Piousbox

return to updates
by David Kasady and Leaf Garrit
We now know that most, if not all, major events in history did not happen the way we are told. Most, if
not all, have been either spun, staged, or simply made up. A spun event is one that really happened, but
historians on the governors’ dole have sold us a heavily redacted and whitewashed version, overlaying
motves and explanatons that don’t add up. A staged event is one that “happened” in a general sense,
but was mostly or entrely performed by actors playing out a script. The recent mass shootngs fall into
this category. A fake event is one that never happened at all. It was manufactured whole-cloth and
inserted into the newspapers the next day or into the history books years or decades later. See Miles’
paper on the OK Corral, where it is admited the event wasn’t even known about untl the 1930s, and
then only based on spurious testmonies and altered photographic evidence.
It is ofen difcult to know with certainty which of these possibilites is true of an event, but we can
confdently say that an event must fall into one of these three categories based on 1) the degree to
which the mainstream facts don’t add up, and 2) which individuals were involved. I’m not certain
whether the Batle of the Alamo was spun, staged, or faked, but using the two criteria above, I’m certain
it didn’t happen the way we are told, or for the reasons we are told.
I will show you a large pile of circumstantal evidence and red fags in a moment, but I want to lead you
into the Batle of the Alamo by looking frst at its consequences and the precedent it set for U.S. military
interventon. It’s a quick chain of events: the Alamo kicked of the Texas Revoluton and the
establishment of the Republic of Texas as a sovereign naton. A mere ten years later, Texas was annexed
by the U.S., which triggered the Mexican-American War. From here we look to PBS.org to make plain the
lastng signifcance of this:
The U.S.-Mexican War had a tremendous impact on the history of both countries. For the United
States, this was the naton's frst foreign war fought almost entrely on foreign territory. It
involved multple armies, long supply lines, a very large-scale amphibious landing of troops, and

it provided the frst experience of occupying a foreign capital and establishing a military
government for an alien populaton… . The enormous fnancial cost, estmated at more than
$75 million, was another negatve factor.
If you’re at all familiar with American history, you’ll know that the Mexican-American War was an
important catalyst for our next large-scale war:
But the war was divisive for the northern republic, exacerbated by the slavery issue and by
factous politcs in Washington…. It also upset the balance between free and slave states, which
helped bring on the catastrophe of the American Civil War.
In this light, the Alamo looks like another false fag. Once the precedent of foreign military interventon
was set, it led to a ceaseless string of military interventons that contnues to this day, and all on the
taxpayer’s dime: the Fiji Expeditons, the Second Opium War, more war with Mexico (Cortna and Las
Cuevas wars), the Civil War, the Korean Expediton, the Samoan Civil War, the Spanish-American War,
the Philippine-American War, the Boxer Rebellion, yet more war with Mexico (the Occupaton of
Veracruz), the Banana Wars, the World Wars…. You get the picture. 
The Batle of the Alamo and the entre Texas “Revoluton” has delivered a huge pay-of for the
governors. I put the word in quotes because there never was a revoluton. There might have been
rumblings of one, but if there were, they’ve been buried under a thick layer of fakery and confusion.
That’s what the governors do. They co-opt any true revolutonary movement, food it with their fake
actors and events, defame it with their antcs, and by doing so completely derail it. We saw this most
recently with the Bundy ranch standof, but all secessionist and liberty movements have been either co-
opted or manufactured from the start: Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing, etc. We’ve even
seen it in Texas with Richard McLaren’s Republic of Texas movement in the 1990s. He was eventually
sentenced to 111 years in prison for holding his neighbors hostage. Sure he was. It was that or 333
years. Here he is in custody in the back of a police car, but somehow allowed to have several very large
law books.

Of course, this image is just meant to turn people of understanding or questoning the law: only
dangerous crackpots like McLaren do that. Notce too the peace sign: the McLaren case was also
scripted to blackwash any type of peace movement, paintng “hippies” and libertarians as extremists.
Here he is again, looking like a washed-up professor at a cut-rate community college:
If you were serious about seceding from the U.S., is this really a guy you’d want leading the charge? Of 
course not, and that’s the point. And who’s the other guy wearing a Snoopy te? Seriously?
Now that we understand why the Alamo happened, it helps us understand how it happened – not
spontaneously, from the grassroots up, as we are led to believe, but intentonally, from the governors
down. It fips the whole mainstream narratve on its head.
I’m not going to spend tme analyzing the event itself. For one thing, there are no photographic records
of the event, nor are there many details of what occurred beyond the tmeline of events. But I don’t
need to waste calories analyzing the event itself to prove it was staged. All I need to do is prove the
major fgures involved were all frauds and spooks. As you’ll see, this is not only easy to do, but also a lot
of fun.
Before we get started, I strongly recommend you re-read Miles’ paper of Jenny Marx, where he
discusses the Adelsverein, a plan to establish a new Germany in Texas in the 1840s that involved the
immigraton of several crypto-Jewish families to Texas—including Jenny's brother and many other
nobles. There, Miles also covers Sam Houston’s genealogy, so I won’t touch on him here. Just keep in
mind that he was a Campbell, a Kennedy, a Stewart, a Hamilton, and a Graham. All of these families are
about to come up again.
Going back to Miles’ OK Corral paper, it serves as a good reference point for this one, as we see several
similarites between the two events. Certain actors were involved who are sold to us as heroes of the
Wild West but were really Intelligence agents on some underhanded assignment. I’m speaking primarily
of the infamous Davy Crocket, analog to the OK Corral’s Wyat Earp, if you will. I stumbled into my
research on the Alamo through frst researching our King of the Wild Fronter, who to this day is
portrayed by historians and popular media as a natonal hero who rose from humble origins. He is
supposed to embody that rugged individualism and heroic patriotsm that captures the spirit of America.


Right. Davy Crocket’s popularity, at least as the cultural icon we know him to be, didn’t really begin untl
the 1950s, when ABC aired the miniseries Davy Crocket: King of the Wild Fronter, which was litle more
than propaganda. This catapulted Crocket into the natonal consciousness as the rough-hewn, coonskin-
capped Congressman who valiantly gave his life at the Alamo.

The picture on the lef is what most of us envision when we think of Davy Crocket, as portrayed on
screen by actor Fess Parker. The picture on the right is the actual Davy, looking like the wealthy
aristocrat he was. He descended from the noble Crocketagne family of France, who rubbed shoulders
with French royalty. Wikipedia tells us Davy Crocket’s earliest known paternal ancestor was Gabriel
Gustave de Crocketagne. But if you go to Geneanet you immediately fnd Gabriel’s parents listed as
William Jacques and Cordelia Maybelle Burden, and you can go further back from there. So Wikipedia is
plainly lying. Gabriel’s wife, Michelle Frances, was the daughter of Phillip Spencer Harney, born 1600.
His genealogy is scrubbed. Gabriel and Michelle’s children include a Joshua Franklin de Crocketagne –
not a very French name, is it? Davy Crocket’s direct ancestor, Cordelia Maybelle, was the daughter of
Pierre Ford Burden. Neither Franklin nor Ford are French. Given what we know about famous Franklins
and Fords, those names should practcally jump of the page. If you keep tracing Davy Crocket’s
paternal line back, you come to a Perry de Crocketagni, born 1495, who married a Sarah Buckley. Her
ancestors are scrubbed.
Following the Crocketagne lines only scratches the surface of Davy Crocket’s pedigree. A survey of his
extended family tree reveals he is related to the following families: Stuart, Kennedy, Stanley, Paton,
Thompson, Graham, Buchanan, Draper, Sayers, Robinson, Borden, Carter, Baker, Campbell, Wright,
Watson, King, Steele, Armstrong, Montgomery, Drake, Ingles, Cox, and Hamilton. In other words, he is
related to every other famous person, and linked with most of the other people, projects, and hoaxes
Miles has outed. Crocket’s great-great-grandmother, Sarah Gilbert Stuart Crocket, descends from the
royal Stuarts of England and Scotland; in fact, Davy is a direct descendent of King Robert II. (Sam
Houston is also a direct descendent of Robert II.) The royal Stuarts/Stewarts intermarried with the
Campbells, Dukes of Argyll, as well as Hamiltons and Grahams. We see all three of those names in Davy
Crocket’s family tree, though in America and afer Davy’s tme, proving yet again that these royal
European families didn’t stop intermarrying afer coming across the pond.
As an aside, Sarah Gilbert Stuart Crocket’s mother was Ja
ne Hogg. Remember David Hogg, the smooth-
tongued survivor of the Parkland shootng? This indicates he may be related to the Hoggs of Texas,
including the notorious Ima Hogg. 
