America’s war for independence: Revolution or hoax? (Part IV)

Despite claiming the previous installment in this series concerning America’s mythical founding was the penultimate, one had forgotten of the promise to examine a rather seminal historical event prior to the American revolution. The alleged Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770, is said by American historians to have been a pivotal event in the escalation of simmering hostilities between American colonists and occupying British regular forces. One feels compelled to mention, research into this particular event represented an historical treasure trove, and truly served to bolster one’s premise that American history is indeed, nothing more than a scripted stage play.

Like many other events recorded in the historical annals, there are many inconsistencies to be found in various textual accounts. There are also some rather curious details involving the alleged victims of the event that history has not bothered to qualify or explain with a great deal of depth or regularity. As one shall soon observe, the alleged Boston Massacre, the tragic event that was alleged to have inflamed the colonies against the occupying British forces, may just be nothing more a propagandized hoax.

In many ways – at least to the eyes of historical posterity – the event that came to be known as the Boston Massacre operated as the catalyzing powder keg that set off an explosion of open hostilities between eighteenth century American colonists and the occupying British forces, or ‘Lobster backs’ as they were derogatorily referred.

Though generations of public school children have been taught the official mainstream narrative – as one is so often discovering – the generally accepted and unquestioned details of any event in American history should never be taken at face value. And though admittedly, there have been some recent attempts at revising the details as to what may or may not have occurred during the event known as the Boston Massacre, one finds the nature of such reexaminations to be somewhat apologetically timid, and even anemic, in that the mainstream narrative is never significantly altered to perhaps reflect what could be finally construed as anything resembling a complete or accurate portrayal.

Yes folks, as shall be shortly demonstrated, there does exist a smattering of latter day historians that seem to have begun to question the established mainstream historical narrative of the Boston Massacre, to the extent they are forced to admit the event may have been – after the fact – deliberately propagandized.

Unfortunately however, their inquiring analysis dips only to a marginal degree beneath the surface, and the mainstream narrative is largely left intact, and does not reflect the deeper examination of any premise that may suggest the event itself may have been a pure masonic fabrication. After all, what so-called serious historian with an established reputation and tenured position at some prestigious university to protect wants to be thought of by his or her esteemed colleagues as a dreaded ‘conspiracy theorist’?

Nonetheless, one supposes a willingness on the part of any mainstream historian to begin to question the very bedrock tenets of their chosen arena of scholarship should be somewhat congratulated. For, even they must realize the spurious myths that pass for historical truth can hold out only so long against the intense glare of in depth and truly objective analysis.

The natives grow restless

The story of the Boston Massacre begins with a lone British sentry allegedly harassed by a group of hostile colonists wielding an assortment of rocks, primitive clubs, and snowballs. Documented historical context tells us that prior to 1770, the British crown had decided to enact what were perceived by colonists as harsh and unfairly implemented taxes. Prior to the Boston Massacre, or as it was initially dubbed, “The incident on King Street”, James Otis, a graduate of Harvard and sworn Esquire of the Temple bar, catapulted himself into the premiere rank of rebellious colonial ‘patriots’ when the often historically repeated phrase, ‘taxation without representation’, was solely attributed to him.

It is chronicled Otis was concerned with not only the steep taxes levied on the production and distribution of all colonial commercial goods, but chiefly the Writs of Assistance act, and in a stunning oration at Boston’s old state house, he railed against the enabling of British troops to enter any colonist’s home without ample reason given or advance notice. And, perhaps what was most paramount, Otis pointed out, the British could choose to legally act with consent of the British crown, but without beforehand presenting evidence of probable cause.

Although history texts portray Otis as a firebrand, in reality, he was viewed by his contemporaries as a political moderate, even while engaged in oral protest at the particulars of British colonial law and taxation. Nonetheless, despite their documented loyalty to the British crown and conservative political stance, history texts persist in accentuating Otis and his colleague Sam Adams were key revolutionary figures that served to stoke the fires of political and colonial antagonisms against the British crown prior to the Boston Massacre of 1770.

