Other Dead Kennedys
After JFK’s scenes concluded, the next up was Bobby. The aisle had to be cleared for Nixon and selling Tricky as more popular than Bobby was impossible at that point. But then JFK’s “death” guaranteed Bobby’s “demise” as Nixon was the play all along.
On the night of June 4th, 1968, Robert Kennedy, then a Senator for New York, was driven from the Malibu home of his good friend…. John Frankenheimer, where he had spent the day relaxing, the last day he would be Robert F Kennedy. Once again Frankenheimer was tapped to direct a Kennedy Assassination Show, though with less flash, a smaller scaled production befitting the lesser rank RFK held vis a vis his brother.
As always, a lone nut character was groomed for the role of assassin to act as the initial culprit. Rigged into the plot would be the second level of conspirators, the old rugged CIA, thus once again dividing those who would take an interest in the “evidence” and try to draw their own conclusions.
This time the killing ground would be a large hotel, The Ambassador Hotel near Beverly Hills. The script called for Kennedy to give a speech at the end of the night to the huge crowd packed into the main ballroom. Two other campaign victory parties were also going on in the vast and crowded hotel. When Kennedy and party headed downstairs from their fifth floor suites, Frankenheimer was apparently outside, approaching his car. He was to take Kennedy to another party after the speech. He claims he heard about the shooting on his car radio. The point is he wasn’t involved in the murder scene. This is something the director of a movie would do: stay out of the picture. The man left in charge of the scene was a football player and actor, Rosey Grier, defensive lineman for the Los Angeles Rams and card-carrying member of the Screen Actors Guild.
Grier and another large actor/athlete, decathlon gold medalist Rafer Johnson, were assigned as bodyguards for Kennedy. At the time, the Secret Service did not provide security for candidates other than the incumbent President. Also on Kennedy’s defensive line was a former FBI agent, one William Barry and nearby was the actor/writer, George Plimpton.
“The Thing with Two Heads” co-starring Oscar winner Ray Milland is Grier’s most enduring screen credit. The schizoid nature of politics and the fable-thin tropes of B movies go hand-in-hand in selling lies to the lowest common denominator. The only difference between ancient archetypes and modern political theater is the local color.
The plan was to get Kennedy into the kitchen pantry where Sirhan Sirhan, an anti-Israeli Palestinian, the designated lone nut, would be waiting to shoot the “pro-Israeli” candidate. That was the cover story Frankenheimer and his writers had come up with. Psychological warfare operations always have add-ons. To remove Kennedy and fan the flames of the Middle East conflict was classic psy-opery. Like Cuba hovering over the fears of the public in the JFK Show, Israel and its surrounding enemies would be the political context for this kill. And an Arab doing in the yarmulke wearing RFK on Hollywood’s doorstep was just the right touch of overkill to drive the locals crazy and not look with a critical eye at the absurdity of it all.
The official narrative has it that Kennedy was overwhelmed by the crowd in the hallway leading to the swinging doors of the kitchen. He detached from former agent Barry and followed maître d’hôtel Karl Ueker through a side entrance and into the pantry.
This shift to the side entry is where RFK slips out of the crowd, the hotel and history. The pandemonium that followed in the pantry was likely already in the film cans and the attending cops, who were ordered supposedly by Kennedy himself to keep their distance as police were held in low regard by Kennedy’s base of support, the young and the poor, then moved in and secured the pantry. The Intelligence unit from the LAPD immediately took over the scene along with planted CIA assets and, like JFK being rushed to Parkland Hospital, everything hereafter about the “assassination” of RFK was tightly controlled by press releases issued by officialdom in the know.
RFK down! A badly arranged composite photo with mismatched shadows. For all the dramatic photos of RFK on the pantry floor, not one photo has surfaced of the shooting as it happened, even though shutters- were going off all around the subject. The LAPD was labeled the culprit for the cover-up and removal from view of the actual shooting photos. Therefore, the logic goes, absent photographic evidence, there must have been a shooting.
Another cut and paste job with “Bobby” inserted where needed. Campaigns are traveling circuses with doubles waiving to crowds or television cameras, images stitched together before during and after the fact to tell a story, not to report on real-time events.
The first ten of eleven children of RFK and wife Ethel. David and Max either died or joined their father and uncle in the Political Protection Program where they continue to manage the affairs of their fellow invisibles. The donation to the Kennedy deposit behind the veil numbers at least seven over time and has likely monopolized the Irish-American contribution to the unseen web of oligarchical control that defines human perception.
The final chapter in the Kennedy clan’s era of prominence closed with the death of JFK’s only acknowledged* son John Jr. in a private plane crash in the Atlantic Ocean just off Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts on July 16th, 1999. This crash mirrored the crash of Junior’s oldest uncle, Joe Jr. 55 years earlier when allegedly a test pilot for the Navy. Along for the ride and “dying” with JFK Jr. were his wife Carolyn Bessette and her sister Lauren.
As with his father and uncle, Junior was saddled with the blame for his demise as “pilot error” was the official conclusion made by the FAA. It was also reported that Junior had declined a flight instructor’s assistance in flying that night, Junior wanting to do it himself, so said the instructor. This postmortem blame echoed the blame of his father supposedly keeping the Secret Service off the limousine running boards in Dallas and RFK not wanting the LAPD anywhere near him and his aides in the Ambassador Hotel.
The twist here is that Junior takes his wife along and she gets a sister to buy in as well. The marriage was said to be rocky and Carolyn having a lieutenant at hand was likely a non-negotiable demand.
In short order the conspiracy theories began making the rounds. A bomb detonation is the most popular theory but the death of Junior had an exhausted public shrug- a dead Kennedy, so what else is new?
Why Junior, though? Likely because he would be asked to enter politics and eventually run for President. He would be asked to get the country back to pre-Vietnam prominence and prestige and finish the work his father had started. He would be one gigantic Do-Over and enough of the aging population would feel a spasm of youthful hope again. As well, he would be tasked by global public demand to solve his father and uncle’s murders once and for all and that could not happen. He was as complicit as his parents in the hoax by never betraying it and if he did ascend to the Oval Office, he would be thoroughly compromised by anyone willing to hold his silence to ransom. He was too big a risk for players on every side on the inside. Protecting the phony history was the most important job they all had, besides looting the store.
* JFK had another son, Patrick, who died days after his birth in the summer of ’63. Or so they say. Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis smoked herself to an early grave. It’s quite possible Patrick was a victim of bad prenatal care. Or hidden away to take a place behind the curtain from birth. That would be one strategy for increasing the hidden yield by having natives of the deception never know their public origins; another possibility in the drive to accelerate the Irish-American Kennedy clan within the hidden oligarchic power structure: have this son simply breed more Kennedys without the encumbrance of public scrutiny. This form of Lebensborn may have appealed to Nazi sympathizer Joe Sr.
It is also said in certain circles that JFK had a previous wife in the late forties which Joe senior forced to annulment. Did that union produce issue? Was that why it was properly, if discreetly, annulled?
The Heir Apparent
Legend has it that Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. was groomed from the womb to be president. The first of nine children sired by Joe Senior, Wall Street maven and government gadfly.
The whopper we are asked to believe is that Junior died in an accident while flying a proto-drone during World War II. Aside from the fact that the uber-wealthy do not put their children in harm’s way during wars they help to create, a quick glance at the circumstances of that alleged flight and you can see where the switch was made and Junior vanishes from history and assumes a new name and life, probably joining the biggest and most invisible spook squad in the world. We read that a Lt. Willy pulls rank and replaces Ensign Simpson, Junior’s regular co-pilot, at the last minute before takeoff. It’s as “Simpson” (sim-son, or simulated son) that Junior assumes his new identity and role off the books.
This vanishing act via air disaster is also a test run for Katherine Kennedy, the second oldest sister, who “dies” in a plane crash in 1948 after marrying and surviving the death of her husband, the heir to the Dukedom of Devonshire; the Duke to be, like Joe Jr., “died” under fire while fighting in a war that his father and the peerage helped organize and execute.
The duke and duchess to be with Joe Jr. in tow: People beyond wealthy don’t expose their children to danger. The myth of the Dead Kennedys and the supposed family curse is one ploy to keep critical thinking at bay regarding this invisible wing of oligarchs.
So why have all these prominent Kennedys participated in this regular ruse of “dying” on the front page of the popular culture?
One answer might put people off by claiming its high conspiracy: it’s a plot by the Jesuits. Consider that marriage of Kathleen Kennedy and the Marquis of Hartington. The interface between two apparent rivals is always a feint to keep hoi polloi and even some members of each court in the dark regarding the fact that both sides are controlled by the same invisible hands. The ostensibly Catholic Kennedys marrying into the Anglican British Royal family does not on the surface appear to be a perfect fit. But the Anglo- American alliance of which Joe Sr. was a key lynch pin would make the union otherwise advantageous for both parties.
Wither the Jesuits? One must realize and accept the fact that the Jesuits are a creation of the ostensibly Roman Catholic Venetian oligarchs who founded not only Protestantism but also the British Empire. That organization would be the agency to arrange and maintain such secret operations of which the Kennedy/Crown was but one. Playing both sides allows the dialectic to favor you. You create the problem and the solution.
The old cliché’ of good versus evil is exactly that, both being subjective opinion at root. The morals and ethics imposed on us Common-folk do not apply to the elites. That is the method by which they split good and evil. They make us believe our servitude is a moral obligation, and they run the evil opposition themselves. There are never any bad guys save for what their storytellers in the media describe. Those bad guys are created by military intelligence and fed to the housebroken press. The emotional chain around the people’s neck is yanked this way and that way until the desired course is attained and the people then take that path without being pulled. They believe they have taken the moral high road despite the fact they may have lost everything for one so-called cause or another.
Men kill and are killed for a piece of ribbon
The short course on who runs things: Portable wealth in the form of precious metals stamped with a symbol (coins) replaced the tangible, localized wealth of the state (silos of grain) and allowed cross-border trading. The temples were also the original banks for the coinage had to have a transcendent aspect to it: the context of the agreed upon value of each stamp had to carry with it the same moral weight of the icons depicting the gods, or the king, the emissary of the gods on Earth. These symbols spoke for the veracity of the state, its trustworthiness. This spiritual authority implied in the design of the coins far increased the value of the coin beyond its actual weight in, say, gold. With this assurance, the coins, where accepted, carried the promise of the state where they were issued from to agree to full value in collateral. The problems arose immediately as the production of the coins were completely separate from the local fungible wealth of the state.
