Can't You Get Along With Anyone?

Allan — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:52:54 +0000

Democracy Subversion

Allan — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:05:58 +0000

Before we roll on with my proofs, I need to get something off my chest:

I’ve been accused of being a “conspiracy theorist” and “America hater.” Here’s my response:

First, a question: What were you up to in April of 2001, six months before 9/11? I mean given that you must love America?

Here’s what I was doing, while taking care of my dying Mom and being broke and dealing with a demented editor while trying to make a book out of my Central America journey and not getting laid and worrying about all kinds of other personal stuff: I was trying to warn America that terrorists would strike via suicide pilots in commercial aircraft, that’s what I was doing. I wrote newsletter saying how Bush was lying to us all with his rationalization for Star Wars; Bush was claiming we needed it to protect America from terrorists (he was predicting they’d use ICBMs to attack us). Predictably, the media would not go near calling him on this utter horseshit – which was meant to make his corporate cronies richer (plus create an offensive weapon platform in space).

As I say, the media never challenges Bush on his motives.

So I wrote a press release and sent it to a couple hundred media outlets. Right: Six months prior to 9/11 I was trying to protect America from suicide terrorists in commercial jets; trying to protect America from a lying shitball motherfucker of a president. (As far as I know, only NPR picked it up — they used my exact words, although un-attributed.)

Again: What were you America lovers doing in April of 2001?

Too bad no one listened to me then, huh?

One more thing: When Bush attacked Iraq and said the Iraqis will welcome his liberating forces with “open arms,” I said to anyone who would listen: “He’s nuts. After what we’ve been doing to that country for the last 20 odd years, he’s going be in a shit storm like he’s never imagined.”

I’ve spelled out the inescapable logic here on this site, in States of Denial (Part Two).

So: I’ve beaten all the multi-billion dollar think tanks and intelligence organizations and Joint Chiefs and neo-con and liberal pundits in predicting the two most devastating catastrophes in recent American history. Haven’t I?

Yet I’m a “conspiracy theorist” and an “America hater.”

Maybe I’m just someone who pays attention to what’s going on around him. (Right: except when I fall in love with a sociopath.)

Democracy Subversion

Here’s the raw stuff my researcher came up with regarding democracy subversion by the U.S. government since WW II.

I’ll be refining and expanding this stuff as soon as I can get around to it.

A reminder: I’m not an “America hater.” I simply believe that in a (real) democracy people should know the truth about their government’s actions, not only the information provided by a non-adversarial, corporate-controlled media.

GREECE 1940s (Greek Civil War)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War

GUATEMALA 1954 (Operation PBSUCCESS)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBSUCCESS

CHILE 1973 (Chilean Coup)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973

IRAN 1953 (The Shah)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

Venezuela

Afghanistan

Bolivia

Haiti

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/12/the_folly_of_exporting_democracy.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy

http://members.aol.com/superogue/ned.htm

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Democracy.html

http://www.countercurrents.org/bangla-hashmi200906.htm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/aug2006/paki-a26.shtml

http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm

http://www.apk2000.dk/netavisen/artikler/global_debat/2002-1126_us_imp_basic_stats.htm

http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/us_supportforladictators8303.html

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0511190166&ss=exc

Argentina

At first, the United States government was willing to maintain normal diplomatic relations with Argentina, though transcripts show U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the U.S. ambassador to Argentina in conflict over how the new regime should be treated, with Kissinger preferring to remain friendly based on anti-Communist interests despite talk of human rights abuses. This changed in 1977 with the inauguration of President Jimmy Carter, who implemented a strict stance against human rights abuses even when dealing with friendly governments. U.S.-Argentine relations remained lukewarm at best until Ronald Reagan became president in 1981. His administration sought the assistance of the Argentinean intelligence services in training the Contras for guerrilla warfare against the new Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Because of this, Videla maintained a relatively friendly relationship with the U.S. under the Reagan administration, though the junta later fell out of favor with the U.S. over the Falklands War after Videla had stepped down.

A Crusade
In a grander context, Videla and the other generals saw their mission as a crusade to defend Western Civilization against international communism. They worked closely with the Asian-based World Anti-Communist League and its Latin American affiliate, the Confederacion Anticomunista Latinoamericana [CAL].
Latin American militaries collaborated on projects such as the cross-border assassinations of political dissidents. Under one project, called Operation Condor, political leaders — centrist and leftist alike — were shot or bombed in Buenos Aires, Rome, Madrid, Santiago and Washington, D.C. Operation Condor often employed CIA-trained Cuban exiles as assassins.
In 1980, four years after the coup, the Argentine military exported its terror tactics into neighboring Bolivia. There, Argentine intelligence operatives helped Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and major drug lords mount a brutal putsch, known as the Cocaine Coup. The bloody operation turned Bolivia into the first modern drug state and expanded cocaine smuggling into the United States.
Videla’s anything-goes anti-communism struck a responsive chord with the Reagan administration which came to power in 1981. President Reagan quickly reversed President Carter’s condemnation of the Argentine junta’s record on human rights. Reagan’s U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick even hosted the urbane Argentine generals at an elegant state dinner.
More substantively, Reagan authorized CIA collaboration with the Argentine intelligence service for training and arming the Nicaraguan contras. The contras were soon implicated in human rights atrocities and drug smuggling of their own. But the contras benefitted from the Reagan administration’s "perception management" operation which portrayed them as "the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers."
In 1982, however, the Argentine military went a step too far. Possibly deluded by its new coziness with Washington, the army invaded the British-controlled Falkland Islands. Given the even-closer Washington-London alliance, the Reagan administration sided with Margaret Thatcher’s government, which crushed the Argentine invaders in a brief war.
The humiliated generals relinquished power in 1983. Then, after democratic elections, the new president Raul Alfonsin created a truth commission to collect evidence about the Dirty War crimes. The grisly details shocked Argentines and the world.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/VidelaArgentinaTerror.html

