What is a Parallel?

by Miles Mathis

First published July 8, 2020

Some may think this should be on my science/math site, but hang on. It has nothing to do with that sort of parallel. I have previously shown you what an Anti is, and a Parallel is like that. It is a psychological operations term. An Anti is an agent hired to promote a set of ideas that Intelligence wishes to blackwash. So the Anti spends several years promoting those ideas, then suddenly ends up in a mental institution or shoots up a Chuck-E-Cheese. His audience then links the ideas he was promoting to craziness or violence. You see how it works.

I first used the term for Ezra Pound, in this paper. Ezra was a premier Anti, and one of the best ever. He spent a lot of time screaming at Jews and banks, and then went crazy and had to be sent to the funny farm. So most normal people saw those headlines and figured that only crazy people say bad things about Jews or banks. But the amusing thing is, if we look closer, Ezra was working for. . . the Jews and the banks. In fact, he was a Jew from a family of bankers. He pretended to be the opposite of what he was, then pretended to be crazy and pretended to go to a mental hospital (though in his fake trial, he was never convicted of anything). Acting! That is how they blackwash their opposition. They infiltrate it and blow it from the inside.

This is admitted. The CIA admits it does things like this. They are called covert ops. Well, another type of covert operation is the creation of a Parallel. Say you have someone you wish to destroy, but you don't want to give him any publicity at all. So you don't even want to mention his name. You don't want to send any traffic his way, because that would be counterproductive. You may also not want to address him directly because you know you can't defeat him directly. If the debate takes place in the open, your agents will lose, and you know that. So you can't risk letting the public see anything proceed naturally. Everything has to remain in the dark, hence the term "covert". So, what you do is, you create a Parallel: someone who looks or acts a lot like the person you wish to destroy, and says many of the same things. There have to be a lot of parallels or similarities, because one of the things you want to do is shift the audience of your target over to your Parallel.

Once you have created your Parallel and salted him for a few months or years, you then attack him instead of your target. The audience will naturally see the similarities between your target and the Parallel, so they will conflate them, letting your attack on the Parallel stand for an attack on both. The difference is, you can now control the response of your Parallel. Where you couldn't defeat the target, you can appear to defeat the Parallel. You can begin making the Parallel say stupid things, make bad predictions, make suspicious alliances, and so on. You blackwash your puppet instead of your target. And you hope that when the Parallel falls, his fall will take down your target as well.

To make the Parallel as seductive as possible, Intelligence will use all of its psychological tricks. It will create mystery, because people love mystery. It will create intrigue, because people love intrigue. It will tart up its Parallel with mysticism, cryptic messages, parables, paradoxes, riddles, and games, because people love those, too. But most of all, it will manufacture controversy, because people love controversy second only to sex, and most modern people love it more.

If you don't see where I am going with this, you are about to.

In June, The Atlantic's cover story was on Q-Anon.

They actually tell you in the title that "Q-Anon is more important than you think". Really? You need to ask yourself why the mainstream media is promoting Q-Anon. He has also been promoted by many other top mainstream sources. Does that make any sense? Does it fit the storyline? This dangerous "conspiracy theorist", possibly a mole in Intelligence himself, is going to be promoted by the mainstream media? Why? Because Q is a Parallel. I know because he is Paralleling. . . me.

In the above graphic, it says "How Q-Anon is warping reality and discrediting science." That's one way I know, because although Q is indeed warping reality, it is not he who is discrediting science, but me. Q doesn't know the first thing about science, and rarely addresses it. I am the one exploding mainstream science, but I am not doing it by warping reality. I am doing it by unwarping the warped reality the mainstream has been selling you for a century. They know that, but they can't address me directly and honestly, because any sensible person can tell I am right. While Q's illogic spills off his pages in great streams of piss, my logic sways anyone who comes near it: which is why they can't let anyone come near it.

At the Atlantic, they admit Q didn't arise until around 2017, when he coagulated out of the Pizzagate fake. That also confirms my analysis, because that timeline matches the big acceleration of the projects against me, which get more numerous and more Byzantine every year. That's also about the time the POM project against me started, peaking in 2018 with reams of incredible libel—which of course went nowhere. Which confirmed that they couldn't make any progress attacking me directly. That is also when the Weisbecker project started, as well as the RatWiki project. Both those projects also backfired, confirming once again that a Parallel was necessary.

