Friday, January 01, 2010

The Unbelievable Fairy Tale of "Rupert the Bear" AKA "Muhammad Rafeeq" AKA "Paul Rupert DeBeer". . . Who Truly Is???

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

"Muhammad Rafeeq", Daryl Bradford Smith, "Ognir" and David Pidcock missed another opportunity to tell us "Muhammad Rafiq's" birth name. Smith has posted interviews he recently conducted with these other men. The interview he conducted with David Pidcock is quite revealing in what these men refuse to reveal, and what they supposedly do. Refer to the following audio starting at 44 minutes, 44 seconds into it:

Quoting from this interview we have:


"Well, David, in light of that statement, you know you, and uh, have known my friend and collaborator, I work with him regularly, 'Muhammad Rafeeq', for several decades now."


"I've known him for a long time. Yes."


"And he has come under fire by critics saying that he is a member of the diamond merchant family De Beers and that I because I used to do a show in South Africa, that makes, the South African connection to my radio show makes me connected to De Beers and. . . . You know we've got these crazy conspiracy nonsense out there, but um they the. . ."

If Smith is referring to me, then Smith is fabricating a straw man argument to knock down. I never said that "Muhammad Rafeeq" is a member of "the diamond merchant family De Beers". Rather, I repeated what Daryl Bradford Smith told me, that "Muhammad Rafeeq" is not the man's original name, that "Rafeeq" is a Jewish banker, and that "Rafeeq" studied cabalah as a practitioner and comes from a family of other Jewish bankers. Smith's straw man argument aside, everything so far stated is perfectly consistent with these facts. I stated that "Rafeeq" was a banker before "Rafeeq" revealed that fact on Smith's show. How did I know it, if Smith did not tell it to me? How did I know that "Rafeeq" claimed to have had a split with his Jewish banking colleagues, if Smith had not told this to me?

Why does Smith raise straw men of his manufacture rather than tell his audience what he told me years ago?

The interview continued. . .


"Do you want me to. . . can I say. . . am I allowed to say. . . what the real story is?"

Why would Pidcock ask for permission to speak the truth about the man's name?


"Well, yes, except that I don't know if 'Muhammad' wants his original family name out though."

Permission denied.


"No, but I would say that he, 'Muhammad', was working in the City of London. He is a very, very clever analyst, uh, brilliant with computers and math, etc. He came to the conclusion that, uh, as uh, Hugh Kingsmill described the City of London and its denizens as 'excrement living on increment.' So that he felt that he had to get out. Now, he had certain information. So he basically changed his name to make everybody think that he'd just. . . uh, ah, he'd just flipped. And he changed his name by (depold?) to Rupert the Bear, OK?"

If Pidcock demands honesty, why did he tolerate the pseudonym for "Rafeeq" and if Pidcock demands truth, why doesn' Pidcock tell us "Muhammad's" birth name and the names of his parents and grandparents, which Pidcock appears to know? Where is the truth Mr. Pidcock? Was it honest to create pseudonyms and pretend to madness?

David Pidcock states in the interview and elsewhere that he is the great, great grandchild of opium manufacturers and opium shippers and persons involved in the East India Company long before his birth. Were these not ultimately Rothschild enterprises? What was the information "Rafeeq" had which he believed compelled him to pretend that he had gone mad, according to Pidcock, though "Rafeeq" has not stated that this fairy tale is correct? Has not "Rafeeq" called upon intelligence agents to have courage and reveal what they know on "The French Connection"? Has he revealed what he knows? Why not start with his birth name?


"Yes, because, because in a prosecution it's kinda hard to be serious about prosecuting Rupert the Bear."


"Right, right. So the there were the three bears. There was mother bear, father bear and Rupert the Bear. And uh so, he. . . I said, well we couldn't, uh, we had. . . we went to give talks in various places. I said well we can't announce you as Rupert the Bear, because we'll all look stupid, and even though I like Rupert and uh the Chinese gentleman that was his mentor in the express, uh, but uh so, um, as you think of it I'll send something quickly. I said well we'll call you Rupert DeBeer, and so it came out of 'the Bear' but it turned into 'DeBeer' for the sake of, um, ah, just having something which sounds credible. Then we were due to do a program in the Middle East, which was cancelled, uh and uh, then, of course, he would have to reveal his identity, using his passport to get visas. So, it was complicated, and so these first name on his passport was used as Paul Rupert DeBeer, not, rather than Rupert the Bear. So it has nothing to do with South Africa. It's everything to do with fantasy."


"Well, uh, you know, the idea, um. . . See, what I've always said to people is, is look at the body of the work. If you have a, if you take issue with my conclusions or the work I've put out there, challenge me."

I did challenge Smith and "Rafeeq" on their nonsensical apologies for Bernard Madoff, and their response was to smear me with falsehoods, avoid the issues I raised, and pretend that I had no basis whatsoever to claim that "Muhammad Rafeeq" was not the man's birth name. Was it honest of Smith and "Rafeeq" to smear me with falsehoods, when I asked a perfectly legitimate question of them, based on Smith's own assertions, and when was it was obvious on its face that "Rafiq's" apology for Madoff was complete nonsense? Where was the truth and an honest and open response when I posed these questions, and issued a fair criticism of their body of work? Why did Smith and "Rafeeq" pretend that I had ulterior motives, when they knew quite well that I did not? Was their behavior honest?


"Challenge. . . Right! Give us the evidence. I'm quite prepared to change anything that I, uh, so long as the evidence supports it."

I do challenge your stories, Mr. Pidcock. I ask you why you did not tell the truth about "Rafeeq's" name, by your own accounts, and ask if you believe such behavior is sanctioned by Islam? I ask you for "Muhammad Rafeeq's" birth name and those of his parents and grandparents? I ask you if "Muhammad Rafeeq" has any Jewish blood and if he studied cabalah as a practitioner? I also ask you to explain why, in your opinion, did your old friend "Muhammad Rafeeq" try to savage me with falsehoods when I posed these questions to him directly, why did he try to make it appear as if there were no basis for my inquiries, and if his behavior is consistent with the requirements of Islam?

Note that Daryl Bradford Smith has failed to name the names of the alleged Mossad agents whose sister was supposedly his patron and who is his close friend. What business is this family engaged in, Mr. Smith, and what are their names? Why did you tell me that you are good friends with prominent Jews in the gold and jewelry trades, importers from Italy, was this not your story? Name names, Smith. Name the alleged Mossad agents. Name "Rafeeq's" birth name. Stop pretending that there is no basis for my legitimate and entirely fair inquiries.