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.
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"
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."
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment