Here’s the Real Reason Sean Penn Interviewed El Chapo

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: xuenchen

Is he the Osama of Mexico?

For all anybody knows, he may be a fictional character.

a reply to: Hefficide

I think when he says failure, it's because he didn't get to ask all the questions he wanted to and the person asking asking the questions for him softened them or didn't ask. Perhaps also he sees it as a failure because his intentions have been severely misinterpreted.

It's clear to me that he won't (nor should he) win any awards for this article but opinions of it, I think, are unduly harsh because most Americans have a very low opinion/hatred of Penn simply because he's a Socialist.

Maybe Penn actually proved that all of that super-secret NSA/CIA and other agencies electronic/digital/communications data collection, satellites etc actually worked in this case.

Penn was the rabbit...

originally posted by: TheLotLizard
Penn met with him in October for the interview, Chapo was caught in January, how could Penn be in direct relation to how he was captured? I think three months is enough for one of the most powerful men to disappear again.

Hard to disappear again once they know where you are and have assets aimed at you. Assuming they did and wanted to see what more they could potentially discover with surveillance.

Probably, the timing and the publication of the interview were not coincidental, by design.



Penn should really consider changing identity and disappearing. All Chapo has to do is give a thumb down and his thugs will relentlessly hunt him down.

a reply to: DisinfoCom

The interview was interesting and worth the watch. El Chapo spoke of his life on a small ranch. His mother sold bread and grew corn and beans. He sold candy and soda on the street, until the opportunity came to move drugs to Guadalajara. From there his business just grew. When asked about the ill effects of his massive drug business on society, he said that when he's gone people would continue using these drugs and thus whether he were there to sell them or not actually made no difference.

From a moral point of view it does make sense. The empowerment of this killer and many others comes from the poor choices of many individuals. Westerners are so oriented to the social fact of recreational drug use, they have become morally compromised by their own indiscretions and see drugs as a normal phase of child development.

Children are introduced to drugs in elementary school, because they are naive and improperly educated to recognize the far reaching consequences of addiction. They are taught to obey their peers, and some of their peers will poison them.

The Western culture is so compromised with moral permissiveness that even the intellectuals and scholars seem to bypass the fact that the free society is in a state of gross self abuse, and thus unable to make the decision of expediency.

After WWII Chairman, Mao Zedong (father of the Chinese Communist Party) wrote that the west will not be taken by the gun, but that it's cultural blindness to moral decadence would be the weapon that defeats it from within (paraphrasing).

Throughout history, we find the ruins of once powerful military and economic nations that collapsed into obscurity from moral blindness. The lessons of history from around the world speaks volumes about the great national loss born of individual decisions of the masses.

Besides the artifacts of history, the books of the prophets (...and I am not religious by any means) speak of the loss of 'general understanding and intellect', which occurs when sexual impropriety and drug use permeates a social group. Human appetites and the compulsion to perpetually satisfy them leads that group into a psycho-spiritual abyss of addiction and broken relationships. Thus, the fragmentation of society occurs until its political fabric is torn, allowing enemies to infiltrate and conquer.

In this age of technological means, we also have to factor in the danger of cyber-warfare and nuclear escalation when considering the decay of society reaching into the nation's highest leadership ranks. We have security agencies, the pentagon, as well as congressional and presidential officials whose ability to lead and protect has been terribly compromised by personal moral issues. We have a public psyche that is self-programmed to overlook such issues when voting.

For me, I think the Guzman interview only substantiates what is readily obvious and which the average person does not want to discuss. People are incapable of dealing with social issues that they are contributing to, whether by commission or omission. Because we are all in some way responsible, we react with immaturity, like children who retreat into denial and only care about themselves.

Yes, I would agree that if the purpose of the interview was to create a discussion, it failed because people have become much too ego- centrist to care about anything other then self indulging exploration.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: xuenchen

Is he the Osama of Mexico?

No. But they both have something in common. They are opportunists who fulfill a social need and profit from human compulsion.

a reply to: Gianfar

I don't think Osama made any profits.

Was he even real?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Gianfar

I don't think Osama made any profits.

Was he even real?

He was real. His father a billionaire, Osama never needed money. Osama Bin Laden was a rebel and an outcast of his family. In the context of his ego-centrism, his personal gain came along the lines of fame and adornment as a spiritual leader against western aggression. He fulfilled a social need for frustrated Middle Easterners who wanted to rebel against western control of the region's wealth of resources, while most Arabs suffered in stark impoverishment. And of course, the west used him as a legal precedent to suppress both the Arab rebellion and the voices of peace and security in the US. One stone kills many birds.

In context to the El Chapos and Bin Ladens of the world, the poor are addicted to drugs and the wealthy, addicted to money and power. Death and destruction follows in either case.

Its not that complex when you look at the basic equations. People who make these things appear complex are avoiding the real issues that determine our collective destiny. And of course, there is always counter intelligence used in these forums to cause just enough doubt to confuse the uninformed and indecisive mind. One of the techniques I've observed in the discussion forums is the use of OPs to downplay facts or divert attention away from facts by emphasizing minor issues.

originally posted by: ketsuko
What does Penn think? Even if we suddenly reversed course and legalized every single illegal drug tomorrow El Chapo and his ilk would still deserve prison terms of life or more ... till they rot ... for the things they've done in the commission of their "business."

What exactly does Penn think the Cartels are doing down there?

Would he excuse all the things Al Capone did during Prohibition at the passage of the 21st Amendment? After all, murder remained murder and a crime even though alcohol was legal again.

El Chapo "and his ilk" You mean the DEA, Congress and the past dozen or so Presidents, oops almost forgot the CIA? You know, the ones responsible for the industry....

