Is Innocence of Muslims film maker a DIA asset?

‘Innocence of Muslims’ filmmaker was a federal informant — RT

WHY WE FIGHT

WHY WE FIGHT

"Everything is quiet. There is no trouble here. There will be no war. I wish to return."

Fredrick Remington, writing his employer William Randolph Hearst from Havana in 1897

"Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

William Randolph Hearst's response to Remington regarding what became known as the Spanish-American War.'

(Source: Citizen Hearst, W.A. Swanberg, 1963)

The famous exchange above indicates the unprecedented power a media owner has. In this case, a few extremely wealthy individuals, notably Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, were able to manipulate the government into the Spanish-American War by inflaming public opinion with propaganda and yellow journalism.

For a short time in the early part of the twentieth century, there was a great diversity of opinions present in the media: "muckraking," as its detractors called investigative reporting, was at its zenith. Ida Tarbell had won international fame with her brilliant exposé of the Standard Oil Company, serialized in McClure's magazine before becoming a book. Upton Sinclair exposed the hideous practices of the meat packaging industry through The jungle, a work which was serialized in the socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason, a year before being published as a book. But as World War I broke out, criticizing the establishment became taboo, and the U.S. Post Office refused to deliver Appeal to Reason and other similar publications. Advertisers pressured the media to lighten up. And fairly quickly, muckracking disappeared from the scene, never to return to the same degree. From time to time, journalists like George Seldes, I.F. Stone, and more recently Robert Parry, would self-publish when they realized they could not tell the truth boldly and fully in other people's publications. But these small circulation newsletters and journals could never compete with media giants such as CBS or the New York Times.

The Establishment in this country knew early on how important it was to control the press. Just as the representative form of government was set up to prevent direct democracy, or rather, "mob rule," so too did the press have to be protected from what Walter Lippmann called "the defective organization of public opinion." Truth could be a powerful weapon, one the elites were loath to share with masses. But keeping the truth out of the press presented a quandary. The elites themselves needed to know what the truth was. How could the elites get the information and still manage to keep it hidden from the rest of the world? As Lippmann (who served in an intelligence unit designed to aid the U.S. negotiating team in Paris as WW1 ended) argued, in his essay Public Opinion,

"representative government cannot be worked successfully, no matter what the basis of election, unless there is an independent, expert organization for making the unseen facts [of the new world] intelligible to those who have to make the decisions."'

In a 1937 work, Harold Lasswell, one of the fathers of modern communication theory, made a similar and more explicit suggestion:

"Propaganda must be coordinated with information and espionage services which can supply material to the propagandists and report progress of propaganda work."

CIA Confesses to Kennedy Assassination

CIA Confesses to Kennedy Assassination
Excerpts from Fatal Rebirth,with commentary
A Feral House Book by H. Michael Sweeney
Copyright (c) 1997 - All rights reserved
Permissions by Request

 

Note: A lot of good people have spent decades chasing after an elusive and fragmented truth with respect to the JFK assassination. Most of them have earned only scorn and name calling as 'conspiracy buffs' or 'conspiracy theorists' by media and government disinformation resources. Many of them continue today without knowledge that the truth has largely been admitted by the group responsible. Many of the conspiracy hunters have been vindicated, while others still search in hopes of that 'smoking gun.' But what better smoking gun than a confession? And we have one! Read it here! It is now time to seek to go beyond JFK as far as wrestling with the various conspiracy theories. There is no need to waste energy there. There are now bigger questions to ask.

 

JFK died for a reason. The gunmen that pulled the trigger are nothing more than the extension of a greater unseen power, a power with the motive. Cracking that is where I would suggest your efforts should turn next -- instead of making/defending the many alternative theories as to who did the deed itself (though some names are not yet known, and other names, like Bush, need more concrete ties drawn). Who did it is visible, who directed and who ordered them to do it, is less visible -- though their shimmering form can be seen and seems to be firming up.

