By Miles Mathis
First published November 26, 2013
This is a question I get a lot, especially from female readers. It is a variation of a question I get from many readers male and female, who are looking to keep one or two of their old heroes/heroines. In short, they want to know if anyone will be left standing after I finish outing everyone. The short answer to that is NO, there won't be anyone famous left. No one who you see on TV or read about in magazines or see at TED talks or see in major films will be left. None of the big dogs of the alternative media will be left, either. And almost no one you have come across on Youtube will be left. They are all plants. A few of the old guys may survive, like Thoreau or, say, Joan of Arc. And a few of the marginal characters on the internet may survive, especially if they aren't being promoted by any major sources of funding. But the media being what it is, you can now just assume that anyone with a major publisher, a major award, a major grant, or any connection to either political party or the government is a mole. If they were telling the truth or leading you in the right direction, they wouldn't have any of those things.
After all that, I know many won't be satisfied. They will say something like, “You agree with Naomi Klein on almost everything. So how can you say she is a mole? Is it just because she is Jewish?” No, it isn't because she is Jewish. It is because her articles are published by places like The Nation and Harpers, which are fronts for the faux-left. I have caught all these fake leftist magazines pushing propaganda over and over, so even when they publish something I agree with, I know they must be spinning me with it. That is what they do. That is why they exist.
Even worse is her position as Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics. The LSE was founded by Fabians, including George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Beatrice Webb, and Annie Besant. Remember, Besant led the Theosophy movement at the time, which I have shown was an Intel creation. Beyond that, these people were involved in the rise of the misnamed Labour Party, which—like its counterparts in the US—claimed to be pro-Labor while being a cloaked tool of the Industrialists. In other words, it was secretly anti-labor. Just as the Marxists and Socialists (including Marx himself) were actually fronts for the Industrialists, so was the Labour Party. What has the Labour Party ever done for unions or for the middle class? It has run the UK on and off over the past fifty years (see Harold Wilson, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown), and the middle class has been eviscerated just as cleverly during those runs as during any conservative runs.
I will be told that Attlee's post-war government instituted Keynesian policies and nationalized the Bank of England, but of course that is just another smokescreen. If the Bank of England was nationalized, why did it continue to lend money to the nation at interest? That makes no sense. Would you lend money to yourself at interest? What would be the point of that? The very fact that there is interest means someone besides the nation must be collecting that interest. They never tell you who that is. It is private banks, of course, just as in the US.
Let me spell it out for those still have trouble. The very idea of “interest” requires two parties. You have to have someone pay the interest and someone collect the interest. If the same entity is collecting the interest that is charging it, then you have just created a pointless circle. The net gain is zero and you might as well not bother. Well, if you have a truly National Bank, then the money in the bank belongs to the nation, right? If the nation then wishes to use that money for some project, it makes no sense for the national bank to charge the nation interest to spend that money. The nation would then be both the collector of interest and the payer of interest, so the net gain would be zero. Therefore, if we find that interest is being charged, we may assume we have a second party involved here, one that is not “the nation”.
The Bank of England is “National” in name only, just as the Federal Reserve is “Federal” in name only. Also, if the Bank of England were really nationalized, why is there still talk of auditing it? How could a truly national bank have secret books? And how could a National Bank have independence in setting policy (which it is said to have had since 1997, but which it always had)? “Independent” and “National” are mutually exclusive adjectives. If you have an “independent” bank with secret books, the money could be going anywhere, and whether or not you call that bank “national” or “private” is beside the point. A National den of thieves can steal just a much as a Private den of thieves, and probably more—since a National den raises less suspicion.
