Ed. Note: Long time readers, followers of Abel Danger and those who have always wondered about our efforts here, this essay should be amusing. This editor finds it particularly ironic. This essay on Sherlock Holmes couldn’t have come at a more opportune time and as Americans used to say, “piss off Britain.” One more thing, Miles Mathis is getting hit from every direction, so support him folks. It is not often America produces a Miles Mathis so appreciate him.
by Miles Mathis | July 23rd 2019
I have sometimes been called the Sherlock Holmes of internet research, an appellation I have graciously embraced. Who wouldn’t want to be called that, after all? It is almost as gratifying as being called the New Leonardo—besides which it irks my enemies beyond words. . . which is also gratifying. But here I am afraid I will have to turn my Sherlock eye upon Sherlock himself, showing that the Arthur Conan Doyle stories—though clever and entertaining—are not always what they seem.
I have no intention of ruining the stories for you, I hope. I have read them over and over since I was a boy, and have enjoyed the old BBC TV adaptations even more in some ways, perhaps. Certainly Jeremy Brett’s brilliant embodiment of Holmes shall never be bettered, and some of the episodes are equally well directed. I would much rather watch them than the pathetic modernizations we have been assaulted with in the past decade, including the wretched Cumberbatch* series and the even worse Downey film. And we know we are in the maw of the worm when someone casts Lucy Liu** as Dr. Watson. Now we just need Paris Hilton as Mycroft and Sylvester Stallone as Mrs. Hudson.
For several months my internet connection has been blinking out, and about ten days ago it died altogether. Could be nefarious interference, but more likely it is just my 2009 Mac mini or equally old router on its last legs. I have ordered a 2014 Mac mini from ebay, with new cables and router, and we will see if that fixes it. But the reason I mention it is that my normal sources of easy information and entertainment have been taken from me, leaving me to return to my books and DVDs to fill the summer hours when I am not on my bicycle, at the volleyball court, or on the golf course. In digging through my video files, I came across an old collection of Granada adaptations of Sherlock, starring Brett. My research for this paper started when I noticed that in The Adventure of the Priory School, Holmes says twice that the Duke of Holdernesse was of a family that had been connected to the Hellfire Club. I didn’t remember that from the book, so I checked my Complete Sherlock Holmes. Sure enough, it wasn’t there. They added it for the TV adaptation, for some reason. They also added the part about the Dukes getting their wealth from stealing cattle. Why would they do that? Rereading Conan Doyle’s story closely, I could see that it might benefit from some slight editing, but not of that sort. The Duke was already being put in a bad light in the book, and more slander seemed to me to be pointless. Then it occurred to me that making the Duke look bad WAS the point of the story, a point that the producers or writers at Granada apparently wished to put an even finer point on. If true, this would mean that the propaganda hadn’t changed in over a century, with the same families continuing to run the same projects they were running in the time of King Edward.
But why blackwash the Holdernesses? Well, if we check the peerage, we find the Earls of Holderness dying out in the 18th century, when a Darcy died without male issue. More research takes us to David Hume, who tells us the Holdernesses came over with William the Conqueror, so this Darcy was from one of the oldest lines on the Isles. I tried following the daughters of this Darcy, hoping to find late 19thcentury descendants who could be the target of Conan Doyle, but didn’t have any immediate luck. Still, I suspect that is what is going on here.
One clue given us by Conan Doyle is that this Duke was the “greatest and perhaps wealthiest” subject of the Crown. Another is that he had a long wispy red beard, which would have been uncommon among the top dukes. A long hook nose, yes; a red beard, no. And the connection to the Hellfire Club is likewise telling, though it isn’t Conan Doyle’s connection. It would be John Hawkesworth’s, or that one of the other writers of the Granada series. Of course, in connecting us to the Hellfire Club, we are being given the nod toward Intelligence again, since the HC was a famous den of spooks. We have already seen Ben Franklin’s ties to it in my paper on him. The HC was a sort of Bohemian Grove of its day, a place where the top spooks could let down their hair (and shorts). The difference being that the HC was later embellished for the public to make it look far scarier than it was —to create fear. We have seen somewhat less of that with Bohemian Grove, though some (including of course Alex Jones) have tried to convince it was a place of Satan worship and child sacrifice. I for one don’t buy it. I buy the widespread buggery, but don’t buy the child sacrifice.
