Sunday 24 January 2016

A view from the bottom of the rabbit hole


The image and text analysis of Miles W Mathis


If you read my previous post about the Wizard of Oz last December then you will remember that, at the end, the curtain is torn to reveal the Wizard and his tawdry den. And that the Wizard represents the fascist globalist scumbag elites who run the holographic media show that most people call "reality".

http://petefairhurst.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/the-wizard-of-oz.html


And, if you read my later post based on James Corbetts' work about big oil/oil-igarchs, then you will have a good idea who these fascist globalist scumbag elites actually are:
Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Windsor/Saxe-Coburg and Gotha [British royals], British Crown Temple [City of London], Orange/Nassau /Ferdinand [Dutch royals], Nobels and a few more.

http://petefairhurst.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/how-big-oil-conquered-world.html

There are even more longstanding powers that are completely unknown to the general public, and even more important. But I offer no proof about that, although there is plenty of info on the web if you care to look.


In the Corbett based big oil/oil-igarch post I promised you a view from the bottom of the rabbit hole. So fasten your seatbelts. This is going to be a crazy ride.

But first: A mental health warning

If you do read to the end of this post then your world view may well be radically altered. I really do mean "the bottom of the rabbit hole". You may become seriously conflicted. Don't say that you weren't warned.



I recently came across Miles W Mathis when I saw a link to his site in the comments section of a a blog that I regularly keep an eye on. Once I started reading Miles "updates" I just couldn't stop. Miles is a very interesting man.

He has ripped massive tears in the wizards curtain. He has in fact torn great pieces of the curtain away from the curtain rail altogether. To reveal the wizards den in all it's evil ordinariness.

As well as an artist, and a scientist, Miles is a leftist cultural and political analyst, with a very acute perception. He connects the dots in the most logical way, and gives you an amazing view from down near the bottom of the rabbit hole. A sort of intellectual Chris Spivey if you like. Without the foul mouth and grating personality. He is not as funny as Spivey, but he reveals far more about famous people and events.

Miles uses strictly official records only. Wikipedia most of the time. No alt media conjecture for Miles. He wants the official story so he can find the holes in it. And boy is he effective. He deconstructs the official story to peel back the layers of falsehood in a relentless search for the truth.

His photo analysis is just as sharp as the tattoo artist, that is for sure, actually sharper if anything. Miles is a classical portrait artist himself, and he has an eye for these things. He understands lighting methods, and their inconsistencies in images that their media present to us as "real". Once he points it out to you, then it seems so obvious. Just like Spivey.




There is a real treasure trove in this site. He explains how the deep state is real, and how it is owned, maintained and controlled by the fascist globalist corporate industrial elites. Using their bagmen/women, appointees and place persons.

These scumbag elites own, or effectively control, all the central banks, private banks and corporations. They own/control everything else that is important too: minerals, resources, national governments, transnational governments etc etc.

They have owned the media, virtually 100%, since the 1950's. There is no doubt about this. [see footnote 1.] And most of the alt media too. So they can spin every story exactly how they want. They have owned Hollywood from the very start too.



The military and CIA, the spooks, are a very big feature. He posits that the creation of the CIA in 1947 signals the end of democracy in the US. Which is further confirmed in recent years because they use the, no audit trail, electronic voting machines to fix every single election. You read that right. There is no audit trail on the US voting machines! So the spooks can push a button and win the election for their chosen puppet. Freedom and democracy? Or un-democracy in the land of the un-free?

Their media always tells you that the spooks work for, and are under the control of, the government of the day. But that is nonsense, the spooks have always worked for the elites, and have always been more senior than most mere politicians. The "connected" ones excepted I suppose. Think about it a bit, and you will sense that I am right. The spooks work for the fascist globalist scumbag elites, first and foremost.

You didn't think that James Bond was real did you? That he takes his orders from M, who takes his/hers from politicians? Well only his number was real, 007. It was the number of Elizabeth I's spy. Honestly. The rest is pure misdirection.

The author of James Bond was Ian Fleming who was a real senior British spook, who helped set up the CIA. The Bond stories were part of their usual media distraction from the real truth. First the books, and then the endless Hollywood films that are all based on the books. All entertaining of course, but all totally misleading too. Very deliberately so. Fleming was a spy ffs! Do you really think that he would tell you the truth?   :-))


Miles "outs" many famous people as, in effect, agents of the spooks. They may not be directly on the payroll, but they often are. The public foots the bill as ever via normal commercial methods, and the taxes, and the black budgets [drugs, guns, financial crime etc]. These are all used to fund the spooks, who are legion. The famous people that he "outs" are feeding the false reality, the hologram, that most people live by in this age of cyberspace first, real world second.

He also "outs" so many well known events as false, and as psyops to condition the public's mind to suit the elites agenda. He digs into the celebs bio, or the official story, and finds the hidden background for so many of my heroes, and my previously accepted histories. His relentless style is compelling. You just cannot stop, at least I can't, because so much is revealed, and with such clear, cold logic. And the pieces are linked together; one leads to another, and the evidence just builds and builds.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Miles is infallible, nobody is, we are all human. He inevitably uses lots of circumstantial evidence, rather than empirical proof. I say inevitably because, given the scale of deception, the spooks are hardly likely to leave proof lying about are they? His theories are very very hard to accept for someone who has not done much research for themselves. But I've only spotted comparatively minor errors so far. Although he does talk about lots of things that I have no prior knowledge of, so there could be more I suppose. Certainly he provides lots of food for thought. And he exposes many of my preconceptions, and many heroes too.




I know that this post will be a stretch too far for many readers. It's right out there, just like the title implies. The rabbit hole is deep and Miles goes right down near the bottom.  Hey ho, such is life. It will not take much on your part to give Miles a reasonable viewing. What have you got to lose, other than all of your preconceptions?   :-))

Why not turn off the goggle box for a few evenings and give Miles work a good reading. I give you 3 papers to start with further down.




But first, so that you can understand his methods, here is Miles's intro to his Chomsky article. It is a good summary of his approach:

"As usual, this is just my opinion, arrived at by personal research. If you can't swallow it, join the club. I couldn't swallow it for years, either.

Also as usual, all the information I give you in this paper was found on easy searches on the internet, most of it from mainstream sites and the bulk of it from Wikipedia. I have no inside information or mainstream contacts, I just notice things other people apparently don't and compile it for you. I am a very close reader and have a good memory: I see connections and contradictions that are not always obvious. My critics try to tell people Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but on topics I cover like science, biography, and history, it is as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Often the pages at both places appear to have been written by the same people, or are copy jobs from the same source. The truth is, on important pages like Chomsky's bio, the page is written by professionals in government or academia. The page is then locked and policed hourly, to be sure no outside information is added. Most of the data is footnoted, and I check the footnotes to be sure I am not repeating hearsay. So these things I find are not slander added to the page by trolls, they are documented. Since a large part of Chomsky's bio comes from his own lips, a great deal of my information here was supplied by Chomsky himself. He does not deny it. It is part of the public record.

That said, my conclusions drawn from this record are admittedly not mainstream. Some are speculative and are based on a compiling of what would be called circumstantial evidence. You may draw different conclusions from the same evidence. However, I feel it is long past time someone put this evidence in front of the public in its proper form, so that they can judge for themselves. For too long all such evidence—on Chomsky and everything else—has been presented in a highly spun format, so that all pertinent facts and clues are buried. I see my job are de-spinning history and dragging the clues back into the open. If, at the end, you think I am applying my own spin, that is your prerogative. No one has to agree with me, since this is free opinion in a free country. If you don't like my style or conclusions, you are free to dismiss them and quit reading my papers, of course. In fact, if that is how you feel, I suggest you do so immediately, because the facts I compile in these papers will lodge in your brain, eating away at your surety. If you don't quit reading and go back to watching TV, you may find yourself coming uncomfortably close to reality"

They certainly will "lodge in your brain" and "eat away at your surety". I can vouch for that.


So here are the 3 thought provoking pieces that I picked. I could have picked many others.

1. Atheism
2. Faux leftist celebrities
3. Modern art

Below I provide the link, a brief note and some pertinent quotes for each paper in turn.

But first, please rest assured that it is not my intention to offend in any way whatsoever. I really do believe in the old fashioned concept of freedom of speech. Not the modern concept where the pc crowd deem it ok to fine, or even jail, someone who has merely said something that is not politically correct. I completely oppose that sort of cultural fascism. I completely oppose all fascism in fact.

Offence at something somebody says, or writes, is something that is always taken in my opinion, not something that is ever given. The solution is very simple: if you take offence at words then, don't bleat about it, just stop reading or listening. Nobody is forced to read or hear anything are they? And if you bleat about it, then you are simply giving publicity to the message that you think is not correct. How dumb is that?

Just one thing to add. If you take offence at this post, then please at least read to the end    :-))



I am not saying that Miles is definitely correct in his analysis. But I am certainly prepared to consider the possibility that he is. And he makes some very convincing arguments.


As usual bold is my emphasis.




1. Atheism:
http://mileswmathis.com/atheism.html

Miles is merciless with atheists who he exposes as ridiculous in their certainty that there is no god. It is a very very powerful paper that is easy to understand.


This paper should be required reading for all science students. I was a science student once, a long time ago. I wish that this had been available to me then.

In fact it should be read by all people who have any interest in science.

Here are a couple of short quotes. They do not really do justice to the whole paper.

