-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- Questions ---NOTHING CAN STOP WHAT IS COMING--- -Part- --F0R7Y--

Tatler Archive: the Maxwells are back, again

The Maxwells have been wired almost since the first microchip. Ghislaine remembers her father installing computers at Headington in 1973. 'When I was 12, he was already predicting the paperless office. My first job was training to use a Wang. and then programming code.' The chief beneficiaries of Robert's enthusiasm for computers seem to have been the twins. Before Isabel was appointed to CommTouch and Christine moved to France three years ago, they had made their luck and their fortune together.

I'm trying to relax , thanks for asking

She said Wang

The New Literary Bad Boys

There was a time in the not-so-distant past when the literary scene was overflowing with bad boys. Writers like Philip Roth, Saul Bellow, Hunter S. Thompson and Norman Mailer, or even little Martin Amis, attacked the page with a masculine gusto that produced novels such as Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint, a hilarious coming-of-age story that depicts the male libido in all its absurdity. The novel was so provocative, that Roth, a Jewish-American writer, was denounced by rabbis for writing what they considered to be vile smut. There was a gleeful aggressiveness to the bad boys’ writing, and to the way they carried themselves. Consider Mailer’s appearances on The Dick Cavett Show — particularly the evening in 1971 when he sparred with Gore Vidal, (The Infamous feud) threatening violence and belittling the studio audience once words failed him.

It was puffed up buffoonery, sure, but in this era of the manicured artist, where writers and their publicists meticulously cultivate their brands, it’s electrifying to watch a literary great flail like a madman. Which begs the question: where have all the literary bad boys gone?

Gore Vidal: The United States of Amnesia (2013, IMDB) - a Film by Nicholas Wrathall > www.youtube.com...

"The United States Was Founded By The Brightest People In The Country - And We Haven't Seen Them Since." - Gore Vidal
Q: What do you think your legacy will be?
Vidal: (grim chuckle) "I couldn't care less."


twitter.com...

Has anyone noticed (assuming you watch the tube) the rise in faux-schizo and faux-conspiracy theory commercials & tv series shows? Or noticing patterns or synchronicities or things like that, written into the scene, not subtext. I see alot being comically pandered off of Q drops. I have a conspiracy theory on commercials and ads about living in a van or shipping container, I think it’s part of the WEF's “you’ll own nothing and be happy” agenda.

"Web of Fries"...insanely cursed.



I think maybe The Matrix and people just being familiar with Q and Epstein memes and chatBots (revenge of the 80s nerds) has made it a current 'thing' which of course correlates to distractions & $$$.



Here is a classic, but it is more of a debunking conspiracy riff:


Speaking of bait...(Civil) War, empire of division...


The Gnostic church be like...

a reply to: CrazyFox

Trending

Or it is about a possible Solar event that makes the Earth's crust flip by sliding the pole at a 90 degree angle and the ocean water will still be going in the same direction it was while people and land slide in another direction. It will likely cause massive Tsunami's miles high.

originally posted by: NoAlienBastards

originally posted by: XtheMadnessNow
Vaxx conspiracy debunked, ya'll, it's climate change.🤡🌎

VICE clowns of the Weather Adjustment Bureau


Artificial Space weather...

twitter.com...

Elon, deploy the hologenerators.

And we're supposed to not know SpaceX is the largest contractor for the DoD?

Must think we have short memories...

a reply to: FlyingFox

Yes FF, the original House of cards on BBC was Francis Urquhart, I remember watching it and here's a good collection of clips showing that Spacey copied a lot of his mannerisms... watch out for Hotel room 322... then for "ELFS and sprites are useful" in the monologue!

Well duh. Who do you think is really using Starlink? And AT&T’s cellular capabilities?

www.firstnet.com...

www.fbi.gov...

originally posted by: NoAlienBastards
And we're supposed to not know SpaceX is the largest contractor for the DoD?

a reply to: Caled


]

Possible COMMS from this Department of Defense tweet, this evening at 11:00pm GMT = 6:00 pm EST:

Bigger
Video is 3:13 long and screen shot is from 3:11 mark... a MIRROR of 11.3 Marker

1) Xref cranky... 31/13 refers to financial!

