Private mobsters no longer exist, having been absorbed by the more powerful families that run the US government. As with all other business, the past 50 years has seen a monopolization of all lucrative operations by “investment firms”, “holding companies” and of course banks. Since these banks and other huge companies are fronts for the same few families, there is no longer any room for mobsters or any of the rest of those people. They went extinct some time in the 1960's. All the Godfather movies and Soprano shows are just misdirection to make you think organized crime still exists in the old way. It doesn't. They have found ways to steal much larger sums of money without getting their hands dirty or their names in the paper—with absolutely no risk of getting caught. They do it by stealing from you under the aegis of the Federal government. -- Miles Mathis
Physics has become a giant cash cow, milked straight from the various national treasuries by the usual suspects. Hundreds of billions of dollars are siphoned from the people of Europe, China, Russia, and the Americas via these fake programs.
Just as the Modern artists are incapable of real art, the Modern physicists are incapable of real physics. So instead they manufacture some huge pile of equations that seems (to some gullible people) to resemble physics or math, and then sell it to Congress or Parliament as cutting-edge. The important thing is not that any physics or art gets done, but that money flows from the treasury. It is all a colossal scam, of earth-shattering proportions. And I mean that literally. All the societies of this Earth are being shattered by this rampant fakery. They are coming apart at the seams. Not only are they being milked dry of all revenues—revenues that could and should be going to real programs—but they are being milked dry of all inspiration, all creativity, all good will, and all belief in humanity. Human potential is shriveling up like a spider on a hot sidewalk under a magnifying glass, and these rich families are the magnifying glass.
It has to stop. It has gotten so bad, the rich are actually undercutting themselves. For money to be worth anything there has to be something worth buying. The rich can no longer collect art, since they have destroyed it. They can no longer have the joy of underwriting real science, since they have destroyed it. They can't collect books or poetry, since they have destroyed both literature and poetry. They can't enjoy the company of innocent youths, since they have destroyed the innocence of youth. They can't enjoy love, because they have destroyed it for profit. They can't enjoy beautiful architecture, because they have destroyed it. And they can't enjoy the feeling of a day well spent, because their days aren't well spent. That is the thing about dirty money and a dirty conscience: no matter how much you spend, you can't hire someone to clean it. -- Miles Mathis
Eliot is downcast at his inability to match the great poets, telling us that modern people cannot hope to compete: “for us there is only the trying.” This is a clue because that message has been one of the main projects of Intelligence since the end of the 19th century, and Eliot was hired to promote it. As I have shown in dozens of papers over the years, the project was to destroy old art and replace it with an art that could be more easily controlled and manipulated. To do this, they first had to convince artists that everything had already been done. You weren't ever going to paint a ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, so why bother? Go to work for the CIA instead and make whatever they tell you to: you won't have to starve in a garret, you will have a guaranteed income and a pension and a faked death waiting for you when you are ready to move on. Yes, having no use for beauty or subtlety, the new governors wished to remake art as propaganda—which they did have a use for -- Miles Mathis
All you need to pull off a fake like this is a couple of friends as witnesses and a hired coroner to fill out the fake paperwork. -- Miles Mathis
CHAOS wasn't a fictional group from Get Smart, it was a real project of the CIA, one which was joined by Nixon to the FBI's project COINTELPRO in the late 1960's. This is now admitted by mainstream sources. Both were domestic programs explicitly created to manufacture fear and confusion in the US, and to undercut any and all resistance to the government and its plans—including its plans for art and the media. Although they were spectacularly successful, they didn't end in the 1970's, as we are told. They simply changed names and accelerated, eventually engulfing all facets of life. This has become the MATRIX: a totally manufactured system of events by which you are led precisely where they wish you to go. -- Miles Mathis
There are two kinds of unbelief: Those who say something is not true, because they wish it were not true; and those who say something is not true, because they wish that it was. This latter kind is curable. -- Archbishop Fulton Sheen
You are supposed to believe that writing formless bullshit “poetry” like Allen Ginsberg is actually more difficult than writing Paradise Lost. In the same way, you are supposed to believe it was more creative and actually more difficult for Duchamp to rip a urinal out of the wall and put it in the museum than it was for Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. -- Miles Mathis
I encourage you to read Whitman's biography closely. None of it makes any sense. Like Ezra Pound and the others in the Lost and Beat Generations, he is always doing something for which he has no qualifications, no money, and no obvious entrée. And after he does it, whatever he does gets mysteriously promoted to the skies, despite having a rather obvious lack of quality. -- Miles Mathis
If you questioned the newspapers, you were tossed out of the universities and replaced by people who said they agreed with the newspapers. In this way, a large percentage of people could simply be told what to think, while the tiny percentage of people who saw the truth could be marginalized and defamed. -- Miles Mathis
Americans had shown they would buy any amount of pulp as long it was labeled “poetry” or “art.” They would buy any pile of lies, as long it was labeled “truth.” They would buy anti-science as science, anti-art as art, and anti-freedom as freedom. And if Americans didn't buy it, the government would just buy it and fake the sales lists, telling Americans they were buying it. -- Miles Mathis
Art is now subsidized at the local, state, and federal levels, and the Modern museums are filled that way with art no one wants to see. You are forced to pay for your own propagandizing, and when you refuse to go to the museums to see it, they produce programs and articles and news stories, so that whenever you turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper or magazine, the art is jammed in front of your face. Now that people are refusing to watch TV or buy newspapers or magazines, I suspect they will round people up and download the art and poetry and other propaganda directly into their brains, via electrodes, sending them a bill afterwards for the privilege. -- Miles Mathis
Fairey and his promoters have many stories for the OBEY sign, justifying it as the opposite of what it is; but at the end of the day what we have is a lot of impressionable, poorly educated young people wearing clothing that says OBEY. The subliminal effect of that is not anti-authoritarian, it is authoritarian. OBEY means OBEY, and no amount of pseudo-philosophy or art-speak can change that. It would appear that once again, the authorities have achieved an overt campaign of mind control by dressing it up as its opposite. Young people are being told they are more free by wearing signs that say OBEY. [Remember, Urban Outfitters was originally called Free People, and that is where that brand name came from.] If we saw this happening in Russia or China, we might be able to unwind it. But when it happens here, it passes without comment. Which just proves the success of the overlying scheme. The control is not even subliminal. It is hidden in plain sight. You don't need special glasses to see the word OBEY. You just need some residual level of self-determination to see it for what it is, and they know most people don't have that. The success of the campaign is proof of the campaign's success. The medium is the message. Everything is believed except that which is true. Everything is seen except that which is visible. -- Miles Mathis
It is to the government's benefit, and no one else's, that young men and women should think they are progressive when they are regressive, that they should think they are cool for wearing openly fascist signage. It can only be propaganda when the tag inside the shirt says Free People and the tag printed on the front of the shirt says OBEY. Likewise, the government has convinced the young that it is cool to be utterly emasculated and de-feminized, to be drugged-out and nearly catatonic, to know nothing, and to be emotionally retarded. The fashions of the youth, the music, the drug culture, the false sexualizing of everything while destroying healthy sex: all these things work to the same end.
