As an example of a seemingly unbridgeable gulf between perspectives, let’s look at the popular conspiracy theory about “Satanic mind control in Hollywood.” Besides a seemingly endless stream of YouTube videos and Reddit threads, there are a few popular books that cover the subject matter, for example, Esoteric Hollywood by Jay Dyer, Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon by Dave McGowan (about the music industry in the 1960s), and The Illuminati in Hollywood: Celebrities, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies in Pop Culture and the Entertainment Industry, by Mark Dice. There are also first-hand survivor testimonies such as Brice Taylor’s unfortunately titled Thanks for the Memories: The Truth Has Set Me Free! The Memoirs of Bob Hope’s and Henry Kissinger’s Mind-Controlled Slave.
If we extend the scope a bit further, there is “Pizzagate,” the widespread conspiracy theory about an occultist child sex ring operating through and underneath Comet Ping Pong, a high-power pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C, with links to the Clinton Foundation and beyond. The broad stroke of all of these theories is that, beneath and within the social hierarchies of the celebrity entertainment industry, there exists a hidden (occult) system of rituals and initiations that involves mind control, drugs, child sex trafficking, and blood sacrifice, often (though not always) in the context of Satanic belief, imagery, and worship.
Articles and accounts relating to this subject matter tend to be lurid and sensationalistic; often they seem improbable to the point of absurdity, sometimes almost deliberately so. And yet . . . dismissing them out of hand is a lot harder than many people might wish. The reason it’s not so easy to dismiss these theories is twofold: first of all, they are often sourced in actual claims by victims, so to dismiss them without investigation risks cruelty, even complicity with the crimes described. Secondly, wild and fragmented as these accounts may be, they do refer at least some of the time, as we shall see, to provable facts.
An Ideological Informational Divide
“Being confident that there is ground beneath one’s feet when one needs to plant them firmly is an enabling condition of making a sober judgment. In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates makes a similar point about the political role of orators (read ‘masters of spin’) who boasted that they had great power because they could manipulate people to believe whatever they wanted them to believe.” —Raimond Gaita, “Even Socrates drew the line at spin”
Before we get to those facts, let’s start at the lurid and seemingly absurd end of the spectrum, namely, the current widespread belief in (and equally widespread ridicule of) The Illuminati. Even here, there is a solid historical basis to the belief (18th century Bavaria, Adam Weishaupt, etc.). Curiously enough, there is also an openly fictional basis to it (Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, The Illuminatus Trilogy, 1970s, USA). And then there’s the current manifestation, in which it is seemingly impossible to distinguish one from the other, to separate overt fiction from covert disinformation from reality, myth from history from prank.
In a recent online UK article (The Week), for example, David Bramwell, who claims to have dedicated himself to documenting the origins of the Illuminati myth, told the BBC that “the modern-day Illuminati legend was influenced not by Weishaupt but rather by LSD, the 1960s counter-culture, and specifically a text called Principia Discordia.”
The book extolled an alternative belief system—Discordianism—which preached a form of anarchism and gave birth to the Discordian movement which ultimately wished to cause civil disobedience through practical jokes and hoaxes. One of the main proponents of this new ideology was a writer called Robert Anton Wilson who wanted to bring chaos back into society by “disseminating misinformation through all portals—through counter culture, through the mainstream media,” claims Bramwell. He did this by sending fake letters to the men’s magazine Playboy, where he worked, attributing cover-ups and conspiracy theories, such as the JFK assassination, to a secret elite organization called the Illuminati.
Wilson went on to write The Illuminatus Trilogy with Robert Shea, a massive (“surprise”) cult success that was eventually made into a stage play in Liverpool (it was British actor Bill Nighy’s stage debut).
The Week continues:
Despite its relative popularity . . . the idea of a powerful modern Illuminati conspiring to rule the world remained a niche belief upheld by a handful of cranks until the 1990s. The spread of the internet changed all that, giving conspiracy theorists a global platform to expound their beliefs and present their evidence to a massive audience.
