by Miles Mathis
The whole aim of a practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. Mencken
First published December 27, 2017
To see pictures go to http://mileswmathis.com/billy.pdf
I have already exposed Wyatt Earp and everyone that had anything to do with Tombstone and the OK Corral as Jewish actors, faking another series of events. Which should make you question all the other notorious gunslinger stories. Here we will look at Billy the Kid. You may [think you] know that his full name was William H. Bonney. But it wasn’t. His name wasn’t William at all. It is now admitted by the mainstream sites that his real name was Henry McCarty. So how did he get William Bonney from that? We aren’t told, the story simply being that he began referring to himself that way at age 18. No idea why, but it is a question you should ask. You should ask it, because it happens to have an answer.
If you have been following my papers of the past few years, you know I did a paper on Paul McCartney recently, showing he was really Paul Macartney from the British peerage. So the name McCarty should jump out at you as suspicious. It was the clue that led me in here. Also curious is that this Henry McCarty was born in New York City. You wouldn’t have expected that, would you? You would have
expected him to come from somewhere out West, like Deadwood or Dodge City. Also curious is what part of New York City. We are told he was baptised in 1859 at St. Peter’s in Manhattan, which is at 22 Barclay Street in Lower Manhattan. His parents were married there eight years earlier.
That is what it has looked like since 1836. It was very near City Hall, the New York Herald, and the New York Tribune. This was near the Bowery, so you may think it was skid row. But that came later, after the Civil War. Before the war, the Bowery and the Lower West Side were upscale. The industrialist Peter Cooper lived there, and billionaire John Jacob Astor invested heavily in the area. The Bowery Theatre—owned by Astor—was opened about 1830, and this was for rich people. It didn’t house Punch and Judy shows. Astor House (Hotel) was actually on Barclay, almost next door to St. Peter’s, and it was the best known hotel in America from 1836 on. It housed the most stylish luncheon place for gentlemen in the City, and “was the place where renowned literary figures and statesmen met”.
To the north, the Metropolitan Hotel had just opened in 1852, and it was the swankiest in all of Manhattan. It was owned by the Van Rensselaers. It looked like a Roman palazzo and had the largest plate glass mirrors in the entire country.
Van Rensselaer also owned Niblo’s Theatre and Garden in the area, and it was likewise upscale. In 1858, The Phantom was playing. It was originally called The Vampire, and it was the first play in the US featuring the “supernatural”. So you can already see it was an early spook production.
Lord and Taylor’s was nearby on Broadway, as was Stewart’s and Cumming, Simpson and Armstrong. These were the top three dry goods chains in New York at the time. Note the last two bolded names, which we just saw in my last paper on Bobby Fischer. Amazing how these things tie in together, without me even trying. There, we saw Fischer tied to Herbert Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God. Also note the other bolded names, which also come from the British peerage. Think Liz Taylor, Charles Lord, Jimmy Stewart, Lance Armstrong, and Homer Simpson. Just kidding about that last one. I think.
At the next to the last link, we find Bartlett and Gates Co., housed in the Washington Hotel. This may bear on the question I have had as to where the artist Bo Bartlett comes from. It also bears on the question of where Bill Gates came from. Also there we find Freman Bennett Jewelers nearby on Broadway. Note the last name. We also discover that in 1855, the going price for a lot in the area was $100,000. That’s $3 million in today’s dollars. Again proving this was a high rent district.
To make a long story short, finding Billy the Kid being born there in the late 1850s is a huge red flag. That flag gets even redder and bigger when we go to thepeerage.com for confirmation. There, we find the McCartys of the peerage were also in New York City in those decades. See Thomas McCarty, b. 1833 in New York City, who married Frances Grant in 1879. She was the daughter of Charles Grant, 6th Baron de Longueuil. And his mother was Caroline Coffin, daughter of General Coffin, who— despite being from Boston—fought in the Revolutionary War for the British. His brother was Admiral Sir Isaac Coffin, 1st Baronet. They were also related to the Barnes and Montagus. A bit later, a cousin, Charles Coffin, became the founder and president of General Electric.
The Grants inherited the title of Baron from the Le Moynes of Canada around 1800. Before that the Grants were Lairds (Lords) of Blairfindy in Scotland. These Grants were related to the Gordons, who had built the castle of Blairfindy a couple of centuries earlier. Also related to the Murrays and
Drummonds. But at the time of Billy the Kid, it links us most obviously to Ulysses Grant, who would become President after the Civil War.
