, right, and it's like, oh, my god,
the Simpsons predicted that. Well, actually that episode came out
after Donald Trump came down that escalator. It was it
was a Simpsons animating something that had already happened. But

(01:09:00):
then it just gets clipped by one person that says, oh,
this came out a year before, which isn't true. But
everyone kind of jumps on board because The Simpsons has
made so many I mean, the South Park had an
entire episode called Simpsons Did It or They're just like
any idea? And this was the South Park creators like
they're frustration of they would come up with this funny

(01:09:21):
gag or like a really funny episode idea and start
fleshing it out just to realize like the Simpsons had
already done that episode idea like ten years ago. Because
they've had like hundreds and hundreds of episodes, they've kind
of gone through the full gamut of every single trope
you can come up with. But the Simpsons also has
a very real access to things that are coming. And

(01:09:44):
this is one of my fun connections is Bohemian Grove.
So the guy that does the voice for mister Burns
and Auto and a whole host of Simpson's characters from
day one, right, this guy, Harry Shearer, he's the one
that does Mister Burns most recognizably, and he was a
guest member of Bohemian Grove, which means that he got

(01:10:07):
to go and attend to Lakeside Talk. And if anyone
isn't familiar with this, you've probably heard of Bohemian Grove.
This is the place that Alex Jones infiltrade in the
nineties and he got footage of all of these industry
titans and politicians like literally wearing hooded robes and participating
in this pagan sacrifice ritual where they burn an effigy

(01:10:28):
and the voice of Walter Cronkite literally comes through these
redwood trees and talks about, you know, how they're chasing
away the cares of the world. It's very very pagan.
It's very like you just worked, like walked in on
like a Phoenician ritual to Molik essentially, like it's a
very old school sort of ceremony. But at this when
they're not doing that ceremonial stuff, they have talks. It's

(01:10:51):
like going to a convention. And one of those talks
is called Lakeside talks, and it's when politician or a
president or someone at the height of industry comes and says,
here's what we've been working on, and here's what you
can expect over the next five to ten years. And
you act like this is some deep insider knowledge, like
I guarantee you there's people making like stock buys based

(01:11:11):
on the stuff they hear at these Lakeside talks. But
ultimately it's just to say like, hey, you're in the club,
and here's one of the benefits of the club is
you get a heads up on these sweeping changes they're
going to be going through industry and culture and government
and everything. And if you've got a writer of The
Simpsons at one of these Lakeside talks taken notes, it's like, oh,
here's all the things that are happening in the next

(01:11:32):
five to ten years. So now working some of those
changes they heard about into their storylines not only lets
them write about something where they can get the jump
start where now they're not competing with South Park writers
because they actually know something crazy that's about to happen
that they'll they'll be topical by the time they're done
working on it, right, But it also means that there

(01:11:55):
is a member of the Simpson at least one, probably
a lot more than one, that gets inside better knowledge
and can incorporate this into And now you can feed
into this idea that The Simpsons is more than just
a cartoon. It's a prophecy, Like why would you not
lean into that if you get a royalty check from
every single time someone references it or every time someone
watches like a repeat, especially if you were in there

(01:12:17):
since season one, right if you're the original mister Burns
and auto. So I think that there's like a self
serving aspect of that that yeah, they are prophetic, but
also the general population feeds into that. All they got
to do is like make the most general and vague
of claims, and the internet does the rest of the
work for them. They'll put together all the little pieces

(01:12:39):
and be like, here's the proof, right, and no one's
going to stop them from doing that because it works
out for everybody.

Speaker 2 (01:12:44):
Yeah, but the same thing's happen when somebody says XYZ
study was done over here that proves that this thing
is the reason for this thing. That equation is used
all the time on the internet, and then when you
go actually read this study, they tell you, okay, there
was an agenda here. We actually set out to prove

(01:13:05):
this point. That's what we paid for. We did whatever
we could to find it. Or you go read it
and you're like, okay, yeah, well we found out this information,
but it was actually inconclusive, right.

Speaker 3 (01:13:17):
But just the fact that someone did the study and
to give credit that the claim of the study is
accurate just because someone was willing to spend money and
time on it, which is a dangerous precedent to train
yourself into accepting as proof.

Speaker 2 (01:13:32):
Yeah, exactly, exactly.

