Is Alex Jones behind the conspiracy theory that he is Bill Hicks?

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
November 26, 2014 Anno Domini

Counter-intelligence operatives are sure a crazy bunch, but are they crazy enough to set up their own opposition as a means of managing their critics?

It appears that his may be exactly the case with Zionist/CIA counter-intelligence operative Alex Jones. The completely ridiculous, strawman argument that late comedian Bill Hicks changed his identity by having radical reconstructive plastic surgery in order to appear as the man we know today as Alex Emerick Jones is accomplishing two feats for Jones. Firstly, it makes all conspiracy theories about him look equally ridiculous.
Secondly, it obfuscates the growing awareness about Jones and his ties to Israeli and American intelligence.

If Jones didn’t create this absurd strawman himself, he is currently using it to its maximum benefit as part of a memetic warfare strategy against his growing number of critics. Today, Jones went so far as to post the Hicks theory on the front page of Infowars and spent a considerable portion of his show playing up the theory and laughing at the proponents of it. One caller to the Infowars show today even admitted, along with Jones, that the Hicks strawman is bringing Jones more attention and followers. Jones goes out of his way to bring up the Hicks meme whilst simultaneously bashing his anti-Zionist detractors or the white nationalist crowd (he doesn’t differentiate between neo-Nazis and anti-Zionists). This has the effect of tarnishing a legitimate conspiracy about Jones—that he is a Zionist provocateur. Jones’ co-conspirators in the Jewish-controlled mainstream media are helping spread the Hicks meme, with an article in Texas Monthly, of late. Check out this these clips of Jones talking about the Hicks meme. Notice that he is smiling all throughout his discussion of it. This does not look like a man that is being harmed by the Hicks meme at all.

Jones claims the Hicks meme has been around for about five years, but research shows that it has only really been circulated on the net since sometime 2012-2013—conveniently when the Stratfor leak was gaining prominence. One particular keeps popping up among its seemingly numerous proponents: an internet personality using the moniker “caliberhitter”. CaliberHitter, whose real name appears to be Felix Pantaleon, may have worked for Infowars or may still. His girlfriend goes by the name of Sherrie Lea Laird. You may remember her as one of the whistleblowers of former Infowars editor Molly Maroney, who worked for Israeli intelligence front Stratfor and the CIA’s Parker Media. Apparently, the way Laird discovered this was after Maroney had been communicating with her via email regarding having Hollywood gossiper Tile Tequila on the show. Tequila was nixed from her scheduled appearance on the show, upsetting Laird, who felt Tequila had much to reveal about the Illuminati in Hollywood. In the fallout, Tequila threatened to expose the dirt she claimed to have on Alex Jones, but she never did disclose this and has more or less disappeared from public life. This is when Laird started looking into Maroney’s past and discovered her previous history with Stratfor and Parker Media. It appears that Laird was some kind of informant or tipster for Infowars. Whether she was paid or not is unknown. But it’s likely that this CaliberHitter character was also working with Infowars in some capacity alongside Laird. Laird, after she discovered Maroney’s Stratfor history, was quick to connect Stratfor with Israel, calling Jones an Israelian (sic) and Jew. But she has since entertained the Hicks meme.

Interestingly, Laird was not the first to make the Stratfor connections with Jones. Independent journalist David Chase Taylor was the first. Was Jones using Laird to bury the Stratfor connection that Taylor had made? Who knows, but Laird’s discovery of Maroney and Stratfor went viral and was even picked up by FBI informant Pete Santilli, who milked the revelation for everything it was worth on his radio show, which seemed to become prominent over night.
The timeline looks something like this:


As possible Infowars operatives, Laird and Caliberhitter may have gone rogue and are now just muddying the water with their insane theories. Laird is so crazy, she believes she is the reincarnation of Marilyn Monroe and received mainstream media attention for this belief when her quack Jewish “doctor” supported her claim. Caliberhitter appears to be a ghetto thug wannabe and likely the driving force behind the Hicks meme. He may have even created the meme, as several of his ridiculous theories involve the same pattern of celebrities faking their death and assuming new or used identities. Hitter calls them “Hollywood death fakers”. He also just happens to promote the Jesuit conspiracy meme, which leads into another strawman meme against Jones: that he is a secret Jesuit agent. Here is a list of some of CaliberHitter’s theories bearing close resemblance to the Hicks meme:

Fitzpatrick Informer readers will remember that “Mack Quigley”, as revealed in a recent article, is an admitted Zionist and promoter of the Hicks meme. However, Quigley may just be a sock puppet of CaliberHitter.

