Transcription
Uh, I saw Disclosure Day Steen Spielberg's new film last night. Uh, and it's it's good. It's very good. It's, you know, Stephen Spielberg. It's not his best. Everybody's like, "It's the best film he's ever made." No, it's not. It's not. But not his best is still better than most movies that are out. Okay? So, it's worth seeing.
With that, I'm not going to blow anything, but with that, some moments in this are just downright stupid. The kind of make you question if Spielberg did Spielberg see the final edit of this, you know? And you'll know it when you see it because there are a couple of Jar Jar Binks level stupid calls in this movie. You know, grown adults hiding behind a leafless bush in a split rail fence while being hunted. The people are on the other side of the fence and they're just crouched down behind a split rail fence and a bush with no leaves, you know, or they're hiding behind a rock literally about 7 ft away. They had a chance to escape, but they wanted to see what happened. So, they're standing behind this rock while everybody searching for him was like, "Please, did Spielberg watch this movie?"
Anyway, in the end, you'll find the aliens more believable than some of the humans. But go see it. That said, that's the worst of it. And it's only a couple of scenes, you know, quickly that go by, you're just like, "Oh, come on."
Um, but here's what I recommend. If you want your money's worth, uh, don't go out and watch the 9:00 show or the 8:00 show, you know, go to dinner and then go reverse that. Go to the 6 or 7:00 show and then go have dinner and invite some friends that, you know, can think. Invite some friends to go with you and go see the movie, then sit down at dinner and then because I'm telling you the real the real story is not the one on the screen. It's the conversation that that movie will make will just pull right out of you. Okay.
Um, it opens and no spoiler alert needed here. It because the opening scene is the world is at Defcon 2, one step from the brink. You know, it's a sub sub sub subplot or is it? I think the movie would say yes, but I'm not so sure. But, um, Defcon 2, in case you don't know, only time in American history we've ever had it is Strategic Air Command has confirmed Defcon 2 only one time in our history, and that's the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Defcon 1 is we're at full war, nuclear war. Um, Defcon 2 is without going to war. It is when everything the rockets are juiced and ready to take off. All the planes that need to be up in the air are in the air. We just have to call them back. It's that kind of thing.
Most people, I think, in the theater missed what happened at the end. And I won't tell you what happened at the end, but the disclosure is over. The chases, you know, take over the whole movie. Um, and that opening fear of Defcon 2 kind of vanishes by the final credits. It's there. And it's not sloppy writing. I think it's misdirection. It's the magician's other hand. The story tells you what you're supposed to fear in the first 5 minutes and then walks you right past it while you're staring at a spectacle. Okay.
Now in reality, if and I don't believe this is what's happening here, but people are like this movie and it's it's just softening up. If this movie was built to soften you up for disclosure, then the ending is really important and you might miss the whole point on what the government would want you to do in case of disclosure, real or a scop. Okay.
There's also in the movie a religious angle that uh I'm not really sure I'm all that comfortable with. Um, I mean I am comfortable with it being presented in the movie the way it was presented. It's just these are all conversations we have to have. Okay.
Um, and this this part is you know more to the surface and it's pretty unavoidable. Um, and the question is if they if there are aliens, are they from God? Now, hold that thought because this is where the movie stops being entertainment and starts asking harder questions about the world we're actually living in. And there's two theories that I think are worth mentioning here. Predictive programming and cultivation theory. Okay.
There is an old idea called predictive programming. It was popularized by uh researcher Alan Watt and the idea is that entertainment can preload the public with ideas. You put concepts into films and shows and stories year in advance. So when something similar appears in reality, it feels familiar, almost inevitable. We've seen it with the X-Files. Okay. Yeah. It's like an episode of the X-Files. Okay. That that's what they mean. Preloading you so you you don't necessarily freak out. I've seen instead when it happens, you're like, I've seen this before. I've seen this movie before. Right now, skeptics rightly point out that this can become uh a conspiracy lens that explains everything and therefore doesn't explain anything. All right? But you don't have to go full fringe to see something real here.
