The Liminalist # 251: The Difference Between Hollywood and a Mexican Drug Cartel (with Joseph Domenick)

Conversation with Joseph Domenick on behind-the-scenes power abuse in Hollywood, initiation methods, cultural bondage, and the many levels of glamour magic.

Part One: The Gay Mafia (0 – 28 mins)

Power abuse in Hollywood, casting couch, military & CIA involvement, everybody knew about Weinstein, conspiratainment, Kevin Spacey’s video, using an audience base for leverage, #MeeToo as limited hangout, Bryan Singer’s prolific pedophilia, David Geffen & Barack Obama, the Gay Mafia, social media celebrities, a new media space without regulatory bodies, a twink factory.

Part Two: A Perfect Storm (28 – 59 mins)

Tom Sizemore, Heidi Fleiss, sensitive types vs fully-functioning sociopaths, Jimmy Savile, Chuck Zito, bodyguard to the stars, cock-talk, erectile dysfunction, the effects of pornography, sexual freedom in Laurel Canyon, ultra-wealth, hedonistic desensitization, normalization of perversion, the domination drive and pedophilia, the desire for power over others, seeking the rationalizations, modern Spartan methods, celebrities and warriors, a modern aristocracy, a perfect storm, the exploited & the exploiters, what powers the industry.

Part Three: Living in a Dream World (59 mins – 1 hr 33 mins)

Overt terror tactics, the difference between Hollywood and a Mexican drug cartel, David Fincher’s background, Stagedoor Manor, talent schools as child brothels, cognitive dissonance & Hollywood values, what trauma does, living in a dream world, Barack Obama’s thralls, a world of pretenses, surrounded by fakes, American misery, power fantasies, virtue signaling, addicted to solving the mystery, worldly success, Paul Schrader’s knowledge, how to rationalize one’s way to success.

Part Four: A Taste of Ambrosia (1 hr 33 mins – end)

Compromised faculties, what insiders know, two different cultures, Randy Quaid, the many levels of increasing pressure & compromise, rich people brain, on-set auditions for children, watching the watchers, the power of glamor & desperation, a taste of ambrosia, an all-you-can-eat Caesar’s place buffet of victims, a microcosm of the darkness, Wes Craven’s CIA operative son-in-law, Diligence, Bill Fay big-time producer, Al Ruddy, mafia-approval for The Godfather, fractures in the façade, mobster encounters in Hollywood.

16 Maps of Hell: The Unraveling of Hollywood Superculture

Songs: “Pirates” and “Smile” by Entertainment for the Braindead;  “Dreams to Tell” by The Bones of JR Jones; “Beneath the Rose” by Micah P. Hinson;  “I’m in Love” by The Blacks; “Changes” by Short Hand.

24 thoughts on “The Liminalist # 251: The Difference Between Hollywood and a Mexican Drug Cartel (with Joseph Domenick)”

  1. One inherent issue with mapping conspiracies is the need to keep them tidy. It’s harder to map chaos. I felt like you did a good job of pulling back from that tendency when the conversation veered into that direction but maybe is worth exploring more. Most child actors are not victims of ritual grooming and sexual abuse. Most actors that don’t make it until they are 30 are ever given blood contracts or are ever exposed to the darkest examples of this culture. They are not threatened into a kind of complacency to uphold the conspiracy with vows of secrecy that are pre-conditions of their success. These things are anomalies. History, culture climates, etc. are determined by small groups of people. Hollywood is a very large industry. The vast majority of transactions & careers will never come close to the types of sensational case studies that tend to drive alternative research. There are not 1000’s or even hundred of George Hodels. There are only a handful over a hundred-year time frame.

    What is common are normalizations. If a commodity is addicted to drugs, that commodity, the talent, will be managed not expelled. That becomes a kind of unspoken conspiracy on a set. A hundred working people concede to normalizing un normal behavior as long as it’s expected of them. This can also be turned off on a dime. The actor sneaking away to get a fix on a movie set is allowed to do so until he is not. An arbitrary line is crossed and he’s fired and shamed publicly. Hollywood is also a town where sex is an overt commodity. So within this environment sprout anomalies, these monsters that we become fascinated with. It is not exaggerating to characterize Hollywood for these types of transgressions. It is however not the way things are for most people in the system. Real ceremonial initiation is for the deepest, most inner circles of fringe threads of power. I would say that about any industry or culture. Hollywood included.

