Allan Weisbecker

[Jerry Russell]

I'm happy to say that Allan Weisbecker is still alive, inasmuch as we didn't take his advice to have him "neutralized" over the weekend. He's been sending me private messages and emails, and planning to post a discussion about Walter Iooss. It's all been very friendly, but I'm really feeling equivocal about this.

Reason is, Allan posted at his web page, referring to us (Jan Irvin, Joe Atwill and myself):

http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-important-post/

The following is an Open Letter to the people I’m accusing of – at the very least – dishonest research and disseminating blatant untruths about two writers whom I respect; one of whom I think brilliant. Both of whom are deceased and unable to defend themselves. Those of you who have read my books – especially the last one, CYGAWA – know my attitude towards liars and psychopaths. What we are up against here is definitely the former, and possibly the latter as well.

Allan's accusation that we are "Liars" seems to be based on an incident in which Joe made the claim that Ken Kesey distributed LSD, Allan drilled down to ask whether this happened on Kesey's 1964 bus trip, Joe equivocated and sent a link to an article about the bus trip, and Allan jumped on this as a "Lie" on Joe's part. Then we all studied the text closely, and all agreed that based on the information available, Kesey did not distribute LSD to the general public on that bus trip. No matter what was said exactly, I can't see any evidence that Joe ever willfully intended to deceive anyone. And furthermore, he never made the offensive claim clearly in print anywhere, anyhow.

Earlier, Allan decided I was a "Liar" based on his own failure to read to the end of an email I sent; or to read the subject header, either.

While Allan is here wanting to have a conversation, this accusation that we are Liars (and very likely, dangerous psychopathic ones who might conspire to cause his immediate demise) is still standing on Allan's blog page.

I ask myself, are we compelled to give space on our web page for Allan to carry on this campaign? Allan's strategy seems to be to argue for Kesey's innocence in contrast to our own imagined Postflavian wickedness and depravity, which he hopes he can get us to demonstrate somehow.

Allan doesn't accept comments on his web page.

This is not necessarily a free-for-all free speech zone. If it were, we'd be overrun (probably a hundred to one) by ads for Viagra and testosterone and cosmetics.

 

[Mike Dexter]

Allan Wiseacre wrote:
"blah blah, etc."
(TL/DR)

Perhaps, in order to be able to say that you are not censoring this person, any comments that he posts could be consigned to their own special area, and left without comment. Or, you could block him altogether, which is your right to do. Whatever you do, don't allow him to distract you from your real work.

Just because a jackass brays doesn't mean you have to answer it.

 

[Joe Atwill]

Allan Weisbecker has publicly called me a liar while claiming that I won't debate him.

"I've challenged this liar to debate 'Kesey as Freemason secret agent' but neither Atwill nor Irvin will do it. Irvin, hypocrite that he is, actually blocked my evidence/comment on his gnosticmedia.com site ('Unpun 20')."

Jerry and I have offered Allan a full hour on our show to debate my analysis of Catcher and Cuckkoo. He also claims that he believes I am a goverment agent.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Joe,

I hope you don't mind: I've combined this thread with my post on the topic from yesterday, and Mike Dexter's reply. I'm also combining 'Ken Kesey on trial' and 'Allan Weisbecker's debate challenge' into a single thread, so that the debate challenge material is easier to find.

On reflection, I agree with Mike Dexter's suggestion that we restrict Allan to certain specific threads on specific topics, so that his posts don't spread all over the site. Hopefully it won't be necessary to "censor" his materials. We already have an 'Allan Weisbecker's 911 thread' and we'll have the 'debate challenge' thread on Kesey, and this thread will be for discussing our mutual theories about each other, and whether we are all liars, agents, and/or off our rockers. And I agree that we have limited time to answer Allan -- I'm trying to get ready for the podcast tomorrow. Maybe we'll get back to this discussion later.

 

[Allancw]

Best I can do right now (I'm about to hit the road and will be out of touch until tonight) is to paste in my exchange with Joe. this way his simplifications are more obvious. he has refused (apparently) to deal with my valid request to conduct my defense of kesey on the same venue as the 'trial.' Does anyone find this unreasonable? Esp given that Irvin (Joe's partner in the the 'trial) blocked my valid rebuttals?

• Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
  
• Today at 11:32 AM

To

• Joe Atwill

CC

• Gnosticmedia

Message body
This is really tiring. The 'Trial' was on gnostic so the defense should be as well. Do you feel no responsibility to deal with your partner on this subject?
I am cc-ing to Jan Irvin.
aw
If we do it on Rev Radio, will Jan post it as my reply to the trial? If Jan refuses, will you add this exchange to your forum posting?


BANDITOBOOKS.COM
"There's nothing like it on the web!"



From: Joe Atwill <joeatwill@gmail.com>
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: an answer

Please send inquiries concerning Unspun to Jan.
Since you are up for an hour debate let's do it on Revolution Radio where my show is hosted every Friday morning.
Are the terms OK?

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Joe Atwill <joeatwill@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Allan,
Posted this on site. Please respond if you wish.
Allan asked me what terms we have offered for the debate and I replied:
"As we have stated - one hour of our show - terms are that we will have a discussion like gentlemen - you make a statement and I respond. No fillerbusting and no interrupting - after 60 seconds of talking the other can speak if he wishes the floor - no obscenities - I'll give you 10 minutes to give an overview of your position and then we go into your first point."
Allan refused these terms. He replied:
"You know good and goddamn well that I expect to respond to the 'Trial of Ken Kesey' in the same venue as it appeared (Gnosticmedia.com), not on Postflaviana. "
I have asked him to remove his claim that "I've challenged this liar to debate 'Kesey as Freemason secret agent' but neither Atwill nor Irvin will do it"
Getting amusing.

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Joe Atwill <joeatwill@gmail.com> wrote:
If you do not feel up to an hour debate so be it. However please reframe from posting lies like "I've challenged this liar to debate 'Kesey as Freemason secret agent' but neither Atwill nor Irvin will do it."
People think you are nuts.

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Joe Atwill <joeatwill@gmail.com> wrote:
Please read the analysis and try to ground your positions in fact. The entire book is designed as a depiction of the initiations to the different levels.

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Allan Weisbecker<acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Which two hour discussion? A link?
See, this secret hatred concept is of interest to me re Nest. You have so little in that analysis that it appears to be a vital concept.
aw


BANDITOBOOKS.COM
"There's nothing like it on the web!"



From: Joe Atwill <joeatwill@gmail.com>
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: an answer

Allan
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<acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, i'll try this from memory, and keep it simple:
Where did you get the 'secret hatred' concept from?
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:
Yes. He 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 toward humanity through my extensive and exhaustive research.
I have other questions but I figure to get them during my defense of Kesey (and Salinger). So the real question is:
When do I get my Unspun reply? It can be the three of us as long as I'm assured that I am not interrupted and can limit monologues so that we get approx equal time talking (Me and you two, so I get half).
You can say it's his site all day long but it was your podcast more than his that I am replying to, so you deal with Irvin. If his excuse is that I am a 'troll' please explain how this is NOT a logical fallacy - killing the messenger rather than dealing with the info.
aw
Oh, just for fun, please explain how rants like the attached are NOT straw man arguments (you can skip to the second half) -- they are not out of context since he never added any scientific or fact based arguments during this podcast.


BANDITOBOOKS.COM
"There's nothing like it on the web!"



From: Joe Atwill <joeatwill@gmail.com>
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: an answer

Thanks.
Please list questions.

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Allan Weisbecker<acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't like to let misdirection work, but ok, I'll spell it out for you, say what anyone with minimal critical thinking abilities would already know from our exchange: It occurred to me that YOU are a government agent (which your partner accused me of) and may have the power to do me harm if I'm perceived as a threat. (This hasn't been obvious? Pu-lease.)
The reason I am cautious about you is because of your style of misdirection, it is right out of the NLP handbook.
Ok?
Now how about answering my questions? They are in the below emails. Let's see which ones you skip. (The questions are the sentences that end with a '?'.)
allan


BANDITOBOOKS.COM
"There's nothing like it on the web!"