It’s disturbing that Jones would go to such lengths to protect his status, but it’s equally disturbing that there appears to be some who sincerely believe in the Hicks meme. Sincere or not, they zealously promote this theory to no end. It seems they are working around the clock to promote it all over the web. And almost all of them seem to also endorse the Jesuit meme, which as I pointed out, leads to the other strawman meme against Jones. The proof of the insincerity of the promoters of the Hicks meme lies in the fact that they only promote the Hicks critique of Jones rather than the well established, credible, and numerous critiques like that of Jones’ many Zionist and intelligence connections. They ignore this despite their plea that they are interested in the truth about Jones’ identity. The source of this Hicks disinformation is likely coming from one place. It is helping Alex Jones protect his true identity, which is that he is a Zionist gatekeeper misdirecting the “truth” movement.


  1. Your analysis of Jones and the shills who are supposedly targeting him makes a lot of sense. I don’t look at the Infowars site much these days, but my impression is that it has, even by its own very compromised standards, become much more msm friendly in recent times. In fact much of its recent content wouldn’t be out of place in mainstream “anti-establishment” publications on the left and right. I’m not sure if this is my imagination, but they seem to me to have more or less completely stopped talking about false flags. A few months ago I saw Jones interviewing some Fox News presenter (whose name escapes me) and telling him that he (Jones) had been misrepresented about his views on 9/11 – that he’d never suggested the Bush Adminstration was in on it – just that certain elements within the system had let it happen and there were questions that needed answering. All the “9/11 was an inside job” stuff apparently more or less completely ditched.

  2. This scam of Ziomasons falsely imputing the conspiracy to Catholics is not new. Au contraire, it’s been a tried and tested technique in countries like Ireland for generations. The presstitutes of the Irish media have for years endeavoured to make the Irish public’s flesh creep with lying poison about the power supposedly wielded by “Catholic secret societies” such as Opus Dei and the Knights of Columbanus. It’s been a very successful strategy for diverting public attention from the real secret society corruption in Ireland. Even many Catholics have been taken in. A couple of years ago during the latest round of the Irish Zio-masonic media hate campaign against the Catholic Church, a prominent Irish politician Charlie Flanagan made a speech in the Irish parliament in which he ludicrously alleged that he knew of many Irish members of parliament who belonged to Catholic secret societies. Flanagan, has since become the Irish Minister for Justice and is an ardent Zionist who supported the Israeli massacre in Gaza. Scratch the surface of almost every anti-Catholic shill like Flannagan and you find a Zionist connection. And that seems to apply to all the shills on the net talking up the anti-Jesuit disinfo. Sometimes such folk will attempt to throw folk off the scent by spoofing about Israel being controlled by the Vatican but no one should be fooled.

    1. Indeed. There is no limit to the absurdity of the Jesuit meme variations. Israeli diamond merchant Eric Jon Phelps claims that the Vatican created Islam. Your, correct, too, that they claim that the Vatican is the real power behind Zionism. They even go so far as to claim that Zionism doesn’t even really exist. So ridiculous. Their dedication to their cause is mind boggling.

  3. This “Sid” character (could very well be Oxley) recently said Greenspan and Bernanke were Catholics!!! When he was called out on that ridiculously easy to refute whopper he said “Oh sorry I got duff info, but they are both papal knights”. Out of curiosity I typed “Alan Greenspan papal knight” into a Bing search engine. Reams and reams of stuff immediately came up about the “Jesuit New World Order Conspiracy”. Sid boasts of his ability to get his stuff to the top of search engines, but something tells he has quite a lot of powerful helpers at his disposal, because there is no way this guy is what he claims – a lone eccentric Bible thumping Protestant fundamentalist. Au contraire he’s a full time Cointel operative. In fact he has let it slip that his father worked for British intelligence. Using many different aliases on the same blog, he will attack the Church on everything from its anti-Communist stance, to its supposed collaboration with the Nazis, to its anti-contraceptive stance, to its opposition to capitalism, to its support for capitalism and on and on. As other posters on the Hitchens blog have noted, he changes not just his arguments, but his tone and persona, depending on what pseudonym he uses. He even poses as a Catholic woman, “Gillian” on occasion – the technique here being that she initially argues with Sid, but then has no answer to his brilliant logic, and admits that she was wrong to defend the Church!!!. He is clearly being protected by someone involved in the Hitchens Mail on Sunday blog – whether Hitchens himself is the culprit, I couldn’t say for sure. Either way it shows that Hitchens’ claims to be a courageous anti-establishment outsider are self-serving hogwash.

