Despite claiming the previous installment in this series concerning America’s mythical founding was the penultimate, one had forgotten of the promise to examine a rather seminal historical event prior to the American revolution. The alleged Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770, is said by American historians to have been a pivotal event in the escalation of simmering hostilities between American colonists and occupying British regular forces. One feels compelled to mention, research into this particular event represented an historical treasure trove, and truly served to bolster one’s premise that American history is indeed, nothing more than a scripted stage play.
Like many other events recorded in the historical annals, there are many inconsistencies to be found in various textual accounts. There are also some rather curious details involving the alleged victims of the event that history has not bothered to qualify or explain with a great deal of depth or regularity. As one shall soon observe, the alleged Boston Massacre, the tragic event that was alleged to have inflamed the colonies against the occupying British forces, may just be nothing more a propagandized hoax.
In many ways – at least to the eyes of historical posterity – the event that came to be known as the Boston Massacre operated as the catalyzing powder keg that set off an explosion of open hostilities between eighteenth century American colonists and the occupying British forces, or ‘Lobster backs’ as they were derogatorily referred.
Though generations of public school children have been taught the official mainstream narrative – as one is so often discovering – the generally accepted and unquestioned details of any event in American history should never be taken at face value. And though admittedly, there have been some recent attempts at revising the details as to what may or may not have occurred during the event known as the Boston Massacre, one finds the nature of such reexaminations to be somewhat apologetically timid, and even anemic, in that the mainstream narrative is never significantly altered to perhaps reflect what could be finally construed as anything resembling a complete or accurate portrayal.
Yes folks, as shall be shortly demonstrated, there does exist a smattering of latter day historians that seem to have begun to question the established mainstream historical narrative of the Boston Massacre, to the extent they are forced to admit the event may have been – after the fact – deliberately propagandized.
Unfortunately however, their inquiring analysis dips only to a marginal degree beneath the surface, and the mainstream narrative is largely left intact, and does not reflect the deeper examination of any premise that may suggest the event itself may have been a pure masonic fabrication. After all, what so-called serious historian with an established reputation and tenured position at some prestigious university to protect wants to be thought of by his or her esteemed colleagues as a dreaded ‘conspiracy theorist’?
Nonetheless, one supposes a willingness on the part of any mainstream historian to begin to question the very bedrock tenets of their chosen arena of scholarship should be somewhat congratulated. For, even they must realize the spurious myths that pass for historical truth can hold out only so long against the intense glare of in depth and truly objective analysis.
The natives grow restless
The story of the Boston Massacre begins with a lone British sentry allegedly harassed by a group of hostile colonists wielding an assortment of rocks, primitive clubs, and snowballs. Documented historical context tells us that prior to 1770, the British crown had decided to enact what were perceived by colonists as harsh and unfairly implemented taxes. Prior to the Boston Massacre, or as it was initially dubbed, “The incident on King Street”, James Otis, a graduate of Harvard and sworn Esquire of the Temple bar, catapulted himself into the premiere rank of rebellious colonial ‘patriots’ when the often historically repeated phrase, ‘taxation without representation’, was solely attributed to him.
It is chronicled Otis was concerned with not only the steep taxes levied on the production and distribution of all colonial commercial goods, but chiefly the Writs of Assistance act, and in a stunning oration at Boston’s old state house, he railed against the enabling of British troops to enter any colonist’s home without ample reason given or advance notice. And, perhaps what was most paramount, Otis pointed out, the British could choose to legally act with consent of the British crown, but without beforehand presenting evidence of probable cause.
Although history texts portray Otis as a firebrand, in reality, he was viewed by his contemporaries as a political moderate, even while engaged in oral protest at the particulars of British colonial law and taxation. Nonetheless, despite their documented loyalty to the British crown and conservative political stance, history texts persist in accentuating Otis and his colleague Sam Adams were key revolutionary figures that served to stoke the fires of political and colonial antagonisms against the British crown prior to the Boston Massacre of 1770.
Could it be, that Otis’s remarks, were only made to seem historically ‘revolutionary’ by virtue of having been culled from a more moderately articulated context? Further examination of the verbatim text of his speeches culled from the online archives of the Boston pubic library indicate this is more than likely so. Amidst all the growing revolutionary fervor culminating in the violent confrontation between colonists and British troops, it seems stunning to have learned of the paucity of documented testimony from colonists not numbered among the Bostonian elite of Otis, Adams, and others. It is this omission which deprives the latter day student of history a complete historical picture, and to what true frequency and number the genuine voices of working class colonists were actually being raised against the colonial status quo then established by the British.