From: Joe Atwill <joeatwill@gmail.com>
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: an answer

Allan
Anyone who read the exchange will know who is refusing to answer.
Anyone who has read the Salinger analysis will know exactly where the Freemason's secret hatred is revealed. Sorry, but I will respond to criticism but I don't have the time to do it for you.
Please answer the question concerning the slander and no more BS simply explain what was your basis for claiming I was a threat.
joe

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Allan Weisbecker<acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don't you understand that your constant misdirection will be obvious to anyone who takes the time to examine these exchanges? While it's true that most people won't, some will, and to some extent the word will spread.
allan


BANDITOBOOKS.COM
"There's nothing like it on the web!"





From: Joe Atwill <joeatwill@gmail.com>
To: Allan Weisbecker <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: an answer

Happy to go through my analysis of Catcher with you - it is published on the site of course - once we have an answer to my question. Please, I deserve an answer, so simply explain what caused you to slander me.

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Allan Weisbecker<acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Joe,
Since you wouldn't answer the 'secret hatred' question, I found the answer elsewhere:
From Fraterx (see my email first below):
Yes. He admitted to me personally he wished he had conferred with me before publishing to clarify his unsubstantiated speculations...
I have some privately published materials from the Scottish Rite which are suspicious and globalist in nature but as I demonstrate in my book the SR is actually NOT Freemasonry but a pilot fish which has attached itself to FM proper and usurped it. Atwill ran none of his work by me before publishing even though we were in contact then...I have no source nor any mention of secret hatred from FM toward humanity through my extensive and exhaustive research.
Catch yah later,
FX
On May 11, 2016 11:36 AM, "Allan Weisbecker" <acwdownsouth@yahoo.com> wrote:
Joe,
Atwill, in his 'typological' analysis of Cuckoo's Nest, claims that the inner circle of Freemasonry harbors a 'secret hatred' for the masses (or for someone or something), which somehow relates to their likewise secret desire to commit genocide with the masses.
It's fairly important in that he doesn't have hardly any Masonic symbology he can point to in Nest. So the 'secret hatred' is a major issue to him. He won't answer where he got this concept, so I suspect he made it up.
Thoughts?
allan



BANDITOBOOKS.COM
"There's nothing like it on the web!"

 

[Joe Atwill]

Allan asked me what terms we have offered for the debate and I replied:

"As we have stated - one hour of our show - terms are that we will have a discussion like gentlemen - you make a statement and I respond. No fillerbusting and no interrupting - after 60 seconds of talking the other can speak if he wishes the floor - no obscenities - I'll give you 10 minutes to give an overview of your position and then we go into your first point."

Allan refused these terms. He replied:

"You know good and goddamn well that I expect to respond to the 'Trial of Ken Kesey' in the same venue as it appeared (Gnosticmedia.com), not on Postflaviana. "

I have asked him to remove his claim that "I've challenged this liar to debate 'Kesey as Freemason secret agent' but neither Atwill nor Irvin will do it"

Getting amusing.

 

[Joe Atwill]

Allan has posted his version of FraterX's opinion of my analysis of Catcher above. As I wanted to know the truth I contacted Frater and below is an unedited copy of our exchange:

Hey Frater,
Question: Do you think Salinger was making cryptic references to Freemasonry in Catcher with his descriptions of "studying the Egyptians for 28 days" and lying down in Eli's bed, etc as I laid out in my article which we discussed?
A guy named Allan Weisbecker is representing that you disagree with this, which surprised me as you seemed to see my analysis as coherent during the show we did.
Thanks. Joe

"I found your analysis interesting and intriguing...as we discussed in our talk, if you recall, I place more emphasis on the Scottish Rite not Freemasonry proper-which is an important distinction. Salinger's mentioning of Al Pike in Catcher which you brought to our attention is further proof of SR being the real culprit as it was Pike's vehicle...Weisbecker asked me if I had any proof to back your claims...i told him nothing in my research directly implicated FM at all...the emphasis would be more properly on SR...Boy this guy is gunning for you and Jan. I dont have a dog in this fight. I have respected appreciated and cited your work and Jan's thus far because I have learned so much from you both. I feel like I am being drawn into a battle I dont want to have. I prefer diplomacy...i dont understand what he has against you. I am available for further discussion if you wish. Let me know how I can contribute to resolution..." "FraterX