Davy has another connecton to the royal Stuarts through his second wife, Elizabeth Paton. Her 5g-
grandmother was also a Sarah Stewart who descended from the royal Stuarts. What are the odds? But it
gets odder, as her great-great-uncle, Colonel James Paton of Draper’s Meadow, VA, had for a son-in-law
one William Thompson. He and his sister Katherine Stuart Thompson were direct descendants of King
Charles I of England. Colonel Paton’s daughter Margaret married a James Buchanan, who was a great-
great-uncle of President James Buchanan. These Buchanans are related to Campbells, Grahams, and
Sayers, and through them we link back to the Crockets a second tme. Through the Sayers line we also
meet up with Joseph Draper Sayers, Governor of Texas from 1899 to 1903. Joseph’s 5g-grandfather was
Joseph Louis Crocket, husband of Sarah Stuart and direct ancestor of Davy. This also links us to Zelda
Sayer Fitzgerald. But Sayers isn’t the only link from Davy Crocket to Zelda and F. Scot. In Miles’ paper
we fnd that F. Scot was a descendent of the Kennedy-Fitzgeralds of Boston, as well as the famous
Randolphs of Virginia. We’ve already seen the Kennedys in Davy Crocket’s family tree (I’ll get to that
connecton in a second). It turns out his wife Elizabeth’s great-great-uncle Lt. Col. Henry Paton married
Martha Jane Randolph, one of these famous Virginia Randolphs.
As for the Kennedy connecton, we read on Wikipedia that Davy’s father had money problems and was
always in debt with some neighbor or other. He allegedly hired out Davy to work for his creditors in
order to pay of the debts, and one such creditor was a man named John Canady/Kennedy. The claim
that the Crockets had money problems is false; Davy’s grandfather (also David Crocket) was a
prominent landowner. According to this post on the genealogy.com forum:
The senior David Crocket's will was probated and a copy is in existence. He was not a poor man,
as stated by some historians, but owned a large amount of property and his inventory revealed
that he had a good amount of livestock.
But the romantc noton that Davy rose from poverty helps sell the belief that anyone in America can
become famous with enough grit and determinaton. It also helps obscure the real connecton between
Davy and this John Canady/Kennedy. We are told that afer repaying his father’s debt, Davy decided he
liked the job and remained in Canady’s employ for another four years. Wikipedia then tells us:
Crocket fell in love with John Canady's niece Amy Summer, who was engaged to Canady's son
Robert. While serving as part of the wedding party, Crocket met Margaret Elder. He persuaded
her to marry him, and a marriage contract was drawn up on October 21, 1805. Margaret had
also become engaged to another young man at the same tme and married him instead.
He met Polly Finley and her mother Jean at a harvest festval. Although friendly towards him in
the beginning, Jean Finley eventually felt Crocket was not the man for her daughter. Crocket
declared his intentons to marry Polly, regardless of whether the ceremony was allowed to take
place in her parents' home or had to be performed elsewhere. He arranged for a justce of the
peace and took out a marriage license on August 12, 1806. On August 16, he rode to Polly's
house with family and friends, determined to ride of with Polly to be married elsewhere. Polly's
father pleaded with Crocket to have the wedding in the Finley home. Crocket agreed only afer
Jean apologized for her past treatment of him.
Putng aside the absurdity of these romantc exploits for a moment, the odd part in all this is what has
been omited. Polly Finley, who became Davy’s frst wife, was the granddaughter of a John Kennedy,
presumably the same John. That means Amy Summer would have been Polly’s frst cousin once
removed – that is, one generaton removed. Since they were from diferent generatons, they would
have been at least 20 years apart in age. But we are supposed to believe Davy fell in love with both of
them. Also strange is that Davy met Polly at a harvest festval in what appears to be a chance encounter,
but Davy had been working for Polly’s family for over four years. In all that tme, he never met Polly?
And why does Wikipedia not menton that Polly was John Canady’s granddaughter? In any event, this
means Crocket married a Kennedy, a fact that no mainstream sources seem eager to admit. I wonder
why.
We are told Crocket died at the Alamo, though his body was never recovered. On Wikipedia we read of
a conspiracy theory regarding his death:
In 1955, Jesús Sánchez Garza self-published a book called La Rebelión de Texas—Manuscrito
Inédito de 1836 por un Ofcal de Santa Anna, purportng to be memoirs of José Enrique de la
Peña, a Mexican ofcer present at the Batle of the Alamo. Texas A&M University Press
published the English translaton in 1975 With Santa Anna in Texas: A Personal Narratve of the
Revoluton. The English publicaton caused a scandal within the United States, as it asserted that
Crocket did not die in batle. Historians disagree on whether any or all of the book has been
falsifed. The original book was self-published, and no editor or publisher ever veted its
authentcity.[164] Sánchez Garza never explained how he gained custody of the documents or
where they were stored afer de la Peña's death…. Some historians have found it suspicious that
Sánchez Garza's compilaton was published in 1955, at the height of interest in Crocket and the
Alamo caused by Walt Disney's television miniseries Davy Crocket.
This is just more noise and misdirecton, as usual. Wikipedia only pushes conspiracy theories to steer
suspicion away from more accurate conspiracy theories. It ofers up partal truths for the sake of
covering up the whole truth. True, Davy Crocket didn’t die in the Alamo – because he wasn’t there to
begin with – since it never happened. He was inserted into the story aferwards to “kill” him of with
maximum glory. 
[Added April 10 by Miles: Just notce the part at Wikipedia about “no editor or publisher ever veted its
authentcity”. I guess Texas A&M University Press published it without reading it? This is a major
university, with one of the largest endowments in the country, but they can't aford editors? You see
how the writers at Wikipedia are spinning you. . . and not doing it well. One sentence is contradicted
three sentences later. In fact, noted historian James Crisp has found external documentary evidence
that the diary is genuine; and the manuscript was put through extensive laboratory tests by archivist
David Gracy, proving that the paper and ink were also of that tme and place. Therefore, those claiming
Garza or de la Pena was a fraud are just being paid to blow smoke, as usual. 
You will say de la Pena only claimed Crocket was not killed in batle: he never claimed Crocket faked his
death. True, but if the mainstream story is shown to be false in one respect, it may be false in others.
Immediately executng those who surrender in batle is and was not a common occurrence in modern
warfare, and it wasn't the legal norm in either Texas or Mexico at the tme. This is not how real batles
were fought (assuming any real batles were fought). The story of the executon of prisoners has always
been the least believable part of an unbelievable story, so you may wish to queston it. If de la Pena is
correct that Crocket didn't die in batle, and if the executons never took place, that can mean only one
thing: Crocket didn't die at all in that batle. The entre story is fcton. 
Which leads us to look at what Crocket was doing in the lead-up to the Alamo. The batle took place in
February/March of 1836. But Crocket had been in Washington serving as a representatve of
Tennessee up to March of 1835. He would be 49 later that year, very old to be running of to Texas to
fght in a suicide mission (the fghters at the Alamo were allegedly outnumbered ten to one). Do you
really think an old ex-Congressman is going to be caught in that situaton? And we have another
problem. Wiki tells us Crocket was defeated in his Congressional bid in August 1835 by Adam
Huntsman. But if we take Huntsman's link, we fnd he was already in ofce by March 4, 1835. So are we
supposed to believe Hunstman was elected fve months afer he took ofce? Something doesn't add up
there. 
What else doesn't add up is the story of the Alamo as a garrison. We are told that in late 1835, Mexican
troops were driven completely out of Texas. 100 men were then garrisoned at the Alamo—we suppose
to keep the Mexicans from coming back in. But if you had just driven thousands of Mexican troops out
of Texas, would you post as a defense only 100 men in a litle old mission? You wouldn't build a fort or
post more men? You would just post 100 men in a mission as sitng ducks, with no nearby support? And
you would allow old retred Congressmen to go join them? Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. Add
some nuns and babies, and you the ultmate satre. 
Well, if Crocket's death was faked, it must mean the other deaths were faked as well, including that of
Jim Bowie. So much they don't tell you on his Wiki page. . . and so much they do. Bowie's mother is
given as Elve Ap-Catesby Jones, but she is described only as the woman who had nursed Bowie's father
back to life afer the Revolutonary War. What they don't tell you is that she was probably the sister of
Thomas Ap-Catesby Jones, who became Commodore in the US Navy, and his brother Maj. General Roger
Ap-Catesby Jones, the longest serving Adjutant General of the US Army. That last positon is the chief
administratve ofcer of the entre Army. Roger Jones held that positon from 1825 to 1852—the batle
of the Alamo of course falling in that period. These Jones brothers are given no parents at Geni.com, so
we have to go to the peerage. There we fnd the Catesbys related to the Pagets, Earls of Uxbridge, and
the Egertons, Earls of Bridgwater. Also to the Boughton Baronets. Since the Egertons are also related to
the Jones Baronets, we thereby link the Catesby and the Jones, proving the mainsteam claim that Ap-
Catesby refers to the “son of Catesby” (as a frst name) is false. Another clue is given by the eldest
American Catesby Jones of this clan, who just happened to die at Mount Zion, Northumberland,
Virginia, in 1747. The name Northumberland is almost as big a red fag as Zion, since we have seen it
many many tmes linked to these peers. Mt. Zion wasn't a town, it was a large plantaton owned by the
Jones family since the setlement of Virginia in the 1600s. 
With some more digging, we fnd Catesby Jones' parents at the Ashe family website. They are given as
Colonel Thomas Jones and Elizabeth Prat. Her mother had been Elizabeth Catesby, which explains
where that name came from. As I said, it is a last name, not a frst name. Jones' father was Captain
Roger Jones of the Britsh Navy, who had been assigned to the West Indies, where he later became a
very wealthy merchant. He married Dorothy Walker, daughter of John Walker of Mansfeld,
Notngham. These Walkers were local peers, and Mansfeld was then and had long been a retreat for
royalty, being in the famed Sherwood forest. 
