Here’s to you Mrs. Mathis-son

Former writer Fauxlex has been writing on his own blog now, which I am not going to link. There is a back channel of communication with him, now going only one way, and he’s got nothing nice to say. It’s an odd torrent of words, as he is completely without humility, claiming to be our “best writer”, and having fits of temper. On his current blog, he has done some genealogy and has claimed that Miles Mathis’ lineage goes back to Charlemange and Charles Martel. But let’s first take a look at his analysis of Miles Mathis’ mother, which he (he has since altered the text) claim(ed) to be two different women in two separate photos.

I placed the arrows there, as from his text it appears he is saying that the woman in the middle (left) and one the left (right) are claimed to be MM’s mother, and that they are two different people. That may be the case, but evidence is skimpy at best. I’ve done thousands of comparisons over the years, and if there is one thing to conclude, it is that low-quality photos don’t always tell the story. With women as well, we have changing hair styles and makeup. Obviously the woman on the right (left) looks younger. Then again, we have dates of photos, never a given unless metadata is available. My conclusion: none.

Fauxlex said in a comment last night that my method of facial comparisons was sloppy at best. Others have criticized it too, as photos drawn from the Internet are often suspect. He (and Straight at one time) brought in a program used for facial analysis that each claimed to be superior to my method, which  uses eye pupil distance as a gold standard. The program produced results I found to be inaccurate, and the reason was simple: there no standardized method of comparison, leaving the program free to adjust facial size to create a false match. If you have no standard, you can manipulate any two photos to draw them to the same size and blend the features, which is all that program did.

Of course the work is fraught with difficulty, so that one other factor beyond a gold standard is necessary: judgement. In the photos above, I do not know enough to make a judgement, as I don’t even know if the photos are accurately dated and described. It could be that the two women are different and are not claimed (or mistakenly claimed) to be Mrs. Mathis. There is a third factor – facial angles, which make comparison difficult. So with all that in mind, I offer the face chop below, and my conclusion that it’s pretty close. The eyes don’t align, but the two photos are not good candidates, so that I will say that it is close enough so that I would not conclude these are different women.

As part of the judgment factor, the question must be asked: Why on earth would there be a switch? MM is not famous, at least in the sense that movie stars and the like are subject to manipulations. Switching Mom’s for a rather obscure (not to us) gentleman makes no sense.

As to MM’s genealogy, I got nuthin’. I dove into that sort of work for a brief period, and concluded that unless I really extended myself and did thousands of hours, perhaps Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 hours, I would never be able to put out credible work. But just incidentally, a sidebar, I did learn one thing in my work that I found surprising: Woody Harrelson’s dad, Charles, was said to have died in prison and also to have been present in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963. I doubt both those things, just another rabbit hole. However, I did make one discovery that you might think, like me, not to be coincidental. It is the kind of thing anyone can do, just plug in a name at Geni.com, and hit the return button, not the “log in.” See below:

That’s Woody’s Mom, Charles’s “ex”-wife. Her maiden name is Oswald. MM reminded us in his (sterling) work on JFK that all of the players in that show were probably related. This gives some evidence to that. Does this mean that Woody Harrelson is related to Lee Harvey Oswald? This is the problem – that is a jump. That’s why I quit doing genealogy.  True genealogists do not make jumps.

Fauxlex did some credible work here on the Brandon Teena murder, which later became the movie Boys Don’t Cry, starring Matt Damon lookalike Hillary Swank. He concluded that two men really went to jail for a fake murder, and that one is on death row. I did not want to criticize him in public, and so privately suggested to him that since the murder was fake, so were all the players, including the officers that made the arrests, and the subsequent court case. No one went to jail. Has he not been paying attention?

Fauxlex went ballistic, and we had a public debate. He’s not one to take criticism lightly, and often asserted that commenters who did not take his work at face were plants and agents. He was constantly (along with Maarten) urging me behind the scenes to ban this or that person. I finally decided to make him an ADMIN, so that he could do the banning and deleting of comments. That was a mistake, as ADMIN also has the ability to take the blog and all its content down, to make it disappear forever. He was so angry with me that I feared for the blog, and went to lower his status back down to EDITOR. WordPress would not allow that. Once ADMIN, always ADMIN. I had but one choice, to completely remove him as a writer. In so doing, I made it clear to him that I welcomed him back, that this was just a status change. He refused the offer. Farewell, I thought. He did some good work.

I did some photo work on Brandon Teena, just to satisfy myself that the photos of the group of players were paste-ups.

That’s Brandon Teena and Barbara Kramer. It’s not a perfect match-up due to facial angles, but the features line up. The problem, which Faulex pointed out, was that Barbara Kramer, said to be the woman in the center, is 15-16 years younger than Teena, on the left. All that meant to me was that Kramer was chosen to play the part of Brandon Teena in the photos that they put together for the psyop. “Teena Brandon” never existed. Barbara Kramer was probably selected due to her resemblance to Hillary Swank, already chosen at the time of the hoax to play Teena in the movie. (Apparently Jennifer Garner was not available.) [OK – that’s a reach.] By the way, if you are as confused as I am, it worked like this: Teena Brandon is a girl, but wanted to be a boy. She changed her name to Brandon Teena. Here’s something interesting: I did a Truepeople search on Kramer and Teena Brandon. Both are said to currently live in in Lincoln, Nebraska, Barbara currently 47, Teena 62. That’s weird. [I’ve rewritten this paragraph like five times now. Do I finally have it right?]

I did further work, very tedious, but took the known existing photos of the group of people involved in the psyop, and measured their faces in comparison to one another. “Brandon’s face varied in size compared to girl pal Lana Tisdale by as much as 28%, that is, in one photo (far left) his face is much smaller than hers even as they are side by side, and in others they are much the same size. All the photos below are paste-ups, by the way. Do your own comparisons

Conclusion: The staged death of Brandon Teena, a non-existent person, was used as part of a larger and ongoing Intel operation, the confusion of gender roles, feminization of men and masculization of women. The object – an overall effort, combined with many other psyops (including AIDS) to get people to cut back on breeding. The real Teena Brandon is apparently still alive.  Her identity was used, but I doubt she ever had to leave her house in Lincoln. (The Intel operation also goes on today in the form of school children being encouraged to question their true gender. Sowing such confusion at such a young age is cruel.)

Teena manhandI never showed any of this work to Fauxlex, as he was seething. But do take note of the relative size of the heads in the photo farthest left and the other three. If you want to do the same analysis I did, call up MS Paint and put the photos in a grid so that you can measure the head sizes with an accompanying scale. It is tedious, I warn you. Keep in mind that I did not measure head size from one photo to the next, but only relative head size within the photos. They really screwed up far left. The more I look at that photo, the more I realize Teena’s head is too small for the neck and body, and that the woman to Teena’s right, whose hand is on his left shoulder, has a bad case of man-hands.

I would not be sitting here doing all of this work were it not for the barrage of crude and paranoid criticism I am getting from Fauxlex, first in private emails, later on his blog, and now in comments on this blog, which have been trashed. I have banned him. I can do that as ADMIN. I am fed up.

88 thoughts on “Here’s to you Mrs. Mathis-son

  1. I read Faux’s blog entry on Mathis. What’s really baffling is that, if you take away all the histrionics and obsessive nit-picking over minutiae, his skeptical viewpoint on Mathis is indistinguishable from yours.

    From experience, though, I know how hard it is not to go off the rails when talking about conspiracy stuff. Even before I started waking up, I intuitively balked at, dismissed, disregarded and defied people who tried to make me believe stuff that didn’t make sense. Overall, the instinct is valid, since most people’s worldviews are shaped by ludicrous and dehumanizing propaganda, but in many cases I know I have rejected people who had a lot to offer, and didn’t belong in the box I put them in.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, but if I recall correctly, you arrived at that viewpoint after raising a lot of questions and expressing a lot of suspicions about the man from Taos.

        Have to disagree with you about the work being “quality”—I rarely read the guy anymore, and when I do I’m always incredulous at his rambling sloppiness. But he has brought a lot of solid info to light, and trying to out him or figure out what’s going on with that site is a rabbit hole that doesn’t seem worth the time.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. That is true, but my view has moderated over time. I read his stuff now, and my eyes glaze over at the genealogy. By the way, I would suspect that Woody Harrelson and Lee Harvey Oswald are related, but a real genealogist would document it, not just assume it to be so. (If you read that part above.)