The Department of Defense or War and the CIA have had an official entertainment liaison office for decades. Did you know that? Um, they are they are brought in to help shape stories and it's not a shadowy conspiracy. It's I mean it's it's out there, you know, they they're given jets and bases and and technical advisers for their movies and in in exchange, they shape the stories for the government and this is documented policy. Hollywood gets access, government gets their understanding of influence. Okay.
Now the second theory is cultivation theory. This one was developed by a guy named George Grubner and he was at the University of Pennsylvania. Decades of research on this shows that now listen to this, heavy media consumption doesn't just entertain, it cultivates your sense of reality. Heavy media consumption. What are most people doing 8 hours every day? They are scrolling and staring and consuming media. This research shows that heavy viewers develop mean world syndrome where everything is a danger. They overestimate the danger, crime, threats. They become more fearful, more dependent, and more open to strongman measures. Fear sells, fear shapes. Grubner testified in front of Congress that fearful people are easier to manipulate and control. Psychologists have studied this for years and years and years. Repeated exposure to threats in media can desensitize or heighten anxiety depending on the framing. So wars, crisis, existential threats, stories in prime to to prime populations um and it primes them to accept changes they might otherwise resist. Look how our our country has been primed. Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi. What does that do? That primes you to turn on your neighbor. That primes you to uh excuse violence. Okay. This isn't magic. This is human psychology and it plays a heavy heavy role in our society and our culture today. What?
So, you know, I don't I don't know if this is all of this stuff that you're seeing now with the UFOs, if it's natural or being fed to us, but we know stuff is being fed to us um through our algorithms intentionally. Also, think about Orson Wells. Orson Wells' 1938 War of the Worlds. What was the lesson we were supposed to learn from that? We were taught that War of the Worlds with with Orson Wells caused mass panic. People fleeing into the streets believing Martians had landed, blah blah blah. But that's not true. Only about 2% of the country was even tuned in. It was War of the Worlds and Orson Wells in the Mercury Radio Theater was something that was it was up against the hardest show. A radio show done by a ventriloquist, Charlie McCarthy and Edgar Bergen. I mean, it's I know it's hard to beat. It's hard to beat. It's like Lawrence Welk. We're being beaten by a guy with an accordion. Yeah. Anyway, 2% were listening to Orson Wells. The panic was tiny. It was real, but it was tiny. Okay.
The legend that there was mass panic. Where did that come from? Listen to this. Newspapers. Newspapers who were losing advertising revenue to radio during the depression. And newspapers seized the broadcast to paint radio as reckless and untrustworthy. H. You mean like the way cable news paints podcasters? Huh? So the hysteria wasn't about public gullibility. It was about one medium manufacturing fear to destroy a rival. The lesson we supposedly learned was wrong. The real lesson is always ask who profits from the fear.
President Reagan um he said in 19, I think '87, he was at the United Nations and he said that all of our earthly differences would vanish if we would face an alien or an alien threat from the outside outside of the world. Okay. A sitting president musing out loud about unity through extraterrestrial fear.
Back in 1960, Brookings, the Brookings Institute um delivered a report to NASA on the implications of discovering extraterrestrial life. And this is in the movie. I mean, it's they don't quote this, but this is implied in the movie. What they found in 1960, um, they warned the government that if you talk about aliens and you confirm them, it could destabilize our entire society. It would challenge religious and cultural foundations and that leaders would, you know, should should carefully consider if they're going to release the information. That's what this whole movie is about. Okay? The fight between somebody who wants the information released and somebody who doesn't want the information released and which one is right. This conversation is 65 years old and it happened in government buildings on the record in the 1960s. Okay?
We've been seeing a steady drum beat of disclosure that is happening. I don't know what's real and what's not. Pentagon is releasing footage, congressional hearings, talk of, and I'm quoting, nonhuman uh biologics. What a government who has been denying this for decades suddenly decides to open the door. Why? And who profits from fear?