Speaker 3 (01:13:35):
Honestly, this relates directly back to mk ultra too, Like,
out of the one hundred and sixty some odd subprojects
that we know about, I mean, I don't know what
your experience is with the government, but every single thing
the government tries isn't necessarily successful. It's not even always
based on something factual. It's just if you throw one

(01:13:57):
hundred pickles at the wall, you hope they just few
of them stick and then you can like move on
with those ones. So this comes up in mk ultra,
where just because the military did a study on a
particular thing doesn't mean that that thing is valid or
even efficient. In fact, one of the and I guess
into like the boring debunking area where it's like I

(01:14:19):
don't want to hear that, man, I don't want to
hear that every single thing I've ever read about mk
ultra is just all true because that makes the world
more fantastic, right, But even one of their sort of
like star programmers, Doctor Lewis Jollyton West. They just call
him Jolly West. He kind of made a claim, dubious
claim because his dubious person, but he basically stated that

(01:14:40):
out of all the weird mk ultra like torture and
interrogation techniques and drugs and everything that they could do
to a person, sleep deprivation was like the most reliable,
Like you didn't have to go and farm out or
get a chemist in the room or sort of like
weird hypnosis techniques. If you just prevent someone from sleeping

(01:15:01):
for about seventy two hours by just randomly waking them
up with loud noises or lights or not allowing their
body to even figure out its normal circadian rhythm, like
they don't know if it's night or day. After about
three days, the human mind just becomes a sponge grasping
on again. It's like that drowning man at sea that'll
just grasp onto anything. Three days of no sleep, you

(01:15:22):
can just start planting ideas in someone's head and they
won't even remember it afterwards. And if you can develop
like an actual technique, like a structure, and put someone
on a regiment of doing this constantly, that's just as
potent as any weird like strange chemical that they might
come up with in some rainforest, right, just don't let
them sleep for three days. So I think that that's

(01:15:44):
something to keep in mind too, is that it's not
always complex and just every single study that's ever been
done is in proof of that study.

Speaker 2 (01:15:53):
Yeah, I haven't said all of that. You mentioned the
Donald Trump thing. The Donald Trump thing is a phenomenon
in itself because I remember watching the music video for
that Rage Against the Machine song. I can't remember what
it is. This is when that came out when I
was a kid, and somebody in the crowd tolling up
a science is Donald Trump for president? Right?

Speaker 1 (01:16:16):
You?

Speaker 3 (01:16:17):
I even realize is it like Boson Parade or something.

Speaker 2 (01:16:20):
I don't think it's Boson parade, And it's not killing
in the name of either I can't remember, but there
was a music video for it, and there's stuff like
that that has happened basically in pop culture, in music
videos repetitively where they allude to Donald Trump being president,
or even a movie like Home Alone, where he's present

(01:16:42):
in that movie and then you see like the American
flag behind him conveniently, and things like that. Now I
have a very different perspective on Donald Trump because from
the age of four to fourteen, I spent every single
one of my summers in Manhattan with my uncle and
he basically lived near Trump Towers, and so I've seen

(01:17:06):
Donald Trump come out. He'd wave at us. So I've
seen the actual person in real life, whereas the most
people that talk shit about Donald Trump's never actually seen
him in real life and never been acknowledged by him
as a person at all in any way big or small.
So I've come across people that, you know, my uncle
knows and stuff that they call, yeah, Donald Trump's a

(01:17:26):
really nice guy, you know, and you get all these
different conflicting opinions. So it's just it's weird just talking
about Trump. I'm not pro Trump, but it's just weird
when I hear people.

Speaker 3 (01:17:39):
Talk that's funny too, because of Donald Trump that comes
out and waves to you as like a kid, Like
there's a very real chance that like that day or
that week, he was making deals with the mafia right
in order to get some building like put up or something. So, yeah,
he's as nice as a guy that works with the
mafia could possibly be, right, And I think that he

(01:18:03):
also represents this like the there's a version when the
four five hundred comes out, or like the Richest People
in the World lists come out, right, and it's like
there's the people that are rich and their name is
in the magazine, and then there's people that are rich
and their names not in the magazine that are probably
even richer than the ones that do have their names

