I'm sorry, but either people are just not too smart, or previous theories and admissions are being buried.
Patton in 1945
35.8 MB
View full-sizeDownload George Smith Patton Jr. (November 11, 1885 – December 21, 1945) was a general in the United States Army who commanded the Seventh Army in the Mediterranean Theater of World War II, and the Third Army in France and Germany after the Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944.
They admit Patton was in a nearly incestuous relationship in 1945 with his (non-blood?) niece Jean Gordon, thirty years younger; that because of that he didn't want to return to the US and to his wife, who was understandably furious; and that he was unhappy with his current military assignment in Europe, playing mop-up.
image.png
120 KB
View full-sizeDownload Jean Gordon (February 4, 1915 – January 8, 1946) was an American socialite and a Red Cross worker during World War II. A niece by marriage of General George S. Patton, some writers claim she had a long affair with Patton, allegedly beginning years before the war and continuing behind the front lines of wartime Europe. The published memoirs of Gordon's good friend, Patton's daughter Ruth Ellen, who also collaborated on her nephew Robert's work on the Pattons, as well as correspondence from Patton's wife, Beatrice, reveals that the family considered Gordon and Patton to have been in a romantic relationship. Patton's scholarly biographers disagree. After her lover (a junior officer) returned to his wife, and shortly after Patton died, she committed suicide.
So how hard is this to figure out?
Add to that fact that Jean Gordon allegedly killed herself 18 days later, on 1/8/46.
Aces and eights twice!
And you don't think that was also fake, so that she could join Patton?
Wake up!
Amazing that some still think Patton was a hero, or that he was silenced because he knew something or was about to squeal.
That is the planted story to back up the accidental death story.
As I have shown, they always have a second story for those not buying the first.
But the truth is always behind door number three, and it is almost always a fake death.
image.png
201 KB
View full-sizeDownload Frederick Ayer (December 8, 1822 – March 14, 1918) was an American businessman and the younger brother of patent medicine tycoon Dr. James Cook Ayer.
Woody's wife Soon-yi was Mia Farrow's adopted daughter but shared no blood with either Woody or Mia.
She was 19 when that started.
Jean was grabbed up by Patton when she was 17 and he was 47, and he shipped her over to Europe where she became a donut girl for the 3rd Army Headquarters.
Patton liked to dine while in the presence of all the prettiest donut girls, even when he was visited by superiors like Eisenhower—who had no problem with it.
Amazingly, Patton's current historians still try to deny this happened, though many of the participants and their living descendants have confirmed it, orally and on paper.
That includes Patton's own wife Beatrice, who believed George and Jean were a couple.
Wikipedia admits it, with footnotes.
Patton himself bragged about it all the time, though current historians claim he was just compensating for getting old.
They don't tell you he was related to Pershing, do they? But we don't need Pershing's maternal line to link to Patton, since the easiest link is through Pershing's first wife.
She was a Warren, but her father was a Smith and a Root.
Patton's middle name is Smith, remember?
We will soon see who these Smiths were, but you should already know (hint: Titanic).
Anyway, Patton's mother is also partly scrubbed, but we know she was a Wilson and a Saunders.
George's grandfather Benjamin Davis Wilson, the wealthy trader who became the second mayor of Los Angeles, was not only married to George's grandmother.
He was previously married to Ramona Yorba, of Spanish-American royalty.
Not only was she a Yorba y Grijalva, but her mother was also an Alvarado y Amador.
The Yorbas were also de Leivas, which you may wish to respell de Levi, getting you started here.
The Alvarados link us to the Bautistas, who of course link us to the Castros.
All these Stuarts are scrubbed, so they break the first link, but since we know that Patton is linked to Stuarts through Tim Dowling, that isn't a very good scrubbing, is it?
They do admit this Rector David Stuart of Virginia was from Inverness, Scotland, and that his daughter married a FitzHugh, so it is just the worst scrubbing ever.
We can walk around the block, taking the FitzHughs instead, who go back to Bedford, where they are linked to Smiths again.
