For the last three days (or is it four?) I’ve been northbound peeling across the New Mexico and Colorado flatlands. I’m talking FLATlands. Aside from Big Blue herself, in my travels I have not experienced a more expansive example of flat. And aside from taking in the flatness, I’ve been on an email tear with a certain fellow, mentioned in my last post. My view of the guy has slooooowly altered, and it’s affected my state of mind as much as the damn flatness, but in a less pleasant way. (I don’t mind the flatness at all.)
In fact, thinking about this guy, knowing there’s a stack of messages from him piling up my Inbox as I traverse the flatlands, is maybe why, at this moment as I write, Gus and I are on the roadside at a ramshackle truck stop rather than continuing our flight north to Montana.
I’m going to relate what was on my mind at the moment I decided to end this day’s travel and ‘hole up’ amongst the diesel-beasties: I was thinking how fragile and precarious and uncertain life is. (Yes, I realize that these three descriptives are pretty similar, but like most English-adjectives they do have their unique nuances. So I’m standing by my use of all of them.)
You know how the sight of a certain person’s name in your Inbox can cause a stomach flutter? You pretty much know what’s coming? Atwill. Joe Atwill. I see his name in the Inbox, I get a feeling similar to the ‘writer’s queasy gut’ I describe in my last book, Can’t You Get Along With Anyone? A Writer’s Memoir and a Tale of a Lost Surfer’s Paradise (do a word search for ‘queasy’ in the free pdf on the sidebar for details).
My writer’s queasy gut will flutter, and sometimes flare (a ‘flare’ is more intense than a flutter but nothing like a full-blown attack), when I am confronted by a certain brand of dishonesty, in CYGAWA it was usually due to the behavior of my then-girlfriend, or even just seeing her name in my Inbox. Over the last few days, the flutter has been related to my electronic relationship to Joe Atwill.
But back to the three adjectives and my mind state just before I pulled over… Ever hear of the Carrington Event? I’m not going online to check my facts so the following is from memory (I fear I’ll see the Yahoo Mail tab and be unable to help myself and click it, likely precipitating said gut flutter, which I am not in the mood for…).
The Carrington Event was our dear old sun letting out a belch of high energy protons and x-rays and so forth like our planet has not seen since. This was in 1859 and lasted for several days, maybe a week; again, this is from memory. (‘Carrington’ was an astronomer who was actually watching through a telescope at the onset.)
We don’t know for sure when the solar Event (it does deserve a big ‘E’) before 1859 – and there surely was one – slapped us upside the hemispheres, but the one in 1859 was a real show. You’ve heard of the Aurora Borealis, right? Shimmering curtains of rainbow colors from the horizon to the edge of space, normally only seen in the high latitudes, and normally only a faint though ghostly gorgeous glow. During the Carrington Event – technically referred to as a ‘coronal mass ejection’ — even in the southern U.S. you could have read a book at midnight from the spectral luminescence. If you haven’t seen the Aurora (I did once, in Nova Scotia), you’ve missed out on… again, on a show. Well, imagine the Aurora times about a million. The Carrington event blew minds – generally in a good, aesthetic way via the show, although some folks thought the end was near; it also blew most of the telegraph lines on the planet, but little else. It came, for a few days a lot of humans looked up and said ‘Wow,’ then it went. Back to living life. Some blown telegraph lines was no biggie in 1859.
Now here’s where we return to the three adjectives and what they referred to, i.e., life, it’s uncertain preciousness, its ‘tender mercies,’ the three adjectives, and so forth. The next Carrington-sized solar mass ejection is going to end life as we know it. And it’s not a matter of if, it’s when.
In 1859 the loss of telegraph lines was not a catastrophe, not even a disaster, because life as we know it was not as fragile and precarious and uncertain as it has become. Next time we have a Solar Event like the one poor old dead-now Carrington is named after, it’s going to blow every electric and electronic circuit on the planet, or nearly so. We will suddenly and completely have… no electricity. For months. (If you don’t think the Elite of this world have planned for this — using our tax dollars of course — check out Richard Sauder’s work on underground complexes.)
I’ll let you imagine that. And look it up if you doubt the drift of what I’m saying. (Without electricity to run the cooling pumps, within a few weeks every nuclear power plant world-wide will… Fuke itself, so to speak. But most of us will be dead by then, already killed by our neighbors who want something, anything, to eat or drink.)
So look up the Carrington Event and maybe appreciate the life you’ve lived, the good times you’ve had and, I hope, will continue to have. Maybe be comforted by the odds, which are good that the next humongous solar belch will probably not happen in your lifetime. (On the other hand, some scientists figure we’re overdue.)
I suspect that many of the folks who are still subscribed to this already know about the Carrington Event, so the above is not news to all of you, maybe just a reminder. Which reminds me (and there’s some needed humor coming): When I first set out on this road trip going on two years ago, I had about 4,500 subscribers to this blog. The way it’s worked – and herein lies the humor – is that when I post a blog essay, I immediately get 15 or so unsubscribes. I mean immediately. Yes, a message about my evolved interests. But then, over the following, say, three weeks or so before the next post, I sloooowly get about 15 back. Different folks (I assume) but the same number that I just lost by opening my stupid trap.
It is funny, isn’t it?
Am I discouraged? No, not at all. See, there is a culling of dumb-asses going on here, and I don’t have to do anything to bring it about, except what I’m doing now. Meanwhile, the theoretical index of critical thinking and maybe even the brute intelligence, of my readers is rising. Hooray! (On the negative side, there is the ‘preaching to the choir’ factor.)
Although I sense quivering fingers hovering over the unsubscribe button at this very moment, I’ll now press on to the real point of this essay: Mr. Joe Atwill and his emails, the thought of which may or may not have caused my depressing Carrington blurt…
Fair warning: The rest of this post is long, and if you’re not interested in the state of the ‘Alternative Media,’ it’s likely you’ll find it tiresome. A word to the….
Okay, I hung up on essaying last night and watched a video. It’s now the next day and I’ve just had a fine breakfast of bacon, eggs, grits and a waffle (real maple syrup of course, heated) as the Big Boy Diesels come and go all around me. Last night, just before sundown when the light got good I took a few minutes to make some passes at our whereabouts with my DJI Phantom 3 drone, so as to give you a glimpse of my surroundings. It’s only a few seconds, for geographical perpective….
Okay, now for context: You all may remember from last time that I had challenged Joe Atwill and his web/research partner and my absolute favorite trivium/critical thinking hypocrite, Jan Irvin, to a debate on their accusations that Ken Kesey and J.D. Salinger were conscious cohorts in a Freemason/CIA plot to ‘debase culture’ and ‘damage readers;’ according to Atwill, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and The Catcher in the Rye were specifically written to carry out this dastardly agenda. Although they have done podcasts far and wide on the subject, the ‘best’ explanation of their theory is on Gnosticmedia.com, a podcast called ‘The Trial of Ken Kesey.’ When I attempted to rebut them in the Comments section of the site, Irvin blocked me, claiming that I’m a government agent trying to spread disinformation. Well, we’ll see, but keep that accusation in mind.
Since my last post and based on the email exchange with Atwill, I’ve had what I refer to as a ‘creeping epiphany,’ i.e., a gradual revelation that some aspect of the world as I know it is actually different than I suppose. The most effective way to explain is via ‘primary citations,’ as Atwill himself would term it. I’m going to paste in a good bit of our correspondence, starting from most recent and working backwards in time. See if you grasp the essence of my creeping epiphany as we go….
- Joe Atwill <XXXXX@gmail.com>
- May 12 at 10:54 PM
Sure, don’t read the books but don’t pretend that you have the slightest idea of my position concerning brood paracitism
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Allan Weisbecker <email@example.com> wrote:
i do expect for you to explain why i have to read your book. only fair.
Please keep in mind that you have to read from the bottom up to get the chronology right. Re terms of the debate we are to have, Atwill has insisted that I read his book, Caesar’s Messiah, in order to understand his accusations against Kesey/Salinger; this goes for anyone wanting to know about Kesey/Salinger’s secret Masonic agendas. Briefly, the book posits the notion that Christianity was concocted out of whole cloth by the Flavian Caesars. For now, that’s all you need (more to come). In this exchange, ‘brood paracitism’ refers to something about his theory.
In a previous email I had suggested that Atwill read Cosmic Banditos and maybe In Search of Captain Zero, the reason being that our debate is about the 1960s counterculture; a major aspect of both books; I explained this to him and I agreed to read his book. In the above I was merely expecting tit for tat; that he explain why I should read his book.
For our purposes merely note that Atwill misdirects the conversation and fails to give the reason for reading his book.
A bit of gradual disclosure to maybe get you to hang in through the wordage to come: What Atwill does in virtually every exchange is a good, sometimes perfect, example of what we are bombarded with on a constant basis by the PTB (powers that be). Likewise, more on this to come, plus we may get to the bottom of my mention of the Carrington Event. Read the second one first….
- Joe Atwill <XXXXX@gmail.com>
- May 12 at 10:52 PM
LOL – ducking you – why? so far you have not made a single point with merit
It is his entire life that shows him an agent
thus your logic is beyond flawed but please be my guest to try and make this point
I will try and read yout book
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Allan Weisbecker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
you’ve said several times that kesey is AUTOMATICALLY guilty of being a govt agent because of his behavior (i’ll not list it) — i.e., he could not possibly be someone just living his life.
[Giving a reason he should read my book]: i will show that i must be automatically guilty by your standards as well. then i will show that i am not guilty. if you don’t see the connection, maybe listeners will.
i am busy too. if this doesnt do it, then don’t read the book.
[In my P.S. I suspect that Atwill will duck debating me.)
We’re only warming up for the beauts but note that I was explaining why he should read my book. As answer he 1). Claims that I have not made a single point and 2) Ken Kesey’s entire life shows that he was a ‘lifetime actor,’ i.e., a CIA agent. Note that no information about Kesey is imparted and, as you will clearly see, I have made a shitload of valid points before this exchange – so Atwill’s whole email, short as it is, is pure tripe. Untrue in every way.
Now you may be thinking that Atwill is merely arguing his case, if shakily. What I will show (ladies and gentlemen of the…) is that Atwill automatically employs misdirection/NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) in all that he writes or argues. (I mean NLP in the sense with which I charge James Corbett, i.e., as a tactic of ‘passive’ mind control; black propaganda.) As I say, in these exchanges Atwill will show his true colors; he can’t help himself…
- Joe Atwill <XXXXXX@gmail.com>
- May 12 at 2:38 PM
- Allan Weisbecker
- Message body
Will read Search of Captain Zero only if you can produce some coherent analysis showing it is relevant to my analysis of Salinger or Kesey.
I asked for this before and you whiffed so maybe now you will show “how they are relevant to debate.”
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Allan Weisbecker <email@example.com> wrote:
I will read CM [Caesar’s Messiah] but i expect you to read In Search of Caption Zero and at least the Forward to Banditos. [I already sent him a copy of Cosmic Banditos after he sent his address for this purpose.]
You don’t agree to that, fine, but I will use it as an example of shoddy research. The books are ABOUT the counterculture and i will show how they are relevant to the debate.
Notice I am only making a reasonable request re the debate, while Atwill again… well, he lies when he says I didn’t explain why he should read the book. (I am editing out our negotiations about where to have the debate; this is solely to make this as readable as possible; Atwill will claim otherwise, but I care not; more misdirection.)
May 12 at 12:09 PM
This is getting silly. Honestly to date you have not provided any meaningful criticism and seem to want me to explain the thesis to you.
Look, read the books and articles and then post written criticism grounded in fact. Otherwise you are simply wasting both of our time.
As misdirection, he keeps repeating this… untruth (that I have not provided anything meaningful)… for as Goebbels has said, ‘Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth.’ As my psychopathic girlfriend once said, regarding her work in Public Relations: ‘Perception is truth.’
You may have read what follows before – if so, just skim it or skip down to where I have A SUMMATION in bold; Atwill’s partner blocked it from their (Atwill/Irvin’s) Comments section at Gnosicmedia.com. See if Atwill’s constant claim (in many emails I haven’t pasted in) can in any way be considered true…
While working on my defense of Kesey it is more and more occurring to me that you are not much interested in the actual truth of the matter but rather consumed with ‘being right.’ This is obvious in many ways – one being your answer to my observation that Kesey’s famous cross country ‘Furthur’ Bus Trip (in 1964) did not involve giving out LSD to ‘civilians’ (folks they met on the road). You answered with a link about the movie ‘The Magic Trip,’ which contained a line saying they took acid at ‘the party,’ referring to when they got stuck in the mud in Arizona. Anyone who watched the movie (or even just reading the line) would know that no one other than the Pranksters was even there (until a tractor came to pull them out), let alone took acid. Since you are an intelligent person I have to consider this a ‘lie.’ Here is the quote you alluded to and the URL:
‘After Cassady drove the bus off the road in Arizona, Kesey dosed the party with LSD. They tipped model paint into a stream, then dipped a T-shirt in it to create the tie-dyed effect that would become associated with San Francisco’s incipient Haight-Ashbury hippy scene. Throughout, Kesey guides the action like a ringmaster, participating but also directing. “Dad would say acid is not for everybody but if you can handle it there are things to be learnt,” says Zane.’ [If Kesey was part of the Grand Conspiracy to Debase and Damage Culture (GCDDC), why would he say that LSD isn’t for everyone? – a minor point, but there it is.]
I repeat: There is no evidence that Kesey gave out acid during the famous Bus trip in ’64. If you have any, provide it or detract your accusation. [Atwill denied saying this until I provided the following clip, which caused further misdirection/lies]
Here is Atwill telling this whopper about Kesey:
The fact that nowhere in your various articles and podcasts do you mention the 2011 movie ‘The Magic Trip’ [which is about the famous Bus Trip] is further evidence that truth is not really your agenda. Possibly your reticence in mentioning the movie is related (in part) to my above observation re Kesey not giving ‘civilians’ (non pranksters) acid on the trip. Again, no evidence in the film or anywhere else that he did this.
The movie also clearly shows who was on the trip: This is not a help in your fingering Kesey as a CIA asset, since you cannot show any of the bus folks as dirty. (If you consider Neal Cassady dirty, please provide a primary citation of some sort.) If you’re going to claim that the filmmakers cleverly avoided showing who was on the bus or whether they handed out LSD, please provide a motive that makes sense.
The ‘Kesey tape’ you used in your ‘trial’ is another example of your cavalier attitude toward truth – you somehow failed to mention the provenance of the tape or the fact that Kesey had been deceased for 10 years when the movie came out (2011). You admitted in an email that you didn’t even try to find out if the voice on the tape is even Kesey’s. I tried to find out but Alex Gibney (the director) has not answered my query. BUT whether it is Kesey on the tape or not is not the point. You didn’t try to find out the truth and didn’t reveal the facts behind that tape. You eviscerated Kesey for a clip that he had nothing to do with.
[I hope you folks understand how dishonest this was, and how dishonest it was to conduct a ‘trial’ with no defense.]
How would this have gone at a real trial, with a defense?
In your recent Unspun 20 you do mention that Leary says ‘pastel colored’ in referring to ‘the buses’ that ran around the country. I had not noticed this before. I now have to agree that Leary was referring to Kesey, which means Leary may have considered Kesey as an ‘asset’ to the Grand Conspiracy to Debase and Damage Culture (GCDDC).
What you fail to understand is that in an op of this kind, it is meant to take on a life of its own by creating ‘assets’ who are merely living their lives in the context of the emerging culture. Proof of this is your repeated comment that ‘If there was a GCDDC then Kesey is automatically guilty (of being a CIA/Masonic/whatever operative),’ meaning a conscious asset and a ‘lifetime actor’ [a formal CIA ‘agent’].
Kesey may have been ‘an asset’ as far as Leary was concerned, but as I will point out (in my ‘defense’), there is no real evidence that Kesey was a ‘conscious’ asset. Or rather, the only ‘evidence’ you have is your analysis of Cuckoo’s Nest – which I will deal with in my defense, when it is ready. Your inaccurate (if not dishonest) analysis of the provenance of the title is only one example:
One flew east,
One flew west,
One flew over the Cuckoo’s nest.
This is the opening epigraph of Cuckoo’s Nest. Kesey does the same in his next book, Sometimes a Great Notion, i.e., use an epigraph as the title derivation. Your ‘Gospels’- related analysis does not mention the possibility that the title came from the reference that Kesey says it does – the kid’s rhyme – or explain why this is incorrect.
[Atwill has written a book called ‘Caesar’s Messiah’ that claims Christianity was concocted out of whole cloth by the Flavian Caesars (around A.D. 75) as a means of mind control. He claims that Kesey (and Salinger) were both aware of this and laid in ‘topology’ (symbolism) in their books secretly extolling the Flavians via a Freemason plot. Atwill claims that in reality Big Nurse was the hero of the book and Kesey’s term ‘The Combine’ (an early reference to the Deep State) was something he approved of. Although I have no opinion on the supposed Flavian scheme, that Kesey secretly cheered on the sinister/occult plot to debase culture is obvious hogwash. (I say ‘obvious’ because I can prove it.)
Again, just one example from my upcoming defense of Kesey.
(I made a short video also exposing Atwill’s nonsense re the title, so you can hear it in his own voice)
To repeat: Kesey was an asset only in the same sense that I was an asset (to the GCDDC, the Grand Conspiracy) in my pot smuggling days. This observation is related to my request that you [Atwill] read my book, Cosmic Banditos (an autobiographical novel). You should also read my memoir, In Search of Captain Zero, which details my smuggling days and my hob-knobbing with various spooks and international criminals (in Panama in 1978, during the Canal Treaty fiasco, for example, when I hung with Noriega before the CIA killed Torrijos and he took over).
You would also find it interesting (as written about in Zero) that I went from Learjet flying smuggler and international surfer/vagabond (like Kesey, a ‘counterculture anti-hero’) to successful screenwriter virtually overnight – after scuttling a sailboat with 10,000 pounds of pot off Puerto Rico, I checked into the spook-laden U.N. Plaza hotel, wrote a screenplay, flew out to Hollywood and that day had a deal for the script (described in Zero). Soon thereafter I was working with the likes of Michael Mann (I helped create ‘Miami Vice’) and Bob Chartoff (of Rocky and Raging Bull and The Right Stuff fame), who produced my original screenplay, Beer.
Your accusations toward various counterculture people often include how ‘absurd’ and ‘ridiculous’ their ‘life histories’ are: You simplify someone’s history then say that the only explanation is that he/she is funded or directed by MK ULTRA — or the Masons or whatever. Is my history not just as ridiculous? Well, read my books; it’s all true.
Between my instant transition to successful H-wood writer and the ‘culturally damaging’ story I wrote in Cosmic Banditos and given the reasons behind your accusations re Kesey (and Salinger, for that matter), you would have to define me as ‘automatically’ being as guilty as Kesey is. Go ahead and accuse me of being a traitor to my generation and of trying to damage my readers. Go ahead. See if it flies.
Your refusal to read my book(s) is evidence that truth is not your main agenda. (I offered and you asked for a copy of Cosmic Banditos, which I signed and sent you. Now you and Jan are claiming it’s irrelevant. Why then send your address for mailing it to you?)
Okay. Enough for now. I am emailing this and also putting it in the comments section of Unspun 20 and Postflaviana.com. [Again, it was blocked.] I want your site folks to know that I am creating a defense for Ken Kesey and that I expect you and Jan to post it as prominently as you did Kesey’s ‘trial.’
As I have said before (in emails), you have accused a wonderful writer who is not here to defend himself of committing the greatest sin a writer can commit: Consciously seeking to damage his reader. As I will clearly show, you have done this with one-sided and even bogus evidence.
That you called your accusations a ‘trial’ when no defense was included was a travesty. You should not have labeled it a ‘trial.’ Shame on you.
My defense will show an ongoing dishonesty via untruths by omission and outright untruths. [What I really mean is ‘lies.’]
P.S. You have not (to my knowledge) explained when this CIA conspiracy (GCDDC) began. I don’t expect an exact date but how about a general one or at least a time frame?
# If you want to know why I added the ‘P.S., it had to do with Salinger, not Kesey. The point being that Salinger was writing Catcher in the Rye in 1940 (I can and will prove this), which means that if he was out to ‘debase culture and damage readers’ (Atwill’s oft repeated accusation), he must’ve been in on the plot before the CIA was even founded. (Atwill claims the plot was an MK ULTRA project.) So Salinger, like Kesey, was innocent of Atwill’s libelous claims.
[According to Atwill, and repeated over and over, I’ve made no meaningful points. Do you agree, or was he lying?]
[The following Comment was also blocked]:
I have another question re ‘The Magic Trip’: Is this where you first got the idea that Kesey was part of the Grand Conspiracy to Debase and Damage Culture (GCDDC)? I ask because toward the end of the film Kesey is being interviewed and he says that Allen Ginsberg told him that the psychedelic revolution was a CIA plot to dumb down the kids. Mmmmm. Sounds familiar. Maybe you didn’t recommend the film because it might seem odd that a major participant in the GCDDC would spill the beans about the op. (As you know, I believe that there was such a plot.)
While I’m thinking about it: You claim that Kesey must be dirty because he otherwise couldn’t afford the Bus trip, the expenses and all the acid (that he did not give away!). Well, maybe you forgot that he had two successful books in print, both having been bought for the movies, not to mention a Broadway play based on one of them. Aside from my other similarities to Kesey (hey, I’m living the cross country lifestyle now, in my RV!), I had two of my books bought for the movies (by Sean Penn and John Cusack). I made over $400,00 total, just on the movie deals.
Did you forget how much movie deals make an author or were you ‘padding’ your evidence with an outright untruth?
My point in asking you to wade through the above is actually an important one, although a bit of attention is required. I have posited that Atwill automatically uses misdirection/NLP in any arguments that he makes. So far, so good.
Culturally and especially via the media (including movies and TV ‘entertainment’ shows) we are constantly bombarded with Atwill’s style of… in effect… lying… to sum up, in the above essay I observe:
1) To ‘prove’ that Kesey gave out LSD (to folks on the road) during the famous 1964 ‘Furthur Bus Trip, Atwill refers me to a link that proves my point. But to realize this, you have to go there and read it. Atwill (and the PTB) know that few people will do this, so they just… lie.
Again (if you missed it), here is Atwill lying in his own voice:
I call it a lie because Atwill surely knows what’s on the link. This technique is employed over and over again by this guy, as you have seen and will see again. Please, in your daily life, you must be aware of this style of misdirection/NLP!
2) I showed the absurdity of Atwill’s analysis of the title of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Atwill’s answer this was to pretend it isn’t there. (Remember he says over and over and over that I ‘have no meaningful points.’ If he repeats it enough times, it becomes true.)
Again, and if you skipped the above, here is Atwill on the title:
3) I exposed a list of untruths in his theory, like Kesey must have been CIA financed or how else could he afford the bus trip? Like Atwill doesn’t know how much Kesey made from his books and movie deals and the Broadway play. Another lie.
4) I explained in detail why Atwill should read my book(s); later he claims that I never did, and in another says I ‘whiffed.’ Another lie/misdirection/NLP. And so on.
5) Atwill/Irvin, in effect lied to their site folks by not alerting them to the movie The Magic Trip and the fact that the Kesey audio tape they use to eviscerate Kesey was from that film, and that Kesey had been dead for ten years when the tape and movie came out.
This is not an innocent omission, as they claim. This is a bald-faced lie by omission. Anyone watching it would know that, for one thing, Kesey did not give out LSD to people they met. They’d also hear Kesey himself theorizing that the CIA was behind LSD, mighty strange for a major player in the plot! And so forth.
Again, to see the well-done credit sequence to The Magic Bus; Ken Kesey’s Search for a Kool Place Click here. (This reveals who was actually on the bus, none linkable to the CIA, including Kesey himself.)
6) I explained that since Salinger was working on Catcher in the Rye in 1940 – seven years before the CIA was created – he could not possibly have been writing the book for MK ULTRA, which is Atwill’s absurd claim.
‘No meaningful points,’ huh, Joe?
Moving on to another great example (read the second email first):
Please reference a single point of my analysis of Catcher that Frater disagreed with during our two hour discussion.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Allan Weisbecker<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Ok, i’ll try this from memory, and keep it simple:
Where did you get the ‘secret hatred’ concept from? [‘Secret Hatred’ is supposed Freemason imagery from Cuckoo’s Nest – Atwill is making this up our of whole cloth; he cannot give any citations.]
If it’s from your Catcher essay, please quote the passage and how it says that ‘secret hatred’ is a deep masonic concept. (This is what I mean by your misdirection: you claim to answer the question by referring me to an essay that does no such thing.)
Also keep this in mind:
[The following is a quote from ‘Fraterx,’ an expert on the Freemasons]:
Yes. He (Atwill) admitted to me personally he wished he had conferred with me before publishing to clarify his unsubstantiated speculations…
…I have no source nor any mention of secret hatred from FM (Freemasonry) toward humanity through my extensive and exhaustive research.
This is indeed a perfect example of Atwill’s from-the-handbook use of misdirection/NLP: I ask where he got the ‘secret hatred’ he claims is the essence of the inner circle of Freemasons, since Atwill uses this concept (repeating ‘secret hatred over and over) as ‘proof’ that Kesey is an member of the ‘inner party’ of Freemasons. Thing is, the podcast with Fraterx does not mention anything about the Freemason’s. Same misdirection technique as with the Kesey/LSD issue. But since you have to go listen to the podcast to see that he’s lying, Atwill figures ‘Who is going to notice?
When I catch him on this lie, he tells me to go to his essay on Catcher in the Rye. So I go there and of course there is no mention at all of any ‘secret hatred.’ None. Here is the second email of a half dozen wherein I asked a simple question that Atwill answered via an equal number of misdirections (he has the gall to ask ‘What answer?’ as if he doesn’t know what I’m talking about):
May 11 at 5:56 AM
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Allan Weisbecker <email@example.com> wrote:
Where did you get the notion that Freemasons harbor a ‘secret hatred’ of any sort? Do you have any ‘primary citations’?
The above was in response to Atwill saying:
Jan blocked it because he believes that your analysis reflects mental illness and not rational thought.
You read my blocked comment. Mental illness? Another state technique is gaslighting, i.e., claiming someone is ‘mentally ill’ when misdirection doesn’t work. This is the ‘discrediting’ technique that the media routinely uses when the facts are inconvenient. It’s the fallacy known as ‘Killing the messenger.’ Please keep on the lookout for this scheme in your daily life.
Atwill can’t help himself. Like the purveyors of the culture at large, he’s ‘programmed’ to use the misdirection/NLP handbook.
Still another one, and this is a real beaut, in a sense my favorite, in that so many techniques from the government handbook are utilized. To avoid confusion I will paste these in the proper order, so you can read from the top down. First…
[Here I quote Atwill from his analysis of Catcher in the Rye]: The first typological clue Salinger provides to the identity of the ‘secret society’ is given in a scene at the beginning of the book where Caulfield is discussing his grade with his history teacher, Mr. Spencer, who states that Caulfield “studied the Egyptians” for twenty-eight days and then failed a test about the subject.
[Atwill quotes from Salinger’s book]:
“We studied the Egyptians from November 4th to December 2nd,” he said. “You chose to write about them for the optional essay question. Would you care to hear what you had to say?”
[The reason Atwill does this is there is a 28 day period of learning in the Freemason initiation, so Atwill is claiming that Salinger was ‘dropping in’ a Freemason ‘image’ with the dates, since they equal ’28 days.’ Here is my reply to that]:
From Nov 4th to Dec 2 is twenty-nine days, not 28. If you want to say that we don’t include the dates mentioned specifically, you’re still one off, wrong the other way . Sure, you can say ‘we include one date but not the other,’ but that would be…[bullshit]
Does ‘almost’ count in typology (symbolism)? Maybe, but you should say it: ‘Almost 28 days.’
[In point of fact – and Atwill well knows this – with symbology, especially numerical symbology, you have to be exact or it ‘doesn’t count.’ If it ain’t 28 days, it means nothing.]
Do the count yourself to see if I’m right, that it’s 29 days. What Atwill does next is classic. Here is his reply:
if at 12 PM November 4 (this is noon) a teacher states the test will be given in 672 hours (this is 28 days) exactly when will it be given? Answer 12 PM December 2
preciscion is important to these guys [I guess spelling isn’t important to Atwill]
I have gone through all the Freemason stuff with real Freemasons so maybe look for over areas to attack
I had to laugh my ass off picturing a feverish Atwill doing all these calculations to somehow come up with 28 days. Then he tries this:
May 3 at 8:14 PM
to show you how long 28 days is
if teacher tells student at 11:30 PM ” you have exactly one day to study before the test,” does he give the test at 12:01 AM of the next day?
bored with this [end email]
Hilarious, no? This is almost… cartoonish misdirection. So I pointed out…
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Allan Weisbecker <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
If precession is so important, why didn’t Salinger just say, Nov 4 to Dec 1, say, instead of making you (and I do mean you) do all that math to somehow come out 28 days? I mean, it’s already ‘cryptic’ since he doesn’t actually say 28 days. Why the extra layer?
