Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Japanese Porn Star Sora Aoi Draws Crowds of Crazed Chinese Men Like Few Others Can

http://en.rocketnews24.com/2012/06/03/japanese-porn-star-sora-aoi-draws-crowds-of-crazed-chinese-men-like-few-others-can/

Japanese Porn Star Sora Aoi Draws Crowds of Crazed Chinese Men Like Few Others Can


Pornographic actress and model Sora Aoi is said to be the most famous Japanese person in China. She commands over 11,180,000 followers on China’s Twitter-like microblogging platform Sina Weibo—enough to start a potent revolution if she were so inclined.
If numbers aren’t enough to convince you of Aoi’s influence, a set of photos taken during her recent visit to the capital city of Fujian Province, Fuzhou, should certainly prove that she can draw a crowd of frenzied Chinese men like very few revolutionaries could.

The images were uploaded to Chinese bulletin board site tt.mop and show a throng of male fans with cameras and smartphones rushing to catch “Aoi Sora-Sensei” on camera.
Even the organizer of the event who greeted her on stage couldn’t seem to keep his eyes off Aoi…

Aoi’s big international break came in 2010 when she began connecting with Chinese fans through Twitter and Sina Weibo with the help of translation software. Despite porn being illegal in Mainland China, she quickly found that she had millions of fans in the country who knew of her though the internet or under-the-table DVD sales.
Aoi is now trying to make a career change from porn star to performing artist, having released a music single in 2010 and a short, fully-clothed film earlier this year.
  
Source:tt.mop.com(Chinese)
▼ It’s almost like she’s surrounded by zombies. They’re certainly craving flesh…
▼ You’d think she’s Micheal Jackson with a crowd like this.
▼Just can’t keep their hands off her…


Japan Sees Surge in Aspiring Adult Film Actresses Over Decade, “6000 Girls Debut Every Year”

http://en.rocketnews24.com/2012/09/10/japan-sees-surge-in-aspiring-adult-film-actresses-over-decade-6000-girls-debut-every-year/      

Japan Sees Surge in Aspiring Adult Film Actresses Over Decade, “6000 Girls Debut Every Year”


The Japanese sex film, or adult video (AV), industry is big business. It’s said that around 20,000 videos are released annually and some Japanese AV actresses have achieved celebrity status even outside of Japan.
And it’s not just demand for Japanese skin flicks that’s thriving.
According to nonfiction writer Atsuhiko Nakamura, who has published several books based on interviews with AV actresses, the number of Japanese women seeking work in the adult video industry has increased dramatically over the past decade, with some 6000 girls making their debut every year.
Atsuhiko Nakamura has interviewed over 500 AV actresses and made headlines in Japan for casting light on the dark side of the AV industry with his bestselling book, “Namae no nai Onna-tachi” (“The Nameless Women”).
“Actresses come and go every day and it’s likely that there are about that many [6000] women in the industry at all times,” explained Nakamura during a recent investigative television program.
“Until the late-90s, a lot of people said they wouldn’t appear in an AV even if they were paid ten million yen (about US $128,000), but that rapidly changed over the decade and now normal girls are rushing for a chance to make it into any kind of production.”
While there were always spots open for amateurs in the 90s, now it’s said only 15 out of 100 aspiring actresses can get a role and the rest are turned away at the door. It’s just like applying for a part-time job at a convenience store.
While the adult video industry is known for being recession-proof, Nakamura points out that not all applicants are in it for the money: “One girl had been working for a major bank for one or two years and had begun to feel unsure if it was the right career choice for her. She likes sex and realized she could be an AV actress, and told me she was really happy with her career change.”
And, despite the nature of the work, a strong academic or educational background is valued by producers when trying to sift through so many applicants. “Girls from top-tier colleges are often chosen over those who have a weak academic background,” spoke Nakamura. “Those with credentials and a job are also more likely to make the cut, especially teachers and nurses.
Wait…so you mean those are actually REAL nurses in Giant-Breasted Nurse Hell 2!?!? (Actual title)
“Most amateur contracts stipulate a set compensation rate for three videos, two pair and one solo. The rates range from 150,000 ($1917) to 200,000 yen ($2556), 250,000 ($3195) and 300,000 yen ($3834), depending on the applicant’s experience and background.”
However, it seems the 150,000 yen rate makes up 60-70% of contracts and recently, some girls are told that due to low demand they’re only needed for one video and can only be paid half the normal rate, leaving them with a take-home of less than 30,000 yen ($383).
If you’re interested in getting a closer look at the AV industry, “Namae no nai Onnna-tachi” was recently made into a film with the English title “Love & Loathing & Lulu & Ayano.” Check the trailer below:

A Hisayasu SATO FILM "Love & Loathing & Lulu & Ayano" official trailer - eng.sub  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c_PMpBa4Wp0

Online Game Addiction: Not Exactly “Substance” Abuse But Could Be Becoming a Serious Problem in Japan

http://en.rocketnews24.com/2012/11/21/online-game-addiction-not-exactly-substance-abuse-but-could-be-becoming-a-serious-problem-in-japan/             

Online Game Addiction: Not Exactly “Substance” Abuse But Could Be Becoming a Serious Problem in Japan


Viewers may recall that we recently brought to you a story about a sad post on Yahoo!Answers involving a husband who lost his wife in the virtual game world of Animal Crossing.
Now, we have no way of knowing whether that post was a joke or a true cry for help, but the fact remains that there are people out there in similar desperate situations and in need of help. Granted, people — especially the young — becoming focused on game-playing to the point of obsession is nothing new, but online game addiction appears to be an increasingly serious problem here in Japan.
While cases as extreme as the boy in China addicted to online games who attempted suicide to escape a correctional facility are fortunately (and hopefully) far and few between, a recent article on Yomiuri Online described the dire situation some online game addicts find themselves in.
According to the article, the Absentee Students Support Center based in Nagoya reports having received 327 requests for help concerning online game addiction from January to July this year. The National Web Counseling Association also has reportedly received nearly 150 similar requests in the past three years. A hospital in Kanagawa prefecture famous for its alcoholism treatment program even set up an outpatient program dedicated to internet addiction in July this year, and since then they have received 85 patients, over 70% of which were junior high or high school students, most of them boys. So, what’s happening to all of these troubled game addicts?
The history of one nineteen-year old male student residing in Tokyo is recounted in the article. The young man started playing games on his cell phone when he was in junior high school, but what started as an activity to simply pass the time while commuting to school started to gradually change and then eventually control his life.
Even though the games themselves can be played for free, the game service providers make sure that there are ways for players to spend money – several hundred yen for an item here, a thousand yen for a “special power” there. By the time the young man was in high school, he was spending about 80,000yen ($1,000) a month on online games from his allowance and money earned from part-time jobs. Even when he received the considerable sum of 100,000 yen ($1,250) as otoshidama, the New Year’s good luck money customarily given to children on New Years by family and relatives, the money would be gone within 10 days. Still, being complimented or admired by other players he met online felt so good that he couldn’t stop “investing” in his game.
By the time his parents found out about his excessive gaming, a demand notice for non-payment of 50,000yen ($625) had been sent to his home, and he had spent well over one million yen ($12,500) on online games. He was also chronically late to school from lack of sleep and had lost a noticeable amount of weight as well.
But his story doesn’t end there. After receiving counseling as a high school junior, he did manage to stay away from games for a while, but earlier this year, after he entered a technical college, he found himself addicted once again to a different online game. Now, he has gone back to spending most of his time gaming on his phone and ends up barely getting any sleep some days. The sad part is, he himself is acutely aware of the trouble he is in but still can’t stop playing, saying that the future doesn’t hold any hope for him in the real world, while in the virtual world of games, he is able to grow and make steady progress, which allows him to feel a sense of achievement he can’t experience in reality. It’s obvious that people like him need help and support.
Excessive game-playing and related on-line spending has been a topic of concern in Japan for some time now, with cases of young children running huge online bills on their parents’ cell phone accounts being reported in the news from time to time. So much so that the Japanese government, through its Consumer Affairs Agency, has been discussing steps to restrict, if not ban, certain practices common in Japanese online games that allow players to buy a chance to win important items (note: not the actual items but a “chance” to win them), which some people feel is an irresponsible and unethical way to encourage players to keep spending money in hopes of obtaining that coveted item. As one executive of the Agency commented, it probably doesn’t help that “the increasing availability of smartphones is making it easier for everyone to stay online anytime, everywhere”.
In response to public opinion, some of the major social game operators in Japan have implemented measures to restrict on-line spending by players aged 15 or younger to under 5,000yen ($62.5) per month, but as yet, there are no restrictions on the amount of time a player is allowed to spend on-line.
While social games can be great fun, these stories do serve as a warning that too much fun can have disastrous consequences if it leads to addictive behavior that can’t be stopped — a fate I’m sure we all want to avoid. So, how much time do you spend online?
Source: Yomiuri Online (Japanese)
Top Image: by Ian D

Human Compromise and the Protection Racket

http://paranoiamagazine.com/archives-3/human-compromise-and-the-protection-racket/        

Human Compromise and the Protection Racket

by Paul D. Collins
The following seamless story of human compromise, and the protection racket surrounding it, spans decades and continents. This is how it works. Listen up.
When the Eliot Spitzer Emperors Club prostitution scandal broke out on March 10, 2008, the first person this author thought to call was retired legend, New York Police Detective James “Jim” Rothstein. As a cop, Jim took on organized pedophile rings, arrested Watergate burglar and CIA operative Frank Sturgis, and testified before the New York State Select Committee on Crime.
Jim knows all about sexual blackmail operations, which he refers to as “human compromise.” To Jim, the Spitzer scandal was a perfect example. “It’s like déjà vu,” said Rothstein. And to Rothstein, GOP operative Roger Stone was the key to the compromising of Governor Spitzer (Rothstein).
“Watch for this guy, Stone,” Jim said in a telephone interview on March 10, 2008. “I saw him in an interview about Spitzer a few days ago and thought I recognized him. I looked back at my old investigations and remembered that he was part of Roy Cohn’s whole thing.”
Jim was referring to Roy Cohn’s sexual blackmail operation. According to Jim, this operation was conducted “under the guise of fighting communism.” During his time as a police detective, Rothstein had an opportunity to sit down with infamous McCarthy committee counsel Roy Cohn. Cohn admitted to Rothstein that he was part of a rather elaborate sexual blackmail operation that compromised politicians with child prostitutes (Rothstein).
Roger Stone began working with Cohn when he was the northeast chairman of Reagan’s 1980 campaign. Cohn and Stone had begun building an alliance a year earlier when Cohn introduced Stone to mobster Fat Tony Salerno at Cohn’s Manhattan townhouse (Labash). According to the Weekly Standard’s Matt Labash, “Stone loved Cohn.” Stone said of Cohn: “He didn’t give a [expletive] what people thought, as long as he was able to wield power. He worked the gossip columnists in [New York] like an organ” (Labash).
By his own admission, Roger Stone is the informant that told the FBI about Governor Spitzer’s use of prostitutes from the Emperors Club VIP four months before the New York Governor’s resignation (Bone). Stone’s operations against Gov. Spitzer began in June of 2007, when the Republican operative was hired for $20,000 a month, by Republican State Senate leader Joseph Bruno, to rid New York State Republicans of the pesky New York Governor (Labash).
According to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, top officials of the Spitzer administration had the state police create documents that would make it appear as if Senator Bruno had misused the New York state air fleet (Matthews). Gov. Spitzer was waging political war on Bruno. Bruno did not like that one bit and was looking for payback.
But Senator Bruno was not the only one out to get Spitzer. According to Matt Labash, Roger Stone was working with “a loose collection of co-conspirators” to bring down the New York Governor. In Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express, Inspector Hercule Poirot remarked: “There are too many clues in this room.” The same principle applies in the Spitzer case.
The Wall Street Mafia
Students of Criminology are well aware that there are different varieties of organized crime. There’s the Italian mob. There’s the Japanese mob. There’s the Chinese mob. There’s even a Jewish mob. But what many people do not realize is that there is also a Wall Street mob. When Gov. Spitzer resigned, the Wall Street mob stood up and cheered … literally. According to Bloomberg reporter Chris Dolmetsch, a group of traders on the New York Stock Exchange floor began to applaud as they watched Spitzer resign on television.
When Eliot Spitzer was New York’s attorney general, he had sued New York Stock Exchange Chief Richard Grasso for failing to tell the board about Grasso’s compensation. One of the cheering traders, Timothy O’Connell of DRU Stock Inc., said the traders were angry with Spitzer because “Grasso was a voice for this community” (Dolmetsch).
It is interesting that O’Connell referred to Grasso as Wall Street’s “voice.” Perhaps Richard Grasso had been speaking for Wall Street in 1999 when, as Chief of the New York Stock Exchange, he flew into a demilitarized region of Colombia’s southern jungle and savanna to talk face-to-face with members of the general secretariat of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (a.k.a. FARC) (see, “NYSE Chief Meets Top Colombia Rebel Leader”). As NYSE Chief, Grasso discussed “foreign investment and the role of U.S. businesses in Colombia” with the representatives of FARC’s high command.
Grasso wanted FARC to invest its money on Wall Street. Where exactly did FARC’s money come from? During his May 20, 2003 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Assistant Director Steven C. McCraw stated that FARC was “strongly tied to drug trafficking in Colombia” (“Testimony of Steven McCraw, Assistant Director, Office of Intelligence, FBI before the Senate Judiciary Committee”).
On March 2, 2004, a federal grand jury charged two high-level FARC members, Simon Trinidad and Mono Jojoy, with “issuing orders regarding the acquisition, transportation and sale of cocaine by various fronts of FARC and the movement of drug money” (“High-Ranking Member of Colombian FARC Narco-Terrorist Organization Extradited to U.S. on Terrorism, Drug Charges”). A Department of Justice press release elaborated on the grand jury’s indictment of the FARC members:
The indictment alleges that Trinidad managed and controlled money for the FARC that was used by the organization to conduct cocaine trafficking activities. The indictment alleges that Trinidad announced to local coca growers the price the FARC would pay them for each kilogram of cocaine base, and advised them that the quality of their cocaine base was “inferior” and “needed to be improved.” The indictment further alleges that Trinidad met with and received money from or supplied money to other FARC drug traffickers, that he attended drug-trafficking meetings, and that he spoke of sending cocaine to the United States.
The FARC’s adventures into narcotics trafficking began in the 1980s (“Colombia’s most powerful rebels”). Since then, the FARC has taxed “every stage of the drug business, from the chemicals needed to process the hardy coca bush into cocaine and the opium poppy into heroin, right up to charging for the processed drugs to be flown from illegal airstrips they control.” The FARC brings in $300 million in drug money each year. According to the BBC, the FARC’s involvement in the drug trade has helped to make the group “the richest insurgent group in the world.”
If the Wall Street mob is not above doing business with drug traffickers, they would certainly have no qualms with politically destroying the New York Governor.
Attorney General v. Predatory Lenders
Did Gov. Spitzer also incur the wrath of the Bush administration and its predatory mortgage lender cronies? In a February 14, 2008 article for the Washington Post, Spitzer claimed that, when he was New York’s attorney general, Spitzer joined with the other 49 state attorneys general in fighting lenders who “were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers’ ability to repay, making loans with deceptive ‘teaser’ rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks” (Spitzer).
According to Spitzer, the state attorneys general “brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices” (Spitzer). Then Spitzer’s Washington Post article dropped a bombshell concerning the Bush Administration’s response to the state attorneys general actions against predatory lenders. Spitzer accused the Administration of using the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to obstruct the states’ efforts.
According to Spitzer, the OCC’s invocation of an 1863 National Bank Act clause allowed the federal agency to usurp state laws concerning predatory lending. The OCC had also established new rules that rendered impotent the state consumer protection laws against national banks. Spitzer was essentially blaming the Bush Administration for the current crisis in the financial markets.
The Power Elite does not want every Establishment name on the Emperors Club VIP’s client list to get out. Only the disloyal are to have their skeletons pulled out of the closet. This means operatives may be in place to prevent collateral damage. One of those people may be Judge Leonard Sand. Sand is the federal judge that signed the warrant against Gov. Spitzer. According to James Rothstein, Judge Sand is a “good and honorable man.” But Sand is also someone who may stop a case when he feels the pressure coming down from the Establishment (Rothstein).
Bay of Pigs – JFK Connection
Rothstein’s own experience with Sand bears out this contention. When Watergate burglar and CIA operative Frank Sturgis sued James Rothstein in 1976 for false arrest and other charges, it was Judge Leonard Sand who had presided over the case. Rothstein had arrested Sturgis when Sturgis was on his way to the home of Marita Lorenz to kill her. According to Rothstein, Frank Sturgis claimed that the murder was sanctioned by powerful people.
Powerful people had reasons to be angry with Lorenz. “Marita was sent by the CIA to Cuba to kill Castro,” said Rothstein. “But instead of killing him, she ended up shacking up with him.”
According to Rothstein, Marita Lorenz was planning to go before the House Select Committee and tell all she knew about the Kennedy assassination. Was Sturgis afraid Lorenz was going to incriminate him? Both Rothstein and Sturgis had been involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion (Rothstein). Rothstein decided to use this fact to find out a few things from Sturgis.
“I was on the aircraft carrier Essex during the Bay of Pigs invasion,” said Rothstein. “The Essex was a ship that was not supposed to exist. When I told Sturgis I was on the Essex during the invasion, he told me, ‘The only way you could know that is if you were there.’ So I gained his trust and he talked to me for two hours” (Rothstein). During their discussion, Frank Sturgis claimed to James Rothstein that he was involved in the Kennedy assassination (Rothstein). “Sturgis said he was one of two shooters on the grassy knoll,” said Rothstein.
Was Marita Lorenz going to tell the House Select Committee about Frank Sturgis’ role in the JFK assassination? While Sturgis may have been following orders when he went to kill Lorenz, it is also possible that Sturgis did not want her to say anything that could land him behind bars … or executed. Sturgis did not want James Rothstein talking either, so he sued Rothstein. Apparently, there were powerful people who did not want Rothstein to testify about what Sturgis had told him about the JFK assassination.
“Sturgis had the same lawyer that represented William Calley of the My Lai Massacre,” said Rothstein. “There is no way Sturgis could have paid for that representation.” According to Rothstein, Judge Sand pulled him into his chambers and negotiated with Rothstein to not testify. “The city paid a fine and my partner and I received an accommodation,” said Rothstein. “And I didn’t talk. And that’s where I got out. Because I knew when to get out.”
According to James Rothstein, Judge Sand could not allow Frank Sturgis’ lawsuit against Rothstein to become a slippery slope that would open up the issue of the JFK assassination.
Collateral Damage
So Judge Sand signed the warrant against Eliot Spitzer. But the Emperors Club VIP had almost certainly serviced other Establishment figures. Rothstein hypothesizes that the Governor’s enemies were being serviced by the same prostitutes, and found out through those prostitutes that Spitzer was a client. Judge Sand may have limited his actions to Spitzer alone because he did not want to incur the wrath of the Establishment (Rothstein).
The federal investigation against the ex-governor is headed by Michael J. Garcia, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Garcia is a Bush appointee (“Michael J. Garcia, Former Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE), 2003-2005″). Is it Garcia’s job to prevent that military doublespeak known as “collateral damage”?
Michael Garcia is also involved in the case of Russian former GRU major and arms dealer Viktor Bout, nicknamed the “Merchant of Death.” Garcia indicted Bout for arms deals with the FARC (Casey), but Bout did not just do business with Colombian rebels. The Russian “Merchant of Death” has also done business with people close to U.S. Attorney Garcia’s boss, George W. Bush.
In 2004, it was discovered that the Pentagon, the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, the Air Force, and the Army Corps of Engineers were permitting U.S. contractors in Iraq to do business with Bout’s air cargo companies, in spite of the fact that the Treasury Department had labeled Viktor Bout an arms dealer and had frozen his assets (Braun). One of the firms doing business with Bout’s network was none other than Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), which was, at the time, a subsidiary of the multinational corporation formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney known as Halliburton (Braun).
Air Bas, a company tied to Viktor Bout’s aviation empire, flew supplies into Iraq for KBR at least four times in October of 2004 (Braun). In fact, Halliburton moved its corporate headquarters to Dubai at a time when Dubai was Bout’s base of operations (Grigg).
It is possible that U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia became involved in the arms dealing case to prevent Viktor Bout from rolling over on clients that were close to George W. Bush. Will Garcia also make sure that the investigation into Spitzer does not touch other Establishment figures?
©2008 Paul D. Collins. Paul is the co-author with Phillip Collins of The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship (ISBN 1-4196-3932-3), available at Amazon.com. He has studied suppressed history and the shadowy undercurrents of world political dynamics for roughly eleven years. He has a B.A. in liberal studies and political science. His research has been published by raidersnewsnetwork.com, conspiracyarchive.com, Nexus, and Paranoia.

References
Bone, James. “Roger Stone: I tipped off FBI about Eliot Spitzer sex scandal.” Times Online 24 March 2008 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3607708.ece
Braun, Stephen, et al. “Blacklisted Russian Tied to Iraq Deals.” Los Angeles Times 14 December 2004 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1214-04.htm
Casey, Michael. “US Seeks Weapons Suspect’s Extradition.” Associated Press 7 March 2008 http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNURV-EuOx57Uj9dL7RCzePHs33gD8V8J3J00
“Colombia’s most powerful rebels.” BBC 19 September  2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1746777.stm
Dolmetsch, Chris. “Cheers on NYSE Floor, Shock in Albany: Spitzer’s Fall.” Bloomberg 13 March 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ad0ZcUfS5juk&refer=us
“Eliot Spitzer Prostitution Scandal” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal
“High-Ranking Member of Colombian FARC Narco-Terrorist Organization Extradited To U.S. On Terrorism, Drug Charges.” Department of Justice 31 December 2004 http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/December/04_crm_808.htm
Labash, Matt. “Roger Stone, Political Animal.” Weekly Standard 5 November 2007 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=14278
Matthews, Cara. “Cuomo: Spitzer aides used State Police to try to damage Bruno.” Lower Hudson Online 24 July 2007 http://m.lohud.com/detail.jsp?key=62289&full=1
“Michael J. Garcia.” Wikipedia 13 March 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Garcia
Michael J. Garcia, Former Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 2003-2005.” White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/garciam-bio.html
“NYSE Chief Meets Top Colombia Rebel Leader.” Reuters 26 June 1999 http://www.colombiasupport.net/199906/nysefarc.html
Rothstein, James. Telephone Interview. 10 March 2008
Spitzer, Eliot. “Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime.” Washington Post 14 February 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783_pf.html
“Testimony of Steven C. McCraw, Assistant Director, Office of Intelligence, FBI
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Federal Bureau of Investigation 20 May 2003 http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/mccraw052003.htm

Share this:

Prenda Law Tries The 'I Know You Are, But What Am I' Legal Strategy

Prenda Law Tries The 'I Know You Are, But What Am I' Legal Strategy

from the legal-childishness-at-work dept

Ah, Prenda Law. As you may recall, there's been an ongoing fight over some Prenda cases in California, with the key players being Prenda lawayer Brett Gibbs, lawyer for some John Doe defendants Morgan Pietz, and judge Otis Wright. Oh yeah, and the possibly mysterious Alan Cooper, who may or may not be Prenda mastermind John Steele's property caretaker. As you may recall, the caretaker Cooper had a lawyer file some documents in some Prenda cases involving shell companies AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, suggesting that he was worried that Steele had faked his identity and claimed that Cooper was the CEO of those two companies, when they were really controlled by Steele.

While Cooper's claims were not made by him in the California cases, Pietz brought them up in those cases, leading to a series of hissy fits from Gibbs. At first he refused to answer a simple question about who Alan Cooper really is, and then when ordered to do so by Judge Wright, asked that Wright be removed from the case for bias. If you thought that was the end of things, you don't know Prenda Law, apparently. The latest filing from Gibbs takes legal childishness to altogether new levels, more or less trying to flip things around and claim that it's really Pietz who is making up people who he represents. I'm not joking.
Thus far, Attorney Morgan Pietz has submitted filings in approximately twenty cases in the Central District on the basis of the fact that he represents the putative John Doe in this case. However, Mr. Pietz has not offered a single shred of evidence to support this assertion. As it stands, Mr. Pietz could very well be intervening in all of these cases for his own ends, with no real client that he is defending. If Mr. Pietz wishes to contest the plain, unambiguous evidence of bias that Plaintiff has demonstrated in its Motion for Disqualification, then Mr. Pietz should have to submit evidence that he is, in fact, representing the actual individual he claims to represent, and not merely inserting himself into cases on the pretense of representing that individual.
Every time we see another story about Prenda law, it seems to involve someone associated with the firm doing something incredibly unprofessional and childish, in a manner suggesting they think they're a hell of a lot smarter than everyone else and are actually pulling something over on the world -- when the reality is that all of their moves seem ridiculously transparent.

France's censorship demands to Twitter are more dangerous than 'hate speech'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/02/free-speech-twitter-france         

France's censorship demands to Twitter are more dangerous than 'hate speech'

Few ideas have done as much damage throughout history as empowering the government to criminalize opinions it dislikes
Najat Vallaud-Belkacem
French minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem is demanding that Twitter aid the government in criminalizing hateful tweets. Photograph: Lionel Bonaventure/AFP/Getty Images
(updated below)
Writing in the Guardian today, Jason Farago praises France's women's rights minister, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, for demanding that Twitter help the French government criminalize ideas it dislikes. Decreeing that "hateful tweets are illegal", Farago excitingly explains how the French minister is going beyond mere prosecution for those who post such tweets and now "wants Twitter to take steps to help prosecute hate speech" by "reform[ing] the whole system by which Twitter operates", including her demand that the company "put in place alerts and security measures" to prevent tweets which French officials deem hateful. This, Farago argues, is fantastic, because - using the same argument employed by censors and tyrants of every age and every culture - new technology makes free speech far too dangerous to permit:

"If only this were still the 18th century! We can't delude ourselves any longer that free speech is the privilege of pure citizens in some perfect Enlightenment salon, where all sides of an argument are heard and the most noble view will naturally rise to the top. Speech now takes place in a digital mixing chamber, in which the most outrageous messages are instantly amplified, with sometimes violent effects . . .
"We keep thinking that the solution to bad speech is more speech. But even in the widest and most robust network, common sense and liberal-democratic moderation are not going to win the day, and it's foolhardy to imagine that, say, homophobic tweets are best mitigated with gay-friendly ones.
"Digital speech is new territory, and it calls for fresh thinking, not the mindless reapplication of centuries-out-of-date principles that equate a smartphone to a Gutenberg press. As Vallaud-Belkacem notes, homophobic violence – 'verbal and otherwise' – is the No 1 cause of suicide among French teenagers. In the face of an epidemic like that, free speech absolutism rings a little hollow, and keeping a hateful hashtag from popping up is not exactly the same as book-burning."
Before getting to the merits of all this, I must say: I simply do not understand how someone who decides to become a journalist then devotes his energy to urging that the government be empowered to ban and criminalize certain ideas and imprison those who express them. Of all people who would want the state empowered to criminalize ideas, wouldn't you think people who enter journalism would be the last ones advocating that?
I've written many, many times about the odiousness and dangers of empowering the state to criminalize ideas - including the progressive version of that quest, especially in Europe and Canada but also (less so) in the US - and won't rehash all those arguments here. But there is a glaring omission in Farago's column that I do want to highlight because it underscores one key point: as always, it is overwhelming hubris and self-love that drives this desire for state suppression of ideas.
Nowhere in Farago's pro-censorship argument does he address, or even fleetingly consider, the possibility that the ideas that the state will forcibly suppress will be ideas that he likes, rather than ideas that he dislikes. People who want the state to punish the expression of certain ideas are so convinced of their core goodness, the unchallengeable rightness of their views, that they cannot even conceive that the ideas they like will, at some point, end up on the Prohibited List.
That's what always astounds and bothers me most about censorship advocates: their unbelievable hubris. There are all sorts of views I hold that I am absolutely convinced I am right about, and even many that I believe cannot be reasonably challenged.
But there are no views that I hold which I think are so sacred, so objectively superior, that I would want the state to bar any challenge to them and put in prison those who express dissent. How do people get so convinced of their own infallibility that they want to arrogate to themselves the power not merely to decree which views are wrong, but to use the force of the state to suppress those views and punish people for expressing them?
The history of human knowledge is nothing more than the realization that yesterday's pieties are actually shameful errors. It is constantly the case that human beings of the prior generation enshrined a belief as objectively, unchallengably true which the current generation came to see as wildly irrational or worse. All of the most cherished human dogmas - deemed so true and undeniable that dissent should be barred by the force of law - have been subsequently debunked, or at least discredited.
How do you get yourself to believe that you're exempt from this evolutionary process, that you reside so far above it that your ideas are entitled to be shielded from contradiction upon pain of imprisonment? The amount of self-regard required for that is staggering to me.
There's no scientific formula for determining what is "hate speech". It's inherently subjective. Every comment section on the internet - involving endless debates about which ideas should and should not be banned - proves that, including the comment section that quickly sprung up in response to Farago's pro-censorship column, where numerous conservative or "New Labour"-type Guardian readers opined that the real "hate speech" are the Guardian columns that criticize Israel, the US, and other western institutions they like.
If "hate speech" is to be banned, those commenters predictably argued, we should start with left-wing Guardian columns. That's the same mindset that took this concept of "hate speech" and used it to criminally prosecute a British Muslim teenager for the "crime" of posting a Facebook message that said that "all soldiers should die and go to hell" - a message he posted out of anger over the killing of civilians as part of the war in Afghanistan. When you sow censorship theories, that's what you reap, because nobody has a lock on what ends up on the list of "hateful" and thus criminalized ideas.
Personally, I regard the pro-censorship case - the call for the state to put people in cages for expressing prohibited ideas - as quite hateful. I genuinely consider pro-censorship arguments to be its own form of hate speech. In fact, if I were forced to vote on which ideas should go on the Prohibited List of Hateful Thoughts, I would put the desire for state censorship - the desire to imprison one's fellow citizens for expressing ideas one dislikes - at the top of that list.
Nothing has been more destructive or dangerous throughout history - nothing - than the power of the state to suppress and criminalize opinions it dislikes. I regard calls for suppression of ideas as far more menacing than - and at least just as hateful as - bigoted Twitter hashtags and online homophobic jokes.
Ultimately, the only way to determine what is and is not "hate speech" is majority belief - in other words, mob rule. Right now, minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago are happy to criminalize "hate speech" because majorities - at least European ones - happen to agree with their views on gay people and women's equality. But just a couple decades ago, majorities believed exactly the opposite: that it was "hateful" and destructive to say positive things about homosexuality or women's equality. And it's certainly possible that, tomorrow, majorities will again believe this, or believe something equally bad or worse.
In other words, it's very possible that at some point in the future, majorities will come to hate rather than like the personal beliefs of minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago. And when that happens, when those majorities go to criminalize the views which minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago hold rather than condemn, they'll have no basis whatsoever for objecting, other than to say: "oh no, it's only fair to criminalize the ideas I hate, not the ones I like."
That's because at the root of this pro-censorship case is self-flattery: the idea that one is so intrinsically Good and Noble and Elevated that one is incapable of hatred: only those warped people over there, those benighted souls, are plagued with such poison. But once you empower the state to criminalize ideas which majorities deem "hateful", you should not be heard from when that is turned against you and majorities decide that your ideas should result in a prison sentence when expressed.
And this - the inherent subjectivity of "hate speech" - is all independent of the virtual certainty that the power which Farago wants to vest in state officials will be deliberately abused. How anyone can even casually review history and feel comfortable vesting censorship power in the state is endlessly baffling to me.
At any given point, any speech that subverts state authority can be deemed - legitimately so - to be hateful and even tending to incite violence. The theory advanced by western censorship advocates like minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago is exactly the one invoked by Arab tyrants to punish and imprison regime opponents: that such speech is designed to stoke hatred and incite violence:
"A Qatari poet was sentenced to life imprisonment on Thursday for a verse that drew inspiration from the Arab Spring. Qatari officials claimed that the poem, 'Tunisian Jasmine', by Muhammad ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami, insulted their nation's emir and encouraged the overthrow of its ruling system. . . .
"The government's initial reaction came in November 2011, when Qatari officials jailed the poet a few months after a video was posted of him reading 'Tunisian Jasmine', which celebrated the uprising in Tunisia that lit the fuse for the widespread revolt of the Arab Spring. In one of its particularly contentious passages, the poem claims 'We are all Tunisia in the face of repressive elite'."
That sounds exactly like minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago, just applied to different opinions. The first instinct of the British government in the face of the London protests of 2011 was to ban certain ideas from being expressed on the internet. New technologies can always be used to challenge prevailing orthodoxies, and are thus always the targets of censors.
It is not possible, nor probable, but certain - 100% inevitable - that empowering the state to imprison people for the expression of "hateful" ideas will be radically abused, will be exploited to shield power factions from meaningful challenge. Demanding that Google or Twitter suppress ideas specified by the state is the hallmark of tyrants.
All tyrants believe they are driven by a core Goodness, but that doesn't make them any less tyrannical. If anything, people who are so intoxicated by a belief in their own superior Goodness pose a greater danger to core rights because they so easily justify power abuses when done by them: "of course I'm against censorship - in the hands of others - but not when done to suppress the ideas I've deemed hateful".
This is exactly what drove the bizarre controversy this weekend over a truly warped Op-Ed in the New York Times by law professor Louis Michael Seidman that advocated that the Constitution be ignored - not amended, but just ignored, discarded. Even those rights that he likes - such as a free press or the right of due process - should be followed only "out of respect, not obligation", he argued.
But as I repeatedly asked those progressives who praised the Op-Ed: what would ever stop the state from imprisoning people for expressing views it dislikes or doing so without a fair trial - or what would stop a majority from oppressing those who hold minority political beliefs or religions - if there were no constitutional obligations to refrain? They are willing to endorse the abolition of such constraints because they believe they (due to their core Goodness) don't need them, and because they are somehow convinced it will not be abused against them. That's the same hubris, the same self-regard, as what drives the pro-censorship case.
Ultimately, nobody needs Jason Farago, French minister Vallaud-Belkacem, or Twitter algorithms deciding which ideas they're permitted to express on the internet and which ones should be criminalized. Gay youth and women - especially in the west - have seen their situations significantly improve with the emergence of the internet (I'd argue that it's due in part to its emergence as a democratizing force, but at the very least, even if there's no causal connection, these trends obviously co-exist). Although Farago mocks the marketplace of ideas as some sort of obsolete relic of the past, it is undeniably true that arguments in favor of equality for women and gay people have triumphed over bigotry, not because bigots have been imprisoned, but because those ideas have proven more powerful, more persuasive.
Criminalizing ideas doesn't make them go away any more than sticking your head in the sand makes unpleasant things disappear. If anything, refusing to confront them makes them stronger. But what is certain is that few people have done as much harm in history as those who deem themselves worthy of criminalizing ideas they dislike.

UPDATE

Farago replies in comments, here. Most of the responses to him below his comment express the objections I would have: in sum, the notion that you can ban opinions by labeling them "incitement" rather than "ideas" is just semantics and could easily be used to justify any and all forms of censorship. Indeed, as demonstrated above, that's precisely the theory relied upon by autocrats to justify imprisoning their critics: they're not expressing opinions but are engaged in "incitement".

The Process Church of the Final Judgment and the Manson Family The Robert F. Kennedy Connection

http://paranoiamagazine.com/archives-3/the-process-church-of-the-final-judgment-and-the-manson-family-2/      

The Process Church of the Final Judgment and the Manson Family

The Robert F. Kennedy Connection
by Adam Gorightly

In The Ultimate Evil, author Maury Terry contended that the Son of Sam killer, David Berkowitz, was a member of “The Children,” a satanic cult based in Venice, California, with links to the military and intelligence establishments. According to Terry, The Children is a splinter group of The Process Church of the Final Judgment, which—although officially disbanded some thirty years ago—continues to operate secretly in six major U.S. cities. Terry claims that The Process Church has changed its name many times, along the way accumulating millions of dollars in real estate holdings, and operates from a “remote enclave” in New York.

According to Terry, Berkowitz—though admittedly involved in some of the Son of Sam murders—was set up as a fall guy by The Children for the series of murders, in the same way that Charles Manson may have been manipulated in the Tate-LaBianca murders. In his treatise, Terry accused The Process Church of Hitler worship, animal sacrifice, drug running, kiddie porn, murder, and complicity in Son of Sam murders. Process apologists argue that Terry took Process founder Robert DeGrimston’s symbolic teachings too literally, and that The Ultimate Evil suffers from poor logic and dubious sources, and is littered with “red herrings.”

From these sources, including Berkowitz himself, Terry learned that one Son of Sam murder was videotaped, and that the cameraman, Ron Sisman, was subsequently murdered by cult members when they went to recover the Son of Sam snuff film. Terry pinned this murder on a mysterious figure dubbed Manson II, whom he later identified as W. Mentzer, an “occult superstar” and hit-man who moved through the same late-1960s milieu of sex, drugs and porn as Manson, and who had been intimate with Tate-LaBianca murder victim, Abigail Folger. Terry quoted his source on Mentzer/Manson II as “someone in the intelligence community.”

The Mayfair Mindbenders

In 1963, Robert DeGrimston Moore met Mary Anne MacLean at the Hubbard Institute of Scientology in London where they both worked as auditors and instructors. This relationship led to marriage, and the pair eventually left Scientology, taking with them some of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard’s principles and methods. They incorporated them into a new group called “Compulsions Analysis,” which used a technique or “process” similar to Scientology.

Eventually, “Compulsions Analysis” evolved into The Process Church of the Final Judgment. According to Ed Sanders in The Family, during his stint with Scientology, DeGrimston had attained the level of “Clear,” just as Charles Manson claimed to have reached the same lofty level while studying Scientology in prison. The textbook Scientology definition of “Clear” is “an individual who can be at cause knowingly and at will over mental matter, energy, space and time (MEST).”

In March of 1966, The Process moved into a mansion on Balfour Place in the Mayfair district of London, followed by twenty-five young acolytes, who turned over all their worldly possessions to the DeGrimstons. Garbed in matching black uniforms—consisting of tailor-made magician’s capes with the Mendez goat of Satan stitched in red on the back—The Process sponsored public gatherings during this period. For a half-pound admittance fee, the faithful were treated to telepathy circles, midnight meditations, “I Ching” interpretations, group encounter games (for instance, one called “Rape”), and guidance in the Tarot and Kabala. Many of these activities took place in a coffee bar called Satan’s Cavern, located in the basement of Balfour Place.

Later in 1966, the group moved their headquarters to Xtul, on the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico, and there things took a decidedly spiritual turn, the resulting cosmology of which consisted of four co-equal entities: Christ, Jehovah, Lucifer and Satan; each representing a different spiritual path that a Process member could adopt.  Some members took these archetypes symbolically, while others—it is said—began to worship the actual deities. It was during this period that DeGrimston came to fancy himself the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. It was this Christ-like persona he affected in photos of the time, projecting all the trappings of Jesus come again, with beard and messianic countenance staring righteously upon humankind.

At Xtul, The Process acquired an estate, which included four miles of seashore, a palm tree jungle, a lagoon, and various wooden huts. In November 1966, lawyers representing the parents of converted Processeans flew to Mexico in the prospect of bringing back their sons and daughters. An article in the London Sunday Telegraph entitled “The Mindbenders of Mayfair” dealt with the return of the youths from their jungle hideaway.

After their Xtul sojourn, The Process returned to London and made forays into the pop music field, trying to attract into their ranks the likes of the Beatles and Mick Jagger. During this period they became very adept at the art of “End Times” proselytizations, holding lectures, demonstrations and outdoor rant sessions in Hyde Park. They also began publishing a magazine to further the cause called, quite fittingly, Process, which adorned its covers with pictures of battlefield death imagery. Around this time, they managed to attract Mick Jagger’s girlfriend, Marianne Faithful, into the fold. In issue #3 of Process, she appeared on the cover, lying down, as if dead, and holding a rose. Earlier, Jagger himself appeared on the cover of another Process one-shot magazine, Freedom of Expression.

In “The Death” issue of Process from 1971, a brief article by Charles Manson appeared, entitled “Pseudo-profundity in Death,” which Charlie penned during the course of the Tate/LaBianca trial. In this article, Manson described death as “total awareness … Coming to Now … and Peace from this world’s madness and paradise in my own self.” While The Process took measures to distance themselves from the Manson camp, the inclusion of Manson’s essay only further muddies the waters of an alliance that, at the very least, shared many of the same philosophical tenets.

Unholy Alliances

In 1967, Robert DeGrimston and other Process members descended upon San Francisco’s Haight Ashbury district during the Summer of Love, taking lease of a property located at 407 Cole Street. Meanwhile, Charlie Manson and his girls lived at 636 Cole Street, a mere two blocks away. One of the more controversial assertions I’ve heard suggesting contact between Manson and The Process comes courtesy of John Parker’s Polanski, which claims that Manson was a regular visitor at The Process headquarters on Cole Street, “reaching the fourth of the six levels of initiation, that of ‘prophet.’” At the end of 1968, he was established as a leader of a group which he called “Satan’s Slaves.” During their Haight Ashbury period, Parker contends, The Process also attempted to form a union with Anton LaVey, high priest and founder of the San Francisco-based Church of Satan. However, these efforts were unsuccessful.

Through his own calculated Satanic-related media events, LaVey attracted the attention of such Hollywood bigshots as Sammy Davis, Jr. and sexpot Jayne Mansfield. Through these Hollywood connections, LaVey made inroads into the movie industry and was on the payroll of both The Mephisto Waltz and Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby. In the latter, LaVey appeared on screen as the Devil himself, bedding down comely Mia Farrow and impregnating her with the literal spawn of Satan.

Eerily enough, one young beauty LaVey attracted was Susan Atkins, who appeared topless in his Witches’ Sabbath show playing the fitting role of a vampire. Three years later, Atkins would confess to licking blood from the knife that she used to kill actress Sharon Tate, when her theatrical vampire fantasy became reality during the Tate-LaBianca murder spree. Photos from this period show Atkins in her predestined vampire role, wearing a long, open black robe, revealing her nude body, as mock blood dripped from her lips. Later, of course, she fell into the loving arms of Father Manson, and the rest is dark history.

In another strange twist of fate, Rosemary’s Baby was filmed in New York City at Manhattan’s Dakota Apartments, a massive gothic building that later was the home and sacrificial death site of former Beatle John Lennon, co-writer of a song that influenced Manson, “Helter Skelter.” (see Paranoia, issue 33)

The Process Church opened a chapter in Los Angeles in early 1968. They stayed in public view until a few days after Robert Kennedy’s assassination on June 5, 1968, after which they dropped mysteriously from sight. By this time, The Process had become subdivided into three sub-groups: the Luciferians, the Jehovans and the Satanists.

The Luciferian branch were fun-loving hedonists, celebrating sensuality. Conversely, the Jehovan branch were uptight, narrow-minded zealots, both anti-sex and austere, who beat each other as punishment, and were into self-flagellation. The Satanists were both cold and calculating, on the violent end of The Process cosmological spectrum. According to an individual’s personal desires, one could become an advocate of any of the branches of the group; it didn’t really matter, because in the long run they were all going to unite during the End Times.

Some observers have described The Process as a society dedicated to aiding and abetting the end of the world by stirring up murder, violence and chaos. In The Process’ End Times scenario, they would survive the wrath of the apocalypse as the chosen people, which was identical to the Manson Family worldview. The Process philosophy was summed up in Robert DeGrimston’s 1967 book As It Is:

Christ said: Love thine enemy. Christ’s enemy was Satan and Satan’s Enemy was Christ. Through love, enmity is destroyed. Through love, saint and sinner destroy the enmity between them. Through love, Christ and Satan have destroyed their enmity and come together for the End. Christ to judge, Satan to execute judgment.

It was this marriage of Heaven and Hell that Charles Manson grooved with. Manson’s cosmology—though similar to The Process—projected a more simplistic dualism, as he was known to his followers as both Satan and Christ. Like The Process, Manson preached the Second Coming, and that when Christ returned this time, it would be the Romans (i.e., the Establishment) who went up on the cross in his place. Following is a list of other similarities shared by the Manson Family and The Process:

Manson spoke frequently of the bottomless pit; The Process, of the bottomless void.

Within its organization, The Process called itself “the family,” and referred to its members as brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers.

Fear was a focal point for both The Process and Manson. A special issue of Process magazine dealt exclusively with the topic. “Fear is beneficial,” wrote the author of one article. “Fear is the catalyst of action. It is the energizer, the weapon built into the game in the beginning, enabling a being to create an effect upon himself, to spur himself on to new heights and to brush aside the bitterness of failure.”

The Process Church symbol was that of an inverted swastika, the very same symbol Manson later carved into his forehead.

Both The Process and Manson recruited biker groups. The two biker gangs closest to the Manson Family and The Process were the Satan Slaves and the Straight Satans.


Bad Vibrations

The Process, like Charles Manson, sought out rich and successful people. In addition to John Phillips and Cass Elliot of the Mamas and the Papas, they approached record producer Terry Melcher around the same time that Melcher first met Manson. In fact, author Maury Terry suggests that it was at John Phillips’ parties that the paths of Roman Polanski, Sharon Tate, and the rest of the unfortunate Cielo Drive crowd initially crossed paths with the Manson Family.