 

Take the trail to the the Three and Five "I"s, being careful to avoid the false leads suggesting they refer to the identities of Permindex, Division Five, American Council of Christian Churches, the Solidarists, and DISC. There are connections between the two assassinated Kennedys that are so ironic as to exceed the Greek tragedies. Go back to square one to the formation of OSS/CIA Follow the money from there forward. Remember: "The fascists are coming.". If you know what a fascist is... you know what an elitist is... you know what a globalist is...

 

You might also ask: If CIA were to undertake an assassination of an American President (or anyone else), would not they lay careful contingency plans? What plan would they make for it going completely wrong, and blame coming back to Langley? How would they survive the public wrath had the media known and published the truth in '64 instead of publishing the Warren Commission?

The answer is a secret CIA within CIA (Shadow), one able to operate on its own infrastructure, and able to fund its own way through crime. Should Langley die, CIA would survive, but completely invisible and free of government oversight -- something that might eventually be better for dark deeds than having CIA In fact, it might even explain why CIA is willing to expose itself to the JFK noose at this time: Shadow may well be fully prepared to replace CIA today. If such a thing as Shadow were to exist, what would it look like and do? The answer just might be the history since Kennedy (both history perceived through media filters and the reality of hidden truths behind the headlines), which can be expressed in oversimplified math, a math which some may not understand:

 

U2 + Lee Oswald = neutering of Ike; 40 + 40 + 40 = death of Camelot; Vietnam + Tonkin = Asian drug supply; Robert Vesco + Nugan Hand = financial superstructure; Langley - proprietaries being disbanded = infrastructure (free of congressional oversight); Watergate + 5 Break Ins = Assassination of Nixon; Paisley "murder" + Bush = CIA purge (freeing agents for insertion into public sector and segregating agents by loyalties); War on Drugs = South American drug supply; 

MK-ULTRA/Artichoke + Cult Awareness Network = RFK (and more, including Jones Town and Waco); METC UNIT = WTC, OK; Evergreen + Gordon's = Orange shipments (capable of producing two kinds of highs); NSA + Clipper/Chipper = NRO in every home; Iran/Contra + Bush/Secord = Lockerbee; CFR + Trilateral Commission = Secret Government; LEA + NIA = In-place assets, Liddy Institute; Ingram + BR Fox = Offshore Murder, Inc. Arms Supply; ADL + B'nai Brith + CIA + Law Enforcement = Networking spy data on American Citizens; Media + CIA = Reuters, K. Graham, Time-Warner, CBS, Hilton Knowles and the rest; and I think I had better stop because I'm bound to have made enough enemies already or tossed out more than you care to consider, anyway. These are some of the things we discuss in our Group -- the greater issue of the war at hand, not just one lost battle in 1963.

 

Enough food for thought -- here is the post from the CIA news group. Be warned, however, that I have already had comment from CIA apologists who have been attacking this material for years by use of the 25 Rules of Disinformation (variants on misdirection, confusion, non-logic logic, disinformation, disparaging attacks on sources, and so forth), and they are well prepared to use their arguments on you. Should you be unprepared to deal with the trickery of their non-arguments, just ask two questions of them when they do -- and they must wither away. If there are any better confessions from other sources out there, where are they (can they provide an alternative conclusion with better credentials -- or are they just attacking this one)? In absence of other officious proofs, why do they try so hard to destroy this one? Know your enemy by their actions.

 

CIA Confesses to Kennedy Assassination

Trial Testimony by Deposition Under Oath of CIA agent Marita Lorenz
From the Defamation Trial of E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby
United States District Court for Southern District of Florida, January 1985
 

What follows is the ultimate indictment of E. Howard Hunt and other Operation 40 CIA (AKA Operation Zapata, AKA Bay of Pigs Invasion) agents for the murder of John Kennedy. That not one media representative present at the trial dared print a single word indicts media as being Shadow controlled. That this same testimony was given to FBI within days of the assassination is an indictment of the Justice Department as being Shadow controlled. That the judge presiding over the trial did not order follow-up investigation or indictments for murder is an indictment of the court system as being Shadow controlled. That the same testimony was given the Rockefeller Commission (CFR/Bilderberger/TriLateralist) House Select Committee on Assassinations and nothing was done with the information is an indictment of Congressional oversight as being Shadow controlled.

 

Beyond the virtual confession, it is clear that what is taking place here is that CIA (not only by virtue of the testimony, but also by virtue of cross questioning directed by CIA provided defense lawyers which seemed deliberately designed to maximize damage and bring out the facts) is hanging Hunt and select other CIA out to dry, 'twisting in the wind'. This is likely a means of neutralizing and punishing Hunt for his blackmail of CIA -- a move made safer by virtue of having captured the cartons of evidence from flight 553 after its 'crash' on schedule and on target where 50 'FBI agents' awaited it (a grand conspiracy worthy of further investigation on its own right - start with Big Brother and the Holding Company).

 

I strongly suggest you read Mark Lane's chilling work, Plausible Denial, from which this material was first made public.

 

Note commercial plug>: Shadow is this author's name for what Daniel Sheenan of the Christic Institute describes as the Secret Team, those elements of CIA and the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex which seek to serve an agenda other than national security. Shadow is the central villain in Fatal Rebirth, a prophetic glimpse of what lies ahead based on the revelations of the would-be secret past -- with over 500 foot notes and an Appendix section which is itself book sized. Fatal Rebirth was born amid a 007 adventure forced on the author when he came into possession of a document someone in the intelligence world took strong exception to -- a document detailing many sins of intel and their true masters within the secret government. Analysis and investigation was undertaken in self defense, an effort soon joined by several former intel operatives and at least one 'Deep Throat' from within the enemy camp. This revealed much about who and why, and provided the puzzle pieces needed to make sense of it all. Publisher interest welcomed. <end of commercial plug>.
 

Deposition as follows:
 

 
Q. What is your present employment? A. I do undercover work for an intelligence agency.
 
Q. Are you permitted to discuss the nature of that work, or where you work?
A. I am not.
 
Q. Is it also true that, as I have stipulated, you do not wish to give your home address?
A. No, I do not.
 
Q. Have you been employed by the Central Intelligence Agency?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Are you at liberty to discuss the details of that employment?
A. No.
 
Q. Have you been employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Are you at liberty to discuss that?
A. No.
 
Q. Have you been employed by the New York Police Department?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Was that intelligence work?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Are you at liberty to discuss the details of that work?
A. No.
 
Q. During 1978, did you appear as a witness before the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Was that in relation to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Did you appear as a witness after the chief judge of the United States district court of Washington had signed an offer conferring immunity upon you and compelling you to testify?
A. Yes.
 
Q. During and prior to November 1963, did you live in Miami, Florida?
A. Yes, I did.
 
Q. I want you to understand, if I ask you any question which you are not permitted to answer, you may of course say that, but I will try, based on my previous interview with you, to just ask you questions which you can answer.
A. Yes.
 
Q. During and before November of 1963, did you work on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Miami area?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Did you work with a man named Frank Sturgis, while you were working for the CIA?
A. Yes, I did.
 
Q. Was that in Miami, during and prior to November 1963?
A. Yes.
 
Q. What other names, to your knowledge, is Frank Sturgis known by?
A. Frank Fiorini, Hamilton, the last name, Hamilton. F-I-O-R-I-N-I.
 
Q. Was Mr. Fiorini or Mr. Sturgis, while you worked with him, also employed by the Central Intelligence Agency?
A. Yes.
 
Q. During that time were payments made to Mr. Sturgis for the work he was doing for the CIA?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Did you ever witness anyone make payments to him for the CIA work which you and Mr. Sturgis were both involved in?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Who did you witness make payments to Mr. Sturgis?
A. A man by the name of Eduardo.
 
