Dyer Straights For The Alt Media

Hi Jay,

Sorry for the title-pun but I couldn’t resist. You won’t like this post but on the bright side: First, it cannot possibly hurt your hit count, which, via your accelerated Youtube footprint, I know is vital to you. Second, since I graduated from surfy expat prose to ‘historical’ issues my subscribership has dwindled to the point where I don’t guess I have more than 400 who really pay attention (5,000 prior) — although you never know when something will go viral. (Don’t trust the Youtube hit counts for my videos; I know for a fact that they are way low, but still, they do reflect a general lack of wide enthusiasm.) I don’t have to make a living at this, which accounts for my actually following the evidence wherever it leads,’ rather than just claiming to do so, as sooo many do. I don’t give a fuck who doesn’t like me.

— AW, just prior to posting

#

Hi folks,

As I write (February 22) Jay Dyer is already cranky at me and I haven’t even written – let alone posted – this one. In order to make sure I don’t ‘bury the lead,’ as the journalistic adage goes, I’ll put this right up top: Jay is so cranky, and I’d bet shaken, that his reaction to my last blog post was to subject me to an outright falsehood, i.e., a ‘lie,’ one that is easily proven so, as an excuse for his behavior. http://blog.banditobooks.com/things-get-rowdy/

I wrote this in my last post: I met Jay at the SSP conference and had a nice chat with him; he invited me to be a guest on his radio show… then something happened… but I’m getting ahead of myself…

So Jay sticks this in an email:

 ‘…as per your blog post the reason I hesitated to respond was that I was ceasing to do shows with talk network.’

If I’m going to make a big deal out of Jay responding to my blog with an outright lie, I suppose I should prove my allegation: for your sakes, I will try to do so with minimum wordage, so we can get to the implications of the lie, a much more interesting subject than its mere fact. Regarding my doing an interview with him, Jay cut off communications with me in November — that’s when he started ‘hesitating to respond.’ (What does this mean anyway? ‘Hesitate’ mean you do something, but not immediately. Dyer never did respond. As you’ll see, this is one of Dyer’s ‘NLP’ devices – misdirection.)

Since ‘hesitating to respond,’ he has done no fewer than thirteen interviews with other people, via radio or podcast. That he currently is using Alternatecurrentradio.com rather than some ‘talk network’ does not even qualify as being ‘technically true.’ (In fact, it appears he’s using both show.) Here’s a recent (short) Intro, so you get the vibe of ‘Esoteric Hollywood’:

YouTube Preview Image

(Re the above: Pretentious, yes, but Jay’s also smart and knowledgeable. I don’t not recommend him… but keep this essay in mind)

If Jay somehow publicly claims that he wasn’t lying, I’ll post more interviews he’s done since November. Here is the rest of his email:

I am not part of a conspiracy against you.

Here is my reply:

jay,

[The first sentence was re a tech issue]… But Jay:

‘I am not part of a conspiracy against you.’

the last person who played the ‘allan is paranoid’ card was… James Corbett. Problem was I had archived our emails — he had also invited me for an interview then suddenly changed his mind and cut off communication — and proved publicly that he was lying. I mean LYING.

Have you seen this?:

An Open Letter to James Corbett

There’s another, right after that one.

You know Corbett: Whaddya think? Is there another explanation for his truther presentation than…. limited hangout?

Do you think I was either out of line or irrelevant with my posts on the SSP conference? I mean, how come NOBODY wants to deal with my observations/questions?

allan

To which Dyer had no real choice but to reply:

Not interesting in being baited into your arguments with others since I’m sure you intend to archive these emails and post them in the future. [Just the ones wherein you lie…]

You’ve been suspicious and accusatory since we first chatted – maybe that’s why people aren’t interested in dealing with your points and cut things off.

-Jay

I’ll not parse the first sentence to show it for the misdirection that it is but the second one deserves a moment. (By the way, I am not reproducing others’ emails to ‘prove I’m right’ – a nice sidebar, though – but rather to make points about who we – you as well as myself – should trust.)

jays radio page March 1

Dyer’s radio show schedule – the show he ‘doesn’t do.’

Here’s is what Jay is referring to, I suspect, since our face-to-face at the conference was purely hi-how-are-ya. In fact, and I recall this exactly, what we mainly talked about was my old Miami Vice TV show. I tried to persuade him that having written for the show was not as ‘way cool’ as he seemed to think. Jay made it plain that to have a former ‘insider’ H-wood type ‘gone rogue’ – especially with my spooky background — was perfect for ‘Esoteric Hollywood.’ It’s essential for the drift of this essay that you understand this.

 

In order to save your time, I’ll put in bold the segments that are of import to the subject at hand – why Jay lied about his cutting off communications. You can skip the rest…

Message body (Nov 22)

[Jay],

I got your email today immediately after listening to your interview with Jan Irvin, which cracked me up even before I listened to it: I knew where it would go and how it would go, given my experience with the guy and given he was out of his league. [It’s on Jay’s site and is worth listening to, for a laugh. But for now, the point is that I’m congratulating Jay… you can skip down to my next comment in bold…]

Here’s my Open Letter to him, in case you have any lingering interest in him and his obsession with the trivium.

It’s too long, but to sum up Jan’s depth of self-reflection: ‘Being an aficionado of the trivium, by definition nothing I come up with can involve a logical fallacy.’ Call it argumentum ad irvinium.

[You can skip down from here to the next note]

His research is likewise fallacious, altho occasionally (by coincidence, I assume) it’s vaguely correct. Example: while he was rudely talking over you he blabbed that ‘Einstein worked with Julian Huxley at the NY Humanist Society’ — in another podcast he added ‘they conspired at Princeton to foist upon humanity the farce of quantum physics.’ Aside from Einstein never accepting QP, I looked into the claim and found one reference to Einstein and Huxley belonging to said society at about the same time, which means they may have shaken hands. This was his source. His only source. Whey I called him on it he claimed I belonged in a hospital bed. To a third person (re my Open Letter) he wrote that I have ‘evil’ in me.

Irvin is incapable of doing a podcast without blabbing that quantum physics is a fraud, etc etc etc. if you listen to him, not once, ever, does he come up something other than ad hominem, straw man, or red herring. Not ever. Why no one (but me) has ever noticed this is amazing. Whether QP is or is not a fraud is another subject.

Likewise, his endless tome re MKULTRA being behind the 1960s culture is fallacious, altho to an extent probably correct. (Bob Weir’s Youtube bragging about going to Bohemian Grove and ‘talking shop’ with CIA spooks is the only real evidence of this.) [Plus the ‘Teen Age Allowances’ headline on Life magazine’s 1957 cover but I get ahead of myself…)

Btw, the above open letter is not meant to imply that I believe in the big bang or Darwinian evolution. My point is that Irvin is often right for completely wrong reasons.

He reminds me of Christopher Hitchens, who writes a book Why Orwell Matters, neglecting to mention that Orwell’s final warning to us all was ‘No war is ever fought for the reason given’ — meanwhile Hitchens swallows whole 9/11 and the war on terror.

This is the state of not only the media but the alt media and 99% of humans. 99.9%.

I only bring this stuff up because a lot of people seem to listen to Irvin. Altho one of my interests is separating Limited Hangouts from Useful Idiots, I believe Irvin is neither. He’s just an idiot.

[Notice the text and subtext of much of what follows – maybe just skim it: I want to do the interview we’d discussed in person and in other emails…]

If you want to do a show, schedule it for about 2 weeks from now. I’m on a new gluten free diet and am having some bad withdrawals – if this email seems rambling or irrelevant, I think it’s that. i’m at about 60% right now.

Again, let me know if you want hard copies of any of my books – My autobiographical Cosmic Banditos may be good as a change of pace.

I’d appreciate your viewing my documentary, Water Time; Surf Travel Diary of a MadMan before hand. I’m working on Part Two these days.

Should we discuss what we’d discuss? it’s your show and I don’t want to hit any subjects that you’d rather avoid, like my opinion that the SSP extravaganza came off like a semi-organized limited hangout. I may be wrong on this, but it might be interesting to blab about my reasoning.