(01:18:23):
in it. And Donald Trump is like one of those
people that still looks like a human because he's willing
to be like, hey, it's me, I'm the rich Donald
Trump guy. Like he actually plays the same persona instead
of being this like behind the shadows kind of figure.
And I think that that is its own archetype, Like
that's a more powerful archetype for the normies because he

(01:18:46):
gets to be a figurehead of capitalism in this way. Right,
he's like the rich real estate New York developer guy
that really likes gold. Like that just becomes his persona
and now he's like a household name. Now he's like
a brand name, Like he was an actual brand name
for you before he even runs for president. Like you're
mentioning like why was he in home alone? Why was

(01:19:08):
he in people? Why did rappers constantly throw his name
out there because just by being like Donald Trump, it
conjures up the idea of gold and power and like
ruthless business acumen and just embracing capitalism. So I think
that he kind of realized at a certain point, like, oh,
I'm an archetype, Like my reputation of my name and

(01:19:30):
my brand precedes me as a person. And it was
a genius stroke to like convert that capital into political
capital because now he has an actual dynasty that's he's
building towards that can outlast generations. Right now, there's a
much better chance. And one hundred years from now World

(01:19:51):
War three aside, Right, But like if someone with the
last name and lineage of the Trump family and one
hundred years from now, after we're all dead and our
grandkids are dead, if they run for president, they have
a much better chance than someone with a name that
no one's ever heard of before, just just brand recognition.
And I think that he's enough of a capitalist to
understand how the markets work that it's not going to

(01:20:13):
change that much in one hundred years, Like people are
still going to fall for the same brand recognition techniques
that they would today.

Speaker 2 (01:20:20):
Well, I would argue that he does that on purpose
as well, because he was trained by Norman Vincent Peel
in NLP and all that stuff. So Donald Trump knows
exactly what he's doing all the time, whereas there's people
that have this perception of him where he's just dumb it.
Like we were saying, it's easy to play the dumb
guy because then people won't suspect you of evils.

Speaker 3 (01:20:40):
Right, that's dangerous, bro, because if you're assuming someone else's
is dumber than you, there's no risk to them. It's
win win for them, really, because either they are dumber
than you and now like you're acknowledging it and you
might treat them differently, or you're wrong about it, and
now you're the dumb one right out of the two.
If I'm like, oh, George W. Bush is such an idiot,

(01:21:03):
now I'm the dumb one because I'm underestimating someone that
clearly has more acumen than I'm giving them credit for.
And if you train yourself to be that way, to
just look around and be like, everyone's so much stupider
than I am, it might be self serving, but now
you're gonna get swindled way easier, right, because you're assuming

(01:21:24):
that you're like a leg up on everybody. So if anything,
assume everyone is way smarter than you. Assume you're the
dumbest one in the room. And then at least it's
like you can pleasantly surprise yourself maybe, but at best
you can be on guard more. You can actually be like, damn,
dude I'm about to talk to is probably an NLP
freaking master right now. You can kind of have your

(01:21:45):
defensive up a little bit.

Speaker 2 (01:21:46):
Yeah, exactly. That's kind of how I live my life,
just assuming that everybody out there might actually be a sorcerer.
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:21:53):
That's how I drive. I drive like I assume that
everyone on the road is actively trying to kill me.
Like that guy swerving in it out of the lane,
he's not just distracted, he's testing me, like he wants
to off me, right, And it makes you a better
defensive driver as opposed to just like, oh, things will
work out.

Speaker 2 (01:22:11):
Yeah, precisely. And back to the Donald Trump thing. I
just love how everybody was like, oh, Donald Trump's going
to depour everybody. He hates Mexicans. And again, I grew
up in an environment where I was exposed to people
that work for him because they were friends and my
uncle and they're like, Donald Trump's the coolest guy you've
ever met, Like he's you know, it's just weird. It's
weird how things turn out with this kind of stuff.

(01:22:32):
You never really know who's who and what they're religenda is,
especially if they have a lot of money and people
are right now they're losing their shit. I haven't even
really bothered to pay any more attention to what's going
on because they seem to be phrasing things in a
way like it's it's Donald Trump and it's only Donald
Trump alone that's doing these things to America.