Q. Who is Eduardo?
A. That is his code name, the real name is E. Howard Hunt.
 
Q. Did you know him and meet him during and prior to November 1963?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Did you witness payments made by Mr. Hunt to Mr. Sturgis or Mr. Fiorini on more than one occasion prior to November of 1963?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Did you go on a trip with Mr. Sturgis from Miami during November of 1963?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Was anyone else present with you when you went on that trip?
A. Yes.
 
Q. What method of transportation did you use?
A. By car.
 
Q. Was there one or more cars?
A. There was a follow-up car.
 
Q. Does that mean two cars?
A. Backup: yes.
 
Q. What was in the follow-up car, if you know?
A. Weapons.
 
Q. Without asking you any of the details regarding the activity that you and Mr. Sturgis and Mr. Hunt were involved in, may I ask you is some of that activity was related to the transportation of weapons?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Did Mr. Hunt pay Mr. Sturgis sums of money for activity related to the transportation of weapons?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Did Mr. Sturgis tell you where you would be going from Miami, Florida, during November of 1963, prior to the time that you traveled with him in the car?
A. Dallas, Texas.
 
Q. He told you that?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Did he tell you the purpose of the trip to Dallas, Texas?
A. No; he said it was confidential.
 
Q. Did you arrive in Dallas during November of 1963?
A. Yes.
 
Q. After you arrived in Dallas, did you stay at any accommodations there?
A. Motel.
 
Q. While you were at that motel, did you meet anyone other than those who were in the party traveling with you from Miami to Dallas?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Who did you meet?
A. E. Howard Hunt.
 
Q. Was there anyone else who you saw or met other than Mr. Hunt?
A. Excuse me?
 
Q. Other than those?
A. Jack Ruby.
 
Q. Tell me the circumstance regarding your seeing E. Howard Hunt in Dallas in November
of 1963?
A. There was a prearranged meeting that E. Howard Hunt deliver us sums of money for the so-called operation that I did not know its nature.
 
Q. Were you told what your role was to be?
A. Just a decoy at the time.
 
Q. Did you see Mr. Hunt actually deliver money to anyone in the motel room which you were present in?
A. Yes.
 
Q. To whom did you see him deliver the money?
A. He gave an envelope of cash to Frank Fiorini.
 
Q. When he gave him the envelope, was the cash visible as he had it in the envelope?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Did you have a chance to see the cash after the envelope was given to Mr. Fiorini?
A. Frank pulled out the money and flipped it and counted it and said "that is enough" and put it in his jacket.
 
Q. How long did Mr. Hunt remain in the room?
A. About forty-five minutes.
 
Q. Did anyone else enter the room other than you, Mr. Fiorini, Mr. Hunt, and others who may have been there before Mr. Hunt arrived?
A. No.
 
Q. Where did you see the person you identified as Jack Ruby?
A. After Eduardo left, a fellow came to the door and it was Jack Ruby, about an hour later, forty-five minutes to an hour later.
 
Q. When you say Eduardo, who are you referring to?
A. E. Howard Hunt.
 
Q. When did that meeting take place in terms of the hour; was it daytime or nighttime?
A. Early evening.
 
Q. How soon after that evening meeting took place did you leave Dallas?
A. I left about two hours later; Frank took me to the airport and we went back to Miami.
 
Q. Now, can you tell us in relationship to the day that President Kennedy was killed, when this meeting took place?
A. The day before.
 
Q. Is it your testimony that the meeting which you just described with Mr. Hunt making the payment of money to Mr. Sturgis took place on November 21, 1963?
A. Yes.
 
Q. When was the first time that you met me?
A. In 1977.
 
Q. On that occasion, did you tell me in words or substance exactly the same thing that you have testified to today?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Two days after President Kennedy was assassinated, that is on November 24, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was arrested and charged with the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of police officer J.D. Tippit, was killed in Dallas by a man named Jack Ruby?
A. Yes.
 
