Intelligence discovered long ago that a fake event beat a real event everytime. In this way, they could create all the fear without any risk to themselves. You can't be prosecuted for a fake crime, can you? You can't be prosecuted for a fake murder, a fake beating, or a fake lynching. But the fakes create the same fear and chaos as the real thing. It is all part of Operation Chaos. -- Mile Mathis
Another desired outcome of this faked assassination was race wars, which they came nearer achieving back then than they do now. Although they are still at it, as we saw with the Trayvon Martin hoax and the Charleston hoax. But now very few blacks or whites even look up. Some shake their heads, but no one even thinks of starting a race war. So all we see is the news writers writing for one another. They are hired to supply the required outrage. They create the event and then create the response, so it is OK if you sleep through it. It doesn't matter any more.
All along, they have been faking these things to keep your eyes off the real events. In 1968, they wanted your eyes off the bankers and their conjobs, and that is still the main reason for running these fakes. Anything to keep you from realizing the bankers, the military, and Intelligence are just three big money pits, siphoning money directly out of the treasuries and giving you absolutely nothing in return. We can now add science to that list, since it has become the fourth largest conjob on the planet. -- Miles Mathis
Evangelical Christianity is another Jewish front, created to damage Christianity rather than promote it. -- Miles Mathis
Jewish families have preferred to marry amongst themselves, with one exception: they will marry top nobles when it is useful to them. This has been an easy entree into the ruling castes of all countries, especially in Europe. Less often, they marry very beautiful people, to pull their genes into the pool. Both those things are logical, I suppose. However, given that logic, it is difficult to explain the current gene pool of these families. You would expect these people to have it all figured out by now, wouldn't you. They tell us they are smarter than we are, which is how they got where they are. So, given the breeding programs, they should be taller, healthier, more beautiful, and longer living. I see no sign of that. A small number of them are beautiful, but for the rest the data is negative. They cull their prettiest people for Hollywood, of course, but Hollywood males tend to be very small. And on average they seem to be smaller now than they were in the past.
I suppose it was Matt Damon's recent pics that got me on this track. He is short and not aging very well, which doesn't make sense to me. Very few of these people from the top families seem to age well. Jennifer Beals and Heather Graham are exceptions—and perhaps Justin Timberlake—but by and large these people age very poorly.
This is just another reason I don't believe they are Satanists and don't believe they have it all figured out. If they are drinking blood, it isn't working for them. If they are performing spells, the spells aren't working. The money spell may be working, but all the others are bombing. Frankly, I don't think they are performing spells. The money doesn't come from spells, it comes from control—and the control comes mostly from lying and cheating.
To my eye, they look like neither God's nor Satan's chosen people. As I have said before, the top families look to me like people off the numbers—so the numerology isn't working, either. I don't know that they are cursed: it may just be that they have cursed themselves by lying and cheating. But somebody clearly doesn't like them. That somebody may be Gods or Muses, or it may just be Nature. Nature, like the Muses, doesn't like being raped. -- Miles Mathis
Tim Robbins' 1999 film Cradle Will Rock is doing the same thing the 1980 Warren Beatty film Reds did: glorify and simultaneously cleanse all these fake Communists. Both films want you to think Communism was a geniune movement back then, but it never was. Very few real people were ever involved, and most of them soon figured out what fools they had been. We are told Socialism or Communism appealed to intellectuals, artists, and the working class, but it never did. It appealed only to planted and paid pseudo-intellectuals, fake Modern artists, and a few working-class dupes who couldn't see through the paint. -- Miles Mathis
Everything Pareto did or said was fake or false. In his famous 80-20 rule, he said 20% of the population of any country could be expected to own 80% of its wealth. That sounds bad, but we can be sure he knew it was much worse. We have since come to know that the top 400 families own pretty much everything of value. If you own anything, it is because they don't want it. They don't want your troll doll collection, so the fact that it is valued at over $1000 by someone on ebay doesn't really count. If we correct the faulty 80-20 math, the real numbers would be something like 99.999-.001.
Pareto pretended to be appalled at the predatory nature of society, and pretended to support Mussolini's pretend solution: reduction of the state by total top-down control. Sort of like Reaganomics, without the checked shirts and horses. But of course the whole idea is an absurd contradiction. You can't make government smaller by making it all-powerful, can you? In hindsight, it appears the solution accidentally exacerbated the problem, but it was no accident. Socialism didn't just accidentally morph into Fascism, and Fascism didn't just accidentally make the wealthy even wealthier. Evermore fantastic levels of wealth hoarding were always the longterm plan and goal, and all the rest was just talk and bluff.
For instance, Pareto's bio admits the minimal state was desired “to liberate pure economic forces”. But how would that solve the wealth distribution problem he claimed to be so concerned about? Wouldn't pure economic forces just make it worse? Of course, and that was known by everyone. That is what deregulation has been about, and it has always made things worse. Wealth inequality has spiralled out of control since 1999, when deregulation in the US went into ultra-high gear. Don't tell me no one saw that coming. Of course they saw it coming: that was the whole point. And it was the whole point going back to Pareto and long before. Not one of these fake liberal economists ever really wanted to solve that problem or any other. They were all cloaked industrialists working for themselves. -- Miles Mathis
Everything is controlled and often faked by the top families for their own enrichment. These people lie all the time about everything, and always have. But in the 20th century they gained a full-spectrum control of society via the media, allowing for unprecedented levels of lying and manipulation. The revolutions have been faked and we appear to have the same aristocracy we always had. The same families are ruling now that were ruling a thousand years ago.
