Who really are the names we see every day in the media?

Which leads us to ask Geni who Andy Murray is. . . and they won’t tell us.

His father is hidden, and his mother is given no parents. Just what we expected. But we have seen that Andy must not only be in the peerage, he must be high up. He may have a title beyond “Sir”. Why else would they knight an effing tennis player? As with Mick Jagger, it can’t be explained until you realize these guys were from the peerage to start with. They weren’t knighted for music or sport, they were knighted for being famous crypto-aristos, and because they asked for it. They wanted to be tapped by the queen, so they were. But given my research on Tiger Woods, it leads us to another question: did someone take a dive so that Andy Murray could win Wimbledon, etc.? Otherwise, I never could understand it.

TAP – I am beyond convinced Federer was trying to throw the Wimbledon Final to Murray, but had to stop when Murray failed to hit enough winners when Federer opened the court for him.  Federer’s number of unforced arrears was off the scale, which is unheard of.  Yet Murray still lost.  Federer looked exasperated, went off to take a very unusual ahem ‘toilet break’.  When he came back on, it was a different match and Federer quickly wrapped up the match.

Murray beat Djokovic in straight sets in 2013? What? Curiously, Murray also won in straight sets at the 2012 Olympics in . . . London. Couldn’t have been scripted better, could it? I have no proof these matches were thrown, of course. I just point out the possibility. It is known matches have been thrown at the highest levels, so who knows? If Andy would lie about Dunblane, he is down for anything.

If you find that shocking, your eyes simply aren’t open. The first time I saw Andy Murray, I thought he was a creep. He just has that look. That smug, entitled, no-smile, dead-eyed persona that no one will miss when he retires. He may have thought he was entitled to win Wimbledon as well. We have seen stranger things. Regardless, never will a “champion” be sooner and more justly forgotten. You just have to wonder how and why such people are ever forced down our throats as important. Tennis? Really? Hitting a little fuzzy ball over a net over and over and over and over? That’s important? That’s worth millions of dollars and front-page coverage?

*Yeah, like posh Tories Neil and Christine Hamilton of Louis Theroux documentary fame, now part of UKIP. Also the other Hamiltons that Miles has flagged up in previous papers.

**My wife, who I obviously love to bits, is a very good Scully to my Mulder. I’m interested in evidence- based dissection of elite lies, she’ll take every bit of data fresh and get me to prove it. I think that’s actually quite useful in a lot of ways.

a The name Oswald jumps out at us, because—for some reason—Thomas Hamilton has been compared in the media to Lee Harvey Oswald.

2 Here we learn his 2g-grandmother was a Golding.

3 This BBC story from 2016 admits Grand Slam winners are involved, but won’t name them. It also admits the ATP is looking the other way. It also admits TIU, Tennis Integrity Unit, is a sham.

All I can say is, watch Murray’s 2013 Wimbledon match against Djokovic and come to your own conclusion. I have. Look especially at Murray’s awful high-bouncing second serve, moving about 75mph—by far the slowest and worst at that level of tennis. Djokovic should be blasting that thing for an immediate winner every single time. But he almost never does. He only does so once or twice, when he is fed up with Murray’s game and demands that Murray at least make a show of it. For instance, in the last game of the match, Djokovic throws the first three points, letting Murray get to 40-0. But then he tightens up, asking Murray to win at least one point honestly. Djokovic blasts one of Murray’s second serves off the court with disgust to win one of the points. So why wasn’t he doing that before?

Does that mean Raonic’s 2016 Wimbledon loss was also a throw? I would say so. Raonic should have beaten Murray in his sleep that year, but he does seem like the perfect choice to take a dive. Clearly Djokovic didn’t want to be picked for that role again, which would explain why he bowed out earlier to Sam Querrey. Federer and Nadal also didn’t want that role, which may explain why both guys fortuitously missed most of the year with injuries. I would say they got the Murray memo early that year, and decided the injury

page30image3907294192page30image3907294784page30image3907295120page30image3907295392page30image3907295728page30image3907296016page30image3907296608page30image3907296880

story would be preferable to throwing matches to Murray. This would explain the strange events of later that year (and early 2017) as well, as everyone was instructed to lay down so that Murray could advance to a number one ranking. How else to explain Djokovic’s strange loss to Istomin in Australia? It looks to me like Djokovic was refusing to throw any more matches to Murray in person in those months, but pressure was applied to him to lay down one way or another. And remember, Raonic is the one that withdrew from the Paris Masters in a convenient fashion, allowing Murray a walkover in the semi-finals, just in time to take the number one ranking from Djokovic. In fact, this theory explains a lot of the strangeness of the past few years on tour, which is only now dissippating. Once Murray got his two Wimbledons, two Olympic golds, and a number one ranking, he pulled back, allowing things to get somewhat back to normal.

Or almost normal. Remember how Murray pledged his 2017 Queens prize money to the victims of the manufactured Grenfell Towers fire, only to lose in the first round? You have to laugh.

So why do I say Raonic was the perfect pick to lay down for Murray? Because Raonic is a Serb whose uncle was Deputy Prime Minister of Montenegro. His surname is Gvozdenovic, which links Raonic to GeneralAnto Gvozdenovic, d. 1935, of the Russian Imperial Privy Council. The Gvozdenovics were Princes of Montenegro, and we may assume they still are. They are very wealthy, and Raonic was living in Monte Carlo even before he starting making money on tour. His ancestor General Prince Anto Gvozdenovic was [General of the Cavalry] von Rennenkampf’s righthand man and General-Leader during the Russian- Japanese War (1904), but somehow survived the Russian Revolution. So, like the Murrays, the Gvozdenovics/Raonics are nobility, closely linked to the Kings of Russia and England—who are likewise closely linked. The Murrays are near relatives of the Queen, and the Gvozdenovics were near relatives of Nicholas II—which is why they were Princes. All the royalty of Europe is related, and always has been. So Raonic was simply instructed to step aside temporarily for his cousin, I assume.

But could the same be said of Djokovic and others on the tour? Possibly, since Djokovic has a page at Geni but it is completely scrubbed. Famechain tells us his grandfather Zdenka Zagar was a “high-ranking officer” in the Yugoslav Army, but we aren’t told if that was colonel or general or what. Plus, even that looks like a fudge, since Zdenka is a woman’s name. Djokovic’s grandparents couldn’t have been Zdenka and Elisabeta. However, Djokovic may be related to Zoran Zagar, a top banker in Belgrade who became Deputy Executive Director of the World Bank in the late 1960s and Executive VP of the International Finance Corporation in London in the early 1970s. Also see Joze Zagar, head of the Slovenian Railway and later General Manager of Smelt. Also see Ivan Zagar, CEO of Prebold Textile Factory.

You may also consult this 2016 article, which admits the ITF allows gambling agencies to sponsor major tournaments. The article calls it “intriguing”, but surely that isn’t the correct adjective. This should be a sign of how utterly compromised professional sport is.

http://mileswmathis.com/dunblane.pdf

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

4 Responses to “Who really are the names we see every day in the media?”

  1. Tom74 says:

    I agree about Andy Murray. He always seems to get a ridiculous amount of coverage in the media over the smallest things. I was astonished a while back that his hip operation seemed to make headline news for days.
    Interesting about the match-fixing possibility too – I always thought the Olympics final against Federer was fixed. Look at how muted Murray’s celebration is.

  2. jkick says:

    I always had doubts about Virginia Wade’s Wimbledon win in 1977…………………. It was the 16th year in which Wade had played at Wimbledon, and she made her first appearance in the final by beating the defending champion Chris Evert in a semifinal 6–2, 4–6, 6–1. In the final, she beat Betty Stöve in three sets to claim the championship, nine days before her 32nd birthday. Not only was 1977 the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Wimbledon Championships, but it was the Silver Jubilee year of Elizabeth II, who attended Wimbledon for the first time since 1962 to watch the final.

  3. Cobalt says:

    As soon as you see Sir or Dame before their name you know they are a shill for the Queen, royalty, the Elite.

    Best example: ”Sir” Jimmy Saviile.

    ”Sir” Cliff is another prime example with connections to the corrupt music / entertainment industry.

    Always a shame that they have to pass away rather than face trial and public humiliation whilst alive and always hiding under immunity of the stupid notion of the CIA / Mossad etc. invented ”conspiracy theory” shield.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.