The introduction of the Beatles initially was a huge rollout, complete with fake mobs of screaming girls trucked in to their concerts before they were even known and wall to wall playing of their songs on the radio and television. Was their introduction part of a social programming, and if so what was that purpose? Did they do the same thing with Elvis the decade before?
Then I get that what Disney (or the higher up Powers that Be) did to Hannah Montana (aka Miley Cyrus) is exactly what happened to the Beatles during their time. Wholesome, loving and fun music turned into something more...
I actually see two different paths happening at the time the Beatles were introduced to the US. In the first, kids and young adults are dancing, singing and being happy. They were drawn to the music because of how it made them feel. It was joyful. Then, something flipped - like overnight there was some kind of surge of drug use. The Beatles didn't cause this drug use, but the environment of a mass collection of people made it easier to introduce and spread. People would flock to see the Beatles, and when people were happy and dancing, rather than grab a drink (if they chose), they could get high- and I see the popularity and ease of access increasing.
Then I see the second path emerging- I see the media bringing attention to the Beatles and also the issue of drugs. The constant discussion of the both looks and feels more like advertising, which in turn made the problem worse. This joyful music that made people happy was starting to cause family issues (parents with their children)- and I hear a parent saying "this is because of that rock music you are listening to." In reality, it wasn't the music- it was the environment the music created and was exacerbated by the media.
As I type this I realize that the government had something to do with the introduction of drugs during this time- I see them seizing drugs from other countries and those drugs were filtered out to peddlers that started much of this usage at these concerts- the government was the problem (and the solution?). When I ask WHY, I get because at that time people were getting upset with the management of the government, there were too many questions, and they needed this (big) distraction- therefore the "drug" problem (that they created) in America was being blasted all over the media.
Q. I know you've already done a reading that said Paul’s death involved something embarrassing, but could you elaborate on specifically how did Paul die? Did he balk at something he was ordered to do? Was he killed, with the foreknowledge that he would be replaced?
A. I get that Paul considered leaving the group, going on his own or just completely going against the system. He could see what people were tying to the Beatles and it didn't make him feel good. He wanted to change the message in the lyrics or do something else to get them back to the good place that they were once in- but by this time they were in too deep and the controllers at the top would not allow it to happen (There is this feeling of being owned or indebted to someone else). When Paul rejected doing it- I see these "powers" getting angry and started to plot how to work around him.
Several things came into play to remove him from the group- a sex scandal, "accidental death," gambling situation gone bad, or their favorite idea- a drug overdose (supported the shift in the country and the youth would see this not as scary, but as the "Beatles" are doing it too). They knew they couldn't actually kill him with the drugs though, because the Beatles would be ever changed, so the best thing would be a silent death and replacement. [In my original reading I saw the gambling issue / situation coming forward as if that was the favorable way to deal with Paul, but as I dig into this much deeper, I see that isn't what they chose...].
Q. Embarrassing deaths happen often and it is common practice to fabricate a more socially acceptable cause of death, such as an illness, for public consumption rather than to pretend with an impostor the person never died. Such an elaborate scheme would certainly require government authorities to pull off which suggests the Beatles' role in social programming was too important to abruptly end. Some even suggested Paul’s death could have prompted massive suicides from a his grieving fans. Was the UK’s MI5 involved to the replacement and if so, how was he picked?
A. The UK was involved, but I also see the US being partnered with this as well. I get as soon as Paul started to show resistance to the agenda, they started to search for a double. I have an image of the replacement starting to make appearances before Paul's death just to see if he could fool the people. It was like Paul was being held (while alive) hostage while the impostor started to pose as Paul. Once the plan went off fairly well, they laid the real Paul to rest.
Q. Did the replacement have a prior relation with the Beatles and what was the process of him becoming Paul, particularly to be able to write music consistent with the original?
A. I get that he did not... I see that he wasn't even from the UK...? The sought him from a different country, and I get they found and started to mold him in Australia??? He semi looked like Paul, but he had talent- so they did a few minor plastic surgery procedures on him to reinforce his "Paul" appearance, and slowly introduced him to the people
Q. Is it true they went to India in an attempt to have Paul’s soul transferred into the replacement?
A. I cannot connect to that being done.
Q. How did they get away with the switch to the new Paul? Certainly lots of musicians, friends and press that accompanied the group must have noticed the switch and that this new guy had different eye color was 2 inches taller and wore false ears and had a more wooden personality? Did other feel a sense of danger to speak out or was there some sort of mass hypnosis in play?
A. I get a lot of people noticed it, and they were afraid to talk about it. (There were A LOT of whispers about it though). Everyone knew who was controlling the Beatles, and knew not to mess with them. (Then I hear that they knew not to speak up or they would end up like Joan Rivers...?)
Q. Charles Manson seemed to code is plan for the Tate Bianca murders after the Beatles' Helter Skelter. Was there some kind of frequency or coded message embedded in their music that had some subliminal effect on listeners, particularly Manson?
A. I thought for a while on that specific song, and I see Manson read something into that which was not there. He was in an altered state, or mental imbalance- and I get he heard voices. He was right in seeing the Beatles (as a whole energy) changing America, and he understood the overall agenda, but I don't see anything encoded or specific to that song..
And that is all I have for this portion of the reading. Thank you. Love and light-