Though there are those who will offer nothing in response to the following other than scornful rebuke and righteous indignation, so be it!

One would do well to remember, the wounds of verbal scorn are most temporary, while the quest for objective truth remains eternal.

It has been written that defeat or victory does not occur on battlefields, rather the determination of conflicts’ outcome is determined in the minds of the combatants, before the actual war is even planned and undertaken. And so it is with the media sorcerers, meting out perpetual psychological warfare on the masses, and they seem to prevail as the victors every time. That decisive outcome however, with the ease of access to important and vital information due to digital technology, is just now beginning to be altered. With increasing and incremental awareness concerning media sorcerers diabolical methods of operation, the pendulum of history, perhaps for the first time during the long epoch of mankind, is starting to swing towards the favor of the masses. The machinations of our so-called ruling classes, are becoming more predictable and clearly observable.

But many more must be made aware.

Many more must cast aside the scales set before hopelessly blinded eyes, and dare peek behind the grand sequined curtain of Oz. No longer can the masses afford to stand silent and pretend to remain pristine while wallowing in the filth of lies.

Hopefully, more voices can be raised before the ruling class firmly and permanently clasp the imprisoning film of duct tape over the mouths of those forever and so profoundly deceived.

For the longest period, without the majority being aware, the media sorcerers have warned us time and again of their nefarious activities, but through signs and symbols, rather than through the use of direct language. Historically, it has only been through the lenses of retrospective observance, have a minority been able to ultimately learn what it was that actually took place on that fateful day, and perhaps even gleaned how it was accomplished.


Once again, all the media sorcerers tools were on grand display during the coverage of this alleged event; green screen, real time video morphing, photo shop(to create the many victim simulations), neural linguistic programming, (through repetition of propaganda talking points), color codes(through the deployment of color coded terror alert charts), and perhaps the most potent weapon of all of these, FEAR. A population in fear of its own shadow is more likely to be unquestioningly obedient, and more likely to consume, which keeps the debt economic based system alive, not to mention continuing to fill the overflowing coffers of the London Crown Temple bankers.

Now, with the recent marking of the fifteenth anniversary of the momentous event come to be known as 9/11, some of us have been able to dissect and analyze the particulars of what actually occurred. In truth, the particulars become rather moot, in light of the fact the devastating psychological effect remains the same. The trick is to acquire the weapon of foreknowledge, to see it coming before it happens, to realize history, even American history, has been, and will continue to be scripted.  But after much deliberation, and after much exhaustive and sometimes vituperative debate, one fact is clear; the event itself marked a massive psychological operation, a demonstration of controlled demolition sold to the public as ruthless terrorist attack. And once again, it was all a massive canard;  a blatant lie inverted to appear as the unadulterated truth. Throughout history, both in this nascent century and in the last, the media sorcerers have created and propagated enemies, none of them real, and all imagined.

When this realization finally reaches critical mass, when the shackles of the mind tightly fastened by American public education are unlocked, one is finally able to conceive of the massive illusion encompassing human perception. When the doors of perception have been cleansed, it is only then one can observe the world as a truly peaceful place, that there are not, as the media sorcerers would have the masses believe, bands of terrorists who want to kill us simply because they hate our freedom. In truth, none are free, and none are righteous, and the only true terrorists are the crown temple bankers and their handmaidens, the media sorcerers!


Whomever controls the media controls the mind, whomever controls the mass distribution of information, controls the masses. The concept of history itself is one of the primary weapons in the arsenal of the media sorcerers, for it represents the establishment of a psychological foundation upon which is built the creation of myths, an inscrutable citadel placed firmly in the public mind. And myth making is big business, a concept allowing the creation of endless revenue streams; books, movies, and television series. In future posts, we shall examine some major historical events such as 9/11 more closely, if only to observe the same tired methods of psychological operation used time and again. The only thing that has changed, is the tools to achieve victory over the masses on the psychological battlefield.


