So, the big celebrity story of the moment is that "Chandler", aka Matthew Perry, aka, apparently, 'Mattman' (more on that later), has died.
Like most such high-profile stories, there are a number of anomalies surrounding this death, such as the question mark over what caused it, and - inevitably in the consummate conspiratorial circles which I frequent - is he really dead? And, if he is, what are the wider, more significant issues surrounding this death that might give us further 'clues' as to what is really happening on the world stage?
Matthew Perry's apparent death is significant because it yields the first of the six 'Friends' - as noteworthy and influential cultural totems as I've ever seen in my lifetime - to die.
In terms of shaping the culture and exerting extraordinary social influence, the power of the 'Friends' television show, and its six main characters, cannot be underestimated. Note, for instance, that Jennifer Aniston, who played Rachel, has 44 million followers on Instagram, a figure significantly larger than the population of some countries (Sweden, for example, has a population of 10.42 million). It's certainly a much larger following than that of most high-profile politicians.
Justin Trudeau, for instance, the Prime Minister of Canada, has just 4.1m Instagram followers - literally a tenth of Aniston's.
So, in the social media age, when online influencers exert incredible power over their 'followers', who has the more potential to create and shape global narratives? Politician Justin Trudeau, or Rachel from Friends?
It may sound absurd, but the reality is that sitcom stars are often exponentially more powerful and influential than politicians are, and that is why they are paid such phenomenal amounts of money. By the time Friends wrapped in 2004, the six main stars were commanding $1 million an episode each, whilst today, Prime Minister Trudeau is slumming it on just $389k a year (so less than half of what the Friends' stars got for a single episode 20 years ago).
I reference Trudeau in particular, because by extraordinary "coincidence" (i.e., not a coincidence at all), he went to school with Matthew Perry, and Perry's mother worked for Trudeau's father, the then Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau.
I have written about this "coincidence" before, when I said:
"I happen to be in the midst of reading Matthew Perry's autobiography and it makes most revealing reading indeed - if you read between the lines (as you must read all offerings from very prominent world-stage players).
Perry rather casually informs us that his mother - who began life as a beauty queen - somehow then became the press secretary to Pierre Trudeau. That being, the Pierre Trudeau who was then the Prime Minister of Canada, and who is the father (albeit, shall we say, "adopted father") of current tyrannical despot, Justin, who - what an amazing coincidence! - Perry went to school with and had such an involved relationship with that at one point he beat him up. Despite this fact, Justin merits nothing more than a one-sentence mention in Perry's book, and the same joke Perry has been recycling for years (about stopping his quarrel with him once Justin had an entire army under his command).
If you had gone to school with an extremely high-profile member of an ultra-powerful political dynasty who currently runs an entire country, knowing him well enough to get into a fight, AND your mother worked for his father, wouldn't you say a little more about him than... a sentence? Their parents worked very closely together, they went to the same school, they very likely spent a great deal more time together than we are being told.
So why aren't we being told?
I think we can read an awful lot into what Perry doesn't say, especially as he expresses undisguised hatred and contempt for Pierre Trudeau. The book attempts to hint this is because Pierre took up too much of Perry's mother's time with work, and the young Perry resented that, but given what is alleged about Pierre Trudeau (please do go and research him for yourself, that's just a link to get you started), we can at least consider the possibility the truth is a little darker than that.
There's a lot of very odd stuff in Perry's book (as there is, so I am told, in Justin Trudeau's autobiography - people who have read it and know about these things say it hints very strongly at MK Ultra), including him comparing an experience on a flight as a five-year-old to Sodom and Gomorrah. He claims this flight was traumatic because he felt lonely and the other passengers were getting drunk - but how is that like Sodom and Gomorrah?
Read between the lines. See what he's really telling us. He's telling us he had a hideously traumatic experience as a five-year-old comparable to Sodom and Gomorrah. We know ritualistic paedophilia is part and parcel of Hollywood (remember, Corey Feldman told us, "the biggest problem is Hollywood is paedophilia"). It is also the case that it is rife in politics.
As I have said again and again, it's critical we understand that politics and showbiz are not separate and distinct things, and that is why - oh, coincidence! - super-famous actor, Matthew Perry, went to school with super-famous politician, Justin Trudeau, and their parents worked together.
It's because it's a big club and they're all in it. They are all owned establishment assets who wield immense power over the public, and the national and international consciousness. Politicians' power is more overt and obvious - see Justin Trudeau's despotic behaviour in "the pandemic" - but actors' power is even more mighty, because you tell me, who is more popular and more well-liked - Justin "blackface" Trudeau... or loveable Chandler from Friends, played by that poor Matthew Perry, who's had such a difficult life? (And I'm not saying he hasn't - just that it's likely not in the way that people think.)"
So, to sum, both Matthew Perry and Justin Trudeau were born into the club and sculpted from birth to prepare them for the huge social and cultural power both would go on to wield. The chances of both going through MK Ultra style programming as children are extremely high, including a high likelihood of being ritually sexually abused. Note that the name given to Matthew Perry's character in 'Friends' was 'Chandler', a name said to be shorthand in such circles for 'child handler'. His character's name could have been a dark 'nudge nudge, wink wink' from the script-writers, alluding to what he himself had endured.
That Perry was likely put through this type of experience (as many child stars are), to programme him and make him controllable when he was "just a sitcom actor" alludes again to the incredible power such actors have.
'Friends', like all ultra-popular and successful TV shows, was a social engineering vehicle, meant to dramatically modify people's social behaviour and expectations for their lives.
So, how did that jaunty theme song go again, the one that millions the world over sung along to every Friday night? "Your job's a joke, you're broke, your love life's DOA [dead on arrival]" - and these themes were very much reflected in the lives of the six fictional characters who comprised the eponymous group, none of whom were 'successful' in any conventional sense.
When we meet the six Friends for the first time, Rachel is unemployed (and eventually gets a job as a waitress, which she hates), Chandler despises his office drone job, Joey is a perennially out-of-work actor, and Monica and Phoebe drift from one low-paid, casual job to another. The only one who has achieved any kind of professional success is Ross, who is a palaeontologist... but then his personal life is a disaster (and the butt of frequent jokes), as his wife left him for a lesbian, and by the end of the show, he has been divorced three times.
This is in stark contrast to the "big show that everybody watched" in the 1980s, Family Ties. I watched this sitcom, which originally ran from 1982 to 1989, in its entirety when I studied in the States (and could access American Netflix, which was incriminatingly exciting, I must confess), and immediately compared it to 'Friends', shocked at how different the social messaging was.
Family Ties is based around (funnily enough...), a family, comprising 40-something parents, Steven and Elyse - typical '60s liberals, who met and married at college - and their more conservative, Regan-era teenage children, Alex and Mallory (and younger sister Jennifer). The comedy is based around the 'square' children clashing with the 'hip' parents, but the overall messaging is to promote stability and success. Steven and Elyse have a good marriage, and are both successful in their chosen careers (Steven's in broadcasting, Elyse is an architect). Their children (who they had, and could afford to have, in their twenties) are well-adjusted and doing well at school and socially.
Therefore, the overall message given by Family Ties was that people should expect to achieve personal and professional satisfaction in life, and should aim high both in their careers and relationships.
Just five years later, however, the messaging had changed radically. 'Friends', which debuted in 1994, unabashedly told its (primarily young, impressionable) audience that they should expect nothing from their lives. They should not expect to have a rewarding or well-paid career ("your job's a joke, you're broke"), they should not expect to have functional, stable relationships ("your love life's DOA"), and they should be perfectly happy with this because "their friends would be there for them".
In reality, however. if you watch Friends without the laugh track, you can see these 'friendships' could be more accurately described (as Jason Christoff did describe them) as 'psychopaths trying to ruin each other's lives'.
So, that's why the 'Friends' actors were paid the big bucks: because they were there to condition a whole generation of people to expect and accept nothing from their lives.
That's a phenomenally huge social engineering operation to pull off. A politician couldn't do it. They needed actors.
And it worked. I was part of the generation who grew up on 'Friends', and we were being conditioned to accept and celebrate the destruction of all the opportunities our Baby Boomer parents had in return for a sort of extended adolescence, a stretched-out 'college dorm' experience. We were told it's fine and admirable to have an awful, low-paid job you hate into your thirties whilst still flat-sharing with friends as you can't afford your own place, because at least you've got "friends", right, and that's what really matters!
