Mozart myths exposed

Mozart’s Death was Faked

by Miles Mathis

First published November 21, 2019

I just watched Amadeus again, so all the old questions resurfaced. We already know Peter Shaffer’s story is false in many ways, since they admit it. Salieri could sue for defamation were he alive, since he was not a mediocrity and there is no evidence he killed Mozart or allowed him to die. Mozart was not buried in a communal grave or pauper’s grave, the original story being he was buried in a commoner’s grave (not a common grave). But that just means he was not buried in a noble’s grave, which would have been protected from re-plotting after 10 years. He was also not poor at his death, or in major debt. The previous year had been his best in years, and he had made a lot of money.

He also did not write “as if he was taking dictation from God” or whatever. He made notes and drafts, and this is admitted. It is also admitted his wife Constanze later destroyed most of them, to clean up his oeuvre or for other reasons. And since I will show you Mozart actually became his own conservator and archivist, it was he who destroyed his drafts. Probably not to make it look like he was infallible, but simply because he didn’t wish for his process to detract from his final product. As an artist, I can tell you this is completely understandable. Few artists of any kind save their failures. Why would they be expected to?

Given that Mozart was already famous at his death, with Haydn calling him the greatest living composer, it makes no sense that his grave would not be marked, tended, and saved, noble or not. It is beyond belief that we don’t know what grave he was in or where his body was over the centuries. All this already points at a fake, before we even research anything.

So why would Shaffer tell us a tale he must have known was false? Why would Milos Forman bring it to the big screen? Why would it be promoted to the hilt and win so many awards? Yes, the film is very well made and quite entertaining, and I am not here to deny it. But it now looks to me like cover.

page1image2882366576

Mozart’s death has been the target of a huge amount of misdirection over the centuries, and this is just the latest example. So I intuit there is something worth covering there. It has been very important to someone that the truth not be discovered here. It’s like if you have a cat and you find a little pile of leaves and grass pushed into a pile in the yard: you know that the odds are very high you will find some poop underneath. Same logic here.

The story of Mozart and Salieri started with Pushkin, who was a Russian Jew. We may assume Peter Shaffer and Milos Forman are also Jewish. A little research confirms Shaffer is Jewish, since his middle name is Levin. Forman is also admitted to be Jewish. So that gets us started.

In the same way, I find it suspicious that Wikipedia has a separate page entitled “Mozart and Christianity”. They have created an entire page, trying to convince you Mozart was Christian. They don’t do that for others, and Mozart wasn’t especially religious, so why would they do it? Probably because he wasn’t Christian, but they are very intent that you believe he was.

After just a half-hour of research, I was already intuiting two things: Mozart was Jewish and he faked his death for some reason. All the piles of leaves were pointing in that direction. So let’s see if we can solidify that intuition. As regards the Jewish question, it isn’t hard. He was short and ugly with a big nose and lots of hair. That doesn’t decide it, of course, and I am not claiming it does, but it leads us in. I will show you a lot more decisive evidence, but while we are here, let’s compare him to somebody.

Do you see it? They have the same noses, the same little mouths, and the same face shapes. Their eyes are similar as well, being tilted up on the outside to a similar degree. The only major difference is that actor Jeffrey Jones is about a foot taller than Mozart was. Which leads me to believe they are related. This is normally how these roles are assigned, as we have seen many times. Actors who are related to their characters are chosen. However, since—due to his height—Jones obviously couldn’t play Mozart, they gave him the role of the Emperor Joseph instead—who he was also related to, I assume.

Jeffrey Duncan Jones has a genealogy posted at Ethnicelebs, so possibly we can confirm my guess. He was indeed from German lines on one side. Here are the names they give us, with the last four the German ones: Duncan, Morton, Seely, Owen, Simeon, Absalom, Ford, Bennet, Stocum, Neff,

page2image2970640320 page2image2970640672 page2image2970641232

Solomon, Grant, Schooley, Whiteman, Gleason, Kelberer, Ehinger, Roller, Strate. So he is without a doubt Jewish through his mother the Seely, as well as other lines, which explains his presence in Hollywood.

Jones has been scrubbed from the peerage, but his relatives are still there, including Nigel Silva Jones of Victoria, BC, and his son Duncan. Jeffrey Jones is also from Canada, so Nigel may be a brother or cousin. This links Jeffrey to the O’Tooles, including I assume Peter O’Toole. These Jones of Canada quickly go back to London, but then are scrubbed before we get to the 19th century.

As for Mozart, the name was originally Motzhart, so it may mean Moses’ heart. Wolfgang’s granddaughter married a Milano, indicating to me a blood link to actress Alyssa Milano. Alyssa’s genealogy is unusually well scrubbed, with no mother’s maiden name and no grandparents, indicating something big being hidden. My guess is it is even bigger than Mozart, like one of the top Nazis, but I intuit Mozart is there as well.

Wikipedia tells us both of Mozart’s sons failed to marry or have children, ending the line, but Geni.com says otherwise. There we find first son Carl/Karl married a NN (no name) Mozart and had a daughter named Constanze. He was a merchant and official in the Austrian finance department in Milan. Second son Franz married Beatrice Mozart, no maiden name given, and their daughter Aletta married Carlo Milano. Their child was named Benjamino and he married Susanna Reykhaywel. Their son is Johnny Milano, who married a woman named Gerd and had two children (private).

So why are so many places like Wikipedia and Quora lying to us about Mozart’s descendants? I suppose to protect the information we are digging out here. You will tell me these pages at Geni are wrong, but they have been up almost five years. If this was some sort of joke edit, it looks like the Geni police would have noticed in five years. Like Wikipedia, Geni is not just a free-for-all. You can’t just create a page and connect your family to whoever you like for fun.

Mozart’s sister Maria Anna (Nannerl) married Johann von Berchtold zu Sonnenburg, Baron of Sonnenburg, who was not only Jewish but a Jewish noble. Nannerl’s son Leopold married a Fuggs, scrubbed. These Sonnenburgs are also Pussers von Winkel und Wildthurn, Gschwendtners von Freyenegg, and Voegeles. So the Mozarts were not commoners.

Wolfgang’s mother was a Pertl, probably a slur of Perl, Perlman. Her mother was an Altmann. Think of Rhea Perlman, Ron Perlman and Robert Altman of Hollywood. The Altmanns take us to the Zachners, Zalners, Khiens, Pockls, Oellers, and Puxbaums. The Khien is probably a variant of Kohen. Wolfgang’s father was also a Sulzer, a Baur, a Harrer, a Negler, and a Langeneck. His uncles and aunts were Eschenbach, Bernardt, Bilger, and Kevenfiller. Negler is a variant of Nagler/Nagle and is Jewish. Baur is a variant of Bayer, ditto. The Eschenbach was also a noble, and their daughter married Franz Streitel. Remember, Jeffrey Jones is a Strate. My guess is Streitel became Strate, giving us the link.

We also learn of recent descendants of Nannerl, including Karoline Grau, nee Mozart, who died in 1965. They don’t tell us how she had the maiden name Mozart, since it couldn’t have come to her through Nannerl, could it? So the Mozarts must have married back into the Sonnenburg family at some point, eh? But since the other Mozarts in this line are supposed to have died out, we have a problem there. Also see Bertha Forschter, great-granddaughter of Nannerl.

What about Mozart’s wife Constanze? She was a Weber and was also Jewish. In the film, they don’t even tell you she was a famous singer like her sisters and that she sang in some of Mozart’s works. But

page3image2970276944

she did. I would say she is the most poorly cast person in the film, since we know Stanzi looked nothing like that. Or, no, her mother was probably more miscast, since they are selling her as a low- class working lady of some sort, with a Cockney accent or something. In fact, according to this portrait, Constanze looked almost exactly like Helena Bonham Carter, so I don’t know why they didn’t cast her.

She had very heavy dark eyebrows, as you see, and dark curly hair. Her middle name was Aloysia, and her sister’s name was the same. We analyzed the name Aloysius in my paper on Hitler, since we saw it there several times. Her brother’s middle name was Nepomuk—which he got from an uncle of the same name—and which is also the middle name of Nannerl’s brother-in-law Johann Nepomuk Berchtold von Sonnenburg. Indicating Mozart and his sister both married close cousins. Nepomuk is in the Pilsen region of current Czechia. Another uncle married a Mack and a Walburga, both Jewish names. His son married a Ganz, ditto. His daughter married Carl August Atmer, theater director in Nurnberg and Altona, also Jewish.

The famous Austrian statesman Metternich was also a Nepomuk, being Klemens Wenzel Nepomuk Lothar, Prince of Metternich-Winneburg zu Beilstein. His mother was an Aloysia. He was the Chancellor of Austria from 1821-48, during which time he was the most influential politician in Europe. Was he Jewish? You tell me:

page4image2970534976 page4image2970536208

So we are finding some links of the Mozarts to the very top of Austrian nobility. Geni spells the name Neponuk in Mozart’s genealogy to throw us off, but it didn’t work.

Constanze’s genealogy is pretty well scrubbed, especially on the maternal side, but they do admit she was not a Weber, but a von Weber, again indicating nobility. One of her cousins was famous composer Carl Maria von Weber. Was he Jewish? You tell me:

Why do I think that speaks for itself, some will ask. Well, notice the length of the nose and the distance between eyes and mouth. He has a very long face, doesn’t he? Then notice how the septum of the nose droops down over his upper lip. It is a John Lennon nose, isn’t it, though even longer and narrower. His eyelids are very full, meaning the line above his eyes is well above the eyes. The mouth is small, like Mozart and Jeffrey Jones, with a turn-up at the corners. The eyebrows are dark and full and the hair is dark and wavy. All those are common traits of Jewish/Phoenician men. If you like you can take that analysis back to Metternich above.

Stanzi’s sister Aloysia married Joseph Lange, and Lange had also married a Schindler and a Koch. A couple more red flags there. Lange was an actor and painter. Geni scrubs him, but we can find his lineage elsewhere. He was from a family of wealthy cloth merchants, indicating the usual thing. Stanzi’s other sister Maria Sophie married Jakob Haibel, another famous Austrian composer and singer of Jewish lineage.

Mozart’s librettist Lorenzo da Ponte (real name Emanuele Conegliano) is admitted to be Jewish. We are told his stepmother was Catholic, but his real mother is hidden—which means her maiden name is probably a huge red flag. Geni tells us it was Pincherle. Ponte’s son married a Durant, linking them to the British peerage. This also linked them to the Waters, Meyers and Heyligers. In the next generation they married into the Brookes as well, which linked them to the Grahams, taking us to the top of the British peerage.

We may assume Schikaneder was Jewish, though they deny it. For one thing, his first name was Emanuel. We are told he changed it from Johan to Emanuel, but that makes no sense. What did he do,

page5image2971766688

convert to Judaism? Also, they admit he was a Jesuit, which was always a Jewish front. Disraeli admitted that. His mother was a Schiessl. We are told his parents were poor servants, which you can be sure is the usual lie. Poor servants don’t send their children to Jesuit schools and enroll them as theater brats. By the way, Schikaneder knew Mozart back to 1780, when they were still in Salzburg. So Schikaneder may have been a handler of Mozart from the beginning. Schikaneder was godfather to at least 20 kids, including Jakob Haibel’s son Emanuel, a Kistler, a Hirsch, a Henneberg, a Weiss, a Kellner, and a Fischer.

What about Salieri? Was he Jewish? Well, his mother was a Scacchi, so yes. And that means Salieri’s background sold to us in Amadeus is also false. He did not come from middle-class merchants, on his mother’s side he came from famous composers. See Marco Scacchi, kapellmeister in Warsaw about a century earlier. This means F. Murray Abraham was the right person to play him, since Abraham has the right blood and the right nose. Amusingly, Ethnicelebs tries to sell Abraham as Assyrian. I am not sure if they are aware Assyria isn’t a country anymore. They actually try to tell us Abraham is an Orthodox Christian. Oivay caramba! In support of that, they scrub him extremely thoroughly, conspicuously leaving out his mother’s name. We do get her mother’s name, though, Cosmano. She was also a Parisi. This confirms Abraham is Jewish on both sides, and probably connects him to his character Salieri.

Can we confirm that? Well, Salieri’s daughter Franziska married a Rumsfeld, which is interesting in itself. Probably links us to Donald Rumsfeld. Other than that, Geneanet scrubs Salieri’s four daughters. More digging on Abraham leads us to a Stello, a Villela, a Siar, and a Schena. But it is the name Parisi through which the link is probably made, since we have seen it before linked to the ruling families. They are related to the Scalas, di Falcos, Mucias, Salamones (Solomons), Simones, Russos, and the Pape e Lanza (dukes of Giampilieri). This last links us to the Princes of Valdina (Sicily) and the Dukes of Archirafi. Also the Lo Bellos, Canali, di Benedetto (Bennetts), and Palazzos. These last are from Corleone. The Parisi are still famous conductors/composers and opera singers, see Vittorio Parisi and Joanna Parisi. Note that Vittorio Parisi is from Milan, and we saw above that Mozart’s progeny went to Milan and became Milanos. Also see Giorgio Parisi, theoretical physicist specializing in quantum theory—always a red flag. We are told his father and grandfathers were construction workers, another red flag since we can be sure it is not true.

What about Tom Hulce, who played Mozart? How does he fit in? Well, he’s Jewish again, his mother being a Winkleman. He is also a Weaver. His 2great-grandfather was Elisha Hulce. At this point his grandmother is a van Tassel, which is probably how he links in here. The van Tassels were founders of New York and before that princes of Holland. Hulce is also a Storm, a Rand, a Falconnier, a Cone (Cohen), a Hungerford, a Bigelow, a Tudor, a Trotter (like Brad Pitt), a Wyckoff, and a van Montfoort (viscounts of Utrecht) in this line. Also an Abrams and Haffs of Long Island. Through the Cones, we reach the Spencers (who take us back to the Le Despensers and forward to the Spencer-Churchills).

page6image2971109664

page7image2884490576

The links from Hulce to Mozart have been scrubbed, but they are probably via Dutch nobility. The Mozarts had links to Holland, but the blood links have been mostly hidden. It is possibly through these Montfoords, which would have been Montforts in English. The Montforts were also counts of France, where they were related to the Bonapartes, who were related to the Metternichs. All European nobility is related, remember? So possibly Hulce is most closely related to Mozart through his wife Constanze. We have seen how important she is here, which reminds us to always concentrate on the women when we are following Jewish lines. Remember, Constanze had seven names: Maria Constanze Cäcilia Josepha Johanna Aloysia von Weber. Middle class Germans or Austrians did not have seven names. They want us to think Mozart was marrying down, but it appears he was marrying up. Which is why they had to make sure to misrepresent this in the film, with Constanze’s mother made out to be a fat uneducated hausfrau. But they admit she was his landlady, which means she owned the house he lived in. So they tell you she was wealthy while hiding her roots behind this ridiculous characterization.

That’s Barbara Byrne playing Frau Weber. And guess what, Bryne is also related to these families. She is a Birkinshaw, which family married into the Barons Stewart in 1941. Meaning, she is related to Robert Maitland Stewart, Baron Stewart, as well as James Maitland Stewart, aka Jimmy Stewart. Even her married name is a red flag, see Barbara Byrne, director of CBS and formerly Vice President of Barclays and Lehman Brothers.

page7image2882966768 page7image2882967056page7image2882967328page7image2882967664

OK, we have discovered who Mozart was. So let’s move on to question number two: why would he fake his death? To lead us in there, let us start at the New York Times, August 25, 2010. Here is paragraph two:

Yet according to a recent article in an academic journal, researchers have posited at least 118 causes of death for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

Note the number there: 118. Aces and eights. Chai. More indication we are being bamboozled once again. Which means we should throw out all 118 theories as misdirection, leaving us with the usual unoffered theory: it was faked.

We also find that, like Mary Todd Lincoln and Abe, Stanzi did not attend Mozart’s funeral. We are told she was too distraught. Actually, no one did. There was no funeral cortege, which means there was no funeral. Another thing the film Amadeus got wrong. Some places—including the absurd site just linked—try to tell us this was normal for Austria at the time, but you shouldn’t believe it. Yes, the Emperor had forbidden overly opulent funerals, but he hadn’t forbidden funerals altogether. How could he? Do you think he would have forbidden Stanzi or Mozart’s friends from having a funeral? No ruler could forbid funerals, or would ever think to try. But the fact that these sites would try to convince you Austrians were having no funerals in the 1790s just shows you how far they will go in this Mozart ruse.

Anyway, it seems that Mozart had been offered better jobs elsewhere in 1789-91:

Around this time, Mozart made some long journeys hoping to improve his fortunes: to Leipzig, Dresden, and Berlin in the spring of 1789, and Frankfurt, Mannheim, and other German cities in 1790. . . . Although the evidence is inconclusive,[76] it appears that wealthy patrons in Hungary and Amsterdam pledged annuities to Mozart in return for the occasional composition.

But the Emperor would not release him from his contract. Actually, he wasn’t under contract, as we would see it now. He was serving at the pleasure of the Emperor, who could fire him or release him, but was under no obligation to do so. So as long as the Emperor wanted him there, he couldn’t leave. Remember, he had a similar problem in Salzburg, where he got crossways with the Prince Archbishop, who at first refused to release him. We are told his father pleaded for him, but who really gained his release was the Emperor, who simply overruled the Archbishop. But there was no one that could overrule the Emperor, you see. Mozart was effectively trapped in Vienna until the Emperor decided to let him go. As long as he was the greatest composer in the world, the Emperor would never do that. So Mozart wasn’t free to accept higher offers from other Princes. Unless. . . unless he faked his death.

You will say he must have continued to compose, in that case. So where are these later works? Well, there is an easy answer to that as well. But to discover it, we have to figure out who he later was. That is also pretty simple, since the answer was always staring us right in the face. We didn’t see it because we didn’t look. Or at least I didn’t. This is the first time my face has been near this question. Anyway, we just have to look at what Constanze did after he “died”. Well, at first she travelled, having gained a pension from the Emperor. Clever that, dying and then getting paid for it. First she sent her son Karl to Prague in January 1792, so best guess is that is where Mozart was in the first years. We may assume Mozart was working for the Prince Lobkowitz, who would later be the patron of Beethoven. Lobkowitz had just married and been elevated to duke by Emperor Joseph II. He was only 20 at the time, but he was already an accomplished musician, working with Haydn and others.

page8image2973854880 page8image2973855216 page8image2973855488 page8image2973856096 page8image2973856368 page8image2973856640

But by 1797 or earlier, it appears Mozart was back in Vienna under an alias: Georg Nicolaus von Nissen. This “Danish diplomat” was initially her tenant we are told, a ridiculous story. Why would a Danish diplomat be renting rooms from Constanze Mozart? Allegedly, they began living together out of wedlock by 1798, not marrying until 1809, when they married in Pressburg (current capital of Slovakia). Strange that they would marry in Pressburg, and strange they would wait eleven years to do so. It should have been a scandal for Stanzi to live out of wedlock with this diplomat for eleven years. So why wait until 1809? Well, they had to wait for all those who knew Mozart well to die. The Baron van Swieten didn’t die until 1803, for instance. Most importantly, Haydn died in 1809.

Also note that Pressburg had been in Hungary, then see above, where they tell us a wealthy patron in Hungary was supporting Mozart in 1791.

Tellingly, this George Nissen took over Mozart’s affairs, including his oeuvre and biography. Which of course explains how he continued to compose, not only in Prague but when he returned to Vienna and for the rest of his life. All he had to do is insert new works into the oeuvre by backdating them. They do the same thing with famous authors to this day, as we have seen. Think of F. Scott Fitzgerald: we saw “previously undiscovered” works of his being found in libraries in Princeton or somewhere, didn’t we? This immediately explains Mozart’s amazing output: some of it was created later and backdated. Many have wondered what would have happened if Mozart had lived into later life, and now we know. He would have been his own conservator, so he would have been free to recreate his oeuvre in any way he liked—as long as he dated everything prior to 1791.

After coming to this conclusion, I checked online to see if someone had beat me to it. Many probably have, but the one that came up on an easy search was this one by David Roell from 2009. His theorizing seems to me to go off the beam in several places, but he gets the main points right: the death was faked and Nissen was Mozart. The thing that really worried me about his analysis at a first reading is that for some reason he feels the need to bring Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette into the story. He confirms the mainstream history of their deaths at the hands of the Parisian mobs in the French Revolution. But I have shown their deaths were as fake as Mozart’s. So it occurs to me that Roell is giving you the right answer here about Mozart, then loading it down with falsehoods and bad theory to be sure you don’t accept it. In others words, blackwashing his own theory. We have seen this done many times. In fact, the title of the page “Astrology Center of America” does the same thing. As if only kooky astrologers question the mainstream story of Mozart.

Also, the idea that local authorities in Vienna, wanting Mozart gone, faked his death, is more misdirection and blackwashing. It conveniently shifts the blame from Mozart to some unknown faction in Vienna. But since Mozart was a Freemason, this makes no sense. As a Freemason, Mozart wouldn’t have been plotted against, but plotted for. In other words, he would have had help in faking anything he liked from the best fakers in history.

Roell also blackwashes Mozart with his theory, something I have not done here. Other than suggesting he faked his death and compressed his oeuvre, I have done nothing to knock down the man here. But Roell suggests

perhaps it was a string of wildly popular, yet obscene & politically offensive operas (Cosi Fan Tutti, The Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovani, The Magic Flute) that had earned Mozart the ire of the local authorities.

page9image2973026032 page9image2973026368

Ridiculous, since the “local authority” was the Emperor who had commissioned most of these operas. He obviously didn’t find them obscene or politically offensive, or he would never have allowed them on the stage or continued to support Mozart. So the local authorities had no reason to wish Mozart gone or evidence to connect him to any Viennese revolution. Just the opposite: Mozart wished to leave to obtain a higher salary, but the “local authorities” preferred he stay at his present salary.

Roell also makes up a story about the two Nicholas Nissens, one so convoluted it alone would put you off the entire theory. But a much simpler explanation is at hand: There was a real Nicholas Nissen, which is great if anyone researches this. They discover records of this person which appear to confirm he wasn’t Mozart. But as Roell shows, although a Danish diplomat, he wasn’t assigned to Vienna. He was assigned to Tripoli. So the most likely reading then becomes not the convoluted one of Roell, but the far simpler one that Mozart chose the name George Nissen for reasons of his own. Perhaps he knew or knew of the real Nissen or not, it hardly matters. However, he probably never claimed to be a Danish diplomat at the time. He simply changed his name and wore a disguise. Only later did Mozart or his biographers connect him to this Danish Nissen, diplomat. After the real Nissen died, they gave George Nissen of Vienna the middle name Nicolaus and tied him to the Danish diplomat, in order to give him a history. This history gave ballast to Mozart’s alias, hiding him so well the story has fooled almost everyone.

What about the portrait of Nissen? It looks like a later fake to me. It once again helps that I am a portrait painter, doesn’t it?

page10image2971545376 page10image2971545712 page10image2971545984

page11image2972057744

The first one is the one they give you when you search on Stanzi’s second husband. But, conveniently for us, the second one also comes up on a search. Obviously, one was based on the other. They want you to think the engraving was based on the oil painting, since that is the usual way of it. The oil painting comes first, then they want to reproduce the image for a book or catalog, so the engraving is made. But I can tell you that in this case, the engraving came first and then the oil painting. Why? Because we would expect the engraving to match the painting very closely, since it just being copied. But there is no match. Look at the shoulders, for a start. His shoulder to your left is way lower in the painting. The hair is also very different, and an engraver would have no reason to change it, making it curlier. So one of the copyists goofed. Since the engraving is far better as a matter of technique than the painting, I can tell you the painter goofed, not the engraver. The painting was made after the engraving, using the engraving as a guide. Which explains why the painting is such garbage. It was probably made in the 20th century, after people forgot how to paint. After the arrival of Modernism, traditional art stopped being taught in schools, so technique took a nosedive. I can always tell 20th century work, since the artists don’t know how to do anything, including use varnish. See the weird glare on the background? That is due to improper use of ground and varnish. The ground (priming) has interfered with the applied varnish, creating that mess in the background where the paint is thinner.

Another reason I knew this is that the engraving should have been done in the early 19th century, to match the dates of the story. But its style is 18th century, not 19th century. We can tell that from the words and other details, not just the portrait itself. The words to left and right of the coat of arms are

original to the engraving, but the words below that, about “wife of Mozart” and the signature, were added later. So I could immediately see the engraving was too old for the story. Therefore it can’t be a portrait of either Georg Nissen the fake Viennese diplomat or Nikolaus Nissen the diplomat in Tripoli. Instead, it must be Nikolaj aka Nicolaus Nissen, Danish judge, who died in 1684. The original words on the engraving tell us this Nissen was a knight of the Dannebrog Order, which would apply to this decorated judge but not to these later diplomats. An ambassador to Vienna would not be a Dannebrog knight. The uniform confirms this again, since it is not a 19th century uniform of a diplomat. It is a much earlier uniform of a knight and noble.

Also, this Georg Nissen of Vienna was supposed to be five years younger than Mozart. Meaning, he was just 30 at the time of Mozart’s fake death. So he must have been early 30s when assigned to Vienna. Not only is that very young to be assigned as an ambassador, it is very young to be knighted, etc. You will tell me he was knighted later, but what for? They don’t raise guys to Dannebrog Order for sleeping out of wedlock with famous widows or for touring around Europe selling dead-composer memorabilia. Realistically, to be a knight and wear those decorations, he should have been a top officer of some kind in his 30s, or a high-ranking noble. So his bio doesn’t fit.

While you are at it, note that the name is different under the engraving and on the title page of the book. In the first place it is spelled Nicolaus; in the second, Nikolaus. If the engraving were just completed for the book as a copy of the painting, they should match. Or are we supposed to believe Nissen didn’t know how to spell his own name?

And I know this in a third way. The painting is said to have been done by Ferdinand Jagemann, but it doesn’t match his style. Jagemann wasn’t the best portraitist in history, but he was better than that. Also, the date conflicts with Jagemann’s bio. We are told the painting was done in 1809, but in those years Jagemann was studying in Italy and not taking commissions. So in my professional opinion, someone borrowed that old engraving for the frontispiece to this 1828 book. Probably not Mozart, since he died in 1826. Some time later, they commissioned the painting as back-up to the engraving. But they weren’t able to bury all the anomalies I have pointed out to you. I suspect the Nissens were involved in this conjob, since it is difficult to imagine they never ran across this book or found a reason to object to their ancestor being used in this way. But, as we are seeing, this Mozart fraud has been abetted by the Families from the beginning, and the Nissens have always been part of the Families.

So why did the Freemasons and the noble families back Mozart up on this fraud, up to the present time? One, because he was one of their own. They are there to help, as long as the con is to their interest in some way. Some powerful people not directly connected to the Emperor wanted to help get Mozart out of Vienna, so they did. Plus, you have to remember that the Holy Roman Empire was failing at that time, though it had nothing to do with revolution. By 1806 it would be over, with the Emperor just walking away, allegedly because of his defeats to Napoleon. But we have seen in previous papers it had nothing to do with military defeats (which were mostly faked) or revolution either. There was no real reason for the Holy Roman Empire to end at that time, except that the Phoenician Navy had decided it would be so. They were moving away from a Christian scheme of control toward a more modern form of control, so the Holy Roman Empire was no longer wanted or needed. They needed a more centralized state, and the HRE was the least centralized area of Europe, being a smorgasbord of principalities. I won’t get into that, but the point is, it wasn’t Mozart that was being driven out or phased out, it was the Emperor. The Emperor was already obsolescent by the time of the action of Amadeus, but they don’t tell you that, or even hint at it. And he wasn’t being phased out by leftists of any kind, or to make way for a more progressive world. Just the opposite. He was being phased out by the hidden fascists, to make room for an even more conservative and regressive regime

page12image2975191648

—sometimes posing as progressive. Remember, Metternich came in after the Emperor went out, and they admit he was an arch-conservative. He used the fake revolutions as an excuse to crack down on “radicals” of all sorts. That is the time they brought in the planted radicals of Socialism, to control both sides. They didn’t want any real Republicanism, so they created their own fake Republicans—Marxists and others—and then led them through a planned fail.

So you have to study the Mozart con in the context of that larger conjob. The Emperor was on his way out, and the newer fascists wanted Mozart’s talent. If the Emperor wouldn’t release him before the scheduled 1806 transfer, the hidden fascists would simply take him. So they arranged Mozart’s fake death and snuck him to Prague or somewhere—where he could do their bidding. Using their infinite resources, they then manufactured this Nissen alias—perhaps with the connivance of the Nissens, perhaps not. At any rate, the Nissens didn’t have the wherewithal to refuse cooperation, since they were up against the rulers of the world. Their patents of nobility depended on their bowing before all new schemes. The hidden rulers hired some hack to fake this portrait, using the old engraving as a guide, while using the engraving as a frontispiece for the Mozart biography.

We may assume this old con still suits them, since they spend so much time and money continuing it. It suits them for several reasons: one, because it would be inconvenient to them to admit it is a fake. Like the Lincoln Assassination and all the other fakes, it is part of the Matrix, and any flicker in the Matrix can be fatal. Two, because it acts as cover. It makes the stupid Gentiles think that not every famous person is Jewish. They can embrace Mozart as one of their own geniuses, making them feel toasty. Three, while they are feeling toasty, they can also feel very very small and insignificant. They can feel mediocre. The Mozart story is great at making people feel small, and people who are convinced they are small are unlikely to revolt or to make any real demands.

So, Mozart was a Jewish guy who faked his death. Shocking, eh? What is shocking is that I found no evidence he was a gay actor. But I admit I didn’t look for it. So it is possible that will come later. I hope not as much as you do.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.