IPart 1: The nature of the Beatles (reference The Beatles Never Existed (TBNE))
My assertion is that Stu Sutcliffe was an Intelligence asset who faked his death in 1961, and was reassigned the role of artist Andy Warhol. To understand this is useful to understand the context of both the Beatles, with whom Sutcliffe was supposedly the first bass player, and the art scene of that era, which was infiltrated by Intelligence to remove meaningful content from it.
We know now of at least five Beatles, that is, the “McCartney” twins, John, George and Ringo. TBNE insists on more than one George and Ringo as well. We’ve not done any research here on the matter, but we have spotted two Paul’s and a few body doubles too. Since we have tied this to their photographs as children, we think the evidence strong. (Note: I do not assume with any of these people, the Beatles or Sutcliffe, that we know their real names.)
Now take it back to Hamburg, when Stu Sutcliffe was a Beatle too. The group trained in Hamburg for 29 months, from August of 1960 to December of 1962. He was not just a guy trying to make a rock band with some other guys. Something much larger was in play. The people who formed this group, according to some, can be called “Tavistock,” but that has that undefined “Illuminati” sound to it, faceless people operating to control our lives without our knowledge. It is, in my view, unduly mysterious. There is such an institute as Tavistock, but it is claimed to be merely a group that studies group and organizational behavior. I will let others worry about that.
I prefer to keep things a little simpler. The Beatles were a planned phenomenon, in my view. Their early “fans” were girls hired to act for cameras, to get the ball rolling. Their music, supposedly written by John and Paul, was catchy. Of course, we don’t know which Paul, if either, actually penned those tunes. In Hamburg and before, when the group formed in Liverpool, we are told they merely met and decided to play together, but knowing as we do now that there were two sets of twins involved, some larger game was surely afoot. Otherwise, why the secret?
What was their purpose? We cannot know, of course, as such secrets are tightly guarded. We can only speculate based on their actual impact.
- They changed music. Their simple 4/4 beat was easily to emulate, and soon every kid in the U.S. and Great Britain wanted to be a Beatle. Their songs were melodic and easy to learn and play using guitars, among the easiest of instruments to use. These boys, after having played them several thousand times, actually sounded pretty good.
- They changed dress and hair styles. They had long hair, and had a large part in feminizing boys of that time. Their boots were like high heels, their collarless jackets, more like women’s apparel.
- They were un-masculine. They were never seen doing anything athletic, and all smoked heavily. Coupling that with girlish dress and hair styles, one might speculate that the Beatles set out to make men more effeminate, like them.
- They used drugs, or at least appeared to do so. In those days both folk and rockers were pushing various drugs, notably pot and LSD. John Lennon’s assertion that Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds was not about LSD was probably done on legal advice, as any kid who was harmed by LSD might sue the group for promoting it. But don’t kid – the song was meant to promote LSD, as was McCartney’s 1967 statement that he had used LSD on several occasions. It was no accident, it was meant to promote LSD. (It was “Mike” McCartney by that time, by the way, who made that statement.)
- They caused a huge release of sexual tension in the youthful female population. It was mass hysteria, a strange thing to witness. I don’t know how they generated such a reaction, but judging from the looks on their faces I have to imagine the young screaming girls were orgasmic. Someone ought to study that.
Where did Stu fit in? I don’t think he did. These boys were all intelligence assets, all had future assignments, and it was decided (by whom we cannot know) that Sutcliffe was better suited for an art destruction program that had been going on since the end of World War II, if not before. According to Frances Stonor Saunders in her book The Cultural Cold War,
“During the height of the Cold War, the US government committed vast resources to a secret programme of cultural propaganda in western Europe. … It was managed, in great secret, by America’s espionage arm, the Central Intelligence Agency. …Its achievements … were considerable. At its peak, [it] had offices in thirty-five countries, employed dozens of personnel, published over twenty-five prestige magazines, and rewarded musicians and artists with prizes and public performances.” (Saunders, Introduction)
I am making a connection here because later in this article we will see very strong evidence that Stu Sutcliffe became avant-garde artist Andy Warhol. He became famous – remember, he had those 25 prestige magazines to promote him.