War as an effective tool to rule the masses requires enemies, all of them fabricated. But why would they do this, you might ask? The Crown Temple bankers and their media sorcerers have stock holders who require the constant generation of profits to justify enormous financial investments. But better yet, war is a tool that bolsters and maintains the global debt economic system for the bankers, creates long running content for the media sorcerers, and keeps the masses howling to their corporate governments to provide more laws, safety and security, which in turn justifies greater bureaucracy. And all of this justified, simply because the masses have been spelled, tricked into observing the world as a potentially violent place, rife with the dangers of terrorist upheaval. In fact, war is a grand cover to justify corporate piracy of natural resources, and with massive armed forces at ones disposal, one can always afford to be ruthlessly political.

The tactics of creating enemies is not new, in fact it is an ancient concept going all the way back to the establishment of the Roman Republic. Cicero, the hallowed Roman senator of the first century, used this technique to maintain his hold over the plebeians, and the powerful Roman senate. The historian Tacitus writes that Cicero had the largest collection of spies in the capital city, and because he was among the richest of landed gentry in all the Roman aristocracy, could support an even larger collection of ruffians, criminals, and all manner of those willing to commit mayhem for a few gold coins in return. Cicero would employ their services to create deliberate criminal mayhem in the city streets, all in an effort to gain more political clout and acclaim. And when the plebeian, much like on 9/11, petitioned the Roman senate for protection and security, Cicero could predictably be found in the Forum, assuaging public fears with honeyed salvos of Roman piety, strength and patriotism.

Surely enough, after Cicero had gained suitable favor over his colleagues in the senate, the anarchy and mayhem formerly taking place on the streets of Rome would magically disappear, reappearing only when it was once again politically expedient. Julius Caesar, appointed official governor over the territory of Gaul, upon hearing of the power Cicero had gained back in Rome, then decided a similar method of operation might benefit him in his quest for political glory. Being that Caesar belonged to one of the most ancient and richest Roman families, he could afford to hire bands of scribes, themselves the ancient version of our modern media sorcerers. In order to be granted more money and power from the Roman senate, Caesar had his scribes vastly overstate the threat to Roman security from the tribes of Gaul, who in truth had been long since subdued.

When the concocted tales of Caesar’s scribes began to trickle into Rome with great fanfare, tales of great battles and even greater heroism on the part of the Roman governor, Cicero became alarmed. Indeed, when Caesar suddenly returned, camping his legions outside the city gates, the plebeian cried out to the senate to grant him dictatorial powers.  And so it was on 9/11, the perfect political dialectic to shape public perception into giving up their constitutional rights in favor of government safety and security, the grand justification for the existence of what amounts to nothing more than a federal protection racket!

More than a century after Cicero, the emperor Nero would utilize much the same method, creating the perception on the part of the Roman plebeian that the Christians were a threat to imperial security, when in truth they were nothing more than a petty band, harmful to no one. And yet, the emperor overstated the security threat to increase imperial authority, engendering fear on the streets of Rome much as Cicero had a century before. When Nero observed the imperial palace was in fact a crumbling ruin, his Praetorian guard set it ablaze and then in blaming the Christians, rounded them up and arrested them, most appearing in the arena to be slaughtered for public amusement at the hands of the emperors vicious gladiators. In the aftermath, the imperial propaganda against an imaginary enemy galvanized the Roman populace, not to mention convincing the Roman Senate to cough up all the gold in the public treasury to build the young emperor a new palace.

More controversially still, Lincoln utilized the cover of the civil war to petition money from his London Crown Temple banking masters to rebuild Washington, which had become in fact a detritus strewn eyesore. The war, in truth nothing more than a series of military drills and maneuvers built up by so-called historians into massive mythological proportions, was used as a pretense to siphon more tax dollars and create more debt currency for the American corporate owners and operators, the Crown Temple bankers. The civil war freed no one, in fact, from that point on, slavery was ensured for all of us. All of the American people, regardless of social or economic level or racial persuasion, are all just employees toiling on the same plantation. The entire Lincoln presidency, as it turns out, represents myth making par excellence, a paper puppet lionized into demigod.

Similarly, another of our hallowed leaders, FDR, in truth nothing more than a puppet installed by the Rothschild and Rockefeller banking dynasty’s, moved to create war with Japan, thus embroiling America in the alleged second world conflict.These prominent crown temple banking families set their predatory eyes on monopolizing off-shore oil in the Pacific, as well as gaining control of the international heroin trade formerly monopolized by East India Tea company. One of the Rockefeller projects was also the establishment of the United Nations, while the Rothschild’s sought to set up the nation of Israel, which would serve as their own private banking haven, acting as a subsidiary branch of the crown temple banking centers in London and Switzerland. Of course in addition to the Marshall plan, which rebuilt a decimated Europe with largely American tax dollars, the establishment of all this and more was justified by the alleged naked aggression of Adolph Hitler, himself yet another puppet created, funded and controlled by Wall Street bankers. And by the way, have you never wondered why Switzerland remains neutral in all global conflicts? After all, if you were a military commander, would you be inclined to bomb the very country where the masters who hired you keep all their gold?

After the establishment of the United Nations in the wake of the second world conflict, the Rothschild Crown Temple Bankers utilized Israel as a stalking horse to greet opposing Arab nations in the Middle East. With the threat of constant hostilities culminating in the first of Israeli and Arab conflagrations in 1948, the Rothschild’s were able to profit from both combatants, led by crown temple puppets, who needed constant loans to pay for arms and armaments in protection against the many fabricated threats and counter threats. This in turn served to greatly strengthen the newly established United Nations as an international political force, acting as arbitrator in this epic but concocted ongoing dispute. With the crown temple bankers, and their loyal servants the media sorcerers, it is always about the creation of chaos, chaos which is eventually and incrementally shaped into a newly established order in the furtherance of expanding global geopolitical hegemony.


And so, in the fifteen year wake of 9/11, it would behoove us all to remember that our so-called leaders only possess power because we give it to them. And time and again since time immemorial, create enemies to scare us with, which in turn creates greater excuses to bilk the public of greater tax monies. The media sorcerers, in their promulgation of endless propaganda, might convince you this is all necessary.

But don’t believe it!

60 thoughts on “NEITHER DEATH NOR TERROR ON 911

  1. So you are inventing sensational headlines to get people to read your contemplations on media sorcery? Sorry, but you have not studied 9/11. I suppose the photos of the people forced to jump out of windows were fake? You make some good points, but are not a journalist. Why not write about truth?

    1. What empirical evidence does one possess to presume the event hasn’t been thoroughly studied? Because one isn’t labeled with the title of journalist that invalidates the content? And to what truth is one referring, the conspiracy theory proffered by the mainstream networks? The buildings were empty. What occurred was a controlled demolition sold to the public as a terror attack. Did you actually read the article, or are you purposely obtuse?

      1. The 9/11 event reminds me of the Bastille “storming” from the French Revolution which I have discussed before. An empty building that was demolished shortly after a fake terroristic-type rebellion engulfed Paris and ultimately the ancient fortress – which was also slated to be destroyed in advance. And like 9/11, the July 14th event paved the way for massive reconstruction of the socio-economic power grid in France and the “Reign of Terror” (in America and the rest of the modern western world we had the “War on Terror” and the countless fake wars that followed. Sounds familiar to the French Revolution?)

      2. Yes, both psychological operations – the “French Revolution” and 9/11 – were executed from an identical playbook and to garner similar results. Regarding the American Revolution, you may not be aware that, in a past installment found on this site, I managed to thoroughly dismantle the official narrative of the founding father known as “Benjamin Franklin”. I also pointed out, signatories of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were not only freemasons, but, were also sworn members called to the Bar at the City of London’s Crown Temple. This meant, legally, though the history books have told us otherwise, America is not a “free” country but is still a Crown Colony and corporate subsidiary of the Crown Temple. The US corporation which governs America, in Washington’s District of Columbia, still operates under the Crown Temple. This was achieved by the capitalization of one word when America’s founding legal documents were drafted and ratified: STATES rather than states in small case. This also meant the British crown, the exchequer representing the Crown Temple bank in the City of London, while agreeing to “free” the persons (corporations) to be granted tax and title to land, the Alloidial title to the land is still held under the legal dominion of the Crown Temple. Regarding the historical event known as the American Revolution, the official narrative seems, from any objective standpoint, completely absurd. Latter-day historical scholars now admit General Washington was a mediocre military field commander, at best. Yet, the history books, distributed to American public schools, still maintain Washington led an ill-clad, ill-fed, badly trained and armed band of farmers with broken down muskets and pitchforks to resounding victory over an army which was, then, claimed to be the mightiest and most fearsome military machine in all Europe. Not only that, but Washington, with forces which were admitted to be outnumbered, cold, and hungry, is alleged to have crossed an icy river on a freezing cold night to defeat a mercenary army of Hessians, who, at that time, were considered invincible. Considering this, it is rather odd, we are also led to believe these same British forces, and led by some of the same commanders who were alleged to have been defeated by Washington, years before, would go on to fight and defeat the “great” Napoleon” at Waterloo? I’m still considering your ideas about King George’s prince regent and Lafayette, as well those concerning Marie Antionette. Indeed, intriguing but feasible notions.

      3. Speaking of America’s subservience to the “Crown” in the City of London AKA the Corporation of London, I have published a video about that a few days ago on my YT channel:

        The controllers have realized that the masses in colonial America weren’t so happy with the overt and direct “oppression” imposed from London by their puppet King George III. So they concocted the American Revolution hoax which would serve as a cover for the changes in their methodology of control and manipulation of their British colonies in North America and as a psyop to placate the masses with the illusion of freedom. Since America’s “independence” from the British Crown, the puppet-masters in England assumed clandestine and subversive tactics of control over their American colonies in the western hemisphere. This was achieved through their agents whom they placed in government and society to oversee their colonies on their behalf while pretending to be the servants of the people. Without this duplicity and the mind control imposed on the masses, such a deception could not have been possible.

      4. You’re are quite correct in your assessment. Both sides negotiating the legal documents which founded the United States (Crown Estates) were sworn esquires of the Crown Temple in the City of London. I have published an entire series of detailed articles on this very subject. The Exchequer or the reigning British monarch (the crown in small letters) holds allodial title on behalf of and in trust of the Crown Temple (capitalized). The people were merely “freed” to receive legal privileges and to be granted non-allodial title and property tax, privileges which, according to the Treaty of Paris (AKA Treaty of Peace) can be legally revoked at the Crown’s pleasure. This is one of the grand secrets kept by those at highest degrees of freemasonry.

  2. Speaking of masonic deceptions, here is what the charges against Louis XVI were:

    “Charges read against Louis XVI (now called Louis Capet to discredit him after the abolition of the monarchy) began in December 1792. Accusations against the French king were read by Charles Jean Marie Barbaroux, a French politician from Marseille (spelled Marseilles by the English). There were *33* charges and after each principal charge was read, it was “followed by a list of the pieces on which the proofs were to be founded.” As the charges were read, several new charges were also proposed. However, charges that appeared to “have little weight or to be ill-founded, were expunged.”” –

    Thirty-three charges. Pretty interesting number. And this, coupled with the other facts I’ve discussed in previous posts on your website about Freemasonry’s extensive role in the so-called French Revolution, is a very telling fact to say the least. It certainly was a masonic stageplay of grand proportions much like the “trial” and “execution” of England’s Charles I 144 years earlier.

    What do you think?

    1. Also, August 10th = 8/10. Aces and eights. Chai. This was the date of the alleged insurrection in Paris led by the revolutionaries in the summer of 1792 against the French monarchy which ultimately led to the fall of the Kingdom of France and the birth of a secular totalitarian republic shortly after, or what some historians and students of French Revolutionary history call the “second French Revolution.” Pretty certain this was another masonic hoax like the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, created to cement the myth of the French Revolution in the mass psyche and reinforce the illusion of democracy and change against tyranny around the world.

