Mike is one of the leading Beatles conspiracy researchers in the world. His presentations and interviews on the McCartney and Beatles conspiracy have achieved millions of views worldwide.
Paul Is Dead and the Beatles conspiracy: https://youtu.be/zuoN-GLY6ds
Sage of Quay: http://sageofquay.com
↓ ↓ ↓
Gold is a great way to opt-out of centrally planned currency by the elites, but it doesn’t grow/offer a yield/you can’t use it as money. Monetary Metals offers the ability to grow your total ounces by renting or loaning your gold to gold-using businesses.
Earn 2-5% annually on your gold while supporting businesses in the gold industry, or, if you’re an accredited investor, you could be eligible to earn even higher yields (double digits) in their gold bond offerings.
It’s 100% physical and 100% yours. Your metal, you’re in control. If you don’t like an opportunity, you can opt-out any time.
I know this company and have had Keith Weiner on my show several times. They’re good people and I trust them.
Opt-out of fiat currency and retake control of your money. Get on your own personal gold standard today with Monetary Metals.
Visit https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/ to learn more or get started opening an account.
— — — —
Buy James a Coffee at: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
The official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk
x
Welcome to The Delingpod with me James Delingpole and I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest but before we meet him a quick word on behalf of one of our wonderful sponsors.
I don't know whether you've noticed but the gold price has been getting quite interesting recently but it's not too late to get in.
I think it's very important to have holdings in gold and silver and there are two main ways of doing this.
Either you have physical metal, either delivered to your doorstep or in a vault in Switzerland or London, in which case I recommend the Pure Gold Company.
You'll find the details below.
But if you want to earn interest on your gold, so you don't pay the costs of storing your gold, for example, and you don't incur the risks of having to hide it at home, I recommend a company called Monetary Metals.
Now, it's extraordinary that they've worked out a way of paying interest on gold, but they do it.
They do it by lending out gold to the jewelry industry and similar industries and they pay you your interest in the form of further gold.
I've had the the CEO Keith Weiner twice on my podcast and I like the product.
I use it.
I use it myself.
It's you can get 2 to 5% annually in interest to 5% interest or even more if you go for their high yield gold bond offerings if you're an accredited investor.
It's a way of opting out of fiat currency and retaking control of your money.
So go to monetary-metals.com forward slash Dellingpole.
I'll put the details below this and open an accredited account.
Welcome to the Dellingpod.
Mike Williams, Sage of Key.
I am.
I'm really excited about this, actually.
Oh, thank you, James.
No, and I'm really glad I'm doing this interview.
No, sorry.
I don't do interviews.
I do conversations.
I'm really glad I'm speaking to you now, rather than two years ago.
Because I reckon two years ago I'd have been like, yeah, there's this guy who does this kind of Beatles conspiracy stuff and I'd better ask him some hard questions.
And I think I'd have asked some different questions for the one I'm going to ask you today.
Like, there would have been more entry level.
Whereas I've got some more sophisticated ones now.
Because I'm totally down.
I'm totally down the Beatles Conspiracy rabbit hole.
But for those who aren't there yet, tell us first about yourself.
I mean, you were an ardent Beatles fan, weren't you?
Yes, yeah.
Yeah, so I grew up with the Beatles.
I've told the story many times.
Back as early as 1968, I remember just loving Beatle music.
I went to go see Yellow Submarine in 1968, and I bugged my parents to go see it.
It wasn't my parents' cup of tea.
The Beatles were not.
So my father took my brother and I to the movie.
So it goes all the way back to before 1968.
I was aware of them in 1967 and I started playing Beatles songs on guitar.
What I would do is I would buy sheet music, guitar sheet music, easy guitar stuff.
And that's how I taught myself to play, because I knew the Beatles songs, and so when I figured out the chord diagrams and I started strumming them, because I knew the songs, I knew whether I was playing them correctly or not.
And so as time evolved, they just became a big part of my life.
I collected a lot of Beatle memorabilia over the years, James.
I have A huge Beatle vinyl collection.
Some of it I have sold off.
The more collectible stuff I still have.
I collected their vinyl for many years and I have their records from all over the world.
And some of the records I have are very collectible.
And so the Beatles were a big part of my life.
I learned to become a guitar player, a musician, a songwriter, writing my own songs and recording because of them.
And I became aware of the Paul is Dead conspiracy going back to around 1976 or so.
Around 1976 or so, that's when I really started to pay attention to it.
I was a junior in high school.
Uh, And one of the things that I did back then was to pull together a little lecture.
I brought in a friend of mine.
His brother was older than us.
He was about four or five years older.
His name was Doug, and Doug knew about all the clues that were on the Beatle albums, you know, the back masking and all that stuff.
So I was so fascinated by it, and He knew all the clues.
So my school at the time, my high school in New York, was very progressive.
So they allowed us to bring in guest speakers.
Of course, it had to be approved and all that stuff.
And I put these little posters up in the school letting people know that we're going to have a Paul is Dead presentation.
This goes back to 1976.
And I didn't expect anything.
And then once the moment came, it was a packed house.
It was a classroom.
There was standing room only.
Doug was at the front of the room, and he was taking everybody through the clues.
But, I thought at the time, and for the longest time, that Paul was always Paul, and that the whole Paul is Dead deal was nothing more than a clever, witty marketing program.
The Beatles having some fun with their fan base, because the way the Beatles are presented to us is they're very clever and witty.
And it wasn't until 2016, it was 2016, that I bought the book, The Memoirs of Billy Shears.
This is the later edition with the blue cover.
The original cover was red and I bought the book on Amazon on a lock.
It came up as suggested reading, something you might like, a recommendation.
So I got the book and I read it and as I was reading it, it was just taking me back because there's so much detail in the book I thought to myself, look, the only way all this information can be in this book is it has to be coming from somebody from the inner circle, whether it's the guy playing Paul McCartney or people within the inner circle that have helped to put the book together.
One way or another, all that information just didn't come from nowhere.
There had to be a source.
When I got the book, I set on a course to research it and to figure out whether the book was truthful and where it was not being truthful, where it was just telling a fictional tale.
The book is classified as historical fiction.
And there's a reason for that.
It's for plausible deniability.
But the book is a very elaborate piece of encoding.
The author is Thomas E.U.
Harriot.
Tom and I over the years have become friendly from the perspective of a professional relationship.
I tried to get Tom on my podcast going back to 2016.
Initially he said he would come on and then about a week later he wrote me and he said that he couldn't do any any podcast, any interviews.
And I surmise that the reason for that is because he signed nondisclosures and legal representation in all likelihood said to him, look, it's best that you don't do that because even innocently, unknowingly, you could say something that could be breach of the NDA.
So in any case, that sent me on a course to read the book, to decode the book, That's the most important thing.
You have to decode it.
Those who are intrepid will take the time to do it.
I'm connected into a handful of colleagues that have done that.
A lot of the work, a lot of the research is mine, but on the other hand, there's research that comes my way because I'm connected to some really smart people that have taken the book and decoded it.
So, it's been eight years now.
I started in 2016.
I didn't think it would last this long.
The first show I was on to talk about it was Sophia Smallstorm's podcast.
And I didn't even want to do it.
I just heard about this book I was reading, and I said it's very fascinating.
I don't know what to make of it yet, but it's fascinating.
And she wanted me to come on.
So finally, I said, OK.
So I put together a huge PowerPoint presentation to break the book down, because it's 666 pages.
There's 66 chapters.
So to boil it down, I had to put these charts together.
And that was not something I was looking to do, because I knew it was going to be a lot of work.
But I did it.
And then Mark Devlin contacted me after that.
And he wanted me to come on his show and talk about it.
And it's really funny, James, on that show, I said to Mark, toward the end of the show, that this was the very last presentation or discussion I was going to have on Paul is dead.
Famous last words.
And so it's now it's eight years later.
And there's just so much to the conspiracy.
Yeah, there's so much to it.
And it's really, It's foundational from the perspective of, if you take a look at other conspiracies, the elements contained within the Beatles and McCartney conspiracy, you can apply to many, many other conspiracies.
So, and that's where I'm at with it today, and I don't know how much longer I'm going to do it.
Sometimes I say, you know, I don't know.
You know, I think maybe I'll do it this year and ride into the sunset, but every time I have those thoughts, something else pops up and it drags me back into it.
I'd say, Mike, it's a sacred duty.
I know that I was meant to do this, this stuff that I'm revealing to the world, and you've cornered a particular part of the market.
That sounds like a cynical phrase.
It's not.
You are contributing something really important.
Before we go on though, I'm no studio engineer, but on my screen your voice thingy is going up to the red line.
Is there any way you can make it less red-liney?
Is it really?
Okay, hold on one second.
That's better.
Is that better?
Yeah.
Keep going.
Okay, I don't know why it's doing that.
Let me see something here.
Let me go into the sound settings.
Okay, how about now? how about now?
Well, it's still showing red, but it's sounding less strident.
Let me move the microphone back.
Yeah.
How is that?
Maybe that's it.
Okay, so how does that sound now?
Yeah, that sounds better.
Okay.
So, the thing I get from a lot of... I've got this Telegram channel and I've got, you know, people comment on my blog posts and stuff like that.