(Here’s one of the questions I would have asked had the Q and A not been cancelled at the last minute – with me leaning forward in the first row: ‘If you all believe that there is a SSP and it’s been zooming around the solar system for decades, give me a reason why NASA would spend 100s of billions on any given program when it can fake it for the price of a feature film?’ And also given that any data that any of the programs would give them must be old hat by now.

How come no one (of SSP researchers) has ever asked that, and why do 90% (you excepted, I believe) believe the Apollo hoax, or say they do….

[I believe this next bit is where I become ‘accusatory’ and ‘suspicious.’]

Etc. Ditto My H-wood experiences. Maybe you don’t want to piss off Penn. You tell me. I’m getting too old to pussy foot: You’re a very smart guy but I don’t know who you are yet. To be extra frank: when you first turned down doing a show w/ me the thought crossed that you are a limited hangout, especially given your snippiness (‘i don’t answer to you for my content’) and given your history in show biz in Nashville, which as you know is a hub of state shenanigans/MK. I tend to doubt this, however (you being a LH).

Might be fun to discuss this kind of stuff, get their attention. Or maybe not.

Allan

To which Jay immediately replied:

I didn’t turn you down, i just didn’t respond to the accusatory and suspicious tone in much the same way I’m sure you don’t respond well to persons you just met being accusatory with you.

As for Hollywood I have no connection to that, and I’m not sure what you mean by connections to Nashville showbiz unless you mean amateur night at comix back in 1998 that I’ve mentioned in a couple talks lol. That hardly counts as connections.

As for Irvin he cussed me out after that interview and we’ve had no interactions since and won’t.   As for the SSP I needed the few hundred bucks they offered me to speak and when they will post my talk is out of my control.  I got that gig because I used to read Farrell’s theology ten years ago.

As for Sean Penn being pissed off I doubt he would ever hear my show, nor have I ever talked to him of John Cusack.

If you don’t want to do an interview that’s fine, alt media as you say is a circus so is it really that huge of a deal, or Jan, etc?  I take it with a grain of salt.

-Jay

The boy doth protest much, I’d say. More on the Penn matter in a moment; for now, notice how Jay finishes up:

‘If you don’t want to do an interview that’s fine…’

The purpose of his sentence is to finger me as the one who doesn’t want to do a show. Even a cursory reading of my email belies this. This is NLP, if half-assedly so. (See my Corbett post for a definition.)

He claims I’m ‘accusatory’ and ‘suspicious.’ Let’s look at that one. In the above email I write:

I’m getting too old to pussy foot: You’re a very smart guy but I don’t know who you are yet. To be extra frank: when you first turned down doing a show w/ me the thought crossed that you are a limited hangout, especially given your snippiness (‘i don’t answer to you for my content’) and given your history in show biz in Nashville, which as you know is a hub of state shenanigans/MK. I tend to doubt this, however (you being a LH).

Might be fun to discuss this kind of stuff, get their attention. Or maybe not.

Now, if I were an alt media figure specializing in H-wood, espionage, secret societies, mind control, and all around subterfuge, and if I were on the level, I would welcome an obviously tongue-in-cheek challenge to talk about who I am, and about limited hangouts in general. Plus, anyone looking at our correspondence will realize that my interests are, if nothing else… diversified.

Thing is, as I see it, all of my interests are no-no/touchy/forbidden for LHs to discuss. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

So Jay gets outraged and cuts off communications – his excuse being my suggestion that we discuss the matter:

Again, look at my above email… that I have been ‘suspicious and accusatory’ since we ‘first chatted’ at the SSP conference is another outright falsehood. If this were so, why did he invite me to do a ‘show,’ which he clearly admits to doing? No, it was a very pleasant chat and he wanted to interview me. (I rarely do radio shows, though I’m often asked.)

In fact, on November 22, I outright said it:

Shit, Jay, nothing in my email was accusatory, other than accusing Irvin of being an idiot/asshole. I was only suggesting some grist for the mill of a possible show; how to make it interesting.

My thoughts on you being LH, if I really thought that, would I tell you what I was thinking, other than for a grin?

Maybe give it another read.

allan

(But yes, I’ve changed my view on this since I wrote that email.)

#

I’ve taken a week off from writing this. I began to worry about my motives and needed some time for self-reflection. See, I’ve come to dislike Jay Dyer. Aside from his transparent lie about his interview-change of heart, he’s arrogant, rude, and brimming with pretense.

An example of my lack of objectivity: While doing the Youtube search that proved Jay was lying about suddenly deciding not to do interviews, I came across an obviously dumb-ass video accusing Jay of being a disinfo/CIA agent and… guess what? The grandson of Ted Turner!

jay dyer nazi turner son

I know! What can I say?

Amidst the nonsense was a screen shot of an IMDB page (a showbiz site) giving the credits of a writer/producer named ‘Jay Dyer’ – Jay claims that he has no Hollywood connections. So I whipped out an email to Jay with a link to the page; I did this without checking to see if the writer/producer was the same Jay Dyer. Well, as I quickly found out, it was a different Jay Dyer. I had assumed – and even hoped – that Jay was lying again. My bad. Hence the time off for self-reflection.

By the way, we all ‘lie’ about not being in touch – I’ve done it, you’ve done it. ‘I’ve been offline’ is my favorite (not that I often do it, and there is truth to it). But this sort of lie is to avoid ‘hurting someone’s feelings’ – Jay’s lie was altogether different, I would submit, and in subtext a hint as to who he really is.

But having gathered myself, I’m back to answering a simple question: Why would Jay Dyer – like James Corbett before him – suddenly decide he wants nothing to do with me? (Subtext: Is Jay a LH or a UP? Or something else?)

In order to answer, I’ll have to reproduce more emails – virtually all mine, since Jay – around November 22 – cut off communications with me. Some of these emails are quite long, so to save your time I’ve put in bold the segments of interest, along with notes in brackets. But first, let’s listen to a bit of one of Jay’s interviews, this one with good old Doc Joseph Farrell! Although the interview is further evidence that Jay was lying when he claimed he was giving up interviews, it’s the subject matter that’s of interest. And the date of the link’s posting, December 16, 2015, which is amidst my flurry of emails to both Dyer and Farrell — on the very subject of the interview. (It was recorded back in 2007 or so.)

YouTube Preview Image

I cut out from the audio the following: ‘Has that idiot Weisbecker been harassing you about this subject? Yes? What an asshole!’

Just kidding!

I don’t know if Jay decided to post the interview because I had been harping on the importance of the Great Physics Lie. Either way, it’s not important. The excerpt is of interest for three reasons:

1. All they said is true: We are being deceived about the nature of the universe, and of reality, on a massive scale, the motive largely being so the TPTB can keep advanced technology from the masses (us). There are deeper, and philosophical, motives as well, but that will do for now.

2. Neither Dyer nor Farrell seem to understand the staggering implications of their discussion (the above, #1). If you don’t really get it either, go to Youtube and search for ‘astronomy’ or ‘cosmology’ or ‘physics’ or ‘relativity’ or anything similar and note the hundreds, no, thousands, of videos, plus mainstream broadcasts, books, movies, etc., etc., that tout a physics that – in Farrell’s own words – is a ‘dead end,’ i.e., a fraud. Ditto the pop culture machine, especially H-wood.

For example, In Interstellar, even a love story subplot hangs on this false physics. (Physicist/cosmologist Kip Thorne, Hawking’s chum and another gatekeeper, gets an Executive Producer credit – the wedding of mainstream physics and H-wood is now formal.)

In one of my unanswered emails I suggested to Farrell that he expose the deception that he and Dyer discuss so blithely, then move on. Why this seemed to anger Farrell is beyond me.

3. Dyer’s motive for cutting off communications with me is not affected one way or the other by his bringing up the false physics with Farrell. By mentioning it and quickly moving on – without pointing out that Kaku’s ‘Mistake’ or ‘Whatever’ is a evidence of gatekeeper/controlled op/LH status – Dyer is in effect continuing the bullshit. (This is actually classic LH: Admit to something but infer that it’s no big deal.)