      1. It occurred to me – while harking back to your comment, concerning Lafayette, King George III, and the Prince Regent (George IV) that Louis XVI seems to have facial geometry in common with America’s “founding father” Benjamin Franklin. I recall, having encountered a BBC program, hosted by Will Gompers, ‘The Art of Monarchy’. During this particular program, there was a segment which featured an interesting analysis concerning the deliberate manipulation – for political purposes, so it was claimed by the Queen’s Surveyor of Pictures – that went into a painting of Edward VI, which was created through a royal commission, granted to Hans Holbein, during the beginning of Henry’s reign. This more than implies, in fact, proves, that the ruling families have always used art, photography, and theatre to manipulate the perceptions of the masses.

      2. Very interesting. Benjamin Franklin was a frequent visitor at the Court of Versailles and was the toast of French high society before the Revolution of 1789. I don’t believe they were the same person, but it certainly isn’t an implausible idea. They probably were related to each other, likely cousins descended from the same top families in the British Peerage several generations back. Besides, it is a well-known fact that almost all of America’s presidents are closely related to each other and descend from the European aristocracy. And we all know about Old Ben’s fudged and fabricated biography of him coming out of nowhere to become a successful publisher and writer in his 20s and and a renown scientist, diplomat, and politician later in his life – all of which could not have been possible if Franklin didn’t have the right pedigree and the rights connections, as well as his wit, to climb up the rigid social ladder of the 18th century.

  3. Here are more pictures for comparisons:

    Louis XVI and Louis XVIII:

    Marie-Antoinette and Maria Fitzherbert:

    Another interesting tidbit is the fact that both women were born with similar sounding names. Marie-Antoinette was born Maria Antonia Josepha Joanna of Habsburg-Lorraine in Vienna, Austria. Maria Fitzherbert was born Maria Anne Smythe in England, UK. Two Ans. And both women were born a year apart. MA was born in 1755, MF in 1756. Both were also Roman Catholics and both were controversial women in their respective countries, for they were seen as whores with cuckolded husbands and spendthrifts. Both also spent time in France for many years. It becomes apparent that they were the same woman.

    1. I believe your assessment of Franklin’s historical biography is accurate – a total fabrication. I’ve read that, this type of fabricated backstory – in intelligence parlance – is termed as a “legend”. It is also likely Franklin was genealogically related to King Louis XVI. I’m still researching the historical details you’ve graciously provided, concerning the French revolution. Upon cursory examination, there appears to be much credibility to your hypothesis “Marie Antoinette” was nothing more than an historically fabricated character scheme. There can be no doubt that, due to the conspicuous numerological markers and masonic symbolism related through historical texts, the narrative details of this “revolution” appear to lack any semblance of empirical credibility or historical veracity. Similarly, I also believe this to be the case with the “Dreyfus affair”, which appears to have been nothing more than grandly staged theater.

      1. Even more interesting is the fact that after the court jewelers Boehmer & Bassenge were swindled of their monstrous creation the swindlers broke the diamond necklace into pieces and sold them in the black markets of London and Paris. I am sure Maria Fitzherbert probably bought a piece of the necklace herself, or rather her handlers bought it for her, for her involvement in history’s most elaborate and sordid conjob as its “chief victim” known to us as “Marie-Antoinette.” Brilliant.

      2. Speaking of “legends,” the Titanic was also called a “legend” by many people. In Titanic (1997), old Rose called her “the ship of dreams.” “Titanic: The Legend Lives On” was published by Walter Lord, an “ex”-OSS agent and author who wrote many historical bestsellers including another book about the ship decades earlier called “A Night to Remember” which premiered into a film of the same title in 1958, shortly after the discovery of the Titanic “wreck” in 1985. It’s as though they are telling us it was all a myth without saying it directly. Just like how they call the Kennedys “Camelot,” another fairytale reference.