"In his book God is not Great, one of Hitchens' central theses is that religions are contemptuous of free inquiry, intolerant, irrational, and coercive to children. All true, but outside of religions, these things hold as well. These faults are not limited to religious people. Almost all people are contemptuous of free inquiry, intolerant, irrational, and coercive, including of course Christopher Hitchens. Atheists and scientists are often or always irrational and intolerant, and extremely coercive. Why else attack another man's god? Modern science pretends to be free, but it isn't even close. All the contemporary theories are heavily fortified and policed, and they are famous for immediately blacklisting anyone who asks intelligent questions. Modern science consists of only two categories: those who agree with every word of the standard models, and cranks.  Science in all fields has ossified into dogma, which is why it has stopped advancing. Physics, for example, hasn't made a jot of theoretical headway in almost a century. It has spent the last eight or nine decades loading the old theories down with mathematical formalisms and other jargon, and building the walls as high as possible. I know this first hand."

and


"In summation, the scientists should stick to science and the critics should stick to what they know: politics and pop culture. Richard Dawkins, for instance, has more than enough to do in filling the holes of evolution. He does not need to waste time debating charlatans and mental midgets in Kansas and Montana. The young-Earth creationist view that he has spent so much time ridiculing was not making any headway before he came along, and if it is now finding a small foothold in the small towns, it may because he has helped publicize it. As for the atheists of all sorts and levels, scientist and layman, they should apply the same standards they apply to creationists to themselves. They should be entirely more parsimonious in their use of the words “knowledge” and “certainty”. They should recognize that their elevation above the ignorant masses is not nearly as great as they imagine, since their theories are slender reeds, not marble columns. Finally, they should recognize that atheism is a belief just as firmly planted in irrationality, in ego and desire, as theism. Atheism has no proof and no possible proof. It is unscientific. Like all human beliefs, it is a hunch based on a tissue, a guess based on a smear, a conjecture based on a passing mist."

No proof and no possible proof. Unscientific. Sounds right.




2. Faux leftists [Naomi Klein & Naomi Wolf and others]:
http://mileswmathis.com/naomi.pdf

It is an excellent expose of faux left wing celebrities. Miles is most definitely of a left persuasion. But he is merciless here with several famous leftists who he outs as fakes and elitist lackeys.

Please do not be put off by the savage critique of the Labour Party that is early in the paper.

Miles has a very good point about the so-called "nationalised" Bank of England. I have known for sometime that this is a cover story, that the private banksters really run the BoE. Miles demonstrates that clearly with faultless logic. The Labour party must know that too.

And, as I pointed out in my last post then, every single one of the Labour leaders has been a member of the Queens Privy Council. Which, combined with the Labour/Bank of England con as above, clearly supports what Miles says here.

Anyhow, please do not be put off by these first few pages, keep going and you will be well rewarded.

Here is the first paragraph:

"What's wrong with Naomi Klein & Naomi Wolf? This is a question I get a lot, especially from female readers. It is a variation of a question I get from many readers male and female, who are looking to keep one or two of their old heroes/heroines. In short, they want to know if anyone will be left standing after I finish outing everyone. The short answer to that is NO, there won't be anyone famous left. No one who you see on TV or read about in magazines or see at TED talks or see in major films will be left. None of the big dogs of the alternative media will be left, either. And almost no one you have come across on Youtube will be left. They are all plants. A few of the old guys may survive, like Thoreau or, say, Joan of Arc. And a few of the marginal characters on the internet may survive, especially if they aren't being promoted by any major sources of funding. But the media being what it is, you can now just assume that anyone with a major publisher, a major award, a major grant, or any connection to either political party or the government is a mole. If they were telling the truth or leading you in the right direction, they wouldn't have any of those things."

Here are final 2 paragraphs:

"As another example, we can return to 911, the mainstream story of which is disbelieved by a majority or large minority. Has the government felt the need to respond in any positive way? Nope. The only way they respond is again by slandering the tens of millions of people in this country who know the story is hogwash. They can ignore opinion and undirected protest indefinitely. They don't care what you think, as long as you keep buying and banking and credit carding and taking loans and paying taxes and fees and going to movies and watching TV and eating garbage food and taking drugs and buying guns and hanging yellow ribbons and voting for their scarecrows.

Which of course means that the only protest that is meaningful is a widespread boycott of the entire system. You have to stop doing all or most of those things, and a large number of other people have to do the same thing. Honestly, I don't see that happening. Nothing like it has ever happened and I see no groundswell. Which is why the governors are so smug. As I have said before, the only hope of widespread change now is some sort of semi-benevolent coup by a coalition of very wealthy families who don't want their children to live in Mordor, even as rulers. I think that war is being fought right now, and there is some hope of a semi-positive outcome. Things may get marginally better in the next decade. Society may be transported back to the 1950s or 1970s in many ways. However, although you may have been more blissfully ignorant back then, you were still living in the MATRIX. If society as a whole wishes to escape from the MATRIX, it must do what I said above, changing itself person by person. But you don't have to wait for that. Since the change is person by person, and you are one person, you can change without waiting for the rest."



There is a lot of very interesting stuff in between too.

This advice in the final 2 paras, about how to "change without waiting for the rest", sounds right to me. I had already reached the same conclusions before I even read the piece. And I have already acted on most of the points that he lists in the underlined section above.

What would you rather be? Civilised but un-free? Or un-civilised and free?

I've made my choice. But I understand how difficult a choice it is for most. It is certainly much easier for a financially secure pensioner like me. But it is not an all or nothing choice, Rome wasn't built in a day. Start where you can.



3. Modern Art:
http://mileswmathis.com/golden.pdf


Miles is a classic portrait artist and he has very strong views about the overall debasement of art and culture over the past 100 years or so. That will become very clear if you do decide to give him a good hearing by reading his work.

Certainly there are lots of links to other papers by Miles on this one, so that the immediate subject matter, 2 fake artists who commit "suicide", is almost incidental. Follow the links and you will have a lot of reading. But you will definitely learn a lot about the history of, and the fascist globalist scumbag elites reasons for promoting, modern art.

Here is a flavour:

"Artists now go to lectures by curators and gallerists, you know. This is how they learn the modern trade. Do you think Michelangelo or Rembrandt ever went to a lecture by a curator, learning from him what to paint or sculpt? This is your signal the whole project is controlled. In these lectures, the main lesson is that contemporary art must be relevant. By relevant, they mean politically relevant. But what is politically relevant art, by definition? Oh yes, it is propaganda. Artists are being told they must produce propaganda. That is the only viable art in the 20th and 21st centuries. Curious, no?

If you study the lots at any Whitney Biennial, I think you will discover the “art” falls into one of two broad categories. Either it is a deconstructed art, badly conceived and badly made on purpose; or it is an art with some small, smarmy message, usually one that ties directly into some current headline, and thereby into some current Intelligence project. In the first category, the artist is encouraged to pursue the inane, the grotesque, the disgusting, or the simply stupid. All these are meant to undercut the past, high art, or the aristocracy by some name (patriarchy, Empire, colonialism, etc.). Note that. Most have never understood why Modern art talked about the aristocracy so much, belittling old “aristocratic” art. It is because the new art is the art of the merchant class, the financiers. Their great enemy was always the aristocracy. So of course they are going to instruct their hired artists to attack the aristocracy. It took me a long time to put two and two together, but if you read my papers on Clement Greenberg and then read my paper on Marx, you will finally understand this theme that runs through Modernism."

That quote is on page 3 of the paper, and the links to his Greenberg and Marx papers are highlighted there.

One of the central facts is that the Museum of Modern Art was founded by the Rockefellers, and the Whitney by the Vanderbilts. Yes, the Rockefellers that globalist, oil industry robber baron, banking industry, tax-free foundation family founded the MOMA in New York in 1929. Ditto Vanderbilts/Whitney. This is about as big a red flag as you could possibly have.

The Rockefellers are one of the globalist scumbag elite families. James Corbett told us lots about their malign control of the oil industry, banking, education, food production and medicine in his oil-igarchs documentary. Do you really think that they left culture out?

Well we know for a fact that they didn't. Art, music, counter culture, protest movement; all came under their malign eye, via their spooks. That is all well documented; not in the mainstream of course. Miles covers a lot of this in his papers [see my next section below]. And there are some other alt/specialist sites that give lots of detail. [for example, see footnote 2.]

Among their many, many other insidious activities the Rockefellers are also major United Nations patrons. The UN building in New York is built on their land. They were instrumental in the creation and development of the UN. They were founder members at Bilderberg in 1950's. They set up the Trilateral Commission in 1970's too.

Miles is clear about the Rockefellers in a few of his papers. They key point being as follows:

As your starting point you can be sure that, if it is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation then, it is a CIA front.

This is perhaps controversial if you don't know much about the Rockefellers. But certainly not if you know anything about them.


Obviously the CIA did not exist in 1929. It was founded in 1947. But it had it's predecessors. They've had Establishment controlled spooks there in the US since the Republic was founded in the late 1700's, probably before. The UK Establishment spooks date back to Elizabeth I's time.




Finally:


He is particularly savage with Bob Dylan who he "outs" as a rich kid with major connections, who did not even write some of his famous songs. And as much a part of the system as any of their puppets. If you are a Dylan fan then I wouldn't start there after you've read the links above. It might put you off from further reading. Save Bob for later.

Maybe try the Lennon story from 8/3/14?

Or JFK from 3/25/15 [Entitled: "The hidden King: Camelot..."].

It doesn't much matter tbh. Just pick a subject that you already know something about and it will usually link to other papers of his that will widen the scope.

Certainly Miles's photo analysis in both the Lennon and JFK pieces is very powerful. Both have totally off the wall conclusions. But, even if you can't accept his conclusions, and I admit that I find them very difficult to accept myself, both pieces are certainly mines of good info about the reality that we now live in; the reality that we have been living in for all our lives, if Miles is correct.


You can see his detailed bio here. He was born on 17th September [a familiar date for the Fairhursts!], in 1963, if I've worked it out correctly. I recommend that you start with his bio. It is a good read, and it explains his background:

http://mileswmathis.com/bio.html

This link directs you to his written archive, his "updates". If you go back to the homepage then you can see the tabs for his science work, and his art:

http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html





Footnotes

1. CIA Admits Using MSM To Manipulate The USA:
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2012/02/29/cia-admits-using-msm-to-manipulate-the-usa-video/

2. The Manufactured Invention of the Beatles, Stones, Grateful Dead and the Birth of Rock n’ Roll by the Tavistock Institute:
http://tabublog.com/2015/12/26/the-manufactured-invention-of-the-beatles-stones-grateful-dead-and-the-birth-of-rock-n-roll-by-the-tavistock-institute-a-jesuit-corporation/

One of the best sources was Dave McGowan who sadly died recently. His book "Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon - Laurel Canyon, Covert Ops & The Dark Heart of the Hippie Dream" gives chapter and verse on the US infiltration of the hippies and pop music by the spooks/military. There is an extensive quote from his book in the above link. They even had a spook house slap bang in the middle of Laurel Canyon. And many of the big names had major military backgrounds. Jim Morrison's father was the admiral in the Gulf of Tonkin false flag that triggered the Vietnam war! Frank Zappa was military too. Dave Crosby as well, most of the big names were connected to the military/spooks in some way or other. Many think that Dave McGowan was "suicided". Certainly his website is now gone. It was a mine of info about the West Coast US infiltration of the music scene. Incidentally it also had a mine of information about the moon "landings" with some great analysis of the official photos issued by NASA. All gone now. I hope that somebody somewhere mirrored the site, but I am not aware that they did.

They did, at least partially. I just found this by following some links on the above link:
http://www.sott.net/article/155794-Inside-The-LC-The-Strange-but-Mostly-True-Story-of-Laurel-Canyon-and-the-Birth-of-the-Hippie-Generation-Part-1


Finally, just to add some topicality

The fascist occultist David Bowie:
http://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/occult-universe-david-bowie-meaning-blackstar/
and
https://orwelliania.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/did-the-starman-fall-from-planet-tavistock/

According to Miles Occult = Spooks. Every time. Certainly Bowie was a fascist occultist, so I guess that makes him a spook project too. That will not be a surprise if you know anything about Bowie's background and history. He hobnobbed with the elites ever since he became famous. He served them well and helped their social control agenda, just like so many of his contemporaries did.

Friday 8 January 2016

A giffers lament for the lost freedoms of children


or

Once, when we were young, we were free



When we were kids we were physically stronger than kids are now. We were physically fitter too. We were tougher. We had to be to get by.

When we were kids, if we became sick, we recovered naturally and without drugs.

When we were kids we all contracted measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox, and we recovered naturally and without drugs.

When we were kids we hadn't been vaccinated 30 times before we were 6 months old.

When we were kids there were no childhood “conditions” like ADHD or bipolar, and we certainly didn’t take any brain drugs.

When we were kids the idea of us going to a psychiatrist would have been absurd.

When we were kids we didn’t ask for any protection and we weren’t given much, and we survived.


School wasn’t some kind of social laboratory or baby-sitting service. We were there to learn, and if we paid attention, we did.

Sex was a private issue. We were taught about that at home or by friends or not at all. We certainly didn’t learn about it in school. That would have been ridiculous.

We learned not to interfere in other peoples business, to mind our own business. To live and let live.


We had a tiny amount of pocket money from our parents.

We earned some money for ourselves by delivering newspapers, or picking crops for the farmer in summer.

So we treated our possessions with care because we knew the cost/value.

If something was broken then, if possible, we fixed it.

We never threw things away, unless they were completely worn out or unable to be fixed.

We had very few "toys". And what we did have was usually home made and treasured.


When we played games, adults weren’t hovering or coaching every move we made.

We found places to play on our own away from adults, and we figured it all out.

We refereed ourselves. There were no adults involved. The whole group voiced its opinion, the older, more experienced, kids voices counted for more. And the decision was reached by agreement, usually.

We very rarely came to blows over the game because that would spoil, or even end, the game. Which none of us wanted.

There were winners and losers. There were no plastic trophies. We played one game, then another. We lost, we won. We competed.

We always wanted to win but losing wasn’t a problem, usually.


People were who they were. They had lives and personalities. They had eccentricities that everyone accepted, usually.

We never thought about "diversity" even though in many ways there was far more real diversity then. Because there was no pressure to conform to any "standard" like there is now.

There was no "Health and Safety" to make us all conform either. People were free to be themselves. To take their own risks and to bear the consequences.

We wanted to be apart from adults and we mainly were.

Adults wanted to be apart from us too. We were sometimes told to "go out and play". So we did.

So we took our own risks using our own judgement. We used our common sense and sometimes we misjudged, but we always accepted the consequences.

We were rarely hurt, but if we were then we learned our lesson.


Our parents didn't consult us about what we wanted to eat. We were given our food and we ate it, or we went hungry.

Most of us ate everything that we were given.

We never threw food away, that would have been seen as stupid.

Most of what we ate was fresh, and prepared at home.

We didn't have junk food, it barely existed.

We didn't have any "snacks" only meals which we always ate as a family.

There were hardly any fat kids, or adults.


Our parents didn’t usually consult us about what we "wanted".

We weren’t part of the decision-making process.

They didn’t need us for that. We didn't care either.

We just wanted to be left alone by adults and, mostly, we were.

We were usually with other kids and we felt safe as a result.

If you wanted a spot to be alone, you found one for yourself, and you still felt safe.

No one asked us about our feelings. If they had, we would have been confused. Feelings? What’s that?