And the thing you hear Time and time again, even from people who accept that Kennedy was shot by the CIA and the Mafia and so on, people who know that 9-11 wasn't planned by a man in a cave, they know we haven't been to the moon landing, but even these people say, Why should we care about the Beatles?
This is way too esoteric, and it discredits our cause.
It makes us look really wacky when we're starting to talk about stuff like Paul is Dead.
I've got an answer to that, but maybe you could give me your answer.
It's important because, like I mentioned earlier, it's foundational to many of the other conspiracies that people are looking into.
It's not just about A guy that was replaced or swapped out.
The first question you have to ask yourself, why was it done in secrecy?
Why was it done the way it was done?
So, when people say stuff like that, because I get the same questions and I hear the same things.
First of all, it's a massive lie.
And the other thing is, people really don't understand the impact that the Beatles have had on society and culture.
And the reason why a lot of people don't get it is because the change that has taken place from a social engineering perspective through Tavistock, it's very incremental and very methodical.
So it's like the boiling frog concept.
You don't really know that things are changing the way they're changing at the moment because it's a slow boil.
But if you take a look at where we are today, And you go backwards 60 years in time, and you take a look at the cultural and societal landscape, and you compare them, there's a huge difference.
And the Beatles are the foundation to all of the musical genres that followed.
So, they were really the first manufactured band to come out with a full-fledged mission of social engineering.
And the social engineering initiative that was put in place was to tear down traditional values, including institutionalized religion, and Christianity was in the crosshairs.
And they brought in a counterculture that consisted of anti-establishment, it was drug-oriented, Free love.
It changed the whole landscape, even the way people dressed, facial hair, dialogue.
Many, many things changed because of the Beatles.
And subsequent bands and genres of music built on top of that, to the point to where we are today.
Today, it's just blatantly in our faces, what's going on there.
With all the occultism and the ritual and all that stuff.
Yes, it's over the top.
So the Beatles are very important.
The Beatles were immersed in the occult.
When I say the Beatles, I'm talking about the Beatles as an entity.
And they were immersed in Thelema.
They were immersed in Crowleyism.
Alistair Crowley.
And they were the Pied Pipers of Crowley's Aeon of Horus.
So the Aeon, of course, many people will refer to it as the Age of Aquarius.
But Crowley wrote about, talked about, his new Aeon where people would be unshackled and would be able to pursue their true and pure will.
And so when we take a look at the Beatles, Take a look at the Sgt.
Pepper outfit.
When we talk about the Pied Piper, Pied means multi-colored.
When we look at the Sgt.
Pepper album cover, we have the Beatles in multi-colored band outfits.
They are the Pied Pipers.
So, it was very, very systematic, very strategic, the way that they rolled the Beatles out.
They started with very simple songs going back to Love Me Do and Please Please Me.
Songs like that from their first album, Please Please Me.
And then there was this very quick progression where the songs became more sophisticated and they were taking the audience in a different direction.
And then once we got past 1966 after Revolver, Revolver was kind of a transitional album from the early period, the biological Paul period, to the Billy period, Billy Shears, who's playing the part of Paul McCartney, to Sgt.
Pepper.
Sgt.
Pepper introduced the psychedelic era to the world, and then moving on from there.
So when people don't understand and they think it looks silly, they really don't understand the components behind the Beatles, behind the manufacturing of the Beatles, the marketing of the Beatles, positioning them to be There's always a reference back to the Beatles or back to Paul McCartney.
Always.
the most famous, influential band of all time.
That's why you hear a lot of artists today, James, who are in unrelated genres of music, hip-hop, rap, just pick one.
In many interviews and many documentaries, there's always a reference back to the Beatles or back to Paul McCartney.
Always.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay, so I know you have a couple of questions.
I hope that made sense.
Yeah, no, no, it does make sense.
I was just thinking of the time when I must have been about 13 or 14 and my mother had in her record collection, just because you do, the blue album and the red album with the Beatles looking out of their hotel, out of the apartment block I think it was.
Yes.
And I remember methodically going through all the Beatles songs saying to my brother, we've got to listen to this stuff because it's the Beatles and we've got to get into them because they're really culturally important.
And so one sort of made oneself like the Beatles and played it until we were into the Beatles.
I was wondering whether you felt the same way I do, that I'm now not sure, knowing what I know now about the Beatles, whether I genuinely liked them or whether I was culturally brainwashed into liking them because they were the thing that you liked because everyone did.
Do you ever wonder that?
I mean, were they as good as we thought they were?
Yeah, I think it's both.
There was a massive push by by Tavistock to to market them going back to 1963.
So it's the same.
It's the same marketing and promotional types of deception that we have today.
Pick something.
Pick the safe and effective, you know, the C-19 event.
It was marketed.
It was promoted.
It was pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed.
So it was the same thing with the Beatles.
It was really, really pushed.
In fact, I have a book that was written by Tommy James and the Shandells, And he has a chapter in there where he talks about, in 1963, he saw a placard, a promotion for the Beatles, and this is in the United States, and it was saying, the Beatles are coming, the Beatles are coming.
And, you know, he was thinking, he's saying in the public, but what's this all about?
Who are these guys?
And then they arrive in the U.S.
in February of 1964 at all of this fanfare.
So that piece of it, it's being pushed onto the public and you're being conditioned, or many people are being conditioned to say, hey, if you don't like this, maybe there's something wrong with you.
Yeah.
Everybody's going to love this.
But then again, many people did like the music.
I mean, I personally did like the music.
There's a lot of great Beatles songs.
People today will ask me, do you still think the songs are great?
Yeah, a lot of the songs are great, regardless of who wrote them and who was on the recorded tracks.
So I think, to answer your question, I think it's a mix of both.
Humans have a tendency, a huge tendency, to follow.
They mirror, they mimic, so they want to be accepted into whatever the current pop culture mentality is at the time, especially when you're young.
They want to fit in, and so that's a big piece of it as well.
I mean, look, I agree with you.
There are some Beatles songs which are pretty indisputably great.
I mean, I give you Eleanor Rigby, for example.
It's a great song.
It's a great song, yeah.
And, you know, I like A Day in the Life.
I like the fact that it's broken up into different sections which give it a kind of sophisticated feel, which I think we... I mean, that sort of anticipated Prog rock and all that kind of stuff, isn't it?
So I can see that some of the stuff they did was clever and good.
But I look at some stuff, and even at the time when I was trying to get into it, I instantly realised that the blue album was better than the red album.
And you think of those, the lovable mop tops singing, love, love me too, I know.
I mean, it just felt so, so lame, even though one was told that this was, this was the birth of their, their genius.
You know, they were just, we were just.
Tell me about the story that we were told about how they were really good musicians and they really cut their teeth in the Hamburg club.
They were sent to Hamburg and this is how you know that the Beatles were a really good type band because they'd had all that practice in the raw Hamburg.
So how did they fake that?
That period, for example.
Well, it was faked.
I don't want to say it was faked.
We received an official narrative.
We received stories.
Those stories don't necessarily reflect reality.
So the stories tell us, you know, that they were this band that came together.
They went to Hamburg.
They played for weeks on end.
They played seven hours a night.
And then when they weren't in Hamburg, they were back in Liverpool and the adjacent areas, and they were doing their gigs there.
And then they were, you know, discovered by a record store owner, Brian Epstein, who was running NEMS.
And then he's able to secure a contract.
I'm oversimplifying this, but this is basically the story.
He gets them a contract with EMI, with George Martin as their producer, and so we have these four working-class lads signed to EMI, and then they go on to unparalleled fame and fortune, right?
That's the story that we're given.
And people just take what's given to them and they consume it.
It's no different than when people sit in front of their television set and the nightly news comes on or cable news comes on and they're just talking and talking and talking and flashing images up and all it's doing is conditioning you.
And many people will watch it and believe it and that becomes their reality.
Perception becomes reality.
But what I did was I went back And I took a look at the whole Beatles story.
See, a lot of people who were in the research community in Paul is Dead, they only want to focus on the replacement of Paul and then focus on Billy Shears.
So it's kind of like the midpoint and then move forward.
But I looked at it and said, well, you know what?
There had to be a whole piece of this that took place before.
There had to be a prerequisite.
So when I started taking a look at Um, information that I was pulling together and all this information, James, is it's mainstream.
It's out there, so it's hidden in plain sight.
And this is how it almost always works.
You just have to look and the truth is out there.
So when I started taking a look, one of the first things that happened was I have clips of George Martin and interviews.
And George Martin said a lot of unflattering things about the Beatles at the time that he met them.
He had said that they had nothing behind them.
He said that they weren't great musicians.
It wasn't obvious to him that they were songwriters.
So, in fact, I have an entire chart that talks about this.
So this is at odds with the official narrative.
Here's the producer.
And George Martin, what a lot of people also don't realize is that George Martin just, he wasn't just their producer, he was the head of the Parlophone label back in the day.
So here we have the head of the Parlophone label, which is tucked in under EMI, which is one of the largest recording companies in the world, if not the largest back in the day.
And he's got this band.
That is now under his control, under his wings.
There was an interview that was done by Norman Smith back in 1971 in a music magazine, and he's talking about how the Beatles were not very good in the studio.
In fact, he said that they failed in the studio, and they had a heck of a time trying to get Love Me Do recorded.
So, you know, you start hearing these things, and you're thinking, okay, so there's another story.
There's a There's another narrative here that nobody's really exploring.
Everybody's paying attention to this other stuff over here, while over here, the lesser known information, nobody's really grabbing onto.
So the Beatles They first go to Hamburg in August of 1960, and they're taken there by their first manager handler, Alan Williams, and they're young guys.
George Harrison is like 17 years old, Paul's 18, and when they get there, it's, you know, admittedly, they are not very good musicians.
They are Mediocre at best, and this is not just me saying this, and this is information that has come out actually in mainstream sources to say this, and they showed no inclination or no acumen as to being songwriters.
And in fact, their first stint in Hamburg starting in August of 1960 through December of 1960 was a failure.
They came home dejected, nothing materialized.
They were residing in squalor while they were out there.
And it wasn't until 1961 that things started to pick up.
And their stint in Hamburg, what I explain to people is they were not there to learn to be songwriters.
They didn't write songs in Hamburg.
Their stint in Hamburg was boot camp.
It was to get them up to speed to be performers, to learn quickly and perform the music.
That's what that was all about.
It wasn't about songwriting.
And so we have them in Hamburg in August of 1960, and then we get through 1961, and they're doing all of these gigs.
They're gigging, gigging, gigging, gigging.
And then, somehow, they wind up with an audition with DECA, another major label, on January 1st of 1962.
So the first question I had to ask myself was, well, how does this band that really had nothing behind them, they weren't great musicians at all, they weren't songwriters, But somehow, they wind up with an audition with Decca Records on January 1st of '62, where they recorded 15 songs, of which 12 were covers, and three were these nondescript originals that didn't wind up on any of their albums when they were a band.
They wound up, they ended up on Anthology later on, but not during their timeline when they were together as the Beatles.
And Decker turns him down.
Then Brian Epstein takes tapes to George Martin.
In February of 1962, George Martin takes a listen to the tapes and he says to Brian Epstein, based upon what you're showing me, I'm not going to sign them.
I'm not interested.
Then, in June of 1962, well, there's a change of heart.
On George Martin's part, as the story goes, he was instructed to take the Beatles on from up above and we could talk about that a little bit as to how that may have taken place and who it was.
Yeah.
I'm intrigued there.
So you've got Brian Epstein.
I can see how, sorry, George Martin.
I can see how a, let's call him a normie, would take this.
They would say the reason that George Martin was averse to the Beatles was because he was an old-fashioned pucker, ex-navy chap.
He was from a different class, he didn't understand the raw new sound of popular music, popular beat combos, and so he needed to kind of attune himself to this raw new talent.
But obviously that's not really how it works.
No.
The question I want to ask you is, how early do you think George Martin was in on it?
Do you think he was always kind of intelligence stroke Tavistock, or do you think he was talked into it?
No, I think that, I'm giving you my opinion on this, because there's no hard and fast evidence to prove one way or another, but George Martin, to put into perspective, George Martin was given the Parlophone label to head up, I think in 1955, he was 29 years old.
A 29 year old was put in charge of the label.
So, an EMI goes back to, it has its roots in the military, Back to World War II.
So it is part of the military-industrial complex to begin with.
George Martin takes over the Parlophone label from Oscar Prius in 1955.
Oscar Prius retired.
And I think at the time Joseph Lockwood, Sir Joseph Lockwood, was the CEO of EMI.
So we have some, we have some, like especially with Joseph Lockwood, we have some heavy hitters.
So this tells me that George Martin was being positioned to take on the responsibilities and the role that he ended up with.
So seven years later, you fast forward, and 1962, he winds up with the Beatles.
So I think he was always part of the strategy, always part of the plan.
Now, one of the other things that is important to understand is that within the Masonic system, within Freemasonry, the role that you're going to play is not always known early on.
In other words, you're set up to have certain positions, to have certain skills that are going to be utilized Down the road.
And I think that could possibly be the case with George Martin.
He was being mentored, he was being brought along, fully knowing that at this point here, this was going to take place.
A band like the Beatles was going to be handed over to him.
And he was going to play a big part in leading this social engineering effort.
In a lot of ways, I look at George Martin as a social scientist, a social engineer.
So that's my thoughts on George.
Yeah, and to a degree, I suppose, their handler.
Yes.
Yeah, I think it's more than just to a degree.
I think he was, you know, he's pretty much the handler.
Yeah.
Until Billy showed up and took the reins to control the band.
Okay, we'll come to Billy in a moment.
I want to ask you about that talk show where he appears and he does all these kind of Illuminati shapes.
You know the one I mean?
Before he sits down?
Yeah, he sits down.
Yeah.
That's weird, isn't it?
It's weird to the person watching it, who might have some awareness of the symbolism.
Not going to be weird to people who are clueless, because they don't know.
They're clueless.
They just go right over their head, you know?
But Billy, in the book, when you read memoirs, it's very clear, because it's written in first person, first of all, it's very clear that he is He is an occultist.
He's an accomplished occultist, into mysticism, the esoteric.
So for him to do those types of things, now that I've been doing this for as long as I've been doing it, when he speaks, when I see him make those symbols, it doesn't surprise me at all because that's what he does.
He's also Vivian Stanshall, isn't he?
Is that right?
He played the role of Vivian Stanshall in the Bonzo, the Bonzo Dog Band with Neil Innes.
And a lot of people have a lot of problems getting their head wrapped around that, because the Stanshall character had reddish blonde hair, so people really have a difficult time trying to equate that to Paul McCartney.
But I have shown images that I believe are very strong evidence that they are one and the same.
One of the strongest pieces of evidence that ties Billy to the Stan Choll character in the Bonzo Dog Band is his left eye.
So when I was first looking at Stan Choll, I noticed that he had a wandering or lazy left eye.
At least that's what I thought.
And then when I saw pictures of Billy, he had the same configuration with his eye.
He had this kind of wandering, lazy eye.
So I was thinking to myself, what are the odds that two different people would have the very same issue?
And as I dug more and more into it, because the book tells us, the book tells us that he did play that role.
But, again, my role was not just to take the book at face value.
My research said, okay, well, that's great that the book says that, but can I find evidence that would indicate that it's true?
And I did.
I have some very compelling images.
I can send them to you after the show if you'd like.
You can take a look at them.
Where it's very clear to me, in fact, let me see if I've got one here.
I don't know if I can show you.
Okay, so I'll show this to the audience.
Can you see that?
Yes.
Okay, so the person with the microphone is Vivian Stanchel.
Yeah.
The other guy is what people, who people think is Paul McCartney.
Yeah.
Now just take a look at the image, and right off the bat, I don't know about you, James, or others, I'm looking at that and saying, well, the person Billy or Paul McCartney character is just an older version of the guy that's over here.
Yeah.
I'd agree with you.
I mean, take a look at the eye.
Yeah, yeah.
It is in the eye.
Okay, yeah.
So what I did was, I then, to make it easier for people, so we have this eye.
So the left eye looks like it's wandering.
Yeah.
I have one more to show you.
I don't want to take up too much of your time here.
But this is another one that is very telling.
Yeah, yeah. - Yeah.
Okay?
So, in this picture, look at the nose, even though he's had some nose surgery.
Take a look at the mustache.
Again, we have the situation with the eyes.
Over here, that's Stan Shaw, a very rare image of Stan Shaw without the mustache.
Yes.
And to fix the eyes, he had a blepharoplasty.
And people who don't know what a blepharoplasty is, it's a procedure that surgically removes excess fat, muscle, and skin from the upper and lower eyelids to redefine the shape of the eye.
Now, with the Stanchell character, some people say, oh no, you know, he was taller and lankier.
There were at least two Vivian Stanchells.
So, what Billy did was, in the 1970s, he hired a guy, his first name is Victor, I don't know what Victor's last name is, but he went by Victor Stanchell, Victor Viv Stanchell, Vivian Stanchell.
And he hired Victor for the sole purpose of being able to have his McCartney and his Stan Schall character coexist.
Okay?
So, and when you take a look at the Stan Schall and the Bonzos, and the Stan Schall that didn't perform in the Bonzos, it's very easy to tell that even though they have, there are similarities in their appearance, they are not the same person.
And people will go to Wikipedia and say, oh, well, you know, it says Vivian Stan Shull died in 1995.
Victor died in 1995.
And so what you have in Wikipedia is a fictional narrative about a fictional character That's telling you that this Stan Shull character died in 1995.
Well, in fact, Victor, that's not his real name unless he had his name officially changed.
You could do that legally to Stan Shull.
I'm not saying that that is not a possibility, but it's not Billy.
Billy created the Stan Shull character.
It's a character, not a real person.
It's funny, some people, I've noticed, find the image aspect of the story, you know, comparing pictures, they find it very unconvincing.
I think it's more men than women.
I think women generally are better at spotting, you know, the example I always give is, I never know when my wife's had a haircut, even when she's told me she's been to the hairdresser.
I think a lot of men are like this.
We're not very observant.
Whereas women who are trained to spot when husbands are having affairs and things, they spot these tiny, tiny details.
And I know that some people can look at a picture of pre-1966 Paul and post-1966 Paul and go, that is not the same person.
But the thing I like about the Beatles, well, conspiracy, whatever you want to call it, Is that there are so many different aspects to it, you know, you can have different ways in.
So if you don't find the visuals compelling, you can find other examples.
I mean, for example, is it not the case that pre-66 Paul, the original Paul, could play his bass much more naturally than post-66 Paul, because he wasn't a natural bass player?
Okay, yeah, so let me just go back to the images for a second, James.
That's okay, that's okay, and then we'll get to the bass playing.
So what Tavistock did was they created a composite Paul McCartney over time.
Right.
So on any given year, you had this image or this picture of Paul McCartney.
And then it would change up year after year after year.
And because people were told, that's Paul McCartney, people would say, OK, well, that's Paul McCartney.
Who else would it be?
In fact, so that was a tactic used by Tavisach, which was to create this.
Here's an example.
Here's a collage I did a number of years ago.
So here's Paul McCartney.
Now take a look at the other images.
They're not the same guy. - Okay.
I have another one.
You believe they are because you were told that they are.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Here he is here.
This one is a hybrid.
A lot of images have been doctored, James.
A lot of images have been doctored.
Here he is from the 1980s.
That guy is that guy?
That guy?
Is that guy?
So, what they did, in fact, I did this chart a long time ago.
Here's Billy with his Wingsday and his mullet.
Yeah.
It's not the same guy.
So, what Tavistock did was to create a composite.
And so, over time, people just kind of, they just kind of massaged it all together, and they just accepted the fact that this was Paul McCartney.
But nobody was looking at, or very few people, I should say, were looking at the images Right next to each other.
Yeah.
And doing a comparison.
So, now the other question you had was, I'm sorry, it was the bass playing.
Yes.
Apparently you can see from the footage that it's very different, that he has to look at the fretboard.
Yes.
Yes, now the reason for that is because Billy's right-handed, and Billy had to teach himself to play left-handed bass, and I hear comments all the time, oh, it's very difficult to do.
It is difficult to do, but it has been done.
There are Beatle tribute bands where the person that plays the character of Paul McCartney in the tribute band is a natural right-handed player, and they taught themselves to play left-handed.
So, with a lot of discipline and a lot of motivation, which Billy had, You can do it.
Now, Paul could play the bass.
You know, he didn't look at his fretboard very often.
I've seen that collage and it's a good comparison.
Whereas Billy has a tendency to look down.
And it's primarily because being a lefty is not Billy's natural playing orientation.
Now, the other thing, too, is that Billy is blind in his right eye.
This is research that came to me via one of my colleagues, Sally Witte.
Sally herself has an ocular prosthesis, so this is how she picked up on it.
We have a lot of evidence now showing that this indeed is the case.
Remind me, I'll talk to you about an interview that Billy did where he validated the research.
He's done this twice to us, by the way, so far.
Really?
Or he's come out in interviews, yes.
So the other reason why Billy looks is because he's blind in his right eye.
So when he's playing lefty, he has to look all the way to his right in order to see what he's doing because he doesn't have sight.
Think of it, anybody who doesn't want to question it, close your right eye, then look to your right and make believe you're playing a guitar.
And so, you have to exaggerate the turning of your head.
Now, here's the thing, right?
So, Billy isn't actually right-handed.
I know that you spoke to, you had an interview or a discussion with Mike Stock.
Yeah.
Yeah, Mike's a friend of mine, right?
So, Mike told me a story, and I hope he doesn't mind me telling this, but I guess it was back in the 1980s.
He worked with Billy a couple of times on some projects, and the story he told me was, Mike walked into the studio, and Billy was already there.
And Billy was playing guitar, and he was playing guitar right-handed.
Not lefty, right-handed.
And at the time, Mike thought, you know, he's Paul McCartney, and I'm going to paraphrase here, and he asked him about playing right-handed, that he was actually very good at it.
Pretty good right-handed guitar player for a guy who's lefty.
And then Billy told him a story that back in the day, left-handed guitars were few and far between, so, you know, people had to learn, or he had to learn to play right-handed as well, which is, when you think about it, is not a very convincing story because we have Jimi Hendrix, Yeah, Jimmy was lefty.
All you need to do is flip the guitar, reorient the strings and you're done.
But it's good for that moment, because I mean he's quite quick thinking.
I mean to be capable of that level of deception, you've got to think on your feet all the time, haven't you?
Yes, well he has a lot of practice.
The other thing that we have to come to grips with is that when people talk about biological Paul McCartney, he was in the picture from a mainstream media perspective, let's say from 1962 through 1966.
So four years.
I know there was the Hamburg years and all that stuff.
I'm talking about when the media really started to focus on the Beatles.
So let's just say 62 to 66 for the sake of argument.
Billy's been playing that part from late 66 on.
So we're in 2024, so we're talking about a long time that Billy's been playing this role.
And that's the Paul McCartney that people know.
And also, going back to what we were saying before, The different looks of Paul McCartney.
I was told by a source that right out of the shoot, when the Beatles were created, along with the biological version of the Beatle, whether it be Paul McCartney, John Lennon, George Harrison, or Ringo Starr, there were three look-alikes or doubles that were also in play.
And those doubles and lookalikes, maybe not the original three, maybe they were, but doubles and lookalikes were used throughout the timeline.
The Beatle timeline and then also during the solo period as well.
So that's why when you look at images, people get confused.
In fact, I stopped looking at image comparisons because I've gotten to the point where I know that he's not Paul McCartney.
And I also know, as I mentioned, James, many, many of these images have been docketed and played with.
And in fact, in memoirs, it talks about that as well.
Right.
Now we've done exactly what I was trying not to do, which is to leap ahead, because I want to get to the beginning of the story.
Yes!
We've already established, okay, that if George Martin was recruited in To head Parlophone in 55, did you say?
Yeah, it was 1955 I believe.
That's indicative of how far ahead these people think, whoever exactly these people are.
So, take us back a bit further.
When do you think it was, and who was it, at Tavistock Institute, which made the decision, we need to shift popular culture, we're going to invent this band, or actually more than one band, because I think, am I right in thinking the Stones were a similar Yeah.
Another Tavistock creation.
Okay.
So, do we know who was behind all this?
Well, that's a difficult question, right?
So, two players that pop up.
Theodore Adorno, out of the Frankfurt School, which of course is attached at the hip to Tavistock, and Willis Harmon was another social scientist that the book mentions.
So, we have Theodore Adorno and Willis Harman, and I did some research on them.
It's in my big presentation that I uploaded back in April of 2020.
I take the audience through both Harman and Adorno and their ideologies.
And then you've got George Martin as part of the equation.
So that's where I start.
Who, within the Tavistock chain of command, was THE person?
I don't know that.
Tavistock itself, according to the book by Dr. John Coleman, the Committee of 300, reports up through the Committee of 300.
So, we can argue that the decision wasn't even made at Tavistock, per se.
Tavistock was in the mode of executing the strategy.
that the actual decision-making was made within the Committee of 300, that it was time now to throw the switch and to move society and the cultures into a very different direction.
And music being a huge lever in their toolbox, it's huge, just like Hollywood, just like entertainment in general, that it's one of their most effective tools to make change.
Yeah.
Yeah.
OK, so we've got, they've made the decision, maybe it's the Committee of 300, maybe someone even higher than the Committee of 300.
Yes, that could be too, yep.
How were the Fab Four selected?
Well, I have a hypothesis, and I'll call it a theory, I'll call it a hypothesis.
If you take a look at images, there's a lot of occult images of the Beatles if you go look for them.
And one of the most telling images is images of George Harrison and Paul McCartney with birdcages on their heads.
There's another image of John Lennon in a Superman shirt with his head leaning up against a birdcage.
Now, birdcage symbolism, in Illuminati speak, is mind control being in a mind control program so I have surmised that I believe it's very possible that the Beatles were in mind control programs from a very early age and they were brought along so if you take a look at John Lennon as an example he really didn't have a father Freddie wasn't really around.
His mother passed when he was young.
He was raised by his Aunt Mimi.
Paul McCartney lost his mother at an early age, I think around 17 years old.
And I have speculated that Jim McCartney, his biological father, could very well have been a high-level Freemason.
And he was handling his son.
In the book it tells us that, in memoirs, it tells us that Jim McCartney wanted to move his son away from the Christian belief system, to steer him away from that.
George Harrison and Ringo Starr are a little more difficult to assess, but where I landed with it is that if two of them were in mind control programs, then it's likely that all four of them were in some kind of program to some degree.
And also Germany, Hamburg, Frankfurt, I mean, these are all hotbeds for the elites, for Tavistock.
So, you know, them going through that process in Germany and Hamburg, I mean, to me it just lends credence to the argument that it's possible that they were in mind control programs and brought along.
So this is the point, well actually several points, where skeptics of this analysis will say, oh come on, too many people would have blabbed, you know, what about Paul McCartney's brother?
What about Jane Asher?
You know, she would surely notice the difference between old Paul and new Paul.
What about, okay, later on, what about Heather McCartney?
Linda Eastman.
All these people.
It would be too much to expect somebody not to blab.
Well, I get this all the time, as you very well would expect.
My answer, not to be flip about it, I'm really not trying to be, you know, flip.
These are people that don't really understand how the world works.
It's all compartmentalized.
And we have to understand that the controlling matrix controls everything.
They control your media.
They control your politicians.
They control your government.
They control your military.
They control your medicine.
They control your education system.
Many people just cannot get their heads wrapped around that.
They cannot understand the scope of of the control, it's full spectrum.
So when they come up with these programs, and also, by the way, even within the controlling mechanism, it is compartmentalized.
Everything's compartmentalized.
It's on a need-to-know basis.
So it's like, the example I use, James, is if you work for a large corporation, and you're on a desk somewhere, rank-and-file, do you really know The discussions, the strategy, and the decisions that are being made in the Chairman's office?
No.
No.
But what about, say, Mal Evans?
You know, their famous roadie and sort of loyal factotum.
He must have known.
Well, he obviously knew that Billy was not Paul.
Yeah.
Okay?
And we don't really know what Mal really knew or what he didn't know.
I don't know that.
He supposedly had some memoir that was going to be published, and he was killed by a police officer, I think out in L.A.
In a tragic accident.
Yeah, a tragic accident.
That's how they always are, an accident.
And the manuscript disappeared.
And then sometimes you'll hear that it was, you know, somebody found it and it's going to come out and blah, blah, blah.
But even if it comes out, even if it was found, it's not going to contain the information that's going to reveal anything.
It might have a couple of nuggets to keep people's interest, but it's not going to be something that's going to, um, Tell the truth, truth.
But in any case, so it's compartmentalized.
Do I think that Mal Evans knew that the Beatles didn't write all the raw music?
I think that's the case because Mal, I remember listening to an interview going back years ago where he said that he contributed to the writing of the title track on Sgt.
Pepper, the Sgt.
Pepper song.
And I think Fixing a Hole was another one.
Don't quote me on that one, but I think that was another one.
And he was promised credit on that song, on those songs, and he never received it.
So here we have a situation where Mal comes out and he says that, hey, I did contribute to the writing of at least two songs.
So if that's the case, then he has to know that Those particular songs weren't written exclusively by Paul McCartney, you know?
But going back to my example before about the corporate system, if you even raise it up to, let's just say middle management, does middle management know everything that's taking place in the CEO's office?
No.
No.
Even vice presidents and executives within a corporation don't know everything that's being discussed in the chairman's office.
or the chairperson's office so you have to understand the masonic system is a pyramid structure it is it is structured exactly like a corporation exactly like it so that's how things are able to be compartmentalized yeah i think i think your explanation is generous um in as much as i suspect that i i can't believe that jane asher doesn't know i can't believe that lots of She does know.
She does know.
Yeah.
She does know.
First of all, her mother, her mother Margaret, was George Martin's oboe teacher.
Right.
Right.
Okay?
So that's the thing.
You have to connect the dots.
There are degrees of separation on all of this.
In the case with the Beatles, when you start looking at all of these characters, all of these players, you start to see that, in one way or another, they're interconnected.
Yes.
You know?
They're interconnected.
And so, in the book it tells us that her father, Richard Asher, was very much into in the field of psychiatry and hypnosis and tells us that he would put biological Paul McCartney in a hypnotic trance and Margaret Asher would play the piano and that's how the song yesterday came about.
This is what the book is telling us and so when he came out of trance one of the post-hypnotic suggestions was to tell him that you're not going to remember the piano playing.
All you're going to remember is the tune.
You're going to remember the melody.
That's what you're going to remember.
Now, is that story true?
I don't know.
Is it possible?
Yes.
For 12 years, I was in private practice as a hypnotherapist.
I was a certified master hypnotherapist.
I was board certified by the International Association of Counselors and Therapists.
I did hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hypnosis sessions.
So is something like that possible?
If you have repeated sessions, you put somebody into trance, and you go through that routine?
Yes.
Something like that is very possible.
People who want to doubt it, your television set is a hypnosis box.
You sit in front of it all day, sooner or later, it's going to get you.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Before I forget...
It's easy to get fixated by the Beatles, but there was a whole scene that emerged at the same time.
There was the blues scene, which was very big in the London clubs.
It's where Jimmy Page cut his teeth, you had the Yardbirds, you had Eric Burden and the Animals.
And then there was the kinks as well.
And then there was the Kinks as well.
Yes.
Were any of these bands real?
Were they all Tavistock creation?
Okay, so this is a question I get asked, and it's a multifaceted response on this thing.
First, we have to start with the premise, which I believe is a reality.
Tavistock creates the genres of music.
They create them.
So, Tavistock builds a sandbox.
And the bands that are brought in, let's just talk about the British Invasion, the bands you just mentioned, The Stones, The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks.
They are brought in and they are playing in that sandbox.
They're creating music that has been decided upon, that is going to be put out as part of the whole counterculture anti-establishment to get that mindset going.
Now the question becomes, alright, so once you're in your sandbox, because the record labels, let's just take it at a very simple level, the record companies are calling the shots.
They're going to explain to you, you're going to be assigned a producer, what the songs are going to sound like.
Many times the songs are reshaped, both musically and lyrically.
And then, most importantly, is the presentation.
The presentation is, how is the band going to look?
What's the retire going to look like?
There's a perception piece of this thing that people are going to look at.
That's part of the manipulation.
The manipulation of the mind and the consciousness.
Look at how old these guys and these gals are dressed now.
Well, you know, what's going on here?
And people start to pay attention to it, and they start to get attracted to it.
It's the packaging and the presentation of the album art, which many times was loaded up with occult symbolism.
So even a band that was unaware of occultism, let's just say they just didn't have any idea about this stuff, they just went in, they recorded their songs, they released an album labeled Would then shape everything to make sure that it was in support of whatever message and agenda that they wanted to put out.
The other question I get asked is, are you saying, Mike, that none of these bands could play their instruments?
For the record, I have never said that.
I've never said that the Beatles couldn't play their instruments.
I said that the Beatles were not up to studio skill level.
To play on their albums.
Not until later on, when Billy took over the band, did they play more on the recorded tracks.
My conclusion is between 62 and 66, they played on nothing.
It was all studio players on those recordings.
If we touch on Rubber Soul, I can explain how I came to that conclusion.
But other bands, like The Who as an example, I believe that The Who could play their instruments, and I believe that Keith Moon was on the recorded tracks, that John Enwistle was a very good bass player.
Pete Townshend could play his guitar to the point where he would be on the recorded tracks.
So whether they couldn't play, or didn't play, or whether they could on the recorded tracks, that's an interesting discussion to have.
But at the end of the day, the real issue is presentation.
What is the message that's being disseminated out to society, to the public, What is it that the controllers, the social scientists, are trying to get the population to buy in on?
That's it in a nutshell.
I agree.
I agree with you.
That is the most important thing.
And yet, it is endlessly fascinating to speculate at what stage these people became knowingly put themselves in the service of this kind of mass brainwashing of society.
How much did they believe the sort of things that you and I used to believe about rock and roll when we were growing up?
We used to believe that it's four guys in the garage rehearsing and then they get signed and they make this great new noise.
All the stuff that normal people believe about music.
When did they go from there to... Okay, are you familiar with Peter Gabriel at all, and Genesis?
I know of Peter Gabriel and Genesis.
I have a couple of their records, but as far as their history, not a whole lot.
Okay, so they went to a private school, and somebody's been doing some analysis of the early Genesis tracks, and Even very early on.
Some of the symbolism they're putting into it is clearly occult.
I think Peter Gabriel was massively into the occult.
I think he was born to be an Illuminati.
I don't know about Mike Rutherford and Richard Banks and so on.
Or look at Pink Floyd.
Look at the triangle on Darkseid.
David Bowie.
Look at Bowie.
Jimmy Page.
Jimmy Page was always very shy about talking about the occult, wasn't he?
Jimmy Page would go on stage in his outfit with moons and stars and all that stuff.
I mean, he was communicating out, and there was no secret that he was very much a disciple of Alistair Crowley and Thelema.
But the point I'm trying to make is your point.
A lot of these people Did know.
They were schooled in this.
Yeah.
And so, who they all are, that's a tough question to answer, because unless you analyze every single one of them, and even then, all you can do is you can speculate, because then the question becomes, we're told that they wrote these songs.
Well, did they really write the songs, or were they credited with writing the songs?
Yeah.
And that there were ghostwriters behind the scenes that were pulling all of this together.
See, John Lennon said this on one of his songs in Walls and Bridges.
I love that album.
It's a great album that John Lennon put out.
He didn't like it so much, but I thought it was great.
He said, it's all showbiz.
It's all showbiz.
And there's a lot that he said in that one line.
That it's all there.
It's all entertainment.
It's for public consumption.
It's the what's taking place in front of the curtain, not behind the curtain.
And what goes on behind the curtain, it gets, you know, we can know some stuff, but all To know it all?
It's not possible in my view.
Yeah, but we can make informed speculation, can't we?
Of course, yes.
Okay, so if you're suggesting that the Fab Four were potentially MKUltra control, it follows that this could also apply to a number of other Yes.
Because they don't do things by halves.
We've seen this in the Laurel Canyon scene.
They were all fakes, basically.
They were all children of military intelligence or similar.
Yeah.
The Stones, presumably.
For example, when did Brian Jones allegedly Die accidentally.
It was 1969 I think, right?
I think.
So Paul's death predates that.
What's your theory on why original Paul died and how he died?
Wow, I mean that's really a rabbit hole, I'll tell you what.
So just going back to Something I wanted to mention earlier, we're talking about these bands.
I have, I believe that Tavistock always has eyes and ears, pools of resource of these bands that are out there.
And some of them obviously are in programs and they're brought along.
Others are, you know, other Players, artists, entertainers, celebrities, whatever, are not, but they are identified and then they are brought along.
In other words, they, you know, they, they dangle the carrot, they lure them in.
And then they're able to handle them and manipulate them that way.
So the point being is there's multiple ways to pull people into the music and entertainment industry to engage in doing the controller's work to push the controller's agenda forward.
Now the question again?
I was leaping all over the place.
Sorry, while we're there, I've had sort of another example of what we're talking about.
Radiohead.
I was a massive, massive Radiohead fan.
I mean, I'm probably, you know, one of their world's great... I've seen them about ten times, probably.
And I know they can play their instruments.
I've been looking at their lyrics, which I never really paid any attention to, because I'm more of a kind of music and vibe man.
Because I could write myself, I said, why should I listen to some crap that some random pop stars have written?
So I've always been very sceptical about lyrics.
But you look at the lyrics, they are very, very dark.
They are very, very satanic illuminati.
They are very, very transhumanism.
Radiohead are clearly advancing an agenda.
Now the question is, were they recruited about the time of Pablo Honey?
When they had one song up their sleeve, you know, Creep, and the rest wasn't doing anything?
Because they suddenly took off.
Yes!
Yes.
I mean, Radiohead comes up a number of times in the comments section on my channel.
People will say exactly what you're saying, James, that, you know, something is up with the band.
Any band that has reached a certain level of notoriety, fame and fortune, in my view, has styled on a dotted line, has made the pact.
Yeah, literally.
Literally, to some degree.
Now, the question you asked before, I just remembered, was Paul's death.
Yes.
All right, so in the book it tells us that Paul's death was the result of entering into a Faustian bargain.
He and John Lennon entered into a Faustian bargain in October of 1963.
All right.
And that bargain basically said that they would give their lives for the success of the band.
Now, they were young men, so in 1963, Paul McCartney was, you know, his early 20s, John the same age.
So, I have told my audience, I have explained that I don't believe they had any idea what they were really getting into.
So, when they said the words, when they went through the ritual, it may not have even seemed like a ritual to them, but the people who were running the show, the priesthood and so on, this is how they go about it.
But it literally meant that somebody was going to give their life for the success of the Beatles.
And the Beatles, as I mentioned, were so important, and still are so important, to the whole shift in ages, from the age of Pisces or the Aeon of Osiris to the age of Aquarius or the Aeon of Horus, the Aeon of Osiris and the Aeon of Horus, Crowley the Aeon of Osiris and the Aeon of Horus, Crowley terms, Crowley concepts.
They were so important to that, that they had to be, they had to have insurances that it would succeed.
Now, some people might argue, well, all of this ritual stuff and occult stuff is a bunch of nonsense.
How do we know this stuff even works?
And my explanation is, and my response is, it doesn't matter what you think.
Okay?
Because you're not running anything.
It's not you that is plotting and strategizing as to how they're going to move forward.
It's based upon what they believe.
Now, whether it actually does something or not, I don't know.
But it's what they believe, and they believe it does something.
And with my work, I have shown over and over again that the Beatles were immersed in the occult.
The occultism is all around them.
The album with the bits of dead baby on it?
Yes, the butcher book.
How could they?
I mean, this was in 66, was it?
Innocent period.
What did the public make of that?
It was a shock.
So that was a Capitol release.
That wasn't an album that was released in the UK.
So Capitol Records, which was owned by EMI, released the album.
And the way the story goes, it was released to DJs, radio stations, and promotional outlets.
And I was asked this question just the other day on another show.
And they asked me, you know, what do you think was going on there?
Well, I think that what was going on was they were testing the waters.
When the Beatles came to America in February of 1964, the other thing I want to, before I say that, remember I said they started in Hamburg in August of 1960?
No musical skills, no songwriting, and then they landed in America in February, I think it was February 7th, 1964.
That's only three and a half years, James.
So the trajectory, they had rockets on their shoes.
To go where they went, based upon where they started, that by itself needs to be questioned.
So going back to the butcher cover, I think they were testing the waters.
Because when the Beatles showed up in America, it was titled, The Beatles Conquering America, The British Invasion.
So when you think about the British Invasion, think in terms of Tavistock.
You know, the Tavistock invasion, the British invasion, conquering America.
They knew they had to conquer the American culture and society because it's a huge piece of the world.
And America was viewed upon as the freedom, work hard, You can go places, you can achieve things in life, and so on.
But America was also looked upon as a Christian nation, although there were other religions obviously, but predominantly it was viewed as a Christian nation.
So they had to tear down the traditional values of American society, along with institutionalized religion.
In this case, like I said, it was mostly Christianity.
John Lennon's comments about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus were not off the cuff.
That was scripted.
In the book, it tells us that the Illuminati controllers, whatever you want to call them, declared war on Christianity back on September 11, 1962.
I think they were just putting the butcher out there to see what the reception would be.
Yeah.
How shocking would this cover be?
In other words, if they got a little bit of feedback, then think of it as Tavistock putting a poll out there.
Yeah, yeah.
Let's see what the response is.
Well, the response wasn't good.
So, they had more work.
Their work was cut out for them.
So, what happened was, in fact, I did, on the butcher, there were also clues on the butcher cover.
Bear with me one second here.
So, we look at the butcher.
I had somebody write to me and say, the Masonic connection and ritual connected to the impending death of Paul are transparent.
In other words, apparent on the butcher cover.
Obviously the butcher record cover shows a severed baby's head in Paul's lap.
So when you look at the butcher cover, you're going to see in Paul's lap is a severed baby's head.
He's also showing his wristwatch.
Paul's showing his wristwatch.
The way the prevailing conspiracy goes, Paul McCartney died in a car crash and he was essentially decapitated, so the severed baby's head plays into that decapitation.
The wristwatch is a reference to time and death, also Kronos, Saturn, or Satan.
He probably wasn't aware of this, but no wonder he was having bad dreams.
Because in the book, it tells us that he was having nightmares as he was getting closer and closer to when he was going to pass away.
But I have a note here on this chart as well.
Here's the chart, folks.
I showed it in one of my presentations.
Dismembered body parts can represent mind control and or being transformed into a different kind of being.
At least partially to an other-than-human person or a spirit.
So, when you think about that piece of it, you've got Biological Paul McCartney and you've got Billy.
In the book, Billy claims that he possesses Biological Paul's spirit.
Again, I will leave it up to the person who's listening or who reads the book to Decide whether they want to believe that or not.
I'm just explaining the occult aspects of this as it's explained in the book.
So I do think, I lean toward Paul's death being a ritual sacrifice in order to move the ball forward, to ensure success.
In fact, in the book it's called, Death for Success.
So we have the same thing with Brian Jones.
We have the same thing with Keith Moon.
We have John Bottom from Led Zeppelin.
There are many, many examples.
The 27 Club as an example.
Many, many examples where the artist, the entertainer, the musician passes away and the band lives on.
And the band lives on in a very successful way.
Yes, of course.
What's the band that followed Nirvana?
I mean, they've done terribly well, haven't they?
I mean, considering.
Are you talking about the Foo Fighters?
Foo Fighters.
I mean, they've actually become way bigger than Nirvana ever were.
Wow, the whole Dave Grohl thing.
Dave Grohl.
He's a Roman, isn't he?
Completely.
I mean, the way he pushed the Vax and stuff.
Yeah, well, I mean, we have Kurt Cobain dies, and then the drummer, right, from the Foo Fighters, passed away, and they did that creepy film, which appeared like predictive programming.
I forgot the drummer's name, folks.
I wasn't a big Foo Fighter fan.
Or Dave Grohl.
No, I know Dave Grohl, but whoever the other musician was that died.
But the point they're trying to make, somebody asked me, they said, Mike, what do you think about Dave Grohl?
I said, well I think I would never want to be in a band with him.
That's right.
It's like being the drummer in Spinal Tap, isn't it?
You don't want to be...
So, I don't know where you're at with that, James, as far as, you know, a lot of people don't subscribe to the ritual sacrifice.
I mean, Mike, to me it's an absolute der.
These people are steeped in it, and as you say, even if it's not actually Satan himself pulling the strings in the supernatural world, his minions Folks should listen to the Bob Dylan interview that he did with 60 Minutes back, I think in the early 2000s with Ed Bradley.
And Dylan basically spills the beans.
way they are acting on behalf of the supernatural dark forces that they serve and making it happen i think that's that's the deal folks should listen to the bob dylan interview that he did with 60 minutes back i think in the early 2000s with ed bradley and dylan basically spills the beans and he talks about um he you know he signed on the dotted line with the chief commander that is like
The Chief Commander interview is very, very telling, and kind of sad as well.
It was sad.
Because you realise that this guy is condemned, a bit like the sort of ancient mariner, to go around, you know, go around wedding feasts telling his story endlessly.
And they can't retire, except in special circumstances.
Where are you on David Bowie?
Bowie, like I said, he was deep into the occult.
But do you think he's actually dead?
I mean, have you seen the interview?
The guy who appears on TV after he's died talking about Bowie's legacy?
Yeah, yeah.
I'm not completely sold that that's David Bowie.
What I explain to folks is that can some of these deaths be staged?
Can they be symbolic?
And yes, even in the occult, when you do the research, that some of these rituals can be symbolic.
But on the other hand, James, people do die.
And they do die.
And to think that none of them die, because that's the position by some people, is none of them have died.
They're on some special island somewhere, sunken down Pina Coladas.
They've gone beyond the wall.
I've heard that one too, Antarctica, or some undisclosed island owned by the Controllers.
Just a bunch of stories out there.
I subscribe more to the fact that they do die, that they are sacrificed, that they signed on a dotted line.
I mean, in the interview that Bob Dylan did, Dylan said that, because when Ed Bradley asked him, why are you still doing this?
And he said, because I have to live up to my end of the bargain.
And he also said that, because Ed Bradley also asked him about writing his lyrics, because Dylan wrote these prolific, I should say profound lyrics back in the day, and then he said, I can't write like that anymore.
And then Ed Bradley kind of, what do you mean you can't write like that anymore?
But on the other hand, Ed was probably playing a little dumb because Ed didn't get to where he got by being naive.
So, there was a little bit of play going on there, but that interview by Bob Dylan is a very important one, in my view, because I think, to this day, it's probably one of the closest we have come to somebody who was a superstar, big-time artist, coming out and just saying it.
It came across very sincere and very genuine, versus in a joking manner.
Sometimes we get it in a joking manner, but Dylan wasn't joking when he was doing that interview.
That's my impression.
I'm flitting about here I know but I've got all sorts of things I want to... Oh go ahead this is great!
So I was thinking with my new eyes about the Beatles construct and realising just how much different aspects of popular culture bolstered the myth and say for example you had the Ruttles So you had a spoof documentary about this band like the Beatles called the Ruttles, reinforcing the notion that the Beatles were a real phenomenon.
And I was thinking, Eric Idle from Monty Python was involved with the Ruttles, which makes you think, so even the Pythons were to a degree in on the game.
Yeah, and the Monty Python gang was connected at the hip to George Harrison, Right?
Of course!
George Harrison.
I mean, at the time, I think it was ridiculous to suggest that this film was genuinely mocking Christianity, but actually, with hindsight, that is kind of what it was doing.
Yeah, and when you talk about the Rutles, think about it.
Neil Innes was in the Rutles.
He played the part of Ron Nassie, the John Lennon character, but Neil was also in the Bonzo Dog Band with Vivian Stanchel.
Yeah.
And then more recently, you've got the film I Didn't See.
You're locked up there, James.
You're video locked up.
Can you hear me now?
I can hear you, it's a little dodgy.
As long as you can hear my questions that's okay.
So then you had the more recent film written by that awful man who is clearly a Luminati servant thereof at least, Richard Curtis, the guy who wrote Four Weddings and a Funeral, and he wrote this film about the guy who discovers As if the Beatles had never been, he's the only guy who knows the Beatles back catalogue and he's a songwriter and so he releases the Beatles songs as if for the first time.
Did you see that movie?
Yes, yes.
I didn't see it, but again, it's... Have you thought about the movie yesterday?
Yes, that's it.
Yeah.
Yes, I did a couple of... I did two videos on that film.
In fact, in that film, with the Ed Sheeran character, there's a mention of the ginger geezer, which was a term that was associated with Vivien Stanchel.
Yeah, you see, they do this.
What you said at the beginning, I thought, was very true and incisive.
That actually, when you recognise the pattern of these conspiracy theories, The Beatles is It's very much like any other.
So what they do is they create this narrative, they then bolster the myth, and they reinforce the myth at various stages through history.
You see them doing it with the moon landings.
Now there's a new movie about how they're having to fake the moon landings, even though the moon landings happen because reason.
So they're constantly finding new ways of reminding new generations that this story is true and it happened.
They're doing that with the Beatles all the time.
You can't escape them.
No, you can't escape it.
In fact, I told folks years ago that what you're going to see is a ticker tape parade as Billy rides into the sunset.
And I said this years ago.
And so, what have we had?
Um, since I said that, let's just say six or seven years ago.
I mean, we just had a litany of documentaries and various releases and books and so on that are continuing to promote the Beatle myth, and in particular the McCartney character.
In memoirs it tells us, to get really esoteric, that the ritual sacrifice of Paul McCartney and Billy taking on the role is the reenactment of the Osiris Horus ritual, going back to the Egyptian mysteries.
People can look into that if they like.
I've done presentations on it.
You can take a listen and decide for yourself whether you believe that or not.
The truth of the matter is, James, I say all the time that the world is run by occultists.
They're not run by your politicians.
They're not run by your parliament.
Your Congress or your President or your Prime Minister.
It's run by occultists.
And what people believe is the true structure, the governments and the politicians and all that stuff, that's just, you know, that's just theatrics in front of the curtain.
Yeah.
And the music industry is, and the entertainment industry generally, is one of their main forms of mind control.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
Just on the subject of Who wrote the Beatles stuff?
Because I'm struck.
I was a music critic for many years and I listened to the Beatles back catalogue and it's extraordinary how unidiomatic it is.
I mean you can listen to Radiohead, you know it's Radiohead.
Actually Stones are not very idiomatic either because you've got I mean, Paint It Black, Ruby Tuesday, and then you've got Start Me Up.
That doesn't look like it was written by the same people.
But The Beatles, I think it's particularly noticeable that this looks like the work of many hands.
And not just sort of sardonic John and slightly twee, melodic Paul McCartney.
And a bit of Ringo and a bit of George.
Obviously, now it seems to me, not to you as well, this was written by a committee.
Yeah, yeah.
So people ask me about that many times as well.
And I explain that some people in the conspiracy research with the Beatles and McCartney will say, oh, Theodore Adorno wrote all their music.
And I actually addressed that in my big presentation back in April of 2020.
It's four and a half hours.
And I did a whole bit on Adorno.
And I believe that Theodore Adorno was in an oversight capacity.
Out of the Frankfurt School and Tavistock.
It's not to say that Theodor Adorno didn't write some of the music.
In fact, one song that I'm convinced he penned is the song, Piggies, off the Beatles' White Album.
It's right up his alley, lyrically and musically.
But what I concluded in my presentation, James, is that There were a small group of songwriters, crack songwriters, that were responsible for writing, penning The Beatles music, especially between 1962 and 1966.
And to break it down even further, stylistically, I believe that there was maybe a group of, let's just say, two to three, maybe four, that were responsible for writing McCartney-style music.
And three or four that were responsible for writing John Lennon styles of music.
And then we have, you know, occasionally we would have a George Harrison song.
All of this was being managed by, based upon my research and my opinion on this, being managed by George Martin.
And I also believe that George Martin had a big part in writing some of the music himself.
In fact, I have a clip of him in an interview where he says that he wrote the guitar lead for Michelle.
He says, that was my composition.
That's exactly what he says.
That's my composition.
So I'm watching that clip and I'm thinking to myself, you didn't just write that.
I'm going to guess that Michelle was entirely Your composition.
So we have Adorno with an oversight capacity.
George Martin, in all likelihood, either dotted line or direct line reporting into Adorno on this.
And then we have these songwriters reporting into George Martin, working on these songs.
And they utilize studio musicians to record the music.
And when the Beatles came in to record, they were recording the vocals and the harmonies.
They were not playing on those recorded tracks.
Again, between 62 and 66 specifically, starting in 1967 with Sgt.
Pepper, but mostly with the White Album in 1968, we get to hear more of their own compositions and more of them playing on the recorded tracks.
But prior to that, like Pepper, as an example, was the The Billy, a.k.a.
Paul McCartney and George Martin Show.
Right.
That was then.
And even when you listen to or read interviews by the other Beatles, especially John Lennon and George Harris and even Ringo, I think Ringo said that he learned to play chess.
During the Sgt.
Pepper Sessions.
And in an interview that Billy did with Bernie Goldberg in the 1980s, he told Bernie Goldberg that George Harrison was essentially a no-show for the Sgt.
Pepper Sessions.
So if that's the case, and George is credited with the guitar playing on Sgt.
Pepper, but Billy's telling us, aka Paul McCartney, he wasn't there, he was putting a pool in or something, that's a quote, then you have to ask the logical question, well, Then who was playing guitar on those tracks on Sgt Pepper if George wasn't there?
Eric Clapton?
Eric Clapton?
I don't know.
It could be Clapton.
It could be Billy himself.
Billy himself.
So anyway, that's my take on how the songwriting was done.
I don't believe it was done by one person.
When you take a look at Theodore Adorno, he had a lot going on.
And people will say he was a brilliant composer and all that stuff.
Well, you could be a brilliant composer, but when you have a lot of other stuff going on, especially involving the Frankfurt School, writing books, he was doing television appearances and lectures and stuff like that.
You know, you still need time to, you know, to do your brilliance.
You have this controversial thesis that maybe by the time of the White Album, the actual four surviving members, you know, or three surviving members plus fake Paul, were actually Writing, because I quite like, I quite like the, no, sorry, the White Album, I'm thinking of Abbey Road.
I quite like the songs, that was the first Beatles album I remember vividly because it was, you know, the first one I got was on my father's eight track in his car.
I listen to it all the time.
Do you think by that stage the actual alleged Beatles were writing their own songs to a degree?
Abbey Road?
I think it's a mix, James, of them writing their own songs and ghostwriters.
Right.
I just... I don't know.
One of the things we have to do is take a look at the Beatle period of songwriting and then fast forward into their solo careers and think in terms of
When you look at the Beatle catalogue collectively, let's just pick John Lennon's Beatle songs, and then you go to his solo career and assess the songwriting and the music in his solo career, I will make an argument that it in no way compares with the music that was written when he was a Beatle.
Some of Jones' albums have songs on them that are, in my view, are just throwaway tracks.
Sometime in New York City that live album he did is atrocious in my view.
That's the same guy that wrote In My Life.
That's the same guy that allegedly wrote Strawberry Fields Forever and he put that out.
So I think we have to do those comparisons.
A lot of times what happens is for some reason people only focus on the Beatle content and then when we get to the solo period They get a pass.
George Harrison had an album when he was on the Warner label somewhere in England.
And when he handed the tapes in for the album, the Warner executives sent them back to the drawing board and said, no, no, this is not going to cut it.
You have to go back and put together better songs.
But a lot of people don't know that story either, and in fact, like I said, it's mainstream.
You can look it up in Wikipedia.
Look up the album somewhere in England.
It'll tell you that story.
Do you think that Lennon wrote Working Class Hero?
That's a good question.
I think it's possible that Lennon wrote Working Class Hero for two reasons.
One, it's a very straightforward song.
You've got, you know, A minor and G, right?
That's the song.
It's basically two chords.
And in that song, it comes across to me that John Lennon, many times Lennon was, especially in his solo career, was I think trying to get the word out.
I think he was trying to divulge what was really going on behind the scenes.
I mean, in the Rolling Stone interview, I think he did in 1971, he called the Beatles, McCartney, and Bob Dylan a myth.
Okay, so, I mean, he just basically covered all his ground there, and he referred to the Beatles, he said, by the time he got to the United States in 1964, we were old hands.
We were craftsmen.
Okay, so craftsmen, being very good at your craft, craftsmen is also a reference back to Freemasonry.
All the Beatles were masons, all of them.
So I think that Working Class Hero possibly could be a song that John did pen.
Songs like Mother, I think he did.
You know, a lot of the other songs where it's very straightforward.
Now, a song that the book tells us, the memoirs tells us, he did not write that was generously credited to him.
That's the, I think, the exact words is Imagine.
Imagine is that one.
Yeah, well, listen to what he says.
Imagine no possessions is the same thing as saying you'll own nothing and be happy.
Yeah, yeah.
And that was done 50 years prior to everybody listening to and hearing the World Economic Forum go on with their nonsense.
So, the point you made before about how they plan so far ahead, How they planned so far ahead.
This is another example of that.
Imagine was not written by John Lennon, according to the book, I believe it.
It was basically table setting for what it is that we're going to experience from an agenda perspective going forward from that point when the song was released to where we are today.
Yes.
And there's also, again, there's the anti-Christian thing, no hell below us, above us only sky.
It's clearly, we're clearly being programmed.
What a terrible burden that John Lennon must have borne before he died, having this atrocity pinned on him.
Having to have it known that you'd written this piece of crap.
Well, and the thing that Lennon did a couple of times in interviews was he just, he was not, he was not flattering about the Beatles music.
Was he not?
Yeah, I mean, he would make comments about, well, you know, It didn't make his clock tick.
And I remember George Martin, in an interview, after hearing that, said, well, I don't know why John would say something like that.
They're very good songs.
They're great songs.
And I think it's because, well, John Lennon didn't write those songs, or many of those songs.
And so he was in a position in his life later on, when he was in his solo career, where he had more latitude to be able to do, to be him.
You know, even though, like I said, in all likelihood, there were ghostwriters helping John to complete albums as well.
We know from, well, among others, Olly Damagard.
I don't know whether you've listened to him on The Assassins.
Yeah, I know Olly, yeah.
Yeah, he's great.
And clearly it wasn't done by Mark Chapman.
It was done by a Cuban... No, Jose Perdomo.
Who was posing as the doorman in the Dakota building.
Right.
Why do you think they finished him off?
Was it because he was giving too much away?
Well, you know, you're asking very good questions, James.
I'm going to have to come on your show more often.
So, there's two things going on here.
One, in this book The Lennon Prophecy by Joseph Nisgoda.
I think this book was released sometime around 2009-2010.
He puts forth a premise that John Lennon entered into a Faustian bargain back in 1960.
And he puts forth an argument that many of these Faustian bargains, these deals with the devil, they have a 20-year shelf life.
So, if he made the deal in 1960, that meant that his time was up in 1980.
Now, I mentioned this on another show recently as well.
When we take a look at when John Lennon was assassinated, it was December 8th of 1980.
When you look at the date, it's 9-11 encoded.
So, December is 12, 1 plus 2 is 3, the 8th, the day, 8, 3 plus 8 is 11.
When you look at 1980, you have 1 plus 9 is 10 plus 8 is 18.
1 plus 8 is 9.
is ten plus eight is 18.
One plus eight is nine.
So, Lennon's death was a 9/11 encoded date, as was the Decademo on January 1st of 1962, as was the Beatles coming to America on February as was the Beatles coming to America on February 7th of 1964.
February is 2.
The day is 7.
That's 9.
1964.
1 plus 9 is 10.
6 plus 4 is 10.
So we have 11.
1 and 1.
So they're very clever.
I should say this too.
They're very clever with how they go about their numerology and their numbers and encoding.
They love all that.
It's mystifying to me, but it's meant to be mystifying.
Unless you're steeped in this stuff, it just all seems quite stretched, doesn't it?
No, I know.
It is a stretch.
And people, you know, they just think numbers are something that you deal with when you're at the cash register at the store.
And what they don't understand is signs and symbols rule the world.
And think of numbers as signs and symbols.
Think of it as an encoded way in which they speak and communicate to each other.
The average person, who they refer to as profane, is not going to get it.
But this is how they communicate to each other.
Numbers is one of those methods.
Yeah, yeah.
Mike, I could talk to you for hours about this stuff, but I've sort of, I've come around to the view that the optimal time for a podcast is about an hour and a half and an hour, we've already gone over.
So I'd love to talk to you again sometime.
This is an endlessly fascinating topic.
Tell people who are not, there can't be anyone not familiar with your work, but just in case there is, tell them where they can find your stuff.
Just go to my hub website, sageofquay.com.
Everything is there, so I'm on YouTube, BitChute, Rumble, Odyssey, Brighteon.
If you want to listen to my music, I have links to my music on ReverbNation and SoundCloud.
Everything is there, James.
It's really a one-stop shop.
And if you're interested in this particular conspiracy, the Beatles and the McCarty conspiracy, just go over to my PaulIsDead channel and the link is on my website.
So you're a musician, Mike.
So who is your controller and who is...
Yeah, I have no controller.
I operate... Yeah, of course, right.
The Beatles, like I said, James, when we first started, they were a huge influence on me.
But most of my life was not spent with music as my career.
I was in the corporate world.
I kept my interest in music, and it was a primary hobby of mine, but it wasn't my career.
I had no controllers, no handlers, no groomers, or any of that stuff.
Just one more thing.
I've always been pronouncing your alter ego, Sage of Quay, in the English pronunciation.
but it's what Sage of Quay what what's it right what's it what's it from it's in reference to uh to a town that I live in um and um Quay comes from um it goes back to the I think it's the Revolutionary War and there was a a military officer whose last name I think it's French's last name was Quay no Okay.
And it is pronounced Quay, that's how he pronounced it.
And so, That's how the town came to be, because he resided here, based upon what I read online.
And I just adopted it on a lark, to be honest with you.
My family would just joke around with me.
They would say, oh, he's a sage of Quay, the town, because I would talk about these types of things, you know, and, you know, some of my family just thinks I'm awkward rocker.
Listen, I'm in the same club, believe you me.
What can we do, you know?
There's nothing we can do.
I mean, we'll just do our thing.
I tell people the most important thing, James, is that That we know the truth.
And for people who follow the work or doing their own research, what's most important is that you know the truth.
Don't worry about everybody else, because everybody else, most of everybody else is under the spell.
And that's just the way it is.
That's the reality that we reside in at the time.
It only remains for me to thank my lovely viewers and listeners.
If you enjoy this stuff, why not subscribe to my Substack or Locals or Subscribestar or Patreon or just buy me a coffee.
You know you want to.
I'm really bad at selling my product, but yeah, I'm probably kind of worth it.
Anyway, oh and also support my sponsors because they're great.
Thank you again, Mike, Mike Williams of Sage of Quay.
Thank you, James.
Let's do a rematch sometime, it's been a joy talking to you.
