PEACE and TOLERANCE, cost's us NOTHING, Lets ALL just do it. These are my View's and the Material's, that I have received from emails and when I surf the Internet. I do NOT and WILL NEVER approve of any form of terrorism (doing or promoting), In any Place on this Earth, especially in The OCCUPIED Palestinian Land.
May The Creator of ALL thing's grant us peace and Tolerance for All
New HorizonsClick to go there Web Site
Based in St. Anne’s-on-the-Sea,
Lancashire. Uk.
As New Horizons’ regulars know, although our presentations are
informative and entertaining, quite a few are
also extremely controversial. And that’s deliberate.
We like to engage speakers who can stir the “grey matter”
a little!... and, as important, challenge the Establishment view of
the world.
Rock the boat!
Obviously,
we take great care to source speakers who are respected
for their knowledge and experience, but nothing should be taken as
“gospel”. We do not promote or endorse the views expressed by
our speakers. New Horizons’ principal purpose is to encourage
debate, personal research and critical thinking about topics of
interest to all free-thinking people. Indeed, we sometimes invite different speakers
to give differing views about a topic in order
to encourage healthy debate.
It goes without
saying – well, maybe not in this increasingly “Health &
Safety” crazy world! – that on matters of health, finance and
the law, it’s important to see the presentations principally as springboards
for our own thoughts, research and conclusions.
I
don’t think that is hard to answer. The government doesn’t want private
citizens or unsupervised university people discovering anything,
because that would be dangerous. Suppose they discover the next new
weapon? If they weren’t patriotic, they might try to keep it for
themselves, causing “havoc”. For this reason, we may assume that physics
was split after the war into real physics and physics for mass
consumption. The best people were culled off the top of the physics
departments, handpicked by insiders, and put to work for the military or
industry.
Those
with some perceived public relations skills, like those in wheelchairs
or those with good hair or those who could write salable books or those
who could speak well in public were drafted to lead fake physics. But
they were instructed to stay off-topic. Don’t do any real physics. Don’t
try to solve any real problems, even if they don’t at first seem to
have any military application. Talk about airy, unprovable things like
black holes and the first seconds of the universe and the edge of time
and strings and vacuum fluctuations. As much as possible, push physics
into sci-fi topics, since people love that stuff. Time travel and
wormholes and backward causality. Study Star Trek and Star Wars for
examples. Look at Asimov.
This has the added benefit of
misdirecting those who can see through the fake physics and math. If
they spend all their time responding to the absurdities of the fake
physicists, they won’t spend any time actually solving physical
problems. This will act as insurance that they never accidentally catch
up with our boys in the military, or surpass them.
This would
also explain the chorus of abuse that independent researchers run up
against. The government doesn’t want any independent research because,
again, it is dangerous. Those heckling the independent researchers don’t
really care about protecting the fake physicists, since those guys are
just a front. They are protecting the military physicists you don’t hear
about, the ones doing the real work. Again, if the independent
researchers spend their time arguing with internet trolls, they have
less time to do actual work, and it is less likely they will discover
anything our boys in the military haven’t already discovered.
So
have the real physicists already discovered all the things I have
written about? Maybe. I assume that all the real brains are hidden away
somewhere—since they certainly aren’t in plain sight—so maybe they have
already unwound everything I have and more. But possibly not. These guys
are going to be kept very busy with applied physics, since it will be
thought that new weapons are more likely to come out of applied physics
than theoretical physics. In my experience, physicists pressed to create
new hardware, software, or industrial products, including weaponry, are
very unlikely to think to tear apart the old equations and start over.
It probably won’t occur to them to tear apart Newton’s Principia like an
old watch and rebuild it, as I have. It won’t occur to them to rebuild
Laplace and Lagrange, comb Relativity from the ground up, or to look for
mathematical flaws in QED or QCD. After all, I have done all that and
haven’t yet developed a better pop-gun, so what do they care? They would
say, “Give me something I can use.”
If that is the case, it also
explains my freedom, and my lack of competition. The type of problems I
am working on apparently only interest scientific purists, and we are a
dying breed, it would seem.
Just getting to the end of this
paper leaves me thinking, “Of course physics has been diverted by the
government. It was diverted by the Manhattan Project and never
un-diverted. How could you have missed this for so long?” Which leads me
to two other realizations. One, a lot of mid-level physicists in the
universities apparently haven’t yet had this epiphany that I just had.
It appears that only the top physicists are “encouraged” to misdirect
the field, and the field just goes along with it. This suits the
government
just fine, because it limits those they have to control. The government
controls the top, and the top controls the middle, and so on. Two, if
mainstream physics is is utter misdirection, then I don’t have to waste
any more time debating it. If you debate propagandists, you are just
falling for their tricks. After all, how can you debate something like
virtual particles? As I said before, you don’t debate physicists who
start talking about virtual particles, you boot them out of the lab as a
nuisance. I suggest the mid-level physicists at the universities do
just that. I can’t be bothered to sully my boots.
Finally, I
suggest that I have uncovered a fantastic journalism project here, if
there are any real reporters left in the world. Operation Mockingbird
was eventually uncovered by Deborah Davis and Carl Bernstein and others.
This Operation Ostrich, where the biggest brains in physics are taken
permanently underground after the Manhattan Project, would be an even
bigger nut to crack. Piecing together a bunch of disparate facts like I
have done will start the stone rolling, but the theory won’t be proved
until we get what these previous reporters got: interviews or documents.
Research like that isn’t really my forté or interest, so unless someone
dumps some documents in my lap, I will probably leave it to others.
*http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1415/pg2/index.html or Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great. 1979 ** “The CIA and the Media”, Carl Bernstein, Rolling Stone, 1977 http://milesmathis.com/control.pdf
Food fraud is on the rise.
And it’s very poorly regulated.
The result: What’s on the label is very often what you’re not getting.
Who is doing something about it?
Not the government, they’re cutting regulations and enforcement.
Supermarkets clams to be “concerned.” And we all know what that means.
The state carry on grabbing
children while Common Purpose infects the UK military. Isn’t it great
being British! C’mon all of you who want to leave your own countries,
come to our developing Marxist paradise!
Published on 10 Jan 2018
Brian Gerrish, Mike Robinson and Alex Thomson with today’s news update from the UK Column.
START — Imprisoned Eugene Lukjanenko: hunger strike over taken child
10:09 – Why is Britain suddenly exposing France…?
21:05 – Dutch fake news: MainStream Media tacitly edits MP’s tweet…
23:47 – ‘Stop worrying and love the EU’s security and defense agreement’
26:47 – US Navy, failing in the Western Pacific, heads for Crimea…
29:47 – Wall Street Journal propaganda: ‘A deadly new cold war…’
31:18 – BBC: New Army adverts ‘promote emotional support’ for recruits
38:37 – Anti European homogeneity man Peter Sutherland dies, aged 71
40:06 – Syria: more progress in Idlib Province – false flag imminent…?
44:09 – BBC: human trafficking finally news but used as advert for show
46:39 – Sabine McNeil in court tomorrow after helping in abuse case…
Video.
The same part of the brain is stimulated by smartphone/screen play as
by drugs. The same addictive effects are observed. 10/11 year old kids
spend eight hours a day in front of screens playing. Silicon Valley
execs send their kids to non-tech Waldorf schools to keep them away from
what they know to be harmful addiction. Be smart. Keep your kids away
from so-called Smart technology.
Technology is turning your kids into digital junkies.
โพสต์โดย Health For All Kids บน 9 มิถุนายน 2017
France is banning all mobile/electronic devices in schools.
FORCED MEDICATION IN THE NHS – YOU WILL TAKE THE FLU VACCINE OR EXPLAIN YOURSELF! (it’s full of shit)
NHS
bosses are writing to all 1.4 million staff to say they must have the
winter flu jab as soon as possible to reduce the risk of them infecting
patients who might die.
Those who decline the jab will have to
tell the NHS trust that employs them why, and it will have to record
their reasons, as part of a bid to drive up what the NHS admits are
“disappointing” staff take-up rates.
Bosses write to workers saying they should get vaccinated as soon as possible – and must give a reason for refusing to do so
THEGUARDIAN.COM
TAP
– Take Vitamin D6 drops, get enough sleep and most people won’t get
flu. Also Vitamin A. Bingo! Cheaper and effective alternatives.
You have no need for poisonous vaccine that doesn’t work anyway.
Research on Dr Mercola and many other sites covering vaccines.
Vaccines are a deliberate assault on the brain with no effect on flu whatsoever.
If you’re convinced vaccines are safe, you’re not well informed… here’s the information being withheld from you.
(Natural News)
If you’re convinced that vaccines are safe, you’re not listening to the
people who’ve lost a child after a round of vaccines was administered.
The U.S. government set up a special court to hear vaccine injury cases,
with reparation for select victims but no accountability for vaccine
makers. If you’re new to learning about vaccine risk, check out LearnTheRisk.org, ChildhoodShots.com and TheWorldMercuryProject, three of many places where the truth is being told.
As
the truth comes forth, will you laugh in the faces of the victims who
have been vaccine damaged? Sudden infant death syndrome, seizures,
allergies, brain swelling, skin conditions, eating disorders and neurological development issues are all sad consequences of
failed vaccine policy in the U.S. and around the world. Every vaccine
on the market today, no matter what its intended use, will burden a
body, especially small bodies with lower blood volume and weight.
Vaccines
use adjuvants to inflame the immune system and force it to respond to
pathogens. The most popular adjuvant used in vaccines are aluminum
salts. As Dr. Chris Exley demonstrates,
after a vaccine is administered, immune-responsive cells quickly travel
to the injection site and load up their cytoplasm with the antigen and
aluminum salts from the vaccine. The immune-responsive cells then travel
throughout the body, taking aluminum cations to unpredictable places,
including the brain. When the vesicles undergo acidification, they will
dissolve the enclosed aluminum salt. Biologically reactive A13+ aluminum
cations rupture the membrane, entering the cell cytoplasm and causing
cell death.
This is the first problem with vaccines; the aluminum
that augments an immune response is traveling throughout the body and
causing cell death, inflammation, and aluminum toxicity throughout the
person. If you’re convinced vaccines are safe, you don’t understand the
toxicity of compounding aluminum cations at the cellular level and the
potential damage that occurs to the brain and immune system when
aluminum-based vaccines are injected.
Vaccines use preservatives.
One of the preservatives in some vaccines is a form of inorganic
mercury called thimerosal. Researchers have studied thimerosal exposure
on mammalian brains. While thimerosal clears from the brain quicker than
organic forms of mercury, it also concentrates there more rapidly, leading to harmful exposure amounts. A laboratory investigation
of GlaxoSmithKline’s Flulaval flu vaccine found mercury at 51 ppm, or
25,000 times the legal maximum for drinking water regulated by the EPA.
Mercury is one of the worst preservatives to directly inject into the
body, bypassing the gastrointestinal filters, microbiome, and the gut
wall. When this vaccine is recommended for pregnant women, is the fetus
protected? Absolutely not. The developing infant can be poisoned for
life due to the slightest exposure to mercury in the womb. If you’re
convinced vaccines are safe, you do not understand the toxicity of
mercury or the dangers of putting a brain-damaging element into the
muscles and bloodstream without normal body filtration.
Texas
researcher Dawn Richardson led a study at an Austin morgue investigating
cases of sudden infant death syndrome. They found high concentrations
of SIDS deaths at 2, 4, and 6 months, the same time the pediatricians
schedule multiple vaccine doses for vulnerable infants. Will there be an
investigation to see if these statistics replicate at morgues across
the country? If so, is SIDS just a vague term to cover up the deaths of
babies who are the victims of failed vaccine policy.
Even though
polio vaccines are advertised as saving lives, the sad truth is that
polio vaccines are causing deadly paralysis in the Middle East.
Thirty-three children were crippled after receiving the polio vaccine in
Syria. Despite the announcement in August 2017,
the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) called on more polio
vaccines to stop what the vaccines started. If you are convinced
vaccines are safe, don’t realize that an unpredictable number of
children are sacrificed just so the remaining children can supposedly be
“protected.”
Did you know a consortium of vaccines contain
attenuated live viruses that can potentially revert back to infectious
form, sickening the vaccine recipient with the disease the vaccine was
supposed to prevent? Did you know that these viruses can shed for up to a
month or longer, spreading to others, especially the
immune-compromised? Viral shedding is a real issue
caused by vaccines, especially in people who are malnourished from the
start. If you’re convinced vaccines are safe, you don’t know
how vaccines can cause the disease to form in the recipient and spread
it to the most vulnerable among us.
This information is the tip of the iceberg. For more research, check out Vaccines.News. Sources include: LearntheRisk.org NaturalNews.com ChildhoodShots.com Vaccines.News Vaccines.News Vaccines.News NaturalNews.com NaturalNews.com NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov NaturalNews.com Monday, January 15, 2018 by: Lance D Johnson Tags: Adjuvants, Aluminum, badhealth, badmedicine, badscience, Dangerous Medicine, immune system, immunization, mercury poisoning, neurological disorders, polio, side effects, SIDS, vaccine damage, vaccines, viral shedding https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-01-15-if-youre-convinced-vaccines-are-safe-youre-not-informed.html
The good old pension scheme,
gold watch and plaque on the wall era is over… a better financial system
without usury suggets Mark Anderson. Oh, wouldn’t it be lovely. There’a
census coming up in 2021. Would that be more paid work for Capita, the
Lockheed subsidiary? https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2017/12/14/reflecting-views-on-the-2021-census/
At least I have long thought there was a relationship between Lockheed and Capita. Let’s do a random search…
Met signs £90m IT deal with Lockheed-Capita-KPMG partnership http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/11011252/Met-signs-90m-IT-deal-with-Lockheed-Capita-KPMG-partnership.html
Let’s give a thought to William the Conqueror and the Doomsday Book.
Isn’t is funny how such things today, logging the private details of the
populous, are acceptable and normal.
As Mark says, the big data
gender bender agenda. Hmm, that’s a title. The state wants to know about
your sexual inclination. The US consensus was originally for counting
constitutional enumerating, to count people for congressional
representation. Today it is way beyond that mandate and just another
aspect of the deep state.
Mayors of Bengaluru and London come together to help cities tackle toxic air pollution: https://indiacsr.in/mayors-bengaluru-london-come-together-help-cities-tackle-toxic-air-pollution/
Of course, it sounds great – mayors wanting to clean up filthy air, but
I caution you to beware of London Mayor Sordik Khant. He is a dullard
bimbo. NPP’s view, not necessarily shared by TAP.
Another episode of the Column anchored by the impeccably astute Mike Robinson.
Published on 15 Jan 2018
UK Column News – 15th January 2018
Mike Robinson and Mark Anderson with today’s news update from the UK Column.
START – Carillion bust: 48,500 jobs at risk, £680m pension deficit…
09:08 – UK Census 2021: public consultations taking place
14:44 – City agenda: Sadiq Khan meets mayor of Bengaluru
21:24 – USA: award-winning journalist comes clean on media control
25:41 – Media collusion in Bundy trial…?
31:35 – BBC: Myanmar back on the agenda…Burmese military or ISIS…?
35:15 – UNHCR: ‘Rohingya are stateless’…what are Human Rights…?
38:39 – Rohingya being vaccinated: UK Aid ‘working tirelessly…’
42:27 – Hawaii: fake inbound ballistic missile…testing public reaction…?
I
was led to look again at Ted Bundy after writing my recent exposé of
the Tate “murders,” where I showed the whole thing was manufactured by
the Intelligence Agencies (FBI, CIA, DIA, ONI). Since Bundy’s alleged
killing spree started just five years later, we should ask if this
series of events was manufactured as well, and if so, for what reason.
If
you haven’t read my 83-page PDF on the Tate “murders,” you are in no
position to read further here. You will find my line of reasoning
bizarre. But after you have read that paper, you will see everything in a
different light.
My first clue that the Bundy murders were all
faked was discovering that, like Charles “Tex” Watson, Bundy supposedly
fathered a child while on death row. Since that is impossible, we have
an early indication that this whole thing is another charade. But what
really got me on the right track was looking at Bundy’s earlier life. In
1966, Bundy went to the University of Washington to study Chinese. Big
red flag. Those who study foreign languages in college, especially
Russian and Chinese, are disproportionately recruited by Intelligence.
In addition, we know he worked on Nelson Rockefeller’s Presidential
campaign in 1968, and of course Rockefeller was long involved in
Intelligence, including being President of the NSC and Chairman of the
PCG (Planning Coordination Group—overseeing the CIA) under Eisenhower.
Later, Bundy was a spy for Republican Governor Daniel Evans of
Washington in 1972, posing as a college student to shadow Evans’
opponent, and—amazingly—this is admitted at Wikipedia. He was then hired
as assistant to the State Republican Party Chairman. Bundy was accepted
to law school on the recommendation of Evans. Evans was also a staunch
supporter of Rockefeller, perhaps losing a Vice Presidential nomination
when he refused to endorse Nixon in 1968. We have a series of red flags
there, indicating Bundy was already an insider and spy from the
beginning.
As
for his birth and life as a child, it all looks like a rewrite and
whitewash. Every story has three variations, and none of them make sense
or are consistent. His biographies read like poor fiction,
written by flunkies at Langley. So who was Bundy, really? Or I should say, who is Ted Bundy?
I
got nowhere on that question for about a year, since I wasn’t willing
to travel to look up documents. Finally, the answer fell into my lap. We
have seen that the elite like to use their own children in their
manufactured events, since these children are available and very easy to
control. In most cases, they don’t even bother to change any names.
Think of Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, Susan
Atkins, John Phillips, and Jim Morrison. For an example beyond the Tate
event, where we saw many children of the elite used, think of John
Hinckley, Jr. Hinckley’s father was a close personal friend of the
Bushes, and the Bushes were even dining with the Hinckleys the night of
the alleged shooting of Reagan. Even that hint didn’t help me until I
started studying CIA control of art in the 1950’s and 60’s, through the
Congress for Cultural Freedom and other front organizations. In that
research, I stumbled across McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor
(CIA supervisor) to Kennedy and Johnson and later president of the Ford
Foundation. Before that, in 1953 he was appointed Dean of Arts and
Sciences at Harvard. He was only 34 at the time of that appointment.
That was possible only because Bundy was already CIA at the time. He had
been on the Council of Foreign Relations since he was 29. He had been
in Intelligence since 1941, when he joined OSS right out of Yale at age
22. He was born into the prominent Boston Brahmin families of Bundy,
Putnam, Lowell, etc.
McGeorge’s older Brother William was also a
prominent CIA agent, being also a foreign affairs advisor to both
Kennedy and Johnson. He had a key role in planning the Vietnam War.
Perhaps even more interesting is that after his government service, he
became a historian, writing many books. The most famous is A Tangled
Web: The Making of Foreign Policy in the Nixon Presidency. We are told
that William had three children: Michael, Christopher and Carol.
Bundy.
. .Bundy. Was it that simple? Had they really not even bothered to
change the names? Looks like it. Looks like they decided to make it easy
on Ted, letting him keep his name. They were so confident from past
successes, they figured they could cover up every link afterwards. They
would tell everyone Ted had been adopted, was originally named Cowell,
and so on. Mark that: Cowell. It is a little joke, since, as we have
seen, the CIA loves inside jokes. It is one letter from Lowell. We have
just seen that McGeorge’s mother was a Lowell of the famous Lowells of
Boston, and she was Ted’s grandmother.
They also hid McGeorge’s
children. Notice they are not listed at Wikipedia. His family isn’t even
mentioned, and you would think he was gay or a bachelor. I had to go to
old obituaries to find out that McGeorge had four sons, Stephen,
Andrew, William, and James. If we do a websearch on those names, we find
convincing pictures of Stephen, Andrew and James, and none of them look
to be Ted. They look somewhat like Ted (enough to be brothers or
cousins), but no match. But we find no pictures of William. Was he less
well known, hence the lack of web photos, or was there a fifth brother?
This will have to be determined by further research.