The government prefers to rule over men who cannot resist it. It prefers that all young men not in the army be pale, skinny young men with 36” chests and manicured fingernails. So that is what it promotes in fashion posters, Hollywood movies, and on TV. If promoting homosexuality accelerates that end, then the government will promote homosexuality. The government actually doesn't give a damn about equal rights or fairness, for if it did we wouldn't be living in the world we are living in. The government now promotes homosexuality and gay marriage, but not because it likes gays or likes marriage. It promotes them because through both it can promote the emasculation of civilian men and population control. It is not hard to understand or to see, so the fact that neither liberals nor conservatives in the media ever state it this way is telling. -- Miles Mathis
Fake trials can act as precedent for future trials, both real and fake. So if Intelligence wishes to insert anything into future lawbooks, it can do so via these fake trials. In a future trial, an attorney can cite the outcomes of these fake trials as precedent, allowing the government to completely undermine the law in any way it likes. -- Miles Mathis
We are being sold the idea that Abstract Expressionism was promoted during the 1950's because it was anti-leftist. But before and after this period—and in general—we are sold the idea that Modern Art is anti-rightist. Remember, Modern Art is sold as superior because it is relevant, and it is sold as relevant because it is politically aware and politically progressive. American realism has long been slandered because it is politically neutral, or worse, reactionary. The magazines and critics have assured us that art must be avant garde, both conceptually and politically. Well, the avant garde is on the left, not the right. Another contradiction is seen in the promotion of popular or low art, which happened both before and after the Cold War. This has been sold as democratic, but as a matter of political theory, promoting low art in the place of high or “aristocratic” art is obviously more closely tied to Marxism. America has been a Democracy from the beginning, but almost no one had any problem with the art in museums until Marxism arrived. This is because Democracy or Republicanism didn't create the idea that museum art belonged only to the upper classes. Republicanism as practiced in the US through the 19th century only promoted the idea that museums were for everyone, and that everyone should be given the education to enjoy them. The idea of tearing them down and replacing them with a collection of vulgarities never occurred to anyone in those days. It was Marxism that was used (perhaps pushed) to suggest that the pastimes of the rich and poor were intrinsically different, and that the institutions of the rich should be pulled down and replaced by proletarian creations. Therefore, the idea that Modern Art is anti-leftist in any way is absurd. It may be anti-Democratic—if only because it has been promoted by fascists—but it can't be anti-Marxist since the whole idea of destroying “aristocratic art” came from Marxists. -- Miles Mathis
In the creative markets, it was revenge against talent that had more to do with the new theories than revenge against money. Both the Futurists and the Dadaists were driven by what Nietzsche had called ressentiment—an unabashed hatred of those who could do anything they couldn't. -- Miles Mathis
Every time a market was destroyed, for whatever reason, they could jump in and reconstruct it on their own terms. Therefore, any sort of destabilization was welcomed by them, and after a while they began to create it. And every time they recreated a market, they rebuilt it on a lower level. -- Miles Mathis
The entire 20th century reads like an inversion of sense, with the Russians killing a Czar, incorporating Marxism, and then holding on proudly to the vestiges of the old art with the ballet, the paintings in the Hermitage, and the old realist schools; while at the same time the US is promoting lotto tickets, slashed canvases, cans of excrement, soup cans, and pornography as art, and claiming to do it to fight Communism. Even more farcical is that when we lift the curtain, we find families like the Rockefellers —who believe in Democracy about as strongly as the Stuarts or Bourbons did—running the show. Although Modern Art is supposed to come from the furthest reaches of the left—think of the far-right Jesse Helms railing against the NEA in Congress in 1989—when we look closer we see the Rockefellers and the CIA behind MOMA. And when we finally get the whole picture in focus, we find them claiming Modernism was promoted in the 1950's because it was anti-leftist. Madness. -- Miles Mathis
Those such as MOMA director Alfred Barr were paid to invert this truth, but in hindsight the truth is pretty easy to see regardless. In a series of articles going back to the 1940s, Barr argued that totalitarianism and realism went together, but that abstract art was an art of freedom and democracy. Given what we know now—that abstract art was actually sponsored by fascist old-money families who were trying to suppress any real uprisings—that argument crumbles into dust. Pollock and the rest weren't free-style progressives, they were stooges bought off by the billionaires. They were fake artists hired to pose as real artists, so that real artists could be killed off. They were puppets of the cloaked fascists. And that applies to all the famous “avant garde” phonies to this day, who preen as progressives while being fronts for the Rockefellers. None of this ended with the end of the Cold War or the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is ongoing to this day. Modernism continues to be propped up by the Plutocrats and their million hired mouthpieces and moneybags, against the will of the people, the will of Congress, and the will of all real artists. And this is sold back to us as progressive. -- Miles Mathis
The Agencies don't care what you think. The truth can't harm them. It has gotten to the point where they leak the truth themselves, to inconvenience one another—or just for fun. The secret agencies are so powerful they don't even have to be secret anymore. Haven't you noticed how all the movies and TV shows are about the CIA now? They write about themselves, because that is what they know and because they can. So what if you see through them? Suppose you learn the whole truth? Suppose you decode the MATRIX? What are you going to do about it? Same thing you are doing now: nothing.
