All major corporate media outlets were quick to cite this film as being solely responsible for simultaneous violent uprisings in both Libya and Egypt. Upon closer examination of event leading up to those protests however, it is now clear that this film was deployed as a very sophisticated public relations tool designed to antagonize the global Muslim population in a way that has furthered the western narrative of East vs. West and the fabled “clash of civilisations” which has fueled a global War on Terror, now in its 11th year, costing the global economy hundreds of billions with no tangible benefit to either security or international peace. Evidence further suggests that this film sensation neither caused those demonstrations, nor was it a purpose-made movie which was design to incite Islamic rage.
Following those initial protests which occurred in Libya and Egypt, and through a sustained western media effort, the film was artificially attached to the wave of discontent and soon took on a life of its own – becoming a catalyst for extreme public rage in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and India.
Western media talking point strategies have been laid bare through the unfolding of this story. The film was quickly labeled ‘amateurish’ and ‘low budget’ by US-led media organisations like al Jazeera, claiming that ‘the Muslim street has voiced its anger and Muslim countries worldwide are now calling for international anti-blasphemy laws’. This set the stage for a rather controlled UN debate, with US President Barack Obama taking the podium to fend off member states’ Islamic calls for criminalizing and holding members of the public accountable by introducing new international fines and judicial charges via a newly proposed legal framework, through new international ‘hate speech’ laws, in what Obama described as unworkable, as he appeared to defend Americans’ right to ‘freedom of expression’.
A quick appraisal of the production values visible in the Mohammad film reveals that it is anything but low budget, employing some forty or more actors with full wardrobe and make-up detail, post production and grading, as well as a fully functional Middle East set with Hollywood standard sound and lighting production. The price tag for this production could easily be estimated around $500,000 USD, with other estimates coming in excess of $1 million USD. Hyping it as an ‘amateurish film’ appears to be part of a coordinated media effort to fashion it into a mere irresponsible and reckless YouTube video – effectively opening the door for acceptable censorship of all YouTube content down the road.
The most intriguing, yet least reported aspect of this media event, however, is how this film was manipulated by its alleged creators, and then again by a series of YouTube publishers. It is important to premise that nothing about the making or the dissemination of this film is straightforward, and all available evidence indicates that is a very complex and expensive piece of antagonistic propaganda at its best, and a carefully planned psy-op at its worst.
First off, the title of the film, ‘The Innocence of Muslims’, had three other previous incarnations. The original casting call for this Los Angeles-based production was in July 2011 when it was titled, ‘Desert Warriors’. The film was then made and is reported to have been screened to an empty cinema at the Vine Theatre in LA on June 30, 2012 where it was titled, ‘The Innocence of Bin Laden’, after which time it was serialized on a Youtube channel attributed to one Sam Bacile (a pseudonym) on July 1st and titled, ‘Real Life of Mohammed’. Its final name change of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ came later when it appeared as a 14 minute highlight reel of the full film on September 10th on a YouTube channel credited to ‘News Politics Now’. According to American researcher and commentator Montagraph, ‘News Politics Now’ can be linked to Stanley and Associates, a US government defense contractor based in Arlington, VA.
The film’s alleged producer, ‘Sam Bacile’, is likely one Nakoula Basseley Nakoula – apparently a US-based Egyptian Coptic Christian, and revealed by the website Smoking Gun to be a US federal informant, with an earlier conviction for check fraud. To date, there is little evidence to confirm any details of Nakoula’s actual involvement in the film, but based on his informant profile, it is more than likely he is a compromised individual who is playing the role of mascot for the controversial film.
More persons of interest are Steve Klein and Allan Roberts aka Robert Brownell. Klein is listed as a ‘consultant’ on the film who is a US military veteran and a federal counter terrorism expert. Brownell is owner of conservative Christian websites Spirit Lesson and Divine Revelations. These connections point to a chain linking the Hollywood film finance community, the US federal government and the Christian Zionist movement in America. The reaction to this film was all too predictable, but it should be noted that the initial protests in Libya and Egypt were not a result of the film’s release on YouTube, but subsequent riots in Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen were as result of western media’s concerted efforts to attribute Muslim unrest solely to the YouTube phenomenon.