Therefore a class of minters arose to oversee the production of coins. To manage this production, slaves were needed to mine the ore, militaries were needed to capture slaves, and money was needed to pay the armies. This monopoly by these proto bankers gave them great sway over the debtor nations that employed this portable system of wealth. This in turn gave them great sway over foreign policy (which peoples need to be attacked for slave harvesting and conscription of natural resources, i.e., precious metals) This stateless class of bankers held allegiance to their profits and no one else. They intermarried and infiltrated all aspects of society either through marriage or by proxy through secret societies they engineered to recruit loyal agents.
In maintaining hegemony over the perceived value of each resource needed to maintain the structural and moral integrity of any state, they needed to infiltrate the mass mind field of the governed. This was achieved through religious schemes, and in recent times, through the development of scientism, a more convincing set of myths for the enforced materialism of today.
Whenever a critical mass of clarity into the nature of the scam was reached, co-optation of the methods and, especially, the nomenclature of the clarification process were achieved and these occasional periods of enlightenment were carefully steered back into mystification. Just listen to the bishops of high finance today explain themselves and they might as well be reciting the old Latin liturgy.
Why the plane crashes like the one that took out Kathleen? It’s what can be described as a “spectacle”, a hoax designed to distract and send investigators down the wrong path. And pause for a moment regarding this largely forgotten chapter of the “Kennedy Curse” and consider that it is utterly preposterous for a Marquis to expose himself in battle. William Cavendish, Kathleen’s husband, was not shot while fighting the Hun. Oligarchs and royals pay and coerce and cajole others to do the fighting for them. Cavendish was written out of the script in order to keep the Kennedy/Catholic and Royal/Anglican bond intact. No matter if the couple appeared deceased; the families know and the bloodlines continue. The children produced secretly simply are integrated into the public branches of the family. (Did Rose and Ethel really sire 9 (!) and 11 (!!) kids respectively?) All it takes is a press release to announce another unseen birth. And the two “ghosts” continue whatever invisible machinations assigned to them.
Likewise we read that Joe Jr. died in a plane crash on a secret mission in 1944. Again, the heirs to the fortunes and power of oligarchs and royalty, and the families that serve them best, do not expose their heirs to such dangers. The Kennedy kids slipped quietly off stage right while the fiery wrecks of each spectacular disaster pulled the public’s attention to the left side of the stage.
And what of Teddy? A public position in the Senate was the perfect slot for the family and their allies to keep the myth of the Kennedy curse alive. The completely fabricated Chappaquiddick hoax kept the presidential elimination game from reaching farcical levels, but it also allowed Teddy to appear too tightly leashed to mount the investigation into his brother’s murders that were always in demand by the researchers. And from his Senate seat he could continue the myth of a liberal Massachusetts dynasty while behind the scenes the same clan participated in the ongoing swindle that informs these parasitic families.
So what is the role of these “ghosts”? Why these Kennedy vanishing acts?
The only guess I can conjure up is that these ghosts become part of the unseen power structure. Once they leave their public personas in an empty grave or scattered at sea, they take their seat at the adult’s table and continue the tradition of protecting the group’s interests. How many Roman Catholics from America were involved at this level is hard to say. Harvesting members of one large family in order to, in effect, allow the Irish-American interests to play catch up would be one way*.
*America did not welcome the Irish with open arms. Wealth and privilege were a long time coming. The idea that a member family of Irish-Americans was lately allowed to create wealth of the magnitude of the Kennedy clan was consistent with the Venetian reticence to allow an expansion of families into the oligarchic collective. The fact that house Kennedy was surrounded by Protestant back bay Boston Brahmins who had been working for the crown as far back as the late 18th century through the East India Company was certainly no coincidence and implies the subordinate role the Kennedys played, having to engage in so many public ” sacrifices” to make their bones, so to speak.
It’s impossible to stress enough how important familial ties are at this level. The intermarriage of British royalty with the Kennedy clan would give the Kennedy heirs an accelerated legitimacy, as well as bind them submissively to arguably the most important family line in the West.
So too, the loyal opposition of the Vatican would be well represented on American soil. After all, priests don’t reproduce, at least officially. While Catholics behind the scenes were plentiful, America was slow to integrate Irish Catholics into the weave of power. By the post war period, where America would be set up as the spear carrier for the “free world”, having a loyal Catholic contingent properly integrated by marriage would be seen as vital.
Rosemary Kennedy, the oldest daughter and third oldest child of Joe Sr. is said to have been close to a half wit and when grown to a young woman had been subject to fits of moodiness and violent tendencies. The story is that she was lobotomized in 1941 and left a vegetable. This could be true or it could be that as a stumbling halfwit she was used as a beta test for the disappearing acts of her siblings that were to follow. By the time JFK was in the White House, the excuses that Rosie was a recluse or a devoted teacher of the mentally slow gave way to the lie that she was mentally retarded.
So much of what is said to have happened to the Kennedy children reads like pulp fiction. A daughter is ghoulishly operated on and becomes a vegetable, a forgotten ghost locked away in an insane asylum, the dashing heir apparent crashing an experimental aircraft in a ball of fire, a debutante marries a Duke and follows her royal love to the grave in a fiery plane crash, the movie star handsome president gunned down in broad daylight by a mad killer, the crusading younger brother gunned down by a mad killer as he grabs hold of the presidential campaign, the surviving brother pitches his car into the drink, killing a pretty young campaign worker, the grandson and last best hope for the family goes down in yet another plane crash, taking his model-like wife with him. All the while, the dowager of the clan outlasts almost everyone, stoically living through a century of tragedy and loss: War stories, horror stories, crime melodrama, scandal sheet favorites every one of them. Only a pulp paperback would tell such a whopper.
EPILOGUE
History is bunk
There is a fine line between history and tradition. It is often difficult to distinguish between the two. When information is deliberately bottlenecked by legal restrictions, when reliable information is unavailable to the public and power is concentrated, the so-called victors can write any history they want. Given that conflict has raged from time immemorial, there is no possible way to give a true account of the histories written by endless victors.
The traditions can be found in the morality of surviving literature. Time and place may be disputed, but the moral tone is what the victors are most concerned with. Battles are barbaric affairs for both sides no matter the excuse to fight, so the moral foundation of the cause becomes the most important element of victorious histories. Where information is scarce, whole lives and traditions can be invented from the unreachable past to justify the manufactured cause of the present.
When an occupying force enters the defeated gates of the vanquished, the first order of business is to control the media. In ancient times, the media were the roads. Control of the roads controlled access to the victors and to the redesigned histories they enforced on the collective consciousness. The longer they held power, the further from the truth the conquered drifted. These distorted or fictional histories, repeated generation after generation, became in time, tradition.
In the age of literacy, once the roads were secured, the libraries of the defeated were burned. Besides the texts of guiding morality, genealogical records were also destroyed, along with the traditional histories of the newly defeated. Displaced refugees were now displaced in history. A people’s traditions went up in flames along with their family legacies.
The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Rome was so thorough that no one can say who has descended from whom. Genealogical records are one of the first things to burn when a civilization is overturned. The victors can then start rewriting history to their favor and the dissenting views either survive in some corrupted oral tradition or give way to expedience in assimilation. In time, Rome was treated to the same process and what remains of that great empire is largely guess work.
The entire history of the ancient world, at least in text, is a wild guess. The disintegration of the Western Roman Empire left only fragments of information. Modern archeology is still rooted to a degree in the prejudices of the last great empire, Great Britain.
What the broken tablets and architectural ruins have to tell us today is still hidden behind unverifiable claims of the victors. The multi-generational indoctrination of academia has maintained this veil of obfuscation so that these prejudices and outright lies can be sustained.
Take Christianity as a prime example of the long con of official history. There is no archeological record of Christ during the stated time period of his alleged corporeal existence. The claims of said existence in the first century CE resides only in the textual tradition of which there is no mention of his name formally in print until the Middle Ages, specifically from texts produced at the scriptorium at the monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland at the behest of Charlemagne, circa 800 CE.
Of course there have been many attempts to backdate unearthed textual fragments to the time of Christ, or at least within a generation or two of his ministry, but these attempts never gather anything close to consensus approval. The long stretch of Christian presumption has thoroughly indoctrinated even dispassionate non-believers who, though they reject the claims of an historic Christ, still assume without reflection that there was a Christian movement and therefore a documented Christian history.
All of the claims of this documented history through commentators like Origen or Eusebius are based on texts written centuries after the alleged existence of these “church doctors”. These characters like Eusebius and Augustine and Tertullian are as fictitious as Christ. Their very existence is wholly dependent upon texts composed in the early ninth century CE at the earliest, centuries after the “fact” of their existence.
The Egyptian ankh, the Greek Tau Rho, the Chi Rho of Constantine, and the Christian Cross; Syncretic sequencing from Ptolemaic magic to medieval Christian backdating, each claiming historical truth in a series of renovated lies. Science has overturned the miraculous and with it has allegedly ended the concept of faith. Yes, the ignorant masses could be persuaded with myth posing as fact, but not today: seeing is believing, see, even if you only see it on a television screen. You don’t need faith to watch the news because it’s not “magic”, you see…
Via Media
Control the media and you control “truth”. You control history, however you want to tell it. Take one more example of consensus rising from utterly distorted ideology. The French Revolution’s crowning moment, the execution of Marie Antoinette in front of a crowd in broad daylight has certain parallels with the “execution” of JFK.
Ask yourself a question: Would anyone who really thinks it through believe the most powerful alliance in the western world, the Bourbon-Hapsburg, would be so naive as to not see the changes coming and make provisions for avoiding what history claims happened to them? If you are objectively engaged then the idea that the demolition of the ancient regime was deliberate makes sense, where radicals and malcontents were flooded into the void and lopped everyone’s head off, thus creating another void allowing for a proxy king, or emperor if you prefer, whose despotism lead within half a generation to a restoration where the nobles lost little of their reputations and gained immense wealth in plunder. Does this sound like history written with lightening or a carefully controlled thinning of the radical herd? Call them out to identify themselves, abet agent provocateurs to pit one antiroyalist side against another, and cap the boiling pot with a manufactured demigod.
It’s impossible to believe a professional army would conquer Europe in the name of an inbred clan of syphilitic royals still hanging onto the scientifically unviable principle of Divine Right. But an amateur army guided by the notion of advancement through merit just might fight for such principles, and for a leader of relatively low birth, practically a commoner.
Napoleon is often sighted as a beta version of the dictators of the twentieth century and in one respect he is: He is the template for Hitler in that he, like Hitler, was just a front man for the common man to relate to. The new pomp and ceremony reflected ideals that any true patriot could take to heart, regardless of rank or birth. A nationalist collective marched across Europe behind both Hitler and Napoleon. But neither leader was anything more than a hollow idol from which the words and ideas of the unseen blew through their mouthpiece.
Ask yourself another question: We are told that Marie Antoinette was brought before the mob, head shaved and in sack cloth, riding on a donkey cart up to the scaffold where the guillotine awaited her and sent to the grave the last vestiges of the ancient abuses. The question is this: Had anyone within sight of this woman ever laid eyes on her before this public spectacle? And without a wig and powder and paint, could anyone, even at court, recognize her? Had anyone in that bloodthirsty mob ever been up to Versailles to scrutinize any of the numerous portraits of the deposed Queen? Answer: Of course not! No one in that mosh pit screaming for her blood would ever be able to tell between the Queen and a dressed down harlot willing to participate in the stage trick beheading that the assembled would be fooled by just as theater patrons are fooled by magicians and special effects.
Add a controlled media reporting on the spectacle, and that could be anyone’s wax effigy in the basket. Sit Madame Tussaud, a court favorite, in the docket to explain how to render a convincing replica of the beheaded Queen.
William Hamilton’s’s potboiler depicting the deposed Queen, Marie Antoinette, as a martyr, illumined by the light of God, a reworking of the martyrdom of Jeanne d’Arc. Not exactly the Zapruder film, but effective propaganda nonetheless. An emotional firewall erected to sell the public on her actual verifiable undeniable historically accurate death at the hands of the people. The revolution is a real thing. The King and Queen are really dead. Now do your duty and loot Europe. We’ll be back when you’ve had enough liberty, equality and, um… What was the other one? Right, fraternity- Ah ha! Masons!!!
What we know about the assassination of President Kennedy rests upon a few eyewitnesses whose testimony came first through the corporate/state-controlled media and then through sworn testimony at an extra-legal government commission hearing.
The chain of possession of the surviving photographs and movies which in fact do not reinforce the particulars of that testimony cannot be substantiated and therefore have no admissible value. Upon this scaffold of cards rests the claim that JFK was murdered in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 CE.
The concept of faith
Belief is not knowledge. Knowledge is predicated on previous experience. From that experience one can make inferences great and small that will theoretically prove out. One does not have to jump off a tall building to “know” that they will splatter on the ground. That is an inference drawn from a small jump into the air from a standing position and perhaps adding a leap from a diving board into a swimming pool. Extrapolating from that data would be sufficient to draw a knowledgeable conclusion about the effects of leaping from a tall building.
To conclude that almost everything else we sense is predicated on belief would be too simplistic and therefore unhelpful at drawing certain conclusions about events only partially perceived and requiring a certain amount of speculation. The remedy is to assign plausibility to conclusions that have been extrapolated from an incomplete collection of facts, an index to list which conclusions appear closer to a truth based on reliable knowledge, or common sense, if you will. This process of indexing plausibility requires a fully unencumbered set of critical faculties, faculties unresponsive to the blandishments of ideology.
Ideology acts like a metal compressor to facts. The essence of the fact may be present, but its shape has been forcibly altered to fit a prearranged context. The fact then changes its nature and becomes wholly integrated into the false premise the context supports. For example: The United State government does not murder its leaders, therefore a lone nut shot the President; absent a complete list of facts, those facts that are available change context. The premise of an innocent government can only lead to the conclusion a lone did it; in time additional facts emerge changing the context again. The government does indeed extra legally change duly elected leaders and therefore the facts indicating multiple shooters is the revised premise.
Replacing a demonstrably false premise with a more plausible one based on the additional facts sells the new premise at the expense of the old. The most plausible premise, given the facts available to the public if they care to look critically, that he was complicit in his fake murder and disappearance from public life, is never considered because the “facts” are distorted by a false premise: the President was, of course you idiot, murdered!
As this volume is being composed, atheism is on the rise. This shedding of faith in God(s) that have held sway over mankind for millennia is part and parcel of the collapse in trust for the institutions of authority that promoted this faith-based way of perceiving reality. This collapse was inevitable as the deceptions, legal though they may be, were never defendable in any moral reckoning. Only the execrable Ayn Rand would approve of this control by any technically legal means necessary, which may be why she’s pushed so hard by the free marketeers.
Parallel to this demise of religion is the grilling its secular cousin, scientism, is now enduring. In many ways, orthodox science is just another faith-based system of perception, complete with hierarchies, heresies, and mystical workings. In the twentieth century, the high Middle Ages of science, an apocalyptic set of prophecies were devised around the concept of global annihilation via nuclear weapons. With a handful of military produced films from good old Lookout Mountain Studios and a terrified, unquestioning academia to embed the Jeremiads in the mass consciousness, the whole of America fell for the ruse of nuclear weapons and that they were necessary to ward off the atheistic demons in the east.
The supreme irony is that a contemporary St. Jerome, the doctrinaire atheist Christopher Hitchens, espoused before his date with eternal non being, that Party of God berserkers in jihadist Iran were now the caretakers of the nuclear threat. I never heard him say anything about how the godless commies used to harbor the same desires. And certainly nothing at all about the Nazis we employed to allegedly create this technology.
Seeing is not believing
Even as digital technology is being outed as a highly malleable source of deception, by inference this computer graphic interfacing is making the grainy emulsion based imagery of the Kennedy assassination seem legitimate by comparison. This is not to say that CGI was developed to defend the Zapruder film. It is just a side effect of the research being done by those individuals who can no longer return to the state of trust State authority used to enjoy.
What has helped with this breakthrough in outing corporate media as a tool of government intelligence is the replacement of religious dogma with flexible imagination. If there ever was a divine spark in the essence of man, it is his imagination, and his twin sister, intuition. In the long history of abuse and imprisonment of the mind of man by religious and statist presumption, this emancipation of the imagination is the most profound. To be able to imagine another possibility for the outcome of history and to guard against implementation of another, altogether different but equally limited and exploitative single historical inevitability is the greatest challenge and greatest triumph of the modern era. To maintain that freedom of imagination will be the single most important task for now and the future.
Credit where it’s due-
I would not have even entertained the possibility that the JFK assassination was a hoax without stumbling over the online September Clues Forum. And stumble I did; as with all sleepwalkers, I had my eyes shut and my brain offline regarding the media and its interdependence on military intelligence agencies. I rather quickly embraced the forum member’s work regarding 911, as initially proposed by their fearless leader, Simon Shack, nee Hytten. But I had a quarrel with a few of their other research topics, the JFK assassination being the primary issue of disagreement.
I am not a member of the more rigorously policed Clues Forum, but the Clues Forum sister site, Fakeologist.com, led by the mysterious, and mysteriously laid back, Ab Irato, provided me with the venue wherein I could air out various opinions; and it’s there that I dropped my resistance to the JFK murder as hoax proposal.
However, I told myself I would only pursue that line if I could come up with a reasonably plausible answer for where JFK went after he disappeared from public view.
Having an epiphany one night on the commute home, I realized it had to be Greece, and upon accepting the challenge I had made, this book is the result.
I would also like to mention one of the most compelling researchers out there, Miles Mathis. He posted online a long paper dealing with the exact same topic: JFK’s murder was staged, just after the second draft of this book was finished. I read it eagerly, and while his main conclusion stands apart from mine, and he provides additional analysis of the RFK “shooting” which is invaluable, I make no claim as to being affected by his paper.
When speculating on media provided by suspect organizations, the quite normal subjectivity of perception can lead to many different conclusions. Mine is just one proposal; the one that for me sits atop the plausibility index I use to sort out the endless stream of truths, half-truths and non-truths that bombard the average media consumer. If there is an invisible kingdom run by the Kennedy’s, well, so be it- I say oligarchs, you say tomahto.
There is one other “researcher” I should mention for the record: The infamous Dallas Gold Bug. His one compelling contribution to the JFK as hoax proposal is his analysis of the KRLB news footage in the Dallas jailhouse garage where the shooting of Oswald scene played out. DGB’s other “work” is almost completely useless, save for an occasional laugh. If you are truly desperate to know how far beyond common sense this alternative research can go, DGB is your guy, but bring a clothespin for your nose because you will be holding your sides as you roll around on the floor in tears.
Yes, clowns like this entity theoretically poison the well of good alternative reality research, but as I have learned the hard way, a change in perception has to come from within. If a little humor can open one up to the possibility the media is (always) selling you a bill of goods, that’s a step in the right direction…
People to read:
Miles Mathis*
Simon Shack/Hoi Polloi at Clues Forum.info where forensics analysis keeps speculation to a bare minimum-
Joseph P Farrell on his banking histories (Take his Cosmic Wars and JFK research with a sea’s worth of salt, though to the good Doctor’s credit, he clearly identifies his copious speculations)
John Bartram at Google+ on his Origins of Christianity
Fakeologist.com, where speculation is allowed quite liberally, and for good reason- Wild concepts need a place to forge into better research via the call and response of a well-tended forum where reasonable debate stays civil-
* Mathis’ paper on Karl Marx, which I cited earlier, I did read before finishing the second draft and recommend highly.
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six
Part Seven
Part eight
Part nine
Part ten
Piece of Mindful 
How true.
