Although Musk's companies have received 5 billion in government subsidies, Musk says he isn't in favor of government subsidies for companies like his. Instead he has come out in favor of a carbon tax.
Obviously, he is just reading from the Teleprompter again there, and isn't concerned with appearing to
be consistent. Fake people fronting fake companies don't have to worry about appearing consistent. It
is all about stirring your mind into Musk, I mean Mush. The people behind Musk want all the subsidies they can drink, but then they want to pretend they don't lust for them like they do. They also don't want you to apply for any subsidies, because they don't need the competition. They don't want you to be subsidized; they want you to be taxed.
So why do I think these companies are fake? We'll start with Musk's links to Mike Griffin. Griffin was head of NASA from 2005 to 2009, but on Musk's page we learn that Griffin also worked for In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA!
That is probably the biggest red flag on the entire page. Curiously, that information has been scrubbed off Griffin's own page. What exactly is In-Q-Tel?
In-Q-Tel invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability.
That is the key to unlocking this whole mystery, so I suggest you read it several times, to let it sink in.
I suggest that not only did In-Q-Tel “invest” in all of Musk's companies, it actually
created them, and
him. We know the CIA creates many front companies, since the mainstream admits it. But it is usually assumed they do this to facilitate domestic covert operations of various sorts. But we have tripped over much evidence companies are created for reasons even more fundamental to the American way. That is to say, a significant part of the US infrastructure is an illusion—an illusion created to facilitate a variety of treasury dips by the very wealthy. Actually, the mainstream press has already reported on a small part of these thefts and grafts. See, for example, Matt Taibbi's
Rolling Stone reports on the big banks, especially this 2013 report entitled “Everything is Rigged”
. 
http://mileswmathis.com/musk.pdf
I Don't Believe in Elon Musk
by Miles Mathis
First published October 5, 2015
As usual, this is an opinion piece, protected by the US Constitution. It is my personal reading of the published
factoids. If you prefer the mainstream reading, you can have it.
Elon Musk
is supposed to be worth 13.6 billion. He is supposed to be the CEO of Tesla Motors. He is
supposed to be the founder of SpaceX. He is supposed to be the founder of Solar City. He is supposed
to be the inventor of Hyperloop. I for one don't believe any of it. Elon Musk looks to me like a person
totally manufactured by Intelligence as the fake human front for all these fake projects. In this way he
is exactly like Mark Zuckerberg, another person
I have outed as a probable manufactured entity
. When
I wrote that paper on Zuckerberg, he was also alleged to be worth 13.6 billion. Coincidence? Nope.
Why do I think that? I think it because Musk's entire Wikipedia page and bio reads like a red flag. It is
nothing but transparent BS from top to bottom. We'll start with his family. His mother's maiden name
is Haldeman. That is a prominent Jewish name. Elon is also a Jewish name, meaning “oak” in
Hebrew. Kimbal, Elon's brother, also has a Jewish name. So why not just admit they are Jewish? I
don't know. Maybe they plan on running him for Governor of California or something.
Although we will cover the other red flags, I want to skip ahead to the end, to lead with later red flags
that demand our early attention. I want to lead with them although they come later on the Wikipedia
page. Musk has claimed he is a big fan of Margaret Thatcher. What? Only fascists and plants are fans
of Margaret Thatcher. No real person of any intelligence and scruple is a fan of Margaret Thatcher.
Musk is sold as a progressive, but no progressive would claim to be a fan of Thatcher. It doesn't fit his
profile at all, and we can only imagine it was worked into his bio as either a clue for people like me or
as part of some late promotion of Thatcher and fascism in general. Actually, I assume it is mainly
another plug for privatization. Musk's entire bio is a long plug for privatization. Along with
deregulation, privatization is one of the two main planks of neo-fascism.
Musk has said he is “socially liberal and fiscally conservative”. Was Thatcher socially liberal? Not
according to Section 28, which made “promotion” of homosexuality illegal, and which stopped just
short of making homosexuality itself illegal again, as in the time of Oscar Wilde. I should think this
would be of some concern to Musk, since I don't really buy either one of his marriages. But he doesn't
have to be concerned with that, does he, since he lives in the US in 2015, not the UK in 1980. In the
US in 2015, homosexuality is being promoted like never before.