So why would the writers at Granada TV want to take Conan Doyle’s blackwash of the Holdernesses even further than he did? Probably because they are from competing families and bloodlines, and they enjoy pissing on the remains of this Holderness bloodline. Since they live in Modern times, when all subtlety in writing (and everything else) is extinct, they have no problem inserting jibes into the works they are adapting for television. Who but some of the peers and a couple of guys like me will ever notice?
Realizing that, I continued reading and watching, looking for more examples. I soon found them. InThe Adventure of the Abbey Grange—starring the gorgeous Anne-Louise Lambert†—we find a Baronet Eustace Brackenstall depicted as a vicious drunk and wife beater, whose murder Holmes covers up as a job well done. So we seem at a glance to have another instance of a peer being blackwashed for some reason. Remember, the Sherlock Holmes stories were published in Strand Magazine, which was not a cheapsheet. It was read by the upper and upper-middle classes, and it was at them Conan Doyle’s insinuations would have been aimed. My guess is they knew who this Baronet Brackenstall was meant to represent, though by changing the name Conan Doyle was able to avoid a charge of libel. He was also able to avoid it, since the insinuation was no doubt true, and could be proved true in a court of law.
I looked up the Brackenstalls in the peerage, but there are none. It is probably a slur of one of the other Bracken- names that are in the peerage. None of those were baronets, so he must have changed the title, too. Conan Doyle had to change this name more than the Holderness name, since I assume his targets were still alive under that name.
In The Adventure of the Six Napoleons, the story concerns the Italian Mafia in London, and includes a Godfather-type figure, organized crime, vendettas. . . the usual. I didn’t know what to think of that twenty years ago, but now I do. I have shown you in several previous papers that Hollywood has been selling you the mafia for many decades in films like The Godfather, Goodfellas, The French Connection, and so on and on, as part of a long program of misdirection. They want you to think it is the various mobs that are behind organized crime, to keep you off the real culprit: your own government, and the people who control it. It is the billionaire and trillionaire families that control all business worldwide, legal and illegal, not these Dons in loud suits with thick accents. The Adventure of the Six Napoleons simply tells us this misdirection predates Hollywood.
The Adventure of the Red Circle also concerns the Italian mob, but this time Conan Doyle includes the Pinkerton Agency as well. We have seen it in previous papers, including my papers on Lincoln andEugene Debs. The Pinkertons are made to look like heroes, which is not surprising seeing that they were the CIA of the time, and therefore Conan Doyle’s US counterpart.
Of course the long Valley of Fear also features the Pinkertons, with the lead being Birdy Edwards, brave Pinkerton hero. This is not considered one of Conan Doyle’s finest, but up to now it has been dismissed as a blackwashing of the Freemasons (whom Conan Doyle’s calls Freemen). It is just the opposite, since Conan Doyle is sure to tell us several times the Freemasons in all others parts of the US are honest and upstanding. Only in this little mining town have they gone over to the dark side. [And Conan Doyle was himself a Freemason, remember.] But the misdirection is even greater, since— through the comments and actions of Birdy Edwards—we are led to believe the Freemasons are opposed to the capitalists and police. We are sold the incredible idea that these lodges are Republican in some sense, battling for the rights of the little guy. A reversal of the truth, of course. Through my research you now understand that the Freemasons—including the Freemasons that managed the Frenchand American Revolutions—were one more front for the aristocrats and the East India Company. The lodges were always just a project—one of many—to control the middle and upper middle classes via infiltration and a bit of feigned trickle down of power. We were thrown a few crumbs and fooled with some fake rites into thinking we were invested in the system. When the only thing we were ever invested in was our own disempowerment and secret rapine.
But even that was not the main point of The Valley of Fear. Conan Doyle wasn’t assigned this topic mainly to promote the Pinkertons or to misdirect on the Freemasons, though those are potent side effects. The main point was. . . the creation of fear. The story itself is a little valley of fear, since it sells you the idea that these mobs at the end of the 19th century were real. Conan Doyle is salting in the decades of newspaper reports of murders and assassinations and beatings. He is also selling you a false idea of human nature, since he tells you again and again that these Freemen had no problem killing their neighbors in cold blood and then bragging about it in lodge. This keeps you in line, just as it kept your 2g-grandparents in line. Problem is, I have shown you that almost all of these murders and assassinations were faked, then as now. Just as they now fake a weekly mass murderer or serial killer, back then they faked a mob shooting, a revenge killing, a barroom shootout or a backwoods battle. Fake news wasn’t invented by Trump; it has been around for centuries. The creation of fear has been THE major project of newspapers from the beginning, but that project took a big upswing after the Civil War—with the Pinkertons being a large part of that upswing. It took another big upswing after WWII with the creation of the CIA, and has been in a steep incline ever since. Every decade, sensible people think it must level off: how can it continue to increase at such a rate? But as of this minute, we see no sign of leveling. If Ben Franklin devoted 20% of his non-advertising space to fear and chaos, and Horace Greeley devoted 40% to it, and Walter Lippmann devoted 60% to it, the media now devotes 80% to it . . . the rest being sports.
Before we leave The Valley of Fear, it is worth pointing out that Conan Doyle doesn’t seem to have understood much about the law. His Pinkerton agent Birdy Edwards wouldn’t have been able to make any of the charges stick against McGinty and the other Freemen, since he clearly entrapped them. And his testimony against them in the other cases would have been worthless, since it would have been his word against theirs. Without hard evidence, none of the cases would have gone anywhere. You can’t just embed an agent among criminals and then convict them based on his solo testimony. He would have had to get them on tape. . . except that they didn’t have tape back then. And even tape is iffy in court, since the defense can always claim it isn’t their clients we are hearing. They can claim the tape was faked by the prosecution, and if the prosecution is linked to the government in some way that claim may be true. We now know the CIA and other entities can and have faked tapes and everything else. They have bragged about it for years—which must undercut their ability to use such artifacts in court.
In The Five Orange Pips—one of Conan Doyle’s earliest and not one of his best—we find the central players are from the Ku Klux Klan. My faithful readers will know what to think of that: the KKK was an Intelligence front from the beginning, organized to create fear through fake events. It is disappointing, to say the least, to find Conan Doyle selling it to English readers.
But Conan Doyle includes Australia as often as the US, as we see in The Boscombe Valley Mystery. This mystery concerns Black Jack of the Ballarat Gang, so we are being sold a sort of Australian wild west that never actually existed. Think of it as Australia’s answer to Billy the Kid, Tombstone, Wild Bill Hickok, and Bonnie and Clyde—all of which I have deconstructed. Also see my guest writer’spaper on Ned Kelly. And why were we sold any of this huffnstuff, by Conan Doyle or anyone else? The usual: the creation of fear and chaos. Without these high levels of fear and chaos, they could not justify their police and military budgets, you know. Same reason they faked Jack the Ripper in England.
India is included as well as the US and Australia, as we see in The Crooked Man. There, Conan Doyle appears to be spinning the Indian mutiny in “Bhurtee”, and the exploits of General Neill. We see a similar thing in the long The Sign of Four, where the same mutiny is sold in the same terms in Agra. There we are told that Englishmen and Sikhs are honorable, while Hindoos are lying scoundrels. I don’t have that much experience with Hindoos or Sikhs, but that has not been my experience with Englishmen. The white European, and especially his Jewish overlord, has turned out to be the greatest and most successful liar and thief in history. No Hindoo or Sikh can compare to him.
Please go to Updates to read more of Miles Mathis’ essays.
The bloody damn British hey?
Kind of makes you think you would like to do another tomahawk job (note: for entertainment purposes only but you can still fantasize).