Sunday, 9 July 2017

Oliver North, PamAm 103, Lockerbie


  1. Looks like GW Bush. Related?

  2. 'They' all are related...and 'nothing' is by 'accident' from these psychopathic pillocks, either.

  3. Speaking of related, Aang, do you ever read Miles Mathis? Whilst I wouldn't give him an unqualified endorsement, a lot of his stuff is very interesting. At the moment he's on a genealogical riff and declares that they're all related - actors, musicians, pollies, industrialists, all of them. All 1%, all crypto-Jewish. None of his assertions are unimpeachable science but fire or no, there's a lot of smoke there, if you know what I mean.

    As personal DIY microcosmic proof (ahem), my surname, one belonging to Irish farmers, never features anywhere amongst his list of those perpetually in power.

    He's at I'd be curious to see what you make of him.

    1. Having done genealogy for a few decades, I have to say that Mathis' method (online sources compiled by others, no checking of primary sources) has very little validity. He also leaps from a surname straight back to a few centuries before that without ascertaining a direct line of descent. His hypothesis is intriguing but not conclusive without proper research.

      For example, finding a name of Taylor in someone's ancestry does not imply aristocratic ancestors, it's a very common name! It is not also a Jewish name; yes, some tailors were Jews but when you think that all clothes were made by hand until the 19th century it was a very labour-intensive job and many tailors were likely to have been indigenous.