First off, it turns out that the photo of John Kerry and Anton LaVey appears to be a hoax – which serves me right, I suppose, for rather gratuitously tacking it onto the last newsletter. Snopes.com has debunked the photo, and, while Snopes.com is far from being the most credible source of information, their debunking of this particular hoax appears pretty convincing. (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/lavey.asp)
The hoax photo was created by persons unknown by combining the photo to the left of LaVey alongside one of his disciples, Marilyn Manson, and the photo to the right of Kerry with some guy named Rami Salami. I have to say though that it is a pretty clever hoax that someone obviously spent a little time on. Reversing the images and adding shadowing behind Kerry are clever touches, as are the fake edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, the clever caption added to the photo, and the inclusion of a portion of a fabricated article. Kudos to whoever created this hoax – but please don't do it again. It makes me look bad.
There is also some controversy over the comments attributed to ecologist Eric Pianka, with Pianka claiming that his lecture was misrepresented by an academic rival seeking to tarnish his reputation (http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/04/05/ecology-prof-20060405.html?print). Pianka, however, didn't actually deny the genocidal comments attributed to him, and a university spokesman, curiously enough, defended Pianka’s right to hold such views: "'We have a lot of different points of view on the University of Texas at Austin campus. And we certainly support our faculty in saying what they think,' said Don Hale, a spokesman for the
That is certainly an enlightened policy. Too bad it doesn't appear to apply to all the university faculty members across the country whose "personal points of view" happen to be critical of the Bush regime.
The previously cited article from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reveals some interesting facts about the unusual ecologist with the disturbing views on population control. We learn, for example, that Pianka "became disabled at the age of 13 when he set off a bazooka shell that he picked up on an army base and developed gangrene in his leg." Before reading this, I didn’t even realize that a thirteen-year-old kid could wander onto an army base and shuffle off with a live bazooka round. Believe it or not, I thought the army actually kept better track of such things. You learn something new every day.
Despite his disability, by the way, Pianka “spent 10 years as a hermit in the desert,” before emerging from the wilds to become a respected scientist. In other words, he's kind of like a Ted Kaczynski in reverse. Put a 'hoodie' and some aviator sunglasses on him and he could probably pass for Ted's long-lost brother. I wonder if they were in the same MK-ULTRA class back in their college days?
Pianka now lives with a herd of bison, including an enormous bull named – why does this not surprise me? – Lucifer. You can read all about it in Pianka's, uhmm, obituary, which he has thoughtfully penned himself (http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/obit.html). He has also posted a brief explanation of his views on population control, concluding with, predictably enough, an endorsement of Richard Heinberg's fictional 'Peak Oil' book (http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html). (For an interesting take on Heinberg, by the way, drop by here for a visit: http://www.dreamsend.blogspot.com/. And while you're there, see if you can wake Ty up and get him writing again.)
* * * * * * * * * *
I suppose I next need to address some of the questions that have come in concerning the “Cheney’s Got a Gun” newsletters. "Were you actually trying to say," inquiring minds want to know, "that we should believe those crazy stories about Cheney's passion for playing The Most Dangerous Game?"
Well ... uhmm ...
yeah, I guess
I was rather strongly implying it, without actually saying it. In
seems a little wimpy. But explicitly leveling such accusations does
make one seem a bit mentally unbalanced, so I opted to be rather coy.
regular readers will recall, I have touched upon this topic once
This one is from the
that make you go 'hmmm ...'" files.
A story that has been circulating in the conspiracy community for quite some time now holds that our back-up quarterback, Dick Cheney, has a fondness for playing "The Most Dangerous Game." In other words, he allegedly likes to, quite literally, hunt humans. Preferably young, naked, female humans. For sport.
I know what you're thinking, so let me just say that I don't make this stuff up. Nor do I vouch for its veracity. All that I am saying is that these claims have been made – albeit not, to my knowledge, by the most credible of sources. Nevertheless, what is being claimed is not beyond the realm of possibility. After all, what we are talking about here, on the one hand, is abhorrent and psychopathic behavior. And on the other hand, we are talking about Dick Cheney. These two things are not, quite obviously, mutually exclusive.