The article cites—dismissively—alleged former MI6 agent John Coleman’s claim that “the Beatles’ overwhelming transatlantic success was engineered by the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, a London-based social research group—or, as theorists would have it, a nefarious organization dedicated to eroding the bedrock of US society.” It also mentions that, while Katy Perry makes fun of the idea she belongs to the Illuminati, Madonna “might just be a believer. . . . Speaking to Rolling Stone, she hinted that she had secret knowledge of the group. The claim is not so shocking given that she released a single titled ‘Illuminati.’ She said: ‘People often accuse me of being a member of the Illuminati, but the thing is, I know who the real Illuminati are.’”
How many levels of deception are we looking at here? Did Madonna really say this? Did she really mean it if she did? Did she really know what she was talking about if she said it and meant it? If she said it and meant it and knew what she was talking about, was she deliberately spreading disinfo, being tricked, trying to be a whistleblower, all three, or none of the above? And so on. We might raise similar questions about the recent Kevin Spacey video in which he pretends to be pretending to be Frank Underwood, the character he played in House of Cards before he was erased from the show for allegedly committing sexual abuse crimes. In the video (which no one seems to know the exact purpose or meaning of), Spacey seems to be addressing the real-life sexual abuse charges as if they were part of a fictional scenario—which for all we know for sure, they could be. Accordingly, the strange artifact seems to have divided audiences down the middle. Mirrors within mirrors.
Returning to the Illuminati, in February 2018, Simon Parkes, a former Labor London borough councilor and town councilor for Whitby, in North Yorkshire (a town I visited often as a child), made some equally outré claims about the Illuminati being “a satanic sect that is seeking to return Satan to Earth.” He claimed to have “led a group that stopped the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) opening a portal to another dimension that would have destroyed mankind through ‘meditation.’” That same month, a similar article, “Former Canadian Defense Minister claims the Illuminati is REAL,” recounted how Paul Hellyer stated the Illuminati “has the technology to reverse the effects of climate change, but is holding back from the public.” The article adds that “Hellyer is known for making some rather outrageous claims—in the past, he’s said the United States intervened to take over an alien crash site in the Canadian province of Manitoba. These aliens are the source of the anti-climate change technology.”
Some of these claims are gaining traction—though also deplorability—via their association with “pro-Trump online conspiracy-theory group,” QAnon. QAnon’s claims have even been debunked—weakly—by the Washington Post, despite one of them—Operation Mockingbird, the CIA’s infiltration of US mainstream media in the 1970s—first having been exposed by one of the WaPo’s two most famous reporters, Carl Bernstein. The WaPo’s recent “debunking” of this “theory” takes up three short paragraphs and is borderline incoherent. Weak News vs. Fake News?
The Illuminati meanwhile now has an official website, verified Twitter account, and Facebook page. There is an option to apply for membership at the site, though nothing about what’s required for acceptance. The site states: “The Illuminati is an elite organization of world leaders, business authorities, innovators, artists, and other influential members of this planet. To apply for membership, complete the form on this page” (name and email address). Silly as all this starts to seem, it becomes essential to note that, most probably, this is precisely the point, to make something that is deadly serious (at least to some) seem like an absurd little trifle.
In passing, it’s worth noting that District Attorney Jim Garrison believed (or claimed to) that Robert Anton Wilson and the Discordian society was a CIA front organization involved in the JFK assassination.
Fake News—or Real Disinformation?
“Simple awareness of how indoctrination systems work is a big step towards undermining their effectiveness. As [MKULTRA] psychiatry professor Louis Jolyon West noted in a report on training Air Force flight crews to resist brainwashing as prisoners of war, ‘A realistic, undistorted, truthful account of what a man can expect constitutes a major protection for him.’” —Jeff Schmidt, Disciplined Minds
In recent years (2017 and 2018), online articles have appeared claiming—unconvincingly—to be inside scoops on Hollywood depravity. In June 2017, the notorious “fake news” site Neon Nettle ran “Brad Pitt: ‘Elite Hollywood Pedophiles Control America’ Movie star speaks out against pedophilia rings.” The article claimed that Pitt had “revealed the true depths of Hollywood pedophilia in a shocking exposé,” talking about “a culture of grooming children for child trafficking networks that reach across the United States and beyond, into the upper echelons of the political spectrum and societal hierarchy.” The virtual Pitt named secret societies, politicians, bankers and media running pedophile rings—“backroom deals with kids as bargaining chips”—claiming “it all goes back to Hollywood.” “The media will never expose the truth as they’re part of it,” the presumably fake Pitt added: “It’s the independent media that will expose this.” The article also cites Pitt’s “rocky past with secret societies, after a leaked video of his ex-wife Angelina Jolie, in which she discussed Hollywood Illuminati rituals, went viral.”