"Thanks, Frater.
Yeah, the SR vs FM is an important distinction that I don't pay enough attention to. However, this has little to do with the existence of a cryptic level in Catcher.
I think Allan is good for my goals so I actually hope he continues with his crazy attacks as more people will read my analysis. So expect the sound and fury to rise during the next couple months." Joe


"Yes. Agreed. Does Weisbecker not think the counter culture was created by the government is that his contention? I am confused what he is contesting exactly aside from his accusations towards you and Jan personally. As far as cryptic messages in Catcher it seems clear to me there is something there. Though to be forthright I might respectfully disagree with some specific interpretations of the text... "Frater


"Given that it is a complete revolution in understanding of Catcher it would be very unlikely that all of my interpretations were correct. What is important is to see - just as you stated - that it is clear there is something there.
I am hoping to generate a process by which the culturally debasing literature comes under scrutiny by citizens. I do not believe I am correct on every point but simply want the analysis to be seen as coherent enough to start the process.
I think it has met that standard." Joe

"Agreed"
FraterX

 

[Allancw]

i am acceptiing the offer of a debate on rev radio, either a week from tomorrow or the week after that, to be decided. I am asking joe to read my memoir and I agree to read his book, CM. Let's just settle this now. If he claims I have no valid criticism, refer to the comment that his partner blocked, just for start.

 

[Allancw]

i'm on the road, offline for a while. I recommend viewing my film, Water Time; Joe said he was 'looking forward to viewing it' --= about a month ago. Like to hear his review.... it relates to matters at hang. it's on Youtube at:

Notice the thumbs up/down and the rave comments.

aw

 

[Joe Atwill]

Allan,

Liked your film. Sorry about your friend. Brought back memories. I lost a number myself.

 

[Jerry Russell]

I'm glad that Allan has decided to come on the show and have a conversation / debate after all. Thanks Allan!!

Some time ago, Allan asked me by email if I sympathized with his interviewees in Water Time, and I rather sheepishly answered "yes....".

My feelings are really more complicated than that. In the film and in real life, Allan can be quite persistent, and IMHO his arguments aren't always correct, and certainly not as obvious as he seems to think.

The definition of "obvious" is when just about everybody agrees, right? So if people don't agree right away, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're crazy, or "in denial" -- it might mean they just don't see "the truth" yet. And it might mean that "the truth" just isn't so "obvious".

Case in point: the videos of flight 757 crashing into the WTC tower. In some of these videos, the plane is "obviously" flying level, while in others it "obviously" appears to be dive-bombing. Well, yes, those videos do "obviously" look different. Whereas it takes a lot of careful thought to realize that the viewpoint of the camera can make a huge difference in the appearance of the flight path. But when I make that argument, Allan thinks I'm "obviously" acting like some sort of agent. And also when he spoke to his friend Walter Iooss, one of the world's best sports photographers, Iooss ultimately came to the same conclusion I did. Well, Allan thinks Iooss is "in denial", and obviously I would disagree.

Having said all that -- I think some of the folks in Allan's video really are in denial, and Allan is right to be discouraged about them. To comment in any more detail, I'd have to watch the film again.

 

[Allancw]

Has anyone noticed further misdirection from Joe? I asked about 'THE SECRET HATRED' which is in his analysis of Cuckoo's Nest. it had nothing to do with Salinger.

this is from my email and is above also:

Atwill, in his 'typological' analysis of Cuckoo's Nest, claims that the inner circle of Freemasonry harbors a 'secret hatred' for the masses (or for someone or something), which somehow relates to their likewise secret desire to commit genocide with the masses.
It's fairly important in that he doesn't have hardly any Masonic symbology he can point to in Nest. So the 'secret hatred' is a major issue to him. He won't answer where he got this concept, so I suspect he made it up.
Thoughts?
allan

So Joe comes back with something about Catcher and Fraterx. Does no one see the misdirection here? I make a point about of Joe's claims on Nest and he points to a different book and says, 'See, I'm right.'