The fake media event was then used as leverage by the western media, and parroted by the US government to appear as the ‘lone catalyst’ for Muslim rage, and later on, in order to incite a wave of Muslim protests around the anniversary of Sept 11th. By controlling the timing of these events, western ring masters were able to promote their ‘clash of civilizations’ narrative and frame all anti-NATO and anti-American events as the work of an irrational and extremist Islamic mob who are hell-bent on destroying both the western Judeo-Christian and secular ways of life. The violent lynching of US Ambassador Christopher Stephens and members of his staff, along with the sacking of US Embassies in Libya and Egypt were also attributed to the release of the Mohammad film and the ‘clash of civilisations’, rather than to boiling angst directed at the NATO architects and the bureaucrats they installed in Libya who have systematically looted the country and collapsed society following the toppling and execution of Mummar Qaddafi and his government.
In reality, at least two different protests were scheduled that week, well in advance of the Mohammad film coming into full public view. In thorough fashion, western intelligence agencies appear to have organised rear cover for this event, informing the media with information implying that it was “al Qaida” who carried out the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi as revenge for the supposed death in Pakistan by U.S. drone strike on June 4, 2012 of Libyan-born Abu Yahya Al Libi (aka Hassan Mohammed Qaid), another al Qaida’s “number two man”. It should be noted that any so-called ‘al Qaida’ public decrees are more than likely to be directed and coordinated by western shadow agencies, and thus considered as controlled opposition in the extreme.
Most likely, and more credible a story was that the anti-western, anti-NATO grass-roots movement led mostly by Qaddafi loyalists in Libya are beginning to act out what the majority 5.6 million Libyans believe - that NATO and its proxy terrorists have managed to destroy the country over the last 18 months, taking with it the highest standard of living in Africa which is unlikely to return to its people ever again.
Leading these protests is a group whom western architects are hoping to erase from public existence, known in Libya as the Green Resistance, or “Tahloob” in Arabic for “loyalists”, comprised of anti-western and pro-Qaddafi members whose remit is clearly that of anti-NATO, and anti-imperialists, as well as pro-secular nationalist – a far cry from Washington and NATO’s Islamist puppets installed in Tripoli and Benghazi. They striking western and NTC targets, and have been reported to have executed Libyan collaborators who betrayed Qaddafi and sided with NATO. It would be standard protocol for CIA and other western or Israeli intelligence agencies to try and infiltrate this resistance movement, and then radicalise it along Jihadist lines a transformation which could be achieved by gradually picking-off its ideological leadership and then replacing it with American, British or Israeli-controlled al Qaida agents.
Given the genuine anti-US and anti-NATO sentiment across North Africa and the Middle East, it is clear that neither the US or its NATO member states cannot fully control authentic ‘Arab Spring’ uprisings in countries like Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Tunisia and Sudan, where the underclasses have seen no actual improvement in their socio-economic conditions. It appears that the ideal political and civil model for the west in these countries is a hard-handed militarised police state with an ineffectual but subservient, pro-western puppet leader installed at the helm. Aside from the obvious energy and resource prizes up for grabs, western international banking financiers and their arms dealing and producing clientele are then able to profit from destablisation and police state measures in these countries, further perpetuating the economic circle fueled by western intervention and aggressive foreign policy.
Based on recent history, it should be evident that enemy number one of US, UK, French, Israeli and NATO allies – is any independent secular nationalist state in the region. We can also add here that any nation who is not tied into US foreign aid and privatized international banking, and privatized national utility and infrastructural assets. Both Libya and Syria – as well as Iran, fit squarely into this geopolitical and all of these countries have been targeted both politically and militarily by the US and its NATO allies for regime change, with desires for national restructuring as future banking and imperialist-friendly client states in the region.
In the end, none of this can be achieved without the consent of western democratic constituencies, and this means that the ‘clash of civilisations’, or East vs. West narrative must be continually propagated by the political classes and corporate media in the west in order the maintain a climate of fear and an arch of tension and continual conflict across the Middle East and Central Asia. The controversial Mohammad film was merely a tool used to further this open and unapologetic policy which many analysts believe is inching the world closer towards a multiregional global military conflict.
