Admittedly, as a novelist and creative artist who had once admired the considerable accomplishments of Alfred Hitchcock, one approached the subject of this installment with initial reluctance.
However, one cannot deny the implications of one’s investigations. And, considering what shall be revealed, the implications are indeed, of enormous proportions. One also cannot allow their selfish sense of betrayal, however palpable, to stand as an impenetrable garrison to discovering the truth about the world at large. As the author and his loyal readers are discovering, this world, and everything in it, are filled with deep and willful deceptions.
Alfred Hitchcock has been almost universally lauded among filmmakers as a masterful creator of indelible images, and a maestro of cinematic composition.
While it may seem inconceivable to those who still regard Hitchcock with the highest esteem, and perhaps even consider his reputation to be unimpeachable, no doubt they will loathe and even scorn the idea of the master thrown headlong from the dizzying heights of his lofty pedestal.
Painful as this terrible notion may be, one shall attempt to do just that.
Stay tuned, folks.
The ruling elite’s historical stenographers like nothing more than to drop pertinent clues into the biographies of their mythical characters.
One believes the purpose of this may be two-fold.
Primarily, it may be due to their insatiable penchant for self-indulgence, a way of flaunting, through inherent and insufferable arrogance, their sense of fatuous superiority, in the way high level criminals cannot resist leaving their signature mark behind, as if to revel in their own grand sense of elite inscrutability and legal untouchability.
Secondarily, it may be because, in some perverse sense, they wish to gauge which of those among the unwashed masses – however miniscule the percentage – possess some semblance of capability to detect evidence of their criminal activity, so that they might, in future, be able to more completely streamline the cynical calculations of their pernicious psychological operations or perhaps just as importantly, identify and more accurately target genuine political dissidents.
Whatever the case, tucked within the biography of legendary cinema auteur Alfred Hitchcock, exists such pertinent and revealing clues, linking the character’s host actor to a European royal bloodline.
Once one was able to identify the host actor portrayed the Hitchcock character, more clues quickly surfaced, and in observing the character performing in several interviews from decades past, culled both from radio and television broadcasts, it became terribly obvious Hitchcock’s host actor positively brimmed with a veritable storehouse of clues, almost as if he were delighting in giving his own game away.
When viewed in retrospect, this seems almost comical, as if the host actor endeavored to grandly satirize the very characterization he had been scripted to play. Then again, one thought, Hitchcock’s performances appeared to represent the elite’s method of operation on public display – to deliberately mock the overly trusting and star struck innocence of the public while hiding behind a well-crafted mask.
In the case of Hitchcock’s host actor, however, he may become disappointed, perhaps even irate, to discover his mask wasn’t crafted quite well enough.
One shall notice that the video, displayed above, features a single still image of Hitchcock standing before what appears to be a series of brick pillars (bricks and pillars, that of Boaz and Jachim, are deeply symbolic to the higher ranks of the Brotherhood of Freemasonry) and that while his left eye is shaded in dark shadow, his right has been made wholly visible by a splash of white light reflected off the corresponding portion of his face.
As alluded to before, this is symbolic of Lucifer, or the sun, which is the Jesuit order’s secret object of worship, through which comes the light of the world. If one listens closely to the biographical details divulged by the character of Hitchcock, he claims to have begun his movie making career in Germany, and before that, worked as a story board and art title creator during the silent film era.
The former biographical detail is quite telltale, in that it reveals, in plain sight, not only the identity of the host actor, but as well leaves an indication of his true origin and an indication of the royal family to which he belongs.
Germany is the residence of the royal house of von Furstenberg, historically near the mouth of the Danube river. The house of von Furstenberg is one of the oldest, richest, and grandest in all of Europe, and has genealogical relations with not only the royal and noble houses of Lichtenstein, Luxemburg and Spain, but also with the royal family of Britain. Loyal readers may recall reading of the House of von Furstenberg in past installments, and their connection with the names of related royal houses has been cited before, particularly in relation to some of the biggest stars of Hollywood and the music industry acting under famous pseudonyms (See: Actors in history’s grand stage play part III)
Other significant details to listen for occur when the character of Hitchcock reveals that he was a devotee of the theater from the age of sixteen (7/zayin Kabbalah mind weapon), and then describes his experience with the creation of art titles for silent film projects:
“They were rather naïve affairs when I look back on them. You know, the title would say John was leading a very fast life, and I would draw a candle with a flame at both ends beneath.”