Speaker 3 (01:22:52):
I mean, the worst assumptions that you might have about
and let's say he's like a killer and a rapist
and a cheet and and it fell in and like
all of the worst things. Like I kind of think
that those are the qualifications to be a president. The
only the only thing that would be disqualifying is that
if you are so much those things and have such

(01:23:15):
little pr poll that you can't overcome them, then that
disqualifies as being president. It's not being a rapist or
a criminal. I mean, look at Bill Clinton, right, Bill
Clinton was a rapist, and a criminal, but he just
knew how to play those cards and like, ah shucks,
here listen, he played saxophone and he saw me up
on the mediaccenttro right, Like he can play that stuff
off with like this weird southern charm, which I would

(01:23:38):
argue that's just NLP, but maybe naturally, he just naturally
has charisma and knows how to build rapport with people
without halving to take an NLP class. But someone else
can learn how to do those things and achieve sort
of the same goals. But I think you want that person.
You don't want someone that isn't a killer. That's kind
of what he came out with the first time that

(01:23:59):
I'll like, oh, this guy is a little bit different.
Someone asked them was like how dare This was before
he ran in twenty sixteen, I think, And it was like,
are you saying that our CIA has you know, done
horrific things that they're war criminals? And he paraphrasing, he
was like, the CIA are killers? You think killers don't
do killers?

Speaker 2 (01:24:19):
Shit?

Speaker 3 (01:24:19):
You know what I mean? Like it was such a
raw acknowledgment of like, of course they do these bad
things that you're trying like if you think you're trying
to trick me into like being an American by claiming
the CIA criminals. You're like, let me just say it,
the CIA murderers and criminals. But like we need them
to do that job, because if we don't, if America
doesn't have murders and criminals out in the world, then

(01:24:41):
like we have a we're not a leg up on
Russia and China and all the other countries that have
no qualms about that. So part of it is like,
do you want me to just lie to you and
your face right now? Is that what you're really looking
for or are you trying to gauge whether or not
I know about this? And I think that Trump in
a way like he's making the so eric exoteric in

(01:25:01):
some ways, Like I'm sure he's got his own secrets,
and I'm sure like his like his art of the
deal in the Roy Cohne training, like he's probably not
going to let that out of the bag as easily
as some of the other things that he's got going on.
But I think that he's like, I'll be your gangster prince.
I think that's what Alistair Crowley called it in one
of his works where the breakdown of like the Golden

(01:25:24):
Bow or the Golden Bough. Shout out to my friend
David Charles' plate that put me onto all this, But
like the Golden Bough is essentially when a challenger from
a foreign kingdom comes the challenge a new king, and
the Golden Bow is like he's pulling down this branch
on this family tree and ripping that branch off. That's
him like removing the current king and sitting in his place.

(01:25:44):
That's you taking over a kingdom, and that over time.
Alistair Crowley argued that this challenger could no longer be
someone that was like fully virtuous. It can't be the
fool that's like never done anything wrong in his life
and has no dirt to be like an al Capone.
It needs to be a Robin Hood, like someone that
is literally like, yeah, I'm out here stealing, but I'm

(01:26:06):
stealing from rich people and I'm giving it to poor people.
I'm doing like the right kind of stealing. I'm the
right kind of criminal. And that's sort of the archetype
that I think Donald Trump represents and which is a
stark contrast to every other person's run for president. They're like, oh,
I'm virtuous. I've never even like coughed without excusing myself.
I would never do anything bad. You know, I wouldn't

(01:26:27):
be a war criminal, no way, I wouldn't support any
of that. And then Donald Trump comes out, He's like, yeah, yeah,
I think I am. I think I am a war criminal.
But it's good for me and it's good for you.
Like he has this different energy to him, and I
think that's the dangerous part. And I also think that
that is seen as more egregious than anything that he

(01:26:47):
actually does, is the fact that he's willing to own it,
and it's he's seen his crass right, He's seen as
like not fit for office. But I do think that
like that's the version we need. We need like the
al Capone style president at a certain point, and people
are ready for it. Clearly they're ready for it.

Speaker 2 (01:27:05):
So in closing, where do you think this whole shit
show is going to You think positive things are coming
or you think we're just going to be as screwed
as error.