We were alive. We knew it. We didn’t need anything else.


Kids didn’t display their possessions like signs of their identity. A kid who did was ignored, even shunned.

We had few clothes, our "best" and our "playing out", plus some spares.

Here is my bro with me in the middle and our little friend David on the right. We are wearing our "playing out" clothes. Notice the heavily tanned knees; we were always outdoors.



David had toys that his, mostly absent, father bought for him to try and buy his affection.

Our father was strict with us, but he loved us, and we knew it. He was always there but he didn't buy us toys or sweets.

We knew who was the better off. We felt sorry for David.


Kids never acted like little adults. We didn’t dress like little adults. We didn’t want to be like adults.

We could spot liars a mile away. We could spot phonies from across town.

We knew who the really crazy adults were, and we stayed away from them.

We didn’t need gadgets and machines to be happy. We only needed a place to play away from adults.


When we were kids we were independent and we were mostly unsupervised.

When we were kids we had no television to tell us what to think or to mesmerize us. So we used our imaginations which were vivid.

When we were kids we thought for ourselves and worked it out for ourselves. We schemed and we planned for ourselves. We didn't need adults to do that for us.

When we were kids the number of friends we had didn’t matter. We didn’t keep count. That would have been recognized immediately as a form of insanity.

When we were kids we lived in an analogue world, and most people were much more connected to nature then. We spent most of our time outdoors when not at school.

When we were kids we lived in a do-it-yourself world, and most people were much more self reliant then. We didn't receive "support". We had to do it for ourselves, so we did.


We were alive.

We were happy.

We were free.

That was enough.

It still is.


Children's bonus feature. The real Queens speech for Xmas 2015:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDO1JfZ3aRI


Inspirational source:
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/once-when-we-were-free-2/

Friday 1 January 2016

How big oil conquered the world


Or

The history of the oil-igarchy

https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-310-rise-of-the-oiligarchs/


This documentary really is an interesting watch/read for all those that want to know how the modern world has been created and shaped. The history that you have been taught at school, and in the media, is seriously flawed and seriously partial.

It covers the extensive hidden, or at least not well known, history from the mid 1800's to the present day. He shows how the oiligarchs effectively control all of the following industries:

* Oil industry and all its offshoots
* Banking and finance
* Education and learning
* Health and pharmaceuticals
* Agribusiness, food production and consumption

Just about everything important in other words.

"In the nineteenth century, railroad conspiracies and predatory pricing had been enough to assure the oiligarchs’ monopoly. But by the time that the British crown, the Dutch royal family, the Rothschilds and the other European oiligarchs began opening up the Middle East and the Far East to oil exploration in the early twentieth century, the goal was no longer to maximize profits or control the oil industry. It was not even to control international diplomacy. It was to control and shape the world itself. Its resources. Its environment. And its people."

Who are the oiligarchs? The Rockefellers were the first. As above, the Rothschilds, British Crown [Temple or Queen? Both I guess], Dutch royal family, and others, soon followed. They are oil based monopoly capitalists of the very worst kind. In the words of John D Rockefeller "Competition is a sin". And, on this definition at least then, they are not sinners. But they are scumbags par excellence, that is for sure. The scumbag elites who call all the shots.

https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-310-rise-of-the-oiligarchs/

As usual there are plenty of source links in the transcript.

I learned some fascinating stuff here, including:


1. How the oiligarchs suppressed the, very easy to produce, ethanol [alcohol] as a vehicle fuel. Ethanol can be produced from any fermenting vegetable matter and so could be produced anywhere to meet the local fuel requirement. The model T Ford was multi fuel; it could use petrol or alcohol. There is virtually no pollution from alcohol too. Their solution was simple: Prohibition! There was definitely the need to reduce alcohol drinking at the time, which was undoubtedly excessive. But prohibition was obviously utterly ridiculous; it was bound to fail because drinking is such a social pastime that millions enjoy. Just like Mary Jane is.

Certainly prohibition was very convenient for the oiligarchs. It helped them consolidate their oil based fuel supply monopoly to the rapidly expanding automobile industry.


2. How the oiligarchs bought all the US cities electric tramways, and then dismantled them to replace them with buses:

"“By the end of the 1940s, GM had bought and scrapped over one hundred municipal electric transit systems in 45 cities and put gas-burning GM buses on the streets in their place. By 1955 almost 90% of the electric streetcar lines in the United States had been ripped out or otherwise eliminated.”


3. How the oiligarchs deliberately engineered the oil shocks of the 1970's, to raise the price by 400%. They agreed their strategy at 1973's Bilderberg meeting. Then delegated to Henry Kissinger, Rockefellers bagman and US Secretary of State, who engineered the Yom Kippur war in Israel, which facilitated the creation of Opec and the massive price hike.

Anyone who lived through that period knew who was responsible, or at least thought that they did. Their media blamed the mooslim ayrabs. Those damned ayrabs holding us all to ransom. It was the early stage of their demonising of all muslims.

