Mark Twain didn't think much of people and their soi-disant civilization, but as you look back, you see he didn't have much to complain about. The current population of Missouri is about 6 million. In Twain's time, it was, what, half a million? In all the 114 counties of Missouri, there was not one car, one phone, one airplane, one computer, one TV, one superfund site, or one agent of the CIA, FBI, ATF, FEMA, or IRS. Before the civil war, there was no income tax, and after it the tax was 3%. Let us say your total taxes are now on the order of 50%: do you think it was worth the other 47% to buy what you now have? If a man came to your door offering to sell you a phone, a car, a TV, a computer, and a passel of federal agents for the price of those things plus half your yearly income, would you buy? What if this man also agreed to taint your water for free, poison your air, and inject all your food with chemicals? No? Well, what if he promised to sell you pills to address all your new afflictions caused by the taint, the poison, and the chemicals, for only another 15% of your income? No? Well, what if he promised to use your taxes to murder and enslave millions of people all over the world, so that you could spend a bit less for your sneakers and your tainted food and gas for your car? No? Well, what if he promised to create a pile of garbage the size of Texas in the mid-Pacific, for your amusement? What if he promised to kill half the species on Earth, as a pleasant divertissement? What if he promised to fell half the old forests of the world, and send you a few splinters for your coffee table? What if he promised to to give all your children dark circles under their eyes, as a token of their compromised immune systems? What if he promised to take your newborns right out of your arms in the hospital, slice open their feet, mutilate their genitals, secretly catalog their DNA, and immediately pump them full of chemicals, including mercury and industrial-waste fluoride? This last for a mere few thousand dollars extra? The deal just keeps getting sweeter, right? -- Miles Mathis
Chief Seattle lived to be 86, without the help of Monsanto or DOW or Union Carbide or Pfizer, and he wasn't allergic to his tipi or his moccasins or his oak tree. If they hadn't forced him onto a reservation, he probably would have lived even longer. He was also over six feet tall. Our statistics are always pushed: yes, we are generally taller and more lively than a dead civil-war soldier, but that statistic doesn't mean much to me. When modern medicine can make me taller and livelier than Chief Seattle, I may take notice. -- Miles Mathis
It is more profitable to steal from long-lived victims than from short-lived ones. Smart parasites keep the host alive. The spider does not kill, it stuns. Only when the fly is incapable of providing further nourishment is its carcass tossed aside. -- Miles Mathis
The most powerful hand is the most invisible hand, and until recently the US hand was much quicker than the eye. Only recently has the hand slowed down to where the eye can follow it. From 1910 to 1980, say, the hand move so quickly and so fluidly that almost no one knew it was there. No one even posed the right questions. The rebels weren't even rebelling against the right things. The malcontents didn't know the source. And the masses genuinely thought they were free. If you had told a person in the '30's that the Great Depression was done on purpose, for instance, he would not have believed you, even if he were an intellectual, a communist, or an anarchist. He would have most likely used the Great Depression as a sign capitalism didn't work, and made some long-winded philosophical argument for another form of government. He would not have seen that it was the ultimate working of capitalism, by design; nor would he have imagined that such a scheme could just have easily have been hatched under the auspices of communism or any other ism. He would not have seen that it is not the form of government that matters, as much as the extent of government. To this day, most revolutionaries think a change of form is required, when in fact the form is nearly beside the point. You could create a successful form of government with a porpoise pushing levers by chance in a large aquarium, as long as the extent of that government was limited to maintaining roads and hanging highwaymen. -- Miles Mathis
With enough phony patriotism, you could milk taxes out of a rock. -- Miles Mathis
By the 1960's, the control was complete. The entire decade was scripted so well the extras never suspected a thing. We had just enough fake revolution and conflict that it almost seemed real. Hollywood took over DC, and the real war in Vietnam deflected attention away from the fact that life at home had become little more than a movie, staged for one effect or another. Almost nothing you think happened in the '60's really happened, and that has been true ever since. TV supplies all the proof you have for everything you think you know, but, assuming you wanted to, how would you check that proof? It is rare that any evidence has been allowed to survive one way or another, but none of the fragments we do have support the given history. That is why more and more of these fragments disappear each year. -- Miles Mathis
911 was done for two reasons: to propel foreign policy in the middle east and to get rid of unprofitable buildings.
911 was not the pretext for a police state, it was the cause of it. The curtain was pulled back, the mask was torn, and the audience looked back at the projectionist, realizing there was a little man in that room. The man can now maintain his anonymity only by building wider walls and firing on those who come too near.
As proof of this, you only have to consider the timeline. If the police state had been a desideratum of the invisible hand, you would have seen it building from the beginning. It would have been worse in 1970 than in 1960, and worse in 1990 than in 1980. But that is not what we see. Even the Bush neocons had no need of a police state, or they would have begun installing it in 2001. No, we don't see it until after 911, and if 911 had gone as planned, we still wouldn't see it. We wouldn't see it because we wouldn't need it. -- Miles Mathis
The majority of the audience has already made it clear that it has no desire to revolt, even knowing what it knows. -- Miles Mathis
Once the magicians/thieves/scientists/politicians/artists have admitted it is a con-game and a bald example of agitprop, why does the audience continue to show up? It is just proof the modern audience—in every field—is completely captured. They have absolutely nothing else to do, apparently: they must go the museum, they must read the journals, they must vote for the two parties, or they will cease to exist. Their minds have been emptied of all but the required media inputs. -- Miles Mathis
A people that feel a constant need to 'reinvent' themselves, whether it be with plastic surgery or with gene manipulation, are a people with an endless marketing potential. Such constant reinvention must cause a constant increase in self-analysis and self-doubt, and, as we all know, that is the recipe for a complete capitulation to products. -- Miles Mathis
What qualifies a writer to be a gatekeeper of art? Whistler was the first to ask that 150 years ago, but even the young artists of the avant garde are catching on. They have finally seen that the critic is just one more middleman that can be bypassed. Why kiss the critic's tush when you can plant one directly on the billionaire? -- Miles Mathis
It is impossible to cheapen something that is already worthless. -- Miles Mathis
It doesn't require just one stupid billionaire to propel modern art. It requires an endless line of ever-stupider billionaires. Our current batch of billionaires has no trouble supplying the “stupid,” the only question is whether there is a long enough line of them. -- Miles Mathis
A modern skeptic is like an agnostic, and he or she is likely to lean to a “no” answer every time. Are there gods? Probably not. Are there unicorns? Probably not. Is there a Bigfoot? Probably not. And so on. I resist this “skeptic” tag because leaning toward a “no” answer is a prejudice itself. It is unscientific.
Of course, with the existence of Bigfoot and unicorns and so on we do have a great deal of information. We have made searches. The Earth is a limited environment and we have populated it widely and heavily and long. Even so, the mountain gorilla was not discovered until 1902, and huge populations of lowland gorillas were only recently discovered in the Congo (this very decade). Which is to say that we may lean a bit to a “no” answer for existence of larger beings in smaller areas we have scoured quite thoroughly, but even then we may be wrong.
But in looking for proof of gods, our search is pathetically limited. By definition, a god is a being whose powers are far greater than ours, who we cannot comprehend, and whose form we cannot predict. This would make our failure to locate a god quite understandable. A very large or small god would be above or below our notice, and a distant god would also evade our sensors. Not to mention we only have five senses. If we are manipulated by gods, as the hypothesis goes, then it would be quite easy for them to deny us the eyes to see them. Only a god of near-human size in the near environs would be possible to detect.
Again, this does not mean I believe in gods, any more than I believe in aliens or unicorns. I only point out that, as a matter of logic and science, a hypothesis that has not been proved is not the same as a hypothesis that has been disproved. I agree with the atheists and agnostics that the existence of gods has not been proved, but I do not agree that the existence of gods has been disproved. It would require a much more thorough search of the universe than has so far been completed to even begin to lean. As it is, our data is near-zero.
For this reason, I find atheists to be just as sanctimonious, illogical, and tiresome as the deists and theists, if not moreso. Because the atheists are often more highly educated and often better able to argue (in limited ways), they use this education and argument to prop themselves up in the ugliest ways. They blow apart the beliefs of religious people and imagine this solidifies their own beliefs in some way. But it never does. -- Miles Mathis
In his book God is not Great, one of Hitchens' central theses is that religions are contemptuous of free inquiry, intolerant, irrational, and coercive to children. All true, but outside of religions, these things hold as well. These faults are not limited to religious people. Almost all people are contemptuous of free inquiry, intolerant, irrational, and coercive, including of course Christopher Hitchens. Atheists and scientists are often or always irrational and intolerant, and extremely coercive. Why else attack another man's god?
Modern science pretends to be free, but it isn't even close. All the contemporary theories are heavily fortified and policed, and they are famous for immediately blacklisting anyone who asks intelligent questions. Modern science consists of only two categories: those who agree with every word of the standard models, and cranks. Science in all fields has ossified into dogma, which is why it has stopped advancing. Physics, for example, hasn't made a jot of theoretical headway in almost a century. It has spent the last eight or nine decades loading the old theories down with mathematical formalisms and other jargon, and building the walls as high as possible. -- Miles Mathis
He apparently expects us to believe that modern health problems are caused mainly by a few “religious nuts” refusing treatment, rather than by a purposeful or negligent general poisoning of the entire population by mercury, lead, fluoride, carbon monoxide, diesel, benzine, PVC, dioxin, Roundup, sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, and so on. -- Miles Mathis
Religion is no longer in charge. Industry is in charge, propelled by corrupt science. If god is dead among the intelligent and elite, as he claims and as I accept, then he cannot lay the modern nightmare at the feet of the Abrahamic religions. -- Miles Mathis
Atheists always take negative proof against a religion as positive proof for themselves, but this is both lazy and false. We see this with Darwinism, DNA, carbon dating, and so on and on. We have proved that the Earth was not created in 4004 BC, so we have disproved a certain claim of certain Christians. So what? It isn't much. We have evidence the Earth is more like 4.5 billion years old, but it is not clear how this number, even if it is totally accurate, precludes gods or creation.
None of the new math has come near answering the old questions: we have simply been forbidden from asking them anymore.
They have barebones models of the early Earth, models less than a century old and ever-changing, and they think they can claim with certainty how things are, who exists and who does not, how things got here and where they are going. They think a theory of how things evolved is equivalent to a theory of how things were created. They think a model of a complex twisting molecule is the same as a blueprint for life or a explanation of self-locomotion or a proof of phylogeny. They think that four-vector fields and non-abelian gauge groups and statistical analysis explain existence, complexity, solidity, and change. -- Miles Mathis
DNA is used by the cells as a source of information. It tells them how to build other parts of the cell as well as the greater body of the organism. But if we look closer, we find very great mysteries, ones that are never mentioned. For a start, the DNA strand itself is built and replicated by enzymes. These enzymes can cut the strand as well as move around the sugars and phosphates that make up the strand. Problem is, to do this, the enzymes must have self-locomotion and a sort of intelligence. The DNA tells the cell what to do, but what tells the enzymes what to do? We have a reductio at precisely this point. We are told that the body and cells do what they do because the DNA instructs them to do it, but why and how do the enzymes do what they do? There is no room for a blueprint inside the tiny enzyme. What propels it? Even more to the point, what propels it in the proper direction, at the proper time, to do the proper thing?
The discovery of DNA does not even push us a tiny step closer to atheism. A code, any code, is indication of neither theism nor atheism. A code is only a code, and unless some information about gods is encoded directly on the strand, we have proof of nothing. Codes can be manufactured, we know that. Codes may also be natural, although that is only a conjecture at this time. To believe in manufactured codes is easy, since we can manufacture them ourselves. To believe in natural codes is not as easy, since we must be shown how a code can generate itself. -- Miles Mathis
The theist proposes these structures are not accidents, while the atheist demands that they must be. It is fantastic if they are and fantastic if they are not. It is beyond comprehension, proof, or all argument either way. -- Miles Mathis
A mutation happens to a gene, which is expressed in a specific offspring or set of offspring. These offspring, if superior, then deliver the gene to the whole herd over time, which then disseminates it further. So far, so good. But return to the individual offspring. Say we are evolving a giraffe by this method. The required mutation is then a long neck. But this mutation is only useful to a creature that is already a giraffe or pre-giraffe. The mutation will not help a pre-lion or a pre-zebra, since the lion eats meat, not leaves, and the long neck would just slow the zebra down. The mutation is useful only to an animal that is already living under trees, already trying to reach higher leaves. But if it could not reach the leaves before the mutation, why was it there? Was it just hanging around, looking up at those unused leaves, waiting for a mutation? The combination of specific mutation and specific environment is so unlikely that even great time cannot explain it.