Speaker 3 (01:27:13):
For me, I see it as net positive. I do
think that the world's going to get harder to live
in and more moral decline is going to continue on
the same trajectory I don't think that Donald Trump's the
one that comes in and fixes the decline of morality
across the board. If anything, he might be a little
bit of gas on the fire. But if I'm doing

(01:27:33):
that same swat analysis and I'm listing pros and cons
for me in a selfish way, the pros are people
are now more interested in the JFK assassination than they've
ever been in my entire lifetime, maybe excluding the release
of the Oliver Stone movie with Kevin Costner. There was
like a slight peak for maybe like five or six

(01:27:54):
years when people cared about JFK assassination, and then it
went back to like, ah, that's my grandpa cared about that.
I don't care about that. Now that's back in sort
of the news. And I think that it's a net
positive to have an inherent distrust and intelligence agencies, just
as like a blanket statement, And I don't know if

(01:28:14):
we would have had that same sort of scrutiny the
same thing where like now people are being forced to
talk about the merits of completely dismantling the irs. Right,
This isn't something that has even been part of public
discussion since JFK was in office, and I can't remember
what happened to him, but for some reason they didn't
get rid of the irs while he was president. I

(01:28:34):
think he got voted out or something. But now this
is now the very first time ever that these conversations
are being had again, and I feel that they're like
long overdue. So in that selfish regard, like from a
conspiracy theorist standpoint, I feel that this is like the
golden era of conspiracy theories, for better or worse. But
I like that. I think that that's a net positive

(01:28:55):
for all of us. I don't know if he's going
to make eggs free or eggs are going to cost
like a dollar eighty nine. I don't know if that's
on the trajectory. I think that he would be an
idiot not to make the claim, not to make that promise,
and if it would help him get some extra votes,
but I don't think that he's he's writing you know,
checks or letters to the grocery stores. It's like, all right,

(01:29:16):
knock off ten bucks off those eggs, guys, like let's
get this in order. I don't think that's really his role.
And if you if you voted on him because you
thought that was then he did his job right, like
the campaign did its job and making you think that,
But really he's here to do something different.

Speaker 2 (01:29:31):
He's here to set up a new dynasty for his family, right.
I cannot argue with any of that. Thanks for being
on the Bonus Authenticity Podcast. Just tell everybody where they
can find you again, Paranoid.

Speaker 3 (01:29:41):
American dot com mostly comics and books and shirts and
all that stuff. And then I've also got a podcast,
same places that you can find where you're listening to this.
If you just search for Paranoid American podcast, it'll come up.
And I actually talk about a wide variety of topics,
not all just conspiracy theories and stuff like I've got X,
like homicide detectives come on and we break down like

(01:30:04):
murder cases. I do tarot card reviews. We talk about
video games and movies and all the things. So, yeah,
come over and listen to some of the stuff that
I got.

Speaker 1 (01:30:13):
Awesome, you're listening to the Boundless Authenticity Podcast, where we
discuss everything related to the evolution of human consciousness. At
the very least, us we need to understand in the
United States builds bunkers, which are basical cities on your ground.

Speaker 2 (01:30:37):
Every three months, basically into your self conscious, your loves, intuition, will, creativity.

Speaker 3 (01:30:45):
And imagination unshamed, so conscious and lit all.

Speaker 2 (01:30:51):
Real life soul.

Speaker 3 (01:30:53):
I have cultious cultures of the right.

Speaker 2 (01:30:57):
We live in a multi dimensional reality, whether it comes
through the enteric.

Speaker 1 (01:31:00):
Information in the spiritual realms, or the UFO.

Speaker 2 (01:31:03):
People experiences, or mainstreams and on the physics and through
natrem science, and now realizing that parallel dimensions probably exists.

Speaker 3 (01:31:09):
We're all spiritual means. We're all having these human experiences.
We've heard that place over and over and over, but what.

Speaker 2 (01:31:15):
Does that really mean? And all of the questions about
we have these answers inside of ourselves.

Speaker 3 (01:31:21):
We're ultimately studying the nature of what it is to
be human, good and evil, of our psychology, how we
fit in our health.

Speaker 1 (01:31:27):
That's why I love Bruce Lee's great quote all knowledge
is ultimately self knowledge.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Disney, MK Ultra, Subliminal Seduction with Paranoid American

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

Disney, MK Ultra, Subliminal Seduction with Paranoid American

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce