Mysteries may abound, but though unraveling the lies of this illusory world presents a truly daunting and even thankless task, nonetheless, one proceeds.
As one may have gathered from the last installment, (see actors in history’s grand stage play part II), yesterday’s stars of stage and screen were not exactly who one thought they were.
One believes the famous bard from Stratford-on-Avon perhaps put it best:
….And one man in his time plays many parts, his act being seven ages. William Shakespeare, from As you like it, Act II, Scene VII
One shall soon observe, most celebrities, serving as public objects of unquestioned adoration, hail not from obscurity as the concocted biographies would have the public believe, but rather from royalty.
Ironically, the famous bard was not who he really claimed to be either. Digressions aside, that is a subject for yet another post, coming soon. The recording of history is truly the recitation of a theater or cinema script, complete with props, directors, extras, and starring roles.
Now, over three separate installments in this series of blog posts-the first of which shall delve into the true identity of the host actor portraying pop singer Mick Jagger-one shall examine the roles of three of pop music’s most iconic figures, Keith Richards, Mick Jagger, and John Lennon. Though beloved by millions through the ages until the present day, what is soon to be revealed shall demonstrate, those deemed sacred cows are indeed, not so sacred. One may view the messenger here at Newsspellcom.org as some sort of palace burning and anarchic madman, like ancient Rome’s Nero.
Be that as it may, that is just the sort of observation fraught with unintended irony. For, it is not palaces one burns or even sacred cows that are slaughtered. Rather, what is being accomplished is the shattering of mirrors and the summary dispersal of layered smoke concealing Emerald city’s Great Oz, pulling levers while safely ensconced behind sequined curtains.
That is, until now.
If one has learned anything through exhaustive research, it is this: Everything one has been informed concerning the biographical details of pop culture’s most iconic stars represents not the truth, but a complete fabrication exponentially hyped into timeless myth. Though several generations have been first hand witness to the audio and visual miracles of Hollywood cinema, the degree of their sophistication to alter and distort public perception still goes largely misunderstood or altogether ignored. The tricks of Hollywood’s cinematic trade have left an indelible, if not sinister imprint upon American culture. So too, has the music industry-perpetual peddlers of tuneless bombast sculpted into sonic wizardry-charmed the world with entrancing rhythms right into its hive minded tribal cocoon.
The so-called 1960’s British invasion of pop groups with odd names and seemingly even odder appearances, stormed America’s shores with a savage and yet infectious musical tempest that still reverberates over one half century later. In a truly visceral sense, this sort of musical invasion was decidedly more effective, and perhaps destructive, than that of General Gage’s legions of red coats during the 18th century American revolution.
The target of this invasion, the American public, quickly fell under the spell of a strategic sonic assault, the vibrations of which penetrated right to the very social marrow of an entire nation left to helplessly witness the innocence of its youth, hypnotically enchanted with primal magic, throng in vulgar gyrations amid the vast cultural wreckage.
The first of the sonic armies to arrive on America’s shores from Britain was known as the Beatles, allegedly four former working class louts discovered at the dingy Cavern club in Liverpool, quickly followed by the Rolling Stones, five wild eyed, bohemian electric blues minstrels. While the Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan show in ’64 comparatively well-scrubbed, the Stones appeared on American commercial television not long after decidedly ill-clad and borderline seedy, rock and roll bad boys posed in opposition to the squeaky clean teen idols from Liverpool.
In truth, the posing of both seminal pop acts in diametrical opposition, was merely a strategically formulated commercial facade. Though the respective band’s managers, the Stones’ Andrew Loog Oldham and the Beatles Brian Epstein appeared as well-meaning mentors, their fey mannerisms and often flamboyant pseudo sophistication merely served to veil the low grade souls of covert confidence tricksters.
A synopsis of Oldham’s biography, featured on Wikipedia, even admits during the early stages of his life, he was a “self-proclaimed hustler who spent teenage summers swindling tourists in French towns.” Little wonder, then, Oldham went on to swindle America out of millions with five barely musically literate actors posed as bohemian minstrels, carrying a full satchel of blues guitar riffs filched straight from the song catalogs of obscure American Delta blues artists. If, it had been generally known what the Stones chief con man was really hiding however, the American public may not have been so keen to genuflect before Jagger and Richards’ vulgar displays of pop music bombast.
The true identity of the host actor portraying Mick Jagger, the alleged middle-class Dartford boy who matriculated at the exclusive and prestigious London School of Economics, and later transformed into rock and roll demigod, not at all resembles the fiction featured in the manufactured biographies. Jagger’s swaggering on stage posture and off stage hedonistic insouciance, has always struck one as more than disingenuous. More than likely, Jagger, as is proving the case with so many iconic stars of stage and screen, was born of social and economic privilege and during his early youth was persuaded to ‘slum it’ as a bohemian artist.
Objectively, Jagger’s biography is a mishmash of anomalous fabrications and mangled half-truths. One of the clues to solving the mystery of Jagger’s true identity, if one knows what to look for, presents itself when examining the details of his 1967 meeting with Andrew Rees Mogg, soon after he and Keith Richards were allegedly ‘nicked’ for illegal drug possession. Mogg was a major, established public figure, not known for seeking out conferences with pop singers over their legal difficulties. Mogg, educated at both exclusive Charterhouse and Bailiol College, was not only editor of the London Times, but vice chairman of the BBC and vice chairman of both the Arts and Broadcasting Standards Councils of Great Britain, which are all dialed into London’s notorious Tavistock Institute.