Q. On that occasion and subsequent to that time, did you see pictures of Jack Ruby in the newspaper and did you see Jack Ruby on television?
A. Yes, I did.
 
Q. Is it your testimony that the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald is, to the best
of your ability to identify him, the person who was in the room in the motel in Dallas the night before the president was killed?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Had you ever seen Jack Ruby before November 21, 1963?
A. No.

Cross Examination to follow. Note: According to Liberty Lobby lawyer, Mark Lane, Lorenz had confided outside of testimony that she got out of Dallas quickly because 'I knew that this was different from other jobs. This was not just gun running. This was big, very big, and I wanted to get out. I told Sturgis I wanted to leave. He said it was a very big operation but that my part was not dangerous. I was to be a decoy. Before he could go further, I said please let me get out. I want to go back to my baby in Miami. Finally he agreed and drove me to the airport.' She further stated she would not reveal the names of others in the cars going to Dallas because 'They killed Kennedy. I don't want to be the one to reveal their names; it's too dangerous.'

However, it would seem apparent that perhaps the agency no longer wished to provide Hunt with any level of protection -- perhaps because they did not like being blackmailed. The evidence for this conclusion lies in the additional information volunteered during cross examination which Mark Lane was unable to obtain himself, directly. Since Lorenz had been coached by CIA council (on what Agency would permit her to say) who also worked with Hunt's CIA sponsored council, it would appear that perhaps the CIA' vested interest was actually working against their 'client', Hunt, rather than for him. In fact, Hunt's whole problem of being accused of being in Dallas surfaced only because former CIA agent Victor Marchetti claimed in 1978 Hunt was in Dallas and Liberty Lobby dared to publish the story. As you read, note how both the lawyer and Lorenz tend to volunteer or bring out information more than called for, and how nothing in the cross examination aids the defense or nullifies earlier testimony. Defense would have been better off not to challenge the witness. It would seem a deliberate confession.

It should also be pointed out that Lorenz says she was inducted into CIA in 1959, and that apparently she and Frank Sturgis worked together early on -- suggesting that even when she was supposedly working for the New York Police Department and the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration). If true, this would make her and Sturgis illegal in-place CIA operatives within the DEA and NYPD -- likely working under CIA Operation Phoenix assassin king, Lou Conein (founding leader of DEA), to help eliminate drug lords not under CIA control or being supplied by CIA, and to protect CIA conduits and suppliers, the true purpose of the 'War on Drugs'.
 

Transcript continues:
 

 
Q. Is it your testimony today, that today's testimony is consistent with what you said before the House Select Committee? A. That's right.
 
Q. When was the first time you met Howard Hunt?
A. 1960, in Miami, Florid
A.
 
Q. How was he identified to you?
A. Introduced. Introduced as Eduardo.
 
Q. How do you spell that?
A. E-D-U-A-R-D-O, Eduardo, E-D-U-A-R-D-O. He was to finance the operations in Miami.
 
Q. What language did he speak to you in?
A. English and Spanish.
 
Q. English and Spanish?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Do you speak Spanish?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Any other languages?
A. German.
 
Q. When is it that you became aware that this person you know as Eduardo was E. Howard Hunt?
A. About the same time. Eduardo was the name we were to refer to him as, when discussing things.
 
Q. Who did you believe he was working for at that time?
A. CIA.
 
Q. Why?

Note: Portions of testimony were compressed at this point by Mark Lane in order to make a particular point. Liberty is taken here to represent it as faithfully as possible to his description without having to quote several pages of his work. Please see Plausible Denial for the full story. Normal transcript follows after this summary of combined answers.
 

A. Because we were all at that time CIA members of Operation 40. We had been given instructions from Eduardo and had certain rights and permissions to do things that the average citizen could not do... I will tell you what is on record. I stole secrets from Cuba... I was trained to kill. Anything else? Normal transcript resumes:
Q. Please provide at least one additional name of a person accompanying you in the car trip to Dallas in November.
A. The other one was Jerry Patrick --
 
Q. Jerry Patrick?
A. Hemming.
 
Q. Is that, H-E-M-M-I-N-G?
A. Yes. Two Cuban brothers named Novis and a pilot named Pedro Diaz Lanz were also in the caravan.
 