Since Jay finds this subject (cosmology) so fascination (along with other subjects I bring up below), it’s unlikely that his reason for suddenly not wanting to interview me was based on my being a ‘boring’ subject. Perhaps it’s quite the reverse. Ditto my emails: You may find them ponderous but, obviously, Dyer does not.

Although I’ll date the following emails, keep in mind that they go back to November of last year; several months ago. Also keep in mind that Dyer cut me back then; he only got back in touch very recently, due to my mentioning him in my last blog post.

Oh, and just FYI. My long emails (in January and February) to Dyer were for you, my subscribers, not Dyer. See, I knew (from prior experience, as with James Corbett) that Dyer would not return my emails. I archived them for you, folks! I also knew that not answering them would make Dyer uncomfortable, as he would have no real, admit-able, excuse for not replying. (That he posted the above interview with Farrell – and which deals with the same subject – is evidence of this.) He didn’t reply because he really didn’t want to deal with an interview. Again, we are trying to suss the motive for this… fear.

Here’s my email from November 2, just a day after the Secret Space Program (SSP) conference:

Hey Jay,

Do you want to do a show about these subjects? NASA’s obvious frauds, etc? Plus the observation that many ‘follow the evidence’ truth types (like those at the SSP) really don’t want to ‘go there’? (I’m half convinced that the Q & A was cancelled because they got wind of my ‘confrontational’ questions.)

Also, did I send you this link? [Yes, I had, before the conference. Crothers’s presentation goes directly to Dyer’s Farrell interview above.]

The point of this and other evidence is that we are being deceived (there is a fine line between misinfo and disinfo here) about the very nature of the cosmos. [This of course is the subject of the excerpt of the Farrell interview]

As you know better than I do, the bullshit, the science of it, is now imbedded in the popular culture — an example is Interstellar.

I read with great interest your analysis of the film and concur that you saw in it many things I did not but I would posit that there is another level to the film, relating to popular culture and science and possible motives for recent sci-fi film story-lines and special effects…

Specifically referring to Interstellar…. It would take some time to properly explain what I mean, but – to be brief – if you understand that the basic science upon which the story turns is a deception – as demonstrated by Crothers in the above (I strongly urge you to view his whole Salzburg presentation) – and if you concur that not only is it a deception but an utterly transparent one, you’ll get the drift of my view on the film. [Right: exactly the point of the excerpt]

A simple example: Remember the NASA saturn photo I showed you? No stars. Has to be a fraud. Period. Interstellar: nothing but the blackness of space in the exterior shots. No star field. Look at the older sci-fi movies, from Star Wars on back chronologically (like 2001). Star fields in the background, as you would actually see in space.

Ditto the film Gravity. No stars.

Plus the astronauts (from Apollo to the ISS, etc) are telling us that you can’t see stars out there. I think you viewed my vid on this but in case not.

I don’t know how many hits it really has gotten – youtube lies about hits – but going on 700 comments tells you I struck a nerve – you can tell a high percentage are shills, via their misdirection. (The addendum to the vid is worth a look – it leaves no doubt that this is all part of a mammoth psy-op.)

Think about it. Why would a director agree to lessen the visual impact of his film (by using a flat black background rather than showing the universe in all its no-atmosphere glory) unless he was part of an ‘op’ to persuade us to believe an utterly ridiculous fallacy? (That stars are invisible in space.)

(Nolan et al. would have to be ‘in on it’ to agree to do this, IMO. And they would either know intuitively or be told the reason for the deception – which, in brief, would seem to be to hold up the continuing frauds.)

This is a very different level of analysis than your essay, so in a sense I am not taking issue with you here. Do you see what I mean? What I am saying and what you say are two different issues completely, altho they of course overlap.

Anyway, if you want to talk about this stuff on air, let me know…

Allan

Although the subject matter is right on the ‘Esoteric Hollywood’ money, no response from Dyer. So on November 5 I write:

Hey Jay,

I’m surprised that you don’t appear interested in exposing major directors (lately, Nolan, Cuaron, plus Scott’s The Martian from what I’ve seen of it) sacrificing the visual impact of their films in order to buttress NASA frauds, especially given the in-your-face nature of them. (Might be interesting to look back at when this started….)

My personal H-wood experiences may be of more interest. I’m attaching an e-book of my last one, a memoir, which I self published, knowing the problems I would have with Penguin or Random House legal types, given the bean-spillage. Although the book en toto might be of interest to you, if you do a word search for ‘Sean,’ you can get the drift of my adventures with Sean Penn, who (along with Radar Pictures) bought my first memoir, In Search of Captain Zero.

[I’m pretty sure this next paragraph got Jay’s attention]

What the book doesn’t deal with is ‘Penn’s revenge’ for my having told the truth about the deal and our personal conflict. Long story short, I’m quite sure he is of the Johnny Depp ilk, i.e., very much an ‘insider’ and very much under the control of TPTB (consider his marriage to Madonna). A guy you don’t fuck with if you want to continue an H-wood career — which I have no interest in doing. (Having read the book, a serious H-wood insider told a mutual friend of ours that I must be ‘completely insane!’ for aggravating Sean, as if my physical survival is a surprise.)

There are also chapters regarding my deal with John Cusack, whose company bought my autobiographical novel, Cosmic Banditos, and whom at one point I physically threatened – in keeping with the title, ‘Can’t You Get Along With Anyone?’. These deals were not options but outright buys, so, in theory, these two guys were serious about ‘playing me.’

Being a writer yourself, you’ll likely identify with my travails as a writer – as the title suggests, the book is very much a ‘writer’s memoir.’

If I did a show I’d still want to deal with the science/NASA stuff, above; they are much on my mind these days. As I’ve mentioned, the implications of both issues (‘can’t see stars’ and the transparent fraud that is the big bang/expanding space/black holes/dark matter/energy/etc./etc.) are nothing short of staggering…

Allan

#

As you can tell, this is not my first or even second mention of NASA’s continuing frauds – the frauds of course did not end with Apollo. That Jay doesn’t want to deal with this subject is…. odd, considering the subject matter of his site, ‘Esoteric Hollywood.’ (I’d already sent him RichplanetTV.com’s profound evidence that the Mars Rover missions were/are frauds – what’s an arctic lemming doing on Mars, Folks?) As I say, that Sean Penn rears his hostile head for the first time is also relevant.

I’d bet a valued possession that the above email contains the two reasons for Jay’s flip-flop with me: NASA frauds and Sean Penn – plus the big no-no of big bang physics being a 100 year-old deception. Given this, a few weeks later I thought I’d goose Jay once more on the Penn issue.

This email from January 27 is, I think, worth your time (see if you can find flaws with my critical thinking):

Here’s Penn’s Rolling Stone articleIf you can get past page one…

Hey Jay,

I suspect that Sean Penn is a U.S. government operative, a la Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. [I highly recommend this film, folks! It’s Chuck Barris’s confession to being a CIA operative through his H-wood career] It’s not tough to figure out, just looking at Penn’s Rolling Stone piece. Add his interviews and simple-minded Wiki background travels and ‘activism’ and it’s becomes (theoretically) obvious. I’m doing an in-depth essay-look at the situation, also from the POV of – in Penn’s own highly ironic words – ‘the sad state of journalism.’

Here’s a bit of it, a work in progress; this comes after my look at his prose. Needs cleaning up.

(Mid paragraph)…Penn had two entries into the U.S. after his meeting with El Chapo. Yet these border crossings – at which immigration and customs and Homeland Security and probably TSA officials looked him in the face, swiped his passport – are not mentioned in his 10,000 word extravaganza. His flatulence is worth our attention, apparently, plus his worry about the state of attachment of his penis, but not these theoretically enlightening confrontations. I don’t know about you, but when I enter my home country (these days) from abroad, there is a moment, usually at the immigration window, when my heart can’t help skipping a beat, when that possibly cranky official checks the various database Lists and looks me in the eye. Know what I mean?