          Like

          1. “Harrelson’s father, who was a contract killer, was arrested for the killing of Federal Judge John H. Wood, Jr. by rifle fire in 1979 in San Antonio”

            And Woody got a starring role on Cheers six years later? I don’t think life works that way unless doors are open. Also another Oswald, Jani Lane from the 80’s Hairband Warrant also became way too famous too quick. I believe Jani Oswald faked his death. Anyone that participates in these hoax events not only gets financially compensated, but also makes sure their family members get red carpet treatment.

            Faux seemed to really care about the issues on POM, yet got sucked in too much like many of us and now is burned out. Hopefully he or she continues on and eventually pinpoints who is hiding behind the mask of Miles Mathis. I’ve found in my own research that there are private detective ways for an average joe to find information when looking for someone, and see that things are being hidden and not as we are told or as they appear even with people in your own town.

            btw please do not donate any money to wikipedia, we should all know by now they are an intelligence front, and do not need our money since they already have plenty of it.

            Like

          1. Damn, I thought I could cover my tracks by accusing myself of being a spook and deleting my own comments, but you figured me out, Scott McKendry figured me out, Scott.

            Wait. I’m Scott. You’re Scott. Holy shit are you ME?

            No, ME is a completely different commenter. I think ME is Mark and I know for a fact that I’m not Mark.

            Maybe your MiniMe.

            How tall are you?

            Liked by 1 person

                  1. Ah, okay. I get similarly confused about Buddha and God and those guys. You’re obviously not them. I should have known you’re not ME.

                    Like

  2. Did you know – he is going on hiatus?

    (I have no real reason to say that other than just pointing it out – – LoL)

    Personally, I don’t have any good or bad to say about the guy.
    I just like CON-spiracies. I look into some deeply, others are only given a cursory look before I move on.

    Like

  3. I think Mark you’re right about Fauxlex. There was something not quite right about his puerile antics. The whole fake Rolex name was Bolex; Faux=fake, not sincere whilst Lex (as in lexicon) from the Greek lexis=word, speech.
    His work now seems more akin to that of a fifth columnist’s, his piece about the DNA code turned out to be an error, the whole mystical Indian soothsaying was an elaborate shaman’s trick, and the fake ‘strapadichtomy’ murderers going to jail, yeah, that happens all the time……

    Talking of JFK, wiki states – ‘Zapruder was a Freemason and an Inspector-General (33rd degree) of the Scottish Rite.’ Not bad for an Ukrainian Jew who fled Poland for the US in 1920.

    Mark, when you mentioned Rockefeller was behind the Prohibition so that folks would have to use Standard Oil, etc instead of cheap moonshine to run their vehicles, my gast was truly flabbered. Well, the whole covid19 scamdemic seems to me by the same culprits (and maybe others like them), though this time the Rockefellers Big Pharma interests after having taken a similar nosedive in profits not by moonshine but by anti-vaxxers shunning their medical Russian roulette, they, stuck with a host of unwanted vaccines, pulled the whole conoravirus cat out of their snake-oil salesman’s bag.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. well perhaps we can work together again, now, as he was the challenge, for whatever reason with the information we shared. I have always found those that ‘get angry’ and confrontational, usually have something to hide. Cheers Lorenzo. http://www.newagora.ca Delighted to reconnect.

    Like

  5. I’m sorry to hear about this breakdown in communication, it is never nice when former allies turn on one another.

    I always wondered what happened to Maarten (sp?), I seem to recall he was rather hostile to my suggestion that all of our history from before about 1800 (and much since then) is pure fiction (or ought to be treated as such).

    In an online environment like this, where most if not all of us feel somewhat alienated from the ‘real people’ around us, and we are already self-selecting for certain eccentricities / unorthodox thinking patterns and behaviours, it is always going to be the case that tempers flare and relationships fracture; there’s just not enough bonding us together to keep people from lashing out when they feel aggrieved or offended.

    This is probably one of the main reasons why there has ever been a genuine ‘truth movement’ and there never will be. It is like trying to herd cats. Good luck to anybody who wants to be responsible for such a herd. They have claws and teeth, beware.

    As for the ‘genealogy’ and all of that, I’ve never hard much time for it. How many people truly know their own genealogy going back more than three or four generations? And bear in mind how many people go through their entire life not knowing that the person(s) they thought was their biological parent was, in actual fact, NOT their biological parent. Happens all the time.

    If other people enjoy reading the genealogy stuff then fair enough, I’m sure it can be entertaining. But in terms of trying to arrive at some sort of broader truth of a matter, I’m not sure how seriously it can be taken. Just my 2c.

    Like

    1. As for the ‘genealogy’ and all of that, I’ve never hard much time for it. How many people truly know their own genealogy going back more than three or four generations? And bear in mind how many people go through their entire life not knowing that the person(s) they thought was their biological parent was, in actual fact, NOT their biological parent. Happens all the time.

      If other people enjoy reading the genealogy stuff then fair enough, I’m sure it can be entertaining. But in terms of trying to arrive at some sort of broader truth of a matter, I’m not sure how seriously it can be taken.

      Genealogy, or the question “where do I come from” is not “some entertainment” (fake toucans is some entertainment), but the single thing everybody should know about themselves. And that what people knew.

      Knowing more about the Rothschild (or Kardashian or any other ‘tv’ family) than about your own family = Transhumanism.

      And the ideas published by Dr. Anatoly Fomenko hold a tad more weight than armwaiving an imagined “200 year young history”, just because Australia is so young.

      Like

      1. Two problems with genealogy – one, it is far more complicated than merely running down a list on ancestors on Geni.com. You need evidence in the form of documents. In my family, the documents end in the 1800s on both sides. No doubt that is true of most people, as no one cares to keep track of farmers and paupers.

        My other problem, speaking personally, god it’s boring! I’m an accountant, mind you, so I know a little about that subject.

        Like

        1. That may be a regional difference. I didn’t have problems finding the missing links in my own family (almost everything was online), but when I tried it for the family-in-law I found indeed I needed physical church records. They are not related to Tío Pablo btw.

          Boring? Really? How can investigating your own family ever be boring?

          I found many gems in my family history, you have the possibility to check out historical events (the “Spanish” “flu” in my family was a moment of increased mortality -low numbers, so not a statistically valid count-) and indeed also went back to Charlemagne. That is not too hard, you need a mildly important (count or duke level) member in your family and then hopefully you can catch on to one of the many reported.

          Good point made earlier of course, following Fomenko, the Prenaissance is murky at best and about a thousand years invented at worst. So the chronological placement of the character we know as Charlemagne may well be different, but we’re all in the same park.

          Like

      2. “Genealogy is the single thing everybody should know about themselves”

        Perhaps you missed my point. Most people don’t know their own roots, and among those who think they know, there’ll be many falsities in there i.e. somebody lied about who was the father. This happens all the time and it is nothing new. So who really does know their own genealogy, let alone that of people they are ‘researching’?

        “fake toucans is some entertainment”

        Agreed, and those Toucan Hoax videos of mine certainly got some tongues wagging, didn’t they, G?

        Like

        1. How do you assess if there are falsities in one’s genealogy without doing the research?

          and why do you project a level of promiscuity and out of wedlock births you imagine without verification (“happens all the time”), onto the histories of other people?

          I think most people still know where they come from in broad lines. But it is the details that only come up with the research that are important.

          Fake toucans is Wormhole level stupidity (and completely irrelevant for your life), genealogy is the best and most important research one can do.

          Like

          1. How do you assess if there are falsities in one’s genealogy without doing the research?

            Again, I suspect you do not understand the point being made.

            How can you ‘research’ somebody’s REAL genealogy when you have no way of knowing if the professed genealogy is accurate or true?

            genealogy is the best and most important research one can do.

            And why is that? What do you believe is being revealed?

            Like

            1. I got your point, but you seem not to pick up on mine.

              You seem to be hypnotized by an imagined preconception that “we don’t know our families”, so “we don’t know if it’s fake” vs someone who does actually research their family history.

              The one who does the research always has more information than the one who bails out before even starting.

              And I contest that out of wedlock births were so common. Maybe for rich men, but the vast majority of society (evidenced by my own family in my area of origin; 95% Netherlands, with some French-jewish, Austrian and Italian blood) were just farmers and cheese makers and other hard laborers. These people did not have money to maintain 2 families.
              The occasional slip has happened of course but comparisons with the present are so incredibly impossible (esp. since the 1960s Sexual Revolution) that I wonder where you got the idea from that was a common phenomenon leading to your “it’s fruitless to investigate where you come from” (as I see it) stance?

