Mathis didn't simply say "a Jewish nose" in his Patty Hearst essay, he ranted on about "Jewish blood" and "Jewish ancestry". What is "Jewish blood" anyway? Is that available at the local blood bank? Of course not, because there's no such thing as "Jewish blood". Even if Mathis isn't Jewish he's certainly a Philosemite in many ways, otherwise he wouldn't mention things like ancestry and blood. That is why I posted what I did. To show you his words. You were the one who questioned whether he was "Jewish damage control" or not. I simply questioned his language.
Point taken, Apache. It's nothing personal, of course. I just want to understand clearly what you mean when you say that "there's no such thing as Jewish blood". Are you denying the reality of any kind of national or ethnic blood (Italian blood, American blood, African blood, etc.) or just the Jewish one? Because I don't know about the blood bank, but I do know about genetic testing being required by the state of Israel at least for Russian immigrants (http://newobserveronline.com/israel-sta ... mmigrants/
) and about the discovery of "Jewish genes" by Harry Ostrer, Jewish Professor of Genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine located in the Bronx, New York (http://newobserveronline.com/race-or-re ... dentified/
). So, what are we talking about?
Back on topic, as for Mathis being a Philosemite or "Jewish damage control", this fact is pretty evident to me by now. He's a brilliant investigator and a compelling writer, but I find it pretty risible when he ascribes the imperfections of contemporary psyops to the presence of at least two opposing factions inside the American secret services that, according to him, control the world.
Here's what he writes about this in his essay about "The Charleston and Roanoke Hoaxes"
We have evidence of two competing teams here, I think. As I have said regarding previous fake events, we appear to have
one team honestly trying to fake the event, and another embedded team foiling them at every turn. I would say DHS is planning and running these events, honestly trying to fool you and Congress into doing their bidding. But CIA is infiltrating DHS and inserting these spoilers after the fact. That is the only way I can make sense of these ludicrous stories.
So we have two layers of story. We have the primary layer created by DHS, which is poorly constructed but which might still hold water as long as it is edited and sold in the right way. But then we have a secondary layer added at the last minute by the CIA (or whatever agency), created expressly to deflate the first layer. [...]
CIA wants this DHS event to self-destruct, because CIA wants to totally blow the cover of DHS. If DHS eventually fails in toto and is defunded, more money will be available for the older Intelligence agencies.
Even if what Mathis writes wasn't the kind of misdirection that it really is, the question would remain: who controls the CIA and the DHS? They're just tools, they need to be used by someone.
To me it's like saying that a speeding BMW killed a pedestrian. OK, but who was driving it?
Mathis never says who controls the secret services, as if they were independent and by now uncontrollable entities misteriously invested, by themselves I guess, with all the power in the world. Oh, and they're practically only the American secret services, because, as I made him notice, he never mentioned the Mossad. And in fact, he mentions it once for the first time in the aforesaid essay, the first one written after my email to him. A clear sign of good faith, isn't it?
Seriously, I think I have a better explanation for the psyops' imperfections, and I've given it in a post on page 16 of the thread about a Jewish conspiracy "Hiding in Plain Sight".
Jewish (or better Jewish Power Maniacs' or JPMs') control over the media and politics is so total, and even protected by absurd laws in many countries, that they can afford to be sloppy in their psyops (and Simon even added wittily that they might also want to save a few bucks by hiring cheap B-movie directors
). Because even if somebody unveils media fakery, as we do here, they’re still home free until nobody dares to point the finger directly at them, or whoever does is ridiculed or silenced.
And I honestly can't believe that a contemporary American version of Sherlock Holmes like Mr. Mathis doesn't even have an inkling of all this.