This text is a critique of George Bernard Shaw, portraying him as a deceptive figure, an “agent” of “Intelligence” rather than a genuine progressive or socialist. The author, Miles Mathis, argues that Shaw’s public persona and writings masked a deeper agenda, aligning him with a group he calls the “Phoenicians” who aim to sow chaos and control through manufactured societal divisions, particularly between men and women.
Mathis disputes Shaw’s supposed humble origins, claiming he was of peerage lineage and connected to various aristocratic families. He asserts that Shaw’s admiration for dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin reveals his true fascist leanings, masked by a “fake ‘liberal’ pose.” Shaw’s plays, such as Man and Superman and Saint Joan, are presented as propaganda designed to undermine traditional masculinity and promote a manufactured “woman question.”
The author also connects Shaw to the Fabian Society, which he argues was an offshoot of Theosophy and a front for promoting socialism to drain resources from genuine movements. Mathis traces the lineage of key Fabians like Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, as well as figures like Annie Besant and Bertrand Russell, linking them to powerful families and “Intelligence” operations. He contends that their promotion of socialism and other ideologies was a deliberate strategy to create societal division and control, culminating in the current state of affairs where traditional roles and genuine progress are stifled. The piece concludes with Mathis asserting his own ability to see through these machinations, contrasting his “child of Nature” status with the manufactured, elite-driven projects of his opponents.
Here is the list of subjects, names, references, locations, companies, etc. mentioned in the text, marked with double square brackets:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. —GBS
George Bernard Shaw shaw by Miles Mathis. First published November 2, 2021. The author argues that shaw is overrated and that his job is to “tear most of it down.” He contrasts his own “revolution” with shaw’s, stating his revolution is against the success of shaw’s revolution. He believes shaw was disastrously wrong and his success brought “current demons.”
Mathis mentions a photo of shaw that makes him look almost Russian and compares him to Rasputin. He also mentions Jack Dorsey.
Mathis critiques the idea that looks don’t matter, suggesting they are a visible marker of inheritance and a tool for tracking lineages, as a portrait painter.
He directs readers to a clip of shaw’s voice, finding it odd that it doesn’t sound Irish or like standard English, suggesting a German accent. He notes shaw’s statement that Hitler was a “very intelligent gentleman” and received 95% of the vote. Mathis refutes this, stating Hitler lost the presidential election to Hindenburg in 1932, was appointed Chancellor in 1933, and later abolished other parties. He criticizes shaw, Gloria Steinem, and the ADL for repeating this lie to make Hitler seem popular.
Mathis quotes shaw’s admiration for Mussolini and Stalin, and his description of Hitler as “a very remarkable man, a very able man” and being “proud to be the only writer in England who was ‘scrupulously polite and just to Hitler’“. His principal admiration was for Stalin. Mathis calls this the “normal arc of the agent” who reverts to true opinions with age. He compares this to Noam Chomsky, suggesting he is now disintegrating into “naked fascism” and advising Pfizer.
Mathis argues that the mainstream narrative of moving from liberal to conservative with age is false. He believes famous liberals and socialists were “cloaked fascists from the start.”
He states he was not taught shaw in school as an American. He found shaw’s play Saint Joan uninteresting, “too modern,” and not well written or imagined. He mentions the opening scene about eggs and cowboys, and compares it to Sherlock Holmes modernizations with Robert Downey or Benedict Cumberbatch. He found Twain’s book on Joan of Arc more compelling.
Mathis discovered GBS was connected to the Fabian Society, which further lowered his opinion. He found shaw’s play Man and Superman underwhelming, noting that its third act is often cut and it’s staged as a light comedy, unlike plays like Faust or Hamlet. He contrasts shaw’s philosophy with Nietzsche and Goethe, stating shaw makes women the centerpiece and men appear foolish. He suggests the play should have been titled “Woman and Unterman.”
He criticizes shaw’s portrayal of women in Man and Superman, contrasting it with his own approach in Shelley Altarpiece, where he criticizes Shelley as himself, not as a representative of all men.
Mathis points out shaw’s biography claims he was shy and a virgin until age 29, making his writings on heterosexuality ridiculous. He sees shaw as the Octavius character in Man and Superman (the weak artist) and Tanner as the character shaw puts words into. He believes Nietzsche would understand this interpretation.
He states shaw was a socialist, which he contrasts with Nietzsche, who was “180 degrees from Socialism.” He accuses shaw of not addressing opposing arguments and implies a progressive connection with Nietzsche. He calls shaw “spiderish” and “priestly,” aiming to replace priests rather than be free of their cant.
Mathis describes the third act of Man and Superman as tiresome and ineffectual. He compares shaw unfavorably to Voltaire and ancient priests. He finds shaw’s attempt to compete with Goethe or Marlowe a “miscalculation.”
He quotes shaw’s desire for “plays of real ideas and true characters” from his biography, calling Man and Superman “preachy and artificial,” with propaganda-filled narration. He contrasts shaw with Ibsen and Chekhov, finding them more natural and readable.
He mentions Ibsen was also Phoenician Navy, his father a shipowner, and his mother from Altenburg, linking to Saxes and European royal houses. He also mentions Julich-Bergs (Anna of Cleves) from a previous paper. He praises a portrait of Ibsen by Olrik.
Mathis claims shaw’s biography hides his peerage lineage. He consults Geni and thepeerage.com, finding connections to Hamiltons and Armstrongs through his maternal grandmother. He notes Whitcroft (listed as Whitmore) links to Maj. Gen. Edward Whitmore, governor of Cape Breton and the island of St. John. This connects to Herefordshire regiment, Shropshire baronets, Douglases, Montagus, and William the Conqueror. He believes historians scrub this to support a “sob story” of humble origins.
He links shaw’s family in the 1700s to the Ponsonbys, Cavendishes, Devonshire Dukes, Spencer Earl, Westmoreland Earl, Richmond Duke, Pagets, Anglesey Marquesses, Campbells, Argyll Dukes, and Villiers, Jersey Earls.
The Briscoes of Cumberland, Musgraves, and Barons Dacre are also mentioned. Through Briscoes of Ireland, shaw was related to Forsters, Percevals, and Maxwells.
An added note on November 4, 2021, connects Wendy Hiller, an actress who played Eliza Dolittle in Pygmalion, to Hitler (who the author claims was really Hildesheim/Hiller). They are linked to Manchester/Liverpool, and Hiller’s father was a cotton merchant. Her family comes from Germany, and her great-grandfather was George Hiller. Her grandmother was an Eyre. She was born in Bramhall. Mathis suggests Hillers of the peerage are scrubbed due to Wendy Hiller, the Duchess of Manchester, and Hitler.
He further links Hitler to the Houstons of the peerage. Wendy Hiller married Ronald Gow, and Margaret Houston Gow is in the peerage, married to a MacDonald daughter of a McCormack. The MacDonalds are linked to the Stanleys. Gows appear to be East India Company, seen in Brigadier John Harper Gow.
Ronald Gow’s father was Anthony Hepburn Murray Gow. The Murrays are also Stanleys. The Gows are from the Grahams of Scotland. Gow’s mother was Clara Ashworth.
Mathis states his hatred for shaw stems from his view of the Fabian Society as an offshoot of the Theosophy Project, founded by Thomas Davidson, whom he calls a “cloaked agent and fascist.” Davidson was in the US by 1867, landing in Boston, and worked in St. Louis and Cambridge (Boston).
Davidson founded the Educational Alliance in New York City in 1889, partnered with the Hebrew Institute, used as a settlement house for European Jews to promote Socialism. He mentions a paper on Eugene Debs and Jewish intellectuals from Europe creating fake Socialist fronts.
Mark Twain joined the Board of Advisors for the Educational Alliance in 1903.
Davidson traveled in Greece and Italy in the 1870s, studying scholastic philosophy and the Catholic Church, meeting Cardinal Hohenlohe and Princess Sayn-Wittgenstein. He had a villa in Capri. His philosophy involved Aristotle’s Nous, God, rational thought, and an Emersonian World Soul. Mathis calls it “bastardized and inverted.” He also mentions Emerson, Thoreau, and Tolstoy.
He describes Fabianism’s philosophy as shallow and corrupted, from Davidson and “the dungeons of Intelligence.” The Fabian Society’s basis was promoting the transfer of land/capital to the State, equality of citizenship, and public authority for education/child support. Mathis interprets this as transferring capital to bankers, outlawing gender, and bankers educating children. He links this to current headlines about parents’ rights in education, Pfizer, and Bill Gates, and parents being arrested by the FBI and Justice Department. He criticizes the failures of Communism in Russia and China.
shaw is compared to his cousin Bertrand Russell, who was also a “cloaked agent.” Mathis mentions a paper on Wittgenstein where he “outed them both.”
He exposes Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, mentioning Beatrice’s maiden name Potter, Heyworth, and great wealth. Her father was Chairman of the Great Western Railway. The Potters linked with Palmers of York and Kennedys in 1808, and later married Stuarts. The Heyworths were wealthy merchants descended from Spencer-Churchills and Marjoribanks. Sidney Webb is described as “most scrubbed,” related to the Queen through her Cavendish line. Wikipedia allegedly scrubs his parents.
The Fabians founded the LSE (London School of Economics), which Mathis despises, linking it to the Rolling Stones.
thepeerage.com lists Webb’s father as Charles and scrubs the line. MyHeritage.com shows Charles born in Petham, Kent and his mother Mary Elizabeth Stacey born in Essex. The Staceys in the peerage are related to the Stuarts and Barclays (Mary Kingscote, John Barclay Stacey, Stuart, Grant, Renselaer). This links to London, Gloucestershire, Canada, San Diego, New York, and Pennsylvania, specifically the van Rensselaers of New York. Mathis notes thepeerage scrubs these Stuarts of Paxton, PA, but other sites link them to Tyrone, Scotland, Castle Stuart, Kennedys, Maxwells, Campbells, Lennox, and the Kings of Scotland and England.
Mathis previously showed Queen Elizabeth’s great-grandmother Smith was East India Company. He links Frances Webb to John Webb, captain of an East India Company ship. He finds a portrait of Charles Webb le Bas, Principal of the East India College, whose mother was a Webb, daughter of “Captain Webb of the East India Company’s mercantile marine.” Le Bas married a Hodgson of the Bow brewery. This links these Webbs to the Webb baronets, who are also scrubbed. thepeerage.com lists the 3rd baronet but not the first two. Geni lists them but scrubs their women. They come from the Webbs, knights of Stratford-upon-Avon, linking to Abigail Shakespeare and the Ardens. He notes “Shakespeare was a Webb.”
The 3rd Webb baronet married the daughter of Baron Belasyse, linking to Paulet Marquesses of Winchester, Bourkes, Walsinghams, Howards, Talbots, Staffords, and Forsters. Since shaw was also a Forster, Mathis concludes shaw and Webb were cousins.
The 6th Baronet Webb married a Somerville, linking to the Warburtons (bankers). The baronets allegedly ended in 1874, but Sidney Webb was likely from this line. Wikipedia allegedly scrubs Sidney Webb’s bio until 1892 when he married Potter. With her money and an anonymous bequest, they founded LSE three years later. He held a clerical job until then. In 1913, they started The New Statesman with shaw, which Mathis calls a “fascist front.” He compares it to Walter Lippmann and The New Republic, founded in 1914, and The Atlantic, The Nation. He claims these are “in the pocket of Intel.”
Mathis emphasizes Win McCormack buying The New Republic and its claims of returning to progressive roots are false. He states these publications have lost readerships and transparency.
He purpled the name McCormack as Phoenician Navy, linking to Tiger Woods and the McCormicks/McCormacks. Win McCormack co-founded the Liberty Hill Foundation with Pillsburys, Anne Mendel, and Larry Janss. He notes Win’s real name is Winston and these purple names are Jewish. The Pillsburys are boycotted for doing business in illegal Israeli settlements.
The Webbs were involved in the Labour Party from the beginning, preventing it from benefiting Labour. Mathis calls it a “secret enemy” started by “cloaked fascists” to infiltrate and “detooth” Labour. He refers to his paper on Eugene Debs for more. The US and UK saw similar actions by the same people. Labour was infiltrated and obliterated through unions and political parties. In the US, Labor was assigned to the Communist Party to be marginalized.
In 1922, Webb became an MP for Seaham, a constituency created shortly before. Ramsay MacDonald took it over in 1924 and rose to Prime Minister. Webb was also involved with Palestine, appointed Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1929, revising policy in favor of Hebrews. He argues Webb’s “white paper” was anti-Zionist and had to be reversed by MacDonald’s “black paper” as a planned strategy. He asserts Webb was East India Company, LSE, and Phoenician, so he couldn’t be anti-Israel. The outcome confirmed the Balfour Declaration and increased immigration to Israel. Webb played the “bad cop.”
The Webbs ignored atrocities by Joseph Stalin and supported the Soviet Union until their deaths, writing Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation? (1935) and The Truth About Soviet Russia (1942), which gave a positive assessment of Stalin’s regime. Al Richardson dubbed Soviet Communism: A New Civilization? “pure Soviet propaganda at its most mendacious.” Mathis calls them agents, pushing Stalinism in 1942 as part of “Operation Chaos” by “Intel.” The switch to Russia as the great enemy would happen after the war.
He compares the Webbs to Chomsky, who continues to push Socialism, Atheism, and DNC plotlines. He predicts the “left” side of American politics will be “tanked on purpose,” and talk of Socialism will be “non grata.” No one will admit to being leftist, vaccinated, or wearing a mask.