    1. Oxley’s correct, they ARE Catholic: their real names are Greenspantini and O’Bernanke.
      Seriously: yes, there have been Jews who have been awarded papal knighthoods. To me that only proves that today’s Vatican is completely at one with the Jew World Order. Could you imagine Pope St. Pius X awarding a knighthood to a member of the People who rejected Christ?
      The fact that Hitchens works for the Mail On Sunday, a sister paper of the Daily Mail which openly boasts of the number of Jews on its staff and its support for Israel, proves that if Hitchens himself is not the one responsible for censoring his blog, some Jewish editor on the MOS is.

  4. Mary Louise: Spot on. The Mail is also the paper that drummed up the Stephen Lawrence hysteria – which was a major boost to Tony Blair’s Orwellian agenda and led to the introduction of “hate laws” in Britain, and also led indirectly to all kinds of other restrictions on freedom. The next time the Mail starts spouting that “Political Correctness Has Gone Mad” its readers should remember that this newspaper itself bears much of the blame. Incidentally the Irish version of the Mail is poisonously anti-Catholic, anti-Irish, pro-abortion, and pro-immigration – which goes to prove E.Michael Jones’ thesis that the Masons are conservative (or faux conservative) and faux patriotic in Protestant liberal countries like Britain, but poisonously anti-national and radically nihilistic in Catholic nations.
    In a weird way the corrupt liberalism of the post-Vatican II Church is a win win for Zio-shills in that those disgusted by the liberalism and pro-Zionist tendencies of the NewChurch are understandably disinclined to defend the modern Church from any attack, whatever its source. I’d argue that this happened in relation to the clerical scandals – many Traditionalists defended the anti-Catholic Zio-media and political class’s onslaught on the Church on the grounds that these days you couldn’t put anything past those running the Church. This may well be true, but I still think the Trads made a huge mistake siding with the Ziomedia on this issue. Just because the modern Church is corrupt, doesn’t mean everything the media say about it is true, in the same way that just because Islam is a false religion doesn’t mean that the media generated myth of “Islamofascist terrorists” coming to get us all is true. In any case the rule of thumb for traditional Catholics should always be that ALL media generated scandals are by their nature psy-ops designed to advance the NWO – even when they contain elements of truth. E. Michael Jones wrote a brilliant article not long ago on the difference between the way the media, Hollywood and the state have treated the allegations against Woody Allen, and the way the same forces treat accused Catholic priests – not to mention the way Church authorities treat them. Indeed some have argued that the conventional narrative of the clerical scandals – that those in authority in the Church covered up for paedophile priests – is in some respects the reverse of the truth – that in reality senior prelates who may have skeletons in their own closet and are therefore very vulnerable to blackmail were happy to throw many innocent priests to the wolves and shell out billions in compensation form Church coffers without any proper investigation of the allegations made. Apologies for most of this post being somewhat off-topic.

    1. Speaking of Stephen Lawrence: the Bliar government overturned the ancient law of Acquit Autrefois or Double Jeopardy so that the already acquitted “murderers” of Stephen Lawrence could be re-tried.
      In England, the law of Double Jeopardy dates from the time of William the Conqueror; you know, that terrible Medieval era when the Catholic Church was all powerful and a person could be accused of heresy or witchcraft and summarily tortured and executed? Not at all like our modern enlightened times when a person can be accused of “antisemitism” or “Holocaust denial” and merely lose their liberty and livelihood.

