by Allan Weisbecker on March 21, 2017 in Blog
Hi folks (plus ‘Miles,’ whoever ya’ll are),
Sorry for the delay.
It took longer than I thought to put together the supporting imagery.
Keep in mind that this is a continuation of Part One!
I got an email from a reader who found the MM essay containing the word ‘tenner,’ which I really appreciated.
(I referred to ‘tenner’ in my last post from memory — I didn’t have the patience to word-search every MM essay).
Here’s the quote, from MM’s essay on Mark Twain:
‘As we know, these people don’t spend a dime unless they can be sure to make a tenner from it.’
What About Mark Twain? – Library of Rickandria
As mentioned in Part One re ‘twelvemonth,’ ‘shite,’ and others, no American writer (let alone one born and raised in Texas) would use this Brit colloquialism in an essay.
If you are aware of these Brit-isms, i.e., look for them, they are all over MM’s essays.
That at least some of MM’s essays are written by a Brit should tell you all you need to know about who MM really is (think Tavistock).
Tavistock Institute: Social Engineering the Masses – Anna’s Archive (annas-archive.org)
While I was at MM’s Mark Twain essay (which claims Twain was a government operative) extracting the quote, I thought I’d reread it; in doing so I was reminded of another MM method of misdirection/deceit – the way he goes off on an unrelated subject, usually one of his ‘guilt by association’/ancestor/genealogy rants, which rarely (if ever) have anything to do with the subject at hand.
The rants invariably sound impressive, like MM has done deep research, and the reader is quickly lost in the details, distracting himself from the irrelevancy of the passage.
(I first became aware of this sort of misdirection while analyzing the work of Joe Atwill/Jan Irvin; Atwill especially is good at this sort of misdirection.)
I think it’s worth one quote from MM’s Twain essay to show you what I mean here.
Recognizing misdirection rambles will come in handy while you’re reading anyone’s historical revisionist essay (in principle, any nonfiction):
But to move on. Twain’s first successful publication was “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County.”
It was published in the Saturday Press in New York on November 18, 1865.
Note that date:
11/18/65.
Aces and eights….
Over and above MM’s ridiculous link to numerology (without actually saying it), especially his ‘Note that date:
Aces and eights….’, the next paragraph is typical of MM’s M.O., i.e., boldly and baldly branding a newspaper and those involved in it of being involved with spookery, with no evidence given, then, using a classic ‘guilt by association’ fallacy ‘connecting’ the person he wishes to discredit to the mess of families and people he apparently knows little about.
More (note how, via doubly false ‘guilt by association,’ MM brands Twain a ‘fake writer’!):
The fake writers of the Saturday Press liked to congregate at Pfaff’s Beer Cellar in New York.
Guess who else frequented the joint?
The actors Edwin and John Wilkes Booth.
Just so you can add them to your “compromised” list, others include:
- Fitz James O’Brien
- Thomas Butler Gunn
- Fitz Hugh Ludlow
- Adah Menken
- John Brougham
- Elihu Vedder
- Daisy Sheppard
and Artemus Ward.
Those names demand a couple of comments.
You will remember that Bob Dylan (Zimmerman) used the alias, Elston Gunnn.
The story of Elston Gunnn, Bob Dylan’s unknown alter-ego – Far Out Magazine
He was probably referencing this Gunn family, to which he was likely related.
And Eddie Vedder is probably descended from these Vedders, explaining his rise.*
Daisy Sheppard reminds us of Cybill Shepard and Sam Shepard.
Remember, Cybill married a Ford and an Oppenheim.
Sam Shepard was also a Rogers, but he descended from Shep(p)ards.
Sam’s mother was a Dodge.
See my paper on Mabel Dodge Luhan.
He also descends from the Chases.
He also descends from Morses, who lived in Newbury, MA.
This links him to the witch of Newbury, Elizabeth Morse.
She is actually in his genealogy. **
He is also related to the:
- Howes
- Lyons
- Cheneys
and Millers.
Dizzying, isn’t it?
Plus, not only does the above passage have nothing to do Mark Twain (Samuel Clemmons) in any way – and aside from my previous note – the passage also is indicative of another MM M.O., which he has of late become all but obsessed with.
I speak of genealogy, and ‘Jews.’
Exposing the Jews – Library of Rickandria
Who is ‘connected’ to whom, who is a Jew or a ‘cripto’-Jew, a sort of bloodline guilt by association.
Some of this may be of some use, but, IMO, not much.
Here’s why, and I’ll make this point by asking a question:
Going back, say, 250 years (which is considered 10 generations), how many Great –g-g-g etc. grandparents do you have?
(This is the era of the American Revolution.)