These people have developed a near-perfect control of society via the media, and they can create markets at will. And not only markets: they can control beliefs, desires, fashions, trends, and widespread actions. Yes, we have seen a remaining chaos, but they create that, too, on purpose. Via huge projects like Operations Chaos and Cointelpro, they create fear, anxiety, depression, and helplessless, but once again it is simply to increase profits. Scared people spend more and happily pay higher taxes. -- Miles Mathis
World War 1 was a joint effort to further subjugate all the countries of Europe, though the plan varied somewhat from country to country. After the War, it was found that all the ducks had still not been cooked. So the projects were tweaked and extended. It was found that without an ongoing war, things were not moving as swiftly as possible, so they called for another World War. That one was also vastly enriching, so they called for another and another and another. Fortunately, the two World Wars had worn everyone out, so the subsequent wars had to be smaller and off-premises. But they found a way to make up for that as well: “Cold” Wars—that is, wars that were even faker and more manufactured than the Hot Wars. But because they were in far-off lands, they were far easier to fake. They still drained the same amount of money from the treasuries. -- Miles Mathis
Like Mark Shea, Akin seems to have become Catholic not to cease to be Protestant but to expand his essential Protestant self into Catholicism.
They are far from alone in that. There is a now retired editor of a culturally conservative journal who converted from Episcopalianism because the Episcopal church began ordaining women. If the Anglicans had never ordained women, he would have remained Anglican. And thus he was always at best snide about the Latin Mass and those who demanded it. In terms of the things that divided Catholicism from Anglicanism in 1950, he either would be pro-Anglican or else indifferent.
you can't square dumbing down Catholic truth just for the sake of false unity. After all, there are protestant churches out there that accept contraception, abortion and gay marriage as 'biblical truths'. Just how far are they willing to go for this supposed unity?
Protestants made their decision to split from the true Church founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Having done that they have no right at all, in any way, shape or form to dictate what we do.
Historians pretend it was Germans or other Europeans that were heavily into eugenics, but it was always the Jews that were most interested in it. They had known the benefits of controlled marriages for a millennia, at least. It had worked very well for them as they moved West. We saw this in my paper on the Crusades. We have also found evidence it is the Jews who were interested in the “Aryans”. Jews have always had a fascination for the tall blondes, and the only people the Jews would marry other than royals and nobles were the beautiful blonde people. They wanted their genes, and to some extent now have them. The Germans and other northern people weren't as fascinated by blondes because they were already blond. It was a commonplace. But for the Jews, the blondes were the spell-binding others. -- Miles Mathis
If the government censors me outright, that ruins their illusion of a free press, doesn't it? So the best they can do is surround me with noise. It works pretty well for them. Most people can only navigate in calm waters, if at all. -- Miles Mathis
Italy joined Germany in June 1940, but that just means that Italy, like Germany, was a predetermined loser. Like WWI, the entire War was managed, with the outcome known from the first day. Once you know this, all the absurd things Italy did in the War begin to make sense. The first of those absurd things was joining Germany. No reasonable person would have ever thought Germany could prevail against the rest of Europe, fighting on many fronts at once, both East and West, especially considering that it had just failed to do that in the First World War. That reasonable person would have also taken the US into account, since in no rational universe would the US have joined Germany in the War. Yes, the US had many financial ties to Germany, but it had far more ties to England. The US had tipped the scales in WWI and it would be predicted to do the same in WWII, should the need arise.
All the early signs pointed to another big German defeat, with Germany making sure to piss everyone off in the most conspicuous way and forgetting to make any useful alliances. Italy was about as useful to Germany as Greenland would have been, and we saw that in the event. As with WWI, the Second War made absolutely no sense from the first shot, which is why they had to sell Hitler as insane from the early stages. No one would have bought the War as an even remotely sane enterprise on any level, so it had to be sold as mass insanity. It appears incredible now and had to appear incredible then. By which I mean “unbelievable”. It strained all credibility from the first word and still does. -- Miles Mathis
Well, Disraeli told us what it is, although no one ever listened to him. If these countries like France, England and Germany are all run by crypto-Jews, with the wars of history only “money-making rackets” (see Smedley Butler), then of course they aren't going to seriously threaten one another. England, France, Germany, and even Ireland are more or less where they were 1,000 years ago, which must mean the boundaries and names are meaningless. They are meaningless because all were invaded and conquered long ago. But the conquerors cleverly allowed the borders and names to remain, to fool everyone into thinking nothing and no one had been conquered. The invasion wasn't by land or by sea or by air, it was through the banks and the governments. The countries weren't defeated in battle, they were bought, from the inside out.
Since the same group of people own the entire world now, they can't allow their fake wars to actually damage their important properties. They can't allow the bombs to destroy anything of real value. This is why you never see a firebombing of Paris or London or Vienna, and why I think even the firebombing of Dresden was faked. This is why Napoleon never attacked England, and why Hitler pretty much spared her as well. This is why Japan never attacked Los Angeles or San Francisco. And it is why Germany never bombed the East Coast of the US. If the US could fly across the Pacific to bomb Tokyo, why couldn't Germany just as easily fly across the much smaller Atlantic and bomb New York or DC? Funny how no one ever asks that question. -- Miles Mathis
Women approaching 40 are much more likely to have Downs Syndrome children and children with other deformities, and that has been known for centuries. -- Miles Mathis
The Temptation in the Garden: "Ye Shall Be As Gods"
When others visit violence upon us we too often forget how little we know about their hearts and yet in exactly the same circumstances, Jesus found an excuse: “They know not what they do.” We know nothing of the inside of our neighbors heart, and hence, we refuse to forgive. Jesus knew the heart inside out, and because He did know , He forgave. Take any scene of action, let five people look upon it, and you will get five different stories of what happened. No one of them sees all sides. Our Lord does, and that is why He forgives. --Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Victory over Vice)
So, as with Marx, Engels, John Reed, Jack London and everyone else we have looked at that had anything to do with Socialism, Lenin came from great wealth. His family included both merchants and aristocrats. His bio was then whitewashed to make it look like he came from poverty. -- Miles Mathis
“It is the possibility of saying ‘no’ which gives so much charm to the heart when it says ‘yes.’ A victory may be celebrated only on those fields in which a battle may be lost. Hence, in the divine order of things, God made a world in which a man and woman would rise to moral heights, not by that blind driving power which makes the sun rise each morning, but rather by the exercise of that freedom in which one may fight the good fight and enjoy the reward of victory – for no one shall be crowned unless he has struggled.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen
"Morality implies responsibility and duty, but these can exist only on condition of freedom. Stones have no morals, because they are not free. We do not praise iron because it becomes heated by fire, nor do we condemn ice because it is melted by heat. Praise and blame can be bestowed only on those who are masters of their own will.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (The Moral Universe)
These covert operations against everything are just cowardly and pusillanimous. The strong should not have to run lying programs against their enemies. They should win on their merits. Which is another reason I choke when anyone in Intelligence mentions Nietzsche. Covert operations betray a slave mentality, not a noble mentality. If these old families were really superior, they wouldn't think to stoop to such levels. If they were really superior, they would lead by example. -- Miles Mathis
A lot of the old problems have been swept under the rug, and this sweeping has been defined as progress. -- Miles Mathis
Modern physicists have been prevented by the rules promulgated by previous dogmatic and prejudiced physicists like Bohr from researching the most likely causes of various phenomena such as charge, E/M, gravity, and so on. This is what has caused havoc in the field, not the irrationality or incomprehensibility of Nature. If you wish to short-circuit science, the most efficient way is by sealing off all paths to the truth. -- Miles Mathis
The 19th century was a time of incredible expansion in all subfields [of physics], and that expansion only ended in the early part of the 20th century, when it was stopped cold by people like Bohr. Physics has been in an accelerating tailspin ever since. The same can be said for other fields I know something about, like art, poetry, and literature. All have been purposefully obliterated. -- Miles Mathis
What is wanted by everyone involved here is constant conflict, because conflict is profitable. -- Miles Mathis
The last thing Israel wants is peace, and for the same reason the US doesn't want peace: it doesn't pay. What is wanted by everyone involved here is constant conflict, because conflict is profitable. With Israel in constant conflict with its neighbors—much of it now faked like everything else—there remains the apparent need for US presence, US intervention, US funding, and a vast diplomacy. This conflict also seeds a gargantuan and airy literature and debate all over the Western world, by which intellectuals and sub-intellectuals can be constantly diverted. After all, if you are arguing or reading about the Arab- Israeli conflict, you aren't thinking about how the Industrialists just stole all your money, destroyed art history, destroyed science, torpedoed the male-female relationship, polluted the food and water supplies, filled the oceans with oil and Corexit, and pumped your children full of toxic vaccines for profit. The Arab-Israeli conflict is another promoted intellectual circus, since even if it is based on something real, we now know there is no will to end it. In fact, we know all the will is for prolonging it as far as possible into the foreseeable future, where it can continue to enrich the fascists and their fascist children for generations to come. -- Miles Mathis
Wikipedia is controlled like everything else, and it is written from the fascist government and academic cubicles. -- Miles Mathis
Normally the mainstream media whitewashes its friends and blackwashes its enemies, as you would expect. So why is the mainstream media whitewashing enemy number one Chomsky? Chomsky has written several books telling us the media is manufactured, remember? Are we supposed to believe it is manufactured except when it is telling us he is the premier intellectual in the world? -- Miles Mathis
Nixon, Hoover, Kissinger, and most of Nixon's staff were purposely ostracizing the CIA in the early 70's, and they only found out later what a colossal mistake that was. -- Miles Mathis
We know the CIA won this turf war because: Hoover was gone by 1972; Nixon was powerless by 1973 and gone by 1974; The FBI has been in a tailspin ever since and the CIA has taken over most of the exciting domestic duties of the FBI. In addition, the CIA has grown exponentially since the early 1970's, and is now so big it can't even be weighed. It isn't just the 500 pound gorilla in the room, it is the ever-expanding blob, devouring the room, then the building, then the town, then the world. In a recent paper, I used published government numbers to estimate the total staff of Intelligence at over 6 million—which is twice as big as the entire military—and even that estimate may be low. After the CIA destroyed Nixon and Hoover, it then destroyed the committee investigating it in the Senate, and then the Senate. Congress has also been in a tailspin since the mid-70's, and it is now no more than a overpriced meeting of emeritus professors, paid to rubberstamp military and spy budgets. -- Miles Mathis
We are told Nixon didn't trust anyone, and is it any wonder? He was looking at ever-increasing CIA expansion which he couldn't ultimately stem or even avoid himself, and he was looking at a new high- tech world in which his own offices could be bugged without his knowledge. This is also the reason Johnson didn't run for re-election in 1968. He already knew at that time that he was over-matched by Intelligence. Johnson didn't like being a pawn of greater forces, and he didn't wish to end up like Nixon. Nixon also knew what he was getting into, he just didn't quite realize the extent of it. He mistakenly believed he could maneuver his way around the CIA, as we can see from his feints in the first two years. But he was a poor chess player with too few pieces left on the board. Hoover was his queen, and once he lost Hoover, it was basically checkmate. He was surrounded by the knights, bishops and rooks of the CIA and had nowhere to run.
Beyond this turf war, Nixon dug his own grave by not fully supporting the Vietnam War. He had been put into office with the understanding that the war would last at least five more years, but he began caving to public and Congressional pressure after less than two. This takes us to the other fundamental fact always glossed over by books on Watergate: the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January of 1971, which Nixon signed. This was a bold Congressional action, maybe the boldest we have seen in our lifetimes, and Nixon was blamed not only for allowing it to happen, but for actually supporting it and signing it. It removed Congressional approval for the war and gave the Pentagon no real authority to keep fighting. It also led inexorably to more bold moves by Congress, including the War Powers Act of 1973, which temporarily reversed the complete takeover of foreign policy by the executive branch. These things were far more important to the history of the US, and to the events of the time; and compared to them Watergate is just frosting. But if you look at the amount of press generated, there is no comparison. Everyone knows about Watergate, almost no one knows about the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In this sense, Watergate was a diversion. It had a two-fold purpose: get rid of Nixon and divert the public eye away from the more important events. It succeeded admirably.
Also a problem for the rich families invested in armaments was Nixon's detente with Russia and China in 1972. Not only was Nixon failing to pursue the war in Vietnam to its full extent, he was pursuing peace with China and Russia. Detente signaled an end to the Cold War, which signaled an end to using the Cold War as an excuse to build newer and more expensive weapons. In more ways than one, Nixon was moving against the interests of his controllers. In short, Nixon made the crucial mistake of pursuing peace in an economy based on “defense” spending. -- Miles Mathis
The CIA could see that Nixon couldn't control public opinion or Congress, and couldn't or wouldn't promote the war economy to the fullest, so they had to step in themselves. In 1972, they got rid of Hoover. In 1974, they got rid of Nixon. And by 1976, they had gotten rid of Congress. You see, Watergate wasn't a scheme by Nixon, it was a scheme against Nixon. Nixon was framed by the CIA. -- Miles Mathis
Nixon may have thought he could avoid the CIA in some policy matters, but he at least knew what he was up against. After all, he had been installed with their help, and had to have known it. But many in Congress appear to have been ignorant of the deeper workings of the government they fronted. This is the only way to explain their repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1971. That was the stroke that led to everything else, and if Congress had been aware of the true state of things, they would never have dared repeal it. In this way, the Church Committee hearings were more the idea of the CIA than of the Senate. The CIA needed to make Congress aware of the true state of things, letting them know who was really in charge. And so the hearings were actually an extended briefing of Congress by the CIA. If you study the transcripts, I think that is what you will find. That is why the heart-attack gun was shown on floor of Congress, among other things. Believe me, Congress got the message, and it hasn't been the same since. This is why I no longer bother to write letters to my representatives, or bother to blame them for anything. Their hands have been tied for a long time, and giving them low approval ratings is a waste of time. They are no longer anything but a decoy. -- Miles Mathis
In Congressional testimony in 1975-76, the CIA admitted it had been in control of large parts of the media since the early 1950's. In 1972, the CIA had people in major positions in the press, so no pipeline was necessary. Ben Bradlee at the Washington Post was either CIA or a CIA asset [see Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great] so there was no need for any meeting in dark parking lots or anywhere else. Bradlee didn't need Woodward or Bernstein telling him anything. Those guys are just decoys. The CIA wires or phones in its stories to the executive editor directly, so reporters are just brightly colored pawns, placed to misdirect the most naïve readers. -- Miles Mathis
In this way, we can see that the Pentagon Papers were also just more misdirection and damage control. All you have to do is follow the timing. They came out in June 1971, just a few months after Congress had repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. By February 1971, the Vietnam War should have been over. Once the resolution was repealed, the war was effectively illegal. It had always been illegal and undeclared, but once Congress removed its weak stamp of approval, the war hadn't a leg to stand on. So the government had keep people from coming to that realization. The government intended to spin the war out for another several years, legal or not, and to do that they had to keep the repeal off the front pages.
In fact, Congress was passing other important legislation that year as well, although you wouldn't know it by reading history. For instance, go to the Wikipedia page on the 92nd Congress . I beg you to notice that no legislation is listed until December 18, 1971. Go to the section entitled “major legislation.” The first entry is dated December 18, 1971. But the 92nd Congress convened January 3, 1971. So Wiki is telling you no major legislation occurred in 1971 in 11.5 months, until almost Christmas? The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed on January 14, 1971. Not major? The revised Cooper-Church Amendment was enacted on January 5, 1971, and it also restricted action in Vietnam. Not major? Beyond that, on April 23, 1971, half a million protesters marched in DC, and thousands of veterans tossed their medals. In May, over 12,000 people were arrested during war protests. The Pentagon Papers were published to take everyone's eyes off current events and put them back on the Johnson administration. The timeline of the Pentagon Papers was mostly 1955 to 1964, so they were taking your eyes off the present. Even so, Johnson is the goat of the Pentagon Papers, which is odd in itself. In that timeline, Johnson is responsible only for 1964, of course. You may ask yourself why Kennedy doesn't take more blame in the Pentagon Papers.
The Pentagon Papers also make a case for the war, explaining it as containment of China. Curiously, they also whitewash the war in many other ways. Again, what we are seeing is damage control, not a real leak. We can tell this just from the mode of publication. It is the New York Times that broke the Pentagon Papers, along with Ben Bradlee at the Washington Post. Since we learned from the Church Committee hearings that the CIA “owned” both papers, we should immediately be suspicious of the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg. Remember, Ellsberg was a spook himself, with “an extremely high security clearance.” He worked for years for the RAND corporation, which is a major arm of military intelligence. And yet he was spun as a hero of the anti-war movement. How naïve do you have to be to take Ellsberg as a hero of the anti-war movement? The anti-war movement has always been far too trusting, which was its downfall. It was infiltrated over and over by obvious Intelligence people like Ellsberg, and they were never strongly outed. Ellsberg is still being sold as an anti-war guy and is still infiltrating anti-government movements.
For more proof of this, we find all charges against Ellsberg being dropped in 1973, after the government claimed it had lost its records of wiretapping against Ellsberg. Right. The proceedings against Ellsberg are not believable in the least, since if what we were told about Ellsberg leaking information were true, he would have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and beyond. When the government really wants to prosecute someone, they don't let technicalities get in their way. If some evidence gets lost, they just re-create it. If the truth isn't enough to convict, they lie. If they didn't convict Ellsberg, it is because they didn't want to convict. He was their own guy, following orders.
He was part of opposition control. As I said, the war should have immediately ended in January of 1971, but because of opposition control, the front-page news was diverted to the Pentagon Papers and then Watergate. While everyone was discussing those things, the war dragged on another four years. -- Miles Mathis
The beginning of the CIA was the beginning of the end for any sort of Constitutional Republic in the US. They tell us that Eisenhower warned of it in the 1959, but even his warning was misdirection. He said to watch out for the “military-industrial complex.” That is unnecessarily vague. We have had military and industry since before the Revolutionary war. What we haven't had is a CIA with unlimited and unchecked powers. Sometimes the CIA is working for the military and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it is working for the bankers, sometimes it is working for the politicians, and sometimes it is working for the Rockefellers... -- Miles Mathis
Among many other things, Colson testified, "The CIA rather than the White House plumbers planned the break-ins at Watergate and the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. I am able to expose the fact that there was a major plot by the CIA and they were responsible for the cover-ups throughout the investigation. The CIA enjoys extensive influence with the news media (particularly the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times) as well as a variety of private businesses. I'll tell you the thing that scares me the most – they're all over the place. The thing that really is frightening is that almost everywhere you go, should you turn, they have their tentacles. If the CIA has infiltrated this country to the extent I think it has, we ain't got a country left."
Colson further testified that Nixon was prevented early on from counter-attack against the CIA by “disloyal people around him,” naming Kissinger, Buzhardt and Haig as “CIA-men” involved. This was first reported in the Washington Star-News on June 23, and picked up in garbled form by the Washington Post a day later, but most people now forget that.
We have seen that Colson tried to out Kissinger as a CIA mole in June, 1974, to no effect. Is that outing believable? Completely, as it turns out. From FBI reports, we know that Kissinger is the one who had initiated “internal” bugging in the executive branch, having “ordered the bugging and surveillance of 17 government officials, newsmen, and his own personal aides as early as 1969.” This fact is extraordinary given the subsequent events, but it is never studied in context. If Kissinger was bugging the offices of his own aides, what was to prevent him from bugging the office of his boss? Of course he didn't do the bugging personally, he “ordered it.” Ordered it from whom? Not from the FBI, since they are the ones reporting it. They would not have bothered to report on themselves. Who else was capable of bugging the White House? The CIA. Those actually doing the bugging could bug one room just as easily as the next, right? All they needed was access. Kissinger had that access. -- Miles Mathis
I have come to believe they have reached the point of just playing games. They have been so amazed by the gullibility and stupidity of everyone, they now test us by putting the real answers right out in the open, to see if anyone out there can think straight. I think they are just as disappointed in the intelligence and gumption of those studying the media as anyone, maybe moreso. As I have said before, it is no fun fooling fools, and CIA looks bored to me. They start to think that all their work to remain covert was just wasted. They didn't need to hide behind a beautifully camouflaged curtain, they could have hidden just as well behind a 2-by-4. Most people are so blind they don't see the CIA when the CIA is standing in an open field waving their arms. In short, CIA has lost all respect for its audience, which has led to its loss of respect for itself. These agents might hold their heads up if they could fool a Sherlock Holmes, but fooling the American public isn't even a challenge. They don't need CNN and green screens, they could fool the American public with Punch and Judy puppets. If they can propagandize America with Anderson Cooper, they could propagandize America even more cheaply with Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop. -- Miles Mathis
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. -- Miles Mathis
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. -- Miles Mathis
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! -- Miles Mathis
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. -- Miles Mathis
“Years ago atheism was an individual phenomenon; today atheism is social, the atheist who once was a curiosity, is now a component part of some of the governments of the world. Once men quarreled because they wanted God worshipped in a certain way; now they quarrel because they do not want God worshipped at all. The wars of religion of the seventeenth century have become the wars against religion of the twentieth century.” Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Seven Pillars of Peace)
I am not actually that distressed at the loss of Christianity. What distresses me is that it is being replaced by something far worse: nothing. All morality is being tossed and replaced by greed, vanity, and the other five deadly sins. Neither Christ nor Christianity invented the idea that greed was a bad thing. It has been known since the dawn of time. -- Miles Mathis
Curious that Screwtape's advice happens to be exactly the same as the minutes of a Bilderberg meeting or a Council of Foreign Relations get-together. Curious that most of Lewis' fellow graduates at Malvern ended up promoting Screwtape's advice. Just a coincidence, right? Lewis can't be publishing an MI6 or CIA handbook here, disguised as a Christian warning, can he? This book was originally published during the war as a serial by The Guardian. Here is another useful excerpt:
A striking contrast is formed between Wormwood and Screwtape during the rest of the book, wherein Wormwood is depicted through Screwtape's letters as anxious to tempt his patient into extravagantly wicked and deplorable sins, and often reckless, while Screwtape takes a more subtle stance, as in Letter XII wherein he remarks: "... the safest road to hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts".
