Ruby Slippers and the Rubio-Alex Jones Confrontation

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

“Ruby Slippers” are the red shoes worn in the movie The Wizard of Oz.

That movie was used as the basis for training many children in MK-Ultra. You may have noticed that it was re-played every year in TV in the US. That is apparently because the kids need to be “topped up” so their thinking stays on track.  Many code words are used in the movie.

According to Fiona Barnett, loads of victims are “breaking out” lately, thanks to her own, and other persons’, publication of information about the MK-Ultra torture.  The CIA does not want this to happen (Whoops, too late, CIA) so they are trying to call kids back in, by announcing in the mainstream media that the “ruby slippers” have been found. So says survivor-sleuth Fiona Barnett, at her website pedophilesdownunder.com.

According to Fiona:

“The Wizard of Oz book series were specifically written for the purpose of Luciferian mind control and the re-programming or reinforcement of children’s existing programming.  Children must be regularly re-triggered and re-traumatised for the artificially induced neural pathways to stay open, and those naturally existing pathways that were forcibly closed, to remain shut.

“Along with Alice in Wonderland (written by a pedophile) Wizard of Oz is a base MK-ULTRA program. Seeing images of Ruby Slippers is a trigger for MK-ULTRA victims to click our heals & ‘return to home’ – our base program. It’s like an inbuilt reboot system that wipes clean any system anomalies collected.”

It was the FBI, of all people, that announced the capture of the slippers which were stolen “more than a decade ago” from Judy Garland’s namesake museum in Minnesota. Hey, I’ll bet the original theft of the slippers was done in the first place, looking ahead to a day when some kids might need a bit of rebooting.

It’s rather embarrassing that CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC all reported the find of the stolen shoes. Surely not an important topic. Ah, and the BBC. I guess they have “escaping slaves” in the UK too.

In sum, the MSM knows what it’s doing. Below I shall make the point that the MSM is trying to make us believe our publishing days are over when this is not true at all.  So let’s not fall for it.  Resist!

The Rubio-Jones Confrontation

Everybody in alt-media was tense, following the video of Alex Jones, of conspiracy theory fame, arguing with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) in the corridors of the Capitol building.  My sense, as I watched it, was one of dread. Yes, it was reminiscent of Nazi Germany (at least per the way Nazi’s have been conveyed to us in movies). One wondered if it would get violent, as there were armed guards swarming around.

A violent confrontation would certainly be scary. But a day later I see the issues differently and it is not scary. (Hurricanes scare me, the MSM’s bluff does not.)

Writers at GumshoeNews.com regularly stand up to the powerful (at least in print), and we assume we can get away with it.  Tom Paine and others (circa 1780) worked out a persuasive argument that speaking truth to power is for the good of all.

My upbringing in the US in the 1950s and 1960s included a huge dose of pride in America’s tradition of protecting free speech. Are those halcyon days over? The bottom line of this essay is that the short video of “the clash” at Capitol Hill is not a proper guide as to where we stand.  I am persuaded that it was more or less a psy-op.

If I ever go to a committee meeting on a subject I am very angry about, I may — conceivably – shout my question from the gallery.  Note: a lady from Code Pink did disrupt Rubio’s Committee meeting in such a way. Then, after holding up a poster, she allowed herself to be quietened, or maybe escorted out – as is typical of protesters in the Capitol.

(By the way, if I yelled, few of my fellow citizens would admire me; they would think I was a pest.)  The rules of protest are not clearly defined. The US Constitution specifically protects:

“the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

 Jones, in the corridor, merely broke the rules of etiquette by interrupting and by repeating his complaint. But etiquette is hardly an essential factor in political power games. So what is really going on here?

“Foreign Influence on Elections”

It relieves me to think that the Senate Committee meeting was set up (if I am correct, and of course I may be out in left field).

The meeting’s alleged purpose was to “grill” the chiefs of Facebook and Twitter about the possibility that their platforms may result in foreigners influencing American citizens at election time.

This is a terrible joke on several levels.

First, at the Tom Paine level: people need to hear whatever is in the air. How can one’s intellect work without there being some content in the old noodle?

Second, the fact that “whatever is in the air” is from an overseas nation is irrelevant.   There is no tradition in Western culture for excluding ideas because they are foreign!

Third, there is the problem of a definition of disinformation. As stated in The Atlantic this morning (September 6, 2018): “The committee had been grilling the Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg and the Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on their companies’ role in spreading disinformation to impact elections.”