Anyway, this isn't the place to deconstruct British government policies in the late 1940s. I was only pointing out that the main line of Western government has been viciously top-down and predatory all along, in both conservative and so-called liberal governments. They have basically been two flavors of fascism, or the Industrialists in two costumes. The Fabians and Labour people have been in a poor leftist costume, but they have been fronts for the same billionaires. We have proof of that from their own lips, since they claimed to have been trying to institute Marxist reforms, but in slow motion rather than by quick revolution. Since I have shown Marx himself was from a billionaire industrialist family and that his job was to misdirect the Republican revolutions after 1848, any mention of Marxism is thereafter a red flag. We see this again with LSE founder Sidney Webb, who the encyclopedias tell us came from a family of “professionals”. We have no proof of that, since his bio and genealogy has been scrubbed. What we do know is that he married Beatrice Potter when he was 33. She was the daughter of a railway magnate and lumber merchant, so we have found the link to big money already. Few have any idea how big it really was. Richard Potter was Chairman of the Great Western Railway, the Gloucester Railway, and the West Midland Railway: if you think he was a Republican, Socialist, or true progressive, you are in need of a tune. This family ran Manchester in the 1800s, owning town hall and the Manchester Guardian. The Potters were influential in the passage of the Reform Act of 1832, which was an important step in moving power away from the House of Lords (aristocracy) to the industrialists.
But we have more clues with Beatrice Potter. Before marrying Sidney Webb, she had “a relationship” with Joseph Chamberlain. Since she did not marry him, that relationship should have been scandalous at the time, and the only reason it was not was that they were both very rich. We are told she only inherited £1,000 per annum from her millionaire father, but that is not believable. Joseph Chamberlain is another clue in this mystery, and it would be well to pause on him for a moment. We are told by the encyclopedias that he was a “radical politician”, but of course that is more misdirection. If we go to his Wikipedia page, we find the admission that he was
a self-made businessman who never attended university and had contempt for the aristocracy.
That sort of folds right into my thesis here, doesn't it? Chamberlain was in Parliament by age 39 and became President of the Board of Trade by 1880. Again, the Board of Trade is not a radical body. Just the opposite. He was against Irish Home Rule and resigned from Gladstone's government in 1886 over that issue. He then joined the Duke of Devonshire in the newly formed Liberal Unionist Party. That is one more gross misnaming, since the party was founded by a Duke and a rich merchant. They even admit that the Liberal Unionists and the Conservatives were allied from 1892 to 1903 and merged in
1912. So the party is clearly more misdirection. As Secretary of State for the Colonies, Chamberlain presided over the Second Boer War. Again, not sounding very radical or progressive, is he? He was the father of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who bent over backwards for the Nazis.
Beatrice Potter's maternal grandfather was also an industrialist from a different family. Lawrence Heyworth “was a prominent Liverpool merchant”. However, with more digging, we find he was also a railroad magnate like his son-in-law. Heyworth was director of the Midland Counties Railway, the Kendall and Windermere Railway, the Southeastern Railway, and the Central Argentine Railway. He was also a major shareholder in the Illinois Central Railroad, and the town of Heyworth, Illinois, is named after him. For this reason and others, you should be very suspicious on finding Beatrice Potter and her husband Sidney Webb involved in the London School of Economics and the Labour Party. There is absolutely no chance the Labour Party or the Fabians were ever interested in real Socialism (understood as pre-1848 Republicanism). They may have been interested in creating what is now called cradle-to-grave Socialism, but that was only to keep the workers constantly programmed and controlled. It was a cradle-to-grave slavery without the whip—as we now see with its present full and successful implementation.