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Allan,

Dictionary.com defines "misdirection" as "a wrong or incorrect direction, guidance, or instruction." Wiki says it's "a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another." In these definitions, the key factors are an intent to deceive, and/or foist false information. Another factor is a loss of focus.

In your letters and posts, you raise a lot of topics, so that it becomes difficult to answer them all. So we try to focus on one thing at a time, and then you complain that we're showing an intent to be deceptive just because we haven't answered all your questions yet, or spelled everything out to your satisfaction.

Please give us the courtesy of allowing us enough time and space to answer all your questions, before you jump to the conclusion that we're trying to trick anyone.

Joe said above: "Anyone who has read the Salinger analysis will know exactly where the Freemason's secret hatred is revealed."

Then you reply "it has nothing to do with Salinger."

Why would you say that? Readers of Joe's Salinger essay will know that it speaks of a Freemasonry that expresses its hate through the imitation of death of Hiram Abiff, the senseless shooting of ducks and fishes, the "people-shooting hat" which is associated with the Eye of Horus, the fraternity's horrendous treatment of James Castle, and the message "FU" that appears as 'the handwriting on the wall.' It is true that the specific words "Secret Hate" do not appear in the Salinger essay, but considering all the specific examples of secret hate, this seems completely beside the point.

There is a chain of reasoning involved, though: based on Joe's analysis of Salinger, the reader can see that "secret hate" is an attribute of Freemasonry (at least as it is portrayed by Salinger.) Then we find that Kesey has the same idea about "The Combine".

The Freemason symbolism that Joe identified in 'Cuckoos Nest' consists of:

1) Black boys in white suits

2) One month waiting period before initiation

3) Peering out from under a hood - an aspect of the initiation ritual

4) "Three weeks, three months": a reference to thirty-third degree

5) As you've mentioned, the frequent references to the "hate secret", which reminded us of Salinger's characterization.

I'm not sure this is enough to be really convincing, and it's not nearly as much as we found in Salinger. But I wouldn't say it's "hardly any", either.

Did you see that I found a statement about the provenance of the Magic Trip audio tape of Kesey's first LSD trip? There's a lot of very dense Masonic symbolism in that audio tape.

 

[Jerry Russell]

The discussion is continuing / spreading from the "debate challenge" thread. I guess that's OK for now, maybe I'll move it all later. Here's the info I found about the Magic trip tape:

A web page discussing the provenance of the audio tape of Kesey's first acid trip at the VA hospital. Article by Remco Vlaanderen, © Submarine Channel, a film production company based in Amsterdam.

http://www.watchthetitles.com/articles/00220-Magic_Trip

“Alex [Gibney] said, 'Listen, I found this audio tape when I was rooting around Kesey's archive. It's a tape of him taking part in actual government drug trials,'” [Karin] Fong recalls. “Kesey would be taking the drug, and then you'd hear the nurse come in and ask him about it. There were no visuals whatsoever for this. Not even a photograph.”

 

[Jerry Russell]

Allan has posted a sort of reply to this thread at his own site:

http://blog.banditobooks.com/more-on-the-alternative-media/

In addition to repeating the materials we've already discussed and replied to here, there are some new ingredients.

(1) A description of the Carrington event of 1859, which makes Allan's gut feel queasy to think about, in a manner similar to what he feels about us. It focuses his attention on the brevity and uncertainty of life.

(2) Allan has excerpted a quote from one of Joe's podcasts. As far as I can make out, Joe is saying:

Ken Kesey had a bus called Further, and it was painted with all these beautiful day-glo paints, it had all these lovely colors, and then he goes around and he gives a million tabs of LSD to children. Where somehow he came across all this [LSD], who knows. Million tabs of LSD to children.

Allan interprets this as Joe claiming that the million tabs were given to children during the course of the 1964 Further bus tour. I don't necessarily see Joe saying exactly that, but I agree there's a lack of clarity.

I believe what Joe was trying to say here, was that Kesey gave a million tabs of LSD to children. That claim only makes sense if you include all Kesey's many accomplices and fellow-travelers at the Acid Tests and elsewhere, and I don't know where the "million tabs" estimate came from, or whether that many tabs were given to "children" (under 21? under 18? under 12?), or whether adults should be included in the total.

