|
19 October 2004 #2: Ruppert vs. Hopsicker, Thorn
Most 9/11 researchers and activists must by now be aware of the
"feuds" have erupted between Mike Ruppert and two other writers,
Daniel Hopsicker and Victor Thorn. Since I have written on some
subjects that touch on some issues in these debates, I feel I should
share a few comments to make clear where I stand, or don't, in case
questionsquestions.net readers are interested. The Thorn episode
has come and gone, and went down thus:
Thorn's first article was "Mike Ruppert Unmasked" (Oct. 1):
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/ruppertx.html
After Ruppert dismissed this critique, Thorn wrote a follow-up,
"Mike Ruppert: 10 Unanswered Questions":
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/ruppert10.html
to which Ruppert responded on October 7, with "Michael Ruppert Responds
to Victor Thorn's Ten Questions":
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/10questions.shtml
My (partial) take on Thorn's first article: a great deal of this
is a waste of time & effort, being a lot of personal commentary
and some "sour grapes" issues. Yeah, I've already known for a long
time that Ruppert is an asshole and a megalomaniac. That is reason
for caution, but doesn't inherently mean that anything he's saying
or doing is already wrong. But one example of somthing I take very
seriously is Ruppert's bizarre penchant for making lawsuit threats,
as illustrated by his recent threat against a theater production
which he claimed had unjustly stolen his ideas concerning Cheney's
role in the 9/11 op. This left me astonished and disturbed. The
exchange, from the 911 Truth Alliance list, can be found here:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/ruppert_threat.html
Thorn's question about Ruppert's lawsuit-mongering is obviously
sarcastic and in jest, but at the same time I am totally unmoved
by Ruppert's evasive "answer" on the subject, which offers no reassurance
to those of us who are concerned about his behavior.
The one part of Thorn's "Unmasked" which I find especially important
is the Vreeland issue. I hadn't previously read the piece by Ron
Anicich which Thorn quoted in full, and found it to be quite an
ugly reminder of an episode that Ruppert did not seem to handle
well — and that's my opinion even if Vreeland was still actually
genuine. At one point, I was one of those sticking up for Ruppert
vis a vis Vreeland, in his battles with the "gatekeepers"...
but now, I tend to think that this was a case where the gatekeepers
wound up being handed some ammo unnecessarily. Note, however, that
I haven't yet read Ruppert's book, so I'm withholding any final
judgements for now.
A search for "Brian Salter" in Thorn's "Unmasked" will bring up
an example of how those of us who have rallied around Ruppert in
the past have been sucked into backing up his "my way or the highway"
interpretations of current events that haven't all come to pass.
And those of us who have parted ways with Ruppert on the "peak oil"
issue are now in an awkward spot, with his millenialist huffing
and puffing that "peak oil is the only story". So, some of us who
worked hard to shield Ruppert from attacks and build his credibility,
now find ourselves villified and mocked by his site as "flat earthers"
and the like for failing to fall in lock-step behind his "peak oil"
line. Was Ruppert meant to be a lightning rod? Was the war with
the "gatekeepers" a case of "legend-building?" Another researcher
who is a "peak oil" skeptic wrote to me, "we've created a monster..."
and I find myself increasingly suspecting that he may be right,
and I do not feel too good to be saying so.
There are several other "answers" from Ruppert that I personally
find unconvincing:
#1, Population Reduction: Ruppert claims to abhor the history of
Nazi / Rockefeller eugenics. But in his critically important speech
to the SF Commonweath Club, he specifically lauded Charles Galton
Darwin as "distinguished". See Dave McGowan's latest:
www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr70.html
The fact that Ruppert would make such references while pleading
agnosticism on specifics concerning his call for "ethical" population
reduction -- especially being based on theoretical claims that are
disputable -- is totally unforgivable. This is not a subject where
one can play with fire and disavow the potential consequences based
on ambiguity. I will share more of my views on this issue in upcoming
articles.