Which brings us back to the London School of Economics. Curiously, the school was not founded by economists, academics, or educators of any other sort. George Bernard Shaw was an Irish playwright who did not even attend university and who published an entire 88-page book against formal education, A Treatise on Parents and Children. Another founder, Beatrice Potter, also did not attend college and otherwise had no formal schooling at all. But it was through her all the connections to the Industrialists are found. As we have just seen, she was the daughter of one, the granddaughter of another, and the mistress of a third. For this reason, we may assume all those sold to us a founders were just fronts for these and other Industrialists. And because Beatrice Potter was the one with the searchable connections, she is the one who has been whitewashed the most. In the bios we are always told about her social work. But on a closer look, this social work always begins to fall apart. For instance, she worked for a short time as a rent collector in “model dwellings” for the poor in Aldgate. However, since these were just slums and since she was still a rent collector, this is not much of a whitewash in my opinion. Rent collectors are not known as progressives. She is also pushed as a promoter of cooperatives, but, again, we find misdirection since she was not in favor worker cooperatives. Since that is what most people think of when they think of cooperatives, they will be fooled by her bio. Potter supported the Soviets even after the purges of Lenin and Stalin, saying that Stalin was only “cutting out the dead wood”. Marxist historian Al Richardson described her book Soviet Communism: A New Civilization? as “pure Soviet propaganda at its most mendacious”. However, being a Marxist, he fails to be put that critique in the proper context. Potter's book was propaganda, but it wasn't propaganda for any real Marxist society, since no such thing has ever existed. Potter was a daughter and tool of the Industrialists, and everything she did has to be read in that context. In other words, she is selling a fake Marxism to divert all progressives into that pit, rather than into any real and meaningful resistance to Capitalism and the Plutocrats.
In a much more cloaked and clever way, the newer fake progressives like Klein and Wolf are doing the same thing. They are following the Chomsky-Zinn playbook of first telling their audience everything they want to hear, and only then diverting them into inaction or useless actions. That is why it doesn't matter that these guys and gals “agree with me on everything”. I admit that is mostly true. When I go down the list of Chomsky or Zinn or Klein or Wolf, I do indeed agree with almost everything they say, which is why they are so insidious. It is the things they aren't talking about where the disagreements lie, so they don't come up. I learned this first with Chomsky and Zinn, who at first refused to talk about
911, but when they did talk about it it was only to get mad or huffy and dismiss all questions as from a lunatic fringe. It was 911 that ripped the masks of Chomsky and Zinn for most people. Before that we were successfully diverted.
We have found the same thing from all these “progressives” from the 1990s and before. Like Zinn, Gore Vidal is dead now, but he didn't want to talk about most of these things. He misdirected furiously away from questions about Obama, for instance, telling us “Obama never lies”. What? Obama never does anything but read from the Teleprompter, so I guess Vidal wants us to believe it is the Teleprompter that is lying, not Obama. Camille Paglia is not talking about 911, either. The Cockburns talk about it, but again dismiss all questioners as nutters. So you have to judge these people not on the social or political topics they are spoon-feeding you to divert you. You have to dig below the surface to see what they aren't telling you.
If you look at Naomi Klein's work, for instance, it is far less progressive and revolutionary than it first appears. She is just telling you things you already know, and that progressives have known for over a century. For example, in No Logo, she addresses the subject of branding. Do you now think that was one the most important topics in 1999? Although I agree with most of what she says concerning monopolies, copyright laws, labor laws, outsourcing, and so on, her final section—which proposes solutions—is pathetic. The sort of Situationist protests she focuses on are guaranteed to fail, and I have to assume she knows that. If the Industrialists had created their own opposition, this is exactly the one they would create. For instance, “reclaiming” public places and filling them with Modern Art shit was a sure-fail plan, since it would only further turn off the public. The average person has already had a belly-full of this garbage, and avoids the contemporary museums for that reason. The last thing he or she wants to see in public places is more of it. The same can be said for the Occupy movement, which Klein allied herself to. This movement was manufactured or infiltrated to confirm the public's worst fears of the left: that is a loud, dirty, ill-informed mass of privileged white kids yelling for more privilege while pretending to be hippies. This fake movement did precisely the same thing Abbie Hoffmann and those people did for the hippies back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The opposition was infiltrated and headed by obnoxious people planted by the fascists. Hoffmann was the sort of person you hated at a glance, and the leaders of the Occupy movement were the same. This was no accident.