  5. Mary Louise: Spot on again. Also it’s easy to forget that the Mail’s enthusiastic support for Blair in the run-up to the 1997 election was crucial in converting Middle England to the New Labour cause. The Mail also showed its true colours at last year’s Euro elections, when – like the rest of the msm – it turned savagely on Farage and UKIP. I’m no particular fan of the Whiggish Farage, but his dissent from the Zio line on the Ukraine crisis, and on homosexual “marriage” have marked him out for incessant media vitriol. The fact that he was involved in a near fatal air crash on the day of the 2010 election – when he had the cheek to stand against ultra-Zionist John Bercow – tells its own story.

  6. The Mail makes a show of upholding traditional morality and family values while subtly undermining both.
    Much as I detest The Guardian, it is quite open about its anti-Christianity and liberal agenda, and doesn’t pretend to be something it isn’t.

  7. Mary Louise. Very true. It’s the phoney Hegelian dialectic once again – buy the Guardian and get the cool metropolitan Mocha drinking version of anti-Christian globalism – buy the Mail and get the suburban soft porn Calendar Girls variety.
    A minor correction to my previous post – the Euro elections weren’t “last year” – I meant to write “last Spring”.

  8. The fact that the odious Burchill has written for both the Guardian and the Mail (on Sunday) says it all really.

    1. Burchill left the Guardian because it is “antisemitic”, which translates as taking a slightly more nuanced stance on the Israel/Palestine issue than other rags.

  9. That “slightly more nuanced stance” might be about to change (if it hasn’t done so already) with fanatical Zionist Jonathan Freedland taking over at the helm.

  10. Disappointing to see Michael Hoffman also promoting the Jesuit/Vatican meme on occasion. I admire his courage on WWII but his philo-Puritanism strikes me as the worst sort of blind romantic tosh. Contrary to what he says, the historical record speaks for itself. Not only were the early Puritans deeply connected to early capitalism – they were also early pioneers of feminism, the birth prevention movement, multiculturalism and modern political correctness. This is all easily provable. Citing the opposition to usury of some individuals prominent in early Puritan societies proves precisely nothing – and is akin to arguing that Gilad Atzmon or Shlomo Sand typify modern Israeli attitudes to Zionism. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a case to be made that the Catholic Church went at least partly off the rails long before Vatican II, but I don’t think Hoffman makes it very well, because he’s too blinded by romantic prejudice. I also find very disappointing the way he eagerly and unquestioningly accepts the media version of the Catholic clerical scandals – a subject he clearly has not seriously researched at all – simply because it suits his prejudice against post-Renaissance Catholicism. Like many folk who rail against the corporate media, he believes them when it suits him.

    1. Very disappointing. I think Hoffman’s research is great, but without a doubt, he comes off as a puritan sympathizer. I have read on the net that he is Catholic, but who knows. He isn’t open about his personal views other than what comes through in his writing. E. Michael Jones documents well the points you bring up about the Puritans. Don’t know why Hoffman ignores this. Good point about being too willing to accept the Zionist whore media stories of clerical scandals. It’s much easier to fake the scandals at first, get them in the public mind, then later retract the story when everyone has moved on. I am sure much of it is contrived. Speaking of Hoffman and the corporate media, he sure seems to “monitor” the New York Times quite a bit.

  11. Current allegations about, Prince Andrew, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Evelyn de Rothschild and the ghastly Alan Dershowitz illustrate Dr Jones’ point about media double standards all too well. Even assuming that Andrew and Dershowitz are completely innocent of the specific charges, imagine the outcry there would be if, say, a Catholic cardinal was seen to be hanging out with a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker. Yet Epstein’s post-conviction friendship with Andrew has been known about for years and almost nobody in the msm has ever brought it up. Interesting too that one of the alleged sex slaves claims that part of her duties was to keep a record of what went on with these vip clients – in order to furnish blackmail material.
    I’ve also read that Hoffman is a Catholic and some of the stuff he writes certainly suggests that he is – e.g. a piece celebrating Bing Crosby not long ago. Apparently he takes great pride in being a descendant of one of the German Anabaptist leaders, Melchior Hoffman – which may partly explain the inconsistencies in his religious outlook.

  12. I, too, wondered why Hoffman was so keen to give Cromwell a pass and describing those who believe that he was backed by Jewish bankers as ‘right wing’. Personally, I don’t fall for the left wing, right wing schtick.