Bolivia
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A83682

Our Bolivian Friends

Just in case you’ve lost your handy itemized list of CIA-backed insurrections in South America, in 1971 — when David Dewhurst was (as he told me this week) "a 26-year-old CIA case officer assigned to the U.S. embassy in La Paz" — Bolivian Gen. Hugo Banzer Suárez carried out a successful military coup against the elected government of Gen. Juan José Torres. (Torres had nationalized the mineral holdings of Gulf Oil and done other things that offended the U.S. government.) Banzer received (unofficially, of course) both CIA and U.S. Air Force support in the coup — not surprisingly, since he was trained at Fort Hunt and the notorious U.S. School of the Americas. The general quickly took the kind of actions for which SOA graduates are so renowned, as summarized recently in Whiteout, Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair’s book on the CIA: "Even in Bolivia, the overthrow of the Torres government became known for its extreme violence and the lengths the new regime took to eradicate leftist elements in the country. Universities were shut down as ‘hotbeds’ of radicalism, tin miners were once again violently suppressed, more than 3,000 leftists and union organizers were hauled in for interrogations and ‘disappeared.’"

Of course, by the dismal standards of CIA-sustained regimes like Somoza’s Nicaragua or United Fruit’s Guatemala, Banzer’s 1971-78 dictatorship was rather small beer. To paraphrase Mercutio, it did suffice. In addition to the CIA, Banzer had other helpful cronies — most notably Klaus Barbie, the notorious Gestapo "Butcher of Lyons," spirited out of France and into Bolivia by the U.S. in 1951. Over the years Barbie provided regular "intelligence" and other assistance to the CIA and was particularly useful to the Banzer government. According to a Bolivian government report, he provided advice on "how to adapt the military effectively for internal repression rather than external aggression. … The system of concentration camps [developed by Barbie] became standard for important military and political prisoners." The report also recounts Barbie’s helpful counsel to the secret police in methods of interrogation, including professionally supervised electrical torture designed to extract the maximum amount of information before the subject expired.

On August 18, 1971, General Banzer Suárez, at long last, masterminded a successful military uprising that erupted in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, where he had many supporters. Eventually, the plotters gained control over the La Paz garrisons, although not without considerable bloodshed. The roles of the United States and Brazil in supporting the coup have been debated.

Brazil – list of presidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Brazil

Brunei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassanal_Bolkiah

Cambodia
For U.S. support to Pol Pot and his genocide:
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pilgerpolpotnus.pdf

The U.S. opposed the Vietnamese military occupation of Cambodia, and in the mid-1980s supported insurgents opposed to the regime of Heng Samrin, approving $5 million in aid to the KPNLF of former prime minister Son Sann and the pro-Sihanouk ANS in 1985. Despite this, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge remained the best-trained and most capable of the three insurgent groups who, despite sharply divergent ideologies, had formed the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) alliance three years earlier. China continued to funnel extensive military aid to the Khmer Rouge, and critics of U.S. foreign policy claimed that the U.S. was indirectly sponsoring the Khmer Rouge due to U.S. assistance given the CGDK in keeping control of the United Nations "seat" of Cambodia. [3] [4] [5] The U.S. refused to recognize the Cambodian government installed by the army of Vietnam or to recognize any Cambodian government operating while Cambodia was under the military occupation of Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot

Chile

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/09/19/us.cia.chile.ap/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

Pinochet and allende

Cuba

http://www.themilitant.com/1996/6012/6012_27.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista

Dominican Republic

The Dominican Republic suffered under the brutal dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo for thirty one years. With support of the United States General Rafael Molino Trujillo took control of the Dominican Republic in 1930 and ruled until his assassination in 1961. Trujillo amassed a huge fortune at the expense of his people while repressing all opposition. A movement of young Dominicans tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the dictatorship. However his rule was finally ended in 1961 when wealthy Dominicans unhappy with the dictator had him killed. In the twentieth century the Dominican Republic has not been able to establish a stable democratic government due several interventions by the US and the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo.

El Salvador

http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/HIS135/Events/ElSalvador80/Salvador80.html

Need a better link: this one is wishy washy

Greece

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch26gr.htm

However much or little the plotters had been encouraged by the United States, they were men with strong wills responding to what was happening in Greece. But there were some who saw the coup as an imperialist CIA plot. It was when the CIA was enjoying a lot of freedom of action. The CIA has been described as reporting on January 23, 1967, that a group that included Andreas Papandreou was plotting a coup. The coup leaders are described as having had contacts with the CIA. It alleged that Lyndon Johnson, prior to the coup, speaking to Greece’s ambassador to the United States regarding Cyprus:

We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitutions, he, his parliament and his constitution, may not last very long.

Guatemala

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Reagan_Guatemala.html

Ronald Reagan’s election in November 1980 set off celebrations in the well-to-do communities of Central America.

After four years of Jimmy Carter’s human rights nagging, the region’s anticommunist hard-liners were thrilled that they had someone in the White House who understood their problems.