... Consider the following report from the venerable Los Angeles Times:
"Two Black Hawk
were brought in and hovered nearby as Cheney and Scalia
were whisked away in a heavily guarded motorcade to a secluded, private
camp owned by an oil industry businessman [identified as Wallace
head of Diamond Services Corp.] ... the Cheney-Scalia
trip drew the attention of local officials because of the unusual
precautions ... on the morning of Jan. 5, a large security contingent
place -- two Black Hawk air combat rescue helicopters, a line of
utility vehicles and a ring of federal agents and sheriff's deputies
who set up
a security perimeter. The area was declared a no-fly zone for other
... Perry [Ken Perry, of the
Uhmm, would it be considered rude to ask what happened to Scalia's 'daughter'? Why is there no mention of how she returned to
Is it possible that Scalia and Cheney opted to leave separately so as not to highlight the fact that someone in their party had gone missing? Since no one saw Scalia leave, then it follows that no one can confirm whether his 'daughter' left with him. And even if she did, doesn't this story, at the very least, have the makings of a good sex scandal? I mean, when two older guys and a young woman go duck hunting for a couple of days and no one brings back any ducks, people are going to talk. And if the two guys come back without ducks or the girl, then I think we could have a serious problem.
That secretive, high-security hunting outing was the first indication that maybe those hushed rumors about Cheney weren't so crazy after all. The second clue surfaced in September of 2004, when the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel inadvertently published a rather, uhhh, revealing photograph of our illustrious vice president. But before discussing that further, I have to note here, for the uninformed, that the same women who have accused Cheney of having a fondness for hunting humans have also claimed that he is an unusually well-endowed man. Yes, that's right: Cheney not only is a big dick, he also allegedly has a big dick – which seems to be on display in the Sentinel photo to the right.
Of course, there are other explanations. Some have suggested that Big Dick was wearing a colostomy bag. Or maybe he had just taken a large dump in his shorts. Maybe he smuggles ferrets in his pants. Maybe he has a partially developed conjoined twin growing out of his left thigh. Or maybe, as his accusers have claimed, he really is packing a schlong that would make even Milton Berle and Tommy Lee feel inadequate.
According to an article that appeared in Milwaukee Magazine, what you see in the photo is exactly what it appears to be: "Guldan [the photographer who captured the image of Cheney on a campaign stop in
The Journal Sentinel, by the way, has opted to deny all requests to reprint the copyrighted photo. Unauthorized scans of the newsprint version, however, have been known to circulate around the cyber world.
But what are we to make of them? Do they validate the women's stories? If the alleged witnesses are right about Cheney's, uhmm, endowments, then are they right about other things as well? Is there some other way they could have learned of Cheney's unusual assets? I don't claim to have the answers to those questions. All I'm saying is that maybe Cheney's curious duck hunting trip, and his even more curious quail hunting trip, provide disturbing clues to the nature of the world we live in.
* * * * * * * * * *
Sometimes you find essential truths about that world in the most unexpected of places. Take, for example, an obscure motion picture bearing the not-very-promising title of “Peeping Tom.” I’m going to go out on a limb here and speculate that none of you have ever heard of this film, unless there happens to be a hardcore 'film geek' or two in the crowd.
I stumbled across it largely by accident. The wife, you see, bestowed a Netflix membership on me this past Christmas. And after several weeks of renting movies, “Peeping Tom” came up on my list of recommended rentals (which probably tells you more about my viewing habits than you really need to know). Based on the title and the brief synopsis provided by Netflix, it didn’t look to be of much interest, but it had received good reviews so I decided to give it a chance. After all, how bad could it be? It’s not like Charleton Heston was cast in the starring role.
As it turned out, “Peeping Tom” is a remarkable
a curious history. As the story goes, this cinematic gem was almost
lost to the
world forever, and remained virtually unseen for the first twenty years
existence. Upon its release in the
The year was 1960.
after “Peeping Tom” was pulled from theaters, a film that it is now
compared to by film historians, Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho,” arrived in
theaters and received a considerably more favorable response. By then,
Tom” had disappeared and wouldn’t be seen again for two full decades,
was apparently rediscovered by American filmmakers Martin Scorcese
and Francis Ford Coppola. Though the film is now available on
The film's plot-line revolves around a protagonist named Mark Lewis (seen here in the film's brief nude scene - the first in a major studio production - which I have included here in an obvious attempt to increase traffic to my website), an oddly sympathetic psychopath played by Austrian actor Karl Boehm. By day, the creepy yet charismatic Lewis works in the mainstream film industry as an assistant cameraman. But by night, our anti-hero pursues other interests – such as soliciting the services of prostitutes, shooting pornographic films, brutally murdering a series of attractive young women, and, last but certainly not least, producing snuff films.
