Editor’s Note: In this entertaining and informative vignette independent researcher and truth activist Harold Saive explains his unique encounter with the Colorado-based VisionBox Crisis Actors Guild, where he applied for and was briefly granted membership in early 2013. The Crisis Actors organization cancelled Saive’s membership after he made several online remarks questioning the December 2012 Sandy Hook massacre event.
How a Talk Show Host Can Help Defeat the First Amendment
By James F. Tracy
Beginning in April the parents of children said to have perished in the December 2012 Sandy Hook School massacre have filed defamation lawsuits against Alex Jones (e.g. here, here and here) and others claiming the radio talk show host defamed them by repeatedly stating to his audience that the incident was staged. The plaintiffs are requesting an unspecified monetary sum from the defendant, claiming he caused them to be harassed and threatened by parties who share Jones belief that the event was a hoax.
In the event these actions are tried they will in all probability not function as a venue where the veracity of the Sandy Hook event itself can be verified or disproven. Nor will the plaintiffs likely have to provide much if any evidence of harassment or pain and suffering.
The parents’ attorneys assert in one suit that “overwhelming–and indisputable–evidence exists showing what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.” This claim is unanimously (though erroneously) supported by Connecticut State authorities and national news media, and has been accepted as settled fact by a federal judge in Lucyv.Richards.
An open question remains whether the suing parties would need to suppress any countervailing evidence. This is largely because over five years after the Sandy Hook massacre event Jones still routinely exhibits uncertainty on whether or not the shooting was real. It is with this suggestion of “actual malice” that he is setting himself up for an untenable position before a jury.
Sullivanv.NewYorkTimes defined actual malice as a primary requisite for a plaintiff to prevail in bringing a defamation suit. In that famous episode the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an advertisement with factual inaccuracies produced by 1960s civil rights advocates and carried in the Times had not been published with actual malice. The court ruled that under the given circumstances the newspaper’s staff did not run the ad either 1) knowing it was false, or 2) with reckless disregard for the truth.
In the cases at hand Jones’ would-be confusion about Sandy Hook began just hours after the alleged shooting itself, when Jones, perhaps anticipating the mixed orientation of his audience toward the incident, expressed confusion over exactly what took place in Newtown. At the same time, and without any real evidence, he used anonymous callers’ observations to label the event a probable “false flag.” This ambiguity would continue for more than five years.
In the months and years thereafter substantial evidence emerged suggesting the “massacre” was probably a FEMA drill overseen by the Obama administration and presented as an actual attack to lay the groundwork for strengthening gun control legislation. Some of this data was compiled in the book edited by Professor Jim Fetzer, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
Instead of inviting Fetzer on to his radio program following the book’s publication and subsequent censorship by Amazon.com in late 2015, Jones ran in the other direction, actually deleting a story by Infowars writer Adan Salazar from his website and thus in effect joining forces with Amazon to suppress that title’s revelations.
Jones conflicted stance toward Sandy Hook is now even mirrored in his attorney Marc Randazza’s public remarks. “We are going to be mounting a strong First Amendment defense and look forward to this being resolved in a civil and collegial manner,” Jones’ counsel Randazza explained to the New York Times, where he continues to note “that Mr. Jones has ‘a great deal of compassion for these parents.'”
Such a statement suggests how the Sandy Hook official narrative as defined by the media (and in the minds of any potential jury member) is shared by the defendant himself and his own legal team.
University of Texas law professor David Anderson contends that Jones’ repeated waffling on Sandy Hook makes him especially vulnerable.
What I understand is that he’ll say these things at one point, and then later on, he’ll say, “Of course I know that wasn’t true.” If he says things, and then says he knows it wasn’t true, he’s in trouble. If he consistently says, “I never claimed that to be true,” then he’s probably on more solid ground.
Because Jones’ confusing array of broadcast utterances on Sandy Hook are all a matter of public record it will not be difficult for the “prosecution” to demonstrate Jones’ confusion amounts to a “reckless disregard for truth.”
Further, since Jones’ public persona precedes him and given the fact that jurors are often impressionable and will surely not be avid “Infowarriors,” plaintiffs’ counsel will likely find it easy to depict Jones as a devious and malicious actor. Unfortunately, these are all a jury needs to be fed to affirm the parents’ claims.
Jones’ uncertainty on the Sandy Hook massacre is especially unusual for a figure who is the self-proclaimed “founding father of the 9/11 truth movement,” and who for over two decades been the country’s most prominent “conspiracy theorist.”
Moreover, Jones strongly-voiced political opinions in many areas is what his fans find most appealing. In light of this the broadcaster has waffled so much on Sandy Hook that it’s difficult not to believe that he isn’t a pre-designated foil in a broader play to defeat what’s left of speech freedoms in the United States. It’s at least for certain that Jones is not any truth movement’s most desirable ally.
Editor’s Note: MHB has repeatedly explained how false flag terror plays a foremost role in contemporary history (e.g. here, here, and here). Unfortunately this very real phenomenon has been systematically unaddressed by Western governmental, educational and news media institutions. As a result the public is unable to consider or recognize the broader significance of seemingly spontaneous public events.
The most significant false flag incident in recent history has been the the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, since these provided the basis and multiple rationales for the forfeiture of civil liberties amidst a broader “strategy of tension” at home and and a perpetual “war on terror” abroad.
US President Donald Trump has been served with alegal notice [full text of document below] reminding him of his Constitutional duties with regard to the situation in the Middle East, especially his decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and warning him of an impending Israeli false flag operation likely to threaten the lives of US citizens. America’s responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council are also pointed out by the signatories to the notice, who are British journalist Sarah Jane (Lauren) Booth; former CIA Operations Officer Philip Giraldi; ex-Pentagon official Michael Maloof; Scott Bennett, a former US Army Officer and State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism; ex-US Diplomat and Attorney J. Michael Springmann; and Edward C Corrigan, a Canadian Barrister and Solicitor.
