My readers know I don’t do things the normal way, and so they will not be surprised to see me skipping past all the previous research with only a sniff. I am not going to rehash the old claims and try to sort through them, since — as I say — this is what they want you to do. They want you to get lost in all the claims and counter-claims, because if you do that you will never ask the really penetrating questions.
The only thing I am going to do before I drive around that mass of confusion is comment on my title briefly. Yes, there probably was a Shakespeare the actor, and he probably was born in Stratford, though it doesn’t really matter one way or the other. What my title means is that the great author you know as Shakespeare never existed. Shakespeare the actor was just a front chosen for a writing committee. In this, the previous theories are partially correct. They tell us we have been lied to, which — you will not be surprised to hear — is correct. However, I will show you that the lie is much bigger than any of them have admitted.
As another bone I can throw to the alternative theorists early on, I will say that pretty much all their guys were involved in the writing committee. It was a big committee, since the works of Shakespeare are vast and varied. But again, I am not going to get into the question of who wrote what percentage, since I don’t think that is the interesting question. The interesting question is “to what end were these things written and promoted?”
You have already seen what got me in: the name Stanley. There is a reason the “Derby theory” isn’t promoted as aggressively as the others, I think: they don’t want anyone to see what I finally saw. The four main contenders for the real Shakespeare are Sir Francis Bacon; Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford; William Stanley, Earl of Derby; and Christopher Marlowe. But of those four, Stanley has been the least promoted. Historically, Bacon has probably gotten the most attention. De Vere is the current favorite. And a lot of ink has also been spilled over Marlowe. But somewhat less has been spilled promoting Stanley. It is also interesting that Stanley is normally referred to as “Derby”. They prefer not to remind you over and over he was a Stanley, for what should be obvious reasons to my readers.
William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby
And yet I believe Stanley is probably the central character here. Why? Read my previous papers of the past five years and you will see why. These Stanleys have been behind many of the biggest projects of the past 600 years, including putting the Tudors on the throne, faking the Revolution, the Beatles project, the Hitler project, and the Mussolini project, among many others. They have been pulling the biggest strings in England since the time of Henry VII, and probably before. Remember, they were the Kings of Mann, and Anglesey was part of their territory. I have shown that they were so powerful they preferred not to be ennobled past Earl, since they wanted the attention off them. They preferred to let other less powerful families be Dukes and Kings.
I have a lot of research left to do on the Stanleys: my research so far is just the tip of the iceberg. But finding the Earl of Derby involved here was like a bomb going off in my brain. It told me immediately the Shakespeare project was much deeper than anyone had so far conjectured.
Those promoting Bacon should not be despondent, since elevating Stanley does not jettison Bacon. Bacon was definitely involved, but not I think as the lead writer. Like the Stanleys, Bacon was also from these top crypto-Jewish families that went back to William the Conqueror and before. Bacon has not been quite as glittering a name in my research as Stanley, but the Bacons were not only very prominent — far more prominent than has been admitted — they were also related to the Stanleys. In fact, all these people were related, including De Vere, Marlowe, and the rest. This is another thing that clued me in to what was really going on here: I could see that these alternative authors were not just a motley crew thrown together by chance or circumstance. They were hand-picked from the top families for this project.
But here’s the big one: the Stanley were are looking at, 6th Earl, was married to Elizabeth de Vere,daughter of the 17th Earl of Oxford. So two of our candidates are that closely related. Oxford was the father-in-law of Derby. They don’t normally tell you that, do they?
What did these Stanleys look like, I wonder?
The portraits of the 6th Earl aren’t that good, but that is his son James. Shocker, right? That he looks Jewish. Look at the length of that nose. The subtext to that painting is “James Stanley was a man of deep religious feeling and of great nobility of character”. Does it look that way to you? Not to me.
He looks weak and untrustworthy to me.
OK, but how does Christopher Marlowe fit in? Well, I confirm that he faked his death to join the writing committee, though I won’t get deeply into the question here. That faked death has been a prominent theory for a long time, and it is central to the Marlowe-as-Shakespeare project. Any skimming of the evidence shows huge anomalies with the death, all pointing to a fake. Confirmation of that is the mainstream response to those anomalies, which as usual is pathetically weak. As they do now with “debunking” 911 or any other hoaxes, all they do is dismiss the theory with a wave of the hand, without addressing any of the evidence. If they do look at evidence, they misdirect in a ham handed manner, giving it credence with their own ineptness.
But the main clue with Marlowe is that he signed his name Christofer Marley. Makes us think of Jacob Marley in A Christmas Carol, doesn’t it? I don’t think that is a coincidence, since Dickens wrote both Marley and Scrooge as Jewish stereotypes —which is OK since Dickens himself was a crypto-Jew.
If he wants to write characters like that, he is free to do so as far as I concerned. Accusing Jews of anti Semitism is the height of foolishness. Anyway, it looks to me like Dickens was referencing “Christofer Marley” there, so I see it as a clue.
Marlowe’s bio, like Shakespeare’s, looks faked. He was born in the same year as Shakespeare, within two months, although there is no record of his birth. Both may have been born on the 26th, which is another marker: 2+6=8. We are told his father was a shoemaker, but somehow he managed to attend King’s School in Canterbury and Cambridge University. Both very exclusive, of course: they didn’t admit the sons of cobblers. The Privy Council intervened at his graduation, commending him “for good service to the Queen”. Beg pardon? What had this cobbler’s son done for the Queen while at Cambridge? Join MI5, perhaps? You think that is a stretch? I am not the first to come to that conclusion. Wiki admits Marlowe may have been working for Walsingham’s secret service, and that he may have joined it while at Cambridge.
This is interesting because Walsingham was the Queen’s principal secretary, known as her spymaster.
But it gets better, since Walsingham’s stepfather was John Carey, uncle of Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon. Hunsdon just happened to be the principal patron of Lord Chamberlain’s Men, Will Shakespeare’s theater company…
We now know the answer: all these people were crypto-Jews running the old project. They were stirring up dissent and chaos in any way possible, and through their connections to the nobility they were able to infiltrate any and all spots, public and private, at the highest and lowest levels, in all countries. They are still doing it. See Projects Chaos and Cointelpro…
So, like J. K. Rowling, Shakespeare was just an Intelligence project. But to what end? Propaganda, of course. Disseminating information and forming opinion. You thought Edward Bernays started that?
Nope. It has been around for a long time. Remember, prominent Jewish critic Harold Bloom has recently argued that the modern Western mind has been all but created by Shakespeare. Given what the modern Western mind has become, I don’t see that as a great recommendation, but Bloom said it, not me.
Actually, I think Bloom is partially correct, but not in the way he is normally read. Bloom intends that the great mind of Shakespeare made possible the magnificent modern world, but we are seeing the opposite: the modern mind has been crushed by Intelligence and its puppet masters, and Shakespeare was indeed one of their greatest and most promoted projects, over more than four centuries.
We are told in the encyclopedia entries that either Shakespeare or the alternative authors were anti Monarchial, but if you reread the major works with your new knowledge in mind, I think you will see there is much more to it than that. You can see the old Jewish project raising its head in a thousand ways. You will no doubt say, “What about Shylock in the Merchant of Venice? Would crypto-Jews have created that character?” Yep, just as Dickens later created Fagin, Scrooge, Marley, and others.
Besides, the mainstream reading of the Merchant of Venice has always been upside-down. Shakespeare is called an anti-Semite for making Shylock the antagonist, but Shylock isn’t the antagonist. He is clearly the victim of dishonest Christians, turning the whole play on its head. This was no accident, and it isn’t hard to see. I saw it the first time I read the play, though I didn’t understand what was going on until recently. Wikipedia actually says this:
It is difficult to know whether the sympathetic reading of Shylock is entirely due to changing sensibilities among readers, or whether Shakespeare, a writer who created complex, multi-faceted characters, deliberately intended this reading.
You have to be kidding me! Of course the authors intended this reading. Do you think words had different meanings back then? No, audiences then would feel exactly what you feel now: Antonio is a conceited upperclass twit who deserves whatever punishment he receives. When he dodges all responsibility in the end, the unfairness of this is obvious to anyone, and we are made to feel sorry for Shylock. We are also made to detest Portia and Nerissa for making a mockery of the law. A reader realizes that only a dishonest person could support the “Christians” in this tale, successfully poking a hole in Christianity.
As a sidelight, the play also whitewashes the name Bassanio, making a reader think the name is of Italian, and therefore Christian, nobility. But it is not. As it happens, the Elizabethan court musicians at the time of Shakespeare were Jews from Venice and Milan, and three pre-eminent family names among them were Bassano, Comys, and Lupo. See for instance Aemilia Bassano Lanier, who just happens to be another candidate for the author of Shakespeare’s works. Her Jewish heritage was hidden in her own time, and is still being hidden. Wikipedia leaves the question open, although prominent Jewish authors like James Schapiro (Shakespeare and the Jews) admit the Bassanos were Jews.
Which brings us to more proof of my theory. When Aemilia Bassano’s father died, she went to live with Susan Bertie, Countess of Kent. Why would the daughter of a Jewish court musician go live with a Countess in Kent? Because all these nobles were also Jewish. Bertie’s husband was Reginald Grey, 5th Earl of Kent. We saw the Greys several times above, didn’t we? Bertie’s mother was Catherine Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk. Her maiden name was Willoughby, which we also saw above. We found that a Willoughby was the wife of Baron Spencer, he being related to the Marlays, Greys, and Seymours. The Dukes of Suffolk were closely related to Queen Elizabeth, since Catherine’s husband Charles, the 1st Duke, had previous been married to Mary Tudor. This made him Elizabeth’s uncle. His daughter Mary Brandon married Thomas Stanley, 2nd Baron Monteagle. This Stanley was the cousin of the Earl of Derby. Brandon’s daughter Frances married Henry Grey, father of Lady Jane Grey. This of course links us back to Lady Catherine Grey above, her sister, who was the mother of Edward Seymour, Lord Beauchamp. I remind you that William Seymour was another candidate for author of Shakespeare’s works.
So the Jewess Aemilia Bassano links us to all the same people, indicating she was indeed another member of the writing committee. Possibly they needed a woman to help supply the female point of view.
But let us return for a moment to the Earl of Kent, husband of Susan Bertie. His uncle was the 3rd Earl, Richard Grey, whose first wife was Elizabeth Hussey. Hold on, we saw that name above as well: they were related to the Donnellys. Grey’s father-in-law was Sir William Hussey, Attorney General and Chief Justice under Henry VII. Hussey’s daughter Mary married a Willoughby, doubling that link. The Willoughbys were the largest landowners in Lincolnshire. Hussey’s son married Lady Anne Grey, sister of the 4th Earl, also doubling that link.
Which reminds us that actress Olivia Hussey played Juliet in Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 Romeo and Juliet. That can’t be a coincidence.
Before we got diverted by more genealogical evidence, I was showing you that The Merchant of Venice yields evidence its authors were Jewish, confounding its “normal” reading. Well, this is just one example of thousands. Shakespeare’s works now beg for a total rereading in light of our new understanding, in my opinion…
In short, not as much has changed in the past 400 years as you think. The Shakespeare writing committee was doing pretty much the same thing the Hollywood and TV writing committees are doing now: turning your little mind into mush. These plays aren’t boldly irrational by accident, any more than new scripts are boldly irrational by accident. They can’t have you expecting plots or character actions to make sense, because if they did, you might expect life to make sense. If life made any sense, you might figure out how to take part in it in a sensible way, and they can’t have that. They want you so confused you cannot possibly respond to any of their projects, other than go along with them. For the most part, they want you non-functioning as an active member of the world. They prefer that you are just conscious enough to get up in the morning and go to work, but not conscious enough to question anything you are told during your day. To achieve that, all your entertainment is purposely confusing, chaotic, and illogical. Likewise, all your education — whether it is provided by teachers or by media — is also utterly uncentering and confounding. The history you are taught is false and senseless, and current events are manufactured to produce fear and imbalance. It is a miracle any of us can function at all.
And why is this done? Profit. You are more profitable to the masters as a confused beast of burden than as a intelligent being. If you weren’t hoaxed and drugged into a permanent stupor, you might demand a real life and a fair share of the fruits of existence. And if you did that, the billionaires would be forced to drain their offshore accounts and gilded bunkers and airplane hangers and marble swimming palaces and so on. They need those things, you know, because without them they are nothing. They define themselves by gigantic useless objects, and by their ability to lie without consequence, and by their knack for squashing their fellow creatures.
The Tap, Mon 2:59 am UTC, 13 Nov 2017