So that is where Jim Bowie came from. His uncles ran the US military at the tme, which tells us how the
Alamo was faked so easily. They also don't tell you Bowie was a land speculator and slave smuggler.
Well, they don't teach it to you at school, but Wiki admits it on their page for him. He also owned a
sugar cane plantaton with his brothers, which links us to previous papers and many other unsavory
people of the same sort. By the late 1820s, Bowie was a very wealthy scumbag, having made millions
through the slave trade, land speculaton—propelled by inside informaton and protecton from his
uncles, no doubt—and sugar cane producton. Wiki even admits Bowie and his family forged documents
in their land sales, making millions in outright real estate fraud. Court documents were destroyed to
protect the Bowies. Quite a hero, eh? 
As a prelude to the fctonal Alamo story, you may wish to read the equally fctonal Sandbar Fight story,
in which Bowie allegedly sufered two gun shots, a crack over the head with a pistol, an impaling in the
chest with a sword, and a knife stabbing. He not only survived, sufering no longterm efects, but killed
his main atacker with his famous knife. Doctors just happened to be present, and they removed the
bullets and patched Bowie's other wounds. Okie-dokie!
Bowie allegedly renounced his American citzenship in 1830, becoming a Mexican natonal so that he
could establish textle mills in the area. With that, we have now come across just about every possible
red fag with Bowie. . . except that he hasn't yet built a synagogue. But using his speculaton tricks, he
soon had around 700,000 acres to play with in South Texas. He then married the 19-year-old daughter
of his business partner, who just happened to be the governor of the province. That's convenient. 
For the next fctonal story, we are told Bowie and eleven other men fought of 160 Natves, killing 40
and wounding 30. Bowie lost one man. We aren't told if that was all achieved with Bowie knives and
high kicks. 
Since they admit Bowie was not a US citzen, instead being a Mexican natonal, it is sort of strange to see
him on the Texian side at the Alamo. Shouldn't he have been fghtng for Santa Anna? In 1835, Bowie
was supposed to be a colonel in the volunteer milita. So they let Mexican natonals become colonels in
the Texian army? Sam Houston ofered Bowie a commission as an ofcer on his staf, but Bowie
allegedly preferred to enlist as a private under Col. Fannin for the upcoming Grass Fight. That makes
sense, right? What millionaire land speculator, slave smuggler, and mill owner wouldn't rather be a
private? I guess he requested latrine duty every day, too. 
So why did they include Bowie in the Alamo story? Best guess is someone shot the asshole while he was
trying to steal their land, sell them into slavery, or rape their daughter. Such an ignominious (though
richly deserved) end wasn't to the Bowie family's liking, so they rewrote it to make Bowie a big hero. In
other words, same-old same-old. 
Alternately, Bowie may have died of “natural” causes around that tme, being added to the Alamo roster
as a convenience. In support of that theory, we fnd it admited in the mainstream stories that Bowie
was very ill. He was variously dying of consumpton, or liver failure from drinking, or typhoid, and was
said to have been in a bed in the Alamo. This whole story is very strange, since a garrison of less than
200 men holding of thousands of enemy troops doesn't really need sick guys lying around in beds. He
should have been sent of to a nearby hospital—especially given his fame and wealth. 
As for Davy Crocket, we may assume something along the same lines. Either he got shot as a swindler
—maybe in the same swindle as Bowie—or he died from falling of a horse or drinking himself to death.
Neither end was seen as glorious enough by the historians, so they had to make up something else. In
support of that theory, remember that Crocket was a wealthy politcian. Those guys get into politcs for
one reason: to make money. Everything they do is driven by greed. So you can be sure he didn't go to
Texas to fght for a cause. He likely went to Texas to check on his latest investment. He was probably a
part of Bowie's land scams, you know. Bowie was hated by all real people on both sides, Mexican and
Texan, since he was just another millionaire thief, stealing people's property with the courts to shield
him from prosecuton. That is admited in the mainstream bios. So the most likely scenario is that some
rancher he had destroyed gunned him down, and maybe Crocket with him. 
Now, what about William B. Travis? To start with, there are no photos of these guys, since this was just
before photography was invented. There are only a few paintngs and most were painted later.
Curiously, there is only one paintng of Bowie, and the paintngs of Travis look suspiciously like Bowie.
They both have long faces, lots of wavy hair on top, and long bushy sideburns. Neither the images of
Travis or Bowie look authentc to me, and most of them are defnitely fakes. At any rate, Travis' middle
name was Barret, which is already a red fag. We have previously pegged it as a name from the
peerage. The Travis family is also from the peerage in Lancashire, related to the. . . Booths. They admit
that William Travis was descended from the Travers of Tulketh Castle in Preston, England, and that these
Travers were gloriously wealthy, but Wiki tells us no more than that. If we check the peerage, we don't
fnd them; we only fnd the Travers of Ireland. We do however discover the Travers were closely related
to the Jones. The Travers-Jones are listed. Bowie was a Jones, remember. And if we search on Tulketh
Castle, we fnd it was Laurence Travis, MP, who lived there around 1400, not a Travers. So Wiki is
misdirectng even there. Wiki tells us our William Travis' grandfather had been an indentured servant,
so the family had fallen on hard tmes; but one sentence later we fnd this same grandfather was given a
grant of 100 acres in South Carolina. We aren't told why a former indentured servant was granted 100
acres. William's uncle was also famous, and he now has his own Wiki page. He was allegedly a Baptst
minister—which is doubtul since we can be sure he was Jewish. He also founded the mysterious Sparta
Academy in Alabama, which taught Latn, Greek, history and mathematcs. That also doesn't sound very
Baptst to me. We have to wonder if it also taught Hebrew. Travis went to that school, and his girlfriend
while there was named Rosanna Cato—which also doesn't sound like a good Baptst name. Afer
graduatng from Sparta, Travis began studying law with famous atorney James Dellet. Dellet was later
—during the tme of the Alamo—a US Congressman. So, given Travis' bio, it is strange to see him
studying with such a prominent person. Also not in keeping with his family's “fallen” status is the fact
that Travis started a newspaper, the Claiborne Herald, while stll only 18 years old. Reminds us of Ben
Franklin and Mark Twain, doesn't it? He allegedly passed his law examinaton at age 19, bought two
slaves, and married the 16-year-old Cato. Two years later (1831) he was sued for debt and fed Alabama
to avoid arrest, leaving his wife and children. So you see, he already had reason to fake his death fve
years before the Alamo. 
Despite being a broke deadbeat and in fight from the law, upon arriving in Texas he allegedly bought
land directly from Stephen F. Austn. We aren't told how he paid for this land—maybe with green
stamps. Austn also appointed him counsel from the United States. Really? Austn appointed a 21-year-
old deadbeat as counsel from the US? He was also commissioned as a lieutenant colonel, immediately
skipping about fve ranks. This is also not believable, since he had no prior military experience. His law
degree should have allowed him to come in as a second lieutenant, but that is stll four ranks below
lieutenant colonel.
To understand any of this, you have to also study the Anahuac disturbances of 1831-35. Within months
of arriving in Texas, Travis was allegedly hired as an atorney by slavers from Louisiana to get their
property back. You see, Mexico didn't allow slavery. Which should already tell you who the good guys
were here. According to the story, Travis got caught hoaxing leters to the court, and Mexican General
Juan Bradford arrested him for insurrecton. Locals then allegedly revolted with the aim of freeing Travis
from jail. Bradford allegedly had no support from Mexico and gave into the rebellion. None of this is
any more believable than the Alamo, since Generals like Bradford wouldn't have been lef in enemy
territory with almost no troops. The entre story (as at Wiki) makes no sense—it appears to have been
writen by high school boys drinking Everclear. As one example, we are told Mexican Colonel Piedras
agreed to General Bradburn's resignaton. What? Since when can a colonel agree to the resignaton of
his superior ofcer? At any rate, this is how the Mexicans were allegedly driven from Texas before the
batle of the Alamo.
But what does all this tell us about Travis? It tells us he was most likely working for US Intelligence in
Texas as a low-ranking recruit. I doubt he ever took a bar exam or knew anything of the law. Between
1831 and 1936, he either earned his way into a higher level black-ops job that required he fake his
death, or—like Bowie and Crocket—he got involved in land stealing and got his ass shot of by local
ranchers. But since, like them, he was from the families, he needed a beter send-of. They couldn't
admit their own people were getng assassinated as thieves, so they inserted all three into the Alamo,
creatng a story of contnuing glory and heroism. 
Finally, David and Leaf didn't menton it, so I want to be sure you remember that afer the fght, Santa
Anna's men allegedly stacked the Texian bodies and burned them. No record of who was killed, or even
a count was made. So there is conveniently no proof anyone died. This also goes against all military
protocol, then and now. I have to believe that mainstream military experts and historians don't believe
this story any more than David, Leaf, and I do, and this is one of the main reasons why. Europeans don't
wage war this way, and both the Spanish and the Americans involved at the Alamo were children of
Europeans. They wouldn't think of piling bodies and burning them, leaving the ashes to fy in the wind.
Europeans bury their dead, they don't burn them. So the Mexicans should have—at worst—dug a large
pit. But since theirs was not an occupying army but a conquering army, there was no reason for them
not to let the locals gather their own dead. The Alamo was allegedly a garrison, so all Santa Anna had to
do is ride away. The locals would have arrived afer the report of the batle to count, identfy, and bury
the dead themselves. The was no reason for Santa Anna not to allow them to do that. As with the
alleged executons, burning the bodies would have been an unnecessary provocaton. Not only
unnecessary, but immoral and—by the rules of warfare at the tme—illegal. This was less than 200 years
ago, and you may be surprised to hear they had laws, customs, and morals back then.
In winding up my litle addendum here, I want to be sure you notced something else: Crocket, Bowie,
and Travis were related, all coming from the same families in the peerage. We just saw Bowie and
Travis related through the name Jones. But you will see below that Crocket was also related to the
Pagets through the Steeles. Well, we just saw Bowie related to the same Pagets, Earls of Uxbridge,
through the Catesbys. Which explains why the three were put into the same story here. My guess is
they were all working on the same major land-stealing/gathering project in South Texas, and they were
together because they were cousins representng the larger family. And who else were close cousins of
these three? Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austn. See below, where David and Leaf further lay out the
relatonships.] 
In researching Crocket, I ran across an interestng artcle published in 2015 on the website of True West
Magazine. (The word “true” in the ttle should clue you into the fact that whatever you’re about to read
isn’t true at all, but more half-truths and misdirecton.) The artcle uncovers another frontersman by the
name of Davy Crocket, also born in Tennessee, who was a murderer and outlaw. He was born 17 years
afer the famous Davy Crocket allegedly died at the Alamo, and was even related to him, though “the
te is unclear.” Actually, according to Wikipedia, he was either Davy’s grandson or grandnephew, so the
te isn’t that unclear at all. He even lived in Texas, but ended up in New Mexico, “drinking, gambling and
getng in trouble with characters such as gunman Clay Allison.” One drunken night at an inn in Cimarron
with his pals Gus Hefron and Henry Goodman, Davy decided to shoot a soldier who got in his way as he
was stumbling out the door. Three more soldiers were playing cards at a table inside, and Davy
“whipped around and opened fre, killing two and wounding the other.” He then fed, and the rest is one
heck of a tall tale:
He was arrested and tried for the murders, but he claimed that he wasn’t responsible for his
actons because he was drunk. The court agreed and acquited him; all he got was a $50 fne, for
illegally carrying a gun in town.
Emboldened by the incident, Davy thought he was above the law. He and Hefron hurrahed
Cimarron on a regular basis, getng drunk and shootng at various targets, riding horses into
saloons and other buildings, and threatening citzens and lawmen. The two reportedly held
Sherif Isaiah Rinehart at gunpoint, forcing him to drink untl he passed out.
Davy didn’t think he was above the law; he was above the law. He killed three soldiers and was
acquited by the court on the grounds that he was drunk. If that’s not being above the law, I don’t know
what is. Here’s the photograph True West Magazine provides of the outlaw Davy Crocket:

Davy is the one on the right, looking like an inbred dandy. Of course, even a novice like me can tell this
photograph has been heavily doctored, and may be fake altogether. Then we read on Wikipedia: “Local
folklore says that Crocket was a member of a lynch mob headed by Clay Allison that killed the
Elizabethtown serial killer, Charles Kennedy, in 1870.”
I bet you didn’t think there were serial killers back in the 1870s, did you? The name Kennedy is a dead
giveaway, but just for kicks here is the ofcial story:
Charles Kennedy, a big, husky full-bearded man, owned a traveler’s rest on the road between
Elizabethtown and Taos. Afer travelers would register at the rest stop, some would disappear
never to be heard from again. These traveling strangers were rarely missed in the highly
transient setlement. 
How convenient.
Evidently, when travelers stopped for a bed and a meal, Charles killed them, stole their
valuables and either burned or buried their bodies. These events might never have been known,
except for his wife’s confession, when she fed from him in terror in the fall of 1870.
The bleeding Ute Indian woman burst into John Pearson’s saloon, where Clay Allison, Davy
Crocket (a nephew of the American frontersman) and others were whiling away the hours.
Afer she had been helped to a chair, she told the story of how her husband had killed a traveler
and their young son. Hysterical, she contnued the shocking story telling of how her husband
had been luring travelers, perhaps as many as 14, into their cabin and then murdering them. On
the day that she fed, she had witnessed another traveler who her husband had entced inside
by ofering supper. During the meal, the passerby asked his hosts if there were many Indians
around. Her unfortunate son made the fatal mistake of responding, “Can’t you smell the one
Papa put under the foor?” At this, Kennedy went into a fury, shot his guest and bashed his son’s
head against the freplace. He then threw both bodies into the cellar, locked his wife in the
house and drank himself into a stupor. Terrifed, the woman waited untl her husband passed
out, then climbed up through the chimney and escaped to tell her story.
Davy and Clay then went and found Kennedy, beheaded him, and stuck his head on a pole in the center
of town. No reasonable person could believe any of this. But the real red fags are the names. We
already know Davy Crocket married a Kennedy. Are they the same Kennedys? According to this website,
the Elizabethtown serial killer was the son of William and Fanny Canady of Tennessee. Note the spelling
and origin – we have a match between Charles “bodies under the foorboards” Kennedy and Davy
Crocket’s in-laws. That means the outlaw Davy Crocket, who allegedly killed Charles, was actually
related to him. It turns out Clay Allison, the other vigilante in this story, was one of outlaw Davy’s
relatves too. Remember Sarah Gilbert Stuart Crocket? Her niece was Ja
ne Campbell Allison. Geni.com
lists her husband as herself, so we have no way of directly linking her to Clay Allison, but we can
presume they are related. For further evidence, we fnd that Clay Allison’s grandparents were Hamilton
Allison and Elizabeth Stewart. So Crocket, Allison, and Kennedy weren’t outlaws and serial killers. They
were all Intelligence agents being paid to spread fear and misdirect the locals from other goings-on.
Speaking of Clay Allison, he allegedly had a confrontaton with Wyat Earp, bringing us back to Miles’
paper on the OK Corral. Funny how these things come full circle, isn’t it? Wikipedia tells us that “Earp's
biographer (and Earp himself) claimed that he and his friend Bat Masterson confronted Allison and his
men in a saloon, and that Allison backed down before them.” We then read that “ Charlie Siringo, a
cowboy at the tme, but later a well-known Pinkerton Detectve, had witnessed the incident and lef a
writen account.” Earp, Allison, and a well-known Pinkerton detectve happened to be in the same
saloon at the same tme, and had a “confrontaton” that ended peacefully? Really? This just proves the
theory that both Earp and Allison weren’t vigilante gunfghters, but fellow Intelligence agents.
Back to Davy Crocket’s genealogy. In his family tree we fnd a Reuben Steele, who descended from the
Baronets Steele. Though geni.com lists Reuben as the son of Alexander Steele, son of Parker Steele, son
of Richard Steele, son of Richard Steele, it doesn’t menton that these Steeles are Baronets. When you
fip over to thepeerage.com, you also fnd two Richard Steeles and a Parker Steele right in a line, but
their birthdates are much later than those at geni.com. They’ve tried to fudge names and dates to throw
you of, but we can presume these are the same folks, or at least ancestors. At thepeerage.com, Richard
is, indeed, a Baronet, but it doesn’t list a son named Alexander. He’s related to Baronet John Maxwell
Steele-Graves, who married Elizabeth Graves of the Lord Graves, Barons of Gravesend. Through her the
Steeles are related to the Grenvilles, Pagets (Earls of Uxbridge), Morgans, Hamiltons, Chapmans, and
Hancocks. Through the Pagets the Steeles are also related to the Leveson-Gowers, Lewises, Buckleys,
and Bushes. (Remember we saw the name Buckley in Davy Crocket’s lineage.) Also the Stewarts (Earls
of Galloway) and Coles (Earls of Enniskillen). The Pagets also held the ttle of Marquess of Anglesey, from
where they hailed.
Reuben’s wife, Hannah King, is completely scrubbed at geni.com, but we may assume she is a member
of the King peers. Supportng this, we fnd a Hannah Magdalen King at thepeerage.com, born in 1988,
granddaughter of Sir Michael Bernard Grenville Oppenheimer, 3rd Baronet. We saw Grenvilles related to
the Steeles above, and now we can pull in the famous Jewish Oppenheimers, as well.
I could go on, but let’s switch gears and focus on the other side of the Alamo batle for a bit. The leader
on Mexico’s side was Antonio de Santa Anna, President of Mexico. Even Wikipedia admits that he was a
criollo, an “elite racial group of American-born Spaniards.” A criollo was a pureblooded Spaniard with no




Mexican lineage. Therefore, despite being the leader of Mexico, Santa Anna was not in the least best
Mexican. Remember, Mexico was supposed to have gained its independence from Spain just a decade
or so before, in 1821. So why was a Spanish noble stll ruling the country?
Now for a fun game: which of the following is Santa Anna?



If you guessed all of them, you’re right! But wait, those look like four completely diferent people. How
can they all be Santa Anna? The frst two both have a high forehead, but otherwise their features and
skin coloring are completely diferent. The picture on the far lef is from history.com and can be found at
many other reputable sites. They want you to think that’s Santa Anna, because he looks Mexican. But I
very much doubt that is him. If it is, then the third picture from the lef can’t be him – the eyes, nose,
and mouth are completely diferent, and the forehead isn’t as prominent. But that picture is from Gety
Images, also reputable. The second picture from the lef is probably more accurate, as he looks like a
white Spanish noble, which is exactly what he was. The paintng on the far right could also be a young
version of the white Spaniard, although the nose and chin are more exaggerated – a very Jewish-looking
Santa Anna, if you ask me.
[Miles here again: that frst image is the one they lead with now at Wikipedia, but that can't be Santa
Anna. Why? Well, Wiki dates it as c. 1853. Since Santa Anna was born in 1794, that would make him
almost 60 there. Does that guy look almost 60 to you? No, the third guy might be in his 60s, but the
frst guy looks to be about 35 to me. Which would put the date at about 1829. But that is a big
problem, because there were no photographs like that in 1829. The Daguerreotype didn't become
available worldwide untl 1839, a decade later, and Daguerreotypes didn't look like that anyway.
Compare that photo to real Daguerreotypes, and you will see that it is beter in quality. That photo
should be dated afer 1850, and probably afer 1860, which is why they date it to that period at Wiki. So
it simply refutes itself. It cannot be Santa Anna. 
The last image of Santa Anna is a paintng, obviously, and it defnitely does not match the other three.
No one has hair like that in his twentes, but looks like image one in his thirtes. Yes, we all lose some
hair as we age, but not like that. The eyebrows, chin, and ears also don't match: not even close. So my
guest writers are correct: what we have here is four diferent people tagged as Santa Anna, with no
indicaton any of them is him. Each one refutes the other three.]
Several things about Santa Anna’s life don’t add up. His idol was Napoleon Bonaparte, and just like his
idol, he was also exiled – on several occasions, in fact. At history.com, we read that afer his fnal stnt as
Mexico’s leader, Santa Anna was banished to…New York City! Staten Island, to be exact.
Afer Santa Anna met with U.S. Secretary of State William Seward on the Caribbean island of St. Thomas
in 1866, con men convinced him that the United States—the country against which he had fought during
the Mexican-American War—would back his atempt to return to power in Mexico…. When Santa Anna
arrived in New York City in May 1866, however, he learned that he had been duped. Afer spending
years on Staten Island, Santa Anna returned to Mexico shortly before his death in 1876.
Where do I start? First of all, we are told Santa Anna mercilessly butchered hundreds of American
citzens at the Alamo and executed all of the soldiers who had peacefully surrendered. He should have
been considered an enemy of the state and tried for war crimes. But instead he was whisked of to
Staten Island and remained there for a decade, all expenses paid. He was then returned to Mexico, no
questons asked. That would be like the U.S. government capturing Osama bin Laden, setng him up in a
posh apartment overlooking Central Park, and then letng him go back to Saudi Arabia afer a few years
with a pat on the back and a patronizing “try to stay out of trouble now, you hear?”
And who are the “con men” that convinced Santa Anna the U.S. would help him return to power? He
was in St. Thomas with U.S. Secretary Seward, so these con men must have also been U.S. ofcials
traveling with Seward. Surely Santa Anna wouldn’t have believed a couple of locals with false mustaches
posing as American ofcials. But why would they be called “con men” – wouldn’t they have just been
statesmen playing some politcal games? What was Santa Anna doing with Seward in the Caribbean to
begin with? None of it adds up.
Then history.com tells us:
During his forced retirement in Staten Island, Santa Anna imported a chewy, rubber-like
substance harvested from Mexican sapodilla trees—chicle. When Santa Anna’s personal
secretary and interpreter showed the material to friend Thomas Adams, the amateur
inventor was intrigued and thought he could use it to produce a rubber substitute. With the
help of Santa Anna, who hoped the experiments would result in a windfall that could fnance
a return to power, Adams spent $30,000 in an unsuccessful attempt to vulcanize the chicle.
While that venture failed, however, Adams successfully added favorings and sweeteners to
the plant to create “rubber chewing gum.” The chewing gum company started by Adams
would become one of the largest in the country…
You have to laugh at that. First, they admit his exile to Staten Island was a “forced retrement” replete
with a personal secretary and interpreter. Second, Santa Anna believed he could fnance his own return
to power with his nify new chewing-gum inventon. If he was truly in exile, he would never have had the
freedom or means to develop a new consumer product, get rich, and then travel back to Mexico to
reclaim his country. That’s not how politcal exile works. Of course, he wasn’t an exile at all. His stnt as
Mexican dictator was just his assignment; when his assignment ended, they recovered their Intelligence
asset and then set him up with a cozy retrement package. Or should I say semi-retrement, since he
apparently helped Thomas Adams invent Chiclet chewing gum, which was later bought by Pfzer, and
then Cadbury. It’s now produced in the U.S. by Cadbury Adams, a subsidiary of Mondelez. This explains
why Santa Anna frst went to the Caribbean before being shipped to Staten Island; he was hob-knobbing
with sugar magnates who were developing a brand-new type of candy. Once chewing gum took of in
the U.S., guess where the majority of chicle was produced? That’s right, in Mexico. According to a 2009
story from NPR:
Workers in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize became highly dependent on North American
corporations buying their product, and fuctuations in the prices and rate of purchases had a
huge impact on their countries’ economies. This unsustainable industry set into motion
another so-called collapse of Maya civilization that continues to have an effect today.
Chewing gum also tes back to my opening remarks about U.S. foreign military interventon. From NPR:
“During World War II, Wrigley convinced the U.S. Army to include chewing gum in the ratons of soldiers.
Soldiers, in turn, spread the habit around the world.” If this is all startng to sound like an industrialist
conspiracy, that’s because it is. And I haven’t gone anywhere but to the mainstream sources; as usual,
it’s just a mater of putng the pieces together. For kicks, I’ll include this tdbit from the NPR story: 
Despite its popularity, chewing gum was not without its critics. Leon Trotsky argued that
gum was a way for capitalism to keep the working man from thinking too much.
Knowing what we do about Leon Trostky (a.k.a. Lev Davidovich Bronstein), we can read his comment as
a veiled compliment to chewing gum, since Trotsky and the other Jewish industrialists didn’t want
anyone thinking too much about anything. 
So, who was Santa Anna, anyway? It helps to know his full name: Antonio de Padua Maria Severino
López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón. Quite a mouthful. The fact that he is ofen referred to simply as
Santa Anna is misleading, and probably intentonally so, seeing that his other family names link him to
several prominent Spanish noble families. His father was an ofcer in the royal army.
Let’s frst look at the name Severino. In the peerage we fnd a Lady Anne Cliford, daughter of Hon.
Thomas Cliford and Charlote Maria Livingston, Countess of Newburgh. Her frst husband was Lt.-Gen.
John Joseph Mahony, son of Lt.-Gen. Daniel O’Mahony, Comte de Castle. The Mahonys were apparently
Irish, but later became Spanish Counts – fgure that one out.* Lady Anne and John Mahony’s son
married Charlote Bulkeley (perhaps a variant of Buckley?), daughter of Sophia Stuart. Now for the
kicker: afer her husband’s death, Lady Anne married Don Carlo Severino. She died on April 1, 1793 on
the Island of Ischia, of the coast of Italy. When you get on these rabbit trails, it pays to start clicking
links, even when you don’t expect to fnd much. Case in point, Ischia. Wikipedia drops a hint when
talking about the origin of the island’s name: 
The current name appears for the frst time in a letter from Pope Leo III to Charlemagne in
813: the name iscla mentioned there would allegedly derive from insula, though there is an
argument made for a Semitic origin in I-schra, “black island”.
In 1422, Joan II (Durazzo) gave the island to her “adoptve son” Alfonso V of Aragon. Joan II’s lineage
traces back to the Arpad dynasty, which Miles has already linked to the crypto-Jewish Komnene family.
Alfonso V was from the House of Trastamara, which Miles has also outed as crypto-Jewish.
Now let’s hit on the names López and Pérez. There was a Lope Díaz II de Haro (1170-1236), Lord of
Biscay, was a Spanish noble from the House of Haro. He was the son of Diego López II de Haro. He was
one of the leading magnates (noblemen) under King Ferdinand III of Castle, another being Álvaro Pérez
d e Castro el Castellano, head of the House of Castro. These men were apparently close, as Álvaro
eventually married Lope’s daughter, Mécia López.

That’s Mécia above. You could spot that nose and deep-set eyes from a mile away. 
Wikipedia tells us that confict broke out in 1234 between Ferdinand and these two magnates, and their
intermarriage caused Ferdinand to relinquish all the ttles and lands granted to Álvaro, “even though the
confict was setled arbitrarily by the Queens Berengaria de Castlla and Elisabeth of Swabia.” These
queens were Ferdinand’s mother and wife, respectvely. You may remember (from Miles’ paper) that
Elisabeth of Swabia was the daughter of the Byzantne Emperor Isaac II Angelos, who was a Komnene.
Queen Berengaria was the daughter of Alfonso VIII of Castle, who we discover had a longstanding
mistress, Rahel Esra, a Jewish woman who lived in Toledo, a Jewish hotspot in Spain. Wikipedia tells us
that “under her infuence a number of Spanish Jews were appointed to positons within the royal court.”
Indeed. Alfonso VIII’s wife was Eleanor of England, whose lineage goes back to King Baldwin II of
Jerusalem, who Miles outed as a crypto-Jew in his paper on Phillip III. She was a Gometz, later Gomez. I
suspected Berengaria might have actually been the love-child of Alfonso and his Jewish paramour, but
it’s beside the point, as her ofcial mother was also Jewish.
Let me step back for a moment and ofer my theory: Just as certain crypto-Jewish families infltrated the
royal and noble lines in England, France, Sweden, and so forth, so they did in Spain. These Spanish
crypto-Jewish families were, among others, the Pérez, López, Castro, and Díaz families. As evidence, we
only have to go back to Alfonso VIII’s grandfather, Alfonso VII, who also had a weakness for (Jewish)
mistresses. From his Wikipedia page:
Alfonso also had two mistresses, having children by both. By an Asturian noblewoman named
Gontrodo Pérez, he had an illegitmate daughter, Urraca (1132 – 1164), who married García
Ramírez of Navarre, the mother retring to a convent in 1133. Later in his reign, he formed a
liaison with Urraca Fernández, widow of count Rodrigo Martnez and daughter of Fernando
García de Hita, having a daughter Stephanie the Unfortunate (1148 – 1180), who was killed by
her jealous husband, Fernán Ruiz de Castro.
So these Pérez and Castro families were already wheedling their way into the royal Spanish lines a
century before. But notce that Pérez was from Asturias, which we already know from mainstream
history was a hotspot of Jewish migraton since the frst century AD. There had been large populatons of
Jews in Spain all the way up to the Inquisiton, and the region of Asturias had – and stll has – a
partcularly large number, as evidenced by this 2008 study which found that, among modern-day
Asturians, “numbers of men with Sephardic Jewish Y-chromosomes equal those with European
chromosomes.”
You’ll argue that’s circumstantal evidence at best, and Pérez isn’t a very Jewish-sounding name, not like
Rahel Esra. Granted. But if you’re familiar with the Old Testament, you’ll know that Perez actually is a
Jewish name. Perez or Paretz was a twin son of Judah and Tamar all the way back in Genesis. Now go to
the Wikipedia page for Pérez, where the frst sentence reads: “Pérez or Perez…is a Spanish and Jewish
surname popular among people of Sephardic Jewish descent.” Alfonso’s mistress was a Pérez from the
heavily Sephardic region of Asturias. It’s no coincidence, of course, that Pérez is very Spanish-sounding:
…while the Spanish and Hebrew etymological origins are distnct [Pérez means “son of Pedro” in
Spanish], there are nevertheless those who carry the surname because, in their partcular case,
the origin of their surname is Spanish Jewish (i.e. Sephardic), and they, as Spanish Jews or their
descendants, adopted the surname precisely because of its ambiguity.
In other words, crypto-Jews adopted the surname Pérez to hide their Jewishness.
Take a look at those recurring names again: Pérez, López, Castro, Díaz. Notce anything? They’re all
modern-day celebrites. Hip-hop artst Pitbull (born Armando Pérez), Jennifer Lopez, Mario López,
George Lopez, Cameron Diaz, etc. I hardly need menton the most famous Castro, who Miles has already
outed. Actually, Comrade Fidel outed himself, admitng his ancestors were Spanish Jews. Fidel’s frst
wife was Mirta Diaz-Balart. In his paternal line, going back to the 1700s, we fnd an uncle Juan Lopez
Diaz. We also fnd a Pereyre, which looks like a fudging of Perez. The Wikipedia page for the surname
Pereira confrms this, listng variant spellings such as Pereyre, Peres, Paret, and Pares. And don't forget
that Pereira is a variant of Peron, linking Castro to the Perons. We also read that “many Portuguese
immigrants to the United States, especially Massachusets, chose to ‘Americanize’ their surname to
Perry.” This is true for Steve Perry, lead singer of Journey, whose father was Raymond Pereira, and Joe
Perry, lead guitarist of Aerosmith, born Pereira. I’d bet money former Texas governor Rick Perry is also a
Pereira/Perez/Peron. We do know that Rick Perry is descended from Spanish royalty. His
ethnicelebs.com page says his 6g-grandfather was William Gaston. They conveniently fail to menton
one generaton back, where we discover that William Gaston was the son of Princess Agnes of Navarre,
daughter of King Philip III and Queen Joan II of Navarre. The Gastons were also related to the French
royal House of Bourbon.
Also recall that Davy Crocket’s earliest known ancestor was a Perry de Crocketagni.
Guess who else is a Pereira? Katy Perry. Her great-great-grandfather is Frank S. Perry, a.k.a. Francisco
Pereira de Silveira from the Portuguese Azores islands. Katy’s genealogy past Francisco is scrubbed, but
we may assume he was from the same Marrano family as Fidel Castro. Let me pause on Katy Perry for a
moment, since her genealogy is quite interestng. She is related to Waltons, Clarks, Douglases,
Robisons, and Blanks. She is also a descendant of Leopold Vilsack, a famous brewer and banker whose
daughter Marie Antoinete married an Edward Fraunheim (Jewish), whose mother was a Meyer (also
Jewish). We also fnd Katy is the great-grand-niece of Charles Schwab, the famous steel magnate. They
admit that on Schwab’s Wikipedia page but not on Katy Perry’s, which is curious. Equally curious is that
her ethnicelebs.com page also completely ignores this connecton, even though it dives fairly deeply into
her genealogy. Katy’s uncle Frank Perry, Jr., the famous flmmaker, was married to a Rosenfeld (Jewish),
a Goldsmith (Jewish), and a Ford.
All of Katy Perry’s Vilsack-Fraunheim relatves on geni.com are managed by a Walter Pierce Knake, Jr.
You’ll recall from the Ned Kelly paper that the name Pierce is an “Americanized version of a similar

sounding Jewish surname.” Unfortunately, the ancestry.com webpage that tells us this doesn’t menton
which Jewish surname this is. I suggest it is Peretz/Perez. This means the Perry, Pierce, and
Pereira/Pereyre/Peron/Peretz families are all part of the same crypto-Jewish family that has altered the
spelling of its name over the centuries to blend in with the various natves.
Let’s do some more digging on the Pereira/Pereyre name. On Wikipedia we fnd a Soeiro Pereira Gomes,
a Portuguese writer and leading fgure of the Portuguese neo-realist movement. We’ve seen Gomes
before, haven’t we? Gomes is a variant of Gomez/Gometz, linked to Baldwin II of Jerusalem. Soeiro
Pereira Gomes was on the Central Commitee of the Portuguese Community Party in the 1940s. The
Portuguese Communist Party’s present headquarters in Lisbon – the Soeiro Pereira Gomes Building –
bears his name. Since both communism and modernist movements in arts and literature were
manufactured by Intelligence, we can assume Gomes was just another fascist spook.
On Wikipedia we also fnd an Isaac Arthur Pereyre, Jewish actvist who lived among the Marrano
(Spanish crypto-Jewish) communites of Southern France. Also Isaac La Peyrère, another Marrano and
close confdant of Queen Christna of Sweden (from the crypto-Jewish House of Vasa). 
That was Queen Christna. A picture is worth a thousand words, eh? Isaac Peyrere developed the “Pre-
Adamite hypothesis” that Gentles were created before the Jewish Adam, thus explaining the existence
of all other races. He converted Rabbi Menasseh Ben Israel to this belief, and Menasseh was later
invited by Oliver Cromwell to negotate the readmission of Jews to England. Rabbi Ben Israel’s real name
was Manoel Dias Soeiro – both names we’ve seen before. Per Wikipedia:
La Peyrère also argued that Messiah would join with the king of France…to liberate the Holy
Land, rebuild the Temple and set up a world government of the Messiah with the king of France
actng as regent. It has since emerged that, in fact: “Condé, Cromwell and Christna were
negotatng to create a theological-politcal world state, involving overthrowing the Catholic king
of France, among other things”.
Sounds like an earlier version of the modern-day Zionism project, doesn’t it? On his brother Abraham’s
Wikipedia page, quotng historian Herbert Bloom, we read:

“The Pereyras are described by their fellow Jews as merchants of wealth and infuence, who
occupied an important place on the Exchange [Bank].” The reference here is to the Amsterdam
Stock Exchange, the oldest stock exchange in the world, started by the Dutch East India
Company/VOC in 1602.
There is also an Ephraim Lópes Pereira d’Aguilar, 2nd Baron d’Aguilar, who was also a Jewish fnancier.
He descended from the Baron Diego Pereira d’Aguilar, a Jewish converso from Portugal. Ephraim was
very wealthy and, judging by his picture, very Jewish:
Sufce it to say, the Pereyres/Pereiras were wealthy Spanish-Jewish fnanciers ted to all the usual
crypto-Jewish royal houses of the ancien régimes, as well as to the infltrators of the Spanish nobility
(Perez, Lopez, Diaz, Castro) that we are presently investgatng.
The Baron Periera’s ttle put me in mind of Christna Aguilera – Aguilar/Aguilera. On a lark I checked out
her ancestry. Her genealogy on her father’s side is completely scrubbed, but through her mother we fnd
she is related to Britney Spears, and both of them are related to Baroness Margery de Bulkeley. We saw
that name above, didn’t we? Lady Anne Cliford’s son, who was a Count of Castle (Spain), married
Charlote Bulkeley, daughter of a Stuart. They were related to Radclyfes and Walkers, both names we
fnd in Britney Spears and Christna Aguilera’s shared family tree. The web I’m weaving just keeps
nabbing more fies.
Let’s pull a few more historical fgures into this stcky web. How about the legendary Spanish folk hero El
Cid? He was born Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar. Wikipedia tells us that “despite the fact that El Cid's mother's
family was aristocratc, in later years the peasants would consider him one of their own.” I won’t get
into El Cid’s many exploits here, but sufce it to say he was ofen found fghtng on both sides of the
many batles between warring Christan and Muslim kingdoms across Spain. El Cid was like an earlier,
Spanish version of Davy Crocket; Later pseudo-historians were paid to whitewash him as a folk hero and
champion of the common man, when in reality he was just another rich kid from the wealthiest families
assigned to carry out their interests and intrigues. They even admit El Cid’s mother’s family was part of
the aristocracy. Who were they? A litle digging reveals his great-grandfather on his mother’s side was
Guterre, señor de Castro Xériz. So he was from the House of Castro. At JewishEncyclopedia.com, we
read that, “According to the Cronica General de Castlla, the Cid had a Jewish page by the name of Gil,
who later assumed his master's name, Diaz.” We can surmise that El Cid, and not just his page, was
Jewish, since who else but a Jew would have no qualms fghtng against both Christans and Moors? I
also found several references to El Cid being a “New Christan,” meaning a Jew who converted to
Christanity, usually to avoid persecuton.
And to pull in another fy, do you remember who played El Cid in the epic Hollywood movie from the
1960s: Charlton Heston, top spook. 
El Cid puts me in mind of Cervantes’ Don Quixote, where he is frequently referenced as one of the
protagonist’s role models. Want to take bets on what I discovered about Cervantes, a.k.a. Miguel de
Cervantes Saavedra? He is now believed to have been a crypto-Jew. It states it right on his Wikipedia
page:
Modern scholars have suggested that he may have descended from a New Christan or Converso
background, i.e., that his ancestors, prior to 1492, had been Jews. Rodriguez also says that
"Saavedra" is believed to refer to the area of Spain known as La Mancha [where Don Quixote’s
character is from], but was rather set near Zamora, Spain and that la mancha ("the stain") refers
to his converso ("forced convert from Judaism") background. Advocates of the New Christan
theory, frst set forth by Américo Castro, ofen suggest Cervantes' mother was a converso as
well. The theory rests almost exclusively on circumstantal evidence but would explain some
mysteries of Cervantes' life.
What these mysteries are, we aren’t told, though it may be in reference to his being forced to leave
Spain for unknown reasons when he was younger. His frst love afair was with a “young barmaid”
named Josefna Catalina de Parez. Interestngly, she’s listed on geni.com, where we fnd that her son
Hernán son emigrated to San Juan, Puerto Rico. His daughter, Isabel, married a Sotomayor. Guess where
Supreme Court Justce Sonia Sotomayor is from? San Juan, Puerto Rico. You’ll recall from Miles’ paper
on the Supreme Court Justces that Sonia, aside from being Jewish, is also a Cortes. This links us back to
Charles “bodies under the foorboards” Kennedy; his wife was Gregoria Cortes. It also links us to Santa
Anna, whose wife was Manuela Cortés.
Let’s jump back to the American side of the Alamo event. First, there’s William Barret Travis, who led
the Texian army during the Batle of the Alamo. Travis had been commissioned as a lieutenant colonel
of the Legion of Cavalry and became the chief recruitng ofcer for the fedgling Texian army. He had
arrived in Mexican Texas in 1831, having purchased land from Stephen Austn. He set up a law practce
in Anahuac and helped start a milita to oppose Mexican rule, quickly becoming a leading fgure in the
Anahuac Disturbances. What’s that, you ask?
In 1830, Juan Davis Bradburn established a new military and customs post, Anahuac, in Texas.
The local setlers resented Bradburn's eforts to withhold land ttles from those who had
squated in unauthorized areas. They were further angered by his atempts to enforce customs
laws which had been largely ignored. The hard feelings escalated when Bradburn, following
Mexican law, refused to return runaway slaves to their owners in the United States. Afer
receiving a hoax leter claiming that armed men were marching on Anahuac to retrieve runaway
slaves, Bradburn arrested local lawyers William Barret Travis and Patrick Churchill Jack. Setlers
were outraged that Travis did not receive some of the protectons ofered by the United States
Bill of Rights, even though these rights were not guaranteed in Mexico. A large force of Texians
marched on Anahuac to secure Travis's release. The resultng confrontaton forced Bradburn's
expulsion from Texas and encouraged other immigrants to take armed acton against Mexican
soldiers.
It almost seems like Travis was set on disturbing the peace the moment he strode into town, since it
only took a year for him and his business partner (a Churchill) to get arrested and then scrape up a
milita. Doesn’t sound like something two upstanding lawyers would want to get embroiled in. What
about Juan Bradburn? It helps to know he was an American before joining the Mexican army. His real
name was John, not Juan. He was born in Virginia in 1787. His father was William Chandler Bradburn
and his mother was Mary Hunter. He descends from a Thomas Bradburn of England, whose genealogy is
scrubbed. My hunch is that he is a descendent of the Bradburns/Bradbournes of the peerage, notably Sir
John Bradbourne. At fabpedigree.com we fnd that Sir John is President Obama’s 15th-great uncle and
Lady Diana’s 14th-great grandfather. His son, Sir Humphrey, is Winston Churchill’s 11th-great uncle and
President McKinley’s 10th-great uncle. They are related to the Cotons, Venables, Ferrers, Hastngs,
Villiers, Warrens, Clifords, and Berkeleys. “Juan” Bradburn and Patrick Churchill Jack may have been
related through the Churchill lines.
We are given no indicaton of Bradburn’s motve for allying himself with Mexico and provoking the local
townspeople by throwing Travis in jail. This bit from his Wikipedia page helps shed some light:
Historians have discussed Bradburn's role. [Historian] William C. Davis believes that he
“overreacted and made heroes of two local malcontents whose actons their own people
otherwise had not been much inclined to sancton”.
It seems to me like Bradburn, Travis, and Jack were all agitators paid to play both sides of this litle event
in order to incite confusion and fear. Most of the locals didn’t care that much about any of it and just
wanted peace and quiet, but that didn’t ft well with the governors’ plans to start a war.
Travis is most remembered for the inspiring leter he wrote “To the People of Texas & All Americans in
the World” requestng aid to defend the Alamo on February 24. Why he would address it to “All
Americans in the World”, when it would have taken a month or more for aid to arrive from Washington
D.C. or overseas, is beyond me. In the leter he writes, “I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotsm
& everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid.” Indeed, it’s very eloquent and
inspiring, but why would he appeal to patriotsm and the American character? Texas wasn’t part of the
U.S., nor did Travis or the rest of the Texan revolutonaries want it to be. Remember, they had already
issued the Texas Declaraton of Independence. They didn’t want to be Americans. Why would actual
Americans feel moved to come to their aid in the name of patriotsm?
Next up is James Bowie, co-commander of the Texian forces at the Alamo. His genealogy is a mess. For
instance, his father is listed as Rezin and/or “Rhesa” Pleasant Bowie I, with a son named Rezin Pleasant
Jr., but he was also known as James Rezin Bowie, which would make our James the Jr., not his brother
Rezin. Before marrying James’ mother, Rezin a.k.a. Rhesa a.k.a James Sr. was married to an “unknown
slave Bowie.” He then married Elve Ap-Catesby Bowie. But her real name was Alvina Jones. There’s no
explanaton of where the “Ap-Catesby” (Welsh for “son of Catesby”) came from, but a quick search
reveals a Thomas ap Catesby Jones, a U.S. Naval ofcer in the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American
War. He must have been an uncle or cousin of James Bowie, but they’re careful not to make that
connecton for some reason. Commodore Jones is known for returning a young deserter, Herman
Melville, to the U.S. from Hawaii in 1843, and a whale atack on Jones’ ship Peacock was allegedly the
inspiraton for Moby-Dick. Jones is also known for mistakenly thinking the Mexican-American War had
begun before it did, and seizing the California port of Monterey for a day before returning control to
Mexico. Whoops. It looks like James and his uncle/cousin Thomas Jones were assigned to the same task
of trying to start a war with Mexico.
Speaking of Jones, Britsh rock icon David Bowie allegedly adopted the name Bowie because he admired
James Bowie and the Bowie knife. David’s real name was David Robert Hayward Jones. I suggest that he
adopted the name Bowie not because he admired James, but because he was related to him through
Alvina/Elve.
It turns out James Bowie was also connected to the candy industry. He and his brother Rezin established
the frst steam-powered sugar mill in Louisiana. They later set up a sugar plantaton in Arkansas. 