The oligarchs and the generals had good reason for the optimism. For years, Reagan had been a staunch defender of right-wing regimes that engaged in bloody counterinsurgency campaigns against leftist enemies.
In the late 1970s, when Carter’s human rights coordinator, Pat Derian, criticized the Argentine military for its "dirty war" — tens of thousands of "disappearances," tortures and murders -then-political commentator Reagan joshed that she should "walk a mile in the moccasins" of the Argentine generals before criticizing them.
Despite his aw shucks style, Reagan found virtually every anticommunist action justified, no matter how brutal. From his eight years in the White House, there is no historical indication that he was troubled by the bloodbath and even genocide that occurred in Central America during his presidency, while he was shipping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to the implicated forces.

The death toll was staggering — an estimated 70,000 or more political killings in El Salvador, possibly 20,000 slain from the contra war in Nicaragua, about 200 political "disappearances" in Honduras and some 100,000 people eliminated during a resurgence of political violence in Guatemala.

The one consistent element in these slaughters was the overarching Cold War rationalization, emanating in large part from Ronald Reagan’s White House.

Yet, as the world community moves to punish war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, no substantive discussion has occurred in the United States about facing up to this horrendous record of the 1980s.

Rather than a debate about Reagan as a potential war criminal, the ailing ex-president is honored as a conservative icon with his name attached to Washington National Airport and with an active legislative push to have his face carved into Mount Rushmore.

When the national news media does briefly acknowledge the barbarities of the 1980s in Central America, it is in the context of one-day stories about the little countries bravely facing up to their violent pasts.
At times, the CIA is fingered abstractly as a bad supporting actor in the violent dramas. But never does the national press lay blame on individual American officials.

The grisly reality of Central America was most recently revisited on Feb. 25 when a Guatemalan truth commission issued a report on the staggering human rights crimes that occurred during a 34-year civil war.
The Historical Clarification Commission, an independent human rights body, estimated that the conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s.

Bitter Fruit

Indonesia

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/East_Timor_RSChom.html

One gruesome illustration was the coup that brought General Suharto to power in 1965. Army-led massacres slaughtered hundreds of thousands, mostly landless peasants, in a few months, destroying the mass-based political party of the left, the PKI. The achievement elicited unrestrained euphoria in the West and fulsome praise for the Indonesian "moderates," Suharto and his military accomplices, who had cleansed the society and opened it to foreign plunder. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara informed Congress that US military aid and training had "paid dividends"-including half a million corpses-"enormous dividends," a congressional report concluded. McNamara informed President Johnson that US military assistance "encouraged [the army] to move against the PKI when the opportunity was presented." Contacts with Indonesian military officers, including university programs, were "very significant factors in determining the favorable orientation of the new Indonesian political elite" (the army).

The degree of cooperation between Washington and Jakarta is impressive. US weapons sales to Indonesia amount to over $1 billion since the 1975 invasion. Military aid during the Clinton years is at about $150 million.

Through the 1990s, the US continued support for "our kind of guy," as General Suharto was described by the Clinton administration before he fell from grace by losing control and failing to implement harsh IMF orders with sufficient ardor. After the 1991 Dili massacre, Congress restricted arms sales and banned US training of the Indonesian military, but Clinton found devious ways to evade the ban. Congress expressed its "outrage," reiterating that "it was and is the intent of Congress to prohibit US military training for Indonesia," as readers of the Far Eastern Economic Review and dissident publications here could learn. But to no avail.

Inquiries about Clinton’s programs received the routine response from the State Department: US military training serves the positive function of exposing foreign militaries to US values. These values were exhibited as military aid to Indonesia flowed and government-licensed sales of armaments increased fivefold from fiscal year 1997 to 1998. In April 1999, shortly after the massacre of dozens of refugees who had taken shelter in a church in Liquica, Admiral Dennis Blair, US Pacific commander, assured TNI commander General Wiranto of US support and assistance, proposing a new US training mission.

Iran

http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe41.html

In 1951, the control of Iran’s oil fields by a British company (the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, or AIOC) became a hot political topic. The Iranian people believed, with some justification, that the existing deal between the Iranian government and AIOC unfairly benefited the company. Muhammad Mossadeq, then a member of the Iranian parliament, took the lead in demanding a renegotiation of the pact. The masses of the Iranian people rallied to his standard and quickly made him the most revered leader in the land. The Shah, who then ruled as an authoritarian monarch, lost control of events as his previously powerless parliament (the Majlis) took on a life of its own.

As Mackay notes:

With Mossadeq leading the charge against Iran’s economic master, the Majlis, on March 15, boldly nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company…On April 29, the same Majlis elected Muhammad Mossadeq prime minister. While the shah sat on the throne as a mere shadow, Muhammad Mossadeq basked in the acclaim of the vast majority of Iranians, who for the first time in decades gave their genuine respect, devotion, and loyalty to their recognized leader.

While I certainly don’t condone his socialistic tendencies or his seizure of the oilfields, it is undeniable that by the time of his elevation to prime minister, Mossadeq had the backing of the overwhelming majority of the Iranian population. For the first time in its long history, Iran had a democratically elected leader.

By 1953, Mossadeq was in an increasingly difficult situation. Oil revenues had plummeted due to a boycott of Iranian oil and the economy slumped. The Soviet-backed Iranian communist party was becoming increasingly aggressive, and Washington began to worry. Iran was a vital chess piece in the Cold War and the American oil companies had their eyes on future concessions there. Mossadeq had become an "issue" for some very powerful people.

