by the artist Miles Mathis
First published August 19, 2015
I didn't learn about this hoax until today, and I immediately saw through it and started writing. I learned about it because Andy Cush at the Gawker recently published a “conspiracy” piece on the pair—although his article turns out to be more misdirection.
Background: in 2007, a high-profile couple allegedly committed suicide within one week of each other, she by pills and he by drowning. The press dubbed it “the Golden Suicides.” Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake were New York artists who had been together for twelve years. She landed a Hollywood deal in 2002 and they moved to Los Angeles. The deal fell through, Duncan became paranoid that Scientologists were souring her deals, and Blake followed her down the rabbit hole. They moved back to New York in 2007 and killed themselves soon thereafter.
I say that the Gawker article is more misdirection, because although it puts the possibility they were murdered on the table, seeming to give you two choices instead of one, that by itself is the problem. Like all other “alternative” pieces we read, we are pushed from a unilateral world in which you can believe only the mainstream story to a bilateral world where you can also believe the conspiracy story if you like. But those are the only two possibilities. The author Cush does not look at the story like a real investigator would, squinting for inconsistencies. Instead, he subtly suggests to you that there may be an alternative: murder. I will squint for the inconsistencies, as usual, and through them you will be able to see that the un-offered third path is the most likely: the whole thing was faked.
Although we will soon look at more empirical evidence, what first gave away this story to me was its form. What I first saw was a lot of ranking sites trying to convince me this was either suicide or murder. Because I had already tagged those sites as compromised from previous research, my initial assumption was that this story was also compromised. When we see Slate, Vanity Fair, New York magazine, and Alex Constantine writing about this, we know someone very much wants to mislead us, and is paying a lot of people to do it. With only a cursory glance, the whole thing looks like a project, and the only question is whose project is it? If you can't guess, you will soon find out.
Let's start with Theresa Duncan. From Wikipedia:
On her blog The Wit of the Staircase, Duncan listed her interests as "film, philology, Vietnam War memorabilia, rare and discontinued perfume, book collecting, philately, card and coin tricks, futurism, Napoleon Bonaparte, the history of electricity."
Right. Just the average likes of a 30-something woman artist. What woman in the 21 st century isn't interested in Vietnam War memorabilia, Napoleon and the history of electricity? I suggest to you that not only did Duncan fake her death, she never existed. This couple already looks to me like little more than a Intelligence front, with a pair of pretty people hired to play the parts. Her blog reads like it was written by a small group in Langley sitting around a table. But they can't even take the assignment seriously, so to pass the time they insert these ridiculous clues, to see if anyone is paying attention.
As another example, Duncan supposedly left instructions that blog entries automatically appear after her death—in one case six months after. Why would she do that? One was posted two days before Halloween and the other on New Year's Eve, 2007. The Halloween posting is a clue, since it is about Basil Rathbone. You don't even have to read the post to get the first clue, since that clue is Rathbone himself. Rathbone was an actor, of course, and his most famous role was Sherlock Holmes. This indicates to me that Duncan didn't write these blog entries, or any of the rest. Those actually posting them are testing you. Are you as smart as Sherlock? Can you unwind this? With me, they found their man.
The New Year's Eve posting is a prose poem by T. S. Eliot. Again, Eliot is the main clue himself, since he worked for Intelligence. See my paper on Hemingway, which outs the whole literary nest. Or see the Frances Stonor Saunders book The Cultural Cold War, which ties Eliot to several British Intelligence fronts. However, this time the posted poem is also a clue, since its theme is the death of art. Eliot is downcast at his inability to match the great poets, telling us that modern people cannot hope to compete: “for us there is only the trying.” This is a clue because that message has been one of the main projects of Intelligence since the end of the 19th century, and Eliot was hired to promote it. As I have shown in dozens of papers over the years, the project was to destroy old art and replace it with an art that could be more easily controlled and manipulated. To do this, they first had to convince artists that everything had already been done. You weren't ever going to paint a ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, so why bother? Go to work for the CIA instead and make whatever they tell you to: you won't have to starve in a garret, you will have a guaranteed income and a pension and a faked death waiting for you when you are ready to move on. Yes, having no use for beauty or subtlety, the new governors wished to remake art as propaganda—which they did have a use for. The whole Duncan/Blake story is just a continuation of this project.
But back to Duncan's bio at Wikipedia. Her parents are listed as Donnie and Mary. It's another joke. A play on Donny and Marie Osmond. Duncan is supposed to be from Lapeer, Michigan. Who else is said to be from Lapeer? Terry Nichols, the second Oklahoma City bomber. Nichols is another fake person, just made up by Intelligence. He doesn't exist at all, except as a photograph. He isn't in jail and never was. His birthdate is listed as April 1. April fool, you bought it! Like Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Richard Cottingham, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Richard Reid, Umar Abdulmutallab, Ted Kaczynski, and hundreds of others, he is either just an actor or just a series of photo-ops. I have a lot of evidence for that in those linked papers, if you haven't already read them.
