You be the judge …

This piece,, sent this morning by Tyrone McCloskey, is a fun thing to read. Noel Joshua Hadley is the writer, and he hits all the high points, missing some subtleties.

  • He knows that Paul McCartney did not die in 1965, but then goes off into Billy Shears, obvious misdirection from there being two Pauls actively working in the early days, twins.
  • He knows that John Lennon faked his death, but thinks that Mark Staycer in the movie Let Him Be was John. Rather, Staycer, a separate person, was used as a foil that allowed the real John to step in and out of his character, a double switch.
  • He knows the Challenger astronauts faked their deaths, but imagines that they went into Witness Protection. Rather, they continued (except one) to live public lives, with Christine McCauliffe merely changing her first name, Judith Resnick not even bothering doing that. h/t Clues Forum.
  • He knows that Jim Morrison faked his death, but not that Admiral Morrison was not his real dad,  but rather just an appointed guardian, much like Lt Col Henry Deutschendorf with John Denver. He does not know that Jim’s girlfriend, Pam Courson, went on to become Barbara Walters.
  • He knows Elvis was twins. This is only suspected due to two birth certificates, but does explain the movie Kissing Cousins.
  • He throws JFK and Jimmy Carter at us as lookalikes, at this point nothing more then “that old chestnut.”

We are traveling today to Chamonix, France, and some Alpine hiking for a day or two.I wanted to get this out there for discussion, because in my mind Noel Joshua Hadley is a spook doing a limited hangout. And oh yes, the resemblance between Elvis and Pastor Bob Joyce is intriguing, but if alive, Elvis would be 85. Pastor Joyce looks to be in his mid-60s. Something afoul there.

42 thoughts on “You be the judge …

  1. The only new-to-me thing in the article is Bob Joyce.

    Ubiquitous Intelligence seems to plant mind-fuckery all over the Internet, even in the tiniest crevices, not just in the “viral” or elaborately produced mainstream stories.

    The first thing that strikes me about Hadley is that his writing has a combination of insouciant, precious confidence combined with a disjointed and rambling sloppiness that kind of reminds me of Mathis. The style seems geared to lull the reader into believing the author is very smart, the reader is very smart for resonating and vibing with the authors smartness, and together, the reader and writer drift and float and meander smartly through an increasingly foggy forest that’s littered with bullshit. It’s a style that feels deliberate and crafty to me, as opposed to casually and pleasantly indolent, which is how I think it’s supposed to feel. Maybe that’s just me.

    Hadley starts of, in his idle and chit-chatty way, by providing disparate reasons for doubting the reported deaths of various pop stars, including Elvis. Though I have the same doubts, Hadley–like Mathis–expresses his doubts in such a loopy and unconvincing way that I find myself embarrassed to be (mostly) on his side. When he finally gets to Bob Joyce, he declares without citing any sources that this man who appears to be a youthful-looking fiftysomething is actually 85 years old. Since he will ultimately conclude that Joyce is Elvis, he of course has to believe the guy is in his 80s. The fact that he makes this declaration without backing it up and without addressing the evidence of any reasonable person’s senses when watching Joyce on video–there’s no fucking way that guy’s 85–is an example of why I feel there’s craft in Hadley’s sloppiness. He goes out of his way to establish how deeply he looks into things by rambling about the backstory and spooky connections that the guy who founded the National Enquirer had, so I guess we’re just supposed to trust him when he says this guy’s 85. It’s a Mathis move!

    A more serious and thoughtful investigative writer might ask why Joyce is just starting to get Internet attention now. What’s Joyce’s backstory? I couldn’t find much, and some of the websites I did find were weirdly disjointed and incoherent in a way that raised alarm bells for me, but Hadley seems content to conclude Joyce is Elvis without doing any of the background checks he did on National Enquirer guy. Interesting.

    One part of the official lore I do believe: The man had a whole lotta sex. Whenever the media describes Lisa Marie as Elvis’s only child, I’ve thought, Really? Of course there are other Elvis offspring, and of course the people who created him know about other offspring he created. Using the understanding of alphabet agency mind-fuckery that Hadley himself lays out, the conclusion that Joyce is a controlled son of the controlled pop star seems pretty obvious. The only way to miss it is by falling under the spell of Hadley’s wooly-headed writing style.


    1. Nice analysis, SRC, and thanks. I would only remind you that people do not produce clones, but rather offspring, half one person’s genes, half another. So I assume that the photo of Pastor Joyce is Photoshop, or if a real person, a product of gene splicing technology, much as Paul Newman, Jack Nicholson, Charlie Sheen are such products.

      I listened to an interview of Paul Anka, a guy who is a project by himself, interviewed by Jason Batemen, Will Arnett, and Sean Hayes, the podcast called Smartless. The most annoying thing about Anka is that he claims to have written the song My Way, sung by Frank Sinatra, when at best he wrote only the lyrics. But as I listened to Anka, I thought “Juiced! Juiced! Juiced!” He was supposedly penning hit songs age 15* and ended up in Vegas polishing shoes for the Rat Pack. Bateman, one of our Bokanovsky Brats, is married to Anka’s daughter.

      More to learn, and a project! It’s about time.

      *Without any musical training, mind you, kind of like an American version of McCartney.


    2. I’ve known a few people–haven’t we all?–who could almost pass for a clone of a parent. My voice sounds enough like my dad’s that people were sure I was him if they overheard me in a crowd before seeing me. So I don’t automatically go to the clone thing, uncanny as the Presley/Joyce resemblance is. Have you considered a face chop?


      1. Not where I am, in Chamonix with an iPad. Somebody commented recently that lookalikes were not all that uncommon and that she knew three people who looked exactly like her. As long as she was just making shit up, she should have gone for five. The entire Internet right now is based on each human being unique. We checked on one of our flights using facial recognition, and not tickets. I use Apple Pay, which depends on recognition of my face … if there are two or three others out there who look just like me, the entire system is insecure. As I see it.

        In all my years doing chops, I encountered only one pair who bore more than a mild resemblance … a father daughter. Even there I could not know dimensions.


        1. Well, okay, I’ll concede that the resemblance and voice match are probably beyond any parent-offspring similarities I’ve ever encountered. But could it be that Elvis’s voice and appearance are so unique, distinctive and iconic that Joyce’s similar, naturally inherited characteristics hit us differently? I admit, I may be reaching.


