TL;DR: The original psychodrama of the murders was staged as part of the larger “civil rights” color revolution. As always, They write history long after the fact with a film “based on a true story”. The given historical narrative is ludicrous when you take a close look (which no one does because they watched the movie, you see). The deal is sealed by the presence of a couple of familiar Elites in key positions.

I never intentionally go looking for these Elites and their psyops. I don’t consider myself smart enough or intuitive enough or whatever enough to detect Their presence by my brilliance and inerrancy alone. That’s probably a good thing for a researcher, because it always looks to me like way too many people rely on their brilliance and inerrancy alone to substantiate fact. Or to be more precise, that which they will never be persuaded is not “fact”.

So God knows what I was looking up at the time, but I somehow happened to notice that the 1988 movie Mississippi Burning was directed by a man named Alan Parker. Frankly, I was hoping he was just some dude named Parker, who was not of the Elite family of generational Satanists, and I could save myself all the mental turmoil and effort writing these things up. That was not to be.

Do I think Alan—pardon, Sir Alan—is himself a practicing Satanist? There’s no way of knowing and I would guess probably not. But the idea here is that he’s “in the family” and, as Michael Corleone warned, “You never go against the family.” That’s enough to keep it all in check, don’t you think?

So why should we think this Parker is one of these particular Parkers? You decide, but I will only present to you my thoughts on one paragraph from his wiki, in the section titled “1962–1975: Early work and breakthrough”:

His first job was office boy in the post room of Ogilvy & Mather an advertising agency in London.... One such agency was Collett Dickenson Pearce in London, where he first met the future producers David Puttnam and Alan Marshall, both of whom would later produce many of his films. Parker credited Puttnam with inspiring him and talking him into writing his first film script, Melody (1971).

Wow, all I need.

“Ogilvy & Mather” refers to the very prominent PR agency now known as Ogilvy, but it was actually founded in 1850 in London by a guy named Edmund Mather. In fact, the name didn’t change to Ogilvy until 114 years later. So who’s this Mather? He’s a ghost:

Who Was Mather? Meet the Lesser-Known Men Behind Famous Agency Names (Ad Age 4/29/2013)

That headline is a joke—they know nothing about him. But was he of some relation to Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers, born in London in 1850 and later to found the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn? Ties us right into Crowley and all that other manufactured “magick” nonsense, doesn’t it? Perhaps Edmund is of the family that had much earlier spawned Increase Mather, who was instrumental in staging the phony Salem witch trials. Stick that in your back pocket, because we’ll see those witch trials come up again.

How about Collett Dickenson Pearce? If we get into exhaustive detail and linking we’ll never get out, but let me just say that I see the name “Pearce” and think of the name “Percy” (Smithsonian Institution, Battles of Lexington and Concord, phony Gunpowder Plot), the name “Peirce” (overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom), and the name “Pierce” (President Franklin Pierce, Barbara Pierce Crowley Bush). Similarly with the name David Puttnam, we find the Americanized version Putnam showing up at the American Revolution, Jonestown, “The Exorcist”, and—you got it—the Salem witch trials.

Finally, when they wrote that paragraph I quoted about Sir Alan, I have to wonder if they intentionally saved the, um, tastiest bit for last. His first movie was 1971’s Melody. Specifically, take a look at the movie poster. An apple with a bite out of it over the crotch of a young boy? No hidden meanings there, right? In any case, I suppose it can be considered tasteful and understated by 2024 mass media messaging standards.

We’re all this way in and haven’t even talked about the supposed outrage underlying it all, the murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner. In this case, there’s not a lot of specific evidence to cover. It’s more a case of carefully reading through the materials and asking yourself, “Do I really think this actually happened in the real world?”

To get to the crux of it, go straight to the section in the wiki titled “Murders”. If 19 hijackers—whoops!—19 homicidal racists in the Deep South of 60 years ago wanted to smoke three young troublemakers far away from home and get away it, do you really think that’s the best they could come up with? I find it hard to believe that if such a thing happened that they would not get away with it. I know we’re supposed to think Southerners are dumb, but the tale we’re told here is an insult to the intelligence of all of us.

A more subtle form of analysis which I have mentioned before is not looking at the evidence presented, but looking around the evidence. That is, if what we are told is true, then we can extrapolate that certain other things should be true, and yet other things would not be true. Then we go looking for that “para-evidence”.

In this case, we ask, “Are these murder victims even real people?” You’ll have to judge, but I think we’ve all been handed enough phony “personalities” to consider it a legitimate question. Try this: look up photos of the victims. There Is only a single photo for the black guy and two photos of each of the Jews. Oh, and Schwerner’s photos? If you ask me, they’re not the same person. Does all that seem like what we should find?

Maybe you’re thinking, “Well, these were just some rando nobodies, very young, never did anything, thousands of other faceless activists just like them in the Civil Rights Movement.” Okay, fair enough if you want to go that way, but then it contradicts other information we find. The mother of Andrew Goodman was Carolyn Goodman, a “prominent civil rights advocate”. Michael Schwerner was a childhood friend of Robert Reich, former US Secretary of Labor and current loudmouth progressive maniac. Okay, I’m a rando—supposedly like them—and I don’t even know anyone that knows anyone that has a wiki page, but these two guys are one degree of Kevin Bacon away? C’mon, man!

Let’s wind it up with the key guy that made this whole operation come together: Gene Hackman. Oh, I mean FBI agent John Proctor. That wiki page says almost nothing about him, so refer to this bio that says a little more than nothing:

Biography of John Proctor, FBI agent

He makes some… peculiar and ambiguous comments in there. One sentence in particular caught my attention, though:

Proctor played both bad cop and good cop effectively.

The thing is, as I would describe it, Proctor really was (at least here) neither a good cop nor a bad cop. He was not solving a crime nor accessory to a crime. He was coordinating a capstone event. Researchers therefore have the wrong framework, the wrong paradigm. As much as this case may have been studied over the decades, because of that erroneous paradigm they’ll never get from where they are to where we are, you see?

But his name, though, rings a bell, so hauntingly familiar. Where have I heard it before? Oh yes:

John Proctor (Salem witch trials)

And I always feel compelled to attempt to wrap things around to the beginning, in the style of a “Seinfeld” episode, so:

Alice Parker (Salem witch trials)

Mary Parker (Salem witch trials)

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, no one could possibly think I could make all this up, right?