Who in the world can know which information is accurate and which is part of the enormous business of muddling the brains of the citizens.

So what was the real purpose of the committee meeting?  By the way, the “committee” is the Intelligence Committee. Oh dear. Partly it may have been set up to provide copy for newspapers to “analyze” the problem of “foreign interference”. That would give the US media yet another chance to discuss “the Russian probe.”  (Their ability to hold forth on that non-topic is phenomenal.)

Is Alex in Cahoots with the MSM?

I harbor the suspicion that the Rubio-Jones corridor scene was “staged”.  Let me now add to what I said about the senate meeting having been staged.  I ask: If you’re going to make a meeting with deceptive content, why not turn it into something sexier – something that would grab the attention of Jones’s mostly-young followers – by bringing in an “incident in the corridor”?

Here are some MSM headlines about the affair:

CNN: “Rubio to InfoWars’ Alex Jones ‘Don’t Touch Me’.”

The Atlantic: “Alex Jones’s Bizarre Spat with Mark Rubio”

NPR: “Mark Rubio Clashes with Alex Jones in Capitol ‘I’ll Take Care of You Myself’.”

The Guardian: “Don’t Touch Me” — Marco Rubio and Alex Jones Clash

Some of those headlines appeared soon after the event. Recall Marjorie Pritchard’s ability to get 350 newspaper editors to take up her recent cry against Trump?   Maybe she did not have to contact them, maybe the word came down from on high.

The word must have come down from on high to make a scary story about Alex.

Consider all the care that the media put into “influencing” us. They don’t just provide copy, they provide background atmosphere.  They provide clues to help us think the right way.   Currently, Jones’s fate is being used to indicate to us all that our days of free speech are over. Jones himself is acting like it’s End Times.

Don’t you believe it!  Don’t let the Powers That Be fool us once again.

The Issue of Google Being a “Utility”

When Alex was walking around the corridors of the Capitol, he kept saying “I’ve had no chance to confront my accusers.”  It seems that during a whole series of meetings on press-freedom, Jones’s name had been repeatedly besmirched. (I wish they would besmirch mine; I could use the publicity!)

Must he strong-arm (or even soft-arm) a Congressman? to get redress of that very real grievance?  I doubt it. There are other ways, including a lawsuit for defamation.

But now let’s look at his main complaint – that he has been de-platformed. Is there redress? Is government required to help?  Do First Amendment protections figure in this case?

I have uploaded 32 videos to Youtube for free and enjoyed all that amazing contact with strangers out there. I also run 5 websites. I pay for them, and am not really clear as to who gets the money. He or she is simply known as a “server.”  And then there is the matter of free email service, both in and out – and some cute organizing of it – from the faceless wonders known as Google and Yahoo.

What God hath wrought!

I never signed a contract with Youtube.  Had I done so, it would have had to be balanced — under contract law, I give them some “consideration” and they give me the service. But it was a freebie from them. They don’t owe me nuttin’. I can’t sue them if they stop publishing my videos.  Yes, Alex, they can de-platform us.

It does appear that under the rubric of free enterprise they can screw whom they like. They could, starting today, publish only the work of old people, or teenagers, or Jews, or qualified musicians.  Whatever.

The protection of free speech in the First Amendment is specifically a protection against government tyranny.  It says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” Today Americans cannot ask government to assure the right to keep their videos up there on Youtube.

I wouldn’t even say the platform has been “privatized.” That word is used when a government function has been transferred to business. The free platform stuff was always business.

Probably it was originally CIA and probably its Orwellian purpose has to do with putting us under control on myriad ways. If you want to change that, you need to write new law. Maybe you could have Google designated as a Utility, there is some governmental regulation of utilities.

Or maybe you need to start your own Youtube-type stuff. Or bring back the soapbox. And leafletting. Why not? (I must grant here that Alex Jones frequently urges everyone to publish whatever they can.)

Senator Marco Rubio, despite being a Republican, says we will allow fewer conservative voices. Oh really?  He ought to read Gumshoe. We are not dead yet, Mr Senator. As of this moment, 10:00am (Melbourne time), September 7, 2018, I am alive AND PUBLISHING.

Try and stop me.

— Mary W Maxwell is the author of Fraud Upon the Court: Reclaiming the Law, Joyfully