We now know that most, if not all, major events in history did not happen the way we are told. Most, if not all, have been either spun, staged, or simply made up. A spun event is one that really happened, but historians on the governors’ dole have sold us a heavily redacted and whitewashed version, overlaying motives and explanations that don’t add up. A staged event is one that “happened” in a general sense, but was mostly or entirely performed by actors playing out a script. The recent mass shootings fall into this category. A fake event is one that never happened at all. It was manufactured whole-cloth and inserted into the newspapers the next day or into the history books years or decades later. See Miles’ paper on the OK Corral, where it is admitted the event wasn’t even known about until the 1930s, and then only based on spurious testimonies and altered photographic evidence.
It is often difficult to know with certainty which of these possibilities is true of an event, but we can confidently say that an event must fall into one of these three categories based on 1) the degree to which the mainstream facts don’t add up, and 2) which individuals were involved. I’m not certain whether the Battle of the Alamo was spun, staged, or faked, but using the two criteria above, I’m certain it didn’t happen the way we are told, or for the reasons we are told.
I will show you a large pile of circumstantial evidence and red flags in a moment, but I want to lead you into the Battle of the Alamo by looking first at its consequences and the precedent it set for U.S. military intervention. It’s a quick chain of events: the Alamo kicked off the Texas Revolution and the establishment of the Republic of Texas as a sovereign nation. A mere ten years later, Texas was annexed by the U.S., which triggered the Mexican-American War. From here we look to PBS.org to make plain the lasting significance of this:
The U.S.-Mexican War had a tremendous impact on the history of both countries. For the United States, this was the nation's first foreign war fought almost entirely on foreign territory. It involved multiple armies, long supply lines, a very large-scale amphibious landing of troops, and it provided the first experience of occupying a foreign capital and establishing a military government for an alien population…. The enormous financial cost, estimated at more than $75 million, was another negative factor.
If you’re at all familiar with American history, you’ll know that the Mexican-American War was an important catalyst for our next large-scale war:
But the war was divisive for the northern republic, exacerbated by the slavery issue and by factious politics in Washington…. It also upset the balance between free and slave states, which helped bring on the catastrophe of the American Civil War.
In this light, the Alamo looks like another false flag. Once the precedent of foreign military intervention was set, it led to a ceaseless string of military interventions that continues to this day, and all on the taxpayer’s dime: the Fiji Expeditions, the Second Opium War, more war with Mexico (Cortina and Las Cuevas wars), the Civil War, the Korean Expedition, the Samoan Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, the Boxer Rebellion, yet more war with Mexico (the Occupation of Veracruz), the Banana Wars, the World Wars…. You get the picture.
The Battle of the Alamo and the entire Texas “Revolution” has delivered a huge pay-off for the governors. I put the word in quotes because there never was a revolution. There might have been rumblings of one, but if there were, they’ve been buried under a thick layer of fakery and confusion. That’s what the governors do. They co-opt any true revolutionary movement, flood it with their fake actors and events, defame it with their antics, and by doing so completely derail it. We saw this most recently with the Bundy ranch standoff, but all secessionist and liberty movements have been either co-opted or manufactured from the start: Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing, etc. We’ve even seen it in Texas with Richard McLaren’s Republic of Texas movement in the 1990s. He was eventually sentenced to 111 years in prison for holding his neighbors hostage. Sure he was. It was that or 333 years. Here he is in custody in the back of a police car, but somehow allowed to have several very large law books.
Of course, this image is just meant to turn people off understanding or questioning the law: only dangerous crackpots like McLaren do that. Notice too the peace sign: the McLaren case was also scripted to blackwash any type of peace movement, painting “hippies” and libertarians as extremists. Here he is again, looking like a washed-up professor at a cut-rate community college:
If you were serious about seceding from the U.S., is this really a guy you’d want leading the charge? Of course not, and that’s the point. And who’s the other guy wearing a Snoopy tie? Seriously?
Now that we understand why the Alamo happened, it helps us understand how it happened – not spontaneously, from the grassroots up, as we are led to believe, but intentionally, from the governors down. It flips the whole mainstream narrative on its head.
I’m not going to spend time analyzing the event itself. For one thing, there are no photographic records of the event, nor are there many details of what occurred beyond the timeline of events. But I don’t need to waste calories analyzing the event itself to prove it was staged. All I need to do is prove the major figures involved were all frauds and spooks. As you’ll see, this is not only easy to do, but also a lot of fun.
Before we get started, I strongly recommend you re-read Miles’ paper of Jenny Marx, where he discusses the Adelsverein, a plan to establish a new Germany in Texas in the 1840s that involved the immigration of several crypto-Jewish families to Texas—including Jenny's brother and many other nobles. There, Miles also covers Sam Houston’s genealogy, so I won’t touch on him here. Just keep in mind that he was a Campbell, a Kennedy, a Stewart, a Hamilton, and a Graham. All of these families are about to come up again.
Going back to Miles’ OK Corral paper, it serves as a good reference point for this one, as we see several similarities between the two events. Certain actors were involved who are sold to us as heroes of the Wild West but were really Intelligence agents on some underhanded assignment. I’m speaking primarily of the infamous Davy Crockett, analog to the OK Corral’s Wyatt Earp, if you will. I stumbled into my research on the Alamo through first researching our King of the Wild Frontier, who to this day is portrayed by historians and popular media as a national hero who rose from humble origins. He is supposed to embody that rugged individualism and heroic patriotism that captures the spirit of America. Right. Davy Crockett’s popularity, at least as the cultural icon we know him to be, didn’t really begin until the 1950s, when ABC aired the miniseries Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier, which was little more than propaganda. This catapulted Crockett into the national consciousness as the rough-hewn, coonskin-capped Congressman who valiantly gave his life at the Alamo.
The picture on the left is what most of us envision when we think of Davy Crockett, as portrayed on screen by actor Fess Parker. The picture on the right is the actual Davy, looking like the wealthy aristocrat he was. He descended from the noble Crocketagne family of France, who rubbed shoulders with French royalty. Wikipedia tells us Davy Crockett’s earliest known paternal ancestor was Gabriel Gustave de Crocketagne. But if you go to Geneanet you immediately find Gabriel’s parents listed as William Jacques and Cordelia Maybelle Burden, and you can go further back from there. So Wikipedia is plainly lying. Gabriel’s wife, Michelle Frances, was the daughter of Phillip Spencer Harney, born 1600. His genealogy is scrubbed. Gabriel and Michelle’s children include a Joshua Franklin de Crocketagne – not a very French name, is it? Davy Crockett’s direct ancestor, Cordelia Maybelle, was the daughter of Pierre Ford Burden. Neither Franklin nor Ford are French. Given what we know about famous Franklins and Fords, those names should practically jump off the page. If you keep tracing Davy Crockett’s paternal line back, you come to a Perry de Crocketagni, born 1495, who married a Sarah Buckley. Her ancestors are scrubbed.
Following the Crocketagne lines only scratches the surface of Davy Crockett’s pedigree. A survey of his extended family tree reveals he is related to the following families: Stuart, Kennedy, Stanley, Patton, Thompson, Graham, Buchanan, Draper, Sayers, Robinson, Borden, Carter, Baker, Campbell, Wright, Watson, King, Steele, Armstrong, Montgomery, Drake, Ingles, Cox, and Hamilton. In other words, he is related to every other famous person, and linked with most of the other people, projects, and hoaxes Miles has outed. Crockett’s great-great-grandmother, Sarah Gilbert Stuart Crockett, descends from the royal Stuarts of England and Scotland; in fact, Davy is a direct descendent of King Robert II. (Sam Houston is also a direct descendent of Robert II.) The royal Stuarts/Stewarts intermarried with the Campbells, Dukes of Argyll, as well as Hamiltons and Grahams. We see all three of those names in Davy Crockett’s family tree, though in America and after Davy’s time, proving yet again that these royal European families didn’t stop intermarrying after coming across the pond.
As an aside, Sarah Gilbert Stuart Crockett’s mother was Jane Hogg. Remember David Hogg, the smooth-tongued survivor of the Parkland shooting? This indicates he may be related to the Hoggs of Texas, including the notorious Ima Hogg.
Davy has another connection to the royal Stuarts through his second wife, Elizabeth Patton. Her 5g-grandmother was also a Sarah Stewart who descended from the royal Stuarts. What are the odds? But it gets odder, as her great-great-uncle, Colonel James Patton of Draper’s Meadow, VA, had for a son-in-law one William Thompson. He and his sister Katherine Stuart Thompson were direct descendants of King Charles I of England. Colonel Patton’s daughter Margaret married a James Buchanan, who was a great-great-uncle of President James Buchanan. These Buchanans are related to Campbells, Grahams, and Sayers, and through them we link back to the Crocketts a second time. Through the Sayers line we also meet up with Joseph Draper Sayers, Governor of Texas from 1899 to 1903. Joseph’s 5g-grandfather was Joseph Louis Crockett, husband of Sarah Stuart and direct ancestor of Davy. This also links us to Zelda Sayer Fitzgerald. But Sayers isn’t the only link from Davy Crockett to Zelda and F. Scott. In Miles’ paper we find that F. Scott was a descendent of the Kennedy-Fitzgeralds of Boston, as well as the famous Randolphs of Virginia. We’ve already seen the Kennedys in Davy Crockett’s family tree (I’ll get to that connection in a second). It turns out his wife Elizabeth’s great-great- uncle Lt. Col. Henry Patton married Martha Jane Randolph, one of these famous Virginia Randolphs.
As for the Kennedy connection, we read on Wikipedia that Davy’s father had money problems and was always in debt with some neighbor or other. He allegedly hired out Davy to work for his creditors in order to pay off the debts, and one such creditor was a man named John Canady/Kennedy. The claim that the Crocketts had money problems is false; Davy’s grandfather (also David Crockett) was a prominent landowner. According to this post on the genealogy.com forum:
The senior David Crockett's will was probated and a copy is in existence. He was not a poor man, as stated by some historians, but owned a large amount of property and his inventory revealed that he had a good amount of livestock.
But the romantic notion that Davy rose from poverty helps sell the belief that anyone in America can become famous with enough grit and determination. It also helps obscure the real connection between Davy and this John Canady/Kennedy. We are told that after repaying his father’s debt, Davy decided he liked the job and remained in Canady’s employ for another four years. Wikipedia then tells us:
Crockett fell in love with John Canady's niece Amy Summer, who was engaged to Canady's son Robert. While serving as part of the wedding party, Crockett met Margaret Elder. He persuaded her to marry him, and a marriage contract was drawn up on October 21, 1805. Margaret had also become engaged to another young man at the same time and married him instead.
He met Polly Finley and her mother Jean at a harvest festival. Although friendly towards him in the beginning, Jean Finley eventually felt Crockett was not the man for her daughter. Crockett declared his intentions to marry Polly, regardless of whether the ceremony was allowed to take place in her parents' home or had to be performed elsewhere. He arranged for a justice of the peace and took out a marriage license on August 12, 1806. On August 16, he rode to Polly's house with family and friends, determined to ride off with Polly to be married elsewhere. Polly's father pleaded with Crockett to have the wedding in the Finley home. Crockett agreed only after Jean apologized for her past treatment of him.
Putting aside the absurdity of these romantic exploits for a moment, the odd part in all this is what has been omitted. Polly Finley, who became Davy’s first wife, was the granddaughter of a John Kennedy, presumably the same John. That means Amy Summer would have been Polly’s first cousin once removed – that is, one generation removed. Since they were from different generations, they would have been at least 20 years apart in age. But we are supposed to believe Davy fell in love with both of them. Also strange is that Davy met Polly at a harvest festival in what appears to be a chance encounter, but Davy had been working for Polly’s family for over four years. In all that time, he never met Polly? And why does Wikipedia not mention that Polly was John Canady’s granddaughter? In any event, this means Crockett married a Kennedy, a fact that no mainstream sources seem eager to admit. I wonder why.
We are told Crockett died at the Alamo, though his body was never recovered. On Wikipedia we read of a conspiracy theory regarding his death:
In 1955, Jesús Sánchez Garza self-published a book called La Rebelión de Texas— Manuscrito Inédito de 1836 por un Ofical de Santa Anna, purporting to be memoirs of José Enrique de la Peña, a Mexican officer present at the Battle of the Alamo. Texas A&M University Press published the English translation in 1975 With Santa Anna in Texas: A Personal Narrative of the Revolution. The English publication caused a scandal within the United States, as it asserted that Crockett did not die in battle. Historians disagree on whether any or all of the book has been falsified. The original book was self-published, and no editor or publisher ever vetted its authenticity.[164] Sánchez Garza never explained how he gained custody of the documents or where they were stored after de la Peña's death…. Some historians have found it suspicious that Sánchez Garza's compilation was published in 1955, at the height of interest in Crockett and the Alamo caused by Walt Disney's television miniseries Davy Crockett.
This is just more noise and misdirection, as usual. Wikipedia only pushes conspiracy theories to steer suspicion away from more accurate conspiracy theories. It offers up partial truths for the sake of covering up the whole truth. True, Davy Crockett didn’t die in the Alamo – because he wasn’t there to begin with – since it never happened. He was inserted into the story afterwards to “kill” him off with maximum glory.
[Added April 10 by Miles: Just notice the part at Wikipedia about “no editor or publisher ever vetted its authenticity”. I guess Texas A&M University Press published it without reading it? This is a major university, with one of the largest endowments in the country, but they can't afford editors? You see how the writers at Wikipedia are spinning you. . . and not doing it well. One sentence is contradicted three sentences later. In fact, noted historian James Crisp has found external documentary evidence that the diary is genuine; and the manuscript was put through extensive laboratory tests by archivist David Gracy, proving that the paper and ink were also of that time and place. Therefore, those claiming Garza or de la Pena was a fraud are just being paid to blow smoke, as usual.
You will say de la Pena only claimed Crockett was not killed in battle: he never claimed Crockett faked his death. True, but if the mainstream story is shown to be false in one respect, it may be false in others. Immediately executing those who surrender in battle is and was not a common occurrence in modern warfare, and it wasn't the legal norm in either Texas or Mexico at the time. This is not how real battles were fought (assuming any real battles were fought). The story of the execution of prisoners has always been the least believable part of an unbelievable story, so you may wish to question it. If de la Pena is correct that Crockett didn't die in battle, and if the executions never took place, that can mean only one thing: Crockett didn't die at all in that battle. The entire story is fiction.
Which leads us to look at what Crockett was doing in the lead-up to the Alamo. The battle took place in February/March of 1836. But Crockett had been in Washington serving as a representative of Tennessee up to March of 1835. He would be 49 later that year, very old to be running off to Texas to fight in a suicide mission (the fighters at the Alamo were allegedly outnumbered ten to one). Do you really think an old ex-Congressman is going to be caught in that situation? And we have another problem. Wiki tells us Crockett was defeated in his Congressional bid in August 1835 by Adam Huntsman. But if we take Huntsman's link, we find he was already in office by March 4, 1835. So are we supposed to believe Hunstman was elected five months after he took office? Something doesn't add up there.
What else doesn't add up is the story of the Alamo as a garrison. We are told that in late 1835, Mexican troops were driven completely out of Texas. 100 men were then garrisoned at the Alamo—we suppose to keep the Mexicans from coming back in. But if you had just driven thousands of Mexican troops out of Texas, would you post as a defense only 100 men in a little old mission? You wouldn't build a fort or post more men? You would just post 100 men in a mission as sitting ducks, with no nearby support? And you would allow old retired Congressmen to go join them? Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. Add some nuns and babies, and you the ultimate satire.
Well, if Crockett's death was faked, it must mean the other deaths were faked as well, including that of Jim Bowie. So much they don't tell you on his Wiki page. . . and so much they do. Bowie's mother is given as Elve Ap-Catesby Jones, but she is described only as the woman who had nursed Bowie's father back to life after the Revolutionary War. What they don't tell you is that she was probably the sister of Thomas Ap-Catesby Jones, who became Commodore in the US Navy, and his brother Maj. General Roger Ap-Catesby Jones, the longest serving Adjutant General of the US Army. That last position is the chief administrative officer of the entire Army. Roger Jones held that position from 1825 to 1852—the battle of the Alamo of course falling in that period. These Jones brothers are given no parents at Geni.com, so we have to go to the peerage. There we find the Catesbys related to the Pagets, Earls of Uxbridge, and the Egertons, Earls of Bridgwater. Also to the Boughton Baronets. Since the Egertons are also related to the Jones Baronets, we thereby link the Catesby and the Jones, proving the mainsteam claim that Ap-Catesby refers to the “son of Catesby” (as a first name) is false. Another clue is given by the eldest American Catesby Jones of this clan, who just happened to die at Mount Zion, Northumberland, Virginia, in 1747. The name Northumberland is almost as big a red flag as Zion, since we have seen it many many times linked to these peers. Mt. Zion wasn't a town, it was a large plantation owned by the Jones family since the settlement of Virginia in the 1600s.
With some more digging, we find Catesby Jones' parents at the Ashe family website. They are given as Colonel Thomas Jones and Elizabeth Pratt. Her mother had been Elizabeth Catesby, which explains where that name came from. As I said, it is a last name, not a first name. Jones' father was Captain Roger Jones of the British Navy, who had been assigned to the West Indies, where he later became a very wealthy merchant. He married Dorothy Walker, daughter of John Walker of Mansfield, Nottingham. These Walkers were local peers, and Mansfield was then and had long been a retreat for royalty, being in the famed Sherwood forest.
So that is where Jim Bowie came from. His uncles ran the US military at the time, which tells us how the Alamo was faked so easily. They also don't tell you Bowie was a land speculator and slave smuggler. Well, they don't teach it to you at school, but Wiki admits it on their page for him. He also owned a sugar cane plantation with his brothers, which links us to previous papers and many other unsavory people of the same sort. By the late 1820s, Bowie was a very wealthy scumbag, having made millions through the slave trade, land speculation—propelled by inside information and protection from his uncles, no doubt—and sugar cane production. Wiki even admits Bowie and his family forged documents in their land sales, making millions in outright real estate fraud. Court documents were destroyed to protect the Bowies. Quite a hero, eh?
As a prelude to the fictional Alamo story, you may wish to read the equally fictional Sandbar Fight story, in which Bowie allegedly suffered two gun shots, a crack over the head with a pistol, an impaling in the chest with a sword, and a knife stabbing. He not only survived, suffering no longterm effects, but killed his main attacker with his famous knife. Doctors just happened to be present, and they removed the bullets and patched Bowie's other wounds. Okie-dokie!
Bowie allegedly renounced his American citizenship in 1830, becoming a Mexican national so that he could establish textile mills in the area. With that, we have now come across just about every possible red flag with Bowie. . . except that he hasn't yet built a synagogue. But using his speculation tricks, he soon had around 700,000 acres to play with in South Texas. He then married the 19-year-old daughter of his business partner, who just happened to be the governor of the province. That's convenient.
For the next fictional story, we are told Bowie and eleven other men fought off 160 Natives, killing 40 and wounding 30. Bowie lost one man. We aren't told if that was all achieved with Bowie knives and high kicks.
Since they admit Bowie was not a US citizen, instead being a Mexican national, it is sort of strange to see him on the Texian side at the Alamo. Shouldn't he have been fighting for Santa Anna? In 1835, Bowie was supposed to be a colonel in the volunteer militia. So they let Mexican nationals become colonels in the Texian army? Sam Houston offered Bowie a commission as an officer on his staff, but Bowie allegedly preferred to enlist as a private under Col. Fannin for the upcoming Grass Fight. That makes sense, right? What millionaire land speculator, slave smuggler, and mill owner wouldn't rather be a private? I guess he requested latrine duty every day, too.
So why did they include Bowie in the Alamo story? Best guess is someone shot the asshole while he was trying to steal their land, sell them into slavery, or rape their daughter. Such an ignominious (though richly deserved) end wasn't to the Bowie family's liking, so they rewrote it to make Bowie a big hero. In other words, same-old same-old.
Alternately, Bowie may have died of “natural” causes around that time, being added to the Alamo roster as a convenience. In support of that theory, we find it admitted in the mainstream stories that Bowie was very ill. He was variously dying of consumption, or liver failure from drinking, or typhoid, and was said to have been in a bed in the Alamo. This whole story is very strange, since a garrison of less than 200 men holding off thousands of enemy troops doesn't really need sick guys lying around in beds. He should have been sent off to a nearby hospital— especially given his fame and wealth.
As for Davy Crockett, we may assume something along the same lines. Either he got shot as a swindler—maybe in the same swindle as Bowie—or he died from falling off a horse or drinking himself to death. Neither end was seen as glorious enough by the historians, so they had to make up something else. In support of that theory, remember that Crockett was a wealthy politician. Those guys get into politics for one reason: to make money. Everything they do is driven by greed. So you can be sure he didn't go to Texas to fight for a cause. He likely went to Texas to check on his latest investment. He was probably a part of Bowie's land scams, you know. Bowie was hated by all real people on both sides, Mexican and Texan, since he was just another millionaire thief, stealing people's property with the courts to shield him from prosecution. That is admitted in the mainstream bios. So the most likely scenario is that some rancher he had destroyed gunned him down, and maybe Crockett with him.
Now, what about William B. Travis? To start with, there are no photos of these guys, since this was just before photography was invented. There are only a few paintings and most were painted later. Curiously, there is only one painting of Bowie, and the paintings of Travis look suspiciously like Bowie. They both have long faces, lots of wavy hair on top, and long bushy sideburns. Neither the images of Travis or Bowie look authentic to me, and most of them are definitely fakes. At any rate, Travis' middle name was Barrett, which is already a red flag. We have previously pegged it as a name from the peerage. The Travis family is also from the peerage in Lancashire, related to the. . . Booths. They admit that William Travis was descended from the Travers of Tulketh Castle in Preston, England, and that these Travers were gloriously wealthy, but Wiki tells us no more than that. If we check the peerage, we don't find them; we only find the Travers of Ireland. We do however discover the Travers were closely related to the Jones. The Travers-Jones are listed. Bowie was a Jones, remember. And if we search on Tulketh Castle, we find it was Laurence Travis, MP, who lived there around 1400, not a Travers. So Wiki is misdirecting even there. Wiki tells us our William Travis' grandfather had been an indentured servant, so the family had fallen on hard times; but one sentence later we find this same grandfather was given a grant of 100 acres in South Carolina. We aren't told why a former indentured servant was granted 100 acres. William's uncle was also famous, and he now has his own Wiki page. He was allegedly a Baptist minister—which is doubtful since we can be sure he was Jewish. He also founded the mysterious Sparta Academy in Alabama, which taught Latin, Greek, history and mathematics. That also doesn't sound very Baptist to me. We have to wonder if it also taught Hebrew. Travis went to that school, and his girlfriend while there was named Rosanna Cato—which also doesn't sound like a good Baptist name. After graduating from Sparta, Travis began studying law with famous attorney James Dellet. Dellet was later—during the time of the Alamo—a US Congressman. So, given Travis' bio, it is strange to see him studying with such a prominent person. Also not in keeping with his family's “fallen” status is the fact that Travis started a newspaper, the Claiborne Herald, while still only 18 years old. Reminds us of Ben Franklin and Mark Twain, doesn't it? He allegedly passed his law examination at age 19, bought two slaves, and married the 16-year-old Cato. Two years later (1831) he was sued for debt and fled Alabama to avoid arrest, leaving his wife and children. So you see, he already had reason to fake his death five years before the Alamo.
Despite being a broke deadbeat and in flight from the law, upon arriving in Texas he allegedly bought land directly from Stephen F. Austin. We aren't told how he paid for this land—maybe with green stamps. Austin also appointed him counsel from the United States. Really? Austin appointed a 21-year-old deadbeat as counsel from the US? He was also commissioned as a lieutenant colonel, immediately skipping about five ranks. This is also not believable, since he had no prior military experience. His law degree should have allowed him to come in as a second lieutenant, but that is still four ranks below lieutenant colonel.
To understand any of this, you have to also study the Anahuac disturbances of 1831-35. Within months of arriving in Texas, Travis was allegedly hired as an attorney by slavers from Louisiana to get their property back. You see, Mexico didn't allow slavery. Which should already tell you who the good guys were here. According to the story, Travis got caught hoaxing letters to the court, and Mexican General Juan Bradford arrested him for insurrection. Locals then allegedly revolted with the aim of freeing Travis from jail. Bradford allegedly had no support from Mexico and gave into the rebellion. None of this is any more believable than the Alamo, since Generals like Bradford wouldn't have been left in enemy territory with almost no troops. The entire story (as at Wiki) makes no sense—it appears to have been written by high school boys drinking Everclear. As one example, we are told Mexican Colonel Piedras agreed to General Bradburn's resignation. What? Since when can a colonel agree to the resignation of his superior officer? At any rate, this is how the Mexicans were allegedly driven from Texas before the battle of the Alamo.
But what does all this tell us about Travis? It tells us he was most likely working for US Intelligence in Texas as a low-ranking recruit. I doubt he ever took a bar exam or knew anything of the law. Between 1831 and 1936, he either earned his way into a higher level black-ops job that required he fake his death, or—like Bowie and Crockett—he got involved in land stealing and got his ass shot off by local ranchers. But since, like them, he was from the families, he needed a better send-off. They couldn't admit their own people were getting assassinated as thieves, so they inserted all three into the Alamo, creating a story of continuing glory and heroism.
Finally, David and Leaf didn't mention it, so I want to be sure you remember that after the fight, Santa Anna's men allegedly stacked the Texian bodies and burned them. No record of who was killed, or even a count was made. So there is conveniently no proof anyone died. This also goes against all military protocol, then and now. I have to believe that mainstream military experts and historians don't believe this story any more than David, Leaf, and I do, and this is one of the main reasons why. Europeans don't wage war this way, and both the Spanish and the Americans involved at the Alamo were children of Europeans. They wouldn't think of piling bodies and burning them, leaving the ashes to fly in the wind. Europeans bury their dead, they don't burn them. So the Mexicans should have—at worst—dug a large pit. But since theirs was not an occupying army but a conquering army, there was no reason for them not to let the locals gather their own dead. The Alamo was allegedly a garrison, so all Santa Anna had to do is ride away. The locals would have arrived after the report of the battle to count, identify, and bury the dead themselves. The was no reason for Santa Anna not to allow them to do that. As with the alleged executions, burning the bodies would have been an unnecessary provocation. Not only unnecessary, but immoral and—by the rules of warfare at the time—illegal. This was less than 200 years ago, and you may be surprised to hear they had laws, customs, and morals back then.
In winding up my little addendum here, I want to be sure you noticed something else: Crockett, Bowie, and Travis were related, all coming from the same families in the peerage. We just saw Bowie and Travis related through the name Jones. But you will see below that Crockett was also related to the Pagets through the Steeles. Well, we just saw Bowie related to the same Pagets, Earls of Uxbridge, through the Catesbys. Which explains why the three were put into the same story here. My guess is they were all working on the same major land- stealing/gathering project in South Texas, and they were together because they were cousins representing the larger family. And who else were close cousins of these three? Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin. See below, where David and Leaf further lay out the relationships.]
In researching Crockett, I ran across an interesting article published in 2015 on the website of True West Magazine. (The word “true” in the title should clue you into the fact that whatever you’re about to read isn’t true at all, but more half-truths and misdirection.) The article uncovers another frontiersman by the name of Davy Crockett, also born in Tennessee, who was a murderer and outlaw. He was born 17 years after the famous Davy Crockett allegedly died at the Alamo, and was even related to him, though “the tie is unclear.” Actually, according to Wikipedia, he was either Davy’s grandson or grandnephew, so the tie isn’t that unclear at all. He even lived in Texas, but ended up in New Mexico, “drinking, gambling and getting in trouble with characters such as gunman Clay Allison.” One drunken night at an inn in Cimarron with his pals Gus Heffron and Henry Goodman, Davy decided to shoot a soldier who got in his way as he was stumbling out the door. Three more soldiers were playing cards at a table inside, and Davy “whipped around and opened fire, killing two and wounding the other.” He then fled, and the rest is one heck of a tall tale:
He was arrested and tried for the murders, but he claimed that he wasn’t responsible for his actions because he was drunk. The court agreed and acquitted him; all he got was a $50 fine, for illegally carrying a gun in town.
Emboldened by the incident, Davy thought he was above the law. He and Heffron hurrahed Cimarron on a regular basis, getting drunk and shooting at various targets, riding horses into saloons and other buildings, and threatening citizens and lawmen. The two reportedly held Sheriff Isaiah Rinehart at gunpoint, forcing him to drink until he passed out.
Davy didn’t think he was above the law; he was above the law. He killed three soldiers and was acquitted by the court on the grounds that he was drunk. If that’s not being above the law, I don’t know what is. Here’s the photograph True West Magazine provides of the outlaw Davy Crockett:
Davy is the one on the right, looking like an inbred dandy. Of course, even a novice like me can tell this photograph has been heavily doctored, and may be fake altogether. Then we read on Wikipedia: “Local folklore says that Crockett was a member of a lynch mob headed by Clay Allison that killed the Elizabethtown serial killer, Charles Kennedy, in 1870.”
I bet you didn’t think there were serial killers back in the 1870s, did you? The name Kennedy is a dead giveaway, but just for kicks here is the official story:
Charles Kennedy, a big, husky full-bearded man, owned a traveler’s rest on the road between Elizabethtown and Taos. After travelers would register at the rest stop, some would disappear never to be heard from again. These traveling strangers were rarely missed in the highly transient settlement.
How convenient.
Evidently, when travelers stopped for a bed and a meal, Charles killed them, stole their valuables and either burned or buried their bodies. These events might never have been known, except for his wife’s confession, when she fled from him in terror in the fall of 1870.
The bleeding Ute Indian woman burst into John Pearson’s saloon, where Clay Allison, Davy Crockett (a nephew of the American frontiersman) and others were whiling away the hours. After she had been helped to a chair, she told the story of how her husband had killed a traveler and their young son. Hysterical, she continued the shocking story telling of how her husband had been luring travelers, perhaps as many as 14, into their cabin and then murdering them. On the day that she fled, she had witnessed another traveler who her husband had enticed inside by offering supper. During the meal, the passerby asked his hosts if there were many Indians around. Her unfortunate son made the fatal mistake of responding, “Can’t you smell the one Papa put under the floor?” At this, Kennedy went into a fury, shot his guest and bashed his son’s head against the fireplace. He then threw both bodies into the cellar, locked his wife in the house and drank himself into a stupor. Terrified, the woman waited until her husband passed out, then climbed up through the chimney and escaped to tell her story.
Davy and Clay then went and found Kennedy, beheaded him, and stuck his head on a pole in the center of town. No reasonable person could believe any of this. But the real red flags are the names. We already know Davy Crockett married a Kennedy. Are they the same Kennedys? According to this website, the Elizabethtown serial killer was the son of William and Fanny Canady of Tennessee. Note the spelling and origin – we have a match between Charles “bodies under the floorboards” Kennedy and Davy Crockett’s in-laws. That means the outlaw Davy Crockett, who allegedly killed Charles, was actually related to him. It turns out Clay Allison, the other vigilante in this story, was one of outlaw Davy’s relatives too. Remember Sarah Gilbert Stuart Crockett? Her niece was Jane Campbell Allison. Geni.com lists her husband as herself, so we have no way of directly linking her to Clay Allison, but we can presume they are related. For further evidence, we find that Clay Allison’s grandparents were Hamilton Allison and Elizabeth Stewart. So Crockett, Allison, and Kennedy weren’t outlaws and serial killers. They were all Intelligence agents being paid to spread fear and misdirect the locals from other goings- on.
Speaking of Clay Allison, he allegedly had a confrontation with Wyatt Earp, bringing us back to Miles’ paper on the OK Corral. Funny how these things come full circle, isn’t it? Wikipedia tells us that “Earp's biographer (and Earp himself) claimed that he and his friend Bat Masterson confronted Allison and his men in a saloon, and that Allison backed down before them.” We then read that “Charlie Siringo, a cowboy at the time, but later a well-known Pinkerton Detective, had witnessed the incident and left a written account.” Earp, Allison, and a well-known Pinkerton detective happened to be in the same saloon at the same time, and had a “confrontation” that ended peacefully? Really? This just proves the theory that both Earp and Allison weren’t vigilante gunfighters, but fellow Intelligence agents.
Back to Davy Crockett’s genealogy. In his family tree we find a Reuben Steele, who descended from the Baronets Steele. Though geni.com lists Reuben as the son of Alexander Steele, son of Parker Steele, son of Richard Steele, son of Richard Steele, it doesn’t mention that these Steeles are Baronets. When you flip over to thepeerage.com, you also find two Richard Steeles and a Parker Steele right in a line, but their birthdates are much later than those at geni.com. They’ve tried to fudge names and dates to throw you off, but we can presume these are the same folks, or at least ancestors. At thepeerage.com, Richard is, indeed, a Baronet, but it doesn’t list a son named Alexander. He’s related to Baronet John Maxwell Steele-Graves, who married Elizabeth Graves of the Lord Graves, Barons of Gravesend. Through her the Steeles are related to the Grenvilles, Pagets (Earls of Uxbridge), Morgans, Hamiltons, Chapmans, and Hancocks. Through the Pagets the Steeles are also related to the Leveson-Gowers, Lewises, Buckleys, and Bushes. (Remember we saw the name Buckley in Davy Crockett’s lineage.) Also the Stewarts (Earls of Galloway) and Coles (Earls of Enniskillen). The Pagets also held the title of Marquess of Anglesey, from where they hailed.
Reuben’s wife, Hannah King, is completely scrubbed at geni.com, but we may assume she is a member of the King peers. Supporting this, we find a Hannah Magdalen King at thepeerage.com, born in 1988, granddaughter of Sir Michael Bernard Grenville Oppenheimer, 3rd Baronet. We saw Grenvilles related to the Steeles above, and now we can pull in the famous Jewish Oppenheimers, as well.
I could go on, but let’s switch gears and focus on the other side of the Alamo battle for a bit. The leader on Mexico’s side was Antonio de Santa Anna, President of Mexico. Even Wikipedia admits that he was a criollo, an “elite racial group of American-born Spaniards.” A criollo was a pureblooded Spaniard with no Mexican lineage. Therefore, despite being the leader of Mexico, Santa Anna was not in the least best Mexican. Remember, Mexico was supposed to have gained its independence from Spain just a decade or so before, in 1821. So why was a Spanish noble still ruling the country?
Now for a fun game: which of the following is Santa Anna?
If you guessed all of them, you’re right! But wait, those look like four completely different people. How can they all be Santa Anna? The first two both have a high forehead, but otherwise their features and skin coloring are completely different. The picture on the far left is from history.com and can be found at many other reputable sites. They want you to think that’s Santa Anna, because he looks Mexican. But I very much doubt that is him. If it is, then the third picture from the left can’t be him – the eyes, nose, and mouth are completely different, and the forehead isn’t as prominent. But that picture is from Getty Images, also reputable. The second picture from the left is probably more accurate, as he looks like a white Spanish noble, which is exactly what he was. The painting on the far right could also be a young version of the white Spaniard, although the nose and chin are more exaggerated – a very Jewish-looking Santa Anna, if you ask me.
[Miles here again: that first image is the one they lead with now at Wikipedia, but that can't be Santa Anna. Why? Well, Wiki dates it as c. 1853. Since Santa Anna was born in 1794, that would make him almost 60 there. Does that guy look almost 60 to you? No, the third guy might be in his 60s, but the first guy looks to be about 35 to me. Which would put the date at about 1829. But that is a big problem, because there were no photographs like that in 1829. The Daguerreotype didn't become available worldwide until 1839, a decade later, and Daguerreotypes didn't look like that anyway. Compare that photo to real Daguerreotypes, and you will see that it is better in quality. That photo should be dated after 1850, and probably after 1860, which is why they date it to that period at Wiki. So it simply refutes itself. It cannot be Santa Anna.
The last image of Santa Anna is a painting, obviously, and it definitely does not match the other three. No one has hair like that in his twenties, but looks like image one in his thirties. Yes, we all lose some hair as we age, but not like that. The eyebrows, chin, and ears also don't match: not even close. So my guest writers are correct: what we have here is four different people tagged as Santa Anna, with no indication any of them is him. Each one refutes the other three.]
Several things about Santa Anna’s life don’t add up. His idol was Napoleon Bonaparte, and just like his idol, he was also exiled – on several occasions, in fact. At history.com, we read that after his final stint as Mexico’s leader, Santa Anna was banished to…New York City! Staten Island, to be exact.
After Santa Anna met with U.S. Secretary of State William Seward on the Caribbean island of St. Thomas in 1866, con men convinced him that the United States—the country against which he had fought during the Mexican-American War—would back his attempt to return to power in Mexico…. When Santa Anna arrived in New York City in May 1866, however, he learned that he had been duped. After spending years on Staten Island, Santa Anna returned to Mexico shortly before his death in 1876.
Where do I start? First of all, we are told Santa Anna mercilessly butchered hundreds of American citizens at the Alamo and executed all of the soldiers who had peacefully surrendered. He should have been considered an enemy of the state and tried for war crimes. But instead he was whisked off to Staten Island and remained there for a decade, all expenses paid. He was then returned to Mexico, no questions asked. That would be like the U.S. government capturing Osama bin Laden, setting him up in a posh apartment overlooking Central Park, and then letting him go back to Saudi Arabia after a few years with a pat on the back and a patronizing “try to stay out of trouble now, you hear?”
And who are the “con men” that convinced Santa Anna the U.S. would help him return to power? He was in St. Thomas with U.S. Secretary Seward, so these con men must have also been U.S. officials traveling with Seward. Surely Santa Anna wouldn’t have believed a couple of locals with false mustaches posing as American officials. But why would they be called “con men” – wouldn’t they have just been statesmen playing some political games? What was Santa Anna doing with Seward in the Caribbean to begin with? None of it adds up.
Then history.com tells us:
During his forced retirement in Staten Island, Santa Anna imported a chewy, rubber-like substance harvested from Mexican sapodilla trees—chicle. When Santa Anna’s personal secretary and interpreter showed the material to friend Thomas Adams, the amateur inventor was intrigued and thought he could use it to produce a rubber substitute. With the help of Santa Anna, who hoped the experiments would result in a windfall that could fnance a return to power, Adams spent $30,000 in an unsuccessful attempt to vulcanize the chicle. While that venture failed, however, Adams successfully added favorings and sweeteners to the plant to create “rubber chewing gum.” The chewing gum company started by Adams would become one of the largest in the country…
You have to laugh at that. First, they admit his exile to Staten Island was a “forced retirement” replete with a personal secretary and interpreter. Second, Santa Anna believed he could finance his own return to power with his nifty new chewing-gum invention. If he was truly in exile, he would never have had the freedom or means to develop a new consumer product, get rich, and then travel back to Mexico to reclaim his country. That’s not how political exile works. Of course, he wasn’t an exile at all. His stint as Mexican dictator was just his assignment; when his assignment ended, they recovered their Intelligence asset and then set him up with a cozy retirement package. Or should I say semi-retirement, since he apparently helped Thomas Adams invent Chiclet chewing gum, which was later bought by Pfizer, and then Cadbury. It’s now produced in the U.S. by Cadbury Adams, a subsidiary of Mondelez. This explains why Santa Anna first went to the Caribbean before being shipped to Staten Island; he was hob- knobbing with sugar magnates who were developing a brand-new type of candy. Once chewing gum took off in the U.S., guess where the majority of chicle was produced? That’s right, in Mexico. According to a 2009 story from NPR:
Workers in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize became highly dependent on North American corporations buying their product, and fuctuations in the prices and rate of purchases had a huge impact on their countries’ economies. This unsustainable industry set into motion another so-called collapse of Maya civilization that continues to have an effect today.
Chewing gum also ties back to my opening remarks about U.S. foreign military intervention. From NPR: “During World War II, Wrigley convinced the U.S. Army to include chewing gum in the rations of soldiers. Soldiers, in turn, spread the habit around the world.” If this is all starting to sound like an industrialist conspiracy, that’s because it is. And I haven’t gone anywhere but to the mainstream sources; as usual, it’s just a matter of putting the pieces together. For kicks, I’ll include this tidbit from the NPR story:
Despite its popularity, chewing gum was not without its critics. Leon Trotsky argued that gum was a way for capitalism to keep the working man from thinking too much.
Knowing what we do about Leon Trostky (a.k.a. Lev Davidovich Bronstein), we can read his comment as a veiled compliment to chewing gum, since Trotsky and the other Jewish industrialists didn’t want anyone thinking too much about anything.
So, who was Santa Anna, anyway? It helps to know his full name: Antonio de Padua Maria Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón. Quite a mouthful. The fact that he is often referred to simply as Santa Anna is misleading, and probably intentionally so, seeing that his other family names link him to several prominent Spanish noble families. His father was an officer in the royal army.
Let’s first look at the name Severino. In the peerage we find a Lady Anne Clifford, daughter of Hon. Thomas Clifford and Charlotte Maria Livingston, Countess of Newburgh. Her first husband was Lt.-Gen. John Joseph Mahony, son of Lt.-Gen. Daniel O’Mahony, Comte de Castile. The Mahonys were apparently Irish, but later became Spanish Counts – figure that one out.* Lady Anne and John Mahony’s son married Charlotte Bulkeley (perhaps a variant of Buckley?), daughter of Sophia Stuart. Now for the kicker: after her husband’s death, Lady Anne married Don Carlo Severino. She died on April 1, 1793 on the Island of Ischia, off the coast of Italy. When you get on these rabbit trails, it pays to start clicking links, even when you don’t expect to find much. Case in point, Ischia. Wikipedia drops a hint when talking about the origin of the island’s name:
The current name appears for the frst time in a letter from Pope Leo III to Charlemagne in
813: the name iscla mentioned there would allegedly derive from insula, though there is an argument made for a Semitic origin in I-schra, “black island”.
In 1422, Joan II (Durazzo) gave the island to her “adoptive son” Alfonso V of Aragon. Joan II’s lineage traces back to the Arpad dynasty, which Miles has already linked to the crypto-Jewish Komnene family. Alfonso V was from the House of Trastamara, which Miles has also outed as crypto-Jewish.
Now let’s hit on the names López and Pérez. There was a Lope Díaz II de Haro (1170-1236), Lord of Biscay, was a Spanish noble from the House of Haro. He was the son of Diego López II de Haro. He was one of the leading magnates (noblemen) under King Ferdinand III of Castile, another being Álvaro Pérez de Castro el Castellano, head of the House of Castro. These men were apparently close, as Álvaro eventually married Lope’s daughter, Mécia López.
That’s Mécia above. You could spot that nose and deep-set eyes from a mile away.
