Tag Archives: Lawrence Wright

Whistleblower Character Assassin

Posted on September 26, 2024 by | Comments Off on Whistleblower Character Assassin

Filmmaker Alex Gibney

When asked about Alex Gibney’s in-progress documentary on himself, Elon Musk replied, “It’s a hit piece.”  Gibney’s reaction to that was, “How would you know?”

The answer is more than apparent on this blog.  Musk has done more than any other person to date to dismantle the burgeoning Censorship/Propaganda Industrial Complex. The very industry Gibney sucks the hind tit of for a living. Look no further than what Gibney did to Julian Assange and Wikileaks when they were at the forefront of restoring transparency and accountability to Big Brother.

When Wikileaks founder Assange exposed the sinister side of American empire in 2010, the national security state came unglued. Perhaps no one more accurately represented the security state (also known as IC “intelligence community”) at that time than Michael Hayden. Between 1998 and 2009 he had served on the three top spy positions on the planet, the head of the National Security Agency (NSA), the Director of the CIA and as the 1st Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. Under his guidance the national security state was formed, including the passage of the Patriot Act and its systematic stripping of our civil rights. Incidentally, he remains atop the Big Brother console to this day as head of the Atlantic Council’s Censorship/Propaganda Industrial Complex. 

Who did Hayden and company call upon when Assange and Wikileaks were awakening the world to the atrocities of the unbridled security state/IC? The documentarian who would give the head of the security state the platform from which to justify the horrendous conduct revealed by Wikileaks, while also viciously assassinating the character of Assange. The same guy who did principal Big Brother propaganda work for the COVID-19 roll out: Alex Gibney. 

Nothing more graphically represented the importance of the 2010 Wikileaks disclosures than the following video. It captures US military personnel gunning down several innocent civilians, including a Reuter’s news agency employee a rescue worker and his two children. See,

The nation was shocked. And Gibney gave it his all to get the masses to cool their jets with his documentary “We Steal Secrets.”  He featured Michael Hayden himself to tell us how to view this very leaked film. Haydn said he could understand how such abuses of imperial power bothers some people but not someone in the know like himself: “You’ve got this scene, some are evidently troubled by the scene – frankly, I’m not.”  Gibney then invites Hayden to explain how Assange put so many more lives at risk than were wiped out in the video, that there really is nothing to see here folks. Clearly, Gibney wholeheartedly agrees with his master as he fails to even once push back on the single person most responsible for the conduct Wikileaks exposed. 

And as is Gibney’s wont (see Big Brother Storyteller), he is so anxious to be the first to get the deep state’s spin released he doesn’t bother to examine any harm that Hayden alleges Assange’s releases will certainly do. In the final analysis, no one ever produced a single sliver of evidence that a single hair on a single head was harmed as a result of Wikileaks’ exposes. To the contrary one could easily imagine tens of thousands of lives being saved by the disclosures, by having its intended reform effect on the offenders. 

Thus self-blinded, Gibney sets out to destroy the reputation of Assange. He strings together a chorus of clips from his favorite politicians toeing the CIA/NSA/Hayden line literally calling for Assange to be hung to death or assassinated. 

The film largely consists of Gibney belittling and condemning Assange as a sociopath who might well be entitled to such treatment. In doing so, he also does a number on Chelsea (aka Bradley) Manning who was the military whistleblower who forwarded the leaked material to Wikileaks for publication. Gibney is a proud woke mind virus carrier. Nonetheless, he hypocritically devotes a great deal of time trying to smear Manning with his struggle over gender identity. Gibney ruthlessly paints Manning – a genuine American hero on the order of Daniel Ellsberg – as a psychotic sexual deviant. Gibney does so in order to create the invented picture that Assange took advantage of Manning and set him up to take the rap for the leak while hogging all the glory to himself.  In doing so, Gibney kills two Ellsbergs with one stone.

Through outright sleaze and cheesy propaganda techniques Gibney invents the narrative that Assange baited Manning into releasing the material to Wikileaks. In reality, the New York Times and the Washington Post (the “liberal” fronts for Empire fuckery) turned down approaches from Manning before he turned to Wikileaks. Yet, Gibney’s expert use of the dark arts makes it appear as though if not for Assange’s fraudulent preying upon a weak, perverted mind, Manning never would be in the deep trouble he was by then in (in solitary confinement awaiting trial for Treason and worse before a US military tribunal).  

The same techniques used to assassinate Manning’s character are applied by Gibney in pursuing Assange as prey.  He ruthlessly explores Assange’s private sex life and goes to great length to indict and convict him for the alleged crime of intentionally breaking his condom during sex with more than willing partners (perhaps even sexual predators pursuing Assange). If you are wondering how that might constitute a prosecutable crime, Gibney’s invents the speculation that it would be a crime if Assange happened to knowingly be carrying around the AIDS virus. While the entire premise of Gibney’s prosecution (justification for the Swedish government pursuing Assange) hinged on that one invented possibility, Gibney (and no one else in the 14 years since) never presented a scintilla of evidence such was the actual case. Yet, through master use of the dark arts of cinematographic deception Gibney presents the picture of an AIDs ravaged madman travelling the world seeking to kill through sex.  

With those false premises established, Gibney then virtually lobbies for the criminal punishment of Julian Assange.  He accuses Assange of paranoia for suggesting that the U.S. government has Assange in its sights for the same treatment they were meting out to Chelsea Manning.  Gibney appears to want Assange to take the punishment Manning is taking; all the while calling Assange paranoid for sensing that is exactly the intent of Gibney and his deep state sponsors. 

The utter falsity of Gibney’s “paranoia” claims were more than proven over the next several years as the US ruthlessly pursued Assange through extradition (while its CIA director called for Assange’s assassination).  Completely contrary to the entire premise of Gibney’s invented outrage, Assange would wind up spending more time in confinement than Manning did (without ever being convicted of a single crime). Of course, Gibney helped accomplish this feat by virtue of other state-controlled media parroting Gibney’s deep-state smear for years. 

There is a pattern of Gibney’s over-anxious, impatient attack-dog work on behalf of the deep state.  He did the very same thing concerning the COVID-19 pandemic panic (see Big Brother Storyteller).  A rush to release the definitive government/big pharma COVID 19 narrative, followed by several years of the truth unfolding proving all his major premises to be wrong. He did the same with the Scientologists, tirelessly using his ‘documentary’ on them to lobby for removal of their IRS tax exemption, only for time to tell his invented premises for such draconian measures were fabrications. I have described before the fraud perpetuated and promoted by Larry Wright and Alex Gibney on that subject. (see blog posts between June 6 2017 through June 19 2017 and from July 16 2017 and August 8 2017).

As we shall later see, Gibney did the same with the Russia Hoax. The technique is, when chaos hits be the first to create a “documentary” to “prove” the deep state’s propaganda lines. Make the big lies look like truth through overboard dramatization in the guise of documentary film making. Use the ‘fact’ of the documentary to take designated targets down hard. While the facts begin to arise demonstrating the falsity of your work, dive into the next deep state crisis and rinse and repeat.

To demonstrate the 100% love, devotion and surrender nature of the deep state suck up, consider these facts. If the Manning/Assange leak were as expansive and potentially destructive as Gibney’s film claims, and Gibney is the flag-waving patriot he purports to be, then why did Gibney not investigate how two allegedly mentally ill, sex deviants managed to put the entire free world at risk all on their little lonesomes? That is, how could such alleged supermen as Michael Hayden be capable of such incompetent, treasonous insecurity?  That, Gibney does not investigate. Instead, he only covers deep-state ass. Again, he turns to his master Hayden to explain away the pesky matter of how on earth such a massive breach could occur. Hayden blames reforms imposed in response to the deep state’s colossal incompetence (at best) demonstrated during the events leading to 911. 

Hayden:

“After 9/11 we were accused of not being willing to share information rapidly and facilely enough and we’ve pushed that very far forward. In terms of our focus the default option in a practical sense has been to share it, rather than caging in information and making it more difficult to flow.”

In other words, “any attempt to point out an error on the Intelligence Community will be met with glue meeting rubber. That is, your catching us out on a mistake will result in you being guilty of our next crime.”

Remarkably, not only does Gibney not push back on such haughty arrogance, he lets Hayden shore up alleged CIA infallibility with this:

“When they catch us making a mistake, we admit it. When they have a valid point—even when it’s buried deep below a heap of not-so-valid points—we try to pull it out, brush it off, and address it.”

With that Gibney enters the Orwellian ranks, “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”

State-controlled media would of course cloyingly go along for the ride as per usual.

And that of course buried any dissent to Gibney’s propaganda work.  But, at the time of its release many credible sources expressed outrage at Gibney’s servile cowardice. 

The Nation had the following to say of “We Steal Secrets”:

“Unfortunately, just as today’s debate is already being diluted by focusing on Snowden’s psychology and motives, We Steal Secrets gets sidetracked by character issues… The debate that the film has stirred up consists mainly of an exchange of invective between Gibney and Assange, in which Gibney and his allies compare the WikiLeaks creator to a cult leader, while Assange and his allies accuse the director of mounting a smear campaign that benefits the US government. The upshot is that we have gotten neither the film nor the debate we need.”

Award winning researcher and journalist Alexa O’Brien wrote:

“What was Gibney relying on for his costly ‘string of pearls’ reportage, beyond his hackneyed entourage of unexamined glory-boats, bearing witness on the silver screen to their privileged punditry—that is, talking about themselves amongst themselves for their own benefit– certainly not the public’s—or future generations?”

“Gibney’s exercise discovers nothing, and reveals nothing. His tabloid motion graphic is a regurgitation of stock footage, unsubstantiated innuendo, and unexamined allegation.”

“What Gibney has done here is not art; it is a cheap trick.”

And veteran war correspondent Chris Hedges wrote the following:

“Alex Gibney’s new film, “We Steal Secrets,” is about WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange. It dutifully peddles the state’s contention that WikiLeaks is not a legitimate publisher and that Bradley Manning, who allegedly passed half a million classified Pentagon and State Department documents to WikiLeaks, is not a legitimate whistle-blower. It interprets acts of conscience and heroism by Assange and Manning as misguided or criminal. It holds up the powerful—who are responsible for the plethora of war crimes Manning and Assange exposed–as, by comparison, trustworthy and reasonable.”

“The film at many points is a trashy exercise in tabloid journalism. Gibney panders to popular culture’s taste for cheap pop psychology and obsession with sex, salacious gossip and trivia.”

Finally, Hedges recognizes the illness underlying the propaganda techniques employed:

“The vast structural sin Assange and Manning fought is ignored. The primacy of personal piety over justice is the inversion of morality. It is the sickness of our age.”

Remarkably, on this rare occasion when Gibney was held to account for his demonstration of the sickness of our age he petulantly defended his tabloid appetites. Unfortunately for him he protested too much and as much as admitted to the truth of what the Nation, O’Brien and Hedges pointed out:

“Just because someone tries to right a wrong or just because somebody tries to hold powerful people to account, it doesn’t mean that person is above the law.” – Alex Gibney

Under that ‘rationale’, Gibney is free to pursue whistleblowers into their prison cells and beyond.  

Given how Gibney approached whistleblowers Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, what are the odds he’ll take a deep dive into Elon Musk’s sex life?  One thing is certain, Gibney will make the gullible afraid of Mr. Musk, very afraid. 

I have seen up close and personal how deftly Gibney wields the art of cinematography to create realities that do no exist, and to dramatize them to the point of creating revulsion and terror in viewers. For a short lesson on Gibney’s trickery, see what he did to the Scientologists; creating a “guttural, deep emotional fear and terror of something that does not exist”, Going Clear Movie.

Comments Off on Whistleblower Character Assassin

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Censorship and Propaganda Authorities

Posted on June 6, 2024 by | Comments Off on Censorship and Propaganda Authorities

Censorship Mind Control as currently practiced by the organs of the Neo Liberal Order is essentially a three-step operation. First, effectively censor dissident voices. Second, if censorship alone cannot silence effective voices then smear them to the point where no one will listen to what they say. Third, which is often run concurrent with 2 and 3, roll out the elite’s chosen narratives as related by authoritative figures; incessantly and everywhere at once. The narrative roll out is all important as it contains the untruths Big Brother wishes to implant in our minds. The “authority” in “authoritative figures” as narrators comes at the privilege of the elite of the Neo Liberal Order; judged by his/her willingness and ability to relay what he or she is told to say and write, and decidedly not by merit. 

For example, the effective author and spokesman for the roll out of the Greatest Hoax of the 21st Century (see Jacob Siegel’s Invasion of the Fact Checkers) was former FBI agent  Clint Watts. That he deserves that sobriquet is not my opinion. It is that of perhaps the most powerful figure in today’s entire Global Intelligence (IC) network, former CIA and NSA head and current director of Censorship Industrial Complex Operations at the Atlantic Council, Michael Hayden.  Watts was the first ‘credentialed’ public promoter of the Russia scare – the crude, but effective return to 1950’ish McCarthyist Red Scare days. Fear all that is “them” (read Russian) as it secretly permeates our precious bodily fluids. Watts was the chosen narrator of the propaganda narrative that we must shut our ears and eyes to any information designated as ‘Russian”.  Of course, the ugly trick was to label anything and everything that didn’t fit the Neo Liberal Order’s dozens of propaganda narratives as “Russian”. Absurd as it was, roughly fifty percent of the U.S. population went along for the ride. The once “progressive” wings of the Mainstream Media (MSM), CNBC/CNN, became literally obsessed with this mind-programming complex front man Watts.  He appeared out of nowhere as the authority on all Russian Hoax matter and was omnipresent in all major government-compliant mainstream media.

What qualified Watts for this job?  Was it that he was part of the failed and discredited pre-911 U.S. government anti-terror apparatus?  Was it his several years of cashing in on the Security Industrial Complex cottage industry that arose after 911 in spite of the fact it was the result of the pre-911 failures of the likes of Watts?  Nothing in his overt, officially listed background would seem to qualify him as a CIA storyteller, least of all on the matter of “Russian Misinformation.” And yet, having been exposed as a rank peddler of the Russia Hoax, Watts just keeps skipping from one high paying propagandist gig after another. Here is the latest, from a recent piece by William A. Jacobson (Founder of the Equal Protection Project) in the NY Post:

In another bad omen, Clint Watts, the FBI special agent and MSNBC contributor who founded the Hamilton 68 dashboard, has been hired by Microsoft to run their disinformation unit during the upcoming election.

If Hamilton 68 isn’t ringing any bells, it was the left-wing think tank notorious for accusing legitimate right-leaning accounts of being Russian bots. It pushed the false narrative of massive Russian influence that was heavily relied upon by many mainstream media outlets and possibly even swayed the 2020 election.

And now this same guy is in charge of monitoring disinformation for Microsoft during the next election. What possibly could go wrong? Everything. 

With Google Jigsaw in firm Censorship Industrial Complex control, (see Mike Benz’ Google Jigsaw’s Plan to Vaccinate Your Mind) most traditional channels of communication have been seized by Big Brother leading up to election day 2024.

So, how does a backbencher security hack become an omnipresent front man for the Censorship Industrial complex? While his official biography doesn’t give a clue, his own words do.  According to him, Watts’ “mentor” in the storytelling craft is the man who wrote the official record of the alleged events leading up to 911. Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower covered up so well for the CIA/FBI Pre-911 negligence (or treason?) that according to Watts the head of the FBI (Robert Muller, who was appointed to mop up the severe FBI/CIA post 911 PR damage) instructed supervisors like Watts to “make sure everyone gets one of these books.”  And Watts eagerly complied, saying he bought “boxes” of the book and distributed them to “all my colleagues.”

Think about it – the largest law enforcement/intelligence agency in the world needs an ‘outside’ author to school its members on the most colossal failure of any government agency in world history?  Why?  Perhaps because the primary, glaring criticism of Wright’s book was his justification of the CIA’s withholding of critical intelligence from the FBI (and the FBI’s own serial fumbles) that clearly prevented law enforcement from foiling the well pre-broadcast 911 catastrophe? Wright’s authoritative answer to why the problems was that the CIA and FBI were overworked and underpaid. As we shall see, Wright is an expert at personalizing societal catastrophes, and elevating villains to hero status in order sell rotten New Liberal Order false narratives.

In either event, the cloying cult member like adoration a head of a major counter terrorism department directs toward a ‘citizen’ author is remarkable. That Counter Terrorism head, Watts, reminisced during a 2022 podcast that he “had the great fortune of being his (Wright’s) driver between airports and auditoriums” during his book promotional tour; and this is where his mentor schooled him on becoming a professional storyteller. Said Watts, Wright “provided much needed guidance to me.” 

Coincidentally, during that same podcast Watts and Wright neatly lay the groundwork justification for the CIA and FBI to turn their outward facing powers inward toward American Citizens.  While Middle Eastern terrorists pour over our Southern Border in unprecedented numbers, Wright and Watts seem to concur that intelligence and law enforcement ought instead be going after Trump supporters. According to Watts, it “is a sure thing” that domestic terrorists have “biological weapons…very much on their minds.”  

Referring to Wright’s epic apologia to Anthony Fauci, Pfizer, NIH, and the Biden Administration (the book Plague Year, so chock full of since-discredited big pharma/government propaganda to warrant its own post), Watts and Wright continue to pimp government  COVID-19 myths that were long-since proven phony by the time of the 2022 podcast.

Thus, Wright laments (with Watts agreeing like a bobbing head doll) that what went wrong with the pandemic and what is most crucially wrong with America today is: “What we didn’t have was the trust we needed to have in our government institutions. We just don’t rate on that scale at all.” 

As this blog has detailed, these ‘love, devotion, and surrender’ (to Big Brother) demands were being made just as the Biden administration was unleashing the largest roll back in civil rights in American history. Wright said Americans are just plain backward as compared to “Angolans” and “Latvians” in their unwillingness to put full faith into government agencies, at the very moment those agencies were betraying Americans like never before.

Did Larry mean we should have dropped to our knees and demonstrated cultlike compliance to the NIH/Mainstream media’s anointed Mr. Science? The guy who was so infallible that to question him was to question science itself?  The guy who is now being exposed by documents as the kingpin of perhaps the most harmful and deadly fraud ever perpetrated on the American people; this guy? See, Fauci Kingpin in Massive Cover up. 

Among other things, here is what Fauci sought to cover up: Fauci Cover-up. 

As we shall see, that is precisely what Big Brother narrator supreme Lawrence Wright means. 

Comments Off on Censorship and Propaganda Authorities

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Paul Haggis Damns Lawrence Wright

Posted on September 25, 2017 by | 94 comments

Haggis bffs Lawrence Wright and Tony Ortega

Backpage* Tony Ortega and his b-list celebrity followers Paul Haggis and Leah Remini have gone all Joe McCarthy of late. Just last week, the week of Haggis’ dramatic appearance on his cohort Leah Remini’s reality show, the latter staged a publicity stunt to out and shame an alleged Scientology star she was clearly jealous of. There was one little problem. The alleged Scientology star wasn’t a Scientologist. So, Backdoor Tony attempted to backfill for Leah and Paul. He went all Joe McCarthy and changed the question to “are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the church of Scientology?”  He then answered the question himself – with yet another lie.

What’s that got to do with the Backpage/Haggis latest collabaration? It serves to clearly demonstrate what hypocritical cowards Remini, Haggis and Backpage Tony are; how they have degenerated into making a living out of outing people so obsessively that they falsely accuse the outed and even falsely accuse people of plying their own sordid trade.

Two days ago Backpage Tony was called out for publishing what he announced in a bold-face headline would be “An Open Letter To Marty Rathbun” from Paul Haggis. Instead, what he presented was a letter to himself from Paul Haggis.  The letter did whine about imagined thought crimes I had allegedly committed against the alter-ego Haggis had created for himself – the courageous, transparency-advocating Scientology crusader.

The crux of Haggis’ complaint was that I had allegedly caused a single sentence from an email to be published that somehow unfairly detracted from the Crusader persona he had invented for himself.  So, I did Paul a favor and published the entire email so that all could see the transparent, factual context. Incidentally, the email contained directions from Paul Haggis to me to commit no less than eight misrepresentations of fact to media in an attempt to bamboozle them into buying his phony narrative about himself. That included the Haggis direction to create at least two invented identities to promote Haggis’ heroism and victimhood (conflicted any?).

Apparently, no aid can be offered that does not exacerbate the perceived slights to an oversized ego. In response, this morning Haggis again teamed with Backpage Tony to damn me – just as he damned a number of Scientologist celebrities recently on Leah Remini’s reality show. My Haggis-thought crime?  ‘Outing’ one of his friends whom Haggis characterized as carefully remaining securely in the closet for eight years, masking the fact he had bad things to say about Scientology.

The problem with Haggis’ latest panty-twist is that his personal biographer and fellow Anti-Scientology Cult member Lawrence Wright had already ‘outed’ his friend five years earlier. Where?  In Paul Haggis’ biography. Hell, he was prominently featured; he even made it into the index unlike Backdoor Tony. So, Haggis in fact damned the conduct of Lawrence Wright. Actually, if Haggis had a single honest bone in his body he would have damned himself. How do you think Wright connected up with the 2012-Haggis-outed “friend” in the first place?

Notwithstanding Paul’s recent obsession with projecting his own intentions and conduct onto me, I like him.  I hope that one day he will find the courage to cease habitually blaming everybody but himself for his own condition and creating characters to forward his vanityland hagiography. It may afford him the equilibrium to start the more important quest of finding out who he really is.

—

*How Ortega earned the moniker Backpage (from concerned participant on this blog):

The Village Voice was converted into a human trafficking criminal enterprise. Tony Ortega lived off the money of sex trafficking, much of it from minors, for almost six years. This is not gossip, and I am not the first to mention it. It is in a Senate investigation report.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/reports
It has been written about by media watchdog sites.
http://thedailycannibal.com/2012/09/11/the-voice-loves-children-really/
http://gawker.com/5860101/pickets-lawsuits-sex-ads-and-hard-times-at-the-village-voice
http://gawker.com/5642182/village-voice-has-a-child-prostitution-problem
When confronted about it Tony Ortega first denied it, then used the Village Voice to decimate any other journalists who mentioned it. And finally, turned on the victims trafficked there and worked to dehumanize them by calling them “underage prostitutes”. Not children, which they were. There is no such thing as an “underaged prostitute”. Minors who are forced into sexual slavery are not “underage prostitutes”. He tried to poison people against his victims! CHILDREN.
The college he graduated from invited him back to receive an award, with the purpose of motivating students. When he arrived they were out front protesting him. And on this video you hear his acceptance speech, he only talks about himself and then gaslights the students out front by saying “they don’t understand”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H11eXHspSUk
The Village Voice founder’s son even protested in New York in front of Tony Ortega’s office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN6V1197H8I
With protestors surrounding the building, Tony Ortega denied he had anything to do with Backpage to a reporter at the Gawker.
“As for the protests today, I wish them the best of luck. No one who actually works in this office has anything to do with Backpage, but still, I understand why they picked our building.” Tony Ortega Nov 16, 2011
A blatant lie. He gaslighted anyone who caught on to what he was doing, how he was doing it, bringing his victims to light, exposing him for working as a digital pimp.
A few months earlier he was bragging about Backpage and included himself as one of the managers with a “WE”. And actually tried to change the conversation to wars in Afganistan!
“Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are receding fast from public consciousness. Our economy is gradually crawling back. Crime remains at record lows. A new presidential campaign is only in its earliest stages.
What’s there to panic about today?”
“Seven years ago, the people I work for were smart enough to start Backpage.com, a competitor to Craigslist. While other newspapers were doing little more than publicly condemning Newmark (Note: Craig Newmark is an American Internet entrepreneur best known for being the founder of the San Francisco-based international website Craigslist.) for the way Craigslist has, for years, eaten into their classified-ads revenue, we decided to fight back. That’s just how we operate.
What happens when two adults find each other through Backpage.com? I couldn’t tell you. The whole point of Backpage.com is that we aren’t involved after two consenting adults find each other through the community bulletin board, which exists solely so that people can freely express themselves—sometimes in ways that make other people uncomfortable. We’re First Amendment extremists that way. Always have been.”
Tony Ortega WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2011
Attorneys general from 48 states had written a joint letter to Village Voice Media, pleading with it to get out of the flesh trade. An online petition at Change.org had gathered 94,000 signatures asking Village Voice Media to stop taking prostitution advertising. Instead, the company used The Village Voice to mock its critics. One victim who gave a news interview said she thought about using her real name for the article but decided not to for fear that Village Voice would retaliate. The victims became afraid of the Village Voice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/kristof-where-pimps-peddle-their-goods.html?ref=oembed
“I helped turn a weekly newspaper with a web site into a digital enterprise.” Tony Ortega bragged to the New York Times Blog Media Decoder on September 14, 2012 after leaving the Village Voice.
His sadistic disregard for children being raped and trafficked for personal income is revolting. Senate investigations revealed Backpage staff were even coaching pimps on how to word ads so they would not get busted selling minors!
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/04/15/emails-reveal-how-backpage-edited-sex-ads-will-it-be-its-undoing/100436762/
And when they were finally caught red handed, coaching men on how to sell children for sex, they did shut down right before they had to appear in court in Washington. And played the victim card. “Their Freedom of Speech” was being violated.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-backpage-shutdown-20170109-story.html
When Amber Lyon did her expose “Selling The Girl Next Door”, which focused on backpage, Tony Ortega gaslighted her and devoted a page in the Village Voice to decimating her.
“Underage prostitution is a persistent problem in this country, but as we established in last week’s cover story, it exists at a level that is nothing like what is being trumpeted by Amber Lyon on the behalf of activists who want to put us out of business.” Tony Ortega
Again he tries to dehumanize children being raped and sold by calling them “underage prostitutes” and says THEY are the problem. Sadistic disregard.
https://www.villagevoice.com/2011/07/06/cnns-amber-lyon-ambushed-craigslist-but-she-wont-talk-to-the-village-voice/
His attack on Amber Lyon was so vicious other news outlets wrote about it.
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/cnn-reporter-amber-lyon-focus-of-village-voice-takedown/Content?oid=2494911
I do not understand why he has become a crusader for disappointed hippies that explored the occult. But Leah Remini has followed in his footsteps.
Apparently, she can live with children being raped and sold on the Internet and endorse a notorious child sex trafficker, Tony Ortega, while complaining abuse between adults that explored the occult. And so can Lawrence Wright and Alex Gibney. And anyone else complaining they got a flat tire on the way to Nirvana while tolerating and endorsing Tony Ortega.
I have no idea why he and Leah Remini are comfortable with that yet repelled by adults who chose to explore the occult and were disappointed.
Something does not add up in this picture. How can you have compassion for people disappointed exploring the occult and sadistic disregard for children being tortured?
http://www.iamjanedoefilm.com

94 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Leah Remini and her Troublemakers, Part 18

Posted on August 12, 2017 by | 15 comments

 

15 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,

Going Clear Movie, Part 10 – Tony “Back Page” Ortega – three time loser

Posted on August 8, 2017 by | 33 comments

 

Going Clear Movie Part 10, Tony ‘Back Page’ Ortega – three time loser

Transcript

Mark Rathbun:

Gibney rips off film student’s techniques with Ortega

Tony Ortega got his foot in the door with me during a previous documentary that mainly involved me, Scientologists at War which came out in 2013.  They way they used Ortega was, they interspersed him.  They would show interviews with me on a subject and then occasionally they would have Ortega come in to interpret what I was saying; and thereby, come to conclusions that they could not get me to come to.  And that is how he was used throughout that.  He was taking what I was saying and turning it into something that it wasn’t. That is what they pretty skillfully did.  And that was their technique.   So, then Going Clear comes along. What blows me away is that Alex Gibney gets all these accolades. It is just this cult of celebrity culture we live in.  It is like, once you are recognized by somebody you are somebody go be lionized.  Gibney wasn’t original in the slightest. He used the exactly same thing in Going Clear that those fellows had done in Scientologists at War.  And those guys, by the way, were novice filmmakers.  The guys from the UK, they worked for a guy who was a producer who had won Oscars.  But this was part of a program where he was taking promising young directors and saying ‘here, here’s all this stuff; go make a documentary.”  So Gibney actually ripped off from these cinematography students this technique and basically used the same thing. I mean, if you get the book Going Clear, and go to the index and look for “Tony Ortega”.  He’s not there.  Zero pages.  He is not even in it. Now, we go to the movie which is, according to Gibney, a recreation of the book, and now Tony Ortega is suddenly the critical link to everything.  The reason I say, he’s the critical link to everything, is not because he has more air time, but it is more critical, crucial air time, because Gibney uses Ortega exactly the same way the folks did in Scientologists at War.  And that is, he bridges.  He’ll be putting together this salacious segment and it just doesn’t quite add up.  And then, all the sudden there is Tony Ortega with a convenient soundbite that sort of leads you to this conclusion.  And it is interspersed throughout the film.  I told Gibney, it may even be in writing, I told him “in posterity, that is dumbest thing you ever did. This guy (Ortega) is a troll, he’s an avowed anti Scientologist, he has no personal experience, and you putting into this movie cheapens it and turns it into a propaganda piece.  And it does. He has no personal experience. 

Tony Ortega and the Village Voice

The CEO and one of the directors of the Village Voice (where Ortega ran a lot of his earlier anti Scientology campaigning) ultimately got indicted and arrested for running prostitution, human trafficking of minors. That was the main source of income for the Village Voice publication at the time.  And so, they got to get rid of Ortega because – according to Ortega –  Ortega told me, “it turns out the church’s accusations and investigations into the Voice were more true than anyone believed.”  Essentially the Village Voice was bought and paid for through the human trafficking Back Page ads.  As a solution they wanted to get out from under the scrutiny of the church; and of course Tony Ortega was doing nothing at the Village Voice other than by becoming what he became, a full time Anti Scientologist. And so, he wasn’t helping general circulation with his editing work.  He was harming it. And all he was doing was bringing the scrutiny of the church upon them.  So, what they decided to do was to give Ortega a sweet honey package to go off and do what he wanted to do, which was to write a book about Scientology.  And it was a pretty sweet package because he was at it for two years.  He got to go shopping it for the next two years, doing nothing else but shopping. 

Ortega Channels Miserable Old Lady

So, Ortega gets his package and what does he do?  He goes and get this woman who settled all her differences with the church 35 years ago and gets her to unsettle.  Paulette Cooper.  Because she’s got this story of going after the church, and the church going after her, that’s a very salacious story that had been told in the seventies.  And then she had subsequent litigation and then she settled in 1981. 35 years later he is going resurrect her in the hopes that maybe he can become her.  I think the guy is unbelievable disappointed that Scientology didn’t take the bait and come after him.  I mean, he’s been trolling so hard. Here’s this guy and talks with all this air of authority and he’s done “this, this, this, this, this, and this” and all he can talk about in terms of harassment is what happened to the woman who he wrote a book about, that happened forty years ago, not to him, but the woman he wrote a book about. 

Ortega and the ASC (Anti Scientology Cult) sum up

This is this whole ASC (Anti Scientology Cult) culture of “your narrative is my narrative”. “we’re all one great big narrative”,  just this big cluster. “You suffered that and therefore I suffered that and therefore everybody ought to be in fear of suffering that.”  And, that is Tony Ortega.    

33 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Going Clear Movie, Part 9 – Paul Haggis Phony Narrative

Posted on August 7, 2017 by | 41 comments

Going Clear Movie Part 9,  Paul Haggis Phony Narrative

Transcript

Mark Rathbun:

Paul Haggis, Wright and Gibney lied about Scientology’s position Homosexuality

They have Alex Gibney saying that “Paul Haggis’ daughters were openly harassed by church members for being gay.”  I’ve been through the book three times now – there is no evidence of that and I never even heard any evidence of that from Paul Haggis.  They suffered a couple of slights from peers is what the accusation was.  But now they are being “openly harassed.”  Because, now this is a movie, “and we’re going to make this more dramatic,’ I guess. And Gibney says “Investigating further, Haggis discovered church doctrine which characterized homosexuality as “a disease” that only Hubbard’s teachings can cure.”  It is never categorized as a disease.  Unlike the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the APA (American Psychiatric Association) who until the mid seventies had homosexuality listed as a mental disorder.  It was not a disease.  I’ve been through this before. It is a single characteristic to take into consideration in a series of 48 characteristics – in that you must have a majority of those characteristics, in ordered to be considered to at a particular emotional tone.  And that is written in 1951.  And there is a subsequent body of written statements by L. Ron Hubbard that he didn’t give a rat’s ass about somebody’s sexuality.  And it was firm church policy that one wouldn’t be concerned with one’s sexual preference.  That now is branded “a disease” according to Alex Gibney. And by the way, again it is “all in present time”, taking a statement from 1950, twenty five years before the APA and mental health in general decided it wasn’t a disease. 