  13. War criminal Blair kept a bust of Cromwell on his desk – which should tell us all we need to know about both men. Cromwell is one of those characters venerated equally by the Whig “right” and the Fabian “left” – almost always a sign of moral turpitude. There was a very interesting article in the Christmas 2011 edition (issue 29) of the much lamented Apropos journal: “The Origins of The New World Order” by Christian Lagrave (originally published in French in Le Sel de la Terre, issue No.68 (Spring 2009). This brilliant piece exposes Cromwell’s supposed Puritan religious zeal as a complete sham – it was in reality nothing more than anti-Catholicism dressed up in religious garb. His real aim was to form an anti-Catholic alliance across Europe, and his plan was to unite all Protestant sects, including Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Independents/Congregationalists, Unitarians, and even Anglicans/Episcopalians – whom Puritans were supposed to despise – in this anti-Catholic struggle. Quite astonishingly he had chaplains from all these sects in his employ. He also betrayed the proto-leftist groups such as the Diggers and the Levellers, even though they brought him to power. Shades here of Lenin’s pro-capitalist New Economic Policy, not to mention the liquidation during the Stalin era of many of the Old Bolsheviks And then of course there was Cromwell’s philo-Judaism – which Hoffman seeks to whitewash. As I say, disappointing that a man of such integrity and courage can delude himself so.

    1. Statements like this coming from Hoffman shock me:

      On January 7, 1985 the seven week show trial of German-Canadian dissident Ernst Zundel commenced in Toronto, Canada. The “Crown” prosecutor sought to have Zundel imprisoned for two years on a charge of disseminating “false news,” a surrealistic “crime” in the eyes of the Queen of England (thank God for the American Revolution).
      Is it me or does Hoffman have no clue about who orchestrated the American Revolution and why?

  14. I don’t understand Hoffman’s fondness for Puritans. I used to think the reason behind it was American patriotism, due to the role played by English Puritans in American history. However, now I’m not so sure. surely he must realize that today’s Christian Zionist movement has its roots in Calvinistic Puritanism.
    You are right about Cromwell being admired by dodgy .people on the Left and the Right. For instance, he was admired by two disparate characters as Ian Paisley and Tony Benn. The one thing the two have in common, apart from their liking for Cromwell, is their anti-Catholicism.

  15. Tim, I visited that Caliberhitter’s YouTube channel. What a piece of work! I see he’s done a hit piece on you.

  16. Just watched that vid. Guy sounds seriously strung out. Can hardly string sentences together. Difficult to even know what he’s blathering about. Only way that zonked out loser is going to “take out” anyone is if Mossad or some other branch of organised Zio-crime do it for him. As I’ve said before a similar shill working the Mail on Sunday gig – and various “alternative” sites such as the Tap.

    1. Caliberhitter is definitely shilling for the jewish criminals. However, he’s so stupid that he doesn’t even bother to hide the fact that he’s a shill.

  17. “They never mention names” he sez. Yeah right, no anti-Zionist ever talks about the Rothschilds, or the Schiffs, or the Warburgs, or Lloyd Blankfein, or Ben Bernanke, or Alan Greenspan, or Jeffrey Epstein, or Robert Maxwell, or Jack Abramoff, or George Soros, or Sheldon Adelson, or Rupert Murdoch, or Harvey Weinstein, or Paul Wolfowitz, or Scooter Libby, or Bernie Madoff, or Marc Rich, or Ernest Saunders, or Norman Podhoretz, or Irving Kristol, or William Kristol, or Richard Perle, or Alan Dershowitz, or Dov Zakheim, or Peter Mandelson, or Lord Levy…etc. etc. etc.