Manson had other celebrity connections. Prior to the Tate-LaBianca murders, Beach Boy Dennis Wilson is said to have been a Manson supporter. The Manson Family, in fact, lived in Wilson’s house for a few months, supported by Wilson, and Manson recorded some songs at the home studio of Beach Boy, Brian Wilson. However, Dennis Wilson soon became frightened by Manson and fled the rented house. Manson and friends remained but were soon evicted by the landlord. Nevertheless, a song by Manson, with slightly altered lyrics, appears on the Beach Boy’s album 20/20. The original song was prophetically titled “Cease to Exist,” but it is called “Never Learn Not To Love” on the album.

When The Process arrived in Los Angeles in early 1968, John Phillips put them in touch with real estate agent Artie Aarons. Once a week, the Processeans would go around cleaning and repairing various properties owned by Aarons. In return for their services, Aarons let The Process use a large, two-story house in south central L.A. In the following weeks, The Process members—while working for Aarons—visited the old John Barrymore mansion at 1301 Summit Ridge Drive, which was located several blocks down the hill from where Roman Polanski was renting a house from actress Patty Duke at 1600 Summit Ridge. Manson and his minions also lived for a short period in a shack on Summit Ridge Drive.

According to Ed Sanders, not long after moving into the Summit Ridge house, Sharon and Roman gave a housewarming party, where a strange event occurred involving Roman and some vicious dogs from down the hill. Apparently, the Polanski’s had agreed to take care of Patty Duke’s sheep dog, and the dog had a habit of getting loose. On the night of the party, the sheep dog once again bounded away, and Roman Polanski went after it.

Somewhere down the hill, Polanski encountered a group of vicious German Shepherds belonging to—as Sanders phrased it after a libel suit by DeGrimston—”English occultists who were in America to promote the end of the world.” Somehow, during his attempt to retrieve Patty Duke’s pooch, Polanski got locked in a garage trying to escape the cult’s dog pack, and managed to break a rear window out and escape up the hillside.

In Helter Skelter, Vincent Bugliosi recounted how Manson had been bragging about a relationship with The Process, until one day he was paid a visit in jail by two brethren of the church, “Father John” and “Brother Matthew.” After their departure, Manson seems to have clammed up for good about The Process, and since then has made no further comments. Prior to the visit by these two mysterious Processean MIB’s, Manson was asked by Bugliosi if he knew Robert DeGrimston, and his reply was to the effect, “He and I are one and the same.” After their visit with Manson, the two Process members met with Bugliosi and assured him that Manson and DeGrimston had never met.

The RFK Assassination

In his 1973 book, America Bewitched, Daniel Logan presented the theory that black magic cults were responsible for Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination. The cults in question, which Logan pinpointed, were “100 percent white, hated the black race, and felt that the way world chaos could be ignited was to incite whites against blacks.” According to Logan, persons belonging to “black-arts churches” were seen in full public view, black hoods and all, on the streets of Southern California communities right up until the RFK assassination, after which they suddenly vanished from sight. Logan went on to list several “coincidences” swirling around RFK’s assassination:

  • Many black-arts California-based cults such as The Process Church taught the destruction of America through chaos and mass violence.

  • Members of these cults generally hated blacks.

  • Robert Kennedy worked for the advancement of blacks and was generally liked, trusted, and respected by them.

  • Black-arts cults were mainly localized in the Los Angeles area.

  • Robert Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles.

  • Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy, had studied mysticism and was a devotee (albeit a misguided one) of Mme. Blavatsky, the woman who founded the Theosophical Society, many of whose beliefs were not only mystically but politically inspired. (While living in India, she openly denounced the pacifist ways of Mahatma Gandhi, who was himself eventually assassinated.)

  • Charles Manson, while in prison in the 1960s, had also studied the occult teachings of Mme. Blavatsky, along with those of other mystical personalities.

  • The night before Robert Kennedy was murdered he had his last dinner with Sharon Tate and her husband, Roman Polanski.

  • A few months later, Sharon Tate and her friends were killed by Charles Manson’s family.

Rumors Writ in Blood

Ed Sanders, in the first Dutton edition of The Family: The Story of Charles Manson’s Dune Buggy Attack Battalion, suggested that The Process Church had “a baleful influence” on Sirhan Sirhan. During the spring of 1968, Sirhan had visited clubs in Hollywood on the same turf where The Process was proselytizing their doom-and-gloom philosophy. Furthermore, Sirhan talked several times prior to Kennedy’s death about visiting a certain occult group in London.

Among the rumors disseminated by Sanders was that a Process member named Lloyd worked as a chef at the Ambassador Hotel at the time of RFK’s assassination. Perhaps it was only coincidence, but Sirhan visited a friend in the Ambassador Hotel kitchen only a day before the assassination. In the revised 2002 edition of The Family, Sanders recounted a 1974 investigation into “a satanic group of English origin” conducted by an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) criminal investigator named Richard Smith. After Sanders’ publisher, Dutton, lost a libel suit to The Process Church over the first edition of The Family, all editions thereafter contained this oblique reference.

According to Sanders, an investigator working for him contacted Smith and was allowed to read his report, which stated, “English satanist cult members invited Sirhan Sirhan to a number of parties that were sponsored by television people in Los Angeles, and that one of the parties took place at Sharon Tate’s residence. At these parties, it was averred, sexual and ritualistic activities were reported to have occurred.” According to the INS report, this “English satanic group” purportedly took out a contract with Manson to kill Sharon Tate because of something she overheard at these parties regarding Sirhan Sirhan.

As Sanders alleges, in December 1968, Manson Family member Bruce Davis went on a pilgrimage to England where he spent roughly five months. While in London, the rumor goes, Davis was employed by the Church of Scientology, working in the mailroom and studying Scientology courses in his spare time. The Church of Scientology fired Davis after a couple of weeks because of drug use. According to a homicide investigator close to the Tate-LaBianca case, Davis began hanging out at the Mayfair townhouse of The Process Church. Davis later returned to England in May of 1969 in the company of five women alleged to be witches.

According to Sanders, Joel Pugh, husband of Manson follower Sandra Good, accompanied Bruce Davis on his first trip to London. On December 1, 1969, Pugh’s decomposing body was found in the Targarth Hotel in London, lying naked on his back with a sheet covering his lower body. His throat had been cut with razor blades, there were slash marks on both wrists and his blood had been used to inscribe “backwards writing” and “comic book drawings” on a mirror in the room. Scotland Yard investigators ruled the death a suicide, but when Inyo County (California) District Attorney Frank Fowles learned of the death, he made official inquiries through Interpol to check Davis’s visa.

Officials confirmed that Davis had been in London in April of that year, and had been there more recently, but they had no official record of the exact dates. Davis was next reported to be in Los Angeles in February 1970, according to Sanders, when he was questioned in Inyo County on auto theft charges, then released. Davis then disappeared once again, resurfacing on December 2, 1970, four days after the mysterious disappearance of Manson Defense Attorney Ron Hughes, who was later found dead.

According to Bill Nelson in Manson Behind The Scenes, on November 21, 1969, the corpses of two Scientology members—15-year old James Sharp and 19-year old Doreen Gaul—were discovered in a Los Angeles alleyway, each stabbed in excess of fifteen times. The two reportedly lived in a Scientology commune, and it has been alleged that Gaul once dated Bruce Davis. When detective Earl Deemer of the LAPD arrived on the murder scene, his first reaction was, “The people who did this, did Sharon Tate.” This murder was later attributed to the infamous Zodiac killer. (In a September 29, 2003 article in the New York Post, Mentzer (aka Manson II) was linked to the Zodiac killings.)