The fact
that they hid McGeorge’s children and his early photographs leads me to
suspect Ted is his son, rather than the son of William. But Ted could be
the son of a third unknown brother for all I know. The genealogy
appears to have been changed, so I have no paperwork to go on for this
essay. I have not uncovered documents here, since it is doubtful they
exist. I am pursuing facial comparisons, since that is my specialty.
That and photo analysis.
To get started, we should first ask if
Ted is the right age to be a son of McGeorge or William. He is. William
was born in 1917, McGeorge was born in 1919 and Ted was said to have
been born in 1946. In 1946, McGeorge was 27, a probable time for a first
son. Since McGeorge didn’t marry until 1950, it
is
possible Ted was illegitimate. It is also possible they simply changed
the dates. This plays into Ted’s faked bio, since in that bio Ted and
his biographers tell several stories about finding a birth certificate
or being shown one by a cousin. He is supposed to have discovered his
grandparents weren’t his real parents, and that his sister was really
his mother. That was always beyond belief, and we now see a more likely
history for Ted. He may indeed have been a bastard, but he was William
or McGeorge’s bastard, not the bastard of some air force veteran named
Lloyd Marshall. That name is also a CIA joke, since the CIA was founded
as an introduction to the Marshall Plan in 1947. General Marshall would
be Secretary of State beginning in 1947 and then Secretary of Defense in
1950. Ted was said to have been born in 1946, when the OSS/CIA was
already forming the Marshall Plan to fight Communism in Europe. It is
also interesting that Ted was said to have been born in Vermont.
Although he is later tied to the West Coast, Vermont is of course just
above Massachusetts. Burlington is about 200 miles from Boston.
All
this is admittedly speculative and circumstantial, but it is given a
very large dose of legitimacy by studying photos of the three men:
The
first two are of William Bundy, the last three Ted. I couldn’t find any
photos of McGeorge as a young man. At first I thought I had found one,
but it was mis-tagged. On further research, all of them turned out to be
William. Curious that we don’t have any of McGeorge as a young man.
Possibly he looked even more like Ted than William. At any rate, as a
professional portrait painter—hired by wealthy people to reproduce their
likenesses or the likenesses of their children—I can tell you the match
above is quite close. If not for the difference in the upper lip, these
people could be clones. Notice they have the same eyebrows, the same
jawline, the same head shape (exactly), the same size forehead, the same
eye-to-mouth ratio, the same neck size, similar ears, and very nearly
the same noses. William tends to squint (probably because of the
glasses) while Ted tends to open his eyes wide, but other than that the
eyes are the same, too. They are the same width and they tilt up the
same. Ted was probably instructed to open his eyes wide, to make him
look crazy. They gave the same direction to Manson five years earlier.
Ted and William even have the same color hair and part it on the same
side. You can see Ted’s natural part in pics 2 and 3, and it matches his
father’s. They have parted it on the wrong side for the mugshots, which
is why it is flopping over in a weird way. That is what anyone’s hair
will do when they part it opposite of the way it naturally grows or is
trained. William, McGeorge and Ted were also the same height: 5’9” to
5’10” and the same weight and build.
Another indication is
provided by the fact that all three men had blue eyes with brown hair,
which isn’t that common in the US. The odds that both men would have
this mixed trait is on the order of 1 in a hundred (1/10 times 1/10). It
was common in the Bundy family however, since Stephen, Andrew, and
James also had the same trait.
That
first pic is McGeorge at about age 45. He looked very much like
William, except that McGeorge’s hairline receded much earlier. That
makes him appear to have a larger forehead and throws off the similarity
somewhat at first look. That is probably why we don’t see pictures of
McGeorge in his 20’s or 30’s online. But notice that the mouth and lip
match is much closer with McGeorge and Ted than William and Ted.
William’s lips turned down at the corners. But McGeorge and Ted both
have that nearly perfect cupid’s bow on the upper lip. Ted’s mouth
matches McGeorge’s mouth nearly exactly in length, width, and curvature.
We
can now run some rough numbers on all these trait matches between the
older Bundys and Ted. The odds that two unrelated men would match at
that weight and height and hair color aren’t that that low, since after
all that is about dead average. But the odds of matching that plus blue
eyes, same jaw line, same eyes, same build, same face shape, same nose
length, same mouth width, and same last name are extremely low. Even
before the last name match, I would estimate the odds being something
like 1/100,000. With the same last name (for any stated reason), the
odds are more like 1 in 10,000,000. Stated another way, the probability
that two men with the same last name who look this much alike are
closely related is very high. Again:
In
calculating these odds, we have to take into account the closeness of
each match. For me, the eyes and jawline tell us all we need to know.
Look at how the neck meets the jawline: an exact match.
Of course
this isn’t proof. For proof that would hold up in court we would have
to have documentary evidence or a DNA test. I assume all documents have
been shredded and switched out for fakes, and it is unlikely Ted will
come out of hiding for a blood test. So for now this is just being
offered here as my professional opinion, based on a hunch and on some
photo analysis. Do with it what you will.
No doubt, some will
start by saying, “It can’t be. These people wouldn’t allow the famous
Bundy name to be dragged through the mud on purpose! The Lowells,
Putnams, etc., wouldn’t allow it. The Boston Brahmins wouldn’t wish for a
famous serial killer to be linked to their names in any way, but they
especially wouldn’t make it happen!” Anyone who says something like that
sounds like they are still living in the 1890’s. They should be living
in a Henry James novel. The truth is, everyone in the know already knows
Ted was used for this program, and they find it amusing. So it doesn’t
sully anything for these wealthy families. It is a point of honor, in
fact. As for what the rest of us know or think of them, they couldn’t
possibly care less. That is why they expend so little energy and time
trying to make these scenarios air-tight. They know that neatness
doesn’t count. They know most of us can be fooled by a sloppy magician’s
trick, and that is all they care for. They don’t need to fool all of
us. They only need to fool 95%. If a few fish like me swim out of the
net, what do they care?
Think of it this way: say Sherlock Holmes
were alive now. Do you honestly think the wealthy families or the CIA
would have anything to fear from him? No. No one is going to hire him.
As long as no one hires him, any crime he solves will be nothing more
than an amusing novella. For it to go beyond literature, the police or
the courts would have to get involved, and that isn’t going to happen.
The police and the courts have no interest in pursuing wealthy families
or the government agencies. Only when wealthy families fight one another
do things still happen, but that isn’t what we have here. What we have
here is the wealthy families controlling the greater society, and those
families have closed all avenues of resistance against them: courts,
police, the media, Congress, and so on. All those institutions are
defunct.
The
question remains, why would Intelligence be interested in faking a
serial killer? Simple: to create instability and fear. This was one of
the prime goals of Intelligence at the time, and of course it still is.
In the 1960’s, the FBI had COINTELPRO and the CIA had CHAOS, and both
programs have been partially declassified now, enough so that we know
the one of the directives of each program was destabilization. And this
was not just destabilization of the “enemy.” This was a general
destabilization of the whole society. Since the entire society was seen
to be moving left in the 1960’s, Hoover of the FBI, Helms and Angleton
of the CIA, and many others felt that general destabilization was
necessary to maintain control. Of course they had been creating fear
since the end of WW2, but in the beginning that was mainly to keep
military expenditures high. They needed to justify continued military
spending, as well as spending to expand the Intelligence community, and
the best way to do that was to manufacture conflict and fear. The Cold
War was manufactured by both sides, since it allowed for massive
“defense” budgets both here and in Russia. The Red Scare in the 1950’s
was part of that creation of general fear. But by the late 1960’s, the
Government had domestic problems to deal with, including an
ever-increasing resistance to the Vietnam War.
Communism had been
destroyed domestically—everybody knew that—so they needed a different
way to create general fear. One of the ways they decided to do that was
with manufactured bogeymen of the Manson, Bundy type.* Manson’s bogeyman
was created as a hippie in order to destroy the hippie movement, and he
was incredibly successful in his role. But by 1975 the hippie movement
was also dead, so the bogeymen no longer needed to be of that mold. They
now wished to demonize the good- looking white guy. Why? Several
reasons. First of all, the charismatic, college-educated white guy was
still the most dangerous person in the eyes of Intelligence at that
time, since in 1975 he still had the most real power. The good-looking
white guy had been the biggest thorn in their side during the hippie
movement and the war protest movement. They had been the high-profile
speakers with the most bravery, tenacity, and the greatest ability to
sway a crowd. Therefore, Intelligence wanted to recruit all the
charismatic white guys they could into their agencies, and hog-tie the
rest.
Intelligence also wished to create as much sexual
dissatisfaction as they could, because they found it helped sales in all
areas. The dissatisfied bought more drugs, more liquor, more guns, more
magazines, more newspapers, watched more TV, and were generally easier
to propagandize on all issues. And this time, the focus was on women. If
Intelligence could make women fear all men—especially the good- looking
ones—they would immediately create huge levels of sexual
dissatisfaction. These women would then watch soap operas and read pulp
romances and join feminist groups, where they could be further
propagandized. They would suffer from a thousand forms of anxiety and
all the mental and physical effects of that anxiety, which would require
a million forms of drugging and therapy, legal and illegal. And as the
women went, so did the men. If the heterosexual women could be driven
nuts, the heterosexual men would be taken down with them. The sexual
relationship is like that: if you destroy one half of it, the other half
falls as well.
Of course this is still the program, and it seeds
Oprah’s empire as well as half the hospitals. It seeds the
pharmaceutical industry, the porn industry, Hollywood, the cosmetic
industry, radical feminism, women’s studies, men’s studies, postmodern
art, and a thousand worthless TV channels.
If you or the CIA
wonders why I am researching these things like a fiend, it is because my
life has been ruined by these programs. In previous papers you have
seen how the CIA’s (now admitted) control and destruction of art during
the 20th century would affect someone like me, but these sexual
destabilization programs are also ruinous, and I take them personally.
Like the rest of the heterosexual male population, I have been forced to
try to date these women who have been brought up on a constant fare
of
planted stories of the Manson, Bundy type. I can point to many specific
instances with real women where Manson, Bundy, or one of the other
mainstream figments was brought up in conversation as a source of their
anxieties. And it continues up to this day, with the manufactured events
we see in the papers daily, many of them aimed directly at young women.
The
government has been manufacturing tragedies year by year for decades,
and we are now up to several a month, just to keep the patient properly
traumatized. It used to be that one fake serial killer every couple of
years would do the job, but in this as in everything else, the patient
develops a tolerance.
After 911, the audience became more
difficult to startle. In addition to your daily dose of shootings,
maulings, rapes, suicides, crashes and molestations (most of them also
manufactured for your viewing pleasure by the Intelligence agencies),
you are now privy to at least one mass shooting or bombing every two or
three months. It was found that the serial killer story took too long to
unwind, so they ditched that. You don’t get serial killers much
anymore. It is mass shootings instead, since they happen all at once.
The American public no longer has the attention span required to follow a
serial killer. Think about that, please. Don’t you think it is
convenient that crazy murderers decided to quit the serial thing and go
in for the mass thing instead? So nice of them to change with the times,
scripting their madness to fit the demands of the media!
As Ted
Bundy goes, so goes Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Kaczinski, David Berkowitz,
Richard Ramirez, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Anders Breivik, and most of
the other high-profile murderers.
*For an interesting cloaked
exposé of this phenomenon, I recommend you to M. Night Shyamalan’s film
The Village. He is telling you that your bogeymen are faked. http://mileswmathis.com/bundy.pdf
I am now almost 51, and it took me this long to figure out how the world really works. This time last year, I didn’t know.
The
truth is, I didn’t work on the question much for the first 40 years of
my life, so it isn’t really surprising I didn’t discover this sooner.
I am not claiming to understand how ALL of life works. Just this one thing.
This
is what I finally understood: all famous people are there to misdirect
you. ALL OF THEM. They didn’t accidentally get famous. They don’t
accidentally get on TV or in movies or in books or on CDs or on the
internet. And they certainly don’t earn their way into these positions,
as is now clear. So how did they get there? Why do you have to see them
and hear them all the time? Why do you know who they are? Because they
were placed there. They were chosen to fill that position, and they were
chosen in order to misdirect you from the truth.
What I Finally Understood by Miles Mathis
You
will say, “C’mon, Miles, that can’t be true. All of them? I mean, they
disagree with eachother. How can they all be placed there?”
Look
at it this way: say you wanted to control everyone in the world. Well,
people are at different levels. They have different interests and
beliefs and levels of intelligence. So if you want to control everyone,
you have to place your guys at all these levels, on all possible paths.
If
you are a football coach setting up a defense on the field, you don’t
put all your tacklers in the middle of the field, or all on one side.
You spread them out. You want to block all possible paths to the goal.
You have to defend against the run and the pass, the short ball and the
long ball.
It
is the same with government. If you want to govern people, you have to
keep them on the path you have chosen for them. That is how the
governors understand government. You may think government is about
keeping people employed and building highways and educating children,
but it isn’t. It is about “governing” them. Moving them around at will.
Think of a governess. She keeps the kids out of trouble and molds them
into the sort of adults her employer or her society requires. Same thing
with the governors. They keep you from troubling them and mold you into
someone who can make them richer. That is what our society requires,
and very little else.
With that goal in mind, the last thing the
governors want is “enlightened” people or “self-actualized” people.
Those people might make money for themselves, think for themselves, and
govern themselves. People like that make very poor clients. People like
that are just trouble. So the governors have to head them off.
Since
people take many different paths, the governors have to place their
blockers and tacklers everywhere. They have to have blockers for smart
people and dumb people, lazy people and ambitious people, caring people
and uncaring people, progressive people and conservative people, men and
women, young and old.