Quite a heady mix, I have to say, for a film
on movie screens (albeit very briefly) nearly half-a-century ago. And
more! As is noted in a British television documentary that is included
In the film, Mark Lewis’ father is depicted as having devoted his life to studying the human reaction to fear. Of particular interest was the fear reaction in – you guessed it – children. And being the depraved and sadistic sort of guy that he was, his favorite test subject was his own son, whom he systematically traumatized throughout the boy’s childhood, while, naturally enough, carefully documenting each act of abuse on film. So now the son, having been properly conditioned by the father, carries on the family tradition by filming the fear on his victims’ faces at the moment of their violent death. To pass the time between kills, our leading man spends endless hours viewing his sizable film library, which includes both the films of his own torture as a child and his own self-produced snuff films.
And where, you may be wondering, did such a deranged, disturbing, yet oddly familiar storyline come from? To answer that question, we must turn to the bonus documentary entitled “A Very British Psycho,” produced for British television in 1997. There we learn that although the film is most closely associated with disgraced director Michael Powell, it was actually the creation of Leo Marks, described by the documentary’s narrator as “a figure as secretive and mysterious as his near namesake, Mark Lewis.”
Mr. Marks, as it turns out, was at one time a high-level intelligence operative. Imagine my surprise at that revelation!
We also learn that
Leo Marks spent
a considerable amount of his childhood in a bookstore co-owned by his
From the age of eight, young Leo’s dad took him to work daily, where he
his time reading through the store’s three-story collection of rare
entire third floor of the store, as Marks recalled, was filled with
Masonic books.” The store, by the way, was named Marks and Co.
it later became much better known by its street address,
after the onset of World War II, Leo Marks was put in charge of a
division of a
newly established British intelligence entity known as the
It appears, however, that Marks’ true goal was not so much to create an unbreakable code, which he acknowledged was not possible, but rather to create unbreakable agents. The same kind of agents, in other words, that George Estabrooks discussed in his seminal book, “Hypnotism.” The kind of agents that famed covergirl Candy Jones later revealed herself to be. The kind of agents who will not give up information even if subjected to severe torture, because they’re not even aware that they are carrying information. The kind of agents who are not just unwilling, but unable to give up their data without the proper, uhmm, ‘handling.’
As I have written several times before, Estabrooks, a prominent American military
claimed that programs aimed at creating such agents were fully
during World War II (contrary to the claims of the vast majority of
researchers, who claim that Western intelligence agencies didn't even
such programs until after the war). Leo Marks, operating on the
located and spoke to a couple of these women, many decades after the
they had some rather revealing recollections – or perhaps I should say
non-recollections – of their days spent working under Marks in the
Marks himself shared with the filmmakers that there “was an attempt made to help them [the female agents] to forget.” He then quickly added, with a sly smile, “But if you are on the verge of asking me what it was, I have brainwashed myself into forgetting it.” He also offered a cryptic description of how he would prep his agents before sending them on assignment: “Before going to brief an agent for the last time, I tried to develop an inner ear, because the best communication is unconscious. It’s what the unconscious says to the unconscious.”
You don’t have to
read too deeply
between the lines to recognize that Leo Marks and the agents he was
were deeply involved in a World War II mind-control project – a project
involved sending young female couriers deep into Nazi territory. And it
that very project, appropriately enough, that provided the inspiration
for the movie
As Marks candidly told his interviewer, “the idea of writing ‘Peeping
born in the briefing rooms of
Let’s briefly review
thematic elements of this curious story that was “born in the briefing
As I watched the film and the accompanying documentary, all of this seemed very familiar, but I couldn’t quite place it. I knew I had read something with similar themes – Nazi and occult influences, child pornography and prostitution, mind control operations, ritualized child abuse, serial murder, snuff films, sadistic psychiatrists – but what was it? And then it hit me! It was an obscure book entitled "Programmed to Kill." Leo Marks had, it appears, slyly revealed some of the hidden connections nearly four decades before I began my own research.