Let me be clear: I am very much in favor of protest, reclaiming the streets, mass demonstrations, and so on. I am in favor of boycotts, divestiture, and all the rest. I have taken part in some of the protests myself. That said, we have to realize that the opposition is very often created and always infiltrated. The demonstrations of the past decade have no doubt included many genuine and earnest people. However, they have failed, and they have failed because they did not encourage or welcome average people. Average people didn't feel welcome because in their eyes the marches seemed to be made up predominantly of wild young hippies and punks, sometimes naked, sometimes stoned, and often promoting tangential issues the masses don't support (and that have nothing to do with the main line of protest). This was no accident. These tangential issues are inserted into the protests on purpose expressly to keep larger crowds from joining. Many fake hippies and punks are inserted into these events on purpose, for the same reason. In previous papers, I have shown that the hippie and punk movements have largely been created or infiltrated from the beginning, which means many of these people who appear to be counter-culture are not. They are stooges of the CIA just as much as the guys in suits. Declassified documents have been released admitting this is happening and has been happening for decades. Entire programs have been set up to teach these people how to dress and act. Read the book Acid Dreams, which blows the cover of some of these programs. So just be warned. Those “weirdos” dancing around you may not really be weirdos. There is a very good chance they are agents in disguise.
That's cute, for instance, and in a different context I might find it amusing. But it just trivializes the protest. The bankers would love to be spanked by her, and one of them probably dressed her up and took the picture. Many of those present at these things seem to be confused: this is a serious protest, not a parade. But again, these characters don't just accidentally show up and push the event in the wrong direction. These things fizzle because they were set up to fizzle.
But back to Klein. Most importantly, like Chomsky and Zinn, Klein has continually dodged all questions about 911 and other events since then. I don't trust anyone who does that for any reason. Period.
Follow that last link and notice what she says to a question from the audience about 911. She says that she “reports on what she can prove, and she can't prove 911, so she is not reporting on it. But she can prove that Bush invaded Iraq based on lies”, etc. Hmmm. Do you really think there is more evidence Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or more evidence 911 was an inside job? Neither one will ever make it to a court, but supposing they did. Would it be difficult to prove in court the mainstream story about 911 is a lie? No, it would be fabulously easy to prove that on about a thousand individual counts. It would be more difficult to discover the whole truth about the event, but “proving the lies” would be a slam dunk. It has already been done, in fact, so Klein saying she is unaware of that is just bunkum. She could prove the lies of 911 to the same extent she could prove the lies regarding Iraq, so we have caught her misdirecting in awesome fashion.
We see her doing it again in the Los Angeles Times in 2011, when she “revisited” her early opinion on 911. I hope you visit that link and that you find it as pathetic as I do. That is all she has to say? A few sentences of nothing.
Klein's 2007 book The Shock Doctrine also misdirects furiously on 911 and other important topics, mainly by omission. To see what I mean, visit the synopsis published at Wikipedia. The book is divided into seven parts. Notice all the examples she gives of the Shock Doctrine: she applies the doctrine to Chile, Russia, Poland, South Africa, and even the Falklands. Next she applies the doctrine to the Iraq War, which she calls the most comprehensive implementation ever attempted. But wait, did she miss something? When moving from part 5 to part 6, did she miss something? She missed September 11, 2001, didn't she? Most people would say that is a more comprehensive and important implementation of the shock doctrine than the Iraq War. Curious that she left that one out of a book called the Shock Doctrine. You should be shocked she left it out. You should also be shocked she left out some others, such as the Kennedy assassination, the Lincoln assassination, the Manson murders, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Waco massacre, Columbine, and so on. In fact, she left out all the top examples. If you or I were writing the book, the examples would be completely different. So you see, it is what she is not saying that is important. All the meat is in the omissions. Like a magician, she is misdirecting your gaze and conditioning your response.
If the Shock Doctrine had really been either important or revolutionary, do you think the Dow Jones Business News would have reviewed it favorably? The DJBN is owned by NewsCorp, which is Rupert Murdoch. Do you think the San Francisco Chronicle would have reviewed it favorably? The SFC is owned by the Hearsts. Same for the Village Voice, which was owned at the time by an investment group headed by Goldman Sachs and Weiss, Peck and Greer. You know about Goldman Sachs. Weiss, Peck and Greer was a spin-off of A.G. Becker Bank. Klein also got a positive review from the New York Observer, owned by Jewish billionaire Jared Kushner, whose father Charles had just been convicted (in 2005) for illegal campaign contributions, witness tampering, and tax evasion. Son Jared is married to Ivanka Trump.
OK, what about Naomi Wolf? I mentioned her in my title so I might as well have a go. She spent much time in the 1990s working for Clinton and then Gore, so she is already smeared by association beyond any repair. She wrote the book The Beauty Myth, which I can tell you as an artist is completely wrong from the first word. Beauty is not a myth. The book is transparent propaganda, and harms both art and the male-female relationship in many ways. Although I won't review it here, I have mentioned it before in my art papers of about a decade ago, and you can look those up. Her book reads like it was written from Langley or at their request, and I assume it was. Wolf may have felt some guilt from it, since her later book Fire with Fire backtracks on a lot of her original claims. Although it is a far superior book, it is of course cited, recommended and read far less than The Beauty Myth—for obvious reasons. It isn't even mentioned on her Wikipedia page. The Beauty Myth received a glowing review from Gloria Steinem, who is now known to have worked for the CIA. In fact, we may assume Ms. magazine was just another CIA front. Of course the CIA's own newspaper, the Washington Post, also gave The Beauty Myth glowing reviews.
It may be interesting for you to know that Christina Hoff Sommers, who I just wrote a paper about, planted a full-face blow on Wolf in 1992, when she proved that Wolf had manufactured the main
statistic on anorexia in the US. She said that 150,000 women were dying of anorexia each year. But that is the number of cases, not deaths. The number of deaths is only around 100. Wolf later conceded the point.
In 2007, Wolf switched gears—or assignments—and suddenly began writing about the rise of fascism. In this she is again following the Chomsky-Zinn plot of telling her audience what they already know, but trying to keep them behind the curve. We see this in a recent Youtube video, where she is answering a question about the Boston Marathon bombing. A guy asks her if it was real. She hems and haws and finally says that we should ask that question. She says we should question these new media events, since the CIA can now legally propagandize in the US. Yes, but that didn't answer the guy's question, did it? He IS asking the question and wants an answer. In fact, anyone asking the question already knows the answer. It was fake as a 3-dollar bill. So why can't our brave leader Naomi Wolf say that? How hard is it to say “It was fake”? Wolf pretends to be scared to go on record. She says she was afraid someone would ask a question like that. Why afraid? I thought she was a truth teller now. So why doesn't she just tell the truth? Because her assignment is to keep her audience bottled up. She is telling them it is OK to ask yourself the question in the closet, but not OK to answer the question boldly in public.
In this way she is being used as a brake. The governors know that those people going to a Naomi Wolf lecture already know about fascism and the CIA and the banks and probably know about the faked events. They are on the cusp of revolution and are looking for something to do. Wolf's job is keep them sitting on their hands and shuffling their feet. She wants them to act embarrassed for knowing what they know, like she is.
Noam Chomsky has been bottling up his audience for decades in precisely the same way. He wants them to react like he has: by acting calm and scholarly and passionless. He wants them to look at the worldwide atrocities as a book report or another area of research, rather than as a call to action. He wants to keep people arguing over footnotes or dates or other details, when the time for that is past. He wants you dreaming about anarcho-syndicalism instead of trying to save the Constitution you already have. But most of all, he wants to be sure if you do pick up a rock to throw, you end up throwing it at the wrong person. He wants to keep your eyes on the pawns and off the Kings, Queens, and other important pieces on the board.
For example, I encourage you to watch this Youtube video of Chomsky, which is pretty obvious misdirection on any number of topics, including David Rockefeller. Chomsky pretends to be the font of truth, but he forgets to tell you all the important truths, such as the fact that the Bay of Pigs invasion was a hoax. If you haven't thought about that one before, just ask yourself if it makes any sense that the US military could fail to invade a small island with almost no defense—an island where the US already had a military base. You are told the largest military in the history of the world was repelled from an island where it already had a base by a few guys with rifles. . . and you believe that?
Watching Chomsky wave his girly hands around now really irks me, and not because he is girly. It irks me because I was dumb enough to fall for this act for 20 years. I now tell people to do their own research, but did I do my own research back then? No, I just took his word for it because he sounded smart and seemed to be on the side of justice. That is what he has always counted on. Chomsky is not a lousy actor like the new crisis actors. No, he is fantastic, because he has developed a very limited set of expressions and he sticks to them brilliantly (until 911 we never saw him break character). But he is still a crisis actor.
In that same video, Chomsky tells you that Cuba's health standards are on a par with the US and Canada, despite being very poor, and he admits that doesn't fit in with the profiles of all the other Central and South American countries with similar governments. You should ask yourself, “Since Cuba has also supposedly been under embargo for decades, how could that be?” Chomsky can't tell you why but I can: Cuba has been a 51st state all along, paid well to pretend to be our enemy. That is also why the rich can ignore the fake embargo anytime they like, traveling to Cuba or buying cigars or anything else. They know it is all just another hoax. Even Rockefeller gets a little whitewash by Chomsky in this video, since he comes off looking more open-minded than others for agreeing to meet with Castro. Also notice how Chomsky says that in the US, “no one has heard of Vietnam”. What?
At the end, notice Chomsky says, “If there is enough protest in the US, policy will shift”. Nope. That is another of the Chomsky gambits. He says that a lot and it is supposed to make you feel powerful, sort of like voting. But it isn't true. The US government now has ways of ignoring public opinion and even most public protest, no matter how large it becomes. We have seen that on the question of genetically modified foods, which the US public opposes at around 9 to 1, or 90%. In response, the corporations that run the government just hire the major newspapers to continue to write editorials in favor of GMOs, ditto with TV news programs, and then they go in and steal the elections with computers. The same thing could be said about any topic you could name. As another example, they admit that around 80% of those polls have never believed the JFK assassination story. That statistic has not changed much in 40 years. But has that stopped them telling the same story? Nope. To this day, they just hire some loudmouth like Penn Gillette to slander 80% of the US public as “morons” for asking questions, lumping them in with Flat Earthers or something. As another example, we can return to 911, the mainstream story of which is disbelieved by a majority or large minority. Has the government felt the need to respond in any positive way? Nope. The only way they respond is again by slandering the tens of millions of people in this country who know the story is hogwash. They can ignore opinion and undirected protest indefinitely. They don't care what you think, as long as you keep buying and banking and credit carding and taking loans and paying taxes and fees and going to movies and watching TV and eating garbage food and taking drugs and buying guns and hanging yellow ribbons and voting for their scarecrows.
Which of course means that the only protest that is meaningful is a widespread boycott of the entire system. You have to stop doing all or most of those things, and a large number of other people have to do the same thing. Honestly, I don't see that happening. Nothing like it has ever happened and I see no groundswell. Which is why the governors are so smug. As I have said before, the only hope of widespread change now is some sort of semi-benevolent coup by a coalition of very wealthy families who don't want their children to live in Mordor, even as rulers. I think that war is being fought right now, and there is some hope of a semi-positive outcome. Things may get marginally better in the next decade. Society may be transported back to the 1950s or 1970s in many ways. However, although you may have been more blissfully ignorant back then, you were still living in the MATRIX. If society as a whole wishes to escape from the MATRIX, it must do what I said above, changing itself person by person. But you don't have to wait for that. Since the change is person by person, and you are one person, you can change without waiting for the rest. After the change, you will have the tall inconvenience of living in a society where you don't fit, but if you are like me, that may not require a new suit of clothes. In others words, I never fit in before, so nothing is that different. I had been gagging on the blue pill all my life, and now that I have spat it from my mouth at last, I see no great change in my social life. Whereas I had been shunned as a gagger, I am now shunned as a spitter. But since I was already instinctively shunning a majority of people for swallowing the blue pill with such ease, their shunning of me was of little consequence. We were never going to party together regardless.
Comments