[Addendum, January 1, 2017: A reader sent me a few pointers which led to these additions. More red flags pop up on Duncan everywhere you look. In the early 1990s she worked for the World Bank. Wow. Her pal Monica Gesue worked with her there, and in 1993 they both moved to Magnet Interactive in Georgetown. What is Magnet Interactive? Well, it now has zero presence on the internet, but we are told it was a design studio, now part of AKQA. What is AKQA? Again, hard to tell, but it looks like a spooky new ad agency, one that started out working for Nike. Why would Nike hire a new ad agency in 1994? Why wouldn't they hire one of the top existing agencies? And what is the link to the World Bank? What were two design girls doing at the World Bank? Redecorating the restrooms?
Wiki tells us AKQA was bought by General Atlantic in 2006, but in the sidebar AKQA is listed as a subsidiary of WPP. GA is not a subsidiary of WPP, as far as we know. To me, they all look like Intel fronts or shunts. Why do I say that? To start with AKQA is obviously meant to imply WATER, which is transparent and runs through your fingers. Does that make you think of design? No. Does it make you think of Intel? Yes. But there is more. What did AKQA give us? Not only did they end up providing us with this big fake Duncan/Blake story a few years later, in the 90s they provided us with the first “Games for Girls”, a series of vidgames designed to bring females into the fold. That is an obvious project, one we would expect the big boys to be involved in.
Furthermore, "In 2001, Variety announced that Duncan had sold a pitch to Fox Searchlight —Alice Underground — and would pen the script about teenage girls who kidnap a rock star." Note the title of the project, which of course refers to Alice in Wonderland. This is a well-known spook marker. Also, we find with more digging that a woman named Catie Disabato wrote her first novel on almost the same subject in 2015. It is called Ghost Network. Really? Isn't that title a little obvious? Why not Spook Network? Here is the cover:
Isn't that also a tiny bit obvious? On her own website, Catie describes herself like this:
I am a stacked twenty-eight-year-old blonde on Sunset Boulevard. I am also a writer.
No real woman describes herself as “stacked”, but especially not a 28-year-old. That adjective is right out of the 1950s. Plus, Disabato is such a fake name. “Abato” is a spanish verb, meaning “to beat down”, among other things. Another clue is that this Catie Disabato is linked to Nancy Jo Sales, who we will see below linked to Duncan. Catie has written about Sales several times, going back to 2013. In Ghost Network, she includes Sales' real 2010 Vanity Fair article about the Bling Ring in her fictional work, just changing the names of the characters. The lead character calls Sales' article “bullshit”. To maximize the propaganda, the book is readable in almost its entirety at Googlebooks, although it only came out last year. It looks to me like the entire “real” story that Sofia Coppola's 2013 The Bling Ring is based on is also bullshit, since it never made any sense to start with. Finding it later linked to these people just confirms that assessment, as does Disabato's retelling and expansion of the story five years on, sexing it up with fake New Situationists and so on. Even that is a clue, since the original Situationists were also spooks working a project—mostly the Modern Art project I have blown apart in dozens of papers. As I have told you before, the spooks love to refer to their prior projects. It is what they do.
All this indicates to me that is you wish to find where Theresa Duncan went, all you have to do is track down this Catie Disabato. Probably the same person. Either that or they are both papermache fronts for the same writing committee.
Why don't I believe the Bling Ring story? For one reason, the alleged ringleader was a guy allegedly named Nick Prugo. Prugo is just an anagram for “group”, indicating the sick group that wrote this. Although these kids allegedly stole in excess of $3 million from top celebs, Prugo was out on probation within a year. They later used him in a second hoax, when it was reported he had tried to hire someone to rape his girlfriend. That ties into current male-blackwashing projects in obvious ways. See my paper on Glen Ridge for more on that. But the main clue with Prugo is that he is listed at IMDB. He is an actor. He was in a TV movie in 2003 called Little Lost Souls: Children Possessed. It was about the exorcism of children. Prugo confessed without even asking for a plea deal, spilling his guts like a tiny baby. He told the police about crimes he wasn't even charged with and that weren't even known to authorities. In other words, he overacted just a tad. Another participant in the Bling Ring was Diana Tamayo, who just happened to be student body president at Indian Hills High School. You wouldn't think such a girl would be involved in such a thing, but it gets better. Indian Hills High also looks like a CIA front. It had no history and “relocated” immediately after the event. Its entire existence may be a stub. And get this: at its former location in Calabasas, a new spook school moved in in 2008, one supposedly funded by Will and Jada Smith. In 2010 alone, the Smiths gave $1.2 million to the school, which has been described as both a home school and a Scientology school. But since it isn't at home, it can't be a home school. And the Smiths have denied being Scientologists. So what is going on? Can you say “cover for various events”? This school also didn't last long, being closed in 2013 after less than five years. Despite that, it was featured in all the top media outlets, including The New York Post, The Los Angeles Times, ABC News, Regis and Kelly, and the Associated Press. Clearly, its purpose was to blackwash homeschooling. It is no coincidence that California passed laws against homeschooling soon afterwards.]
Now let's move over to Jeremy Blake. Blake has no early bio. We aren't told who his parents are, which is always a red flag. But we do get more clues. Like Duncan, Blake was selected for the 2000 Whitney Biennial. He was also selected in 2002 and 2004. This is a red flag, since the Whitney and its Biennial are both Intelligence fronts. While MOMA (Museum of Modern Art) was founded in 1929 by the Rockefellers, the Whitney Museum of Modern Art was founded almost simultaneously by the Vanderbilts. It is known that Intelligence ran several projects out of MOMA before, during, and after WW2 (see my paper on the Cultural Cold War), and we must assume the Whitney was also involved, since a) it was just up the street selling the same Kool-Aid, and b) the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts were allies in many projects over the years, including the biggest ones. It doesn't take a genius to see that the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts (along with the DuPonts, the Morgans, and the Kennedys) have conspired to take over the US government, using the destruction of art as one of their many means along the way. If you don't believe me, I suggest you go to a Whitney Biennial and view the art. If you don't wish to travel to New York, you can do it online. Without looking closely at the works, you won't be able to understand my thesis here, so I suggest you actually do it.
Artists now go to lectures by curators and gallerists, you know. This is how they learn the modern trade. Do you think Michelangelo or Rembrandt ever went to a lecture by a curator, learning from him what to paint or sculpt? This is your signal the whole project is controlled. In these lectures, the main lesson is that contemporary art must be relevant. By relevant, they mean politically relevant. But what is politically relevant art, by definition? Oh yes, it is propaganda. Artists are being told they must produce propaganda. That is the only viable art in the 20th and 21st centuries. Curious, no?
If you study the lots at any Whitney Biennial, I think you will discover the “art” falls into one of two broad categories. Either it is a deconstructed art, badly conceived and badly made on purpose; or it is an art with some small, smarmy message, usually one that ties directly into some current headline, and thereby into some current Intelligence project. In the first category, the artist is encouraged to pursue the inane, the grotesque, the disgusting, or the simply stupid. All these are meant to undercut the past, high art, or the aristocracy by some name (patriarchy, Empire, colonialism, etc.). Note that. Most have never understood why Modern art talked about the aristocracy so much, belittling old “aristocratic” art. It is because the new art is the art of the merchant class, the financiers. Their great enemy was always the aristocracy. So of course they are going to instruct their hired artists to attack the aristocracy. It took me a long time to put two and two together, but if you read my papers on Clement Greenberg and then read my paper on Marx, you will finally understand this theme that runs through Modernism.
At any rate, one of Blake's major art works was a series called “Winchester.” It was about Sarah Winchester and Winchester Mystery House in San Jose, California. Sarah was the widow of gun billionaire William Winchester, and her house is famous for its staircases going nowhere. Does that jog anything in your head? Staircases?
What was the name of Theresa Duncan's blog? The Wit of the Staircase. Like the staircases at Winchester Mystery House, her blog was meant to take you nowhere. The boys at Langley thought they were being too “witty” for you, but they aren't too witty for me. This is all as transparent as thinnest glass. Transparent as AKQA.
Blake also did a portrait of Malcolm MacLaren, manager of the Sex Pistols. Of course the Sex Pistols were another Intelligence creation. David Shayler, the “ex” British Intelligence agent, has claimed that the Sex Pistols were investigated by MI5, but that is more misdirection. It is the continuing effort to make the band look dangerous, when it was anything but. As usual it was just a couple of posing gay boys, hired to look tough, wear women's blouses, and say stupid things. Johnny Rotten has allegedly been offered a knighthood, which tells us all we need to know. That's how dangerous he is.
As for MacLaren, he admits his mother was the mistress of billionaire Charles Clore, which was probably his introduction to Intelligence. MacLaren was an early devotee of the Situationist movement, which—you guessed it—was also an Intelligence project. It was Marxist, Dadaist, and Surrealist at the same time, which means it was thrice-owned by American/British Intelligence. The Situationists were born from the Lettrist movement of Isidore Isou. Isou was a Jewish journalist during WW2, when he was probably recruited by American Intelligence working in France at the time. Isou was hired to destroy art via his hypergraphics, which, like metagraphics before it, was a purposefully garbled simulacrum of art without any content. The Situationists then continued this destruction in various other ways, pretending to be artists while creating no art. Intelligence made sure they became famous nonetheless, effectively replacing art with non-art and real artists with fake artists.
MacLaren was hired to carry this project into popular music, hiring pretty boy posers to pretend to be bad-boy musicians. It worked marvelously, as usual; and even if hadn't worked, they would have said it had worked in the press over and over until you believed other people believed it. That's the thing about all these projects like the Sex Pistols. It is hard to say how successful they really are, or how popular. They tell you to this day that the Sex Pistols are still popular, but who knows. We are told,
In 2002 Johnny Rotten was named among the 100 Greatest Britons following a UK-wide vote.[2] Q Magazine remarked that "somehow he's assumed the status of a national treasure.”
But of course they can fake these things, and usually do. Who voted in that UK-wide referendum? MI5 agents? And why should we believe anything Q magazine says? Just because they say he is a national treasure doesn't mean any real person thinks he is.
And here's another clue. Johnny Rotten's autobiography is called No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs. With that in mind, let us return to Theresa Duncan's blog, the post where she is talking about Basil Rathbone, remember? I skipped telling you what she said about Rathbone, since I didn't see anything in it. But I do now. Rathbone's friend has left the house with his dogs, the car crashes, and the man and his dogs are killed. Moments later, a psychic calls Rathbone and tells him:
“I have for you, sir, what we term ‘a calling of urgency,’” she said. “It came to me with such impact that, although not knowing its meaning, I simply had to find you. The message is brief. Here it is in its entirety: ‘Traveling very fast. No time to say good-bye.’ And then, ‘There are no dogs here.’ ”
No dogs? It is obviously a clue, but what does it mean? Well, if we search on “no dogs”, we find a scene from Bruce Lee's Fists of Fury, where he kicks a sign that says “no dogs and Chinese allowed.” That refers to the old claim that that sign did hang on at the entrance to the public garden in Shanghai, when parts of China were controlled by the British. Although that story is now contested by historians, there is more to it than that. What you may not know is that Bruce Lee was discovered by Jay Sebring. Yes, the same Jay Sebring who was an alleged victim of the Manson Family, and whom I outed as a probable ONI agent in my paper on that. So the “no dogs” sign in Fists of Fury may be playing double duty.
With more research, I soon discovered what this “no dogs” thing is about. It all goes back to a Twilight Zone episode from January 26, 1962, called “the Hunt”. A man is killed with his dog, by drowning. Blake allegedly died by drowning, remember? Anyway, the man comes to a gatekeeper whom he mistakes for St. Peter. The man won't let him enter with his dog, so they move on. They come to another gate and are allowed to enter. St. Peter explains to him that the first gate led to Hell. Dogs aren't allowed to enter because they can smell brimstone. The dog would recognize it as Hell and lead the man out.
You may take that to mean that Intelligence is doing the Devil's work, and it may be. But I read it as a signal between agents, one that means, “No one can smell what we are doing, so we are free to do as we like. There are no dogs here that can spot a lie, so we are free to lie to any extent we see fit. If we wish to fake events, no one is going to stop us because no one can spot us. Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone) was fiction, and no one in the real world is smart enough to unwind this.”
This also reminds us of the Sherlock Holmes episode called “Silver Blaze.” It is about a stolen horse. Holmes knows that whoever stole the horse worked in the stables, since the stable dog didn't bark. It is the one where “no dog barked.”
But back to the case at hand, and Jeremy Blake. Why the link to the Sex Pistols through MacLaren? Because of the Sid and Nancy parallel. The story of bandmember Sid Vicious is that he killed his girlfriend Nancy with a knife, admitted that he stabbed her, and then somehow avoided prosecution for either murder or manslaughter. Absolute bollocks, of course, since that doesn't happen in real life. Vicious is then supposed to have killed himself by OD'ing on heroin four months later. But as with Duncan and Blake, it was all faked. See my recent paper on River Phoenix for another similar fake using a drug overdose. All you need to pull off a fake like this is a couple of friends as witnesses and a hired coroner to fill out the fake paperwork. They did it with Jim Morrison in 1971 and they are still doing it whenever they feel like it.
Did you know Sid Vicious' mother was in the Royal Air Force and his father was a guard at Buckingham Palace? Did you know he couldn't even play his instrument, although it was the easiest: bass guitar. The band, like the deaths and punk in general, was a total sham. It was a creation of Intelligence from the ground up.
This paper is about Duncan and Blake, not the Sex Pistols, so I will have to prove that fake another time. Just notice for now the parallels. Sid and Nancy are sold to you as a tragic couple and so are Duncan and Blake. Remember, a major motion picture was made about Sid and Nancy, trying to glamorize all these people again. Although it starred Gary Oldman and was promoted to the hilt, it failed to make enough money to cover its budget. This is the true indication of how popular the Sex Pistols really were, and are. The same thing was planned with Duncan and Blake, and I suspect the recent article at the Gawker is gearing us up for the release of a film about them. It has been in the works since 2008, when spook-baby Bret Easton Ellis began working on the screenplay.
Would you buy art from these people?
How about wienerschnitzels?
For more on Blake, we can go to the article from 2008 at Vanity Fair, which is supposed to have been written by Nancy Jo Sales, but reads like it was once again written from a cubicle in Langley.
[Addendum May 2016: A reader wrote in to inform me there is more evidence about Nancy Jo Sales indicating this whole thing is a hoax. Sales was married to Frank Morales from 2004-2006. He just happens to be a priest at St. Mark's Church in the Bowery, where Theresa Duncan's body was allegedly found (see below for more). This links the writer of the article directly to the event itself, which is a giant red flag. Morales is also a huge red flag, since although Wikipedia tells us he was a member of the Assassination Information Committee, that “committee” was simply a “counterinsurgency group” formed on the street in NY in 1975 to spread disinfo about the Kennedy and King assassinations.* Morales would have been 25 at the time, and still in seminary (supposing he went there, or is a real person at all). Clearly, both he and Sales are spooks. Sales allegedly went to Philips Exeter, Yale, and Columbia. More recently [Dec 2010] she wrote an article on Randy Quaid for Vanity Fair, giving air time to his conspiracy theories. Of course this indicates that whole thing is a hoax as well, meant to draw off attention from other things. Notice the parallels between that story and this one. Like Duncan and Blake, Sales and Morales may just be fronts for writing and disinfo committees residing in Langley. More clues to that come from a reader, who reminds me that the name Morales is itself a red flag. See David “the Indian” Morales, CIA operative involved in the JFK and RFK fake assassinations. He was also involved in many other fake events, like Bay of Pigs, the Castro hoax, the Che Guevara hoax, and so on. Could he be the father of Frank Morales?]
Even Andy Cush at the Gawker admits this byline of Sales is dubious, telling us in his own article that John Connolly was believed by many to be the author of record of this Vanity Fair article. Moreover, he gives us a link to an article by one of his colleagues, entitled “Was a Vanity Fair editor secretly working for the Church of Scientology?” There, we find high-ranking former officials at Scientology admitting he was. What no one tells you is that since Scientology is also a CIA front, this is just the admission that Connolly is CIA. So the Vanity Fair article basically was written from Langley.
More evidence of that is given by the name John Connolly, which is probably also a front. John Connolly was Governor of Texas during the Kennedy assassination, and was in the car with him. Which means Cush's article is just another turn of the screw. Not only does Nancy Jo Sales not exist as a writer, John Connolly doesn't, either. I would guess that neither were the real authors. The real authors are ghost committees in Langley or somewhere.
The reason I was able to deduce this before reading the Gawker article is that the Vanity Fair article has all the telltale signs. They probably have a playbook for these fake press releases. Either that or they have the same team in 2014 that they had in 2008: this article tastes exactly like Andrew Solomon's article last year on Sandy Hook and Peter Lanza from the New Yorker. See my paper on that, where I show the whole interview was another hoax. The Vanity Fair article tastes like Solomon's article because it is an absolute smorgasbord of inconsistencies and absurdities. In one paragraph, we are told “He [Blake] hung around with the band Nation of Ulysses, believed in punk as a philosophy. It was a macho, hipster scene.” But two paragraphs later
He told a friend that he “took his personality cues from Chevy Chase in Caddyshack and Han Solo in Star Wars.” Some people thought he was a snob, drinking his Manhattans and smoking his Nat Sherman cigarettes, until they realized he was just an artist, and funny and shy.
What? Since when do punks pattern themselves after Chevy Chase and drink Manhattans? They have some major continuity problems here, indicating multiple authors. Soon after, Blake is quoted saying
“By wildness I’m not referring to some corny idea of rock ’n’ roll excess,” he said. “I’m talking about an internal turbulence and inventiveness that keeps the person and everyone around him or her on their toes.”
Yes, punks always use the word “corny” and refer to “rock and roll excess.” They are also careful to say “him or her,” so as not to offend anyone as a matter of gender.
Like Solomon's article, the older article is full of anachronisms, too. Theresa Duncan, the Whitney Biennial artist supposed to be a cutting-edge feminist in 2002, creating video games for girls, is—we are told—a fan of Steely Dan. What? Steely Dan was a band for middle-aged men, even in the 1980s. In 2002 they were considered about as hip or punk or wild as Barry Manilow. This is just another clue that Theresa Duncan is being channeled by old CIA guys. It fits with her “interests profile” we looked at above, which reads the same way. She likes Vietnam War memorabilia? The history of electricity? Why not reruns of Bonanza and backissues of Playboy?
Blake's interests and references are also anachronisms, since they don't fit his posted age of 35 (at death). Chevy Chase peaked in about 1978, when Blake was six. Once again we have an indication of scriptwriters who are much older than those they are trying to write for. Remember, we saw the same thing with Andrew Solomon recently. Solomon is 51, and he was trying to write for 12 year old Adam Lanza. Not surprisingly, all of Lanza's references were to the 1970s, before he was born. Adam Lanza was supposed to be a fan of Bill Cosby, Get Smart, the Beatles, and so on. I'm just surprised were weren't told he had a crush on Angie Dickinson or Rachel Welch.
Now let's look at the alleged deaths. Duncan is said to have been found in the rectory of St. Mark's Church in the Bowery. That's a rather unusual place to find her body, wouldn't you say? She wasn't religious. Well, it turns out that St. Marks is a rather peculiar Church. It was invaded by Modern Art in the early part of the 20th century, with William Carlos Williams, Allen Ginsberg, Houdini, Amy Lowell, Kahlil Gibran, and many others either performing or lecturing there. Patti Smith launched her punk band there in 1971. Not only is it curious to find a church put to such use, we have red flags on all these people. I have outed most of them recently. See my papers on Hemingway, Theosophy, Wendell Berry, River Phoenix and others for the pertinent passages. More recently, St. Mark's has hosted the Poetry Project, Larry Fagin's Danspace Project, and Richard Foreman's Ontological-Hysteric Theater. Fagin is connected to Ginsberg and Burroughs and taught at the Naropa Institute's Jack Kerouac School of Disembodied Poetics, so he pretty much outs himself. The same can be said for the Ontological- Hysteric Theater, which you can judge by its name and not lose anything.
Basically, Intelligence took over St. Mark's Church decades ago and has used it ever since as one more promotional facility for their Modern Art and propaganda projects. All these projects spun out of now declassified CIA art projects in the 40's and 50's, which I cover in my paper on the Cultural Cold War. See the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, as just one example, which took over the arts long ago and is still expanding under other names.
