Why would the Beatles leave false clues?

[violetnoise]

If we assume (as I do) that the whole Sgt. Peppers album is laced with clues about Paul’s death and his replacement, isn’t it clear that The Beatles were telling us that Paul died in a car crash?

If Paul died, I don’t believe it was a car crash. And judging from some of the threads on this site, I see that I am not alone on this matter. So why would the Beatles want us to believe that Paul died in a car crash if he did not die in a car crash?

[dmystified]

Hi violetnoise, welcome to the forum!

I think the clues are there because the TI wanted them to be - whether true or not - just like what we hear on the news media is there because it is scripted for them by higher-ups, the ruling elite.

The media told us planes flown by Arabs brought down the twin towers, but a lot of people know that's not how it happened, although the towers did come down. Perhaps they are reporting the 'way' Paul died in the same manner. They want us to know he's gone, but now the truth about how.

[violetnoise]

Thank you dmystified.

Yes, I think you are right. This would mean that the Beatles were probably forced, via threats, to go along with things. I wonder if any clues were slipped in by the Beatles that were not actually approved of by the TI (I use the term “TI” because you used it in your post. But I’m not actually sure what the letters “TI” stand for, though I get the idea.)

Specifically, I am thinking about the white flower on John’s shoulder. I’m not an expert on flowers, but isn’t that a lily? This is only a wild guess, but if the flower is a lily, it may have been John’s way of saying that they were being coerced into going along with the charade, and they were too afraid (as in ‘lily-livered’) to fight against the criminals.

On another tangent: If the “TI” were trying to fool people into believing that Paul was still alive, why would they want to leave clues pointing to the fact that he had died? Maybe the popular assertion, which is made by people who don’t believe that Paul was replaced (i.e. that the clues were just a gimmick to sell more records) applies even if Paul really was replaced. Those criminals who control things seem to love taking extreme risks. It seems that they love pushing the boundaries to see what they can get away with.

I totally agree with your 9-11 analogy. Even within the so-called “truth movement” it seems that there are all kinds of false leads being put out there to cloud the issue.

[violetnoise]

After thinking about it some more, my guess is that “TI” stands for The Illuminati. If so, this is where we disagree. The media is controlled by a network of criminal Jews. I believe that the nebulous concept of an ‘Illuminati’ is meant as a smokescreen to throw people off track and to make it more difficult for people to be specific about who the criminals at the top are. Calling the criminals at the top ‘The Illuminate’ is no more helpful than calling them ‘The Big Bad Wolf Club’. I mean, how on earth could we go about fingering the bad guys if they are known only as ‘The Big Bad Wolf Club’? In other words, calling TPTB ‘The Illuminati’ is another way of saying, “We simply can’t beat these guys, they are just too powerful and elusive.”

Why do you suppose that it is considered acceptable to say that a network of Muslim extremists threaten the security of the free world, but if I say that a network of criminal Jews control the media, it is considered hate speech? I don't hate anybody. I’m just analyzing the facts and trying to get to the bottom of things. It is a known fact that the media is dominated by Jews.

Understanding who controls the media is the key to understanding who TPTB are.

Are you aware that it is illegal in several European countries to question the official Holocaust story in a public forum?

[dmystified]

I'm sorry, vn, I didn't realize you didn't know what I meant by TI. It stands for Tavistock Institute. They are 'handlers/ programmers', but yes, the Zionists are in control of it all, including the false-flag operation of 9-11. We absolutely agree. The criminal Jewish faction of Zionists.

Some info on Tavistock.

And a YouTube presetation:



EDIT:

Speaking of the white flower on John's shoulder. It looks like a daisy to me. Deceased people are spoken of as "pushing up daisies", right? Maybe it's a clue in that direction. Pushing it "up", being on his shoulder, pushing as in using the arm, a metaphor perhaps?

[violetnoise]

Thank you for the clarification dmystified. Yeah, I’ve heard about the Tavistock Institute. What I’ve heard is interesting, but I’ve never really looked into it in depth. I’ll check out the link. What I’ve heard is that, among other things, the Tavistock Institute pretty much created modern day pop music as a tool to control the youth, or something along those lines. I probably should check out the link before I say any more about it. But I think that I heard the assertion somewhere that the Beatles didn’t even write their own songs, they were written by people within the TI. Do you subscribe to that belief? This question is not meant to be argumentative. I’m just curious. At this point, I’m not sure what to think about The Beatles. I’ve idolized them my whole life. But the more I learn about what is going on in the world, the more I wonder if the Beatles were just tools used to undermine traditional values. If the Beatles knowingly went along with a nefarious agenda, doesn’t that make them degenerate human beings, or at best, cowards? Maybe they were simply naïve about how they were being used. I don’t know.

