TL;DR: The “true story” on which “The Exorcist” was based was itself a hoax run by the Elites. Why They did it is hazy, but we see a lot along the way.

As always, I never go looking for this stuff. I just stumble into it. In this case, I was in bed in the wee hours of the morning listening to a podcast that happened to come up in my podcast subscriptions, an interview promoting a new book:

Demonic Possession and The Unwelcomed – The Paranormal Podcast 839 (Jim Harold 7/2/2024)

THE UNWELCOMED: The Curious Case of Clara Fowler (Ron Felber 2024)

Just so everyone is clear, let me say that I am interested in the subject of demonic possession because I believe 100% that is exists. Now, owing to my research into the Anunnaki and various other subjects, I would describe it in very different terms than anyone else. When I hear analysis and discussion from other people, it always seems like partial and corrupted understandings. That’s not our subject, but no one should think I’m trying to “debunk” the all-too-real and all-too-destructive phenomenon.

Now this next item seems trivial but I think it’s important, although I do not know what it all means. Starting at 3:30 (coincidence) in the interview, Felber describes how he was personally handed a story as an 18-year-old all the way back in 1972 by William Peter Blatty, the author of the novel on which the movie is based. Blatty had uncovered it as part of his research for “The Exorcist”.

Felber tells us it was the story of Clara Fowler, a young woman from Radcliffe, just before the turn of the 20th Century. She “showed all the signs of demonic possession”, as he puts it, and was studied by a team from Harvard. Great! As stated, I’m very interested in the reality of demonic possession and here was a chance to learn something more about it from another angle.

A bit later, Felber mentions that one of the team was named Putnam. “Can’t be,” thought I, and literally got out of bed to put my mind at ease that this wasn’t the Elites at work in the shadows once again. It was.

But before that shoe drops, we should talk a bit about the movie. It has been forgotten, but The Exorcist, at the time it was released in 1973, was terribly traumatic to the population:

Some viewers suffered adverse physical reactions, fainting or vomiting to shocking scenes such as a realistic cerebral angiography. Many children were allowed to see it, leading to charges that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) had accommodated the studio by giving the film an R rating instead of an X rating to ensure the troubled production its commercial success. Several cities attempted to ban it outright or prevent children from attending.

Okay, the Elites alchemically processing the people once again, right? Makes sense. The puzzling part is that it lent legitimacy to demonic possession and exorcism, did it not? Before that, the mainstream population--even Catholics—had about as much familiarity with those subjects as people (up until very recently) did with what Haitians got up to with cats and dogs. Unknown and outlandish, in other words.

The issue is this: demonic possession is tied closely to the Anunnaki, and this is one of the Big Secrets. Why would They care to draw any attention to it? If someone thinks I’ve lost it and I’m tying together pushpins with a 50-yard piece of red string, recall this: the opening scene of the movie is a priest at an archaeological dig recovering a demonic-looking stone talisman. Where are they? Mesopotamia, home base of the Anunnaki.

All that crazy stage being set, our story takes an immediate left turn. You see, contrary to what Felber says in the interview, the story of Clara Fowler has nothing to do with demonic possession. Then again, maybe it does, but I guarantee you it’s not in any way Felber or anyone else is going to tell you about. We’ll cover that at the end.

If you look up “Clara Norton Fowler”, you’ll find her under ”Christine ‘Sally’ Beauchamp”. That was the pseudonym under which she was studied. But now that we know her real name, guess what else we can find out about Clara?

Almost nothing, that’s what. Clara is an Intelligence legend. She has no existence outside of immediate reference of the study between 1898 and 1904. Here are a couple of sources on “Clara”:

MULTIPLE PERSONALITY: An exercise in deception (Ray Aldridge-Morris 1989, Google Books)

Feminists Theorize the Political (edited by Judith Butler and Jean W. Scott 1992, 507-page PDF)

Those sources conflict even on the few facts given. One says she was a Radcliffe student, the other that she went there after the study was over. One says she was 23 in 1898, the other that she was 39 in 1912. Does not compute. And it’s not just indicative that Clara was a fake person, these are supposed to be academic scholars. Full of bullshit, as usual.

Now for more bullshit: Christine/Clara’s wiki tells us she “later married one of Prince's assistants”. (Morton Prince was the Harvard doctor who led the study and later wrote it up.) Their footnote is to the “Multiple Personality” book, but guess what? That information is not in that book. In another strange twist, it does exist in the “Feminists” book.

Then who was Clara, really? Some Elite, would be my guess. She married into their circle, as they admit. To me, though, the persuasive evidence is that they really went over the top with her legend, giving us the typical cover for an Elite of “just a down-on-her-luck nobody from nowhere”:

THE DISINTEGRATION OF AN IDEAL: Morton Prince, Sigmund Freud, and the extraordinary case of “Christine Beauchamp” (Cabinet Magazine, Fall 2010)

… a young woman of motley Irish descent. Extremely nervous, with different parts of her body incessantly in motion, Fowler betrayed, Prince opined, “the general appearance of an hysteric.” Though it emerged that she was holding down a job as a stenographer while belatedly completing her high school education, and was well regarded by friends for her ideals and conscientiousness, Fowler’s private life was a shambles….

But then she winds up this study—not treatment—and walks into Radcliffe? No longer a head case barely holding down an entry-level gig? Lots of money and connections in the steno game? Okay.

If you’ve been perusing the links, you may have picked up on what I mentioned before: her case has nothing at all to do with demonic possession, but with something else entirely as wiki says:

This case was widely cited as the "prototypical case" of dissociative identity disorder, even into the 1970s.

The closest to demonry that you get is that Prince called one of the personalities “the Devil”. Don’t hang your hat on that, though, it was only because that alter was “regressive, child-like, and ill-tempered”. The others were “the Saint” and “the Woman”.

But then again, is there some strange, buried connection that we should discuss here?

Many will already be familiar with this, but Satanic Ritual Abuse bears a strong resemblance to MKULTRA-style trauma-based conditioning. Maybe just the outfits and ambience are different, eh? But one of the main features and benefits of trauma-based conditioning is that the mind gets so stressed that, to protect itself, it creates one or more alternate personalities to endure the suffering, artificially creating a condition we now call… dissociative identity disorder.

So there’s the connection, but remember, we drew that connection here. It was nothing any of Them showed us or even hinted at. Mere coincidence, synchromysticism, or some lower-level program at work? IDK. You decide.

Let me end with this horrible little Easter egg I found which wraps it all up: When I first searched for the mysterious Clara Norton Fowler, one of the first results I came up with was Harriet Putnam Fowler. The ages don’t match at all, nor any other details. I skipped past it. Very nearly.

You see, this Fowler was in the same tight circle of Hidden Elites. She was from Danvers, just outside Boston, and married a Putnam, one of the Boston Brahmins. You may have noted in the “Feminists” book that Clara’s husband was an assistant of James Jackson Putnam. Tight little clique, right?

That’s not the horrible part, it’s this: look at the sidebar on Harriet’s page. You’ll see “Spouse: R. C Parker”. OMG. He’s not mentioned in the main text, and you’ll never find out who he was from another source.

But I recognized the family, for sure. If you’ve followed my work, a lot of it lately has been on all the shenanigans the Parkers have gotten up to over the centuries, along with all these other Spook Families. The kicker, if you will, is that the Parkers are also generational Satanists:

Jay Parker | Satanic Ritual Abuse, Entity Invocation, & The Power of Consciousness (The Higherside Chats 12/9/2017)

Jay doesn’t make the connection (so far as I know), but I do. So when I see the name Parker come up in this “Exorcist” mess of… whatever it may be, I think, “Well, at least it makes some sense.”