Mathis der Spuk: An exposure of Miles "master mason" Mathis's demoralisation tactics, and the manufactured nature of the "truth" movement

Miles William Mathis was born in Amarillo Texas, on the 17th of September 1963. Over his early years, he has gained much knowledge in Latin, science, and degenerate, and classical art alike. With this, he built up his reputation as an amateur mathemetician and painter. Only recently has this Texan taken his fray into fake events. This ties into the truth movement in this simple way. Despite his utter irrelevancy in the grand scheme of things, his poorly-done research started out simply regarding obvious events such as Sandy Hook and modern "spooks", about how John Lennon faked his death, or for media fame, his paper on how Stephen Hawking died and was replaced, he began looking historically. After analysing crypto-jewry historically, he gained a "jewdar" - so to speak, and later did a famous paper on the Crusades. Even despite his endeavor to smack the elites and the peers as crypto-jews, he gained an honourable jewish ally; "Josh G." who is an Israeli. The fact that Mathis entered the game so late is very suspiscious itself. An article by Allen Weisbecker a few years back titled "An Open Letter to Miles Mathis" reminiscences about how Mathis only got into physics in the year 2000, 40 years into his life, and didn't even go into fake events right after 9/11, but only around 2013. I don't agree with other points brought up in the article, but that's a red flag.
Did he muddy the waters? Did he realise it? Did his jewish friends themselves realise it? The latter is up for talks, but the former is true. What inaccurate information manifests itself in his paper on Adolf Hitler. Done after his Beer Hall Putsch paper, this essay specifically was to out Hitler as a crypto-jew, using trustworthy sources such as Wikipedia, Geni.com, and Ancestry, i.e. doing research that anybody can do - and that many people perhaps have done, but have realised how stupid of a conclusion his would've been. It ends up being horrible. A quick analysis shows how ridiculous it is. Now, whatever legitimate research on the NSDAP there is, Mathis's research isn't one of them. I'm going to dedicate much of this paper just to how ridiculous his research is:

"So let's hit Geni.com hard. Hitler wasn't even really a Hitler. We are told the family was originally "Hiedler""
"Well, I assume the problem was that even after the baptismal record change, Hiedler still had a problem: the name sounded Jewish. Locally, it may have been known to be Jewish"

Sounds "jewish" in what way? It is a Germanic surname if one does the research. House of Names proves that the Hiedlers were Bavarian in origin, and were Hiedlers going back to the 1600s.

Of course, despite his reference of "credible" Ancestry, Wikipedia, Geni.com, he doesn't reference the House of Names once in his essay. Perhaps because it debunks his whole thesis, which is based on "Hiller" a common name among jewry. It is still based on heavy mental gymnastics itself, as he admits Hiller is a shortened name adopted by Isaac Hildesheim in the 18th century, to avoid mentioning his jewish roots, even though the Hiedlers date back before that. He bases his remaining evidence of jews named Hiller and spuriously trying to claim they resemble Hitler's family, and then goes on to cover other Third Reich figures like Eichmann. We've got ourselves an anthropologist here, except we don't. Mathis is literally an artist and that's it, he doesn't know proper phenotype and anthropology. He just knows long noses, and broad "jewish" looks. So I could happily end my little commentary on Mathis here, but no. He has to wind up his mental gymnastics even further. Here's a previous quote of his:

"That doesn't sound very Austrian, does it? Looks French. Since he originally spelled it Aloys, that seems even less Austrian. I send you to this Wiki page to get a taste of the name Alois in history. A lot of Nazis there, but not a lot of old Austrian figures."