If the TI is responsible for the PID clues, doesn’t it completely nullify any traditional interpretation or discussion of the clues? I mean, if the “clues” were not put there by the Beatles themselves , but by mind control criminals, then the purpose of the clues is surely nefarious, isn’t it? If the purpose of the clues is nefarious, why should we assume that there is any solid truth in any of the clues? All we really know is that photograph comparisons prove that there have been different people playing Paul throughout the years. Any speculation that Paul may have died in 1966 becomes completely erroneous if we assume that the TI was behind the clues, doesn’t it?

Maybe every aspect of the Beatles (including the PID thing) has been nothing more than a social engineering experiment.

[dmystified]

I'm also thinking more now about the question of who wrote the Beatles' songs. Some people have speculated that John and Paul only wanted to perform on stage a couple of years, and then just step back to write music. That life was exhausting, and it can be seen how they perspired so much on stage, they only performed like a half an hour at a time.

If Paul is still alive, but of course was not the one who continued with the Beatles or Sgt. Pepper's LHCB, maybe he and/ or John (after his own replacement) wrote some of the songs the others went on to record, and maybe the India trip was another diversion tactic to throw us off the track.

Additional thought:
I don't know why I forgot this before. I've read a lot of places that Paul had probably already written Hey Jude before he died or at least was replaced. He may have had a lot of as-yet unpublished songs.

Some think early Beatles music was purely Lennon/ McCartney. They say John wrote "All You Need is Love", Paul wrote "Hey Jude" (if so, previous to his disappearance). George wrote "Here Comes the Sun".

[hotman637]

Instead of the "the Jews" or "the illuminati"(that just plays into thier lies) I just call them "the hillbillies",lol.They are inbred and feuding,that is all we have to know. If you are inbred and feuding stop it,lol.Maybe we are ALL hillbillies,then we should ALL knock it off.

[dmystified]

Welcome, hotman637!

Have fun with this: ;D

[yt]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUGNF2gZASw&feature=related
[/yt]

[lexdyksic]

I think this is an interesting line of inquiry. The Tavistock Institute has been at the forefront of social manipulation and mind control techniques for many years. What some call the "Illuminati" are certainly connected with this effort.
One of the hallmarks of these creeps is that they love to leave "clues". It's an "in your face" sort of thing and a sign to those who are "initiated" that they are in control. It is also part of a Satanic belief system that believes there is power in signs and symbols and doing things on specific dates, etc..
Having lived through this period I remember that I didn't know enough then to recognize some very obvious examples of this in the whole Beatles phenomena. I'm not entirely sure what to make of that but, it's there. Some think that the whole thing was an "operation" of sorts. Not to take away from their music or them personally, just that they may have been used or "invented" for a purpose. There is certainly no explaining their popularity and rise to celebrity in any logical way.
I was involved in music then (and now). There were lots of talented bands around that never got the treatment they received. It was hyped and promoted in a way never seen before or since. That took a massive effort. That did not happen by accident.
If we realize that the entire publicly seen side of The Beatles was carefully controlled in every way, is it so hard to understand that we have a difficult time trying to sort all of this out? It was made to be "unreal". Everything from the lifestyles to the lyrics were totally "other". Just how much control they had in all this is an open question.
Now, I could do a long elaborate explanation about what I know about how all this works, but it is too big for this forum and probably would get a lot of resistance because it takes a while for this to sink in. One way to think of it is to ask yourself how you would go about creating the Beatles phenomena. That took power, tremendous power.
I tend to think (and I mean "think"), that they were prisoners to some extent. Who wouldn't want wealth and fame at that age? Once in, however, you're theirs.
I've read some books during the era and they give some plausible explanations but, they just don't do it justice. I think most here would agree that we were served a fake Paul. Like it or not, there he is. Whether that is the result of an accident or for some other reason, there is no escaping this fact and it is now just part of the whole "unreality" of the phenomena. That in itself is a TI specialty.
Part of mind control depends on creating "cognitive dissonance". That's where you know something isn't "quite right", but, there it is! It does something to the mind that makes it more pliable to other manipulations. So, in a real sense, the Beatles aren't the thing itself, they are a vehicle.
To tell the truth, it wouldn't surprise me if they killed him. I'm not saying that's what happened, just that I wouldn't be at all surprised. I don't think they would let you out of that arrangement without some serious safeguards in place. If I just throw all caution to the wind and just say what my instincts tell me, I'd say the "new" Paul was a long-time associate. The original was just a great, creative musician. The "new" one simply oozes phoniness and sleaze. He's more akin to a lizard creature than the real Paul.
To sum up, that sort of "joke" would be entirely in keeping with TI or Illuminati actions. That's what they do. And, if this is true, they have been having a great laugh at our expense for a very long time.

[beacon]

Hi Lexdyksic and welcome.

I think you are right, I think the connections with the Tavistock Institute and the Illuminati are the key to the PID mystery. What I am not at all sure about though is the detail, who was involved, how they got involved, who knew what and who was manipulating who?

I would be interested in hearing your take.

For example, was the grand scheme to manipulate and control the youth market via the consumers of pop culture or the consumers of drugs?

When rock and roll first arrived in America it was seen as evil and subversive but this was quickly controlled and sanitised. Elvis was packed off to the US Army and then re-packaged as safe and harmless, and rock and roll, far from being subversive, became all bubble-gum and apple pie. Then along came the Beatles and upset the apple cart again. The key thing being they believed in the original rock and roll ethos and played it with an attitude and with desire. They took an American concept, dipped it into an English working class melting pot and sold it back to the States. The Rolling Stones did exactly the same thing with American RnB.

My belief is that both bands were utterly genuine and that their rise to the top was authentic and not manipulated, however, the powers that be certainly noticed and definitely reacted.

It cannot be a coincidence that it is when the drug of choice of both bands became LSD that the symbolism begins to appear.

A lot has been written about LSD and its history and TI and illuminati connections. In Britain in 1967, the establishment (under the auspices of a Sgt P, Sgt Pilcher of the Metropolitan Police) launched a major crackdown on drug taking pop stars. Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Brian Jones, George Harrison and John Lennon were all busted. The only exception was Paul McCartney, and this despite him publicly talking about his LSD use on TV. Why was he spared?

It could be that Paul was the poster boy for the Tavistock Institutes LSD world tour, but did he know, was he on the inside or was he being played?

I have written a lot about Robert Fraser and his involvement with the Beatles and the Stones. Fraser was the hub around which both bands were introduced to a whole host of new people and new concepts. He was also the key to the development of the Sgt Pepper album sleeve and its myriad of clues and characters, including of course Aldous Huxley who purportedly spearheaded Tavistock's plan for pharmaceutical control of the masses with LSD. Indeed, I believe Fraser was responsible for suggesting most of the characters on the sleeve to designer Peter Blake.

But, what was he suggesting? Was this a coded message to others in the know using illuminati symbolism that only they would recognise or was this a series of clues for the uninitiated to solve? If the latter, then we are still working on the puzzle 45 years later. If the former, then that is a very risky ploy and may explain why, out of all those rounded up in the drug busts of 1967, Robert Fraser was the only one to serve any time in prison.

beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/2012/03/groovy-bob-robert-fraser.html

I guess my point is, if the purpose of the exercise was to manipulate the youth of the sixties, then why not use a manufactured band like the Monkees? By using articulate and intelligent people like the Beatles you are taking a risk. Unless, of course, you can get them to do your bidding without realising it.

Paul is dead? Not for me. Paul was replaced? Unlikely, but possible. Paul was manipulated? Now we could be on to something.

Everything begins with Sgt Pepper and everything is hidden in plain sight. Maybe Lennon realised he had been played and had to be kept quiet.

I don't claim to have all the answers, this is just my theory, but it would be good to hear yours.

[lexdyksic]

Beacon, hi yourself. It's good to hear your view point. If I understand you correctly, you have this as a sort of control of youth through music connection. I think there may be something to that.
First, I have to think back (not an easy thing to do for a "child of the sixties!". I was living in the San Francisco Bay Area. There were several bands, local and, later British who played at the Fillmore Auditorium, the Winterland and Avalon Ballrooms. They were very good. Strangely, the Beatles during this early period were rather "straight". I liked their stuff, but didn't consider them "hip", more commercial. Later, all that changed.
Prior to them the "national" rock scene was more "surf music" and that sort of thing. The Beatles were wildly different. One of my pet theories is that they received early TI attention, although I doubt that they realized that at the time. Brian Epstein was a gay Jewish record store owner. While he may have been "comfortable" there hasn't been anything I've read to explain how he attained his magical success with promotion or the connections and funding to pull it off.
In fact, after the Beatles "broke", other British bands took off as well and some of them just weren't all that good.
I think (and it"s only a guess), that they were a bit of an experiment.