2) Note the snow capped mountain and the HEART on the Japanese flag; compare to Mr Pool, David Schwartz and Elon Musk posts/tweets:



Bigger


...and @bearableguy123:

Bigger




3) CAPS from tweet give simple gematria of 232 = PAIN Mirror/completion.

4) To add to the pot... IL Donaldo Trumpo's last tweet on 19th, at 1:07 UTC had a 1:23 long video:

t.co...

...which in turn links back to the Mr Pool post of 1, 2, 3... LET'S GO!:

Bigger

1,2 = 21st
3... = 6 = June

LET'S GO!

a reply to: daskakik

I'm the one that said that they could be twins. I will stand by that. If they were genetic tests, then they could still be twins.

Let me explain:

Let's say that a male donor and a female donor give out their genetic materials (Sperm and Egg) to create a child, now let's say that that each donor was used at the same time to impregnate more than one person, then by default those kids are all twins/triplets, whateverlets. Robert Maxwell was big into the Eugenics scene so having him do that isn't out of the question.

a reply to: Guyfriday
Just saying Robert Maxwell was big into the eugenics scene doesn't mean he would or even could do that. Was that even done back in 1958?

Supposedly the first official surrogacy birth took place in 1985. The History of Surrogacy: A Legal Timeline

And, what would be the point? Why wouldn't he have been recognized as a Maxwell? There seems to be no motive other than some people here wanting to tie Spacey to the Maxwells.

a reply to: daskakik

Basic history crap on eugenics.
From: britannica.com

Galton, in Hereditary Genius (1869), proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. In 1865 the basic laws of heredity were discovered by the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel. His experiments with peas demonstrated that each physical trait was the result of a combination of two units (now known as genes) and could be passed from one generation to another. However, his work was largely ignored until its rediscovery in 1900. This fundamental knowledge of heredity provided eugenicists—including Galton, who influenced his cousin Charles Darwin—with scientific evidence to support the improvement of humans through selective breeding.

From: cairn-int.info

It was not until the birth of the “social sciences” in the nineteenth century that the first real theories of fertility started to emerge. Many of these new disciplines could legitimately lay claim to the subject, be it anthropology, sociology, economics, political science, psychology or, of course, demography.

And while it may seem deplorably by modern minds, remember that many of these Eugenic types allowed genocides to occur: also from britannica.com

The first successful experiment with artificial insemination in animals was performed by Italian physiologist Lazzaro Spallanzani, who in 1780, while investigating animal reproduction, developed a technique for artificial insemination in dogs. This approach was refined in the 1930s in Russia, and the subsequent development of methods for the cryopreservation (preservation through freezing) of semen led to the widespread use of artificial insemination in animals.

The chief advantage of artificial insemination is that the desirable characteristics of a bull or other male livestock animal can be passed on more quickly and to more progeny than if that animal is mated with females in a natural fashion. Ten thousand or more calves have been produced annually from a single bull through the use of artificial insemination. In the actual procedure used, semen is obtained from a male animal and, after being diluted, is deep-frozen, after which it can be stored for long periods of time without losing its fertility. For use, the semen is thawed and then introduced into the genital tract of a female animal.

So, the possibility that a group of "like-minded" people might use artificial insemination to try and create a "perfect" human, is neither new nor is the ability to do so.

Fwiw I follow jack poso regularly and he starts everyday with a tweet saying “wake up pray up”
His “good sleep” tweet was probably another one of his mypillow references.
Not trying to discredit anyone. I jist notice a common theme in his online persona

a reply to: Guyfriday
Genocides have nothing to do with this.

Arranged marriages and animal husbandry are not exactly the same as human IVF. In your last example they are talking about artificial insemination not the taking of sperm and eggs from both animals. Totally different from the example in your previous post where both are given to then place in a surrogate.

Besides, you still have not explained the why other than some vague goal to create the perfect human which Maxwell may or may not have been interested in.

What difference would it make if they are or are not twins? They certainly are not identical.

Plausible Deniability
---- nah ....

Too be continued

a reply to: daskakik

Genocides have a lot to do with this. Why make a perfect race if there are too many imperfect people running around and still breeding?

The leap from animal husbandry and human IVF is really only in the mind of the person conducting the tests. Those weren't examples, they were just some histories about it. Though you kind of answered your own point. Separating the Sperm and doing an Egg scrape to try and create a perfect human isn't something that would have been unknown at the time (1950s).

If you were going to create an image to rule the world, wouldn't you want it to be from a perfected human and not a person with "issues"? If you look at how religion works, it isn't because some smuck saw god. It's because some perfect person talked with god about so-and-so. Now if you got tired of waiting around for the Second Coming of Jesus to try and corrupt, then why not just engineer a perfect human instead.

As to your last point, it doesn't matter that they don't look alike, but then again you're the one that said:

originally posted by: daskakik

So different places and different times makes it hard for them to be twins. They sure don't look like identical twins. Don't know what the point of the pic comparison was.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
Genocides have a lot to do with this. Why make a perfect race if there are too many imperfect people running around and still breeding?

Kevin Spacey being a test tube baby doesn't have anything to do with genocides.

If you were going to create an image to rule the world, wouldn't you want it to be from a perfected human and not a person with "issues"?

And that would be Kevin Spacey? That alone blows your theory out of the water.

As to your last point, it doesn't matter that they don't look alike, but then again you're the one that said:

And you have not given any proof that Maxwell acted on that possibility. What was the point of the pic comparison if they don't look identical?

Where is the proof that they might even be twins other than some mad scientist "may have tried" human IVF back in the late 50's? And, again what would be the point in Maxwell doing this and not recognizing Spacey as his son? And, all this talk about the stock eugenicist reason of a perfect human doesn't cover it.

What about Spacey's parents, any links there to Maxwell? They would have had to have been eugenicists as well to go along with that plan.

a reply to: daskakik

My theory has nothing to do with Spacey, it has to do with the process and the people behind all this. It is possible that Spacey is a product of these genetic tests and not a full-on ruler symbol. If you've ever made anything, you usually have to make a few tests runs to ensure that the final product lives up to expectations. By making a few different versions of this perfect human, studies can be done as to what works and what doesn't.

I'm not sure why this thought process is lost on you, or if you just intentionally just responded like it's lost. Either way I was just pointing out that it was me that open that can of worms, and all Rel did was present the picture.

a reply to: Guyfriday
Seems to me Rel brought up Spacey being the son of Maxwell. Also with nothing to actually tie them together other than being born in the same year and the pic comparison which proves nothing.

You then went on to say they may have been genetically created twins with even less, nothing more than eugenicists "might" try this and, now, Spacey "might" be a test run.

How about, no, he isn't Maxwells 10th child and wasn't a test tube baby because there is nothing that points in that direction?

The Hang Man

UPRIGHT: Pause, surrender, letting go, new perspectives REVERSED: Delays, resistance, stalling, indecision

The Hang Man Tarrot





The Falling Man 9/11

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi
But you trying hard to make them out to be twins lacks even more credibility.

They kept the secret that Spacey was a Maxwell so he could play a guy named Francis in a show 54 years later?

I know you weren't addressing me but, from my perspective none of this is about proving or credibility. It's about tossing connections about to see if anything fits, which is nothing in itself but when the incidences start adding up it "may" point to something. It's a type of lateral thinking that probably irks those with extremely linear thinking. Nothing wrong with either approach.

What is clear is those in power work in so many different areas from government, banking, entertainment etc and they keep a lot of secrets. Sometimes the secrets leak out and connections are made across different areas they are involved in. That's really all that's being looked for. I don't think anyone said the connections are foolproof. They are just noted and then everyone moves on. It is only significant if it arises again. Crisis actors are a good example. Seeing them once is nothing, twice still probably coincidence, the more times and it may mean something. I know you know this but it's worth explaning.