"Five months later, Bilderberg attendee and Rockefeller protege Henry Kissinger, acting as Nixon’s Secretary of State, engineered the Yom Kippur War and provoked OPEC’s response: an oil embargo of the US and other nations that had supported Israel. On October 16, 1973, OPEC raised oil prices by 70%. At their December meeting, the Shah of Iran demanded and received a further price raise to $11.65 a barrel, or 400% of oil’s pre-crisis price. When asked by Saudi King Faisal’s personal emissary why he had demanded such a bold price increase, he replied: “Tell your King, if he wants the answer to this question, he should go to Washington and ask Henry Kissinger.”

Kissinger was famously one of the managers of the Vietnam war too. For which he got the Nobel Peace Prize. A bit like Obomber did. The difference being that Kissinger managed his wars before he got the prize. With Obomber it was the other way round

If you watch/read the piece by James then you will see that the Nobel family crop up a few times too. They are oiligarchs too. But hey, they must be good guys, they created their famous philanthropic "prizes" didn't they    :-))


Lets just think about Kissinger and co for a minute.

* Nixon was the US President.
* Kissinger was the US Foreign Secretary [Secretary of State] appointed by Nixon, but in reality a Rockefeller operative. [He still is]
* The oiligarchs decided that war was necessary in the ME so they instructed Kissinger to set it up.
* Kissinger posed as a peacemaker, but was really a warmonger; all of us who were half awake then knew that at least.
* Kissinger did as instructed and set up the war by his friends in Israel. The Israelis were happy to oblige, they always love to kill ayrabs. They have been doing that for over 60 years now. Israel is Rothschildistan in reality, even down to their flag which is a Rothschild invention.


What price politicians in this system? Nixon was irrelevant although nominally the boss. Do you think that it is any different now? I don't. I think that it still works exactly the same way. And that it is the same system in the UK & all of EU.

Who do you think funds all these politicians, overtly or covertly, including Labour? Corporations. Who owns all the big corporations? The oiligarchs. Bit of a clue there.

And yet people still believe that voting for these puppets makes a difference. 60% of Brits voted in the last general election ffs. Wtf for? Don't vote, it just legitimises them. They could not maintain the pretense if nobody voted.


What price the main media in this system? Did they ever tell us about Kissinger being a Rockefeller stooge? No they did not. Do you think that they didn't know? Of course they knew. Anyone could find out if they did a bit of research like James did.

But to reveal it probably meant instant dismissal. Just the same now I expect. For mainstream journalists the truth about some subjects is strictly off limits at pain of losing your job. For example 9/11.

What is even worse many people still believe the shite that the main media spews out. Well, lots do anyhow. Lots have already wised up thank god. Personally I think that you need to question everything that they tell you. Every single thing. My default mode is that they are always lying in some way. Even if only by omission. 


Back to the the piece, there is far more including:


4. How the oiligarchs took over the US education system and then deliberately dumbed it down. Before their malign influence there was a very high literacy rate in the US. They require a compliant uneducated populace to "farm".

In their own words:

"“In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.”

Wow! We have an ample supply of politicians! Proof positive from the horses mouth  :-))

And more from James:

"But a nation of individuals who could think for themselves was anathema to the monopolists. The oiligarchs needed a mass of obedient workers, an entire class of people whose intellect was developed just enough to prepare them for lives of drudgery in a factory. Into the midst stepped John D. Rockefeller with his first great act of public charity: the establishment of the University of Chicago."

and

"Although Rockefeller’s resources weren’t exactly limitless, they might as well have been. In 1902 he established the General Education Board to help implement Gates’ vision for the country school of tomorrow with a staggering $180 million endowment.


The Rockefeller influence on education was felt almost immediately, and it was amplified by help from fellow monopolists of the era who were approaching the topic of philanthropy from the same angle."

Wow again. $180 million in 1902. Serious dosh in those days. Equivalent to $billions now.

It is clear to old timers like me that the same story applies here in UK as well. As usual we get there a bit later than the US, but there is no doubt in my mind that the same dumbing down of education has occurred here too.

The Liberal Arts based education has the primary goal of teaching the student how to think for them self. It surely should be the primary objective of any good schooling.


Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric are the Trivium, the base of learning. Wikipedia:
"The Trivium is a systematic method of critical thinking used to derive factual certainty from information perceived with the traditional five senses: sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. The trivium was the lower division of the seven liberal arts, and comprised grammarlogic, and rhetoric (input, process, and output)"


Arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy are the Quadrivium, the number skills. Wikipedia:
"the quadrivium may be considered to be the study of number and its relationship to physical space or time: arithmetic was pure number, geometry was number in space, music number in time, and astronomy number in space and time."

The only way to get a proper Liberal Arts education at school here in the UK is if you pay for it. Most of the UK public [typically British wording, they are actually private fee paying] schools use these subjects as their base for learning, and actually teach pupils how to think for them self. The state doesn't want that. Nor do the oiligarchs. It's in neither of their interests.



5. How the oilgarchs took over western medicine and doctors. And created the pharamceutical industry which they own, and which has marginalised natural medicine. Which is of course difficult, if not impossible, to effectively monetise.

