Hufschmid / Murdoch Coincidence
I just discovered that my half-sister, Kathryn Hufschmid
(we have the same father, but different mothers), is probably the same
Kathryn Hufschmid who married Rupert
Murdoch's son, James.
I have not seen Kathryn since she was about 4 years old, so she has
probably no memory of me. We wondered what happened to her, but my
father has no idea because Kathryn did not have enough of an attachment
to him to bother keeping in touch.
This brings me to a question that people often ask me; specifically,
how did I get involved in the 9-11 movement?
A review of how I got involved in 9-11
I was a typical, clueless American when the 9-11 attack occurred. At
the time the only documents I had posted on the Internet were about
Linux. My documents were mainly complaints about the exaggerated claims
made by Linux supporters, and that people were being deceived into
believing that they could switch from Windows to Linux. I also
had a couple documents in which I complained that Bill Gates of
Microsoft appears to be mentally ill, that competition doesn't work
with operating systems, and that our government is doing a lousy job of
supervising the economy.
I did not have a television, and I did not subscribe to any
publications because I became disgusted with the idiotic news reports
when I was a teenager. During the first few days my only source of
information about the attack was the Internet messages boards and news
I was surprised to find most people were complaining the attack was unprovoked. On Friday,
September 14, 2001, I posted documents on the
Internet in which I complained that the Arabs were merely retaliating
against us for the decades of abuse. I pointed out that the Arabs
were behaving like Lorena Bobbitt.
Not many people agreed with my Bobbitt analogy. Instead, I noticed
message boards where people would complain that something was
suspicious about the attack. I also received a few email messages that
told me that it was the "illuminati" or the CFR or the Bilderbergs who
behind the 9-11 attack. I had never heard of such words, so I ignored
them. I assumed those people were "conspiracy nuts".
I also occasionally saw messages about a "global hawk", which I assumed
was some type of bird that migrates long distances. I ignored those
By Jan 2002 these conspiracy nuts had gotten me curious enough to look
closely at the collapse of the towers. I quickly came to the conclusion
that the towers were demolished with explosives. I then posted
documents on the Internet about this.
Very soon after my documents were posted, somebody told me Building 7
also collapsed. Somebody else told me there was video of the collapse
of Building 7 on the internet. I asked where the video was, but the
person would not tell me. Instead, he (or she?) told me how to find the
video. So I found video of Building 7 collapsing. I soon revised my
documents to include Building 7.
Somebody else emailed me a photo of Building 7 before it collapsed. The
photo showed a few fires burning. I asked where the photo came from,
but he said he forgot. However, once I knew the photo existed, I began
to search for it, and eventually I found it.
I then began sending email to professors, scientists, architects, and
other people to look into this issue of explosives in the towers and
Building 7, but everybody ignored me. I became especially frustrated
when I tried to explain this concept to my relatives. I decided that it
would be easier to explain this with a book that had color photos and
diagrams. So I decided to write a book. I stopped updating my web
pages, other than to correct mistakes, and began the book.
In my book I referred to the people who did 9-11 as the "Axis of Good"
because I still had no idea of the meaning of such names as Illuminati,
CFR, Rothchilds, and Bilderbergers. However, I eventually learned what
Hawk was, and I came to the conclusion that a Global Hawk probably
crashed into the Pentagon.
As I was writing the book, it occurred to me that Building 7 was the
command center for the 9-11 attack. I never bothered updating my
Internet documents to mention that possibility, so nobody knew about
that until my book was finished.
In June or July 2002 (I forget which month) I put a notice
on my web page that my book would be available in a few weeks, and
people in the
media could have free copies. Not many people knew about my
website, so I assumed I should start letting people know about it
actually have an a final date from the printer.
I remember only one person asking for a free copy, and he worked for
the magazine The
Weekly Standard. (I have since changed hard disks and
computers, and I no longer have my original e-mail messages, so I can't
figure out if there was more than one request.)