Remember that these are direct ancestors, not cousins however-many-times ‘removed’…
The answer may surprise you.
4,096.
These ancestors are as ‘close’ (in terms of genetics, or ‘bloodline’) as you will find from that many years ago.
BLOODLINES – Library of Rickandria
Now, going back to that era (the Revolutionary War), how many people alive today do you figure share one of your many direct ancestors?
(Your total direct ancestors number over 8,000, if you add them all up.)
[See illustration]
I don’t know the answer, but ‘plenty’ is a good approximation.
(If you add in the multitude of ‘cousins’ of some sort and the number is probably in the hundreds of thousands.)
You go back another 10 generations and the odds that you and I are ‘directly related’ is pretty good, until (as the geneticists say) we find a common ancestor to everyone alive at this moment.
This is called our most recent common ancestor, or MRCA.
On the female side, this ‘Eve’ – or ‘mitochondrial Eve’ lived some 150 – 200,000 years ago.
Wow.
(I have reasons for not believing a lot of the current ‘genetic work’ but that’s another subject for another time.)
Think about it.
Or don’t.
Me, I get confused as soon as they start in with (some number) ‘cousins (some number) ‘removed.’’
As in ‘Barack Obama, Dick Cheney and Brad Pitt’ are all related’ in the ‘cousins removed’ way (which is way less direct than ‘direct’ ancestor, as above).
Well, considering all our direct common ancestors (going back to the 18th century, say), it would be unusual if we were not ‘cousins’ of some sort, wouldn’t it?
Point being though:
MM interrupts just about every essay by ‘connecting’ PTB movers and shakers from various periods of history, as if it means…. anything.
Generally, it doesn’t.
In the case of the Twain essay, he does a ‘genetic ramble’ at least four times, returning to the subject of Twain with the following connectives:
‘So, back to Twain’… ‘Anyway, back to Twain’… ‘But to move on’…. ‘But I will have to return to that hoax another time.
I need to return to Twain.’
Misdirection.
There are many versions of misdirection, and it often takes real concentration to recognize when you’re being subjected to it. MM is sometimes skillful at it, sometimes not.
Lately, with his obsessive bloodline guilt by ‘connection’ and ‘Jew-connection,’ he’s pretty sloppy.
One more little quote from MM’s Twain essay then we’ll… ‘move on,’ as MM would say.
MM is referring to one of Twain’s early travel books, Innocents Abroad:
‘Twain tells us there were only two pieces of statuary he saw in Odessa.
The first was of the Duc de Richelieu, who founded Odessa.
That’s a big clue, since—like Twain and all the rest—Richelieu was a crypto-Jew.’
The bold emphasis above is mine and I hope you see what I mean:
If mentioning a statue Twain saw is a big clue (that Twain was secretly working for the PTB)… I mean, let alone the ‘crypto-Jew’ crapola… a big clue?…
Puh-lease.
This is MM struggling, trying to flesh out a weak premise with misleading genealogy.
But let’s… move on.
Let’s return to a point I made in Part One:
How MM insists the reader take in his Manson/Tate paper before his JFK ‘Hidden King’ tome (which claims that the Kennedys have been the secret ‘kings’ of the U.S.A. since Joe Jr. — who was supposedly not killed in WW2 but returned to ‘rule’ while in hiding.
This utterly depends on you believing that the three major Kennedy deaths (Joe Jr., JFK, and JFK Jr.) were all faked.
MM’s Kennedy house of cards falls if any one of the major deaths were proved to be a flat-out assassination.
Aside from JFK himself (the copious proofs of his actual murder), I suggest a viewing of John Hankey’s analysis of the plane crash ‘accidental’ death of JFK Jr.
Sorry, but Jr. didn’t ‘kill’ himself, his fiancé, and her sister so he could ‘rule by telephone’ or whatever nonsense his ‘motive’ is.
I’ve already reproduced the email wherein MM ‘himself’ admitted he had no idea how ‘dying’ was advantageous to any of the Kennedy’s or their ‘underground rule.’
As further evidence of MM’s blatant deceit, notice the ‘Update’ papers he has on his list; we’ll stick to the Manson/Tate and JFK essays.
Each new one is supposed to add still more ‘evidence,’ after the first one posted.
I’ll line these up in the order they appeared at MM’s site.
LATE UPDATE:
MY ‘UPDATE WORD COUNT’ STUFF IS INCORRECT, BASED ON MY IGNORANCE OF HOW THIS WORKS, SO IGNORE THIS STUFF.
I WAS LAZY AND DIDN’T THINK ONE MISTAKE WOULD MATTER, BUT I WAS WRONG.
SO TODAY, MARCH 19, 2018, I’M COMING BACK TO CORRECT THE ERROR.