But Thank Goodness, knowledge generates painful cognitive dissonances if it goes against Common Group Wisdom. And then, the Memory Hole opens up …
Just to support this statement, Fomenko tells the same about Russian history. When the Romanov dynasty took over in the 16th century, archives started to burn all over the country.
And what exactly happened with such records in countries that were “discovered” for the western civilization, and had Catholic priests brought in ? Think South America …
LikeLiked by 2 people
It took me years to understand the significance of 11/22, or 33 as JFK’s day of demise. I just realized that JFK Jr.’s death day, July 16, is 77 (also the date of the fake tube bombing in London in 2005 – 777!) RFK is 66.
I don’t know the significance of 77 or 66 or any of these numbers. They mean nothing to me but they do to others.
LikeLike
Not a real one IMHO.
But if you secretly plan such events, you can convince the ignorant populace of god’s hidden hand.
Just read the Bible or the “History” of the Roman Empire for 30, 33, 300 and 333-year periods. It tells me something.
LikeLike
I’ve become less certain that those events are indeed part of history … anyone reading our own history, a mere 240 years, will find it so overwritten by professional historians that it is completely untrustworthy. Imagine what could have been done in two millennia. Ergo, I wonder if the invented character Jesus was given his death age of 33 some time hundreds of years later. Indeed a hidden hand appears to be at work going back many centuries.
That said, I am complacent about it, that is, I don’t regard these as demonic forces. There is indeed karma, and they seem to be aware of it. Ergo, all the fake events around us. But beyond that, there seems to be concern in those circles about overpopulation, which leads to attempts to feminize men and make women into men, discourage sex via AIDS, and now all the transgender nonsense going on around us. They also regard the Catholic Church as an enemy, as seen in the pedophilia scandal, and that might relate the the Church’s refusal to address birth control.
And the problem I have is that I share those concerns about overpopulation, but am thankful they have not resorted to mass genocide – Africa comes to mind as I write that. Maybe I am wrong. But I don’t think we are fighting the devil.
LikeLike
The following appears to be a mistake regarding JFK Jr.’s supposed death:”Likewise his mother was sick from years of fashionable smoking. To pitch Junior into the drink before her death would deflect the inquiries of foul play and instead allow the media’s attention to focus on her grief. An emotional firewall erected once again to impede critical thinking.”
Jackie died in 1994 and JFK Jr. died in 1999.
I recall it being said that it was good that she was not alive to bear the heartache of her son’s death.
LikeLike
You’re right! I’m racking my brain trying to figure out when and why I could have made that mistake. Maybe I’ve been infected by Tropism and added that as gild to the lily. I will amend the text posthaste.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The inaccuracy was removed with no impact on the rest of the text. Subconscious overkill would be my best guess. Anyone spotting further gaffes, please speak up. I publish under my own name and want to be as accurate in my wild speculations as humanly possible. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m glad I said something. All it takes is a small error like this and some people will discredit the whole thing. By the way, I think your analysis is better and more detailed than Mathis’. Best Regards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope you don’t go reading any of my stuff too closely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol!!
LikeLike
Bravo , Tyrone . I thoroughly enjoyed this work .
And to you Mark for the stage.
One correction for your Holly/Katzenburg/Geffen post Mark, you state Graham Parsons as a founding Byrd , but he entered later to replace I think Crosby or could be C. White.
I was listening to Parsons version of Wild Houses yesterday and found this lyric telling
I know I’ve dreamed you a sin and a lie
I have my freedom but I don’t have much time
Faith has been broken tears must be cried
Let’s do some living after we die
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see you’re right about that … Parsons was International Submarine Band. I’ll have to fix that.
Sometime if you have not already take a look at the lyrics from Double Fantasy. See what they say to you.
LikeLike
Although there are relatively few obvious clues , they may as well have titled it : Doppelganger Mindfuk
1. (Just Like) Starting Over
3. Cleanup Time
5. I’m Losing You
6. I’m Moving On
9. Yes, I’m Your Angel
14. Hard Times Are Over
Prefiguring his (fake) “death” , also writing about himself(s) this is weird huh ,
on 11. Beautiful Boys
You’re a beautiful boy
With all your little ploys
Your mind has changed the world
And you’re now forty years old
You got all you can carry
And still feel somehow empty
Don’t ever be afraid to fly
All you beautiful boys
Creating multiple plays
You like to fence in your world
And settle down when you’re old
For a better typological analysis of Johns two faces , Joe Atwills – Oysters Beware the Walrus
And not to be too off topic in Edward Sanders RFK a Poem states John recorded the vocal of “REVOLUTION’ ON 6-4-1968 “lying flat on his back” ….. Cheers !
LikeLike
http://postflaviana.org/warning-oysters-beware-walrus/
LikeLike
Has anyone ever used the word multiple in a pop song ever ?
LikeLike
A big thank you!
These ten chapters are just right on. I’ve studied Dealey since high school and this work along with Mathis create a critical pivot point in research direction.
I found your writing acute, insightful, well versed in the minutia, humorous, and (perhaps most importantly) accessible/readable for those new to the idea.
You’ve done history and justice a service here. Kudos and huzzah!
LikeLike
Concerning the French Revolution, I believe Marie-Antoinette not only never was executed, but she never was a real person, to begin with. She was portrayed, in my opinion, by the same host-actress who played the woman known to history as Maria Fitzherbert, the famous mistress of George IV. A character scheme invented by the bloodline families to be a scapegoat for the Judeo-Masonic Revolution of 1789. Basically, the Revolution was engineered from England where the money-lenders are situated (City of London) and the “Marie-Antoinette” character was utilized to weaken the prestige of the Ancien Regime, with her image as a wanton spendthrift, and make the country ripe for social disorder.
Marie-Antoinette:
Maria Fitzherbert:
Their biographies are also similar. Both were Roman Catholics, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Fitzherbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antoinette
LikeLike
One correction: the above painting of Marie-Antoinette being led to her execution was actually painted by British artist William Hamilton (1751-1801) and it was made a year after the ex-Queen of France’s “execution.”
Jacques Louis-David did make a profile sketch of the doomed queen, though, but it is a less-flattering portrayal. Some say the sketch is a caricature meant to mock Marie-Antoinette, that it was an expression of David’s disdain for “The Austrian” since he was also a zealous revolutionary.
Here is the infamous sketch, alleged to show Marie-Antoinette being carted off to the guillotine:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Jacques-Louis_David_-Marie_Antoinette_on_the_Way_to_the_Guillotine-_WGA06116.jpg
LikeLike
Sorry, the first link isn’t showing the sketch. Here it is:
LikeLike
Here is some information on Jacques-Louis David, famous neoclassical artist and French Revolutionary leader:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-Louis_David
LikeLike
Harry’s PM-
I can’t completely discount your suspicions as royal culture required healthy heirs from the extended families wherever they could find a fertile womb within said families. It’s possible the persona of Marie Antoinette was co-opted and used by a selected poseur like Fitzherbert because the original Marie A had died and the marriage and expedient alliance had to continue. As Fitz looked like MA, and she was the right age, it could have happened that a switch or an overlay was made.
Just speculation, of course, but perhaps the male line of the royal union was considered too high risk health wise to leave to chance. MA was a Habsburg and the inbreeding of that line in Spain lead eventually to disaster.
The first Dauphin, Louis Joseph, was sickly from the start (and dead at age 7) and an alternate male line was needed to insure observance of the Salic law of male primogeniture in France, and ward off the mishigas that transpired in Spain following the death of Charles II, the imbecilic final Habsburg king of Spain.
(Given how long- millennia long- these royals were inbreeding, switching potential fathers was nothing to hesitate over)
Louis Charles, the second son of MA, is born in 1785, the same year of the closet marriage of the future George IV and Fitz. There is also a suspected son of Geo. and Fitz called James Ord, b. 1786. Despite the slight age discrepancy, could they be the same person? Ord’s movements in life are very suspect.
That would mean that George IV is the father of the dauphin, Louis Charles, and that MA is not the dauphin’s mother. This may explain where the dauphin, as James Ord, went after the child’s “execution”.
As for MA’s decadence, I ask you to consider the pillorying the current occupant of the White House has received at the hands of the corporate media. The same happened to the French royals, with the queen being the favored target. If the revolution was yet another controlled demolition, as it appears to have been, then the justification for it had to be rammed into the public’s collective noggin through anti-royal propaganda to appear legit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t want to butt in on this very interesting exchange, so I will just poke my head and vamoose. I have a hunch either or both of you will be familiar with the Hapsburg chin, as exhibited by Jay Leno? My wife pointed me to it … inbreeding still spilling out.
LikeLike
Justin Verlander, Reese Witherspoon, Denzel Washington, One of the Malcolm X’s, Jeff Bridges… Big jaws are out there. Some get work done or grow beards or both. Leno is supposed to be funny, so he stays as is. For the famous- especially actors- the characteristics of inbreeding include short stature, large ears, prominent proboscis, widow’s peaks- I’ve noticed lately that several younger actresses seem to have long fingers and flat, large eyebrows that don’t look cosmetic. These creatures sure make it look like batch baked brats are still going strong.
LikeLike
Indeed. I believe the marriage of Louis and Antoinette was not real at all, being also just another stage-show drama for the masses. I suspect Count Axel von Fersen to be her real husband. It has been said that Maria Fitzherbert’s first marriage was to a man named Edward Weld. He bears a striking resemblance to the Swedish count. Interestingly, this landowning aristocrat “died” in 1775, the year “Marie-Antoinette” became Queen of France and the year the “War of Independence” broke out in the thirteen British colonies. Fersen would later “fight” in that war a few years later. I believe it is likely Weld faked his death and entered into intelligence as Fersen, traveling around the world and engaging in diplomatic operations on behalf of “The Crown” in the City of London, including participating in the “American Revolution” to control the opposition there. He still was probably married to MA/MF and likely sired her alleged children, too.
Edward Weld:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Pompeo_G.Batoni–Edward_Weld-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
Axel von Fersen:
Regarding Louis XVII, there has been much mystery surrounding the child. Many imposters came out of the woodwork claiming to be the “Lost Prince”. The most convincing out of all of them was a certain man named Karl Naundorff. I am sure you have heard about him since you have knowledge on these topics as I do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Wilhelm_Naundorff
For more information on Fersen and Weld, read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_von_Fersen_the_Younger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Weld
LikeLike
The first link to the Edward Weld portrait is broken, so I will supplant that one with this version. Sorry.
(Edward Weld was the first husband of Fitz. He passed away a few months after they married. As I’ve stated above, his “death” coincided with big events happening at the time. If you do comparisons of the faces of Weld and Fersen, you will probably see striking similarities that cannot be mistaken.)
LikeLike
Edward Weld had a younger brother who inherited his estates after the older brother’s death in 1775. His name was Thomas Weld. After the French Revolution, he “hosted refugee remnants of the French royal family” at Stonyhurst Castle (now Stonyhurst College) in England. He was also a close friend of John Carroll, one of the most powerful Jesuits in America at the time (he was also the wealthiest landowner who loaned the DC area to the “U.S. government” for their use). He passed away in 1810, the same year as Axel von Fersen’s “death”.
(According to Wikipedia, Edward died in a horse-riding accident three months after his marriage to the future Maria Fitzherbert. His time of death was in late October 1775, just a few days shy of Halloween, which is very telling. His fate reminds me of the “death” of Swedish crown prince Charles August. Fersen was blamed for his death, and he was “murdered” by a bloodthirsty mob while leading the late prince’s funeral procession in Stockholm, Sweden in 1810. Scholars speculate that Fersen’s demise was predetermined by his enemies due to the bizarre nature of his death. I believe Axel simply faked his gruesome death and disappeared from the scene, only to die a natural death. Since Fersen was “one of them”, they would’ve never allowed harm to touch him. It’s possible that they recycled Weld’s death story to be used in the “demise” of Charles August so as to hint at the upcoming brutal end of Count von Fersen).
Another interesting factoid: the Weld brothers’ mother was born “Dame” Mary Teresa, née Vaughan (possible relation to David Vaughan Icke). Marie-Antoinette’s mother was Maria Theresa von Habsburg, Holy Roman Empress, and Queen of Austria-Hungary. I suspect it is another strong hint as to the true identity of his first and last wife – Maria Fitzherbert – due to his association with her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Weld_(of_Lulworth)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_von_Fersen_the_Younger#Swedish_politics_and_death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_August,_Crown_Prince_of_Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonyhurst
LikeLike
“It’s possible the persona of Marie Antoinette was co-opted and used by a selected poseur like Fitzherbert because the original Marie A had died and the marriage and expedient alliance had to continue. As Fitz looked like MA, and she was the right age, it could have happened that a switch or an overlay was made.”
I believe MA and MF were always played by the same actress. Marie-Antoinette’s story reads like fiction from start-to-finish, so it’s likely she wasn’t real at all. However, it is possible that they did have a doppelganger available to play her when the original actor wasn’t around. Certainly, during the revolution, imposters would’ve been of use to Antoinette and her handlers in order to deceive the bloodthirsty mobs of Paris. Once the “French Revolution” broke out, she probably retired the “Marie-Antoinette” persona and sailed to England to live as “Maria Fitzherbert” in the welcoming environ of English high society for the rest of her life. They would then fake a series of events involving MA and her family (played by imposters) to fulfill whatever agendas the controllers had in mind for the future of the revolution and, ultimately, that of France and the entire European continent.
“As for MA’s decadence, I ask you to consider the pillorying the current occupant of the White House has received at the hands of the corporate media. The same happened to the French royals, with the queen being the favored target. If the revolution was yet another controlled demolition, as it appears to have been, then the justification for it had to be rammed into the public’s collective noggin through anti-royal propaganda to appear legit.”
Tres vrai, messieur! (Very true, sir!) The controllers always use the tabloids to distract public attention from themselves and to foment discourse when it suits them. This was especially true in the Diamond Necklace Affair, a scandal that reaped disastrous consequences for the French monarchy (in particular for Marie-Antoinette’s already poor reputation) and that precipitated the 1789 Revolution and the (predetermined) destruction of the Ancien Régime. Such stories are always used as pretexts for engineered changes in human society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affair_of_the_Diamond_Necklace
(According to the storyline of the Diamond Necklace scandal, the architect of the scam, Jeanne de la Motte, had procured a prostitute to play the French queen in the gardens of Versailles where the Cardinal de Rohan waited for her. So there is some historical truth in the suggestion that more than one person played MA).
LikeLike
Upon further examination, it appears the key characters involved in the Diamond Necklace scandal were fictional themselves. The Cardinal de Rohan, Grand Almoner of France (1777-1785) was portrayed by a notorious conman and Freemason Joseph Balsamo, aka Count Alessandro di Cagliostro, a crypto-Jew from Italy. Both spent several months in the Bastille prison shortly after the affair erupted at Versailles in August 1785.
Jeanne de Valois-St.-Remy, Comtesse de la Motte, who was the brain behind the massive swindle, was portrayed by Marie-Antoinette’s close companion Gabrielle, Duchesse de Polignac.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A mashup of Jeanne de la Motte and Gabrielle de Polignac:
LikeLike
And as always with all other fictional historical events (Titanic, JFK, Civil War, Black slavery, etc.), Hollywood made a blockbuster movie about this story. They released it in 2001, the year of the fake 9/11 attacks. Convenient.
Here are the film’s trailers:
LikeLike
Thanks for the tip- I corrected it. Hamilton. Now that I look at it, how could I have mistaken it for a David? Hamilton is a hack draftsman by comparison. (I can say that because, like the alliterative Taosian, I too, am a genius with the brush! Huzzah!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am sure. Though Hamilton’s style is not bad. I’d say Vigee LeBrun is better at conveying emotion in her work.
LikeLike
King Louis XVI was also a Freemason. This explains why he was tolerable towards the Masons, despite the fact that its powerful members (many of whom were his relatives, e.g. Duc d’Orleans aka Philippe Égalité) were one of the principal instigators of the revolution and the chaos that followed.
“King Louis XVI was a Freemason. For him and for his two brothers, the Count of Provence and the Count of Artois, on August 1, 1775, a lodge was founded, “in the east of the Court”, called “the Military of the Three United Brothers”. It was then the second year of the reign of this twenty-year-old king whose ministers were Turgot and Malesherbes, … whose promises were not kept. The philanthropic character of the institution, the attraction of mystery, the antiquity of traditions, the example and the exhortations of their cousin the Duke of Chartres *(me: the future Duc d’Orleans), is undoubtedly what had brought the three august brothers to receive the initiation. They did not take long, probably, to cool down for an association whose progressive and reformist spirit could not escape them; but they did not go so far as to break with it.** This is why Louis XVI, when he came to be reconciled with the Parisians three days after the storming of the Bastille, was received at the entrance of the Hôtel de Ville with the Masonic honors of a “steel vault”**. And, after the death of Louis XVIII, a funeral ceremony was celebrated by the Grand Orient to honor the memory of this king, “protector of Freemasonry”.”* – Une loge Maçonnique d’avant 1789 (1897), p. 96
Click to access LHR-Bourbons_francs-macons.pdf
For more information on the Masonic “steel vault” mentioned above, visit:
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/mackeys_encyclopedia/v.htm
LikeLike
One such anomaly in the storyline of the “French Revolution” is the storming of the Bastille on 7/14/1789 (777 hoax code). According to the mainstream story, it all began when the French king, Louis XVI, sacked his top advisor, Swiss banker Jacques Necker, from his role as a minister of finance. This enraged the Parisian populace and the newly formed National Assembly took concerted efforts with the support of the mob to destroy the Bastille prison, an ancient fortress, and usurp political power in the capital. Apparently, the king did nothing about the chaos until days after the event. The story starts to crumble from the first few sentences on the screen. For one thing, to say that a disgruntled, hungry population revolted because their leader thrown a banker under the bus makes no sense on any level. It is like saying that people will protest in front of the White House or the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. because Donald Trump fired a Goldman-Sachs executive from his advisory role in his cabinet. When has a banker ever been a representative of the “common” people?
“News of Necker’s dismissal reached Paris on the afternoon of Sunday, 12 July. The Parisians generally presumed that the dismissal marked the start of a coup by conservative elements. Liberal Parisians were further enraged by the fear that a concentration of Royal troops—brought in from frontier garrisons to Versailles, Sèvres, the Champ de Mars, and Saint-Denis—would attempt to shut down the National Constituent Assembly, which was meeting in Versailles. Crowds gathered throughout Paris, including more than ten thousand at the Palais-Royal. Camille Desmoulins successfully rallied the crowd by “mounting a table, pistol in hand, exclaiming: ‘Citizens, there is no time to lose; the dismissal of Necker is the knell of a Saint Bartholomew for patriots! This very night all the Swiss and German battalions will leave the Champ de Mars to massacre us all; one resource is left; to take arms!’”” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Bastille#Necker's_dismissal
Even more revealing is what Wiki has to say about the Bastille hoax:
“Meanwhile, in 1784, the architect Alexandre Brogniard proposed that the Bastille be demolished and converted into a circular, public space with colonnades. Director-General of Finance Jacques Necker, having examined the costs of running the Bastille, amounting to well over 127,000 livres in 1774, for example, proposed closing the institution on the grounds of economy alone. Similarly, Puget, the Bastille’s lieutenant de roi, submitted reports in 1788 suggesting that the authorities close the prison, demolish the fortress and sell the real estate off. In June 1789, the Académie royale d’architecture proposed a similar scheme to Brogniard’s, in which the Bastille would be transformed into an open public area, with a tall column at the centre surrounded by fountains, dedicated to Louis XVI as the “restorer of public freedom” …. by July 1789 only seven prisoners remained in custody. Before any official scheme to close the prison could be enacted, however, disturbances across Paris brought a more violent end to the Bastille.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastille#Criticism_and_reform
The “storming” of the Bastille was a controlled demolition event like the WTC attacks in 2001. As Wikipedia shows us, the ancient fortress was already scheduled to be destroyed because it didn’t meet code, was taking too much space, was dilapidated, was too expensive to maintain, and most importantly had almost no prisoners. Doesn’t the event now look like a precursor to the 9/11 con? It is very convenient that all of this was taking place in the days leading up to this big event. No way any of this is “coincidence.”