I had never heard of The Weekly
Standard before, and the name "Rupert
Murdoch" meant nothing to me at the time, but when I looked at their
website it occurred to me that these people were only interested in my
book so that they could pass it on to the Axis of Good. This is one
reason I remember their request.
The main reason I remember them is because they asked for a copy in
early July (or late June -- I lost the email records), which was almost
soon as I put the message on my web site that the book would be
available. Unfortunately, it was taking me longer than I
expected to finish the book. I offered the book too
soon, and now I was worried that I would look incompetent for
the book so early. I was
embarrassed to have the Axis of Good catch me making such a dumb
Rather than make them wait I sent them an
to acknowledge their request and assure
them that the book would be coming "soon". A message came back that
the person was out of his office for a few days, so I hoped they were
all taking summer vacations and would not notice how late my book was.
As the days passed, the expected date for my book was pushed farther
into the future. By the end of July or sometime August (I forget which)
decided I better send The Weekly
Standard a laser-print of my book,
rather than make them wait any longer. The laser copy was missing the
last chapter, and it had a few minor differences from the final
version, but I was worried they would send me a message, or at least
is the book? You said you were going to send us a book! You incompetent
My books were finally delivered to me on 11 September 2002 (I am sure
that date was a coincidence).
As soon as I had copies I sent e-mail to the people I had been
discussing the 9-11 attack with, or who had provided me with help in
finding information. I told them that I just printed a book about the
attack, and it had lots of nice color photos. I offered to send them a
copy for free. All they had to do was send me their name and
To my surprise, some of them did not respond to me, so I sent a second
e-mail message, but they still did not reply.
One person who did respond was defensive and paranoid. He wrote
something like, "Who are you? Why are
you bothering me? Leave me
alone!" I tried to refresh his memory by pointing out that I was
person who was discussing the 9-11 attack with him a couple months
earlier. But he had a paranoid and angry attitude, so I decided
to avoid him.
I was disappointed that none of those people wanted a copy of my book.
I assumed that were afraid to let me know their name and address
because they had become paranoid that the government was watching them
and might intercept the email with the address.
A few weeks after my book was available, an owner of a bookstore told
me that most people don't read, so I should make a video. Soon I heard
this from other people, also. So I started making a video.
Was it all a coincidence?
Is it purely a coincidence that I ended up writing a book about the
9-11 attack? Often people ask me what caused me to write the book since
I was just another clueless American when the attack occurred. Even I
have looked at the amount of effort I put into my book and video and
wondered what caused me to do such a thing. Now that I discover that my
half-sister might be James Murdoch's wife, I wonder if I was a pawn in
somebody's psy-op game.
How many of the coincidences really were coincidences? For example, why
was The Weekly Standard so
quick to ask for a review copy? Not many
people knew or cared about my website, so how did they know about it?
Were they watching all 9-11
sites? Or did somebody point out to Murdoch
that a person named "Hufschmid" was posting documents about explosives
in the towers, and did Murdoch tell some of his people to pay
particular attention to me?
And who were the mysterious people making remarks about Illuminati,
Global Hawks, and Building 7? Were they just concerned citizens who
were innocently trying to spread information about the attack? Or were
some of them deliberately slipping me some clues about the 9-11 attack?
Were they gently pushing me away from my Bobbitt analogy and towards
the understanding that the entire attack was a scam? If so, why would
anybody try to influence me? I am not famous, and only a few
people knew or cared that I had posted documents about Linux and
Microsoft. So why would anybody try to influence me in regards to the
September 11th attack?
I eventually discovered that a few people had mentioned immediately
after the attack that explosives were used to bring down the towers
down. This was months before I posted my documents about explosives.
Therefore, I was not the first person to discuss the issue of
explosives. So why would anybody want me to post documents about a
subject that other people had already posted documents about?