I also know this because at that time the spooks in my inbox began running baited hooks my way almost daily, trying to get me to bite. They wanted to tie me to Trump, or trannies, or pedophilia, or Pizzagate, or Flat Earth, or a thousand other things. They wanted to interview me, so that I could be tied to this or that spook, who could then implode. They wanted to quote me in their books, or publish me on their websites, or underwrite me, or advertise on my site. But I told them all to fuck off, spoiling those plans as well.

So now they are doubling down on this Q-Anon project, and other similar ones. They are instructing their agents to mirror me in as many ways as they can, short of actually linking to me and admitting I was right all along. Since they couldn't infiltrate me or blackwash me with direct libel, they doing their best to surround me with noise. Rather than in-filtrate me, they are ex-filtrating me, meaning they are trying to create a group around me, so that that group can then be blackwashed. Anything but address what I am actually saying, which is "outside their pay grade". Meaning, beyond their abilities.

Their Q project is also failing, since no real person is linking me to Q. I can't believe they still aren't aware of that. I pushed Q away explicitly from the beginning, outing him long ago. By attacking Trump and Pizzagate, as well as many other Q projects, I built a wall there forevermore.

But they haven't gotten that message. Either that, or they spent so much money manufacturing this entity Q, they figure they might as well see him to his planned end. Even if his eventual explosion doesn't send any shrapnel my way, it might do some small damage to the Truther movement, they hope.

Unfortunately, even that is backfiring, and although the whole Q thing is a farce, it is actually creating MORE Truthers, and therefore more readers for me. Some Q followers will no doubt slink back to the mainstream with their tails between their legs when Q inevitably hits the wall. But my guess is a majority of them will still be hungry for the truth, and they will finally graduate to the real thing: again, me.

Which is why I have never attacked Q supporters themselves too viciously. While making sure to separate myself from his specific ideas, I otherwise have have not concentrated too much fire in that direction. Why? Because I have longer sight than these bozos at Intel, who always shoot themselves in the foot. I could see from the beginning that Q's people, though gullible, were mostly on the right track. They were hungry for the truth: so hungry, in fact, that they gulped down the first thing offered them, without giving it a good sniff. Although it smelled of spam instead of steak, they took it anyway, in their hunger. But their hunger is my friend, since all I have to do is educate it, you see.

Here is some more of that education. The Atlantic leads off its cover story on Q by repeating the tale of gunman Edgar Maddison Welch, who was allegedly arrested for firing a gun in the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlor in DC. Unfortunately, if we search on him, Google itself lists him in the sidebar at the top of the search page—but not as a gunman. As a screenwriter and actor who worked on various movies, including The Bleeding. He is listed at IMDB. His parents are given as Harry L. Welch, Jr., and Terri Welch. Harry is also a writer and actor, listed at IMDB. So do we have the wrong Edgar Maddison Welch? No, since the picture matches the Comet gunman.

Does the author at The Atlantic bother to tell you any this? No. Adrienne LaFrance, executive editor of the magazine, wants you to believe Edgar is a "deeply religious father of two". Yes, because deeply religious people always write screenplays with titles like The Bleeding. I encourage you to watch the trailer at IMDB, to see how deeply religious it is. He has also worked on The Mill, with his father as the lead writer, which is a deeply religious. . . slasher film.

Not a very good start to this article, eh? Adrienne LaFrance, like Q himself, seems to have a very low opinion of your intelligence.

So who is Adrienne LaFrance? Well, her bio is very limited. She doesn't want to tell us much, including her DOB, parents, or years in school. Her Wiki bio is just a stub. We do know she came out of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard, which is housed in the Walter Lippmann House. Nieman founded the Milwaukee Journal. So we have enough to go on already. But she is also connected to the Aspen Institute, since she has a bio posted there. Another huge red flag, since the Aspen Institute is yet another bastion of cloaked fascism and a spook hangout. It was founded and is run by very wealthy Jews. It is funded by the Gates Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation. Any questions?

But back to Edgar Welch. We are told he was sentenced to four years in 2017, so he should still be in jail. But they never tell us where he was incarcerated, and he doesn't come up on any search. Obviously, this whole thing was faked, and Welch was never in jail. He was probably never in the restaurant either.

