What do television’s fictional Partridge family and one of America’s most famous, or infamous political families, the Clinton’s, have in common?
Turns out, more than one would think.
Those who have frequently visited Newsspellcom.org, have found the lines between fantasy and reality have been purposely blurred by the media sorcerers. American history is a stage upon which many actors have played out their parts. Oftentimes, identical host actors hailing from the prominent bloodlines of the ruling elite families are contracted to portray more than one during a single lifetime. Some, have even reached mythical status. Hillary Clinton is one such mythical character.
For decades, her presence has held prominence in the minds of political pundits and the general public alike. This is the sort of psychological investiture profitable to those creating and contracting the characters to appear not just in the American history books, but on the world stage.
But, as one shall soon learn, Hillary Clinton is but a cinematic chimera created by the ruling elites and brought to flesh and blood life by those willing to believe. One shall soon observe, the Clinton’s, much like the Kennedy’s, are merely a mythical construct, a fable created by the ruling elite bloodlines.
The psychology of historical myths
One of the most fascinating studies is the psychology of lies, or perhaps more accurate to say, the psychological dynamics of the historical lie, and why it is they may be so readily believed. Myths, as Joseph Campbell so eloquently pointed out during his lifetime, often serve as the lifeblood of a culture, embodying or exalting those qualities that a people, or nation, may want to believe about itself.
In that sense, myths represent the collective consciousness of a people, an example of a set of ideals embodied in a mythical character through which the lifeblood of a nation or people vicariously flows. It is so often true, at least from an historical perspective, that a nation of people can metaphorically live and die by and vicariously through the myths that it creates for itself.
In this way, it is the psychological or emotional investment a people or nation make into a culture’s myths, breathing the breath of life into them so that in a very real sense, they become material reality. In this way too, as long as the created myth or mythical character exalts some measure of higher ideal or virtue, in a very real sense the moral shortcomings of the actor assigned to portray that character for historical posterity matters not in the grander scheme.
A myth’s or mythical figure’s enduring value to the prevailing culture persists as long as the mythical character appears to act out, exemplifies or embodies some palpable measure or representation of higher or even heroic ideals. This becomes necessary for a culture to establish and maintain an enduring image handed forward generation after generation.
This is also part of the continued fascination with the very mythological concept itself.
Myths exist in that nether world between the psychological barriers of objective material reality and emotional subjectivity. The historical character, the mythological construct of Hillary Clinton and of the Clinton family itself, is a subjective idea or historical memory, transformed, through the psychological investment of mass consciousness, into material reality.
So, it is with the character of Hillary Clinton.
Hillary, Bill, and Monica Lewinsky
In past installments, one has demonstrated these mythical families or historical characters are created and portrayed by the flesh and blood family members of the ruling elites, almost as proxy identities of themselves. Utilizing an array of pseudonyms and identities, the ruling elites can have complete control over not only how history is ultimately written and perceived for the sake of posterity, but also in a material sense, make a generous profit over the course of successive generations.
Think of how many times the character of Bill Clinton, particularly during his second term as US president, was publicized in connection with the Monica Lewinsky affair. In galvanizing the emotional focus of mass consciousness, the image of Bill Clinton becomes profitable, not only for the networks, but for the advertisers, and ultimately, and perhaps most importantly, the corporate stockholders, the ruling elite families.
Grand story lines such as this also serve as a political cover for the unlawful and often criminal activity of the ruling elite families. While the left hand dangles titillating stories about the sexual dalliances of a president, accompanied by stories of the sorrowful plight of a suffering first lady in the personage of Hillary Clinton, the thoroughly beguiled public, focused on the unfolding drama taking place on the television screen, is wholly unaware the right hand of the elite governing mechanism is covertly reaching around into the their back pocket to literally filch the tax dollars from its collective wallet.
This is the method of operation the ruling elites owning and profiting from the creation of the Clinton myth use repeatedly. They create not just one character, but an entire family of characters that can focus the attentions of the public, not just over the short term, but over the course of generations. In essence, fictional families like the Clintons and Kennedys are created to not only control the masses perception of history, but created so the host families consisting of ruling elite bloodlines, the Rockefellers and Rothschilds can make a continued profit with the passing of each successive generation.
The Partridge family
American popular culture of the 1970’s witnessed the creation of a series of prime time television situation comedies that came to define how the public perceived and ultimately defined an era. The ‘Partridge Family show, billed as an American ‘musical situation comedy’, along with several others, was one such television program helped to define and shape that collectively treasured image. Actress Shirley Jones was cast on the show as a widowed mother of five children seeking a career in the music industry, Although the program only ran on American television network ABC for a period of four years, it’s cultural impact seems to have been enduring.
But, investigation reveals a family link between the host actress working under the pseudonym of ‘Shirley Jones’ and the major stockholders of ABC network, the elite European merchant banking family the Rothschilds.