News reports placed Doreen Gaul, prior to her death, at the same residence where Bruce Davis was living: reportedly, a Scientology commune at 1032 South Bonnie Brae in Los Angeles. According to Nelson, the “Manson Family bus” was parked on this street on several occasions. While Davis had admitted to living in this “Scientology commune,” he denied ever having met Doreen Gaul.

Rumors have long run rampant concerning alleged ties between Charles Manson and the Church of Scientology. Not long after Manson’s arrest for the Tate-LaBianca murders, strange tips began trickling into a prominent west coast magazine concerning a rumored Manson-Scientology connection (Cabot). This spurred the Church of Scientology to offer a reward to anyone with information leading to the conviction of the libeler/slanderer who had spread the still unsubstantiated rumors of Manson’s involvement in Scientology.



©2005 Adam Gorightly, author of Death Cults, published by Sisyphus Press, P.O. Box 10495, State College, PA. 16805-0495 (available at http://www.wingtv.net/commonsense/deathcults.html, $7 US postage paid, $10 Canada). In this underground classic, Gorightly links cults like The Process Church of the Final Judgment and the Manson Family to elements of the underworld and intelligence communities, brushing back the cobwebs of the occult to reveal a truly disturbing story that continues to haunt us today. Gorightly is also the author of The Shadow Over Santa Susana: Black Magic, Mind Control and the Manson Family Mythos, http://www.mansonmythos.com.



References

Bugliosi, Vincent. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders, W. W. Norton, Reprint, 2001.

Cabot, Tracy, ed., Inside The Cults, Holloway House, Los Angeles, 1970.

DeGrimston, Robert. As It Is, 1967.

Gorightly, Adam. “We All Live in a Yellow Submarine: The Manson Family and the Beatles.” Paranoia, Issue 33, Fall 2003.

Logan, Daniel. America Bewitched: The Rise of Black Magic and Spiritism, Morrow, 1974.

Nelson, Bill. Manson Behind The Scenes, Pen Power Publications, 1997.

Parker, John. Polanski, Orion, 1995.

Sanders, Ed. The Family, Thunder’s Mouth, updated 2002.

Terry, Maury. The Ultimate Evil: An Investigation into America’s Most Dangerous Satanic Cult, Doubleday, 1st edition, 1987.






Professor Questions Newtown Shooting: Says That Crisis Actors Played Roles

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013/01/professor-questions-newtown-shooting-says-that-crisis-actors-played-roles-2447550.html
Professor Questions Newtown Shooting: Says That Crisis Actors Played Roles
Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:45

Well what have we here? It now seems that ‘conspiracy theorists’ aren’t the only ones questioning the legitimacy of the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. A communications professor at Florida Atlantic University has stirred up a hornets nest by claiming that ‘crisis actors’ were involved in this false flag event motivated by a political agenda of disarming Americans and instituting a ‘one world’ government. This story can be read in its’ entirety @ http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-fau-prof-newtown-20130107,0,4267958.story

A communication professor known for conspiracy theories has stirred controversary at Florida Atlantic University with claims that last month’s Newtown, Conn., school shootings did not happen as reported — or may not have happened at all.

Moreover, James Tracy asserts in radio interviews and on his memoryholeblog.com. that trained “crisis actors” may have been employed by the Obama administration in an effort to shape public opinion in favor of the event’s true purpose: gun control.

crisis actors sandy hook parents are aurora shooting attorney

“As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers, there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends,” writes Tracy, a tenured associate professor of media history at FAU and a former union leader.

For everyone who still thinks that the ‘conspiracy theorists’ are crazy, please watch this video and let me know what you think. Crisis actors? We’ve gotten nothing but lies from TPTB and the mainstream media on this one. What ARE THEY covering up?               

Sandy Hook Hoax Completely Revealed - Media Lies - Actors - Satanism - Govt. Coverup - False Flag   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GcpFTNA80ss

FAU prof stirs controversy by disputing Newtown massacre

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/palm-beach/fl-fau-prof-newtown-20130107,0,6575617,full.story           

FAU prof stirs controversy by disputing Newtown massacre

Gabby Giffords launches site to stop gun violence
A communication professor known for conspiracy theories has stirred controversy at Florida Atlantic University with claims that last month's Newtown, Conn., school shootings did not happen as reported — or may not have happened at all.
Moreover, James Tracy asserts in radio interviews and on his memoryholeblog.com. that trained "crisis actors" may have been employed by the Obama administration in an effort to shape public opinion in favor of the event's true purpose: gun control.
"As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers, there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends," writes Tracy, a tenured associate professor of media history at FAU and a former union leader.
In another post, he says, "While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place — at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation's news media have described."
FAU is distancing itself from Tracy's views.
"James Tracy does not speak for the university. The website on which his post appeared is not affiliated with FAU in any way," said media director Lisa Metcalf.
Tracy said he knows he has sparked controversy on campus. In one of his courses, called "Culture of Conspiracy," Tracy said some students have expressed skepticism about his views.
"But I encourage that," said Tracy, 47, a faculty member for 10 years. "I want to get students to look at events in a more critical way."
In the Internet age, "We see more and more professors getting into trouble for what they're posting on Facebook, or Tweeting," said Gregory Scholtz, director of the department of academic freedom at the Association of University Professors. "And administrations are sensitive to bad publicity; they don't like things that public might find obnoxious or reprehensible. But most reputable administrations stay above the fray and give latitude."
Robert Shibley, an official with the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said Tracy is well within his rights of free speech, especially when teaching a course on conspiracy theory.
"The only way that a university would have a right to tone it down, or insist he stop talking about it, is if students come to him and say they find it disturbing," said Shibley. "People are allowed to talk about things that are upsetting — for example, abortion."
On Monday, the website Global Research posted a timeline written by Tracy which purports to show how federal and local police agencies, abetted by "major media," conspired early in the Sandy Hook investigation to constuct a scenario pointing to Lanza as " the sole agent of the massacre" when others may have been involved.
In one of his blog posts, "The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information," Tracy cites several sources for his skepticism, including lack of surveillance video or still images from the scene, the halting performance of the medical examiner at a news conference, timeline confusion, and how the accused shooter was able to fire so many shots in just minutes.
In an interview Monday, Tracy said "while it appears that people lost their lives" at Sandy Hook Elementary on Dec. 14, he is not ready to buy that a lone gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, entered the school and methodically shot 20 children and six adults before killing himself.
Lanza is also suspected of killing his mother at their Newtown home before arriving at the school.
Asked if he has been accused of promoting fringe theories, Tracy said, "I do get that sense, from emails and otherwise."
Tracy said he believes the deaths at Sandy Hook may have resulted from a training exercise. "Was this to a certain degree constructed?" he said. "Was this a drill?
"Something most likely took place," he said. "One is left with the impression that a real tragedy took place."
But, he added, he has not seen bodies, or photos of bodies. "Overall, I'm saying the public needs more information to assess what took place. We don't have that. And when the media and the public don't have that, various sorts of ideas can arise."
Tracy said also has doubts about the official version of the Kennedy assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9-11 terror attacks and the Aurora, Colo., theater murders.
"I describe myself as a scholar and public intellectual," he said, "interested in going more deeply into controversial public events. Although some may see [my theories] as beyond the pale, I am doing what we should be doing as academics."
mwclary@tribune.com, 954-356-4465
James Tracy
Title: Florida Atlantic University associate professor, media history and analysis, political economy of communication.
Age: 47
Born: Hornell, N.Y.
Education: Undergraduate: San Jose State, communication, 1995
Master's degree: University of Arizona, media studies, 1998
PhD.: University of Iowa, 2002.
Activities: editor, Democratic Communiqué, journal of the Union for Democratic Communications.