The reference to the candle and the flame holds great significance in the craft of Freemasonry, for both are believed to be valuable tools in the process of occult divination. Per documented lore of witchcraft, Ceromancy is one of the world’s most ancient forms of divination, and it is believed by most practitioners that starring at a flame and viewing the wax drippings is a telltale method to determine as to whether or not one’s spell is working effectively.
Perhaps this is the true significance of the many candlelight vigils televised in the wake of most mass casualty simulations?
Nevertheless, folks, it appears Mr. Hitchcock’s spell upon the world has truly worked magical wonders – that is, until now.
Upon performing research for another installment, published some time ago and having to do with the Sandy Hook and Dunblane massacre events, one happened to have encountered an interview conducted by an Australian television network with John Avery, the former defense attorney in the case of the alleged Port Arthur massacre.
Not only, did one happen to notice facial similarities with that of the Hitchcock character, but the tone and timbre of Avery’s voice possessed stunning similarities with the filmmaking icon, excluding, of course, what seemed his obvious attempt in simulating an Australian accent.
Port Arthur massacre defense attorney, John Avery:
Voice analysis comparison between Avery and Hitchcock stunningly reveals that, indeed, both characters have likely been portrayed by the same host actor. However, one shall not allow the divulgence of that information to deter loyal readers from arriving at their own definitive conclusions.
Suffice to say, in addition to this, there seem to exist even more compelling connections between Hitchcock and other latter day psychological operations that were eerily similar to the Port Arthur simulated mass casualty event. It is alleged, that after Avery had determined the absolute “guilt” of his client, Australian public officials decided that a public trial would have been tantamount to an exercise in futility.
If anything, this particular conclusion arrived at by Australian public officials, seems to have been all too convenient, and served no other purpose than to erect yet another veil to significantly obscure the fact the Port Arthur event was in fact a simulation, and not actual.
Further, it is alleged Avery went on to embezzle millions in funds from the partnership of his law firm to purchase several rare and expensive art works, and was himself summarily tried, convicted, and sentenced to four years in prison. This too, seems to have been concocted to conceal the fact Avery was not a legitimate litigator, but an actor simulating the role of an attorney in defense of a client sold to the public as a mental incompetent who, contradictorily enough, was competent enough to accurately fire an automatic weapon and dispense mass casualties, a deliberate fraud serving as yet another media derived smokescreen.
Could it be – Hitchcock’s greatest directorial cinematic accomplishments may have appeared through mediums other than just Hollywood’s golden era silver screen?
Within this video example displayed below, one shall find a most interesting snippet concerning Hitchcock’s character and his explanation of the concept of fear as it relates to his method of filmmaking operation. If one pays close attention and dares contemplate what has been revealed, one may just discover a candid glimpse into the mindset of the ruling elites, and how the concept of cinema is used as a psychological entrainment and conditioning tool in the guise of “entertainment.” Starting at approximately 17:46, and moving forward until well passed the video’s twenty-five minute mark, Hitchcock articulately describes how images can be continually and skillfully manipulated to formulate human consciousness and perception:
While one is listening closely to what Hitchcock’s character reveals, and putting it into the context of the slew of psychological operations presented to the Western world over the course of the past several decades, if one focuses their attention on Hitchcock’s face, one shall notice the heavy application of facial stippling and how the studio overhead lights accentuate this with their odd reflection glaring off the crown of his pallid pate. Notice too, how artificial the texture of his skin appears, particularly at not only the crown of Hitchcock’s bulbous head, but the globs of excess and sagging skin, obscuring any traces of a discernable neck. Noteworthy too – Hitchcock’s mannerisms and deadpan demeanor during this interview with American talk show host Dick Cavett seem studied and calculated, the telltale hallmarks of a seasoned actor portraying a starring role.