More using the very reliable source Wikipedia to determine historical facts. In-fact, his worship of Wikipedia despite literally critiquing it back in 2006 is "explained" in his Noam Chomsky paper:
"but on topics I cover likescience, biography, and history, it is as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica"
Britannica isn't a goldmine, but it's far better than Wikipedia when it comes to historical topics. Wikipedia is wholly compromised by Zionists, unless you actually dig into its sources, trying to determine historical fact using it is only slightly less harder than a rope going through a blade without it being cut. I.e. you're not going to get much. But back to Alois, the name is German. It "looks" French from a foreigners' perspective (only really because of the "ois") but it doesn't mean it is. It's a Germanisation of Aloysius, a common name in the Romanist world that Austria was in. A variant of Louis though there's another variant of it, Lodovicus, some other regional variants include Alojzije in Croatian (thus all Croats bearing this name are crypto-jews?), Alajos in Hungarian (thus all Hungarians bearing this name are crypto-jews?), Alaois in Irish (thus all Irishmen bearing this name are crypto-jews?), Alojzy in Polish, Aloísio in Portuguese, Alojz in Slovak, Alojzij in Slovenian, so on so on. But Mathis seems to be even more stubborn with this:
"In short, almost every Alois listed throws up some kind of Jewish red flag, so that from now on we canuse the name as a probable marker. Rather than see it as a variation of Louis, as we are told, we can tag it as a variation of Israel, Zion, or Sion. In fact, Alois backwards is Siola. Or, Sion-la. In French, “Zion there”."
This explains itself. Some serious mental gymnastics there, constantly reaching for falsehoods.
For his remaining essay, he covers the other Third Reich figures, next two up are Adolf Eichmann and Eva Braun. Eichmann despite not having a jewish surname himself I could understand, going by his phenotype (though his facial features could be considered Dinaric, not particularly jewish) and overall red flags surrounding him. Not Eva Braun however. For actual genealogical research, Mathis seems to not care much:

"Her mother was Fanny Kronberger. Reminds us of figure skater Lily Kronberger, doesn't it? She was Jewish. Even better, in the American Jewish Yearbook, vol. 14, 1912, we find that in Austria, Leopold Kronberger received the title of Court Councillor October 20, 1911. Just so you know, the AJY is a report of important things that happened to Jewish people. The famous physicist Hans Kronberger is also admitted to be Jewish, and what is more, he was from Linz, the same city Eichmann and Hitler went to school. In the Jewish Encyclopedia, we find Emil Kronberger, author of Zionisten and Christen, Leipsic, 1900. And so on."
He lists that Eva Braun's mother's name was Fanny Kronberger, and then goes on to list a bunch of jews named with that last name, but doesn't cover the origins of the Kronbergers themselves. They were German. While the Kronbergers are listed as Dutch, they are German in origin.

Castle Kronberg in Hesse was part of the Duchy of Nassau, whom later came to rule the Netherlands. Do as much research on that as you please, but simply listing off Kronbergers and claiming they're jews proves nothing.
Mathis then lists off a bunch of pictures of Eva Braun and her family he claims are fake, and then concludes this means they were fake; why would they fake pictures otherwise? I'll admit pictures aren't my profession, they're his (supposedly). So I'll give this a pass. Hardly any genealogical research, more pointing out a bunch of pictures.
After some more blabbering on about how Hitler was a homosexual etc. etc., he finally covers other figures at the top of the Third Reich. Since they're a lot smaller, I'll condense them into bullet points:

⦁ Fritz Lenz. He just talks about how they have no genealogy, says he'll cover them later which he didn't and still hasn't.
⦁ Rudolf Hess. He just says his maternal grandmother on Geni.com is Adelheid Ferber, and says Ferber is a jewish name. This is based on just listing jews named Ferber. In reality, it originated in the middle ages in Delft, south Holland. It's Dutch, and later migrated into Germany. He also claims that since his wife is a Proehl, she's jewish, and provides zero evidence aside from Friedreich Gutmann's bank being named Proehl and Gutmann (which doesn't really even signify a familial tie between the two families) Again says he'll cover him, later doesn't, still hasn't. Says Hertel is actually Herzl because they sound somewhat similar, and lists a bunch of jews with surnames found in Hess's family concluding that the surname is jewish, or better, "appears to be" jewish, more speculation without making his mind up.
⦁ Goebbels. Says he was an actor (which openly he was, being the propaganda minister, but not so openly being an actor on the political stage). Connects his wife's birth name (Ritschel) to Ritchie and the Rich family of the peerage, based purely on name similarities. Do realise that the German equivalent of the root word for "Ritchie" and "Rich" is "Reich" i.e. realm, not "Ritsch". He then goes on to do basically the same thing with Hess, list a bunch of jews, then repeat Wikipedia yet again with Richard Friedlander maybe being her biological father. Says her mother's a Behrend, and claims they're jewish because of Isaac Behrend Lehmann being a jewish banker for Augustus II of Saxony. However, this is a case of a jew appropriating a Saxon surname; the Behrends come from Saxony. Then goes on to name other Behrends, even non-jews trying to claim it's jewish. Makes a few connections between the Ritschels and Magda Goebbel's family, including a large one with Oskar Ritschel, but overall, it seems to be the same thing he's doing with Rudolf Hess, just that the research he's doing is even more poor. Then asks a bunch of questions regarding why she divorced Gunther Quandt for a member of the workers' party and comes to the conclusion that it's played. Does some more research on them, and links them to Kant whom Mathis says was also a crypto-jew and that he'll get to him eventually, and of course never did.