              Only when doing the research you may come across those points. You may even get to know the real father based on other documents that mention it. A lucky shot, but without even starting the genealogical research you have 0 lucky shots.

              What I also learned from it is excellent insight into the H Story (with 1600 ! documented descendants of my 6th generation jewish side ancestors; only my paternal grandpa was jewish, no other line in my family) and how that aligns with the narrative. I got nice stats out of it too.

              Also what I saw happening in multiple instances is that when the first wife died, the man married one of her sisters next. Which makes total sense for me; same family, similar habits and culture and the geographical isolation that comes with a country built in an ever flooding delta.

              All this is unknown if you don’t start. And it will always be.

              Back to your question; how to assess the different sources, what other info is there and in an ultimate case you could do a DNA test. I have never done one and if I get one then I want to know about Molly first. Those things are accessible but still pricey.

              I hear you asking already “how do you know the DNA test is correct?”

              And of course generally speaking you don’t. But that is where the earlier (I always would do the most interesting learning journey first) research kicks in.

              Now you have 2 datasets. Which you can compare and maybe even take out errors.
              You have 0 datasets.

              And your last question is serious? Knowing who you are is an essential aspect of life. Where you come from. You think the Animal Farmers don’t know their genealogies?

              If you meet a woman who you fancy for more than just a ONS, are you not interested in her heritage? What her family is like, where her values come from, etc. etc.?

              I promise you she IS with you.

              Like

              1. @Gaia

                Fair enough, I can see where you’re coming from. If you feel as though you derive benefit from your genealogy research then I don’t have any issue with that at all. And insofar as your source information can be deemed accurate, then the conclusions will no doubt be useful, especially if they point towards a small group of people wielding disproportionate influence over the rest of the humans (which I infer is where this research leads you).

                I wonder where you got the idea from that was a common phenomenon leading to your “it’s fruitless to investigate where you come from” (as I see it) stance?

                As above, I’m not saying it is fruitless. I think where we differ is the level of accuracy we ascribe to the records available. If they are indeed accurate then I agree with your assertions about the importance / utility of the research. I just have no way of knowing how accurate those records are.

                And the older I get, the more I realise: people lie. Even about fundamentally important things such as ‘who is the father’. And even when the lie is suspected / discovered, people are happy to go along with the lie, for various reasons. So I don’t trust the written records of family trees (insofar as blood lineage is concerned).

                But perhaps I am too cynical, and perhaps the available records are accurate enough to still be of sufficient utility in genealogy research. I’m open to that. Just because I’m not into genealogy research does not mean I’m saying nobody else should be. We all have our interests and preferences.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. One of my grandmother’s (maternal line) sisters turned out to be her niece, even my mam didn’t know till after the aunt/cousin died.
                  There was a genealogy prog. on television a few years since, and an expert reckoned that ‘seamstress’ was an euphonism for ‘prostitute’ on census records, and incest was mentioned also, so tracing one’s forebears can be a genealogical minefield.

                  Like

                2. Yes, great we all have our interests and unique paths through this Maze of Maskedness surrounding us. And create content that stays**.

                  So you are not one of the too many conspies, New Normies, wombies, who suffer from the Transhumanist* behavioral problem that for me is completely illogical, especially for truth seekers, and in the instances I bring this up, I always hear the same;

                  it cannot be that you know more about the Rothschild (or Kardashian/Lannister, same thing) family than about your own family…

                  ‘…buh…but MY family is not important…

                  they got to you good boi/gal. Quit the con-ditioning and wake the heck up

                  there is no Transhumanist Age coming, we already passed it…

                  ** I am making my first MMM; mask mocking music, more soon!
                  HIVe-G and The Wuhan Wombies – Corona Coma

                  http://fakeologist.com/fakeopedia/index.php?title=HIVe-G_and_The_Wuhan_Wombies_-_Corona_Coma

                  Like

  6. Completely OT I’m afraid but does anyone have any advice on purchasing a reasonably priced accurate ( to 5G level ) EMF detector?
    Thankx in advance.

    Like

  7. I also found Fauxlex pretty tiresome. He deleted many of my comments and suggested I was trolling. Seems a lot of people have this idea that anyone who disagrees with them is a troll.
    As for MM I find his wiki researches a boring read with huge jumps of connection. As a Brit with Scottish ancestors my surname and those of my family would be huge red flags if I was in anyway rich or famous. The reason the PTB have OUR names is because they pinched and anglicised their own to hide THEIR origins. So that creates confusion for start. Never judge a man , or woman for that matter, solely by the name and loose connections . It’s simply not accurate and lazy detection work to boot .
    MM obviously does some great work ( as you yourself do ) but I really get nauseated by his sycophantic groupies ………………….not all of them…….but there is certainly a fan base who would agree with anything he said. You don’t get that on here which is great.

    Like

    1. “MM obviously does some great work ( as you yourself do ) but I really get nauseated by his sycophantic groupies ………………….not all of them…….but there is certainly a fan base who would agree with anything he said. You don’t get that on here which is great.”

      In essence, that’s the only substantial argument about his followers. Some of them are just not able to think on their own so they’re willing to parrot whatever, without cross checking it. But same can be said for a random group of any blog’s commenters – the ability to think critically is NOT a common virtue. It takes time and training to perfect it and even to begin using it, just like with any other talents we want to develop into a virtue.

      Btw, parroting without thinking has a special definition – to describe the use of flattery or other obsequious behaviour in order to gain favour. In short, it’s called ass kissing 🙂 It’s very present within the corporate world, almost to the point of epidemic proportions. Disgusting, but apparently so commonly human.

      Like

  8. “Miles Mathis’ lineage goes back to Charlemange and Charles Martel.”

    I have read very little by Miles Mathis. First one on Steve Jobs, which I liked because Jobs had struck me as a phoney shady person. Second one on Bill Gates, which I found unconvincing. Third and last one on the bombing of Dresden, which was rubbish.

    Does his lineage go back all the way to Charlemagne? While most people take the existence of king and kaiser Charlemagne for granted, it has been questioned since the mid-nineties by German researcher Heribert Illig as part of his larger claim that ~300 years have been inserted into our chronology (tentatively 614-911) by German-Roman emperor Otto III, pope Sylvester II and the Byzantine emperor to make the clock advance from 702 to 999 (pia fraus, for religious reasons). So roughly three past generations plus the present and future have been updated (yep), leaving three dark centuries, the Dark Ages, named such for a reason, which Charlemagne was inserted into by a later emperor, Friedrich Barbarossa (1155-90), who sought to corroborate his position in his power struggle with the pope by inventing a tradition upon which to base his claims.

    Note that Caius Iulius Caesar (hence the German word Kaiser = emperor) was PONTIFEX MAXIMUS (title of the pope) before he became IMPERATOR.

    Illig’s research is not lightweighed stuff. It is detailed and well argued, relying on archaeological, architectural and technological observations to unsettle what is claimed by the written record, i.e. the claims made in written form by the imperial and clerical authorities, where fake and fraud abound because they are driven the wealth and power interests of the institutions they represent.

    An important date in history that is also easy to remember is 10/10/1582. What happened that day? Nothing at all. The Sun didn’t even rise, at least not as far as the Gregorian calendar is concerned. Ten days were left out to readjust the calendar to astronomy such that equinox fell on March 21 and September 23. October 5 through October 14 didn’t happen in 1582, at least not in Rome. Readjustment was necessary to account for the error in the Caesarean calendar. But if you know the error (based on the divergence of the Caesarean year from the true solar year) and count the years back from Gregor to Caesar, you’ll find that 13 days would have had to be left out, not just ten.

    Invented time, that’s a deep concept, deep enough to easily accomodate a figure such as Charlemagne, a fictional king that has never existed. So what does it mean if you can trace back your lineage to him?

    Like

        1. The King John/Presidents story was around before this girl’s homework. Not sure why they rolled it out again in this fashion. The pics of the girl, her pinwheel graphs and the Ferris wheel don’t seem all that convincing.
          Bottom line is that I’d err on the side of a professional genealogist over a cut and paste 7th grader.
          I can only get my father’s line back to late 18th century Derry where our clan was then called Kahane, a variation on O’Kane. Of course, on paper ‘Kahane’ looks awful Jewish, don’t it?
          After the Wolfe Tone rebellion when the Kahane line was nearly wiped out, the survivors took McCloskey from another branch of the clan, the branch that included this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCloskey
          (Not very Jewish)
          My mother’s line is Swedish- Her maiden name is Bergman. (Here we go again!)