Could it be – Hitchcock was a costumed character presented to the unsuspecting and naïve masses secretly portrayed by a much younger man than the concocted biographies indicated, a younger man portraying a much older character for the purpose of carrying on a grand charade, yet another royal actor wearing a convincing mask?
Of course, deeper examination of 1996’s Port Arthur massacre revealed the usual anomalies regarding the alleged victims – some proved to have been loan closeted or stolen identities affixed to victim simulations, the very same telltale details that upon further investigation into the Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, Aurora, Dunblane, and Columbine events, became increasingly and glaringly evident. Added to that, and perhaps, not so coincidentally, the Port Arthur event took place in a location dubbed New Town – sound familiar, folks?
That particular moniker seems to hold some sort of occult significance, as it has not so coincidentally appeared in connection with Sandy Hook, as well several other simulated events reported by both the corporate, mainstream and so-called alternative media (See: The terrorists are here at home/Columbine and Sandy hook hoax connections)
During the BBC interview featured above, Hitchcock also informs, that after attending the royal arts academy in London, he became employed by an advertising agency before finally beginning his illustrious career in the film industry. These sorts of details have been observed before regarding the biography of another iconic character who was a relative contemporary of Hitchcock’s – renowned British stage and screen actor, the late Sir Alec Guinness (See: Hollywood Black Dahlia murder finally solved).
Advertising agencies and other such concerns have often been found to exist as fronts and or information gathering houses for the covert activities of the international intelligence octopus.
Upon further scrutiny, the royal arts academies of Britain and Europe have also proven to be the training grounds for the offspring of either the rich and the powerful, and for those with connections to royalty or to those bestowed royal titles. For certain, those born into the lower ranks of the common working classes are never given the opportunity to attend arts academies established by and for royalty, the entitled nobility or the rich and the powerful.
Hitchcock goes to Hollywood
Just as the second world conflict was escalating, and after achieving some measure of success in Britain, Hitchcock was wooed to Hollywood by David O. Selznick, one of the wartime era’s most noted film producers. One year before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1940, Hitchcock directed Rebecca, starring Lawrence Olivier, a film that went on to garner eleven Academy Awards, and a film that featured Mrs. Danvers, the head housekeeper of her master’s estate, Manderley House.
One of the era’s most memorable and enduring Hollywood characters, Danvers attempts to persuade her master’s new wife to commit suicide by jumping out of a window, and later, towards the end of the film, Danvers sets the property completely aflame and then mysteriously absconds and disappears. In fact, if one observes the scene in question from Rebecca closely, it seems to represent an eerie portent of a pyromaniacal event occurring fifty-three years later at Waco, Texas (3 5’s=symbolic tetragrammaton/masonic triangle of angelic transformation):
Regarding Selznick’s company, Selznick International Pictures, the studio that not only produced, financed, and distributed Hitchcock’s Rebecca, but several other award winning films during the golden era of Hollywood, including Gone with the Wind, A Star is Born, and Spellbound, there is a royal connection, and between Hitchcock, Waco, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Port Arthur, and the JFK assassination events. Selznick International Pictures was founded in 1935, after Selznick left Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, which at that time was the premiere filmmaking studio in all Hollywood.
It is very well possible, due to the fact the persona of Hitchcock was merely a character portrayed by a young royal figure whose family held controlling interest over Selznick’s company, that Selznick, serving as general manager of the company’s day to day operations and head of the board of directors, along with the highly skilled technicians he employed, were the parties actually responsible for the filming, direction, and hands-on production, while “Hitchcock” was merely operating as an archetypical and legendary front man meticulously created to sell the projects to the general public – serving in a similar capacity as Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, representing the interests of Facebook and Microsoft as chief spokespersons and public relations agents.