  18. Notice a classic anti-Jesuit disinfo comment on Makow’s Hedy Lamarr thread today. I’d be very surprised if this isn’t the “Sid” character from the P Hitchens blog – who is very obviously being protected by the gatekeepers at the Mail on Sunday. These trolls/shills are clearly deputised to try and steer conspiracy discussion away from the real source of the problem, and into Full Spectrum Dominance mode, whereby both sides – the conspiracy “establishment and the erstwhile conspiracy theorist “anti-establishment” basically deliver the same anti-Catholic Zio-Masonic message. By throwing in some token guff about the New World Order and the Masons and international banking, the anti-Jesuits shills can lure the unwary anti-globalist into their orbit – but asking them their views on issues like contraception often reveals their true colours. In fact I suspect that it was my pursuit of “Sid” on these issues that led Hitchens (or his masters) to quite blatantly take down my comments from his blog – in spite of his claim that he didn’t censor. The lesson I take from it all is that the one and only real enemy the globalists have is the Catholic Church – and they are absolutely terrified of a Catholic restoration – a real Catholic restoration that is – not a Vatican II “renewal”

    1. I’ve written a reply to the post you mention. It remains to be seen if Dr. Makow deigns to publish it.

  19. Henry Makow has not yet published my comment,surprise surprise! He seems to have a policy of allowing Protestants, rather than Catholics to have the ‘last word’.

    1. Mary Louise: Well done for trying. A comment of mine was published on his site a few days ago relating to women in the workplace. But prior to that I hadn’t had anything appear there in yonks – so much so that I’d more or less given up trying. It was a comment I sent in querying some anti-Jesuit anti-Vatican comments by Anthony Migchels that seemed to start the unofficial blockade. I’m always a bit tentative about drawing watertight conclusions about who’s to blame for such blocks, because we all know that various agencies also intercept material, but I think you may well be on to something about a de facto pro-Prod policy on his part.

  20. Just noticed on Jim Stone’s site a piece on the Jesuit meme in which he quotes from a contributor to his forum called “Sean” who claims that Ignatius of Loyola and the Jesuits are illuminati Jews. Stone (who a few months ago approvingly referenced this blog’s debunking of the Jesuit meme) appears to swallow this drivel whole. I say “appears to” because to be honest I’ve always had my doubts about Stone’s authenticity. Not coincidentally the anti-Jesuit memer on a now defunct Irish alternative site called himself “Seany” or “Seanyboyh”. On English sites he calls himself WASP! On Hitchens’ site he uses a wide variety of aliases and different ideological personas. Sometimes he even poses as a female Catholic, who initially strongly defends the Church, but is then persuaded by the superior logic of one his other sock puppet identities. The piece of utter drivel Stone quotes approvingly is textbook “Seany”, in that it is carefully tailored to the prejudices of the specific audience he’s trying to influence. For instance if it’s a standard anti-NWO site like Makow, he’ll pose as anti-banker, anti-illuminati. If it’s an Irish site, he’ll pose as Irish (hence the Seany ). If it’s British, he’ll pose as a jingoistic flag-waving Protestant Brit (hence the Wasp moniker) He’s rabidly pro-Zionist on Hitchens blog (where he dons the persona of a fire and brimstone Protestant fundamentalist) but on Stone’s site he’s now posing as a raving anti-Semite (in the real, bad, biological sense of that much abused term) because he wants to promote the anti-Catholic meme to that particular audience. He gave himself very badly away on Hitchens site once or twice (which is probably why Hitchens and his gatekeepers declared war on his tormentors, in order to rescue him), first by admitting that his father worked for British intelligence, and secondly, by writing a strong defence of the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc communism – and attacking the Catholic Church for opposing it. Now whoever heard of even the most deluded Protestant fundamentalist having any time for that particular evil empire? As for Stone: I thought his dissing of the Jesuit meme a few months ago constituted important evidence that he isn’t the NSA shill some accuse him of being. His promotion of this pathological liar suggests that may have been a premature conclusion.

  21. I notice Infowars is going with the official/msm version of the events in Paris today – and shamelessly parroting the neocon line of Julie Burchill, Mark Steyn & co that everyone is scared to tell the truth about Muslim terrorism for fear of being branded Islamophobic. And of course the left-alter egos of the neocons are out in force too, warning against Islamophobia and the scapegoating of innocent Muslims, and the dangerous rise of far-right extremism, blah blah blah. All depressingly predictable, but interesting that Infowars now no longer even pretends to be outside this choreographed “debate”.