Maybe they were trying to see what they could do with this "vehicle". After all, that's what they do, manipulation. From my reading of their early years they weren't exactly "intellectual". That came later. They were rough and tumble street lads although Paul had a lower middle class upbringing. Hamburg is a very rough town. It seems that playing rock and roll was their primary interest.
Once the die was cast the "clues" and "hidden meanings" started. Also, their appearance and life styles were promoted. I think they were trying to see how far they could go with this to see what sort of predictable result could be obtained.
I was in London when they released Abbey Road. I can't adequately explain this but it was surreal. Everywhere, in every shop window, music store or not, there were copies pasted up. It seemed like everyone on the street was carrying one. I've never seen anything like before or since. It was as if they were all programmed to go and buy that record. Maybe there's subliminal programming in the music itself. Something more than "popularity" accounted for that.
I too played around with LSD. I don't think the Beatles influenced that. On the contrary, I was glad to hear that they knew what that was all about. They were rather late comers to that party. Not knowing you personally, I don't know if you've had any experience with acid. It doesn't make you a "mind slave", it DOES change you forever. Once you realize that "reality" is only your perception you can't look at it as so concrete anymore.
From the short little video that you posted on TI, you realize their primary purpose. Everything they do is toward that end. This was surely no different. When they pulled off that false flag on 7/7 guess where the bus exploded? Right outside of the Tavistock Institute. Oddly, that wasn't even on the normal bus route. Coincidence? I think not.
So, while it's fun to speculate on their intentions, it is hard to be certain of much other than they thought it worthwhile at the time. Given the almost total collapse of the music industry it seems they've given up on that approach. "Faul" literally reeks of them (in my opinion). There is nothing "real" about him. Not just because he isn't the real Paul, because he isn't the real anything. He's a character in a play.
I've thought about your Monkees comment. It's a good question. My guess is that, over time, the Beatles were still the Beatles. They didn't sign on to be run around like monkeys (pun intended), they got pretty fed up with their handlers. Nobody they talked to could be trusted not to report back to their masters. Think about it, at some point Paul was gone. They were told there would be no more touring. John thought "it was all over" and went to try and break into the movies. That doesn't sound like people who are in control of their destinies
These guys were smarter than average. Maybe as they read and found other interests it began to dawn on them precisely what the nature of their involvement was. Maybe they tried to send little messages out, like in a bottle. Either that or they were planted by their handlers. That seems a little more unlikely. They were in a velvet prison. As an example, why would Faul spend $2M to stop delivery of a whole run of albums? They say it was because the songs were out of order. Does that make sense? I doubt if it was his money and I'll bet he had orders to stop them. Maybe there was something in there that the TI folks thought might tip someone off.
For those willing to look I'm sure there are still clues to be found as to what really happened there. Looking at their known handlers is a good place. Where were they when? What did they do there? This was clearly a well organized endeavor. If you read about how badly the finances were managed, they would have ruined themselves without some massive influx of cash and some control from outside. They had layers of hanger's on.
Anyway, let me know what you think. I'll keep mulling this over and maybe something more will come to me.

[lexdyksic]

Beacon, sorry to do this but, having read your post again, I realized I didn't really address some of your comments. I too suspect Illuminati/TI involvement. How? I don't know, but I'd love to find out. I think manipulation of youth culture was certainly a part of that. As to the drugs, I don't make more out of that than there was. Everyone was doing some sort of drug at the time and there were as many "trips" as there were drugs. It is true that drugs CAN make a person susceptible. That doesn't mean that's all they can do. It's fair to say that anything engaged in while on acid can be profound. I doubt if it had anything to do with making people consumers. There wasn't enough money to be made from that and they, for the most part, were not addictive. Most of my friends left all that behind with no ill effects, quite the contrary. So, it may have had to do with placing people in a receptive state, but not to "hook" them.
As to rock and roll "arriving", it was already here. It started here. The British "invasion" was a surprise. That doesn't mean there wasn't a great music scene already.
I agree that both the Beatles and the Stones were utterly genuine. They were "different" though. The Beatles were totally managed. Mick Jagger took that function with the Stones and still does to this day. There was some playing off each other in the day, but the Stones were a performing band.
Symbolism does appear with acid. It was "appearing" everywhere, Beatles or no Beatles. In fact, I remember discussing how cool it was that the Beatles got turned on. Their use of acid certainly had no effect on me or my associates.
I didn't know about Pilcher. It is important to understand that the bands were not the "lead" in the acid thing. The two went together like "beer and cigarettes" but they didn't start it. They were following the "norm" in the hip culture for the time. The Beatles were late bloomers in that regard. They DID use meth all the way back to the Hamburg days. They smoked hashish too. A completely different segment of American culture used those at the time. Pot was becoming popular and LSD long before the Beatles announced their use. As far as the bust thing, at the time, less than an ounce got you a $15 dollar ticket and acid wasn't illegal in the states. That came later. Fraser and Blake look like characters to investigate. It is also true that none of this STARTED with the music. I'm a musician. I wasn't led to this because I play music. It IS associated with it though.
It is hard to imagine that the album messages were not intended for people to puzzle over. Everything about the Beatles (and especially the Beatles), was carefully choreographed. All of it. That doesn't mean that I think THEY were phony. It is also important to understand that everyone was into "mystical" things at the time and the art work was appealing. The Sixties was a wonderful time to me. There was a lot of creativity and experimentation. Everything seemed possible and no one was trying to make anybody else do anything their way.
Two final notes and I'll stop (I promise!). I don't agree that "Paul" is the same Paul that started out with the Beatles. Besides the physical differences (of which they are legion), his personality is completely different. The replacement became very dictatorial and that has been confirmed in various books about them at this time. Things got very ugly very fast. They ceased being a group and became subjects of "Paul". I think the current "Paul" is your Illuminati connection. Not the original.
Not to take away from John but I think he's over rated. He was not as intellectual as he thought he was. He wasn't dumb, he's just not a Mensa candidate. He was very good, but not "great". He did have a lot of influence with a lot of people, however. Which brings me back to your "Monkees" comment. These guys started out as the real deal. They wanted to be a rock and roll band. They got waylayed by promotion people (most possibly TI), and lost control in the process. Once the creative genius, Paul, left (for whatever reason), things changed. They became a studio band. Today, anyone with the right software can do this at home. In those days it required lots of expensive studio time. I've played all their songs. At their core, they aren't that tough. What they do is build them up, layer by layer, in the studio. The early Paul tunes are very melodic. I don't necessarily attribute the arrangements to either Paul. In the end it works and produces great music. It is impossible to perform as recorded without recorded background.
If you're looking for a point where things go "underground", this is it. They become people who come together, lay down tracks, and help with the mix. They can tell all sorts of tales about how much editorial control they had over the final product. I suspect they had some. I think you are on the right track in saying that there is more to this than meets the eye. Just what that is is still a little mysterious. I'm pretty sure it wasn't just about making money. These guys were effectively isolated from the world. Sure, they showed up at celebrity parties and such, all carefully controlled with handlers in tow. As wealthy as they became they paid a heavy price.