In 1957, after producing a spate of award winning and even iconic films, Selznick’s studio would become part of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz’s company – Desilu Productions.
Loyal readers may recall that Desilu Productions, and the royal family members that own and operate it, were implicated for their involvement in the aforementioned mass casualty simulations of Columbine and Sandy Hook, and that former television star Lucille Ball was herself a character portrayed by a royal host actor – by none other than the current sitting monarch of the British throne, Queen Elizabeth II.
There existed a long standing joke, that Alfred Hitchcock was often keen to insert himself into the production of his own pictures with various cameo roles. This too, is a clue thrown to the unwitting masses, that in fact, not only did Hitchcock make cameo appearances in films carried under his name, but his host actor, portrayed starring roles in a different disguise and under the pseudonym of Carey Grant in North by Northwest, To Catch a Thief, Notorious, and Suspicion.
In a past installment, entitled Suicide of teen spirit smells like a hoax, one positively identified Carey Grant’s host actor as a young Barry Diller, a man, as it turns out, like the late Sir Alec Guinness, is a man of one thousand faces.
In Hitchcock’s North by Northwest, Grant, AKA Diller, stars with Eve Marie Saint, which is another pseudonym for Barbara Walters, AKA Princess Diane von Furstenberg of the royal house of von Furstenberg.
Eva Marie Saint:
Diane von Furstenberg:
A single question remains, however – who exactly is Barry Diller, the husband of the Princess, Diane von Furstenberg? Is the moniker of Diller, attached to the most powerful mogul in Hollywood, merely another pseudonym veiling a royal identity?
As loyal readers and most would imagine, those born into royal houses have not historically been known to marry or consort with commoners, but only those hailing from their own genealogical bloodline and social and economic standing.
Princess Diane von Furstenberg and Austro-German Prince Eduard Egon:
Before revealing some of the Prince’s more noteworthy genealogical relations, perhaps one should provide loyal readers with more extensive historical background regarding the royal house of von Furstenberg. The royal house of von Furstenberg have, for centuries, been one of the most influential German nobilities, and are deeply connected with not only the most exclusive private banking houses of Switzerland, but with the Jesuit order of the Vatican. The German word Furst translates as one who is first among noblemen, or a prince, and burg is a stronghold or impenetrable fortification. Eduard’s father, Maximilian, had a close relationship with Wilhelm II during the second world conflict and was also a commander of a Nazi paramilitary regiment. Prince Egon is also a member in good standing of the Jesuit Knights of Malta.
The tentacles of von Furstenberg financial holdings are vast and extend from the European continent to America and to Hollywood, where Barry Diller, AKA Prince Eduard von Egon, owns controlling shares in the Fox (666) Broadcasting network. Prince Eduard is genealogically connected to the Agnelli family, who are, in turn, connected to the thirteen, ruling elite Jesuit families.
Some of the Prince’s more noteworthy genealogical relations, per Burke’s Peerage, are William Hamilton, 11th Duke of Hamilton (a Duke is a noble title merely one step removed from that of King), Italian banking titans Edoardo and Clara Agnelli, and George Washington Campbell, one of the first graduates of Princeton University and appointed American president James Madison’s Secretary of the Treasury.
As stated before, the implications of all of this are indeed, staggering.
For, those who the masses admire as Hollywood celebrities, high-level politicians, and social movers and shakers through the fashion, music and entertainment industries, are also those who hide behind elaborate masks, faux personas, and concocted pseudonyms, their anonymity protected by the International Brotherhood of Freemasonry and their sworn minions in the military, law enforcement, and those licensed barristers, or attorneys sworn in allegiance to the London Crown Temple, which houses the board of directors for all of the globe’s private central banks, including the Federal Reserve in America.
Such barricading anonymity has also served well to meticulously protect the reputation of one legendary filmmaker, Alfred Hitchcock, AKA Barry Diller, a pseudonym for royal Austro-German prince, Eduard Egon von Furstenberg.
3 thoughts on “Hitchcock: a view through truth’s rear window”