Atwill then tries a real howler, writing…
if at 12 PM November 4 (this is noon) a teacher states the test will be given in 672 hours (this is 28 days) exactly when will it be given? Answer 12 PM December 2 [end email]
Imagine more feverish calculations to get the number he needs. But then Atwill outdoes himself, switching to the ultimate tool from the handbook, gaslighting.
I am not one day off
why the extra layer?
maybe want to know this before criticizing my work
in general, oligarchs know serfs can’t do puzzles or see symbolic level so they use them to communicate
Why do I call this the ultimate tool? Because Atwill is now right out of Orwell: ‘The Party’s final command was to ignore your own senses.’ 2 + 2 = 5. Atwill is denying the truth of the math, his final, go-to desperation measure. After doing all that convoluted math to get 28 days, he now switches to claiming that 29 days is really 28. 2 + 2 = 5!
You can’t go any deeper into the Deep State playbook than that, folks.
And the funny, and perhaps more significant, aspect of the above is that Atwill didn’t need to argue the point. There are plenty of Freemason allusions in The Catcher in the Rye, no doubt about it. (Atwill claims that Salinger is extolling Freemasonry when it’s 100% obvious that he hates it.) With this little detailhe could have, should have, said, ‘Yes, I made an error with this one. Good catch, Allan.’ (This too would have been a lie – he good and goddamn well knew that November 4th to December 2nd is twenty-nine days.)
He couldn’t help himself. Atwill and Irvin and Jerry Russell (Atwill’s partner in Postflaviana.com) represent psychopathy on the individual levels, while those that direct them are on the Deep State level. (They all operate from the same play book; examples of Russell and Irvin are not for this post. I fear I’ve tried your patience enough but you must understand that lies are easy and can be perpetrated in a sentence or a sound bite. Truth comes harder, and longer, and takes some dedication.)
There is plenty more but I mainly appreciate that you got this far, and that you likely understand how the chronic dishonesty of a single person has larger implications, in this case regarding what has become known as the Alternative Media. As is implied via my post ‘An Open Letter to James Corbett’ and now with another Alt Media ‘researcher’ (plus his two cronies) shown to be chronically dishonest, we cannot assume anyone is truly on our side, the side of… well… of true history.
Writing this has not been fun; between my writer’s queasy gut and the accompanying creeping epiphany, no, not fun.
But the question – posed in my last post – remains: What am I really up against here? Do I have anything to worry about? Repercussions (aside from more misdirections/NLP)?
Although I’m certain that that all I’ve written here is being monitored, if only via a complex A.I. algorithm, it may not be perceived as being worth any ‘trouble,’ and as much as Atwill and Irvin (especially) hate me (Irvin has been crazed since my Open Letter to Jan Irvin), they may be embarrassed that some aging ex-surf bum on the road with his dog has exposed them so decisively, and hesitant to call in for back up, if indeed they have that capability to begin with.
So there’s that. My sense is that if I make it to the upcoming ‘debate,’ I’ll be all right; but I am by no means overly optimistic. I’ve been perhaps too big mouthed: James Corbett, Sean Penn, these guys, plus my list of Secret Space Program attendees that failed to answer my simple though potentially damaging questions about NASA’s continuing frauds…
Anyone who thinks that exposing covert government agents is a fun game with no risks better think again. Recall what happened to Michael Hastings and his new Mercedes…
I recently wrote an ‘elephant in the room’ email to a slew of Alt Media folks, all well-known, pointing out how apparently no one wants to deal with said pachyderm, i.e., how many Alt Media outlets are actually limited hangout/controlled opposition, averring that IMO the percentage has to be 80% or better. Leaving 20%….
I got no replies from anyone. Not 20%. Zip. Zero. Nada. No one wants to deal with it. Why?
Why do I do it?
I can’t seem to help myself with liars and hypocrites. In that sense, maybe I am mentally ill…
I meant to wrap this up, sort of bookend it, with an final allusion to the Carrington Event, and how it relates to liars and hypocrites and how fragile and uncertain and precarious life is, but I figure the above last line will have to do…