by Miles Mathis
First published May 28, 2016
As usual, this is just my opinion, arrived at by personal research, most of it on the internet.
We found in my paper on the Salem Witch Trial hoax that Judge Hathorne was the great-great grandfather of Nathaniel Hawthorne, author of The Scarlet Letter. Since we have also found that hoaxing tends to run in these families, we should study Hawthorne more closely. It may be that his books were not written as independently as we have thought.
Hawthorne added the “w” to his name specifically to break this tie to the past. Strange then that his most famous book should have so many pointers to Salem, being set about 40 years before the Witch Trials in nearby Boston, and concerning Puritans.
Hawthorne's bio throws up a whole flock of red flags, starting with his birthday on July 4 in Salem. His father Nathaniel was a member of the East India Marine Society, located in Salem. They try to pretend this wasn't connected to the East India Company, but of course it was. It shared a building with the Asiatic Bank and the Oriental Insurance Company.
The Asiatic Bank was owned by Joseph Sebastian Cabot, whose ancestor Sebastian Cabot was the famous Venetian explorer of the 16th century. His father signed his name Zuan Chabotto, and there are almost certainly Jewish links here. The mother is scrubbed. We will pass that by for now and keep going.
Joseph was married to Elizabeth Higginson, whose name you will also recognize from the later Boston Brahmins like Henry Lee Higginson. The Higginsons and Cabots were still intermarrying in the 19th century, since Henry's mother was Mary Cabot Lee. Joseph's son was George Cabot, Senator and delegate at the Hartford Convention of 1814. He was the great grandfather of Henry Cabot Lodge. Like his father, George was also a merchant and ship captain.
Anyway, the long and short of it is that the “British” East India Company had a presence in the US back to the 1700s, and their base of operations was of course Boston and Salem. We know this from the famous Boston Tea Party, which we are told was aimed at the King of England, but which was really aimed at the East India Company, which imported the tea, had a monopoly, and which was the main beneficiary of the tea tax. And it wasn't just England or the British East India Company that was getting rich at the time, it was American families like the Cabots and Hawthornes, who were the local merchants.
In 1842 Hawthorne married Sophia Peabody. Not only was she of the wealthy and famous Peabody family, she was also a Palmer. Her mother was Elizabeth Palmer. Her sister was Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, a famous Transcendentalist and assistant to Amos Bronson Alcott at his Temple School in Boston. He was of course the father of Louisa May Alcott, who wrote Little Women. Elizabeth Palmer Peabody opened a bookstore out of her home in Boston, and it is there that Margaret Fuller held her “Conversations”. Fuller was an ancestor of Buckminster Fuller, whom I have already outed as a probable agent. Margaret was likely an agent as well, although I have only suggested that so far. That suggestion will move very far towards proof via the evidence in this paper. Elizabeth Palmer Peabody also did the first English translation of the Lotus Sutra, which may link her to the later Theosophy project. We will see several other links of the same sort below. Palmer Peabody imported from Germany the educational ideas of Friedrich Frobel, who had Jewish connections and may have been Jewish himself. Frobel later married Louise Levin, Jewish.
Sophia Peabody was a cousin of George Peabody, who in the same years was busy founding the bank that would become J. P. Morgan. Her grandfather was Gen. Joseph Palmer, Revolutionary War. I have recently done some research on the Palmer family in more than one paper, including my paper on Tiger Woods. I have tied them to military intelligence from the beginning. They have also produced several early billionaires, including the mysterious Potter Palmer.
So that was Hawthorne's wife. His mother is equally connected. She is Elizabeth Clarke Manning. Not only is she related to the Clarkes, who I also researched in the Tiger Woods paper, she is related to the Potters. Her grandmother is Ruth Manning Potter. So it looks like Hawthorne's children would be related to Potter Palmer twice: once through their mother and once through their paternal grandmother. Neither relationship is close, I admit: you have to go back several generations.
Hawthorne's relatives on his mother's side, the Mannings, are equally strange. If you look up this family on Wikipedia, you find several famous murderers, spies, and conmen. Even more strange: all the murders looked faked. For instance, we have Michael Manning, allegedly hanged in Ireland in 1954 for raping a 65-year-old nurse. He was caught because he left his distinctive hat at the scene of the crime. Right. This was the last case of capital punishment in Ireland, which is also suspicious. Manning played a game of handball with a prison friend a short time before being hanged, the friend saying “he couldn't have been more normal”. Like the Lincoln conspirators, he was buried in an unmarked grave in the prison yard. Then we have George and Marie Manning, supposed hanged in 1849 in public for the murder of Patrick O'Connor. O'Connor was said to be a money lender, and extremely wealthy, so why was he hanging out with Marie Manning, a lady's maid, and her publican husband? The murder was August 9. Hmmm. What else was on August 9? Oh yes, the faked Manson murders. The police found the body of O'Connor on August 17. Let's see, that's the eighth month and 1+7=8. They were tried on October 26, which yields the same numerology. You will say, “If the hanging was in public, how could it be faked?” It is quite easy with hoods. The person wears a neck brace under the hood. They do it in Hollywood all the time. People are so easy to fool, as you can prove by going to a magic show. If they can saw ladies in half, they can easily fake a hanging. Then there is occultist Al G. Manning, and Henry Manning, Cromwell's spy in 1655. Also the more recent Bradley Manning, Army Intelligence analyst convicted of giving information to Wikileaks. My guess is all these Mannings, and most other famous Mannings, are also connected to Intel.
But back to Hawthorne. Just before marrying Sophia Peabody, Hawthorne moved onto the famous utopian Brook Farm. We are told he didn't agree with them, but he was trying to save money for his wedding. Absurd, since both she and he came from wealthy families. He was probably marrying her for her money, so he didn't need to save money to marry her. Brook Farm is a huge red flag, since it was an early Intelligence operation. It was founded by George Ripley. The clue with George—and thereby Brook Farm—is his wife, Sophia Dana. Does that last name ring a bell? She was the niece of Charles Dana.
We have seen Charles Dana many times. We saw him first in my paper on Theosophy, where he was the supervisor of Henry Steel Olcott in several Intel projects, including being a spy at the hanging of John Brown and later meeting Madame Blavatsky at the Eddy Farm. Dana was the managing editor of the New York Tribune, owner and editor of the New York Sun, and Assistant Secretary of War during the Civil War under Edwin Stanton. In addition, Stanton made him Investigating Agent for the War Department.
But that was all later. Dana was born on August 8, 1819, and died October 17, 1897. Notice the numerology, especially all the 8s. August is the eighth month, but October means eighth month. 1+7=8. In 1841, when Hawthorne moved to Brook Farm, Charles Dana was already there. Although just out of spook school and only 22, he was a trustee of the farm. So the farm is looking not only like an Intel project, it is looking like an Intel graduate school or community. We will look for evidence for and against that as we proceed.
We are told Brook Farm became a Fourier phalanx soon thereafter, and Charles Dana was “head waiter”. Let me stop laughing. Yes, trustees always work as head waiters. But if we go to Fourier's page, we find that Brook Farm was not a restaurant. The first thing we find there is that Hawthorne was also a founder and trustee of Brook Farm. But wait, on his own page we were told he was just there to save money. I guess he was a busboy.
Actually, being a trustee meant you put down $1000, so it wasn't a very good way to save money. You don't save money by spending $1000. One thousand dollars was a huge sum in 1841, equivalent to about $30,000 now. To live on a farm and “shovel manure”.
Although Charles Fourier is sold to us as a French philosopher and socialist thinker, he was actually a rich merchant. He inherited a large estate and then went to work for the merchant Bousquet. His genealogy is scrubbed, but you can guess what I was looking for: a Jewish mother. Like many of these 19th century “progressives”, Fourier didn't get interested in such work until later in life, after he had made a fortune. He was in business at least until age 44. Which is curious in that after that time, he began preaching that trade was the source of all evil. Apparently it was the source of all evil, while at the same time being the source of all his considerable income. Andrew Carnegie later borrowed this spiel from Fourier. I will have to do the full monte on Fourier later, but for now it is enough to say that, through Fourier, we see Socialism infiltrated long before Marx came along. Marx took over the project in the 1840s, but Fourier was destabilizing Republican movements back to around 1820, by purposely drawing off manpower and attention from real organizations. Brook Farm was a part of this worldwide project.
In this respect, it is interesting to find Fourier selling androgyny and homosexuality in the 1820s. That project has continued to accelerate up to the present time, as we have seen in recent papers, especially the one on Bowie and Prince.
It is also admitted that Fourier's ideas were carried forward to the Paris Revolution of 1848. What is not usually admitted is that those ideas did great damage to the revolution, as they were meant to. What Debs and the fake American communists did before and after 1900, Fourier and his fellow agents were doing in France in the 1830s and 40s. As with Marx, they were splintering the opposition, making sure it did the Industrialists no real harm.
In 1846, Charles Dana married Eunice MacDaniel. Her mother was Mary Osborne. Again, does that ring a bell? The Osbornes were involved in the fake Salem Witch Trials. Remember Goody Osborne? So Nathaniel Hawthorne wasn't the only one in this set with links to Salem. In 1847, Dana joined the New York Tribune. Note the date. Apparently, the number 47 was a marker in previous centuries as well. He was immediately posted to Europe, where he met Karl Marx. A couple of years later, Marx began a decade-long stint as writer for the paper.
During the war, Lincoln called Dana “the eyes of the administration”. Curious wording. I suggest that not only was Dana a high-ranking official in the War Department, he was also one of the top officials in Intelligence. We don't know much about Intelligence of the time, but Dana's career has many many clues pointing in that direction.
But let's head back toward Hawthorne. On the way back, we will pause on Sophia Dana Ripley, wife of George Ripley. Along with Margaret Fuller and the others who wrote for The Dial, she also promoted Communism, most notably in her “Letter from Zoar”, another society of spooks in Ohio.
After the failure of Brook Farm, where do you think George Ripley went? That's right: he went to work for the New York Tribune. Although he was allegedly a graduate of Harvard divinity school and an ordained Unitarian minister (Boston), by 1849 he had taken Margaret Fuller's place as writer for the Tribune. We are told he had quit the church twelve years earlier. Actually, he had quit it soon after the forming of the Transcendental Society in 1836. They needed him for that project. As indication these were all nothing more than projects, we can look at what he did while at the Tribune. Did he write a column on religion, spirituality, or even politics? No.
Ripley wrote a "Gotham Gossip" column and many articles discussing local personalities and notable public events. . . .
Curious. Soon afterwards, Ripley became the editor for Harper's Magazine. This was founded in 1850 by the Harper brothers, who also owned the publishing house of the same name (which later became Harper and Row). That publisher was founded under its current name in 1833. Note the date. Founder James Harper had been mayor of New York City in the mid-1840s. The first big success of Harper and Brothers was the 1836 book Awful Disclosures, alleged to be the memoirs of a sexually exploited nun. Unfortunately, it was a fake, and that is now admitted:
The work was published during a time of extreme anti-Catholicism in the United States, and was used by politicians and anti-Catholic activists to seed discontent and incite riots. In the words of the historian Ray Allen Billington, it became "the most influential single work of anti-Catholic propaganda in America's history".
Interesting. Why so anti-Catholic? Well, James Harper had gotten his start apprenticing to Jewish publisher Abraham Paul. Harper's mother was Elizabeth Kolyer, and that last name is a common Jewish name. His great-great-grandparents were Mary Mott and Solomon Seaman, both probably Jewish.
So that is who Ripley was working for in the 1850s. Sounds like yet another project, doesn't it?
In 1857, Ripley and Dana joined together to create the famous New American Cyclopedia, which sold millions of copies. Karl Marx was a notable contributor. I think you can now see it was a project itself —a major one, headed by three top spooks.
In 1865, Ripley married his second wife, Louisa Augusta Schlossberger. Her genealogy is scrubbed, but that is a common Jewish name as well. The family may have later dropped the “er”, becoming Schlossberg. Remember, Caroline Kennedy later married a Jewish man named Edwin Schlossberg. His parents are said to be Ukrainian immigrants, but who knows. His genealogy past his parents is scrubbed. However, I did find indication his father Alfred was born in Virginia, while his mother Mae Hirsch was born in New York—both of which, last time I looked, are not in the Ukraine. This would indicate that Wikipedia is lying about Edwin.
Remember that Nathaniel Hawthorne was born on July 4? George Ripley died on July 4.
Finally, we get back to Nathaniel Hawthorne. That was a rather long detour, but I won't call it a digression, since it takes us forward to where we need to go. All that helps us understand who Hawthorne was. Another thing that helps us is his marriage to Sophia Peabody. I said he probably married her for her money, but there is more to it than that. There are two things that, taken together, tell us a bit more. One, when he met her, she had been sick for a long time, and was bedridden. Two, she had a healthy sister that was interested in Hawthorne. Hawthorne met the healthy sister first. So if he just wanted the money, why not marry the healthy sister? What sort of already-wealthy guy courts a bedridden girl? Answer: a gay guy. He knows that the bedridden girl will have lower sexual
expectations of him. This may help us in understanding some of what is to come.
Before we get to that, let us sidetrack briefly into Hawthorne's daughter Una. Her bio has always looked peculiar to me. Although she is reported to have been sickly, she was actually very attractive. She was engaged at age 23 to a Higginson, whose family we have already seen. That engagement did not lead to marriage. She then moved in with her sister and her husband, George Lathrop. He and Rose had married on September 11, 1871. Note the date. He, too, looks like a spook, having been the editor of the Atlantic Monthly. In 1876 Una engaged herself to the writer Albert Falvey Webster, Jr., who had also worked at the Atlantic, as well as Scribners. Curiously, his bio and genealogy have been scrubbed. However, he was probably related to the famous Websters, including Daniel Webster. Just before the intended marriage, he sailed off to Hawaii for reasons unstated, and is said to have drowned on the way. Not coincidentally, George Lathrop also had connections to Hawaii, having been born there. At the report of Webster's death, Una allegedly entered a convent and died almost immediately. . . at what age? If you guessed 33, you win the prize. We aren't told what she died of, being left to imagine it was grief. Right. I suggest it wasn't grief. I suggest Webster had been hired for some secret project, and Una faked her death to join him. Hawaii has been a hangout and hide-out for spooks back to 1800, and we have already seen Marilyn Monroe retiring there.
I can't pass the Websters by without giving you a taste of future research. It looks like they were also Jewish. You can see this just by all the Jewish first names in the family of Daniel, but a quick glance through his genealogy confirms it. His mother is Abigail Eastman, and her father's father is scrubbed. Many Eastmans were Jewish, including Monk Eastman and later Linda Eastman, who married Paul McCartney. George Eastman of Eastman Kodak may also have been Jewish, although the mainstream denies it. However, his business partner and best friend was George Dickman, a Jewish name we have seen before. His grandparents were named Hezekiah and Hannah Eastman. His aunt was named Rhoda and his great aunts were Roda, Phebe, Sarah, and Saviah.
Daniel Webster was also descended from Sir Andrew Judde, wealthy London merchant and Lord Mayor of London in 1550. Judde's genealogy is extensive, but his grandmother is hidden. But the name is the clue. Would it help if I spelled it Jewde? In fact, all the married women in the line of Judde are hidden. I wonder why? According to genealogy.com
The use of Judd as a surname is rooted in Jewish, or more specific Kabbalist history, meaning “the one who speaks directly to God. Converted from Hebrew to English, Judd means Saint. Hence its appearance in England in the 12th /13th century, as it was at this time that the European jews migrated to England as a safe haven from the pogroms of Europe.
Andrew Judde ties us back to my paper on the Kabbalah, and the takeover of England around the time he was Mayor.
But again, back to Hawthorne. Let us skip ahead to 1850 and The Scarlet Letter, which was one of the first mass-produced books in the US. That is your first clue. It had to be mass-produced since it had been written as propaganda and would be promoted to the hilt by Intel. Given my research above, you may be able to look at the book in a new light. To get you started, remember the first book that was a major success for Harper and Brothers, An Awful Disclosure. That was published in 1836, just fourteen years before The Scarlet Letter. The author of record of that earlier book was Maria Monk, but it is now known that it was ghost-written by agent Theodore Dwight. His uncle Timothy was President of Yale from 1795 to 1817. His mother was an Alsop, of the wealthy merchant family of Alsop (Allsopp). See John Alsop, Continental Congress, for example. An Awful Disclosure was written to blackwash the Catholic Church, as we have seen. They are still running the exact same project, as we saw in 2003 with the priest sex scandals in Boston and Ireland. That project had a peak just this year, with the movie Spotlight, which won Best Picture. Well, The Scarlet Letter was part of that same project, although the Catholic Church was not the specific target there. The Church, taken more broadly, was the target, which ties this project directly to the Transcendentalists and Brook Farm. I showed you above that they were precursors to the later Theosophy project, and the project all along was to draw off support for Christianity by redirecting spirituality into faux-Buddhism and other imported and manufactured sects and cults.
In my paper on Theosophy, I had thought Transcendentalism had been hijacked, but I now see I was wrong. I didn't want to lose Emerson and Thoreau, so I assumed they were innocent, the hijacking coming after them. But their innocence now looks very doubtful. We might be able to save Thoreau, since he was a marginal character in that set, and it is remotely possible he didn't know what was going on. But as for Emerson, I don't see how that is a viable option. I will leave open the possibility Intel ran this project against him, and save that big can of worms for a separate paper. It would swamp this one.
Although The Scarlet Letter was sold as a romance, that was misdirection. The romantic undertones are the most overwrought and manufactured, and I have to think that most sensible readers only sniff at them. That is, Hawthorne only appears to try to make Dimmesdale a sympathetic character, but fails on purpose. What is really intended is that you think Dimmesdale is the weakest and most wretched person imaginable, and only in that does Hawthorne succeed. Since Dimmesdale is the minister of the Church, his blackwash is the blackwash of the Church itself.
So Hawthorne was doing exactly what his ancestor had been doing in Salem in the 1690s and what his descendants would be doing in Boston in 2003: they were all running the same project against the Church. If you are a new reader, let me repeat what I have said in previous papers: I am not a Christian and am not writing any of this as a defender of the Church. I am just reporting what I find.
Before we move on, let us pause to look at Hawthorne's publisher. It wasn't Harper, it was Ticknor, Reed and Fields. It is informative to study William Ticknor and his family. His uncle was Colonel Elisha Ticknor, who founded the first New England savings bank, Provident Institution for Savings. He also founded the first insurance company in the area, Massachusetts Mutual Fire Insurance Company. His first name should tell you something else: he may have been Jewish. His three wives were named Martha, Ruth, and Deborah. Ticknor is sometimes a Jewish name, although in that case it is more often spelled Tichnor. He was also related to the Deweys and the Bacons. It is curious to find that Wikipedia does not mention he was a Colonel, but we take it as a further clue.
William Ticknor had another rich uncle, Benjamin Ticknor, who ran a major brokerage house in Boston. William apprenticed there early on. He then joined Columbian Bank. The president of this bank was Joseph Tilden, cousin of Samuel Tilden. Samuel Tilden was Governor of New York and came within a cat's whisker of being President in 1876, when he lost a disputed election to Hayes. Like Al Gore, Tilden won the popular vote, but was screwed by the Electoral College. The Tildens made their money from Tilden's Extract, an extremely potent cannabis drug, which was legal at the time.
Ticknor and Fields also published Atlantic Monthly and the North American Review, both spook rags. Atlantic is said to have been founded by Francis Underwood, who later became US Consul in Glasgow. See below for an outing of the US Consulates. Other than that, the beginnings of The Atlantic are scrubbed. It is difficult to get any information about its initial funding in 1857. It is implied that the writers (Emerson, Longfellow, Lowell, etc.) funded the magazine in its first two years, but that is doubtful. Ticknor then bought the business in 1859. With more digging, I found that Underwood's previous firm Phillips Sampson &Co was the actual founder of the Atlantic, but information about that publishing house is also scarce. It is curious to find the current encyclopedias like Wikipedia and Britannica running interference on this, stating Underwood as the founder. It appears that Moses Dresser Phillips had more to do with founding the Atlantic. This is already suspicious, given what we discovered about various Phillips in my Elvis Presley paper. It is also suspicious, given that Marx's uncle was a Philips, and that Marx was a comrade of these writers in the same decade at the Tribune. Did Moses add an “l” to his name? Wikitree links him back to the Phillips family from Devon, England, but I am not convinced. His father is named Daniel and his grandfather Israel, but in around 1600, the family switches from mostly Jewish given names to no Jewish given names. So either a Jewish mother came in at that time, via the Sargent or Bond maiden name, or the families have been conflated. Wikitree is also apparently misdirecting with Moses' mother, who they give as Jemima Dennis. But the Charlton Historical Society gives her name as Abigail Dresser, which makes more sense. We have another problem, in that Moses' dates at Ancestry com are given as 1821-1859. So he was only 36 when he founded the Atlantic? And he died at age 38, the same year the magazine was bought by Ticknor? The Charlton Historical Society gives his birth as 1813, while Wikitree is a blank. But even that earlier date is a problem, since Phillips Sampson was in business by 1837, when Moses was either 16 or 24. Hard to believe a 24-year-old could found a major publishing house. And according to the Massachusetts Spy, Jan. 26, 1824, Moses was a pharmaceutical agent in that year. That would make him either 3 or 11 years old at the time. The Atlantic Monthly of 1859 carried an obituary confirming his age as 46, which confirms 1813 as his birthyear; but that doesn't explain the other anomalies.
What might explain it is this: if we check the genealogy of the Philips family from Belgium, we find that Karl Marx's uncle Lion Philips had a brother named Mozes Benjamin Philips. He was born in 1799, which fits the life of the founder of Phillips Sampson better than a birthyear of 1813. He would have been 38 when the publishing house was founded in 1837, and 60 in 1859 when he allegedly died. Instead of being 11 in 1824, he would have been 25, which fits the bio. If this is true, it would mean the Philips family was in Dutch Intelligence from way back, and that they were active in the US well before they assigned their in-law Marx to act as quarterback of the project.
Just so you know, the Philips were also Jewish. In previous papers I have only suggested that, saying that Marx's mother was Jewish. But she was a Pressburg. It was her sister that married a Philips. However, the Philips were already Jewish before marrying into the Pressburg line. Marx's uncle was Lion Benjamin Philips, and his mother was a Hartog. Her father was Isaac Levy Hartog and her mother was Rebecca Isaacs. Rebecca's father was Eizik Yechiel van Gelder Cohen Medenblik. How's that for a mouthful?
As for the Pressburgs, that name just indicates that they came from Pressburg, which is now called Bratislava. It is the current capital of Slovakia, but at the time it was part of Hungary. It was captured by Austria in 1848. The Jews were expelled from the city several times, the last time being in 1944. But they had also been expelled in the late 1600s by the Habsburgs, and this is precisely the time the Pressburgs moved from Hungary to the Netherlands. As with the Schlossbergers, the Pressburgs were originally Pressburgers. The family of Marx's mother was descended from the most prominent Jewish lines in both Austria and Hungary, including the Austerlitz HaLevis of Vienna. These lines included top bankers and rabbis. On the maternal side they were also descended from the Cohen-Chazzan and Brandeis families.
That last link is informative, since it ties us back to the current project. Louis Brandeis, who founded the university, had a grandmother named Wehle. Her niece Regine married a Jewish man named Dr. Joseph Goldmark. The family linked to Goldmark a second time when Louis Brandeis married his daughter Alice. Goldmark is shady character who, like Marx, has benefitted from a thorough bio- scrubbing. They admit he took part in the 1848 Revolution in Vienna along with Adolph Fischhof, but we are told he was fighting with the revolutionaries. He wasn't. He was a mole, sent in to make sure the Revolution failed. He wanted it to fail for the same reason Marx did: they were both from very wealthy Industrialist families. We have evidence of that even on his Wiki page, where we are told he was sentenced to death but managed to escape to New York. Right. Only agents escape. He later became extremely wealthy here in America, bequeathing large fortunes to all his daughters. This was the source of most of Louis Brandeis' wealth and influence. Another daughter of Goldmark married Felix Adler, bankrolling his life as a spook. He is the one who founded the Ethical Culture Movement, later linked to the Fabian Society. Although some of its philosophies look good, its main goal was again drawing off people from the Christian churches. Once splintered, they could then be further propagandized.
Since I mentioned Goldmark, I want to hit Fischhof quickly as well. Adolph Fischhof was also Jewish. Note the first name, which you wouldn't think would belong to a Jew. But as I said of Adolph Zukor in my paper on Elvis, catalog the fact for later. It will be of use to us. Like Goldmark, Fischhof was also a doctor at the Vienna hospital as a young man, and both of them joined the Revolution of 1848 from there. Also like Goldmark, Fischhof was arrested after the Revolution failed. Fischhof didn't escape, but—although charged with High Treason—he was released after only 8 months. You may wish to compare that to the story of Adolph Hitler after the Beer Hall Putsch. Hitler was also charged with High Treason, and served 8 months. But like Hitler, Fischhof didn't spend one minute in jail. Both events were managed.
~~~~~
Now, what about the North American Review? The first curious thing we learn about NAR is that it was revived in 1964 by Robert Dana. Goodness, that name again! Is he related to top spook Charles Dana? You bet! You can tell because they go to such lengths to hide it. At Wiki, we are told he was an orphan, and his birth parents are not given. He has no genealogies online. However, we find he is indeed from Massachusetts, like the rest of these people. He is supposed to be a poet that came out of the Navy. He ended up at the Iowa Writers' Workshop in the early 1950s, which we have seen was a CIA front, funded by the Farfield Foundation, the ACCF, and the Rockefeller Foundation. We have proof his bio is fake at Wikipedia, since as usual the fakers can't do math. He was born in 1929, and is said to have been a radio operator in the Navy at the end of WWII. The problem? That War ended in 1945, when he was only 16. But the same strange bio admits he somehow had the rights to NAR, and convinced Senator Claiborne Pell of that in 1963. Of course, he could only have the rights if he inherited them. Who would he have inherited them from? Probably his ancestor Charles Dana. Or it might have been from another ancestor, Richard Henry Dana, who wrote Two Years Before the Mast. He and his father were also involved with the NAR in its founding years. Either way, all these Danas are related, and quite closely. George Ticknor was also an early author at the NAR, and we have seen his name already. Through him, we can link the NAR to the Atlantic Monthly. Of course we can link them through any of the writers and publishers of the time, since they were all linked through Intelligence. What Frances Stonor Saunders proved was true in the Cold War period was also true in the Civil War period and before: all the prominent literary magazines were Intelligence productions. That is to say, they were transparent hornpipes for the billionaire Industrialists, many of them Jewish.
I learned a lot about these “progressive” magazines researching this paper. For the past couple of decades I had assumed magazines like The Nation, Harper's, The Atlantic and so on had been recently taken over by the spooks. I had noticed a definite shift in their focus in that time. Before 1995, say, these magazines had made a fair effort to appear progressive. But since then they have mostly given that up, and now they just sell the mainstream hoaxes—sometimes giving those hoaxes a faux-left flavor or spin. But I now see these magazines were spook rags all along. And going back to the 1980s and rereading some of the old issues, I see the magazines weren't as different as I remembered. They had changed somewhat, yes, but most of the change was in me. I didn't know enough to see through them then. I do now.
~~~~~
What of Hawthorne's other famous book, The House of the Seven Gables? James Lowell said it was even better than The Scarlet Letter. Since Lowell was also a spook, that doesn't mean much. It is pretty well written, as spook productions go, but the plot is a mess. Its only use to an honest person is as a palimpsest to Hawthorne's own guilt, both as a member of a family of spooks, and as a current agent. We find that the house in the title was stolen from its rightful owner by a false accusation of witchcraft in the famous trials. Hmmm. A false accusation of witchcraft, you say, Nat? Yes, Hawthorne himself is giving us a clue, though we should say a fake accusation of witchcraft instead. To my mind, Hawthorne is admitting in the book that his own family has a nasty history, and that this history has darkened their own lives. The House in the title is his own House—the House of Hawthorne. The Pyncheons are the Hawthornes. Take note that Jaffrey Pyncheon is a judge, just like Judge Hathorne in the Salem Witch Trials. And the Pyncheon ancestor who first died in the chair is a Colonel. We now know what that means. We have seen colonels running most big Intelligence projects throughout American history, so I suggest Hawthorne is using “colonel” as a marker for “Intelligence”.
But even while Hawthorne appears to be admitting the accusations were false, he is confirming the old event. The House of the Seven Gables confirms that people died in Salem, for if they hadn't died, they couldn't come back to haunt the living. I suggest this is the main point of the book: drive the old nails home one more time.
The plot is also of interest for the story-within-a-story it contains. The lodger Holgrave is both a writer and photographer. He writes a story and reads it to the beautiful Phoebe Pyncheon. Although the story is a transparent story about him and her, she fails to see through it. So in this way, Holgrave's story is just like the larger story. Like Holgrave, Hawthorne is telling you a transparent story about himself and the people around him, knowing you won't see through it. Even as he gives you the clue that it is transparent, he knows you won't get the clue. This is probably why Intelligence and people like Lowell loved it so much. Nothing thrills them more than hiding in plain sight.
Another theme of House of the Seven Gables is a hatred of the past. Again, the “artist” Holbeck is used to sell this idea (see ch. XII), although real artists generally have a great respect for the past.
"Shall we never, never get rid of this Past?" cried he, keeping up the earnest tone of his preceding conversation. "It lies upon the Present like a giant's dead body. In fact, the case is just as if a young giant were compelled to waste all his strength in carrying about the corpse of the old giant, his grandfather, who died a long while ago, and only needs to be decently buried. Just think a moment, and it will startle you to see what slaves we are to bygone times,—to Death, if we give the matter the right word!"
This of course links us directly to Modernism, which promotes this idea above all others. Modern Art has been about a rejection of the past since the beginning, and here we are seeing that Modernism goes back to 1850 and before. You can see why Intel and its agents would wish to destroy the past: they are working for the Industrialists, and the Industrialists want you to have to buy all new stuff. They don't
want you to inherit that beautiful dresser or coffee grinder or painting from grandpa, and be happy about it. They want you to throw all that in the garbage and buy a new life from them.
If you still don't think Hawthorne was mainly a propagandist and agent, it may interest you that he wrote the campaign biography of Franklin Pierce, who became President in 1852. Why would a major novelist, allegedly making very good money from fiction, write a campaign bio? Because that is what such people do. Not only was he awarded for that work the most lucrative foreign service position then available—as consul in Liverpool—he was probably promoted in Intelligence as well. That was just a guess, but very little research confirmed it. All I did was link to the Wiki page on the consulate in Liverpool. Guess what:
Among those who served the United States as consul in Liverpool were the writer Nathaniel Hawthorne, the spy Thomas Haines Dudley, and John S. Service, who was driven out of the United States Foreign Service by McCarthyite persecution.
Wow. Is this easy or what? The spy Thomas Haines Dudley. Let's take that link. Dudley was consul during the Civil War. By “spy”, they mean Dudley spied on Confederate assets in England. This made him the equivalent of current CIA. Dudley's bio then links us to my paper on the Lincoln assassination. When conspirator John Surratt fled the US after the assassination to avoid a hanging, he went to Liverpool. Dudley was consul at the time, but no effort was made to apprehend Surratt. In fact, I suspect Dudley acted as a conduit for Surratt, arranging his travels after that. As we saw, Surratt was also a Union spy, like Dudley, so it would be natural for Dudley to shelter and assist him.
What about John Service? Let's take that link. He was born to YMCA missionaries in China. That is, to spies. The YMCA was used as an Intel front, sort of like the various aid groups are now. Service went to Berkeley High School, red flag. He passed the Foreign Service Exam in 1933, red flag. In 1943 he joined the Army Observation Group known as the Dixie Mission. This was part of Army Intelligence, so Service was also a spy.
This is confirmed again by his role in the fake HUAC hearings of Joseph McCarthy, when Service was accused of Communist ties. As we have seen inpreviouspapers, the Committee was an arm of Intelligence, and it only accused its own agents of Communism and spying, to control the event. All the hearings were scripted.
This means the Liverpool consul position was a spy position and always had been. Why else would Nathaniel Hawthorne, supposedly the United States' premier novelist, waste four years in Liverpool as a nasty bureaucrat? Although in the two years prior to his appointment he had written his two masterpieces, he wrote nothing in Liverpool.
Learning this about Liverpool turned another light on in my head. Could this be why the Beatles were from Liverpool? Apparently Liverpool has been a center of operations for the spooks for centuries, in the beginning due to it being the major US trade port. We are told the Consulate closed in the 1950s, but it may have just been taken in the black.
On the way out, we will take a parting shot at The Marble Faun, Hawthorne's last novel. D. H. Lawrence loved Hawthorne, and you can see why by just skimming the plots of The Marble Faun and Women in Love. They both contain extended (excruciating) attempts to describe heterosexual relationships by authors obviously gay. In The Marble Faun, we have to read endless boring repartee between the two main couples, while it is clear Hawthorne is mainly interested in describing the beauty of Donatello. Donatello is the Count of Monte Beni, and both the title and subtitle (a Romance of Monte Beni) refer to him. A running joke of the plot is that Donatello may the descendant of Praxiteles' Resting Satyr:
Praxiteles is the most famous Greek sculptor, and that is the Marble Faun. Now, I have nothing against homosexuality and that is a beautiful sculpture. Hawthorne can admire it all he wants, in any way that suits him, and not offend me. The only problem is when he feels the need to couch that admiration in a pseudo-romance, one that destroys the heterosexual relationship by sheer tedium.
The same applies to Lawrence. In Women in Love we have to read countless pages of Ursula and Gudrun droning on about nothing (and about things and in a way real women have never droned), while Lawrence would clearly rather be describing wrestling matches between Birkin and Gerald. When those guys get locked up and sweaty, Lawrence miraculously finds an inspiration that is utterly lacking when the women are on the page. Not that it interests me any more, but I can tell it interests Lawrence much more. You can see why unwinding this just doubles my displeasure at having this “great literature” hoisted upon me, for had I known who was writing it and what it was really about, I might have begged off from the start. Better focused, Lawrence might have been useful to the gay world in some way beyond my ken; but as a famous novelist sold as interesting to the straight world, he is just the most crashing of crashing bores.
Of course we could say the same about a large percentage of Modern literature, and I have said it in previous papers. Not only does most of it come out of Intelligence hide-aways, it seems to come out of the gayest of those hide-aways. Whether that is because agents are predominantly gay or because Intel has been pushing a gay agenda, I am less sure. Rereading Hawthorne and Lawrence makes me think they have assigned gays to write about straight relationships on purpose, to confuse straight readers. Certainly the percentage of gay writers seems very high—many of them being crypto-gay— and given that according to recent polls only about 2% of the population is gay, the gay commentary on the straight relationship would seem to be very much over-represented in the literature of the past 150 years.
In other words, straights are learning their sexuality from the media, be it books, magazines, online articles, or (most likely) TV and films. If a large percentage of this media is created by gays, you have a recipe for confusion. As we have seen, that recipe is probably not an accident.
Men have been presented with an image of the woman as seen by gay men. How can that image help them? Gays don't see women like I do, so what can I learn from them? I guess we are supposed to believe that, being gay, they have some insight into the feminine, but I have never seen any evidence of that. Yes, they can fake a feminine chattiness, but that doesn't make them insightful, it just makes them poor mimics. If they had any real appreciation of the feminine, they would love females, and they don't. Women want to be loved, and gays cannot love them, so holding up the gay man as the confidant and guru of women is just a guarantee of widespread pathology.
And the reverse is also true. Women don't see men like gay men see men, so how could they benefit from reading about the heterosexual relationship from gay men? Gay men don't know anything about the heterosexual relationship, and don't want to. That is why they are gay. It would be like me posing as some expert on the homosexual relationship, although I have never had one and never wanted one. I could fake it to make money and sell books, but then my books would read like Modern literature: phony garbage.
It also means the transgender issue may now be a tad oversold. A low percentage of gays are transgender, say less than 1%, so if we multiply, we find that only 1 person in 10,000 has any interest in androgyny. And yet we have been swamped with gay and transgender promotion, accelerating every year, to the point that your average person now believes one in three people are gay. I am telling you that it is believed because Intelligence wants it to be believed. The gay lobby isn't powerful enough to take over the entire media on its own steam. Its smashing success over the past thirty years can only be accounted for by seeing it as part of this long-term project, a project the intensity and focus of which has varied over the years, but the main line of which hasn't changed since the time of Hawthorne. That is, the Industrialists want you single and sexually miserable, with no viable religions to turn to for solace or comfort. That leaves you with only their purchasable substitutes, elixirs, tonics, drugs, plastic contraptions, blow-up friends, sims, and manufactured cults—AKA the New World Order.
The only thing they have left you is your dogs and cats, and that looks like their next project. See the 2016 media blitz telling us that cuddling our pets is harmful to them. The Industrialists no doubt have a mechanical pet in the wings, one they can sell to you for just a few thousand dollars, plus monthly gas and oil.
Comments