          Like

          1. Funny, I never questioned the 7th grader. Shame on me.

            My Grandfather lived “down the hill from Switzerland” in Austria. I have this in writing, but that is not proof – his school class rebelled against a bad ass teacher, tied him up and locked him in a closet. They were all of draft age, and that sealed their future. Somehow my great-grandmother smuggled him in to France on the back of a potato truck and he made his way to Ellis Island. From there he went to PA to work the coal mines, and then to Great Falls Montana, to work the Anaconda smelter and run a dairy farm. Circa 1935 or so, he hung himself, leaving a destitute family to fend for themselves. Suicide is very hard on those left behind.

            Anyway, the name “Tokarski” is in the Jewish registry, said to originate in the Tokar region of Ukraine. Many from the region immigrated to the US, usually landing in PA, like Grandpa. Dad’s family were all devout Catholics.

            Like

      1. Tyrone, this Mark Humphris whose website you linked to writes: “Charlemagne is the proven ancestor of everybody on this page.” And then follows a long list of kings, popes, dignitaries and other famous people.

        https://humphrysfamilytree.com/famous.thelist.html

        But what does it really mean? Nothing more than that Charlemagne is the mythological ancestor, the fictional forefather, which most if not all noble European bloodlines have been linked back to in one way or another.

        So Humphrys’ proof is no more than a shared claim to fame and name.

        There’s a lot of phantastic stories about Charlemagne and his incredible feats and unbelievable accomplishments, documented on parchemin. But there is no evidence he ever lived. There is just a handful of monuments ascribed to his rule and empire, and they’ve been shown by Heribert Illig to be of later or earlier origin; most important among which is the Aachen cathedral, Charlemagne’s main monument, the massive cupola of which, complete with iron armoring, cannot have been built before 1100 on architectural and technological grounds.

        Historiography has relied too much on written records, giving the doctored document the benefit of the doubt, as if back then people would not have been imaginative enough to fake and forge and falsify for their own benefit.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. I don’t care about Fauxlex, never liked adults who act like a 5 year old kid and persevere in doing so cos their ego is larger than life, but I don’t care about the Taos guy either.
    I consider him a fraud, and the final confirmation was his “paper” about Rudolf Steiner.

    As I said many times before, the guy only wants to divert his readers’ attention away from Freemasonry- that he mocks all the time- and its rituals and goals: everything that happens in this world is down to bankers and their greed.
    Yeah, right. People who create money with just a click on a computer, according to the guy can’t sleep at night thinking about new taxes to get more and more rich and leave the citizens high and dry.
    Where can I get my red pill, again?

    I bet that the majority of his readers are illiterate morons who don’t even know who Steiner was and what he really said about vaccines, for instance, over a century ago. That’s why they buy into all the BS he produces, physics included, cos as Barbara Muller often said, if your premises are false, your conclusions will be equally as false.

    If you try to disprove a law of physics basing on another false law of physics you’re not a misunderstood genius, just someone who’s trying to fool people, nothing else.

    His genealogy is of no importance whatsoever as it never is for anybody, and never was. Again, his apparent obsession with genealogy is just to divert his readers’ attention away from the fact that the families we all know about at this point have changed their surnames dozens of times, and despite a “certain” origin he tries to demonstrate they are not real Jews and never were in the first place.
    If he really knew history he wouldn’t talk about the Phoenicians and stuff like that, cos that’s BS big time.

    But again, all this doesn’t matter at all as he’s just a made up character, a front for a group of people who just want to create even more confusion in people who approach alternative information without being able to tell right from wrong, and end up falling into his/their traps.

    So, why wasting time with someone’s genealogy when it’s more than obvious at this point that his job is to stir up even more chaos and keep people away from the truth?

    Like

    1. “That’s why they [Mile’s readers] buy into all the BS he produces, physics included, cos as Barbara Muller often said, if your premises are false, your conclusions will be equally as false.”

      Müller is full of it sometimes. Especially when it comes to physics. Or blood transfusions 😉 I can prove this to you, it’d only require debating her shortly about i.e. the value of kinematic Pi and its meaning. So if you personally lack the ability to approach physics as much as any other science, maybe you ought to resort to some other source of criticism before you accept Müller as any kind of authority. Just because she can’t stand Miles doesn’t make her argument come across as right or correct. Especially when it comes to physics, I repeat. Agreeing with her while she uses a false premise to build her criticism around a specific subject makes you the same kind of parrot you’re criticizing here yourself. What I see here on display is your own bias and subjectiveness, probably coming from your own inability to grasp physics on a higher level.

      “…law of physics basing on another false law of physics …”

      What in the world are you talking about? Why not be specific? What’ s the purpose of seeding doubt without properly explaining it? You know the answer as much as I do.

      The rest of your comment doesn’t make much sense and/or give any substance. Hear-say, at best.

      Like

    2. “If he [Miles] really knew history he wouldn’t talk about the Phoenicians and stuff like that, cos that’s BS big time.”

      Oh, that old chestnut….

      Just for the record and for all possible new readers here – the link to Phoenicians was researched and proven by Gerry, a guest writer at Miles’ blog. This link was confirmed by linguistic research, going into details of now archaic languages and words used to describe events and people of the past. This analysis and knowledge of archaic languange(s) is what makes basis of Gerry’s premise – that the apparent ownership and control of this world and its affairs is NOT a recent chain of events, but goes way back in time and can be undisputably connected to Phoenician civilisation, aka “The Sea Peoples”.

      Like

      1. What we are dealing with is Talmudism. That’s where Zionism started about 2500 years ago. The Talmud is developed by the pharisees, A subversive group within Jewish society. Most modern day Jews are descendants of converts to Talmudism/Judaism and have little or nothing to do with old testament Jews. That’s basically where Gerry’s theory that Jews are an invention of the Phoenicians to hide their true identity goes of the rails. It is known that these pharisees traveled the world to convert people to their newly invented religion. Is very likely they hitchhiked on the boats of merchants from Tyre, Sydon, Byblos etc. we now call the Phoenicians, more a confederation than a people.
        The Talmud is presented as if it were based on the Torah but is in reality based on Chaldean magic, philosophy and law that the pharisees encountered during the Jewish exile in Babylon. Its full name is the Babylonian Talmud. The Jewish exile started 597 BC. The plan to dominate the world is that old and its not a chain of events but very well coordinated and planned.

        Like

        1. The plan to dominate the world is 12000 years old, it started soon after the great glaciation that took place around 9660 BC.

          The survivors split into the sea people who thought about conquering new land where to settle down and build cities, and secret societes that tried to carry on very ancient astronomic knowledges about the Moon, Venus, Saturn and how the great collision between Mars and Saturn had led to the Earth catastrophes and the birth of Venus and the Moon.
          Their rituals to this day are to avoid great catastrophes by sacrifying people and animals to their gods. It’s all about astronomical knowledges (and Maya, Incas, Hopi, Q’ero know this very well) hidden by esoteric stuff because they want the total control of the world population, which seems to have been accomplished but we are proof they haven’t succeeded yet, nor they ever will.

          Jericho is the most ancient city ever built, but archeological works and diggings in the area have brought no proof whatsoever of all the things written in the Bible.
          History is a lie, religions are lies, like everything else.

          Gaiasphere mentioned Anatolij Fomenko, whose books I advice you all to read, and you’ll realise history as we know it is just BS.
          Cristianity is a Middle Age invention by the guys XS talked about who needed a new religion to control the western world, the Roman and the Greek civilizations existed from about 800 AD to 1200 AD and never created all the philosophers we know today, they’re a creation from the Renaissance finest minds.
          To me the Coluseum has never been credible as a 3000 years construction, in fact it isn’t.

          About physics: Newton, Galileo, Einstein, all BS. Tesla is the only one who really understood that there is no gravity but magnetism, the universe is electric and free energy is the ultimate evolution for mankind.

          Like

          1. Why would leaders of the Catholic church make history fit the biblical account, it’s a judean/pagan institute under a veil of biblical themes. It’s not a bible based religion.

            Fomenko’s reasoning starts with the assumption the star that guided the wise to Bethlehem to warn Josef and Mary was a celestial event. And that’s all it is, a (baseless) assumption. How can you build a whole theory of history on that?