And they have to have blockers and
tacklers up and down the field, on the fifty-yard line as well as on the
five-yard line. If you get past one line of tacklers, they have to have
another line ready for you.
To switch the visualization, no
matter how high up the mountain you climb, they have to have some guru
on a goat-ledge positioned there to shunt you off on the wrong path.
No
matter how deep down the rabbit hole you have climbed, they have to
have some bearded caterpillar waiting for you to give you bad advice in
solemn tones, recommending you eat the wrong cake or try the wrong door.
I
admit it took me a while to figure this out. Over the past decade I
have lost more and more of my old heroes. I got around them and moved on
up the mountain. But then I came to another set of heroes perched up
there, and instead of learning from my past mistakes and looking at
these heroes with suspicion, I instead protected them from questions
like that. I didn’t want to lose them, so I didn’t look closely at them.
I nodded politely in the old ways and knelt down for the next lesson.
But
eventually they said something that didn’t fit the script, and the
curtain was torn. I then felt like Jim Carrey in The Truman Show, when
his car radio accidentally picks up the director’s channel. I was forced
to pick up my bamboo mat and kettle of fish and move further up the
mountain.
No matter how high I got, I was always met by a new expert, pointing sideways along a path and smiling knowingly.
Finally,
I figured out the game. I figured it out by noticing that all these
guys popped up there like jack-in-the-boxes, rising up from underground
tunnels dug centuries earlier by an army of evil moles. They knew I
would come eventually—me or someone like me—and they had made plans. The
entire mountain and rabbit hole had been trapped and mined, and I began
to look around for David Bowie in the Labyrinth. Like Bowie, these
pretend sorcerers gave themselves away to a keen eye, since they got
more desperate the nearer you got to the truth. The longer I stayed on
the right path, the less likely I was to be fooled by the next trap, and
they knew that.
That doesn’t mean any of this is easy. Maybe the
hardest part is that you have to pass through a treacherous middle
level on the mountain. Once you pass the halfway point on the mountain,
the gurus get more clever. You already know a lot by that time, so they
have to take that into account. They have to lead the lesson by
re-teaching you a lot you already know. This makes you trust them. One
of their greatest tricks is unmasking gurus on lower levels, although
those gurus are really their colleagues. They say, “Oh, by the way, you
know that the gurus at level 42, 43, and 44 are working for the man,
right? They were trying to keep you from climbing up to this level,
because they are jealous of the view I have from here. Beautiful, isn’t
it?” Guru 45 then subtly suggests his view is superior to views from
even higher, and that you have no need to climb up further. He has to
say that in just the right way, though, at the right speed, with the
right inflections, or you remember that guru 44 just told you pretty
much the same thing.
You hit another hard part when you realize
all the gurus are planted. As soon as that sinks in fully, they stop
sending you gurus. The jack-in-the-boxes stop popping up from the
mountain ledges, and you find yourself alone with the birds and the
bears. That is scary not only because you have no one to talk to, but
even more because your trick of doing the opposite of what you were told
no longer works. You can no longer wait for the guru to point left and
then move right. You have to decide on your own, without the help of
negative evidence.
I know some of you are laughing, but do you
understand how hard that is? If you are a good ways up the mountain,
just think how many of your decisions were decisions of avoidance.
Compare the number of paths you refused because they looked bad to the
number of paths you chose because they looked good. If you are like me,
most of your progress has been due to the former. Given ten paths, you
chose number 7 because 1-6 and 8-10 all stank. And they all stank
because you could see lots of stinky people clogging up those paths. The
choice was easy.
But once you get past the gurus, you no longer
have stinky people showing you how not to live. Up above you are only
empty paths, none of them either beckoning you or offending you. All is
silent. With the mountaintop draped in cloud, how do you know which way
to go?
Let us transport ourselves back down the mountain some
ways, where the gurus are as thick as flies on a summer dunghill. At
this level, I will not find many who wish to learn my lesson. The
students are in thrall to the teachers, and do not wish to fall out of
thrall. These students will tell me that one side or the other must be
right. Given a certain question, they can’t all be wrong, can they?
Well,
if they are all paid to be wrong, they can. This is easiest to see from
the so-called debates we watch on TV. Whether it is political debates
between candidates or manufactured debates on news programs, we always
see the question divided two ways, and the people on both sides speaking
nonsense. The truth is always avoided by both sides, as if it is a
virus. Let’s take a topic, say, gun control. This is probably the
hottest topic of the past two years. My knee-jerk reaction is to be
against gun control, if only because the governors are for it. If the
government is trying this hard to sell me something, I know it is not
worth buying. The government has proven over and over it can’t be
trusted, so I do the logical thing and refuse to trust it. But that
doesn’t mean I have gone out and bought a gun. I am not a hunter so I
have no use for a gun. I don’t really think a gun is going to even my
chances against the government. But this is exactly what the pro-gun
side seems to be arguing. And it seems to be what the audience is
hearing, since the audience is going out and buying guns like they are
about to be discontinued.
Here is what you never hear in the gun
control debate from either side. This is what I would say to the
government when it sent in some stuffed shirt to promote gun control:
Look,
I have no need for guns. Most of my neighbors have no need for guns,
unless they are hunters. If you want us to quit buying guns and
ammunition in such outrageous numbers, why don’t you quit scaring the
shit out of us with all these faked murders like Sandy Hook and the
Boston Marathon? Why don’t you quit arming the police with tanks and
machine guns? Why don’t you quit using the army and National Guard to
run suspicionless checkpoints? Why don’t you quit running drills in
schools and small towns, with black helicopters and live ammunition? Why
don’t you quit tasering people to death for minor infractions? Why
don’t you quit building private jails to house people who have done next
to nothing? Why don’t you quit turning the DHS into a Gestapo? Maybe if
you guys quit acting like Nazis, we would quit buying so many guns. Has
that ever occurred to you?
But you never hear that. You often
hear some variation of the argument that the Constitution gives people
the right to have arsenals of AR-15’s, to protect themselves from the
government. That isn’t any more sensible than the government line. If we
are going to debate the topic (rather than just allow that what is, is
what must be), we might want to make some rational suggestions, such as
that it isn’t necessary for the government to be at war with its own
people. We got along fine as a country for 225 years without a
Department of Homeland Security, and it wouldn’t be that hard to turn
back the clock just 14 years, to before 2001. None of this is necessary,
neither the arming of the citizenry nor the militarizing of the police
force. If we got rid of a few bad people at the top, it would all end
tomorrow.
As it goes with that topic, it goes with most others.
Neither side is ever telling you the truth, because they are both trying
to make a buck off of you. The gun control people are trying to get
more taxes for “Homeland Security,” while the gun advocates are hoping
to sell you a gun. Just imagine the total market for domestic arms sales
in the past five years. It boggles the mind. Which means the government
is probably playing both sides, as usual. I would be willing to bet
that most of the money spent on guns in the US since Obama took office
has gone into the pockets of the same billionaires who are profiting
from Homeland Security. It is doubtful that most folks have ever thought
of that.