Again, I would say that reads like a how-to book for New World Order governors. It reminds me of the motto of the Fabian Society, which is “the Turtle that Strikes Hard”. They use a turtle to indicate Screwtape's gradual road of slow and grinding propaganda. -- Miles Mathis
This is why art has become such a morass: it isn't based on talent any longer. It is based on blood. It is a toy of the Social Register and is used mostly for propaganda (and money laundering). -- Miles Mathis
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Hastings Christian Fellowship v. Martinez , 2010, allows universities to shape student organizations according to the prevailing culture of these institutions. . .
In practice, what this ruling means is that Christian organizations on campuses don't even have to be Christian. Humanists can join Christian organizations and take them over, while keeping the name. If Christians then complain that the organization is no longer based on Christian principles, they can be told that the organization is basing itself on “prevailing culture”. You can see how this ruling would benefit Intel and its masters, since it allows propagandists to more easily infiltrate religious organizations and blow them from the inside out. -- Miles Mathis
Over 42 megatons of fission yield were detonated in Bikini from 1946 to 1958. It is for this reason that the stories don't add up. We are being told many contradictory things. If all these giant hydrogen bombs had actually been detonated there, the Bikini Atoll should not be now be green and cultivated, the coral and fish should not thrive there, no diving tours should be given there, and no natives should have ever returned, even for a moment.
Also consider this: if the Bravo blast had really created surface temperatures of 100,000F in a fireball five miles wide, that heat would have to dissipate in all directions, through all media. The sea would have boiled for many miles and the atmosphere would have been scorched for many more. The landmass of the Atoll would have been in or near the edge of that initial fireball, so we should ask what happens to land that is heated to that degree. Even if the temperature had dropped by a factor of ten at that distance from center, that would still indicate a temperature of the land of 10,000F, which is the temperature they now give to the core of the Earth. If you heat land to that temperature and then let it cool, you wouldn't expect it to just return to its original form, would you? If you heat sand and rocks and dirt to that temperature, it melts. In fact, it melts at about 1/5 th that temperature, creating magma. When it cools, it is then igneous rock. But the surface of the Bikini Atoll is still limestone and sand. Limestone melts at 1,500F, which is 67 times cooler than the temperature said to be created by Bravo. Sand normally melts at above 2,000F, so we should also see the beaches at Bikini turned to glass. We don't. -- Miles Mathis
Whatever explanation you choose to embrace should give you a surge of hope. Things may be bad, but they may not be quite as bad as the story we have been sold. The fact that our government has long been faking so many events gives you no reason to trust them, but it beats the hell of the events being real. Given the choice of an honest government and terrible real events or a dishonest government and terrible fake events, I will take the second any day. -- Miles Mathis
Merchants were always opposed to all the religions, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu. Why? Because all the religions stood in the way of free trade. Religions tend to have rules of conduct, you know, and those just get into the way of trade. -- Miles Mathis
“The decline of belief in Angels does not prove the world has gotten wiser, but rather that it has become materialistic. The principle reason why angels have lost their following is because angels are created substances of pure intelligence, but devoid of all bodily qualities and characteristics. The modern lives in a closed universe in the sense that man is believed to be just an animal devoid of an immortal soul, and with no other purpose in life than to attain security and enjoy pleasure.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Thinking Life Through)
We have seen that the rich were always rich, and if that is true, then the poor were always poor. They don't want you to recognize that, so they just lie to you. We have seen that these rich kids from the families are guaranteed success, whether they are talented or not. Well, that coin has to have two sides, doesn't it? It is a zero-sum game, which means that if they are guaranteed success without talent, then you are guaranteed failure even with talent. Every dimwit like George Bush must displace some person with real ability.
In my field, every fake artist destroys a real artist. That's what got me on this tear, remember? I was brought up to think we had some sort of limited meritocracy in this world, but finally realized that wasn't true. I realized that the real world has very little use for or interest in the truth or in talent. What it has a use for is profit, so the only way to succeed as an artist is to make a quick and easy buck for some jerk in the artworld—usually a Jewish gallery owner who doesn't know art from Garfunkel.