    3. Yes, nice analysis. I noticed the same thing about the noxious writing style and even (despite that I do still read and appreciate him) the similarity to Mathis. However to me it comes across as a crafted imitation of the Mathis style, perhaps intentionally noxious as part of poisoning that well. (Or perhaps the vileness is just due to a failed imitation of a voice the writer can’t master.) This is under a framework where Mathis is authentic of course (which I lean towards, though of course never rule out that I could be wrong.)

      Remind me, you did at one time read Mathis with interest and enjoyment, right? Then began to have serious doubts, eventually soured, and over time your vehemence against him has only grown? Something like that?


      1. Yeah, something like that. I just don’t believe him. The genealogy stuff is unreadable and ridiculous. He really seems to view the “conspiracy” community as a cult, and he is our self-appointed leader, and if you question his methods, his reasoning, or his conclusions, he demonizes you. To me, it’s toxic.

        What keeps you going back to him? As you know, I have a lot of admiration for you, so I genuinely wonder what you’re getting from him.


        1. I don’t really have any good cogent answers to your fair questions – no accounting for taste, I guess? 😄.. His writing just appeals to me, and I feel like he still has a take worth hearing. I do skim the genealogy stuff sometimes, though I’m not dismissive of it – I just don’t personally have the capacity to retain all the connections and data. I don’t have a definite stand on that issue, I’m just open to the possibility.

          “….are a sign that the intelligence agencies are slipping, screwing up, or are at war with each other and trying to undermine each other? Does he still say things like “they know they screwed up” or “went too far” because this or that piece of propaganda was so over-the-top fake? …”

          I guess he mocks them for what he takes as sloppiness or work being more slipshod than it used to be.. and that it’s also a measure of what the public will tolerate now, that they’re so medicated and oblivious as to not notice.. he has said in the past that competing propagandas look like signs of warring agencies, yes.. but maybe his repeated refrain about them “stirring your mind” shows that he does recognize your point about “the obviousness is part of the hoax..”

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Yes, there’s no accounting for taste, and I’m aware that my tone is getting away from me and I’m coming off like an asshole again, lol. It’s interesting how, in my lifetime, I’ve seen how expressing disagreement with others- even in a forum like this, and even when it’s perfectly civilized disagreement–feels like a violation of social norms or something.

            But I’ll keep on violating even though I’m starting to feel like an asshole. Can anyone who isn’t obsessive or autistic or abnormally good at memorization have the capacity to do anything with all those connections and all that data? And since so much of that data comes from unreliable sources and so many of the connections are guesswork, what would be the value in even trying? It’s really incomprehensible to me.


            1. No offense taken, I appreciate that you share your opinion bluntly and directly.

              MY memory isn’t great, but I can’t put it outside the realm of possibility that some people might have photographic memory, or just very sharp memory.. it reminds me, I used to listen to the Dr Jennifer Daniels podcast.. she claimed that growing up, her grandmother had and retained a great memory, IIRC.. that it was more common previously, and something current generations don’t realize has been lost. For what it’s worth.

              Another angle on it – many skills people develop can’t really be consciously learned or conveyed to others.. as Morris Berman wrote in one of his books, eg, an x-ray tech learns by experience how to read x-rays, and has a “gestalt” understanding.. can intuitively read an x-ray, using the subconscious mind. It accomplishes things/ processes the conscious mind can’t.. So, if someone obsesses over genealogy, could they perhaps develop it into a skill that looks uncanny to others, but is just the power of the mind at a deeper level? That’s how playing an instrument or other developed skills look to people who don’t see the long practice behind them..


              1. Well, if that’s MM’s target audience–people with unusually great memories, and people who are obsessed with genealogy and want to develop their skills to an uncanny degree–then bless his heart, as my late grandmother would say. lol


                1. I’m just giving those ideas as a defense of his possible skill at it.. not saying all the readership will or should develop it lol


        2. scottrc..while i agree that miles is, or has become toxic, you must admit that the “conspiracy community” as you call it, IS a cult. Nothing could be more obvious and a peek in at CTTF shows that; the few quality people following miles will remain silent, take the good he has to offer and move on, but the overwhelming majority of his followers are cult like and the same goes for all those screaming to the same tune. And Miles does not discourage it which is most disgusting of all…notice for example how his “students” his guest writers write EXACTLY like he does, and you can bet he would never publish anythng if it was not exactly like his own style。
          As i have said before, Miles is toxic because he destroys his young readers ability to ever grow up; he injects a lethal dose of nilhism into them whereby since he has outed Shakesphere, for example, none of his readers can ever read shakesphere again.
          more ridiculuous and interesting though for me is how sad a figure miles now cuts: still outing all these contemporary hoaxes; he has made his point!! and he has, we can admit, accomplished alot in his life and yet, there he sits, still vomiting out pages and pages about some ice skating bimbos or whathaveyou…and he yearns to return to europe and live a more civilized sort of life , yet remains in bumfuck california surrounded by rednect cattlemen and so on…..this is the way one should assess miles mathis…it is time for him to move on; i thank him for the few keys he has given me to unlock the mystery of the modern world, and that is it; think of how much a healthy 60 year old man can still do…and yet look at him…does he really think he will lead the revolution? Revolution? As long as he believes in laws and government, no change is possible…what will thing revovle into after a revolution?…politcally the guy is a moron, and does not admit to the truth of his own findings…. if he followed the results of his own finding, he would have to be the next max stirner…this last point is very important for seeing another aspect of his truly toxic limitations…

          i could say uch much more on this…but….i have better things to do


          1. by max stirner, i mean he would have to be a REAL anarchist, for it is not about being against this or that form of government or this or that politican; it is about being against the very concept of Law and government… can bet if Miles was to gain political power he would, like Nietzsche end of siding with the bullies; to believe ANY law is neccessary is already to be a bully…. i mean tell me, how could someone discover what he has discovered about our political history and still call himself a “liberal”…a LIBERAL?…after what we now know how could you call yourself ANYTHING?…something smells really bad there!