Before we move on, let us return briefly to the Le Moynes. The first Baron was Governor of New France (Canada) in 1725. Hold on! Does that name ring a bell? Remember in my latest paper on JFK, we found his gay lover living in the White House, and his name was. . . Lem Billings. Lem was short for Lemoyne. Coincidence? Not a chance. All these peers are related, and we saw in that paper that Lem Billings was also from the peerage. As for the Barons of Longueuil, they are still around, and they have the distinction of being the only French Colonial title recognized by Canada and the Queen of England. You now know why: as Grants and LeMoynes, they also come from the British and Scottish peerage. The current Baron, Michael Grant, is the second cousin once removed of Queen Elizabeth II. That’s a very close relationship. The 9th Baron, b. 1861, married Mary Barron in 1886. Do you recognize that name? It is a variant of Barent, as in Barent-Cohen. This links us to Sacha Baron Cohen, who is really a Barent-Cohen. The Barent-Cohens link us to Marx and the Rothschilds. This also links us to the Barings, of Barings Bank. Mary Barron’s 3g-grandmother was Mary Fitzgerald, which links us back to JFK. Her mother was Mary Hore, which should be Hoare. They are also in the peerage, and we saw them involved in the Salem Witch Trials. Jennifer Aniston is a Hoare, directly descended from these folks.*
The 10th Baron de Longueuil married Ernestine Bowes-Lyon, which is how we link to Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen Mother was a Bowes-Lyon. Her mother was the Drummond. The Drummonds link us to the Stewarts and Hamiltons, among others. The Drummonds were Dukes of Perth, and they also link us back to the Gordons, who we just saw linked to the Grants. The 2nd Baron Longueuil married Catherine de Grey, and we will see the Greys again below.
So you see that we can link the McCartys of New York City to the very top of the peerage very fast. We can link them a second time from Daniel McCarty, b. 1751. He married a DeCourcy, daughter of Lord Kingsale. The 13th Lord had married Mary FitzGerald, daughter of Sir John FitzGerald. These FitzGeralds were the Earls of Desmond. His mother was a FitzGibbon, whose mother was Joan MacCarthy, daughter of the Lord of Muskerry. So, as you see, we keep adding letters, showing the McCartys and MacCarthys are of the same lines. We just need an “n” to link to Paul McCartney, and that can also be easily done. So it looks like Paul McCartney is related to Billy the Kid. Who woulda thought, eh?
We should also look at Rosalie McCarty, b. 1840, who married General Sir Thomas Steele. His first wife was Isabella Fitzgerald. His mother was Lady Elizabeth Montagu. This links us to George Washington, who was a Montague through his grandmother. Lady Elizabeth was the daughter of the 5th Duke of Manchester and Lady Susan Gordon. Lady Susan was the daughter of the Duke of Gordon. The 8th Duke of Manchester, b. 1853, married Francisca Yznaga in. . . New York City. She was the daughter of Ellen Maria Clement, who was the daughter of. . . wait for it. . . Samuel Clement. Ellen Maria Clement died where? Natchez, Mississippi. What else is in Natchez, MS? You guessed it: the Mark Twain Guest House. Mark Twain was of course Samuel Clemens. Coincidence? You have to be kidding me.
You may want to look up Natchez. In the 1850s it was known for its millionaires and its mansions. It is said to have had more millionaires than any place outside of . . . New York City. Also remember that Charles Bowdre, Billy the Kid’s associate, came from Mississippi. So did Buck Powell. The Powells are also in the peerage, the 1st Baronet being alive at the time of Billy the Kid. He married a Bennett. The Powells are closely related to the Morgans, Stuarts, Eyres, Gordons, Townshends, van
Rensselaers, Hamiltons, Stanleys, Turners, Montagus and Fitzgeralds. Also curious that Mark Twain was born in Hannibal, Missouri, while some claim Billy the Kid was also from Missouri. So apparently Billy had some links to Missouri. One of his women, Nellie Pickett (Landers), was from Lafayette County, Missouri. And Jesse James was from Missouri.
But back to the peerage. If we return to Lady Susan Gordon, we find her mother was Jane Maxwell, daughter of the 3rd Baronet of Monreith. This is interesting, because Billy the Kid’s main squeeze at the time of his faked death was Paulita Maxwell. She was the daughter of Lucien Bonaparte Maxwell. You really can’t make this stuff up. Lucien hid his middle name his entire life, and historians have only recently figured it out. We are told he was a wealthy landowner, but that is the understatement of the century. Wikipedia admits that along with Ted Turner and Thomas Catron, Maxwell was one of the largest private landowners in US history. He owned 1,700,000 acres in the Southwest. His maternal grandfather was Pierre Menard, a billionaire fur trader from Montreal. In 1818 Menard became Lt. Governor of Illinois. Maxwell married the daughter of Charles Beaubien (born Trotier), another billionaire fur trader. Beaubien was born in Quebec, but traded in Missouri. In the 1840s he owned large parts of Colorado via various land grants, including the Sangre de Cristo Land Grant. He may have held even more acreage than Maxwell, Wikipedia telling us Beaubien controlled almost 3 million acres. Between them, Maxwell and Beaubien owned almost 5 million acres, which is large parts of New Mexico and Colorado. Suspiciously, Billy the Kid was allegedly killed on Maxwell’s ranch, where of course the event could be controlled.