The purpose of the attack on culture from the Intelligence sector was to degrade both art and music, to neutralize the ability of artists to define culture, to resist power, to define tyranny. Both the Beatles and Warhol played a part in this. Warhol, who supposedly died in 1987, was not a great artist, not even a good one. But he was famous, and his work became valuable for that reason. CIA did indeed change the nature of art. (See photo to left.)
Warhol also made movies … really crappy movies. As long as he is spoiling one medium, why not others? From Wikipedia:
…he was a highly prolific filmmaker. Between 1963 and 1968, he made more than 60 films, plus some 500 short black-and-white “screen test” portraits of Factory visitors. One of his most famous films, Sleep, monitors poet John Giorno sleeping for six hours. The 35-minute film Blow Job is one continuous shot of the face of DeVeren Bookwalter supposedly receiving oral sex from filmmaker Willard Maas, although the camera never tilts down to see this. Another, Empire (1964), consists of eight hours of footage of the Empire State Building in New York City at dusk. The film Eat consists of a man eating a mushroom for 45 minutes. Warhol attended the 1962 premiere of the static composition by LaMonte Young called Trio for Strings and subsequently created his famous series of static films including Kiss, Eat, and Sleep (for which Young initially was commissioned to provide music). Uwe Husslein cites filmmaker Jonas Mekas, who accompanied Warhol to the Trio premiere, and who claims Warhol’s static films were directly inspired by the performance.
I watched (part of) a Warhol movie on VHS one time, imagining by his reputation that he must be quite good. This, despite the warning from the movie guide that it was a turkey. It involved a buff young actor, maybe Bookwalter … memories are blurred – he was in an apartment, spent a lot of time in his underpants. I was bored. It was awful. I never saw another Warhol film.
Part 2: Why fake death, and why Stu?
Many are put off by the notion that a person can fake his or her death and reappear as someone else. Don’t we have investigative journalists? Wouldn’t someone notice? Wouldn’t someone talk?
We don’t have investigation journalism, unless you call a blog like and others doing non-conventional work investigators. There are far more incurious “journalists” than real ones, the latter having a hard time finding employment. Secrets are well-guarded in our culture, and the news media, far from trying to uncover them, is part of the cover-up operation. In the list of Zombies, you’ll find ten to be prominent in the news business, and others, like Bill Maher and Dr. Phil McGraw, occupying prominent positions on television. Former CIA Director William Colby is said to have said
“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
That’s a widely attributed quote, and of course the debunkers say it is not accurate, but CIA runs debunking operations too, like Snopes. The idea is that in our society, no matter where you turn for information, that information is filtered and edited by Intel.
So yes, fake deaths are not going to be investigated by the media, especially by a media infiltrated with people who faked their deaths and assumed new identifies.
By all that aside, why fake someone’s death? We cannot know, but the easiest explanation from the outside looking in is that these are Intelligence agents, and when their assignments are over, they are reassigned to new work, their old identities erased and a new ones invented. I also suspect that fake death, at age 53 and later, is also a retirement benefit. John Denver, for example, lived his entire life in the spotlight pretending to be someone he wasn’t and believing things he did not. That’s a tough life. His fake death (at age 53) was probably a reward for a job well done.
Part 3: What was Warhol’s assignment?
In the Intelligence world, the goal is to control greater society through control of media – our thoughts, ambitions, habits, purchases, attitudes, political beliefs – everything. But Intel is far too smart to bludgeon us with their ideas. They know we might react in a negative manner. Instead, they are patient. They nudge us in the direction they want us to go. It has taken them decades to construct our society as it exists today, with its faux-education and emphasis on sports, consumerism, with a striking absence of critical thinking skills in the population. Just a push here and there over the decades, and now they own our minds and lives. Look at us!
Warhol’s job was to steal art from us. Art, like music, introduces a private world of thought, and is seen as dangerous by our overlords. For that reason they set out to rob it of content. The means by which they did this was to fund bad art and artists, and use their clout in owning all those prestigious magazines in promoting them. By power of suggestion, people began (and still do) imagine that crap is actually the result of talented artists, rather than posers. Look around for attractive art, look for beauty anywhere. Report back.
Down through the years the CIA, via the Congress for Cultural Freedom, funded scores of artists, among them Georgia O’Keefe, Adolph Gottlieb, Arshile Gorky, Jackson Pollock, and many others, including I assume, Andy Warhol (not mentioned in Saunders’ book). The Museum of Modern Art, run by Nelson Rockefeller, was founded to promote bad art and give it an elite image.
