by Miles Mathis
Elon Musk is supposed to be worth 13.6 billion. He is supposed to be the CEO of Tesla Motors. He is supposed to be the founder of SpaceX. He is supposed to be the founder of Solar City. He is supposed to be the inventor of Hyperloop. I for one don't believe any of it. Elon Musk looks to me like a person totally manufactured by Intelligence as the fake human front for all these fake projects. In this way he is exactly like Mark Zuckerberg, another person I have outed as a probable manufactured entity. When I wrote that paper on Zuckerberg, he was also alleged to be worth 13.6 billion. Coincidence? Nope.
Why do I think that? I think it because Musk's entire Wikipedia page and bio reads like a red flag. It is nothing but transparent BS from top to bottom. We'll start with his family. His mother's maiden name is Haldeman. That is a prominent Jewish name. Elon is also a Jewish name, meaning “oak” in Hebrew. Kimbal, Elon's brother, also has a Jewish name. So why not just admit they are Jewish? I don't know. Maybe they plan on running him for Governor of California or something.
Although we will cover the other red flags, I want to skip ahead to the end, to lead with later red flags that demand our early attention. I want to lead with them although they come later on the Wikipedia page. Musk has claimed he is a big fan of Margaret Thatcher. What? Only fascists and plants are fans of Margaret Thatcher. No real person of any intelligence and scruple is a fan of Margaret Thatcher. Musk is sold as a progressive, but no progressive would claim to be a fan of Thatcher. It doesn't fit his
profile at all, and we can only imagine it was worked into his bio as either a clue for people like me or as part of some late promotion of Thatcher and fascism in general. Actually, I assume it is mainly another plug for privatization. Musk's entire bio is a long plug for privatization. Along with deregulation, privatization is one of the two main planks of neo-fascism.
Musk has said he is “socially liberal and fiscally conservative”. Was Thatcher socially liberal? Not according to Section 28, which made “promotion” of homosexuality illegal, and which stopped just
short of making homosexuality itself illegal again, as in the time of Oscar Wilde. I should think this would be of some concern to Musk, since I don't really buy either one of his marriages. But he doesn't have to be concerned with that, does he, since he lives in the US in 2017, not the UK in 1980. In the US in 2017, homosexuality is being promoted like never before.
Musk is a self-described American exceptionalist and nationalist, describing himself as "nauseatingly pro-American". According to Musk, the United States is "inarguably the greatest country that has ever existed on Earth", describing it as "the greatest force for good of any country that's ever been". Musk believes outright that there "would not be democracy in the world if not for the United States.”
Nauseating, yes. Believable, no. Again, no real person of any intelligence would be caught saying that in the second decade of the 21st century. Even the American Nazi Party is more circumspect than that. Musk has obviously been hired to read these lines provided him by the Pentagon or someplace (except that even the Pentagon isn't that jingoistic these days). Now that I think of it, this reads like copy provided Musk by Henry Kissinger or the CFR. But even in that context, it is over the top. When
I read quotes like this, I have to imagine that clues have been inserted into Musk's bio on purpose by someone. I begin to think this is all part of some game: a nationwide contest to see if anyone can see through this. If so, send me the prize. Although I may be the first to propose Musk is an Intel creation, I am not the only one who has noticed that he appears to be reading from neo-con or fascist cue-cards. PolicyMic and many other sites have criticized Musk harshly for contributing to anti-science Republican candidates and groups like the Longhorn PAC and the NRCC, confirming my analysis above by saying that these political calculations betray Musk's persona of a socially-conscious entrepreneur.
His many interviews also betray (or disprove) his created persona of a person with very high intelligence and skills. Although he is sold as some sort of Tony Stark, he comes off as Ron Howard with a bit more hair** and a foreign accent. I don't see any spark there, and in my opinion he looks like just another hired actor. Unfortunately, he's not even a good actor, and if he hadn't been born into a rich family he would have had to work as a crisis actor, like Robbie Parker.
Although Musk's companies have received 5 billion in government subsidies, Musk says he isn't in favor of government subsidies for companies like his. Instead he has come out in favor of a carbon tax. Obviously, he is just reading from the Teleprompter again there, and isn't concerned with appearing to be consistent. Fake people fronting fake companies don't have to worry about appearing consistent. It is all about stirring your mind into Musk, I mean Mush. The people behind Musk want all the subsidies they can drink, but then they want to pretend they don't lust for them like they do. They also don't want you to apply for any subsidies, because they don't need the competition. They don't want
you to be subsidized; they want you to be taxed.
So why do I think these companies are fake? We'll start with Musk's links to Mike Griffin. Griffin was head of NASA from 2005 to 2009, but on Musk's page we learn that Griffin also worked for In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA! That is probably the biggest red flag on the entire page. Curiously, that information has been scrubbed off Griffin's own page. What exactly is In-Q-Tel?
In-Q-Tel invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability.
That is the key to unlocking this whole mystery, so I suggest you read it several times, to let it sink in.
I suggest that not only did In-Q-Tel “invest” in all of Musk's companies, it actually created them, and him. We know the CIA creates many front companies, since the mainstream admits it. But it is usually assumed they do this to facilitate domestic covert operations of various sorts. But we have tripped over much evidence companies are created for reasons even more fundamental to the American way. That is to say, a significant part of the US infrastructure is an illusion—an illusion created to facilitate a variety of treasury dips by the very wealthy. Actually, the mainstream press has already reported on a small part of these thefts and grafts. See, for example, Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone reports on the big banks, especially this 2013 report entitled “Everything is Rigged”. However, even Taibbi has not yet seen that it is not only via rigging that the rich are becoming richer. It is also via manufacturing fake companies, fake portfolios, and fake projects, by which the treasury can be milked and bilked of billions of dollars of subsidies, grants, and other monies.
So if you thought my mention of Intelligence in paragraph one was just conspiracy theory, think again. Musk has admitted ties to the CIA through Griffin, if nowhere else. You see, before he was hired to head NASA, Griffin was working with Musk on SpaceX, trying to buy old ICBMs from Russia.
Again, could you ask for a bigger red flag? Griffin and Musk were in Russia in 2002 trying to buy ICBMs! We are told one of the Russian engineers spat on Musk, which is about the only thing that makes sense on the entire page. They could probably see he was a spook-baby.
Musk also has some parallels to Yuri Milner, the Russian billionaire who—we are told—is the money for the Fundamental Physics Prize.* Like Milner, Musk went to the Wharton School of Business. He also went to the University of Pennsylvania, which has come up in my previous papers. Both Ezra Pound and Noam Chomsky were probably recruited from there.
But back to SpaceX. The whole project stinks of a con. We are told,
In 2001, Musk conceptualised "Mars Oasis"; a project to land a miniature experimental greenhouse on Mars, containing food crops growing on Martian regolith, in an attempt to regain public interest in space exploration.
That idea is ridiculous for so many reasons it is hard to know where to start. Food crops on Mars? Wouldn't the transport costs back to Earth be a little high? Talk about a carbon footprint! Before we start growing food on Mars, shouldn't we hit a few others things first, like, say, getting people there? Who is going to eat that food? I guess they can feed it to the ground squirrels we have seen in NASA's fake pictures from Mars. Except that those ground squirrels are already eating pretty well it seems, since we have also seen their candy wrappers on the ground.
Actually, it wasn't any of the Mars anomaly photos that convinced me the Mars missions were faked. It was watching this <a href"
press conference for the Curiosity lander. I recommend you watch it without any later commentary added, so that you can be completely objective. Just ask yourself if these guys seem like real scientists. Notice that they are unable to answer any substantive questions from the audience. Only after you have watched these NASA guys should you return to the anomaly photos.Once you do, your mind will be in a more receptive state and you will start to see what is there.
We are told Musk gave up on the ICBMs, which Russia wanted 8 million apiece for, deciding he could get the materials for only $240,000. OK, let me see if I understand this. We are being told the materials to build a rocket large enough to carry an entire greenhouse to Mars will cost only $240,000. In that case, I think we may have been overcharged for the Apollo missions, for which we were billed about 110 billion. I think we may be overcharged now for fighter/bomber jets, which cost up to 2.4 billion apiece (the B2).
Nevertheless, we are told Musk invested 100 million of his fortune into SpaceX. Which brings us to his fortune. At age 24, right out of college, Musk invested $28,000 of his dad's money in a company called Zip2. We are told this company developed an internet city guide for newspapers then going
online in 1995. That story is so full of holes it looks like prairie dog town. We are told Zip2 “provided online publishing for media companies” and had a contract with the New York Times, but the NYT had been computerized since 1976 and online since 1981. By 1995 it would have already had all the “customized portals” it needed. Compaq also had no use for internet city guides and online publishing portals in 1999, so this sale looks manufactured. I am not the only one noticing that. Take the last link to quora.com and you will see that a lot of people are asking questions about Elon Musk.
Which brings us back to SpaceX. Curious that there is no mention on Musk's Wikipedia page of the explosion of the Falcon9 in June of this year. Also no mention of it on the SpaceX page. Also curious that the footage from Space.com of the SpaceX capsule Dragon docking with the ISS looks so fake. I encourage you to watch it and come to your own conclusions, but to me its looks like nothing but a series of anomalies. The ISS looks like a plastic model. I am just surprised they couldn't do a better job faking this. NASA's real budget must have dropped below six figures if they can't hire Hollywood people to create something better than this. I honestly don't understand why they spend $108 million on a movie like The Martian, but spend about $10,000 faking this docking sequence with the ISS. I guess they know that millions will pay $10 to be propagandized by Hollywood, but only a handful will watch this free release from NASA.
The valuation of SpaceX is also a red flag. According to the mainstream story, Musk invested 100 million. Founders Fund invested another 20 million. The first launch was estimated by Musk to happen in 2003, just 15 months after the company started, but there was still no launch in early 2012, nine years later. Despite that, the value of the company in early 2012 was said to have ballooned to 1.3 billion. Based on what? After the alleged launch in May of 2012, the company's value ballooned again, to 2.4 billion. But SpaceX is a private company, the only profit for which is made in supplying the International Space Station. Why would NASA hire a private company to do that? Surely NASA wouldn't have put the ISS into semi-permanent orbit without a way to supply the astronauts with food,
right? Weren't they getting food before 2012? Yes. So why should the federal government give huge subsidies to a private company to form, so that this company could do what NASA was already doing?
To see what I mean in more detail, remember that a large part of Musk's alleged fortune comes from SpaceX. According to published numbers, about 2 billion of his wealth comes from SpaceX stock. So basically NASA has paid Musk that amount to do what it was already doing. This is one great argument against privatizing things and for keeping them as government projects: in public projects, you don't have CEO's and other rich assholes siphoning off a large percentage of the money. In NASA
projects, they don't have directors they have to pay hundred million dollar salaries to. So even if SpaceX is a real project, it isn't clear why space funding has moved from public to private. My assumption is the project is mostly fake, and that answers the question. Space funding has moved to
the private sector so that even more money can be sucked from the treasury with even less real outcome and far less oversight. The conjob become so much easier once this is privatized.
Now let's move on to Tesla Motors. As with Paypal, Musk was not involved in the founding. He also wasn't an engineer or designer. He just came in as a suit with a bag of money.
Notice two things about that 2003 photo. One, Musk is not in the picture. That is Eberhard and Tarpenning. Two, the Tesla Roadster is complete. They are not posing with drawings or schematics, are they? They are posing with a car. If you don't believe me, ask Martin Eberhard, who sued Musk in 2009. Among other things, Tesla founder Eberhard claims in the suit that,
In his zeal to appropriate Eberhard’s legacy, Musk has instead sullied Tesla Motors’ integrity and blemished Tesla Motors’ reputation and prosperity.
He also accused Musk of libel, slander, and breach of contract. Although it is claimed Musk countersued, the suit was eventually settled out of court, which of course means Eberhard won. Musk claimed that he would show Eberhard's history of Tesla Motors was false, but he never did that. He
only paid to sweep everything under the rug. Wired, which published these lawsuit stories, claimed in their final title that Eberhard said “uncle” in the battle of lawsuits, but that is more misdirection. Their author Chuck Squatriglia admits in the article that “it is unlikely Eberhard withdrew the suit out of kindness”, and that “a settlement has been reached.” He also admits that the judge refused to dismiss the suit as requested by Musk's attorneys. That indicates that Musk did not actually countersue, and
that it was Musk who cried uncle. Since Eberhard then took down his website, we may assume Musk paid him very handsomely to do so.
Although Eberhard is now saying there were five founders of Tesla, before the settlement he was saying there were only two—himself and Tarpenning. The logical conclusion is that those behind Musk bought him off. For enough money, he will say whatever they want him to. For me, the picture above say it all.