    Psy-Op and media-based mind control driven by intelligence agencies is a thread in the fabric of Hollywood, but it is not the whole blanket. It is not necessarily the great architect for the collective culture as a whole. Does it poison the entire culture? You could make a good case for this, but I think this distinction is important to make. It’s not something manufactured by intelligence agencies, it’s something that at times is co-opted and used by them. Intelligence agencies didn’t create abstract expressionism, but it did engage with it, it pumped money into it and found a way to use it for it’s own means and objectives. Movies are not all military recruiting projects, in fact I’m sure the percentage is quite small. But that doesn’t mean that hundreds of movies have not been made with this objective. We know that hundreds of movies have. They are effective at their objective.

    Reply
    • hi Sam; there are helluva a lot of assumptions/deductions presented as categorical statements in the above, none of them cited or referenced or backed up by arguments; and while categorical, they are also very vague, often anchored in words like “most” or “many” “small”. Eg: “Most child actors are not victims of ritual grooming and sexual abuse” – this would be true if only 49% of them were victims of RGSA; in which case, your statement would then be misleading/misdirection.

      I can only say that most of your statements are ones I feel are not supported by the evidence, as presented in 16 Maps of Hell, and that, for me, your summation massively underestimates the situation. But even if it should be true, a more general question is, on what authority do you base these assertions? They seem meant to present a counter-position that’s also attempting to bridge a divide, but one that is hanging over a lot of empty space.

      Reply
    • I think conversations like these are inherently speculative, and putting limitations on that speculation as you seem to be doing is not just unhelpful but also illogical. I don’t know what exactly is going on behind closed doors and neither do you, but what we do know for sure is it’s orders of magnitude darker and more bizarre than the popular perception, even if just based on what’s been reported on by mainstream media (weinstein, epstein, bryan singer, nxvm, dan schneider, etc). Take your examples of drug use on set and sex as commodity – the reality of these things is so extreme it would be difficult for a normal person to fathom, and in that it already represents a world dissociated from the one most people understand, including myself. So if we’ve already encountered an impenetrable layer of darkness and mystery when only considering the most mundane examples, who’s to say what’s “too far” as we attempt to parse these things out? I don’t know how many celebrities were victims of RGSA. Maybe it’s very few (though with a loose definition of RGSA a it’s certainly a lot). But what about the percentage of child actors on mainstream TV or movies that have been sexually abused as part of the deal? The number is higher than you can imagine – and this is the place that produces basically all of our relevant cultural product. So I don’t think any discussion of this nature can be too outlandish, when even at a base level it’s already so far beyond our understanding of the world we live in. Relative to the average person’s perception of Hollywood, the gaps between what we spoke about and what you’ve laid out are microscopic, so what’s the value in highlighting them when it’s all purely speculative anyway? We’re not submitting a report to the police or writing an investigative piece for the NYT, we’re just following the various threads and trying to pick them apart – I don’t think it makes much sense to stop and turn around as we approach the end of some of them.

      Reply
      • agreed; also I think Sam seriously underestimates the reach and scope, and centrality, of “psyop.” Of course, popular culture or even Hollywood isn’t 100% psyop, and from one angle it could be seen as a small % – but if so my impression is that it’s the active element, without which things would be utterly different. Yeast is only a small % of bread ingredients; but without it, no bread. Ditto with Circuses and the Empire.

        Reply
        • I backed away from this thread because I didn’t want to take up all the air in the room as the first poster seeing that it was creating some conflict. We’ve talked enough about the subject in the past that I think you know I take it seriously. I wonder if you saying I underestimate the reach and scope of this is from only this exchange itself or a summation of all of our dialog in total?

          I have not gone back and listened to the conversation a second time, but I felt compelled to counter what I felt like were some questions and narratives being drawn out. In my real time consumption of the content, at times it veered into comic book/ conspiratainment territory for me. As an aside, I found much of the conversation interesting, and worthy of my time. But here I am stuck on this.