These FitzHughs are soon scrubbed at Geni, but it doesn't matter, we know who they are.
Her mother was a Tennant, proving these are the peerage Gordons.
Geni tries to scrub John Gordon, but admits he was from Scotland.
This would indicate Patton and Jean Gordon were at least 4th cousins.
Through the Mercers, Patton is descended in direct line from Brig. Gen. Hugh Mercer of the Continental Army.
By the way, I see that Erica “the Disconnectrix” Howton at Geni.com has now shortened her name to Erica, either pretending to be chastened or hiding from us.
Before that they are from Scotland, tying us back to the peerage, to Ben Franklin, and forward to Frances Stonor Saunders.
The Slaughter line also takes us to the Colemans and Pendletons, who lead us to the Douglasses of Scotland.
More dukes related to the Hamiltons and Stuarts.
So, although the Smith lines are scrubbed, we know who they are as well.
All this surrounding evidence allows us to say these are the Smiths of Nottingham, the bankers leading back to Abel Smith and forward to the current Queen.
The fake captain of the Titanic was one of them.
And, as I have pointed out before, this also ties us to the Zodiac fake, since George Smith Patton also sometimes referred to himself as George Graysmith.
That fact has been almost completely scrubbed from history, but it is revealing since the propagandist-in-chief of the Zodiac story is Robert Graysmith, allegedly born Robert Gray Smith.
I now suspect that Graysmith was in fact a Patton.
Patton would have been 85 in 1970, so it is possible he was behind that himself.
Or, more likely it is a son he had with Jean Gordon after 1946.
Robert Graysmith claims to have been born in 1942, so the dates are a near match.
Did Jean Gordon have a son in 1942 (when she was 26), or was the date moved back from 1946?
We may never know, but we can theorize.
So, let's continue.
It is claimed that Patton was born 11/11/1885.
Aces and eights.
Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Like others we have seen, he scored near the bottom in his class at West Point, having to repeat his first year.
Patton's first major event was formative, since it was the fake Pancho Villa Expedition, in which a little border crisis was manufactured to give the US Army something to do before going to Europe.
Most of his promotions were between the wars, and therefore not for battle.
He was promoted to Major in 1919 and Lt. Colonel in 1934.
He had done nothing to merit that except put down the Bonus Army in 1932 with tear gas and bayonets, personally leading the 3rd cavalry down Pennsylvania Avenue.
He later bragged about it.
What a hero.
He was transferred to Hawaii in 1934.
Tough assignment, I'm sure.
The waves are hell for yachting.
Wiki says he was still in Hawaii when he began his “brief” affair with Jean Gordon in 1937.
Except that it wasn't brief, and it didn't begin in 1937.
It began when she was 17, which was in 1932.
Patton's worst injury was on the polo field, where he got kicked by a horse, probably for being a jerk.
Animals are smart that way.
It broke his leg, and he developed phlebitis, which almost killed him.
He had to recuperate for six months, at the end which they promoted him to Colonel—just for being alive, I guess.
Before the Second War started, Patton was promoted several more times for nothing.
Between 1939 and early 1941 he was promoted from Colonel to Brigadier General to Major General, for driving tanks around in Florida and Georgia.
For this he made the cover of LIFE.
So, we are now up to the summer of 1942, and Patton has done pretty much nothing worth reporting.
He is now 56 and his mainstream bio is a wash.
He has done nothing that any normal person would be impressed by and has done several things he should have been arrested for, such as kill his own men.
He was famous mainly for war exercises where lots of gas was burned for nothing, lots of pristine land was turned to mud and dust, and thousands of animals were killed or scattered.
Instead of Old Blood and Guts, he should have been called Old Mud and Dust.
And it doesn't get any better.
He was first assigned to French North Africa, where he led 33,000 troops in on 100 boats.
This was Casablanca, and the date was. . . November 8, 1942.
11/8/1942.
Aces and eights.
I guess you caught that?
Indicating this was all another fake.
He was fighting the Vichy French, and Casablanca fell on November 11.
Wiki now skips ahead another five months, to Spring 1943, when Patton is promoted to Lieutenant General.