The article was not picked up by any other news media and was later taken down by Neon Nettle. The Angelina Jolie video mentioned does exist; at the time of writing (December 2018), it was still viewable online. It is a peculiar artifact that does require some explanation beyond “kooky prank.” Assuming it is actually Jolie talking (which perhaps we shouldn’t—but that’s another neon kettle), she is describing participation in a number of sex and blood activities with an unnamed group for unknown purposes. The setting is informal and doesn’t appear obviously staged. Whether Jolie is talking about S & M sex parties or occult initiation rituals—or both—is a matter for pure speculation. Once again, the various levels of potential deception make analyzing the artifact about as appetizing as eating a raw onion.
A few months later, in November 2017, an even more lurid “Fake News” article appeared: “Keanu Reeves warns that the elite of Hollywood drinks blood from babies.” The man-who-would-be-Reeves claimed the “Hollywood elite uses baby blood to get high,” and that “the more innocent the child and the more he suffered before he died, the higher they reach.” Reeves was allegedly in Milan, Italy, at the time, presenting three motorcycles he had designed for a company he founded in 2007. The “practice seems to be becoming more open to these circles in recent years” the article claimed. “These people are sociopaths, clean and simple.” The article wasn’t picked up by other media outlets, but it remains online. The part about unveiling motorcycles in Milan (and the timing) is accurate enough, giving the piece a modicum of verisimilitude over the Pitt one.
So what about first-hand testimonies? Brice Taylor afore-cited book, with its terrible packaging and presentation, seems almost proudly indifferent to establishing any kind of academic credibility. At the same time, the book has a forward by Walter Bowart, founder and editor of the first underground newspaper in New York City, the East Village Other, and author of the book Operation Mind Control. By his own account, Bowart cannot vouch for the accuracy of Taylor’s accounts, but he does vouch for her sincerity, meaning that (Bowart believes) either the things she describes in the book really happened to Taylor, or something caused her to believe they did.
As an example of Taylor’s many claims, she writes that “Barbra Streisand was used in the same way as other Hollywood celebrities before and after her [and was] pre-programmed to deliver messages” unconsciously to millions of people. She recounts that Streisand’s songs included carefully selected, pre-chosen words designed to trigger other mind control victims, and that her own programming, “was laced with many [Streisand] songs,” the lyrics of which were used to “tie into subconscious memory of past traumatic experiences.”
Barbra had to be kept together because she had been used to make the connections to some very important people, and especially to the masses. . . . Unlike a “normal” person, she could never talk about what she saw and remembered in private (during sleep or upon awakening) without being monitored. Whatever it took or cost was worth it to her controllers because they built her up to a certain targeted audience so completely that her controllers paid exorbitant amounts of money to keep her together, and her fans would pay any amount to see her. Many may themselves be under mind control.
Taylor claims the Streisand song “My Pa” was used on her to create “a feeling of love and safety with my father, when in fact he was torturing me endlessly, nearly every day”; “Send in the Clowns,” she writes, was used to remind survivors of “the abuse they endured as children in circus or amusement park settings where clowns were used as perpetrators.” If we find such accounts incredible, it is worth thinking about why that’s so. One reason—or rather a whole cluster of them—can be traced to the entertainment industry itself: all of this sounds too damn much like a movie! What a grim irony that would turn out to be, if Taylor’s accounts turn out to be true.
How seriously we take any of this depends, among other factors, on how seriously we take the fact that a lot of people take it very seriously. This presents a similar conundrum to that faced by the liberal progressives who are in such horror of Donald Trump that they are willing to abolish the democratic process to prevent “populism” from taking over their world. Those who wish to frame accounts of Satanic mind control in Hollywood as further evidence of the gullibility and reactionaryism of millions of uneducated deplorables are in danger of winding up inside a circle as elitist and closed as their own argumentation. The witnesses are not credible, this line of reasoning goes, because their stories are unbelievable, and vice versa.