Eventually, the decision was made in Washington that Mossadeq had to go. Brigadier General Norman Schwarzkopf (father of the Gulf War commander) and CIA guru Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of Teddy) were ordered to begin a covert operation designed to remove Mossadeq and restore the Shah to absolute authority. A complex plot, codenamed Operation Ajax, was conceived and executed from the US Embassy in Tehran.

Using CIA assets in the Iranian military and various minor political parties, an uprising was staged.

Congo

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Congo_KH.html
The Eisenhower administration supported the Belgian military intervention on behalf of Katanga; indeed, the American embassy had previously requested such intervention. Influencing this policy, in addition to Washington’s ideological aversion to Lumumba, was the fact that a number of prominent administration officials had financial ties to the Katanga wealth.

The UN force entered Katanga province and replaced the Belgian troops, but made no effort to end the secession. Unable to put down this uprising on his own, as well as one in another province, Lumumba had appealed to the United Nations as well as the United States to supply him with transport for his troops. When they both refused, he turned to the Soviet Union for aid, and received it, though military success still eluded him.

The Congo was in turmoil in many places. In the midst of it, on 5 September, president Joseph Kasavubu suddenly dismissed Lumumba as prime minister-a step of very debatable legality, taken with much American encouragement and assistance, as Kasavubu "sat at the feet of the CIA men". …

…Even during this period, with Lumumba not really in power, "CIA and high Administration officials continued to view him as a threat" …

In late September, the CIA sent one of its scientists, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, to the Congo carrying "lethal biological material" (a virus) specifically intended for use in Lumumba’s assassination. The virus, which was supposed to produce a fatal disease indigenous to the Congo area of Africa, was transported via diplomatic pouch.

In 1975, the Church committee went on record with the conclusion that Allen Dulles had ordered Lumumba’s assassination as "an urgent and prime objective" (Dulles’s words). After hearing the testimony of several officials who believed that the order to kill the African leader had emanated originally from President Eisenhower, the committee decided that there was a "reasonable inference" that this was indeed the case…

…The Church committee observed, however, that the CIA station in Leopoldville continued to maintain close contact with Congolese who expressed a desire to assassinate Lumumba. CIA officers encouraged and offered to aid these Congolese in their efforts against Lumumba, although there is no evidence that aid was ever provided for the specific purpose of assassination…

…The United States had also been involved in the takeover of government by Mobutu-
whom author and CIA-confidant Andrew Tully described as having been "discovered by the CIA." Mobutu detained Lumumba until 17 January 1961 when he transferred his prisoner into the hands of Moise Tshombe of Katanga province, Lumumba’s bitter enemy. Lumumba was assassinated the same day.

Turkey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turgut_Ozal

Email Exchange with the Producer

Allan — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:50:15 +0000

I’m just going to reproduce the relevant emails I’ve managed to find in my Yahoo account as is. Some are redundant – reproduced more than once. Someday I’ll get around to organizing them better. I’m not in the mood right now. Sorry! (As is the case with emails, it’s best to read them from the bottom up, but in any case, you’ll get the drift.)

I’m adding explanatory comments in bold.

Date:Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:52:33 -0800 (PST)

From:"Allan Weisbecker" View Contact

Details Add Mobile Alert

Subject:zero

To:"The Producer"

This refers to our talk on the phone (in the book) wherein I gave her the same criticism (of the new script, by another writer) that I gave for the director’s dumb ass outline.

To (The Producer),

i have some other notes that have occurred to me since

our talk. best would be that you do as you said: send

your notes on our call and i´ll add to them, as well

as the obvious places (and some not so obvious) where

you can cut stuff.

i strongly advise you to have [the Other Writer] read my draft.

there are a lot of little things ´to make use of.

(if you´re thinking i´m thinking of shared credit here

or somesuch ulterior motive, think again. i´d be glad

to put that in writing. i´d just prefer that if you do

make a movie of my book, it´s not a total

embarrassment.)

of course, the idea that you´d turn down an offer of

free help from me would fit perfectly into how this

has gone from the start.

my best draft is exactly 120 pages (goes right to the

bottom of page 120) and i think dated May 4. if you

don´t have that one i´ll send it.

on the other hand, [the Other Writer] might read my draft then put

a gun to his head… or to [the Director’s].

allan

> —–Original Message—–

> From: Allan Weisbecker

> [mailto:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com]

> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:08 PM

> To: [To The Producer ] Home

> Subject: [SPAM] RE: [SPAM] RE: allan w resurfaces

> yeah, i have TB, which should make sean smile,

> seeing

> as how he wished me death.

> what kind of changes he want? stuff like turning

> points and an ending?

> Allan

— (To me from the Producer) Home wrote:

> Allan, you are being silly. Sean said you are a good

> writer, and forget all

> that Hollywood stuff. The changes are in the way

> your character is written.

> I’m really sorry to hear about the TB. Are you on

> antibiotics?

> Agi

__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!

http://my.yahoo.com

This one refers to my email exchange with Mr. Penn.