          2. I like Lestrade, even as he works in the Mm shadow. I hope he moves on to the European theatre. I cannot set aside my impression that D-Day was just a troop unloading event, no resistance, and that Paris was not liberated, but rather just moved forward since German presence was not oppressive, just annoying.

            Damn, I might have to do this stuff myself. I don’t no longer have the diligence to pay attention to details, long Wikipedia tracts and the like, that he does.


          3. Godfly–As long as people are conditioned to let authority figures do their thinking for them, it really doesn’t matter who the authority figure is or what they think as long as it leaves them feeling powerless, passive and hopeless, which is exactly what Miles does. His occasional “revolution” jargon rings as hollow as a politician’s–“Change you can believe in,” “Make America Great Again”–whatever hope MM purports to be selling, it is patently false. He’s a total fake.


            1. ScottRC,

              Very well said, sir. I was re-reading Alan Weisbecker's first open letter to Miles Mathis a few days ago. Not very interesting stuff in general, but one of his sentences grabbed me. And its sentiments are right on par with your comment above. How does one feel at the end of a Miles Mathis paper? I ask that question with all due seriousness. The key word both you and Weisbecker have used to describe that feeling after completing a Mathis paper: Hopeless, i.e. hopelessness, i.e. despair. For me, that is always the dominant psychological reaction after reading the last sentence of a Mathis paper: a strong and overpowering existential tremor of despair and immediate subsequent depression resulting from both powerlessness and apathy. Add also too a dark cynicism, and bleak skepticism. And it rings true upon any re-reading of his works. So the natural response is to question why his papers leave one in that hopeless psychological state of despair at the completion of each reading. Well, my answer is as follows.

              Miles Mathis, and his gang of vicious sycophants (psychophants, if you will), is a nasty high-level cointelpro psyop. And believe me, ScottRC, I would never level such a claim without anything but the most serious reasons. Essentially, Miles Mathis reveals truths. There is no question about that. Can we in any way validate those truths ourselves? Well, only speculatively based up the quite stunning evidence Mathis offers us in his papers and his subsequent piercing analysis which leaves little room for objection. And by validation, I don’t mean proving whether the content of his papers is true or false (I’m convinced 90 percent of the material is true), rather I mean finding the true perpetrators of the massive frauds Mathis has been exposing. And that is where the psyop begins and ends. He is telling you exactly who the perpetrators are and he is telling you that you are powerless to stop them and that you must accept your destiny and reality as their perpetual prey for the duration of your mortal life. He offers no alternative. He intones a kind of hopeless resignation and submission to the grim reality that we have been forever ruled by an elite class of merchants who have enslaved us since time immemorial, thereby nullifying our rights as freeborn citizens of the world. And that is exactly the point of the psyop: Here is the truth, accept it, do not refute it, there is simply nothing you can do about it, and any alternative interpretation of my words is forbidden. You must accept me as the truth, and everything else (except what I tell you) is false. A rather convenient position, no?

              You'll notice too Mathis' villains have changed over the years. First, they were the military / industrial complex. Second, they were the ancient European nobility who fill the foxed pages of the Peerage, and at their base are crypto-Jews. Third, and most recently, they are the Phoenicians, a race of nefarious merchants from the Levant, the so-called Phoenician Navy. Whoever THEY are, THEY have ruled the human race with an iron (or rather golden) fist since time immemorial. THEY have used their wealth and power to suppress the ignorant masses since the earliest origins of modern civilization. And THEY today wield that wealth and power to suppress us still, but now THEY have alphabet agencies through which THEY perpetrate deceptions on a scale so massive, not even the smartest and most brilliant among the herd could ever hope to comprehend THEIR scope and scale. Are others within the so-called truther community offering theories similar in nature with strong evidence to support it? I would argue yes. McGowan clearly seems to indicate the military / industrial complex, backed by the CIA, DHS, and FBI, have something to do with all this. Simon Shack & Co. at Clues Forum accuse the so-called "Nutwork". Certainly, there are others who believe the media, working in conjunction with the CIA who are supported by the richest families in America, are the real villains. The names of the perpetrators can be as myriad and various as the charlatans who propagate their various iterations. But after seeing glaring evidence of obvious hoaxes like the Apollo Missions, or the Manson Murders, or Sandy Hook, or Boston Bombing, and the absurd and preposterous roll-out of blatant lies and phony crisis actors, we know that someone is doing something, and that we are powerless to stop THEM, and we are hopeless THEY will ever be exposed and brought to justice for perpetrating such vile, despicable and criminal deceptions against THEIR fellow men and women on this planet. Let’s be honest and serious here for a moment: You would have to be one sick twisted psychopath to put on an event like the Boston Bombing.

              And that’s where Mr. Miles Mathis steps in! And Josh, and Jared, and Vexman, et. al. These agents come along and brutally enforce Miles’ message of hopelessness and despair. Should one ever dare propose an alternative explanation or offer any criticism of Grandmaster Mathis, then you shall be shunned, mocked, ridiculed, harassed, banned, outed, and just generally told to shut-up. Mathis is right, his truth is the only truth, and you shall never dare question it again. You may write in support of it, you may stroke his massive ego, you may praise it, but never shall ye reject it as anything other than truth, or risk being ostracized and humiliated by his vicious gang of thought enforcers. And what’s more? Never shall ye know hope ever again. Ye shall die at the mercy of this mythic and fictive entity. And ye shall die poor and miserable. And ye shall do nothing but accept it. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here!

              That is in essence the psyop. If you trace this group across the various forums, including this one, you see a pattern of propagation. Not that I would profess even the slightest knowledge of their methods and tactics, I can still recognize their patterns. As soon as any question about the authenticity of Mathis’ research arises, the jackboots come a-stomping. They’ll batter your brains with non-sequiturs, flood threads with useless and meaningless disinformation, disrupt honest discourse with pettiness and bickering, until they’ve crushed dissenters back into the darkness of despair and hopelessness and derailed every thread into oblivion. That, my friends, is their modus operandi across the board, and more obvious and apparent at Cuttingthroughthefog. As an experiment, go over there and offer reasonable objection to any number of points in any one of Mathis’ papers. Either your post will never make it out of moderation, or said enforcers will silence your dissent with all manner of abuse and mockery. Even Mathis is there himself to offer stern rebuke against dissenters and praise his handful of sycophants, who perpetually promulgate his preposterous and idiotic theories. Mathis is the keeper of the truth, and those who dare refute that syllogism shall be shunned and silenced. And this from a group who claims the highest virtues of liberalism no less!!!

              Let’s take a look at what Mathis propagates. Firstly, every single historical event is fake. Every single historical figure is a crypto-Jew with common lineage descending from the most ancient and noble families from the kingdoms of Europe and, by extension, the nation of Phoenicia in the Levant. This ancient cabal has been the source of every war, every great work of literature, painting, sculpture, philosophy, architecture, poetry, drama, history. In fact, Virgil, Homer, Horace, Catullus, Socrates, Plato, Aquinas, Chaucer, Dante, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, et al. are all crypto-Jews placed before our view by the wealthiest families of the Peerage, simply to deceive us and keep our eyes off an ancient conspiracy to consolidate wealth and power.
              Now fast forward to the 21st Century. And still, these ancient noble families still rule us today. Celebrities, military personnel, politicians, writers, artists and all manner of public figures both famous and infamous alike are all placed before us by these same ancient and noble families. In fact, they are all related by blood and have ruled us for 6000 thousand years. Therefore, we the people are helpless to defeat them and hopeless to ever be free from their clutches.

              So what is Mathis essentially revealing? Well, to my way of thinking, he is telling us there is an elite race of humans on this planet. From time immemorial they have been systematically consolidating all the wealth, resources and power on the planet we inhabit with them. We the freeborn were never born free, but into servitude. We are their slaves. Our forefathers have served at their pleasure just as we today serve at their pleasure. In fact, all of world history is nothing more than one massive hoax simply put in place to deceive the masses so that an elite group from Phoenicia can continue to consolidate wealth and power. They are merchants by trade, and have ruled the seas since time immemorial.

              I have always been a fond reader of Shakespeare. But since reading Mathis, I’ve noticed a lurking skepticism has interfered with my readings. This skepticism was never before present prior to reading Mathis. I in fact stopped reading Shakespeare because I was convinced his words, his brilliance, his majestic power of the English Language was, in fact, a ruse, an effort to undermine everything I knew to be true. But after a brief hiatus, I have returned to reading his words. Even when Mathis is at his best, he’s not even a maggot on Shakespeare’s ass. He knows this. He knows he cannot write drama, or poetry, or prose worth a shit. So he cowers behind his spurious theories of the peerage, the Stanley’s, the English Nobility, etc… So am I to stop reading Shakespeare because Mathis believes Shakespeare’s works were written by a committee? Odd too that Mathis accuses Shakespeare of being a writing committee. Odd tell, wouldn’t you say? At the end of day, Miles Mathis was sent into the interweb to cast a black curtain over the true light-bearing figures from history. And, again, there is a dour and brooding sense of real despair, real hopelessness. If the majestic words written by Shakespeare have no meaning, then life has no meaning. And when the past has no meaning, then the present and the future have no meaning. Mathis psyop is doing nothing more than erasing the past, while at the same time offering a future of grim serfdom and slavery with no hope at all and just grim acceptance. A bleak authoritarian landscape from which Mathis spews his darkness and eviscerates dissent with his gang of CIA henchmen. We have been, are now, and forever will be ruled by this ancient and mythic race of merchants from Phoenicia.
              Mathis will prove his absurd thesis with quite compelling evidence that many past and present events are fake. With an utterly absurd disregard for the scientific method, he provides long paragraphs, mostly unreadable, of spurious genealogical research which he pulls from online Peerage sources. Never once has he cited DeBrett’s, which is the foremost authority of the English Peerage since 1769. And what is his bizarre fetish for the English Peerage anyway? He might be the only man born in Texas who even knows what the English Peerage is!!! Most Americans are born and raised in this country without any knowledge of the English Peerage whatsoever. We are not taught about it, there is no mention of it in all our high school curriculum, and there are no courses in colleges that teach the study of it. In fact, the English Peerage is the perpetual obsession of the Scottish, English and Irish. It is, in fact, an extremely dense historical record which traces all the ancient familial bloodlines of the Nobility through 1000-1500 years of descent, interconnecting the intricate web of Anglo-Saxon ancestral lines through the feudal ages.
              So why is Texas-born Mathis so obsessed with this little old record, a now obsolescent artifact from the Medieval Ages? I think the answer to that question is the solution to the Mathis psyop. And what’s more, I believe Mathis is absolutely correct. The English Peers have never relinquished power, although we are taught to believe that the American and French Revolutions put an end to the aristocracy’s 1000-year-old reign of terror over the Continent. The Peers simply used their vast treasury of ancient wealth to build America, develop the New World and surreptitiously gull the new colonials into a new and subtle form submission and tyranny, all under the guise of Democracy.

              Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
              No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

