adicheo

dickens

8 min read

Here’s a summary of the provided text with the requested annotations:

The author, Miles Mathis, begins by discussing his personal health improvements, attributing them to the Sun and its increased strength, while blaming the Phoenicians for intentionally causing anxiety through fluoride, fear, and Pfizer. He believes that despite COVID-19 related issues and planned “culling,” those who refused vaccines will see long-term benefits, including a cooling housing market. He anticipates a potential for revolution, but questions humanity’s readiness to overthrow the Phoenicians and their “Sauron model” for a “Smiley Face model” and a return to limited information, possibly reminiscent of the 1950s.

The core of the text then shifts to an analysis of Charles Dickens, whom the author considers his favorite fiction writer. Mathis disputes the commonly accepted biographical narrative of Dickens, suggesting it is a “manufactured sob story” and that Dickens was in fact Jewish, not Christian or Anglican as portrayed. He points to several clues: the name Huffam (godfather’s name) as a variant of Huffman and Hoffman, suggesting Jewish origins. He argues that the Huffam family, including godfather Christopher Huffam, were wealthy and influential, connected to the East India Company, and that Christopher Huffam was a relative of the Dickens family, contradicting the idea that he was merely a casual acquaintance from the Navy Pay Office.

Further evidence presented includes the Dickens family’s alleged stay in Marshalsea prison, questioning how Frances Dickens could study at the Royal Academy of Music while imprisoned and how her tuition was paid. He suggests “dissenters” burial in Highgate Cemetery was a euphemism for Jews pretending to be Christians. Mathis dismisses the story of Charles Dickens pasting labels on bootblacking bottles for extended periods, citing the relatively short duration of his father John Dickens’ imprisonment and the father’s sudden shift to journalism. He also questions the narrative of Charles Dickens moving from menial labor to a clerkship at Gray’s Inn in a short time.

The author highlights a connection between Dickens’ grandmother, Elizabeth Ball, and George Washington, whose mother was Mary Ball, suggesting a deliberate attempt to obscure this link. He traces Dickens’ lineage through various aristocratic families like the Barrows, Cullinfords, Comptons, Marquesses of Northampton, Annesleys, Viscounts Glerawly, Beverleys, Douglases, Percys, Leveson-Gores, Ramsays, Blairs, Moncktons, Drummonds, Barings, MacKenzies, Ferrers, Earls of Derby, and Stanleys. He also notes connections to Isaac Newton through Isaac Barrow and the Barrow family’s history as linen merchants linked to the East India Company.

Mathis suggests Dickens was a member of the Garrick Club due to being an actor, a fact he believes is hidden. He theorizes that Dickens’ nickname Boz is a familiarization of Moses. The author criticizes Dickens’ rapid rise to fame, suggesting it was due to promotion by “lords of promotion” who were not Gentiles. He labels A Tale of Two Cities as propaganda likely commissioned by these entities. The author also speculates on the strange circumstances surrounding the deaths of Dickens’ sister-in-law Mary Hogarth and the author’s wife Catherine Hogarth, and questions Dickens’ involvement with homes for troubled girls.

The text criticizes Dickens’ alleged anti-Catholic sentiments, which Mathis attributes to his Jewish background. He finds the promotion of Dickens by G.K. Chesterton, Leo Tolstoy, and Fyodor Dostoevsky suspect, claiming they were also Jewish. Mathis also examines Dickens’ political leanings, questioning his anti-Tory stance given his father-in-law George Hogarth’s Tory affiliation and Walter Scott’s Tory views. He connects Dickens’ residence at Tavistock House to the Tavistock Institute and the Russells, Dukes of Bedford, suggesting a hidden aristocratic lineage for Dickens. He points out Dickens’ dedication of A Tale of Two Cities to John Russell, Earl of Russell, a prominent Whig and later Prime Minister, and their shared support for the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Mathis discusses Lord John Russell’s political career, his connection to King Victor Emmanuel, and the alleged collusion between Russell and Lord Palmerston. He labels the Liberal Party as never truly liberal and Palmerston as a cloaked Tory with extensive aristocratic ties. The author also accuses Russell of causing the Irish Famine. He scrutinizes Charles James Fox, calling him controlled opposition and Jewish. The text further delves into the Stanley family, particularly Edward Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby, and their Tory roots, despite claims of Whiggery. Mathis posits that Derby orchestrated political events, including the framing of Russell and Palmerston as rivals, and the end of the British East India Company after the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

The author expresses shock at Dickens’ support for Britain during the Indian Mutiny of 1857, quoting him as advocating for the extermination of the Indian race. He also notes Dickens’ affair with an 18-year-old actress and his later interest in the paranormal, despite earlier opposition to spiritualism. The text concludes by suggesting Dickens’ greed led to his death from overwork during reading tours and questions the role of “sponsors” in his finances, implying his cousins may have exploited him. The author believes Dickens’ offer of a Baronetcy before his death and a Stanley giving his memorial elegy further confirm his noble birth. Finally, he adds an addendum suggesting Dickens may have faked his death to retire with his younger companion.

Subjects, Names, References, Locations, Companies, etc.:

Graph View