What you don't understand is that the government isn't spying on me or you and isn't buying hollow-point ammunition out of fear of me or you. The agencies learned a long time ago that the American people don't have the gumption for a revolution. They know we don't have the wherewithal to take over a rural post office, much less the Federal Government. The agencies are scared of each other. As we have seen, this fear causes even more expansion and more chaos on a daily basis. The Intelligence agencies are so large they have even begun to threaten the military budgets, which brings another player into the game. So it is not another World War you should be most concerned about, it is another Civil War, and it is already going on. The only good news is that you will probably not be involved directly, except as an ignorant financial casualty. They will not draft you or garrison your home or burn your city. They will only continue to co-opt your capital to fund their (mostly) hidden battles. So your best bet is to live day-to-day and collect only things they don't want: like, say, old books, heirloom seeds, or realist art. -- Miles Mathis
It may be that the Praetorian Guard has grown weary of its own Caesars, and that Nero is watching his back. -- Miles Mathis
It is known that The Great Gatsby was a flop when it came out. Neither the critics nor the public were impressed. So why is it now so famous? Why was it second on the Modern Library list of best novels in 1998? Well, although only 25,000 copies sold between 1925 and 1942, the Council on Books in Wartime (CBW) printed 155,000 copies in 1942 and distributed them free during WW2. Do the math, please. That means the book sold fewer than 1,500 copies per year, based on its previous levels of promotion (which were not low). They then printed in one year more than six times as many copies as were sold in 17 years. That is a promotion more than 100 times (6.2 x 17 = 105.4) the demand, which surely qualifies as unnatural. It isn't capitalism, it isn't supply and demand, it isn't even advertising. It is the creation of opinion. It is dogma. It is cultural fascism. What they did with The Great Gatsby they have done with many of the other books on the lists. -- Miles Mathis
As we now see, the whole tempest was manufactured. This was one wing of the CIA attacking another wing, both giving the other credence in opposition. -- Miles Mathis
The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test was a nearly perfect form of propaganda, since although it was manufactured from the ground up, it managed to fool almost everyone in the mainstream. It was sold with extravagant praise by places like the New York Times, who were in on the ruse. But Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters, as far as they actually existed, look to me like CIA agents pretending to be hippies. Since this was a book, not a documentary film, they didn't even have to do all the things Wolfe said they did. A few bits of corroborating evidence was all that was needed. But if you reread the book now with a little hindsight, you can see it was all just a story. It wasn't a good story, though, not if you were a real hippie. Although the book pretended to glorify hippies, suggesting that Kesey was a minor messiah, it actually makes hippies look very bad. It makes them look like shallow revolutionaries, more interested in getting stoned and laid than in any real activism. And this was the purpose of the book, beyond selling drugs. The book had a two-fold purpose: slander the hippie movement and push drugs to impressionable young people. The first purpose would destroy the movement directly and the second would destroy it indirectly. The second would also enrich the drug pushers, and as we now know, LSD was created in government labs. -- Miles Mathis
In Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, he tries in two essays to slander both the Civil Rights Movement and the Office of Economic Opportunity in San Francisco. The latter “bureaucracy” was guilty of trying to help the poor, and Wolfe's puppetmasters saw this as one more worthless “entitlement program.” These programs have since been replaced by private jails, where the poor can be permanently incarcerated for profit. In Radical Chic, Wolfe implies very unsubtly that white people making any alliance with black people are doing so only to appear fashionably progressive. He doesn't dismiss the idea that white people may have some genuine concern for fairness: he never even considers it. By ignoring it completely, he can keep his agitprop clean and unilateral. -- Miles Mathis
All those sold to us as heavyweights never seem to get their feet on the floor, and I guess we now know why. They are hanging by wires from the ceilings of the Agencies. -- Miles Mathis
The Intelligence Agencies can't admit they lied for decades and then expect us to keep believing new lies. Fool me for a century, blame on you; fool me for another century, blame on me. -- Miles Mathis
Marx began writing for the New York Tribune in 1852. This in itself should look extraordinary to you, seeing that Marx was already seen as a revolutionary in Europe, having been tossed out of both Germany and Belgium. The Tribune was not a revolutionary paper. It was a mainstream Whig/Republican newspaper of the time, promoting not revolutionaries but people like Abraham Lincoln. Marx's contact at the Tribune was Charles Dana, another Harvard man. When Dana left the Tribune in 1862, he was immediately appointed by Secretary of War Stanton to be a special investigating agent for the War Department. Does that ring a bell? In my paper on Theosophy, we saw that Henry Steel Olcott was also appointed to be a special investigating agent for the War Department. These agents were what we would now call Intelligence. Henry Steel Olcott, founder of Theosophy, also worked at the New York Tribune in the 1850's. Olcott's editor was Charles Dana. After the war, when Olcott was investigating spiritualism for the New York Sun in 1874, guess who his editor was again. Charles Dana. -- Miles Mathis
We can't understand the Pound of 1940 without understanding the Pound of 1908 or 1920, and as we have seen, the mainstream material hasn't helped us do that. We have been misdirected all along. But if Pound was an agent in 1908 and 1920, then only one of two things can explain his behavior in 1940. Either he was still an agent and the whole thing was manufactured; or he cracked, turned on his handlers, and began attacking them. Although the latter might at first appear to be more likely, since it more easily explains his time at St. Elisabeth's mental ward, the evidence indicates to me that it is the former. If he had really cracked and turned against Intelligence, the main target of his insane rants would have been Intelligence. Since the main targets of his rants were Jews, capitalism, usury, the armaments industry, and so on, it appears that Pound was simply being used as an Anti. In other words, in creating an Anti, Intelligence has someone act insane and at the same time attack all the things they wish to promote. Those watching this spectacle will naturally think, “That man is mad, and he is attacking Jews, capitalism, and the army. Therefore Jews, capitalism, and the army must be innocent.” -- Miles Mathis
In the 1920's, you had the Lost Generation. In the 1950's, the Beat Generation. We have seen that the Beats weren't beat and the Losts weren't lost: they were all from privileged families. But both words imply the same sort of manufactured angst. Both generations were coming out of world wars, so there were people beat and lost in those times, but our created heroes weren't among them. They were sold as cast-off urchins to gain your sympathy, but they were just the opposite. They hadn't been cast-off, they had been recruited. They weren't confused, they were selling confusion. They weren't creative, they were destroying art. They weren't heroic, they were pathetic. And though some of them photographed well, if you had known them up-close, you would have found them not charming, but disgusting—just like the current batch of over-photographed stars. -- Miles Mathis