In so doing, and in Orwellian fashion, art lost its ability to express rebellion (or even beauty) and ceased to be a counter-cultural force. And that, I believe was the objective. Warhol was just a small cog, a small tool in a large toolbox of fakes and posers. I am only writing about him here because we stumbled on his original identity of Sutcliffe.
Part 4: The timeline problem
In identifying fake deaths, it is important to pay attention to timelines. Keep in mind that each death is accompanied by a full biography supplied for the new person. This biography will have birthplace, parents and siblings, schools attended and even an early life story or two.
Since Intelligence is in charge on of the people both before and after fake death, it can supply birth dates. I am told I have a large problem with the Sutcliffe/Warhol matter because Warhol was born in 1928, while Sutcliffe was born 12 years later in 1940. But this is only a problem if the gap is so wide that it cannot be bridged. Suppose, for example, that the photo below, said to be Warhol at age 38, while the one on the right is said to be Sutcliffe – surely before age 23, as he died at 22 – or so we are told.
I can easily see Warhol being six years younger that 38. His complexion is fresh, like that of a youth. He’s developed no age lines. Sutcliffe, on the other hand, could easily be six years older in that photo. The point is, that just by looking at them we cannot necessarily see twelve years difference.
So while timeline appears to be an issue, it is not necessarily. Intelligence is in control of all information, and can paint any picture they want. Perhaps the story line called for Warhol to die at a certain time in the program – it would be helpful to make him older to make the death seem more believable. But who knows.
Intelligence also supplies youth photos for its assigns. We noticed that with Jim Morrison, for example, we were supplied real photos of “Jim,” but that his family was fake. They pasted him in to a whole bunch of photos.
With Andy Warhol I found four photographs of him as a youth.
The three-year old in his mother’s lap might indeed be Warhol (or Sutcliffe) as the hair matches, but with childhood photos it is impossible to say. The other three are not Andy Warhol. It’s not even close. (The boy in the green shirt appears to be a painting.) They are old enough that their skulls have formed, so that there should be at least a strong resemblance. But taking a face chop of them with Warhol, here is what I get:
Aside from the two boys seated on mother’s lap, these appear to be the same boy. They are not Andy Warhol.
So while the timeline presents a problem, we have to answer the question: Why not use real youth photos of Andy Warhol? Why present us with an impostor? The answer, of course, if that there was no youth by that name, so that had to use an impostor. (One might ask why they didn’t just grab some youth photos of Sutcliffe and call them Warhol. They should have, but they did not. They probably didn’t think anyone would look that closely. (Intel does not have great respect for our intelligence, and does not fear investigative reporting.)
By the way, face chops there very clearly show two people, even if one only looks at the ears in chop three, where head angle is relatively the same. But face chops are only evidence, are not going to be my main thrust. The photo analysis to follow will be much more precise, and will, I hope, make my case.
Part 5: Photo Comparisons – moles, face chops, layers, silhouettes
Below is a photo as shown above of Andy Warhol, said to have been taken in 1966 when Warhol would have been 38 years old.
Note the presence of three moles and perhaps a canker sore on his lip. The moles are circled in the image below.
Note how in later photographs the moles are gone, either airbrushed out of the photos, or surgically removed.
Note how in the middle photo Sutcliffe has what appears to be a blemish in exactly the same place as the apparent mole on Warhol. In the shot on the right, Sutcliffe has some sort of blemish in the same spot as Warhol’s mole on the lower right of his lip. That photo of Sutcliffe is very grainy.
Speculation here is that Warhol, when first making the identify change, had some facial blemishes that were later removed. Sutcliffe shows signs of these very same blemishes, though the photographic evidence is not conclusive .
Here is better evidence. Below are two left profile shots of Sutcliffe and Warhol:
Here is a “gif” of the two superimposed on one another:
I see very good alignment of features. However, in the right profile of Sutcliffe, his ear is not available. Here are two profiles from the right:
Here Warhol’s ear is visible. And here is a gif leading to an overlay of the two images:
As you can see, the ears line up.
Finally, a full frontal view of “both” men.
And a gif overlay …
The two men appear to me to be one and the same at different ages.