James and Rezin were also land speculators, and apparently not honest ones. It seems they sold quite a
bit of land that they didn’t actually own:
The Arkansas Superior Court received 126 claims in late 1827 from residents who claimed to
have purchased land in former Spanish grants from the Bowie brothers. Although the Superior
Court originally confrmed most of those claims, the decisions were reversed in February 1831
afer further research showed that the land had never belonged to the Bowies and that the
original land grant documentaton had been forged. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the reversal
in 1833. When the disgruntled purchasers considered suing the Bowies, they discovered that
the documents in the case had been removed from the court; lef without evidence, they
declined to pursue a case.
How convenient for the Bowies. If you stll think these heroes of the Alamo and the Texas Revoluton
were good guys, consider your bubble burst.
And yes, there are several Bowies in the peerage. Notably, a William Bowie Stuart Campbell, son of
“unknown” Bowie. James Bowie’s genealogy stops at a Johne Bowy from Britain, circa 1600. If he’s
related to the Bowies in the peerage, including this William Bowie Stuart Campbell, that would mean he
is probably a cousin of Davy Crocket. It’s good to keep these things all in the family, you know.
Speaking of keeping things in the family, one of James Bowie’s uncles was a Lamar, though we aren’t
given his name. One of the pivotal fgures in the Batle of San Jacinto (in which Santa Anna was
defeated) was Mirabeau Lamar. He would later become the second President of the Texas Republic.
Bowie and Lamar were probably related, though they’re hiding it for some reason. Actually, they’re
defnitely related, having Potngers in both their lines. Mirabeau’s 3g-aunt was Mary Potnger (Mills),
who was James Bowie’s 3g-grandmother, which makes Mirabeau and James 4th cousins once removed.
But considering James’ uncle was a Lamar, they are probably much more closely related than this. 
One of Marry Potnger’s nieces was Mary Travis, great-grandmother of William Barret Travis. So three
of the leading fgures of the Texas Revoluton – Bowie, Travis, and Lamar – were cousins, though the
mainstream histories never admit this.

The Potngers were Baronets of Richmond. The baronetcy was created in 1840 for Leiutenant-General
Henry Potnger, the frst Governor of Hong Kong. Several of them worked for the East India Company in
the early to mid-1800s, including Henry. In 1810, the East India Company sent Henry and Charles
Christe (tying into Miles’ recent paper on Agatha Christe) on an expediton to Persia disguised as
Muslims. In other words, he was an Intelligence agent. When Henry Potnger was Governor of Hong
Kong, the Lieutenant Governor was Major-General Sir George Charles d’Aguilar, KCB. Recognize that
name? His uncle was the Jewish fnancier Ephraim Lópes Pereira d’Aguilar, the same Baron d’Aguilar
we’ve already encountered. The Potngers are related to the Forbes, Abbots (think Texas governor Greg
Abbot), Shorts, Crofs, Reynolds, Butlers, Gordons, Meysey-Thompsons, Smiths, and Todds. Mary
Potnger, not the one above (or at least we are led to believe), married Sir Walter Dixon Borrowes, 4th
Baronet, sometmes spelled Burrows. Read that like Burroughs, as in literary spook William S.
Burroughs.
We can pull Davy Crocket into the mix, too. Mary Potnger’s mother was a Wright, a name we saw in
Davy Crocket’s family tree.
One more thing about Mirabeau Lamar. His middle name was Buonaparte, which was the actual spelling
of Napoleon’s name (Napoleon was Italian, not French, as you may recall).
This provides a nice segue into Stephen Fuller Austn, the founder of Texas. Notce the Napoleonic way
he is restng his hand inside his jacket in the portrait below. This is a red fag already. The hand-in-the-
jacket pose is a popular signal among the ruling families, and a clue to the rest of us that some “hidden
hand” is controlling things behind the scenes.
He was one of the original empresarios whose father Moses was charged to colonize Texas. His middle
name should give you a clue as to his family’s origins. Yes, Austn’s ancestors were some of the original
setlers of the Massachusets and Connectcut colonies, and Stephen’s lineage is linked to the Fullers
(think Margaret and Buckminster), Gates (think Bill), Phelps, Clifords (think Lady Anne), Websters, and
Adams. (Remember Thomas Adams, who President Santa Anna later teamed up with to invent chewing
gum.) Austn’s brother-in-law was James Franklin Perry from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Through
James he may have been related to both Santa Anna (Perez/Perry) and Davy Crocket (Franklin).
Stephen is a direct descendant of Sir Henry Green, Lord of Boughton, and his mother Lucy la Zouche.
Lucy was the daughter of a Eudo la Zouche of the Barons Zouche and Millicent Cantlupe. Through Lucy,
Stephen descends from the royal houses of England, France, Germany and Italy, to the noble houses of
Anjou, Britany, and Normandy, to the Kings of Ireland, to the Welsh nobility, to the Marshals of
England, and to William the Conqueror.
Austn’s father Moses was not commissioned by the U.S. to colonize Texas. He was commissioned by
Spain. That’s a big fat clue for you as to what’s really going on here. Why would Spain use Americans to
colonize Texas? If you stop and think about it, the whole empresario program makes no sense. If the U.S.
wanted to colonize, say, the Alaskan Wilderness, do you think they’d use Russian citzens to do it? This is
how Wikipedia explains the empresario program:
In the late 18th century, Spain stopped allocatng new lands in much of Spanish Texas, stuntng
the growth of the province. The policy was reversed in 1820, when Spanish law allowed
colonists of any religion to setle in Texas. Only one man, Moses Austn, was granted an
empresarial contract under Spanish law. But Moses Austn died before he could begin his
colony, and Mexico achieved its independence from Spain in September 1821…. Even as the
government debated a new colonizaton law, Stephen F. Austn, son of Moses Austn, was given
permission to take over his father's colonizaton contract.
So Spain reversed its immigraton policy in Mexico solely to allow Moses Austn to setle there? What
was so special about him? And why was this contract extended to Stephen even afer Mexico gained
independence from Spain?
His Wikipedia page tells us that “Austn sought to maintain good relatons with the Mexican
government, and he helped suppress the Fredonian Rebellion.” That rebellion was “the frst atempt by
white Anglo setlers in Texas to secede from Mexico” led by fellow empresario Haden Edwards. But
Edwards and Austn had previously joined forces in a three-year atempt to persuade Mexico to pass a
law allowing Americans to setle in Texas. Now, suddenly, Austn is squelching a secession movement led
by Edwards? But it gets weirder. Afer suppressing the Fredonian Rebellion, Austn turns around and
leads the Siege of Béxar, an early campaign of the Texas Revoluton. Stephen was elected commander of
that siege “despite a lack of military training.” The Texian rebels under Stephen numbered 600, half that
of Mexico’s 1,200-strong army led by the seasoned general Martn Perfecto de Cos. That should strike
you as highly implausible.
I’ll wrap this paper up by saying that if the Texas Revoluton was a real, grassroots revoluton, the
Republic of Texas wouldn’t have handed itself over to the U.S. ten years later without any protest. These
people supposedly fought long and hard to win their sovereignty. What reason did they have to give it
all up by votng to approve their own annexaton? It reminds us of the French Revoluton, which resulted
in France being handed right back to the Bourbons. The last President of Texas, who facilitated its
annexaton to the U.S., was Anson Jones.** That name should tp you of to the fact that he was related
to all the other phony revolutonaries – Travis, Bowie, Lamar, Crocket – proving the entre revoluton
was managed by the same families from beginning to end. Once the Alamo fnished serving its purpose

as a false fag, the governors no longer had any use for Texas as its own country. It’s much easier to
manage one large naton than several litle natons, anyway. It cuts down on overhead costs.
I frequent several libertarian websites, where I ofen encounter commenters from Texas who like to talk
big about secession. They ofen have the Texan or “Don’t Tread on Me” fag as their profle icons.
Knowing what I now know (thanks to Miles and others), I feel sorry for these folks. They’ve been duped.
They’ve been led to believe if they can only break of from the evil federal government and create their
own libertarian utopia, they’ll fnally be free. They don’t understand that the enemy is already inside the
camp. They think that to atain freedom, they need only rearrange the borderlines on the map. If only it
were that easy. If you want real freedom, stop trying to use geopolitcal means to achieve it. Take Miles’
advice. Stop buying the governors’ products. Stop watching their televised propaganda. Stop getng
sucked into their social media rabbit holes. Stop wastng your tme debatng the minutae of the non-
aggression principle on masturbatory libertarian forums. Stop buying bitcoin. Base your life on
something more substantal than making money. Live simply. Be generous with your belongings. Love
people deeply. Start a family. Read good literature and poetry. Spend more tme in nature and less tme
on your phone. If enough of us do these things, we might start a real revoluton.
Added April 5, 2023 by Miles:
That's said to be from 1882. See a problem? It's fake. It's not a photo, it's a paintng/drawing. 
*Miles here: I will help you fgure it out. The links between Spain and Ireland go way back. According to the
famous legends, Ireland was discovered and setled by Milo from Spain. What they don't tell you is what I
discovered in later papers: This Milo was Jewish, descending from lines that began in Armenia before the year
1000.
**Here's one last tdbit: that may link us to Alex Jones.