After all, prominent figures such as Adams and Otis were men of business, and therefore not being numbered among the common hoi polloi, would logically have been the most beleaguered by the legal but unlawful colonial taxation measures set down by the British crown and parliament. Unlike these prominent men, the common Bostonian colonist did not own property or businesses, and would be a great deal less likely to feel any financial burden exacted upon them from such legal measures, if they were largely aware of them at all. Furthermore, from the standpoint of objectivity, it is truly stunning to observe the limited parameters and lack of expanded scope in terms of historical analysis falling outside the accepted mainstream perspective provided by history texts with regard to the years prior to and during the alleged American revolution.
In truth, we are merely told prominent Bostonian and leader of the Sons of Liberty Samuel Adams, Temple bar attorney and future American president John Adams, and Otis, a colleague in the legal profession, were definitive revolutionary figures, when a clear eyed examination of their own published texts and private papers reflects they privately held a much more moderate political position, and were more loyal to the British crown than the modern American citizen is led to assume.
Before examining the roles played by both John and Samuel Adams, and high degree mason Paul Revere in the unfolding and aftermath of the event known to history as the Boston Massacre, a thorough analysis of the alleged victims at the hands of British troops shall prove most interesting.
Victims of the Boston Massacre
It is important to point out that before the arrival of the 1770’s, newspapers, not only in Boston, but in other major colonial cities, had already begun in attempting to stir up revolutionary fervor among the colonists. If one should feel so inclined as to examine some of the remnants of these emotionally charged accounts published in eighteenth century periodicals, immediately noticeable is the familiarity of the rhetoric as compared to that of the 21st century propaganda promulgated during the run-up to America’s military embroilment in Afghanistan and Iraq.
One supposes the old adage is true in this case; the more things change the more they remain the same. The ruling elite families have always known, that in order to legitimize and profit from their legalized staging of organized revolutionary conflicts, the support of the people, whether genuine or manufactured, must first be carefully and assiduously cultivated. One shall recall – detailed in part II of this series of articles – Ben Franklin’s newspaper business established in Philadelphia as a youth, and his deep involvement with intelligence activities and European royal court intrigues, which, by now, surely no one regards as anything remotely resembling historical coincidence.
With anti-British propaganda sanctioned by British counter-intelligence agent Franklin splashed across the headlines of colonial periodicals, considerable efforts were made to convince the colonists to boycott the purchase of imported British goods. This effort, contrary to the claims of mainstream historical texts, proved relatively futile, as commercial trade between the colonies, Britain, and Europe in general, went on lacking significant disruption.
However, knowing that commercial trade represented the bread and butter, as it were, of the ruling elite thirteen families, those of aristocratic nobility posing as America’s founding fathers quickly came to the stark realization, in order to achieve their goal of renegotiating more favorable legal terms and conditions with the British crown regarding land ownership and taxes levied on the trade of commercial goods, a disastrous event that could precipitate and catalyze the appearance of violent revolution had to be engineered to get their fellow aristocratic elites in the London Crown Temple banking cartel to come to the bargaining table.
And just as the manufacture of the 9/11 terrorist event in modern times more than helped to rouse the masses from their apathetic slumber, it was thought an event such as the Boston Massacre would more than fit the bill in antagonizing a revolutionary emotional tenor on the part of the colonists against the British. As is characteristic in the execution of all psychological operations, a more than subtle implementation of incremental predictive programming became necessary. On February 22, 1770, precisely 13 days before the Massacre event, it is historically alleged eleven-year old Christopher Cider was shot and killed by a Bostonian British loyalist.
Loyal visitors will take note of the obvious numerology coding of this event, but for the sake of thorough exercise, here is the breakdown: The date of 22 (masonic master builder) + 11(masonic masters apprentice) = 33 +( C) =3/pythagorean gematria/(ristopher, or risen Christ consciousness)+(C)=3/(ider, the dyer’s hand is cast ) =33(masonic master teacher)+33=66, or 12/21 in the mirror’s reflection of duality, or 777(joker code/angelic and spiritual transformation).
Just prior to the event of the massacre, history texts claim the number of occupying British troops had significantly increased in the Massachusetts Bay colony, and it is generally estimated there were four British soldiers on the streets of colonial Boston to every one colonist. From an overview perspective of American history, this sort of escalation of Martial Law seems to always accompany the ongoing utilization of psychological operations in stimulating and manufacturing political change.
To borrow a phrase from modern vernacular, the pump was being primed for what would appear to the hoi polloi as a genuine revolution. It also appears – as is still the case today – that crisis actors were utilized to pull off what was to be subsequently propagandized as the Boston Massacre. On what was said to be the snowy afternoon of March the fifth, 1770 (a date which all loyal readers of Newsspellcom.org should recognize by now as loaded with the requisite numerology coding), what appeared to be a confrontation brewing between a lone and youthful British sentry and a small group of harassing colonists on the corner of King Street, near the old Boston state house, soon allegedly degenerated into horrific frenzy.
What history fails to document, is that this location happened to be well within sight of Boston’s first masonic meeting place, Saint John’s lodge, and that both Samuel and John Adams, as well Paul Revere, individuals directly or indirectly involved in the events surrounding what came to be known to American history as the Boston Massacre, were high degree members in good standing.
Although, as usual, several historical accounts contradict one another, eight (Saturn, or aces and eights, indicating the involvement of masonic intelligence) of the young British sentry’s comrades soon came to his aid in helping to diffuse the escalation of hostilities. When the harassing colonists failed to disperse, the Captain of the British command allegedly ordered his infantry men to fire upon the gathered crowd of colonists, killing three, and wounding three others (33, highest degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry and number of British soldiers (8) + number of dead and wounded (6) = 14, or 77, double lightning charges of Lucifer).
As a mere notice to any of those still scoffing about the overwhelming presence of historical numerology, does one really find it coincidental the same numbers keep popping up in the details of every single mainstream historical account examined, even centuries apart? If by chance anyone still finds this coincidental, then one has some swamp land real estate in Florida to sell you, along with a discount for a bridge in Brooklyn thrown in for good measure.
But, the real fun began when one endeavored to take a closer look at the alleged victims of this ‘massacre’. Perusing the various historical documentations of this event, virtually all seem to leave a very distinct impression all six of the victims died on the fifth of March due to British musket fire. Upon further and meticulous examination, this turns out not to be the case. In fact, the obituaries of the alleged casualties were published in the local newspaper on the 12th of March (12, or 777), complete with depictions of sarcophagi embossed with the symbol of the skull and crossbones (Skull and Bones used by East India Tea company before adopted by the infamous Yale fraternity), and the scythe (7, or zayin mind weapon from the Kabbalah tree of life) normally associated with the classic image of the grim reaper.
The first of the victims listed was Sam Maverick, 17, (zayin mind weapon), along with James Caldwell, also 17 (making for double seven). The newspaper accounts claimed Maverick, after suffering fatal wounds from British muskets at point blank range, somehow made it home to die in his mother’s arms, and Christopher Monk, yet another victim listed, somehow survived his mortal wounds and lived until 1780. John Clarke, although listed as a victim, in fact recovered from his ‘mortal’ wounds to die several years later. In the period periodical’s obituary, the depiction of Maverick’s tombstone is engraved with a ‘G'(masonic G placed in the center of the order’s symbolic square and compass).
Starting to see a curious trend here folks?
And then, there is the more than curious case of young African-American Boston Massacre victim Crispus Attucks. When one ran the young victim’s name through a prominent online gematria calculator, to say the least some very interesting results were availed. For example, in Jewish gematria, Crispus Attucks sums to thirteen-ninety-one, or 23 (2 three’s, or 33 again folks). In English gematria, the name sums to Hermes Trismegistus. Hermes, as occult mythological legend would have it, is the author of a sacred magical and astrological text called the Emerald Tablet, purportedly written around the ninth century.
Turns out, the occult philosophies articulated in the Emerald Tablet are held in high regard by high degree masons of legendary standing within the order, including Albert Pike, Manly P. Hall, and John Mackey. More curious still, when Crispus Attucks was summed in simple gematria, the stunning result was as follows: HE IS THE DECEIVER.
Another problematic issue with regard to Attucks are the anomalies evident in the report issued shortly after an autopsy was alleged to have been conducted on the 22nd of March (2+2=4 X 3rd month= 12 or 21 flipped/duality for 777). The sworn report of Dr. Benjamin Church Jr., claimed that “two musket balls passed obliquely downward” through the victim’s body, implying the charges had entered at an odd slant.
This seems curious, given historical accounts claim the British infantry men had fired from close quarters, while the report seems to imply the musket charges had entered the victim’s body from guns positioned at a distance and shooting in a downward direction as if from an elevation. Furthermore, given that historical accounts all agree the Boston Massacre had taken place in the late evening hours, how is it, given that during the eighteenth century there were no electric lamps to light the streets, the British could have even possessed a clear ocular path to view a target? Consulting further concerning the mechanics of the rifle musket and standard military battle operations of eighteenth century British infantry, it became clear that the single loading musket, comparative to modern automatic loading infantry weapons, would not have served as a very efficient killing machine, especially amidst the riotous conditions historically described during the cold and frosty night of March 5, 1770.