⦁ Now finally we actually get to Goebbels. The genealogy on his credible sites are scrubbed, but we know his maternal and paternal lines, the Odenhausens and Coervers. He claims the Odenhausens are jews because he links them to the Cossmanns, Halfmanns, and Appels using Ancestry.com and provides a link, which shows literally no link between them. Then he lists one jewish Coerver and calls it a day, and says he has totally deconstructed Goebbel's genealogy. He otherwise just talks about how he taught jews, nothing to do with genealogy at all, and was earlier on in his life.
⦁ Himmler. "Connects" the Hettingers to the Henningers, and to other notable and familiar houses in Germany and elsewhere (Heinz, and then the Zimmermans and Lanzas to name a few) though is wrong about a lot of them. For example, lists the Schicks being related to the Henningers as proof that he's related to the Schicklgrubers and thus Hitler. Also, Gorung does not seem to be a variation of Goring. He goes on about how Prince Heinrich of Bavaria was Himmler's godfather, and how it can't be that a Worker's Party member was this guy, even though this was before he had anything to do with the Worker's Party, and when his family were still monarchists. Then goes on about pictures, again, not my speciality, so I'll let this pass.

So that's Mathis's paper on Hitler being a secret crypto-jew, using ultra-Zionist Wikipedia and Geni.com as proof. Not only is it poorly-researched, it's constantly reaching for falsehoods. The only difference Mathis has from the "truth movement" is that he goes into some form of detail, which is... ...not that big of an achievement.
Speaking of which, Mathis has a lot of guest writers. One of which I have already mentioned, his Israeli guest writer Josh G, but he has several others. Many aren't active anymore, like Kevin, but have been heavily influential on Mathis's work. Namely, Gerry, his German guest writer. I'm going to assume that Gerry isn't his real name, and is just a codename, because it just doesn't sound like one. "Gerries" where what British soldiers called German soldiers in the World Wars. Gerry did a 5 part series titled "Ancient Spooks", and it was about the Phoenicians. Now, there's nothing new about it. I've been doing research on the Phoenicians in a similar vein to his without ever hearing about him, and I know many others who have. What Mathis seemed to have concluded from the series is that jews are actually Phoenicians, which is untrue. Namely, Phoenicians aren't an ethnic group. "Phoenicia" is just a blanket term that Greek aristocrats gave to coastal Lebanon, in-reality there were several sea-faring city states that all constituted their own ethnic groups, many even fought against each other. Meanwhile the in-land Semitic tribes were even further away from the Phoenicians, the Hebrews included. Secondly, coastal Lebanese have been proven to have descent from the Canaanites who constituted much of Phoenicia, in-fact the Punics still calling themselves Canaanites in the 3rd century BC. Though Ashkenazi and Sephardi jews do resemble Lebanese far more than they do other Semitic Near Eastern groups, they are not the same people. And of course, this doesn't even go to the origins of the Sea Peoples who ravaged Egypt, which helped spark the rise of Phoenicia to begin with. Now I will have to admit, this Gerry is far more scholarly than Mathis is with his fake events work, even though a lot of it is wrong, and he tried. Though he really can't make his mind up on a lot of things.