(3) Allan claims that Salinger was writing Catcher in 1940 (though published in 1951), therefore that he was working before the CIA or MK-Ultra were founded, therefore he is innocent of trying to "debase culture".

(4) Allan presents an email debate with Joe about whether the interval from Nov. 4th to Dec. 2nd (mentioned in 'Catcher') represents 28 days, or 29 days. I hadn't seen this before, and don't have a strong opinion. I think one would have to check how the Freemason lodges count this interval, and whether they all do it the same way; also I'm not sure I agree with Allan's position that the numerology must be precise, otherwise it's meaningless.

(5) Allan thinks he's made some valid points, and that Joe is lying when he's telling people that Allan has no valid points.

(6) Allan complains that he sent out a letter to 'a slew of Alt Media folks' about our perfidy here, and the general problem that Alt Media is infested with limited hangouts / controlled opposition such as us; he says he got no response. 'Nada.'

(7) He re-iterates his concern that exposing gov't agents like Joe is not risk-free, and says he's not optimistic about his own survival.

 

[Allancw]

I thought you'd have fun with my post, but is the above all you can come up with via simplification and misdirection?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Doing my best to avoid simplification and misdirection, Allan, but you don't make things easy for me.

 

[Allancw]

Here's my view after the emails with Joe and seeing you in action at this forum and given Irvin's behavior: If someone is incapable of saying, 'Good point but I still disagree with you' - as Joe obviously is, he is at best an untrustworthy researcher.

Then your perfectly accurate info gets blocked and nothing is done about it.

Then you realize that the person(s) habitually, automatically use misdirection, assuming no one will bother to check their links, etc...

Combine that with calling the other person - usually outright but also thru NLP -- first Mentally ill, then a government agent, then mentally ill again (even if its just via not correcting his partner, i.e., Irvin), and you have people who are likely working for the deep state (the "oligarchs', whatever).

I can only hope that there are more than just you and Joe who will read and pay attention to my blog post link above. If there are others (who are genuine), I would hope to hear from them.

On the bright side, if you get paid by the hour, my post should do you well...

 

[Jerry Russell]

Over at one of the YouTube videos, Allan made this comment:

when I come across lies, especially re fine writers who are not around to defend themselves, I have to do something. Having been lied about myself, it bugs me.

I find that very revealing. Allan feels personally disrespected. It seems to be a psychological transference phenomenon -- our criticism of Kesey and Salinger comes across to Allan as if it were a direct frontal attack against himself. Elsewhere in these threads, Allan has been practically begging us to analyze his various books, and his career activities, and to pronounce the verdict that he's in the same category as Kesey and Salinger. That is, a traitor against the readers.

Let me, instead, point out the differences:

(1) At the moment, we have no evidence that Allan's books are full of Masonic symbolism, much less references to the Flavian gospels' comic system. I've repeatedly asked Allan to comment on this, without any response from him.

(2) Kesey was in on the very ground floor of the LSD counter-culture, taking a highly creative advanced role. Furthermore, he had many direct or 2nd degree connections to key players such as Bateson. Allan was more of a late-comer, although it does seem he also had some interesting connections.

(3) Kesey and Salinger's books leaped into huge public prominence, and became required reading in American high school & college classes. Allan, again, not so much.

In other words, Allan, I think that it's more likely that you were simply swept into the excitement of the drug counterculture, as opposed to being a driving force in its creation. As I've told you and everybody else here, I don't see any evidence you're on anybody's payroll. The idea did come into my mind, but I've decided I don't believe it.

The reasons you're putting so much energy into attacking us seem to be more ego-driven, and that's unfortunate. But it doesn't even rise to the level of a mental illness IMHO.

Allan -- If you want to talk about Kesey, we could get back to that.

 

[Allancw]

I'll wait for my debate with Joe to deal with this -- I would like to know in advance what reasons would be given to not display the debate at Irvin's site, where the bogus 'trial' was held. Irvin blocked my info and I'd like to know how Joe is going to deal with it. He is a 'partner' in the trial and therefore is as responsible as Irvin to balance the scales re my defense of Kesey.