What you should be asking is how a dirty little thief and murderer like Billy the Kid could be dating the daughter of this billionaire. And you should have figured out by now that this Lucien Bonaparte Maxwell wasn’t just named after Napoleon, he was closely related to him. In fact, Lucien was the name of Napoleon’s brother. Lucien’s Maxwell’s mother’s line has been scrubbed to hide the link, but we know the Bonapartes were in the British Isles at the time, marrying into the British peerage. See Prince Louis Bonaparte, born the same year as Billy the Kid, who married Laura Scott and Nita Gerald. Gerald was a British actress and Gerald was not her maiden name. Scott is a top name in the British/Scottish peerage.
As more indication along these lines, we find Billy the Kid’s mother given as Catherine Devine at Wikipedia. However, I found no confirmation of that at other sites, which indicate her maiden name was unknown. Geni also gives her maiden name as Devine, but although it includes a bio, no indication of how they know she was a Devine. It looks made up, since she is said to have come over from Devonshire. However, they do give us a clue, since she later married a man named Antrim. We also find that in the peerage. The Earls of Antrim were the McDonnells, related to the Earls Grey— through which they were related to everyone, including close and immediate relations to the Spencers, Seymours, and Cavendishes. The Cavendishes were the Dukes of Devonshire. The 6th Earl Spencer married a Baring of Barings Bank in 1887. Her father had married a Grey. This Baring, Baron Revelstoke, was Director of the East India Company, and he was a close relation of William Baring, Baron Ashburton. This Baron Ashburton married Mary Montagu, daughter of the 6th Earl of Sandwich, so we link again to the Montagus. Remember, we saw above that the McCartys were also related to the Montagus.
So it looks to me like the names Antrim and Devine, although meant to divert us, are also clues. If we read them right, we can see them telling us in a backhanded way to look to the peerage to discover who Billy the Kid’s mother really was. In a short space, we get the names McCarty, Antrim, and Devine, and if we collate them we find them all pointing to the same families in the peerage. The fact that the East India Company came up as usual is also a clue, since the trading port in New York City—the one
that supplied all the dry goods and cloth to the traders we looked at above—was in Lower Manhattan, on the West Side. It had been on the East Side, but had moved over to the West Side in the 1800s. It was just a couple of blocks from St. Peter’s Church, Astor’s Hotel, etc.—where Henry McCarty aka Billy the Kid was baptised.
Now let’s look at some photos. We have no good photos of Billy the Kid, and the three best ones don’t match.
The first two might possibly be the same person, but they definitely don’t match the last one. No match on the eyes, which are ludicrously uneven in the last one. The eye to your right is much lower than the left one, indicating to me an improper paste-up. That famous photo is an obvious fake, with the figure
pasted into the background and the head pasted on the body. The eyebrows also don’t match the other two, being drawn in far too dark. And the face is very much longer, indicating it was stretched in the paste. Notice that Billy the Kid actually looks very girly in the first two. In the second one he is extremely girly and might be mistaken for a woman. It also looks like he is wearing eye makeup. But again, it is also a paste-up, since the head was pasted on the body. That may be Billy for all I know, but he has been pasted onto the body of some Civil War soldier. Look at the hand, which is far too large for that head. Also notice all the bad cropping and poor repainting. The hand and gun look they have been re-outlined with a magic marker. And the left shoulder makes no visual sense.
When Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico refused to pardon Billy the Kid in 2010, this alleged photo ran with the story in the New York Daily News:
That has to be the most pathetic thing I have ever seen. It bears no resemblance to the other three people, and is obviously the work of some high school student learning to use an online drawing program. They also left in the crop lines, which is a giggle. Whoever OKed that for publication should be fired and then flogged. But this is just indication of how seriously the mainstream controllers take this story. Actually, a quick look at the sidebar at the New York Daily News shows me this is now the norm. All the other stories are equally ridiculous, and they now fake the daily news with no concern for sense or continuity.
For an entire cache of misindentified photos of Billy the Kid and his associates, see this page at Pinterest, where someone has done some of my work for me. None are as bad as the last one above, but almost all are paste-ups and the rest are obviously mistagged.