1999 Film Portending Today’s “Conspiracy-Fueled Climate”
Editor’s Note: Arlington Road was surely an uncommon Hollywood production in that it addressed “conspiratorial” subject matter, including false flag terror, blackmail by government agencies, the Patriot movement, and pedophilia, all in a not-so-thinly-veiled fashion. The film was developed in the shadow of Ruby Ridge, the Waco massacre, and the Murrah federal building bombing while also eerily anticipating the events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent culture of paranoia and conspiracy the government response to those events helped shape. Arlington Road was also an artifact examined in James Tracy’s infamous Culture of Conspiracy class, which he taught as a tenured faculty member at Florida Atlantic University prior to being terminated for not reporting his protected speech to school officials posted on this personal blog .
Calling Arlington Road an unsung summer blockbuster admittedly stretches that category’s definition. A political thriller in the Parallax View mold, the film did get a wide release (in July 1999), but it was made for a relatively low budget and boasted decidedly mid-level stars: Jeff Bridges, Tim Robbins, Joan Cusack, and Hope Davis.
Nobody likely expected a box-office bonanza. Still, it underperformed even by that metric, finishing sixth on its opening weekend (even though the only other studio film to bow that week was American Pie), and received largely mixed reviews. In today’s conspiracy-fueled climate, the commercial and critical fate of a movie as deftly engineered and deeply cynical as this one might well be very different.
Bridges plays Michael Faraday, a history professor still mourning his late wife, who’d worked for the FBI and been killed in a Waco-style standoff. Seeking a playmate for his young son, Faraday is happy to meet new neighbors Oliver and Cheryl Lang (Robbins and Cusack), as they have a boy around the same age.
Soon, however, Faraday begins to suspect that this seemingly ordinary, exceedingly friendly couple is harboring some sort of dark secret. Some of the personal information they impart doesn’t check out, and as Faraday starts snooping around and keeping tabs, he discovers more and more discrepancies and inexplicable behavior. Eventually, he concludes that the Langs are homegrown terrorists plotting an attack.
Reviving McCarthyism & nurturing Orwellian society
Editor’s Note: In this thorough and articulate analysis the author examines the very real dangers posed by Western governments’ domestic efforts to circumvent the vital exchange of information and ideas afforded through citizen-fueled alternative media. In late 2016 MemoryHoleBlog was among the sites listed by the shadowy ProporNot organization’s as a “Russian agent” that “echoes Russian propaganda.”
Although MHB doesn’t routinely take editorial directions from the Kremlin, we do reserve our right to pass along important observations as we see fit and in accord with the First Amendment. The fact that the US government and her corporate sponsors fund terrorists to loot and destroy countries like Syria while at the same time they fabricate an alternate reality for the American people to mask such crimes is perhaps the most poignant sign of their contempt for anything bearing even a mild resemblance to the free speech provisions ensconced in the Constitution.
The new or expanded Global Engagement Center under the State Department seems to be morphing into what one might someday recognize as Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth.”
Recent events over past months have caused many to suspect the reliability of news and information provided to us, often by our own governments. Alternative news sources threaten to disrupt the message or narrative crafted by governments and large organizations. The US Global Engagement Center is mobilizing in response to counter alternative media, conflicting perspectives and foreign influence such as ‘Russian Propaganda.’
The rush to judgement, complete failure to follow international norms, and subsequent actions in response to both the alleged poisoning of Sergey and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury in the UK and the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria leaves many questions unanswered. That narratives of government officials and mainstream media (MSM) are in lockstep despite the lack of any real evidence makes one suspicious of the ultimate objectives. Whatever these objectives may be, they certainly appear misplaced and bring increased international tension. Both these instances have the appearance of ‘false flag’ operations.
However, despite the lack of a thorough investigation, British Prime Minister May was quick to state the Skripals were poisoned with a nerve agent, Novichok, and claimed it was “highly likely” that it was the Russian government behind the attack. Both the UK and Russia are signatories of the international Chemical Weapons Convention. There are set procedures to be followed in the event of the suspected use of chemical weapons, such as Novichok, which include notification of the OPCW, cooperation of state parties and the instigation of a fact-finding investigation. These procedures were not followed and, in fact, Russia has yet to be included in the investigation or even provided samples.
There seems to be a veil of secrecy surrounding so many aspects of the entire incident. Despite the lack of evidence and the fragmentation of the initial storyline, the Skripal poisoning served certain interests by diverting attention away from the UK government and toward Russia. The subsequent mass expulsions of Russian diplomats from the UK, US and EU countries caused the further deterioration of international relations. Throughout this period, MSM toed the party line and lately it appears to have gone silent.
Closely following the Skripals’ poisoning, surprise-surprise, the famed White Helmets released a video of an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria. Once again, despite no evidence and prior to the arrival of OPCW inspectors, the US, UK, and France launched airstrikes against Syria, targeting supposed chemical weapons facilities. There has yet to be any indication that a chemical weapons attack actually took place. Local citizens and doctors have testified recently that there was no chemical attack and that the incident was staged. Once again, MSM fails to cover the inconsistencies of the story which call in to serious question the actual occurrence of the attack.
This detailed feature-length analysis of the April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombing utilizes primary sources (still photographs and video) to argue that the event was a carefully-coordinated drill presented to the US and global public as a genuine terrorist attack.
Editor’s Note: Vice News is a largely anti-journalistic video production company with a clear political agenda. Their most recent production borrows its title from “activist” groups openly seeking to quell free speech through intimidation, cyberstalking, and fraudulent copyright infringement claims. Some of their methods are critiqued in the video below.