The One Bank

or

Who  controls approx 40% of the world economy?

I've known about the following for some time now. This text is a good succinct summary of the way things are in the 21stC. A world deliberately laden with debt. Debt that hoovers wealth away from ordinary people to the super rich. Who own the money creation conmen lock stock and....

All governments are clearly subservient to these owners. Yet people still vote for governments hoping for change, which never comes.

"Roughly 2 ½ years ago ; readers were introduced to a paradigm of crime, corruption, and control which they now know as “the One Bank”. First they were presented with a definition and description of this crime syndicate.

That definition came via a massive computer model constructed by a trio of Swiss academics, and cited with favor by Forbes magazine . The computer model was based upon data involving more than 10 million “economic actors”, both individuals and corporations, and the conclusions which that model produced were nothing less than shocking.

The One Bank is “a super-entity” comprised of 144 corporate fronts, with approximately ¾ of these corporate fronts being financial intermediaries (i.e. “banks”). According to the Swiss computer model; via these 144 corporate tentacles, the One Bank controls approximately 40% of the global economy . The only thing more appalling than the massive size of this crime syndicate is its massive illegality.

Some of the strongest laws in the Western world were created precisely to prevent such corporate concentration from ever coming into existence, and thus the crime, corruption, and conspiracy which automatically accompanies it. These are our “anti-trust laws”, laws which our puppet governments have long since ceased to enforce. The evidence of this crime/corruption/conspiracy is all around us.

On a near weekly basis; the Big Banks of the West are caught-and-convicted (but never punished ), perpetrating criminal conspiracies literally thousands of times larger than any other financial crimes in human history. The U.S. government has now publicly proclaimed that its Big Banks have a license to steal.

All of these Big Banks are tentacles of the One Bank, and the list of names here (as identified by the Swiss researchers) is almost as infamous as the mega-crimes which they commit: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, Credit Suisse, and UBS – for starters. But for many readers, this is now old news.

We observe the crimes of these corporate fronts, every day of our lives. We feel the impact of their crimes (on our standard of living) every day of our lives. However, these “banks” are ultimately merely the inanimate tools of crime. What many readers are now intent upon knowing goes beyond these tools, or even the mega-crimes which they are used to commit.

What people want to know is more basic. Who are the Criminals – the real Criminals? In this respect; we are not talking about the mere bankers, themselves. From the lowliest market-manipulating thugs to the upper stratosphere of CEO’s and central bankers, these are all merely foot soldiers, the psychopathic employees of the real Criminals.

The information wanted by readers is not the names of these employees. They are all nothing more than easily replaceable parts. The information of real value can be encapsulated in one, simple question: who owns the One Bank?

At first glance; the question appears elementary. The One Bank is a financial crime syndicate which controls 40% of the global economy – a global economy with annual GDP of roughly $70 trillion. Clearly the owners of the One Bank would have to be “the world’s richest people” (richest men?).

Here the Corporate media is only too happy to be of service to us. Once a year; we are presented with a “world’s richest list”, which is then parroted by all of the other outlets of the Big Media oligopoly, ad nauseum. Thus, we simply peruse this list for the names at the top, and we have our “owners” of the One Bank. Et voila!

Not so fast. As most regular readers are already well aware; the mainstream media oligopoly is nothing but more of the One Bank’s tentacles. Perhaps we should look a little more closely, before we simply pluck the names from the top of the list, and hail them as the One Bank’s owner-criminals?

In fact, such skepticism is well-justified. These supposed “world’s richest” lists, produced by the propaganda arm of the One Bank, are not worth the virtual paper on which they are written. Exposing the absurdity of such lists requires nothing more than accumulating some aggregate financial data, and then pulling out a calculator.

Fortunately, all of that work has already been done in a previous piece . Skipping to the bottom line; if we take the “world’s richest list” data, along with aggregate data on global wealth (all supplied by the Corporate media), we are presented with a world where total global wealth is supposedly a number in the low $10’s of trillions.

