MEDIAWARS; THE LEFT'S BLUEPRINT FOR WAR

The following is THE BLUEPRINT for the Liberal Media, it behooves us to know it.[DC]

INTRODUCTION

The progressive infrastructures groups we have built together were started long before Hilary Clinton ran for president.They were always intended to be the first line of defense,and offense when we were under siege[with all the new sites popping up producing questionable headlines, it appears desperation has set in with the liberals,and unfortunately I see some of my friends in social media not exercising their discernment with this attack on the alternative news DC]

If we keep fighting, our groups will last,we will continue to build for the future, and we will win again[I want you to note that THEY have given up on the present DC]

WE HAVE THE MANDATE

[And it is called the Communist Manifesto DC]

Together,we won the popular vote, and Democrats picked up seats in the house and senate[straight out lie, otherwise the other party would not CONTROL BOTH houses DC]

Trump is the least popular incoming president in modern history and the outgoing president and the popular vote winner are again the most admired man and woman in the country.[Which means absolutely nothing, because the polls are set up by the very people spouting the nonsense about the Bitch, and closet homosexual DC]

The country did not vote for Trump style change.[Again pure nonsense, they forget they mention in the beginning,that they have lost control, whatever that means, so if they and their agenda lost control, INDEED the country DID VOTE for Trump Style change DC]

Trump has the legal authority,but we have the moral authority,and the moral responsibility to oppose him.[Moral authority= political hacks manipulating others for their liberal/communist cause,they have been conning the People with that lie for a couple hundred years DC]

We will fight every Day

We are going to fight for the things in which we believe, and we are going to fight against any attempt to erode the cornerstone work and values of the progressive[communist DC] movement and this pluralistic nation.[Which really means they are going to fight tooth and nail AGAINST THE LEGAL AUTHORITY and against any form of closing our borders. We have already seen these communists in action, at our airports and in front of federal buildings etc DC]

We are going to resist the normalization of Donald Trump,his every conflict of interest,his every bit cronyism,his every move toward authoritarianism,his every subversion of our democratic systems and principles,his every radical departure from domestic and foreign policy norms[Christ! where to start with this pile of garbage?First off when they start on their divide and conquer crap, and they accuse 'one side' of doing things or planning to do things, you can be SURE that the accusers are DOING and have DONE the very things they accuse Trump of doing or planning.Look at it like this people,the divide and conquer crew want the people to believe that among so called American politicians, there are conservatives and liberals,but that is NOT the truth, and not even close, it is apparent that the political hacks of the Democrat party are out and out Communists.With the lying Republicans understand that their actions speak to them being in the majority neo-cons.If you do your due diligence,you will find that the neo-cons are the followers of Trotsky,YES that Trotsky.To understand truly where the country is right now, The Bushes WERE NOT REPUBLICANS,might have posed as such to further the neo-con agenda. So you throw out Reagan, because that white house was controlled by the Criminal Bush, and the 2 Bush white houses,and what it really leaves us is 36 years of Clinton and Obama. The last TRUE Republican was Hoover,and I do not have to remind you of what they put  the People through because he would not give in to the bankers DC] 

We are going to contest every effort,at every level of government,to limit rights,rescind protections,entrench inequality,redistribute wealth upwards,or in any other way fundamentally undermine the tenets of egalitarianism that must serve as the bedrock of our democracy.[Just more of the same as above,what planet are these people on to suggest that OUR RIGHTS particularly under the the 1st and 4th amendments have not already been taken away in THEIR DEMOCRACY,which is NO SUCH THING, call it what it is, Communism at war against Freedom, and you dimwits backing the takeover of this land NEVER deserved to be here,and in the Future there is going to be no forgiveness for your actions against the Promised Land DC]

WE WILL APPLY LESSONS LEARNED

Generally speaking and simply put,democrats got clobbered in the digital space.