Those
who haven’t should study the recent history of Smith&Wesson. Did
you know that Smith&Wesson was bought out in a hostile takeover in
2001, and that the government was involved? Remember, 2001 was also year
one of DHS. Coincidence? Did you know that the $200 million company was
bought for $15 million, and that this rock-bottom price was due to
fire-arm regulation by President Clinton? Did you know that after an
initial plunge due to the Clinton regulation, their sales have since
skyrocketed?
Just a coincidence, right? Did you know that the
buyer of Smith&Wesson was a start-up company named Saf-T-Hammer? We
are told it was a maker of gun locks, but it wasn’t. It was a start-up
company with no history of making anything. “Saf-T-Hammer never
manufactured that lock independently before buying out S&W, and does
not now manufacture it separately from the guns.” This brings up the
question of who does own Saf-T-Hammer. Well the company changed names to
Smith and Wesson Holding Group, which now has 83% Institutional
Ownership. What does that mean? It means the company is owned by
institutions, mainly investment firms and banks. The two biggest owners
are the Vanguard Group and Fidelity Investments, but other owners
include the Royal Bank of Canada, ING, and Barclays. So my suspicion is
proved true once again. The billionaire investors are making money off
you both ways: they tax you for Homeland Security, which scares you into
buying guns, and the money you spend on guns also goes to them.
This
list of institutional investors of Smith&Wesson rings a bell, since
the top two appear on Project Censored’s 2013 list of the world’s top
investment firms:
1 BlackRock US $3.560 trillion
2 UBS Switzerland $2.280 trillion
3 Allianz Germany $2.213 trillion
4 Vanguard Group US $2.080 trillion
5 State Street Global Advisors (SSgA) US $1.908
6 PIMCO (Pacific Investment Management Company) US $1.820 trillion 7 Fidelity Investments US $1.576 trillion
8 AXA Group France $1.393 trillion
9 JPMorgan Asset Management US $1.347 trillion
10 Credit Suisse Switzerland $1.279 trillion
11 BNY Mellon Asset Management US $1.299 trillion
12 HSBC UK $1.230 trillion
13 Deutsche Bank Germany $1.227 trillion
The
number is managed funds. Notice that Vanguard and Fidelity are high on
the list. Blackrock bought out Barclays Investments in 2009, but
Barclays still has company assets of over 2 trillion. Note, that is
company assets for Barclays, not managed funds.
Beyond that, all
of these companies have been caught up in illegal activities in the past
decade, including the gigantic LIBOR and ISDAfix scandals, in which
these people were caught fixing the prices of just about everything.
Many of them have been fined hundreds of millions of dollars, but they
still refuse to obey the laws. Most of them have been caught laundering
huge amounts of money, but again, they have just been slapped on the
wrist and gone on as before. Vanguard was prosecuted by the government
under the RICO Act for illegally investing clients’ monies in offshore
gambling sites. They bought off the court.
You might also be
interested to know that Vanguard and Blackrock are invested in Sturm,
Ruger &Co., a competitor of Smith&Wesson. No matter what brand
of gun you buy, they are raking in the money.
The gurus are
screwing you from both ends. The people they are hiring to debate gun
control in the media on both sides are working for the banks. The
escalation benefits them from all directions.
So make a list of
all the famous people selling both sides of this argument. No, really.
Make an actual list. Write down all the people you love to hate who are
on the other side. Then write down all the people that you think are on
your side. Then ask yourself, “Are any of them speaking any sense?” Or
are they all promoting this escalation one way or the other?
This is how it goes, on all topics.
So
what pushed me over the edge on the greater question of famous people?
What was the AHA moment? You may laugh, but it was Lyndon LaRouche.
Someone said to me recently, “You know, what is weird is how right
Lyndon LaRouche was.” And I got to thinking. Yes, he was right about a
lot of things, and he was even right about the “out there” stuff, like
the government pushing drugs [see Dope, Inc.], laundering money,
fluoride, the financial meltdown, pedophilia, and so on. So I went back
and studied his writings across the board. Do you know what I found? A
higher-level guru, placed fairly far up the mountain to misdirect the
most avant of the avant garde conspiracy theorists. I found he was a
Marxist until he was almost 60, which of course I saw as a red flag. No
one over thirty was still a Marxist in the US in 1970, except a few
dupes and a few small-time spooks working the campuses. No true
intellectual could stomach Marx’s prose, much less his theory.
I
say that not as a champion of capitalism or of the US system in
general, but only as a champion of reason. It should now be clear that
Marxism was never anything else but a disguised replacement for
Republicanism, created to appeal to the idealistic youth of the West who
were disenchanted with their own failed institutions. That is,
Socialism was dressed from the beginning to look like a fairer sister of
Democracy/Republicanism, but it was actually a crone in poor make-up.
It was purposely created to break down immediately into fascism, the way
plastic is now made to break down when exposed to light. Marxism
borrowed the egalitarian platitudes of Republicanism, and even outdid it
in its flattering of the lower classes; but the theorists conveniently
left out any of the hard facts of government, like constitutions or
courts or human nature. And by resting the whole theory on the workers,
Marx and his buddies knowingly built their edifice on sand. Though
top-down governance is often or usually predatory, bottom-up governance
is simply a contradiction in terms. You are just as likely to
successfully run a country from workers’ cooperatives as you are to run
your house from the kids’ bedroom.
I am all in favor of trade
unions and worker-owned companies; but at the same time I would not like
to see a co-op of Walmart, McDonald’s, and USPS employees running the
country. While the system we have doesn’t put the best people at the
top, Marxism wouldn’t either.
But there were many other red flags
with LaRouche, including his promotion of Leibniz, Abe Lincoln,
Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, NAWAPA, SDI, and so on. It may seem
strange to say it, but LaRouche was a gatekeeper like Chomsky, placed
pretty far down the road to catch those who got too far ahead. Like
Chomsky, LaRouche was instructed to admit to a large percentage of US
and British crimes, to appeal to progressives and good researchers who
had already discovered them. And also like Chomsky, LaRouche was there
to prevent deeper truths from being discovered. Ironically, perhaps,
LaRouche was—in most ways—positioned further up the mountain than
Chomsky. LaRouche could admit to 911 where Chomsky couldn’t. LaRouche
could talk about outre crimes that wouldn’t appeal to Chomsky’s
audience. And they were instructed to blow a very different smoke
regarding Kennedy. While Chomsky pretended to be above the whole
discussion, LaRouche was instructed to tell a new variant of the Oliver
Stone story, intellectualizing it with the Yalta system and a new
player, Mortimer Bloomfield. Notice in that link that LaRouche suggests
Kennedy was killed for believing the US could win a war [“war-winning
capability”] with the USSR. You have to be kidding me! Talk about
muddying the waters with an absurdity. Do you really believe a US
President could be too hawkish for the financiers behind him? This
should only serve to remind us that LaRouche is himself a hawk, even
hungrier for confrontation and new weapons systems than his colleague (I
mean archenemy) Kissinger.