Mogg, considered a confidant to the rich and powerful, met with Jagger soon after he and song writing partner Keith Richards were released from incarceration for drug possession. This is an indication, that Mogg was not merely seeking publicity for his newspaper the London Times – although it would be naive to suppose he didn’t see the developing story as an opportunity to dramatically increase advertising and subscription revenues-it is more than likely he was acting as Jagger’s handler. Subsequent to what was, at the time, a highly publicized summit between Great Britain’s cultural glitterati, Mogg penned an editorial in the Times concerning the tandem rock luminaries sad plight, entitled “Who Breaks a Butterfly on a Wheel?”. Ostensibly, Mogg’s editorial tone seemed sympathetic towards the plight of the pair of Britain’s reigning pop culture celebrities, stating, in effect, the socially libertarian viewpoint all should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, regardless of social status. Apparently, many Stones fans missed the obvious contradiction between the pop groups decidedly anti-establishment fervor and the printed approval of one of Britain’s most influential establishment figures.
Additionally, upon deeper examination, both the libertarian philosophical stance and the metaphorical symbolism of the editorial’s title sends off alarm bells.
The title of Mogg’s editorial is a direct quote from English 18th century poet Alexander Pope’s epistle to Doctor John Arbuthnot, a Scottish satirist who is said to have inspired not only Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travel’s but Pope’s own satirical verse the Dunciad, a withering satire of Homer’s the Iliad and the Odyssey. Here is the source of the direct quote from the following lines in Pope’s epistle:
Let Sporus tremble-“What that thing of silk,
Sporus, that mere white curd of ass’s milk?
Satire or sense, alas! can Sporus feel?
Who breaks a Butterfly upon a Wheel?”
The name Sporus in the epistle is a reference to Lord Harvey, a notoriously effeminate figure during Pope’s era. Harvey was being compared to Sporus, a court youth who became a favorite of the Roman emperor Nero. The story goes that Nero attempted to castrate Sporus to make him more female, a reference which also appears in Suetonius’ Twelve Caesars. The wheel refers to the medieval torture implement, also known as the Catherine Wheel, used by the Inquisition inter alia. In the case of Mogg’s editorial, the reference served to point out what he felt to be, in the case of Jagger and Richards, a wholly disproportionate punishment in relation to a trivial crime. Also noteworthy concerning Pope’s epistle, was the first use of the phrase “to damn with faint praise”, which later became synonymous with works composed in the satirical cannon.
Further still, the metaphor of the butterfly is synonymous with psychological transformation, and classically refers to the human psyche, which in ancient Greece also meant the soul. Therefore, the butterfly suspended upon a wheel, with a skull atop, is heavily masonic, and doubtless, both Pope and Mogg, were both high degree Freemasons.
Ultimately, considering the era of the 1960’s, just what was being intended for transformation?
It seems, a substantial argument can be made that Britain’s concerted efforts at a mass market pop music invasion of America during the 1960’s, upon which was also modeled the later Laurel Canyon scene and the American counter-culture revolution, was all about the transformation of society, or from out of the chaos caused by the rupturing influence of such pop groups as the Rolling Stones and the Beatles, along with the promotion of free love, drug use, and the introduction of libertarian morals, were aimed at ushering forth a new order of social and political stability-a new global order.
There can be no doubt, when one observes the garden of public confusion that grew out of the putrid seeds sown by the British pop music invasion, and even still later with the American counter culture revolution, the genesis of both cultural movements were not only concurrent and conspiratorial in nature, but were, in fact, a deliberate attempt on the part of the ruling elites to finance a transformation of society, and of course, to stimulate more profitable commerce in the way of opening new markets for Western trade.
One should always keep in mind, money and power are synonymous commodities to the globalist ruling elites.
In truth, both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones represented a cultural Trojan Horse, out of which would stream armies of new ideas, both of a social and political nature, to induce mass chaos that would later be incrementally shaped into a new prevailing order of public perceptions benefiting the social, economic, and political hegemony of the ruling elites. The question remains, why was, in the vernacular of the proletarian Londoner, a ‘posh bloke’ like Mogg so quick to summit with a pop trifling scruff like Jagger?
The answer: Both he, and Jagger, were not only social peers, they were conspirators in formulating this new world order.
A genealogical investigation into Jagger’s family roots turns up some pertinent and interesting connections. While Jagger’s family may not have been directly related to British royal peerage, direct connections nonetheless exist. Turns out, one of Jagger’s 19th century relatives was Joseph Jagger, who had connections with banking interests in Monte Carlo. Further, one discovers Jagger’s family owned coal mining interests in Emley, West Yorkshire, owned by Robert Jagger. Yet another relative, Charles Jagger, was an apprentice with the high end London Jewelry firm of Mappin and Webb, not only the top silversmiths in England for over two-hundred years, but also exclusively served as the royal crown jewelers.
The connection deepens however, when one discovers it was Baron Sidney Webb who founded the London School of Economics, which came to be dominated by the Fabian political ideology of incremental social and political change. Per several sources, it can be corroborated that while Mick matriculated at the LSE, he wrote the grant proposal that would fund the inception of the Rolling Stones: http://rockphiles.typepad.com/a_life_in_the_day/2011/02/mick-jagger-london-school-of…
One will want to stay tuned for the next installment in part V, for it is this royal connection with the Rolling Stones that will prove truly stunning.