            Quote from reddit:

            “Whatever incentives European powers had to go along with the historical falsification, non-European powers like China, Mali, or Japan have no incentive to lie about their own history. And other non-European powers like the Maya or the Inca had no contact with Europe and won’t be aware anyone even wanted a falsified history.”

            So because there was no evidence found around Jericho there isn’t evidence found anywhere? A lot of different cultures corroborate a lot of the biblical account of the history of the Jewish people.

            And how is it possible to fake all the historical whitings of all those cultures in all those ever changing languages that are found all over the world?

            Quote from allthatsinteresting.com:

            “Fomenko’s ideas haven’t even received enough attention to warrant much rebuttal from the scientific community. Perhaps it’s not worth refuting a theory that so obviously flies in the face of mountains of archaeological evidence, written records, carbon-dated artifacts, and on and on.”

            Quote from Fomenko:

            “The issue of just how faithfully documented history reflects real events is very complex and requires a special study.”

            That also applies to the history according to Fomenko

            Like

            1. So if Fomenko (who didn’t start the whole study on this stuff, btw, he’s carrying on studies other scientists began long before him) was american or British, that would make him more reliable?

              Give me a break, XS.

              And yes, it’s all about astronomical events, whether you like it or not.
              The Book of Revelation itself contains astronomical codes and equations about the next catastrophes that will hit this planet, nothing to do with Jesus coming back I’m afraid.

              Again, all religions are made up and their purpose has always been to control people’s minds and lives and enclave them. End of story, time to grow up and break free.

              Like

              1. Religion has nothing to do with it. There is no such thing as a bible based religion. The bible is not a religious book! Like I said before: Christianity is a Judo/pagan institute under a veil of biblical themes. If you do not understand that in reality the Bible has noting to do with Christianity you will never see both in the right perspective.

                You seem to think I am religious or a Christian or something. That’s a product of indoctrination. Are you sure I am the one that needs to break free?

                I am very much under the impression you have begun reading (about) the bible from the perspective of someone else’s explanation. How does that differ from religion? That’s the very best way to never understand what the bible is about. If you really want to know you have to study it yourself.

                Like

                1. I’ve long been curious that Jesus died a3t age 33, just like Karen Carpenter and other rock stars. This suggests to me that the overlords have powers going back to prehistoric times, perhaps surviving Velikovsky’s recordings of Earth’s encounters with comets, and old-fashioned form of reboot. Another possibility is that the Jesus story was inserted in the narrative, perhaps in and around the Dark Ages, and that with passage of generations it became cermented as real history.

                  https://pieceofmindful.com/2020/04/01/jesus-faked-his-death-and-is-twins/

                  Like

                  1. Almost every book of the Old Testament looks ahead to the coming of the Messiah. Also the priestly service and sacrifices in the tabernacle and temple symbolizes the last priest to make the last atonement sacrifice, himself. In Christianity, noise has been created around this by portraying the messiah as God himself and emphasizing his suffering but not his death and resurrection.

                    The story of the first sin and the plan for atonement and its eventual implementation run like a thread through all the books of the Bible. The story of Jesus is central to this. I would be surprised if that was added later

                    Of all those famous names who died at the age of thirty-three, Jesus was the first. I have regularly wondered whether that is where the 33 degree system of the Scottish rite comes from. It was thanks to the Pharisees that Jesus finally got nailed to the cross. They have worked tirelessly for this and they experienced it as a victory. Those are the same Pharisees who developed the Talmud and Zionism which eventually led to Freemasonry and the like.

                    Don’t get me wrong, I am not religious and I am not talking about what I believe but what I have understood of the bible so far by studying this collection of books. I think that’s the only way to really understand what the bible is about regardless of whether you believe in the message and the stories.

                    Like

                2. So basically we’re saying the same thing about Christianity XS, what are we talking about then?
                  I agree with you 100%.

                  @Mark

                  The male body has 33 ribs.
                  Just an example.
                  As far as I know it’s got to do with the universe yes, and the cosmic resonance of the whole creation.
                  All religions have the number 33 inserted somewhere in their books, it’s related to very ancient astronomical knowledges.
                  They also say that when we reach age 33 we leave behind the level of awareness our previous incarnation had and start building our own.
                  In fact it’s pretty rare to find someone who woke up to the truth about the Matrix before age 30-35 if you think about it.

                  Like

                  1. No we are not. What I am talking about is that explaining isolated parts of the Bible to fit your own narrative is what Velikovsky, Christian religion and MM’s guest writer Gerry have in common.

                    Like

                    1. You can’t take the Bible as a whole I’m afraid, cos it’s a mix of notions, hidden codes and whatnot.
                      As an example, in the Genesis, the tree of knowledge vs. the tree of life Adam and Eve have to choose between in order to stay in the Eden garden is pure shamanic knowledge, nothing to do with Zionism and the such, sorry.

                      Judaism-Zionism was born when Akenhaton and his loyal high priests flew to Palestine from Egypt, arrived in the Jerusalem area and settled down there, thinking that those lands would be the right location to start the new monotheistic religion among the many tribes they found there.
                      It’s always about control, nothing more.

                      Zionism is just another illusion with which they keep people chained to the Matrix.

                      Jesus never existed, it’s just a character added later on in Rome, where high priests from the original Akenhaton’s entourage lived and had their own business at the time. They needed a new religion to destroy the Roman Empire, that was never as big and as powerful as we’ve been told but big enough to be an obstacle to their european unification plan.

                      So they came up with the New Testaments and the Book of Revelation.
                      We’re talking about 12th-13th century here.

                      History as we know it is pure bollocks.

                      Like

                    2. ANNA
                      For some reason it is not possible to respond directly to your comment. I will respond to mine so that my response is directly below yours.

                      Nowhere in the Bible do Adam and Eve have to make a choice between the tree of knowledge and the tree of life in order to remain in paradise. In fact, the message was that if they ate the fruit of one of those two trees, they would be denied access to paradise.

                      This is indicative of your lack of substantive knowledge of this collection of books. I have noted before that you do not get to know the Bible by keeping yourself busy with the explanations of someone else, then you might as well go to church.

                      The books of the Bible tell a story with a head and a tail. It is certainly not a random collection. The question is who has an interest in presenting the Bible in this way, chatter the story line from Genesis to Revelation and obscure the message as Christianity does.

                      For someone who is familiar with the content of the Bible and not only with what someone else claims about it, the stories you recite about it are immediately recognizable as fabrications, they cannot be reconciled in any way with the content of these books.

                      I have said before that if you want to know the Bible, you will have to study it.

                      There is no need to say “I am afraid” or “sorry” in your comments. there is nothing to be sorry about.

                      Like

                    3. XS,

                      Eating from one tree or another or NOT eating at all with different consequences is STILL a choice.
                      If you don’t get that, too bad.
                      And trying to split hair in two won’t make your assumptions more credible or definitive.

                      Feel free to believe whatever you like, anyways.

                      Like

                    4. It’s a totally different choice and a totally different story. Believe has got noting to do with it. My comment was on your lack of factual knowledge of the first few pages of a book you claim you can explain but clearly never really read.

                      Most of the Old Testament is the history of a people. How is that a mix of notions like you claim?

                      And where do I make assumptions? If there is one book I rather stay factual about, it’s the Bible.

                      Like

      2. “This link was confirmed by linguistic research, going into details of now archaic languages and words used to describe events and people of the past. This analysis and knowledge of archaic languange(s) is what makes basis of Gerry’s premise – that the apparent ownership and control of this world and its affairs is NOT a recent chain of events“

        I have the impression that Gerry’s point is that the Jews are a fabrication of the Phoenicians. That is also what MM, who previously emphasized the Jewish descent of the elite and most of the great names of this world, has since continued to endorse in what he has since written.
        Gerry tries to make his point not only with ‘linguistic research’ but with baseless assumptions about hidden meanings of snippets of bible stories that, according to him, are mend only to be understood by spooks. This is how he tries to proof ‘spookery’ is as old as the Bible which, again according to him, was written by the Phoenicians. This is how he diverts attention from the real origins of Zionism and trashes the Bible while he’s ad it. This all fits very well in the plans of the NWO.

        Like

        1. “Gerry tries to make his point not only with ‘linguistic research’ but with baseless assumptions about hidden meanings of snippets of bible stories that, according to him, are mend only to be understood by spooks.”

