America’s obsession with the tragic deaths of young entertainment stars has become a persistent pastime.

When rock and roll was still a young art form – and for a time, during an era when some would say America was still innocent – there seemed to be no bigger superstar in the world of popular music entertainment than Janis Joplin; a raspy voiced blues belter whose tragically abbreviated period while basking in fame’s fickle limelight seemed – at every turn – to skirt tragedy’s perilous ledge with reckless abandon.

One’s loyal readers will soon learn, however, we’ve not only discovered that yet another iconic show business character was portrayed by one of Hollywood’s most famous host actors, but we’re also about to discover, Janis Joplin was a European royal in disguise.


Comparing the audio from both stellar performances, did you find you were able to detect the similarities in vocal quality and nuance? Both performers are classically trained, and possess a solid command of a theatrical vocal technique called vocal subharmonics.

Yes folks, before adopting the pseudonym “Janis Joplin”, her host actor had already become a highly-featured and accomplished performer on both Broadway and in Hollywood.

But, before offering the confirmed results drawn from empirically-based analysis, a perusal of the “late” rock star’s official biographies provides conspicuous evidence, the formerly popular music character known as “Janis Joplin” was created for a specific purpose – before, that is – her host actor faked Joplin’s death, and went on to portray another iconic popular culture character, one who became the leader of the post-counter-culture feminist movement of the 1970’s.

Official, mainstream accounts claim that, after a “drug/heroin overdose”, Joplin’s body was “cremated”.

The ashes – it is also claimed – were subsequently scattered out over the pacific ocean.

Cremation, it seems, is almost always utilized in such cases of tragic rock star deaths, as it was in the recent case of “David Bowie” AKA Howard Stern/Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg.

But beneath the superficial gloss of such “official” biographical accounts of celebrity deaths – for those possessing a willingness to dispassionately divorce themselves from emotional and sentimental attachments and face the world with the cold glare of objective observation and rationally thorough analysis – there exists ample and even telltale evidence something is, indeed, amiss with the former Queen of Rock and Roll.

And, on this occasion – while considering the story of the life and death of one “Janis Joplin” – we are certain to discover that Joplin’s official celebrity narrative possesses plot holes wider than the gaping mouth of the Grand Canyon.

First, let’s take a look at the name of “Janis Joplin”.

The name of the late 1960’s most iconic female rock vocalist sums to 129 in English Ordinal gematria, a number which reduces to three (EE=33/high-degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry). Calculating the name in Full Reduction, we get a total of 48 (12/21/777/intelligence joker code), a gematria total which also reduces to three (33).

One doesn’t need to possess a holy “Rosetta Stone” – as one attacking hack “researcher”/probable shill recently attempted to condescendingly but feebly inform the author – to observe what is plainly obvious; these gematria totals are not due to some mysterious coincidence.

In Reverse Full Reduction, however, the total is 69, a number with great esoteric significance, representing the perfection reached by those which have transformed their spiritual karma in to angelic transformation. The number of 69 is also symbolic of those belonging to the highest levels of the Templar/Jesuit/Masonic triumvirate – meaning – as a result of having satisfactorily performed during various rituals, tests, and tribulations, they have passed to attain their lofty positions within the order.

Considering the concept of astral-theology, 69 is represented by the astrological sigil of Cancer.

999=666 is also the carbon code of man which equals 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons.

It was no coincidence, therefore, one of Janis Joplin’s most critically heralded music industry contemporaries, the legendary guitarist Jimi Hendrix, recorded a song entitled “If 6 was 9”.

9 is the mirror image of man, the feminine energy of Isis, Aphrodite, Venus, and Diana, and when combined with the number 6, the full geometric duality of white together with black is achieved (6+9=15, or 6/33/# of vertebrae in the human spinal column/symbolized by the biblical snake/masonic spiral staircase leading to the pineal gland, or the third eye of illumination).

Joplin is alleged to have been born on the 19th of January (20, or 2/twin masonic pillars of Boaz and Jachin), 1943 (4+3+19=26/2X6/12/21/777), in Port Arthur, Texas, to Dorothy Bonita East, a registrar and administrator at a local college, and to Seth Ward Joplin, an engineer at Texaco.

Texaco, of course, was/is a major oil concern, and well-enmeshed with America’s military/industrial complex.

In fact – in terms of occult symbolism – its corporate logo may appear familiar:

Texaco corporate logo:

Yes folks, you’ve surmised correctly, once again.

The Texaco logo is a pentagram.

It is also a symbol known among the order of Freemasonry – particularly within the ranks of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite’s 28th degree – as the “Blazing Star”.

Perhaps – due to the fact, he was not only an employee in-good-standing of a high-profile corporation, and a highly-respected member of the business community in Texas, and by virtue of having eclipsed the 28th degree of the Scottish Rite, which denotes “perfection” in “truth”, or the blazing star shining brilliantly through the darkness – Mister Joplin had been especially selected by his fellow masonic brethren, and trusted to keep secret the true identity of a fabricated music legend who once appeared to have been his alleged “daughter”.

Note too, the listed occupation of Joplin’s “mother” was a ‘registrar and administrator’, which is a convenient connection if someone wanted to forge documents such as school records, birth certificates, and other necessary documentation, documentation of a legally recognizable nature which could legitimize a fabricated identity and its accompanying pseudonym.

The place name of Port Arthur – at least lately – seems to be repeatedly cropping up during the course of our investigations in connection with the phenomenon of Post-Modern Reality Simulation. Neither does it appear to be any coincidence, the place name of Port Arthur sums to 155/11 in English Ordinal gematria, and 61/7 in Reverse Full Reduction (11X7=77/twin lightning charges of Lucifer/frequency of angelic transformation).

After rising to fame in 1967, at the Monterey Pop Festival while performing as lead singer in the obscure garage/psychedelic rock band Big Brother and the Holding Company (another proper name which provides us with a key clue as to the genuine genealogical emanations of Joplin’s host actor), Joplin recorded five (2 3’s=33) ‘single’ hit recordings, and three (three/EE=33) popular albums featuring her distinctive vocal stylings, recordings which – according to official, mainstream sources, such as Rolling Stone magazine and other similar music industry periodicals – went on to eventually reach the Billboard’s Top 100, including a cover version of a song composed and previously recorded by Kris Kristofferson AKA Kurt Russell, “Me and My Bobby McGee”.

SEE: The Final Words of Walt Disney


Nevertheless, let’s examine the name of Joplin’s band more closely.

Does that name, ‘Big Brother and The Holding Company’ – even when considered within the “peace, love, and flower power” social context of the ‘swinging’ era of the 1960’s –  seem more than a bit strange? Why should we have discovered – what could be considered – such a highly irregular moniker associated with a formerly popular music recording act?

The legal definition of a ‘holding company’ may help create a road map, leading in the direction of a clue as to the genuine identity of Joplin’s host actor.

A ‘holding company’ – according to Cornell University School of Law – is “a company that owns part, or majority, or all of another company’s stock with the sole purpose of owning other companies’ stock…A parent holding company refers to a company that owns enough stock in another company to control the election of its board of directors.”

Keep this information in mind for later, when the true identity of Janis Joplin’s host actor is finally revealed. Consider also, that Joplin’s host actor is not only the current sitting monarch presiding over a Western European nation now in the throes of social and societal transformation, but she also has genealogical relations to the Grimaldi family, one of the most powerful of the thirteen, ruling elite Jesuit families.


The image – at the link, displayed above –  of a young “Janis Joplin” shortly after her alleged high school graduation appears to be a tip-in job, a style of photograph and image manipulation utilized by publishing companies, and intelligence and other government agencies, before the advent of sophisticated digital photo-shop software packages.

The identical but antiquated method of photographic manipulation can be observed in the following image of Lee Harvey Oswald, the historically infamous JFK “lone” assassin:

If you look closely – in the comparative case of both images – you will notice the anatomical angles have been crudely cropped. In both the Oswald and Joplin photos, angles around the crown of the head (Joplin) and in the region of the neck (Oswald) have been cut, pasted and cropped. Joplin’s image appears to be a backdated photo of the host actor while donned in traditional graduation garb which appears to have been painted on in post-production.

Looking more closely, you will notice Joplin’s graduation mortar board appears to also have been pasted on, and in the case of both Joplin and Oswald, their images have been pasted onto prefabricated backgrounds.

It seems clear, both images have been calculatingly manufactured and manipulated to leave a distinct impression in the observer’s mind, image manipulations which represent sinister canards meant to thereafter mold public perceptions.

To high-level occultists and to those practitioners of black magic – which by occult definition, is the altering of human perception and emotional response with the utilization of images, musical tones, (i.e. neuronal linguistic programming) and with varying and skillful combinations thereof, words accompanied by carefully selected musical tones tuned to specialized psycho-acoustical frequencies  – such images play a key role in anchoring not only historical narratives, but in shaping and conditioning the human emotional and behavioral responses offered to them.

After her appearance at the hugely successful and well-attended Monterey popular music festival during 1967’s “summer of love”, Joplin also went on to numerous television appearances on popular late-night talk shows, to not only, ostensibly, further promote her stellar and meteoric career, but to address what she seemed to personally perceive – despite having been hoisted to the dizzying heights of fame and fortune by the male executives in charge of her recording company – as the acute problems and dilemmas one faced as an ‘objectified’ woman performing in the popular music recording industry.