"Pharmaceuticals provided a lucrative new opportunity for the oiligarchs, but in a turn-of-the-century America that was still largely based on naturopathic, herbal remedies, it was a tough sell. The oiligarchy went to work changing that."


and

"In 1901 John D. established the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. The Institute recruited Simon Flexner, a pathology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, to serve as its director. His brother, Abraham, was an educator who was contracted by the Carnegie Foundation to write a report on the state of the American medical education system. His study,The Flexner Report, along with the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations were to shower on medical research in the coming years, resulted in a sweeping overhaul of the American medical system. Naturopathic and homeopathic medicine, medical care focused on un-patentable, uncontrollable natural remedies and cures was now dismissed as quackery; only drug-based allopathic medicine requiring expensive medical procedures and lengthy hospital stays was to be taken seriously."

The big pharma money centered US medical system is well known. But just because our UK system is socialised does not make it any less of a money drain into pharma. The pharma capture of doctors is all encompassing here in the UK. They often act like pharma reps now. Rarely a physical examination. Just stare at a screen and then print a 'script.


Natural cures are never ever offered. Despite the fact that they are far more relevant for many conditions. Got a snotty nose? Here have some antibiotics. Got an unruly child? Here have some Ritalin.


There is far more in the piece.


James finishes by explaining that the oiligarchs have big plans for the future too. All our futures in fact.

"But the oiligarchs are not done yet. Their next project, launched in the late 20th century, is almost too ambitious to be comprehended. It is not about oil. It is not about money. It is about the monopolization of life itself. They have spent decades preparing the path for this takeover and marshaled their mind-boggling resources in service of the task.
And the vast majority of the world’s population, still playing the shell game that the oiligarchs perfected and abandoned long ago, are about to fall right into their hands yet again."


Final thoughts:

The scumbag elites virtual 100% ownership of the media is key to their evil ambitions. I mean media in the widest sense, including Hollywood, and all TV output, and all famous academics, and all famous scientists, and all famous artists. If you are famous then you are media owned. How else could you actually be famous? They can make you. Or destroy you.

Can you believe anything that their media tell you? You might do, I certainly don't.

It is so easy for them. Show us a video, or a picture, and it must be real. This is the norm now. We all know about Photoshop etc. But the image is everything.

Witness the ISIS "beheadings". I watched most of them, and I can tell you that they were low grade Hollywood. But they were accepted as real by their main media. And they were swallowed hook, line and sinker by a majority of the people.

"That's right folks don't touch that dial"


[For the conspiracy minded, or if you don't believe me about the main media then, as an example, you should thoroughly research "Stanley Kubrick" and/or "Moon landings". It will take time, but if you spend time to cut through the disinfo fog, and think it through for yourself, then you will be amazed. Here is your starter from the "European Agency for Safety at Sea":

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/

You could even earn $1 million, but I doubt it. Maybe I will post about Kubrick sometime. I will certainly provide you with a view from right down at the bottom of the rabbit hole in an upcoming post]


And:


What about democracy in a world run by the oiligarchs and their mates? It is an almost meaningless concept. These scumbag elites make all the key decisions. Do you seriously believe that Obomber or Cameron have any say in the big issues? I don't. I think that they just read the script from their teleprompter. And try to look concerned when something bad happens.

Same applies to all of the others too, including Jeremy Corbyn; he surely must know all this. Well he did join the Queen's Privy Council didn't he? Another big clue there. One of the big UK oiligarchs own, private and secret, democratic subversion clubs. All past UK leaders have been members too, including all the Labour leaders ffs, all of them.

The Establishment response is so British. "Convention old chap, just ceremonial, no real power". Yeah, sure.

Actors should surely make the best national politicians. That is the main requirement for the job after all.


Finally:

You will recall from my Climate Change post that Maurice Strong, who wrote the CC rules of process for the UN, was a Rockefeller operative, just like Kissinger. He was an oil man who was feted as one of the fathers of climate science. How does that work? Isn't the oil industry supposed to be against climate science?

If you believe their media it is. But not in the real world of the oiligarchs. They own the media.They own all the big corporations and most of the minerals, commodities and utilities. They own all the famous politicians. They control all the transnational political institutions via their place men/women. Like George Carlin said: "It's a big fuckin club. And you ain't in it".

They have all the money that they could possibly ever need. They always make money off both sides of any argument. They own the banks too, so they can create money whenever they want.

It's not about money for them. It's all about human control.


They have plenty ways to exercise that control too. The nation states are controlled by them via their puppets. Even though they have no national allegiance themselves; they truly are "International Monopoly Capitalists".

But there is so much more:

* "Sustainability for the 21st century", and such like, from their UN

* Trans Pacific Partnership [TPP] from their NAFTA

* Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership [TTIP] from their EU

Make no mistake they fully own all those things.



But all this will only work for them if we let it.

By believing what their corrupt media tells us.

By voting for their corrupt politicians, and thereby giving them our consent.


They really do fear our awakening. We outnumber them massively.

We know in our hearts that our world is on the wrong path. That we cannot carry on like this.

It is up to us really.



https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-310-rise-of-the-oiligarchs/