What about the orchid with a four-inch tube, which requires a fly with a four-inch nose to pollinate it? The mutations cannot take great time to sync up, they must do so immediately or one or both species will fail. If the flower mutates to a five inch tube first, the fly cannot reach the nectar and quits visiting it. If the fly mutates to a five inch nose first, the pollen is not deposited on him, and the flower again fails. Neither species can wait around for accidental mutations of just the right sort. They must evolve together, and this is so unlikely as a matter of mutation statistics that it must show up the theory as a whole. -- Miles Mathis
Important experiments have shown that females of many species cannot differentiate between “plumaged” and non-plumaged males. This begs for another scientific explanation of bright colors and ornaments seen in nature, an explanation that has not yet arrived. Rather than become more rigorous, modern evolutionary theory has become less rigorous, and negative data is often buried or lost. -- Miles Mathis
Although Darwin claimed that nature made no jumps (natura non facit saltum), we do not see a continuous progression of states between species, either in life or in the fossil record. Nor have we been able to create a new species either by push breeding or by accelerating mutations by X-rays or other means.
If they can breed with the parent stock, they are not a new species, by definition. If they can't, they die out. It would require two simultaneous cross-breedings of precisely the same sort, creating two members of the new species, each of the opposite sex, and both fertile. This hasn't been achieved in breeding experiments, which are controlled, and it is exponentially more unlikely to happen in nature, where multiple viable cross-breedings would have to take place at precisely the same time and place, purely by chance.
This non facit saltum problem then leads us to the Cambrian explosion, which Darwin found to be a major problem, and which is still a major problem. Evolutionists like Dawkins pretend to a surety they don't have, and we see this again with the Burgess shale, which was not studied closely until the 1970's. Much of our best data is very young, that is to say, and we need far more data than we have. We are only beginning to be able to theorize intelligently, and I would say that very much of current theory is just speculation. As with black holes, our theory has so far outstripped our data. People have written books they basically had no right to be writing.
To get a taste of this, you only have to read the page at Wikipedia on the Cambrian explosion. Even now, we have far more theories than we have data, and those who had thought evolution had been set in stone since the time of Darwin will be shocked to find the theory is still so embryonic to this day. We actually know almost nothing about how the Earth has evolved, either regarding geology or speciation or anything else. -- Miles Mathis
But the greatest problem with evolution is contained in its name. It is a theory of evolution, not of creation or birth or incipience. It proposes a mechanism for how life changes, not how it begins. To be a variant answer to Genesis, it would have to propose a mechanism for the beginnings of life, and this it does not even pretend to do.
We have not been able to bombard inorganic molecules with cosmic rays or any other field that has turned it into living matter. We have not been able to build even a protozoan or a virus or an enzyme from the ground up, from atoms or elements, or to diagram how nature did it. We don't know how the mitochondria got into the cell or why, or where they were before the cell. For all these reasons and many others, it is strictly illogical for the scientists to force evolution upon religious people as a counter-explanation to their own creation myths. -- Miles Mathis
Since evolution has never been an explanation of creation, evolution is not in necessary conflict with any creation theory. -- Miles Mathis
Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and others often pretend that they are only in a defensive posture, and that their attacks upon religion are only counter-attacks, but I don't buy it. Although I was born and raised in the Bible Belt, I have always felt more pressed by the dogma of modern science than the dogma of modern religion. I have felt more keenly and more often the peer pressure and judgment of zealous and protective scientists than the scorn of fundamentalist preachers. It is easy for those who wish to avoid the prayer meetings and the proselytizing. In the universities these people play a small role. Not so the scientific fundamentalists who run the academic world with an iron fist. In the science departments you are expected to “shut up and calculate.” One serious question makes you a pest and two serious questions makes you a dangerous person. A truly sharp mind is not an asset, it is threat to the careers of your professors. They want students that are sharp enough to assist them in their research, but not sharp enough to see through them and their equations. And if a student can see through the equations of their heroes (like Laplace), alarm bells go off all over the academic world. Science is not looking for the next Newton, it is looking to get funded again next year. -- Miles Mathis
Like the theory of evolution, each scientific theory in each field is sold as true and complete and verified, although it never is. -- Miles Mathis
Few of the great scientists or mathematicians that atheists perch upon were actually atheists. Newton was not an atheist, nor were Kepler or Euler or even Laplace. -- Miles Mathis
Atheism has no proof and no possible proof. It is unscientific. -- Miles Mathis
Communism was used from the beginning to divert attention and resources away from Republicanism, all the way back to 1848. It was created to resemble Republicanism, but flatter the lower classes even more. In this way it successfully undercut the Republican revolutions of the mid-1800's worldwide, and it is continuing to do so to this day. Leftists are cleverly diverted away from the workable Republicanism into the unworkable Communism, freeing the ruling fascists from worry. -- Miles Mathis
Next time you read an article by or about one of these art experts, you might ask yourself what qualifications he or she offers. No doubt you will be treated to a long list of scholarly articles or citations, but are those really qualifications? Aren't they just a list of previous actions, also performed without qualifications? It is also worth mentioning that these art experts have an execrable track record going back centuries. Hundreds of prominent fakes and forgeries have later been discovered, all of them originally attested by the top experts of the time. The only pertinent qualification for sorting artworks in any way is an eye, and if any of these degreed fellows had eyes, they would be artists. They became art experts precisely because they couldn't become artists. So what we have is just another sign of a topsy-turvy world, where non-artists judge artists. -- Miles Mathis
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it fall, did it fall? Unless physics wants to retreat into idealism or solipsism, it must must answer yes. In the sentence, we are given that the tree fell, therefore it fell. Our observation has nothing to do with it. -- Miles Mathis
If you are a relativist, you just don't care one way or the other, and if you don't care, then your brain has no reason to hold on to data. So you have to find some reason to care. Believing in the truth is the natural way to do that.