And the same can be said for every other field, including science, literature, music, history, politics, reportage, etc. They can't really stop you from doing anything real, but they aren't going to underwrite it, support it, or promote it. In fact, they are going to do their best to bury you, because you threaten their hegemony. If they are selling fake art, the last thing they want is some real artist setting up shop next door. -- Miles Mathis
“Advertising tries to stimulate our sensuous desires, converting luxuries into necessities, but it only intensifies man’s inner misery. The business world is bent on creating hungers which its wares never satisfy, and thus it adds to the frustrations and broken minds of our times.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Lift Up Your Heart)
The Jews rejected Christ, and in rejecting Christ they rejected Logos, and in rejecting Logos — the Reason for the universe and its redemption — they became, not only as St. Paul puts it, “enemies of the entire human race,” but foes of the moral and political order of the universe. As a result, the Jews engage in continual anarchy against reason and truth, a decision they solemnly ratified when they chose Barabbas over Christ. -- E Michael Jones
Logos is universal. ---- E Michael Jones
"SOME people have an instinctive itch of irritation against the word 'authority.' Either they suppose that authority is a pompous name for mere bullying, or else, at the best, they think that mere bullying is an excess of authority. Tyranny is the opposite of authority. For authority simply means right; and nothing is authoritative except what somebody has a right to do, and therefore is right in doing. It often happens in this imperfect world that he has the right to do it and not the power to do it. But he cannot have a shred of authority if he merely has the power to do it and not the right to do it. If you think any form of mastery unjust, it is enough to say that you do not like injustice; but there is no need to say that you do not like authority. For injustice, as such, cannot have any authority at all. Moreover, a man can only have authority by admitting something better than himself; and the bully does not get his claim from anybody but himself. It is not a question, therefore, of there being authority, and then tyranny, which is too much authority; for tyranny is no authority. Tyranny means too little authority, for though, of course, an individual may use wrongly the power that may go with it, he is in that act disloyal to the law of right, which should be his own authority. To abuse authority is to attack authority. A policeman is no longer a policeman when he is bribed privately to arrest an innocent man; he is a private criminal. He is not exaggerating authority; he is reducing it to nothing." ~G.K. Chesterton: “False and True Comparisons.” (Illustrated London News, June 29, 1935)
Rereading Hawthorne and Lawrence makes me think they have assigned gays to write about straight relationships on purpose, to confuse straight readers. Certainly the percentage of gay writers seems very high—many of them being crypto-gay— and given that according to recent polls only about 2% of the population is gay, the gay commentary on the straight relationship would seem to be very much over-represented in the literature of the past 150 years.
In other words, straights are learning their sexuality from the media, be it books, magazines, online articles, or (most likely) TV and films. If a large percentage of this media is created by gays, you have a recipe for confusion. As we have seen, that recipe is probably not an accident.
Men have been presented with an image of the woman as seen by gay men. How can that image help them? Gays don't see women like I do, so what can I learn from them? I guess we are supposed to believe that, being gay, they have some insight into the feminine, but I have never seen any evidence of that. Yes, they can fake a feminine chattiness, but that doesn't make them insightful, it just makes them poor mimics. If they had any real appreciation of the feminine, they would love females, and they don't. Women want to be loved, and gays cannot love them, so holding up the gay man as the confidant and guru of women is just a guarantee of widespread pathology.
And the reverse is also true. Women don't see men like gay men see men, so how could they benefit from reading about the heterosexual relationship from gay men? Gay men don't know anything about the heterosexual relationship, and don't want to. That is why they are gay. It would be like me posing as some expert on the homosexual relationship, although I have never had one and never wanted one. I could fake it to make money and sell books, but then my books would read like Modern literature: phony garbage.
It also means the transgender issue may now be a tad oversold. A low percentage of gays are transgender, say less than 1%, so if we multiply, we find that only 1 person in 10,000 has any interest in androgyny. And yet we have been swamped with gay and transgender promotion, accelerating every year, to the point that your average person now believes one in three people are gay. I am telling you that it is believed because Intelligence wants it to be believed. The gay lobby isn't powerful enough to take over the entire media on its own steam. Its smashing success over the past thirty years can only be accounted for by seeing it as part of this long-term project, a project the intensity and focus of which has varied over the years, but the main line of which hasn't changed since the time of Hawthorne. That is, the Industrialists want you single and sexually miserable, with no viable religions to turn to for solace or comfort. That leaves you with only their purchasable substitutes, elixirs, tonics, drugs, plastic contraptions, blow-up friends, sims, and manufactured cults—AKA the New World Order. -- Miles Mathis
All Communist parties in all countries have been Intel fronts from the beginning. They were and are a joint project of Jewish financiers and other top Industrialists, created to undercut and mislead the real Republican revolutions and crush any democratic spirit. -- Miles Mathis
In Nasar's book we are told of a consensus among the elite intellectuals such as Einstein, Russell, and von Neumann that the only solution to a world with nuclear weapons was in “appointing a world government with the power to enforce simultaneous disarmament.” We can now read that in a new light. Since both the Manhattan Project and the nuclear tests were faked, we see the reason they were faked (beyond the reasons we have already discussed in previous papers): fear was used as the leverage to bring in world government and the New World Order. -- Miles Mathis
The problem that occurs in both the finance field and the legal field is that too many people hear “Monte Carlo simulation” and become seduced into believing that the results are valid. Those results are only as good as the formula that the simulation is based on.