Yet at the same time, the historical and political context for these sorts of accounts is becoming increasingly more compatible with, and even amenable to, them. In October 2018, for example, the Australian Prime Minster Scott Morrison made a national apology to “Australian survivors and victims of child sexual abuse” that referred to “17,000 survivors coming forward.” As well as using the term “survivor” (which is generally used in reference to trauma-based mind control), it included this passage:
The crimes of ritual sexual abuse happened in schools, churches, youth groups, scout troops, orphanages, foster homes, sporting clubs, group homes, charities, and in family homes as well. It happened anywhere a predator thought they could get away with it, and the systems within these organisations allowed it to happen and turned a blind eye. It happened day after day, week after week, month after month, and decade after decade. Unrelenting torment. When a child spoke up, they weren’t believed and the crimes continued with impunity. One survivor told me that when he told a teacher of his abuse, that teacher then became his next abuser. Trust broken. Innocence betrayed. Power and position exploited for evil dark crimes.
It’s an understatement, then, to say that there are people who are sincerely—and often credibly—making claims about the ritual torture, rape, and even the murder of children and infants. Whether their claims are taken seriously depends on who hears them or the context they are made in. None of this is meant to conflate first-person victim testimonials with yellow journalism, but only to juxtapose them. In either case, this material has to be taken seriously because, if it is not referring to actual crimes, it constitutes a different kind of crime, one that goes well beyond yellow journalism—in consequences if not intention—into malicious disinformation.
One of the ways schismogenesis works is by triggering the desire in us to take a stronger position than we might normally take in reaction against the perceived belief of others. No one wants to be a sucker, and in the case of “wild” conspiracy theories, where we place ourselves on the cognitive spectrum is determined by whether we consider belief or disbelief the more gullible position. Yet ironically, both sides consider the other to be naïve.
Managing Information: National Enquirer & the CIA
One thing they can both agree about is that there are vested interests in managing the flow of information, and that this relates to the drive for a more tightly controlled internet. Since Donald Trump became POTUS (Trump had a soft alliance with arch-conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who in September of 2018 was roundly banned from his primary social media platforms), Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Apple, and now Patreon have become more proactive in advancing a new “politically correct” cyber-sphere. And since there are, equally certainly, vested interests in discrediting or censoring stories of systematized, high-level child sexual abuse—specifically ones less lurid and more fact-based—then it’s fair to point out that inundating the web with fake news stories might be—or is demonstrably—an effective means of doing so.
News stories as lurid and unsubstantiated as the ones cited previously—whether true or not—can be easily dismissed—but should they be? At the very least, they represent the smoke of hysteria-rumor that’s sourced in a very real fire. They also tend to serve potentially to muddy a swamp of organized crime and its ties to the entertainment industry, in such a way as to intensify a growing divide in public perception that’s becoming increasingly associated with an ideological affiliation.
The blurry zone between intelligence maneuvers, celebrity secrets, yellow journalism, and manipulation of public perception regarding what’s true or false obviously predates the internet and the current furor over “Fake News” by several decades. The publisher of the notorious but still massively popular National Enquirer, Gene Pope Jr., for example, “worked briefly on the CIA’s Italy desk in the early 1950s and maintained close ties with the Agency thereafter.” (See “The CIA and the Media: 50 Historical Facts the World Needs to Know.” )
In The Deeds of My Fathers: How My Grandfather and Father Built New York and Created the Tabloid World of Today, Paul David Pope describes how the Enquirer refrained from publishing dozens of stories with “details of CIA kidnappings and murders, enough stuff for a year’s worth of headlines” in order to “collect chits, IOUs [that] would come in handy when he got to 20 million circulation. When that happened, he’d have the voice to be almost his own branch of government and would need the cover.” Other potential stories drew on documents proving the CIA financed Howard Hughes “to secretly fund, with campaign donations, twenty-seven congressmen and senators who sat on sub-committees critical to the agency,” “fifty-three international companies named and sourced as CIA fronts,” as well as a list of reporters for mainstream media organizations who were playing ball with the agency.”