  22. I hadn’t seen the AJ show – the resemblance to Fox is becoming quite uncanny – as usual no mention of the true forces behind the Muslim invasion of the West – and it sure ain’t Muslims. Last night Paul Joseph Watson had a piece on the Infowars site that could well have been penned by O’Reilly or Hannity. Yesterday an RT reporter on the scene in Paris noted, in passing, that, contrary to what was being implied, Charlie Hebdo didn’t just mock Islam, it had also poked fun at “the Jewish community and the Catholic community”. This sparked my curiosity, and sure enough Hoffman’s site makes it clear that the magazine has published cartoons ridiculing Jewish hyper-sensitivity. Which certainly leads to intriguing speculation about who the real culprits might be… And as others have pointed out, the “point-blank range shooting” of the policeman was curiously stilted and unbloody, – more like a paintball attack – without the paint. Not to mention the fact that those implicated in the Epstein business may well be breathing a sigh of relief to be off the front pages…

  23. Apart from one piece by Kurt Nimmo, not the slightest doubts raised by Infowars about official story of Paris “events”. Yet the anomalies in the msm version of this particular extravaganza are actually even more glaring than in many of the previous false flags that used to be Infowars stock in trade.

  24. Infowars now going one step further again and attacking Paris attack “conspiracy theorists”! You couldn’t make it up. Or rather you could… A video by Paul Joseph Watson today attempting to pour scorn on those who have exposed the blatant inconsistencies in the official story of the Paris spectacular. He even tries, none too subtly, to promote an alternative narrative to explain away the incontrovertible proof that no point blank range shooting in the head took place (ricochets, he sez) and appeals – again, none too subtly – for ballistics and firearm “experts” to ride to the rescue of the official line. His main, in fact his only, “evidence” to support this line is that different “eyewitness” accounts all tally, which (A) isn’t true, and (B) even if it were, would in no way invalidate the other overwhelming evidence of staging.

    1. Good analysis. Check my Twitter feed. Couple interesting relative Youtube links. I gotta do another article soon. So much to cover. I want to nail down this Jesuit conspiracy theorism next.

  25. I watched that Free Radio Revolution vid you tweeted. He completely nails Infowhores in general and Watson in particular. The bit in Watson’s video about the fake BBC site is utterly bizarre – the implication being that these Paris “conspiracy theorists” are themselves engaged in a dastardly conspiracy to confuse the public about the true position of the noble BBC and the rest of the equally noble and trustworthy mainstream media. I reckon this may be a jump the shark moment for Infowars – the moment when, to mix my metaphors, the scales finally fall from many alternative types eyes in relation to Jones, Watson & co. One quibble: at the risk of sounding like a goody two-shoes, the guy on the vid might have been well-advised to lay off all the swearing and personal abuse. It detracts from what is otherwise a powerful demolition of Watson’s guff. Infowars now closer to the msm position on false flag attacks than the Turkish President, the mayor of Ankara, and Kremlin officials.

  26. I see Jean Marie Le Pen has voiced strong suspicions about the official version of the “Paris attacks”. Shame on his daughter for not doing likewise. If she or anyone else thinks going along with this latest Big Lie will somehow help the anti-immigration cause they’re sadly deluded.

  27. Very good work exposing Phelps – sounds like he could be one of the main sources of the modern anti-Jesuit meme. The stuff quoted in the piece on Phelps you tweeted is absolutely identical in every particular to what the shill on Peter Hitchens’ blog spews out – not to mention on various alternative blogs – the Cromwell worship, the “WASP” tosh, the “Jesuit temporal coadjutor” tosh – the outlandish and completely unsupported claims that almost everyone who is anyone is a Jesuit, the fake fundamentalism – everything . In fact the only thing that makes me doubt that these shills aren’t all Phelps himself is the question of where he would get the time – especially if he’s a diamond merchant? Maybe he has a team of shills in his employ who are given an identical script to work on. Fairly obvious why the strongly pro-Israel and anti-Catholic Hitchens’ blog appears to be covertly aiding this anti-Jesuit zio-black propaganda scam. Hitchens cries crocodile tears about the British governments extremely creepy agenda of outlawing “extremism”, but in truth anyone, like Hitchens, who moans about a Police state, and yet simultaneously ridicules those who dissent from the official version of false flags like Hebdo and 9/11, is a flaming hypocrite – because such false flags are the mechanism for imposing thes police state – and the exposure of those behind these false flags would bring the corrupt police state apparatus down within weeks.

Leave a Reply to Mary LouiseCancel reply