For what?
The battle in Casablanca was three days.
What was Old Blood and Guts doing the other five months to justify that promotion?
I guess that medal came with an automatic Phoenician Navy promotion.
Omar Bradley is now Patton's deputy commander, and with orders to take the battered and demoralized formation into action in 10 days' time, Patton immediately introduced sweeping changes, ordering all soldiers to wear clean, pressed and complete uniforms, establishing rigorous schedules, and requiring strict adherence to military protocol.
Those are sweeping changes?
Sounds like regular military to me.
Do you think these guys were wearing:
dirty
wrinkled
partial
uniforms?
Do you think they were sleeping in until noon?
This is just the usual runaround in the bios, where nothing is made to look like a great big something.
It is like a new football coach coming in and being sold as a hero for telling his players they need to keep their eyes on the ball, play hard, and keep their helmets on.
The quote from Patton at this point is:
I expect to see such casualties among officers, particularly staff officers, as will convince me that a serious effort has been made to capture this objective.
Wow, thrilling.
I have goose bumps.
He might as well have said:
“Break a leg.”
Fortunately, Patton was only up against the Italians in Tunisia, and they retreated, leaving Gafsa to the Allies.
The Germans then arrived in their Panzers, but Allied artillery destroyed them.
But the important thing is that the soldiers' uniforms were clean and pressed.
Within two weeks the Germans had also abandoned Gabes, so Patton gave command to Bradley and returned to Casablanca to plan the invasion of Sicily.
Or because the food and girls were better there.
Whatever.
These events were a lot more photogenic in the 1970 film, where we get to see Patton firing his ivory-handled pistol at fighter planes overhead and cussing.
But this is another signal planted in the film, I guess by writer Francis Ford Coppola.
Patton refers to “a glass darkly”, which comes from Paul's letter to the Corinthians.
Corinth was also a Phoenician outpost, being a Mycenaean trading center founded by Sisyphus, son of Aeolus, descended from Prometheus.
You may wish to look up the first stanza of that poem, which Patton skips in the film.
Or no, I will print it for you here:
Perhaps I stabbed our Savior in His sacred helpless side.
Yet I've called His name in blessing When in after times I died.
That's sort of revealing as well, isn't it?
You may wish to chew on that a while.
Here's a question no one ever asks:
What the fuck were all these soldiers doing in North Africa to start with?
There was nothing down there but sand—nothing worth fighting over.
Far more remote than even Sicily.
Why would any European or American fight or die to liberate Casablanca or Tunis?
Doesn't North Africa look like a staging area to anyone?
Watch those scenes in Patton and it may dawn on you why all these major battles were fought down there, in the empty desert.
One, there were no first world witnesses to anything except military.
Camels tell no tales.
Two, no European cities got destroyed.
Three, your attention could be drawn off, and you might forget to ask about Paris for a year or more.
Paris, which was supposedly occupied all along, and no one cared.
When the US entered the European war and sent Patton and Bradley and the rest over, did they send them to liberate France, which had supported us in our own wars?
No, they sent Patton first to Morocco.
What? Why?
What did Morocco ever do for anyone, except maybe Bogart?
You have a World War, with Germany as the center of it, and you stage large parts in North Africa?
Why not stage them in Greenland?
Let's liberate Greenland!
Greenland uber alles!
This is what I mean when I say people aren't too smart.
They never ask the questions that beg to be asked.
That question has been sitting right out in the open for almost 80 years, and no one has ever asked it.
There must be some reason for that, right, I mean other than jealousy.
Maybe he really was a big scene hog, always noisily demanding screen time and promotion.
He was what we would call a diva.
I don't doubt he slapped soldiers, since that seems to fit his persona of a big bully, but his insubordination was much more important.
Those slapping incidents were probably publicized on purpose to justify his relief of command and demotion.
On second thought, the slapping incidents were probably made up, like so much of the rest of this. It is too tidy they are said to have occurred right after Patton beat Montgomery to Messina.
It is too tidy that the press keyed on them for months.