Regarding the CIA and National Enquirer’s relationship to Hollywood, in “The Secret History of the National Enquirer” DuJour reported that
Over the years, scores of celebrities and politicians were rumored to be making deals with the National Enquirer to conceal all manner of indiscretions, be it a DWI or other arrest on a minor charge, an intimate photo or video, an affair (particularly worrisome if it involved the spouse of another star), a gay or lesbian encounter or an out-of-wedlock child. In exchange for information on someone else or agreeing to an exclusive interview, stars were able to keep their secrets out of the spotlight. Confidential sources confirmed to DuJour that celebrities were essentially blackmailed to work with the Enquirer or else risk their improprieties appearing on the front page. It is alleged that Sylvester Stallone was told to cooperate or have a nasty exposé published. As agreed, such a story was not written, but a National Enquirer reporter gave the incriminating details to Hollywood private investigator Anthony Pellicano for one of his clients to use as leverage against Stallone. (Pellicano is currently serving 15 years in federal prison for numerous RICO violations, including illegally wiretapping his clients.) Other prominent figures who reportedly cooperated under duress were Arnold Schwarzenegger, Burt Reynolds and Bill Cosby.
Like the alleged “Fake News” articles about Hollywood blood-drinking Illuminati, the National Enquirer would seem to have both a primary or overt target audience and a secondary one. First up there is the gullible, scandal-hungry masses who lap it up with nary a thought for veracity or confirmability. Then there is the discerning intelligentsia who, while they consider it beneath their interest, at the same time regard it as further proof of the common folk’s salacious lack of discernment. Neither demographic (one supposes) is aware of being hoodwinked in a more or less similar fashion.
In the same way, while the mainstream reaction to much of the material cited in this present essay is one of derision, still many people now unquestioningly believe in the reality of claims around organized, ritualized child abuse and mind control within the entertainment industry, to the extent that they may not care if the accounts are fictional or not, since they believe them to be true in “essence.” In these people’s minds, it could even be a way for movie stars to go on record without having to suffer the consequences, since afterwards they can say the articles are pure fiction! This could even be true—how would we know it if it were?!
In a similar way, some stars now seem to be playing into the growing belief that they are mind-controlled mouth-pieces for the Illuminati. Or, like Kevin Spacey, are happy to blur the line in the public mind between the sinister characters they play in TV melodramas and the abusive behaviors being attributed to them in the news.
Of course, this doesn’t count as evidence for either possibility, it only proves that, fact or fiction, dark legends sell. And at a certain point, people may cease to care which it is, especially when real-life moral outrage is becoming a form of entertainment that’s quite complementary with the ironic detachment of make-believe fantasies.
Hollywood Conspiracy: Just the Facts
“Movies as PSYOP tools are most effective during consolidation, FID [foreign internal defense], and UW [unconventional warfare] operations. Movies combine many aspects of television and face-to-face communication by creating a visual and aural impact on the target audience. Most children and a high percentage of adults accept, without question, the presumably factual information presented in films.” —“Psychological Operations Techniques and Procedures”:
Now we have covered the disinformation angle, let’s look at what’s more less provable, or at least generally uncontested—if mostly ignored—in mainstream reporting. There is considerable factual evidence for the following:
• A noted pioneer of American radio and television, David Sarnoff, later became a Reserve Brigadier General and was known as “the General.” Sarnoff was one of the first to see the potential of radio for not just point-to-point but point-to-mass transmission (i.e., one person speaking to many). He was put in charge of radio broadcasting at RCA. He also was one of the first credited with recognizing the potential for the combination of motion pictures with electronic transmission, and pioneered the television medium in 1928. “Sarnoff’s law” states that the value of a broadcast network is proportional to the number of viewers. Another pioneer in the field was William Paley, who started the first American TV channel Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), which had its origins in a collection of 16 radio stations purchased by Paley, also in 1928. During World War II, Paley served as director of radio operations of the Psychological Warfare branch in London, where he held the rank of colonel. It was there that Paley befriended Edward R. Murrow, CBS’s head of European news.