One should duly take note, the absurd story Joplin recounts – in the opening moments of her interview with the host, Dick Cavett – while recalling what was alleged to have been a violent incident, involving a youthful female rock fan and a police officer during one of her final American stage appearances. Joplin goes on to allege, that while attempting to “kiss” and “hug” a male police/security officer, a female rock fan was not only forcibly subdued, but was allegedly arrested for assault.

Considering that Joplin’s host actor would go on to assume the role of an iconic leader of the “feminist” social movement after faking her death, her anecdotally scripted “story” of the victimized female rock fan was undoubtedly designed to implant an indelible image in the minds of the studio audience, and the viewing American public, to cast the impression women were being routinely victimized at the hands of male authority figures, those belonging to the established “patriarchy”.

In retrospect, while witnessing Joplin’s performance on the Cavett show, it becomes clear, her host actor – though rather admirably and remarkably, when one also considers her genuine identity – well-performed a theatrical role, one which was meticulously designed and scripted to fully characterize the colorful imagery of the American “hippy flower child” subculture.

The consensus backstory, evident in Joplin’s official biographies, bolsters this “outcast” image – despite the fact, a major component of the CIA’s “feminist” movement was predicated on relentlessly promoting the social and economic empowerment of women while simultaneously casting them before the American general public as an oppressed minority – in a strenuous effort of predictive programming, to psychologically cement the general public’s expectations by the time the character of “Janis Joplin” was scheduled to appear into the limelight of fame during the era of the late 1960’s.

And, wouldn’t you know it folks, while further examining Joplin’s biographies, the rock star claims – resembling a narrative that is now parroted as a common feminist theme – to have been the victim of bullying; a narrative of female victimhood, drawn straight from the feminist template of mass emotional manipulation.

Allegedly, as a youth, while attending classes at Thomas Jefferson High School, the adolescent Joplin was “bullied” and even, her biographies claim – while epithets consisting of “pig”, “freak”, “creep”, and “nigger lover” were routinely hurled –  “ostracized” because of her alleged “overweight” and “acned” appearance.

Apparently, even during the era of the 1960’s, the government-contracted propagandists were working overtime shifts to solidify such fabricated images in the public’s collective mind. Now, of course, feminist activists are compensated with generous government issued checks, to spread the virus of pseudo-intellectual philosophies which are firmly rooted in the tenets of Marxist/Luciferian doctrines. But, when faced with any hint of public backlash, these same “activists” seem to be strangely indemnified and shielded from such public criticism by the protective garrison of media-driven “political correctness”, and fiercely protected by the numberless hordes of phony SJW revolutionaries and social media trolls, many of whom are, also working on the US corporate government’s payroll.

The true travesty of such theatrically-based, fabricated scenarios is this: the manufactured nature of such widely promoted narratives nullifies the voices of those legitimate victims of both psychological and physical abuse.

Unfortunately, this state of nefariously subversive affairs aptly describes what the thirteen, ruling elite Jesuit families are perpetually doing to us all.

As we’ve come to well-learn through extensive research into the prevailing and clandestine nature of government-funded propaganda methods, music and entertainment stars – and especially those fabricated characterizations such as “Janis Joplin” –  are often promoted into the public’s eye and then utilized in covertly subversive ways to help promote the ruling elite’s social and political agendas.

Joplin’s televised celebrity interviews and their scripted subject matter – such as the one observed in the video excerpt, displayed above – proved to foreshadow the next character incarnation of her hidden host actor, a role that – extensive research clearly would indicate – was tailor-made in cooperation with those in the global intelligence community – specifically by those employed at America’s Central Intelligence Agency.

Although the identification of Ann-Margaret (who is also the hidden mother of pop music superstar Madonna AKA Angelina Jolie) as the host actor behind the mask of feminist guru/academic/author Gloria Steinem was made in a previous installment, further and extensive facial recognition and voice analysis confirms, she was also the host actor who portrayed – admittedly – one of the most brilliant female rock vocalists in the storied history of the rock music genre, the “late” “Janis Joplin”.


In the third and final image of Ann-Margaret – and even without the aid of facial recognition analysis – one is able, through ocular perception, to readily observe the stark facial similarities with one of the most famous of the host actor’s fictional portrayals, Jaqueline Kennedy.

Notice too, Margaret has her finger positioned toward the crown of the head, covertly signaling her elevated position at the very top of the international masonic pyramid.