If the interbank rates can be fixed (see LIBOR) and the stock market rigged and the mainstream media controlled, why should we believe book sales figures? What is to stop the government from buying tens of thousands of copies of Hemingway and Fitzgerald and Joyce and the rest of these bastards every year, and distributing them free to schools, libraries, and other institutions, and using those numbers to prop up sales figures? For that matter, what is to stop them from doing it with David Foster Wallace and Don DeLillo and Stephen Hawking and Tom Wolfe and everyone else? Think they can't afford it? They can. They could afford to actually take delivery of every book sold, and pulp them. But of course they don't have to do that. They can do what they do now with voting machines: just make the numbers up on the screens. -- Miles Mathis
As a matter of color, characterization, variety, sentiment, and pathos, Dickens is the peak against which all after have been measured. Problem is, Dickens was also a progressive of the old sort, and all his novels concern social injustice and reform. The timing also leads us in this direction, since we have already seen 1848 as a turning point. That was exactly the time Dickens was writing. His greatest novels came out in the 1840's and 50's, and his popularity was very inconvenient for the anti- democratic old families of Europe and the US. By the standards of his time, Dickens was seen to be as strident and opinionated as I am here. Although the government couldn't very well forbid novel writing, it could infiltrate the field, and this is the context you should see Ulysses in. Just as Duchamp was trying to destroy the easel painting and the museum work, Joyce was trying to destroy the novel. This was the whole point of minimalism, too, across all fields, and Hemingway is admitted to be a sort of early minimalist, stripping down the complex and flowery sentence structure of Dickens and replacing it with 8th-grade declarative sentences. All of Greenberg's recommendations to unload conventions worked to the same purpose. With a stripped-down art, you simply couldn't do as much damage, and this is what they wanted. -- Miles Mathis
All the arts were becoming entirely too popular in the second half of the 19th century, and they were beginning to have a real political effect. The governments therefore had to find a way to replace this real popularity with a sort of fake popularity. Modern art is sold as an art of the people—therefore “popular”—but in fact the people have never had anything to do with it. Modernism wasn't and isn't popular, as we can see from attendance at local Modern museums. Modernism is supported only by paid academics. Even Pop-Art was never popular. These words are only Newspeak. Pop-Art borrowed it forms from popular culture, but it was never popular itself. Most people aren't impressed by blown-up cartoons or soup-can labels in a museum. But by replacing art that was popular with Pop-Art, you defused the power of real art. Relevance has been the catchword of the 20th century, but it was inverted like everything else. The art of the 20th century was increasingly irrelevant, on purpose. The novels of Dickens had been far more relevant and powerful, but that isn't what was wanted by the governors. They wanted art that was called relevant, but which really wasn't. So they replaced the real thing by an inverted facsimile, and sold it as new-and-improved. -- Miles Mathis
Ginsberg to Eliot: What did you think of the domination of poetics by the CIA? After all, wasn't Angleton your friend? Didn't he tell you his plan to revitalize the intellectual structure of the West against the so-to-speak Stalinists?
Eliot: There are all sorts of chaps competing for dominance, political and literary. . .your Gurus for instance, and the Theosophists, and the table rappers and dialecticians and tea-leaf readers and Ideologues. I suppose I was one such. . .
Intelligence found it could prop up anyone and anything as art, even mental patients and bums, and within a couple of decades the Agency was simply playing a game to see what they could pass off as art and an artist. They saw this as an indication of their power. It was found that most people didn't care about art one way or another, and that even those who claimed to care—even those who claimed to be experts or connoisseurs—usually didn't. What these fake connoisseurs liked was the society or the attention, so they were easy for Intelligence to buy off. The very very few who actually cared for art were such an astonishing minority, they could be utterly ignored. It had been thought going in that real art had a large number of protectors, but once the war against art began, this was found to be an error. Almost all previous claims of love, connoisseurship, and patronage turned out to be lip service, since when pressure was applied, it all evaporated. In others words, it was found that real art was already nearly extinct even before the government decided to start strafing it. Though Intelligence was armed for a long war, it didn't even find a short battle. The greater part of the opposition caved with just a nudge, and those left standing after the first skirmish were already so outnumbered they hadn't a chance. All that was necessary at that point was to quit publishing them and wait for them to die. -- Miles Mathis
E Michael Jones Proof of God:
1. Nothing Comes From Nothing.
2. There Is Something.
3. Therefore There Was Never Just Nothing.
4. This something cannot bring itself into existence, because to do that it would have to exist before it existed. That's impossible.
5. So therefore something else had to bring that into existence, and that something is what all men call God.
Everything is yellow to the jaundiced eye.
The new part of Intelligence here is DHS, which popped up about 14 years ago, and it was founded and is run by a private consortium that includes guys like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Now, these guys couldn't have gotten to where they are without the support of old-money families like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, DuPont, etc., but it is possible they are working for one of these families against the others, trying to carve out a new niche. This they have done so successfully that it appears the other families were alerted and are now moving against them. And so we see the turf war I sometimes allude to.
Intelligence is now split and scheming against itself. It therefore sometimes seems that the US government is blackwashing itself, or blowing the whistle on itself. We saw that with Snowden's whistleblowing against NSA, which was basically just one arm of CIA blowing the cover of NSA. Since NSA is a sub-dept of DHS, we see how it is working there. We have also seen it in all the faked events of the last decade, which have failed ever more miserably. Someone is feeding truthers easy info, which is blowing the cover of what I assume are DHS faked events. We have seen this most recently in Paris, where the fake event is again unwinding in quick and surprising fashion. This indicates the turf war is international. -- Miles Mathis
We are told that as the Special Prosecutor of New York in the 1930s, Dewey broke up Luciano's huge and profitable prostitution business. But what they forget to tell you is that despite that, nothing was cleaned up in New York even for a moment. Prostitution continued to flourish and continued to be a huge business. So Dewey didn't “break up” anything. He just took over Luciano's business for his bosses. The exact same thing happened when the Kennedys “went after” the mob around 1960. What they were going after was their businesses. -- Miles Mathis
Since we saw the Vanderbilt family linked to the producers of James Bond from way back, we may assume that family is OLD Intel. This suggests that Vanderbilt scion Anderson Cooper may be blowing the cover of events like Sandy Hook on CNN on purpose. I hadn't thought of that until just now, but it fits, doesn't it? Why else would he have given the truthers so much face time and air time, and done such a poor job of debunking them? This would mean that, like the horrible crisis actors we have found blowing these events in glorious fashion, Cooper may be only pretending to be shooting himself in the foot. The obvious greenscreens he is using may be intended to fail, for example, and his outing by people like Alex Jones may be part of the intended fail. In other words, the news is not becoming more transparent and absurd by accident. It is an intended fail. I suspect the cover of all these events is being blown on purpose by Old Intel, and the long-term outcome—the end of which may already be in sight—is the defunding of DHS and downsizing of NSA.