Digital programs both tactical and messaging failed to actively listen to and engage the online grassroots universe[The use of the terms tactical and messaging speak to propaganda,NOT NEWS,and it shows in the name of their manifesto...Mediawars DC]

The Trump camp spoke effectively to the grassroots[WE ARE PEOPLE you idiots DC] and relied on online channels to disseminate information and misinformation and influence the media,even getting fake stories on cable television.[accusation, not one example to back up their claim DC] 

And the right colonized Facebook,which has established a virtual  monopoly on information distribution[What they are pissed about is that there is a large group of people on Facebook who think for themselves, and in THEIR DEMOCRACY, they cannot have that DC]

Our digital efforts were largely focused on changing the narrative with the traditional media versus the voters[again they use a word...versus...denoting the voters as adversary DC] This worked to a point but wasn't enough in the face of a news media incentivized by profit and access and fearful of intimidation and bullying by the Trump forces[Again in THEIR DEMOCRACY they are not PEOPLE they are FORCES, once again the Military/Mockingbird aspect of this file keeps comes to the surface and we are still only in the Introduction, to their war plan, and make no mistake this war is against the American People DC]

We will fully adapt to the 

new reality and we will win

Here is how

In the next four years Media Matters will continue its core mission of disarming[these idiots at Langley are so easy to identify,everything is a mission or war DC] right wing  misinformation,while leading the fight against the next generation of conservative disinformation: The proliferation of fake news and propaganda now threatening the country's information ecosystem[get it straight you know nothings, the fake ass media is consisted of the ABC's,NBC's,CBS's,FOX,CNN,Time,Newsweek's,A.P.'s and Reuters of the world, and a whole bunch of Americans know this and you want to be controllers are afraid of us telling The Truth! DC] Here is what success will look like:

.Serial misinformers and right wing propagandists inhabiting everything from social media to the highest levels of government will be exposed and discredited.

.Internet and social media platforms like Google and Facebook will no longer uncritically and without consequences host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists.[To me that sounds like a threat to our 1st amendment right of free speech DC]

.Toxic alt-right social media -fueled harassment campaigns that silence dissent and poison OUR national discourse will be punished and halted.[So that sounds like Soviet Russia to me where all dissent was halted and there was only THE party, this is what the sick assholes at the CIA are talking about when they refer to OUR national discourse.DC]

American Bridge will cement itself as the standard bearer of opposition research,build on its role as a progressive[communist DC]clearinghouse for information that drives the narrative on Republican officeholders and candidates,and be at the epicenter of democrats work to regain power starting in 2017 and building to 2020.Here is what success will look like[Am I the only one who notices that these idiots NEVER think of governing and are only interested in the power? DC]

.Trump will be defeated either through impeachment or at the ballot box in 2020

.The balance of Power will shift back to the democrats.We will measurably impact US Senate,gubernatorial,and state legislative races.

.We will free ourselves from solely relying on the press. Our robust digital program will reach voters directly online.[what clowns they act like their fellow travelers have never been on the internet,with their propaganda DC]

CREW will be the leading nonpartisan ethics group watchdog group in a period of crisis with a president and a administration that present possible conflict of interest and ethical problems on an unprecedented scale. CREW will demand ethical conduct from the administration and all parts of government,expose improper influence from powerful interests,and ensure accountability when the administration and others shirk ethical standards,rules and laws.Here is what success will look here...

Start at Page 3 at the link for the remainder of their plans for war.

http://www.jimstone.is/mediawar/1.html  

 

 