I maintain that Stu Sutcliffe faked his death and took on the persona of “Andy Warhol,” an invented name with an invented biography, as part of a larger CIA project to rob art of meaningful content, a project alive to this day.
Finally, some odds and ends:
Was Stu Sutcliffe gay? It is rumored, and Beatles buffs will tell you that he and John were lovers. Warhol was gay, admitted by all. I bring up this subject because of this photograph:
Sutcliffe and John Lennon knew each other, supposedly since art school in London. In this photo, at least, there seems to be an attraction between the men, Warhol, openly gay, groping both Lennon and Ono while Lennon gropes Warhol. This is a future project, but my working premise is that Yoko Ono was/is his beard*. (This does not mean that they could not have a child.)
In Wikipedia we learn the following about Warhol:
“On June 3, 1968, radical feminist writer Valerie Solanas shot Warhol and Mario Amaya, art critic and curator, at Warhol’s studio. Before the shooting, Solanas had been a marginal figure in the Factory scene. She authored in 1967 the S.C.U.M. Manifesto, a separatist feminist tract that advocated the elimination of men; and appeared in the 1968 Warhol film I, a Man. Earlier on the day of the attack, Solanas had been turned away from the Factory after asking for the return of a script she had given to Warhol. The script had apparently been misplaced.”
I will leave footnotes and dates to the numerologists, but suggest without further research that this event was probably staged, and that Warhol was not harmed. What better way to bring a mediocre artist with Intelligence ties to the national forefront than an attempted murder?
We also learn from Wikipedia that …
[Warhol] began exhibiting his work during the 1950s. He held exhibitions at the Hugo Gallery and the Bodley Gallery in New York City; in California, his first West Coast gallery exhibition
This, of course, would mess up the timeline if indeed Warhol was featured in these now-defunct art galleries. Without photographs of the exhibits, I would suggest that the same people who substituted fake photos of the youthful Warhol might also be able to plant information like this in Wikipedia, a controlled source anyway. Both galleries were for modern art at a time when Intelligence was pushing this kind of art into the mainstream. I would suggest that the supposed exhibits, like Warhol himself, were fake, mere insertions in Wikipedia for sake of assisting the hoax.
Warhol died in Manhattan, at 6:32 am, on February 22, 1987. According to news reports, he had been making good recovery from gallbladder surgery at New York Hospital before dying in his sleep from a sudden post-operative cardiac arrhythmia. Prior to his diagnosis and operation, Warhol delayed having his recurring gallbladder problems checked, as he was afraid to enter hospitals and see doctors. His family sued the hospital for inadequate care, saying that the arrhythmia was caused by improper care and water intoxication. The malpractice case was quickly settled out of court; Warhol’s family received an undisclosed sum of money.
We find with fake deaths that “out of court” settlements of lawsuits (probably fake too) are common, and that “undisclosed” sums of money are not uncommon. In 1987 Warhol would have been 47 years old, if Sutcliffe’s date of birth is accurate, or 58 if “Warhol’s” is the accurate date. Most likely neither is reliable, and anyway, this event was probably the second fake death in the ongoing life of this man, Sutcliffe or whatever his real name was. Fake death at a later age, usually means retirement, his assignment over, job well done. Stu/Andy is probably still with us, maybe living in Liverpool, maybe in Brazil.
*Paul McCartney, the one we know now anyway, told Howard Stern in a Sirius interview that he thought John Lennon and Brian Epstein had a fling.
35 thoughts on “Stu Sutcliffe/Andy Warhol reviewed”
Ronald Feldman deals Warhol prints in Soho, NYC and has since the beginning of Warhol’s fame. I’ve met Feldman, but can’t say I know him at all. Here’s more on Warhol and his main dealer. http://forward.com/culture/10159/warhol-s-tribe/
Really solid work, Mark. You did not mention it, but I assume for the profile shots you did something to standardize the sizes of the pictures before doing the overlay?
Also, did you know that Magical Mystery Tour (album and movie) was ‘inspired’ by Ken Kesey and the Merry Prankster’s adventures in the school bus?
No, I did not know that!
And yes, once the face chops give a good solid indication of the pathway, for profile shots I size the distance between focal points – tip of nose to back of ear, which is unaffected by facial expressions and angles. When ear is not available, as in the left profile shots, I used tip of nose to bottom of chin, each well defined on these guys – on this guy.