Meanwhile, if we look no further than the oceans of paper “wealth” fabricated by the financial sector (and the One Bank crime syndicate), already we approach a quantum somewhere around ½ quadrillion dollars, i.e. $500 trillion, and this completely excludes all real wealth in the world, in the form of hard assets.

The conclusion is obvious: more than 90% of the actual wealth in the world today (real and paper) is hidden from us , in terms of any data made readily available to the general public. This unimaginable hoard of wealth is certainly not being hidden by the vast majority of people at the bottom of the wealth totem-pole, therefore it can only be hidden at the top.

Equally clear; 90+% of all humanity’s wealth won’t be found by simply closer scrutiny of the supposed“world’s richest” people. If all of their fortunes were more than ten times larger than what is currently being reported, even the mathematically-challenged dolts of the mainstream media would quickly figure out that there was something amiss.

Instead, the only rational answer is that there is another, entire tier of the “world’s richest”, an echelon above all the B-List Billionaires on the official lists. The real “world’s richest” are, in fact, not billionaires at all, but rather trillionaires: the Oligarch Trillionaires who own (among other things) the One Bank.

How wealthy are these Oligarchs? Not only are these Oligarchs wealthy enough to be able to hide their names (and fortunes) from all public scrutiny, these trillionaires wield enough power to even prevent the word “trillionaire” from being recognized as an official word in our dictionaries. This absurdity was also noted in that prior commentary.

Consider this. We live in a world of banker-created, fraudulent, paper currencies, where the amount of paper instruments merely sloshing around in the world’s markets is in the thousands of trillions, yet, officially we have no word for “trillionaire”. This is like imagining a world where large numbers of (fat) sheep, cows, and pigs roamed the plains, but there was no word for “carnivore”. If you have one, you must have the other.

The Oligarch Trillionaires may be able to hide in the shadows, even in a world where every inch of the planet is regularly scanned by spy satellites, because they control (most of) the governments who own/operate these satellites. They may be able to cover up most traces of their obscene hoards of wealth, and even prevent us from learning the precise quantum of those hoards.

However, this doesn’t mean that the Oligarch Trillionaires have managed to erase all knowledge of their existence. For those looking for names which are at least probable candidates for the (real) “world’s richest” list, there is no better place to start than Charles Savoie’s historical chronology, The Silver Stealers.

In that compendium; Savoie has traced the deeds of many of these Oligarch families over the past 100+ years. He also identifies many of the (heavily overlapping) “organizations” which they have created, as vehicles for the administration/control of their Empire. For those who are skeptical that such a conspiracy-of-the-wealthy could trace back so far, we also have historical references.

In 1907, U.S. Congressman (and career prosecutor) Charles Lindbergh Sr. presented “The Bankers Manifesto of 1892” to the U.S. Congress. This grandiose declaration of the oligarchs of the 19 th century, antecedents of the Oligarch Trillionaires of today, is as prophetic as it is despicable.

In part, it reads:

When through the process of law, the common people have lost their homes they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

Look around us. The numbers of Homeless people in North America today already total in the millions, ignored by puppet governments which serve the Trillionaires, ignored by a mainstream media controlled by the Trillionaires. Meanwhile, a “central power of imperial wealth” rampages across the globe: the United States. Equally, there can be absolutely no doubt that it is “under the control of the leading financiers”, the Trillionaires.

Beyond the cast of suspects presented by Charles Savoie as the owning families behind the One Bank, one name (and clan) stands out above all others: the Rothschilds. We reach this conclusion via two, entirely separate lines of reasoning.

The One Bank is a crime syndicate which ultimately derives virtually all of its wealth/control via the power of the printing press, in the form of all of the West’s (and the world’s) private central banks, and primarily the Federal Reserve. When we search for some criminal clan most likely to base its empire of crime on the money-printing might (and corruption) of a central bank, we don’t have to look very far.

Give me control of a nation’s money, and I care not who makes its laws.

- Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 – 1812)

Alternately, we reach this same conclusion via simple logic. We live in a world being (deliberately) drowned in debt . This is a process which, again, traces back roughly a century and more. In a world of debt, whoever starts with the largest fortune collects the most interest. In a world with total GDP of $70 trillion but total, outstanding debt in excess of $200 trillion, whoever collects the most interest will be the richest person on the planet.

Therefore, whoever was the richest person yesterday will be the richest person today. Whoever was the richest person a hundred years ago would almost certainly be the richest person today. In the 19 thcentury; the Rothschild clan was universally regarded as the wealthiest “house” on the planet. Then any/all precise records of their wealth simply disappeared – not the wealth itself.

The One Bank is a crime syndicate which is literally a blight against all humanity. Its owners are guilty of the worst crimes-against-humanity. And, ultimately, as the One Bank strips humanity bare of all its wealth, these Owners make it harder and harder for themselves to continue to hide."

We pay far more "tax" [in the form of interest] to banksters than we ever do to governments. The banksters are a financial drain on the whole of humanity. They increase the price of everything by 40% or more via their infernal, and completely unjustifiable, "interest".

And the banksters are 100% protected by all governments across the whole world. Regardless of the governments political flavour. Including dictatorships, commies, so called "democracies" [joke] and every other type of government that there is. Including so called "Labour" governments of course [even bigger joke].

That tells you everything that you need to know about whose side governments are on. It ain't yours or mine.


Source:

https://www.sprottmoney.com/blog/the-mystery-of-the-one-bank-its-owners-jeff-nielson.html

The Money Creation Con

or

How the banksters con the whole of humanity with their "loans"


Addendum #1 - 12th February 2016

This is what happened in the 2008 "bail out":



My post explains why it was possible for this to happen. It is because the money is only created when the "borrower" signs on the dotted line. It did not exist before that.

Next time it will be a "bail in". Which means that they will take money out of peoples bank accounts to "save the banks". They will take it without the account holders permission. But they have already got the permission of all governments to do this. It was signed into EU and US law last year.

I call that robbery myself.

There is a good chance it will be this year too. If not, then sometime soon, that's for sure.

And people wonder why I won't vote  :-))


-----------------------------------------------------ends--------------------------------------------------


Money is a fundamentally simple subject that most people have difficulty understanding. Probably because the modern education system never teaches anyone anything useful about money at all.

What is money? How is it created? Simple enough questions one would think. Did anyone ever give you an answer when you were at school? No I thought not.

Considering that we all use money all the time, starting from a very young age, then that is a very strange omission wouldn't you say. Why is it that schools never explain to anyone about the origins of money? It's not rocket science after all.

There is a simple answer too. It is because there is a fundamental con at the heart of the world's money system. A con that our lords and masters would prefer that you don't know about. There is more than one con actually, there are in fact several cons. This post is my layman's attempt to explain one of the important cons.

This post is to explain how money is created in the first place

I promise that I will not get all technical on you. That is their tactic, to make it all sound complicated. But it is not complicated at all. It is very, very simple. So I will keep it simple and try to quickly get to the heart of the issue. This will not be a long winded post I promise you.

Firstly, the most obvious forms of money are the notes and coins in your pocket. These are usually created by governments to facilitate the exchange of goods and services in the countries economy. But cash accounts for only 1 or 2% of all the money that exists in "circulation".

So where does all the rest come from? Who creates all the other 98%?

It is created via loans by the banksters:

* Central banks like the Bank of England in the City of London and the US Federal Reserve in New York and others who "loan" money to governments charging them "interest" for the privilege. [Central banks are in fact controlled by private banks, but that is a whole other subject]

* Private banks like RBS, HSBC, N M Rothschild, J P Morgan, Bank of America etc etc etc etc. who "loan" money to corporations [companies] and individuals, again charging them "interest" for the privilege.

These loans are the "debt" that their media keep telling you about.

So 98%, or so, of all the money that exists in the world today is created by loans of one form or another. Loans to countries, loans to corporations, loans to individuals

This is getting to the heart of the money creation con now.

So how do loans create the money that banks "loan" to their customers? The money that then moves into circulation as part of the economy.