#2, Pinnacle Quest International: Check out these links before taking
Ruppert's version of the story for granted (these are just a sample
of the vast amount of coverage of PQI, which Ruppert it seems would
like us to believe are all the result of a Wall Street / IRS conspiracy):
"Some of the newest players on the scam the public scene who are
going to get a lot of innocent victims indicted are Global Prosperity
and the Joy Foundation. The millennium packet and the tax statement
are a prescription for trouble."
http://www.anti-irs.com/i_told_you_so.htm
Note what Ruppert has to say:
"PQI has presented some remarkable information that is totally suppressed
in the US. That includes... rock-solid legal evidence that the 16th
amendment was never ratified, thus making the Federal income tax
illegal... One of their key presenters, Bill Benson, was actually
imprisoned, tortured and drugged before being acquitted, exonerated
and released. He has won every court case where he appears with
his documentation and the IRS is scared to death of him."
But according to William Conklin of the 'anti-irs' site that PQI's
"rock solid" evidence is leading hapless would-be tax protestors
right into the loving arms of the Feds:
"I have warned you folks for years about the Global Prosperity
scam. They've changed their name to Pinnacle Quest, International.
The problem is that they are now using and selling Bill Benson's
work. As I have said... Bill Benson has done some very fine research.
But the courts have rejected most of what he has had to say so far.
So when Global Prosperity morphs itself into another entity like
an alien invader from a bad movie imitation of Star Trek, don't
blame me, 'cuz I told you so! Stay away from them. They'll charge
you $5,000 for a plan that will take you straight to jail. When
will the public ever learn?"
http://www.anti-irs.com/charlatans.htm
The widely respected anti-fraud site, Quatloos, says of Benson:
"Every court in which a tax protestor has used arguments raised
by Benson has upheld the votes of the 38 states ratifying the amendment
(only three states' votes were challenged at the time) and Benson's
arguments have lost every time used. Benson brought arguments that
other highly knowledgeable people, including Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes, could have made against the amendment. No one, except a
few in the states already mentioned, did so. Benson, who admittedly
is not a constitutional expert, and who admittedly did not obtain
copies of the state laws of every state he says violated its laws
to pass the amendment, is simply one more tax protestor who thought
he had found a clever way to avoid paying the tax. He was wrong."
http://www.quatloos.com/bill_benson_debunked.htm
Here is what Quatloos has to say about the latest activities of
Robbie Struckman, brother of Dave Struckman (who Ruppert portrays
as something of a heroic martyr):
http://www.quatloos.com/irs_codebuster.htm
Just because someone has been taken on by the IRS and the mass media
doesn't mean they're a hero. For the time being, I for one continue
to view Ruppert's endorsement of PQI as bizarre and extrremely perturbing.
Perhaps Ruppert will share more details about what went into his
"background check". Was it as thorough as his "background check"
of John Gray??
Also, Hopsicker has brought up some similar info about PQI in his
latest piece ("911
Cointelpro part III") which challenges Ruppert's take on
PQI.
#7, Poison Pen: The individual quoted by
Thorn is, I am fairly sure, Barbara Honegger. I witnessed the exchange
between her and Ruppert, or one similar to what Thorn mentions,
on the 911 Truth Alliance list, and it was ugly. Even though I agreed
with Ruppert on the objective point of the debate, his insults were
quite shocking. Additionally, I think Dave McGowan's newsletters
have offered some illustrations of a nastiness that Ruppert not
only cultivates himself but also seems to inspire in a few imitative
followers. This is a real problem.
[Correction; 5 Nov.: The individual referred to in the above
case was not Barbara Honegger, as it turns out. Although she has
had some confrontations with Ruppert on that same list, it was in
fact NYC-based activist Angie D'Urso who was the target of this
comment by Ruppert. I had forgotten this particular exchange, until
she reminded me. Unlike the case with Honegger, I sided with Angie
on the objective points of that exchange.]
As for the other points that I haven't mentioned, I am either undecided
or find Ruppert's side to be convincing. While Thorn may have brought
up some legitimate points, there sure are some amateurish cheapshots,
such as wasting time questioning Ruppert's journalism training or
dredging up purely personal gripes. I think Thorn has muddied things
up by issuing a flawed and sloppy attack, which has probably made
things more difficult for those who want to criticize Ruppert in
a more thoughtful and disciplined way.
As for Daniel Hopsicker, there are many complicated issues brough
up by his recent articles. There's some overlap between the research
he has presented and what I've written about concerning John Gray,
but Hopsicker's goes much further. My own research hasn't led me
to any direct evidence to show what control Khashoggi may have had
over the 9/11 Inquiry in Toronto, or the activities of the "911
Truth" org, and I made a similar caveat about an earlier Hopsicker
piece in my "John Gray Dossier". I also think that Hopsicker's writing
on this can be fairly criticized for overgeneralizing and casting
suspicion on too wide a group of people, when there are really just
a few key figures who are particularly suspicious. Recently, I posted
this comment to a discussion group:
"i think that hopsicker's new research stands on its own,
but not all of his commentary and opinion needs to be taken at
face value. i think he's blasting too widely -- the 911truth organization
is not unified or hierarchal, from what i know. it's to some extent
an umbrella organization. so everyone who is involved shouldn't
be tarred by the khashoggi infiltrators & collaborators, nor
should this be the case with the toronto inquiry. hopsicker's
writings could thus lead people to make overgeneralizations that
are damaging, and he also rubbishes some areas of theory and/or
speculation that are respectable, such as tower demolitions and
remote control."
These reservations aside, I think that the info and leads in these
two pieces are generally very important, and I think Hopsicker can
be given a little slack in light of the fact that he's been on the
receiving end of a lot of cheapshot needling and sandbagging.
I also think that Hopsicker has a point when he argues that the
concerns that some people have about avoiding a limited hangout
or a deceptive "get the Saudis" gambit can be taken way too far,
to the point that very real leads are dysfunctionally ignored. Indeed,
I really wonder what is the real motivation on the part of those
who are pushing this to the point that they seem to create a taboo,
almost portraying any discussion of Saudi involvement whatsoever
as a capitulation to the "official story".
911 Cointelpro: The Level Above Saudi
http://www.madcowprod.com/mc6612004.html
John Gray and Saudi Genesis
http://www.madcowprod.com/mc6712004.html
Khashoggi, Cults, Cover-ups, and Mars and Venus doing Lunch
http://www.madcowprod.com/MC6812004.html
A recent series by Alex Constantine seems to me to strike a fairly
good balance in terms of looking at the Saudi connections to 9/11
while also carefully tracing the important threads which lead back
to the real terror masters in the elites of the US and its allies:
Saudi Entrepeneur Adnan Khashoggi Linked to 911 Terrorists
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/khashoggi-911.html
One particularly important part of Hopsicker's research is his
now overwhelmingly compelling case that John Gray is indeed fairly
viewed as an asset of Adnan Khashoggi, who, as Hopsicker explains
in detail, actually created Gray's career as a bestselling author
right from the start. This is the clincher in my opinion, coming
on top of the already well-documented connection between Gray and
Ramy el Batrawi, Khashoggi's henchman. Thus, some of the caveats
and cautions that I originally voiced in my "John
Gray Dossier" about Hopsicker's claims are now greatly
lessened. For some unknown reason, Ruppert is still defending Gray's
obviously deceptive cover story, as with this statement which he
made on Oct. 12:
"1. To my knowledge it has never been established that
Adnan Khashoggi has played ANY role in the 9/11 movement. The
only documented – from a journalistic or legal standpoint
– connection was the fact that AK bought into the company
selling John Gray’s products about two years before Barrie
Zwicker asked Gray to speak in Toronto. How does that establish
AK having a “role” in the movement? How does that
establish that Gray is AK’s stooge? How does that establish
any connection before, or after Toronto? Where has it been documented
that Gray actually influenced anything after he spoke in Toronto?
I have seen him on no programs anywhere. If there is more, I’d
be eager to see it. I only met Gray once (in Toronto) and have
never spoken with him since. He said that AK screwed him out of
royalties. Can we not ask for a higher standard than this? "
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/message/7866
I was completely stunned when I read this. Ruppert's exoneration
of Gray is based on legalistic hair-splitting (if even that) and
defies common sense. Based on this, my opinion is that Ruppert has
made himself a de facto and pre-emptive apologist for anything and
everything that Gray might be doing currently in cahoots with Khashoggi
and his circles.
I may have more comments about other issues raised in Hopsicker's
"911 Cointelpro" pieces later on. The connection Hopsicker
tries to draw between the two versions of Genesis Communications
Network is speculative (as he admits... but there may be other,
even more substantive reasons to scrutinize GCN's "Powerhour"
team... see previous blog entry). There's
a certain amount of other "wait and see" material still
in there, and also, as I think is on many people's minds, reasons
to be cautious about not letting these revelations cause some of
the truly worthy ideas and people on the radical edge of the 911
Truth Movement to be lumped together hastily and unfairly with the
unworthy.
|