I guess the next thing we need to do is look at Pat Garrett, the sheriff who allegedly shot Billy. He was clearly a stooge in the hire of the people above, since by the late 1870s he was already working for Pedro Menard Maxwell, of the huge Maxwell ranch. That is admitted at Wiki. The Maxwells installed him as the local sheriff in 1881. So how could the boyfriend of Maxwell’s daughter be shot in Maxwell’s own house? You will tell me the house was owned by Pedro, Lucien’s son and Paulita’s brother, but it makes little difference. Since Garrett was a Maxwell man, he wasn’t going to be working against the interests of the billionaire family who paid his salary as sheriff. You see, there are two possibly logical scenarios here, and neither leads to the real death of Billy. One, the Maxwells liked Billy. In which case they would protect him. If the local billionaires like you and are trying to protect you, there is no way one of their own men is going to come into their house and kill you. Two, the
Maxwells hated Billy. You will tell me Lucien didn’t like Billy sleeping with his daughter, or that Pedro didn’t like Billy sleeping with his sister. Possibly, but in that case Billy would know that, wouldn’t he? With wanted: dead or alive posters of him hanging on every street corner and saloon, he wouldn’t be sleeping in a Maxwell house. So the story makes no sense from the first word.
Given that this whole story about Billy the Kid has clearly been manufactured, we should ask if the Taos Revolt was also manufactured. Since it concerned the same people—the Maxwells and Beaubiens—it already looks suspicious. It has all the earmarks of a false flag, created to blame the Mexicans and Natives for atrocities they didn’t actually commit. One red flag is the claim that the Pueblo Natives scalped Governor Bent and others. That is highly unlikely, since the Natives weren’t interested in the scalps of balding white men. The entire event doesn’t have the MO of Natives, but it does have all usual signs of a fake. The Arroyo Hondo “massacre” is the most ridiculous of the stories, since we are told to this day that 500 Hispanics and Pueblos attacked eight mountain men at Turley’s Mill. After a day-long battle, only six of the mountain men were killed and none captured. Two escaped during the night. Right. Five hundred Hispanics and Pueblos can’t surround one mill and capture eight men? Similarly, we are told that 370 US troops from Santa Fe under Col. Price defeated 1,500 Hispanics and Pueblos in a battle afterwards. Sure they did. Because Hispanics and Natives only have plastic toy bows and arrows and squirt guns while US troops have tanks and aircraft carriers. They then beseiged Taos Pueblo, capturing 400 and killing 150 inside a church, losing only seven men in the skirmish. Oivay! If you believe that you need serious help from Neptune.
The most likely reading of the Taos Revolt is that the Maxwells and Beaubiens, owners of large parts of Colorado and New Mexico, didn’t like the Feds coming in and threatening to appropriate their land grants. It was probably these billionaire ranchers who killed anyone that was actually killed, pinning the blame on the Natives as usual. My assumption is that very few were killed, and that the Natives weren’t involved at all.
We have a clue for that at Wikipedia on the page of Beaubien, where it says that in 1846, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American War confirmed the legality of Beaubien’s land grant. However, the next sentence cryptically states “Beaubien agreed to sell his land but payment was not received”. So they admit the someone wanted Beaubien’s three million acres and were using the US Government to get it. The Taos Revolt was just a few months later, in January of 1847. By 1863 Beaubien had lost his land to Colorado Governor William Gilpin, being paid only four cents an acre for it. After gold was discovered on Maxwell’s land, he was also forced to sell, and it went to an unnamed British syndicate in 1870 for less than $1 an acre. A few years later it passed to a Dutch syndicate, also unnamed. What this means is that although the Maxwells and Beaubiens were nobles, they ended up getting stiff-armed by more powerful nobility and industrialists. Although we aren’t told the actual families behind the Maxwell Land Grant Company in the 1800s, we do know they were so powerful they could ignore a ruling by the Secretary of the Interior, even though he was a Delano. And we do know the Maxwell Land Grant eventually passed to the Rockefellers and Phelps-Dodges (now Freeport McMoran). So we may assume the unnamed syndicates of the 1860s and 70s were oil and mining syndicates.
So you can see why the Beaubiens and Maxwells didn’t like to see these governors Bent and Gilpin coming in. Since the governors had the US Government behind them, they could ignore treaties and take what they wanted. They didn’t just use this method to drive around Natives, they used it to steal from their fellow peers.
More indication of that is where we are told at Wiki that “15 Americans were killed on January 20”.