• Involvement of the CIA, MI5, US military, and other intelligence agencies in the entertainment industry (BBC, Hollywood) throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Here’s an example from a non-classified 1994 Field Manual 33-1-1 released by the US military, “Psychological Operations Techniques and Procedures”:
Motion pictures have the advantage of bypassing audience illiteracy. Movies also have an inherent quality of drama and the ability to elicit a high degree of recall. They may include cartoons or special effects. They may gain added credibility by including news events and local settings familiar to the target audience. A producer may rehearse scenes before filming and make the final performance seem highly realistic. In many cultures, the actor in a movie is considered to be like the part he has played. An actor can be useful because of the credibility he has gained. Movies may present a larger-than-life situation, which has great popular appeal. Background music can add to the emotional impact. The theater presentation can create group cohesiveness and can be enhanced by discussions with the audience afterward. Many people accept as factual the information presented in films. . . Movies . . . are ordinarily shown to groups and, therefore, have the power to arouse crowd reactions and to stimulate discussion. They lend themselves almost exclusively to friendly PSYOP.
• Popular entertainment industry figures with confirmed intelligence-affiliations include actors Frank Sinatra, Cary Grant, Greta Garbo, Sterling Hayden, and Christopher Lee; writers Noel Coward, Ian Fleming, and Roald Dahl; director John Ford; and producers Walt Disney and Arnon Milchan. According to John Rizzo, the former acting CIA general counsel and author of the (CIA-authorized) book Company Man: Thirty Years of Crisis and Controversy in the CIA, the CIA has long had a “special relationship” with the entertainment industry. Rizzo’s book does not name any Hollywood players, however, because these names are classified.
• Celebrities have exhibited symptoms of mind control (Anna Nicole), made claims of dark conspiracies operating in Hollywood (Randy Quaid, Crispin Glover, Corey Feldman), and/or had affiliations with cult organizations (River and Joaquin Phoenix, Rose McGowan, the Children of God; Tom Cruise and John Travolta, the Church of Scientology). Quaid has gone on record about how early sexual abuse led to his becoming an actor, and that he is one among many: “Many actors have experienced severe emotional . . . trauma in their lives to one degree or another. For us, acting is more than just a career, it’s a way of coping, a welcomed survival. . . . I was left feeling vulnerable, and the vulnerability in turn manifests itself in personality and behavior, which does not go unnoticed by vicious Hollywood predators where I continue to be taken advantage of by these monsters.”
• Many celebrities—previously and now—have shown a serious interest in and involvement with occultism; for example, credibly alleged members of the O.T.O. (Ordo Templi Orientis), past and present, include David Bowie, Jimmy Page, Jay-Z, Russell Brand, Madonna, Mick Jagger, Jim Morrison, Timothy Leary, and James Franco. Confirmed (or self-professed) celebrity members are few, however, and may be restricted to Marilyn Manson, Kanye West, and the late Peaches Geldof.
• Occultist imagery and symbolism can frequently be seen in celebrity events, Hollywood movies, and mainstream TV shows, seemingly beyond what’s appropriate to the subject matter. In 2013, comedienne Roseanne Barr told a cable news interviewer: “MKULTRA mind control rules in Hollywood.” She expanded on her statement to Esquire magazine: “A lot of people who are actors and artists who work in Hollywood come from a background of abuse, and you can make abused people very fearful and they’ll do what they’re told. Hollywood definitely has a point of view that it sells.”
• Hollywood has had intimate connections to organized crime from its inception onwards. “From the days when Lucky Luciano and Al Capone battled over Hollywood turf, to Chicago mob associate, lawyer and legendary fixer Sidney Korshak pulling strings so that MGM would let Al Pacino play Michael Corleone in The Godfather, show business and the mob have fit together like a brass-knuckled hand in a silk opera glove. The relationship goes back at least to the 1920s, when the Chicago ‘outfit’—which controlled the labor unions—arrived in Los Angeles to help studio executives ride herd on their crews. As Gus Russo, who wrote about Korshak in his book Supermob, told me, Hollywood ‘was a mob town’ for decades, possibly into the 1980s.” That last may be no more than a diplomatic evasion. If Hollywood has been mobbed up since the 1920s, there’s no good reason to suppose it isn’t today.