JEFF BEZOS LOOKS LIKE ANOTHER CIA FRONT

Jeff Bezos 

looks like 

another CIA Front 

by Miles Mathis 

First published March 8, 2017 

As usual, this is just my opinion. . . except for all the research from mainstream sites, which is not just my opinion. I got here in the usual way: unusually. I was looking up a trivia question from a game last night about the 80's song Always Something There to Remind Me. I thought it was by Crowded House, but I was wrong. It was by Naked Eyes. Since I was on youtube, I was assaulted in the sidebar by CIA promotion “chosen just for me”. Oh, lucky me! It was a video about a too-bright Venus. I have noticed Venus seems abnormally large and bright, but I assumed it was because I was getting older and my eyes couldn't focus it like they used to. So I clicked. I was taken to a cache of videos by Steiger and Olson at GNN, and was immediately suspicious, of course. The production stunk of spin, so I called up a list of all their videos, looking for Flat Earth promotion. I didn't find that, but I found a video on Bezos and Elon Musk. Steiger/Olson are doing a straight promotion of both guys, saying “isn't it great” to see competition in the space race. That's all I needed to know. Since I have shown you Elon Musk  is probably a total fraud and that SpaceX is a definite fraud, I have a lot of evidence Steiger/Olson are pushing another Intel project here. . . perhaps from the halls of Langley itself. I say that because Steiger admits he is a friend of Bezos, having sat with him on a panel in 1999. He says, “I love this guy!” That's a big clue here, though most will pass over it. If Steiger is sitting on panels with Bezos, he isn't exactly an independent source of information here, is he? 

Anyway, that told me that if Musk is a CIA front, Bezos probably is, too. So I did a quick genealogy search on Bezos. They have scrubbed him at Geni.com, but not very well. On his maternal side, we have nothing past his mother. But she is given as a Gise. On his father's side, we get very little, but we do find his grandmother as a Pollack. Both those names indicate Bezos is from prominent Jewish lines, and linked to the families of my previous research. If you have read those papers, you know about Pollack. But you haven't seen the name Gise before. I send you to Moishe (Morris) Gise, b. Russia and d. 1983 in NY, son of Schmuel Lev Gise, and father of Yetta. Moishe is listed as an “owner of gas stations”. My guess is that links him to Standard Oil and the Rockefellers. See below for a second hit on this. Further research turns up a Madeline Morris Gise in MA, which means the Gises married with the Morrises of Massachusetts. See my paper on the the Lizzie Borden hoax for more on the Morris/Morrison clan, which is also part of the cabal. Also notice Moishe's anglicized name above. This Madeline has a son David Gise whose marriage announcement to Erin Yavener was in the New York Times in 2015. Yavener is another Jewish name. The couple were married by Rabbi Bayar. 

That gives us enough to go on concerning that question with Bezos. Despite that, no one else on the internet appears to know Bezos is Jewish. Jew or not Jew tells us he isn't Jewish. Even Stormfront denies it. Weird. Why would Stormfront take the time to deny Bezos is Jewish, when he obviously is? Because Stormfront is also a front. 

I also pause to point out the obvious: Steiger is also a Jewish name.

I wanted to watch an interview with Bezos, so I went to youtube, where the first thing that was listed is a Vanity Fair interview with Walter Isaacson. I couldn't watch more than a few moments, one because the interview was so boring, and two because these two people made me immediately nauseous. I don't understand how other people fall for this stuff, but maybe they don't. I'm sure the numbers at youtube are manufactured, so maybe no one else is clicking on this, and if they are, maybe like me they are running screaming after a few seconds. Anyway, I wanted to remind you who this Walter Isaacson is. He is one of the Jewish bigwigs who runs everything, especially in the media. We saw him recently in my paper on Steve Jobs, where we find Isaacson as his biographer and promoter as well. Curious, eh? In that paper, we discovered he was an editor at TIME, and later CEO of CNN. He is currently CEO of the Aspen Institute. He is also on the Board of United Airlines, Harvard University, Tulane University, Bloomberg philanthropies, and the Carnegie Institute for Science. That would seem to be several fulltime jobs, but somehow he still has time to write biographies of Steve Jobs and interview Bezos and so on. We may assume he is a high-ranking spook, heading several writing committees in Langley, and that his main job has to do with operation CHAOS. He pushes forward these projects like Jobs and Bezos, acting as a handler to these people sort of like George Martin did with the Beatles. For, while Isaacson seems spooky, he doesn't seem stupid. He keeps his charges on track. This indicates to me that being CEO of Aspen and on the board of Bloomberg Philanthropies and so on doesn't take more than a few minutes a month. That really isn't surprising, is it, considering that philanthropy is just a pose to start with. These people steal a million dollars and give back a penny, and giving back the penny probably doesn't take long. 