Could it be, that Otis’s remarks, were only made to seem historically ‘revolutionary’ by virtue of having been culled from a more moderately articulated context? Further examination of the verbatim text of his speeches culled from the online archives of the Boston pubic library indicate this is more than likely so. Amidst all the growing revolutionary fervor culminating in the violent confrontation between colonists and British troops, it seems stunning to have learned of the paucity of documented testimony from colonists not numbered among the Bostonian elite of Otis, Adams, and others. It is this omission which deprives the latter day student of history a complete historical picture, and to what true frequency and number the genuine voices of working class colonists were actually being raised against the colonial status quo then established by the British.

After all, prominent figures such as Adams and Otis were men of business, and therefore not being numbered among the common hoi polloi, would logically have been the most beleaguered by the legal but unlawful colonial taxation measures set down by the British crown and parliament. Unlike these prominent men, the common Bostonian colonist did not own property or businesses, and would be a great deal less likely to feel any financial burden exacted upon them from such legal measures, if they were largely aware of them at all. Furthermore, from the standpoint of objectivity, it is truly stunning to observe the limited parameters and lack of expanded scope in terms of historical analysis falling outside the accepted mainstream perspective provided by history texts with regard to the years prior to and during the alleged American revolution.

In truth, we are merely told prominent Bostonian and leader of the Sons of Liberty Samuel Adams, Temple bar attorney and future American president John Adams, and Otis, a colleague in the legal profession, were definitive revolutionary figures, when a clear eyed examination of their own published texts and private papers reflects they privately held a much more moderate political position, and were more loyal to the British crown than the modern American citizen is led to assume.

Before examining the roles played by both John and Samuel Adams, and high degree mason Paul Revere in the unfolding and aftermath of the event known to history as the Boston Massacre, a thorough analysis of the alleged victims at the hands of British troops shall prove most interesting.

Victims of the Boston Massacre

It is important to point out that before the arrival of the 1770’s, newspapers, not only in Boston, but in other major colonial cities, had already begun in attempting to stir up revolutionary fervor among the colonists. If one should feel so inclined as to examine some of the remnants of these emotionally charged accounts published in eighteenth century periodicals, immediately noticeable is the familiarity of the rhetoric as compared to that of the 21st century propaganda promulgated during the run-up to America’s military embroilment in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One supposes the old adage is true in this case; the more things change the more they remain the same. The ruling elite families have always known, that in order to legitimize and profit from their legalized staging of organized revolutionary conflicts, the support of the people, whether genuine or manufactured, must first be carefully and assiduously cultivated. One shall recall – detailed in part II of this series of articles – Ben Franklin’s newspaper business established in Philadelphia as a youth, and his deep involvement with intelligence activities and European royal court intrigues, which, by now, surely no one regards as anything remotely resembling historical coincidence.

With anti-British propaganda sanctioned by British counter-intelligence agent Franklin splashed across the headlines of colonial periodicals, considerable efforts were made to convince the colonists to boycott the purchase of imported British goods. This effort, contrary to the claims of mainstream historical texts, proved relatively futile, as commercial trade between the colonies, Britain, and Europe in general, went on lacking significant disruption.

However, knowing that commercial trade represented the bread and butter, as it were, of the ruling elite thirteen families, those of aristocratic nobility posing as America’s founding fathers quickly came to the stark realization, in order to achieve their goal of renegotiating more favorable legal terms and conditions with the British crown regarding land ownership and taxes levied on the trade of commercial goods, a disastrous event that could precipitate and catalyze the appearance of violent revolution had to be engineered to get their fellow aristocratic elites in the London Crown Temple banking cartel to come to the bargaining table.

And just as the manufacture of the 9/11 terrorist event in modern times more than helped to rouse the masses from their apathetic slumber, it was thought an event such as the Boston Massacre would more than fit the bill in antagonizing a revolutionary emotional tenor on the part of the colonists against the British. As is characteristic in the execution of all psychological operations, a more than subtle implementation of incremental predictive programming became necessary. On February 22, 1770, precisely 13 days before the Massacre event, it is historically alleged eleven-year old Christopher Cider was shot and killed by a Bostonian British loyalist.

Loyal visitors will take note of the obvious numerology coding of this event, but for the sake of thorough exercise, here is the breakdown: The date of 22 (masonic master builder) + 11(masonic masters apprentice) = 33 +( C) =3/pythagorean gematria/(ristopher, or risen Christ consciousness)+(C)=3/(ider, the dyer’s hand is cast ) =33(masonic master teacher)+33=66, or 12/21 in the mirror’s reflection of duality, or 777(joker code/angelic and spiritual transformation).

Just prior to the event of the massacre, history texts claim the number of occupying British troops had significantly increased in the Massachusetts Bay colony, and it is generally estimated there were four British soldiers on the streets of colonial Boston to every one colonist. From an overview perspective of American history, this sort of escalation of Martial Law seems to always accompany the ongoing utilization of psychological operations in stimulating and manufacturing political change.

To borrow a phrase from modern vernacular, the pump was being primed for what would appear to the hoi polloi as a genuine revolution. It also appears – as is still the case today – that crisis actors were utilized to pull off what was to be subsequently propagandized as the Boston Massacre. On what was said to be the snowy afternoon of March the fifth, 1770 (a date which all loyal readers of should recognize by now as loaded with the requisite numerology coding), what appeared to be a confrontation brewing between a lone and youthful British sentry and a small group of harassing colonists on the corner of King Street, near the old Boston state house, soon allegedly degenerated into horrific frenzy.

What history fails to document, is that this location happened to be well within sight of Boston’s first masonic meeting place, Saint John’s lodge, and that both Samuel and John Adams, as well Paul Revere, individuals directly or indirectly involved in the events surrounding what came to be known to American history as the Boston Massacre, were high degree members in good standing.

Although, as usual, several historical accounts contradict one another, eight (Saturn, or aces and eights, indicating the involvement of masonic intelligence) of the young British sentry’s comrades soon came to his aid in helping to diffuse the escalation of hostilities. When the harassing colonists failed to disperse, the Captain of the British command allegedly ordered his infantry men to fire upon the gathered crowd of colonists, killing three, and wounding three others (33, highest degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry and number of British soldiers (8) + number of dead and wounded (6) = 14, or 77, double lightning charges of Lucifer).

As a mere notice to any of those still scoffing about the overwhelming presence of historical numerology, does one really find it coincidental the same numbers keep popping up in the details of every single mainstream historical account examined, even centuries apart? If by chance anyone still finds this coincidental, then one has some swamp land real estate in Florida to sell you, along with a discount for a bridge in Brooklyn thrown in for good measure.

But, the real fun began when one endeavored to take a closer look at the alleged victims of this ‘massacre’. Perusing the various historical documentations of this event, virtually all seem to leave a very distinct impression all six of the victims died on the fifth of March due to British musket fire. Upon further and meticulous examination, this turns out not to be the case. In fact, the obituaries of the alleged casualties were published in the local newspaper on the 12th of March (12, or 777), complete with depictions of sarcophagi embossed with the symbol of the skull and crossbones (Skull and Bones used by East India Tea company before adopted by the infamous Yale fraternity), and the scythe (7, or zayin mind weapon from the Kabbalah tree of life) normally associated with the classic image of the grim reaper.

The first of the victims listed was Sam Maverick, 17, (zayin mind weapon), along with James Caldwell, also 17 (making for double seven). The newspaper accounts claimed Maverick, after suffering fatal wounds from British muskets at point blank range, somehow made it home to die in his mother’s arms, and Christopher Monk, yet another victim listed, somehow survived his mortal wounds and lived until 1780. John Clarke, although listed as a victim, in fact recovered from his ‘mortal’ wounds to die several years later. In the period periodical’s obituary, the depiction of Maverick’s tombstone is engraved with a ‘G'(masonic G placed in the center of the order’s symbolic square and compass).

Starting to see a curious trend here folks?

And then, there is the more than curious case of young African-American Boston Massacre victim Crispus Attucks. When one ran the young victim’s name through a prominent online gematria calculator, to say the least some very interesting results were availed. For example, in Jewish gematria, Crispus Attucks sums to thirteen-ninety-one, or 23 (2 three’s, or 33 again folks). In English gematria, the name sums to Hermes Trismegistus. Hermes, as occult mythological legend would have it, is the author of a sacred magical and astrological text called the Emerald Tablet, purportedly written around the ninth century.

Turns out, the occult philosophies articulated in the Emerald Tablet are held in high regard by high degree masons of legendary standing within the order, including Albert Pike, Manly P. Hall,  and John Mackey. More curious still, when Crispus Attucks was summed in simple gematria, the stunning result was as follows: HE IS THE DECEIVER.

Another problematic issue with regard to Attucks are the anomalies evident in the report issued shortly after an autopsy was alleged to have been conducted on the 22nd of March (2+2=4 X 3rd month= 12 or 21 flipped/duality for 777). The sworn report of Dr. Benjamin Church Jr., claimed that “two musket balls passed obliquely downward” through the victim’s body, implying the charges had entered at an odd slant.

This seems curious, given historical accounts claim the British infantry men had fired from close quarters, while the report seems to imply the musket charges had entered the victim’s body from guns positioned at a distance and shooting in a downward direction as if from an elevation. Furthermore, given that historical accounts all agree the Boston Massacre had taken place in the late evening hours, how is it, given that during the eighteenth century there were no electric lamps to light the streets, the British could have even possessed a clear ocular path to view a target? Consulting further concerning the mechanics of the rifle musket and standard military battle operations of eighteenth century British infantry, it became clear that the single loading musket, comparative to modern automatic loading infantry weapons, would not have served as a very efficient killing machine, especially amidst the riotous conditions historically described during the cold and frosty night of March 5, 1770.

The rather involved procedural process to efficiently load a single charge into the standard military issue musket and adequately prepare it, in the parlance of the average British soldier, to stand and deliver, took perhaps more than a few seconds, and in the cold and wet of the snowy New England climate could, even for a professionally trained and battle tested British infantryman, have occupied an even longer duration.

Clearly, from a better understanding of standard eighteenth century rules of infantry engagement, and in such close quarters to a threatening enemy’s battle lines, it is more likely when faced with a frenzied mob, the British would not have bothered in taking time to load, fire, and reload their muskets, but would have most likely opted to utilize the brandished bayonets from the ends of their rifle barrels to keep the charging colonists at bay.

Paul Revere and his iconic engraving

Twenty-four days after the massacre, a color flier depicting the tragic events on King Street, produced from a copper engraving created by famous American revolutionary figure and high degree Freemason Paul Revere, was quickly circulated throughout Boston and neighboring colonies.

There is only one problem with the story behind this legendary depiction of the Boston Massacre, which later became an historically iconic image.

The original black and white copper engraving was created by Boston artist, Henry Pelham. The iconic image of the Boston Massacre best known to posterity was merely a colorized version credited to the creation of the renowned Freemason Paul Revere. Revere’s colorized copper engraving was what was used as a printing template from which scores of fliers were reproduced and distributed throughout the colonies.

But, this is where the difficulty comes into play.

In the eighteenth century, while the printing process had been greatly streamlined, the expert rendering of detailed and engraved color images upon copper plates was still an incredibly long and arduous task, and it is estimated a work of such detail as observed in Revere’s iconic rendering of the Boston Massacre, considering the total elapsed time it would have taken to complete from the initial idea to artistic conception, expert accounts indicate the final execution of a feasible colored copper plate worthy of print reproduction would have taken a bit longer than 24 days – the time elapsed from the date of the event on March 5th, to the 29th when the fliers were reproduced from Revere’s completed engraving. I’m certain it shouldn’t take one long to contemplate the implications of the point being made here. Could it be, Revere and his fellow masons gathering at Saint John’s lodge had foreknowledge of the event, enough time to create a print worthy copper plate engraving that would appear to posterity as iconic?