If they went public with all the excesses of New Intel, it would hurt Old Intel at the same time, since the excesses of Old Intel were only a fraction less than New Intel. They fear the public, apprised of the true situation, would wish to defund all Intelligence. So the only way they see to fight this war is by higher and higher levels of deception. Once DHS fails, we may hope to see some return to normalcy—or at least the sort of normalcy we saw before 2001—which was not normalcy, of course, but which was a somewhat less scary movie than the one we are now living in. -- Miles Mathis
I have proposed in papers on my science site that all quantum physics from the beginning has been a smokescreen, one manufactured to confuse and misdirect the public and midlevel physicists away from any any truth as well as away from the old rules of science. Physics is now sold as gross mysticism and strict dogma, which could not be further from the classical definition of science. This keeps the mainstream out chasing their tails while a few hidden insiders pursue the real work (or one hopes some real work is getting done somewhere by someone in physics—we don't see any of it in the magazines or journals). -- Miles Mathis
New Intel is running the staged terrorist attacks and Old Intel is trying to blow their cover.
However, since Old Intel is not powerful enough to simply order New Intel to desist, we may have to wade through many more months or years of this awful turf war. The good news is that it would appear impossible for them to merge into an uber-Intel: there simply isn't enough money to fund all these unnecessary worldwide projects. The eight families don't appear to wish to fund both sets of Intel from their private coffers, and the national treasuries simply can't sustain current spending levels. So something has to give. I suggest we will see New Intel phased out. It is creating unhealthy levels of instability in the markets. They want a lot of instability in the human psyche, since we have seen this creates the need to buy. However, you can go too far in that regard. If humans become so unstable they can't hold a job, their health fails, and they can't function, their buying power hits the skids as well. You don't increase either productivity or consumption by giving everyone a nervous breakdown. They got some idea of that after 911, when everyone was so traumatized they stopped buying. Remember how President Bush had to go on TV and actually beg people to start buying again, to support the bankers, I mean the economy? -- Miles Mathis
The more they concentrate power and wealth, the more enemies they create on the outside. Those enemies then ally against them. That is why extreme power concentration is inherently unstable, and why it has always failed historically. Whoever is doing the pushing right now appears to have pushed past the point of stability. They are trying to force the current structures to yield in ways they simply will not yield. It is also why they have created the global spy network, with NSA snooping 24/7 and so on: not because they are afraid of you and me, but because they are afraid of an alliance of second-tier billionaires biting them in the ass (including of course their old enemies the aristocrats, some of whom are still around). They aren't spying on the general populace, they are spying on one another. -- Miles Mathis
If the Bank of England was nationalized, why did it continue to lend money to the nation at interest? That makes no sense. Would you lend money to yourself at interest? What would be the point of that? The very fact that there is interest means someone besides the nation must be collecting that interest. They never tell you who that is. It is private banks, of course, just as in the US.
The very idea of “interest” requires two parties. You have to have someone pay the interest and someone collect the interest. If the same entity is collecting the interest that is charging it, then you have just created a pointless circle. The net gain is zero and you might as well not bother. Well, if you have a truly National Bank, then the money in the bank belongs to the nation, right? If the nation then wishes to use that money for some project, it makes no sense for the national bank to charge the nation interest to spend that money. The nation would then be both the collector of interest and the payer of interest, so the net gain would be zero. Therefore, if we find that interest is being charged, we may assume we have a second party involved here, one that is not “the nation”.
The Bank of England is “National” in name only, just as the Federal Reserve is “Federal” in name only. Also, if the Bank of England were really nationalized, why is there still talk of auditing it? How could a truly national bank have secret books? And how could a National Bank have independence in setting policy (which it is said to have had since 1997, but which it always had)? “Independent” and “National” are mutually exclusive adjectives. If you have an “independent” bank with secret books, the money could be going anywhere, and whether or not you call that bank “national” or “private” is beside the point. A National den of thieves can steal just a much as a Private den of thieves, and probably more—since a National den raises less suspicion. -- Miles Mathis
The Occupy movement was manufactured or infiltrated to confirm the public's worst fears of the left: that is a loud, dirty, ill-informed mass of privileged white kids yelling for more privilege while pretending to be hippies. This fake movement did precisely the same thing Abbie Hoffmann and those people did for the hippies back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The opposition was infiltrated and headed by obnoxious people planted by the fascists. Hoffmann was the sort of person you hated at a glance, and the leaders of the Occupy movement were the same. This was no accident. -- Miles Mathis
Cuba has been a 51st state all along, paid well to pretend to be our enemy. -- Miles Mathis
The US government now has ways of ignoring public opinion and even most public protest, no matter how large it becomes. We have seen that on the question of genetically modified foods, which the US public opposes at around 9 to 1, or 90%. In response, the corporations that run the government just hire the major newspapers to continue to write editorials in favor of GMOs, ditto with TV news programs, and then they go in and steal the elections with computers. The same thing could be said about any topic you could name. As another example, they admit that around 80% of those polls have never believed the JFK assassination story. That statistic has not changed much in 40 years. But has that stopped them telling the same story? Nope. To this day, they just hire some loudmouth like Penn Gillette to slander 80% of the US public as “morons” for asking questions, lumping them in with Flat Earthers or something.
