Domain of Man site by Charles N. Pope

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Certainly we know that body doubles have been used before, and the H copy(ies) in this case would likely need to have been for mostly visual purposes,
Ahaha! So each of those "body doubles" could be convinced that there was a real Adolf that they were learning to imitate, and none of them would understand that the whole thing was fake. I suppose it's possible.

Still, from the Bayesian perspective, most people we meet in everyday life are real, flesh and blood, single individuals. The creation of a fictional entity in the guise of a living, visible human being is less probable statistically, so we need evidence to shift the posterior probability away from the priors.

In this case redundancy is mandated, especially given the massive, dualistic christic/antichristic construction around H.
Couldn't redundancy also be provided by having one of Hitler's underlings step in? Some of the characters under Hitler were quite colorful in their own right. Hermann Goring had been Hitler's designated successor.
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Active Member
Charles N. Pope never mentioned Hitler in connection with the Elite family, but if Hitler were indeed the grandson of a Rothschild, then he would be one of them, while appearing to be of low birth through his father, the natural son of this Rothschild. It also fits in with what Pope says about these Elite family members having substitutes and different identities. So Yes, there actually may have been no "real" Hitler, in the sense that an Elite Rothschild family member was "acting" as him, and with substitutes besides. As far as anyone else stepping in for Hitler and /or his authority, when Goering and Himmler attempted to do that near the end of WW2, the results were disastrous for them, concerning Hitler's reaction to that perceived usurpation, as conventional history records. Even earlier than that, Hitler officially "disowned" Hess after he flew to England without his knowledge in 1941.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Yes, and look what happened to Hess when he 'arrived'.

Ahaha! So each of those "body doubles" could be convinced that there was a real Adolf that they were learning to imitate, and none of them would understand that the whole thing was fake. I suppose it's possible.
Yes, I would imagine any copies likely understood that there was a real H. They would be told that the literal or figurative 'Jews' would try to kill their messiah ... again, and so they were a vital function to Nazi Germany.

Couldn't redundancy also be provided by having one of Hitler's underlings step in? Some of the characters under Hitler were quite colorful in their own right. Hermann Goring had been Hitler's designated successor.
The underlings did not have what was claimed by so many, that H had extraordinary personal powers, which lent powerfully to his mystique.
 

Tyrone McCloskey

Active Member
I’ll lend my two pfennigs here, though I may have covered some of this somewhere else awhile ago--- I see ‘Hitler’ as a brand. A character developed for a specific need and that multiple actors would be required should any of the players get sick, hurt or dead. One such ‘dead’ may have been Julius Schreck (a likely Intel alias) who is credited with the founding of the SA and the SS. He continues as Hitler’s personal bodyguard and then is retired by ‘dying’ from an assassination attempt on Hitler where Schreck was the mistaken target- they were lookalikes- or expiring from complications from an abscessed tooth, or a car accident. Legend has it that Hitler wept at the funeral, c. 1936(?), the only instance of anyone witnessing such an emotional outburst. (Why no consensus on his death suggests that it would be to easy to uncover the truth of his survival without a serious muddying of the waters.)
Another ‘dead’ was one of Hitler’s stenographers that was allegedly blown up real good in the Stauffenberg plot. This stenographer, I believe named Berger, was supposedly one of the decoys or occasional stand-ins for photo-ops. Study the Hitler faces closely and you can see multiple actors at work. Some of the portraits, if you shave the mustache and slick the hair back, look like proper British aristocrats.

Speaking of proper Brits...

I came across this concept of ‘branding’ while studying early pictures of the pre-fame Beatles, when they were touring the northlands relentlessly in the very early sixties. The schedule, which is extant somewhere on the nets, looks too formidable for a quasi-amateur group of penniless wiseacres. But it is in the photographs that you see differences in height, face and physical proportion, strongly indicating that multiple versions of the Beatles were being tested on live audiences, albeit mostly modest gatherings in crowded clubs or rickety stages.
The point, as I saw it, was that the Beatles concept was being developed as part of the larger (s)tragedy of the coming counter-culture wars and that there would be multiples of the four personalities available during this rigorous development stage. The project could not be interrupted or upended by illness or death.
Even as Beatlemania was starting to rev up, the final quartet features at least two Ringos and two Paul’s, though within the cast of A Hard Day’s Night, I would suggest there are three Paul’s onscreen at one time or another. The Paul on stage in the film is the cute, short Paul. The Paul in the commuter car and makeup chair is someone unknown but a holdover from the early touring days, and where Paul has to be of larger stature in long shots, that is Paul’s fraternal twin, Mike, who takes over as Paul by the middle of ‘65 as the ambidextrous, keyboard playing Paul. (The Paul that doesn’t look like Paul on the Sgt. Pepper album cover.) This is what the photos and films and TV appearances tell me.
I digress.

By ‘38-ish, the representative arm of the German government is effectively closed. From that point on, Hitler is only a character in newsreels or on paper. The Hitler we have for posterity, the actor at the podium, is, I suspect, Gustav Weler, a Bohemian actor who went all the way back to the early twenties when he was first coached by Prussian state theater maven, Dietrich Eckart, in the tradition of German Expressionist acting.
I sincerely doubt any German politician behaved that way in front of a crowd prior to Hitler/Weler’s histrionics.
To repeat, Hitler had no policies or vision. Weler, et al, read from scripts not of their own creation.
A side note: You read and hear about the occult trappings of the early Nazis- (BTW, “Nazi” has been sighted by Miles Mathis as a truncation from “Ashkenazi”, not a loose contortion/contraction for the NSDAP. I can entertain that possibility. ‘Nazi’ previously was a compression of Ignatius, further compressed to Ignatz, a derogatory term in Austria for a bumpkin.)
I see this occult exotica as mere cover for intelligence activity. The Thule Society, for one, may have allowed adherents to think they were part of some cryptocracy, but the people usually sighted in this milieu have CV’s that look like public relations specialists.
Such a group would be necessary to create a public persona like a Hitler.
Finally, given that access to der Fuerer was extremely difficult, the idea of one of these actors going rogue would be next to impossible. Any audience with a big wig who was not in on the ruse probably never happened. Any audience at all was probably for photo-ops that could not be created by the pre-photoshop technology of the time.
All of this is opinion and certainly not in indelible ink. Any spin or variation or compelling dismissal is appreciated. Thanks Jerry and Richard for responding. And Seeker, please extend to Charles Pope, should you continue your correspondence, my thanks for his efforts. His concepts have really expanded my thinking about those hideous powers that should have never been.
 

Seeker

Active Member
Charles N. Pope just sent me his "take" on Hitler(s):


"The royal family produced so many Hitler figures over the centuries. It really was a stock role, and one that "The Firm" remained totally committed to. You can't have a Christ (Tutankhamun) without an Anti-Christ (Akhenaten), and it was deemed better to create the "bad guy" and thereby control the scenario. Did Hitler ultimately go rogue though? It's a great question. If we understand Hitler, we understand the whole system. Wasn't Hitler just another Moses leading enriched Israelites out of the country to be killed off in the wilderness, and with only a remnant to be saved and resettled in a Promised Land? It was deja vous all over again! And, isn't modern day Israel being set up for yet another encore presentation? When does this occult fixation with repeating a "primal scene" ever end? Are we being forced to endure perpetual misery until we all finally get it? Yet, I don't see anybody actually getting it! Evangelicals are still positively giddy about (the next) Armageddon.

-Charles"
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I’ll lend my two pfennigs here, though I may have covered some of this somewhere else awhile ago--- I see ‘Hitler’ as a brand.
Here's a book that might offer some supporting data. "Hitler's Doubles, Fully Illustrated" by Peter Kapnistos.

From the blurb:

Was the brutal dictator of the 20th century the masked instrument of a double image delusion?
Recently released war records reveal "political decoys" (doppelgangers or body-doubles). It is documented that the Nazi Fuhrer vetted at least four doubles. Look-alikes and crisis actors were used to impersonate Hitler in order to draw attention away from him and to deal with risks on his behalf. "Hitler's Doubles" details their names, their peacetime occupations, their deaths, and an escape to South America.
...Ascertaining that Hitler made use of political decoys, the chronological order of this book shows how a Shadow Government of crisis actors and fake outcomes operated through the years following Hitler’s death –– until our time, together with pop culture memes such as “Wunderwaffe” climate change weapons, Brexit Britain, and Trump’s America. ...
"An entire Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory of the Third Reich... This book covers it all." (Christian Ankerstjerne, Forum Staff, Axis History.)
Only $3.95 for the Kindle edition. Hardly any more than two pfennigs.
 

Tyrone McCloskey

Active Member
Jerry, I am familiar with this book. He tosses Crowley into the mix as one of Hitler's doubles, which I can't digest. However, he does touch on some interesting DNA research that suggests that the Ashkenazim originated in Saxony after the Carolingian wars. That was news to me and makes the Zionist claim of Israel as the great return/reset extremely weak if not outright fallacious. Okay, its outright fallacious.
 

Seeker

Active Member
He tosses Crowley into the mix as one of Hitler's doubles, which I can't digest.
This reminds me of the story that Crowley could have been the father of Barbara Bush!
However, he does touch on some interesting DNA research that suggests that the Ashkenazim originated in Saxony after the Carolingian wars.
Interesting, as Charles N. Pope has proposed that the Rothschilds could have originated from a junior branch of the Hohenzollern dynasty. Perhaps these are all reenactments of the original Elite plan to have the Jews as a "buffer zone" for them.
 

Seeker

Active Member
Interesting, as Charles N. Pope has proposed that the Rothschilds could have originated from a junior branch of the Hohenzollern dynasty.
Crowley into the mix as one of Hitler's doubles
Charles N. Pope just sent me his "take" on Hitler(s):
"The royal family produced so many Hitler figures over the centuries. It really was a stock role, and one that "The Firm" remained totally committed to. You can't have a Christ (Tutankhamun) without an Anti-Christ (Akhenaten), and it was deemed better to create the "bad guy" and thereby control the scenario. Did Hitler ultimately go rogue though?
OK, trying to connect these threads of information together, from memory, I recall reading that the founder of the Rothschilds, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, was given a prophesy that the Messiah would be one of his descendants. In that article I'd read it was President Clinton, but suppose it was Crowley/Hitler, via Hitler's "Rothschild" grandfather instead, was this a controlled opposition Christ/Anti-Christ scenario playing out? Especially as Crowley was supposed to be the real father of Barbara Bush, wife and mother of two Presidents named Bush, with her father-in-law Prescott Bush being accused of supporting an FDR coup, and later backing Hitler during WW2? Also, Hitler's DNA was supposed to have been used to create Angela Merkel, de facto leader of the European Union, and the most powerful woman in the world. Finally, to top all of this off, Crowley "disappeared" from Earth in 1947, the year of the Roswell sightings, and according to "The Redemptionists", Hitler was supposed to have gone to the Moon in 1954 and taken to Aldebaran, but he will return in the flagship of a vast Aldebarani space armada to "redeem" Earth (Space Jesus?). :eek: Heaven help us!!!
 

Seeker

Active Member
from memory, I recall reading that the founder of the Rothschilds, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, was given a prophesy that the Messiah would be one of his descendants. In that article I'd read it was President Clinton,
Also, Hitler's DNA was supposed to have been used to create Angela Merkel, de facto leader of the European Union, and the most powerful woman in the world.
OK, this article tells about what I remembered above, and lots more!https://destination-yisrael.biblesearchers.com/destination-yisrael/2012/05/-fuehrer-adolf-hitler-was-the-grandson-of-freiherr-salomon-mayer-von-rothschild-the-head-of-the-vien.html#:~:text=The Rothschilds are descended from Nero!” Concerning Nero,,Gitin 56a-b) the Emperor Nero came to Jerusalem.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Whether or not Clinton is a Rothschild or not, his mother worked as a nurse in the Arkansas Rockefeller household. His Clinton 'father' died conveniently died in an auto accident while he was in the womb, as I remember. In any case, the Rockefellers are reputedly under the Rothschild financial umbrella.

The web site is interesting in its appearing to be some form of British-Israelism, where one post discusses Britain as Biblical 'Ephraim', the head of Father Claude's JudeoChristian org-chart. And consistent with the org chart and Father Claude's JudeoChristian Biblical and historical (for ~2,000 years) narrative, this Hitler view has the Jews doing the dirty work.
 

Charles Watkins

Active Member
The point, as I saw it, was that the Beatles concept was being developed as part of the larger (s)tragedy of the coming counter-culture wars and that there would be multiples of the four personalities available during this rigorous development stage. The project could not be interrupted or upended by illness or death.
Sorry I missed Tyrone's aside on the Beatles as this is one of my favorite hobby conspiracies. Back in college, I put on a 'Paul Is Dead' show and I've been following this ever since. Even after all these years, I find myself half convinced. If anyone would like to take up the topic, I'd love to take part.

If you want to catch up on the conspiracy, I suggest Plastic Macca, which also has material on use of doubles. Or dive into the deep end with the 'autobiography' Memoirs of Billy Shears.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Back in college, I put on a 'Paul Is Dead' show and I've been following this ever since.
'Paul is dead'? Here we'd be more suspicious that Paul has gone to the hidden resort, and been replaced by another Paul. But as to the theory that Paul died in 1966 and was replaced by the equally talented "Billy Shears", we haven't looked into it.

There's a fair amount of material about Beatles conspiracies on the site. Here's a sampling:

Did Adorno and/or Tavistock write the Beatles music?
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/sitting-on-a-cornflake-decoding-typology.5/page-3
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/beatles-authorship-question-adorno-really.8/

Was John Lennon's death faked?
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/links-for-5-25-podcast-miles-mathis-faked-assassinations.1204/#post-2323

Names changed at birth?
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/lenin-mccarthy-lennon-mccartney.1811/
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Active Member
This is just from memory, as several years ago, before they wisely took it off, since they had no sources for it, Wikipedia claimed that John Lennon had a Genius IQ of 165, I believe, and I for one could truly could believe it, evidence or not. They also claimed that through his mother, Julia Stanley, he was a direct descendant of Thomas Stanley (1435-1504), 1st Earl of Derby, a "real player" during the War of the Roses, which I independently could find no proof of either. Perhaps our own Stanley member, Richard, can confirm or deny this, as he is definitely a "real player" here on "Postflaviana". Charles N. Pope, in his book "How to Read Shakespeare Like a Royal", has, among other alternate identities, the grandson of Thomas Stanley, Edward Stanley, 3rd Earl of Derby, as Thomas Seymour, brother of Queen Jane Seymour and Lord Protector Edward Seymour (Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Charles V too), and 4th husband of Queen Catherine Parr. In turn, his son Henry Stanley, 4th Earl of Derby, may have also been Philip II, Habsburg King of Spain (whom a contemporary once referred to as "the arbiter of the world", quite appropriate for this family!) and husband of Queen Mary Tudor, plus perhaps a role as Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, favorite of Mary's sister Queen Elizabeth I. There are other later Stanleys and other alternate identities that include Hapsburg rulers, but they would probably say, in the words of their famous "Fab" relative (?), "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number"), in other words, read the book!
 

Tyrone McCloskey

Active Member
According to most accounts, Lennon was an arsehole although some used the euphemism, "authentic", to describe his candor. Sounds like a pampered aristo to me. The guy playing Lennon in the white suit Jesus phase of the late 60's could be anyone. Given the peace porn he and Yucko were peddling at the time, this may refer back to the parody Jesus of Atwill, et al. - a joke understood by the elite mind benders.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Charles N. Pope, in his book "How to Read Shakespeare Like a Royal", has, among other alternate identities, the grandson of Thomas Stanley, Edward Stanley, 3rd Earl of Derby, as Thomas Seymour, brother of Queen Jane Seymour and Lord Protector Edward Seymour (Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Charles V too), and 4th husband of Queen Catherine Parr.
Alternate identities for who?

In any case, Thomas Stanley was no mere Son of Man, but rather he was made King of Mann by step-son Henry VII for his and William Stanley's (and De Vere's) supposed wet work at Bosworth Field. Later Sir William would (supposedly) lose his head for supposedly backing the claim of a man who claimed to be one of the Little Princes allegedly killed by Richard III. Two generations later and we've arrived at the time of Shake-speare, who writes about JC and Titus.

Part of the Welsh claims for Henry's legitimacy extend back to 'Brutus', apparently both the assassin of JC and his ancestor, the assassin of the last Tarquin king (also the alleged ancestor of JC).

See any patterns, with beheadings and such typology in vivo as we've been discussing. Pirates and the Jolly Roger abound, and makes one wonder what the Pastafarians gnow in this regard. And now Paul Fitzgerald's 'novel' claim of repeating 'Norman' lives is sounding more ominous, however it works.

And with all this business about adoptions, I'm not sure I want Seeker to find out whom my real genes came from.
 

Charles Watkins

Active Member
'Paul is dead'? Here we'd be more suspicious that Paul has gone to the hidden resort, and been replaced by another Paul. But as to the theory that Paul died in 1966 and was replaced by the equally talented "Billy Shears", we haven't looked into it.

There's a fair amount of material about Beatles conspiracies on the site. Here's a sampling:

Did Adorno and/or Tavistock write the Beatles music?
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/sitting-on-a-cornflake-decoding-typology.5/page-3
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/beatles-authorship-question-adorno-really.8/

Was John Lennon's death faked?
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/links-for-5-25-podcast-miles-mathis-faked-assassinations.1204/#post-2323

Names changed at birth?
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/lenin-mccarthy-lennon-mccartney.1811/
I'm willing to go pretty far down this rabbit hole, but a lot of this is beyond me. For starters, I'm not sold on the 'hidden resort' concept without some idea of its location, origin, and staffing plan. But I haven't read much of what you say about it, other this passing reference. If there's somewhere on the site the lays it all out, I'd appreciate the link -- as I do those you have given here. I'm afraid I also have problems with Miles Mathis in general--I did get a kick out his Manson stuff--and don't follow this twins business either.

The material about the Beatles being manipulated by Tavistock, MI6, or the CIA is pretty much stock conspiracy material. Manipulation of public consciousness by secret elites is a major theme here at Postflaviana as is the extensive unveiling of imposters. I tend to resist these because I don't want get dragged further into paranoia, but there is clearly something going on behind the scenes.

I can accept the Lennon/McCartney were highly talented performers and songwriters, aided by the genius of George Martin and his contacts. I am satisfied by the early recordings and handwritten lyrics that the songs originated with John and Paul. Note that we were also getting similar work from the Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Kinks, and many other bands. Could Tavistock be behind all of these? And Adorno just does not seem to have the cultural outlook of the Beatles music. I wonder where that theory came from.

As to Lennon's killing, there is lots of material suggesting that Chapman was mind-controlled and that Yoko was complicit. Here I find Mathis to be quite credible about Lennon surviving as Mark Staycer. I also appreciated his aside on wellaware1.com.

If the names Lennon/Lenin and McCartney/McCarthy were deliberate chosen to convey some communist-anticommunist dialect, what about Harrison and Starr? Were there Biblical allusions in John and Paul? The naming theory presumes the conspiracy was birthed well before the Beatles rather than being an opportunistic exploitation of the break-away 60s cultural phenomenon unfolding all over the world. Was this part of a 'New Age' plan to soften the population for takeover? That's a far larger subject than the Beatles and I'll go into that elsewhere. But Dave McGowen's revelations about the Laurel Canyon scene do make it clear that there was a coordinated propaganda program to subvert the hippie protest movement that was threatening the Vietnam war.

The mainline conspiracy holds that Paul met his death in 1966 and was replaced by the talented imposter we know today. The Billy Shears material purports to be this person's confession, but cloaked in enough fiction to avoid legal issues -- probably the crazy parts about Paul's spirit possessing the imposter. There is also a transparent encoding of revelatory messages that is both unnecessary and too cute. The divine Paul's apotheosis is recorded in 'Sun King' but his cult never really materialized as it might have been imagined. Similarly, George's promotion of Eastern religion came to little fruition. Whatever grand plan was, at least some elements were not working.

The MI6 version of the conspiracy was about supporting the British economy by preserving its 'cash cow'. But how does a retreat to studio support that, given that the Beatle concerts were the main money makers and drivers of the band's publicity? Wouldn't they put them back on the road ASAP? Or why wouldn't they just shift gears to the Stones, who were almost as popular?

The overriding question is if there were a conspiracy to replace Paul, why would there be all these clues scattered throughout the later Beatle opus? Some suggest the whole 'Paul is Dead' phenomenon was a publicity stunt to sell more albums. My thought is anyone likely to get wrapped up in the hoax would already have the albums. And speculation that their hero is dead may actual cause some fans to turn away. Anyway, if so, wouldn't someone have revealed it by this later date when the conspiracy no longer drives sales, but a dramatic revelation would?

The main explanation for the planting of obvious clues is that John had a guilty conscience over the cover up and wanted to come clean but was prevented from saying it outright. But wouldn't his handlers have stopped this at the outset, unless they wanted the deception to be revealed? Who benefits from this enough to justify the effort involved?

I'm drawn to the Billy Shears material for the same reason as Mary Vary Baker's. (Got a thread on that somewhere?) The concept is so well executed that whether or not it's true, I have to admire it as a piece of art. Emotionally, I want to believe. But again, if there is more to it than a creative writer putting out a clever mockumentary, I have to ask who might be behind it and what they are up to.

Again, thanks for all those Postflaviana links -- lots to digest there. And I am ashamed to say that it all my visits to the Forum I never saw the Discuss Article section, so I have even more adventures to look forward to. Cheers.
 
Top