At first glance it seems less-than-credible (too broad a brush stroke), and the writing is just-OK; the research doesn't appear obviously "off" or sloppy, only that he makes a lot of leaps.
I was particularly interested by a piece on Bob Dylan (PDF). Here's an excerpt:
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.
This was revolutionary in every way, since humans don't really like change. Like cats and all other
animals, they prefer things to stay as they are. Living creatures tend to equate change with discomfort.
So to promote change was to go against human nature. It wasn't something that would happen on its
own. It had to be manufactured and constantly sold.
But what does this all have to do with Bob Dylan? Dylan was just one player in a vast operation of
change. And one of the clues is the “Rolling Stone” meme. We see it coming up several times, in
things that don't appear to be related. We see Dylan's famous song, we see the band the Rolling Stones,
and we see the magazine Rolling Stone. All came out in the 1960's. Why? Have you ever asked that question?
Maybe. Has anyone ever explained that to you? I don't think so.
To understand it, we have to go back to the maxim that started them all: A rolling stone gathers no moss.
That is attributed to Publilius Syrus, from the first century BC. That just means little citizen of Syrus,
so the person is anonymous. He is said to have been a slave from Syria, later freed, so he may have
been a Jew. However that may be, the maxim was suggestive to those would control the 20th century
because it was the perfect expression of change as the engine of wealth. A rolling stone gathers no
moss, but it gathers something else green: money. This is what Don McLean meant when he said in
American Pie, “moss grows fat on a rolling stone, but that's not how it used to be.” The moss there is
money. A rolling stone gathers no moss, but it grows fat on money.
Robert Heinlein cryptically suggested the same thing as far back as 1952, in his story The Rolling Stones.
It is about a family in search of adventure and money. So the Rolling Stone meme was a creation of Intelligence.
It was likely the title of their biggest and longest running Operation. In this way, it linked Dylan, the Rolling Stones,
and the magazine. All were fronts for British/US intelligence. Their prime directive was the creation of rapid change.
Much of the piece is pretty speculative. He argues, less-than-convincingly, that Leonard Cohen wrote many of Dylan's songs. But towards the end there's this:
This would also explain Joni Mitchell's very strange comments in 2010, when she said of Dylan:
"He’s a plagiarist, and his name and voice are fake. Everything about Bob is a deception. We
are like night and day, he and I."
(see here: http://www.americansongwriter.com/2013/ ... -comments/)
Mathis sums up:
In conclusion, I repeat that this is no easier for me than for you. I don't like losing “Shelter from the
Storm,” for one thing. It hurts. Talent and real art have been rare enough in the past century without
losing what little we had to these government disinfo programs. It isn't just Dylan I am losing here, it
is Cohen—who was in many ways the real thing. But how can I ever listen to anything by him again
without being reminded of his part in all this? If Joni Mitchell is bitter, I think we can now see she has
every right to be. We all do. All the arts, including popular music, have been mangled and destroyed
to suit the financial interests of a few vulgar families. And if you think you have it bad—having your
old heroes ripped out from under you—think of kids now. You find that the beauties you grew up on
were partial and compromised and ultimately in the service of a great ugliness. But turn on the radio
now: the Wasteland is here in its gasping totality and the youth are being sucked utterly dry by its
sirocco. What they wouldn't give for the relative richness of your upbringing. This is the predictable
outcome of art controlled by trade.
But I have since learned that trade curses everything it handles; and though you trade in messages
from heaven, the whole curse of trade attaches to the business.
There's also a MM debunking site, which maybe speaks to the guy's favor: https://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/