They are clearly cover for something much bigger.
We find immediate confirmation of that, in the names and dates.
The two privates were named Kuhl and Bennett.
The Bennetts we have seen many times, top peers related to the Queen.
Like Madonna or Russell Crowe arriving in Hollywood, he demanded all the biggest parts and the most camera time.
If other actors got more lines, he threw a fit.
So, they eventually had to bounce him out of the production, sending him to London to cool his jets and buy a dose of humility.
Which he never managed.
My guess is that after Jean Gordon lost her looks, Patton crawled back to Hollywood or Madison Avenue with his tail between his legs sometime in the 1950s, begging to be given a second chance.
After doing what he was told for a decade or so, he earned back the right to promotion, and got to see them make a movie about him in 1970, reshining his tarnished star and reconstituting his legacy.
That would explain why the film came out when it did.
He was 85 and, on his way, out:
the perfect time for a self-homage.
It also explains the first scene of the movie, where we get close-ups of all his bling, including the pinkie rings.
I always thought that was kind of weird, but now it makes perfect sense.
He himself was sitting in the front row.
But returning to 1942, I remind you of two things regardless.
One, Sicily was not exactly the center of the war for Europe, you know.
Syracuse was hardly an important chess piece.
Do you think Syracuse or Messina was more important than Paris, which the Allies let fall in a couple of weeks at the start of the war and never liberated until almost the end?
So, Patton's antics there were beside the point.
No one should have cared.
Two, the whole story about the German high command esteeming Patton so much their attention was diverted to England by his Ghost Army is itself a diversion.
It is to cover the fact that Patton wasn't sent to England as any eye's-on tactic to draw Germany's attention there.
Even the 1970 film admits it was just a demotion for Patton, to get him away from the action.
The other players were sick of looking at him.
Being sent to London was like being sent back to Chicago or Toronto.
Except that it allowed Patton to retain a little dignity.
They owed him that as a Stuart scion.
At minute 1:46:00, Malta suddenly makes a prominent appearance in the film, which is also strange.
You would not expect Malta to appear in a film about Patton's greatest hits, but we find him giving an extended lecture on it to his staff, as they take a tour.
Even the German general Jodl can't figure it out, asking what in hell Patton is doing in Malta.
I can tell you.
It is another clue left by Francis Ford Coppola.
It goes with the other clues like Carthage, the Phoenicians, the medals, and the aces and eights.
When Patton is sent to London, he is housed in a flat with pink doors and mirrors on the ceiling.
What are we being told there?
We are supposed to believe that Ike did it to punish him, but if you want to punish him you there are a million ways to do that other than pink doors.
Is Coppola signaling us again?
Very strange.
But not as strange as removing one of your top generals in the middle of the war for a minor incident.
Patton was out for an entire year, from August 1943 to August 1944.
The idea that was something to do with slapping two fake privates is absurd.
This was one of the weirdest stories in a war stiff with them.
Nothing makes sense.
If Patton really was our best fighting general, this would never have happened.
Not in a real war.
In the next scene, Coppola has Patton making an appearance at the ladies club The Doughnut Dugout, obviously a reference to donut girl Jean Gordon—who otherwise makes no appearance in the film.
Patton didn't return to combat command until August 1944, so we are up to that time, and he has still not done anything extraordinary.
Any normal person reading his long bio at Wikipedia should be asking when he starts looking like a hero, or even like a decent soldier.
I am a normal person, and that is what I am asking.
Patton returned to action when exactly?
August 1, 1944.
Oh, what do you know, aces and eights again.
Just another coincidence.
Look away.
He was now subordinate to Bradley, who was brevet three-star, so Patton must have lost a couple of stars.
They don't clarify that.
As part of the 3rd Army, Bradley and Patton were the most highly protected force at the time, with Intelligence and tactical air support assigned to them as top priority.
Although the 3rd Army is described as a spearhead, moving very fast, it advanced only 60 miles in two weeks.
Compare that to the advance of the Germans into Belgium in 1940, where they allegedly crossed the country in a matter of two or three days, while driving large tanks.
In another strange scene from the film, Patton's big return is illustrated with him directing army traffic through a mud pile, while Bradley watches in amazement at his abilities.
Really?
Coppola couldn't think of any better way to illustrate this?
They were either way over budget or someone ran out of imagination.
I realize this was 1970, when filmmaking hadn't really jelled yet into the state of perfection we see in such films as Avengers: Endgame or Meet the Fokkers, but come on!
Also, of interest in this scene:
we see chemtrails in the sky in 1970, something that shouldn't be happening.
Chemtrails are supposed to be a recent phenomenon.
Patton's units arrived at Metz and then stopped cold, just sitting there through September.
Patton was later criticized for this, though he tried to pass it off as orders from Eisenhower.
German command admitted that if Patton had bypassed Metz and moved on to Luxembourg, he could have cut off their 7th Army.
Even after Metz fell, Patton continued to sit there until December 15, though we still aren't sure why.
Maybe Metz had some awesome donut girls.
Whether it was due to a decision by Patton or Eisenhower, it looks very strange.
It looks like a scripted delay, to set up a big Christmas-time event that the folks back home could follow over the Holidays while eating ham and pie.
Finally, on December 22, solstice, Eisenhower allegedly gave the go-ahead to Patton.
Here is how they put it at Wikipedia:
Within a few days, more than 133,000 Third Army vehicles were rerouted into an offensive that covered an average distance of over 11 miles (18 km) per vehicle, followed by support echelons carrying 62,000 tonnes (61,000 long tons; 68,000 short tons) of supplies.
Are your antennae quivering?
They should be.
That sentence could hardly be more overloaded with in-your-face Phoenician numerology.
What does that tell us?
It tells us that this is more fake history.
It tells us the Germans had probably already gone home by that time, and we were just stalling the end of the war to spend more money.
Remember, this was Christmas, and most of these people were allegedly Christians (except the Jewish officers).
Just to show once again how utterly absurd this all is, Patton then requests his chaplain write a prayer for good weather, which of course God provides.
We are also reminded that the old propaganda spinner Kurt Vonnegut, Jewish, resold the Battle of the Bulge and the Huertgen Forest in his most famous tale Slaughterhouse Five.
If you will remember, he also sold the firebombing of Dresden, which we have previously shown was at least partly manufactured.
We have already seen how thin Patton's resume really is, but that is nothing compared to Anthony McAuliffe, who graduated from the US War College in 1940 as a captain.
By 1941 he was allegedly a Lt. Colonel, though he was only working with the Supply Division.
His Wiki bio then skips ahead to 1944, where he is a Brig. General at Normandy.
Wait, he went from Captain to General in less than 4 years, with no battle experience?
He supposedly parachuted into Normandy.
I'll tell you a secret:
generals don't parachute into battlefields.
This is all to get him to the Battle of the Bulge, the only thing on his resume up to that point, according to Wiki.
Right after battle he was promoted to Major General.
Wow.
Not believable.
Who was this guy?
Hard to say, since Wiki gives no parents and Geni scrubs them as well.
But we do know his wife was a Whitman and a Phillips, linking us to Walt Whitman and the Phillips, knights of Wales.
They link us to the Queen.
He may be related to the McAuliffes of the peerage, who are related to the Huntington-Whiteley baronets and the Baldwin earls.
Regardless, it is very strange to be given no parents and almost no bio for a general in the most famous battle of WWII.
He jumped out at me, since his name is a big British peerage name.
You would expect him to be in the Royal Air Force.
There are about 600 in the British peerage, and they were Barons in the 1600s, being closely related to:
the Willoughby barons
the Cecil earls
the Manners earls
the Nevilles
the Saunders
the Somerset earls
the Dudleys
the Ward barons
the Seymour earls
the Grey dukes (Suffolk)
and—most important to us here—the Noels, Earls of Gainsborough.
The Noels are important because they are the same family as the Gordons, linking us to all the action above.
Ditto for the Saunders.
Patton was a Saunders on both sides.
This means that Brereton and Patton were also cousins.
To hide this, his ancestry is hidden at Wikipedia, Geni, and all other sites.
His mother is scrubbed, and the Breretons in the US are soon scrubbed as well. Since Patton was a Smith, we may assume he was also related to fellow 4-star general Walter Bedell Smith, who later became CIA director.
Smith's grandmother, 20 years older than his grandfather, had been married to Isaac Mohler.
Smith's mother was a Bedell, but she is scrubbed at Geni.
His father was in silks.
A Bedell founded Physical Review Letters in 1893.
The Bedells are related to the Billings, see Lem Billings, JFK's “best friend”.
Also see Jewish record producer Lewis Bedell, originally Bedinsky.
That could be why Smith's mother is scrubbed.
Smith was also a Baldwin and a Baer.
The Baers take us through the Walthers to Swabia, Bavaria.
Smith's wife was a Cline (Klein).
The Bedells are in the peerage, related to the Comptons, Earls of Northampton.
Also related to the:
Beaumonts
Armstrongs
Villiers, Dukes of Buckingham
Also, to the Baronets Leventhorpe.
The Lev there is short for Levi, remember.
They are also related to the Maitlands, Earls of Lauderdale, which of course links us to the Stewarts.
So that is one of our links to Patton. Like the others we are looking at, Brereton's resume was very slender up to 1940, when he was promoted to Brig. General on October 1 for pretty much nothing.
According to his posted bio, he did almost nothing in WWI and nothing between the wars (except have a nervous breakdown).
Nine months later he was promoted to Maj. General, again for no apparent reason.
His first assignment in WWII was in the Philippines, where his Far East Air Force was destroyed by the Japanese on the tarmac the first day of fighting.
Not a propitious start, to say the least. I guess they had to put off his next promotion and medal for a month.
Brereton crawled back to Australia with his tail between his legs.
For this he really did receive a Distinguished Service Medal in February 1943.
On the German side at the Battle of the Bulge we find Erich Brandenberger, also with a very truncated bio and no parents.
His last name tells us he was probably a Brandenberg, meaning a Prince of Prussia.
The Kaiser was a Brandenberg.
Again, this is a very strange bio for a 4-star general in the most famous battle of the 20th century.
You will say Wiki is just falling short here, but he has no bio anywhere, not even on German sites.
He surrendered in 1945 but was released in 1948.
Also curious is that they got his rank wrong at Wikipedia, in famous books, in Allied Intelligence documents, and even in the film of his surrender, which you can see here.
Gustav-Adolf von Zangen was another 4-star general leading an army at the Battle of the Bulge, but he also has no parents and almost no bio.
He had been a General of the Infantry since January 1943, so he would have been a 5-star Field Marshal after the war, had they won.
Also curious is that German General Dostler was tried and executed, with von Zangen on-hand as a witness.
It came out in testimony that Dostler was following orders from von Zangen, but von Zangen was not only not executed, but he was also released soon afterwards.
I couldn't find that either von Zangen or Brandenburger were tried at Nuremberg, despite being 4-star generals.
However, we can definitely connect von Zangen to Wilhelm Zangen, top Nazi industrialist who ran the huge textile company Mannesmann.
He was allegedly captured and tried after the war for using slave labor but served only four months (if any).
He was soon back at Mannesmann.
But the reason I mention it is because it indicates General von Zangen was also Jewish.
Despite being Jewish and using slave labor, Wilhelm Zangen was found to be “less polluted” by the Dusseldorf de-Nazification Committee, telling you what a fraud that was.
He surrendered in 1945 and was handed over the Americans, who punished him by asking him to produce a monograph on the Battle of the Bulge.
He was in the German Parliament by 1946, as a member of the Free Democratic Party.
He later lectured at West Point.
You have to laugh.
His daughter married Count Wielopolski, whose mother was the Princess Montenuovo, and her grandmother was Marie Louise of Austria, daughter of Franz II Joseph Karl, Holy Roman Emperor, aka Franz II Kaiser.
The Princess of Montenuovo's grandfather was Napoleon Bonaparte.
So, Manteuffel was that close to all those people.
They don't normally tell you that, do they?
You might ask yourself why none of that pertinent information is on his Wiki page.
Manteuffel's recent ancestor Baron Edwin von Manteuffel had also been a Field Marshal in the FrancoPrussian Wars.
Edwin's cousin Otto was the famous Prussian Prime Minister who drafted the Constitution of 1848.
You will remember that date as a turning point for Republicanism, as the people made advances all over the world but were stymied by tyrants like Manteuffel and agents like Marx.
The Manteuffels were Phoenician nobles from Tallinn, Estonia.
There were a lot of top generals at the Battle of the Bulge on the German side, and they also had a Field Marshal there outranking their 4-star generals.
That would be Walter Model, who, unlike these others, has an endless page at Wikipedia.
We are told he shot himself in the head in the forest in 1945 and his men buried him on the spot.
Really?
A Field Marshal kills himself just a few miles from Duisberg and his troops don't carry him back to town, to be given to his family?
Impossible.
Who believes stuff like this?
I don't.
His son was allegedly able to find his skeleton in the middle of that forest 10 years later.
What are the odds?
Model allegedly burned all his personal papers, explaining why we know so little about his early years.
That's convenient.
We are told he was a poor student who didn't go to university, entering the military right out of high school, but then we are told he wrote a book in his 20s on the Prussian Field Marshal von Gneisenau.
Do you know how unlikely that is?
He was a captain at the end of WWI and stayed in the army, and by 1938 he was a Maj. General.
He was promoted to Lt. General after the Battle of France.
It is not until the summer of 1941 that his bio comes alive.
Before that it is all airy and unconvincing.
After that, it is longwinded and unconvincing.
After capturing Kiev in 1941, Model was promoted to 4-star General, another meteoric rise.
He spent all his time on the Eastern front, which is why many in the West haven't heard of him.
Finally in September 1944 he was moved to the Western front to shore up the collapsing front after D-Day.
He backed up to the Hurtgen Forest, where we find this on his Wiki page:
The Hürtgen Forest cost the U.S. First Army at least 33,000 killed and incapacitated, including both combat and non-combat losses:
I am still not sure what he did to deserve all that bling.
It took three days to capture Casablanca, and then he drove across Sicily slapping officers, and then he rotted in London for a year, possibly getting busted down to Brig. General.
The Battle of the Bulge looks like it was manufactured, which means everything during and after that was mist.
So, what were all those medals for?
Why are three of them Maltese crosses, that look so much like Iron crosses?
Why is a ramping lion, symbol of royalty, on one of them? If he was subordinate to Bradley in 1944, how did he get back up to four stars by the end of the war, which was only a few months away?
So, I wasn't kidding when I said Scott was a cousin of Patton.
That is the way they do it, and we have seen it over and over.
They choose a relative to play the part in the movie.
It is usually a distant descendant, as with Mel Gibson and William Wallace, but in this case only about 30 years had passed, so they chose a near cousin.
The camera very conspicuously pauses on those rings, starting with his right hand in salute.
They want us to see them.
It seems like some sort of Phoenician signal, like the Cross of Lorraine ring Tom Selleck is wearing in Magnum PI, which is featured in the opening credits.
This means Patton was a British Knight in two different categories.
I found nothing on that pin of Malta, but it may be a decoration of the Knights of Malta, which would link him to the Knights Hospitaller and Saint John of Jerusalem.
It is definitely a Phoenician thing.
Patton also has 14 French medals, most of them liberation medals, but also the Croix de Guerrewith Palm.
The only ones who get Hollywood promotion are the jerks like MacArthur and Patton.
You should ask yourself why that is.
Of course, all these people are Jewish.
All famous people are.
But promotion is not a matter of ability, as we have seen over and over.
It is a matter of rank.
Not military rank, but rank in the Phoenician Navy.
How big a Stuart are you?
MacArthur must have been a ranking Stuart as well.
If they wanted to, Wiki could list Patton as General Sir George Smith Patton, OBE, KCB, etc.
