Checkers Anyone?

I’m in no rush to publish Part Two of my exposé on the H-wood/PTB system of mind control, even after listening to the Friedkin’s ‘Director’s Commentary’ on the Bug DVD, and delving into a few other director’s histories, to see how wide and deep the corruption goes, notwithstanding that I pretty much already knew.

To those actively (in comments) clamoring for more on this subject, think about it from my point of view: I outright ask (a plea) for help in spreading around the Bug essay (a good two weeks work) with the thought that if it really got around, maybe Friedkin/Letts would come across it and be reminded what scumfucks they really are… but, more importantly – and I’ve written a few other Open Letters and essays I feel likewise about – my work might wake up a few others, at least amongst the little Bug movie cult that’s out there.

Addendum: I eventually did the spreading-the-word on my own via the 20-plus ‘alt media’ people I’ve been in touch with before. Not a word back nor did any of them provide to their readers links to my page, but I expected this, given that they all know I’m on to them (as PTB puppetery moles). See, this is why I need your help; blowing my own horn is inefficient for several reasons. I spend a couple weeks providing the truth and you guys would help me spread it. Too much to ask, I guess (with a couple or so exceptions). Okay, but don’t bug me about not providing enough amusement. 

I also visited applicable Forums and YT comment sections and pasted in my pitch/link. For those of you who harbor doubts about the degree and success of H-wood’s mind fucking, you might give this podcast a look, a two-hour-plus round table analysis of Bug by a bunch of intellectuals/critics, one of whom (by far the most meat-headed of the lot) actually professionally produced Bug on stage. (Hearing this precipitated a startled yowl from yours truly, loud enough to jar Gus awake outside.) With this lockdown and so forth you probably have the time and should give this piece of work a look, for how surreal it gets as it rolls along, surreal in the doublethink/denial sense. (It’s also fun to quite correctly feel so superior to snobs like this crew.) 

Four intellectuals in two hours of ‘deep analysis’ blabbing, and the closest anyone came… how to put this?… the closest anyone came to almost getting the meaning of Bug was… and I love this… one of them quoted a review I somehow hadn’t come across, and which said (the review did) that maybe Bug was a way of ‘discrediting conspiracy theories’… but holy shit, talk about right on the nose!… and the four of them applauded that review for its lunacy, i.e., for how it showed how multi-layered Bug really is, in the sense that even outright over-the-top nutcases can find ideas to identify with. I kid you not. 

If you do go there, click ‘Newest Comments’ and see if mine are still there. (I left three comments, couldn’t help myself.) The crew being ‘liberals’ I don’t expect they’ll censor me; but they certainly won’t reply either. Think about leaving a comment heckling them for not replying to my sarcasm or responding to my linked essay.

But see, my comments on that podcast were the sorts of thing I was hoping to get help on. From you. Come on. If you don’t pitch in a bit, don’t righteously complain later when… ah, fuck it. Never mind.

So I sat through Friedkin’s commentary and don’t have much to say about it. More of the same, but he had almost two hours to fill and you could tell how unhappy he was at having to do it; I’m sure he would have dodged it (the commentary) had it not been  contractual. This was a few days ago (my listening), so lemme dig up my notes…

… what a mess (my notes)…I dunno if you really need to hear this, but some of Friedkin’s silences (during on-screen action) are significant, so I’ll list a few: Goss sniffs his son Lloyd’s shirt, mumbling ‘Little shit,’ any of the four ‘Lavoice custody’ beats, Agnes noticing no flyers on the other cars (pretty important), the bugs we see during the sex scene (super important), plus when RC first mentions Doctor Sweet… and so forth and on and on.

Friedkin mostly filled in the two hours spouting utter platitudes (about life in general) or claiming ignorance of what anything in the film means. When he ran out of this garbage he would simply tell us what we can clearly see on the screen, i.e., ‘Agnes opens the wine with her teeth,’ ‘the ceiling fan goes around and around’, and so forth. 

But it was his many claims of ignorance of what the action/dialog means that had me snarling in disgust. See, it’s okay for a storyteller to leave certain story elements unclear in their meaning (subtext) to the audience (which is not the case here, everything being so clear), but he/they had better know the truth, the deeper meanings, what happens off-camera, backstory events, etc., otherwise he/they cannot direct the picture.