As another example, we can return to 911, the mainstream story of which is disbelieved by a majority or large minority. Has the government felt the need to respond in any positive way? Nope. The only way they respond is again by slandering the tens of millions of people in this country who know the story is hogwash. They can ignore opinion and undirected protest indefinitely. They don't care what you think, as long as you keep buying and banking and credit carding and taking loans and paying taxes and fees and going to movies and watching TV and eating garbage food and taking drugs and buying guns and hanging yellow ribbons and voting for their scarecrows. -- Miles Mathis
I had been gagging on the blue pill all my life, and now that I have spat it from my mouth at last, I see no great change in my social life. Whereas I had been shunned as a gagger, I am now shunned as a spitter. But since I was already instinctively shunning a majority of people for swallowing the blue pill with such ease, their shunning of me was of little consequence. We were never going to party together regardless. -- Miles Mathis
Many modern females are lost in a created world of entitlement and spoilage that has no connection to the real world, or to any possible rationality. -- Miles Mathis
Real alphas know that quantity means nothing, quality everything. In the human gene pool, inseminating vast numbers of women has no real value, to you or him or anyone else. Only in animal societies, where all individuals are pretty much the same, does such a thing become meaningful. In human society it is meaningless, because a thousand lower-tier children have the same power as one lower-tier child—none. As a matter of human evolution, it simply doesn't matter what these people are doing sexually or how often, except as a matter of overpopulation. Human evolution doesn't proceed according to physical traits present in the lower percentiles, but on mental traits in the highest percentile. That, and upon collected knowledge.
All this talk of alphas in humans as the analogy of alphas in animals is absurd. It is evolutionary biology and psychology for the unwashed. A very large part of human evolution is now dependent on collected knowledge, not children of any kind, and one smart bachelor like Tesla can have more influence on human evolution than a million average children. Please understand that this is completely different than eugenics. It is simply a fact. I am not advocating breeding programs: Nature will always install her own breeding programs with no conscious help from us, and do it much more fairly than we ever could. But animal species, having almost no collected knowledge, advance only genetically; humans don't. We have reached the point where human genetics only matters as far as it influences human ideas. You could have 10,000 children with 10,000 different women, but if none of your children ever has a new idea, your service to human evolution is still zero. -- Miles Mathis
Before you start debating the correct reaction to an event, you should verify the event. -- Miles Mathis
The mainstream told a ridiculous story that has not held up to even the most cursory analysis, and then refused to clarify it. When they got caught telling a mountain of lies, they basically shut down. They red-taped and then bulldozed the scene, changed the timestamps, put a gag order on everyone involved, and threatened all investigators with prosecution. They broke all sorts of transparency and reporting laws, rewrote others, and ignored the rest at will. When a large percentage of Americans expressed doubt and asked for clarification, all they were offered was a soundbite debunking that failed utterly to debunk anything. In fact, the form of the debunking only increased the suspicion. Seeing the failure of all their primary gambits, the mainstream fell back on the secondary gambit that has been used with great success in the past: pretend that their failure was a success. -- Miles Mathis
It's like Wrestlemania—a complete set-up. -- Miles Mathis
The agencies have an endless supply of people like this, replaceable and interchangeable, like Olympic Chinese divers or boy bands. Their reputations mean nothing. The bottom line in these exchanges is not the people involved, it is the ideas, and those producing the show want to see both the pro-gun position and the anti-gun position pushed hard. They profit from both. You will say they can't have it both ways, but, oh, are you naïve. They can and do have it both ways. The superrich who own your country want to pass comprehensive gun laws, yes, but they want you to go buy guns first, since they own all the gun companies like Smith&Wesson, Luger, etc. It's just like how they want you to buy gold: the more guns and gold you have, the more guns and gold they will get when they confiscate them. Think of it like a thief who comes up to you on the street, sells you a Rolex for $20,000, and then steals the Rolex from you. He now has both the Rolex and the $20,000. Brilliant. You have to be doubly stupid to fall for it, but a lot of people are falling for it. -- Miles Mathis
But even without this new drug-pushing agenda, the consciousness agenda was crap by itself. It simply isn't true that consciousness is the greatest mystery of science. Consciousness is the greatest mystery of brain science, but there are plenty of other mysteries in science that are just as big, and perhaps bigger. The thing about the consciousness mystery is that we aren't even close to solving it. Like the mystery of the universe's beginning or the mystery of life, it is just too big for us. But there are many mysteries we are capable of solving right now, which in my opinion makes them a lot more exciting than the ones we can't solve. The reason they keep trying to sell you on these ones that are too big for us is that they are great places to camp out and blow smoke. They can't be proved wrong there, because there isn't enough data. So this is where all the top theorists (and the famous new-age guys) hang out. They avoid the solid problems I like to write about, because those problems require collating and explaining a lot of real data. Since they don't have the ability to do that, they prefer to hide out in black holes and the first seconds of the universe and in 11-dimensional math and in holograms and in consciousness, where you can spout all the nonsense you like.
The other thing they like about these problems that are too big for us is that they act as perfect misdirection. They want to divert you into these problems, since once you get in you can waste years of your life with nothing to show for it. They keep all the stupid people talking about sports and movie stars, but they know they can't interest you in that shit, so they have to come up with something more cerebral for you. It used to be manufactured Biblical or literary problems that diverted the intelligentsia, like how many angels danced on the head of a pin or how many hexameters Virgil could write without spilling a trochee. Now it is whether an imaginary astronaut will pass the event horizon of the black hole and get burned up or stretched to death. Armchair philosophy posing as science, in other words.
But why would they want you wasting all your braincells on this stuff? Because if you are reading and discussing black holes, the edge of the universe, 11-dimensional math, or the origins of consciousness, you aren't getting in their way. They have then successfully diverted you into sciolism. This is what all their “science” magazines are about. Those magazines no longer contain a jot of real science. Instead, they are written from various government cubicles to misdirect you into manufactured problems and controversies. While you are out beating their phantom bushes, they are free to do what they like in science, art, and government. -- Miles Mathis
I can see he is trying to divert my fellow hippies back into navel gazing, experimenting with government-created lab drugs, and a new-age sort of faux-spiritualism based on total self-absorption, shallow subjectivity, and a science based on wish-fulfillment. In other words, the controllers are re-packaging the same thing they destroyed progressives with in the 1960's, updating it with new catchwords and conmen. -- Miles Mathis
“When you buy an automobile, the manufacturer gives you a set of instructions. He tells you the pressure to which you ought to inflate your tires, the kind of oil you ought to use in the crankcase, and the proper fuel to put in the gas tank. He has nothing against you by giving you these instructions as God had nothing against you in giving you commandments. The manufacturer wants to be helpful; he is anxious that you get the maximum utility out of the car. And God is anxious that we get the maximum happiness out of life. Such is the purpose of His commandments.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Preface to Religion)
They are trying to convince you this is how the revolution will come about, because they know that it has the least chance of coming about that way. They are convincing current hippies that the world will be transformed by them sitting around in a circle holding hands and thinking good thoughts. It won't. Holding hands and thinking good thoughts is fine, and may be a good first step. But by itself it won't change anything. The revolution requires real action, and the controllers are doing everything they can to prevent any action.