Perhaps because somebody wanted to terrorize Rupert and/or James
Murdoch. It would not have been news to Murdoch that somebody had
posted documents that the towers were brought down by explosives, but
the name "Hufschmid" would have sent a shock through the
Murdochs. They would likely wonder what the connection is between me
and them. They would likely wonder if somebody is sending a message to
Who would want to terrorize Murdoch?
I don't know much about Rupert Murdoch, but all the major news
executives seem analogous to a medical doctor who operates thousands of
clinics in which phony doctors provide patients with whatever drugs
they ask for. None of the major news organizations seem to have serious
reporters working for them. Instead, they seem to
hire entertainers who masquerade as news reporters, and who provide the
sheeple with sexual titillation, Hollywood gossip, and weird crimes.
Some people are disgusted with the major news organizations for taking
advantage of the
horde of sheeple, so perhaps one or more of those people decided to
Some people are also upset with Murdoch for the nepotism in his
company, so perhaps one or more of those people decided to terrorize
Murdoch. For example, a few years ago Rupert Murdoch's son, James, was
living in Hong Kong because in the year 2000 Rupert gave him the
control over a section of the Asian News Corporation.
Today James Murdoch lives in London because in 2003 his father made him
CEO of British Sky Broadcasting Group. Jacob Rothschild was named
deputy chairman. Jacob Rothschild is supposedly part of the same
Rothschild family that dominates the banking industry, and he
supposedly has close ties to the billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who
was recently arrested in Russia.
One of many articles on Khodorkovsky
Perhaps some people are fed up with the attempts to bring back the
monarchies of the Middle Ages in which a few rich families own
everything, and pass all the land and people from father to son.
Perhaps some people are trying to destroy the Bush monarchy, the
Rothschild monarchy, the Rockefeller monarchy, the Murdoch monarchy,
and the others. Since I had already posted documents that Bill Gates
appears to be mentally ill, perhaps somebody was hoping I would write
about these other rich families in the same manner.
My involvement in 9-11 could be purely coincidental, but it could also
be that somebody slipped information to me in order to torment the
Murdochs. Perhaps they wanted me to post documents on the Internet.
Since I was unknown to most people, they may have assumed that not many
people would notice my Internet documents, other than the people they
told about them, such as Murdoch.
When they learned that I published a book and DVD, they may have
worried that they just started a fire that might get out of control.
This would explain why, when I offered free books to some of the
mystery people who provided me with information, they ignored me.
Phenomenal wealth, beautiful women, and colossal scams
This issue would make an interesting movie. Consider how complex
the plot would be:
- Was a disgruntled employee in Murdoch's company angry with
- Or was one of Murdoch's competitors trying to bring down
empire by exposing the 9-11 scam?
- Or did this come from somebody within the Axis of Good? For
was one of the Rothchilds trying to show Rupert Murdoch who is the boss
of the Axis of Evil? Was Murdoch getting out of control? Were the
Rothchilds angry that Murdoch and/or some of his friends were taking
advantage of the scam by demolishing the World Trade Center? Was the
demolition of part of the "official" plan?
- Or was somebody trying to destroy the Axis of Good by
impression that information about 9-11 is leaking out of Murdoch's
family? Was somebody trying to start suspicions and fights among the
Murdoch family and the other members of the Axis of Good?
- Or is somebody trying to help James Murdoch (and/or
what is going on? Are they driving a wedge between Rupert
and James? Or between James and Kathryn?
- Or is Rupert Murdoch one of the more normal members of the
Good, and were the more neurotic members trying to hurt him?
- Or were some people in the CIA or MI6 sending a message to
to quit messing with Britain? If so, was this an official policy of the
agency, or was it coming from some individual employees who were tired
of watching their nation be abused?
- Or was it payback from somebody in China, Australia, or
Hong Kong who
was annoyed with the Murdochs?
- Or were some people in the CIA or MI6 tired of bowing to
in which case the message was not just for Rupert, but for the entire
Axis of Good?