[beacon]

Lexdyksic, you have the advantage on me in terms of actually living through the sixties phenomena, I was born in 69 into a post Beatles world. Growing up in England though I was born into a world that was still Beatles obsessed and whose music still dominated the airwaves. As such, I have bought into the propaganda that portrays the Beatles as national treasures and therefore struggle to conceive of them being part of some heinous plot to demean or destroy youth or pop culture.

That said, that doesn’t mean that that is not the case or that the Beatles and their music may have been hijacked or manipulated for these purposes. My view is that Paul is Dead is nothing more than a fantastic conspiracy theory. Much as I would like to believe it, I don’t. However, something bizarre and unexplained definitely occurs to Paul and the Beatles post 1966. It is exploring this enigma and the myriad of clues that appear in Sgt Pepper and beyond that fires my imagination. I love the thrill of the chase, and when I present my opinions or theories, I do so knowing they are just that. Yes I have my pet theories, but I am not irrevocably wed to these and I do not present them as fact as many on these forums attempt to do. I like the line of your posts and feel they need further exploration.

Veering slightly off topic, one of the problems with Paul being replaced lies in the song writing credits. If Paul died and or was replaced, why would the writing credits remain as Lennon/McCartney? Whatever Paul’s identity at this stage, the two were no longer writing in tandem. Why would Lennon give up half the writing royalties to the new guy and why would George and Ringo allow the new guy to make vastly more than they do? Even if ‘Faul’ was a song-writing genius and contributed the tracks he is accredited with, why wouldn’t they have redistributed the credits to the individual writers, especially given the creation of the MacLen company. I do agree with you about the arrangement of Paul songs though. I think this may explain the appearance of the Billy Shepherd character onto the scene. Billy Shepherd, the former Bee Gees producer, had worked at Abbey Road and EMI before moving to Australia, and the Robert Stigwood influence on the NEMS empire at precisely this time may have seen Shepherd given the song arranging duties.

You mention Brian Epstein and how he managed to propel the Beatles into the stratosphere. I don’t think there is anything sinister about this. He hawked them around and then lucked out when they went supernova. These things happen. Similarly, the Stones Svengali was Andrew Oldham until he was elbowed out of the way by Allen Klein. Interestingly, it was around 1966 that Epstein starts to find himself being muscled out the Beatles empire, sparking his own descent, and ultimately, death. Robert Stigwood moves in on NEMS, London villains the Kray Twins allegedly trying to take over the Beatles by blackmailing Epstein and the Beatles themselves fall under the nefarious influence of characters like Robert Fraser and the International Times set. Ultimately it would be Klein again who benefits from the fall of Epstein. I don’t think Epstein was a player in an illuminati set, however the influence of some of the others were definitely negative, certainly with individual agendas and potentially could been seen as being ‘handlers’.

I ascribe to the theory that the Sgt Pepper cover is a treasure map of clues and that decoding these will help unravel the mystery. I think Sgt Pepper could point to an initiation of some sort into a secret society be that masonic, OTO etc. Quite who is being initiated is open for debate, though I think certainly Paul. I wrote about this on my blog, beaconfilms2011.blogspot.com/2012/01/normal-0-false-false-false-en-gb-x-none.html

As I touched on before, one of the characters that appears on the Pepper cover is Aldous Huxley. I find the following quote extremely telling;
"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961

I think, at this point, this needs further examination. The Sgt Pepper album sleeve is full of masonic symbolism. There are eleven freemasons depicted. Of these eleven, three are 33° master masons, Karl Marx, H. G. Wells and Aleister Crowley. Aldous Huxley’s grandfather Thomas taught H. G. Wells. Thomas Huxley was a member of the Royal Society of London which was founded in 1660 by freemasons and was hugely influenced by Sir Francis Bacon and his book A New Atlantis. I have speculated in my YouTube movies that there is a hidden reference to Bacon on the Sgt Pepper sleeve. H. G. Wells would later tutor Aldous Huxley at Oxford as well as being the head of British intelligence (MI6) during World War 2. Wells would introduce Aldous Huxley to Aleister Crowley in Berlin in 1930 where Crowley may have introduced him to peyote. Huxley wrote Brave New World as a parody to H.G. Wells Men Like Gods. Huxley joined the Dionysian occult group called ‘the children of the sun’.

The Pepper sleeve is full of, admittedly subtle, references to pagan beliefs, the three Shirley Temples, Diana (Moon) Dors, Sonny (Sun) Liston etc, etc. The links are all there it is just a question of joining the dots.

So, where does this leave us with regard to the above quote from Huxley? Maybe the LSD proliferation was a means to try and attempt the brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. If so, it was, as you pointed out, unsuccessful. Most people just got on with their lives. Maybe, in the her and now this has developed into an attempt to lull the masses with mass consumerism and plastic, saccharine, manufactured pop acts that will promote the Disney propaganda. Certainly, in your country and mine, there is little political choice and any attempt to undermine the capitalist agenda is met with scorn and contempt from those that would simply prefer to watch American Idol or X Factor whilst updating their Facebook status on their i-phones.

If the Beatles were part of this agenda I don’t know. I agree, the 2012, billy McCartney is definitely part of the establishment and shows no desire to be thought provoking or radical. Whether the pre 1966 model was any different, again I don’t know.

[lexdyksic]

Beacon, so nice to read your comments. I appreciate your insights. Please, do not take my opinions and comments as particularly meaningful. I probably do have a different perspective due to age and locale. I've been to England many times and loved it. My ancestors are from there and I felt right at home.
Anyway, I feel a like a geezer since I was born in 1948! To help set the scene, during the Beatles period most in the states were trying to mimic them in all ways. Things "English" became very popular. So, in that respect, I don't think it was so different.
I would not consider them to be in any way "leaders" of some plot. If plot it is, they were victims (with the exception of Faul), my opinion. As I said, based on what little I know they strike me as guys who wanted to play music. I don't think they wanted to be "leaders" of anything.
I'm going to agree with you (for what that's worth), that I don't know that "Paul is dead". I do see considerable difference between the Paul of 1966 and the later one. That is both in action as well as appearance. I also sense a change in music other than style. I see it when I play it and when I read it in musical notation.
I certainly would not put too much stock in who claims ownership. It would not have been wise to claim music rights under any other name than the most popular and salable around.
I don't claim any "special" knowledge here. I haven't devoted anywhere near the time and effort that others at this site have. I am just an "interested party" who has memories and insights. I have read a few books over the years as well. Sometimes bits and pieces in the narrative "stick" and are useful later. I, of course, never met any of them and certainly don't know their personalities other than as described by others.
Just a word or two about Epstein, etc.. I doubt that he would have been involved in any sinister way with the Illuminati or their TI section. At least not knowingly. We live in a world of opportunists. Some of them are Illuminati. Being the psychopaths that they are, everything presents an "opportunity". That's how this works. Many small groups and plans are made to come together without the knowledge of the participants. If you read the writings of Adam Weishaupt, he describes his organization. It is patterned on the Jesuit organization. In modern times we'd call this a "cell" structure.
At the top of the pyramid the elites know the whole plan. As it filters down only two or three know a particular assignment. They don't know what the script looks like, they just know their parts. It is difficult in the extreme to imagine that a phenomenon like the Beatles not would be exploited by opportunists of all stripes.
I love the Sgt. Pepper cover. It is worth buying without the music! I don't pretend to have an answer for that one. Sometimes I think it's them poking fun at everyone's pet theme. There was a lot of Huxley reading and people were looking for clues in that as well. There's a lot of interest in Alice in Wonderland (a common mind control theme). Lewis Carol was a big favorite. Are these meaningful? I don't know. My impression is that, as I said before, people who did acid would understand these differently. That's in the sense that Alice's world is as real as any other.
Trying to explain this is like trying to describe "yellow" to someone who has never seen it. One of the key characteristics of this period was the belief in "do your own thing". People were exploring all sorts of things. It was the reverse of conformity. Some went off into the occult. Others became "Jesus Freaks". Others explored Eastern beliefs. Some just partied. There were basically two general schools. There were the spiritual (that would be me) and the partier s.
I knew people who got into the dark arts. It wasn't for me. There is a lot of that in Pepper (but in a playful way). That's very "un-Crowley like".
Maybe another way to explain this is that people were generally experimenting and rejecting what "mainstream" society was trying to foist on them. Instead of confronting it, we ignored it. Sort of like, "if I don't acknowledge you, you don't exist". There was great hope that this would develop into a meaningful way of life. It didn't, as you point out so adroitly.
No, the "Blue Meanies" won. At least among those who acknowledge them. In their own ways those on the Sgt. Pepper cover were "explorers" too. Maybe that was the point. At that point in their lives the Beatles didn't want to be "leaders', they wanted to be "explorers".
This is a massive subject. In many ways what makes it interesting is our love for what they did, who they were, and what they represented. If we didn't care we wouldn't be doing this after all these years. As spooky as it was that day in London when Abbey Road was released is burned into my memory. From bankers to shoe salesmen, everyone had a common interest. In many ways it was a great feeling. They were uniter s.
Perhaps you'll agree that, in a real sense, Paul IS dead. He joined the establishment. He IS the establishment. I just happen to think it's a different guy. The original Paul is certainly "dead" though. He was one of us, now he's one of the elite. He's cast his lot with the Royals and their Illuminist ilk.
It is true (from what I can glean), that Paul was the most "middle class" of the lot. He was the "nice" one. Underneath that veneer he was a rocker. You can see it in his eyes. He knew "how to act" around others and was constantly catching John just before he was to say something that would create a firestorm. They had a sort of telepathy going. That doesn't mean he didn't share John's ideas, he just didn't want to be embarrassed in public. He know what people "expected" to hear and how far one could take it. John liked to shock.
I won't say that it's impossible but it is difficult to see how he could sell out that completely.
I mean just watch him. The current Paul reminds me of a car salesman. I wouldn't believe a thing he told me. He is superficially "nice", but his words are meaningless. He does that "flip you off" thing with his finger brushing his eyebrows while he smiles and chats you up. That is the look of contempt. I feel let down by that.
I don't have any heroes so I'll get over it. I have felt for years that "something happened" here. Paul certainly "died". Whether that is literal or not depends on what you think. I have no proof other than things like the pictures here and the discussion. But that young man who set the world afire years ago is lost.

[jpmfan]

"lexdyksic" you have so far been the only person to voice many of my thoughts on this crazy subject and I've read pretty much all the boards on this issue. Thank you for putting it all together so well. I too was a child of the sixties, but was a teeny-bopper so I did not have the maturity you had going through it all. You were there in person; I watched it on Ed Sullivan and heard the stories from my friends older brothers and sisters. But I did manage to see "A Hard Day's Night" because my mom was brave enough to take me to see it (she thought they were very nice, polite young men) and had the first few USA releases of their albums, starting with "Meet the Beatles." And you are correct about the music scene prior to the "British invasion" as all over town (I grew up in southern California) you would hear "surf music" and of course Elvis.

I grew up in a musical family as my dad just like JPM's was a musician and played gigs all over the midwest usa before ww2. Afterwards, he continued part-time jamming with whoever he could, and I grew up playing piano, flute, and now harp. So even though I wasn't playing in a band, I understand to some degree music, and musicians. Even though he climbed to the top of the corporate ladder in finance, my father to his dying day confessed that being a musician and playing gigs was the best and most favorite job he ever had. If you have it in your psyche, it does NOT go away. Nor does your "style" go away. For this reason, and the many physical clues, I too believe that absolutely the original JPM was replaced. Did he die? That is at this moment an unanswerable question, however considering the connections with Tavistock and EMI, and the fact that he is no longer to be seen, it makes me assume the answer is yes. WHY is of course the most compelling question after confirmation of his demise.

I thank you for posting thoughtful, logical thinking about this topic and speaking the truth about TPTB, Tavistock, and the dark occult connections to all of this. They are GENERATIONAL satanists (that is what the G on the Masonic ring represents), and as they have assassinated world leaders and presidents from the beginning of time up to today (Libya), why would they hesitate to silence someone who they lured into a trap who didn't want to play that game anymore? I don't think they would, but of course I have no proof other than history to base my claim. I truly think that connecting the dots to what really happened, is much like trying to unravel who was behind JFK, and more recently, 9-1-1. Until the Dark Cabal is destroyed, these questions will remain. What is certain to me however, is that the original JPM is NOT the man showing up today, and it seems to me that he works very hard to sully the reptuation of an honest and clearly talented musician.

Thanks again for your well spoken comments. It is a joy to read them in a sea of disambiguation. ;D

[lexdyksic]

Thank you JPMFAN for the kind words. I'm just trying to interject my perspective. I'm not necessarily saying that anyone's "wrong", I just think that, given the same information, two people can see it through different eyes.
I completely believe that "things are not as they seem" in the world. In fact, it's doubtful that they have ever been as described. These dark forces are very real. Any way you'd like to slice it, spiritual, philosophical, psychological, any way at all. Regarding the Beatles, and Paul in particular, I'm not even suggesting that he was a "willing" participant or a "knowing" victim.
I've played in bands most of my life and it's an obsession. It also brings one into contact with all manner of people. I mentioned once that I tend to see these parasitic types as "opportunists". To them, all things are opportunities. Whether they are opportunities for them personally, or philosophically, at the end of the day these people thrive on self-interest.
The music industry is not the same as it once was. I'm sure there are remnants, but in its heyday, it was a total fantasy. Everyone in music wanted to be "signed" with a label. Once that happened, you were theirs. Sure, they gave the artist the impression that they valued them and catered to their every whim. But, at the heart of it, the artist was their property.
Today much is written about "The Sixties". Most of it not good. I find that appalling. I wouldn't trade that time for the present. I'm not sure if the sixties were manufactured by TI or anyone else. I'm sure that they were used. I really don't see the Beatles as being at the forefront of this. They were rather late bloomers. While I loved their music I still was a bit put off by the commercialism of it. There were other bands that were much more influential with me at the time.
Looking at the "Faul" thing, I'm sure he was replaced. As you say, "why" is the question. Some of the theories offered are somewhat plausible (although I have serious doubts about some of the particulars). In things like this Occam's Razor is probably the way to go.
Dismissing such things as alien abduction and spontaneous combustion there are other options. It is entirely possible that he died. Depending on the circumstances that could have been handled relatively easily. If that's the case, public deaths, such as car wrecks, etc., are unlikely. That's not to say "impossible".
Any of us could die at any time. It's the human condition. Paul seemed rather healthy, however, and anyone who could survive Hamburg for any period of time had to be tough. Still, things happen.
Leaving voluntarily seems unlikely. I can understand being fed up, but, at the time they had a lot of "down time" and others have certainly had it rougher. The moguls would not appreciate their cash cow walking out on them. Besides, what would he do? All of that dabbling in the arts would be out. He hardly strikes me as a recluse, either.
That is a part of the mystery worth investigating. What on earth caused him to be replaced? This site has done a great job of pictorially showing the fact that he was replaced. The next step is the why and how of it all. There must be some who know the answers to those questions. Most of what I've read so far just doesn't pass the "smell test". People are fickle creatures and they love to share a secret.
Besides the obvious "inner circle" which could be controlled and would have good reason for doing so, there are countless people on the "outer ring" that would not be so inclined. I mentioned once knowing identical twins and coming to recognize them with ease. I don't entirely know how that happens but it does.
On the other hand you have scams like the "911 Movie" and clearly there are people who know more than they wish to know about that. Those who don't keep those secrets get "suicidal". I don't know if it was that serious but it was pretty high stakes. It isn't the audience you have to fool, it's the other actors.

[jpmfan]

Mar 14, 2012 4:55:01 GMT lexdyksic said:

Some of the theories offered are somewhat plausible (although I have serious doubts about some of the particulars). In things like this Occam's Razor is probably the way to go.

I don't understand what you're referring to here. What is "Occam's Razor"??

Mar 14, 2012 4:55:01 GMT lexdyksic said:

Dismissing such things as alien abduction and spontaneous combustion there are other options. It is entirely possible that he died. Depending on the circumstances that could have been handled relatively easily. If that's the case, public deaths, such as car wrecks, etc., are unlikely. That's not to say "impossible".
Any of us could die at any time. It's the human condition. Paul seemed rather healthy, however, and anyone who could survive Hamburg for any period of time had to be tough. Still, things happen.
Leaving voluntarily seems unlikely. I can understand being fed up, but, at the time they had a lot of "down time" and others have certainly had it rougher. The moguls would not appreciate their cash cow walking out on them. Besides, what would he do? All of that dabbling in the arts would be out. He hardly strikes me as a recluse, either.

Have you seen this video??



Here's more info on this "chap": www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertyadvice/propertymarket/3319769/Keepers-of-the-fame-flame.html

So MANY "coincidences" right in plain sight....

[lexdyksic]

Basically, "Occam's Razor" was a monk's theory that if you have two competing theories the simplest is likely the correct one. In other words, while complicated things happen, it is more likely that the simpler or more common one is more likely.

[hotman637]

After studying these forums for years my"Occam's Razor" theory(the simpliest possible explanation is the best) for PID is the following:PID is a MAGIC SPELL! As the matter of fact the entire universe is a magic spell! It is a very simple explanation and it accounts for most of the facts.If PID were based on reason or logic or something like that we would have solved it years ago.Instead we are more confused and mystified then ever.When that happens it usually means magic!

[lexdyksic]

Well, I said before (and often), that what we call "reality" is just a description. We "agree" about the description in order to survive together. This thing DOES have elements of "magic" in it. It is cognitive dissonance. You're looking right at something but, somehow, you know you're not seeing the whole thing.
While, in a practical sense, this isn't "earth shattering" stuff here. Still, it has an attraction. It's like a play where the actors are clearly up to something but act as though nothing is amiss. It's "dinner theatre". Those of us here are saying "hey, what are you guys doing?", but there's no answer, just more flaunting.
That leads back to the earlier discussions of Tavistock. That's their specialty.

[paulumbo]

I tried to post a reply and got an error message. I'll try again.
lexdyksic, where are you?
In your March 9 (2012) post, you went into a thoughtful discussion about what happened to Paul. You seem to imply that Paul might be alive and that he "sold out." But since you said you've played in bands most of you life, have you heard rumors? It's amazing but since I've been trying to track down the truth, I have found alot of famous English bands who hid comments about Paul in backmasked songs of theirs. Listen, for instance, to Procol Harum's "Whiter Shade of Pale" backwards.
Sometimes, chatter and rumors can be pieced together to find answers.