That is where the drugs come in. The drugs keep you in an induced stupor, and in that stupor you mistake your ideas for reality. You think that just because you have imagined peace, peace has really happened. But the world doesn't work that way. Reality isn't a wish-fulfillment. It isn't a construct of the mind. It isn't a hologram you can rebuild from a happy thought. The hippies have to find some way to resist the bad people. These bad people exist in the real world and they are performing real actions. They will continue to perform them until they are stopped. They will not be stopped with meditation. -- Miles Mathis
Psychedelics are hardly known for their promotion of political action. Psychedelics may or may not promote a form of awareness, but even in the case they do, they only promote an awareness of a general interconnectedness. That sort of awareness tends to cause inaction rather than action. It puts you back in the lap of god, where you aren't required to do anything but sigh contently, like a cat purring in the arms of its master. In such a state, mass murders and general corruption and impending doom no longer register. -- Miles Mathis
"How can we change the paradigm by continuing the same old paradigm? How can we expect any progress if all we do is repackage the 1960's CIA drug-pushing paradigm of Tim Leary? Hasn't this paradigm of psychedelics already been tried? Didn't it already fail spectacularly for the hippies? The only way it succeeded is viewed from the 'atheistic and far right' government, which used the psychedelics to tame the hippies and other progressives." -- Miles Mathis
Supposing we really wanted to change course, surely the most efficient method would be a return to truth. -- Miles Mathis
Primetime TV in the US has been taken over by drug commercials, and not one of them ever mentions the word abuse, or considers the possibility of it. This is the most drug saturated culture in history, and almost everyone doing drugs thinks they are doing so responsibly. They have their doctor's seal of approval, to convince them they aren't just dope fiends. -- Miles Mathis
I know that like other drugs, DMT is consciousness-altering. And like other drugs, it has serious side-effects, many of them long-term. This is why you can normally tell when people have taken hallucinogens. They lose natural speed and clarity of thought, and I don't mean just when they are tripping. They lose these things permanently. They aren't what they were before. They also lose a natural spread of emotions. Which gets us into why Intelligence has promoted them all along. Hallucinogens promote acceptance and resignation. It could be argued they promote or cause pervasive apathy, if not pervasive cynicism. Regardless, we know the government didn't just “accidentally market” LSD to the hippies and anti-war protesters in the 1960's. Those who created the drugs in the government labs knew what the drugs did to the mind, and they wanted to promote that response in a targeted segment of the population. They are still targeting that segment, and you may be part of it.
If the government really didn't want to see a trade in illegal drugs, it wouldn't allow these prominent people to push them. These guys act like promoting illegal activity is free speech, but it isn't and never was. It is only allowed because they are working for the man. They aren't low-level users, they are high-level pushers, so they get a pass. -- Miles Mathis
The truth is, Russia and the US have been allies all along. Putin is just our man in Russia, as Kim Jong-un is our man in North Korea and Gaddafi was our man in Libya. People think the book 1984 was warning us about the future, but it was simply telling us about the present. The enemies are all manufactured, for the purpose of military spending and the two-minutes hate. Russia is our controlled opposition and we are theirs. Nothing is going on in Ukraine right now but an expensive movie, broadcast to both sides. Without these yearly wars, how do you think they would justify their trillion-dollar “defense” budgets? -- Miles Mathis
T. S. Eliot: "We are the hollow men, We are the stuffed men."
Receiving awards from dishonorable people is not the same thing as winning honors. -- Miles Mathis
They don't want to encourage the public to come to the museum, by displaying real art; they want to discourage the public from coming, by putting up fake art. This assures their continued hegemony as administrators. If you brought back real art, you would also have to hire real administrators—people who knew something about art. As it is, any star-kissing phony can become a museum director or staff worker. Or I should say, only the star-kissing phonies can become museum staff, since only the phonies fit into the current order of business. -- Miles Mathis
Our village has been invaded and we have not even tried to drive off the invaders. We give them our houses and cattle and wives and children and go live in the swamp. Whose fault is that? -- Miles Mathis
1955's Rebel without a Cause was simply part of the “Beat Generation” campaign to destabilize the youth. The recently created CIA saw the younger generation moving left (anti-war) in the early 50's and therefore had to find some way to misdirect them into dead end paths. By pretending to sympathize, the makers of this propaganda were able to lure the unwitting audience into the theater, where the credulous youth could be turned from any meaningful path of action. By hiring pretty boys like James Dean, the producers could lure both males and females, subtly turning them away from activism and protest and toward drugs, meaningless sex, and thrill seeking.
We see all this in the plot of Rebel, but we see it even before that in the title. What real rebel, growing up then or now, would have trouble finding a cause? There are so many good causes now the Modern World should be like a candy store to a rebel (as I can tell you firsthand), but this film was made to convince you it is more complicated than that. The title itself was created to make you think clear and distinct causes are a thing of the past. They want you to think the world is so blurry and unfathomable, the only thing you can do is get drunk and play chicken and fire guns at nothing and comb your hair all day.