Paul Haggis lies about timing of his resignation

At 143:30, Paul Haggis says “I can’t support an organization that supports human rights for everyone, so I wrote a letter resigning.”  No, he did not.  He wrote a letter resigning a year and half after this dispute he had regarding a particular stance one church of scientology took on an issue.  He had aired all his disagreements on that and a year and half later for intervening reasons we have discuss – which had to do with embarrassment about things that were said in the press – he only then wrote a letter. 

Paul Haggis acts out a fiction on how he left the church

At 144:00 Haggis said, “his friends in Scientology said ‘we need you to resign quietly’,” and Haggis said, “I don’t do that.  I don’t do quiet.”  Like he is John Wayne again, right?  Mr. Macho. Except, it is exactly what he did. And he went through a lot of different machinations to make it appear that he was doing it quietly.  In fact, he included me in it, plotted with Jason Beghe about ways he could use my media contacts to leak to them so that Haggis would appear to have no causative involvement. In other words, he was taking extreme measures over several months to try to snipe from the weeds.  He wanted to make it look like he wasn’t involved whatsoever (in loud publication of his resignation), and cause damage through the ‘leaking’ of his letter.  So, first of all Paul Haggis never told his scientology friends “I don’t do that, I don’t do quiet.”  He gave them the impression that he would do it quietly. So, that is a lie. And then his subsequent behavior, which is documented, that he did it as quietly as he could while creating the maximum possible media impact against the church. 

41 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Going Clear Movie, Part 8 – Anti Scientology Advocacy

Posted on August 6, 2017 by | 11 comments

Going Clear Movie Part 8,  Advocating for Headleys and IRS revocation

Transcript

Wright and Gibney Advocate (not report) on Headley case and IRS

Headley Lawsuit

Mark Rathbun:  So, then at 1:14:30 they have Wright segue way back to the FBI his accusations of human trafficking and the Headley case. And again, it is advocacy.  The Headleys (Marc and Clare) brought a lawsuit for human trafficking against Scientology. And the FBI was flanking it with an investigation. So, Wright says ‘well, the courts found that what the Headley’s alleged was constitutionally protected, and therefore the FBI  had dropped what they were doing.’

Wright and Gibney Advocate for tax exemption revocation

Therefore, if you are listening to this narrative you are thinking, (see Going Clear Movie, Part 7) “oh my God! All the more reason to revoke Scientology’s tax exemption; because obviously all the First Amendment protection is hinged on the IRS granting exemption. You see? The whole thing is advocacy. But problem with the advocacy is – the fact that people miss – if you read the Court of Appeals decision in the Headley case – year, there were First Amendment problems but they didn’t even need to get to the First Amendment problem because there were factual problems. There was no evidence of human trafficking or anything resembling human trafficking.  They found there was no evidence of imprisonment or anything resembling imprisonment. They found the Headleys on their free will had every opportunity to leave if they didn’t like what they were doing; they had fifteen years.  So, even though there were First Amendment elements in the decision, there were no facts. So he makes it look like the facts were all there and they proved false imprisonment and human trafficking. “But, the thorny First Amendment got in the way,” which he has already told us is only there because the IRS ‘made the decision that Scientology is a religion’, which they never made (see Going Clear Movie, Part 7). 

See, we’ve got a real big fiction being created here. But, that is why I call it propaganda because it is al geared towards communicating that ‘we need to get the IRS to put these guys into a big world of hurt financially by revoking their exemption. 

11 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

Going Clear Movie, Part 7 – Propaganda re IRS and Scientology

Posted on August 5, 2017 by | 17 comments

Going Clear Movie Part 7, Propaganda re IRS and Scientology

transcript

Mark Rathbun: 

Tony Ortega Propaganda on IRS and Scientology

At 1:05 they hit the IRS and they kick it off with Tony Ortega who says “there were 2,400 lawsuits, no only against the IRS but against individual IRS employees.” And so, the impression you get is that this was for harassment purposes because we’re doing this to hit the pocket books of individuals.  Wrong.  Federal law dictates the way you have to plead your lawsuit in the types of lawsuits dealt with. Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act, etc.  Under certain statutes you must name the agents individually. That doesn’t mean the guy has to go off and defend the lawsuit. He is defended by the government lawyers.  But, he makes it sound in his tonality, like it is some important distinction (suing agents by name). No, it isn’t.  It is a distinction with no difference.  It is dictated by statute and it is meaningless.  It doesn’t create any further inconvenience or expense for the individual who gets named. 

