Bob Dylan's real link to the Rolling Stones
This article appeared at Miles Mathis and reposted on AbelDanger.net
First published January 29, 2015
http://bit.ly/1CGcYmE

[snip]

We see more red flags early on, when in 1961, at age 20, Dylan scored a review in the New York Times. As with Ezra Pound's meteoric rise in London in 1908, Dylan's meteoric rise in New York in 1961 simply isn't believable. He had been playing in Greenwich Village for only about six months, had no original material, hadn't written any of his great early songs yet, and somehow the New York Times does a review of him? He was the opening act for the Greenbriar Boys at Gerde's Folk City. There probably weren't ten people in the audience. So let's ask the question begged.

Who wrote the review? Robert Shelton, who was really Robert Shapiro, from another family of wealthy Jews. Who was booking Gerde's at the time? Charlie Rothschild. Does that name ring a bell? Do you think he might be Jewish also? Wealthy family? Also remember who is behind the New York Times. The Sulzberger family, extremely wealthy Jews who also founded the New York Stock Exchange. Even before the New York Times and all other media were taken over by the CIA in the 1950's, that paper had been controlled by extremely vested interests, to say the least.

So clearly, someone had a plan for Dylan. Or, we should say, he was the front man for some operation. We will call it Operation Rolling Stone.

We know Intelligence was running all sorts of secret operations in the 1960's. Many of them have since been partially de-classified, like Operation Mockingbird, Operation Bluebird, Operation Chaos, MKULTRA, and many many more. But there appears to have been an even larger, more fundamental Operation beneath all of them. This was Operation Rolling Stone. It was the promotion of change in all forms. To what end? The promotion of trade.

The Jews and Gentiles that would run the 20th century were masters of trade. They were money lenders and money changers and money makers. These families had always been very good at making money, but in the 20th century they discovered a way to accelerate this money making beyond even their own dreams. They discovered that accelerated trade depended directly on accelerated change. The more change of any kind they could introduce into society, the more money they would make. This is simply because change can always be accompanied with new products. New products = new wealth. More products = more wealth. Therefore, the fundamental and underlying Operation of the 20th century has been CHANGE.

...

Which brings us to The Rolling Stones. If you will recall, one of the Stones early albums was titled "Their Satanic Majesties Request." That was 1967, and the band members were supposedly facing drug busts and jail time and so on. They were being sold as the worst of the bad boys, attacking the old world order and every other form of order and decency.

So how is it that Mick Jagger got knighted by Prince Charles in 2002 for service to the Empire and Crown? Exactly what service did he ever do them? Given the mainstream interpretation of the Stones, it makes no sense. But given my interpretation, it makes all the sense in the world. Jagger and the Stones manufactured and promoted accelerated change of all kinds, which financially benefited the Empire and Crown enormously.

Given that the Stones (and the Beatles, too, after 1967) were sold as wildly anti-establishment, you would expect the Royals and the British/US governments to be against them all the way. And yet we find the Secret Services in both countries promoting them with every trick available. In my paper on Lennon, we saw the BSC (the US arm of British Intelligence) promoting these bands as part of the "mobilization of pro-British opinion." Given what we have been taught, that makes no sense. But given Operation Rolling Stone, it makes complete sense.

Both governments wanted accelerated change and societal dissolution, because both governments were being run by the financiers. Change and dissolution have proved to be engines of stratospheric levels of profit for these very few families.

But back to Dylan. Let's return to the Wikipedia page for further red flags. Right after his write-up in the New York Times in 1961, Dylan played harmonica on Carolyn Hester's third album, and we are told this brought him to the attention of Columbia Records, which signed him to a record deal. What? Since when did playing harmonica on a minor recording bring you to the attention of the top executives? We are told John Hammond groomed Dylan personally. Why?

To answer that, we have to ask, "Who was John Hammond?" Hammond's grandfather had been a Civil War general. His father was ambassador to Spain. His mother was Emily Vanderbilt Sloane, which made Hammond the great-grandson of William Henry Vanderbilt, one of the wealthiest men in history. So Hammond wasn't just a Columbia Records bigwig. He had ties to huge wealth, to government, to the military, and we must assume to Intelligence.

The CIA had taken over all media by 1961, and record companies were part of the media. In fact, John Hammond's position at Columbia is best read as direct evidence of that. Remember, Columbia Records, although originally independent, had been bought out by CBS and William Paley in 1938. Paley's ties to Intelligence are well-known. Always rumored, they were confirmed in Congressional testimony in the 1970's and by many other sources since then, including Frances Stoner Saunders. So you see Columbia Records had been a finger in the glove of Intelligence since before the Second World War. This may explain why Hammond was so keen to sign the 20-year-old Dylan based on pretty much nothing. Dylan's entire career was a set-up.