LaFrance then brings up Obama and the birther issue, telling you that was all another tempest in a teapot. Despite Trump saying Obama had been born in Africa, she implies that was proved wrong. But she is wrong (or lying to your face, actually). It was never proved in court, since all the judges conveniently denied standing to all who sued, although as voters they should have had immediate standing. And it was never proved in the media, since all the documents published there were proved to be fake. Not one was a legal document. I recently discovered that Tim Dowling, one of the premier genealogists in the world, and cousin to many English and Scottish kings (the Stuarts), admits on his huge site [Geneanet] that Obama was born in Kenya. Officials in Kenya have admitted he was born there. Old newspapers admit he was born there. Obama's opponent in his Senate race, Alan Keyes, has testified that Obama admitted he was born in Kenya during debates. Obama's literary agent Acton and Dystel originally listed Kenya as his birthplace in published documents. So LaFrance is once again assuming you know nothing, or will take her word for anything.

LaFrance then segues into Corona, telling you the same sort of people began "burbling" that the pandemic was not real. She wants you to understand that since Edgar Welch was wrong about Comet Ping Pong and Trump was wrong about Obama, these people must be wrong about Corona. But that wouldn't follow regardless. She should have to show some evidence even if the previous two examples held. Because two things are false doesn't prove three things are. But, as you have seen, her two examples don't hold, so her argument is just the sad attempt at a hypnosis. That is all you ever get with these mainstream magazine people, who don't know how to write or argue.

The beginning of the next paragraph is especially funny, all things considered.

The power of the internet was understood early on, but the full nature of that power—its ability to shatter any semblance of shared reality, undermining civil society and democratic governance in the process—was not.

Hah. But of course that is exactly why Military Intelligence invented the internet. And it has done that job perfectly from the beginning. And Adrienne LaFrance's job is just a cohort to it, since she is the same sort of transparent agent, doing her part to undermine reality and democracy. She tries to flip you here, but does such a terrible and hamhanded job of it, it is laughable. She wants you to think Truthers are the real danger to democratic governance, but no one awake could possibly believe Truthers are a greater danger than Intelligence and its ownership of the media. Does she think any real person is going to buy the argument that independent researchers on the web are more dangerous to democratic governance than the 6 million domestic Intelligence agents working in this country, or the millions working in the mainstream media, or the millions working for the government? Does she really expect us to believe a few people at 4chan or 8chan or whatever are more dangerous to our shared reality than the tens of thousands of paid agents working in psychological operations units on every military base in the world?

LaFrance then says this:

It is a movement united in mass rejection of reason, objectivity, and other Enlightenment values.

Cue laugh track. By "it", she means Q, not Intelligence, but this is exactly, precisely, what Intel is doing. That is pretty much the definition of Operation Chaos, which has been the overarching umbrella project of Intel since the 1950s. And they admit that in declassified documents. So it is literally beyond belief that LaFrance thinks she has any leg to stand on in saying this. As a prominent member of the mainstream media, her bona fides to talk about reason, objectivity, or the Enlightenment simply do not exist. The mainstream media hasn't even the most tenuous connection to any of those things, and never has. The media has been lying to us about everything from the beginning, as I have shown. These people like LaFrance care no more about reason or objectivity than they care about learning to write. Those things are just empty words to them, since they have never had any use for them. The only things they care about are spin and other psychological tricks, as LaFrance is proving even as we go down her page. She isn't even trying to make sense, since she believes she doesn't need to. She thinks she can just snow you. She has been taught by her instructors at Langley or wherever that she can just yap for a few pages and everyone will bow down before her because she works at The Atlantic. When her little article self-destructs, she will be mystified. She had thought that because she was a woman from top families, people had to believe her. It is impolite, nay, politically incorrect, not to.

The main trick LaFrance—or whoever is writing this garbage—uses, or overuses, is to flip the truth 180 degrees. Whatever she is doing, she accuses Q's people of doing. So, for instance, she says:

The group harnesses paranoia to fervent hope and a deep sense of belonging. The way it breathes life into an ancient preoccupation with end-times is also radically new. To look at QAnon is to see not just a conspiracy theory but the birth of a new religion.

If you tweak that just a little bit, it is true. All you have to do is change "the group" to "the mainstream media". This is exactly what the media does, and what LaFrance is doing here herself. That is what the fake Corona scare is about: harnessing paranoia to manufacture compliance. Also notice that LaFrance the great writer at the big magazine doesn't know what "fervent" means. I guess the word she wants here is "ferment", which means to stir up. "Fervent" is an adjective, not a verb, and it means "intense". They can't even hire proofreaders at these major mags anymore, I guess.

Please go to Updates to read the entire essay.
________


Related:

Caitlin Johnstone: QAnon is a fake, decoy imitation of a healthy revolutionary impulse