              That’s an inside joke. And quite a good one at that, since possibly 90 percent of the drafters and signatories of that document were Peers concealing their titles. Mathis, I believe, is telling a great and very big truth, but not for the reasons he would have us believe. This huge massive truth has lain dormant since the aforesaid revolutions in the dusty pages of one of the greatest records in all of human history.
              How do I know Mathis is revealing such a profound and revelatory historical truth, hidden from the ignorant masses since time immemorial? Because I have spent my entire adult life studying English Literature, English History, and The English Language. I am fluent in Anglo-Saxon, Old and Middle English. I have read everything from Chaucer to the Victorians. I have read Dabrett’s Peerage in its entirety. And I have also studied Lavater’s science of physiognomy. Why is physiognomy so important when unravelling Mathis’ claims? Because it is through the science of physiognomy that Mathis’ truths are revealed. The ancient Peers of the Kingdom have been inter-marrying for more than a full millennia to date. They’ve in essence been breeding a physically superior looking species of homo-erectus for a thousand years. Their physical appearance is their signature and irrefutable evidence of ancestry. Take the faces of any number of popular figures in today’s world of celebrity. Examine 100 of their faces. And you will ineluctably discover the signature of nobility. They do not share the same facial features with commoners. And how does one measure this physiognomical signature of nobility? With the golden ratio, of course. For a thousand years and through myriad generations, these families have been culling the most noble and aesthetically pleasing features of the human face, both male and female. They have bred a genetically superior race that is distinctly their own, quantifiable by anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of physiognomy. It was their way of separating themselves from the ugliness and brutishness of the genetically inferior peasantry. They determined what were the noblest features of the human visage and then culled out the ugliest through inter-breeding only their best specimens. Such has been the practice of the nobility since its earliest inception. Human beauty is no chance of nature, but a deliberate culling of all its ugliest features through generations and generations of inter-breeding the most beautiful specimens. As an example, examine a facial picture of Cybil Shepherd in her prime. That face is no happenstance of nature. That face is the result of 20 generations of breeding. She is of noble stock, as Thackeray would say. I can say without a doubt that she is a descendent of these noble lines, just through the science of physiognomy alone. Who hasn’t wondered why celebrities in Hollywood from all eras have uniquely distinct physiognomical facial structures. Take the Fondas for example. The stamp of nobility is forever marked upon their faces. The Barrymores as well.
              So yes indeed, Miles Mathis has offered a very big glimpse behind the curtain. By making the curious connection between obvious fake events in history, prominent historical figures and celebrities past and present, and the Ancient Peers of the Kingdom, he has indeed bestowed truth upon us. And a very profound and revelatory truth at that. There is, in fact, no argument I can think of to refute the fact that every figure of historical relevance in the past, and every figure in today’s mainstream culture, descend from the Ancient Peers of the Kingdom. And this ancient class of nobility descends from all the biggest and most powerful Kingdoms that existed in the age of Feudalism.
              But the question now is why has Mathis revealed perhaps one of the most profound historical truths ever uncovered? The answer I have come to accept, and of course it’s a deeply personal answer, one which I am not trying to force on any one else but myself, is that Mathis is a deep high-level cointelpro psychological operation. And this one is nasty, because it appeals to an extremely high-level of intellectual aptitude. It’s designed for the high-IQ folks who have made it this far down the rabbit hole. Mathis is here to satiate the insatiable truth-seeker with a nice hearty five-course meal of profound truths. Now we know the perpetrators, we know their stock, their origin. But I will argue that Mathis is not here to enlighten, to ennoble the mind, uplift the spirit, to disenthrall us from our thralldom. No, rather, Mathis has been ordered to hammer the shackles a bit tighter, and make sure our heads and arms are firmly secured in the stocks. You wanted to find the truth, and Mathis has revealed it. But this is the end of the golden road. You must accept that you do not descend from this noble and exalted class of people. No, you’re just a serf, a peasant, born into the shackles of slavery and servitude. You shall serve this class of ancient nobility until you are dead. But these Ancient Peers have known that bread and circuses will keep the ugly masses so stupefied and satiated, that their back-breaking skullduggery will be just tolerable enough not to create general unrest. Mathis sits at the end of the road only to tell you the road ends here and this is now the only road you are allowed to travel. You shall never join that noble and exalted class of the fortunate, you can just trudge the barren road of the unfortunate, the peasants, the serfs. That is your future, and nothing else.
              Essentially, each seeker, each searcher of truth must decide for themselves about Mathis. He has given me a glimpse behind the curtain. And in that way, has given me a certain sense of personal liberation. I have used his research to build on my own and reject the idea of Phoenician merchants. I believe the Ancient Peers descend from a long line of the highest orders of Freemasonry. Hence their fondness for building massive palaces and cathedrals in the tradition of King Solomon, who still to this day holds the highest place in their tradition. Will we ever be free of their clutches? No. And that is not to offer despair and hopelessness, but to offer a way out: Forget them, ignore them, go live a full and rewarding life as best you can, and just hope they don’t destroy the world we live in. They have a penchant for that. Is there any further to go in search of a final answer. Yes. But one must now study the best extant copy of Dabrett’s peerage, trace all the lineages for themselves, start connecting the dots from the ancient chivalric orders, on through the ages, and up until today. You will also need to read tremendous amounts of history to connect all those dots. Study Freemasonry and all its symbolism and its ancient origins and apply all that knowledge to what you see today amongst the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. Study physiognomy and become proficient in that science. Then shall ye be fooled no more. Will it liberate you? Perhaps a little. But most importantly you have achieved knowledge and awareness that few will ever achieve.
              Has Mathis opened my eyes? Absolutely. But to what end? For me, I have decided, he has opened my eyes in order to close them again—and not only close them, but stab them through with burning knives. Abandon hope, ye who enter here.


              1. You say, “Forget them, ignore them, go live a full and rewarding life as best you can.” Then you say, “…study the best extant copy of Dabrett’s peerage, trace all the lineages for themselves, start connecting the dots from the ancient chivalric orders, on through the ages, and up until today. You will also need to read tremendous amounts of history to connect all those dots. Study Freemasonry and all its symbolism and its ancient origins…”

                This is similar to the contradiction I see in Mathis.

                Whether my source is Dabrett’s peerage or Wikipedia and all the ancestor sites, I would feel like an absolute fool playing MM’s silly game of connect-the-dots every time the media pushes my buttons with yet another sensationalistic story about yet another well-heeled asshole. MM offers this pointless busywork as a substitute for intelligent, orginal, consequential thought, and now you do, too–you’re just telling us to use better sources. lol.


          4. Oh, and as for your statement “that the conspiracy community is a cult… well, as I think we all know, there really is no such thing as a “conspiracy community,” so you can’t call it a cult if it doesn’t exist, right? There are various figures–Alex Jones, MM, we could all name others–who play upon the need for community and leadership that outsiders like us feel. They nurture cult-like followings among us. I think it’s only natural, and if intelligence agencies prop up certain people to serve as LOs in this cult-leader-like capacity, they’re really just filling a void that would be filled anyway. I saw the same kind of phenomenon when I was in Alcoholics Anonymous. As an organization, AA is not a cult, despite what some of its detractors say. It can’t be, by design; it was structured from the ground up to exist without the kind of “leadership” we’re accustomed to in capitalist society. AA leadership is unglamorous–it’s unpaid public service, does not include any governing powers, and is devoid of prestige. Within many autonomous AA groups, however, there are often people who–unconsciously, unthinkingly, maybe just because it’s there nature–fill the AA power vacuum with their cult-leader-like charisma. In my experience, they’re not necessarily bad people (though some are). I’ve known people, and at times was one of the people, who needed that kind of leadership. Better to fall under the sway of a charismatic AA member (even if he’s an asshole) nd get sober than flick ’em off and storm away and get drunk. People can easily ditch such leaders when they don’t need them anymore, as you and I and probably many others have done with MM.