The rather involved procedural process to efficiently load a single charge into the standard military issue musket and adequately prepare it, in the parlance of the average British soldier, to stand and deliver, took perhaps more than a few seconds, and in the cold and wet of the snowy New England climate could, even for a professionally trained and battle tested British infantryman, have occupied an even longer duration.
Clearly, from a better understanding of standard eighteenth century rules of infantry engagement, and in such close quarters to a threatening enemy’s battle lines, it is more likely when faced with a frenzied mob, the British would not have bothered in taking time to load, fire, and reload their muskets, but would have most likely opted to utilize the brandished bayonets from the ends of their rifle barrels to keep the charging colonists at bay.
Paul Revere and his iconic engraving
Twenty-four days after the massacre, a color flier depicting the tragic events on King Street, produced from a copper engraving created by famous American revolutionary figure and high degree Freemason Paul Revere, was quickly circulated throughout Boston and neighboring colonies.
There is only one problem with the story behind this legendary depiction of the Boston Massacre, which later became an historically iconic image.
The original black and white copper engraving was created by Boston artist, Henry Pelham. The iconic image of the Boston Massacre best known to posterity was merely a colorized version credited to the creation of the renowned Freemason Paul Revere. Revere’s colorized copper engraving was what was used as a printing template from which scores of fliers were reproduced and distributed throughout the colonies.
But, this is where the difficulty comes into play.
In the eighteenth century, while the printing process had been greatly streamlined, the expert rendering of detailed and engraved color images upon copper plates was still an incredibly long and arduous task, and it is estimated a work of such detail as observed in Revere’s iconic rendering of the Boston Massacre, considering the total elapsed time it would have taken to complete from the initial idea to artistic conception, expert accounts indicate the final execution of a feasible colored copper plate worthy of print reproduction would have taken a bit longer than 24 days – the time elapsed from the date of the event on March 5th, to the 29th when the fliers were reproduced from Revere’s completed engraving. I’m certain it shouldn’t take one long to contemplate the implications of the point being made here. Could it be, Revere and his fellow masons gathering at Saint John’s lodge had foreknowledge of the event, enough time to create a print worthy copper plate engraving that would appear to posterity as iconic?
Future US president John Adams acted as legal defense for the indicted British
Right around the corner from the King Street location of the Boston Massacre event were the law offices of John Adams, attorney called to the Temple bar. Adams agreed to become the official defense council to the eight indicted British soldiers. Here too, historical accounts differ as to how it was Adams came to be the soldiers legal council. Suffice it to say, it is clear while Adams was dickering around in a show trial no doubt performed for the benefit of riled colonists, his revolutionary colleague and fellow Freemason brother Sam Adams, as head of the colonial dissidents dubbed Sons of Liberty, was charged with playing his role in a Hegelian political dialectic, denouncing the murderous treachery of the British soldiers. But this is how the high degree masonic orders always operate folks, playing both sides and staying true to the tenets of philosophical duality – creating systematic order out of controlled chaos. The trial ended as planned, with many (in some accounts two of the eight soldiers were convicted but later released) of the indicted soldiers, along with the captain of their command all acquitted of any felonious charges. This served the purpose of appearing to serve justice on the one hand, while on the other extreme the acquittals stoked the flash brush fires of further revolutionary hatred towards the British crown.
The video displayed above features a lecture given by a local Boston historian concerning the Boston Massacre event. What struck one immediately was the subtle utilization of Neural Linguistic Programming. Throughout the course of her lecture, it becomes immediately evident that although the lecturer is nonetheless presenting an alternative narrative somewhat differing from the usual mainstream perspective, she is careful to frame the crux of her theme within certain limited parameters so that the audience is led to never question the obvious contradictory elements inherent in the story of the Boston Massacre.
In legal parlance, this is called leading the witness, a surefire technique in setting up a jury to look at only the ‘facts’ the prosecuting attorney wishes for the assembled panel to consider before coming to the identical and preferred conclusion the council’s pre-established argument warrants. Using this technique effectively, it becomes quite clear she has the audience right where she wants them – to only consider that although the founding fathers may have chosen to propagandize what mainstream historians claim via consensus occurred on March 5, 1770, they will come away from the lecture with the image of Paul Revere’s iconic but bloody rendering firmly placed and forever immovable in their minds.