Excellent work! Just wanted to mention a typo that is important, where you say “define tyranny” when you must have meant “defy”. Just don’t want the impact of the article diminished (and please feel free to delete the comment as well, I’ll add another with praise…)
I meant to say “defining” but “defying” works too. Maybe even better.
This is a very fine piece of investigation journalism, I enjoyed the story, but I don’t care too much for these zombies (or anything in relation to H-Wood sandpit). Faking death is already a tough idea to rationalize, left alone agents’ re-birth as some new celebrity. I only wonder if they’re running short with talented and willing candidates for these positions, War-hole is simply disgusting. I think even gays would consider him repulsive, so in my opinion he was a zerosexual 🙂
Great review and the perfect demonstration to make the original point stick! This has been one of my favorite zombie reveals, along with Bill Maher/Pete Ham (hope that bears scrutiny), and I’m glad you have the gif thing now to hammer the stake-
A couple of things: A colleague of mine who worships the Beatles and will have none of POM, grew up in NYC and was immersed in the CBGB/Max’s Kansas City demimonde in the late 70’s- He claims to have met Warhol twice and I have no reason to doubt him- But, he did say it was well known that Andy encouraged anyone who could pull it off to impersonate him- The ridiculous disguise of the Warhol persona would allow for such shenanigans- I suspect that this did happen on some occasions where ignorant reporters actually thought they were addressing Warhol in interviews but were actually talking to an approved imposter- Very spooky kind of thing to test on a gullible public, Tavistock et al taking copious notes…
The other thing: My understanding is that no one outside the inner sanctum of the Hitler Project knew anything at all about Eva Braun until after the war, implying she’s a total fabrication, the photos MM analyzed notwithstanding- With that in mind, when did the public first find out about Sutcliffe? If he was out by ’62 at the latest, when was he revealed to be part of the pre-fame narrative? Without looking, I’d be surprised if he didn’t first get a mention after the Beatles stopped touring and were by then completely off limits to stray witnesses- With the Warhol poison already causing a bad reaction to mass aesthetics in ’66, it would be strange indeed if they then took the chance of this zombie being discovered down the road- On the other hand, he may have been in Hamburg after all and too well known by too many who could not be removed from the narrative and the switch to Warhol is exactly how you see it- It puzzles me, though, that Sutcliffe remains in the narrative to this day when they might have gone to great lengths to erase him back then like they did the “twins” aspect- I agree they have no respect for our intelligence, at least back in the day, but that isn’t my favorite conclusion when it comes up and I do believe now they have had to concede a begrudging acknowledgement at least for what is coming to the surface in this day and age, if not a modicum of respect- I may be overthinking it, again….
This flies in the face of my assumption, that because the Beatles were just revving up, there was no need for Sutcliffe to go underground for a few years. Since no one knew of him or his to-be-famous friends, he was Sutcliffe in 1961′ Warhol in 1962. The disguises are interesting. In the left profile I use, he appears to be wearing a doll hair wig. I don’t know that he actually grew old so much as his complexion was mottled, so they come back and say that Warhol had scarlet fever as a boy. It reminds me in a way of Andy Kaufman and his alter-ego Tony Clifton, that once they get that he’s fake, anyone can be him. So like Eva, was there really an Andy? Jesus, this stuff can twist.
Always more to discover, isn’t there. Was Sutcliffe invented long after the fact? Are they running that many circles around us? I don’t remember when I first heard of him. If they can in fact run circles like that around us, I have to meekly bow out if this game. I’m not worthy! I’m not worthy!
“…his complexion was mottled, so they come back and say that Warhol had scarlet fever as a boy.”
That’s interesting, because you can see that the Warhol pic from ’66 where is is supposed to be 38 (the one with the moles), his skin doesn’t look mottled at all. In fact, that doesn’t quite look like the other Warhol. The nose doesn’t seem as long and the eyebrows are curved, not straight. In the line-up of 3 Warhols with that ’66 picture on the left, the middle Warhol (the one who matches up so well with Sutcliffe) looks different than the other two, especially in the eyebrows and nose. His skin in the right-hand picture is mottled, though that could be achieved fauxto fakery. Casually browsing through pictures on the web, it seems to me that there may have been two people who played the role of Warhol, possibly an earlier Warhol and later Warhol (maybe twins?). Probably not at the same time, though not sure when they would have made the switch. I’m not saying you should do a twins work-up on Warhol, probably better to leave it be. But I think there’s something going on here.