Something odd about Mathis here is that he seems to be promoted... ...even by the mainstream media. For instance, the Daily Mail has an article about Stephen Hawking actually being dead and replaced by an imposter, and repeats Mathis's talking points. Why is this painter and amateur mathematician's obscure blog being promoted? It only seems to me that jews are using him as a useful demoralisation agent. Unlike most of the manufactured truth movement which seeks to promote outlandish theories and then trap people into an infinite rabbithole with no solution, sometimes Mathis tries to preach revolutionary action like in his "What Can I Do?" paper, something more noticeable recently with him at the start of 2020 (specifically in his paper on the Hanukkah stabbing), he functions as a great demoralisation agent. For instance, he traps his agents into the quagmire of enlightenment liberalism, or at least some form of the liberal tradition, which I prefer to call libertinism for obvious reasons. He called out his own supporter, Michael Huttner out as a spook out to get him simply because he had a video on Julius Evola. So with Huttner here, he tied him to people that he had absolutely nothing to do with, the CEO of Fenton and thus the company started by a likely jew. Huttner replied saying he had nothing to do with this and showed his familial proof, though Mathis still didn't believe this. This really backfired on him a year later when a man claiming to be his former guest writer Kevin called him out, and Mathis was using the same tactics to defend his own genealogy. He did end up admitting his maternal grandfather could've been a jew however. Earlier on, Miles Mathis explicitly admits that he has both German and jewish blood, in his "What Can I Do?" paper.

"Are you hoping to avoid any nastiness? Hoping to be “a good German”? How many regrets there were in Germany in 1946, how many there still are. Have you been to Germany, felt the guilt? I have. I have German blood in me, and Jewish blood, too. So my blood is not stupid, nor my ghosts, either. They remember."

Now Evola was a shill, but the reason why Mathis is targeting Huttner here isn't even because of Evola or Marcus Eli Ravage or any of those spooks, it's because him giving them a chance in general shows he isn't in the liberal quagmire. Mathis hates strong authorities, and acts as a sort of "smear merchant" against strong authorities. You can see what I'm getting at here. His whole exposure of this "top-down structure" exists to promote the failed masonic ideology of liberalism. If you even dare to uphold that such evils can exist in an actual classical liberal state, he'll smear you as a spook. This anarchal mentality especially espoused among Texans is his Achilles' heel and is why he's a demoralisation agent, as I have stated. "They" don't exist, this whole idea of collectivist authoritarians ruling over you to keep you brainwashed is nothing more than a hoax desinged to redirect you from the fact that the people that thought up these ideas were not only from the same aristocratic lines you claim to be fighting against, but that the society we live in really is a natural development of classical liberal thinkers. In-fact, if you expose freemasonry and the occult for example, do realise that several classical liberals were themselves freemasons. Thomas Paine had contact with illuminists, and even wrote a book called the "Age of Reason" which preached a secularist deist religion against the puritanical tradition that he had contact with. It's not (just) these "spooks" and "elites" ruining your lives, you're ruining yourselves with fake freedom. Most people cannot handle freedom, and actually need to be shepherded in some shape of form. What happens when they try to "liberate" themselves, leads to feminism, leads to homosexual propaganda, leads to hatred between men and women, leads to the masculinisation of women and the feminisation of men on a massive scale. It ds to all of this stuff. Of course, I'm not saying all of our problems date back to the enlightenment, in-fact these specific problems that I'm talking about date back way before the enlightenment, in-fact it's an ancient philosophy only put in place en masse recently, and spooks like Mathis and most truthers for that matter won't speak out against it. These folks serve as demoralisation agents to keep you in this miserable libertine quagmire, whether they're aware of it or not, likely the former.
Specifically going against Mathis here, he argues that classical liberalism is good because it means that it doesn't let the rich and higher-ups monopolise society. I agree that the latter is bad, but classical liberalism isn't the solution, nor does it even stop the financial exploitation of the land by the rich to begin with. Classical liberalism is just one false solution to that out of many, and what should fight a bad authority is a good authority. There really should be a patriarchy, there really should be even an authoritarian government, but the purpose of the government isn't to leech off the population as god-kings and perform terrorism as most monarchies have acted historically, they should serve the people. Mathis, if you're reading this and you're legitimate, take this into consideration. I doubt you will, not that you won't read this of course, but that you will leave the liberal quagmire. This mentality must stop.