• Organized, high-level pedophilia exists within the UK entertainment industry. In the UK, TV DJ and children’s entertainer Jimmy Savile was sexually abusing people of all ages for five whole decades, sometimes quite openly, with the full protection not only of the BBC where he worked, but with at least partial knowledge of UK’s MI5, the police force, high-level government figures, and possibly even the Royal family. In a 2015 report from the UK National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) regarding Operation Hydrant, 1,433 suspects of child sexual abuse were identified though not publicly named; 261 were classified as people of public prominence, with 135 coming from TV, film or radio, 76 politicians, 43 from the music industry, and seven from the world of sport.
• Ditto in the US: on a 2011 episode of Nightline, child actor Corey Feldman stated, “The No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia. . . . That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry. . . It’s the big secret.” In 2016, Elijah Wood told The Sunday Times that “many of his young peers had been ‘preyed upon’ by child molesters. Feldman corroborated Wood’s accusation, saying, ‘Ask anybody in our group of kids at that time: They were passing us back and forth to each other.’” The 2015 documentary An Open Secret, from director Amy Berg, included testimonies of several ex-child actors who claimed that abusers regularly get away with abuses. “This film could be the start to show people there’s a problem in Hollywood,” said one ex-child actor interviewed in the film, who claimed to have been abused by his ex-manager Marty Weiss for six years. The film has so far been unable to find a distributor.
• In the corporate world (to which Hollywood belongs), committing criminal acts—especially of the sexual variety—have been described as a means of “binding men [and women] together through the power of taboo and mutual self-exposure, or at least the pretense of it. . . . In part, the power of the experience comes from the mutual pleasure of shared transgression, the feeling of a shared secret. . . . As one saying that went rapidly around the Chinese Internet in 2011 put it, ‘It’s better to do one bad thing with your boss than a hundred good things for your boss.’ Over time, this can extend to an actual exchange of what criminologist Diego Gambetta in his pioneering Codes of the Underworld calls ‘hostage-information,’ mutual knowledge of each party’s sins that acts as a powerful guarantee neither will break their agreements. [V]ice serves as a kind of screen, weeding out the rare few who might have moral qualms about future dealings. It tells both sides that they’re playing by the same rules. . . . Refusing to play the game, on the other hand, comes at a sharp cost.”
• Organized sexual abuse that targets children sometimes includes occult and even “satanic” elements. While supposedly “discredited” as a case of “mass hysteria” or “psychic contagion,” in fact many of the claims made by children and adults during the infamous period in the US (the 1980s) were fully substantiated (see Ross Cheit’s The Witch-Hunt Narrative, Oxford University Press, and Dave McGowan’s Programmed to Kill, IUniverse). This is to say nothing of countless other claims throughout the world over the last fifty years or more. I have addressed this subject elsewhere.
• There are known first-person testimonies of celebrity involvement in both sexual abuse and mind control, as both victims and perpetrators of it; for example: Bryce Taylor’s writing about Barbra Streisand, Elvis, Bob Hope, Neil Diamond, and Michael Jackson (Thanks for the Memories), or Anne Diamond’s memories and speculations about Leonard Cohen. Within the “survivor” community in general—including among professional therapists such as Alison Miller—the “Hollywood connection” is taken seriously. I have spoken with Diamond, Miller, and Wendy Hoffman, and find them credible as witnesses. At the very least, they appear to sincerely believe these things have happened, based on first- or second-hand experience of something.
The broad-stroke description of a “Satanic Hollywood mind control and ritual sacrifice conspiracy” may seem absurd, when stated baldly and uncoupled from the necessary deep cultural and sociopolitical background. And yet, as the above list shows, much (though not all) of the data being presented within this “absurd” (limited) context is verifiable, to a degree at least. So clearly, the subject requires further investigation before being dismissed. So how is it that it’s either viewed as too lurid and improbable a subject to take seriously, or as already proven beyond doubt?
And how is it that our point of view seems to depend on which side of an ever-growing ideological divide we happen to find ourselves on? The answer seems to be that, as with the case of belief in the existence of the Keyser Soze, we are perceptually compromised by an unthinking reliance on the most unreliable of narrators.
Continued in Part 4
Of further interest: