We all idolize people in our lives. We all have heroes. Sometimes we choose a parent or relative, or someone else we know personally. Many people also choose celebrities.
Every field has celebrities. In the business world, there’s Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos. In literature, there’s Jane Austen, F. Scott Fitzgerald. Scientists have Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Marie Curie. Journalists have Anderson Cooper, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly. In American politics, there’s Ronald Reagan, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama. Fans of science fiction have Elon Musk, Neil Armstrong (Ha!). Opponents of the mainstream media have , Alex Jones, Julian Assange. In the sports world, there’s Michael Jordan, Cristiano Ronaldo. Religion has Jesus, Ganesha, Muhammad, Budda. There’s no need to mention specific celebrities from the world of entertainment. Popular entertainers are often the default definition of celebrity and nearly everyone in the world knows them.
Most celebrities have been carefully prepared for each demographic, for each culture. The people who make the important decisions in this world, the people who control most of the wealth know they have to control public opinion to achieve their goals. In this article, those who drive public opinion are referred to as the powers that be (PTB). This small but influential minority knows that more than anyone else, people believe those they admire. So, in order to control the public, the PTB use celebrities to control public opinion. Our rulers want us to think that our celebrities come from our ranks. They want us to think our celebrities are naturally generated, but a critical analysis of their public biographies, their stories, usually indicates otherwise, as will be shown later. After some simple investigation and critical analysis, we will see that our celebrities are the result of careful marketing.
For Your Consideration (FYC)
If the PTB could create and control our heroes, would they? Do they have the resources to put their chosen actors in the right positions? Could they obscure the real information about their backgrounds? Do the owners of the MSM want to expose this kind of situation for the public? The answers to the above questions should be obvious. A previous AP article has information and ideas about deception strategies used against us, which may help your understanding of the rest of this article.
For these kinds of assertions, the first question people usually ask needs to be addressed. Why do the PTB want to conceal their hand in creating celebrities? Before looking at situations critically, most people need to know why. Most people don’t care if the official stories are flawed and full of inconsistencies. If one cannot immediately think of an obvious reason for deception, they will discard or overlook the most obvious evidences of falsehood. But intelligent creatures should always be on guard. We often lie to ourselves, so why should we automatically trust others, especially those we have never met? Before continuing with the rest of this article, let’s consider one possible reason why.
- The PTB want the public to believe in rags to riches stories. These inspire us to work more diligently for them! Rags to riches stories inspire adoration in the celebrity. The stories encourage us to buy their products, accept their opinions.
- People are usually more comfortable with people from their own ranks, people who have similar experiences.
- Beware also of the villain! Celebrities will often attempt to divert our attention to some bad guy, their nemesis. Ideas are the bad guys in this world, not people.
What if we knew that our celebrities were raised in luxury? What if we knew they were given the top opportunities and support? This information would not only deflate many fans, it would inspire many to create their own entertainment, perform their own scientific experiments, investigate issues on their own, educate themselves. More people would stop watching their favorite TV anchorperson. They would patronize alternate news sources. They just might stop consuming propaganda altogether!
Take the example of an actress who openly comes from wealth and privilege, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, or better known as Elaine from Seinfeld. Why did she become an actress? Fame? Possibly. Fortune? Not really. She probably enjoys it. Is she the only one who could have performed well in the parts she’s played? Although she was hilarious in many of her performances, other actresses could have done as well.
Is this situation fair? No, but the purpose of the article is not to discuss who deserves what. Fortunate people are born into their situations and probably did not have any choice in the matter. For her acting roles, Julia probably had to overcome personal challenges, work with abrasive people, compete with other privileged people. The purpose of this article is not to pass judgment. The purpose is to help people think about their idols more critically, choose more deserving ones, or abandon idolatry altogether.
For many people, this first example may generate that annoying question of why again. Why didn’t the PTB hide Julia’s privileged background? They could have given her a new name for the public, written a fake biography on Wikipedia and IMDB. For this situation, there are many other questions, which will not be addressed here. But before continuing, consider the possibility that the PTB intended for Julia to be an idol for a different demographic. We should not abandon the investigation if we cannot think of a convincing reason why. An important component of skeptical analysis includes analyzing the information presented to us and searching for discrepancies and inconsistencies without letting the Why derail us. The Why will be answered when we have done sufficient analysis.
Real versus Fake
Before continuing with a more in-depth investigation of our potentially artificial heroes, consider the question of real versus fake. The background of the celebrity can be real or fake, independent of their identity. For example, characters like Bill Gates and Elon Musk have extremely suspect backgrounds, suggesting they might be undercover intelligence agents, posing as the creators of real corporations. Their organizations are real, but their identities and backgrounds could be fake. As a contrasting example, consider the actor Jim Carrey. His background in acting is real. Everyone can see him perform on the show In Living Color. Many people saw his early standup comedy routines. Probably every person in the world has seen him in a movie. His biographical information has many clues and inconsistencies, hinting at fake. More on Jim, Bill, and Elon later.
The mention of intelligence agents in the above paragraph probably conflicts with the average persons beliefs. Most people get their understanding of intelligence agents from the movies. The public is flooded with spy movies, like James Bond and Mission Impossible, where the main character is fighting evil henchmen of corrupt organizations. But these movies are an intentional misdirection of how the world really works. Old Bill was not speaking figuratively when he said, “All the whole world’s a stage!”
The movies show us East versus West, but it’s really the PTB versus the rest. They want us to think the intelligence agents are out of our view, fighting evil, keeping us safe. They don’t want us to recognize their real agents as just actors in plain sight, playing a part, reading a script.
The situation gets murky when considering entertainment actors who may or may not have alternate public identities. Often, entertainment actors are just that, actors, and they probably don’t even know their performances are being used to brainwash the public. In most cases, they’re just reading a script, both in an entertainment setting and on the real world stage such as interviews and other public appearances. Actors are just like the majority of humans. They want to be famous. They want money, respect. Entertainment actors, in particular, want to portray dramatic situations, show real human emotions, motivate people.
Movies and television shows also show politicians working for the public. On the screen, we see them arguing with each other about what policies to make, how to spend public funds. Many shows also portray politicians acting for their own benefit and not for the public. From these, we may get the impression that we are seeing how the real world works. Those shows suggest there are some good politicians and some bad. We assume the directors and writers of those shows want to show us reality. But in the movies we’re rarely shown who drafts the laws and regulations that the politicians present to congress or the senate. We’re rarely shown the owners of corporations paying teams of lawyers to write our laws. The news media and entertainment media show us the same information. We get images of politicians and other celebrities sitting around tables with captions telling us what they are doing. These could be real or fake. The politicians might not even know what is really happening.
When the MSM shows us the President of the United States (POTUS) sitting with military intelligence or the CIA, getting briefed on Iranian military actions, they expect us to believe the POTUS is considering their information and making his own decisions. Even if the POTUS was making his own decisions, or the decisions of his political party, would he oppose the true aim of the intelligence agencies? We’re supposed to think the intelligence agencies are giving real information, and letting political leaders choose the course of action.
Are these situations really happening? How would we know if the photographs given to the news agencies were not staged? Would the intelligence agencies actually tell the truth? If not, who could verify their information? The news outlets? No. They just relay information from the intelligence agencies. What sane journalist would expose information the CIA or military intelligence wanted concealed? Only a suicidal one. What news agency would show classified information to the public? Only naive children would believe people would do such things.
Some Celebrity Fish
When you begin critically investigating the most famous celebrities, you will smell something fishy. You’ll notice that many have changed their names. Not surprising, some may say. Celebrities want unique names, something conspicuous for the public to remember. Many of them have an engineer for a father and a teacher for a mother. They’re often listed as philanthropists. Many have inspiring rags to riches stories.
For our first example, consider Elon Musk. If you type his name into a search engine on the internet, you’ll most likely get the summary at the left from Wikipedia. The first thing you’ll notice is his triple citizenship. Kind of odd in itself, but not enough to discredit his history. Like many of our celebrities, his father was an engineer. His mother, although not a school teacher, is interesting to investigate and will be reviewed later. We are told he taught himself programming at 10 years old and sold a computer game when he was 12 for $500. Elon’s early years, although unbelievable, are difficult to determine as fraudulent. A picture of his childhood boarding school indicates he comes from wealth. The question of Elon’s authenticity deserves more analysis than what this article provides, but the purpose of this article is not to prove anything. There are other, more in-depth analysis of him elsewhere. This article simply makes the case that we should cautiously scrutinize the people we choose to admire.
This article will focus on only a few fishy aspects of Elon’s biography. The most obvious red flag is how Elon acquired his money and the creation of SpaceX. After starting his first business (Zip2) with his brother and a friend, the company was sold to Compaq and Elon acquired his first $22 million. He then co-founded X.com, which merged with Confinity (PayPal). In 2002, eBay purchased PayPal for $1.5 billion in stock, and Elon got his 2nd chunk of money, US$165 million. This activity in itself is not fishy, but it is consistent with the premise that Elon Musk is a character creation. If the intelligence agencies wanted to build him, they had to invent a good story about how he acquired his money. His story would be boring, and less impressive, if he had simply acquired a massive inheritance.
The snapshot at left gives a good summary of the beginning of SpaceX. The image is also evidence of the past just in case they decide ever to modify this information. So after his first business ventures, Elon decided to enter the space exploration business. And his first action was to visit Russia (the alleged enemy of the USA) and purchase refurbished ICBM’s. What business leaders could visit an enemy state and purchase their refurbished weapons of mass destruction? There is only one way to believe this ridiculous story. The CIA planned it, or at the very least commissioned the SpaceX project. The spook writers at Wikipedia even hint the CIA planned it when they provided the link to In-Q-Tel, a CIA company, and its former COO, Mike Griffin, who was also to be the future administrator of NASA.
All of the above fails to definitively nail Musk as a fake, but it is strong evidence that NASA administrators and the CIA intended to create a new space agency, SpaceX, which they wanted to appear as a private venture. The details of why won’t be discussed in this article, but if the new space agency was to be privately run, they would need a special character to lead it. And if they got a new front man (celebrity) to lead SpaceX, not only would he need to have the background of a genius, he would also need a name of special significance. Something related to Mars perhaps? This connection comes through the man, Wernher von Braun, the former German SS officer who worked for the Nazi’s, who some call the father of rocketry. After WWII, he came to the United States to help create NASA, and he also worked with Walt Disney to educate the public about space travel.
In 1948, Wernher wrote a book titled, Project MARS: A Technical Tale, set in the year 1980, snippet shown at left. In the book, the leader of the Mars colony was given the title of Elon. So it’s fitting that the leader of the new NASA who is intent on sending a mission to Mars, is named after a fictional leader of Mars. What a coincidence!
The following interview with Elon’s mother Maye is very revealing and also a little amusing. Notice how she mentions that after her divorce, she lived in poverty. Does that seem like the word to describe a world famous model? She also claims to have owned her own “Nutrition” business to supplement her modeling income. Then she gives a little story about “one of her kids” spilling milk. For such memorable events, most mothers would name the child that spilled the milk, but we’ll give her the benefit of the doubt for not mentioning it. Then she said, “I couldn’t buy another milk that day.” Another milk? Seems a little off. Most people would say, “More milk.” Some might say this is just grasping at straws, but if the whole cart is full of straw, that is what you grasp.
Notice the question, “Do your real kids ever get a little jealous?” If this was a wink wink kind of question, that would be funny. But the questioner seems to be asking about Maye playing the role of mother to other children. She answers the question from the angle of if her kids were jealous about her modelling career and she mentions that her kids all had done modeling jobs already. Sounds like they were really poor.
Before continuing with our next celebrity guest, consider the importance of their names. The name of the celebrity to lead SpaceX was chosen for its special significance, perhaps to honor a former celebrity, Wernher von Braun. Consider Bernie Madoff who “made off” with people’s money. Elvis rhymed with pelvis, which was related to his signature move. You’ll also notice that many of our celebrities have changed their last name, or their ancestors have. And why do they all have so many strange last names? Many of them have a common last name, but with the more unique spelling, like Jim Carrey.
Jim Carrey, Google search summary at left, is probably one of the most famous actors for those alive today. He has been the lead character in many blockbusters. The official story of his rise to fame is inspiring, a true rags to riches example that if you work hard, follow your dreams and don’t quit, you’ll get what you want. He claims to come from a family that struggled financially, were even homeless for a while. He worked 8 hour days after school, then dropped out of high school at 16, hoping to become a comedian. While performing at local comedy clubs, he made his big break when Rodney Dangerfield “discovered” him and invited Jim to open on his show. Then he appeared on The Tonight Show, and the rest is “history”.
This is a worthy story to believe! It’s beneficial to dream and work diligently for our goals, but aspiring actors need to set realistic expectations and not set themselves up for disappointment, especially when they lack family connections. For Jim and other famous people who claim to come from poor circumstances, their template for success is most likely a farce. Before continuing with the why, consider Jim’s latest book. The book, Memoirs and Misinformation: A novel, is referred to as a semi-autobiography. And it’s a novel, a fictional account.
From interviews and blooper reels of Jim Carrey, he seems like a great guy, fun and nice to work with, a person who cares about humanity and wants to create beauty for the world. The purpose of this article is not to pass judgement on him, or anyone else. He’s an actor, so if his background is fake, he should not be faulted for playing the part. And if he’s from the upper class, he’s showing loyalty to his family, to his community.
The Amazon page for his book provides a quote from Jim, “None of this is real, and all of it is true.” In context, he’s talking about how a novel can be fictional, and also reveal the true Jim Carrey. But maybe Jim has some say in the project and should be taken literally, out of context. Maybe the life given to the public is not real. For the past few years, he’s been expressing these kind of existential views on life. Is he reading a script? There’s no way we would know. As already mentioned, celebrities have a tremendous potential to influence the populace, and the PTB won’t not take advantage of them, especially the parts where people think the celebrity is not acting. Will they allow one of the most famous people in the world to move public opinion in the wrong direction?
According to the results of a simple internet search on his ancestry (above), Jim Carrey is related to other Hollywood and political celebrities, and aristocracy. This doesn’t seem consistent with his alleged family poverty. Are the Carrey’s the poor relatives of the super wealthy? Not likely. What bad luck, to come from such a prosperous family line, and yet to start with nothing.
Instead of attempting to prove that these claims (and others) are accurate, this article will take a more logical approach. If the intelligence agencies crafted his biography, they would have made the story difficult to dismantle, especially for those with limited access to verify the information. But if we look at the entertainment industry critically, rags to riches stories will seem highly unlikely.
Consider all of the employees, investors, and owners of the big production studios. These include writers, producers, film crews, executive board members, directors, actors…and all of their friends. Many of these people will have children and some of these children will want to be actors themselves. Some will have more talent than others. Next consider the children of the other affluent, the top 10%, the top 1%, or the top 0.01%. Some of them might want to be the next star. And some of their parents might want the same thing. Most parents encourage their children to follow their dreams and develop their natural talents.
Then consider how the most privileged children will gain acting experience. Will a producer or studio executive give a child without acting experience, the starring role in a movie? No, the aspiring actors will get smaller acting jobs first, to acquire experience. There are a lot of small roles to fill, so getting an acting job, for those with connections, is easy. Of all the potential candidates who get acting experience, not all of them will want to continue. Some of them will realize that acting is not what they really wanted to do. Or they have fun for a while, but then decide they would prefer to do something else. There are many public examples of this situation. The children who have the highest propensity for acting will naturally rise to the top. And if some of them want it enough and their parents have enough leverage, even though they’re horrible at acting, they will still be picked for top roles.
Next, consider the process of how movies and shows are produced. Other than the filming and editing processes, the basic recipe is script plus actors. The first of the article suggested that many actresses could have successfully played the part of Elaine on Seinfeld. This does not detract from Julia’s performance in the least. The key is to have the right lines and right director to make sure it is played well. Any decent actor will do. The entertainment support structure will then laud the great the performance to the public. The entertainment support structure includes talk shows, news outlets, awards ceremonies, comedy sketch groups (SNL).
Why would the entertainment industry choose a nobody, although talented, over the children of the elite? Other talented people probably catch some side parts, but the most desirable roles would be given to those with connections, and most especially, the elite.
Acting skills are required for roles other than just entertainers. Politicians need to know how to act. Their job is basically to lie to the public, telling us the new laws will benefit society. Persuading the public to believe a lie requires at least some acting. Of course, many people automatically believe whatever they hear from their celebrities, and acting skills are not even required. They just have to read their scripts. Even the fictional spy agents, as portrayed in the movies, need to know how to act, if they are to fool their enemies.
The final example, Bill Gates, is idolized as a business genius, a technology guru, and one of the world’s top philanthropists. He is accredited with starting Microsoft with his friend when he was just 20 years old. He had a prominent lawyer for a father and a banker for a mother. His Mother, maiden name of Maxwell, came from a long line of prominent bankers. Those who provided his biography at Wikipedia did not attempt to hide Bill’s privileged background, but they downplayed it. Instead, they focused on his technological accomplishments, the history of Microsoft, and his foundation’s philanthropy.
Perhaps most of his biography is legitimate, which would indicate an unnecessary need to create a fake background. The upper class need idols too. Maybe the PTB wanted to create a celebrity and give him credit for leading Microsoft to success, to divert attention away from the real genesis of the company, a creation of the intelligence agencies. Through the Windows Operating System, Microsoft can access the information of a huge portion of the population. Improbable or not, if the intelligence agencies could control a corporation like Microsoft, they would. And as a previous AP article asserts, the purpose of intelligence agencies is to keep the PTB in control of information. They use both real and manufactured information to manipulate public opinion. As a mental exercise, consider the movie Forest Gump where a fictional character was incorporated into many key historical events. Would the intelligence agencies have difficulty incorporating a real person in the history of a corporation just like what the movie did for Tom Hanks’ character?
Instead of trying to pick apart Bill’s history, let’s investigate the claim of his philanthropy. Wikipedia claims that Bill was influenced by David Rockefeller and his family’s charitable foundation, which coincidentally was founded by a man with the last name of Gates. Are they related? It’s not clear, but Wikipedia specifically made the connection, so maybe they’re giving us a clue.
The missions and objectives of Bill’s foundation aligns with other large charitable organizations and institutes, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Institute, the Ford Foundation. The Bill and Melinda Gates’ Foundation in particular is heavily invested in medical research, which focuses exclusively on allopathy as the savior of human health. This seems benevolent on the surface, but a look at the medical establishments in the world indicates that financial profits are their primary goal. The medical establishment is big business, especially when subject to inefficient government policies.
All of these organizations are also very interested in public education. On the surface, this seems benevolent too. But why would the super wealthy care so much about education for the public? Do they want a dependable workforce? Yes. Do they want a population that will buy their products and services? Yes. Do they want the masses to put blind faith in authority and to see no need to investigate anything on their own? Yes! Public education in the United States produces children who conform and never doubt authority, their idols. Do the superwealthy want the population to critically investigate the source of their food, medicine, and entertainment? Their children are usually educated in private institutions. If they really cared about educating the masses, they would promote the same type of education for all. But, as any typical parent, they would want to minimize competition for their offspring. This is not evil. It’s natural, but on some level, the instinct probably influences their decisions.
When considering charities and trust funds, remember that people can use philanthropic, tax-exempt organizations to hide their money from taxation. They can also use these organizations for money transfer between their affiliated companies, or the companies of their friends and relatives, all untaxed.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, at one point, was the world’s wealthiest charitable foundation. To start, we’ll look at the destination of their donations. At first consideration, this may seem like charity, but one question leads to a more likely explanation. Where does the donation money go? Billions of untaxed dollars are transferred between organizations. The table at the left shows the organizations that have received the most money from Bill’s foundation. The largest recipient of funds is an organization called GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization). Since GAVI is an alliance, the organization serves as distributor of funds and assets to the companies that will be doing the research, and selling the products for profit.
What companies get vaccine research funds? Universities and pharmaceutical companies. But why would pharmaceutical companies need donations when they have such insanely large profits? Other than the employees and managers, who profits from the pharmaceutical industry? Who are their major investors? To answer this question, consider two of the top pharmaceutical companies by profits in 2020, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer. Both of those companies’ major shareholders are The Vanguard Group and Blackrock. And what are the major financial investments of the Vanguard group and Blackrock. Their top holdings are Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon. So when the foundation gives money for virus research, they’re really helping organizations like the Vanguard Group, Blackrock, and their investments. And to top off this delicious cake, Microsoft’s majority shareholders are also the Vanguard group and Blackrock. This may seem like the same thing, but it is not. It just means that some of the donations from Bill’s foundation benefits the owners of Microsoft. The rabbit hole goes deeper with those investment firms, but we can already see that from a more realistic view, large charitable organizations are just sophisticated rackets for a network of businesses owned by the same people.
The water becomes even murkier when considering the Foundation’s assets, and the investments and assets of those investments. As of 30 September 2018, they owned $13 billion of Berkshire Hathaway class B stock, which was almost 5 times the worth of their stock in Microsoft. In 2000, Forbes listed Berkshire Hathaway as the largest financial services company by revenue in the world. Berkshire Hathaway itself owns many companies outright and is a major stock holder of many other companies. But who is invested the most in Berkshire Hathaway? The Vanguard group and Blackrock. So instead of investigating the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, we should probably focus on Vanguard and Blackrock who has significant influence over the activities of their holdings. But this article is about Bill Gates as an idol for the public. Looking at the money side of things, Bill Gates looks like a minor player and a fake philanthropist. His organization is just funding his own financial interests and those who own Microsoft.
Before continuing, let’s take a look at the other top charity organization, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, which focuses on medical research and basically owns Novo Nordisk. Its top shareholder is Renaissance Technologies (an American hedge fund) who’s top investment is Bristol Myers Squibb (a pharmaceutical company) who’s top shareholders are, surprise surprise, The Vanguard Group and Blackrock1. And what holds this complex, interconnected financial web of companies together? Public opinion! If the public did not believe in vaccines and allopathy, the medical industry would fall apart. This is the real reason why the elite care about public education and celebrity influence.
Beware of people abandoning or losing their mainstream celebrity status to become a celebrity of some fringe group who claim to oppose the current power structures. For example, David Icke left his public position in sports broadcasting and began promoting the idea that the PTB are shapeshifting lizard creatures. He gained notoriety and publicity from the mainstream media (MSM), which indicates that he is just controlled opposition. Owen Benjamin was rejected from the mainstream comedy scene and now presents comedy to the conspiracy crowd. A general rule of thumb is to avoid those who are publically despised by the MSM. Authentic opponents of the PTB are not even mentioned by the MSM. Remember the old adage, no publicity is bad publicity.
Beware of former intelligence assets exposing what is happening behind the curtains. Recent examples are Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning. Intelligence organizations are extremely selective on who can access sensitive information. Their agents have to pass psyche evals, showing they won’t betray the organizations. The top agents and officers most likely come from the upper class. Those people are the least likely to betray the organizations, their friends and family. From a legal aspect, people involved with intelligence have made a lifelong commitment. They cannot leave the organization and go rogue. Their public activities are assignments! The MSM is paid to publicize their performances.
So what do we do about this? Should we stop idolizing people? Can we only trust ourselves? That’s one extreme, but the pendulum always swings two ways. The other extreme is to blindly follow those people we admire, and more importantly, to admire those we are encouraged to admire. That option makes us little more than children. But either extreme will hinder us. We can learn a lot from our fellow creatures, especially from those who have overcome significant personal obstacles. We should definitely learn real lessons from real people, so we can accomplish the same.
The purpose of this article is to help people think more critically about who to admire and why. We should admire people for what they have done, and not what they have, or what has been given to them. In most instances, celebrities are chosen by some organization, given contracts. Politicians are an easy example of this. The mainstream media will only promote those candidates who will keep the river of public money flowing to big business. They should not be idolized.
More often than not, those worthy of our adoration can be found in our personal lives. That is the real world. The world we see in the news and on the internet should not be trusted as real. For our heroes or idols, we should first pick through our family, friends, coworkers. Direct experience is the best and most reliable teacher.
Shareholder information acquired from StockZOA