Ask yourself why HUAC would investigate the math department at MIT. These guys were all working for RAND. They were all spooks. Why would you investigate your own spooks? Well, because that is the way it is done. That is how you control the event. You pretend to investigate your own people, and you create a show trial in Congress to convince your audience of mainstream American boobies that there is a red scare you need to spend huge amounts of money responding to. Same thing they are doing now with “terrorism.” They create these fake terrorists that we are told we need to spend billions of dollars responding to. -- Miles Mathis
It is the clever way the Industrialists whitewash themselves. They create a nasty character like Nash, Pound, or David Irving, and then have him go ballistic against the system. While he is doing that, he will usually say nasty things about women, kittens, and chocolate as well, just to be sure you know he is upside-down. -- Miles Mathis
What I soon realized is that I had uncovered yet another instance of misdirection, one where we were being offered two paths that were both manufactured and false. We had one set of writers being paid to push one idea, and another set paid to push the opposite idea, when once again the truth was on neither path. Both ideas were being promoted to subtly force you off out into the bushes, while the truth was hiding behind door number three. -- Miles Mathis
Schools are now cracking down on boys (and girls) in unprecedented ways, including lockdowns, chainlink fences, zero-tolerance policies, suspicionless searches, and even unannounced drills—in which schoolchildren are terrorized by police running through the halls with real guns. If you think any of this is helping our children deal with trauma, you must be taking too much Zoloft. -- Miles Mathis
The “conspiracy theorists” have told us these events were run to pass gun laws, but I have shown you that was also a smokescreen. Somehow, the gun laws never end up getting passed, do they? No, what the events were created to do is to sell more guns. Gun sales have gone up like never before, and guess who is making all that money? The same bastards running the hoaxes. The trillionaire investment groups have bought up all the gun companies in the past 15 years, so they are happy to see you stocking up on weapons and ammunition. But the fake events are also used as an excuse to keep schools and society at large in a permanent lockdown and in a permanent orange-alert. These events, culminating in 911 but never- ending since then, are what have allowed for the Police State you and your children now live in. They have allowed for the illegal searches, the illegal detentions, the illegal confiscations of property, the Orwellian free-speech zones, and the overall gutting of all your Constitutional protections. They have allowed Congress to pass all sorts of unConstitutional “laws” by which the government and its stooges can do whatever they wish, with little or no recourse to the courts—since they have also been bought. -- Miles Mathis
The financiers didn't want an educated populace, they wanted a dulled-down populace too stupid to do anything but the work it was told to do and the shopping it was told to do. As long as the Plutocrats are in control of the schools, it won't matter what format the class adopts. The children can sit passively and chew on their propaganda or run around noisily while digesting it: either way, it is the same propaganda. -- Miles Mathis
Separating the sexes is just another way to traumatize them. I now see that it has been part of the longterm project to isolate the sexes. If men and women are separated from eachother, mistrust eachother, and are constantly bickering, not only can they not make alliances or successfully resist the governors, they cannot even gratify one another in the old ways. As I have reminded you in recent papers, the financiers don't want males and females gratifying one another for free. That doesn't put money into anyone's pocket, does it? They want you purchasing porn and sex-toys and hookers and the various other sexual crutches of modern society. Those are billion-dollar industries—industries they now control. So of course they are going to push this return to same-sex classrooms. The same-sex classrooms also help them promote homosexuality. In the old days, the same-sex classes weren't created to promote homosexuality: it just happened that way. Humans are adaptable creatures, and they learn to make do with what is available.
But today the Plutocrats are promoting homosexuality, and it has to do with their plans for population control. It is a way to address overpopulation without passing Chinese one-baby laws and the like. Although compared to Europe and Asia, the US isn't really overpopulated, many of the top Plutocrats come from here, and they like to run their operations at home, necessary or not. Homosexuality is also being promoted because the governors believe gays are less likely to resist them. I don't know that is true, but I can tell you that belief drives part of the current project. The Plutocrats see most gays as they see women: more easy to control with emotional “arguments” and other societal misdirection. But since it would appear many of the Plutocrats are also gay, it is hard to understand their reasoning in this. They must believe there are two types of gays, I guess. I don't know what goes on in the mind of these psychopaths, and so there is no point in getting into it further. The fact is, any fool can see they are promoting homosexuality, for whatever reason or reasons. -- Miles Mathis
Isolating the sexes and breaking up the family have been two of the top goals of the financiers for a century, and if we add destroying religion, we have the top three. All of these goals are easy to link to the financiers, since only the financiers benefit from them. It was discovered long ago that single people with no religion spend the most money, since they buy the most useless and compensating products. It is these products the Plutocrats specialize in. It is these products that have allowed for the incredible expansion of all markets in the past 100 years.
You will say this overlooks the marketing to children, but it doesn't. Single people can still have children, you know. The financiers love single mothers above all other entities, since they can then market to both the mother and child. It is a salesman's ultimate fantasy: two traumatized people guaranteed to traumatize one another for life. The list of possible compensating products is endless. -- Miles Mathis
The aristocracy wasn't supplanted by the middle class. The aristocracy was supplanted by the financiers. It was the bankers and other billionaires who pulled down the Kings, not the middle class. And the financiers then supplanted the middle class, driving them down into the lower class. The middle class has never been a major player in the class wars, except as a great lump to be manipulated or drained. -- Miles Mathis
Those in the middle class weren't gentlemen by definition. A gentleman was someone who didn't have to work for a living. The middle class had to work for a living. That is why the aristocrats in Downton Abbey are always looking down their noses at those “in trade”. -- Miles Mathis
I suspect the financiers want to raise the new boy as a gentleman to take the final fire out of him. He will be too polite to speak out and too concerned for his fingernails to fight back. -- Miles Mathis