      2. Also, since you still read him: Has Miles ever backed away from his repeated claims that obvious inconsistencies in propaganda–including obvious photo and video fakery, as well as patently absurd lies–are a sign that the intelligence agencies are slipping, screwing up, or are at war with each other and trying to undermine each other? Does he still say things like “they know they screwed up” or “went too far” because this or that piece of propaganda was so over-the-top fake? At least Hadley acknowledges that the obviousness of the hoax is part of the hoax, forcing people to shut off their own minds and believe whatever they’re told. Since Miles very clearly expects readers to believe whatever they’re told by him, maybe it’s telling that he doesn’t examine or even acknowledge this well-known feature of propaganda.


  2. . Hadley’s site seems to touch on all the usual topics, nothing new. I don’t see Elvis as Bob Joyce but don’t think he died either. The Elvis had a twin angle may have something going for it.


  3. I originally sent Mark a link from Hadley’s site regarding the Black Dahlia and Hadley‘s way out of left field conclusion about who the Black Dahlia was. I had a good laugh at that and leave open the possibility that maybe he’s right, though all we are seeing is another bloodline family member helping to further an agenda detrimental to the public at large. Hardly a breaking headline at this late date. (Confusing as it is, the genealogical digs are important in hammering home the fact, IMO, that these assholes are all related and that blood loyalty is the glue that keeps their hustle going.)
    I had an even bigger laugh at the Elvis/ Bob Joyce connection, which I had never heard of.
    It occurs to me that Elvis was, and still is, nothing more than a cartoon character and as such he can be rendered in different ways while maintaining the basic structure of the image.
    The Beatles are in similar fashion a cartoon that is still running, their private lives, though, are not of any real interest and can be scripted in any fashion that sells or resells their songs.
    Selling Elvis records isn’t as important as selling Beatles records, but as PSY ops go, there seems to be more fresh soil to till with the Elvis character.
    For Americans at any rate, the shape shifting Elvis leads eventually to characters like the shape shifting Bieber, who has apparently morphed into another cartoon character called The Weekend.
    Unlike the southern fried “Christian“ Elvis becoming another southern fried “Christian“ who sings just like Elvis, the Bieber Project has taken things a step further and rendered the lip-synching popstar into a new lip-synching popstar who is of a different race.
    And this particular maneuver is, in my opinion, a subconscious furthering of the ‘homogenization of all cultures’ PSY op. Along with gender fluidity, we now get racial fluidity, and with all distinctions being blurred, we can all be marketed with one basic cultural template. IE, we can all be cured of the same illness with the same remedy.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Didn’t know about the Weeknd/Bieber thing until now. Just looked at some videos and… groaannnn. Yes, I see what you’re seeing–homogenization and dehumanization.

      I would respectfully argue that Mathis is not “hammering home” the point about interrelated elite families and blood ties. To me, his genealogy stuff makes a mockery of that point in much the same way Dallas Goldberg made a mockery of celebrities faking their deaths to become other celebrities. Furthermore, while I absolutely believe the point itself is true, I question the validity of including everyone in power in Hollywood. Though I never met James Gunn, who is now a big-shot in the very powerful superhero-movie propaganda wing of Hollywood, we grew up in near each other in St. Louis, one of his brothers dated my sister, and we had a lot of common friends. His family was upper-middle-class but did occupy the lofty rarefied realm that Mathis paints all famous people as coming from. Using MM’s methods of filling in the blanks left by already unreliable geneology sites and Wikipedia, though, it would be easy to make all the same boilerplate assumptions about Gunn that Mathis makes about everyone else. Blood ties may be important, but it seems to me that talent can also be groomed and molded and maybe Tavistocked or MK-Ultra’ed into being a major player in the entertainment industry too. I see Mathis’s geneology stuff as an elaborate and complex way of being reductive.

      I’m also not sure that the hustle–which, at this point, is pretty much baked into global society and has been for a very long time and is practically a self-propelled machine at this point–needs nearly as much royal-blood glue to keep it going as Mathis seems to believe. As Covid taught us, the unwashed masses are perfectly willing to do the elite’s dirty work for them.


  4. Hmm, that article smells of Mathis committee from a mile.
    Bob Joyce, never heard of this guy before, doesn’t look like Elvis at all but who knows, everything is possible and plastic surgery is said to help a lot in these matters…
    Maybe Mark wants to do one of his pic jobs to see if anything in the Elvis/Joyce features align, that’d be interesting.
    I was watching some old video of Bill Hicks the other day and geez, how can no one tell he’s now Alex Jones? I mean you don’t even need to do photo comparisons or anything, it’s so damn obvious it’s almost surreal. That must have been the easiest transformation ever, and they simply got away with it. But then again, the Challenger fraudstronauts didn’t even change their names and walk among us… Are people that stupid? Yes sir, they sure are.
    And that’s why they simply don’t give a flying fuck about people and do what they do.


  5. Good find, and excellent comments/sparring. 🙂

    MM even complained about NJH not so long ago; “he is copying me/blacklisting me.” Both make grave mistakes and assumptions which are breezily dismissed as “see how much I know and you being smart, agree.” Examples include spelling mistakes, wrong military hardware, wrong military tactics and leaps of logic. Below the cited piece, NJH promotes a conference, one of whose new presenters is shown. She looks like the usual suspects in these “conspiracy” circles; an overweight woman wearing a leopard-print (?) top under a black leather jacket. Yeah. OK. How much is the conference again?

    I read NJH for a while about a year ago or so, including the Dahlia piece. Then he just went into the high weeds with esoteric biblical pieces which to me are unreadable. As for his secular stuff, some nice bits mixed in with misdirectional crap.

    As for MM, I still check in weekly or so, but rarely can finish a piece. The latest highlights are the ones by the guest writer about WW2, which can be LOL funny. Orde Wingate, to cite one example.

    Both are too woo-woo for me these days.