Here’s a guy who has just located and picked the brain of the most wanted fugitive on the planet, and yet he makes no mention of this private moment (two of them) we are all familiar with.

Although Penn openly refers to a private jet as means of travel south, he (given the state of his prose, I’ll abjure adding ‘deftly’) avoids mentioning how he and del Castillo returned to the U.S. after their sojourn with El Chapo; doing so might conjure the image of his personal confrontation with immigration and its implications. (Penn whispers to his ‘brother-in-arms’ in ‘secret code’ but doesn’t worry that travel by private jet might be a red flag?)

But let’s think about this. No matter how it went, the scene deserves description, no? If they grabbed and grilled him, that would certainly be worth a few words. But come to think of it, if nothing happened, if ‘Welcome home, Mister Penn’ was the reaction of officialdom… by god, that’s interesting too, isn’t it? I mean given Penn’s assurance that he and del Castillo were under intense spook surveillance…

If he was grilled – if not at immigration, maybe sometime during the three months between his adventure and El Chapo’s capture — surely he would have reveled in describing the scene: It’s… well, almost cinematic in its potential drama.

Picture Penn – or, rather, one of his cinema-characters, eyes blazing, yelling ‘Fuck you!’ at his interrogators. ‘Cut!’ You get the picture. He might’ve gone on for another 10,000 words describing that scene. Obviously, though, it didn’t happen. If it didn’t happen: either no one was actually shadowing him (according to Penn, unthinkable), or… or he had an ‘arrangement’ with TPTB, i.e., he was on a mission. 

Likewise with Mexican law enforcement, which claims that Penn is ‘under investigation’ for the El Chapo meet, yet they let Penn into and out of Mexico after the meet, without grabbing him for a talk. And apparently Penn was unconcerned about the possibility, notwithstanding Mexico’s rep for ‘disappearing’ enemies of the state. (If Mexican laws are anything like ours, Penn committed a felony in that country by keeping his knowledge of El Chapo’s whereabouts to himself. Yet, again, he appears to have been unconcerned. Smacks of foreknowledge that he was safe on Mexican soil.)

So. Is Penn a spook a la Chuck Barris in Confessions…?

Here’s a red flag list I suspect you’ll agree with:

Multi-generational showbiz. His dad, Leo Penn, was an actor/director, and his brother Chris, was an actor. Was? Yes, recall that Chris died an early death (in 2006). This is of theoretical interest so I checked cause of death: ‘nonspecific cardiomyopathy.’

An odd factoid: There is conflicting information about Chris Penn’s age at time of death, i.e., his date of birth, with some obituaries giving 1962.[ Yet Penn’s mother told Richard Kelly (for Kelly’s book) that Chris’s date of birth was October 10, 1965. Mmmm. MKULTRA kids are often ‘assigned’ to their ‘parents’… from… well, that’s the point. From where?

Those who have done their homework re MKULTRA, and especially its trauma-based mind control sub-program(s), will understand the (admittedly speculative implication) here. When a subject isn’t ‘working out’ or possibly as a warning to a more important subject… early deaths are not uncommon. (Don’t expect Britney Spears to make it anywhere near her big four-oh.)

Sean’s marriage to Madonna – perhaps the poster girl (literally) for the Elite’s Monarch Program – is also a red flag.

madonna pic march 1

Only a full-size NWO tattoo would have screamed ‘She’s one of ours!’ louder.

My implication: Maybe their marriage was related to the common factor of how both their careers were guided/enabled by TPTB. Were they ‘introduced’ at an Eyes Wide Shut kinda bash?

Penn’s world-wide ‘activism’ and outspoken criticisms of the neo-cons is exactly what one would expect were he to be set up to ‘get in a room’ with America’s ‘enemies.’

Anyway, I have a half dozen other tells that Sean is another Chuck Barris. And hey, I haven’t yet delved into the travel logistics/timing issues, but he might have dosed Hugo Chavez with a cancer virus a la Jack Ruby. A stretch, yes, but a rough scenario: after Sean refused the mission, they offed Chris as ‘motivation’… so in the late-2000s Sean finally got it done (a new and improved delivery method now, it only being necessary to get in the same room with the victim). According to the London Telegraph, Penn had had face time with Chavez by 2007, so the timing works. And keep in mind that getting Chavez was at the very top of the spook to-do list in the 2000s.

Back to the El Chapo issue: Key evidence would lie in his relationship to Kate del Castillo, how and why they met. And when. (I’ve so far been unable to unearth this stuff.) If Penn and Castillo were tight before del Castillo’s relationship with El Chapo began, I’d be inclined to acquit Penn of consorting with alphabet boys. But I’d bet a valued possession that this is not the case.

Who approached whom about El Chapo is likewise key. If del Castillo reached out to Penn, again, I’d give Penn a pass – his geographical fingering of El Chapo may have been dumb-ass and naive, but not treacherous. And again, I’d bet the other way, that Penn brought up the subject…

Moving on: According to his article, our boy meets with the supposed #1 fugitive then 4 days later is off to a Word Bank panel discussion. World Bank? (NWO anyone?) A guy who… says this…

[From Penn’s article] But unlike bin Laden, who had posed the ludicrous premise that a country’s entire population is defined by – and therefore complicit in – its leadership’s policies, with the world’s most wanted drug lord, are we, the American public, not indeed complicit in what we demonize?

…a guy who considers bin Laden the leader of a country is given a spot in World Bank panel discussion? (That is what Penn is saying, isn’t it?) Would a ‘friend’ of Hugo Chavez (Penn’s claim) be welcome at the World Bank?

A related ‘tell’ is implied in the question of whether Jann Wenner would publish (in his flagship mag) this absurd ‘historical’ gaffe, absent a ‘detail’ we’re not getting.

But let’s don our critical thinking Esoteric Hollywood hats on this one. Another question: Who is theoretically higher in the Elite Food Chain, Sean Penn or Jann Wenner? I mean assuming Penn is as advertised, i.e., an actor. A-list or no, Jann Wenner is way above anyone in that category.

It’s obvious that Penn’s piece was not touched. Not a word changed. (Aside from the fractured syntax, muddled and pretentious voice, plus doozies like bin Laden-as-country-leader, there’s a misplaced apostrophe that a high school yearbook editor would have caught in the first edit.)

Why didn’t Jann call Penn and tell him the truth?: ‘Your article is publishable at 4,000 words and if you sit down with an actual writer and start over.’

Of the dozen or so major publication pieces I’ve read, supposedly reviewing ‘El Chapo Speaks’, try to find one that even mentions that it’s basically unreadable. Why? Ditto the scores of forum comments and tweets I’ve scanned. (What’s missing from the reactions to the piece is what I’m mainly interested in!)

The answer to that question is the answer to the big one: Penn is not to be fucked with. Even by Jann Wenner. Even by… anyone else, meaning of the press. (You and I don’t count, Jay. We’re not of the system…Well, at least I’m not ;)… [Notice the smiley face: where’s your humor, Jay?]

(Again, the most fun I have in this is in dealing with Penn’s writing – the basic problem stemming from the oft repeated line I got from his colleagues when I was going thru my book deal fiasco with him: ‘Sean doesn’t read!’ Yeah, I have that multiple times from those who know him best. Find me a writer who doesn’t read…)

Since it’s all open source (plus a little Critical Thinking 101) and from Penn’s own words, we certainly can’t be accused of ‘trying to get Penn killed.’

Miscellaneous:

You get a chance, listen to Penn’s interview with Charlie Rose; notice the vibrato in his voice as he denies that he’s concerned about his personal safety… My view is that Penn’s anxiety is unwarranted. That El Chapo was recaptured and not offed (a la Pablo) tells me a couple things: not only is El Chapo not a danger to TPTB, but that he is merely the public face of the cartel, his peasant-to-kingpin legend meant to keep us from picturing the real power behind the cartel, i.e., as we all know, a consortium of international bankers. So a deal is likely afoot, with El Chapo as misdirection. Penn’s adventure is probably a way of pointing and yelling, ‘Look over here, folks!’ Unlikely that it was a way of finding him. But I’m still saying Penn was on a mission — again, one of misdirection.

Penn says he ‘feels naked’ without a pen and paper (to take notes). Does this not beg the question of Why he didn’t come equipped with the bare minimum journalist’s tool? Why not at least ask if he could record the talk?

Regarding El Chapo and how he got caught:

The guy does a video with a recognizable vehicle and a mountain range as backdrop and he then wonders how they found him? This is so fucking dumb… Even Fortune, who employed an expert in spookery to analyze El Chapo’s (lax) security measures, failed to point out this horrendous breach.

chapo mountains

Too stupid! But why didn’t anyone else notice?

It might take half an hour for a tech-spook to match the mountain range with the road and habitations in the foreground and put an X on a Mexican map. (The way the video zooms in and out, it would be easy to calculate the distance of the road to the mountains via perspective changes, etc., etc. Even I could probably do it.)

How could no one (in the media or alt media) notice this? (You best believe the various agencies did.)

Perhaps the most revealing (and flat hilarious) tell comes when Charlie Rose asks Penn the quite reasonable question of Why he did it. Penn’s stumbling answer – that he thought his interview ‘could lead to a discussion on the war on drugs’ – is slightly belied by… the list is extensive but my favorite item is his answer to the question ‘What’s your image of after-life paradise?’ from a televised Actor’s Studio interview a few years ago. Penn’s answer: ‘Two hookers and an eight-ball.’ Got a great laugh. (Interestingly, for some reason, this interview – plus others that had drug references – has been deleted from Youtube. Mmmmm…)

chapo mountains close up

All that’s missing to locate Chapo is the license plate of the truck…

My own testimony: Last time I was in a room with Sean Penn was at the Four Seasons Hotel in L.A. in the mid-2000s, when Penn was two hours late for a meeting, his excuse being ‘I had a pharmaceutical night.’ (I don’t consider the statement ‘private’ since a half dozen others were present, including the head of a studio.)

He might as well have said he had ‘An El Chapo night,’ if you get my drift.

Anyway, not one of his dumb-ass questions to the fugitive had anything to do with the efficacy of the war on drugs. This is after seven hours of face time with the man who (theoretically!) knows as much about the subject as any living human.

Penn waxes lyrical about ‘the brume’ of his ‘flatulence.’ Let’s fantasize what you or I might have come up with instead:

‘El Chapo, as everyone paying attention knows, the CIA (Western Intelligence in general) has been at the forefront of narcotics trafficking world-wide since World War Two, if not before. Tell us what you can about the arrangement between Mexican cartels and Western Intelligence.’

Or, perhaps cutting even closer to the bone:

‘El Chapo, as everyone paying attention knows – and given that it’s been in the mainstream press that Wachovia, Wells Fargo, Bank of America just to start – that the major US banks launder Mexican cartel proceeds by the hundreds of millions a year… what can you tell us about the arrangement between Mexican cartels and the US banking system?’

Still closer:

‘El Chapo, as everyone paying attention knows, a principal reason – if not the reason – that the United States invaded Afghanistan was to restart heroin production and exportation in that country (since the Taliban had banned and cut the opium harvest by 95%), what can you tell us about your cartel’s contribution to the world economic system?’

How about Fast and Furious?… As with Ed Snowden and Julian Assange, it’s the issues not mentioned that tell us who Penn really is, for whom he works… [Really folks, if Penn is for real, how could he not mention it?]

However, I have the most fun (in my essay) just pasting in Penn’s prose, letting it roll…

‘Beneath his smile, there is a doubtlessness to his facial expression. A question comes to mind as I observe his face. Both as he speaks as while he listens. What is it that removes all doubt from a man’s eyes? Is it power? Admirable clarity? Or soullessness? Soullessness…wasn’t it that my moral conditioning was obliged to recognize in him? Wasn’t it soullessness that I must perceive in him for myself to be perceived here as other than a Pollyanna? An apologist?’

You want to do a show? The above is tip-of-iceberg stuff. Talk about grist for the Esoteric Hollywood mill!

Allan

[I write the above and Dyer is worried that I’m ‘accusatory and suspicious’ – towards him?]

As I say, I knew Dyer wouldn’t respond in spite of the fact that one of the H-wood ‘issues’ ‘Esoteric Hollywood’ loves to expose is the long list of A-list stars (plus other insiders) who were full-blown government agents. Perhaps significantly, however, the ‘exposures’ are all old time stars; he doesn’t deal with current celebs agent status.

Anyway, apparently unfazed by his utter rudeness in not replying (given he looked me in the eye and asked for an interview), I whipped him another doozie four days later, January 29th:

(Although I wrote this for subscribers – not for Dyer – those of you who are not cinephiles might want to just skim it, although the 9/11/Shining link is cool.)

Jay,

I was listening to one of your podcasts and was brought up short by a throwaway remark you made about the slaughtered twins in The Shining having something to do with the ‘twin towers’, but then you moved on, without explanation. Reminded me of the following:

In the interview scene Ullman is describing the previous caretaker (etc.) and says (in almost a mumble) his daughters were ‘about 8 and 10,’ referring to their age. Since they are twins and cannot be two years apart, I would submit that something is up here. I believe this is a reference to 9/11, the twin towers. ‘Twins’ slaughtered by their father – in the case of the towers, destroyed (slaughtered) by the ultimate ‘father figure,’ i.e., the elite who built them in the first place. (Since this issue is not in King’s book, we have to look at it closely.)

‘…about 8 and 10’ is interesting phrasing. Not ‘8’ and ‘10’ but about 8 and 10. In other words, their real ages might be slightly different. And why these numbers?…. Add one year to each and you get ‘9 and 11’ — ‘9/11’.

Most people would see this a stretch (The Shining coming a good 20 years before 9/11, etc.) but I suspect you’re one who’d get it. Picturing the crazed perfectionist Kubrick putting what amounts to a continuity error in his film without good reason is… nigh impossible, especially given how easy it would be to correct the error – looping in post, for example. (Although Kubrick has ‘errors’ in the film, like the disappearing chair and changing typewriter color, these are purposeful, probably meant to disorient.) I haven’t seen the original or the shooting script, but I can’t picture this error making it even to the shooting script, let alone final cut. [If you’re a Kubrick buff, thing about the above…]

This would imply that Kubrick had some sort of advance knowledge of 9/11, even if it’s only that the date is important. If it’s just that – the date – it’s still significant re who Kubrick is.

[I cut a section on Jay Weidner, which I’ll post when I cover Weidner in an upcoming post]

The Apollo lie is the most profound one (with the possible exception of the big bang fraud) in the history of man. Given how it is perpetuated by H-wood, I would suggest that you make even more of a point of it than you do. (Just a suggestion!) That so many ‘researchers’ (like 90% of the SSP folks) accept Apollo as advertised is, for me, a profoundly disturbing issue… (but I repeat myself…)

By the way, no one has mentioned the significance of Danny’s Apollo sweater being obviously hand-knitted (a bit sloppily) — by Mom, of course. ‘Mom’ (Shelley Duvall) refers to Kubrick’s wife and her suspicions or knowledge, I would bet. [Some of this may seem trivial, but it’s meat & potatoes for ‘Esoteric Hollywood.’]

Another detail: The Catcher in the Rye, I suspect, is not so much a reference to assassins as it is to the Masons; and indirectly, to mind control. (The book’s relationship to assassinations is that it’s a way for the elite to leave a ‘message’ as to who did it. It’s not a ‘trigger.’  In this way it also acts as a warning. If you haven’t seen it, check out Joe Atwill’s analysis of Catcher, and its Masonic references. An interesting rabbit hole. Point being, though, that its presence in The Shining is a way of implying that in some sense, the elite did The Shining; they are somewhere behind the scenes…) [I don’t agree with a lot of Atwill, but the Masonic images in the book are blatant]

Speaking of people viewing or not viewing my film (this is a segue)… I’ve never asked you to do so, I realize… here’s your colleague Joseph Farrell’s little review:

[Skip down, but the point being: Dyer’s claim that I didn’t want to do an interview is absurd, his version of NLP. In fact, most of MY email is meant to show our dovetailing interests…]

Dear Mr. Weisbecker:

I can only hope that this is your email. I receive Mr. John Rappaport’s daily blogs, and received his recommendation to view your film Water Time. I just finished watching it, and can only say I am stunned… [I’ve cut the rest for space…]

Cordially, and with deep appreciation,
Joseph P. Farrell,
(Author: Reich of the Black Sun, LBJ , [etc]

Point being, I’m now and belatedly suggesting you view the film then either interview me or, at least, do a written piece on it. I would point out that my background as a mainstream H-wood writer turned… whatever I am… and who did everything on the film, is a significant issue. You understand how many people it normally takes to make a film (even a bad one). With Water Time (aside from the music) it’s just me. I single-handedly made a 90-minute film that people like Rappoport and Farrell consider important. Try it. Not easy.

L.A. Times film critic and 3-time Emmy award winner John Barbour, on the Jeff Rense radio show, spoke for 15 minutes about Water Time, likewise saying that everyone should see it. Here’s an edited version of his rave:

David Ray Griffin did a similar review for Globalresearch.ca.

Overkill, huh? Maybe, but it appears that I’m having a hard time getting your attention… [I love understatements]

Here’s Water Time:

allan

Do you remember what you meant when you referred to the twin towers re The Shining? I suspect if you meant what I say above you would have explained the details, etc.

I was on a real Dyer-email roll, no? Still unfazed by his rudeness in not responding to anything, I shot this one out a couple days later, on January 31st.

Hi Jay,

You are one of the two people I (personally) know of who are into Kubrick’s ‘hidden messages’ so I thought I’d share the following with you. Jay Weidner is the other one but Jay doesn’t return my emails so… it’s you and me, buddy… [Yes, heavy with irony, that bit…]

[I’ve cut the rest out, for the sake of…. It’s probably too late for brevity… but I pasted it in the P.S. area along with some others, in case some of you are interested.]

I know, it was getting ridiculous but I couldn’t help myself.

To sum up, after either November 17th or November 22 and in spite of my copious and thoughtful emails on subjects ‘Esoteric Hollywood’ covets I did not hear from Jay until very recently. His claim to having suspended doing interviews (podcasts/radio/etc.) is an outright falsehood, as anyone can see via a Youtube date search under ‘Jay Dyer.’ In fact, Dyer accelerated his audio interviews at the very time he claimed to be bowing out.

So, if you’ve come this far you’re probably curious about my verdict on Jay Dyer. LH? UP? So as not to pussyfoot, I’ve come up with a new category…

LH/LHWB…. Since – as opposed to, say, Corbett – I’m not 100% sure he’s a formal LH, I’m including a LH ‘Wannabe’ (LHWB), which, if you think about it, is even worse: he’d be our enemy… if he got his wish.

But let’s put together a list of red flags:

1… Unfortunately I didn’t record it, but in one of his many podcasts Dyer expressed the notion that he was ‘surprised’ that he hadn’t been approached by TPTB to work for them. He said it laughingly but I suspect it was a way to ‘brag’ about his ‘secret agent’ status. Check out his logo.

dyer pic

Alt Media’s Bond…

Dyer’s uses ‘007’ or ‘008’ in his tweets/whatever and (given his suave pictorial pose and casually elegant ‘aires’) obviously considers himself the ‘Bond’ of the alt media.

2… Although my references to LHs were in a sea of other issues, Dyer clearly overreacted to them. As I say, were I running a site like his I would welcome a chance to talk about LH… unless I was one…

3… Dyer’s history is interesting. When I first asked him where he’s based he said he generally doesn’t reveal his whereabouts… Okay…. Turns out Nashville … a notorious hotbed of CIA/drug/showbiz/MKULTRA shenanigans. After his hilarious row with Jan Irvin (mentioned above), Irvin’s cadre of FB followers tried to retaliate for their hero’s defeat by branding Dyer a CIA stooge. (Another one!?) This of course is borderline laughable but someone else did some homework and claimed that Dyer lives in an opulent (words to that effect) section of Nashville. If true (and I have not verified), this would be odd, given his military dad (not wealthy) and apparent lack of means, other than his site. Admittedly, this is speculation piled upon unverified info, so take it with a grain.

Dyer got overly defensive about his past stand up comedy stint, yet clearly loves to do celebrity impressions (he’s pretty good too). Dyer himself (correctly) informs us that showbiz is in fact lousy with CIA/etc. As anyone looking into trauma based mind control (via MKULTRA, etc.) knows, actors/stand ups are a prime source of mind-slave fodder, especially with military parents. (See Dave McGowan’s work on the music biz.)

Dyer’s dad was indeed military. When I asked Dyer if dad was ONI (Office of Naval Intel), Dyer shot me a very hostile email, then refunded my subscription money (5 bucks). Joseph Farrell had done likewise but as Farrell himself wrote, it was so I couldn’t post comments on his site. Dyer has no ‘Comment’ advantage for subscribers so the only result of his move was to prevent me from accessing subscriber material. Mmmm… How does Dyer figure giving me money was a punishment, unless he has other ‘slips’ on the Members Only area of his site? Where’s the logic?

4… In his defensive email Dyer felt compelled to explain why he did the SSP conference gig (needed the money, etc); this was unexpected; almost as if he knew something wasn’t completely right about that forum…

5… Chronology suggests (or at least backs up) the idea that Dyer’s sudden silence is related to my conflict with Sean Penn. Simply put, if Dyer is LH/controlled op, the last thing he’d do would be to make public my thoughts on Penn. Given Esoteric Hollywood’s raison d’etre, that Dyer did not even respond to my Penn ‘essay’ is inexplicable, absent… something Dyer ain’t saying. Hence the roaring silence.

The idea that Dyer fears the wrath of Sean Penn is too ironic and outright humorous not to mention, given Dyer’s concocted image as an alt media James Bond….

(FYI: Penn’s outrage toward me is based on my retelling the tale of my book deal with him/Radar Pictures. (You can download a CYGAWA pdf in the sidebar.) His ‘revenge’ included killing my nascent deal with HBO and using his leverage with the alt media to make sure my documentary film, Water Time; Surf Travel Diary of a MadMan got little or no coverage. I know of at least two alt media figures who bent to Penn’s will on this. This further reinforces my theory that Penn is a important figure within TPTB; an outright ‘agent,’ actively working against us.)

And yes, I’m aware that this post could entail repercussions…

6… Just one example: I point out a 9/11 reference in The Shining, and Dyer has nothing to say about it? (Or does he believe that Kubrick figured no one would notice the twins-age ‘mistake’?)

7… In considering how Dyer might reply to all of the above, I would only ask him: But Jay, why did you lie about cutting off communications with me?

8… I’ll herein remind you of my videos, all of which are big time no-noes re TPTB, and most of which were sent to speakers at the SSP conference (none of whom responded to my observations/questions):

Why Are The Astronauts (still) Lying?

Hey NASA, Where Are The Stars?

Neil Tyson on seeing the stars from space….

Why All Female Astronauts Have Long Hair?

Steve Crothers Debunks Big Bang/Black Holes

NASA Slips Up Again

An Astronaut on Where He Is

Proof of Fraudulent Mars Rover Missions

9/11 Summation/Direct Media Involvement

Okay, if you don’t hear from me in a week or less, something bad happened. Hey, thanks for hanging in.

Allan

What's in front of the cloud?

A couple nights ago I’m inside working on this post: What’s that in front of the low cloud? (six sec exposure)

For the record, I’ll post the rest of my emails to Jay Dyer (in no particular order and some dates are missing; I’m tired, folks! This first one may be of interest to movie fans, especially Kubrick’s 2001):

#

 

 

 

 

jay ssp logo

The more I look into the SSP the shakier it gets…

 

 

Hi Jay,

You are one of the two people I (personally) know of who are into Kubrick’s ‘hidden messages’ so I thought I’d share the following with you. Jay Weidner is the other one but Jay doesn’t return my emails so… it’s you and me, buddy… [Yes, heavy with irony, that bit…]

I’m on the road a lot these days so I listen to archived podcasts to pass the road time. Yesterday I was listening to your analysis of 2001. Your idea that Bowman’s lobotomy of HAL ‘triggered’ the message from earth gave me pause; I hadn’t thought of that.

You go on to pull an interesting reversal by theorizing that this was ‘planned’ all along; a way of launching Bowman on his cosmic quest. Having little else to do other than watching the white lines whiz by, I put myself into an imaginary story conference, a method of thinking out story problems I’ve used since my Miami Vice days. I talk to myself. Mostly ask myself questions, sometimes argumentative… ‘Yeah but what’s the opposite of that idea’ kind of thing.

One thing I always ask is What does the protagonist want? Okay, but who is the protagonist in 2001? Bowman? If so, 2001 probably features the most boring protagonist in the history of film. Leave it to Kubrick to pull that off. (That Act III is all Bowman means that (technically) we are stuck with him as the protagonist.)

But: HAL of course is the most interesting character in the story, the reason being that HAL is the only character who makes a moral choice – his killing of the humans on the space ship. There actually are no other moral choices in the whole film, by anyone. Holy shit!

(Bowman and Poole’s decision to disconnect HAL is not a moral choice. They see this act as no more of a moral issue than me turning off my laptop. The closest any human gets to ‘being human’ is Bowman’s brief ‘eye contact’ with HAL as he tells HAL to go ahead and sing Daisy…)

Only one moral choice in the entire film… Okay, so I asked myself a question that I’ve never come across – I’ve not read all the analyses of 2001 so this might be my ignorance. The question:

What does HAL want?

Much as I enjoyed your analysis of 2001 (all of them actually), I think you’re mistaken that the earth message was triggered by the death of HAL. I perceive this event as just a story device. The momentum factor told Clarke and Kubrick that there was no room for anything else once HAL was gone (end of Act II). A classic ‘Now we cut to the chase’ (Act III) decision. (Besides, it would not make sense for the earth humans to program HAL to run amok so Bowman would defeat him, then dive through the stargate.)

Anyway, another issue no one seems to bring up is the significance of HAL being the only ‘crew member’ who knew the purpose of the mission. Whoa! The human forces behind the mission trusted the computer, not their fellow humans. This has interesting implications but is not really my point.

HAL has had months to think about the mission, what it means. In a phrase, its… cosmic significance.

Ambition/ego is what’s driving HAL. HAL wants to be the representative that ‘meets’ the force behind the monoliths. He wants it for himself. Lowly humans involved would divert attention from himself, his own, ‘new’ ego.

I mean, giving HAL a ‘human’ motive is a lot more interesting than assuming that one of his circuits misfired out of nowhere, or even that he thought he could better complete the mission on his own. I suspect that Clarke/Kubrick had this in mind when they crafted the HAL character.

(According to Wiki: ‘In an interview with Joseph Gelmis in 1969, Kubrick stated that HAL “had an acute emotional crisis because he could not accept evidence of his own fallibility”.’

If this is true, I think Kubrick was pulling our legs, laying out a motive that boring. And it still doesn’t explain murder.)

To me at least, the ambition/ego motive has more pizzazz. There is more to say here – you’ve mentioned that the ‘liberal’ view that knowledge/intelligence/gnosis (which HAL has in spades) does not necessarily lead to wisdom (moral behavior) certainly applies. That HAL would develop a negative trait somehow passed to him by those who created him is an interesting and disturbing issue. An analysis of HAL’s ‘tragic flaw’ might be interesting… In a sense, he has no more hope of being ‘of the elite’ than does Bill Hartford. (Does HAL have a moral sense, a conscience? Isn’t there an issue here?)

(Oh hell, I can’t resist: Have you considered the literal meaning of Bill Hartford’s name [yes, I slightly misspelled it!] ? A ‘bill’ must be paid to ‘ford’ or leave behind the ‘river of the ‘heart’ — which allows passage to the realm of the elite (?). But I digress.) [I added that bit because Dyer loves to analyze Eyes Wide Shut.]

I certainly could be wrong here: What do you think? Or to put it in the ‘story conference’ mode, What does HAL want?

A quick word about ‘author intent.’

My view of storytelling is that a good one has three layers in its story turns. (The other amazing aspect about 2001 is how few genuine story turns there are! Christ, in theory every scene should turn the story. Or at least every sequence. You can wait an hour for the next story turn in 2001!)

The Three Story Layers According to Me

1. Bare bones ‘plot.’ This is usually a matter of action, i.e., so-and-so does something that on the surface he hopes will help his situation.

2. Subtext. The real reason why he undertakes this action; the character should not know of this motive (but the writer better know!).

3. Deep subtext. The symbology of the action – say, going from the personal to the societal in terms of impact/implications.

The writer/director should be aware of what each story turn does and on what level. Consciously aware. So unless Kubrick/Clarke have written about the matter of what HAL wants, we’ll never really know. (I don’t think it’s in the novel.)

But here’s the thing: In a profound story like 2001, I believe there is a fourth level, unknown to the authors of the piece. Very few stories (of any genre) have this… almost alchemical… level. Its provenance, I suspect, has something to do with a collective unconscious.

A possible example of the fourth level relates to your observation that the classic camera angles of the monolith are crafted to look like a pyramid (with an all-seeing eye on top). Once you pointed this out it was a real head-slapper. It’s so fucking obvious, yet I never saw it. But say for the sake of argument that it was ‘accidental’ in that Kubrick was merely making a strong astrological allusion. You’d still be correct on the fourth level. It’s this rare deeper layer that raises analyses (mine, yours, etc.) above the level of intellectual masturbation.

In one of my books I use this epigraph from Alfred North Whitehead, which seems to apply here… somehow:

‘Art is the imposing of a pattern upon experience, and our aesthetic enjoyment is the recognition of the pattern.’

Anyway, looking forward to hearing from you.

Allan

A quick follow up email, a few minutes after sending the above:

Forgot to mention that self-preservation is the surface level for HAL’s behavior. Ambition is either #2 or #3. Not sure which one..

aw

The rest are just pasted in at the last minute…

Hey Jay,

 

Are you ready to do it?

 

I do ask that you view my feature doc at

I think you’ve seen this:

 

The above has a short addendum at

 

I have other stuff, recommended in previous emails. I’m best after about noon.

 

I’m thinking we should discuss (via email is good) some general stuff first but that’s your call.

 

allan

 

Is this via skype?

 

 

 

Hey Jay,

 

How about just after Thanksgiving, like very early December (or later)?

 

Shall I send some links to stuff you might find interesting? I’d appreciate your viewing my documentary film, Water Time, Surf Travel Diary of a MadMan before we do the show. It showed at film festivals in NYC and Berlin. It was a one man show, production-wise. I had to teach myself editing, etc.; I’m sort of pleased with that aspect of it, an old dog learning new tricks kind of thing.

 

I’m also pleased with the Youtube comments, etc. It was also an example of Sean Penn’s ‘revenge’ – he made sure that certain people did not publicize it, plus other nastiness. (Did I mention that he saw to it that a deal to make a series out of my last book – the one I sent you — by HBO, was killed?)

 

I don’t know if you want to get into the Penn subject, but I’d like you to see the film. I’m currently on the road making Part Two.

 

Let me know what stuff of mine you have either read or viewed on Youtube.

 

Should be fun. I like your work.

 

allan

 

Let me know if you want hard copies of my books and a DVD of Water Time.

 

BANDITOBOOKS.COM

“There’s nothing like it on the web!”

 

 

From: Jay D <antonio.danza777@gmail.com>
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: H-wood/Sean P etc

 

Allan id like to have you on when you can and we can talk NASA fraud and black hole lies, etc.

 

-Jay

If Jay really meant this, why didn’t I hear from him again? (See my following email):

Message body

What’s up?

 

Message body

Jay,

 

Based on our email exchange I’m not sure if you still want to do a show. From the below email, sounds like you do want to. If you give me about a week, I can do it.

 

I’ve suggested some subjects, aside from the NASA frauds and their possible implications, but I leave that to you. I only ask so I can be prepared. As mentioned, I’d appreciate your giving my film a view. Not to repeat myself, but I can send hard copies of some of my stuff. My film is on Youtube at

 

Water Time; Surf Travel Diary of a MadMan

 

A reminder: Jon Rappoport’s review of the film at Banditobooks.com explains why the film would be relevant to your show (my history in H-wood, how ‘waking up’ led to my flight from that biz, etc.). It does seem a good match for your interests – aside from the NASA/SSP stuff.

 

If you have changed your mind about a show, a brief explanation would be helpful re other interests of mine.

 

allan

 

BANDITOBOOKS.COM

“There’s nothing like it on the web!”

 

 

From: Jay D <antonio.danza777@gmail.com>
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: why no answer

 

When is good to come on for an interview?

On Sunday, November 22, 2015, Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

What’s up?

Message body

I finally got the link to the SSP conference and was able to view your presentation, plus other stuff I messed, like the first day roundtable, which I missed due to the health issue mentioned; I was having dizzy spells that day and had to leave early.

 

Goddammit. I could have asked the questions I had in mind during the round table I missed. (Btw, I no longer take seriously my ‘SSP as limited hangout’ thoughts.)

 

Your presentation was terrific. Just was.

 

Your interest in the ‘panopticon effect’ dovetails with mine, as does your suspicions about Snowden. I wrote an essay for VT on this subject. A paragraph:

 

MaybeMichael Hastings was not working on a story that got him killed: Someone wanted to give that impression, as a warning to all ‘journalists.’ Combine Snowden’s revelations with Hastings’s obvious assassination and what do you get? You’re being watched at all times and if you step out of line, you’re dead. The Panopticon Effect on steroids.

 

The stuff about Hastings comes late in the essay but may be of interest: I’m pretty sure that the above theory is true. Hastings was part of ‘the message’; I doubt he was working on anything ‘explosive.’

 

Although Gordon Duff erased the essay (along with a lot of other stuff), it seems available now here…

 

NSA Surveillance: On Edward Snowden’s Oath and Motives

 

But to be specific about a possible interview — as I’ve tried to say, if you want to stick to the NASA/SSP/popular culture issues, that’s fine with me. My history in the movie/TV business is also up your alley, especially how I got into the business (direct from a career as a Learjet-flying international criminal) and my doings in the 1980s (I was close to Michael Mann and to Robert Chartoff, who produced a screenplay I wrote) may be of interest. Chartoff (Rocky, Raging Bull, The Right Stuff and so on) especially, was as much of an insider as you’ll find, for that era.

 

As a cinephile I’d like your opinion on the film I made — I taught myself editing/post-production and single-handed crafted 90 minutes that I think is a reasonably important work (as Jon Rappoport agrees in his review at Banditobooks.com).

 

I believe that the predictive programming syndrome you expertly outlined in your talk has greatly accelerated since the 1980s. Dude, here on earth we really are on the verge of a phase transition.

 

If I don’t hear from you, good luck and keep up the good work.

 

allan

 

Message body

That was just poorly phrased on my part; my inefficient way of talking you into it. Like I say, I’m at about 60%. Give me a couple weeks. I don’t start thinking straighter I’ll go back to eating bread. 😉

 

I haven’t spoken with anyone smart in a while. Give me a date and time if you want, along with the subjects you’re most interested in.

 

allan

 

From: Jay D <antonio.danza777@gmail.com>
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: email?

 

I meant the email about why I’m not exposing this and that a while back.

Message body

Shit, Jay, nothing in my email was accusatory, other than accusing Irvin of being an idiot/asshole. I was only suggesting some grist for the mill of a possible show; how to make it interesting. My thoughts on you being LH, if I really thought that, would I tell you what I was thinking, other than for a grin?

 

Maybe give it another read.

 

allan
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: email?

 

I didn’t turn you down, i just didn’t respond to the accusatory and suspicious tone in much the same way I’m sure you don’t respond well to persons you just met being accusatory with you.

 

As for Hollywood I have no connection to that, and I’m not sure what you mean by connections to Nashville showbiz unless you mean amateur night at comix back in 1998 that I’ve mentioned in a couple talks lol. That hardly counts as connections.

 

As for Irvin he cussed me out after that interview and we’ve had no interactions since and won’t.   As for the SSP I needed the few hundred bucks they offered me to speak and when they will post my talk is out of my control.  I got that gig because I used to read Farrell’s theology ten years ago.

 

As for Sean Penn being pissed off I doubt he would ever hear my show, nor have I ever talked to him of John Cusack.

 

If you don’t want to do an interview that’s fine, alt media as you say is a circus so is it really that huge of a deal, or Jan, etc?  I take it with a grain of salt.

 

-Jay

 

 

To

Message body

Shit, Jay, nothing in my email was accusatory, other than accusing Irvin of being an idiot/asshole. I was only suggesting some grist for the mill of a possible show; how to make it interesting.

 

My thoughts on you being LH, if I really thought that, would I tell you what I was thinking, other than for a grin?

 

Maybe give it another read.

 

allan

 

 

From: Jay D <antonio.danza777@gmail.com>
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: email?

 

 

I have a couple links to send if you still want to do this.

 

Message body

I finally got the link to the SSP conference and was able to view your presentation, plus other stuff I messed, like the first day roundtable, which I missed due to the health issue mentioned; I was having dizzy spells that day and had to leave early.

 

Goddammit. I could have asked the questions I had in mind during the round table I missed. (Btw, I no longer take seriously my ‘SSP as limited hangout’ thoughts.)

 

Your presentation was terrific. Just was.

 

Your interest in the ‘panopticon effect’ dovetails with mine, as does your suspicions about Snowden. I wrote an essay for VT on this subject. A paragraph:

 

MaybeMichael Hastings was not working on a story that got him killed: Someone wanted to give that impression, as a warning to all ‘journalists.’ Combine Snowden’s revelations with Hastings’s obvious assassination and what do you get? You’re being watched at all times and if you step out of line, you’re dead. The Panopticon Effect on steroids.

 

The stuff about Hastings comes late in the essay but may be of interest: I’m pretty sure that the above theory is true. Hastings was part of ‘the message’; I doubt he was working on anything ‘explosive.’

 

Although Gordon Duff erased the essay (along with a lot of other stuff), it seems available now here…

 

NSA Surveillance: On Edward Snowden’s Oath and Motives

NSA Surveillance: On Edward Snowden’s Oath and MotivesBy Allan Weisbecker   “If Edward Snowden is who he says he is, he is a true hero and patriot. If, as some evidence might suggest, he is part of a psy-op meant to fu…
View on www.veteranstoday.com Preview by Yahoo

 

But to be specific about a possible interview — as I’ve tried to say, if you want to stick to the NASA/SSP/popular culture issues, that’s fine with me. My history in the movie/TV business is also up your alley, especially how I got into the business (direct from a career as a Learjet-flying international criminal) and my doings in the 1980s (I was close to Michael Mann and to Robert Chartoff, who produced a screenplay I wrote) may be of interest. Chartoff (Rocky, Raging Bull, The Right Stuff and so on) especially, was as much of an insider as you’ll find, for that era.

 

As a cinephile I’d like your opinion on the film I made — I taught myself editing/post-production and single-handed crafted 90 minutes that I think is a reasonably important work (as Jon Rappoport agrees in his review at Banditobooks.com).

 

I believe that the predictive programming syndrome you expertly outlined in your talk has greatly accelerated since the 1980s. Dude, here on earth we really are on the verge of a phase transition.

 

If I don’t hear from you, good luck and keep up the good work.

 

allan

 

Message body

Hey Jay,

 

Uhhh, what’s up?

 

allan

 

 

Message body

What’s up?

 

allan

 

 

 

 

Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2015 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: H-wood/Sean P etc

 

Allan,

 

I have exposed the Martian. Second, I don’t answer to you for my content.  Thanks for the book.

 

-Jay
(More NLP blaming me… as if I did more than make a suggestion)

See you in about a week — all goes well…