I don’t pay much attention to traffic on this site, but did notice a recent uptick and stumbled on part of the reason, a post entitled “We Know Sharon Tate Did Not Die, But Was She Even Pregnant?” That post, from April of 2017, has drawn 29,400 views at this time, and has been the cause of quite a few comments (that don’t see light of day) ridiculing me and questioning my sanity. There have also been a few people commenting who knew either Sharon or her family or lived nearby, thereby testifying that the events of 8/8/1969 were real.
Even with that number of views, more than a hundred per day as I write this, this is a tiny outpost, so that I presume the commenters either stumbled on the work and, since drenched in our propaganda and the resulting psychotic American state of mind, feel a need to review the horror. Perhaps some are part of that army of basement vigilantes used by Intelligence to monitor the blogs and keep it real.
I am writing this to approach the Tate/Manson affair from a higher angle. It is beyond question, in my mind, that the event was a psyop and that no one died on that night. The LaBianca murders on the following night might well have been copycat, that is, mobsters, seeing the larger hoax at work, used it to solve some of their own problems. They knew police would cooperate. The murders of Leno and Rosemary Labianca on 8/9/69 have never, in my mind anyway, been solved. Rather, they were troublesome to cops, who decided to merely add them to the Manson psyop, thereby shelving them.
First, credit where due, a 2014 paper from Miles Mathis, at 86 pages now a seminal work on the subject. There will be no reinventing of the wheel here. I thought the question of Sharon Tate’s pregnancy added to that work rather than deriving from it, but let’s be clear: No way would I ever have solved the riddle on my own or known to question it without the MMG paper. My attention was drawn to Mathis by a video on YouTube, amazingly still there even after the great purge. That video has the odor of a rollout to it, a means by which MMG was handed over to a much larger audience than it then had.
I’ll briefly explain that idea – if you will humor me. Otherwise, skip to the line below.
Are you familiar with the work of Mike Bublansky? He has done remarkable research into the WWII battle at Iwo Jima, finding that much if it was fictional.
I just made that up! There is no Bublansky. My point is this: real censorship is really effective. If Intelligence decides we should not see or know about something, we do not see or know about it. If people in power intended that we never know of this Bublanski character, his name would never appear anywhere, not on YouTube, not on a search engine, never on a book shelf.
In a similar manner, if people in power wanted Miles Mathis censored, we would not know his name and his papers would never see light of day. He is meant to be there. It is all above my pay grade, but a tremendous amount of otherwise hidden information has been released via that site. It does no harm, as only people of curious bent will find it. There are not many of us, certainly not enough to pose any kind of threat to power. I recall the (alleged) words of Karl Rove to Ron Suskind in 2004:
“People like you are still living in what we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
That all we are doing, all of us with eyes open and minds alert … we are on skis behind the boat and hanging on, powerless to affect events but smart enough to spot fakery. We are watching history’s actors. It’s a choice we all made. Many of you who come here also spend time at the Mathis site or Josh’s Cutting through the Fog. It is as if we are let in on the game and are being rewarded. We get to know stuff, and it is fun, and we are not harming or threatening anyone. It is all far bigger than us. We cannot stop it or even affect it. (Ron Suskind, by the way, is not a “people like you” type. He was the chosen vehicle to get that message out, nothing more.)
Back to business. Where does Tate/Manson fit in the larger scheme? It was surely part of Cointelpro and Operation Chaos. During the 1960s there was a war in Vietnam, its larger and unstated purpose apparently to move its population into the cities to become part of the labor force that now makes our shirts, socks and underwear. It was a violent undertaking, many lives were lost, some of them Americans. (Prior to that, Japan had been converted to a major manufacturing center, many of its cities razed. It appears, from my view, all to be part of major restructuring of the world order, masquerading as war on evildoers.)
Meanwhile on the home front the Baby Boomer generation was coming alive. We were the first TV generation, and there was an undercurrent of intelligent activity taking hold, later known as the Antiwar Movement. It started on college campuses, and was dignified and clean-cut at the outset.
As with all such currents, leadership was on top of it, monitoring it, and decided it needed to be destroyed. They sent out a cadre of false leaders, people like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn on the intellectual front, often seen holding signs. Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, Abbie Hoffman etc., were on duty at ground level. The music scene was infiltrated with a host of “stars” from the Intelligence community, David Crosby and Joan Baez still with us, scores of others like Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin faking their deaths after their shelf life expired. They changed the image of the movement, giving it goofy apparel and saturating it with drugs. LSD was one of the prime movers in destroying young minds. (“Paul” McCartney was used in that regard, to encourage kids to use it. That really sucked, and he’s a tool.)
It was all allowed to flourish, controlled opposition leadership firmly in place. Tate/Manson then destroyed the movement. The Antiwar movement died on 8/8/69, though no one else was harmed in the making of that movie.
Part of the hoax was a gruesome scene in the movie, writers working overtime and having the “Manson Family” remove and kill a live baby from the womb of Sharon Tate. After getting up to speed via the MMG work, I often wondered, since I knew Sharon had not died, what became of her baby. Did it go on to become famous? Did Roman Polanski raise the child in Switzerland? I even thought at one time … just idle speculation … that it became Brad Pitt. (My mistakes over time are legion.)
I realized, as I looked at the photos seen in the 2017 post, that Sharon was not even pregnant, but was made to appear so. Part of the ritual, since it was meant to horrify us down to our socks, was infanticide.
That is how that post came about. But why has it drawn so many views? There lurks in all of us a magnetic attraction to the macabre. I often sit down evenings looking for a movie or TV show to watch, and find that they are almost all are about death and betrayal and murder – mayhem. I am looking for anything uplifting, but most of “entertainment” is meant to depress. It’s discouraging.
Is it us, or is it “them?” Why can we not have wholesome and healthy entertainment? I suspect, probably as we are now constantly subjected to fake mass shootings, that it is all intended to keep us digging in a trench, never looking up and out to see sunshine and feel its warmth. It is all agitprop, and it is meant to keep us in a state of worry, even fugue, hysteria and intellectual epilepsy. The Tate/Manson affair was an earlier version of our current ongoing psyops.
Thus are we governed.