There’s also a possibility that the Bastille itself, like the Twin Towers and the Titanic, was probably an empty shell and not a real prison. There’s even a possibility that the prison never even existed, that it, as well as the July 14 event, was made-up by the authorities of history to sell the French Revolution hoax as a real grassroots movement against what was perceived to be a despotic and regressive regime.
(There is also a connection between Freemasonry and French royalty. It has been said that many of Marie-Antoinette’s friends were freemasons. Her father, Francis Stephen of Lorraine, was too a mason. Louis XVI was especially favorable towards the fraternity and some speculate that he was also a member of the masonic lodges in France.
https://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2007/07/louis-xvi-marie-antoinette-and.html
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/secret-societies-powerhouses-to-instigate-revolutions/ )
LikeLiked by 1 person
For more proof that this was an inside job, read Wikipedia’s version of the role the royal Régiment des Gardes Françaises (French Guards Regiment) played in the storming of the Bastille.
“The French Guards, who were located in Paris, played a major part in the French Revolution as most of the guardsmen defected to the revolutionary cause and ensured the collapse of absolute monarchy in France. French Guards led the Storming of the Bastille and formed the cadre for the National Guard. ….
The sympathy shown by the Gardes Françaises for the French Revolution at its outbreak was crucial to the initial success of the rising. The other two units of the Maison militaire du roi de France at the time, the Swiss Guards and the Bodyguard, were loyal to the king, but they were smaller units than the Gardes Françaises and lacked the Parisian connections of the latter regiment.[6]
During weeks of disturbances prior to early July 1789 leading up to the fall of the Bastille, the regiment initially obeyed orders and on several occasions, it acted against the increasingly-unruly crowds.[7] …. However, in addition to local ties with the Parisians, the regiment was resentful of the harsh Prussian style discipline introduced by its colonel, the Duc du Châtelet, who had taken up his appointment the year before. The officers of the regiment had negligently left day-to-day control in the hands of the non-commissioned officers, and had limited interaction with their men.[9] These factors led to desertions from 27 June onward, …. and the final defection of most of the rank and file on 14 July. Reportedly, only one of the sergeants stood by the officers when they tried to reassemble their men in the courtyard of the Paris barracks of the Guard. Of the six battalions (sub-units of about 600 men each) in the whole of the regiment, the equivalent of only one battalion remained obedient to orders.[10] The mutineers played a key role in the attack on the Bastille, where they were credited with both the effective use of artillery cannons and with preventing a massacre of the garrison after surrender.[11]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Régiment_des_Gardes_Françaises#French_Revolution
Can you imagine the military branch of any government, much less an absolute monarchy, conceding to the demands of the revolutionary mob and joining forces with them to basically destroy itself? How stupid do they think “we” really are? It’s like saying that the U.S. National Guard would join a violent mob of revolutionaries in their attempt at storming the White House and holding the President and his/her entourage hostage out of sympathy for their “fellow countrymen” who are amongst the rebels. Can you imagine such a scenario playing out in this day & age, much less back then, in the real world? Of course not. The storyline is so transparently bad it’s not even funny upon closer inspection.
(The military regiment was formed under the auspices of Catherine de’ Medici, Queen Regnant of France. The Medicis are “Phoenician” (crypro-Jewish) banking nobility, which indicates that the “Jewish” merchant elite have been running the French military establishment since its inception, or at least after the Medicis and other prestigious Judaic bloodlines cemented their control of France via their marital, political, and financial alliances made with the French aristocracy and the royal House of Valois.
“At Catherine de’ Medici‘s insistence, they were at first spread over several garrisons, but after the attempted kidnapping of King Charles IX near Meaux by Huguenots, the Gardes were brought back together specifically to protect the monarch.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Régiment_des_Gardes_Françaises#History )
LikeLike
If you really want a laugh, see this stupid news clip. The blond lady isn’t even crying, and of course she is pushing people to wear masks. Horrible acting. HOAX!
LikeLike
There are also parallels between Marie-Antoinette and Princess Diana, another fabricated character scheme who feigned death. They even “died” in the same area: Paris, France.
*““The parallels between Lady Diana and Marie Antoinette were obvious and made people take another look at the queen,” De Baecque says. “Suddenly Marie Antoinette was freed from the royalist versus republican war that raged after she died and began to be seen as this poor-little-rich-girl who represented a type of emancipated woman who had succeeded in freeing herself from the traditional rules imposed on her.”
De Baecque says there is now a “cult of Marie Antoinette.”
“Like Diana she forged a role for herself that was different to what was traditionally expected from the queen. She has become a modern icon; culturally, in fashion, and also in marketing,” he says, pointing to a glass exhibition case. “There is even a Marie Antoinette Barbie doll.”
The 200 exhibits at the Conciergerie include formal portraits, pornographic cartoons and caricatures of the queen as a harpy, a hyena and an amphibious monster, as well as film clips, clothes and magazine covers featuring various celebrity reincarnations of her.
In 2006, the movie “Marie Antoinette” by Sofia Coppola, in which Kirsten Dunst played the queen as a teenage rebel, went some way toward rehabilitating her reputation in the United States, but her name remains a byword for the privileged few’s disdain for the ordinary citizen.”* – https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-15/france-reconsiders-marie-antoinette-the-cake-eating-tyrant-is-now-an-emancipated-woman
“Yes, it is true that there are similarities; it is eerie how many there are. They were both blonds with sapphire eyes, and resembled each other a little. Incidentally, Marie-Antoinette and Diana were related, through the Stuarts. (There’s that tragic blood of Mary Stuart asserting itself, again.) Each had issues of being abandoned by and separated from their mothers as children. They both were married at a young age to aloof, intellectual men. Neither woman was intellectual, at all, but each required a great deal of attention. Both were emotionally needy. Both loved children, especially their own children. Both enjoyed helping the poor and were renowned in their lifetime for their charity work. Both loved to dance and had a circle of colorful friends, friends who were not always considered the best of society. They each loved fashion. Both died in their late thirties, leaving two children behind. They both died in Paris, almost in the exact same spot in Paris, certainly in the same neighborhood.” – http://teaattrianon.blogspot.com/2007/06/marie-antoinette-and-diana-princess-of.html
Both are also seen as martyrs for what they believed in and fought for by their supporters and contemporaries. Marie-Antoinette is seen by royalists and traditionalists around the world as an emblem of Catholicism and the “divine right to rule”, a virtuous woman who sacrificed her life for the Bourbon monarchy and the Roman Catholic religion. Diana is viewed by many of her contemporaries and fans as a woman who was martyred for the British people and for her role in the fight for “equal rights” for minorities by the British establishment who allegedly viewed her as a threat to their hegemony ever since she came out with her tell-all book “Diana: Her True Story” and entertained interviews with the mass media describing her tumultuous life as a member of Britain’s royal family. Both began and ended their “lives” on occultic days and were surrounded by controversy and rumors of extramarital affairs and illegitimate children. They even bore strong physical resemblances to each other:
So what we see with “Lady Di” is nothing new. The same was with “Marie-Antoinette” two centuries before “Diana” entered the world. They simply recycled the same script but made a few changes in the making of the Diana hoax.
LikeLike
Here is a photo of Lady Diana. Clearly from the same bloodline.
LikeLike
Speaking of Diana, her death was a magic trick, too. That is – fake.
LikeLike
Goldsmith was also a recipient of a bailout from the Bank of England in the 1970s-80s, btw, so he’s one of the top thieves in the Jewish aristocracy. Afterwards, he was knighted by the “British” royal family, themselves notorious criminals and tax pirates in their own right. Says plenty about his “character”, if one is to believe what I found about him.
LikeLike
Let me see if I can tidy this up a bit.
The Bastille was a financial and political albatross, like the WTC, and brought down and replaced by a single phallic-like construct. The ritual aspects of this type of conversion must hold some influence over some level of the mindbenders who orchestrate these rituals.
The Bastille column has a winged figure on its top. A winged figure in such a context could be alluding to the phoenix which rises out of the ashes which the phoenix created of itself in its own controlled demolition. I think there is a confession stated by this figure that revolutions (in this case, the 1830 theater piece) are scripted with a pre-ordained outcome. (And leave a large middle finger to humanity)
I think the ritual overlays provide nothing more than rabbit trails and that the ‘as above, so below’ nonsense is inserted to create a mystique around what are, at base, mundane profiteers with too much time on their hands.
I’ll stick with my proposal that MA was real, either died in childbirth or was simply shuttled off stage after her imbecilic first son proved her Habsburg lineage was too weak to sustain the dynasty, and she was replaced by Fitzherbert who would bear George IV’s children in France’s name. (Given that this lineage was destined for exile, James Ord’s bio could ring plausible)
Ferson, like Weld, comes from political and financial uber-elites so their activities, whether one man ,or two swapping personas, would logically follow as these elites spy for themselves as well as employing doubles and multiple personas. From what I can see, these two were powerful enough, but too far down the food chain genealogically to have a shot at producing recognized royal heirs.
Harry MP, I don’t think we are apart on the main thrust here, save that I think MA was for a time a real person. I think they have always given the most closely aligned family members the first shot to produce viable heirs, but failure requires suitable substitutes as the need arises. I think that’s what happened here.
The persona of MA, as essayed by Fitz, was retired by her ‘execution’. The real MA was either dead or gone to the secret estates- likely to the posh digs the king hid out in for twenty years before returning as his ‘brother’.
That’s as far as I can take it. The proximity of suspect characters like Fitz to acknowledged heirs suggests that some fertile woman with sufficient breeding has been brought in to continue the line.
Today that isn’t necessary with the advancement of IVF technology. A modern example would be Prince William being the biological son of Juan Carlos of Spain who likely did not have to roll the dice by having actual relations with Diana. The turkey baster was employed until it took. Of course, that would beg the question, what is wrong with Charles? Or are the Windsors further down the pecking order than we are lead to believe?