The point of all
this, I suppose,
is that I have good news for those of you who have read the book and
yourself, "I wonder when the movie version
is going to
be coming out?" As it turns out, it has already completed its brief
run. But you can still catch it on
Before moving on, I should mention another interesting factoid about this most fascinating of films: director Powell’s original pick to play the lead role in this film was Laurence Harvey, who would shortly thereafter portray that most enigmatic of mind-controlled killers, "The Manchurian Candidate." Harvey’s daughter, curiously enough, was herself the subject of a recent Hollywood film, a poorly-made and highly-fictionalized account of the life and times of a young woman who, despite (or perhaps because of) her privileged upbringing, inhabited a shadowy, seedy, violent world of crime, corruption and covert intelligence operations. Domino Harvey, the subject of the film, turned up dead just before the movie’s scheduled release.
That sort of thing happens in
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
deep within the bowels of the May 25, 2006 edition of the Los Angeles
* * * * * * * * * *
Netflix membership, I made another rather
discovery: women, it seems, have gone through an extraordinary period
evolutionary development in the last few decades.
When I first started up my Netflix account, you see, I had a little trouble filling up my queue with future rentals, due primarily to the fact that most
What's important here is that films from the 1970s featured a lot of boobies. But they weren't like the boobies of today. In the 1970s, women's breasts came in all different shapes and sizes. Nature was, as far as I can tell, still experimenting with various breast configurations. Some were, by today's standards, quite small. Indeed, it is not uncommon today to see a set of man-boobs on "The Biggest Loser" that put women's breasts from the 1970s to shame.
Some were also bizarrely shaped, resembling cones, or, in some cases, fried eggs. Tragically, some were also strikingly asymmetrical, with one breast clearly larger than the other. Curiously, breasts also moved in strange ways in the 1970s, sometimes bouncing, sometimes jiggling, and sometimes actually lying flat when the breast's owner lied on her back! It is pretty obvious, in retrospect, that the 1970s represented an early period in the evolution of the female breast.
As anyone who watches movies or television today knows, women's breasts are now uniformly large, firm, beautifully proportioned, perfectly symmetrical, and nearly immobile. Actually, that's not entirely true; sometimes they are large, firm, immobile, and wildly out of proportion to the rest of the woman's body. So the common denominators, I suppose, are that they are large, firm and immobile.
From this, we can safely conclude that large, firm, immobile breasts are important for the survival of the species -- so important that in just thirty short years, virtually all women with small, pointy breasts have died off, while large breasted women have thrived. And it's all for the best, I suppose. After all, the less evolved women from the 1970s, were they still around today, would have a hard time finding work in
Speaking of evolution, by the way, there is something that I have long been curious about: how exactly does Darwinian evolutionary theory account for the prevalence of human homosexuality? Surely we can all agree, without passing any moral judgment on the gay lifestyle, that homosexuality is a human variation that does not favor survival of the species. That much seems clear. And according to
The question becomes, I suppose, one of whether homosexuality is a genetic or a learned behavior. Curiously enough, those who claim that homosexuality is an acquired condition that can be 'cured' tend to come from the Christian Right camp, which also teaches that the theory of human evolution is entirely bogus, while those who believe that homosexuality is a genetic condition tend to come from the left/liberal camp, which enthusiastically embraces evolutionary theory. In other words, those who preach evolutionary theory view homosexuality in a way that contradicts
Personally, I think both sides are full of shit. But that's just me.
By the way, while we're on the subject of evolution, can someone please explain to me why I was born with so many useless - and, in some cases, potentially harmful - body parts? To date, various surgeons have carved away my tonsils, my wisdom teeth and my foreskin, though not necessarily in that order. I'm thinking about getting rid of my appendix next, and then maybe my little toes. What I'm saying, I guess, is that my body was pretty poorly designed when I first acquired it, brand new off the showroom floor. I've had most of the flaws repaired, but the point is that I wouldn't have had to if my body had been intelligently designed, or if it had been the refined product of a lengthy process of evolutionary development.
Of course, only a fool would question the theory of evolution, even though the theory is most closely associated with a man who, along with other members of his clan, was a key figure in the eugenics movement, and even though the concept of natural selection just happens to nicely compliment the eugenics agenda, which, in turn, dovetails nicely with the agenda of the 'Peak Oil' crowd, whose theory, as we all know, rests upon the notion of oil as a 'fossil fuel,' which is taken as a given by most of the scientific community, which just goes to show you, I suppose, that you shouldn't always listen to the scientific community.