The Death of Michael C Ruppert

Michael C Ruppert died from a gunshot wound to the head on 13th April. Without speculating, it clearly looked like suicide.

I have followed Mike Ruppert's work for at least a decade and whilst I may have had certain reservations about some of his thoughts and conclusions, I tended to agree with him on most things but this is not the time or place for pedantic analysis.

I listened to his last broadcast of The Lifeboat Hour, after I heard he had died - recorded very shortly beforehand, looking for something to indicate his state of mind - not out of some need to prove that he had met the same fate as Gary Webb because he wasn't suicidal, rather because I know from my own experience how well practised one can be at projecting an image of normality to the world whilst internally falling apart or imagining self-annihilation. There was nothing, except perhaps in the nuance of the lyrics of a song he played (Calling All Angels by Jane Siberry and k d lang) which indicated he was about to end his life. Indeed, he signed off with the clearest intention of being back the following week.

Like many, I sought confirmation of the unbelievable truth of what I had heard and there was little apart from forum speculation to go on. There were just two news websites which reported Mike Ruppert's death:

www.ballerstatus.com/2014/04/15/conspiracy-theorist-michael-c-ruppert-commits-suicide

www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/15/911-truther-mike-ruppert-kills-himself-after-finishing-his-radio-show

I am not so naive that I would expect it to be international news but I was surprised how difficult it was to find information, even his Wikipedia page kept changing from one minute to the next.

But whilst I can reconcile myself to the news not permeating into the mainstream, I cannot really accept that it has been ignored by others who purport to have the same or similar goals and who have trodden the same path. Most notably, there was not (and currently, is not) a single word about Mike Ruppert's death on infowars.com or any other of Alex Jone's websites. It's no secret that Ruppert and Jones did not get on and had traded acerbic comments but anybody who has followed the unfolding of the 9/11 myth from the outset will know that they were both amongst the very few who spoke out from the beginning. Jones' failure to acknowledge Mike Ruppert's death is a further indication of what a disrespectful gristle head Alex Jones really is.

Elsewhere, it was eventually reported (three days later) on David Icke's ironically titled Headlines page (often stories are years out of date) but rather than linking to one of the two sites which broke the story, David Icke resorted to his Daily Mail fetish and linked to a shoddy little scribble flanked by celebrity tittle-tattle and upskirt photos.

Please ignore these sweaty wealth seeking egos and watch this personal and emotional tribute from RT's Abby Martin.

Censorship: Suppressive Powers for the Masses

I think everybody who isn't fascinated by the arrest of Justin Bieber will be aware that the mainstream media manipulates the news and, more subtly, its coverage of the news to suit its agenda or that which it has been assigned. It's so obvious and well documented, it is almost a waste of a paragraph to even mention it but it has to be reiterated in order to make a point which is in danger of becoming as much of a truism because whilst it is unacceptable that the mainstream news media effectively lie (omission is a form of censorship and deception ergo a lie), it is accepted that they do. It is, by virtue of their stated remit, even less acceptable for the so-called alternative media to censor especially when they openly market themselves as an antedote to the homogenous diet of information which people are fed daily. It's common knowledge that Alex Jones will not tolerate any criticism of Israel. Indymedia, who are ostensibly diametrically opposed to Infowars also avoid, as much as possible, the Israel thing (except when it involves Palestinians) and comb out any posts which mention 9/11 (except when it endorses Keane and Hamilton), Freemasons, chemtrails or a multitude of other subjects which, for its own purposes, it deems inappropriate.

But what about our latest alternative outlet? A voice for the voiceless. Be part of the heard not the herd.

Well, that's all well and good but what if the voice does not agree with you? What if the mind behind the voice actually thinks you are not quite as virtuous as you make out? There is always censorship but that would not look too good, would it. It goes on within the alternative media and it subsidiaries and everybody knows about it but it is forbidden to mention it - that will result in further censorship. In not so extreme cases, this could lead to banning or, as mentioned previously, what one forum euphemistically calls, 'inactive' which suggests that the user has elected not to say anything for a while. Not unlike a police officer looking down upon a bloody beaten prisoner tied to a chair with gaffer tape over his mouth and saying, 'he's gone a bit quite'. It's the same fucking game, Sean. You are no different.

But what is (only slightly) more surprising is how easily the rest of the flock come around to that way of thinking - just like the liberal Obama supporters who overnight saw the merit and positive ethical aspects of drone strikes on foreign civilians.

Today, we have one David Icke forum member, 3point5 saying, 'I help run a pretty popular Facebook page. We kept having one or two members that were causing grief on the Facebook page. You know what we did? We blocked them. It solved the problem instantly, and it meant we didn't drag our own name through the mud by arguing with them publicly.'