    1. MM guest writers creep me out. Do any of them not refer to Miles like they are his acolytes, dutifully thinking as much like him as they possibly can, eager for him to grace them with a beneficent word or an approving pat on the head? MM infantilizes his readers and seems to think all who see through the Matrix are his empty-headed children waiting for him to fill their heads with his wisdom. Ugghhh.


  6. sorry socttrc..i had not seen your comment about guest writers until now..i mentioned them above also…..anyway, as for your comments above, we are generally on the same page but i am looking at that page from a slightly different angle…but it IS the same page……you are sharp, perceptive.. but your flip into a sort of hatred for MM leaves me wondering if you do not feel betrayed on some level…you imply that he was like a leader to you for a while….another similiarity between miles and a nietzsche type character is that the more he is ignored the more obsessed he will become with “being right” and that translates into an insane and intolerant rigidity..


    1. Godfly – it’s easy to ridicule papers about trivial current events, but those are the kind of papers that new readers are more likely to be interested in, and some of them will then start to dive deeper. How nice for you that you’ve moved on and attained to risen master level and so forth, now you’d like to pull the rope up after you I guess haha


  7. Ha, I hope I don’t come off as insane and intolerantly rigid. And yeah, I guess I do sound excessively hateful toward MM. I did not mean to imply that I thought of him as a leader (I was actually talking about AA people), but I certainly was enamored of him for a while. Over the years, in the POM comments, there has been a lot of back and forth about MM, and I can appreciate nuanced attitudes like TimR’s and Mark’s. But we also spend a lot of time here talking about whether or not MM is a limited hangout. Does his writing comes from a Langley committee or is he really who and what he says he is? My perspective now is that it doesn’t matter–toxic is toxic–and I’m more put off by the subtext, the underlying implications within his work and how he expresses himself, than in the work itself. I’ve also–if I’m being totally honest–been hoping to provoke MiniMe and get him to pop out of the woodwork to defend MM when anyone expresses the slightest disapproval because that always entertains me, and the quieter MiniMe has been, the more hateful I’ve gotten. Maybe he’s on vacation. Anyway, I think my bottom line with MM is the exact same as yours: I read him for a while and now I don’t. I just wanted to be more colorful about it.


    1. Nope, I’m not vacationing. But I’m also not in the mood to fight you over your opinion. We’ve been over that before and there’s no point in it other than arguing about it. You admittedly came here to fight/argue about it, but I’m letting you down this time. Just spill it out, maybe you’ll feel better afterwards. Less angry at least, which is always good. So you see, I’m taking care of your mental health by not entertaining your desire to fight. 😉


      1. Here I was, imagining I’d provoked the people of Mathistown to activate the MiniMe signal (it’s similar to the Batman signal; the M’s kind of look like bat wing silhouettes), and everyone was worried when you didn’t swoop down to take out the bad guy. They can all breathe a sigh of relief, knowing you’re still out there in the shadows keeping watch. I guess my supervillain powers have faded. How humbling.


        1. That was funny, thanks.

          For my taste, it’s kind of boring when it comes to Miles being criticized – always the same old. I guess I’ve learned how to live peacefully even if I remain the last Mathis reader ever. From the aspect of my knowledge, it makes no difference what other people think about him. To me, only truth matters and while seeking for answers, I don’t care much how likeable any author is. It’s not any kind of popularity contest, is it?


          1. No, of course it’s not a popularity contest, and although I have strong negative feelings and may get a bit too worked up about them, I realize it ultimately boils down to liking what we like because we like it, and telling someone not to like what he likes is stupid and asinine. I learned a lot when I first encountered MM, but it seems like his appeal now lies more in his ability to preach to the choir and reflect the opinions and conclusions they’ve already settled on back at them in flattering ways. I’m certainly not above reading authors for that small pleasure; Mathis just doesn’t do it in a way that I enjoy anymore. Oh well.


          2. minime…
            i am suspect of people who say “only the truth matters” because you cannot know what truth is if you do not know what lies are; this is not mere semantics, truth and falsehood are at the core of our whole existence. MM always declares the same love of “only wanting the truth” but his exposing the truth is his form of getting revenge on the liars…i do the same thing…

   had even occurred to me that MM wanting his revolution , writes of trival non intellectual topics in order to bring in the common man to his revolution..
            your little personal jab implies of course that i am being arrogant, and consider myself to have arrived at a higher wisdom than the rest of you. DAMN IT! I apologize and will try to hide that arrogance better in my future posts; i confess that you are much better at it than i am. But is it possible that you have detected that underlying arrogance ( simple self confidence?) because it rubs up too harshly against your own self confidence?


            1. That’s why I said I’m seeking for answers to get to the truth. Cross-check everything and always. That’s my principle, anyways.

              For the sake of conversation, what does it mean you’re suspicious of me?


              1. ok minime, the rainy season has arrived (the blessing and the curse of farming) and i am up to a bit of conversation:l i will write quickly off the top of my head: these are thoughts i am still trying to work out and put into order so BE harsh if you wish to attack my blunt assertions: your attack will help clarify my ideas:

                Look! most of what passess for intellectual culture today is trying to look back and figure out who we are, and what is it all based upon? Writing. No writing, no history; no history, no law; no law, no civilization. A man says “I only want the truth” and then proceeds to search for the truth based on written records, but that is like a man saying he wishes to take a quiet and peaceful stroll and then enters a jungle that he knows will be teeming with wild beasts and poisonous reptiles and insects. How about the idea that one can understand the lies and the truth of yesterday by looking at the lies and truth of today, of that which is right before our eyes now? Forget the jungle! It seems to me that the best way to approach the question of the past is through psychological plausibility, for example…and i will resist giving you more invovled and far reaching examples for now and give you a few very simple ones….so is it psychologically plausible that the random shooting just stopped during the corona hoax, or is it plausible given mans nature that he went to the moon 60 years ago and does not try to go back? Here history and politics and everything is transformed into psychology pure and simple and if you say, “well david, even your two little exammples were dependent on written material” I would have to say you ar right; is there any way in this culture now to avoid the jungle? There is no solution: written records cannot be trusted. You might say, “It is possible to read between the lines and learn, with practice how to smell out the truth” and that might be true if the lines are simply lies, but what if the lines are PURE FICTION?… completely invented and never happened at all even in the slightest degree; it would be like taking a novel by stephen king and thinking you can read between the lines to see “what really happened” but it only happened in the mind of some schnook letting his sick imagination run wild…

                no no, and that is my answer to all this NO NO NO…say no to everything and grind your mind back again and again to the present and to what is now before you, and when we can see clearly that, then we can understand the past . we are being lied to from every direction; we are being manipulated from every direction….of that we are sure of: so what more truth do you need to find?
                Do not walk into that jungle…do not read the stephen kings….the truth , even if god came down and told it to you, would not be very useful to you anyway; how woud it change your life if all the heads of state of the world admitted tomorrow that we never went to the moon? Would not change a fucking thing.


                1. …but allow me to go on and give you another example of the insanity of trying to know the truth of the past, and why you can know the past by looking at the present
                  . A few weeks ago i ran into a frenchmen who was walking through japan; rare to see westerners up here in this mountain town, but then not so strange since we met at the 7 11. And as we were chatting he suddenly asked me: “so what do you think of the Jewish people?” I was taken aback by such an abrupt question and he quickly assured me that he was asking only because he was presently reading a book on the hisotry of the jews. “I mean” he said, “throughtout hisotry there is always this jewish question.”
                  I laughed and said “for me there is no jewish question. or rather let me ask you this: what kind of people would write 10,000 books about themselves? “Jews in Holland” Jews and glass making” Jews during the time of the romans” jews in china jews and the american revolution jews in communist russia jews and piracy jews and the invention of electricity jews and hollywood jews and the presocratics and so on and so on and these are real titles mind you and the list is endless. Does this sound like a people who were victims? And in these books it is always the same: there they are, these jews in the thick of things, always in the center, thriving and then, oh poor little jews get booted out of their situation and are homeless once again. I mean really does that sound like a vicitm to you? What people have so many books about themselves? The irish? the frenchmen? Not even the christians, but then the christians are jews anyway ….”
                  “That is an interesting take on the matter ” he said
                  “yes and really you do not have to read all those books; the fact that they are here and exist should tell us how it was for the jews in the past. Even if the books are full of lies; the fact is that the books exist here and now…my god, go to an online library and the titles are endless…”
                  “So you think they control the world..that sort of thing?”
                  “yes but what does it matter who is controlling the world; the point is that we are being controlled,managed like children. I have given up thinking i can ever find closure about the past; it is a phantom; but when i look at the present, i have enough to wonder about. So many people are obsessed with finding out the truth of things but they do not look at what is right in front of them. take the simple fact of a speeding ticket; not so simple really: a group of men with guns have said, we are going to build a road and you may drive on it but do not go over 50; if you do we will punish you by taking money from you; if you do not pay, we will take away the liscence we have given you and if you are caught driving then, we will put you in a cage;!! talk about infantilizing people…it is quite amazing no? that people accept such things and accept them in over and over 10 times a day; as if i myself cannot judge how fast is too fast to drive… the state law has become mans new god. Was it that way 500 years ago? I suspect in its own way, in some way it was, the church in place of the state, but how can we really know and what does it really matter? Without doubt the village shoemaker 500 years ago had a qualitatively different lifestyle than the man today who works on an assembly line at a shoe factory but are not these two men cut from the same cloth? Did they not want the same thing out of life really?”
                  “I see that even here in japan; some of the villages here are amazing and give one the feeling time has stopped. These old people who can hardly walk are still out planting potatos and things by hand, without machines…”
                  “yes, no doubt in some ways japan today is 1960s france but those old people are actually in front of their t.v sets the other 23 hours of the day….and they have already recieved 5 or 6 coronavirus shots and are still wearing a mask when they come into town” They obey their t v set completely”

                  and on went our converstion for hours like this……..


            2. godfly – No need to apologize.. I apologize for taking a bit of a personal jab, I guess I was in that kind of mood. Like I was telling ScottRC above, I usually appreciate when a writer is adamant about their views.. heck, I am a Mathis reader after all lol.

              As to my own secret arrogance? I don’t know, maybe you’re onto me, but it would probably have to be smugness over my own uncertainty and willingness to entertain multiple competing hypotheses.. if I’m guilty of that kind of personal vanity. The upside of my approach I guess is some intellectual excitement when you come across new theories, new ideas; the downside is a kind of neurotic insecurity in having nothing solid to grasp hold of, at least in terms of the big picture, very little is certain.


              1. timr…you know i consider you a very careful reader; i have always appreicated that …. and after being off line for a while and seeing you now in dialouge with scottrc makes sense; i find both of you to be worth bantering with…in this particular case perhaps you have misunderstood my tounge in cheek tone? I was not really apologizing….more like, hey screw you brother, we are all wrestling with our hidden arrogance; i was not thinking about you in particular except a bit i suppose since you tend toward the fair and balanced approach, the polite approach you could say and i have learned from living in japan that behind the intense politeness of the japs is always aggression. Even, the more polite they are, the more aggressive they actually feel…

                lastly you are NOT wrong in your jab really for who can honestly speak for another man and say “he should move on, etc etc…” My defense is only to say that OBVIOUSLYit is just my opinion….and obviously , i mean naturally i believe MY opinion is correct….


                1. Thanks for clarifying.. I did pick up some of the tongue in cheek tone, but wasn’t entirely sure. Hazards of text vs speech I guess.

                  Your talk about what can be known from books reminds me of the interesting Abyss of Time blog by IIRC a Dutch writer.. he has historical revisionist views, but primarily based on his study of old books and texts. I can’t fairly summarize his views but it’s a unique angle.. eg, some of the invented books, rather than created by Intel or secret societies or anything, he attributes to higher level entities operating in our reality. “Archons” and such. Pretty wild stuff, but when you read him, hey, at least his theory manages to resolve or explain problems in the official narrative.


  8. “Master Miles Mathis” – thanks for that insightful comment way up above.. there’s much I would push back on or want to discuss further. But there’s so many different points you raise.. I have some thoughts on the “breeding”, maybe later..

    Maybe if someone could pull out and number your separate points, and put them in separate comments down here, we could hash this out.. otherwise it’s hopeless in this long thread..


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s