Mathis returns to shaw, noting his promotion by William Archer in 1882, son of Thomas Archer, Agent-General for Queensland. Archer was also a Walker, Lindsay, and Morrison, and worked for the War Propaganda Bureau, making him an “admitted spook.” Mathis believes Archer was shaw’s handler and shaw came from Intelligence. shaw may have been recruited in 1876 when he moved to London and allegedly ghostwrote a musical column in The Hornet for his stepfather. He left school at 15 and worked for land agents.
At age 22, shaw was writing plays; at 23, his first novel. He allegedly lived with his mother and sponged off her until past 30. At 24, he joined his cousin Webb in the Zetetical Society, which morphed into the Fabian Society four years later. shaw’s bio is “thin and unconvincing.” His first “success” was the manifesto for the Fabians in 1884, and “spooks” inserted him into the executive committee. shaw’s Wiki page says he attended British Economic Association meetings starting in 1885, but it was established in 1890.
This leads to Bloody Sunday 1887, which Mathis claims never happened. He describes it as a faked and provocatured event involving SDF and Fabians. He notes that despite armed protestors and police/troops, no one was killed, only two policemen and one protestor were allegedly stabbed, and 400 arrested, with only 50 detained and released in three months. He calls Annie Besant a “superspook” who offered herself for arrest but was declined.
shaw recruited Besant for the Fabians in 1885. Besant was born Annie Wood, her mother a Morris. Her great-uncle was Sir Matthew Wood, 1st Baronet, Lord Mayor of London. His son was William Page Wood, Baron Hatherley, Trinity College, Cambridge, Solicitor-General, Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, and Lord Chancellor. Besant’s cousin Sir Francis was the 3rd Baronet and married Louisa Hodgson (of Bow brewery), making Annie a cousin of shaw and Webb.
Annie was peerage herself but scrubbed. Searches for Annie Wood do not pull her up. Her birth date, October 1, 1847, is a red flag. Her other first cousin was Field Marshal Sir Henry Evelyn Wood, VC, GCB, GCMG. His wife, also Annie’s cousin, was Mary Southwell, sister of the 4th Viscount Southwell. This links to Mostyn baronets, Frasers, George Jerningham, 8th Baron Stafford, Lt. Gen. Sir Hew Fanshawe, Victoria, and John Balfour. Annie was also related to the Balfours.
Another cousin of Annie, Katharine Wood, married Charles Stewart Parnell, linking to Howards, Viscounts Wicklow. Another cousin, Anna Caroline Wood, married Lt. Gen. Sir Scudamore Steele, KCB. Another cousin, Emma Wood, married the 2nd Baronet Barrett-Lennard, whose grandson Thomas Fiennes became wealthy as a banker for Norwich Union, Scottish Union, Maritime Insurance, and East Anglian Bank.
An added note on November 4, 2021, connects the Woods not just to baronets but to the Earls of Halifax. Edward Lindley Wood, 2nd Earl, had mother Lady Dorothy Augusta Onslow, daughter of William Hillier Onslow, 4th Earl of Onslow. The middle name “Hillier” is a variant of Hiller/Hitler. Mathis links Hillers of the British peerage to Onslows, finding both names in this family. Thus, Annie Besant is a cousin of these people through the Woods, linking her to Wendy Hiller. The Earl of Halifax married Ruth Primrose, daughter of Lady Victoria Stanley, daughter of Edward Villiers Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby, and Lady Alice Montagu. Mathis links Stanleys to Hitler and Hillers by name in Liverpool. Annie Besant is linked to Stanleys. The 1st Earl of Halifax was Viceroy of India, Chancellor of Oxford, and Knight of the Garter.
These Earls of Halifax link Annie Besant to George Bernard Shaw as the Woods were also Ponsonbys, and so was shaw. Charles Wood, 1st Viscount Halifax, married Lady Grey, daughter of the 2nd Earl Grey and Lady Ponsonby, daughter of William Brabazon Ponsonby, Baron of Imokilly. This links to admirals Frederick and George Grey, with George marrying Jane Stuart, daughter of General Patrick Stuart.
Mathis dismisses claims that the Woods of Hatherley and Woods of Barnsley are unrelated, or to Jemmy Wood of Gloucester Old Bank. He notes Jemmy died without issue, but his estate went to Matthew Wood, 1st Baronet Hatherley. Mathis believes Matthew was executor and there was a relation, as Jemmy died in 1836 and Matthew became baronet in 1837. Besant’s family got money from Jemmy.