          Baseless assumptions? Like….? There’s nothing assumed in showing words have multiple meanings and then using these alternative meanings to re-interpret a certain text, i.e. the Bible. This by itself is a very important find or realization. Knowing what we know about this world and how things get done, it’s really only a matter of WHEN these overlords became the (not so) hidden rulers. The notion that they’re around and real is undisputable. It’s the same notion just some time earlier, which proved Sitchin was nothing more than an impostor in the world of linguistics and historical science.

          So you’re saying there’s no spook signaling? No hidden hand shakes? Symbols or numbers? Nothing at all? Your attempt at showing it is totally unimpressive and I could prove you wrong in matter of minutes. What is factually impressive is for instance the use of double headed phoenix and other symbols throughout history or certain numbers being repeated whenever fakery is detected, etc. So before dismissing Gerry findings, you need to work on your antithesis so it will make at least some sense in light of factual findings.

          “This is how he (Gerry) diverts attention from the real origins of Zionism…”

          The real origins of Zionism? So you want me to believe Zionists were around, spooking this world even before Phoenicians? Or are you trying to say Zionists were/are running in parallel with Phoenies? The timeline is essesential here, and for now I will stick with what fits provable fact check – the age of Phoeny cities and colonies around Mediterranean sea is older than any idea of Zionism. Also, if you accept the fact that Phoenies never went away or were defeated, there is no real need for Zionists in order to explain the bloody history of humankind. Or presence of overlords, for the same matter. Right? So, looking from this tangent, Zionists are actually a diversion from discovering an older, more ancient form of our overlords. Impossible? Not at all, in fact, rather expected and predictable.

          Like

          1. “Zionists are actually a diversion from discovering an older, more ancient form of our overlords.”

            So that is why the vast majority of (((them))) are jews supporting the Nazionist State?

            Makes sense!

            Any evidence of “Phoenicians” directing those “poor innocent jews” puke or crickets?

            Like

            1. Yes, exactly, just think about it – you blame the Zionists and even all jews as some crazy mofos, while the real bosses only appear as jewish. Btw, have you ever considered Zionists are possibly supporting the goals of superior bosses, i.e. Phoenies, without realizing they were/ are being conned just like 99.9999% of all people all the time?

              Like

              1. “you blame the Zionists and even all jews as some crazy mofos”

                really? Where did I address ALL jews?

                You do know my own grandpa was jewish? His parents found their fate in Soapibor.

                It is not Zionism either, that is a modern invention. It is Jewism, the mental disorder they are a “chosen people” having “the right” to rule other humans as goyim; livestock, cattle.

                I absolutely believe we don’t get the full picture and the Hidden Hand (essential book to understand the depth of jewish trickery in history) stays in the shadows, but inventing out of some speculative ass there is a whole group of “overlords” who are Arabic/Levantine in ethnicity but not jewish, oh no.

                What makes more sense; hidden jews steering overt jews or some mysterious never seen group who suddenly is not jewish but loves to do business with powerful jews?

                Gerry’s paper breathes “don’t look here, look there, into the abyss of my fantasies”. I don’t doubt the guy is a talented linguistic, but not very (psycho)logical or rooted in what we observe in the world.

                Like

                1. Adding to it; if you are wondering why we are bombarded with “racism” BS since the 1930s, I’d take a look at who is behind it; the most “racist” (ethnicist is that a word? now it is) tribe of tricksters in history.

                  Jews who have unlearned this mental disorder are no problem. It is the ones who take pride in their ethnicity OVER others, which is the problem; Jewism; Schwabbers.

                  Nice hasbara trick you pulled by the way. You didn’t use “the A-word” (the “H-word” instead), but the shekels are flashing between the lines….

                  Like

          2. An example of an unfounded assumption is that when Samson gets his hair cut it means that he gets a new assignment.
            There is no proof the words “phoenix” and “Phoenicia” are cognate, That’s still an ongoing discussion. Again, an assumption.

            Words having multiple meanings is a very common thing in language, How is that a sign of spookery? You know their meaning by the context. Gerry pulls some fragments out of a very big (66 books by 40 authors) context and starts freewheeling.

            It is common knowledge that the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are also numbers. Again, not a sign of spookery. The Kabbalah is an invention of the Pharisees who used it to not find but give a deeper (read different) meaning to the text of the old testament, just like Gerry.

            “Knowing what we know about this world and how things get done, it’s really only a matter of WHEN these overlords became the (not so) hidden rulers. The notion that they’re around and real is undisputable.”

            If there is one thing I do not dispute it’s the existence of overlords, I basically told you where it all started and who they are. They got their inspiration in Babylon that left the nations they conquered intact and put their own people in key places. I guess that’s where they got there inspiration to maneuver themselves in to places of influence. They’ve been doing that since the Roman empire.

            “Your attempt at showing it is totally unimpressive”

            I’m not trying to impress anyone

            “and I could prove you wrong in matter of minutes.”

            Then why don’t you?

            “What is factually impressive is for instance the use of double headed phoenix”

            Again, that’s disputable not a fact.

            “and other symbols throughout history or certain numbers being repeated whenever fakery is detected”

            Fakery in the Bible is not detected by Gerry but assumed (baselessly)

            “So before dismissing Gerry findings, you need to work on your antithesis so it will make at least some sense in light of factual findings.”

            What factual findings? All I see is assumptions…

            “So you want me to believe Zionists were around, spooking this world even before Phoenicians? Or are you trying to say Zionists were/are running in parallel with Phoenies?”

            Where did you get the notion that I would have claimed that there were already Zionists before the Phoenicians or they were/are running in parallel with Phoenies? I said they probably hitched boat rides with them. That’s basically the opposite…
            What we call Phoenicians today are Canaanites, They lived in that region long before the Hebrew people lived there.

            “Also, if you accept the fact that Phoenies never went away or were defeated, there is no real need for Zionists in order to explain the bloody history of humankind.”

            I don’t accept the fact that the Phoenies never went away, what makes you think I do? And how is that a fact, looks to me it’s just another assumption. And who needs Zionists to explain the bloody history of humankind. I think humankind is explanation enough. You seem to get me wrong a lot, are you that eager to defend Gerry?

            “Zionists are actually a diversion from discovering an older, more ancient form of our overlords.”

            Actually? Sounds like a baseless assumption to me….

            Sitchin was indeed nothing more than an impostor in the world of linguistics and historical science. On that we agree.

            Like

            1. You do acknowledge the overlords, but want to convince me that Gerry’s or my own bias is unsupported. The patterns exist by which we can trace them, symbols and words are some of them. But you want to convince me this continuity is what, a coincidence? Their MO further reveals they experience some kind of mental orgasm by using certain numbers and/or choosing those same numbers as dates by which faked events appear in reality. But it doesn’t matter, because you disregard it with an assumption of some deeper (read different) meaning. These people keep on using a Phoenix or a rampant lion as symbols, and were using them before any Zionists appeared. But you want to make me believe Phoenies were hijacked by Zionists and just disappeared from their position of power after owning almost entire Mediterranean area and population? Right.

              You’re trying to dismiss undisputable facts, such as historical patterns, and disregard the context of spookery as an assumption inspite ackonwledging the overlords. I think you’re experiencing some serious cognitive dissonance here.

              Like

              1. I am not trying to convince anyone, I just think that Gerry’s theory about spookery in the bible doesn’t hold water.

                “The patterns exist by which we can trace them, symbols and words are some of them. But you want to convince me this continuity is what, a coincidence?”

                Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? When exactly did I try to convince you these patterns are a coincidence? The are not, I know them very well and take them very serious. But the way Gerry try’s to prove these patterns can be found in some tiny parts of a very big book to then jump to the conclusion Jews and the bible are made up by the Phoenicians seems more than a little forced to me.

                “Their MO further reveals they experience some kind of mental orgasm by using certain numbers and/or choosing those same numbers as dates by which faked events appear in reality. But it doesn’t matter, because you disregard it with an assumption of some deeper (read different) meaning.”

                And once more you are putting words in my mouth. When did I say these numbers and dates don’t matter. Stop generalizing my opinion about Gerry’s theory. These numbers and dates matter very much. I everything but disregard them. And what assumption of some deeper/different meaning are you talking about? I never said anything remotely close to that….

                “These people keep on using a Phoenix or a rampant lion as symbols, and were using them before any Zionists appeared.”