Whilst forum moderator, scottishryan responds, 'You are completely correct, I find blocking out such disturbances works the best. I personally had to do it in my Youtube Channel too, there is a line that can be crossed when this is the best first option to take.'

Yeah, fucking hypocrites, right? That's what they are all saying on the forum at sanctumzone.co.uk - all the refugees from David Icke's forum who are disenchanted, suspended or ...er inactive have gathered at one of the relatively new so-called alternative (to) David Icke forums. All those self-congratulatory folk, not unlike the Obama types, who think they have found a life raft in the turbulent sea of censorship. Except that they haven't because sanctumzone.co.uk is guilty of censorship like the two previously mentioned strata of deception; whether intentionally or by neglect. Having experienced the digital Heath-Robinson of the sanctumzone.co.uk forum, I am willing to accept the possibility that there is some technical explanation for what I have witnessed but until I have received an explanation from whoever is responsible for the site's administration, I am going to assume the inevitable. And I am willing to wager that all the other alternative Icke sites are equally flawed in their ethics.

What is certain is that there is no such thing as free speech anywhere on the internet where there are people with administrative privileges acting as gatekeepers. I tried it once - the only posts I deleted were blatant spam with links to whatever was being flogged at the time. Ironically, one or two of the members didn't like free speech and at least one of them has spent the past eight or nine years bad mouthing me for all manner of ridiculous ills conjured up by their paranoid delusions. S/he is a moron. I could name them but why throw fireworks on the fire? Self-censorship? Maybe but I believe in the words of Henry Delaune, 'Think all you speak but speak not all you think;' and I assure you, some people don't know how grateful they might be for that. Unfortunately, in this digital world everybody who is counter-inclined has the indiscriminate power of a flamethrower.

Alex Jones vs the Israeli Defense Force Fanatic at the JFK Memorial Demonstration

I am a bit late with this one as I should have posted it in November when it happened but there were other things which were demanding my attention.

Like many, I suppose, having little better to do on a rainy Friday afternoon, I found myself watching a live stream of the protests in Dallas, Texas to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of John F Kennedy.

Everything was as might have been expected, Alex Jones was mouthing off to a loyal mob of listeners who had turned up to get his autograph or touch his coat tails and there was a bit of argy-bargy with the police which happened mainly off camera and was over so quickly that I missed it.

But there was one protester who followed Jones waving an Israeli flag which made me both curious and uncomfortable. It's a bit of an acknowledged truism that Alex Jone never speaks out against Israel's atrocities against the Palestinians nor does he ever give truc to any notion that Israel may have had any involvement in September 11th attacks despite volumous evidence which deserves attention if not thorough scrutiny.

Eventually, as can be seen in the following video at 3h 50m 47s, Jones asks the man with the flag why he has it and the man replies that Israel has the best army in the world, it was the perfect opportunity for him to draw attention, should it be of any concern him, to the oppression and slaughter of the Palestinians but he didn’t, he simply agreed that it was a very strong trained military.

I feel quite certain that his role is to divert attention from all Israel’s malfeasance and point the finger in any expediently different direction. After many years wondering about Alex Jones, this was the moment that the penny dropped.

Icke Censorship Gathers Pace - Careful What You Say!

A few weeks ago, thee were reports that travelers who made jokes about securitywould be arrested.

TSA Announcement Tells Travelers They'll Be Arrested If They Make Jokes About Security

Now censorchip on David Icke's forum has reached the point that it is now unlawful to quote 'conspiratainment', however that may be defined.

A post by David Icke forum member grannie27 was censored by moderator shanticat:

And both are also helping to expose what is happening ,I guess its WHAT you do with the information they give out ...
Sit back in comfort behind your computer screen, knowing you know what they know (the whole ethos behind controlled opposition)
or
Take action on the information ......and make a REAL CHANGE

Last edited by shanticat; 13-11-2013 at 07:50 PM. Reason: conspirtainment quote

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=248381&page=3

Prior to the censorship, the thread had been discussing Russell Brand and Alex Jones and in particular, Jones' alleged pro-Israeli position. A post linking to a couple of anti-Jones videos was removed shortly beforehand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6bckDsoZW4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0af1NPSTro

So much for free speech from the patron of The People's Voice!

Alex Jones and the Fox News Anti-Welfare Poster Boy

A few hours ago I wrote something defending (up to a point) Alex Jones regarding an attack by a mob of rentallectuals. But as much as the attack was unwarranted and highly defamatory, Jones is not beyond reproach and before long he was frothing at the mouth like a Daily Mail reader over a beach bum who lives on food stamps.

British readers will be aware of the phenomenon of indignant benefits churnalism in which the Daily Mail - or more specifically, the Mail Online website - specialises. Take a completely unrepresentative benefits recipient who has somehow played the system to their advantage and hold them up as being a typical benefits scrounger - thus ignoring the millions of people who are struggling in debt and queueing for cans at charity food banks. The tactic of perfidiously convincing the very poorly paid that people who don't work are handed more than them succeeds in turning those on the lower rungs of society against each other.