We were inducted into this, because it's necessary if you, as a social engineer, want to undermine and ultimately obliterate a culture, as we know the overlords deeply desire to do: you have to corrupt the youth and stop them continuing on a strong, stable, affluent society.
This trajectory has accelerated exponentially since Friends wrapped in 2004 (job done), with more people than ever forced into house-shares even into their forties and beyond, and struggling to make ends meet in often unstable, low-paid work.
The 'Friends' actors who so successfully promoted this lifestyle, meanwhile, live (and indeed die) in the lap of luxury, and have achieved the apex of professional success.
That's how the sting works: 'do as we say (or act), not as we do' - and millions of people the world over have. They've accepted unstable, incoherent, increasingly insolvent lives, in significant part because the 'Friends' actors - so central in millions of people’s most formative years - promoted them as glamorous and aspirational. Note that, the minute any kind of enduring stability or success was hinted at (Monica and Chandler getting married and leaving the 'Friends' flat-shares), the show ended.
So, where it comes to Matthew Perry's apparent death - naturally we must ask (as we must with any high-profile events involving actors on the world stage) is this real? Is he really dead?
I suspect, in fact, that he is (sorry to disappoint my learned friends at the deeper end of the rabbit hole), if only because faking deaths is rather arduous and time-consuming for the fakers, and my sense is that it is therefore reserved only for very high-profile people who need to disappear from public view immediately, an obvious example being Jeffrey Epstein (who is clearly alive and well somewhere under a new identity, having had a bit of plastic surgery on that very distinctive chin).
Matthew Perry, on the other hand, has long since dwindled out of prominent public view, 'Friends' having finished nearly two decades ago, and his not having had any major hits since. His name is rarely in the papers, he doesn't often turn up at big red carpet events, and there aren't even any titillating love-life 'scandals' surrounding him. For many years now, he has been portrayed only as a rather sad and broken character, ravaged by addiction and personal disappointments (despite being said to have wanted a family, he never married or had children).
As such, he has long since lacked the extraordinary 'star power' he had when he was young, successful, and good-looking. Sad, lonely old drunks don't have much public sway, even if they were once famous, so Perry had already faded into relative obscurity and lost the influence he once had, so the major operation that would be faking his death, to me, seems unnecessary. What would be the point? It's very clear why Epstein's death may have been faked, but Matthew Perry?
So, no, I think he really did die, but it certainly is possible this death was 'staged', insofar as it was scripted and planned. We know the price one must pay for worldwide fame and immense wealth, and with whom one must make a deal. It is certainly entirely possible and plausible therefore that Matthew Perry was ritually sacrificed - on a Hunter's Moon leading up to Halloween - in keeping with the terms of his "contract". If this was so, he may have known it was coming, and that was why he posted the eerie and esoteric 'final Instagram image', of his sitting in the hot tub where he later drowned, referring to himself as 'Mattman' - part of an ongoing Batman 'obsession' Perry is said to have developed.
This death is certainly highly culturally significant, as the first of the six 'Friends' to die, and we will likely see further implications in the weeks and months to come. Perhaps Perry will be revealed as some kind of terrible predator, as a sort of trauma-based mind-control to shatter the illusions of all those who grew up mesmerised by the every witticism and wisecrack of the loveable Chandler (child-handler) Bing. "They" do like to build up our heroes and ruthlessly tear them down, after all.
It's hard to know for sure, but "they" invested an incredible amount of time and money in the Matthew Perry creation from the day he was born, and they are going to squeeze every last penny out of their investment before they let him go for good.
Note they are drip-feeding us further drama every day, with first telling us Perry is dead in strange circumstances, then telling us cause of death is not known and will be 'deferred' - in short, keeping us intrigued and on the edge of our seats, as the suspense-filled story arc builds ever further. They are hinting at something with their storytelling (as they always are), but as yet, we do not know what, since, as master myth-makers, they know that what Batman always said is true: "a riddle that everyone knows the answer to... is worthless".
Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...
1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon
2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee
3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA
Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.
Find Miri AF on social media via the links below...