Some will say that you can't pretend to believe in truth if you don't, and that is probably true. So start with those things you care about. Call them your truths, and build from there. You will find that those things you care about require you to look at and care about other things, and as you widen your net, your truth grows. The point is, you want to care about more things, and include more things in your truth, not less. Relativism is sold to you to make you do the opposite. -- Miles Mathis
Is agnosticism really a worthy goal? No. It is a good starting point, maybe, but as a goal it stinks. What I mean is, doubt is a proper place to begin an investigation. You want to be free to ask questions of both sides or all sides. But the whole point of any investigation is ultimately to sort fact from fiction, truth from lies. Wrong from right. If you continue to doubt everything, you can't learn anything or make any progress.
You can see how this sort of agnosticism would be the perfect misdirection for those running the country. They want you to think there is no right or wrong answer, no right or wrong, so that when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they can weasel out of it. People that believe in truth will demand that criminal cases have a definite outcome, but agnostics will be less strict. They may not even follow up to be sure sentences are served, as we have seen. The US public is very undemanding, and the reason is because they have been taught to be that way. -- Miles Mathis
If you think there is no reality, your ability to make judgments is decimated. They still make judgments, since they don't believe this crap; but they want you to believe it. They want you to believe there is no truth, since it takes the ground out from under you. You are swimming in quicksand at that point. You will do nothing but waffle the rest of your life. -- Miles Mathis
They tell you that both order and disorder are illusions, the only reality being chaos. Not true. But to the extent they can convince you it is true, to that extent you will be easier to control. In reality, everything we know or know of is highly ordered. That is, not chaotic. If the universe were chaotic, then that is what we would experience. Hadrons and electrons would not order themselves into atoms, atoms would not order themselves into molecules, and molecules would not order themselves into complex structures, including living organisms. As you now see, our experience is itself proof of order, since if all these levels of extreme order didn't exist, we wouldn't exist to experience anything. Chaos cannot experience itself, by definition. -- Miles Mathis
Mainstream physics is a product of Military Intelligence—and has been since around 1900. That is the time that everything began to be swallowed by Intelligence, including art, science, politics, literature, history, and so on. Before that, Intelligence was always running a lot of projects, but after that they were running almost all major projects. Everything became a major project—hence, the Matrix—the totally controlled society. -- Miles Mathis
“Libertarian socialist” is no more than an oxymoron. -- Miles Mathis
If photographers are being exhibited, painters and sculptors are not. It is a zero-sum game. So the promotion of photography works as anti-promotion of painting and sculpture. -- Miles Mathis
Modern critics have always attacked realists as hacks and illustrators painting for aristocrats. But as you see, they were flipping the truth, as usual. It is the Modernists who were the biggest sell-outs in the history of art, since all of Modernism has turned out to be a CIA project. They just did what they were instructed to do by their masters; and that was easy, since—as we have seen— that master in most cases was Daddy or Mommy. -- Miles Mathis
The British Security Coordination (BSC) was the US arm of MI6, headquartered in Rockefeller Center. Major Pepper ran it in the 1940s, and his name was boldly used on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's, only changing his rank. William Stephenson became head of BSC after Pepper, and a man named William Stevenson later wrote a book entitled A Man Called Intrepid. In that book, Stevenson/Stephenson admits Thorpe was a spy. He also implies that Pack was as well. At any rate, all this is strange, not only for the link to a known spy, but because in 1936 Pack was supposed to be buying the Ghost Ranch from Carol Stanley.
It is also not a coincidence that the Ghost Ranch is in the same area as Los Alamos, where the bomb was allegedly built. This area had been a spook retreat long before the Manhattan Project arrived there in 1942. In fact, Oppenheimer himself had been in the area since 1929, when he first visited what would become his ranch Perro Caliente.
Why did they name it the Ghost Ranch? Can you figure it out? Ghost=Spook=Agent. -- Miles Mathis
Despite the fact that O'Keeffe never had much talent and was generally a nasty person, we are assaulted with her promotion to this day. Why? Simply because she was a child of the wealthy families. She was also part of the long project to destroy art, and since that project is ongoing, her promotion is, too. You may wonder why I don't just ignore her, and the answer is because they don't ignore me. I and all those like me have been a primary target of the project for over a century. A prominent plank of the project was to obliterate all real artists and replace them with these manufactured children of the elite. -- Miles Mathis
In short, art history was destroyed and replaced by a vulgar simulacrum. This destruction served a dual purpose: one, it gave the rich babies something to do. They begged Daddy to let them become artists, and Daddy said yes. Two, it created the great money-laundering front that is now Modern art. Daddy was happy to have his little princess kept busy, but very soon he saw a better use for her scribbles: he could use them for more cover for his money-making schemes. -- Miles Mathis
The French Revolution was not a republican revolution, but a coup against the Aristocracy and Church by the financiers, hiding behind republican fronts and stories. -- Miles Mathis
In the absence of evidence, you make no assumptions. But with evidence piled up around you in mountains, your assumption should be that any new question that looks like old questions will be answered in the same way. -- Miles Mathis
It means these bankers were happy to create financial crises, and then exploit them to loan more money, which had to be paid back to them at interest. How was it paid back? Just like now: by soaking the middle classes. These guys had found centuries earlier that the best way to solidify their own power was to create internal strife. And the best way to create internal strife was to manufacture seemingly intractable monetary problems and get everyone pointing the finger at everyone else. The financiers would hide in the shadows until the last man fell, and then take over the wreckage. -- Miles Mathis
The parlements were being attacked because they were an arm of the aristocracy, and the financiers were enemy number one of the aristocracy. -- Miles Mathis
The initial roster of Notables included 137 nobles, among them many future revolutionaries, such as Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau, and Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, hero of the American Revolution.
Does that make any sense? Why would these nobles become revolutionaries against themselves? We are told they were just virtuous guys, allies of the common man, but if you believe that you need to lower your dosage. A much more likely assumption is that they were allies of the financiers, and that they had agreed to sell out their own people for the promise of future riches and position. -- Miles Mathis
As commander of the Parisian military forces, he could easily have suppressed the radical faction with the excuse of maintaining order, but he did nothing of the sort. In manufactured circumstances, Lafayette resigned his position and left Paris. Only once the Jacobins had taken over Paris did he return, denouncing them in Assembly in terms that made them look good. -- Miles Mathis
As now, the capitalists were in control of the books and newspapers in all these countries, so they were in control of the story. Or, they were in control of history. If they said it happened, it happened; and they simply refused to print the opposing version that it didn't happen. -- Miles Mathis
Since Desmoulins was hired, that means that the mobs he roused to storm the Bastille were either hired by the capitalists or were led to riot by paid provocateurs. I lean heavily to the former, since getting the bourgeousie to act in unison in such a way is next to impossible. It is far easier to pay a small mercenary army and dress them as commoners. Besides, they admit the number that “stormed” the Bastille was less than 1,000. Hiring such a crowd would be easy. Remember, Leni Riefenstahl hired 30,000 for her Nazi films.
They admit the Bastille contained only seven inmates at the time, so why would rioters make the effort to storm it?
And how's this for a coincidence? The Marquis de Sade had been the eighth inmate ten days earlier, but he had just been transferred out. Sounds like someone knew what was going to happen before it happened. Plus, we are told 25,000 Royal troops were already in the vicinity of Paris at the time, so it doesn't sound like a very good time to riot. Where were these troops during the storming of the Bastille? Sounds like someone paid them to stand down.
"The cost of maintaining a garrisoned medieval fortress for so limited a purpose, had led to a decision being taken to replace it with an open public space shortly before the disturbances began."
As it turns out, nothing was stormed. Even according to the mainstream story, the troops inside simply opened the gates after a parley. This part of the story also makes no sense, since although no one was guaranteed safe escort, the Governor de Launay allegedly opened the gates anyway and surrendered. We are told he did this because he was worried about food and water. After four hours? Also unbelievable is the response from the King the next day, which was. . . nothing. Troops were ordered to disperse to the country and Paris was given to the mob. Or, it was given to Lafayette, who became commander of the National Guard. That curious, wouldn't you say? Lafayette, who had been living at Versailles just few years earlier, was now commander of the Revolutionaries? Can you say “manufactured opposition”? Within days, the King himself was wearing a tricolor cockade (hat).
We see the same thing with the Jacobins, who are credited with overthrowing the monarchy. But they were also formed at Versailles and included Bourbons like the Duc d'Orleans. So again, something doesn't add up. We have seen both the Freemasons (Lafayette) and the Jacobins forming out of Versailles, the palace of the King. It only adds up once you realize the Jacobins were another front for the capitalists, and they had duped these top aristocrats like Orleans by promising him the crown once Louis was gone. They needed Orleans when it came time to order the Royal troops to stand down. -- Miles Mathis
"Although the leading members of the corporation were elected, Robespierre, their chief opponent, succeeded in getting elected with them." That is to explain his election to the Third Estate. It indicates to me that Robespierre was not really their opponent, but their hired opposition. -- Miles Mathis
We are supposed to believe that one of the largest and strongest countries in the history of Europe fell to a few fishwives and wine merchants. At the start of the Revolution, the army of France was one of the largest in the world, being second only to (perhaps) Russia. It could field over 300,000 men, as we saw soon after with Napoleon. So where was this army in 1789 or 1792? What happened to all its officers? Did they just evaporate in 1789? Just because some revolutionary assemblies were formed and started making pronouncements does not mean those pronouncements would be followed. Supposing Louis didn't have the fortitude to order the assemblies to be shut down and the leaders arrested, other nobles or generals could have shut them down on their own authority. There is simply no way the Revolution could have proceeded in the way we are taught, so we must assume it didn't.
The same analysis still holds in the summer of 1792, when Lafayette came back to Paris. But why didn't he come with his troops and capture Paris? He returned from the northern front, where he was the general of tens of thousands of soldiers. Why would he come alone and simply give a weak speech against the Jacobins? Why would he and other generals stand by and watch Vergniaud make open threats against the King's person on July 3? And why were all these troops off on distant fronts fighting absurd wars while the King was guarded by fewer than a thousand Swiss Guards? Again, why had Paris been given to the Revolutionaries without a fight, and why was their rule never contested since then?
Remember the Estates-General of 1789, the assembly that got us into this mess? Curiously, it met at Versailles. Versailles was the home of the King. It had been built by Louis XIV, and was both extensive and opulent. It is on the outskirts of Paris. Well, we see a similar thing with the Legislative Assembly of 1792. As you have seen, it was held on the grounds of the Tuileries. What was the Tuileries? It was the Paris residence of the King and had been back to Henry IV, in the late 1500s. Doesn't it seem suspicious to you to find these Revolutionary Assemblies meeting at the homes of the King? Did Louis charge them rent? It looks to me like the French Revolution was an inside job, literally. It came from inside the King's palaces. -- Miles Mathis
There were two big losers in the French Revolution, and the Church lost far more than the Monarchy. The Monarchy was back by 1814, but the Church never really recovered. Here is some of what we find on the subject at Wikipedia:
"The Revolution caused a massive shift of power from the Roman Catholic Church to the state.[72] Under the Ancien Régime, the Church had been the largest single landowner in the country, owning about 10% of the land in the kingdom.[73] The Church was exempt from paying taxes to the government, while it levied a tithe—a 10% tax on income, often collected in the form of crops—on the general population, only a fraction of which it then redistributed to the poor. . . The Church composed the First Estate with 130,000 members of the clergy. When the National Assembly was later created in June 1789 by the Third Estate, the clergy voted to join them, which perpetuated the destruction of the Estates General as a governing body."
If you wondered why the Church was the First Estate and not the King or nobles, that is why. They owned more land than the King. But just as we had to ask why the King and nobles lay down for the Revolution without a fight, we have to ask why the Church did as well. Why would 130,000 members of the clergy give up their privileges so easily? Why would the clergy join the Third Estate at the National Assembly? It makes no sense. Very early on, back in 1789, this National Assembly that the Church had allegedly joined abolished its authority to tithe. In the same year, it put the Church's property at the disposal of the nation. By February of 1790, all religious orders had been dissolved. Really? Just like that? But where was Archbishop Loménie de Brienne at that time? Shouldn't he have been defending the Church? Nope. He had been made a Cardinal and was vacationing in Italy. He returned in 1790 to take the oath of the Civil Constitution, basically ceding the First Estate to the Third (or to the bankers). He was one of the few to do so and the highest ranking to do so. But by that time, some began to see through him, including the Pope, who defrocked him. Brienne repudiated Catholicism in 1793. Not many instances in history of a Cardinal repudiating Catholicism, it goes without saying.
Of course all that confirms my thesis. Brienne was a mole: a banker and probably a Jew dressed as an Archbishop. His job from the very beginning was to sell out the Church, and he did an incredible job of it. To destroy the Church in France overnight like this required a long-prepared plan and people placed in all the right positions. It also required the connivance of the top nobles, who we can now see were part of this plan to destroy the Church. The bankers could not have defeated both Church and Monarchy so swiftly in the way we are told, so we must assume they didn't. A far better assumption is that the bankers allied themselves to the Duc d'Orleans and other traitorous nobles. In a side deal, they made a second secret alliance with the King himself. The three of them were to destroy the Church and split the profits. But the King didn't know about Orleans, and the reverse. So when all the money from selling off the Church began pouring in, the bankers stiffed both sides, using the money to instead pay off the generals. The generals who weren't already allied to the Jewish bankers by blood or previous oath were paid to go sit on the frontier while Paris was taken. By the time the King and Orleans realized they had been duped, it was too late.
In the early 1790s they tried to uproot Christianity altogether, creating a ten-day week so that people didn't know when it was Sunday or a Saint's day. Civic festivals replaced Church holidays. A Cult of Reason was created to replace Christianity, and it was both Atheist and anthropocentric. It was so disgusting to real people it massively backfired. Although real people hadn't been much involved in the Revolution—it being manufactured from the top down—they were very much involved in the counter-Revolution.* Despite brutal crack-downs by the capitalists, this counterRevolution in favor of the Church was so successful it led to the eventual re-establishment of the Monarchy. -- Miles Mathis
Louis XVI and Louis XVIII were the same person. Louis XVI faked his death and lived on as his brother, retaking the throne of France just 20 years after vacating it.
Literally billions of dollars in assets were seized, and except for some payoffs to the Royals and aristocrats who took part in the con, most of those assets went to the capitalists. These capitalists not only stole the greater part of the assets of the Church of France, they stole their tithe and replaced it with a tax. In other words, they stole a future 10% of everything, without having to raise total taxes. After that, instead of tithing the Church, the peasants and commoners would tithe the capitalists. They are still doing it, except that the tithe to the capitalists in European countries is now over 50%. -- Miles Mathis
The truth was, the King was the main enemy of the nobles, and he used this alliance with the capitalists to seize their properties. However, once again, the capitalists came out on top, since they double-crossed even the King in the long term. They allied with the King to destroy the Church and the Nobility, but once those two power structures were gone, the King had no allies against the capitalists, you see. The capitalists took down their enemies one by one. Divide and conquer. -- Miles Mathis
Napoleon's job was to keep military expenditures astronomically high, which I think you will admit he did. Once they had faked all the wars Europe could stomach for a while, they retired Napoleon and brought Louis back from the dead. Brilliant. -- Miles Mathis
The number of women who got PhDs in anything in the 1950s was very low. In that decade, only about 6% of the population was college educated. Only about 8,000 doctorates were awarded in a given year at that time, and only about 1 of 10 were to a female. That means that only around 800 women received a doctorate nationwide in a given year between 1955 and 1960. -- Miles Mathis
These storywriters at Langley appear to have been raised in a Plexiglas cubicle somewhere, since they don't seem to understand how the real world works. -- Miles Mathis
De Anza was the locus of the 2001 manufactured event allegedly featuring Al DeGuzman. He was allegedly planning a Columbine-style attack on the campus. For posing with some guns, DeGuzman was allegedly sentenced to 80 years in prison, where he allegedly hanged himself. This fake event generated so little belief at the time that Wikipedia now does not even bother having a page for it. -- Miles Mathis
You may wish to compare the bio of Steve Jobs to the bio of Robert Noyce. Noyce was Phi Beta Kappa. He had a PhD in physics from MIT. He immediately went to work at Philco as a research engineer. Three years later he was hired to work with Shockley. He founded Intel in 1968. He created the first microchip. We are up to 1977 and Steve Jobs has done precisely nothing, except shave his head and read Ram Dass.
At any rate, we are told Jobs made 100 million dollars in just two years, from 1978 to 1980. For designing a white plastic box. Is that believable? Not really. It looks to me like they could have told Jobs to hit the bricks back in 1976. Wozniak didn't need him. Jobs was nothing but ballast. So why was he kept on? I suggest it was because Apple needed someone to front the company—someone who looked right. If nothing else, Jobs was a good-looking guy. And he was a pretty good speaker. It looks to me like he was another rich kid from a prominent Jewish family looking for something to do, just like his sister. But he couldn't write and couldn't create fake art and apparently couldn't act or didn't want to. So they set him up in this part where he could act a little bit, without having to get up at 5am and be on set all day. He just had to play himself and read from the Teleprompter and try not to say anything too stupid in interviews. -- Miles Mathis
We now know they fake everything, from voting machines to stock market figures to government statistics to the entire art market. So why believe the Forbes' lists? I don't. It is pretty clear they are instructed to leave off the very top of the lists, since they are too obscene to report. For instance, the Rockefellers have so much wealth they would make Bill Gates look like Clem Kaddidlehopper. They then insert these guys like Jobs and Zuckerberg and Musk into the billionaire lists to help promote their various projects. But like everything else, it is just created with a wave of the wand. -- Miles Mathis
They didn't want to introduce the technology as a monopoly, since that would look suspicious. So they needed to push at least two major companies: Apple and Microsoft. If the market had been real, you would have expected Apple and Microsoft to have attacked one another viciously, but although we get some fake stories of that, the opposite happened. Apple basically gifted its technology to Microsoft in a very weird agreement. Here is what they say about that at Wikipedia:
"Shortly after its release in 1985, Bill Gates' then-developing company, Microsoft, threatened to stop developing Mac applications unless it was granted "a license for the Mac operating system software. Microsoft was developing its graphical user interface ... for DOS, which it was calling Windows and didn't want Apple to sue over the similarities between the Windows GUI and the Mac interface."[62] Sculley granted Microsoft the license which later led to problems for Apple."
None of that makes any sense from a business point of view. Apple should have been in the position of power there, since all it had to say is, “Fine, stop developing Mac applications. We will develop them ourselves and take your market”. Apple had enough capital to hire all of Microsoft's people away from them and develop anything they wished to develop. Instead, they just gave Microsoft the right to all their inventions. Obviously, it was done this way because Apple and Microsoft were not created to compete. Two separate platforms were created on purpose by the government to give the appearance of competition where there was none. Here we are, 40 years on, and given the current climate of predation, you would have expected Microsoft to have long since absorbed Apple—or the reverse. But that isn't even close to happening, as far as we can tell. Why not? Because it isn't in the script. -- Miles Mathis
Obviously, the Apple trademark refers to Adam and Eve, and the apple of knowledge. With Apple Computers, that became even more obvious, since they even have a bite out of the Apple, indicating the pursuit of knowledge of good and evil, even against the will of God. Well, knowledge = intelligence. The apple is the chosen sign of Intelligence. -- Miles Mathis
Other than medical care, Intelligence has been one of the few growth economies. And Intelligence is growing because it is run by the billionaires. And the billionaires are getting richer because they are vacuuming all sources of income into their own hands. They are sweeping hundreds of billions of dollars out of the middle class and into the upper .1 percentile. -- Miles Mathis
"Et ne nos inducas in tentationem..." Let us take a look at the Greek of this very phrase in Matt 6, 13: "to lead into", "not ever", "into, unto, towards", "experiment, trial, test of fidelity, enticement to sin, temptation, test" (notice how in this word you have BOTH the negative and the positive connotations of the term temptation. Now when St. Jerome was translating the Greek into Latin, he was NOT trying to find the meaning of the words, he was translating the words in the most literal way possible, hence why tentationem was the word chosen for this word. As you can tell the Latin doesn’t bring out the fullness of the Greek term here), "but", "separation, departing, fleeing, state of separation by temporal, physical, spiritual, origin of cause", "this, that", "full of labors, annoyance, hardships, peril, bad in physical sense or disease or bad in the ethical sense, evil or wicked".
Letter of St. James Chapter 1 the 13th and the 14th verse: “let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man. But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured.“
That is to say when temptation is used in the negative aspect as it is here in St. Jame’s letter, we know that it’s of the devil, God is not the author of evil situations. When we see temptation in the positive aspect from God, it is a trial to see how loyal we shall be in times of un-comfort.
"Do Not Put Us To The Test"
“Those who dislike any devotion to Mary are those who deny His Divinity, or who find fault with Our Lord because of what He says about hell, divorce, amid judgment.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen (World’s First Love)
Antifa is short for anti-fascists. They are supposed to be a violent group that beats up fascists. Right. There is no such group, and any events you can find online or in the media were created in sub-basement 7 at Langley and faked with crisis actors. -- Miles Mathis
Henry was the first Tudor King, defeating Richard III, who was a York, in the final stage of the War of the Roses. We are taught that was a war between the Yorks and the Lancasters, but it wasn't. If it had been, a Lancaster would have become King at the end of it. He didn't, a Tudor did. -- Miles Mathis
Aces and eights actually have nothing to do with a dead man: they denote some signal of the top families. Just as they like the number 33 and the number 47, they also like aces and eights. The numbers probably have a more specific meaning, but we can read them all as “we are here” signals. -- Miles Mathis
Completely faked wars cannot be managed for profit, since they exist only on paper; but staged wars can be. -- Miles Mathis
I have a hard time believing anyone still buys the mainstream patter. But I can understand why people buy the mainline history: it has been pounded into us from the cradle. We have all defined ourselves—at least in part—in relation to these facts we think we know. Therefore, I see it as much more important to attack these foundations. Once they fall, all the newer events will automatically fail. A person who comes to understand what the Salem Witch Trials really were, or what the death of Abraham Lincoln really was, cannot be fooled by the talking heads in the media any longer. -- Miles Mathis
Gary Hinman was allegedly murdered by Bobby Beausoleil, b. 1947. Since I have proved the entire event was staged, we may assume Hinman was not killed and that Beausoleil is not in jail. It is admitted that Beausoleil was discovered as an actor by spook director Kenneth Anger, who is admitted to have worked at Lookout Mountain Air Force Station in Laurel Canyon on propaganda films. Beausoleil had a part in Anger's film Lucifer Rising. So it is pretty obvious Beausoleil was an actor all along, and still is. Like Manson he is just pulled out of retirement every few years to update the hoax. -- Miles Mathis
These famous people are often said to be adopted. It is another way to hide their ancestry. -- Miles Mathis
The third Baron Stanley in this line, also named Henry Stanley, converted to Islam in 1862, becoming the first Muslim Member of the House of Lords. As an alleged Muslim, this Baron Stanley took the name Adbul Rahman. I guess that is better than Abdul Rahman Noodle. Despite being a Muslim, Stanley nonetheless funded the restorations of four churches in Anglesey. Curious. He also allegedly married a woman named Fabia in the Roman Catholic Church. That doesn't sound possible to me. To this day, Catholics do not allow such marriages. Yes, a Muslim can marry a Catholic—nothing is stopping them. But a Catholic Priest is not going to preside over the marriage unless the groom goes through long classes—classes a Muslim would not consent to. But this marriage is a farce for other reasons. It is admitted the bride was living under two aliases and was already married nine years. Obviously, this woman was a Spanish spook working on some project with Stanley. The whole Muslim thing was just a cover as well. Given the timing, it was probably linked to the Theosophy project—importing Buddhism, Islam, Taoism and anything else to weaken and splinter Christianity. -- Miles Mathis
Churchill authorized the start of the BSC in 1940, which was the American arm of MI6 after the war, created to promote a good public image of Brits in the US. It worked out of Rockefeller Center, with the British Passport Control Office acting as its front. All this is admitted at Wikipedia. The BSC coordinated the promotion of the Beatles in the US, as well as other British acts before and after.
What I am showing you is that Lennon may have been pretty closely related to Churchill through the Stanleys. This is why Lennon was chosen for the project. In this line, you may also wish to remind yourself that John Lennon's middle name is Winston. Just a coincidence, right? So, what other evidence is there that Lennon is related to these Stanleys? Well, both his greatgrandfather and great-great-grandfather were named Henry Stanley. Just another coincidence, right? -- Miles Mathis
This would be like outlawing the word “murder,” even in reportage. Because murder is a crime, you cannot use the word, since it might incite someone to murder. The current arguments are about that logical. We have already reached that point in airports, where you can already be arrested just for saying the word “terrorist.” For instance, if you said to a guard, “I am not a TERRORIST,” and said the word terrorist with too much emphasis or volume, you would be arrested. Speech, words, and even inflection have already been criminalized, even when there is no threat or chance of riot or incitement. -- Miles Mathis
A couple of people venting in a crowd is not a political debate. You are never going to be able to prevent people from shouting at each other, especially people who aren't capable of rational discourse. Since this describes most people on both sides of this and every other issue, this is the sort of thing we can expect. But it isn't important anyway. People who are pushed by the government are going to say angry things, and representatives should be able to take it. Anyone over 5 should be able to take it, since we are taught in kindergarten that sticks and stones, etc. -- Miles Mathis
Judging someone for the color of his skin is ridiculous on the face of it, and most people recognize that these days. But judging someone for his truthfulness is still both logical and poignant. Which makes it that much more amusing when these Congresspeople fail to take umbrage at being called liars. They are so used to lying that being called a liar no longer seems like a slur. When someone judges them for their character, they let it slide; but when someone judges them for the color of their nose and ears, oh, that is the limit! -- Miles Mathis
They (along with all white members of Congress and the media) are trying with every card they can play to keep the “debate” away from the real issues. They are trying to keep us arguing about forbidden words and the color of our noses, so that we forget to argue about real policy. They want the headlines to constantly be about race or sex or abortion or who fell into a mine or who slept with who, so that they don't ever have to answer the hard questions about how much the Federal Reserve stole from us this year, or how many innocent people they have killed in the Middle East in illegal wars, or how they are continuing to cover up 911, or how Homeland Security is expanding into a Gestapo, or how the Constitution is evaporating from beginning to end. -- Miles Mathis
In fact, any news story that includes Congress is misdirection from the get-go, since Congress is just a cardboard front. It is a cast of marginalized characters paid to look like it is doing something, so that you can send them letters they can throw in the shredder. You might as well petition the cast of Lost to do something about healthcare or foreign policy. You might as well gather and protest in front of Duncan Donuts or Chuck-E-Cheese. Congress is obsolescent. It is defunct. It is nothing but a professor emeritus, collecting a pension for filling a suit and having gray hair. -- Miles Mathis
The rank and file have proved that they don't know who the enemy is, so it looks like they will go after the puppets first. -- Miles Mathis
Shakespeare the actor was just a front chosen for a writing committee. -- Miles Mathis
These Stanleys have been behind many of the biggest projects of the past 600 years, including putting the Tudors on the throne, faking the Revolution, the Beatles project, the Hitler project, and the Mussolini project, among many others. They have been pulling the biggest strings in England since the time of Henry VII, and probably before. Remember, they were the Kings of Mann, and Anglesey was part of their territory. I have shown that they were so powerful they preferred not to be ennobled past Earl, since they wanted the attention off them. They preferred to let other less powerful families be Dukes and Kings. -- Miles Mathis
Definition of a Christian
"He is a Christian who follows the way of Christ, who imitates Christ in all things, as is written: 'He who says that he abides in Christ ought himself to walk just as He walked.'
He is a Christian who shows mercy to all, who is not disturbed by any injury, who does not permit the poor to be oppressed in his presence, who assists the needy and helps those in want, who sympathizes with the sorrowful and feels the grief of another as his own, whose goods all share and no one feels slighted, who serves God day and night, who reflects and meditates on His precepts at all times, who makes himself poor in this world to become rich in the eyes of God, who suffers himself to be despised among men that he may please God and the angels, who is seen to hold nothing concealed in his heart, whose soul is simple and spotless, whose conscience is faithful and pure, whose whole thought is directed to God, and whose whole hope is in Christ, who desires heavenly rather than earthly possessions, who contemns earthly goods in order to acquire divine.
As for those who love this world and who are content and well pleased with this life, hear what the Scripture says to them: 'Do you not know that the friendship of this world is enmity with God?' Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of this world becomes an enemy of God." ~St. Augustine
VIRTUES
Plants: assimilation, growth, reproduction, instinct, senses: aversion, smell, touch, taste.
Animal: happiness, bravery, memory, imagination, senses: sight, hearing, pain, pleasure.
Pagan: prudence, justice, fortitude, stoicism (Cardinal Virtues)
Christian: faith, hope, charity [sharing] (Theological Virtues).
Angelic: chastity, temperance, charity [benefit of doubt], diligence, patience, kindness, humility (Seven Virtues).
“It is the conscience that tells us when we do wrong, so that we feel on the inside as if we have broken a bone. The bone pains because the bone is not where it ought to be. Our conscience troubles us because the conscience is not where it ought to be. Thanks to this power of self-reflection that we have, we can see ourselves, particularly so at night.
Your freedom is never destroyed but you feel the sweet summons, and you ask why it is not stronger. It is strong enough if we would listen.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Jerusalem is first of all a symbol, and a potent one; the American recognition of Jewish sovereignty over the Holy City is a sign of the final Jewish victory over Christianity, and it is to be deeply regretted. -- Israel Shamir
Under the shell of a hard-nosed Yank, there is a fanatic Dispensationalist with The Scofield Reference Bible under his arm waiting for the Gog and Magog war against Israel. -- Israel Shamir
Mephistopheles: “I am part of that power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good.”
With increased aluminum, fertilizer, and weapons manufacturing, they had a lot fluoride waste that they couldn't just dump in rivers or in the oceans. Laws were already on the books forbidding it. So someone had the “brilliant” idea of putting it into the drinking water in small amounts. This would effectively dilute it on a nationwide level. The toxicity would be low enough to go unnoticed in most people in the short term, and a profit could even be made by selling it to municipalities as a dentrifice. -- Miles Mathis
IN THE FUTURE, EVERY DAY WILL BE A HOLIDAY. That is to say, every day will be used as an unsubtle psychological cue to some great lie. Every party you attend will have as its theme some specific item of your manufactured confusion. In this way, you will be taught to celebrate your own mis-education, and revel in it. -- Miles Mathis