                True, the Talmud and Zionism are based on Chaldean magic and philosophy. The Chaldean culture is way older than Zionism. Zionist are parasites that have not much to offer themselves.

                “But you want to make me believe Phoenies were hijacked by Zionists and just disappeared from their position of power after owning almost entire Mediterranean area and population?”

                And again you put words in my mouth. This is getting very old very fast. Stop doing that if you appreciate the conversation. I am not trying to make anyone believe anything. I think, like I said, that there is a big possibility it happened. It’s their MO. They have done that many times, that’s why they control the world…

                “You’re trying to dismiss undisputable facts, such as historical patterns, and disregard the context of spookery as an assumption inspite ackonwledging the overlords. I think you’re experiencing some serious cognitive dissonance here.”

                And again you put words in my mouth. I do not dismiss indisputable facts, I just don’t see Indisputable facts in Gerry’s theory.
                I disregard the context of spookery as an assumption in Gerry’s theory. Why do you keep generalizing that? Stick to the subject at hand and do not deviate from what I have actually said. You are the one creating dissonance.

                Like

                1. I’m not generalizing, just repeating the way I understood your points. We’re debating a theory and have differing opinions. I find your arguments countering Gerry’s findings weak and unsupported.

                  Like here: “But the way Gerry try’s to prove these patterns can be found in some tiny parts of a very big book to then jump to the conclusion Jews and the bible are made up by the Phoenicians seems more than a little forced to me.”

                  The fact these snippets are factually there, is a huge red flag. Even if it was just one such case, but there are tens of these cases. And the work of combing through the Bible is not nearly finished. Also, the above quote is only your opinion, not a matter of fact, which you insist Gerry lacks in his method. So how does that make your statement different than Gerry’s? It doesn’t. But the weight of circumstantial evidence from the modern era is suggesting our overlords keep clinging to the same MO – from the moment they made themselves the kings of this world. By following their pattern, we can trace them. And here’s where our opinions start to differ – you believe there’s no continuity connecting Phoenies to the modern day, and think Phoenies were possibly taken over by Zionists. And I don’t, as there’s no indication suggesting Phoenies had to step down from their extreme position of power.

                  Just to clarify – I’m not trying to suggest jewish influence is non existent. I’m very suspicious of certain Jews, whether they are true or Phoeny – makes no difference to me. I’m also not trying to convince you that your thesis is wrong, just weak in its argument suggesting one extremely powerful (and cunning?) group of people (Phoenicians) had to step down, or was taken over by another group (Zionists).

                  Since we both ackonwledge the overlords, don’t you think there’s huge possibility that kn9wn group of overlords comes even further down from history than what we believed so far? I personally believe it’s very likely and I think jewish religion, nation and people do resemble some of the old Phoeny traits, which is not by coincidence, but by design. Which then implies an idea that jewishness is a perfect camouflage to become hidden in plain sight. A perfect cover, even if anyone was catching up, they would be misguided and led astray from being able to pinpoint the root of the evil. Makes some sense, doesn’t it?

                  Like

                  1. It is a fact that Jewishness is a camouflage, but the Talmud is traceable to a subversive group within the Old Testament Jewish community. This group, the Pharisees, did not themselves adhere to the religion they preach but used Talmudism as a front for a political undertaking and they still do.

                    The Talmud and with that Talmudism / Judaism are based on Chaldean (money) magic and Babylonian regulations on trade and property and are at odds with the legislation for the Jews as you encounter it in the Old Testament. For example: Old Testament Jews were not allowed to charge interest on loans and every seven years all debts were canceled so that everyone could start with a clean slate.

                    There is no connection between contemporary Judaism and the Jewish regulations of the Old Testament. That is how Talmudism is sold to us, but that is not how it is. When a Talmudist talks about the Torah, which normally refers to the first five books of the Bible, he is talking about Torah SheBea’al Peh, i.e. the Talmud and other rabbinic sacred texts. Jewishness is a cover for Talmudists.

                    Since we are not dealing here with Old Testament Jews, it seems unlikely that the writers of the Old Testament, whoever they were, have anything to do with today’s Jews.

                    It is a well-known MO of Jews to take over powerful groups and empires by maneuvering themselves into key positions, that is how they conquered the whole world. Why does that seem so unlikely to you?

                    I even doubt whether the Phoenicians were really a group or if they were just merchants from a group of adjacent port cities using the same trade routes.

                    “The fact these snippets are factually there, is a huge red flag.”
                    Are these snippets really there or is Gerry reading something in to it? I think you can comb any book to find examples of spookery in it if you really want to.

                    Like

                  2. MINIME, I really hope you will read this

                    Gerry has his own site. It contains, among other things, a reread of the first verses of the bible in which he claims to proof spooky puns are being used.

                    This is what his explanation of this section says:

                    • Possible pun meaning is on light red at the top, with pun vocabulary is just below.
                    • Original Hebrew text is in the center.
                    • Official meaning is on light green at the bottom, with official vocabulary just above.

                    Why do the original Hebrew text and the official vocabulary on which the puns are based differ? Shouldn’t these puns be based on the original Hebrew text to prove something? Isn’t the original Hebrew text the official vocabulary?

                    I will limit myself to the first three points that Gerry makes:

                    “The story starts with God, but the used Hebrew word is Elohim, which also means “the rulers”, in plural. For a creation story, this word choice is odd, but for puns about secret rulership, it’s perfect.”

                    Elohim does not mean rulers. There is not one single site or Hebrew dictionary that confirms this. And how is this word choice odd? According to the Bible God first created his sons, the Elohim, and together they created heaven and earth. Elohim is both singular and plural for God. In this verse Elohim means God and his sons, who are also gods. (The Bible is henoteistic not monotheistic. Christianity claims to be bible based and monotheistic but is pantheistic with a whole pantheon of worshipable saints…)

                    “Many contradictions in the Genesis creation story have to do with water. The story is very basic, and water is a simple thing, so there’s no way the authors couldn’t get that straight.”

                    Where are these ‘many’ contradictions? What is the contradiction in the one example Gerry gives? With what does it contradict? Gerry’s own explanation:

                    “The literal meaning of Genesis 1:1 says that God only created heaven & earth. Then in Genesis 1:2, God’s soul suddenly floats over the face of the “waters”. Where does the water come from?”

                    When we speak of “the earth” we speak of a planet with everything on it including the water, not just the soil. Why would that suddenly be any different in the Bible? What is it the authors didn’t get straight?

                    “The explanation, as usual, is a pun: “water” is homonymous with “people”, in singular & plural. The singulars are ים ym yam vs. עם ˁm am. The plurals are מים mym mayim vs. עמים ˁmym amim.”

                    Gerry’s ים for water (singular) means ocean. His עם for people really means ‘with’. His מים for waters (plural) means water as well as waters, it’s both plural and singular. עמים does mean peoples but is in no way homonymous with (the both singular and plural) מים (mym mayim vs. ˁmym).

                    The preface and warning of this section say:
                    “This is a nasty piece of work by the ancient spooks. However, I don’t want to offend any religious folks. Also, this is not intended to single out Judaism. The scriptures of other religions likely aren’t very different. If you’re religious, please think twice before reading this.”
                    The Bible is not a religious book! Christianity is not a Bible based religion or Abrahamic but a Talmudic/Judaic/Jewish deception, just like Islam. Why does Gerry turn this around and make a Phoenician deception of the Bible and the real existence of the Old Testament Jewish people a lie, when the Jews of today who try to dominate the world are not descendants of them?

                    This is what Gerry has to say about the word Phoenician:

                    “From the Greek spellings Phoinix & “Phoinikes”, we can infer that a Semitic spelling could have been pn-nks. This spelling pn-nks does have the meanings “exchange of wealth” & “exchange of accounts”.”

                    Semitic is not a language but a language group. How can there be one spelling in so many different languages?

                    The only translation of nks I could find was in “A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages”. It means slaughter. If I google pn-nks in combination with Semitic, Phoenician, Canaanite or Hebrew it comes up with noting but Gerry’s site or nothing at all.
                    If pn-nks does have the meanings “exchange of wealth” & “exchange of accounts” then how does this word refer to a people?

                    All Gerry does is juggle words, hoping the reader will not verify anything.

                    Like

          3. The idea that the Pharisees have deviously taken over the Phoenician trade routes seems much more plausible to me given the way we know Zionists operate.