Q. Did you see the weapons in the second car?
A. Yes.
 
Q. What kind of weapons were there?
A. Handguns and automatics.
 
Q. Could you identify for me today what kind of guns they were, specifically?
A. Rifles; there were cases of machine guns, rifles, thirty-eights, forty-fives.
 
Q. Have you been trained in firearms?
A. Yes.
 
Q. What were the kind of rifles that were there?
A. M-16s. M-1s, shotguns; several.
 
Q. There were machine guns?
A. Yes.
 
Q. In your work for the CIA Operation 40, was that one of the major tasks you undertook was to transport guns?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Was that for the anti-Cuba activities?
A. Yes, it was.
 
Q. What happened to those guns when you got to Dallas?
A. They were in the other car and I presume they took them to the motel the next day, the next night. A lot of things they carried in.
 
Q. Where did you leave from?
A. From the house in Miami.
Q. Is that a CIA house?
A. A safe house. Yes.
 
Q. Did everyone meet at the same place?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Who else was at the house, besides the seven people you identified?
A. This fellow is incarcerated; it is not fair to answer. Another fellow is dead.
 
Q. Incarcerated where?
A. Out of the country, right now, Venezuela somewhere.
 
Q. Is his name Bosch?
A. Yes.
 
Q. What is his first name?
A. Orlando.
 
Q. Was he one of the anti-Castro Cubans involved in Operation 40?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Isn't that a matter of public record?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Who was the person at the house that is now deceased?
A. Alexander Rorke, Jr.
 
Q. Is he a CIA employee?
A. Yes.
 
Q. What did you do after you got to New York and found out that President Kennedy was just assassinated in Dallas?
A. Talked to the FBI.
 
Q. You talked to the FBI?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Voluntarily?
A. They wanted to talk to me anyway about certain things with my child's father and they picked me up and took me to the office.
 
Q. What day would that have been?
A. A few days after I arrived, after everyone got over the initial shock.
 
Q. It would be some time in the month of November of 1963?
A. Yes.
 
Q. In your discussions with the FBI, they inquired about your activities which related to Dallas and this group of seven people that took the car trip?
A. Well, they discussed my associates down there and my relationship with my daughter's father, mostly.
Q Did they know the names of the people you took the car trip with, from Miami to Dallas?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Did they ask you about each of those people?
A. Yes.
 
Q. Did you tell them about the guns and money and about Eduardo?
A. Yes.
 
Q. I will have to start again because the court reporter cannot take nods down.
A. I was nodding, yes, to each.
 
Q. What was your answer?
A. They asked me about everything, my daughter's father, and I am glad I am back up here away from that.
 
Q. You told them about Eduardo?
A. Yes.
 
Q. And the guns?
A. They know about all those associations. They didn't want to go into it. Those were CIA activities, not FBI.
 
Q. Did you ever talk with Frank Sturgis about it, since then?
A. We are not an talking terms, Frank and I.
 
Q. That was not my question. Have you ever talked about it with Frank Sturgis since 1963?
A. Yes.

Let's press the button marked "Helter Skelter"

Occupy DOJ Speaker: “I want ya’ll to start killing mother f–kers”

As one commenter noted, “Meanwhile, the DOJ is investigating firefighting exams.” The current administration is without a doubt one of the low points of this once-great republic.

GetUp's links to BBC and ex-BBC climate change propagandists via the Youth Network octopus... Exactly who is paying for all the green agitprop?