Jackie Kennedy:

Gloria Steinem:

As you will observe, the character of “Gloria Steinem” was oftentimes donned with eye wear, the most commonly utilized method to obscure the facial architectural geometry of the portraying host actor. And yes folks, the feminist movement was fabricated and funded by the thirteen, ruling elite Jesuit families through the international banking networks of the Crown Temple, to increase the available pool of laborers in the American workforce, and to increase the profitability of incoming tax revenues delivered to the Crown Temple subsidiary, the Federal Reserve, and to the Vatican’s secret police, the IRS.

From a macro-perspective, there is a direct link between the developing philosophical tenets of the various incarnations of the feminist movement first led by Steinem, and – over a period of several decades – the ever-developing requirements of global economic efficiency.

During Steinem’s era, the prevailing feminist mantra called for the “equality” of women with men in the workplace.

Now, at this juncture of the 21st century, America is amid a paradigm altering transition, from one of the world’s major industrial powers into a service-based economic market. Correspondingly, the current and active “third wave” of feminism preaches a philosophy primarily based on the doctrine of women’s superiority.

This is no accident.

This philosophy goes hand-in-hand with the “progressive” idea of “diversity” and the psychological conditioning of the American public to passively accept large influxes of undocumented immigrants derived from “diverse” non-Western cultures into Western society.

Long ago – perhaps even before the American post-war boon – the ruling elites planned to incrementally deindustrialize both the West and America, and transition the entire hemisphere into a predominantly service-based economical marketplace.

The ideological buzz word of “diversity” is a Marxist/Luciferian code word, indicating the ruling elite families and their Crown Temple bankers have chosen to target immigrant socio-economic demographics to fill the job requirements of America’s rapidly growing but predominantly minimum-waged and low-skilled non-industrial production retail markets.

Therefore, it is also no coincidence, the economic needs of the ruling elite families have shifted towards profitably exploiting more numerous labor pools available for developing industrialized production markets located in the Far East.

Though the MSM remains suspiciously loathe to report upon these developments, it is the global economic necessities and profit-driven requirements of the ruling thirteen families which drives the current malaise caused by the widespread promotion of so-called “social justice” movements, including feminism.

Western economic transition is the genuine reason those industrially-based manufacturing and administrative occupations – jobs once traditionally held down by American males belonging to both the proletarian and middle-class – are dwindling to ever decreasing levels.

Eventually, the American public can expect to see the entirety of the West’s industrial mass production and manufacturing facilities, those facilities formerly requiring skilled human labor, administration, and management to profitably function, to become fully staffed by AI and digitally programmed robotics.

Thus, with the downsizing of the American middle-class, the MSM has ramped up its propaganda machine to promote and to psychologically condition the American public to wholly accept the eventual introduction of “Universal Basic Income”.

Janis Joplin:

While performing sight comparisons between the slew of images, you will notice the architectures of the eyes, brow ridges, chins, and the noses are remarkably similar and have, in fact, been confirmed as perfect matches.

The author’s identification of Ann-Margaret as the host actor of “Janis Joplin” – after considering the host actor’s extensive and decades-long career resume in the Hollywood music/ entertainment industry –  is not truly surprising.

Before transitioning from the portrayal of a plethora of other renowned historical characters – many of whom have been identified in previous installments (among these: former First Lady Jaqueline Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, actress Sharon Tate) – Ann-Margaret had already become a well-seasoned and stellar singer, Broadway performer, and Hollywood actress.

SEE: What really happened to JFK assassin Oswald? (Part II)

SEE: The Rockefellers and Their Phony Feminists


Apparently, Ann-Margaret – consummate professional performer that she always proved to be – after faking the death of “Janis Joplin”, found she could not stay away from stardom’s limelight for too long, and decided to return to the popular music industry once again – this time – during the era of the late 1970’s and the MTV dominated era of the 1980’s.

As you will observe from the singer’s soulful performance, featured in the following video excerpt – Ann-Margaret AKA Janis Joplin working under the character pseudonym of “Bonnie Tyler” – the stellar diva’s hit-making prowess proved successful once again.

Though one may truly marvel at the long and truly remarkable career of Ann-Margaret, it becomes hard to believe that, she too, is just another character strutting her hour upon the brightly-lit Shakespearean stage of Post-Modern Reality Simulation.

That’s right folks, the genuine host actor behind not only some of America’s most memorable and iconic entertainers, but legendary historical figures, is also a European royal, the reigning Queen of Sweden, Silvia, the spouse of King Carl Gustaf, and mother to the heir apparent to the Swedish royal throne, Crown Princess Victoria.

Is it any wonder then, after starring as the host actor of feminist icon Gloria Steinem, Her Majesty, Silvia, presides over a nation currently in the throes of such sweeping and socially “progressive” transitions?

Queen Silvia of Sweden:









One thought on “The Queen of Rock still lives?

Leave a Reply