We are told Patton was promoted to full general, 4 stars, in April 1945, at the recommendation of Stimson, for his battle accomplishments in late 1944.
However, since he entered those battles as an inferior to Bradley, who was a brevet 3-star general, we can't make sense of that.
After Patton's demotion in 1943, he couldn't have been a Lt. General, so he must have skipped a step or two in 1945.
If he had still been a Lt. General, he would have outranked Bradley as a Brevet Lt. General, and we are told that wasn't the case.
He was expressly inferior to Bradley at that time, and that is confirmed in many places.
There is no way Patton could have been relieved of command for a full year without a demotion in rank.
Here's one last dunking in Phoenician numerology, to top this off:
Between becoming operational in Normandy on August 1, 1944, and the end of hostilities on May 9, 1945, the Third Army was in continuous combat for 281 days.
In that time, it crossed 24 major rivers and captured 81,500 square miles (211,000 km2) of territory, including more than 12,000 cities and towns.
The Third Army claimed to have killed, wounded, or captured 1,811,388 German soldiers, six times its strength in personnel.
Besides being filled with aces and eights, those numbers are absurdly inflated.
The previous paragraph at Wiki contradicts it, saying:
In its advance from the Rhine to the Elbe, Patton's Third Army, which numbered between 250,000 and 300,000 men at any given time, captured 32,763 square miles (84,860 km2) of German territory.
Its losses were 2,102 killed, 7,954 wounded, and 1,591 missing.
German losses in the fighting against the Third Army totaled 20,100 killed, 47,700 wounded, and 653,140 captured.
In the second, the total German number is 720,940.
In the first it is 1,811,388, 2.5 times higher.
Even if we use the lower number, we are supposed to believe the Third Army outperformed the Germans by almost 7 times (ignoring captured).
And what did the Third Army do with 1.8 million captured Germans, keep them in a bag?
I saw the official report online, though it may have been taken down.
But once Dixie became the largest in history, that became too embarrassing, so I guess they called in their cousins in Intel to make up this cock and bull story about the university professor.
The project is incredibly transparent, but most people are missing it.
They don't see that all the events going on right now actually benefit:
the rich
the far right
the Republican party
Those sectors have always been:
anti-black
pro-fascism
anti-justice
and anti-union.
Do you really think it is an accident that Greta Thunberg is so unappealing, that the leaders of BLM are so unappealing, that the frontline trannies and social justice warriors are so unappealing?
Do you think they just accidentally manage to say all the wrong things, pissing off the white majority in this country?
No, this is all scripted, and is being scripted knowing what your reaction will be.
They know how to push your buttons.
They want you to identify as conservative, because the moment you do you are their ally.
Mark my word, they will have you thinking you are a revolutionary while you support their far-right candidate.
That is where all this is heading.
It has happened many times before and it is happening again, but because most people know nothing of history, they can't see it.
From that perspective, it starts out OK, since it frames current events as the result of sin and the wrath of God, which in a sense is true.
But notice how that switches mid article, and he starts trying to sell you prepper gear.
Those who are spiritually prepared will be able to walk with God through the valley of the shadow of death (Psalm 23) and fear no evil, for they are prepared both spiritually and physically.
Physical preparedness means having:
food
emergency supplies
self-defense supplies
and readiness for the total collapse of:
food
electricity
telecommunications
and the rule of law.
You have to laugh.
If these are really end times, do you think you can avoid them by buying guns or canned food?
Yes, be spiritually prepared.
Be righteous.
But there is no being physically prepared for such a thing.
You can't buy or plan your way out of a 500ft tidal wave or an end times famine or a plague of locusts or whatever.
As you walk through the valley of the shadow of death, Michael and Gabriel aren't going to be impressed with:
a camouflage jacket
a Glock
a backpack filled with Power bars
If God is going to save you, he is going to save you, and you won't need any of that stuff.
It won't be Power bars it will be nectar and ambrosia, remember?
It will manna, whatever that is.
And yes, I am being completely serious.
I believe in being saved, but not through prepping.