Future US president John Adams acted as legal defense for the indicted British

Right around the corner from the King Street location of the Boston Massacre event were the law offices of John Adams, attorney called to the Temple bar. Adams agreed to become the official defense council to the eight indicted British soldiers. Here too, historical accounts differ as to how it was Adams came to be the soldiers legal council. Suffice it to say, it is clear while Adams was dickering around in a show trial no doubt performed for the benefit of riled colonists, his revolutionary colleague and fellow Freemason brother Sam Adams, as head of the colonial dissidents dubbed Sons of Liberty, was charged with playing his role in a Hegelian political dialectic, denouncing the murderous treachery of the British soldiers. But this is how the high degree masonic orders always operate folks, playing both sides and staying true to the tenets of philosophical duality – creating systematic order out of controlled chaos. The trial ended as planned, with many (in some accounts two of the eight soldiers were convicted but later released) of the indicted soldiers, along with the captain of their command all acquitted of any felonious charges. This served the purpose of appearing to serve justice on the one hand, while on the other extreme the acquittals stoked the flash brush fires of further revolutionary hatred towards the British crown.




The video displayed above features a lecture given by a local Boston historian concerning the Boston Massacre event. What struck one immediately was the subtle utilization of Neural Linguistic Programming. Throughout the course of her lecture, it becomes immediately evident that although the lecturer is nonetheless presenting an alternative narrative somewhat differing from the usual mainstream perspective, she is careful to frame the crux of her theme within certain limited parameters so that the audience is led to never question the obvious contradictory elements inherent in the story of the Boston Massacre.

In legal parlance, this is called leading the witness, a surefire technique in setting up a jury to look at only the ‘facts’ the prosecuting attorney wishes for the assembled panel to consider before coming to the identical and preferred conclusion the council’s pre-established argument warrants. Using this technique effectively, it becomes quite clear she has the audience right where she wants them – to only consider that although the founding fathers may have chosen to propagandize what mainstream historians claim via consensus occurred on March 5, 1770, they will come away from the lecture with the image of Paul Revere’s iconic but bloody rendering firmly placed and forever immovable in their minds.


24 thoughts on “America’s war for independence: Revolution or hoax? (Part IV)

  1. another great article. i hav3 a question though….you often use the word “one” when referencing both the writer and the reader….why?

  2. another great article. i hav3 a question though….you often use the word “one”….sometimes to mean self-referential and at others to mean the reader. i’ve never seen that before. WHY?

    1. Thank you for your continued interest in Newsspell. To satisfy your curiosity, ‘one’ is an impersonal pronoun which can be used as a third person singular pronoun or first or second-person reference depending upon context of verb agreement. It is utilized more commonly in Europe or Britain, which would account for your apparent unfamiliarity-presuming, of course, you are American.

  3. Great stuff. I hope next year brings a lot of success for your work and that more people read this information!

    You have shown how the numbers represent the mind structures being built, what part do the coded names play? Is the subconscious mind able to decipher the various meanings contained and perhaps become influenced by them? Or is it just a way for the initiates to communicate with each other?

    1. I believe the coded names do serve a dual purpose, in that they are created to play upon the subconscious and act as a coded signal to fellow high degree masons. With especial regard to Crispus Attucks – and this is merely speculation – but I have an intuition his character may have been Alexander Hamilton, who in reality was dark complexioned due to the fact his mother hailed from the West Indies (his father was a prominent Jewish banker connected to the Crown Temple).

      1. Hamilton is a name that crops up a lot. We currently have an F1 World Champion Lewis Hamilton who has a ‘fairytale’ backstory. Most people who get anywhere in F1 are from very wealthy families but, like some of the American hero’s you mention, Lewis made it from the humblest of beginnings with help from some generous benefactors at racing company MacLaren. His career is littered with outrageous good fortune and his social life is spent with Bieber, Nicole Scherzinger et al.

      2. Although not familiar with the sport of F1, it seems likely this particular celebrity may be like all the others, in that while acting under a concocted biography accentuating humble beginnings, may have been a child reared in elite family circles and upon reaching adulthood charged with playing a role of celebrity renown.

      3. A google search has confirmed that Lewis Hamilton has West Indian roots and is also a fan of the Boston Braves!

      4. That is rather intriguing, although I believe the Braves – assuming this is a reference to professional American baseball – are now a franchise centered in Atlanta. I would suggest a genealogical investigation may determine as to whether or not his family roots trace back to the American founding father, Alexander.

      5. Alexander Hamilton was also a sellout as Treasury Secretary. During the 1792 Crash, he oversaw one of the America’s first taxpayer bailouts to its robber barons, which was in response to unfettered market speculation and price fixing by unscrupulous money wizards like William Duer (who also worked in the Treasury Department) and by banking institutions like the First Bank of the United States, which was the brainchild of Hamilton’s. Duer was later incarcerated for evading his creditors because he couldn’t pay off his debts, although that’s highly questionable since (a) he was one of the people on the receiving-end of the bailout, and (b) he was an insider, so they would’ve never touched him.

        Problem, Reaction, Solution. They never miss to profit off of a manufactured crisis from ALL angles. Plus, such chaos serves as a distraction to the masses from the their “leaders” stabbing them behind their backs with such rapacious immorality.

      6. Interestingly, Hamilton was sworn in as America’s first Secretary of the Treasury on September 11th, 1789, nine days after the Treasury was created (September 2nd, 1789). September 2001 would’ve marked the 211th anniversary of the institution. They always love to rubber-stamp their symbols on everything they do.

        “Alexander Hamilton took the oath of office as the first secretary of the treasury on September 11, 1789. Hamilton had served as George Washington’s aide-de-camp during the Revolution and was of great importance in the ratification of the Constitution. Because of his financial and managerial acumen, Hamilton was a logical choice for solving the problem of the new nation’s heavy war debt. Hamilton’s first official act was to submit a report to Congress in which he laid the foundation for the nation’s financial health.”

        Conveniently, there’s also a scheme coming out of the Justice Department that receives funding from the Treasury, which, of course, comes from the portion of the federal taxes we pay to their extortion agency, the IRS. Known as the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, it doles out approx. $7 billion dollars to the relations of the “deceased” 9/11 casualties. That’s around $59 per taxpayer (debt slave), according to my calculations.

        And if you read between the lines of the Federal Registrar’s saccharine description of this scam, they admit that there’s no proper congressional oversight over how the monies are appropriated, thereby inadvertently admitting that chances of fraud are higher. Also, keep in mind that just like the vaccine injury compensation programs under the U.S. Vaccine Court, this fund was established “in exchange for their agreement not to sue the airline corporations involved” (e.g. American Airlines) – an industry which, like Big Pharma, also receives public assistance through bailouts, subsidies, and lucrative contracts with federal agencies, who in turn are ran by politicians that own stocks in the industry. This is another case of privatizing wealth for the few and socializing cost for everybody else.

        Federal Awards for American Airlines – USA Spending:

        There were also instances of fraud detected, such as one man being caught and convicted for embezzling almost a million dollars from the scheme that was intended for his client, a “victim’s” relative, although since the entire 9/11 story, as presented by these thieves, is a lie, it can be argued that the same is true for almost all of the claims. And there are more examples that follow.

        Additional examples:

        But $7 billion is chum change compared to the trillions stolen for their fake “War on Terror” campaign, so it’s basically the tip of the iceberg of legalized extortion. This is the nature of how all “governments” operate as practically for-profit corporations that appear as non-profits bound to “public service”. BTW, the U.S. Treasury has a DNB webpage, too, which is incredibly appropriate.

  4. While doing further research on the American and French revolutions, I discovered that Axel von Fersen/Edward Weld also portrayed John Hancock, one of America’s “Founding Fathers” who played a key role in the “American Revolution”. He is most famous for his stylized signature on the Declaration of Independence, which was mostly a list of grievances against the British government for their perceived abuse of power and corruption in the colonies.

    John Hancock:

    Axel von Fersen:

    Edward Weld:

    It’s been said that Hancock passed away a week before “Marie-Antoinette” was “beheaded” by the French revolutionaries for high treason. Convenient timing, I think you’ll admit.