But wait, since all this happened in New Mexico Territory, those living in that territory became de facto US citizens when their territory was annexed. Since New Mexico was no longer a part of Mexico, those residing in New Mexico couldn’t still legally be Mexicans, could they? Therefore, the Hispanics in this story were Americans. And so were the Natives. The Natives then were what they are now: a semi-sovereign nation within a greater nation. Legally, they were also Americans, just as they are now. This is why they can fight for our military and be tried in our courts, etc. Therefore, the fact that an online dictionary in 2017 would still be implying these people were not Americans is astonishing. I live in Taos, and I can see why the Natives are still pissed. Not only do we still blame them for things they never did, we still treat them as non-entities. We pretend our civilization has advanced in the past two centuries, but almost nothing has changed. If anything we are even more reprehensible, revolting, and two-faced than we were then.
We can get a better idea who was behind the syndicates by looking at Governor Gilpin of Colorado, who was obviously their frontman here. He was the son of billionaire Joshua Gilpin, and the Gilpins were Quakers and East India Company merchants. They were also paper manufacturers, and they manufactured all paper money for the US Treasury and most State Treasuries. As Quakers, they were probably tied to Barclays Bank, so that bank may be a player in the Maxwell Land Grant. Gilpin’s mother was Lydia Fisher, of the Philadelphia Fishers (see Joshua Fisher). Her brother was Meirs Fisher, which is a variation of Meyers. The Fishers were among the largest importers in the US. So once again we have pointers to the same Jewish and crypto-Jewish families. At the time, the Gilpins in the peerage were closely related to the Beaumonts, Barons Allendale, the Vane-Tempests, Marquesses of Londonderry, the De Burghs, Earls of Clanricarde, the Grants, Baronets of Monymusk, the Livingstons, Earls of Linlithgow, the Cannings, Earls of Canning, and the Gordons, Baronets of Invergordon. Since we saw the Grants and Gordons many times above, we may take that as a palpable hit. Through the Cannings, we link directly to the Stuarts, Earls of Bute, the Lindsays, Earls of Balcarres, and a William Freeman, scrubbed. He is probably a Jewish merchant or banker. Through the Stuarts, we link to the Montagus, Earls of Sandwich, and the Pierreponts, Dukes of Kingston- upon-Hull. That is another hit, since we saw these very Montagus several times above. The Pierreponts soon linked to the Morgans, as in John Pierpont Morgan, so that bank may have been involved in the Maxwell Land Grant. The Pierreponts link us to the Bentincks and Villiers, and eventually to the Eyres, Greys, and Levenson-Gowers, Dukes of Sutherland. The 1st Duke married a Gordon in 1785, which brings us back to them. And his mother was an Egerton.
So some consortium of these families was behind the Maxwell Land Grant, with the best guess being the Gordons, Grants, Greys, Montagus and Pierreponts, with the Barclays and Morgan banks perhaps assisting. Maxwell and Beaubien, though very wealthy, could not hope to take on such a powerful consortium.
In closing, I want to ask the question no one ever asks about these events. That being, since oil and minerals are dug from the Earth, usually at depth, why are they privately owned at all? Since we allegedly live in a Republic and Democracy, why aren’t oil and mining nationalized, with profits going into the national treasury? Why should these industrialists and peers be able to buy land for a few cents an acre from the Feds, and then keep the billions in profit from that land? It is still going on, and it includes water rights, which can somehow be privately owned. In a rational universe and government, these things, along with banking, would be nationalized. If they were, the wealth disparity we see would immediately decrease by many orders of magnitude. And if the wealthy had any real concern for the public weal, they would come out from behind their false front of fake charities and instead give up their monopolies. But don’t expect to see that happen, because it won’t. No, what you can expect is that they will continue to try to sell the world on the benefits of Capitalism. Rather than admit that
Capitalism really consists of these grand private thefts of public resources, they will try to convince you Capitalism has something to do with efficiency, human nature, and healthy competition. They will compare it to Socialism, as if the only choices are Capitalism or Socialism. Which is ironic, seeing that they created Socialism for just that purpose. You see, I am not arguing for Socialism here. I am arguing for a truly functioning Republic.
*Speaking of which, one of my readers just informed me that a TV show called Who Do You Think You Are did a segment on Courtney Cox, Aniston’s co-star on Friends. Turns out they admit Cox is descended from the Berkeleys and Despensers in the peerage, and before that from William the Conqueror himself. They don’t do her more recent connections, but this basically means she is closely related to everyone in Hollywood and everyone famous in the UK and US. Since I already did Matthew Perry in a previous paper, we only have to connect Phoebe, Ross, and Joey to the peerage. I am not rushing to do that, but I point out that it does explain how and why these people get cast. They are all cousins, of one another and of the directors and creators.