- During the past year or two a lot of information came out
Blair administration having sex with retarded children. And there has
been information about the Princess Diana murder. Is any of this
related to Murdoch and/or 9-11? Is there a fight going on between the
British government and their masters? Did Murdoch or Rothchild release
that information? And if so, was it to put Tony Blair, the CIA, and MI6
back into their subservient positions?
- On the back cover of the first edition of my book I printed
site of a friend. At the time I was writing my book, my friend was
looking for a job, so I put his web site on the book cover and told him
he could sell my book from his web site. His web site was selling
shirts and other gifts that were related to Robert Pelton's book "The
World's Most Dangerous Places", so it would be easy for him to add
another book to his web page.
One of the co-authors of that book was Wink Dulles, the cousin of the
former CIA director, and who the Dulles airport was named after. Wink
Dulles was not interested in joining the CIA (or so we are told). He
was living in Thailand when my book was announced. Not long after, I
heard that Wink Dulles died in a motorcycle accident. Supposedly he
died at the hospital, not at the scene of the accident.
Motorcycle accidents are so common that it may have been a real
accident, but it is also possible that somebody in the Axis of Good
assumed that Wink Dulles was leaking info about 9-11. Maybe he was! How
would I know? I never even met the guy.
Why is it so difficult to figure out what is happening?
The crimes on television are easy to figure out, but 9-11 and other
scams are beyond comprehension. I think part of the reason is that some
members of the Axis of Good are mentally
ill. I think these people are
double-crossing one another, taking advantage of the scams, and
behaving in self-destructive manners.
How can we understand the
motives of people who are mentally ill? How can we understand people
who selfish beyond anything we have experienced? Can you understand why
Jeffery Dahmer ate people? It was not
because he was hungry, in case
that is what you assume.
The widespread attitude in America is that rich
men are some of the finest examples of human life; that they became
rich because they are talented, intelligent people. Most Americans also
assume that these billionaires are happy because of all their money.
But it seems to me that the billionaires are suffering from mental
disorders and are actually very unhappy.
I think they are struggling
for money on the false assumption that money will make them feel good
about themselves. But no matter how much money they get, they are still
the same miserable person. Rather than catch on to the fact that money
is not fixing their problems, they assume they simply need more money.
If the billionaires were doing something useful with their money, then
I would be happy to see them make it. I put some of the money I earned
producing my book and video, for example. I also pay for this web site
with the money I earn (that is why I don't beg for donations to keep
this site going).
But what are the
billionaires doing with their money to make the world a better place?
They seem to be using their money in futile attempts to make
themselves feel better. They need to experiment with Prozac and other
drugs, not make more money.
Many Americans admire wealthy people who give handouts to poor people,
but the handouts don't help
the poor people, and it doesn't help the world. Actually, I think it
makes our situation worse by encouraging poor people to beg for
Most of us experienced poverty
I and millions of other people started our adult life in poverty
because when we first left home we did not have much money. But most of
us found a way to make a living. To most of us, poverty is just a brief
condition we experienced when we first left home. Feeling sorry
for people who never get beyond that initial condition of poverty
is not going to help them.
After some of us pass through that initial poverty stage and are making
a living, we start doing other things with our life, such as enjoying
it. However, some people continue frantically stockpiling
money. Some of them end up becoming very wealthy. But no
matter how much money they have, they never have enough. How are those
rich people any less mentally ill than the people who cannot get
out of poverty?
Would you admire, or be able to understand the mind of, a doctor who
became a billionaire by offering prescription drugs to anybody who
asked for them? Then how could you admire, or understand the mind of, a
person who becomes a billionaire by offering idiotic news and sexual
titillation to sheeple? I think the billionaires just suffer from a
type of mental illness than the poor people.
Can we expect lunatics to commit sensible scams?
Imagine that a group of people with mental disorders get together
to commit collasal scams. Do you think the members of such a group
would treat each other with decency and respect? Do you think they
would work together for the benefit of the organization? Isn't it
possible that some of them will inadvertently hurt their organization
-- and sometimes themselves -- by trying to cheat one another?
Many of the people involved in the 9-11 attack may be suffering from
mental disorders. Can we really expect such a group to behave in
a "rational" manner? Can we really expect to understand the motives of
such a group?
For all we know, the people who demolished the World Trade Center
decided to do so for their own benefit, without telling the "leaders"
of the scam, and some of the other members
of the Axis of Good may be angry with them for doing it.
We are our primary enemy
The primary enemy of every society and organization has always been its
own members. The primary enemy of each person has always been his own
mind. In other words, each of us is our worst enemy.
The Axis of Good is certainly harmed more by their own members than by
you or me. Consider just the reports of sex slaves and sex with
What kind of people are they? Are they really happy, healthy people who
can be trusted?
I think we should expect the Axis of Good to sometimes behave in ways
seem irrational and self-destructive.
The Axis of Good may be a collection of sorry excuses for humans.
Is it any wonder that they have trouble achieving their goals? For
example, they supposedly want to reduce the population, but the
population rises every year. They supposedly want to get control of the
world, but all they have accomplished so far is chaos and wars.
They are failing time after time. They are losers, not winners.
Destruction is easy
It doesn't take talent to create
misery and deaths. Actually,
it is easy
to destroy. By comparison, talent is required to solve problems; to
create something wonderful. For some examples:
- It takes talent and
effort to build a nice house; it doesn't take any talent to burn the
- It takes talent and effort to raise and educate a child; it
doesn't take any talent to kill the child.
- It takes a lot of talent
from a lot of people to create a city that is beautiful, efficient, and
pleasant to live in; it doesn't take any talent to drop bombs on the
- It is easy to write simplistic or deceptive news reports;
takes talent to write reports that are actually valuable to the human
If the Axis of Good were truly wonderful, talented people, they would
at least be able to make a community for themselves to live in that is
better than what the rest of us have. But they live in the same world
they are messing up, they are hurting themselves and their children.
They have to live in the same crummy cities that you and I live in, and
they have to breathe the same polluted air. The also have to visit the
same overcrowded tourist areas, and they have to be concerned about
crime. For example, in an "exclusive interview" with James Murdoch:
interviewing the younger Murdoch in his unglamorous corner office,
with a view over the congested and ugly A4, in the satellite
broadcaster's sprawling west London campus.
The rich Murdoch prince has to work in the same ugly, disorganized,
overcrowed city as the peasants who grow him food, clean his bathroom,
and build his yachts. These rich people can start wars, cheat
governments, and deceive sheeple, but they cannot make a nice city for
themselves. I work in nicer environment than those billionaires (I work
at home). So, just how talented are those billionaires?
Furthermore, the Rothchilds and their friends have apparently been
running these scams for centuries.
There are even reports that Mozart
was one of their victims after he wrote The Magic Flute in an
attempt to drop hints about them.
Even if only a few of the accusations
the Rothchilds are true, it means the world has suffered from more than
200 years of their abuse.
But despite all their wars and scams, they
still have not achieved their goal
of world domination or population
reduction. Will they ever achieve their goals? Or will these
billionaires merely create more wars and misery for everybody,
Is the human race ever going to advance?
What has really improved in human life during the past 1000 years? The
monarchy is still active, and the rich kids are still exploiting the
sending them off to fight stupid wars. Our cities are still choatic and
ugly. Crime and mental illness actually seem much more common today, as
loneliness and apathy. Only technology has improved.
The sheeple will never do anything to make their own lives better, let
alone help to make a better world. Will any group ever form to bring
some real advancements to the human race? Or will the future of the
human race be just a continuation of the chaos we see today?
Or is there a small group quietly struggling to bring down these
monarchies? Is that how I got involved in the 9-11 scam?