          Hollywood is a very large hundred year old industry with thousands of moving parts and I bristled at what I perceived was being implied. A superstructure and singularity of occult blood and or sexual initiation to participate. Yes I think these things happen. Yes I think they are the right things to look at to get a sense of the whole gods eye picture of the industry. But it felt like the conversation was taking it much further than that. It was not the only example but the scenario of the 30 year old actor vs the child actor incapsulated what I wanted to question best. I believe it is not a real either or scenario as was presented in the discussion. So here I am butting heads with you about it. You are saying I am saying it’s all or nothing but I’m saying that because that’s what I felt like I was being served in this episode. Could I be wrong, am I projecting? I’m open to that. But if an “all” is what’s being proposed I take serious issue with that. These extraordinary examples of darkness of which there are no doubt hundreds in Hollywood’s history are not ubiquitous. To be clear I am not denying the existence of these things, I mean we’ve literally talked about them in the past. If I’ve got this all wrong, then I ask that you might clarify at some point the scale of participation you are really suggesting? I think that is the crux of our conflict here. Not much more.

          If my language here in these posts is odd, it’s because it’s only in response to this podcast episode. This is not pent up from other writing or discussion you’ve had that I’m addressing here. In fact quite the opposite. So my miserable language of diplomacy, “trying to have it both ways” as you said is a reflection of that confusion while consuming this content.

          Anyway, it’s not lost on me I’m commenting on your website. I appreciate your openness with comments and look forward to reading 13 Maps of Hell. I remain a fan of the writing and thinking that you share with us week in and week out.

          Reply
          • Thanks Sam; interesting typo, you reduced the map-list from 16 to 13.

            I was aware of the discrepancy between how our comments interact and how we do as human beings; you & I are simpatico & mostly on the same page in a general way, temperamentally at least, but temperament is deeper certainly than sociopolitical opinions. I trust in the former (our good history) to bleed through the comments, so I don’t try to be explicitly reassuring. On the other hand, I may have a naturally argumentative predisposition or tone in my writing (impatience with logical inconsistencies and a desire to cut through all that and get to the truth), so it’s perhaps no wonder if people perceive more charge than I am aware of conveying, or even feeling.

            At same time, and to that last point, I did wonder if your opening response wasn’t partially “kneejerk” one, IOW, slightly charged with your emotional resistance to the possibility that people you know, even family members, in the industry, might not be what they seem? I also half-expected you to ask me to narrow (and pin) down my belief about what percentage of HW players might be consciously involved (my guess – 10-20%), and realized at once that it was still the wrong frame for all of this.

            Why is it the wrong frame? Here’s where our familiarity gets tricky because I think you already know the answer to that, which might also cause me to have less patience or willingness to be explicit. 1) we are not individuals but nodes of a single humanity doing some very weird stuff to itself, and so we are all complicit; the trauma and abuse not only affects us all, but is perpetuated by us all, albeit on a wide spectrum, from downright malevolent to just bumbling along trying our best to own up to shit and make it right. 2) this is somehow made both explicit and virulent by the Hollywood-psyop (no scare quotes, pls note), which has co-created and made visible and all-pervasive a toxic (super)culture that propagates the trauma, in ways covertly vicious and openly celebratory (by which I mean, the real crimes are hidden, but the thin end of them is not only visible but celebrated and captivating).

            as for the examples Joe and I were trying to wrestle to the ground, I think you are responding with frustration to what is an unavoidable obstacle, which is that any speculation by non-insiders is going to be hampered by a lack of inside knowledge, like playing poker with an incomplete deck. Does this mean we should not speculate? No, only that we need to keep it speculative and recognize that it’s a kind of free-association with the hope of channeling a truth currently hidden from our conscious minds: what traumas are concealed in the collective body that have metastasized into this darkly enthralling community-symptom-set known as “Hollywood.”

          • I agree with everything you just wrote in this last response, top to bottom. I’m really not trying to pin down or am even interested in deriving a real percentage/number from you. Rather, I’m trying to figure out where we are really disagreeing or if I’m simply just projecting. 20% seems reasonable, 5% Would be horrific, 20% are the kinds of numbers that suggest a culture of it. But I agree it’s a somewhat silly and arbitrary thing to assign a number.