LikeLike
If you are not fully convinced of my theory “Marie-Antoinette” and “Count Fersen” was portrayed by the Weld/Fitzherbert couple and sired children together, I suggest you watch this video about their relationship as presented by historian Evelynn Farr:
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The Bastille was a financial and political albatross, like the WTC, and brought down and replaced by a single phallic-like construct. The ritual aspects of this type of conversion must hold some influence over some level of the mindbenders who orchestrate these rituals.”
The Twin Towers were also replaced by a phallic-like skyscraper years later. History repeating itself, the same authors recycling the same themes.
“Ferson, like Weld, comes from political and financial uber-elites so their activities, whether one man ,or two swapping personas, would logically follow as these elites spy for themselves as well as employing doubles and multiple personas. From what I can see, these two were powerful enough, but too far down the food chain genealogically to have a shot at producing recognized royal heirs.”
You might be correct in the long-run, though Fersen did come from a highly-placed noble family in Sweden, so I wouldn’t say his bloodline was too inferior to procreate with Antoinette’s. It is likely “Weld” and “Fersen” were played by the same man and secretly fathered the children of MA/MF, it’s just that Edward faked his death and continued operating behind the shadows as “Count Fersen” assisting “Marie-Antoinette” in the production. I believe Fitz’s relationship with George IV was a sham, a cover for her real continuing partnership with Edward Weld/Axel von Fersen.
LikeLike
I suspect the number of deaths from “The Terror” was fudged or exaggerated to frighten the masses at the time. After all, if they wanted to quench dissent from the population (since not many real people were actually in favor of the French Revolution) what better way to do that than to wage a campaign of psychological and emotional terror against the people – achieved by weaponizing the printing press to publish horrific, gory stories of massacres and mass executions of “traitors” to the revolution and distribute the propaganda across France and the rest of the European continent to stifle opposition from the grassroots level. We see similar tactics being used in the hoaxes of the ’60s and ’70s that were aimed against the “hippy” movements of the period. I believe the same was probably true for Russia after the “Bolshevik Revolution” where stories were promulgated about Soviet-ran “gulags” and concentration camps housing and executing political and social dissidents to communist rule.
For more information, read:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
LikeLike
According to Wiki: “The term of “Terror” to describe a period was forged by the Thermidorian Reaction who took power after the fall of Maximilien Robespierre in July 1794,[1][2] to discredit Robespierre and justify their actions.[3] Today there is consensus amongst historians that the exceptional revolutionary measures continued after the death of Robespierre.[4] By then, 16,594 official death sentences had been dispensed throughout France since June 1793, of which 2,639 were in Paris alone;[2][5] and an additional 10,000 died in prison, without trial, or under both of these circumstances.[6] ….
What Robespierre calls “terror” is the fear that the justice of exception shall inspire the enemies of the Republic. He opposes the idea of terror as the order of the day, defending instead “justice” as the order of the day.[9] In February 1794 in a speech he explains why this “terror” is necessary as a form of exceptional justice in the context of the revolutionary government:
If the basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the basis of popular government during a revolution is both virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is baneful; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie [homeland, fatherland].”
Here’s one of the leaders of ‘The Terror’ sporting the Masonic M hand gesture, the same gesture emulated by the Jesuits much earlier.
This looks to be another Masonic psyop, engineered to stoke up fear and anxiety in the masses at the time. The death count looks very fishy since the numbers don’t seem to add up.
LikeLike
Of course, the Jesuits played a significant role in the development of ‘The Enlightenment’, which was the foundation for the American and French revolutions.
LikeLike
Etymology of virtue:
https://www.etymonline.com/virtue
LikeLike
Wrong link. Here’s the one:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/virtue
“…. from Anglo-French and Old French vertu “force, strength, vigor; moral strength; qualities, abilities” (10c. in Old French), from Latin virtutem (nominative virtus) “moral strength, high character, goodness; manliness; valor, bravery, courage (in war); excellence, worth,” from vir “man” (from PIE root wi-ro- “man”).
…. Wyclif Bible has virtue where KJV uses power. The seven cardinal virtues (early 14c.) were divided into the natural (justice, prudence, temperance, fortitude) and the theological (hope, faith, charity). To make a virtue of a necessity (late 14c.) translates Latin facere de necessitate virtutem [Jerome].”
The early definitions of virtue have masculine connotations. Those connotations are associated with words like “power” and “dominion” or “domination”. I believe the revolutionary leaders were making esoteric references to their incessant control over society when they spoke of “virtue” and being “virtuous citizens” (citoyens). “The Terror” was a state-sponsored program whose intended purpose was to intimidate and eradicate any suspected enemy of the new order in France. It laid the groundwork for other similar programs to flourish in many places around the world (Soviet Russia, Communist China, Nazi Germany, and even in “western democracies” like the United States with the “War on Terror” and the NSA police state).
LikeLike
They say the number of casualties incurred by the terror was as high as 40,000. Yet the number I got from calculating the numbers offered by Wiki shows it to be about 26,000, twice less than 40,000. It just simply doesn’t add up. I believe (assuming anyone was “executed” at all) only as much as a few hundred were killed in France. The rest was made up to frighten, traumatize, and desensitize the people. We have seen how they have faked mass casualty events to scare the masses before, so we must assume they faked the “Reign of Terror”, too. It’s likely the deaths of Marat, Robespierre, Danton, and others were also hoaxed to traumatize the people and to divide French society even further. After all, they faked the deaths of the French Bourbons (Louis XVI, Marie-Antoinette, their children, etc.)
LikeLike
“It is estimated that the total deaths carried out by Guillotine ranged between 16’000 and 40’000. Throughout the Reign of Terror in France, the Guillotine became a popular entertainment that attracted great crowds of spectators. Vendors sold program listings, which contained the names of those, scheduled to die that day.”
https://reignofterrorinfrance1792.weebly.com/madame-guillotine-and-her-victims.html
A sartorial cartoon depicting King Louis XVI’s “demise” via the ‘National Razor’:
Crown: “I lost a head” (je perds une tete); Guillotine: “I’ve found one” (j’en trouve une) – ca. 1793
LikeLike
Also, since Louis & Antoinette’s alleged biological children (that survived childhood) were destined for exile rather than ruling a powerful country like France, I don’t think the controllers would’ve been too concerned about the parental lineage of their offspring, so long as the parents, whoever they were, were of the Bloodlines.
As I said previously, Fersen came from a very prestigious noble dynasty in Sweden and was of the royal Vasa bloodline that ruled the kingdom for centuries, which Mathis was the first to uncover in his papers on Napoleon and the French Revolution. He was as much a perfect candidate for siring royal children with his kind as anyone else was.
LikeLike
Place de la Bastille.
Pre-1789:
Post-1789:
World Trade Center Towers.
Pre-2001:
Post-2001:
Out with the old, in with the new.
LikeLike
In the “Criticism and reform” section, you see two 18th century illustrations of the Bastille’s destruction. Both were published before 1789, the year the “French Revolution” erupted, which saw the fall of the prison-fortress and ultimately the destruction of the Ancien Régime it represented. This echoes the litany of predictive programming we see in publications and popular depictions that foresaw 9/11 long before it happened. Coincidence? I think not.
Ca. 1783:
Ca. 1719:
9/11 predictive programming:
As I say, history repeats itself because it has the same authors.
LikeLike
Harry PM- Check out Dorthea Jordan, the mistress of King William IV who succeeded his older brother George IV. William and DJ had ten bastard kids together and they took the name FitzClarence. Its starting to look like the prefix ‘Fitz’ is code for royal bastard. Even better, DJ was a Phillips which makes her rags to riches story look pretty weak. I’d say what is going on is that the industrialists were integrating into the royal lines without upsetting the pomp and distraction of royal prerogatives. George IV spent money like a drunken sailor and I’ll bet that was encouraged to leverage these bastards into positions of influence and financial control of certain markets. Better to have blood loyalty, even if illegitimate, rather than talented strangers at the till.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Intriguing. Not too far-fetched to me. Of course, we all heard of the legend that Edward IV was born illegitimate, which kinda’ invalidates British royalty as we know it, if true. In fact, it can be argued that Britain’s royal families have never been truly legitimate since William the Conquerer, a foreigner and a bastard, laid claim to the British Isles and subjugated them in 1066. He also introduced civil law to the land, which came from his country of birth – France. And that leads us back to where we started.
Of course, they always keep it in the family, anyway, legitimate or not. There is too much risk in trusting complete strangers to do what you want because the chances of backfiring are much higher, regardless of how gifted or savvy that stranger is.
LikeLike
William the Conqueror was also Jewish. This means that Britain has been a thiefdom of the “Phoenicians” from the very beginning.
“According to 19th-century historian Edward Freeman, William the Conquerer, who was also known as William the Bastard, was sometimes known as “William the Mamzer”. This is where things get interesting. “Mamzer” is a Hebrew pejorative meaning the child of an illegitimate sexual relationship, such as adultery or incest. In Europe, it may have entered the vernacular as a pejorative for the offspring of a particular type of illegitimate relationship — one between a Christian man and a Jewish woman. This is generally given as the etymology of Ebalus, Duke of Aquitaine’s nickname “Ebalus Manzer”: Ebalus was apparently the unabashed illegitimate son of Aquitaine’s Ranulf II and an anonymous Jewish woman.
In medieval Europe, tanners were frequently Jews — frequently enough that it became a stereotype: a ninth-century Nicaean writer described the essence of Judaism as “contact with dog’s excrement and the multifarious vomit associated with tanning”; the 12th-century Byzantine writer Michael Choniates described Jews as “leather-gnawing dogs [and] tanners”. This wasn’t just vulgar abuse; because of the disgusting chemicals and horrendous smell that accompany the conversion of a dead animal to a piece of leather, tanning was a job nobody wanted — except Jews, on whom the profession conferred privileges. Even more than money-lending, Europe needed leather, and tanning gave Jews an otherwise unattainable freedom of movement.
We know that in the 11th century Normandy was home to a large number of Jews. By some estimates, its capital Rouen began that century with a population that was one-fifth Jewish. And we know that William was relatively fond of the Jews: after his Conquest, he suggested Normandy’s Children of Israel resettle in England — a surprising invitation, even for someone interested in developing trade and finance.