We see this again in the way the movie corrupts the message of the book it was taken from. The book Rebel without a Cause: The Hypno-analysis of a Criminal Psychopath was written by psychologist Robert Lindner, and obviously his main character is not a working-class hero. His title implies that a Rebel without a Cause is in fact a psychopath: someone incapable of political, social, or other meaningful action. But the Hollywood movie inverts that logic, trying to glorify the juvenile, narcissistic floundering of pretty boy Dean, selling it to the youth as a cool counterculture. In other words, while Lindner wanted to steer you away from being a psychopath, the CIA wanted to steer you toward being one. If you were a psychopath, you would most likely be too into yourself to cause them or the governors any trouble. And if you were a psychopath, well, you were immediately that much easier for them to understand. -- Miles Mathis
The Bay of Pigs was another piece of manufactured propaganda. In short, it never happened. Rather than prove that in gory detail, let me just put it this way: did you know that the Russians don't believe in the Bay of Pigs? Why should they? Say you were taught in school that Russia wanted to overthrow St. Lawrence Island in the 1960's. As part of this story, you were taught that the entire Russian navy was repulsed from the island by small band of Eskimos using sticks and rocks, and that Russia decided to turn back, never to return. Would you believe it? Or, say you were taught in school that Trajan led ten Roman legions against the island of Guernsey in 100 AD, and that although the island was inhabited only by a Celtic nunnery, the Romans were routed and never returned. Would you believe it? Or say you were taught that Alexander the Great led 100,000 men against the island of Thasos in 330 BC, only to be turned away by a pack of ferocious sea lions. Would you believe it? Well, the Bay of Pigs story is just that believable. The entire US military—which already has a base on the island, and had since 1903—can't invade an island with no appreciable air force or navy, and a tiny army? The burden of proof for such a preposterous story isn't on me, it is on them. All the evidence I have seen looks manufactured, and the story doesn't make any sense from the first word. So the question is, why would anyone believe it? -- Miles Mathis
Remember, JFK's dad Joseph was the owner of RKO studios in Hollywood in the late 1920's, early 30's, so there were direct links between Hollywood and government going way back. When I say that much of the reported history of the US is scripted (falsified), I am not making an airy accusation. Those in government have had direct access to the best fiction writers and producers in the world for over a century, and they have made full use of that access. -- Miles Mathis
Which brings us to Easy Rider, which opens with our two fake hippies smuggling cocaine from Mexico to Los Angeles. I suggest you read a book by Gary Webb called Dark Alliance, which will educate you on who is really smuggling cocaine into Los Angeles. In short, it isn't the hippies, and never was. It is the CIA. Easy Rider was written and directed and acted by the CIA, to divert the blame away from themselves and toward the hippies. The film was part of the counter-intelligence push in the late 1960's, which included both the CIA (Operation Chaos) and FBI (Operation Cointelpro). The goal was destabilization and destruction of the hippie and antiwar movements, which were threatening to cut into the profits of the war machine.
Remember, Fonda's character doesn't just dress in red, white and blue leathers, he wears an Office of the Secretary of Defense Identification Badge. Real hippies never wore flags, unless they were worn upside-down as distress signals; but in Hollywood films, hippies are always wearing red, white and blue. Fonda's flag is rightside-up. Even stranger is that badge. An OSD badge is for soldiers assigned to the Secretary of the Defense. It was first created in 1949. CIA was created in 1947. No hippie would be wearing that badge, or would even know what it was. A hippie couldn't get one even if he wanted it. They didn't sell them at the five-and-dime. Its inclusion in the film is both an inside joke and a signal to other insiders. It says, “This film is not what it seems. Don't worry. We are only pretending to think hippies are worth making movies about.”
Another thing the movie was created specifically to do is to induce a war between rednecks and hippies. This war had to be induced by Hollywood, since it wasn't happening on its own. As now, there were actually alliances being forged in the 1960's between rural folks and peace-niks, since all middle and lower class folks were sick of continuous war, anti-democratic policies, and unfair taxation. We see a similar thing if we study the relationship of real hippies to blacks and other minorities: we see budding alliances. But the government couldn't have that. They needed to created tension between hippies and all other groups, and the best way to do that was to manufacture it. Make films about it, write books about it, report it in the press, and so on. Say it was happening even though it wasn't. Then as now, many people will believe it if they see it on TV or in a movie, though it contradict their own experiences.
This continues to happen up to the present time, and most of the racial and class hatred in this country has to be manufactured by the government. Without the government faking events every week, people would soon learn to get along. -- Miles Mathis
Most people aren't conscious liars, they are just fooled too easily by lies. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter: either way, the lies prevail. Most people are led their whole lives by a constant line of lies, and most seem quite happy taking this blue pill.
You see, the problem isn't that most people are outrageous liars, it is that most people have very little interest in the truth. A majority of people are only lied to. But those who accept the lies are almost as guilty as those who lie, since as I have shown it is fairly easy to refuse to accept them. A lie could never work without an audience of naifs and gobemouches. -- Miles Mathis
Because Americans are divorced from the land, they mistreat it; because they are divorced from each other, they mistreat those around them. -- The Unsettling of America
They appear to be checking our doses of microwaves, fluoride, and hypnosis, to see if anyone is still awake -- Miles Mathis
Well, yes, I suppose brainwashing is a species of psychology -- Miles Mathis
The Sandy Hook hoax now has the distinction of being the most magnificent propaganda failure of all time. The faked Sandy Hook event makes 911 look relatively seamless and well-scripted. It makes Aurora and the Boston Marathon look almost real. Of all the false flag events in history, the Sandy Hook architecture destructed the quickest and fullest, leaving no two adjacent stones adhering. Researchers (including myself) have obliterated every last piece of the story, and nothing is left now but a mile-wide pile of rubble and schist. In that rubble pile are faked photos, faked interviews, faked coroner's reports, faked gatherings, faked tears, faked funerals, faked debunkings, stored Christmas trees, premature in memorias, premature fund-drives, and a bull-dozed crime scene.
Since the mainstream writers found they could not possibly debunk or explain all the anomalies discovered at Sandy Hook, they quit trying. As with 911, they found themselves overmatched at all times, and even the professionals of misdirection that were hired to blow smoke couldn't keep up. Everything they said just made the problem worse. The best thing for them to have done at that point would have been to drop all mention of Sandy Hook, letting it die of neglect. Move on to the next manufactured tragedy and try to do better. But some compartmented persons haven't got that memo yet. Their offices are deep under Iron Mountain or something, and they haven't yet been apprised of their no-win situation. Their pumped-in air doesn't include enough oxygen, and they seem to think that the Sandy Hook wreckage is salvageable with one more round of lies. -- Miles Mathis