I am going to explain that by reference to a mortgage or personal loan. This is something that most of us have some experience of. If you ever bought a house, or a car, or a washing machine on credit then you will have used a mortgage or personal loan of some sort. But the same basic principles apply to loans to governments and corporations, or companies, too.

Most people assume that, when you go to a bank or building society to "borrow" money to buy a house or a car then, the bank "lend" you some money that they already have. Some money that is already in the bank that they then "lend" to you.

This is not what happens.

The money that you "borrow" is created at the time that they "lend" it to you. Think about that for a minute. You do not "borrow" any preexisting money.

The money is created at the time that you borrow it.

So what, you may say, what difference does it make? It makes all the difference in the world, this is the heart of the con, because the answer is so simple:

You create the money yourself when you sign the "loan" agreement!

The bank "loans" you your own money. The bank does not "loan" you any of it's own money. 

Wtf? How can I do that? How can I create money?

Simples. What the bank, or the government, or the schools never tell you is that the "loan" agreement that you sign is not a contract between you and them.

[A contract is where one party agrees to provide goods or a service to another party, usually for a payment. There are always 2 signatures on a contract. ie. the provider of the goods or services, and the recipient who agrees to pay for the goods or services]

For your mortgage there is no commercial contract between you and the bank

Why is that ?

Because the bank does not provide anything at all

Think about that a minute. They never sign any contract because there isn't a need for one. There is no need for a contract because there is only one party to the transaction - you the "borrower". And there is only one signature - yours.

You have not signed a contract, you have in fact signed a Promissory Note.

Which is simply your promise to pay, in legal form. It's a bit like a post dated cheque.

Your promise to pay is used by the bank to create the money.
Which did not exist before you signed your promise.

There is no contract between you and the bank. There is only your Promissory Note. This is what creates the money.

Your signature, on your note, creates your money

Do you see the con now? It is so simple that most people have difficulty in understanding it.

The bank does nothing at all, other than enter your transaction in its books of account, which formalises the creation of your money.

All that the bank does is record the fact that you created your own money in its books of account.

Do you see the con now?

The con is in the cost that the bank charges you for this book keeping service

How can the bank justify charging you "interest" when it has done nothing other than a bit of book keeping? Remember that it did not use it's own money.

It simply recorded your creation of your money in its books.

Over the life of most mortgages you will pay in interest roughly twice as much as the sum "borrowed". So if you "borrow" £100k, then you pay the bank £200k in "interest", plus of course the original £100k that you "borrowed".

So you pay £200k to the bank for the privilege of using the £100k of money that your own promise to pay created!

Ever feel that you've been had? I know that I did when I realised how I had been royally conned. I only realised after I had paid off my mortgage too.

Think about it. Then think some more. And then some more. Is what happened reasonable? Why does it cost you so much? What risk did the bank take? How can it justify charging you such a large amount?

As far as justification is concerned then there is none. What did they do for their £200k other than a bit of book keeping? Nothing much in truth. The bank could justify an administration fee I suppose, maybe a few thousand £ at most.

As far as risk then there is hardly any for the bank. If you fail to honour your promise then the bank will seize your asset and will have lost nothing. This is particularly true given that you almost certainly paid them a large deposit of your hard earned which they will then keep, as well as your house, or car.

The bank risked nothing. It never used any of its own money. If you fail to pay then the bank takes you to court and seizes your asset. So it now owns your house, your car, whatever.


There are much better, and fairer, alternatives to the fascist globalist scumbags banksters system of money created by loans. Alternatives that do not require you to pay their "interest", which is at the heart of their con. "Interest" which increases the cost of everything that you buy by about 40%. Yes I do mean everything. It is effectively a hidden tax that we all pay to the fascist globalist scumbags. Why do governments allow such privilege to privately owned banks?

The explanation of why governments allow the banksters such privilege, and the explanation of the fairer alternatives that are available, will have to wait for another time. I promised that I would be simple and brief in this post.