Having dodged (through silence) the meaning of RC talking about Doctor Sweet, I was really looking forward to Sweet’s actual appearance (with Goss), how Friedkin would deal with it, given that the scene blows the whistle on… everything…

Guess how Friedkin deals with the Sweet scene — and actually I should have seen this coming, since Friedkin had nowhere else to go… he stutters out ‘I’m not sure if Sweet actually exists as a real person.’

Of course, via dropping this incredible load of horse shit, Friedkin completely lets himself off the hook of having to deal with the many reveals Sweet represents. Need I actually explain why this ultimate claim of ignorance makes no sense whatsoever? I mean, does anyone out there still not understand what’s going on with Friedkin/Letts?

Friedkin might as well have said that Peter is imaginary and that the whole movie is Agnes’s dream. But just from a technical (film logic) viewpoint, RC, in an earlier scene, had spilled the beans about Doctor Sweet’s search for Peter, so when Sweet shows up (with Goss) he pretty much has to be ‘real.’ And let’s not forget this beaut from Friedkin (to an interviewer):

 

 

‘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…’

I have to say it again: Wow. Does anyone doubt that Friedkin is lying here — as opposed to exposing some sort of cosmic dumbassedness — misdirecting, saying anything, no matter how stupid, to avoid the truth?

One more time: On the surface, Bug is the story of an MK-ULTRA-type experiment, Peter and Agnes as the victims, with the subtext (the real meaning) being akin to that of They Live, i.e., ‘Obey!’ And: People who believe in ‘conspiracy theories’ are insane.

My favorite one-liner, though (in the commentary) was Friedkin’s musings about Peter. Having said that he (Friedkin) ‘doesn’t really know’ who Peter is, he adds ‘He might be a terrorist.’

Peter might be a terrorist.

Right. And you, Mr Friedkin, might be something else altogether.

I have to wonder about Tracy Letts. Obviously, he is completely on board with the mind control aspect of his story. What we don’t know is when he came on board, and how. What was he offered? How easy was it to turn him?

Letts wrote Bug in 1996 and assuming no major rewriting since then, even a casual reading of the play (absent the actors’ theatrics and critics telling us what to think) tells us that Letts was awake at that time; the research he had to have done (prior to 9/11, which is what woke so many of us up) means he was ahead of his time. He knew good and goddamn well what was/is being done to us.

For me, the level of disappointment… that someone of his talent and insight could be turned, almost certainly via career promises…

Addendum: The other (related) possibility being that Friedkin (or someone else) simply and patiently explained how the H-wood mind control world really works (HTHWMCWRW), and would he mind pitching in by publicly reinterpreting what the Bug narrative is? Smart as he is, Letts didn’t need another word said and did so well that career bonanzas just kept rolling in. From then on, Letts just knew how to conduct himself (to keep his benefactors happy), possibly without consciously realizing he’d ‘put himself back to sleep.’ 

…I watched another film Letts’d written (aside from Bug and Killer Joe), titled August: Osage County (2013), another ‘family’ story, with an all-star cast (Meryle Streep, Julia Roberts, and others). More great storytelling, more depiction of a wasted (very) American family,  although not as horrendously so as with Joe. Destroy the image of the family unit being another important PTB agenda. Given that, as with Joe, the blatant theme of brother-sister incest is an Act 3 reveal, one has to wonder how twisted Letts’s real childhood was. (His official cv denies this; possibly part of the ‘deal’.) Is that his excuse? When he looks at himself in the mirror, what does he see?

Another writer/director I’m looking at is Christopher Nolan, whom I strongly suspect is a ‘next generation’ version of Friedkin, in terms of being an A-lister ‘on their side.’

But hold on. What’s the point?

What’s the point? 

The screenshot represents the result of my Open Letter to Friedkin/Letts, in terms of readership. Are any of you forwarding anything to anyone? 

Sorry if I seem cranky, but the state of the planet is really getting to me, and the fact that so few are doing anything about it. Disgust is my word for the day.

The George Floyd ‘event’ is so obviously a staged provocation that I’m nearly speechless that so few are calling the bastards out on it. The riots (worldwide, it appears) are largely completely staged or partially so, via agents provocateurs. Is this clear to you?

It’s now more than ever imperative that you stock up on food and supplies, not only because of the coming ‘Second Wave’ of COVID and the shortages that will follow, but simply due to skyrocketing inflation, especially regarding food. Plus at some point you’ll likely need a ‘Vaccination Passport’ to just buy food. (Never mind ‘2 – 3 months’ worth: have a years’ supply of necessities stored.) Be prepared for the worst in the coming months. 

Is anyone really listening?

Allan