    Hancock also played some part in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre hoax. He led a committee that demanded the removal of British troops from his state. This further proves what I said previously: that “Fersen/Weld/Hancock” was sent into the colonies to control the opposition against ‘The Crown’ in London and to manufacture events that would lead to America’s fake independence from Britain.

    “The British troops remained, however, and tensions between soldiers and civilians eventually resulted in the killing of five civilians in the Boston Massacre of March 1770. Hancock was not involved in the incident, but afterwards he led a committee to demand the removal of the troops. Meeting with Bernard’s successor, Governor Thomas Hutchinson, and the British officer in command, Colonel William Dalrymple, Hancock claimed that there were 10,000 armed colonists ready to march into Boston if the troops did not leave.[84][85] Hutchinson knew that Hancock was bluffing, but the soldiers were in a precarious position when garrisoned within the town, and so Dalrymple agreed to remove both regiments to Castle William.[84] Hancock was celebrated as a hero for his role in getting the troops withdrawn.[86][85] His reelection to the Massachusetts House in May was nearly unanimous.[87][88]”

    Shortly after, Fersen went to America to fight in the “War of Independence”.

    “On 4 May 1780, von Fersen secured the position of aide-de-camp to General Rochambeau and sailed from the port of Brest. Nearly two months later, his ship made anchor at Narragansett Bay in Newport, Rhode Island, where the French made camp until June of the next year. In mid-September 1780, von Fersen set off as part of Rochambeau’s suite to meet the American General, George Washington, in Hartford, Connecticut. Washington’s retinue included the young Alexander Hamilton, General Henry Knox and the Marquis de Lafayette.”


    In the same section, he also made an interesting prediction about one of the southern states (Virginia) seceding from the Union “due to the strain of “aristocracy” prevalent” in the south. During the Civil War, Virginia was one of the eastern states that seceded from the United States and joined the American Confederacy. They always plan these psyops well in advance, as you know well.

    “… Anticipating the American Civil War nearly 80 years later, von Fersen remarked that he wouldn’t be surprised to see Virginia separate herself from the rest of the states at some point due to the strain of “aristocracy” prevalent there as opposed to the northern states.”

    1. Their handwriting samples also match. When one studies John Hancock’s writing style, it becomes immediately apparent that he was disguising his handwriting, whereas Axel von Fersen’s writing style is more natural and not forced. Some people change how they write so as to avoid detection.

      Axel von Fersen:

      John Hancock:

      Their signatures:

      Questioned Document – Disguised Writing:

      1. Yes, indeed, upon further examination, both hand writing samples do match. This truly is a fantastic discovery, one which deserves delving into much further.

    1. Rest assured, that is not due to anything on my end. I did receive and respond to your previous comment – before now – regarding the John Hancock handwriting analysis. I can say, with some degree of certainty – due to the controversial nature of its published content – this site is under surveillance and its statistics/algorithms – regarding views, likes, comments, subscriber notifications, etc. etc. – have been routinely manipulated.

      1. Thanks for replying. Yes, it appears as though the censors don’t like to have people see my recent findings on Hancock and von Fersen, which completely exposes once again that the American and French revolutions were Masonic hoaxes. I gladly appreciate you clarifying the situation.

      2. I can confirm, you’re handwriting analysis checks out. I am convinced, more than ever, most of America’s “founding fathers” were not only agents (esquires) called to the bar at the Crown Temple in the City of London (Alexander Hamilton, for example), the more renowned among them were also European high nobility and, in some cases, even royalty.

      3. The fact there are attempts to censor the information at this site – along with your own findings published in its comment section – and impede or even to mitigate its wider exposure are, admittedly, validation enough, we’re both over the target while proceeding to bomb it to smithereens.