The Rothschilds, since the American post-war period of the 1950’s, have sought to advantageously profit from the vastly lucrative entertainment industry. The stars and celebrities one comes to know, admire, adore, and even worship, are in fact the sons, daughters, mistresses and relatives of the wealthy and powerful, those owning and operating the television networks, movie studios, and music recording companies and book publishing houses.
Rather than scouring the general populace for ‘talent’, the ruling elites utilize nepotism to create the ‘stars’ of yesterday, today, and of tomorrow.
Ariane Dandois, the host actor who came to operate under the pseudonym ‘Shirley Jones’, is but one prime example of Rothschild nepotism. Since the Rothschilds have controlling stock interest in American corporate television networks and ABC, it was a rather simple matter, like they did with the Beatles, to set up Dandois-mistress of European merchant banking titan Jacob Rothschild and Rothschild family confidant Jean Daniel Lorieux-for American television fame, starring in a musically oriented comedy show that existed essentially, as it turns out, a Rothschild family vanity vehicle.
The cast was filled out with Rothschild family relatives once again operating under pseudonyms and concocted biographies.
The character of ‘David Cassidy’ is one such example.
Rothschild family relatives exhibiting talent or a predisposition towards artistic pursuits, whether dancing, signing, or acting, are identified as prospects which may be molded into lucrative assets in helping to expand the financial profits of the elite family portfolio. Cassidy, while starring on the Partridge family show, became what is termed a ‘teen idol’. During the mid-seventies, when the popular television show had run its course, the host actor portraying the character of David Cassidy began to publicly express in teen periodicals and music magazines he was growing tired of merely performing as a pin-up for screaming teenage girls, and wished to move on to a musical project with street cache that would establish his reputation as a ‘serious’ musician.
Cassidy was soon to get his wish, for by 1978, the character of ‘David Cassidy’ was shelved for a time in lieu of a new identity in the music industry as ‘Ben Orr’, bass player and lead vocalist performing for platinum selling rock band ‘The Cars’.
The bands recording label, Electra, which fell under the Rothschild American corporate umbrella, was founded and presided over by Jack Holtzman, a long-time Rothschild business partner and banking confidant.
As they did with ‘David Cassidy’, the Rothschild’s utilized the same method of operation with Ariane Dandois.
With her role as host actress portraying ‘Shirley Jones’ having proven widely successful in terms of American audiences, the Rothschild brain trust decided Dandois may be successful acting in the political arena, perhaps by posing her in tandem with Rockefeller political asset Bill Blythe AKA Bill Clinton, who during the era of the American mid to late 1970’s, was being installed by the Rockefeller political machine into the governor’s chair in Arkansas, ostensibly to oversee the Rockefeller narcotics rackets headquartered at remote Mena airport.
In case anyone has any doubts, vein hand pattern, voice print and ear-bio-metric analysis bolster evidence that indeed the host actress portrayed ‘Shirley Jones’ and ‘Hillary Clinton’ are in fact identical.
It is also important to point out due at times to various scheduling logistics, two or more actors will become employed to portray the same character, just as would occur in the world of celluloid cinema or television. When Dandois is not available to portray ‘Hillary Clinton’, one believes Rockefeller family relative Annette Benning, wife of the host actor portrayed disgraced American president Dick Nixon, Warren Beatty, is contracted to fill the role.
See: Watergate covered up more sinister crime
10 thoughts on “Actors in history’s grand stage play (Part VIII)”
Wonderful phrase Stephen, “myths represent the collective consciousness of a people”. Wow there is a stretch here but makes us think.
One can’t always manage to be thoroughly convincing-however, thank you for the gracious compliment on the choice of words.
You are welcome. We are learning with age that it is important to realize there are those orchestrating deceit upon the folks of the world that are busy trying to live life. The truth is so important and yet becoming more elusive.
Sadly, apathy causes many to remain complacent. In the meantime, I shall keep writing and researching. Enjoy, the weekend, and stay safe during your travels.
Thank you and please do keep researching because the truth is important even if some are slow to see it. At least we can step back knowing we did our part. We love the old saying that notes there are 3 sides to each story… his, theirs and what really happened.
LOL-three sides, indeed!
Thank you for introducing me to these great youtube channels 🙂
Truth comes in may forms.
Interesting topic. I do believe that Shirley may have played Hillary in the past few years but it is a stretch to match them as children. What I think is more likely is that the first Hillary actress died or became unable to continue in the role for whatever reason. Remember when Hillary passed out and got a concussion and we didn’t see her for months? We were told that she was avoiding testifying about Benghazi but I believe they were preparing Shirley to take her place. There is a period of time where Hillary constantly looks like different actors. I have come to believe that some of these high profile political people are often switched out withou our ever knowing it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xuys8A3FRhM&feature=youtu.be
You may very well be correct-no one’s analysis is infallible. However, getting across the bigger picture of the actor based reality-that I believe is more paramount.