Date:Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:33:44 -0700 (PDT)

From:"Allan Weisbecker" View Contact

Details Add Mobile Alert

Subject:RE: [SPAM] RE: [SPAM] RE: allan w resurfaces

To:" To The Producer"

To The Producer,

please. i’m not the one with the "hollywood stuff"

problem. penn was a contractual producer on a project

wherein i was the writer and he refused to read the

first 30 pages of my draft, which was all i asked of

him. (if this is incorrect, if i’m missing something,

please let me know.)

so he spends more time writing me an email explaining

why he’s not going to read my 30 pages and giving me

sage advice than he would have reading the fucking 30

pages. he got outraged when i pointed out this

obvious, silly truth.

or maybe by the "hollywood stuff" i should forget you

mean my screenplay going from brilliant to

unacceptable (to you) because some MBA or lawyer or

whatever he was doesn’t know squat about storytelling.

i guess your telling me that i of all people should

forget the hollywood stuff struck me the wrong way.

Allan

yes, i’m on antibiotics. i’ll be okay, the docs say.

thank you for your concern.

the bottom line problem [the Director] will have with this

project is that — as opposed to his two documentaries

– he’ll actually have to shoot film on this one.

> — [To The Producer] Home wrote:

> > Hey, heard from your website that you were having

> > health issues. Is

> > everything cool?

> >

> > We’re on a holding pattern since Sean went to

> cover

> > the elections in Tehran

> > and is now writing the article for the S.F.

> > Chronicle. He likes the script,

> > but wants some changes.

> >

> > I’ll let you know.

> > [To The Producer]

> >

> > —–Original Message—–

> > From: Allan Weisbecker

> > [mailto:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com]

> > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 6:27 AM

> > To: XXXX@XXXXX.com

> > Subject: [SPAM] RE: allan w resurfaces

> >

> > [To The Producer],

> >

> > so what’s up? you ready to show folks my script

> yet?

> >

> > Allan

> >

> > — [To The Producer] wrote:

> >

> > > Hey Allan,

> > > I’ve had a pretty good track record so far, and

> > this

> > > will become a great

> > > film one way or another. You will be kept in the

> > > loop.

> > > [To The Producer]

> > >

> > > —–Original Message—–

> > > From: Allan Weisbecker

> > > [mailto:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com]

> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:11 AM

> > > To: XXXX@XXXXX.com

> > > Subject: RE: allan w resurfaces

> > >

> > > thanks. good luck and keep in mind my

> > > prediction/suggestion. it’s really your hope and

> > > mine

> > > too.

> > > allan

This one backs up a lot of my assertions regarding this fiasco.

> > > > —–Original Message—–

> > > > From: Allan Weisbecker

> > > > [mailto:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com]

> > > > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 6:01 AM

> > > > To: [To The Producer]

> > > > Subject: allan w resurfaces

> > > >

> > > > To [To The Producer]

> > > >

> > > > Sorry for the long delay in getting back to

> you.

> > I

> > > > have not had Net access for 3 weeks, and both

> my

> > > > laptop and desktop crashed. Third World shit.

> > > >

> > > > Anyway, been thinking and have decided not to

> > > > contribute any more suggestions as to the

> [Other Writer’s]

> > > > script

> > > > - except to say that my book is not a

> > "Biography"

> > > as

> > > > you put it in your notes of our phone

> > > conversation.

> > > > It’s a memoir. (If it were a biography it

> would

> > be

> > > > an

> > > > "autobiography," but it’s not a biography.)

> > > Anyway,

> > > > the credit, in the event that that becomes an

> > > issue,

> > > > should read, "Based on the book by Allan

> > > > Weisbecker."

> > > > That’s the way it always reads on the screen

> > when

> > > a

> > > > movie is based on a book. They never put

> "novel"

> > > or

> > > > some such. Always "book." Just so you know.

> > > >

> > > > Two reasons for no more suggestions. The first

> > is

> > > > that

> > > > I already made a bunch of them, most of which

> I

> > > (in

> > > > effect) repeated in our phone conversation.

> All

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > suggestions were made in my critique of

> [the Director’s]

> > > > outline way back in 2003. My combativeness and

> > > > sarcasm

> > > > should not have prevented you from seeing that

> > the

> > > > outline was useless.

> > > >

> > > > That the [Other Writer’s] script is based on that same

> > > > outline

> > > > is obvious from start to finish. The absolute

> > > > dumbest

> > > > stuff from the outline was there in the

> > > screenplay.

> > > > (The bandit/credit card scene is one that

> comes

> > to

> > > > mind, but there are plenty more, such as

> having

> > > the

> > > > biggest turning point in the story - the break

> > up

> > > of

> > > > the friends — related via DIALOG with someone

> > > > irrelevant to the relationship (and that there

> > was

> > > > no

> > > > CONFLICT involved in the break up)… christ,

> i

> > > > truly

> > > > could go on and on.)

> > > >

> > > > Since my suggestions were ignored before, they

> > > > certainly will be again, so why bother?

> > > >

> > > > The second reason for no more suggestions is

> > this:

> > > > The

> > > > way I see it going is that you’ll send out

> some

> > > > version of the [Other Writer’s] script and no one will

> > want

> > > > to

> > > > have anything to do with it, due to

> > insurmountable

> > > > story problems.

> > > >

> > > > Eventually it will occur to you (certainly not

> > to

> > > > [the Studio] and most certainly not to [the Director]) that

> you

> > > have

> > > > had a "brilliant" (your words) script all the

> > time

> > > -

> > > > mine. You’ll (one way or another) get it out

> to

> > > some

> > > > people.

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________

> —–Original Message—–

> From: Allan Weisbecker

> [mailto:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com]

> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 6:27 AM

> To: XXXX@XXXXX.com

> Subject: [SPAM] RE: allan w resurfaces

> [To The Producer],

> so what’s up? you ready to show folks my script yet?

> Allan

— [From The Producer] wrote:

> Hey, heard from your website that you were having

> health issues. Is

> everything cool?

> We’re on a holding pattern since Sean went to cover

> the elections in Tehran

> and is now writing the article for the S.F.

> Chronicle. He likes the script,

> but wants some changes.

> I’ll let you know.

> Agi

Date:Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:04:40 -0700 (PDT)

From:"Allan Weisbecker" View Contact

Details Add Mobile Alert

Subject:RE: [SPAM] RE: allan w resurfaces

To:"[ To The Producer] Home" XXXX@XXXXX.com

yeah, i have TB, which should make sean smile, seeing

as how he wished me death.

what kind of changes he want? stuff like turning

points and an ending?

Allan

> Allan,

> > > I’ll let you know what

> > > happens. Glad you like [new film]. I think

> it’s

> > a

> > > real piece of

> > > filmmaking compared to Step Into Liquid, which

> has

> > > it’s charm. If I get any

> > > good DVD’s I’ll send them your way.

> > > The Producer

The hilarious aspect of the “new movie” (a surfing documentary) is that, like the “Director’s” first one, this almost all archival footage too! He only directed the interviews. So now he’s “directed” two films (both good), without having directed anything but talking heads.

Relentless.

> > >

> > > —–Original Message—–

> > > From: Allan Weisbecker

> > > [mailto:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com]

> > > Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 6:01 AM

> > > To: The Producer

> > > Subject: allan w resurfaces

> > >

> > > [To The Producer],

> > >

> > > Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you.

> I

> > > have not had Net access for 3 weeks, and both my

> > > laptop and desktop crashed. Third World shit.

> > >

> > > Anyway, been thinking and have decided not to

> > > contribute any more suggestions as to the Bacal

> > > script

> > > - except to say that my book is not a

> "Biography"

> > as

> > > you put it in your notes of our phone

> > conversation.

> > > It’s a memoir. (If it were a biography it would

> be

> > > an

> > > "autobiography," but it’s not a biography.)

> > Anyway,

> > > the credit, in the event that that becomes an

> > issue,

> > > should read, "Based on the book by Allan

> > > Weisbecker."

> > > That’s the way it always reads on the screen

> when

> > a

> > > movie is based on a book. They never put "novel"

> > or

> > > some such. Always "book." Just so you know.

> > >

> > > Two reasons for no more suggestions. The first

> is

> > > that

> > > I already made a bunch of them, most of which I

> > (in

> > > effect) repeated in our phone conversation. All

> of

> > > the

> > > suggestions were made in my critique of Stacy’s

> > > outline way back in 2003. My combativeness and

> > > sarcasm

> > > should not have prevented you from seeing that

> the

> > > outline was useless.

> > >

> > > That the [Other Writer’s] script is based on that same

> > > outline

> > > is obvious from start to finish. The absolute

> > > dumbest

> > > stuff from the outline was there in the

> > screenplay.

> > > (The bandit/credit card scene is one that comes

> to

> > > mind, but there are plenty more, such as having

> > the

> > > biggest turning point in the story - the break

> up

> > of

> > > the friends — related via DIALOG with someone

> > > irrelevant to the relationship (and that there

> was

> > > no

> > > CONFLICT involved in the break up)… christ, i

> > > truly

> > > could go on and on.)

> > >

> > > Since my suggestions were ignored before, they

> > > certainly will be again, so why bother?

> > >

> > > The second reason for no more suggestions is

> this:

> > > The

> > > way I see it going is that you’ll send out some

> > > version of the [Other Writer’s] script and no one will

> want

> > > to

> > > have anything to do with it, due to

> insurmountable

> > > story problems.

> > >

> > > Eventually it will occur to you (certainly not

> to

> > > [the Studio] and most certainly not to [the Studio]) that you

> > have

> > > had a "brilliant" (your words) script all the

> time

> > -

> > > mine. You’ll (one way or another) get it out to

> > some

> > > people.

> > >

> > > In this manner the movie, a good movie, just

> might

> > > get

> > > made. That’s my fantasy, anyway. So if my

> helping

> > > make

> > > the [Other Writer’s] script more presentable resulted in

> it

> > > actually getting made, I will have fucked myself

> > up

> > > through the back door, so to speak.

> > >

> > > By the way, did you give the [Other Writer’s] script to

> > your

> > > writer friend/sounding board? I’m trying to

> > imagine

> > > his reaction. [The guy who called me “the real thing” way back when]

> > >

> > > Thanks for sending [her new film]. It was

> terrific,

> > > better than [Other film]. Good work. [the joke here is that the other film was all archival footage too – the Director STILL had not directed anything!]

> > >

> > > Allan

> > >

> > > __________________________________

> > > Do you Yahoo!?

> > > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources

> > site!

> > > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

> > >

> >

Date:Tue, 1 Nov 2005 08:43:50 -0800 (PST)

From:"Allan Weisbecker" View Contact

Details Add Mobile Alert

Subject: zero

To: [the Procucer]: XXXX@XXXXX.com

i keep getting emails like this one. how are reactions

going to the [other writer’s] version?

allan

Note: forwarded message attached.