The Woods of Barnsley had money before Jemmy. James Wood who founded Gloucester Old Bank in 1716 is scrubbed, which Mathis sees as proof of relation to the Earls of Halifax.
The Wood baronets of Loudham link to the Webbs. The 1st Baronet married Anne Webb in 1630 in Suffolk. Geni lists her son Thomas Wood and scrubs him. Another marriage of Woods and Webbs involved Anthony Webb marrying Elizabeth Wood, sister of the 1st Baronet of Loudham. Elizabeth had five siblings and two sons, linking to Chapman baronets and Chester baronets. Her sister mary had a son Sir Caesar Wood who lived in Buckinghamshire. His son married a Knightley, and his daughter married the Baronet Blount.
Annie Besant’s connections are “almost endless.” She is linked to Rudolf Steiner. Besant and steiner rebranded Theosophy. Mathis compares this to Zuckerberg changing Facebook to meta.
In 1892, shaw produced To Your Tents, O Israel, arguing Irish Home Rule was not a concern to Socialists, despite being Irish. He mentions statues of shaw in Ireland and a bronze in the National Gallery of Ireland. shaw was more interested in the Gladstone government and disestablishing the Welsh church than Irish independence. Mathis claims shaw would call for forced vaccination and ignore church closings, like Noam Chomsky. He calls it “fake Socialism and fake Labor party.”
He suggests the Irish and Welsh should have boycotted shaw. He states shaw married his nurse in 1898 for convenience, the marriage was never consummated, indicating shaw was gay. He questions if shaw was a lover of Sidney Webb or William Archer. shaw worked for gay rights. Mathis believes shaw’s sexual orientation affects his writings on heterosexuality.
Man and Superman, Pygmalion, and other plays are seen as treatises on basketball by someone who has never played. He states readers don’t need advice on women from shaw.
He warns about My Fair Lady, based on Pygmalion, pushing the message of “taming of man by woman” and being “stridently anti-Nietzschean.” He cites the last line where Higgins asks for his slippers, indicating he has been domesticated.
He notes Pygmalion first appeared onstage in Vienna in German translation in late 1913, supporting his detection of a German accent on shaw. He mentions Daniel Archer arranging translations of shaw’s plays into German in the 1890s. This may explain shaw’s fandom of Hitler and Stalin, promoting his “cousins” in the “European theater department.”
Mathis discusses his personal interest in the “woman question,” stating his life has played out as a result. He calls himself “untamable.” He disagrees with Nietzsche on the woman problem being eternal, believing the battle of the sexes is manufactured by “Moderns” and dates back to the 18th century. He states the “rise of the woman” was to cripple men, a strategy by the Phoenicians to fear revolution. After WWII, this became transparent with media, women, chemicals, and drugs.
He argues the battle of the sexes is a manufactured problem, not a natural one. He believes women and men can help each other, but modern women act as they do due to media, government, schools, and older women, doing the bidding of their “Phoenician overseers” to turn men into “squishy babies.” Women are used as pawns to destroy men and defuse revolution.
He contrasts this with nature, where animals don’t fight each other in that way. He blames the “Phoenician trick” for blaming nature. He sees a variation in physics, where quantum physicists make nature seem absurd, irrational, chaotic, and pointless.
Mathis states that art and women have been taken from him. He believes art was destroyed with “malice aforethought.” He has proven the “Men-are-Pigs project” is real, created by the Phoenicians for control and profit. Even the Phoenicians have fallen to their own project, as the virus they prepared got into their water supply.
He was born into a world where he was not wanted. His spirit, intelligence, art, science, and penetration were not wanted. In the 20th century, everything was redefined. Paths of art, science, poetry, and literature were repaved by the “children of the new elite,” who lacked desire or ability to compete with predecessors, throwing their work away. Art and science became projects of boredom, with skill replaced by promotion.
This suited their “merchant daddies,” who had “no souls for art.” The “art” of their children was used for money laundering, with empty canvases fetching millions. Science saw fake projects like BICEP or LIGO diverting billions. This money went to “Intel agents,” yachts, islands, or gilded bunkers, but the important thing is that “YOU DON’T” have it. They tax people so they have nothing, believing this means they cannot compete.
Mathis is a mystery to them because nothing gets done without exorbitant funding. He creates in multiple fields with no funding, institutional support, publisher, wife, bank account, or assistants, while they bore their rich cousins.
He believes he is proof that they cannot win against Nature. They are the product of a “vast scheme” over centuries, while he is a “single child of Nature.” Nature “still beats them with just the push of a finger.”