Which brings up LaRouche’s web of contacts. We are told that LaRouche traveled the world, having
meetings
with top people in many countries, including the Soviet Union. So how
did he manage that? In 1967, at age 45, we are told he was teaching at
New York City’s Free School, but there is no listing anywhere for that.
We are told a group of students from Columbia and City College came to
his classes and suddenly the National Caucus of Labor Committees was
born. But if LaRouche was charismatic enough to start this movement on
his own, why didn’t he start it earlier? Why did he wait until 1968,
when he was 46? We must ask not just why his movement caught fire then,
but how. How were all the magazines and books and travel funded? How did
LaRouche manage to schedule meetings with important people, seeing that
up to 1968 he was not one and had no contacts? Some would say I have
some far-out ideas like LaRouche had in the 1970’s. Do you think I can
use those ideas to schedule meetings with the heads of state in Europe,
Russia and Asia? Of course not. Revolutionary or non- mainstream ideas
are precisely what prevent one from doing that. LaRouche’s entire
biography is a contradiction, since we are being sold the idea that he
was attacking the mainstream leaders viciously, while at the same time
taking meetings with them.
You will say I am implying that SDS
(Students for a Democratic Society) or parts of it were infiltrated by
the government, but LaRouche himself tells us that. His NCLC was
originally a faction of SDS, and although “it was originally a New Left
organization influenced by Trotskyist ideas,” it was “opposed to other
New Left organizations which LaRouche said were dominated by the Ford
Foundation, Institute for Policy Studies and Herbert Marcuse.” If you
can accept what he says—that other New Left organizations were dominated
by these government think-tanks and foundations—why not his NCLC?
LaRouche’s organization has all the earmarks of late 1960’s government
programs, including brainwashing, violence, cultism, and created
confusion, so why not ask the question?
“LaRouche writes in his
autobiography that in 1971 the NCLC formed ‘intelligence units’, and the
following year started training members in paramilitary tactics.”
Intelligence units? Does that sound like the language of a Marxist
professor, or of a CIA agent?
So if he is an agent, why did they
later throw him in jail? Are you sure they did? I have shown you in
recent papers that several famous people you thought were in jail
probably never were, including Ezra Pound and Charles Manson. LaRouche’s
alleged time in jail simply glosses up his resume even more in the eyes
of those who would follow him.
Notice that LaRouche has always
been encouraging confrontation. In the early years we are told his
followers beat their Marxist foes with pipes and bats. I think it is
just another planted story, but the form of the story is crucial. They
want you to think there is a lot of political violence going on, even
though there isn’t; just as now they want you to think there are mass
murders every month, although there aren’t. The billionaires love a
manufactured world of fear and chaos, because fear and chaos keep all
markets brisk. In a world of love and satisfaction, all sales would
plummet.
This is why we saw George Bush telling people to go out
and buy stuff after 911. They found that they had overplayed that one by
a tad, and that people were so shocked they had stopped buying. You
want to scare people just enough to make them buy stuff to decorate the
bunker, but not enough to send them down into it. They learned their
lesson there, and they keep the security level at a constant bright
orange now, instead of blinking red. At orange, most people will be at
Walmart every other day stocking up on toilet paper, baking soda, and
camouflage pants; at red they will have pad-locked the shutters, armed
the booby traps, and lit the candles.
Some
will say, “What about you? How do we know you aren’t another posted
guru, planted to misdirect us?” Well, I’m not famous, am I? I am not on
TV, am I? I am not promoted by some studio or consortium or publisher or
think-tank. No one is sending you here: if you got to these pages you
got here on your own, probably by lucking out in a websearch. That is
another difference between me and someone like LaRouche. Although most
of the US articles about him over the years have been negative, they
still wrote about him. You should find that curious in itself. Coverage
is coverage, you know, positive or negative. As they say, all press is
good press as long as they spell your name right.
None of the
articles on LaRouche over the years made any sense, because if LaRouche
really were what the articles were claiming—a crazy cultist out to
defame America and England—why were they writing about him? Why would
the mainstream give someone like that the publicity? Remember, LaRouche
was right about some things, and one of the things he was right about
was the CIA’s total control of the press. We didn’t need him to tell us
that, since we got proof of it from the Senate hearings in the late
1970’s (see the Church Committee hearings). Well, given that, why would
this controlled press want to publicize LaRouche at all? Why not just
ignore him completely? That’s what they do to people they really wish to
bury, like me for instance.
I don’t even have a Wikipedia page.
Go try to build a Wiki page for me, and see how long it lasts. By
contrast, study LaRouche’s Wikipedia page. Not only is it extremely
long, it is not nearly as black as you might think it would be, given
his professed stance against the mainstream. Normally, Wikipedia
blackwashes people it doesn’t like unmercifully. Although we see large
parts of his page spun negative, we see surprisingly large parts spun
positive. You will say those parts were written by his acolytes, but
that is to ignore how Wikipedia normally works. Normally, if you go on a
page of someone the institutions hate, you will find a complete
blackwash. If you try to add any positive remarks or correct the
negative ones, your comments will be deleted immediately. But we don’t
see that with LaRouche. That in itself is a sign I am right about him.
I
am not saying you should trust me. You shouldn’t trust anyone,
especially someone you haven’t met in person. You should read everything
closely and make a decision based on continuity and logic, not on
trust.
So how far back does this rule go, you will ask. Is every
famous person in history a plant, or just the living ones? I intend the
rule to apply to only the living ones, and the recently dead. I have
shown in recent papers that we can take the rule back to the Civil War,
but the further back we go the more exceptions there will be. My
research is limited, of course, so I can’t address every famous person
who ever lived. But any famous person from the past who is still
promoted heavily should immediately fall into your bag and ring a bell. I
saw Alan Watts being promoted in strange ways in the film Her recently,
and had I not already known he was an agent, I would have been alerted
to him in that way. Going further back, I showed in a recent paper that
Walt Whitman was being promoted in the film Kill Your Darlings. This was
one of the red flags that outed him for me.
Since the broad
control of media didn’t take effect until recently, there will no doubt
be many exceptions to the rule even in the late 19th century and early
20th century. There may be some few exceptions still. But don’t make the
mistake of assuming that just because you have gone back before 1947
that the control no longer exists. It was less perfect and less broad,
but it has existed for many centuries, and perhaps forever.
TAP
– Yes even the guy whose music is selling family breakdown, drugs and
spirits. It’s all the control system working to box you in to your
confusion.