Many Jews took William’s offer up; the consensus seems to have been that life under William was much better than life among the French. (In fact, this is the pre-Expulsion origin of England’s Jewish community.) And William’s pro-Jewish stance was continued by William’s son and successor, William Rufus, who not only enjoyed hosting Jewish-Christian theological debates but is said to have joked that the debates might persuade him to convert. Even more improbably, the contemporary historian Eadmer reports that William II tried to talk a Jewish convert to Cristianity into returning to the faith of his fathers.”
https://standpointmag.co.uk/counterpoints-may-2016-joshua-gelernter-william-the-conqueror-was-jewish/
LikeLike
Even “Britain”, “British”, and “Britannia” are Phoenician in origin. They created it.
https://phoenicia.org/celts.html
https://www.electricscotland.com/History/Phoenician.htm
LikeLike
Having glossed her Wikipedia page, there were already red-flags in the story of Dorothea Jordan. She was a Bland, a Phillips, and a Heaton. The Phillips bloodline could tie us to Philips Electronics, located in the Netherlands and named after the founders – the Philips dynasty, second only to the Belgium royal family as the richest and most powerful family in the kingdom (sounds familiar to von Fersen’s backstory?) – although Wiki states that that the Phillips name could go back to a clergyman, which is absurd to me (unless he was an extremely wealthy cardinal or deacon like the French cardinals Richelieu, Rohan, and Brienne – the last one played a significant role in destroying Catholicism in France during the 1789 Revolution), and they admit that they’re uncertain about that connection too, also absurd. We’ve seen them a couple of times in Miles’ history papers, including most famously in his paper on Elvis Presley. Her paternal grandfather (Nathaniel Bland) was also the “Vicar General of Ardfert and Aghadoe, and Judge of the Prerogative Court of Dublin, Ireland”, which were one of the highest professions one could attain in matters of law and religion, so she was far from a nobody.
(BTW, the Belgium/Dutch Philips are also crypto-Jewish bankers, a fact admitted by the mainstream. That means Jordan was likely Jewish herself.)
LikeLike
Karl Marx was also a Philips, as well as a Rothschild. He was controlling the socialist movement in Europe on behalf of his Big Business and aristocratic connections in the 1840s.
LikeLike
Here’s Dorthea Jordan, the mistress of William IV, doing a Masonic pose with her hands.
We see a similar hand gesture with Michelle Obama:
Here’s Jay-Z:
Pictures say a thousand words, don’t they?
LikeLike
Thomas Jefferson was portrayed by the Marquis de Lafayette, further proving the American and French revolutions were hoaxes. They also authored the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen) in 1789.
“The Declaration was originally drafted by the Marquis de Lafayette, in consultation with Thomas Jefferson. ….” – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen
Jefferson:
Lafayette:
LikeLike
Even their writing samples match. They were the same person.
Letters:
Signatures:
LikeLike
More information on the Weld family:
https://www.houseofnames.com/weld-family-crest
http://www.4crests.com/weld-coat-of-arms.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weld_family
Notice the crescent moons on the Weld crest. It’s another occultic symbol that makes reference to the moon goddess Diana/Ishtar, I suppose. It is also the symbol of Islam, which is an extension of the ancient mystery religions (Babylonian mysteries). The famous French croissant pastry actually came from Austria (the birthplace of Marie-Antoinette) and is shaped after the crescent moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croissant
https://psy-minds.com/crescent-symbolism/
https://amos37.com/hilal-means-crescent/
I suspect the name “Weld” is a variant of the name “Guelph”, as in the House of Guelph, who are members of the “Black Nobility” and is the bloodline the current British royals descend from, making them one of the most important families running the world. This means that the Weld dynasty is an extension of the so-called Papal bloodlines known as the “Black Nobility”, if true. That makes “Edward Weld” a cousin of “Marie-Antoinette/Maria Fitzherbert”, since the Habsburgs and the Guelphs are of the “Black Nobility” bloodlines and are of Germanic extraction.
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_blacknobil02.htm
https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof00halluoft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Welf
LikeLike
Additional info on this infamous bloodline:
https://unholyromantyrants.blogspot.com/2019/08/hanseatic-league-of-despots.html
LikeLike
And since this relates to Ireland, here is a documentary covering the island’s occultic history:
LikeLike
Knowing that many of the deaths from the French Revolution were hoaxes (including the deaths of Louis XVII’s parents), it is safe to assume that the boy never died in captivity nor was he ever held prisoner by the revolutionaries. All of that was made up too.
So where did he go? It’s really hard to say, but I believe he went on to play Karl Naundorff, famous for claiming to be the “late” Dauphin, and Daniel Payseur, who established the Payseur dynasty which holds a lot of clandestine power and wealth in the Americas. They were also involved in railways and owned dozens of various companies. They are one of the so-called “Illuminati Thirteen Bloodlines” running the world.
https://archive.org/details/pdfy-cvNMguo_dgwUReM2/mode/2up
https://www.geni.com/people/Karl-Wilhelm-Naundorff-alias-Charles-Louis-de-Bourbon/6000000017511390542
Louis XVII & Karl Naundorff:
One of his descendants, Jonas W. Payseur (you’ll see him on p. 4 in the Archive.org pdf file), bears a striking resemblance to Count Fersen/Edward Weld, who was the partner of Marie-Antoinette/Maria Fitzherbert, the mother of Louis XVII/DanielPayseur/Karl Naundorff. That lends more credibility to the claim that this family descends from European royalty.
Jonas Payseur:
Axel von Fersen:
Edward Weld:
LikeLike
The Kennedys are also Jewish. JFK himself was in very good terms with the Jewish community and showed favoritism for the Federal Reserve in his policies. His actions as president only helped to expand the central bankers’ control of America, not contract or restrict it, which is the real lasting legacy of the Kennedy regime (1961-93).
“DNA analyses have suggested that the Scottish Kennedys and their American descendents are likely of Sephardic Jewish ancestry from France, where their name was Canady. We propose their original name may have been Candiani — from Candy, the old name for the Turkish capital of Crete, says Panther-Yates. Genealogies of the Irish branch of Hyannisport, Massachusetts, do not go farther back than Patrick Kennedy, a prosperous farmer of Dunganstown, County Wexford, Ireland, who was born about 1785 and whose son emigrated to America. However, there is no reason to rule out a possible French origin before the family became Irish. Both Cassel (a sect of Clan Kennedy pointing to a region in southern France) and Canady appear on a list of refugee French Huguenots to Ireland.”
https://dnaconsultants.com/news/jfks-jewish-roots/
“In 1960, when he was elected president, Kennedy had the support of an estimated 80 percent of Jewish voters. As president he demonstrated friendship for Israel by tripling the amount of American financial assistance to Israel and by selling the country ground-to-air Hawk missiles in 1962 for protection against air attack. He alerted the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean when subversion in Jordan by the United Arab Republic threatened to undermine the stability of the entire area. He increased the shipments of military supplies when Soviet weapons sent to the Arab states appeared to be giving them arms superiority. He promised United States assistance in the development of a desalination plant to expand Israel’s water and power resources.”
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/john-f-kennedy
“To conserve the Treasury’s silver needs, the Silver Purchase Act and related measures were repealed by Congress in 1963 with Public Law 88-36. Following the repeal, only the President could authorize new silver certificate issues, and no longer the Treasury Secretary. The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations). The Treasury’s shrinking silver stock could then be used to mint coins only and not have to back currency. The repeal left only the President with the authority to issue silver certificates, however it did permit him to delegate this authority. E.O. 11,110 does this by transferring the authority from the President to the Treasury Secretary. …
E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However, by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982. …”
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/jfk.htm
LikeLike
Oh, and I forget one thing: the final cherry on the Marie-Antoinette myth cake: her “last letter” written on the day of her execution (16 October, 1793).
We’re told that hours before Marie-Antoinette was carted-off from her prison cell in the Conciergerie to the scaffold in the Place de la Revolution, she penned a touching will-&-testament to her sister-in-law, the ci-devant Princess Elizabeth of France, simply known as Madame Elizabeth, who was allegedly imprisoned in the Temple prison with the ex-queen’s daughter.
Unfortunately, the letter never reached her, instead having been taken by Robespierre and hidden under his mattress until after his death in 1794. It was then given to another revolutionary for safekeeping until the Bourbon Restoration when it was made public for the first time. (Legend has it that when Marie-Antoinette’s surviving daughter saw the letter, she fainted from shock.)
Since then, the letter’s authenticity has been contested by scholars. Some claim it was a royalist forgery, while other believe it to be real.
Below are two letters written in the same period (1791-93), both of which are attributed to Antoinette. One can obviously tell that the writing styles of the letters clearly show that two different people wrote two letters attributed to the same woman. The first letter shows a more organized and mature style of penmanship, whereas the second is more convoluted and less relaxed.
Also note that the “last letter” does not contain Marie-Antoinette’s signature, but instead the initials of four people. Could they be the real authors of this letter? Could their signatures on this document be clues pointing to its true authorship?
The “last letter” of Marie-Antoinette:
A letter from Marie-Antoinette to Count Fersen (October 1791):
What are your thoughts? I’d love to hear more about them.
LikeLike
The affair of the necklace reveals how gullible the public was to false documentation. Letters at this point in history serve the same function as recorded speeches in the JFK era, for example. The technology of the time has to seem plausible to sell the lies. Rumor was the Facebook of the day.
LikeLike
“The affair of the necklace reveals how gullible the public was to false documentation.”
Definitely. We all know that many forged letters were passed between Rohan and other accomplices in the scam, so it’s definitely within the realm of possibility that other MA letters were forgeries, too.
“Letters at this point in history serve the same function as recorded speeches in the JFK era, for example.”
Or the publishing industry and art/illustration, for example. They were also used to convey stories and mold public opinion, much like the TV and the World Wide Web today.
“Rumor was the Facebook of the day.”
Not to mention salacious periodicals and pamphlets which helped booster the rumormill, such as this one:
https://fr-m-wikisource-org.translate.goog/wiki/Vie_de_Marie-Antoinette_d%E2%80%99Autriche,_reine_de_France,_femme_de_Louis_XVI,_roi_des_Fran%C3%A7ais/1?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui
LikeLike