BBC TENTACLES | | Biased BBCBiased BBC

 Every two years the Australian Youth Climate Coalition holds a national youth summit called Powershift. Thousands of young people from all over Australia converge to demand action on climate change. In 2011, 1500 young Australians gathered in Brisbane for the second Powershift conference. AYCC wanted a video that would capture the energy of the conference, as well as excite the next generation to get behind the climate campaign. Make Believe created a music video of epic proportions. Our fresh take on the popular “LipDub” genre starred over 1000 young volunteers dancing through the city of Brisbane. It has since become a much-loved AYCC video and acts as one of AYCC’s most powerful tools to engage Australian youth with their campaign.

 That’s just scratching the surface. The Make Believe team have left their grubby eco-fingerprints over dozens of greenie campaigns, including the election of Adam Bandt, the completely fanatical Oz MP who was crucial in persuading prime minister Julia Gillard to adopt the suicidal carbon tax.
 Ms Osman moved on last autumnwhen she landed the plum role as communications director for Sony Europe. Others have noted brilliantly the extent to which large corporations – in order to extend their earnings potential – now vie with each other to flaunt their green credentials and jump into bed with the obscenely rich environment ‘charities’;  Sony is exceptionally keen on this front.  Their website boasts:

 We have joined other organisations in the WWF Climate Savers Program to work towards climate change targets. We believe setting ambitious targets will demonstrate leadership and stimulate greater action and innovation in tackling environmental challenges.
For example, Sony Europe has signed a joint business declaration with The Climate Group, The Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change and the WWF Climate Savers Program asserting that it makes economic sense for the EU to raise its targets beyond its current 20 per cent greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2020.
The declaration states that investment in tomorrow’s technology and infrastructure can help boost economic growth and create new jobs. Setting more ambitious targets now will help the EU to lead the low carbon economy of the future.

 Chilling isn’t it? I thought Sony was a manufacturer of snazzy technical gizmos and entertainment products. In reality they are now working with unelected, unaccountable eco maniacs like the WWF to impose insane green targets on us all. You thought you were buying a piece of kit; but no, it’s actually a key token in the WWF battle to subvert and subvent democracy and dismantle capitalism. 
Ms Osman – just like Mr Sambrook at Edelman – seems to have taken to this environment like a duck to water. Is she too, another BBC econut?   There’s no direct evidence of her personal views – she is far too discreet for that – but without doubt, she is quite happy to earn cartloads of money working for, and being associated with, campaigning, doctrinaire organisations that have the green creed stamped through them like a stick of rock.. The BBC tentacles of bias are seemingly everywhere.

Will there be a third X-Files film?

7:35 AM Tuesday Apr 10, 2012

A third X-Files movie has been mooted by one of the show's writers. Photo / Supplied

 

An executive behind The X-Files is trying to persuade movie bosses to fund a third film based on the hit conspiracy theory show.

Writer Frank Spotnitz says the TV show, which ran for nine seasons from 1993 till 2002, and two movies, the last of which hit cinemas in 2008, should be rounded out with one final movie.
"There is a very active and relentless fan campaign for a last movie," Spotnitz told Sciencefiction.com.

"I do feel like it would be a terrible shame if that didn't happen."

Spotnitz said the idea for the movie was already in progress. X-Files' stars David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson were reportedly already confirmed to reprise their roles as FBI special agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully.

"It feels wrong not to give it an ending around the alien colonisation of Earth ... I have a clear idea of how it would go and I've been talking to (creator) Chris Carter about it for a long time.

"I'll keep banging the drum whenever I meet the Fox (studio) guys."

Both films, 1998's The X-Files and 2008's I Want to Believe, made money at the box office.
However, I Want to Believe had poor reviews, charting at just 32 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes.

Carter, Duchnovy, and Anderson will appear together in the Fox 25th Anniversary Special on April 22.

- Herald online

The Occupt Movement: older than you may think

The Necessity of Propaganda

The most striking success of the revolution of a view of life will always be Won whenever the new view of life is, if possible, taught to all people, and, if necessary, is later forced upon them, while the organization of the idea -- that is, the movement -- has to embrace only so many people as absolutely necessary for the Occupation of the nerve centers of the state involved.

-Adolf Hitler