            Like

      3. Anyone want to give odds that MiniMe is Miles in a mustache and glasses? (Asking for an imaginary friend) Help yourself to the buffet “MM”. Now that Faulex has left the building, its just us grown ups.

        Like

  10. “” the apparent ownership and control of this world and its affairs is NOT a recent chain of events, but goes way back in time and can be undisputably connected to Phoenician civilisation, aka “The Sea Peoples”. “”

    I’m not an expert of the Bronze and Iron Age transition, but nothing I’ve ever heard or read about the so-called Sea-Peoples suggests that there is even a semblance of a base of evidence conducive to establish who they actually were. It is precisely the near-total lack of evidence that makes it possible to have so many hypotheses regarding the Sea Peoples. So saying something goes back in time to the Sea Peoples, even with undisputable connection, is like saying it goes back to Charlemagne, King Arthur, or Atlantis.

    Like

    1. The seafaring trading company referred to in history as the Phoenicians but who did not know themselves by that name or even one denominator built several cities along their trade route and were known for the purple dye they produced. How is that not proof of their existence?

      Like

      1. I didn’t dispute the existence of the Sea Peoples, let alone the Phoenicians. I said the identity of the Sea Peoples is unknown, inviting lots of hypotheses which all lack evidence, and allowing the hypothesis that they did not exist which accounts for the lack of evidence.

        The Sea Peoples are depicted as bellicose raiders, whose provenance is unknown. The Phoenicians are known as navigators and merchants. The supposition that they were one and the same must be backed up by evidence. And there is none.

        Like

        1. Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you went along with the sea peoples being the Phoenicians to then deny their existence. My bad.

          Like

  11. Poor fake rolex… seems like he got all discouraged and is heading the same way Straight took a while ago… And you guys… come on, still living in the past… talking about that passé project of the fake Taosman. #COYS!!

    Like

  12. XS- I’m intrigued by your claim that Zionism arose out of Babylon, and Chaldean magic. I’m not expert in any of those topics, certainly not the latter two – what sources / individuals do you recommend to learn more about them? What general trail led you to them in the first place?

    Leonard Cohen has a couple songs about Babylon, with lyrics far too esoteric for me to decipher..

    Like

    1. TIMR
      There is one more step between Babylon and Zionism. The Talmud, Zohar and Kabbalah are based on Chaldean magic and Babylonian law and form the basis of Judaism/Talmudism and that is where Zionism originated.

      A group within Israelite society known as the Pharisees began to try to maneuver themselves into a position of power by claiming that in addition to the written law for the people of Israel (which is what the Old Testament law is: a constitution for the Jews) is an oral law that would deepen the original legislation that only they knew.

      After being deported to Babylon in exile, they took inspiration from Babylonian law to shape this adjusted law adding the idea that they are God’s chosen people and thus have the right to rule the world. That is how the Babylonian Talmud came to be.

      I think a good read on this subject is this paper:
      https://www.biblebelievers.org.au/babelaw.htm
      (This paper at one point talks about Pharisee Puppet drones. I think it is more likely that these Pharisee would have settled themselves in very influential positions like those of counselors)

      You don’t have to be a bible believer to benefit from this information.

      About the general trail that led me to them:

      When I began to understand that Christianity is not based on the Bible and that the Bible is not a religious book, I started to get interested in what this collection of books is about.

      I have increasingly come to see how today’s world is a reflection of how it developed from biblical history and I think I have come to understand why the rulers of this world are trying to discredit this book as a work of history or try to overshadow it with the widest theories of it’s meaning or with religious hierarchies.

      Like

      1. Thanks, I’ll look at that paper. All very interesting. General discussion reminds me of a book I happened to find on a free bookshelf once – Michael Hoffman’s tome on Judaism. I’ve only read a few sections, but IIRC he covered Babylon, priestly intrigue, all sorts of things. My problem is I don’t have a good general foundation in the subject, to read such idiosyncratic theories. So many competing perspectives on religion and history out there, I always feel like I’m at the base of a large mountain and can only walk around it viewing from different angles, never make much progress towards the summit, ha.

        Like

  13. It doesn’t bother you, Mark, that Miles and Josh have repeatedly accused you of being a CIA agent, or some nefarious actor? I find POM a relief from other sites, especially CTTF. The discussions here are rational and civil and you seem to allow people to post their views freely without a bias and a filter. CTTF is not like that all. Josh Guetzkow is as spooky as the come: https://en.law.huji.ac.il/people/joshua-guetzkow. I’ve been testing him by writing comments anonymously to see what he’ll allow at his blog. Usually it’s very little that doesn’t explicitly or implicitly support the Mathis narrative. Try it yourself using TOR. I find it deeply troubling that Josh selectively filters comments at his blog. Of course he has every right to do that, but it signals something deeply suspicious when he accepts comments that only push the Mathis ideology. Any comment which questions or challenges any aspect of that ideology will not be published by Josh. I’ve also read the old thread at CF which determines rather convincingly–after long debate with many points of view–that Daddieoh, aka Josh Guetzkow, is a nefarious actor part of a high-level Intelligence program meant to direct our conversations and our logical thought process. He’s a UC Berkeley and Princeton graduate who studied Sociology and Cognitive Science. He lists his fields of interests as: Criminal justice and social policy; culture and policymaking; social control; law and society; sociology of knowledge; mental health. If that doesn’t raise glaring red flags, I don’t know what will. The ferocity with which they have attacked you, Simon Shack & Company, as well any and all dissenters or skeptics is deeply, deeply troubling. I know Allan Weisbecker is as spooky as they come. However, he did expose a rather subtle flaw in the Mathis project, one which I do not believe should be dismissed as some idiosyncratic style of writing, as Josh and Miles so vehemently defended. Nope, it is sloppy committee work. I’m speaking of the extremely subtle Anglicisms found within the scope of Mile’s opus. That indicates that the Miles Mathis group occupy an extremely low rank and might possibly be interns in a revolving door operation. I do not believe they are CIA. The Anglicisms clearly indicate SIS, but Josh’s location and profession indicate Mossad or Shabak. They are not here to spread disinformation. I believe they are here to gatekeep, but in a very subtle manner: by leading the discussion in a fluid and consistent way. It’s ironic that Miles and Josh started to appear in the post-Sandy-Hook and post-Boston-Marathon aftermath, especially Miles. I think damage control was put on the scene because those events were so deeply flawed with such glaring and obvious anomalies that any third-rate hack conspiracy theorist could’ve sniffed out the ruse in under five or six hours of research using Youtube and Google. I also find it odd that Josh and Jared can be found heavily touting Mathis everywhere you turn, including here at one time, when one researches any critics of him. Josh is especially vehement in his support of Mathis’ outlandish PI theory early on in Miles’ first appearance on the scene. He adamantly defends across a wide spectrum of blogs, chatroooms, and discussion threads. He attempted to derail an entire thread over at CF in defense of this Mathis persona. It’s odd too that Miles would not respond to CF’s blatant accusatory rhetoric. He vehemently defends his honor everywhere else. So things just don’t really add up with Miles’ persona and his papers have become boring and repetitious. Perhaps that’s why he’s now reduced to such pathetic self-adulation with Josh and CTTF as his guardian against any and all critics and inquiries of legitimacy.

    Like

    1. Regarding me personally, I don’t feel any sting. Mathis knows me but publicly said I was MI5 or something like that. He knows better. Josh used to be a writer here, and we never really crossed swords except perhaps my treatment of a writer I unceremoniously dumped, named Vexman. It was not my finest hour, that is, it needed to be done but with a little more grace.

      I accept Mathis and his work at face value, and take what is good, leave the rest. I never go to CTTF and rarely to CF. I want to maintain civil relations with Mathis because a few years ago we published what amounted to a personal attack on him, which was when CTTF took off in earnest in defense of him. I get that Josh’s defense of Mathis is servile, almost undignified, but he has his reasons no doubt. He’s not a fool. Anyway, I have decided not to be critical Mathis in any way, but any and all commenters are free to express such views. And no, he and I are not and never will be buddies. I don’t seek that. I just want to behave better than I have.

      I emailed Mathis in the near past and told him that in publishing the article we did, that we crossed a line that could not be uncrossed. I also told him the article is removed from view.

      Whatever he is, whatever they are, I take what is good, leave the rest. Mathis relieved me of angst and tension over the deaths of JFK and John Lennon, in essence, set me free. I am grateful for that.

      I appreciate your thoughts and hope you continue to post them here.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s