So why don't I buy his marriages? Well, in answer to that, I send you to pictures of Musk with his
wives and girlfriends. Just Google something like “Musk with Riley”. While any normal heterosexual
guy would be getting all the sugar he could from these sweeties, glowing in the perfume, Musk always
looks highly uncomfortable.
The girls are often leaning away from him, as there. And look at his hand in his pocket. Discomfort
signs all over the place.
Or you can read
this 2010 article
at
Marie Claire
written by his alleged first wife Justine. You may
find it convincing, but I don't. Just look at the lead photo for the article:
I draw your attention to the three tricycles and two bikes. This is to remind us that Musk is supposed to
have five sons by this woman. Not only do we get no photos of the children—which is perhaps
understandable—she doesn't mention them once in the article, either by name or in any other way.
Mostly she just repeats the story of Musk's rise to fame and fortune, with the occasional plug of her
own. Very strange. I would have to say it is the most impersonal article of its kind I have ever read.
No, beyond impersonal; it is chilly, almost chilling. It reads like it was put together by a committee,
and it may have been. I say that because if we do a people search on Elon Musk, we find no evidence
of these children in the computers. In fact, Intelius doesn't even have an Elon Musk listed in
California. Only his father, Errol Musk. InstantCheckMate lists an Elon Musk related to Justine, but
the only other relation is a Jennifer. Since Justine's middle initial is J., I assume Jennifer is also her. If
these five boys have birth certificates, they should be in the computers. They aren't.
Then we have to read this:
Musk is a self-described
American exceptionalist
and
nationalist
, describing himself as
"nauseatingly pro-American". According to Musk, the United States is "inarguably the greatest
country that has ever existed on Earth", describing it as "the greatest force for good of any country
that's ever been". Musk believes outright that there "would not be democracy in the world if not
for the United States.”
Nauseating, yes. Believable, no. Again, no real person of any intelligence would be caught saying
that in the second decade of the 21
st
century. Even the American Nazi Party is more circumspect than
that. Musk has obviously been hired to read these lines provided him by the Pentagon or someplace
(except that even the Pentagon isn't that jingoistic these days). Now that I think of it, this reads like
copy provided Musk by Henry Kissinger or the CFR. But even in that context, it is over the top. When
I read quotes like this, I have to imagine that clues have been inserted into Musk's bio on purpose by
someone. I begin to think this is all part of some game: a nationwide contest to see if anyone can see
through this. If so, send me the prize.
Although I may be the first to propose Musk is an Intel creation, I am not the only one who has noticed
that he appears to be reading from neo-con or fascist cue-cards. PolicyMic and many other sites have
criticized Musk harshly for contributing to anti-science Republican candidates and groups like the
Longhorn PAC and the NRCC, confirming my analysis above by saying that
these political calculations betray Musk's persona of a socially-conscious entrepreneur.
His many interviews also betray (or disprove) his created persona of a person with very high
intelligence and skills. Although he is sold as some sort of Tony Stark, he comes off as Ron Howard
with a bit more hair** and a foreign accent. I don't see any spark there, and in my opinion he looks
like just another hired actor. Unfortunately, he's not even a good actor, and if he hadn't been born into a
rich family he would have had to work as a crisis actor, like Robbie Parker.
**Actually, it's a toupee, as we can tell by the picture under my title. Musk is 24 there and his hair is very thin in
front, so we may assume his new look is augmented in some way. In that more recent photo, he obviously has
on a rug. It doesn't really matter, of course, and I wouldn't mention it except for the fact that I am showing Musk
is a fake in all ways.
Although Musk's companies have received 5 billion in government subsidies, Musk says he isn't in
favor of government subsidies for companies like his. Instead he has come out in favor of a carbon tax.
Obviously, he is just reading from the Teleprompter again there, and isn't concerned with appearing to
be consistent. Fake people fronting fake companies don't have to worry about appearing consistent. It
is all about stirring your mind into Musk, I mean Mush. The people behind Musk want all the
subsidies they can drink, but then they want to pretend they don't lust for them like they do. They also
don't want
you
to apply for any subsidies, because they don't need the competition. They don't want
you to be subsidized; they want you to be
taxed
.
So why do I think these companies are fake? We'll start with Musk's links to Mike Griffin. Griffin was
head of NASA from 2005 to 2009, but on Musk's page we learn that Griffin also worked for In-Q-Tel,
the venture capital arm of the CIA!
That is probably the biggest red flag on the entire page
.
Curiously, that information has been scrubbed off Griffin's own page. What exactly is In-Q-Tel?
In-Q-Tel
invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the
Central Intelligence
Agency
, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in
information technology
in
support of
United States
intelligence
capability.
That is the key to unlocking this whole mystery, so I suggest you read it several times, to let it sink in.
I suggest that not only did In-Q-Tel “invest” in all of Musk's companies, it actually
created
them, and
him. We know the CIA creates many front companies, since the mainstream admits it. But it is usually
assumed they do this to facilitate domestic covert operations of various sorts. But we have tripped over
much evidence companies are created for reasons even more fundamental to the American way. That is
to say, a significant part of the US infrastructure is an illusion—an illusion created to facilitate a variety
of treasury dips by the very wealthy. Actually, the mainstream press has already reported on a small
part of these thefts and grafts. See, for example, Matt Taibbi's
Rolling Stone
reports on the big banks,
especially
this 2013 report entitled “Everything is Rigged”
. However, even Taibbi has not yet seen
that it is not only via rigging that the rich are becoming richer. It is also via manufacturing fake
companies, fake portfolios, and fake projects, by which the treasury can be milked and bilked of
billions of dollars of subsidies, grants, and other monies.
So if you thought my mention of Intelligence in paragraph one was just conspiracy theory, think again.
Musk has admitted ties to the CIA through Griffin, if nowhere else. You see, before he was hired to
head NASA, Griffin was working with Musk on SpaceX, trying to buy old ICBMs from Russia.
Again, could you ask for a bigger red flag? Griffin and Musk were in Russia in 2002 trying to buy
ICBMs! We are told one of the Russian engineers spat on Musk, which is about the only thing that
makes sense on the entire page. They could probably see he was a spook-baby.
Musk also has some parallels to Yuri Milner, the Russian billionaire who—we are told—is the money
for the Fundamental Physics Prize.* Like Milner, Musk went to the Wharton School of Business. He
also went to the University of Pennsylvania, which has come up in my previous papers. Both Ezra
Pound and Noam Chomsky were probably recruited from there.
But back to SpaceX. The whole project stinks of a con. We are told,
In 2001, Musk conceptualised "Mars Oasis"; a project to land a miniature experimental greenhouse
on Mars, containing food crops growing on Martian
regolith
, in an attempt to regain public interest
in space exploration.
That idea is ridiculous for so many reasons it is hard to know where to start. Food crops on Mars?
Wouldn't the transport costs back to Earth be a little high? Talk about a carbon footprint! Before we
start growing food on Mars, shouldn't we hit a few others things first, like, say,
getting people there
?
Who is going to eat that food? I guess they can feed it to the ground squirrels we have seen in NASA's
fake pictures from Mars. Except that those ground squirrels are already eating pretty well it seems,
since we have also
seen their candy wrappers on the ground
.
Also, who is going to water those plants on Mars? Maybe this lady:
Actually, it wasn't any of the Mars anomaly photos that convinced me the Mars missions were faked. It
was watching
this NASA press conference
for the Curiosity lander. I recommend you watch it without
any later commentary added, so that you can be completely objective. Just ask yourself if these guys
seem like real scientists. Notice that they are unable to answer any substantive questions from the
audience. Only after you have watched these NASA guys should you return to the anomaly photos.
Once you do, your mind will be in a more receptive state and you will start to see what is there.
[Addendum, October 14, 2015. Another strange coincidence, if coincidence it was: I ran into some
friends at a local pub this evening and they asked me if I wanted to go with them to a movie. I asked
what they were going to see, and they said
The Martian
. I immediately got a creeping feeling (as I
usually do now when I think of any Hollywood movie) and begged off. When I got home, I looked up
the film. Guess what it is about? Top spook-baby actor Matt Damon is stranded on Mars. Being a
biologist, he is forced to grow his own food in a greenhouse attached to the stranded lander. Curious
how this ties into Musk's plan for Mars Oasis, eh? Hollywood is still selling NASA's fictions, almost