So to find Duncan's body in that church is about as big a red flag as you could hoist. The only way it could be any bigger is if her body was found in the lobby at Langley. In fact, it was such a give-away, they had to change the story. Vanity Fair tells us her body was found in the church rectory, but Wikipedia now tells us she was found in her apartment nearby.
Also interesting that Duncan's birthday was October 26, the day the Patriot Acts were signed into law. Also the birthday of Abby Rockefeller, who founded MOMA. Also the birthday of Hillary Clinton, who was born in 1947, year one of the CIA. What about Blake? We aren't told who Blake's father was, but since he was born in Fort Sill, OK, he must be an army brat. His father was obviously military. You may remember that Fort Sill was the site of a Japanese internment camp during WW2. It was also a major fort in the Indian Wars. The Native Chiefs Geronimo, Satanta and Quanah Parker are buried there, so it has been a place of infamy from the beginning. Any nation of honor would have given the bodies back to their own people for burial.
Blake is said to have gone into the ocean at Rockaway Beach, Long Island. Given that Manhattan is surrounded by water, it seems a long way to drive to throw yourself in. A clue may be given by the fact that Rockaway is known as a gay beach. In the year Blake allegedly drowned himself, 2007, New York magazine's spring travel issue called it a great place for “male bonding.” I don't think anyone really wished to kill the actor who played Jeremy Blake, but it seems they did wish to embarrass him a bit on the way out. He apparently pissed some people off at Langley, and they couldn't keep themselves from landing a few parting jokes on him.
The same can be said for the actress known as Theresa Duncan. She also appears to have rubbed a lot of other agents the wrong way, as we see from this paragraph in the Vanity Fair article:
“On the evening of May 9, 2006,” said O’Brien’s statement, “Theresa approached my bungalow and rapped on the window. Upon opening the door I was immediately greeted with the following questions… Theresa said to me, ‘Jeremy and I have started a club where we’ve found a bunch of old men and we’re letting them fuck us in the ass, and we wanted to know if you wanted to be a part of it.’ I asked Theresa if she was joking. She said ‘no’ and repeated herself.
What? If this whole article were real, they would never repeat hearsay evidence like that from a single source, with no back-up witness to the exchange. They would be opening themselves to a lawsuit for defamation from Duncan's parents and Blake's mother. Can you imagine if someone said something like that about your dead son or daughter in a national magazine? The fact that there never was a lawsuit or retraction on this claim is indication in itself that the whole story is a sham, and that Blake's mother is in on it.
Yes, we find out with much digging that Blake's mother is Anne Schwartz-Delibert. She is listed in Google several times as a life-coach working out of various Jewish centers. So Blake is Jewish, something we are never told. Might he be related to another Jewish Schwartz who (probably) faked his death, Aaron Swartz? You will say, no, of course not, the names aren't even spelled the same. That's true, but that doesn't decide the question by a long shot. They do these things, like change spellings and change names. For example, Aaron Swartz's dad Robert founded a software company (by himself) and named it the Mark Williams Company. We are told he named it after his dad, William Mark Swartz, but that doesn't pass the smell test, either. We will have to study this one more closely later.
But let's return to Anne Schwartz. With even more digging, we find more information about her and Jeremy. This is from a PDF at nyu.edu. Jeremy's father is said to be one Jeffrey Blake, who was soon transferred from Fort Sill to Washington, D.C. He was in the Mount Pleasant Neighborhood, specifically, while Jeremy's mother split from him and was nearby in Takoma Park, Maryland. She later moved to Bethesda, Vinyard Haven, and Silver Spring. When we see a soldier move from a big military base in the West to Washington, D. C., our first assumption should be that he has been recruited either by the Pentagon or by Intelligence. When that soldier's name and bio is later suppressed at Wikipedia, our assumption should be firmed up considerably.
Anne Schwartz later married Arthur Delibert. They don't provide that link in the common bios, either, and you have to dig for it considerably. Why? Because Arthur Delibert is a big-shot attorney for K&L Gates, which represents the big investment companies. These investment companies have grown exponentially in the past 20 years, and they now control trillions of dollars. That's right, trillions. They have come up over and over in my previous papers, always lurking behind the scenes in all these mysteries. But that isn't all. Arthur Delibert has also worked as an advisor to the commissioner of the SEC. Amusingly, he also wrote a book The Money Manager's Compliance Guide, which we are told is about how to regulate investment companies. Since he works for them, we must assume the book is about how not to regulate the investment companies. This would be his role at the SEC: advising the commissioner how not to regulate his own companies. I don't see a conflict of interest there, do you?
And here's a weird one: according to a Cornell Alumni magazine (see cached), Arthur Delibert enrolled in a PhD program in mythological studies at Pacifica Graduate Inst. in Carpinteria, CA, after the alleged death of Jeremy. Why would someone in his position do that? Reminds us of Joseph Campbell, from my last paper, doesn't it? Pacifica didn't gain accreditation until 1997, although it was founded 21 years earlier. Wikipedia tells us Pacifica was founded on depth psychology, and it only offers degree programs in new-age psychologies (like liberation psychology), therapy, and mythological studies. Well, as it turns out, Pacifica was indeed a spin-off of Campbell, and he helped guide it in the early years. His archives were installed there in 1992. Wikipedia gives you a list of past presenters there, which I would advise you to study. You can mark them all as “compromised.”
Finding Arthur Delibert there is of course another huge red flag. Pacifica looks like another spook hang-out, and Delibert's time there simply confirms him as a spook.
So to say that Jeremy Blake was connected would be a vast understatement. He was connected to the military and D.C. (Pentagon?) through his real dad, and was connected to the government and major investment firms through his step-dad. I guess we now understand how he managed to make all these contacts in the art world in New York City while still in his 20's. His connections through his mother may also be significant, since her bio has been scrubbed. I found one listing for her father Robert Schwartz, but no info from the genealogy sites about either Robert or Anne's mother. My guess is she is from big Jewish money as well. With that in mind, I found this Robert J. Schwartz who was senior vice president of Smith Barney until 1989. Born in 1917, he is of the right age to be Anne's father. He died in 2006, the year before the Duncan/Blake hoax, which is also a clue. He may not have approved of such things, and they had to wait him out. We also have a clue based on where this bio of Robert Schwartz is posted: Trillium Investments. Curiously, Wikipedia has no page or link to Trillium Investments, although it is a very large company. But what is of concern to us here is that we have found another investment group possibly linked to this Duncan/Blake hoax. If I have the right Robert J. Schwartz here, it only adds to the mystery.
Which brings us to the fact that Theresa Duncan's important connections are also hidden. The nyu.edu pdf tells us she worked for NicholsonNY before meeting Blake and becoming an artist. What is NicholsonNY? LinkedIn tells us
NicholsonNY was New York City’s first digital agency. Founded in 1987 (as Tom Nicholson Associates, Inc.) the company provided digital design, development and consulting services to leading blue chip clients and cultural institutions. The firm’s heralded work for IBM, Citibank N.A., Mashantucket Museum, Penguin, Harper Collins, News Corporation, NBC, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Apple Computers among others, helped set the stage for a wave of agencies and design firms in what would be known as NYC's “Silicon Alley” and would define a new industry.
Wow. NicholsonNY later added the clients MasterCard, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nestlé, and Prada, among others. So it begins to look like Duncan was hand-picked for her pretty face as the front for this small project by. . . well, the masters of universe. We have now discovered her plug into the MATRIX. If you weren't already very suspicious of her, that list of names should open your eyes wide.
Blake soon joined her at NicholsonNY, we are told as her direct hire. Her projects Chop Suey, Smarty, and ZeroZero were all created while at Nicholson—something we aren't told in the bios. This is important, because it adds weight to my suspicion that she and Blake may have been nothing more than fronts. In other words, maybe she and Blake created these things and maybe they didn't. We have caught Intelligence faking these things before, including, remember, the Nancy Jo Sales byline at Vanity Fair, above, which insiders have admitted was really John Connolly's project. You may also consult my paper on Bob Dylan, which supplies you with much evidence Dylan was also a front: his songs probably having been written by Leonard Cohen, among other people. Intelligence isn't too scrupulous about this, you see, and with fairly small-time projects like this Duncan/Blake hoax, they are even less scrupulous. The “art” created is just a toss-off, so they don't really give a rat's ass whose name is attached to it. Those who actually created it probably prefer their names aren't on it.
To see what I mean, remember that Blake first got noticed for his “large-scale, heavily abstracted digital C-prints that appeared to mix elements of both painting and photography, yet were created entirely in Photoshop.”
That is what the New York Times called “Lush-toned.” Looks like random green pixels to me. Blake's “degree in traditional painting” would appear to have been a complete waste of time and money. These were first shown at Feigen Contemporary in 1999.
We have seen that name before, haven't we? And I don't mean in Oliver Twist (Fagin)—although there are some similarities. Richard Feigen has made many appearances in my papers, all the way back to the mid-1990's. The first time I noticed him was when he was working with Walter Annenberg to steal the Barnes Collection from Merion and put it in Philadelphia. There, he acted like the high-handed asshole he is. Later, we saw him chatting amicably with Robert Hughes in The Mona Lisa Curse, fooling you into thinking he had taste and breeding. He has neither. Like Philippe de Montebello, he only has the surface sheen. Beneath he has caved to the demands of his masters in the MATRIX, like the rest of these awful and famous people who slip about in the big cities, sniffing for blood to drink. Finally, we saw him in my paper on money laundering, where he said he had never heard of money laundering in art, and where I snorted with glee. So we shouldn't be too surprised to see him here promoting Blake's Photoshop creations. Being an old New York insider, he probably didn't have any choice. Maybe Feigen would have preferred to remain a dealer in the Old Masters, but maybe he wasn't given that option. As with Robert Hughes, there were only two options: follow orders from the big boys or get out. Hughes got out; Feigen never has.
Anyway, I think I have shown you enough evidence to sell my theory. But I will close by giving you two more nice fat facts. Blake was said to have thrown himself into the Atlantic Ocean. Unfortunately, all they had to go on was a woman who called 911 and some clothes on the beach. There was also a note, but all that would be easy to fake. Vanity Fair tells us a body was later found by fishermen, but Wikipedia has backtracked on that, instead maintaining radio silence on that one. Fishermen finding a body isn't enough, you know: we need some proof it was Jeremy Blake. We never got that. All we got is a NYT report that the body had been identified. Identified by whom? Who was the coroner? How was the body identified? Dental records? By his mother? The body was said to have been found July 22 off Sea Girt, NJ. The body would have been soaking in seawater for five days, so there would be no fingerprints. Another problem is that the Asbury Park Press reported on July 26 that the body had still not been identified. That is four days after it was found, although it was thought to be the body of a famous missing person. Why would officials have to ask through the press for help identifying this body? Wasn't Anne Schwartz-Delibert looking for the body? No? I wonder why not?
We are told that Ocean County investigators were seeking any dentists or doctors who might have worked with Blake. That is beyond belief, since there had been a highly publicized search for Blake's body since the 17th. It was in all the New York and New Jersey papers, and had been for almost nine days. So why would the Ocean County prosecutor's office need to be contacted on the 26 th by a New York City police officer, to figure out this might be Blake? That hadn't occurred to them before?
The location is also a problem, since Sea Girt is far to the south, below Wall Township. The problem is not the distance, which could theoretically be traveled by a floater in five days. The problem is the prevailing currents in the New York/New Jersey bight.
See the blue arrows going up along the Jersey coast (near the bottom of the diagram)? And see the “summer winds” gray arrow? This was July, remember? So a body could not have drifted from above the bay to below, moving from Long Island to New Jersey. As you can see from these arrows, the longshore drift would have pushed the body into the bay, and then in towards Staten Island. It might have then been pushed back out to the North Shore of Jersey, or even to the back of Sandy Hook. But it could have never ended up halfway down the Jersey coast. It would have had to travel against the strong prevailing summer current for about 40 miles.
So why choose Sea Girt? Don't these people know the prevailing currents in that area? I assume some of them do, but since they assume you don't know it, it doesn't matter. Because they think you are an idiot who will accept anything, they are free to choose whatever point they like. They chose Sea Girt because it refers back to Sea Change, the Beck album that Blake did the cover art for.
The final thing to look at is a paragraph added to Blake's Wikipedia page by a mischievous elf. It reminds of a Law and Order episode from 2008 called Bogeyman.
In the episode, the body of the character paralleling Theresa Duncan has forensic evidence that calls into question her suicide, while the Jeremy Blake parallel character survives his suicide attempt. A legal case against him is disrupted by the cult group Systemotics, resulting in a near mistrial followed by a plea accepted after the ADA implies both he and the judge are connected to Systemotics.
Although there is more misdirection into the whole Scientology mess there, the important thing to notice is that Blake survives. You are being given the clue once again by insiders. You should also ask why the episode is called Bogeyman. It is implied that Systemotics is the Bogeyman, but I would suggest that the Bogeyman is the unseen entity behind both this episode and the entire Duncan/Blake project. In other words, the Bogeyman isn't Scientology; the Bogeyman is Intelligence, and the people pulling the strings of Intelligence.
If all this is true, I will be asked why Scientology seems to be blackwashed in this whole Duncan/Blake project? If Scientology is an Intelligence front, why is Intelligence making itself look bad? The answer is that Intelligence doesn't mind looking bad. In fact, it wants to look bad. Mainly, it wants to scare you, and part of this story makes you very scared of Scientologists. They seem very powerful, very immoral, and mostly above the law. Well, Intelligence is happy if you think it is all those things, since that helps keep you in line. Remember when Tom Braden, head of one of the top CIA projects in the 1960s, admitted in the Saturday Evening Post that the CIA was immoral? No? Well, that was the name of the article: “I'm Glad the CIA is Immoral.”
That is why in the Duncan/Blake project they promote both the suicide story and the alternate murder story. One advances one of their programs, and the other advances another. The suicide story advances their promotion and glorification of fake artists and their fake art. The murder story advances their program of widespread fear, panic, anxiety, and confusion. You don't think they have a program like that? See project CHAOS, which is partially declassified. CHAOS/KAOS wasn't a fictional group from Get Smart, it was a real project of the CIA, one which was joined by Nixon to the FBI's project COINTELPRO in the late 1960s. This is now admitted by mainstream sources. Both were domestic programs explicitly created to manufacture fear and confusion in the US, and to undercut any and all resistance to the government and its plans—including its plans for art and the media. Although they were spectacularly successful, they didn't end in the 1970s, as we are told. They simply changed names and accelerated, eventually engulfing all facets of life. This has become the MATRIX: a totally manufactured system of events by which you are led precisely where they wish you to go. Like Duncan and Blake, many of the famous people you now read about and possibly admire don't even exist. They are manufactured in a boardroom in Langley and an actor is hired to play the part. So they do exist in one way: someone is there getting his picture taken and someone is showing up at parties and conferences. But that person doesn't exist in the way you think: he is not doing the things you think he is. His entire bio is manufactured. Which makes it all the more easy to re-assign him when the project is over. First you fake his death, then you change his hair color, and then you re-locate him. Once he has aged a bit, you can even bring him back. Almost no one will recognize him. That's how most people are: they don't see much of anything around them, and even less of those things beyond arm's length. That is why Intelligence has always been so sloppy, and why they are now just toying with you.
コメント