Step forward, then, Jason Greenslate, a 29 year old who spends his life surfing and eating lobster; or so the Fox News report would have us believe. Apart from the mathematical unlikelihood of such a lifestyle on $200 pcm, this episode either ignores or is an attempt to sidestep the millions of Americans who are in genuine need of assistance. Jones doesn't see or make this point, he behaves like a Rottweiler with a lard soaked rag doll being waved in its face at which he foams and snaps.

For somebody who openly proclaims that 9/11 was an inside job, Jones is remarkably willing to swallow this story whole. Maybe he is real? Who knows? But for somebody who makes a very comfortable living out of what some call doom porn, endorsing such trash laden right wing propaganda is pretty feeble. Willingly or not, Jones is complicit in the establishment's game of divide and rule. Why? Because despite his regular claims to have seen through the left right paradigm, he is a right wing reactionary.

If This Guy Is What The Future Of America Looks Like, We Are In BIG Trouble

Ruminant Defamation by MSNBC Rentallects

I'm no fan of Alex Jones. He is a bully and exaggerates to the point of outright dishonesty and that discredits him. Alex Jones is his own biggest fan and worst enemy. However, like many who have conspiracy careers, much, if not most, of what he says is based on fact. I'm pretty sure that deep down he has integrity even if he portrays himself as a lunatic every time he gets the opportunity to address a wider audience in the mainstream media. Such forays provide the establishment with all the ammunition necessary and Jones' self-inflicted character assassinations are anti-viral and this segment includes a clip of his appearance on the BBC's Sunday Politics which, interestingly, shows more of Andrew Neil's 'we had an idiot on the show this week' and 'lunatic' hand signals than Jones himself.

Giving a dumb presenter the opportunity to look intelligent by giving them a pseudo-intellectual script to read may massage their ego and, in a culture of celebrity worship and hunger for fame, it is understandable, up to a point, why somebody with limited analytical capacity and a desire for glamour would take a huge salary to appear smart by attacking who they have been told are the nation's enemies.

But the 'proper' intellectuals who weigh in are the true ignoramuses here. They trot out nonsense without the embarrassment of a theatre reviewer who slates a play without ever having seen it - it is crystal clear that they are reading their information from a pro-establishment fact file on Alex Jones which was compiled during a game of Chinese whispers.

In the piece, Jones is accused of being a lying racist hate criminal which, even as somebody who frequently cannot listen to his verbal barrages, I have to say, is categorically undeserved and seriously libelous. But the table of intellectuals who made the proclamations with such aloofness are, by far, the most worrying aspect of this sorry example of media bullshit, for they exemplify the academic bubble in which the herd mentality is as inflencial as in the football stadium. None dare even look at the evidence lest it forces them open to persuasion.

Alex Jones Responds to MSNBC’s Defamation

The People's Voice: Uncensored?

When Barack Obama denied that the NSA was spying on the world's e-mail, we all laughed because we all knew that it was a lie proven by historical facts, David Icke included. So, when David Icke talks of a censorship free new media channel, should he not be judged by the same measure?

He has said that The People's Voice will be free of censorship except for libel [sic], I assume that what he means is that it will be free from censorship except in the avoidance of libel but that morcel of pedantry aside, is there any evidence to suggest that we can expect an unexpurgated outlet for the vox pop?

Actually, no. In fact the opposite is true. David Icke's website has a forum on which posts are routinely deleted not, it needs to be said, in the avoidance of libel - many libelous an offensive posts remain unchallenged. They are removed because they do not toe the David Icke line to one degree or another, often on the whim of a moderator. And David Icke has in fact made comments which suggest that he would welcome libel action to give his claims a day in court.

Yes, I hear you say, but the forum is not administered by David Icke, it is run bypeople working for him and he has very little, if anything to do with the forum. That is very true - but those very same people who administer the forum are the ones who are currently working on launching The People's Voice.

Before I am accused of being simply a David Icke detractor, I should point out that I actually think that a very large chunk of what he says is true; we are ruled by a powerful elite who have used the banking system, global corporate power and violence on an apocalyptic scale to enslave humanity. However, I am of the 'turd in a punchbowl' school of thought (the term coined by Infowars radio tyrant, Alex Jones who, ironically, I believe to be another such turd for slightly different reasons). David Icke discredits himself (and his followers) by pursuing theories for which the evidence is largely untested (to put it kindly).

I regret that I have little faith in The People's Voice achieving its stated ambitions. I suspect that there will be a free for all of so-called 'free speech' whilst any voices of reason will be silenced - pretty much as they are on the David Icke forum.