Edit: Almost missed one of the greatest contributors.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DisinfoCom

I haven't read the Rolling Stone article yet. I think it's important to inject (oy) the War on Drugs into the national conversation as much as possible. That doesn't mean drug lords should be given amnesty for what they have done, just that we need to stop creating them with them this obvious failure of a policy.

By drug lords do you mean the US Government and the select few 1% of Americans that support the (currently) illegal drug trade because they benefit from both sides?

1. A select group of rich Americans and politicians/gov't agents benefit from the illegal drug trade
2. The same group of rich Americans and politicians make money on the prison-industrial complex when people go to jail for ridiculously long times centered around drug charges

It's like Wall Street betting against the toxic investments they were selling to investors knowing the chances of implosion was coming down the pipe. The War on Drugs is the same damn thing.

originally posted by: WCmutant

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DisinfoCom

I haven't read the Rolling Stone article yet. I think it's important to inject (oy) the War on Drugs into the national conversation as much as possible. That doesn't mean drug lords should be given amnesty for what they have done, just that we need to stop creating them with them this obvious failure of a policy.

By drug lords do you mean the US Government and the select few 1% of Americans that support the (currently) illegal drug trade because they benefit from both sides?

1. A select group of rich Americans and politicians/gov't agents benefit from the illegal drug trade
2. The same group of rich Americans and politicians make money on the prison-industrial complex when people go to jail for ridiculously long times centered around drug charges

It's like Wall Street betting against the toxic investments they were selling to investors knowing the chances of implosion was coming down the pipe. The War on Drugs is the same damn thing.

Really good points. Corporations and drug lords are equally opportunist in capitalizing on the weaknesses and needs of humanity. There are also millions of drug addicts supporting the organized crime and corporate elites who make billions in profits on suffering and death along with untold social effects.

This is a dilemma that starts at the bottom of society and climbs to the top of the food chain. And from what I understand, most of the thousands of people killed by El Chapo are not innocent bystanders. They're addicts who can no longer pay their bill or rival gang members fighting for turf. You'll most likely find them in an alley wrapped in 100 yards of cellophane.

I don't understand why this is a big deal.

This escaped criminal with a massive ego wanted to tell his story - - in his own words.

Haven't journalists in the past jumped at this kind of opportunity?

originally posted by: Annee
I don't understand why this is a big deal.

This escaped criminal with a massive ego wanted to tell his story - - in his own words.

Haven't journalists in the past jumped at this kind of opportunity?

That's why Pen interviewed him. He recognized some of the deeper issues that people aren't discussing. Some journalists were critical of Penn's in-person interview, saying it was reckless and unprofessional. Were they stricken with envy? In these times it seems that most journalists do what is expedient rather than what is important. They seem to in it for ratings, not the moral and social implications. Penn appears to be more idealistic in his approach.

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Annee
I don't understand why this is a big deal.

This escaped criminal with a massive ego wanted to tell his story - - in his own words.

Haven't journalists in the past jumped at this kind of opportunity?

That's why Pen interviewed him. He recognized some of the deeper issues that people aren't discussing. Some journalists were critical of Penn's in-person interview, saying it was reckless and unprofessional. Were they stricken with envy? In these times it seems that most journalists do what is expedient rather than what is important.

Unprofessional? Seriously?!?!

I think El Chapo wanted someone in the film industry - - not just a journalist. Just my opinion.

Let's be real about who was calling the shots. Penn got the story only because he was allowed to, by El Chapo.

It was an opportunity, and Penn took it. Good for him.

I don't get the backlash.

Response to Anee:


Certainly your point represents one possible motivation, but these things tend to manifest in more of a two and three dimensional form, whether by the intention of the parties or not. Penn's interview can be seen only as a personal gain issue or it can be multifaceted, depending on your world view.

originally posted by: Gianfar
Certainly your point represents one possible motivation, but these things tend to manifest in more of a two and three dimensional form, whether by the intention of the parties or not. Penn's interview can be seen only as a personal gain issue or it can be a multifaceted, depending on your world view.

I don't see a problem with personal gain.

It's not an interview he would've gotten if he wasn't "invited".

Someone got the story. Someone needed to get the story. Stories are important.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Gianfar
Certainly your point represents one possible motivation, but these things tend to manifest in more of a two and three dimensional form, whether by the intention of the parties or not. Penn's interview can be seen only as a personal gain issue or it can be a multifaceted, depending on your world view.

I don't see a problem with personal gain.

It's not an interview he would've gotten if he wasn't "invited".

Someone got the story. Someone needed to get the story. Stories are important.

I'm entirely pleased that he did the interview. And yes, stories are important. I've discussed some tertiary effects in the above posts.

Am starting to think it was totally for personal gain as I can't figure out what Penn's contribution to the whole thing was. Kate Castillo contacted Sinaloa, spoke to Guzman through his lawyers and did all of the work in setting it up then a translator asked all the questions (possibly written by Penn) but they weren't great questions anyway considering the opportunity they were presented with.

It just reeks of a man that piggybacked other people's work as some kind of bizarre vanity project that has monumentally backfired.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
Am starting to think it was totally for personal gain as I can't figure out what Penn's contribution to the whole thing was. Kate Castillo contacted Sinaloa, spoke to Guzman through his lawyers and did all of the work in setting it up then a translator asked all the questions (possibly written by Penn) but they weren't great questions anyway considering the opportunity they were presented with.

It just reeks of a man that piggybacked other people's work as some kind of bizarre vanity project that has monumentally backfired.

Apparently allot of people see it that way. I would assume that's the primary reason for his disappointment. From what he said, it seems he expected more from the average person. From that perspective, I think he was naive.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
Am starting to think it was totally for personal gain . . .

What difference does it make?

He's the one who got the interview. Not some university educated historian.