A swift boat to fame

I spent hours yesterday, 2/13, going over Swift photos again, and could not justify the original assertion that she is a twin. As a rule of thumb for this and all other projects under review, if I cannot tell them apart with the naked eye, I cannot claim them to be twins. Mea culpa. Taylor Swift is not twins. However, do see a very interesting photo at the very end!

We just happened to discover that Janice Joplin/Amy Goodman were twins. In their case, they are fraternal. There might have been some plastic surgery on the way, as with twins Paul and Mike McCartney above. But with the Joplin twins there was a wide gap in the talent department – no way could the demure and laid back Joplin we know as “Amy Goodman” have stood on stage and belted out songs as her sister below on the right did.

More to the point, however, is the phenomenon of twins in pop culture. It is far more common than I ever knew to suspect, so common, in fact, that my fellow researcher MH thinks now that twins might be a requirement for the upper echelons of stardom in films and music. He has unearthed a wide variety of twins, twelve sets for sure so far including Joplin, McCartney and Elvis Presley (the latter two first discovered by Miles Mathis). I will unveil the others, but we are slowly working our way up to important ones, ones that frankly, will blow my socks off if indeed they turn out to be matched sets.

Before I unveil today’s set of twins, who are not part of the twelve mentioned above but who are easy one to spot, I have to ask myself the question: Why twins?

Intelligence loves twins because they can be in two places at once, run projects at once from different locations, and step in and out of each other’s shoes.

The Beatles, we know now, were an intelligence project with intense recruiting beforehand, including selection of the McCartney twins to play the part of “Paul,” the cute one. Tyrone, a frequent commenter here, thinks that they were running several sets of the group around Great Britain and Hamburg before finally settling on the four (actually, five) they did. And look what they have done with two Paul’s! They were able to slip each in and out of the role (it is original “Paul” in the movie Hard Day’s Night, and the other twin played “Paul” in the movie Help!, for instance.) They were able to run the “Paul is Dead” psy-op on us, extending the shelf life of the group, and selling millions of clue-laden albums.

With the Elvis project, they were able to have one performing in Las Vegas while the other made crappy movies in Hollywood. So it does offer flexibility.

But if it is Intelligence at work, there must be more to it than money, which is never in short supply for spooks. I imagine that having twins as pop icons is added leverage for managers – if one is sick or loses interest, the other can fill in. Each can have different talents, as with the Joplins. (Original “Paul” was much better at interviews than his brother, Mike, the better musician and the guy we know today as Paul McCartney.) Or if one gets uppity and demands more money, they can divide and conquer.

I can’t fathom out the entire spectacle of twins in politics and entertainment. It is beyond me how they spot them other than to keep track of every set born in the country. They do have that capability – maybe “Twins” is a name on the door of a special-purpose NSA surveillance office. I do know that Elvis was spotted early on, and that there are no photos of the two together, to my knowledge. Just that aspect of twins management takes personnel and effort. They can never appear in public at the same time.

I met a man in our local gym from Los Angeles, retired now, having worked decades in the music business back there. He told me one morning that he had developed, in days of more primitive technology, a way for aspiring young musicians to make their own demo tapes renting his equipment. I asked him if he spent some tedious days and hours listening to mediocre performances, and he said no. There is tons of talent out there, and those tapes were mostly quite good. But to make it in the music business takes more than that. “You also have to get lucky,” he said.

More than that, I would add, you have to be related to wealthy families, be part of a bloodline. Then, even without talent (are you listening, David Crosby?), you can have a career.

I used to work for a very wealthy old woman in my early career whose daughter was Stockard Channing. She played a lead role in Grease, worked on Broadway, and even had her own short-lived TV show. I was curious how she made it, as her mother certainly had no talent. I was told by a person whose name and face I’ve long forgotten that Stockard merely had the time and money to wait, train, and be selected for parts, as her wealthy background gave her a foot in the door. Who else has that?

That is food for thought. As we continue to work twins here, we can further explore the phenomenon. It is pervasive.

Here is a set of twins that was so easy to spot I could do it without running faces side-by-side: Taylor Swift. She’s an Intelligence creation, possibly talented, but certainly not the one writing her songs, which do not sell nearly as much as claimed. She’s a manufactured star, but then as we are learning, not only are they all manufactured for us, they are all related too. Swift comes from a line of Merrill Lynch presidents and eastern prep schools.* No grueling coffee shop gigs for her – she had a foot in the door the day she slid down the right birth canal.

It is easy to see that Taylor One on the left has a longer face, and that these are probably identical twins. Taylor Two on the right has a more square face, and a slightly less upturned nose. But honestly, who is going to spot this unless looking for it? They very much resemble one another.

So, setting their pupils at exactly one inch apart and splitting the faces, I get this:

Swift Swift

And the differences are readily apparent. Taylor Swift is twins. Which one performs? Given the wealthy background and prep school education, I would venture that both perform, as did the McCartney boys. Next time you see her performing, check out the chin, a little longer on one. That is the easiest way to tell them apart.

____________

Update: Taylor is not a twin, but who is she really?

taylor-swift

This is said to be a photo of her and her mother. Problem however – that appears to be a mannequin. Somebody’s joke? Or is she, like others in the music business, not really a member of the family whose name she bears?

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in Twins and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to A swift boat to fame

  1. Pingback: She came down the right canal – Fakeologist.com

  2. Ab Irato says:

    I’m not sure if you’re right, but I sure enjoy spooky talk. What’s your take on Swift being created from birth, ie. a boy treated with hormones to be a girl, possibly from birth? Is this just misdirection?

    Like

  3. Maarten Rossaert says:

    Out of the park home run on Taylor Swift, Mark! Kudos.

    Your recent blogposts on twins in Spook culture somehow put me in mind of Miles Mathis’ essay on The Great Harry Potter Hoax. His reading is that the books are an homage to Spook culture vis-à-vis us run-of-the-mill Muggles. It prompted me to wonder: how many sets of twins show up in the Harry Potter canon? Answer: lots … http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Twins. A curious place to find confirmation of the twins thesis. In the plotline, the Weasley twins famously play tricks by swapping identities, just like what has happened in this world, as you and Mathis demonstrate.

    Brings up a deeper question: what kind of parents offer up their children for a life of pre-programmed deception and sacrifice of autonomy? What kind of longstanding subculture not only allows this form of parental abuse, but encourages it? The only thing I can imagine is some kind of religious fanaticism. Mathis discounts any connection of Spook culture to Satanism, and his reasoning seems sound to me. But even so, there has to be some transcendent “cause” that is driving Spook families to deliver their children over to lonely, warped lives, no? It can’t be just money and power, can it? It is, after all, a form of child sacrifice. What is their Moloch?

    Like

    • That question is always in the back of my mind.

      My best guess is that it is a centuries and perhaps millennium-old tradition in their families. They see it as a duty, and are raised from birth to know nothing else. And is it really child abuse? They are giving their children fame, wealth, and the perks so many people dream of, but never achieve. And not just one child, but giving two children that gift.

      One thing I learn is that with each peel of the onion, things get weirder and weirder. Trust me, Taylor Swift is the tippity tip of the iceberg.

      Miles Mathis is doing solid research showing that all these famous people are Jewish and related closely. He also suspects most are gay, but now that we are discovering twins, I’m not sure how that works at this point.

      So we’re beginning to see a very tightly knit group which is controlling the world, nearly all Jewish or crypto-Jewish. Fame appears to go to the identical twins for control and efficiency reasons (it’s truly a brilliant strategy, I have to give it to them), and I assume everyone else in these families works behind the scenes. I suspect that they are all working for people who are even deeper in the shadows, and I’m not talking about Rothschilds or Rockefellers.

      Like

      • Maarten Rossaert says:

        “… very tightly knit …” Just so. Cohesion and cooperation at this level do not derive from a mere proft motive, do they? Even the Mafia has its defectors and snitches. This crowd not so much. If not occult, then surely just plain cult stuff going on with them. Human nature on its own does not preserve silence and unity over such a long span of time.

        Like

        • “Human nature on its own does not preserve silence and unity over such a long span of time.”

          I like that. You are most certainly right. On an instinctual level, everybody realizes that. That’s why “somebody would’ve said something” is usually the top stumbling block we have in reaching the masses.

          What in the world is happening in these circles. I can’t wait to discover one day. And we will, our momentum is too strong.

          Like

  4. annspinwall4 says:

    Mark, I keep meaning to mention…in MM’s original paper on the possibility of McCartney twins he showed baby pics that indicated an age difference between the boys, in quotes below.
    “The important thing here is something my friend correctly recognized: there are not 18 months between
    those brothers. One would have to be three while the other was one and half. That is certainly not the
    case. Even 9 months would be stretching it. Although I agree the one to the right looks a tad younger
    in this light (and with that high belt), I would not say 9 months younger. I would say three months
    younger. But that doesn’t work, does it? If these brothers are not twins, they need to be at least 9
    months apart. So we seem to have a problem.”

    as a possibility:
    When I was in high school I was friends with 2 sisters that were 9 months apart in age…they looked so much like twins classmates would call them by the wrong name.

    Like

    • Good point, but even if not twins, they each stepped in and out of the role of “Paul.” But we have added evidence (not proof) in the pictures showing that the mother dressed the boys like twins. You can search yourself as I assume the photos are still on line. Just search for “young Paul McCartney.”

      Like

      • annspinwall4 says:

        I know, just something I’ve been meaning to mention because of one of the photos in the MM paper.

        Like

      • Tyrone McCloskey says:

        Add to the outfits, the twin praenomen “Peter and Paul”- Peter Michael McCartney/James Paul McCartney- It was a Catholic family-

        Like

  5. Tyrone McCloskey says:

    One way to program a kid is to bore him/her to death and incrementally give them things to do where their desperate enthusiasm to be allowed to do anything becomes a passion- Add to that the pressure not to let the side down, along with constant congratulations, and a kid will find his emotional template requires this kind of adulation, and getting it from a crowd would be like snorting a mountain of Tony Montana’s private reserve- Without it, he/she gets depressed and even panics- Self-centered is the default position for stage performers- Without it, they get nowhere- It appears as confidence, but it’s an addiction- Given the resources of the rich, addicting their (I think largely bastard) children to attention in this form would be a routine process by now- If any of this is accurate, this would be another reason to have a twin back up- The dominant performer would be too spiked to do coherent interviews on a regular basis-

    Like

  6. Doc says:

    When I saw the title of this piece, I thought you were going to ‘out’ John Kerry. I enjoy and appreciate your efforts.

    Like

  7. eddy says:

    eddy = “spook”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s