Wikipedia tells us that conflict broke out in 1234 between Ferdinand and these two magnates, and their intermarriage caused Ferdinand to relinquish all the titles and lands granted to Álvaro, “even though the conflict was settled arbitrarily by the Queens Berengaria de Castilla and Elisabeth of Swabia.” These queens were Ferdinand’s mother and wife, respectively. You may remember (from Miles’ paper) that Elisabeth of Swabia was the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Isaac II Angelos, who was a Komnene. Queen Berengaria was the daughter of Alfonso VIII of Castile, who we discover had a longstanding mistress, Rahel Esra, a Jewish woman who lived in Toledo, a Jewish hotspot in Spain. Wikipedia tells us that “under her influence a number of Spanish Jews were appointed to positions within the royal court.” Indeed. Alfonso VIII’s wife was Eleanor of England, whose lineage goes back to King Baldwin II of Jerusalem, who Miles outed as a crypto-Jew in his paper on Phillip III. She was a Gometz, later Gomez. I suspected Berengaria might have actually been the love-child of Alfonso and his Jewish paramour, but it’s beside the point, as her official mother was also Jewish.
Let me step back for a moment and offer my theory: Just as certain crypto-Jewish families infiltrated the royal and noble lines in England, France, Sweden, and so forth, so they did in Spain. These Spanish crypto-Jewish families were, among others, the Pérez, López, Castro, and Díaz families. As evidence, we only have to go back to Alfonso VIII’s grandfather, Alfonso VII, who also had a weakness for (Jewish) mistresses. From his Wikipedia page:
Alfonso also had two mistresses, having children by both. By an Asturian noblewoman named Gontrodo Pérez, he had an illegitimate daughter, Urraca (1132 – 1164), who married García Ramírez of Navarre, the mother retiring to a convent in 1133. Later in his reign, he formed a liaison with Urraca Fernández, widow of count Rodrigo Martínez and daughter of Fernando García de Hita, having a daughter Stephanie the Unfortunate (1148 – 1180), who was killed by her jealous husband, Fernán Ruiz de Castro.
So these Pérez and Castro families were already wheedling their way into the royal Spanish lines a century before. But notice that Pérez was from Asturias, which we already know from mainstream history was a hotspot of Jewish migration since the first century AD. There had been large populations of Jews in Spain all the way up to the Inquisition, and the region of Asturias had – and still has – a particularly large number, as evidenced by this 2008 study which found that, among modern-day Asturians, “numbers of men with Sephardic Jewish Y- chromosomes equal those with European chromosomes.”
You’ll argue that’s circumstantial evidence at best, and Pérez isn’t a very Jewish-sounding name, not like Rahel Esra. Granted. But if you’re familiar with the Old Testament, you’ll know that Perez actually is a Jewish name. Perez or Paretz was a twin son of Judah and Tamar all the way back in Genesis. Now go to the Wikipedia page for Pérez, where the first sentence reads: “Pérez or Perez…is a Spanish and Jewish surname popular among people of Sephardic Jewish descent.” Alfonso’s mistress was a Pérez from the heavily Sephardic region of Asturias. It’s no coincidence, of course, that Pérez is very Spanish-sounding:
…while the Spanish and Hebrew etymological origins are distinct [Pérez means “son of Pedro” in Spanish], there are nevertheless those who carry the surname because, in their particular case, the origin of their surname is Spanish Jewish (i.e. Sephardic), and they, as Spanish Jews or their descendants, adopted the surname precisely because of its ambiguity.
In other words, crypto-Jews adopted the surname Pérez to hide their Jewishness.
Take a look at those recurring names again: Pérez, López, Castro, Díaz. Notice anything? They’re all modern-day celebrities. Hip-hop artist Pitbull (born Armando Pérez), Jennifer Lopez, Mario López, George Lopez, Cameron Diaz, etc. I hardly need mention the most famous Castro, who Miles has already outed. Actually, Comrade Fidel outed himself, admitting his ancestors were Spanish Jews. Fidel’s first wife was Mirta Diaz-Balart. In his paternal line, going back to the 1700s, we find an uncle Juan Lopez Diaz. We also find a Pereyre, which looks like a fudging of Perez. The Wikipedia page for the surname Pereira confirms this, listing variant spellings such as Pereyre, Peres, Paret, and Pares. And don't forget that Pereira is a variant of Peron, linking Castro to the Perons. We also read that “many Portuguese immigrants to the United States, especially Massachusetts, chose to ‘Americanize’ their surname to Perry.” This is true for Steve Perry, lead singer of Journey, whose father was Raymond Pereira, and Joe Perry, lead guitarist of Aerosmith, born Pereira. I’d bet money former Texas governor Rick Perry is also a Pereira/Perez/Peron. We do know that Rick Perry is descended from Spanish royalty. His ethnicelebs.com page says his 6g-grandfather was William Gaston. They conveniently fail to mention one generation back, where we discover that William Gaston was the son of Princess Agnes of Navarre, daughter of King Philip III and Queen Joan II of Navarre. The Gastons were also related to the French royal House of Bourbon.
Also recall that Davy Crockett’s earliest known ancestor was a Perry de Crocketagni.
Guess who else is a Pereira? Katy Perry. Her great-great-grandfather is Frank S. Perry, a.k.a. Francisco Pereira de Silveira from the Portuguese Azores islands. Katy’s genealogy past Francisco is scrubbed, but we may assume he was from the same Marrano family as Fidel Castro. Let me pause on Katy Perry for a moment, since her genealogy is quite interesting. She is related to Waltons, Clarks, Douglases, Robisons, and Blanks. She is also a descendant of Leopold Vilsack, a famous brewer and banker whose daughter Marie Antoinette married an Edward Fraunheim (Jewish), whose mother was a Meyer (also Jewish). We also find Katy is the great-grand-niece of Charles Schwab, the famous steel magnate. They admit that on Schwab’s 📷Wikipedia page but not on Katy Perry’s, which is curious. Equally curious is that her ethnicelebs.com page also completely ignores this connection, even though it dives fairly deeply into her genealogy. Katy’s uncle Frank Perry, Jr., the famous filmmaker, was married to a Rosenfeld (Jewish), a Goldsmith (Jewish), and a Ford.
All of Katy Perry’s Vilsack-Fraunheim relatives on geni.com are managed by a Walter Pierce Knake, Jr. You’ll recall from the Ned Kelly paper that the name Pierce is an “Americanized version of a similar sounding Jewish surname.” Unfortunately, the ancestry.com webpage that tells us this doesn’t mention which Jewish surname this is. I suggest it is Peretz/Perez. This means the Perry, Pierce, and Pereira/Pereyre/Peron/Peretz families are all part of the same crypto-Jewish family that has altered the spelling of its name over the centuries to blend in with the various natives.
Let’s do some more digging on the Pereira/Pereyre name. On Wikipedia we find a Soeiro Pereira Gomes, a Portuguese writer and leading figure of the Portuguese neo-realist movement. We’ve seen Gomes before, haven’t we? Gomes is a variant of Gomez/Gometz, linked to Baldwin II of Jerusalem. Soeiro Pereira Gomes was on the Central Committee of the Portuguese Community Party in the 1940s. The Portuguese Communist Party’s present headquarters in Lisbon – the Soeiro Pereira Gomes Building – bears his name. Since both communism and modernist movements in arts and literature were manufactured by Intelligence, we can assume Gomes was just another fascist spook.
On Wikipedia we also find an Isaac Arthur Pereyre, Jewish activist who lived among the Marrano (Spanish crypto-Jewish) communities of Southern France. Also Isaac La Peyrère, another Marrano and close confidant of Queen Christina of Sweden (from the crypto-Jewish House of Vasa).
That was Queen Christina. A picture is worth a thousand words, eh? Isaac Peyrere developed the “Pre-Adamite hypothesis” that Gentiles were created before the Jewish Adam, thus explaining the existence of all other races. He converted Rabbi Menasseh Ben Israel to this belief, and Menasseh was later invited by Oliver Cromwell to negotiate the readmission of Jews to England. Rabbi Ben Israel’s real name was Manoel Dias Soeiro – both names we’ve seen before. Per Wikipedia:
La Peyrère also argued that Messiah would join with the king of France…to liberate the Holy Land, rebuild the Temple and set up a world government of the Messiah with the king of France acting as regent. It has since emerged that, in fact: “Condé, Cromwell and Christina were negotiating to create a theological-political world state, involving overthrowing the Catholic king of France, among other things”.
Sounds like an earlier version of the modern-day Zionism project, doesn’t it? On his brother
Abraham’s Wikipedia page, quoting historian Herbert Bloom, we read:
“The Pereyras are described by their fellow Jews as merchants of wealth and influence, who occupied an important place on the Exchange [Bank].” The reference here is to the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, the oldest stock exchange in the world, started by the Dutch East India Company/VOC in 1602.
There is also an Ephraim Lópes Pereira d’Aguilar, 2nd Baron d’Aguilar, who was also a Jewish financier. He descended from the Baron Diego Pereira d’Aguilar, a Jewish converso from Portugal. Ephraim was very wealthy and, judging by his picture, very Jewish:
Suffice it to say, the Pereyres/Pereiras were wealthy Spanish-Jewish financiers tied to all the usual crypto-Jewish royal houses of the ancien régimes, as well as to the infiltrators of the Spanish nobility (Perez, Lopez, Diaz, Castro) that we are presently investigating.
The Baron Periera’s title put me in mind of Christina Aguilera – Aguilar/Aguilera. On a lark I checked out her ancestry. Her genealogy on her father’s side is completely scrubbed, but through her mother we find she is related to Britney Spears, and both of them are related to Baroness Margery de Bulkeley. We saw that name above, didn’t we? Lady Anne Clifford’s son, who was a Count of Castile (Spain), married Charlotte Bulkeley, daughter of a Stuart. They were related to Radclyffes and Walkers, both names we find in Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera’s shared family tree. The web I’m weaving just keeps nabbing more flies.
Let’s pull a few more historical figures into this sticky web. How about the legendary Spanish folk hero El Cid? He was born Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar. Wikipedia tells us that “despite the fact that El Cid's mother's family was aristocratic, in later years the peasants would consider him one of their own.” I won’t get into El Cid’s many exploits here, but suffice it to say he was often found fighting on both sides of the many battles between warring Christian and Muslim kingdoms across Spain. El Cid was like an earlier, Spanish version of Davy Crockett; Later pseudo- historians were paid to whitewash him as a folk hero and champion of the common man, when in reality he was just another rich kid from the wealthiest families assigned to carry out their interests and intrigues. They even admit El Cid’s mother’s family was part of the aristocracy. Who were they? A little digging reveals his great-grandfather on his mother’s side was Guterre, señor de Castro Xériz. So he was from the House of Castro. At JewishEncyclopedia.com, we read that, “According to the Cronica General de Castilla, the Cid had a Jewish page by the name of Gil, who later assumed his master's name, Diaz.” We can surmise that El Cid, and not just his page, was Jewish, since who else but a Jew would have no qualms fighting against both Christians and Moors? I also found several references to El Cid being a “New Christian,” meaning a Jew who converted to Christianity, usually to avoid persecution.
And to pull in another fly, do you remember who played El Cid in the epic Hollywood movie from the 1960s: Charlton Heston, top spook.
El Cid puts me in mind of Cervantes’ Don Quixote, where he is frequently referenced as one of the protagonist’s role models. Want to take bets on what I discovered about Cervantes, a.k.a. Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra? He is now believed to have been a crypto-Jew. It states it right on his Wikipedia page:
Modern scholars have suggested that he may have descended from a New Christian or Converso background, i.e., that his ancestors, prior to 1492, had been Jews. Rodriguez also says that "Saavedra" is believed to refer to the area of Spain known as La Mancha [where Don Quixote’s character is from], but was rather set near Zamora, Spain and that la mancha ("the stain") refers to his converso ("forced convert from Judaism") background. Advocates of the New Christian theory, first set forth by Américo Castro, often suggest Cervantes' mother was a converso as well. The theory rests almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence but would explain some mysteries of Cervantes' life.
What these mysteries are, we aren’t told, though it may be in reference to his being forced to leave Spain for unknown reasons when he was younger. His first love affair was with a “young barmaid” named Josefina Catalina de Parez. Interestingly, she’s listed on geni.com, where we find that her son Hernán son emigrated to San Juan, Puerto Rico. His daughter, Isabel, married a Sotomayor. Guess where Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is from? San Juan, Puerto Rico. You’ll recall from Miles’ paper on the Supreme Court Justices that Sonia, aside from being Jewish, is also a Cortes. This links us back to Charles “bodies under the floorboards” Kennedy; his wife was Gregoria Cortes. It also links us to Santa Anna, whose wife was Manuela Cortés.
Let’s jump back to the American side of the Alamo event. First, there’s William Barrett Travis, who led the Texian army during the Battle of the Alamo. Travis had been commissioned as a lieutenant colonel of the Legion of Cavalry and became the chief recruiting officer for the fledgling Texian army. He had arrived in Mexican Texas in 1831, having purchased land from Stephen Austin. He set up a law practice in Anahuac and helped start a militia to oppose Mexican rule, quickly becoming a leading figure in the Anahuac Disturbances. What’s that, you ask?
In 1830, Juan Davis Bradburn established a new military and customs post, Anahuac, in Texas. The local settlers resented Bradburn's efforts to withhold land titles from those who had squatted in unauthorized areas. They were further angered by his attempts to enforce customs laws which had been largely ignored. The hard feelings escalated when Bradburn, following Mexican law, refused to return runaway slaves to their owners in the United States. After receiving a hoax letter claiming that armed men were marching on Anahuac to retrieve runaway slaves, Bradburn arrested local lawyers William Barret Travis and Patrick Churchill Jack. Settlers were outraged that Travis did not receive some of the protections offered by the United States Bill of Rights, even though these rights were not guaranteed in Mexico. A large force of Texians marched on Anahuac to secure Travis's release. The resulting confrontation forced Bradburn's expulsion from Texas and encouraged other immigrants to take armed action against Mexican soldiers.
It almost seems like Travis was set on disturbing the peace the moment he strode into town, since it only took a year for him and his business partner (a Churchill) to get arrested and then scrape up a militia. Doesn’t sound like something two upstanding lawyers would want to get embroiled in. What about Juan Bradburn? It helps to know he was an American before joining the Mexican army. His real name was John, not Juan. He was born in Virginia in 1787. His father was William Chandler Bradburn and his mother was Mary Hunter. He descends from a Thomas Bradburn of England, whose genealogy is scrubbed. My hunch is that he is a descendent of the Bradburns/Bradbournes of the peerage, notably Sir John Bradbourne. At fabpedigree.com we find that Sir John is President Obama’s 15th-great uncle and Lady Diana’s 14th-great grandfather. His son, Sir Humphrey, is Winston Churchill’s 11th-great uncle and President McKinley’s 10th-great uncle. They are related to the Cottons, Venables, Ferrers, Hastings, Villiers, Warrens, Cliffords, and Berkeleys. “Juan” Bradburn and Patrick Churchill Jack may have been related through the Churchill lines.
We are given no indication of Bradburn’s motive for allying himself with Mexico and provoking the local townspeople by throwing Travis in jail. This bit from his Wikipedia page helps shed some light:
Historians have discussed Bradburn's role. [Historian] William C. Davis believes that he “overreacted and made heroes of two local malcontents whose actions their own people otherwise had not been much inclined to sanction”.
It seems to me like Bradburn, Travis, and Jack were all agitators paid to play both sides of this little event in order to incite confusion and fear. Most of the locals didn’t care that much about any of it and just wanted peace and quiet, but that didn’t fit well with the governors’ plans to start a war.
Travis is most remembered for the inspiring letter he wrote “To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World” requesting aid to defend the Alamo on February 24. Why he would address it to “All Americans in the World”, when it would have taken a month or more for aid to arrive from Washington D.C. or overseas, is beyond me. In the letter he writes, “I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid.” Indeed, it’s very eloquent and inspiring, but why would he appeal to patriotism and the American character? Texas wasn’t part of the U.S., nor did Travis or the rest of the Texan revolutionaries want it to be. Remember, they had already issued the Texas Declaration of Independence. They didn’t want to be Americans. Why would actual Americans feel moved to come to their aid in the name of patriotism?
Next up is James Bowie, co-commander of the Texian forces at the Alamo. His genealogy is a mess. For instance, his father is listed as Rezin and/or “Rhesa” Pleasant Bowie I, with a son named Rezin Pleasant Jr., but he was also known as James Rezin Bowie, which would make our James the Jr., not his brother Rezin. Before marrying James’ mother, Rezin a.k.a. Rhesa a.k.a James Sr. was married to an “unknown slave Bowie.” He then married Elve Ap-Catesby Bowie. But her real name was Alvina Jones. There’s no explanation of where the “Ap-Catesby” (Welsh for “son of Catesby”) came from, but a quick search reveals a Thomas ap Catesby Jones, a U.S. Naval officer in the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War. He must have been an uncle or cousin of James Bowie, but they’re careful not to make that connection for some reason. Commodore Jones is known for returning a young deserter, Herman Melville, to the U.S. from Hawaii in 1843, and a whale attack on Jones’ ship Peacock was allegedly the inspiration for Moby-Dick. Jones is also known for mistakenly thinking the Mexican-American War had begun before it did, and seizing the California port of Monterey for a day before returning control to Mexico. Whoops. It looks like James and his uncle/cousin Thomas Jones were assigned to the same task of trying to start a war with Mexico.
Speaking of Jones, British rock icon David Bowie allegedly adopted the name Bowie because he admired James Bowie and the Bowie knife. David’s real name was David Robert Hayward Jones. I suggest that he adopted the name Bowie not because he admired James, but because he was related to him through Alvina/Elve.
It turns out James Bowie was also connected to the candy industry. He and his brother Rezin established the first steam-powered sugar mill in Louisiana. They later set up a sugar plantation in Arkansas.
James and Rezin were also land speculators, and apparently not honest ones. It seems they sold quite a bit of land that they didn’t actually own:
The Arkansas Superior Court received 126 claims in late 1827 from residents who claimed to have purchased land in former Spanish grants from the Bowie brothers. Although the Superior Court originally confirmed most of those claims, the decisions were reversed in February 1831 after further research showed that the land had never belonged to the Bowies and that the original land grant documentation had been forged. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the reversal in 1833. When the disgruntled purchasers considered suing the Bowies, they discovered that the documents in the case had been removed from the court; left without evidence, they declined to pursue a case.
How convenient for the Bowies. If you still think these heroes of the Alamo and the Texas
Revolution were good guys, consider your bubble burst.
And yes, there are several Bowies in the peerage. Notably, a William Bowie Stuart Campbell, son of “unknown” Bowie. James Bowie’s genealogy stops at a Johne Bowy from Britain, circa
1600. If he’s related to the Bowies in the peerage, including this William Bowie Stuart Campbell, that would mean he is probably a cousin of Davy Crockett. It’s good to keep these things all in the family, you know.
Speaking of keeping things in the family, one of James Bowie’s uncles was a Lamar, though we aren’t given his name. One of the pivotal figures in the Battle of San Jacinto (in which Santa Anna was defeated) was Mirabeau Lamar. He would later become the second President of the Texas Republic. Bowie and Lamar were probably related, though they’re hiding it for some reason. Actually, they’re definitely related, having Pottingers in both their lines. Mirabeau’s 3g- aunt was Mary Pottinger (Mills), who was James Bowie’s 3g-grandmother, which makes Mirabeau and James 4th cousins once removed. But considering James’ uncle was a Lamar, they are probably much more closely related than this.
One of Marry Pottinger’s nieces was Mary Travis, great-grandmother of William Barret Travis. So three of the leading figures of the Texas Revolution – Bowie, Travis, and Lamar – were cousins, though the mainstream histories never admit this.
The Pottingers were Baronets of Richmond. The baronetcy was created in 1840 for Leiutenant- General Henry Pottinger, the first Governor of Hong Kong. Several of them worked for the East India Company in the early to mid-1800s, including Henry. In 1810, the East India Company sent Henry and Charles Christie (tying into Miles’ recent paper on Agatha Christie) on an expedition to Persia disguised as Muslims. In other words, he was an Intelligence agent. When Henry Pottinger was Governor of Hong Kong, the Lieutenant Governor was Major-General Sir George Charles d’Aguilar, KCB. Recognize that name? His uncle was the Jewish financier Ephraim Lópes Pereira d’Aguilar, the same Baron d’Aguilar we’ve already encountered. The Pottingers are related to the Forbes, Abbots (think Texas governor Greg Abbott), Shorts, Crofts, Reynolds, Butlers, Gordons, Meysey-Thompsons, Smiths, and Todds. Mary Pottinger, not the one above (or at least we are led to believe), married Sir Walter Dixon Borrowes, 4th Baronet, sometimes spelled Burrows. Read that like Burroughs, as in literary spook William S. Burroughs.
We can pull Davy Crockett into the mix, too. Mary Pottinger’s mother was a Wright, a name we saw in Davy Crockett’s family tree.
One more thing about Mirabeau Lamar. His middle name was Buonaparte, which was the actual spelling of Napoleon’s name ( Napoleon was Italian, not French, as you may recall).
This provides a nice segue into Stephen Fuller Austin, the founder of Texas. Notice the Napoleonic way he is resting his hand inside his jacket in the portrait below. This is a red flag already. The hand-in-the-jacket pose is a popular signal among the ruling families, and a clue to the rest of us that some “hidden hand” is controlling things behind the scenes.
He was one of the original empresarios whose father Moses was charged to colonize Texas. His middle name should give you a clue as to his family’s origins. Yes, Austin’s ancestors were some of the original settlers of the Massachusetts and Connecticut colonies, and Stephen’s lineage is linked to the Fullers (think Margaret and Buckminster), Gates (think Bill), Phelps, Cliffords (think Lady Anne), Websters, and Adams. (Remember Thomas Adams, who President Santa Anna later teamed up with to invent chewing gum.) Austin’s brother-in-law was James Franklin Perry from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Through James he may have been related to both Santa Anna (Perez/Perry) and Davy Crockett (Franklin).
Stephen is a direct descendant of Sir Henry Green, Lord of Boughton, and his mother Lucy la Zouche. Lucy was the daughter of a Eudo la Zouche of the Barons Zouche and Millicent Cantilupe. Through Lucy, Stephen descends from the royal houses of England, France, Germany and Italy, to the noble houses of Anjou, Brittany, and Normandy, to the Kings of Ireland, to the Welsh nobility, to the Marshals of England, and to William the Conqueror.
Austin’s father Moses was not commissioned by the U.S. to colonize Texas. He was commissioned by Spain. That’s a big fat clue for you as to what’s really going on here. Why would Spain use Americans to colonize Texas? If you stop and think about it, the whole empresario program makes no sense. If the U.S. wanted to colonize, say, the Alaskan Wilderness, do you think they’d use Russian citizens to do it? This is how Wikipedia explains the empresario program:
In the late 18th century, Spain stopped allocating new lands in much of Spanish Texas, stunting the growth of the province. The policy was reversed in 1820, when Spanish law allowed colonists of any religion to settle in Texas. Only one man, Moses Austin, was granted an empresarial contract under Spanish law. But Moses Austin died before he could begin his colony, and Mexico achieved its independence from Spain in September
1821…. Even as the government debated a new colonization law, Stephen F. Austin, son of Moses Austin, was given permission to take over his father's colonization contract.
So Spain reversed its immigration policy in Mexico solely to allow Moses Austin to settle there? What was so special about him? And why was this contract extended to Stephen even after Mexico gained independence from Spain?
His Wikipedia page tells us that “Austin sought to maintain good relations with the Mexican government, and he helped suppress the Fredonian Rebellion.” That rebellion was “the first attempt by white Anglo settlers in Texas to secede from Mexico” led by fellow empresario Haden Edwards. But Edwards and Austin had previously joined forces in a three-year attempt to persuade Mexico to pass a law allowing Americans to settle in Texas. Now, suddenly, Austin is squelching a secession movement led by Edwards? But it gets weirder. After suppressing the Fredonian Rebellion, Austin turns around and leads the Siege of Béxar, an early campaign of the Texas Revolution. Stephen was elected commander of that siege “despite a lack of military training.” The Texian rebels under Stephen numbered 600, half that of Mexico’s 1,200-strong army led by the seasoned general Martin Perfecto de Cos. That should strike you as highly implausible.
I’ll wrap this paper up by saying that if the Texas Revolution was a real, grassroots revolution, the Republic of Texas wouldn’t have handed itself over to the U.S. ten years later without any protest. These people supposedly fought long and hard to win their sovereignty. What reason did they have to give it all up by voting to approve their own annexation? It reminds us of the French Revolution, which resulted in France being handed right back to the Bourbons. The last President of Texas, who facilitated its annexation to the U.S., was Anson Jones.** That name should tip you off to the fact that he was related to all the other phony revolutionaries – Travis, Bowie, Lamar, Crockett – proving the entire revolution was managed by the same families from beginning to end. Once the Alamo finished serving its purpose as a false flag, the governors no longer had any use for Texas as its own country. It’s much easier to manage one large nation than several little nations, anyway. It cuts down on overhead costs.
I frequent several libertarian websites, where I often encounter commenters from Texas who like to talk big about secession. They often have the Texan or “Don’t Tread on Me” flag as their profile icons. Knowing what I now know (thanks to Miles and others), I feel sorry for these folks. They’ve been duped. They’ve been led to believe if they can only break off from the evil federal government and create their own libertarian utopia, they’ll finally be free. They don’t understand that the enemy is already inside the camp. They think that to attain freedom, they need only rearrange the borderlines on the map. If only it were that easy. If you want real freedom, stop trying to use geopolitical means to achieve it. Take Miles’ advice. Stop buying the governors’ products. Stop watching their televised propaganda. Stop getting sucked into their social media rabbit holes. Stop wasting your time debating the minutiae of the non-aggression principle on masturbatory libertarian forums. Stop buying bitcoin. Base your life on something more substantial than making money. Live simply. Be generous with your belongings. Love people deeply. Start a family. Read good literature and poetry. Spend more time in nature and less time on your phone. If enough of us do these things, we might start a real revolution.
*Miles here: I will help you figure it out. The links between Spain and Ireland go way back. According to the famous legends, Ireland was discovered and settled by Milo from Spain. What they don't tell you is what I discovered in later papers: This Milo was Jewish, descending from lines that began in Armenia before the year 1000.
**Here's one last tidbit: that may link us to Alex Jones.
Comments