__________________________________

Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors’ Choice 2005

http://mail.yahoo.comForwarded Message [ Download File | Save to Yahoo! Briefcase ]

To:acwdownsouth@yahoo.com

Subject:Mail From Your Website

From:support@aweisbecker.com

Date:Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:09:42 -0800

Text Attachment [ Scan and Save to Computer | Save to Yahoo! Briefcase ]

Hi Allan,

hey, whats up? im a surfer from virginia beach, virginia. i was givin

the screen play for your book. and i read the whole thing and i couldn’t

put it down. it was so amazing. i have not had the chance to read the

book but i have heard many good things about it from friends at school.

and i just wanted to let you know that you are an amazing author. the

things you tell about in your story and the things you say are true.i

mean i could relate my own life experiences to some of the experiences in

the story. after i read the screen play i started thinking about a lot

of things and i realized that surfing is a perfect example of

friendship and the way people stay in touch. well i just think your a very

inspirational writer.

—————————–

Mike XXXXXX

surfvaXXXX@zoomshare.com

I received about 50 emails like the above about my version of the Zero screenplay. I was more or less just trying to annoy her by sending one.

This is to the new studio guy – he replaced the old one (who had written the memo extolling the director’s outline as “soulful” and “possessing all the elements.”

Date:Mon, 22 Mar 2004 06:36:18 -0800 (PST)

From:"Allan Weisbecker" View Contact

Details Add Mobile Alert

Subject: Captain Zero

To: XXXXX@TheStudiosite.com

XXX XXXXX

XXXXX Pictures

Via Email

Dear Mr. XXXXXX,

I believe we only spoke once, briefly by phone, soon

after you came to [the Studio]. In Search of Captain Zero was

already well along on its bumpy road.

Aside from creative differences, there were other

problems as well, mainly between myself and [The Producer]

and [the Director]. (Actually, at first there were no

creative differences between myself and [The Producer] –

when she read my second draft she said this: “It’s

brilliant. You’re my little genius. You gave [the Studio]

exactly what you said you would.” As far as [the Director]

goes, based on his “notes“ he may never have read any

of my drafts.)

You may be aware that I’ve posted my preferred

screenplay draft (a version of the one [the Director] thought was

brilliant) on my website (aweisbecker.com), along with

a note to readers asking for help in reaching Sean

Penn with the draft. I can understand how this might

be an annoyance to [the Studio]. I’ll give you the short

explanation of why I did this, then get to my real

point.

When [the Producer] first contacted me about optioning my

book I was wary. I’d never heard of her or [the Director]. Over my 25 years making a living writing for

the screen and TV I learned the hard way to be careful

with whom I get involved creatively. My feeling was

that bringing my book to the screen would be very

difficult, it being nonfiction with an internal drive;

real life is never dramatically structured. So I was

wary. [the Producer]’s promise of Sean Penn’s involvement as a

producer was the reason that I finally agreed to the

option. ([his first film] told me little about [the Director]’s

ability as a director, since he only shot the

interviews; the rest was archival.)

“Sean gets involved early in the script stage,” were

[the Director]’s exact words. I construed this as a promise that

Penn would read my drafts and have input. Of course it

is just that. A promise that Penn would see my work.

It never happened. Or if it did happen I was never

informed, which is just as bad.

You may think me naïve — people make and then break

promises all the time — but I get angry when I’m in

effect lied to, especially about something as vital as

this. Hence the posting of the screenplay on my site.

I was ready for abuse from my site subscribers, since

the screen adaptation strays so far from the book in

terms of turning points. Actually, there are no

turning points as such in the book. (I remember you

yourself pointed this out in our phone conversation.)

I was shocked and very pleased to get virtually all

raves. Out of over 50 “reviews”, all but one loved the

reinvented story — which, by the way, kept to the

spirit of the book as I intended it.

I’d be happy to send you the responses I got — they

are literate and well-thought out; more than a few are

from other writers and folks in the movie business. In

fact, one (I’m pasting it below) inspired me to go

back and do another pass at the script.

Which brings me to my point. I’m attaching my newest

version of Zero the screenplay. My hope is that

you’ll give it another look. Maybe also do what I do:

Ask someone you trust who has not been involved in the

project to read the draft and see what he/she says. I

don’t know about you, but I often lose perspective

after being immersed in a project for a long time.

I consider the attached Zero draft to be one of my

best screenwriting efforts. Maybe the best. The story

moves me, and it moves virtually everyone else who has

read it.

Again, please give it another shot. If you need a

release to read it, I’d be glad to sign it – [the Producer]

refused a read for this reason. She didn’t suggest a

release. (You can consider this email as a release. I

owed you a polish anyway.)

Yours truly,

Allan

==================================================

Here’s a copy of the e-mail I referred to above:

==================================================

Hi Allan,

Just finished your script. I loved it. It wasn’t

cheesy, in fact it was quite gritty as it should be.

At many times chaotic. If you want a critique, I

would change minor things. Little bits of dialogue

here and there, certain words. Nothing major. Just

nitpicking. I sure hope it gets made. I’d pay to see

it. Hell, I’d pay for me AND my group of friends.

The major part… is what happened to me while I was

reading it. A little backstory: I’m the kind of guy

who has seen my friends commit suicide; has seen my

neighbors dad (who was like a father to me) on a slab

at the hospital, his face blue with heart attack

death; has been dumped by someone he loves… but I

don’t cry.

When I was ending your script (last 20 pages), I was

listening to ‘One Thing’ by Finger Eleven and ‘I Am

The Highway’ by Audioslave. Those two songs, hit

perfectly as a soundtrack. As soon as Alex made his

heart beat after being attacked by the mammoth wave,

something welled in my throat. Something I hadn’t

felt for years.

I bawled for a good twenty minutes after reading END.

I just cried. Except it wasn’t one of those, my heart

is breaking cries, it was more…. I dunno…. joyous,

perhaps? The kind that comes after you read a

book, or see a movie, or hear certain lyrics in a song

and everything impacts you on a deeper level you

didn’t know existed… or had hidden. The kind where

everything in the murky, colorless depths swirls to

the surface and rolls over you like a colossal wave.

And then the moment where you cry is right at the end

when you realize… you’re alive.

It’s thankful.

I don’t know if you intended this or not, but I kept

looking at the contrast of the purity of the wave and

the helter-skelter of being on land. Then somewhere

along the way I realized that the wave IS chaotic, or

disguises itself to be. But it’s that one section,

that one moment inside of it where the masks are off,

and all the bullshit that you’ve fronted your whole

life is trashed and it’s just you and the wave. Like

two friends who have finally become real with each

other. It’s a perfect moment that does last forever!

I guess even in the water, the same works on land.

Those moments…

Once again, thanks for your contribution to the

surfing community… and my life. Hah! I’m sure this

is just one of the many similar letters you receive,

however I wanted you to know. Hope to see ‘In Search

of Captain Zero’ on a marquee soon.

If I meet Sean Penn soon, I’ll be sure to keep a copy

of your script handy!

Robert.

Right. I was attempting to annoy him too, since I knew that no one was going to pay attention to me in any case, or to “civilians” who liked my screenplay.

Check it out via the right side nav bar. See what you think.

=======================================

Lisa As Screenwriter

Allan — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:43:22 +0000

From a cut chapter:

Then, along with the daily love letters and emails she started sending me transcripts of conversations, or supposed conversations, with her Ala-non buddies, multi-page, dialog-heavy scenes written in basic screenplay format (I noticed that Lisa tends to overwrite stage direction, put in stuff that couldn’t make it to the screen), fervent expressions of sympathy for poor Lisa’s plight as victim of a drug and alcohol-deranged mind, mine, along with horrific anecdotes from folks who actually had been such victims, to which Lisa lent her own knowing, compassionate ear. Here’s a little excerpt from one, from an email dated October 11, 2004:

Following is a transcript of a conversation I had with “F” after the close of an AA meeting… I have gone to Al-Anon meetings for seven days straight. At the start of the meeting I introduce myself. “Hi, my name is Lisa (all, in unison, “Hi Lisa”).

In case you missed the subtext of the above opening: Lisa had been to at least one AA meeting, since she knows the beginning ritual. I think this was her point here.

“I’m visiting from Costa Rica for a few weeks and I’m trying to get to every Al-Anon meeting I can while I’m here. I live with a man who’s an addict and alcoholic and also the child of an alcoholic. I’ve been going to Al-Anon to help me get a handle on things, both his problems and the way I react to them. I’d like to sit in and listen to your meeting today, and thanks for having me.”

A reminder to maybe put in perspective Lisa’s dedication to helping me with my addictions: Through it all, she never stopped offering me a sundown drink (a choice of rum or Chilean red wine), or refilling my glass, or buying me codeine on her solo Golfito runs. Also: That when Lisa herself drinks she’s apt to engage in “dumb and out of control” behaviors like promiscuity (which she admitted to in one of her blurts) somehow did not find its way into any of her AA scenes.

During (the) response period, a man who I’ll identify as “F” (“Hi, my name is F____ and I’m an alcoholic”…others introduce themselves as an “addict and an alcoholic”)

Lisa has already used words “addict” or “alcoholic” nine times in setting up her scene, her little nonfiction scene, which purports to explain the root of my delusions. Possibly her background in perception management is evidenced here.

I approached F after the meeting because what he said resonated with me.

Me: Hi, F? My boyfriend is always thinking that I’m going to go off with another man, and he can’t let go of our past problems.

F: You’re just like my girlfriend. I was exactly the same way. That’s why she’s not my girlfriend anymore, for 2 months now.

Me: I used to think it was a problem with him or our relationship but now I realize that it’s the alcohol and these other chemicals he pumps into his system that cloud his thinking, it’s like he can’t think straight.

F: That’s what the booze did to me. I was worrying about things that weren’t there.

Me: He imagines I go off with other men when he’s not looking.

F: You sound exactly like my ex-girlfriend. I drove her crazy, and she finally had to leave me, and I love her and I miss her but she said she can’t be with me.

Me: I think 90% of our problem is the chemicals; he’s self-medicating himself out of depression.

F: That’s pretty common.

Me: But now he’s mad at me because I reached out to my girlfriends. He thinks I’ve “outed” him.

F: Oh man, I did the same thing. Exactly the same thing.

My critique of this scene, which is as clearly made up as any crapola Bob Woodwared ever concocted, is that the writing is too on-the-nose, i.e., it’s sledge-hammering, i.e., all text, no subtext. (Actually there is subtext: the subtext of the scene as written is that it’s made up.)

Writing advice, in the form of an observation: Lisa should have at least worked in some differences between my delusional behavior and “F”s (she has “F” use the word “exactly” three times in agreeing with whatever crapola she says about me), let the reader do some of the work in coming to the conclusion that I’m delusional. (What’s with this “F” shit anyway? People at AA meetings use their first names, not the initial of it: Maybe Lisa didn’t go to any AA meetings after all.)

As with every one of Lisa’s other gaslighting maneuvers, the modifier transparent comes to mind here.