Wow, another set of Beatles twins … never occurred to me. And yes, I am leaving it alone.
I have an interesting anecdote about Tavistock from the Reddit conspiracy subreddit. A few months ago somebody posted a question if ‘we’ knew anything about the Tavistock Institute. Here was his story: he was a college student, totally mainstream, and he had done a survey for a school project using one of the new on-line survey tools. I forget which but it was either qualtrics or survey monkey. So he had done his study and downloaded and excel file with the results. The name on the excel was something like tavistock.xls. At first he didn’t know what to make of it, so he googled tavistock and you can imagine what he found. Freaked him out and he turned to r/conspiracy to answer more questions.
So my takeaway from that exchange is that they are using all these new on-line data-gathering utilities to gather their own data. The results of every survey conducted on-line are being shared with Tavistock (or Intelligence or whoever).
Of course the guy could just have been pulling a gag or a con or doing what the kids are now calling LARPing (Live Action Role Play). I admit it’s possible, though he did seem genuine. And on top of that, he later deleted the post and all his comments. I think he was either embarrassed or scared, or both.
A note about the Reddit conspiracy sub: it is 99.9% garbage and overrun by shills. But I keep going back there for the gem I find in 1 in a 1000 posts. For example I found out about MM’s work there, which pretty much led me here. There are also real people who stumble into subreddit asking questions, and I like to answer them to try to point them in the right direction. It’s mind-boggling how much misdirection and noise there is out there. It’s a wonder anybody ever gets past it. Assuming that we have been able to penetrate it…
I know something is real there, but I am leery of John Coleman, as he has free access to a media show run by a spook – Mel Fabrigas. The subject is way too big to grapple with in a small blog post like this. But think about this, and it is all of rock music … the beat is mildly hypnotic, maybe even more so with rap, putting us in a mildly suggestible state. They must have experimented with it before settling on 4-4, even as a small part of it is in 3-4 – You’ve got to hide your love away* is 3-4. Country western is and always has been 2-2 or 2-4 and has always carried with it the non-subversive down home mom and pop my dog died lost my girl stuff of regular people going about life. The only dance it inspires is boot shuffling. Rock music took us in to sexually suggestive lyrics and dance, teen age angst, even some mild protest music before that was shut down. It was a tribal beat that most parents ignored, a way of reaching their kids without their knowledge or permission. My parents forebade me to listen to it, but how could they stop me? It was everywhere. Even if we could not play it at home, it was on the radio and at every school dance and house party. (We could not carry music with us in primitive times.)
I am saying that rock and roll was no accident, and that the beat, used as a mild form of hypnosis, was the vehicle for the lyrics, which were intended to nudge the kids into sexual promiscuity and drug use and rebellion against their parents.
Add lyrics to the list of abuses- I’ve been re-loading, again, my iPod with old favorites but this time I noticed just how much negativity is in most song lyrics- Even something like Tennessee Waltz from Patsy Cline is a downer about a best friend stealing her guy- Granted, that happens, but why marry that kind of thing to such a beautiful melody?
Or Getting Stronger by Chicago- Sounds like a triumph of love thing with great upbeat orchestration and melody, but it’s about celebrating a breakup- Nobody wins in most of those old songs- Lot’s of abandonment of principles for “freedom”- Listen to Free Electric Band by Albert Hammond and laugh at what was considered liberating back then (early 70’s) Chuck your future to play free music with hippies and don’t worry about who is going to feed you, etc.- You are correct, sir- This was no accidental expression of the zeitgeist or whatever- This was combat-
Can’t say what they are lip-synching about today tho’ it sounds like all the songs are about going crazy and how therapeutic that is-
One of my favorite songs was America’s (and the Wrecking Crew and Hal Blaine, don’t kid yourself) Sister Golden Hair. The boys claimed to be inspired by George Harrison’s My Sweet Lord (aka He’s So Fine), using an acoustic guitar lead-in to some weak singing before Hal steps it up, the only reason the song had staying power. But the lyrics are something to think about, early 70s. A guy wants to have sex with his girlfriend and is asking her not to ask him to make any commitments to her. “Will you meet me in the middle.” Gotcha. It’s clever, obviously not written by those three sons of Intel agents, meant to promote sex without commitment, to nudge us along the line of dissolving deep relationships built over time..
My father was an artist in NYC in the sixties and crossed paths with Warhol one night at, I believe, Studio 54. He said that, among his entourage, was a man who appeared identical to him, down to the fright wig. His presence was not explained and he was also being called ‘Andy’. My dad didn’t mention whether or not Andy #2 also had severe acne scars, or if he’d noticed.
I know spies are trained to use scars to distract others from noticing they are in disguise, etc. But Warhol had pretty severe acne scarring and Stu didn’t. Stu was also very pretty and Andy looked…well, Andy wasn’t pretty. I’m sure you could knick someone’s face up in a way to resemble acne scarring, but…why would Stu agree to that? And why would “Andy Warhol” as a persona need to have major craters in his face to be believable? I mean, they didn’t even bother getting the various Pauls heights anywhere near that of the “original” so why butcher a guy’s face in the creation of an imaginary man? You see what I mean?
I love your idea that Warhol was put in place to rob us of art, that his impact was in fixed opposition to his perceived identity/intent. In Valerie Solanas’ SCUM (worth a read), she proposes that women and turds (men willing to submit to her philosophy and become celibate) get jobs to “unwork” them. Kind of like how Trump (or whomever) has been appointing the least qualified people possible for various positions, (i.e. guy who sues the EPA on behalf of toxic polluters is now head of the EPA, etc.). Her theory was that when society grinds to a halt, because so many have stopped playing along or have “unworked” their jobs, that women and turds will then be able to negotiate a better deal.
That thought crossed my mind … if McCartney and Lennon were actually sets of twins, Sutcliffe might have been as well. The whole “Beatles” project involved many actors.
Speaking of Beatle gay basics, it should seem obvious now why Brian Epstein was inserted as the public manager of the Beatles- He was gay and I suspect that British show biz was every bit as, if not more so, gay as Hollywood back then, but equally oh so discreet- Epstein would, obviously, play well in New York and Hollywood when lighting his fag backstage with the suits- He would speak their “languages”-
Sutcliffe, in addition to his many other demerits as a possible Beatle, may not have been able to sell straight at all, especially when they would get to America, and the gays and the cynics would not be able to keep a straight face when they saw him- He would be a dead set up giveaway as a victim of a whispering campaign and therefore subject to manipulation-
Brian would then be a good consultant for not only feminizing the band, but knowing where the limits were in that process and could discern that Stu was just too gay for his own good-
Of course, in the art world in NY, that would be a positive boon- The switch would be a no- brainer and would keep Sutcliffe the asset loyal on all fronts- Since posing was all that was required, again, a no-brainer- What happened in Hamburg, stayed in Hamburg-
There are a couple of more points on Epstein but I think I’ll do a post next week- Don’t have a zombie persona for him but I’ll take any suggestions if anyone has a notion- Straight, I know you’re busy, but I’ll just leave the Bat Signal on anyway…
So Epstein faked his death? Get outta here! I asked Andrew Johnson, before I lost faith in him, to scout the scene over there to see who Brian had become. He was not intrigued.
I look forward to your post.
Finally, we are back to the good stuff!
What is the mark of the beast? It’s the trademark/copyright sign. You want to replace garden tomatoes by GMO tomatoes for the only reason that the latter can be ‘owned’ down to seed and DNA level. And owning all and everything from planet earth to humanity has been every psychopathic Elite’s ultimate dream.
How could art, film, literature, journalism and music be an exception to this rule? Only mis-education could lead one to such an faulty assumption.
The appropriation of natural resources and cultural production, of course, go hand in hand, and are just two sides of the same (temple&bank owned) coin.
You want to re-post your hilarious twitter on Facebook? Maybe soon you won’t be able to do so anymore, because by using Twitter’s interface and infrastructure, you have unwittingly signed over ownership of your three-liner to the beast, sorry!
That the Elite’s goal is to debase, even destroy, art, as Miles proposes, is a misunderstanding. All they want is control, ownership, copyright. Should in the process of full-spectrum mining, milking and energy harvesting the tomato turn poisonous, the music neurotoxic, then that is considered collateral damage. And deplorables, as any psychopath will tell you, deserve no better, anyway.
I don’t know if this is useful but I learned that the members of the Beatles had a previous band called the quarrymen (I am a Beatles retard, not familiar with them). When I saw the name quarryman, I remembered that Ralph Ellis said that Tyre (the city) means quarry. Here it says it means rock http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Tyre.html#.WLO0M_krKM8 . Nonetheless Tyre is associated with Hiram Abiff (both the king and the master mason/bronze worker). Also from masonic dictionary :
“The Latin quadratum was a square; originally, quadrate and quarry meant the same. The word became applied’ to the pit from which rock is hewn because the principal task of workmen therein was to cut, or square, the stones; hence, literally a quarry is a place where stone-squaring is done. In Masonry “quarry” sometimes refers to the rock pits from which Solomon’s workmen hewed out the stones for his Temple; at other times it refers to the various arenas of Masonic activities, as when it is said of an active Lodge member that “he is a faithful laborer in the quarry.”
Maybe a bit random, but maybe somebody can connect my thought to something else.
Not random at all- Good idea, and good comment from _smr above- The Beatles are very important as the project enabled so much of the cultural artifice to be erected on their foundation- And deconstructing The Beatles is probably the one pathway that doubters might take to see the “workings” inside the grand scam- Every rock overturned in this regard is important-
Now, where did The Quarrymen first perform? Lore has it that a church function hosted the lads who played on the flatbed of a wagon- Just as likely it was a Lodge rather than a church- Further research anon…
In this case is not hard to see that the stone is the society or the stones are the unaware citizens. The philosopher stone was also associated to “squaring the circle”. Squaring the circle had a symbol in the alchemical texts. That symbol appears in Atalanta Fugiens emblem 21, where the inner most circle is occupied by a male and a female see
This is fascinating. I was wondering what your thoughts were on Duran Duran? I was a kid in the 80’s, and a huge fan. And Nick Rhodes was connected with Warhol (really liked him, hung out with him, and Nick himself has always been associated with art). Duran were extremely big in their heyday in the 80’s, Nick wore lipstick and makeup (feminization of men, though in later life he has dropped that), plus they were likened many times to the Beatles. Their videos were groundbreaking (at the time) (exotic, travelogues), and really seemed to fit into the ethos of the 80’s re consumerism. I don’t know if they were traveling a well worn path by this stage (re the clothes, image, etc), and so were simply a natural product of what had gone before, or if there was something more to it.
I too was a Duran Duran fan. I came to the conclusion that the members probably didn’t write most of the music or the lyrics on their early albums. The band did provide a sense of fashion and defined part of the 80’s musical scene directed toward youthful MTV viewers. Of course you can use the Miles Mathis research to see that band members were all very well off and didn’t have to pay their dues.
Duran Duran pushed
-Perversion (“Girls On Film” concept, and the accompanying X-rated video that MTv obviously couldn’t show!),
-The feminization of men (big time!!),
-Promiscuity (“Save a Prayer”),
-For a promiscuity-emboldening morning-after death-drug (“Save a Prayer” again),
-For a “New Religion”,
-Widespread Modernism through music videos,
-And numerous vague, spooky, possibly-Freemasonic concepts (“Union of the Snake”, “New Moon on Monday”, “Seven and the Ragged Tiger”…)
Kindly preface my post with “Duran Duran pushed:”
I wish these comments were editable.
Could you do an expose on Mia Farrow? She has connections with almost everyone of importance – Roman Polanski (this would make her automatically connected with Charles Manson), The Beatles, Frank Sinatra, Andy Warhol, Woody Allen and her son Ronan (believed to be either Allen or Sinatra’s son..or he could be someone else’s according to a few sources) is the millionaire journalist (like Billy Bush) supposedly responsible for outing Harvey Weinstein. This is so suspicious to me. I’m curious about who she really is!
Great observation! Not enough hours in the day. I will leave this comment hanging for anyone driving by who wants a project, and maybe highlight it in a future post to draw more attention this way.
Mia has to be a very high-ranking Primo-Spook.
Warhol’s “mother” in that photo is obviously a male. Look at the brow ridge, jaw, neck…
Not as uncommon as you might think. Look up a picture of Anne Frank’s “mother”.
LikeLiked by 1 person