  5. And, one of the key goals of the “Founding Fathers”, of course, was the establishment of a powerful central government, which was on the table as early as 1754, the year the French and Indian war broke out. There were already talks amongst colonial politicians and the British about establishing a central governing body in the thirteen colonies which would strengthen British rule in the West Indies (America). The Articles of Confederation was getting in the way of their “Great Work”, so it had to be scrapped and superseded by the U.S. Constitution, which established a federal government similar to the one in the Albany Plan and which is under the clandestine control of ‘The Crown’ in the City of London Corporation.

    “The Albany Plan of Union was a plan to place the British North American colonies under a more centralized government. On July 10, 1754, representatives from seven of the British North American colonies adopted the plan. Although never carried out, the Albany Plan was the first important proposal to conceive of the colonies as a collective whole united under one government.

    …. Prior to the Albany Congress, a number of intellectuals and government officials had formulated and published several tentative plans for centralizing the colonial governments of North America. Imperial officials saw the advantages of bringing the colonies under closer authority and supervision, while colonists saw the need to organize and defend common interests. One figure of emerging prominence among this group of intellectuals was Pennsylvanian Benjamin Franklin. Earlier, Franklin had written to friends and colleagues proposing a plan of voluntary union for the colonies. …. The Pennsylvania government appointed Franklin as a commissioner to the Congress, and on his way, Franklin wrote to several New York commissioners outlining ‘short hints towards a scheme for uniting the Northern Colonies’ by means of an act of the British Parliament.

    …. The colonial governments were to select members of a “Grand Council,” while the British Government would appoint a “president General.” Together, these two branches of the unified government would regulate colonial-Indian relations and also resolve territorial disputes between the colonies. Acknowledging the tendency of royal colonial governors to override colonial legislatures and pursue unpopular policies, the Albany Plan gave the Grand Council greater relative authority. The plan also allowed the new government to levy taxes for its own support.

    …. The Albany Plan was not conceived out of a desire to secure independence from Great Britain. Many colonial commissioners actually wished to increase imperial authority in the colonies. ….”

    “It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general government may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within and under which government each colony may retain its present constitution, except in the particulars wherein a change may be directed by the said act, as hereafter follows.

    That the said general government be administered by a President-General, to be appointed and supported by the crown; and a Grand Council, to be chosen by the representatives of the people of the several Colonies met in their respective assemblies.

    …. 10. That the President-General, with the advice of the Grand Council, hold or direct all Indian treaties, in which the general interest of the Colonies may be concerned; and make peace or declare war with Indian nations.

    That they make such laws as they judge necessary for regulating all Indian trade.
    That they make all purchases from Indians, for the crown, of lands not now within the bounds of particular Colonies, or that shall not be within their bounds when some of them are reduced to more convenient dimensions.
    That they make new settlements on such purchases, by granting lands in the King’s name, reserving a quitrent to the crown for the use of the general treasury.

    …. 16. That for these purposes they have power to make laws, and lay and levy such general duties, imposts, or taxes, as to them shall appear most equal and just …. , and such as may be collected with the least inconvenience to the people; rather discouraging luxury, than loading industry with unnecessary burdens. (Taxation without representation, anyone?)

    That they may appoint a General Treasurer and Particular Treasurer in each government when necessary; and, from time to time, may order the sums in the treasuries of each government into the general treasury; or draw on them for special payments, as they find most convenient.

    …. 21. That the laws made by them for the purposes aforesaid shall not be repugnant, but, as near as may be, agreeable to the laws of England, and shall be transmitted to the King in Council for approbation, as soon as may be after their passing; and if not disapproved within three years after presentation, to remain in force.

    That, in case of the death of the President-General, the Speaker of the Grand Council for the time being shall succeed, and be vested with the same powers and authorities, to continue till the King’s pleasure be known.”

    1. As we’ve uncovered previously, George Washington was “fighting” in the Seven Years War while negotiations for the establishment of a central government in the colonies was being held between the colonial officials and the British. Some attribute the start of the war to Washington. As we all know, just like the American and French revolutions and wars that followed, that conflict was another massive hoax, engineered to set the stage for the fake “War of Independence” and the emergence of the United States, and possibly to distract the American people from the shady deals that were made behind their back by their “elected” leaders such as the Albany Plan of Union.

Leave a Reply