            A point that you often illustrate so well is that the poison does in fact taint the entire water supply. It doesn’t really matter if it took one gallon or 10,000 gallons of poison to get that job done. The end result is the same. But it helps to understand the nature of it, to have the right idea about these details. Something I think you excel at more than a lot of other researchers. These nuanced details, that exist on a spectrum, but tell a better story when put together. Something much closer to the truth.

            But other people’s work, especially right leaning researchers on this subject tend to project their own all or nothing fantasies and virtues onto it. Hollywood being one of the frontlines of the culture war it’s an easy trap and boogeyman. I take no issues with some good speculation if its self aware. I indulge in it myself. But having a few days distance, I think my first post here was a kind of paranoid response on my end about this conversation alluding to those kinds of right leaning conspiracy narratives about Hollywood that we all know so well.

            Regarding my typo, maybe the last 3 maps of hell are the more hidden ones? More likely I’m just a sloppy writer.

          • in the new version, the last 3 are quite different, marking the point at which the narrative begins to veers towards (roughly drafting) the exit… trust in the typos

  2. Obviously I can’t comment on research and conclusions you’ve made on something I have not read yet. I’m surprised you disagree with my assumptions though. Your assertions, research and discoveries about Hollywood don’t require absolute totality across the board to be real. I’ve never thought you were claiming that. But for example the child actor or 30 year old actor scenario presented in this conversation seemed absolute in a way that did not sound likely or plausible when applied to anyone and everyone that’s ever gotten a role in a Hollywood project. How many thousands of people would that be?

    Anyway I’m not posting here as some kind of challenge, if my language is failing to connect to our common ground on this subject I’ll take responsibility for that. It was not intentional though.

    Reply
  3. I am not claiming absolute totality; you have erased all middle ground between “everyone in HW” is part of it and “a very small minority” I disagree with both assumptions

    Reply
  4. Gday Jasun great podcast , but now i am still stuck with the images of all the cocks i have to suck before hitting the jackpot of Harvey . Great point that these people must have been severely traumatised well before they began this demanding yoga.
    On reflection, its just a more honest approach towards scaling a corporate ladder, any corporate ladder so i cant be too hard on them.
    Harvey himself must have transgressed their own taboos very severely to be offered up so sacrificially, to be torn apart by the frenzied dissociated masses. Maybe his time was up and he volunteered , the ultimate whipping boy.

    Reply
  5. As an accompaniment to this discussion I suggest watching (or re-watching) the 1998 film Hurlyburly. To my mind the best revelation of the lives of the Hollywood minted-minions (and those that aspire to be them). The fact that it stars the slippery Kevin Spacey and the spikey Sean Penn is a bonus.
    Weird side note: the promo poster on the wiki page shows Tom Sizemore’s name, but he’s not in the film.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurlyburly_(film)

    Reply
  6. Whether you actually suck all the cocks literally is largely moot. What i think Jasun & JD are alluding to is that the outer court ritual behaviors for garden variety ladder climbers and new joiners are underpinned by the inner court raping and revelling. It is an egregore you are aspiring to and connecting to in the occult parlance, a collective mindset in the Jungian.

    I spose its like working for a major investment bank that finances drug money laundering, arms trafficking and kiddy fiddling. Suddenly on a balmy saturday night the mild mannered bank teller has some beers and ends the night snorting coke off breasts and bums of three hookers, while twirling his pistol. I guess the military would be the same, the common thread being the pursuit of the will , desire and intellect sans any meaningful transcendent metaphysic. Maybe this is always the way in Kali Yugas ?