Postscript 1: The legal con that the banksters use if you don't pay them

Even that court process where they seize your asset is a con. Because there is no contract then there is no enforceable contract in a court of law. Only your Promissory Note which only you signed. So the banks have no legal claim. And the courts know this but, when your strawman is summoned to court for "arrears" on the mortgage, they always hide from you the fact that there is no contract.

It is exactly the same if bailiffs call to repossess your house or car. They know that there is no contract too, but they always hide that fact from you too.

Do you find that hard to believe? Do you think that the courts would never do something so underhand? Well wake up and smell the coffee then. This is how the scumbag elites system works. The courts are their courts after all.

I already explained that the legal system is based  in the City of London, in my Legalism post:
http://petefairhurst.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/legalism-your-strawman-and-you.html

The courts are most definitely not the peoples courts.

They are the scumbag elites courts.

The courts do not work for you, they work for the scumbag elites. Their courts are "Crown Courts" based at the Crown Temple in the City of London. Nothing to do with sweaty Betty and her German crew then? No, not in the way that they want you to think.

Their legal system is run from the Crown Temple and uses your "strawman". An earlier con that they ran on you, just after you were born.


And you surely must realise that the banks are all based in the same place too, the City of London. And who owns all the banks? No prizes for those that have been reading my posts.

The fascist globalist scumbag elites

I told you about them here:
http://petefairhurst.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/the-wizard-of-oz.html

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

and here:
http://petefairhurst.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/a-view-from-bottom-of-rabbit-hole.html

The City of London is their private fiefdom, not part of the UK at all. It is the nerve center of all of their cons on us all. On the whole of humanity in actual fact, because the worlds "legal" system, and lots of the worlds banks, are based there.

It is all hidden in plain sight as ever.

Whenever people tell me that there is no conspiracy, then my eyes roll up to the heavens.

Of course there is. And it's not a fuckin "theory" either. It's a fact. And it's "built-in" to their money and legal systems. It's a bigger conspiracy than you could possibly imagine.


Postscript 2: The Labour Party

The Labour Party is chock full of lawyers isn't it. Some of them even work directly for the banksters. Witness Tony Blair who joined J P Morgan, one of the biggies, as soon as he left office. He is still in the Labour Party. There is a current cabal that are even called Blairites. Like Hilary Benn and a few others.

So do you really think that the Labour Party don't know about all of the above? Do me a favour. Of course they do.

Who bailed out the banksters in 2008? It was the Labour Party who were in government. Gordo Brown was the PM. So it was the Labour Party that bailed them out. It was the Labour Party that "saved" this stinking, rotten, corrupt banksters system of money for the fascist globalist scumbag elites. The Labour Party ffs. The so called peoples party.

If they had any intention of living up to their "principles" then they would have seized the opportunity for reform of the money system. There are much fairer systems than this corrupt elites, loan and interest based, money system for sure. But what did they actually do in practice? They used future tax revenues, that we will all pay in due course, to pay directly to the banksters to save their rotten stinking corpse of a money system. And yet people still vote for them as if they are progressive! You really couldn't make this shit up.


A quick glance at Labour history tells you that they know everything there is to know about the elites money systems, banksters and lawyers.

Blair is a Fabian socialist. Corbyn too. The Fabians early logo was a wolf in sheeps clothing. What does that tell you? It was switched to a turtle later on. The Fabians are elitists par excellence. There is no doubt about that.

Here are some quotations from a famous Fabian philosopher, Bertrand Russell to illustrate my point. From his 1952 book, "The Impact of Science on Society":

"Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen."

And

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so. A totalitarian government with a scientific bent might do things that to us would seem horrifying. The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia, and were more inclined towards the sort of atrocities that I have in mind."

And finally this stunning observation

"War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of national­ists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."

Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Science_on_Society

How much more oligarchical elitist could he be? He obviously did not write his book for proles to read. There is no doubt whose side that he was on. And it wasn't yours or mine. How many of the other Fabians thought the same thing?

So even more evidence of whose side that Labour are really on in practice. Just like Miles W Mathis says.

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.