Isaacson and the wider media are trying to convince us these people like Bezos are fascinating, but are they? Even if Bezos had done what they say he did, I don't think I could care less. He founded Amazon and has billions of dollars. So what? Is Amazon.com fascinating as a subject? Am I missing something? I find it about as fascinating and intellectually stimulating as WalMart. It is a big online store. I don't see the genius involved. Why is this guy being interviewed? Why was he TIME's Man of the Year? You might as well interview the guy who runs the dime store. And since the first interview with Bezos years ago was a big yawn, why keep going back? Does everyone think he is eventually going to get around to saying something poignant? He isn't. We have seen millions of businessmen interviewed over the years, and not one has ever said anything that would break a snooze. 

Anyway, it looks to me like Bezos is just another rich boy from the families, chosen as the face for the Amazon project. Just as Zuckerberg is the face for the Facebook project, and Musk is the face for the Tesla/SpaceX projects, and Jobs was the face of the Apple project, and Gates is the face of the Microsoft project, Bezos is the face of the Amazon project. So to understand my argument here, you should have read my papers on Jobs and Zuckerberg, as well as my paper on Musk. If you don't do that, you will think I am way out on a limb here. But I'm not. I'm not flying on intuition or a hunch, I am progressing on previous research. 

All these rich Jewish nerds look and act like the pathetic phonies I used to run across in the art scene, before I ran screaming. Like art and physics, large parts of big business have been taken over by these card boards cut-out geeks who register zero on the charisma scale, zero on the intelligence scale, and zero on the reality scale. They just aren't convincing in their roles. About all they seem capable of is getting their picture taken and reading from the Teleprompter, and most of them can't even do that convincingly. I don't know about you, but I am past believing in any of them. What it looks like to me is that they are just talentless rich kids who asked Daddy to set them up on camera. They want to be famous, but they can't actually do anything, so Daddy has to use them in some ongoing project. The CIA has lots of projects that need human fronts, and so these rich kids are chosen for the part. Compare these kids to George Bush, Jr., who—if the world worked on merit—would have been cleaning pools somewhere. Instead, they set him up as President. That tells you how much value they put on the role of President. They didn't even care that he royally screwed up every press conference and speech: it just didn't matter. We could say the same of Trump. The screw-ups work as misdirection, since the media can then talk about that instead of addressing more important issues. 

In my opinion, Amazon is another Octopus/CIA company, owned by the trillionaires and also used by Intel for data collection. Bezos probably has absolutely nothing to do with it, either as a founder or owner. He is just the front: meaning, he is the guy they tell you owns it and runs it, so they don't have to tell you who really does own it and run it. They tell us he is worth 71 billion or so, but I don't believe it and you don't have to, either. You don't have to believe anything that isn't believable. Remember that. Just five or six years ago, they were telling us Bezos was worth only about 18 billion. Now he is worth 71 billion? So he quadrupled his wealth in five years? Really? In a down market? While everyone else was going broke, he quadrupled his wealth? I think it is false, but if true you still shouldn't “love this guy”. He is either A) a total fraud, or B) a towering crook. Take your pick. I choose A. 

I broke the numbers down for you in my papers on Jobs, Zuckerberg and Musk, showing you why the given levels of wealth don't add up. So I am not going to do it again here. Just be advised that Bezos' entire bio is again a thing of smoke and mirrors. 

For instance? For instance, his name has changed. His birth name is Jeff Jorgensen. Why can't any of these people exist under their real names? I will be told his stepfather adopted him at age 10, but that seems to happen an awful lot with these people I research. A person doing research on famous people would come to the conclusion that about 3/4's of all people are adopted by their stepfathers at some point. Statistically, that is way off, of course. Probably less than 1% of people are adopted by stepfathers. Which means that these biographies appear to me to be made up as misdirection. I have shown much evidence of that with many previous people I have researched, so it is a good assumption. They need to confuse your mind, so they start by mixing in a bunch of adoptions and step-parents. They then have parents dying, name changes, and truncated genealogies. Most people see the mess and give up, just accepting what they are told because it is easier than unwinding the tangle. 

At Wikipedia, we are told that Jeff's maternal ancestors owned very large acreages around Cotulla, Texas, but we aren't told who they were. We are told his maternal grandfather was a director of the US Atomic Energy Commission, but once again aren't given a name. Since it is scrubbed at Geni as well, more research is required. We find with some digging this grandfather was Lawrence Preston Gise, husband of Mattie Strait and son of Lloyd Preston Gise and Rebecca Hall. I trust you are paying attention, because we already have possible links there to famous Texans Preston Smith, George Strait and Jerry Hall—who just came up in my last addendum. Rebecca Hall's mother is Henrietta Trammell, which may link us to Trammell Crow. Rebecca's father is Thomas Hall, who is the grandson of Col. John Gladden King of Gonzales, TX. Which takes us just where I figured we were going when I saw the name Cotulla. I am from Texas, so when I see mentioned “large landholders in south Texas”, I automatically think of the King Ranch. Turns out, Jeff may come from these Kings. We are told Bezos owns a huge ranch in West Texas, but Cotulla isn't in West Texas. It is in South Texas, 60 miles south of San Antonio. It isn't part of the current King Ranch, but the Kings used to own or run most of Texas below San Antonio. It looks like maybe they still do, under different names. 

And who are these Kings? Geni doesn't tell us, since the given history of Bezos' family ends with Col. King in around 1813. We are told he came from S.C, but nothing else. More digging turns up bupkis, other than that Gladden was his mother's name. But we may assume these Kings are related to the Kings I have already outed in previous papers, including my paper on F. Scott Fitzgerald. Scott's first flame is given as Ginevra King, remember, daughter of billionaire Charles Garfield King of Chicago. We also found that Fitzgerald author Aaron Latham of Spur, TX, was the grandson of Sarah King. I hadn't thought to link Aaron Latham of Texas to the King Ranch, Texas, but I should have. 

I also researched the Kings in my paper on C. S. Lewis. Remember, his fake mother with whom he lived for 33 years was Jane King Askins. This ties in here, because the King Ranch was co-founded by Kings and Lewises. Gideon Lewis was a co-founder. Another co-founder was Mifflin Kenedy from Pennsylvania. They misspell that to break the link to the Kennedy's, but of course they were related. Mifflin was from Pennsylvania and was a Quaker, so we have red flags everywhere once again. I will have to research this Kenedy later, since it would swamp this paper. 

I have shown previously that the Kings are also related to the Garfield's, the Chases, the Rockwell's, the Alsop's, and more recently the Emanuel's (think Rahm and Ari Emanuel). I show you all the links in my paper on Fitzgerald. So this is where Jeff Bezos probably comes from. 

I couldn't make the link to him from the direction of Col. King, so let's try from the direction of Charles Garfield King of Chicago. His ancestors come from Northampton, MA, and before that from Northhampton, England. We find them connected to the Kelloggs, the Pitts and the Rhodes.  Some of these Kings  ended up in Lincoln, Nebraska.  Others ended up in Georgia (see the brothers Thomas Butler King and Stephen Clay King). But any link to SC has been scrubbed at Geni.com. 

Before I try again on that problem, you may be interested to know that I can link Bezos to Musk in a rather curious way. I have shown that Bezos is a King. The director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center from 2003-2009 was David King. During the same years, the director of NASA was Mike Griffin. Griffin also worked for In-Q-Tel (CIA) and later worked with Musk. So we have just a couple of degrees of separation. Also interesting is that David King is from South Carolina, having graduated from U. of South Carolina. 

I will be told this is all beside the point, since the King Ranch wasn't founded by Col. King. It was founded by Richard King. The problem with that is that Richard King has no genealogy. At Geni and Wiki, he has no parents. His wife, however, has ancestors that go back to Plymouth, MA. And his daughter married a Kleberg. Does that name look Jewish to you? It should, since his maternal grandmother was a Sachs. Not surprisingly, she is scrubbed, with no parents given. Her husband is also scrubbed, although his name is given as von Roede. Curiously, a search on “von Roede Jewish” takes us first to a page at Wikipedia on Jewish Royalty, where we find the Austrian Barons von Rede. Although we aren't told where the name Rede came from, this family is related to the Rosenberg banking family, as well as the von Kaullas—also ennobled Jews of Austria. The von Kaulla family owned the Bank of Wurttemberg. 

Wow. If you aren't shaking your head, you don't have a neck. The other link for von Roede is just as interesting. It takes us to a Wiki page in Germany, which we have to translate. The von Rodes were Landgraves in Marburg. This reminds us that von Roede is probably a variant of Rhodes, which already came up in this paper. See above, where the Kings in Massachusetts in the 1700s married with the Rhodes. Now we find the Kings in Texas marrying with the von Roedes. Coincidence? I doubt it. You are free to come to your own conclusions, but to me it looks like Richard King was a son or nephew of Col. King, and that they both come from the Kings of Massachusetts. We weren't able to link them through South Carolina, but we finally linked them through Rhodes/von Roede. 

And for those saying the Kings of King Ranch couldn't have been Jewish, note not only the genealogical evidence I have shown you going way back, also remember the more recent evidence with Bezos. Bezos is a Pollack and a Gise, and he now owns part of what used to be the extended King Ranch. His ancestors ARE Kings, and they admit that. So he probably didn't buy these fragments or extensions of the old King Ranch, it looks like he inherited them. 

More evidence comes from the scrubbed bio of Richard King, which still has residue on it I can read. We are told he was a jeweler's apprentice in New York City at a young age. They should have scrubbed that and now probably will, since it tells us he was very likely Jewish. Most jewelers in NYC were Jewish. Like textiles and banking, it is a famous Jewish trade.

[Addendum March 12, 2017: My reader and guest author Kevin did some more research on the Kings and sent it in. Max and Crystal Eastman descend from the Kings of Massachusetts and Southern England. {This links us to many prominent Eastmans such as George Eastman of Eastman/Kodak and Linda Eastman (wife of Paul McCartney). Also Linda's father Lee Eastman, born Leopold Epstein, lawyer not only for McCartney, but also for modern artist Willem de Kooning. It also links us to Joseph Bartlett Eastman, son of Lucy King. And he links us to current artist Bo Bartlett, who I have been trying to figure out for years. It also links us to Max Eastman, who we saw in my paper on Eugene Debs.} Roger Eastman married Margaret King and Josiah Chapin married Mary King. The Eastman and Chapin lines include names like: Ephraim, Benjamin, Abihue, Samuel and Elijah. Max and Crystal's parents served as pastors at the church of Thomas Beecher. Beecher was a close friend of Mark Twain  and married him to Olivia Langdon Clemens. Through his parents, Max also became acquainted in his youth with Twain. The Liberator was a monthly socialist magazine established by Max Eastman and his sister Crystal Eastman in 1918. The publication was an organ of the Communist Party of America.  Their mother was Annis Bertha Ford. Social work pioneer and journal editor Paul Kellogg offered Crystal Eastman her first job. Crystal's son Jeffrey Eastman Fuller was an O.S.S field operative, serving in the Research and Analysis Branch of the U.S.S.R. Division in Washington, Berlin, and Central Europe Fuller was discharged from the Army in June 1946 with the rank of Major, but continued to serve as a Major in the reserve, where he specialized in psychological warfare.  {This links us not only to the CIA, but to the Fullers like Margaret and Buckminster.}] 

But back to Bezos. His stepfather is also a pile of red flags. This Miguel Bezos is supposed to be a Cuban immigrant who became an engineer at Exxon. That links us to Standard Oil, of course. I don't think I have ever done research on famous people that didn't lead to Standard Oil. A person researching famous people would come to the conclusion that about 3/4's of all people ever born work at some point for Standard Oil. But of course the statistics don't support that, either, making it a huge red flag. 

Although Bezos' degree was allegedly in computer science, he went to work after graduation for Bankers Trust. He then went to work for D. E. Shaw, a large hedge fund company. That doesn't make much sense. At age 30, while driving cross-country, he supposedly came up with the business model for Amazon. In one way, that is believable, since it isn't like nobody had ever thought of a mail-order business before. But in this case it was web-order. As with the founding of Facebook and the idea of social networking, it doesn't take a genius to come up with the idea for a web-order business. In fact, in both cases many people beat them to the idea. 

The section on the founding of Amazon is paper-thin on Bezos' Wiki page, so for more information we go to Amazon's own page. Again, almost nothing. So we go to the “timeline of Amazon” page. Again, almost no useful information on how or why Amazon flourished. The one thing we do discover—that Amazon started out selling only books—is a head-scratcher. Were book sales on the rise in 1994? No, just the opposite. Books sales have been in a steep decline for decades, and if it weren't for Harry Potter and Oprah books, new book sales would be near-zero now. By 1990, Trivial Pursuit had removed its original brown Literature category, since it was considered defunct. Their PR department likely reported to management it would be like having a category devoted to cobbling or leechcraft. Besides, Abebooks and Alibris were going online in the same years as Amazon, so Amazon should have found stiff competition. Since both Abebooks and Alibris outlasted Amazon as a bookseller, we may assume Amazon didn't win that war (or at least not until it bought out Abebooks years later in 2008). Beyond that, they admit Amazon didn't make and “didn't plan to make a profit for four to five years”. Really? That's a great way to pull in investors, right? The old no-profit plan. We are told Amazon turned its first profit in 2001. So, yes, Bezos is looking like a real genius. A 1994 online bookstore with a 7-year no-profit plan. Why wouldn't that score big? 

TIME named Bezos Person of the Year in 1999. Wait, let me be sure I get this straight: Bezos—a man whose company hadn't made a profit in five years and wouldn't for another two years—is named Person of the Year by TIME? And you don't think these people are toying with your mind? 

If you still think Bezos isn't Jewish, we now go to the Amazon board of directors. Surnames: Alberg, Gorelick, Rubinstein, and Gordon. Gordon is a partner in Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield, and Byer. Do I need to draw you a picture? 

So I am not saying these guys like Bezos aren't rich. Of course they are. They are from the families, so they are very rich. But their wealth doesn't arise the way we are told. It probably isn't distributed the way we are told, either. In other words, I assume these guys are worth a few tens or hundreds of millions. They are set up in a big house and they have lots of vehicles. They have to, to maintain the fiction. But all the other billions are funneled elsewhere. If they exist anywhere but on paper, they exist in the coffers of the top families who actually run these largest companies. And I assume they are hidden. They may be Rockefellers or Rothschilds (or not), but they almost certainly aren't these dweebs like Musk and Bezos. The real governors seem to search the families for the geekiest cousin they can find and set him up as the poster boy. They see this as the perfect misdirection, for many reasons. 

These rich gay Jewish momma's boys are chosen specifically for their looks, since that too is part of the project. It is no accident that all your role models in business are people like this. They want you to believe that people like this become billionaires, since that totally messes with your mind. While they are crushing your body with fluoride and GMOs and aspartame and cellphone radiation, they are crushing your mind with daily contradictions. Watching these squishy guys like Gates, Musk, and Bezos seem to take over the world of high-tech and finance must short-circuit all rationality. If you want to advance, you will naturally model yourself after those you see advancing. But if you model yourself after these guys, you will be guaranteed not to advance. Which is fine by them, because it means they won't have to compete with you. 

So you see, it is all part of the emasculation project, which is a subset of the CHAOS project. They suppress you with confusion, drugs, and bad information, so that you have no hope of advancing past a certain level. And if, like me, you come knocking on doors nonetheless—having skirted the drugs and bad info—they then just lock the door and pretend no one is home. Since they own all the markets, they know you can't advance in any major market without their permission. Without market support, they figure you will die on the vine in short order. This is the way they maintain hegemony. 

Remember, it is all about money with these people. They don't see the world like I see it. When the Muses asked me early on if I would rather be a real artist, but poor, or a fake artist, but rich, I choose the former. I wanted to become an artist in order to create beautiful works, not to get rich. That's what being an artist meant to me, and it still does. I didn't admire Raphael or Van Dyck or whomever because they were rich. I admired their paintings. They aren't famous now because they were rich. They are famous because they created real works of art. And when I got involved in physics, it was the same. I wanted to do real physics, not just collect a paycheck. 

But these people in the families aren't like that. They look at people like me as aliens, or as another species. What I just said doesn't register with them. I know, because I have worked with some of them (in the galleries). I have seen them look at me in wonder. They can't figure out what I am up to. They think I am running some con on them, preparing to unleash some kind of financial reverse-whammy on them, picking their pockets while their guard is down. It never occurs to them that I am serious. 

This is why they have destroyed art, literature, science and everything else. Those things really don't mean anything to them, except as potential commodities. I have never seen any real evidence they are Satanists, but I have seen lots of evidence with my own eyes that they are fatally shallow, unable to appreciate anything with depth. In my first field of art, they admit it. I have seen many top gallery owners admit in print they don't care anything about art, and heard many more admit it in person. They see art only as easy money. Likewise in physics, where we have seen top physicists admitting that physics means nothing to them. They are only interested in a shallow heuristics. If that. I suspect they too are only interested in money, or appearing on camera. 

More broadly, it has always looked to me like the governors want you think they are Satanists, because as Satanists they would actually be far more interesting than they really are. But this is just a Halloween costume they like to dress up in, because it makes them look like they have a personality. They are so devoid of all imagination, they can't think of anything but to scare you. That is the extent of their creativity. 

I leave open the possibility there may exist some interesting people hidden away somewhere on this planet, but I have yet to meet them or hear of them. The rich and influential people I have met have not been the most interesting, but the least. Hanging with them has always been like eating plastic fruit, and I would rather spend time with my cats. Which is what I do. 

This is because I have found by long experience that not only do these people have nothing interesting to say, they will allow nothing interesting to be said. As a child, I remember being able to enthrall just about any audience with my observations, but that all ended at about age 12. It wasn't that my stories became less interesting: in fact, I believe they have become more and more interesting as time has passed. What changed is my audience. While children are pure enough to be enthralled by a true story, most adults are not. Most adults don't want to hear anything they haven't already heard on TV. Teenagers are heavily groomed by culture, and they are entertained only by those who can mimic the major entertainers and forms. Although I could do that as a young man, I didn't find it entertaining for myself. Beyond a certain age, I was no longer interested in aping Steve Martin or Robin Williams or whoever was in the news. In short, I grew up. I needed more from my entertainment than a few shallow jokes. I like comedy routines and sports, but only as a sidelight in my downtime. For my main courses, I need to feed on something more substantial. 

Most adults no longer grow up. They are stuck at the level of comedy routines and sports. They are groomed by long custom to remain at this level. If you get beyond those categories, your audience is lost. They look at you a like time traveler from the 19th century. You might as well be wearing a powdered wig and buckles on your shoes. If you say anything interesting, they will ignore it as if it wasn't said. This happens to me everytime I go out (which isn't often anymore). I still try to be interesting, but it doesn't fly. So almost the only time I speak out now is in these papers. I have my say, entertain myself mightily, and possibly reach a few adults who retain that child inside. 

I find the stories I have told you and myself over the past years far more interesting than any history or fiction, and not just because my stories are true. My stories are more interesting because they contain a complexity that is unmanufactured. While they have some similarities to Sherlock Holmes mysteries, they make Sherlock Holmes mysteries look like grocery lists. I unlock more mysteries in one long paper than Holmes did in his entire career. And while Holmes' mysteries are both trivial and fictional, mine are neither. 

That closing was a bit of a diversion, but I will let it stand. I find it, too, entertaining, and you may as well. If not, the historians may get something from it later.[The one part that I would add that kind of surprised me that Miles did not was Bezos connection to the Washington Post as we are well aware of the connection with that Paper and  Langley D.C]
http://mileswmathis.com/bezos.pdf