IF YOU THINK THIS KILLS MY THESIS RE MM, SORRY, BUT YOU’RE NOT THINKING…
BUT I APOLOGIZE FOR THE SCREW UP…
SKIP DOWN TO WHERE I START WITH…
‘Okay, if you’re still with me’…
NEW PAPER, added 6/29/14, The Tate Murders were Faked.
That’s right.
Manson is another creation of the MATRIX.
Over 80 pages of photographic evidence.
PAPER UPDATE, added 12/3/14, Tate Murders.
The mainstream tells us Manson is now living in Santa Barbara!
Skip to near bottom of paper for the update.
PAPER UPDATE, added 12/11/15, The Tate Murders were Faked.
I have added a couple of paragraphs showing Sharon Tate’s death certificate is fake.
Also, several other anomalies on that document.
See p. 48.
What you will find in the above “Paper Updates’ is that they are identical to the first one.
In other words, his boasting on new information is totally bogus.
For example, pages 48 are identical in all three incarnations of the essay.
No ‘New anomalies’ at all.
In fact, all three have identical word counts (37,751), plus the last pages of the three are identical (p82).
(To check on my observations, copy and paste the above essays on a clean Word document and get the word count using the ‘Tool’ option.)
Then do the same with the JFK papers, titled ‘The Hidden King’:
it’s been posted three times, supposedly with new information in each incarnation:
NEW PAPER, added 3/18/15, The Hidden King: Camelot ruled from the Cave of Merlin.
If you thought you had hit the bottom of the rabbit hole, click on the title here.
Take a deep breath first, though.
THE HIDDEN KING(S): Camelot Ruled from the Cave of Merlin – Library of Rickandria
PAPER UPDATE, added 3/25/15, The Hidden King: Camelot ruled from the Cave of Merlin.
I have added another 25 pages of explosive evidence, most of it old photographs.
Via this evidence, I should change my title to Hidden Kings.
If he’s added 25 pages of new photos, how come both the word count (38,300) and the last page (86) are all the same?
PAPER UPDATE, added 9/25/16, The Hidden Kings.
I have added about 7 pages of photo analysis to this paper, which now makes it even longer than my Tate/Manson paper.
See p. 31 for more photos of the Presidential limo, and p. 73 for 7 more fake photos of the family.
All six incarnations of both of these MM papers – one because it’s true, the other because it’s false – are utterly identical, notwithstanding his outright lies of ’25 pages of explosive [new] evidence’ and ‘added 7 pages of photo analysis.’
He even tells you what page to go to for the ‘new’ stuff – utterly counting on you that you won’t actually check.
(Go to Page 31, for example, and see if you can find anything new.)
But why?
Why these bald-faced lies?
‘Bald-faced’ vs. ‘Bold-faced’ vs. ‘Barefaced’ | Merriam-Webster
Especially considering that anyone with a word processor (which is everyone) could easily check the word counts (not that easily, there’s a lot of copying and pasting and so forth to do).
The answer is obvious:
MM really wants you to read them, both of them.
Gain your trust with the Tate/Manson paper, then bend your sense of reality (plus your sense of ‘historical hope’) with the JFK one.
The trick with MM is this:
None of his papers are wholly false, none wholly true.
Pretend there’s a true/false spectrum.
The majority if MM papers, I believe, are skewed slightly toward falsity, i.e., you can believe about half of what he says.
Same for the overall premise of any given paper, with the Manson/Tate one (and a few others, especially his ‘cultural/art’ critiques) as the ‘mostly true’ dangle.
The repetition (dishonestly calling an old paper ‘new and Improved’) is also a way to ensure that Newbies to his site are properly… broken in.
And anyway, what’s to lose?
Anyone who ‘distrusts’ MM to the extent of checking on word count lies, etc., as I have done, isn’t part of his demographic anyway.
MM is looking to establish a cult following:
folks who will read this exposé and somehow come to the conclusion that I am the liar, hence the… bad guy.
#
Okay, if you’re still with me, I have a slight subject change I’m hoping you’ll put up with, since it bears so closely upon our main subject, MM and who ‘he’ is.
Also, in researching MM, I stumbled upon what may be an even ‘deeper’ PSYOP.
Hang in and we’ll see.
I’ll be ‘thinking out loud’ with this one as we go along…
Up front I mentioned how, over the past few months, I’ve been ‘distracted’ – ‘misdirected’ may turn out to be the better verb – in my investigation into the persona of MM.
As mentioned, a part of this has involved a correspondence with MM himself (or, rather, an entity or entities claiming to be MM), plus a spirited forum discussion with ‘Clues Forum,’ a group I’ve always found… interesting… in their views, if not always on the money about details.
Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception – Index page
Clues Forum (CF) is an offshoot of the YouTube blockbuster September Clues, an exposé on 9/11 film fakery by Italian auteur ‘Simon Shack.’ September Clues is a must-see for anyone interested in true historical revisionism and the role of the media in it.
Problem is — and I realize that fans of Simon Shack and his CF will hit the roof with this – in my ‘following of the evidence wherever it leads,’ I’ve had to come to the conclusion that Simon himself is LH/controlled op.
Hang in, keep an open mind, and we’ll see.
I know I’m right about ‘Miles Mathis’; I’m not so sure with SS.
I do know that something is wrong…
I got friendly with Simon five or so years ago, when I realized that – notwithstanding some puzzling boners (Simon doesn’t believe that a rocket will work in a vacuum) – his film in effect lays bare the single most important revelation of the 9/11 whole affair:
The active participation of the mainstream media.
Global Media Control – Library of Rickandria
I’m not talking simple, under-orders cover up here, as we may assume in the matter of, say, JFK.
Looks like JFK was Gay & other interesting news – Library of Rickandria
I’m talking the entity that had everyone’s full attention at the (imaginary or not) ‘Round Table’ wherein the final plan was crafted.
The problem solver.
The sin qua non of the mega PSYOP itself.
Again, the mainstream media, particularly the TV end of it.
In fact, the major ‘tell’ or giveaway that the alt media is largely (80% or better, maybe way better) controlled op is the fact that media fakery is not, by far, the number one issue at ‘truther’ events/websites/blogs/forums.
In fact, the very subject is taboo at most of these venues; the NLP/misdirection has been so successful that ‘No Planer’ has become a way of labeling a ‘truther’ as a nutcase.
This is brilliant PR by the PTB – a way of keeping the most important single ‘truth’ of 9/11 (direct media participation) completely off the table.
The situation is also further evidence that ‘9/11 truth,’ like the alt media itself, is mostly LH.
If we need further reasons for MM’s 9/11 lassitude – his avoidance of it in his essays — MM also claims that he doesn’t deal with the subject because he has nothing more to add (‘it was an inside job’ seems enough).
I’m sorry, but this lame excuse coming from a physicist just doesn’t wash.
(Although he off-handedly mentions the Apollo fraud, that he’s basically silent on NASA’s continuing and utterly transparent chicanery, is another flag of the brightest crimson variety.)
If you think I’m rambling off subject by bringing up 9/11, NASA, etc., hang in and you’ll see my point, how it, and how Clues Forum (CF), ties to MM.
I got friendly with Simon Shack, even sent him a hard copy of Cosmic Banditos (all the way to Italy), which he loved, as I’d hoped.
Gradually, though, things went sour between us (Can’t I Get Along With Anyone?), until a few days ago (this is back around early September, when I was not only banned from Clues Forum, but referred to as ‘subhuman’ by Simon himself.
He even predicted (or hoped) that my dog would turn on me. IMO, Shack’s vicious ad hominems were a way to distract from my observations re his and his forum cohorts’ misdirections.
If you hang in, you be the judge, but here’s a bit more of Simon’s way of discrediting me on his forum:
(referring to me)….
’pitiful Hollywood-payrolled clowns like yourself.
You American Hollywood/CIA/ military/ media spooks are a bunch of losers – as you are getting far too easy to detect – due to your piss-poor education.’
There’s more to Simon’s rant but for now I’ll only point out that there is zero information in it. Pure bald assertion/ad hominem.
As you’ll see, what touched off the tirade was merely my pointing out the misdirection I’d been subject to by Simon and his CF cohorts; the thread, of course, was about MM.
I believe Simon Shack and his Clues Forum (the institution, not necessarily all the membership) works for the same Power That Be (PTB) as Miles Mathis.
This is possibly an oversimplification, although I believe it to be basically true.
(The ‘conflict’ between MM and SS being more misdirection.)
Addendum:
Since long, rambling ‘true-but-irrelevant’ misdirection passages (by CF folks) are, IMO, important tells, I do encourage the reader to stick with the thread in its entirety (at least after my entrance to it), meanwhile actively asking him/herself ‘Is this relevant to the issue at hand, especially ‘allancw’s observations?’
Note the date of my first post, August 9th; this was a couple or so weeks prior to my Brit-isms epiphany and before I sucked in my gut and shed my own denial about MM.
(For a long time, I hoped MM was for real…)
[Keep in mind that ‘allancw’ is me…]
CONTINUE:
Clues Forum & Allan C. Weisbecker – Library of Rickandria
SAUCE:
An Open Letter To Miles Mathis, Part Two – Allan C. Weisbecker (banditobooks.com)