Tax Exemption and Question of Religion

Lawrence Wright says at 1:09:20 says “this all leads to the question, how do you define religion?”  It is a total non-sequitur because it is not even a question to be resolved in the tax exemption proceedings. That issue had already been dealt with for twenty years by the courts.  Lawrence Wright says this, “the only organization entitled to make those distinctions is the IRS.”  Lie. Any agency anywhere, state, federal, local has to make that distinction all the time.  It is not just taxation. There are labor laws, there are ordinances  in cities. It is common throughout the woof and warp of government from the lowest level to the highest federal level.  The IRS does not have some special mandate from Congress that says, ‘you are the determiner of religion.’  And that is what Larry said here, and it is just an invention. It is a lie.  He goes on, “its an agency very poorly equipped to do that. I mean, they are mainly accountants and lawyers.  They are not theologians.”  I just note an irony, nor is Larry Wright a theologian, right?  But, he can riff all he wants to and he can set the anti Scientology narrative and the accepted narrative in the public’s mind as to religion in America.  But, according to Wright, the IRS can’t and they are not equipped to make that determination.  But, he goes on, “but, it’s the only opinion that matters.”  He’s talking about the IRS.  Untrue, the IRS’ opinion has not mattered since 1967 when they lost in Federal Court in the Hawaii Church of Scientology tax case and there has been an accumulating number of court precedents from Federal District Courts to Federal Appellate Courts to the United States Supreme Court to Supreme Courts in many lands that have made that question moot. It has been decided.  They are like the regressives they want to roll this back to 1950.  That’s what he is trying to do here.  It is done. You can’t undo it. You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.  The IRS’ opinion is meaningless now (as in 1992/3) on whether Scientology is a religion or not.  It is meaningless. It is res judicata.  It has already been decided.  And then Wright goes on, “Once the IRS has decided that you are a religion, then you are protected by the vast protections of the First Amendment.”  False! And he’s sitting there like he’s taking the audience to school, because he is the expert and he knows it; yet everything he is saying here is just absolutely false.  And he knows it is false, because I spent hours going through this with him and showing him and citing to him the decisions that I am talking about here. 

Alex Gibney piles on like a three stooges skit

So, with that profundity, Alex Gibney piles on with, at 1:10:30 “the war ended (between the IRS and Scientology) because the IRS surrendered.”  Like they literally got in their bunkered and waved a white flag.  I went through this for days and gave Wright tomes of material, and specific facts, and the whole timeline to show that this was utter and complete horse shit.

17 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Going Clear Movie, Part 6 – Vicki Aznaran and other inventors

Posted on August 4, 2017 by | 8 comments

Going Clear Movie Part 6, Vicki Aznaran and other Inventors

transcript

Mark Rathbun:  They pile on heavily at 52:30. I don’t know how this has survived all these years, since 1991 or 92.  Vicki Aznaran says (in a clip still being played 25 years late) “They had their houses broken into, people beaten up, slashed their tires, break their car windows.”  There are a lot of things that are said and there are a lot of things that are exaggerated.  And there are a lot of things that are sensationalized.  These things she talks about – they even said it in the film – I cut my teeth taking over that entire operation (Church external facing Department) and reforming it – this is invented. None of these things ever happened.  This was in the book. He know that I was there.  He never brought this up to me.  But, he put it in the book and put it in the movie.  It is garbage. 

Now, we’re on film with Alex Gibney, and they add on some other guy, “I was locked in a chicken wire cage.”  (an invention of another defector). It sounds like something out of some nightmare or something.  But, this is just fabricated and invented stuff. Performance.  And they say this all had to do with what Scientology allegedly does to critics. It had nothing to with this individual being a critic.  This was when the individual was in the church. And it had nothing to do with chicken wire or cages.  So, you get the impression that ‘hey, watch what you say, because if you say something critical they could kidnap you and lock you in a chicken wire cage.  It is invented. 

8 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

Going Clear Movie, Part 5 Joel Sappel invented story

Posted on August 3, 2017 by | 18 comments

Going Clear Movie Part 5, Inventions of Joel Sappel (LA Times)            

transcript

Mark Rathbun:  At 52:20 they have this Kim Masters, who I do not know from Adam. She says that a guy from the LA Times his dog was poisoned while working a story about Scientology. And I wouldn’t know what she was talking about except that year earlier I had been visited by a reporter from the LA Times who no longer works for the Times, named Joel Sappel. And I did not even know this, but Joel Sappel was telling me in 2012 that in 1990 or 89 allegedly his dog was poisoned while working on a Scientology story.  I spent an hour with this guy as a personal favor because I was blown away that this guy for twenty years would be fixated on this false idea.  Obviously, if anyone would have poisoned his dog would have had to been at my direction or I would have known about it, right?  But, Scientology doesn’t poison dogs.  It has been accused of it many times.  Never done it and not even ever done anything like it.  Never done anything to anybody critical of Scientology physically ever. Even in the darkest hours of the Guardian’s office long before our time.  I spent an hour with Joel Sappel – the reporter she’s making reference to – I was very sincere, because it didn’t mean anything to me being in opposition to the church at the time, so I as not trying to defend the church.  I am trying to give Sappel a reality check because it is blowing my, thinking what it must be like either perpetuating the lie for twenty years or actually believing so, being so tainted by the type of propaganda Gibney and Wright produced.

Why this incident is instructive

 But, that is an interesting and instructive moment right there.  Because if Joel Sappel really did believe that and hung onto it for twenty years; I can tell you, it just did not happen.  If something happened to his dog it had nothing to do with Scientology.  I was on that story (Sappel’s) from the day we heard it was happening, and they worked on it for years. I know exactly what happened. I know everything that happened investigation-wise, PR-wise, etc., from the day the situation arose. It arose two years earlier.  They started on it in 87 I think, and they never came out with it until 89 or 90.  Nothing like that (what Sappel alleged) ever happened.  It is instructive for this reason: If Joel Sappel truly believed that, and hung onto that all that time, that means he was poisoned by some kind of propaganda that he  had gotten as far back as the eighties.  I am telling you, this film (Going Clear) is far more misleading, vicious, and downright scary than anything that had been produced up to the time that Joel Sappel got the false and paranoid idea that someone (in Scientology) had messed with his dog. 

PS: Perhaps Gibney and Wright did not have Sappel in the movie was because Sappel’s visit with me settled his mind and they had to bring in a talking head to spread unattributed hearsay. 

18 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,