I’m Asking For Help

While I’m digging into the PTB/H-wood system of culture creation/mind control I also need some help. I’m hoping that you all will pitch in and help spread around the Net my Open Letter to William Friedkin & Tracy Letts (Authors of ‘Bug’).

Now that I’ve properly edited the piece, cut it down in length and sharpened it up (which I should have done before subjecting you to it), I really see it as an important outing of two PTB puppets, plus a set-up for a proper exposé of how the H-wood system really works.

My backyard these days.

What each of you can do will depend on your dedication to the truth and how much time you have to put into the effort. What we want to do is put my essay in front of as many eyes as possible, so let’s first make a list of media (MS and alt) outlets that in theory should see the truth and the implications behind my analysis, and seek to alert their audience to it. (Depending on how they react, by doing this we will also be testing to see who is really on our side and who isn’t. As with other exposés I’ve done, such as the Spacex fraud, if an alt media outlet ignores your missive, we have a piece of evidence that they’re dirty.)

So one thing I’m asking is for a list of outlets. Once we have that, I’ll compose an email, cut and paste it, do a bit of customizing (to personalize each one) and send of the volley. Then, within a day or so, those of you who want to can add your own recommendation and send that off (to whoever on the list you want). For example, here’s my email to Truthstream Media, which has done some excellent work over the years:

Some version of the above would go out to everyone on our list. I’ll wait a couple days before sending out the volley, to give you guys (whoever wants to help in this way) time to send your emails, so our communications are not on top of each other, which would look iffy.

We may be up against something of this… nature. (COVID is a ‘bug’, after all.)

At the end of this post I’ll paste in some paragraphs from my post, to use in your emails. Or not. These are just suggestions. Maybe pick one or two paragraphs as examples of what they can expect in the Open Letter; there are enough to make duplications unlikely (which would also look iffy).

One reason for my request for help is the dismal subscribership response that resulted from the post. I put well over a week into crafting the post. My original essay was 6,000 words, which I looked at then deleted in disgust when I realized that anyone who hadn’t seen Bug would not understand what the fuck I was talking about.

So I had to start over from scratch, do a page one rewrite. Some of the 6,000 word draft will make it into Part Two, if I decide to go ahead with it. Frankly, though, if I don’t get help in spreading Part One, it’s unlikely that I’ll do a Part Two. This isn’t some kind of threat; it’s just the way it is. After all the work I put into the Open Letter, I got zero subscribes and two unsubscribes. WTF?

The campsite before this one.

The other thing I’d like some of you to do is write an Amazon review (if you’re a Prime member). Go here then scroll down and click ‘Write a Customer Review.’ And let me know via email or a comment if/when you’ve posted a review. (Again, you can use the excerpts below as part of your review, or just as inspiration.) So far, my review remains ‘in moderation’; not a good sign. 

The results of this will reveal something important: We’ll know if Amazon has been censoring reviews. Several of you brought this up and it’s indeed a vital question. 

Okay. Help with the list and please do this: When you send a recommendation to a person or outlet, put me in the bcc (allan at banditobooks dot com). This will make it easy to keep track of the proceedings.

Allan

Addendum: (a couple hours after posting): I heard from Amazon about my Bug review (see image). So it’s more important than ever that some of you submit reviews referring to my Open Letter post. A review that sums up the

What ‘community guidelines’ are violated by my review? Dishonesty exposure?

disinformation inherent in the movie. Meanwhile I will call Amazon and demand an explanation.

Excerpts from my Open Letter…

Bug is in part a crafty discrediting of ‘conspiracy theories’, defined as anything that goes against what we are told to believe by the powers-that-be (PTB). And it’s more, much more, for what it represents on several levels.

#

I spent a few hours looking into the history of Bug, interviews and bios and such, plus the reviews (mainstream plus Amazon and other audience analyses). I found the following from Wikipedia to be a typical example of how the critics, the audience (based on 573 Amazon customer reviews, which, including the ‘critics, I will refer to as ‘The Blind 600’), and indeed the storytellers themselves, interpreted the movie:

‘Bug is a 2006 psychological horror film directed by William Friedkin, and starring Ashley Judd, Michael Shannon, Lynn Collins, Brían F. O’Byrne, and Harry Connick Jr. The screenplay by Tracy Letts is based on his 1996 play of the same name in which a woman holed up in a rural Oklahoma motel becomes involved with a paranoid man who suffers from delusional parasitosis and is obsessed with conspiracy theories.’