    Reply
  7. Good morning Jasun. The Black Dahlia, how appropriate. It is only speculation even now that a deranged doctor played “The Operation” game on her body, touched the metal bumpers too often and lost. Well, she lost.
    She wanted to be a star, to be immortalized on the silver screen but ended up on the front of a paper back instead, famous for being dead.
    What initially came to mind as I listened to your conversation are the old films which feature innocent children. One of the first was Shirley Temple, I think, a cute, curly haired singer, dancer, who seemed never to have protective parents or no parent at all, and who, in the stories fell in love with older, needy men. Sick. I don’t know if she is mentioned in your book. She nearly always wore short dresses, shorter in the back than in the front, with underwear riding high over her round, baby-like cheeks. An interview not terribly long ago saw her praising the industry for looking after her every need and for making her life the best it could be, with so many wonderful memories. It seemed obvious to me that she was programmed by the Hollywood machine and that the caricature they invented was to be upheld till death do they part. She fulfilled her end of the bargain.
    The thing which nearly turned my stomach was the willingness on the part of a father to offer up his own children for a bit part in a low budget film. I see it as another example of the offering of ones child (ren) to Moloch. What does he get in return, money, power, immortality? Has he already broken them in, so to speak?
    About 13 or so years ago my husband and I were cast in a movie, some of which was shot in Hope and I recall watching people who were watching us as though, well I don’t know really, but differently to the way we were often seen then dismissed, as is the norm when walking past someone. I found it to be an uncomfortable feeling despite being willing and paid to be (forever) viewed on the silver screen, a sanctioned exhibitionism. It’s not something I would do again.
    To date, I have never known anyone who wasn’t sexually abused as a child. Moloch is glutenous and satan is a giant dick.

    Reply
  8. A sober and informed discussion about a difficult and sensitive topic. Really looking forward to the ’16’. It would be useful to more or less stop actively researching this topic. Far too often it turns into conspirateinment and fear porn for me. Ultimately, I end up feeling helpless. As far as the abuse is concerned, cross industry and society wide, it’s been proven beyond any doubt. The silence from the mainstream is deafening, so complicity on some level is a foregone conclusion.

    Reply
  9. I get what your saying Ced but disagree with the part about not studying it. If a few hardy souls can withstand the feelings of helplessness, hold the tension and drink the bitter wine something will shift. I can already see it shifting a little. I spose the sign that we are not able to withstand it is when we crack and see space lizards etc instead of just evil fucked up humans.
    Among a largely sober audience such as the liminalist i think there is a leavening effect in the ‘collective unconscious’ for want of better metaphor. Of course one should be careful of staring into the abyss too deeply or too often , as you say

    Reply
    • I understand what you mean. My worry is that it could be too much of a bad thing. Not sure I need further proof or what additional proof could achieve. If we lighten the collective burden by pursuing the topic then continuing the research would make sense. But I fear that it leads us to a feeling which becomes an act of helplessness.

      Reply
  10. I agree Ced. Its entirely possible that this type of topic attracts traumatised people with masochistic tendencies who want to feed that by charging down blind alleys of helplessness, rationalising it to themselves by believing it to be for the greater good. I am comfortable with holding these multiple possibilities together.
    I guess the very nature of the act of sitting in front of a screen munching popcorn while allowing someone elses thoughts to permeate ones consciousness is submissive, even masochistic.
    You can do this while
    1- pretending whats on the screen and the people that put it there are mostly harmless and innocent while it alters your consciousness

    2- holding the knowledge that someone is trying to programme and mindfuck you while you try to identify how & why they are doing it, still enjoying the popcorn.

    Am i committing fallacy by conflating watching a movie with studying the dynamics of the industry. Can they be separated ? I guess i’ll have to read ‘Maps of Hell’

    Reply
    • There’s also the possibility that further research can lead to, is voyeuristic. I recognised that in myself listening to this particular podcast. I’m looking forward to ’16 maps’ in large part because it will be in written form. Watching video-audio content causes sensations which draw me in differently to reading. I think that I can apply reason and analysis in a way that video-audio almost doesn’t allow me to.

      Reply
  11. Just read a quote from RAW… : Sword of reason, cup of sympathy, wand of intuition and pentacle of valour needed to avoid the various traps in chapel perilous — such as becoming transfixed by what has been lurking in the shadows and is now coming to light. Or worse, telling yourself what is in the shadows without actually seeing anything. I might add the lantern of empathy, which is different from sympathy (both are important), to RAW’s list — To see what’s really in the shadows, emit more light….

    The statue stands as strongly as ever after we have noticed its clay feet.

    (Hopefully I haven’t made it sound like I know what I’m talking about!)

    Reply
  12. Good on you Bonce, thats a keeper.

    I hear you Ced, sometimes being in the liminalist army, i know how a Roman Legionary marching through the Teutoberg forest must have felt , listening to all the howls coming from the black forest.

    Maybe they’ll find all our shiny bones and skulls on spikes in a few decades, our standard decorating the tee pee of some barbarian warlord. But it wont have been for nothing.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Sam H Cancel reply