The above ‘analysis’ is not only incorrect, but diametrically the opposite of what the story on the screen says and does (dialog and action). It not only gets the subtextual meaning dead wrong, but doesn’t seem to have registered the events depicted on screen. This appears to be denial on a level I haven’t seen before, and here it is evidenced in a piece of fiction, not ‘real life.’

#

These are heroic characters battling an ultimate force of evil, not a pair of weaklings on a drug binge that drives them to a horrendous mutual self-destruction. (In fact, Peter never even has a drink, let alone do drugs.) And seriously, which of these two stories is more interesting? Which story would, say, Oscar-winner William Friedkin be more likely to be attracted to? Mmmm? Then why is he representing the story of Bug as of drugged out weaklings?

#

Bug is mind control predictive (or pre-emptive) programming in disguise (as a psychological horror tale); it’s also important, urgently so, given current events, for how it discredits anyone who doesn’t accept the ‘official story’ about… say, the provenance of the COVID-19 virus (or ‘bug,’ in the medical vernacular) – they tell us it came out of a bat cave when the transparent truth is that it was bio-engineered right here in the U.S. of A. — that is said to be ravishing the planet as I write. That the ‘bugs’ (in the movie), as self-replicating, transmitting ‘chips, prefigure the urgent (for the PTB) 5G rollout, should occur to even a neophyte critical thinker.

#

To what extent does the concept of ‘delusion’ spill out of the screen and involve the audience? And to what extent are the storytellers (Friedkin/Letts) victims of their own brand of delusion? Or is it a profound and malevolent dishonesty? 

#

Friedkin/Letts, the storytellers, are either delusional themselves or part of a mind control agenda that is rife in the entertainment system. 

#

So as a filmmaker, with the image of the ‘mother bug’ at the ‘climax’ of the sex scene Friedkin is giving the game away, answering the question posed by the premise, yelling in our faces that THE BUGS ARE REAL!’

#

Yet when Friedkin writes or talks about the movie he tells us something else altogether. This is from an interview specifically about Bug, and I’ll leave the paragraph intact to see if you pick up on ‘the problem’:

Friedkin: What attracts people to art in any form? There are a number of dark works that are intriguing because they reveal the constant struggle of good and evil that exists in all of us. I’m not just talking about where a guy takes a chainsaw and cuts somebody up for two hours and then the movie’s over. What you refer to as the dark side, I refer to as if it does have validity underneath the surface, it’s something that’s dealing with the thin line between good and evil that is in all of us. The character who seems to be the darkest at first, her ex-husband, is the guy that’s trying to save her. A lot of people don’t think about that aspect of it, but that’s what attracted me to this, aside from the great writing and the good roles.

If your mouth isn’t hanging open with your eyes narrowed — or if you have your own way of registering astonishment — if that isn’t happening right now… well, I’m not sure why you’re still reading…

‘The character who seems to be the darkest at first, her ex-husband, is the guy that’s trying to save her. A lot of people don’t think about that aspect of it…’

The easiest way to put it: I actually did read over 600 reviews/commentaries on Bug and can honestly say that Friedkin’s take on Goss and his part in the story is the…. the outright stupidest. Or to be kind… the outright most off-base. This is from the Academy Award-winning director of The French Connection and The Exorcist, and… Bug.

#

There is a mind control agenda in the entertainment business, the movie business, and the Friedkin/Letts movie Bug — as powerful and superbly crafted as it is — is a supreme example of how that agenda works now, in present day. (I was heavily involved in ‘the biz’ for the decade of the 1980s.)

#

In my recent reading of Friedkin’s memoir, I skipped ahead to his description of the making of Bug. I was particularly interested in his views on the story itself: He goes to great lengths in describing his other movies, everything from who worked on them, who didn’t work on them, to his detailed analysis of the screenplays; you name it, Friedkin has a lot to say about it.

But when it came to Bug, the great director had almost nothing to say about the story, other than to echo most of the Amazon reviews, i.e., Peter is a delusional nutcase who sucks the lonely, vulnerable Agnes into his personal hell. Unlike most of the other 600 analyses I read, though, he does manage to mention Doctor Sweet:

‘A man claiming to be someone named Doctor Sweet, Peter’s personal physician, pays an unexpected visit, leading to murder and self-immolation.’

Wow. Methinks this Oscar-winning filmmaker might have missed something in his own story.

Note: Again, these are merely suggestions/inspirations. Use them (or don’t) how you want.