        Start at 4:20:

  4. You also have to consider that royal offices and the people occupying them did not concern the general public before the revolution. It’s very likely that the mob in the streets of Paris during the “Reign of Terror” had not a clue what the royal couple looked like. Even those upon whom the royal visage may have fallen outside the intimate circle of friends, relations and loyal servants probably saw individuals heavily caked with makeup and partly obscured by ornate hairstyles decked with eye-catching headpieces and fancy plumed hats. And it was certain anyone vetted to be employed within the royal retinue knew well not to look at the king or the queen directly – without their assent.

    Reports claim that after Marie-Antoinette was condemned to death by the Revolutionary Tribunal, she was dressed in a simple white gown and her hands were tied together and her hair was trimmed short by the executioner. She was carted off from her cell in the Conciergerie prison to her execution at the Place de la Révolution in front of thousands of jeering spectators. How likely is it that anyone in the crowd could testify truthfully that they knew that the woman before them was really the queen of France?

    And what would compel such a grand hoax signaling the close of one of the most powerful dynasties in Europe? Information exclusive to the ruling classes had been seeping out through the printing presses for decades and a critical mass of understanding had reached a point where they felt it necessary to stage a controlled demolition of the Ancien Régime and allow the “radical” usurpers to fill the void by “killing” each other in an effort to seize control. With that accomplished, a dictator was established and eventually the Bourbon monarchy was restored. All of this took place in the span of 25-30 years. The subsequent revolutions and restorations only ended with France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian “war” in 1871. I can’t say with certainty that the old aristocracy and their heirs had complete control over the socio-economic climate of 19th century Europe. What I can say is be very suspicious when they report a celebrity death on the news.

    (I love Wikipedia’s rich descriptions of Louis XVI’s execution. To quote: “While Louis’s blood dripped to the ground, several onlookers ran forward to dip their handkerchiefs in it. This account was proven true in 2012, after a DNA comparison linked blood thought to be from Louis XVI’s beheading to DNA taken from tissue samples originating from what was long thought to be the mummified head of his ancestor, Henry IV of France. The blood sample was taken from a squash gourd carved to commemorate the heroes of the French Revolution that had, according to legend, been used to house one of the handkerchiefs dipped in Louis’s blood.”


  5. There are also parallels between Marie-Antoinette and Princess Diana, who you have uncovered to be another fabricated character scheme in previous posts. They even “died” in the same area: Paris, France.

    ““The parallels between Lady Diana and Marie Antoinette were obvious and made people take another look at the queen,” De Baecque says. “Suddenly Marie Antoinette was freed from the royalist versus republican war that raged after she died and began to be seen as this poor-little-rich-girl who represented a type of emancipated woman who had succeeded in freeing herself from the traditional rules imposed on her.”

    De Baecque says there is now a “cult of Marie Antoinette.”

    “Like Diana she forged a role for herself that was different to what was traditionally expected from the queen. She has become a modern icon; culturally, in fashion, and also in marketing,” he says, pointing to a glass exhibition case. “There is even a Marie Antoinette Barbie doll.”

    The 200 exhibits at the Conciergerie include formal portraits, pornographic cartoons and caricatures of the queen as a harpy, a hyena and an amphibious monster, as well as film clips, clothes and magazine covers featuring various celebrity reincarnations of her.

    In 2006, the movie “Marie Antoinette” by Sofia Coppola, in which Kirsten Dunst played the queen as a teenage rebel, went some way toward rehabilitating her reputation in the United States, but her name remains a byword for the privileged few’s disdain for the ordinary citizen.” –

    “Yes, it is true that there are similarities; it is eerie how many there are. They were both blonds with sapphire eyes, and resembled each other a little. Incidentally, Marie-Antoinette and Diana were related, through the Stuarts. (There’s that tragic blood of Mary Stuart asserting itself, again.) Each had issues of being abandoned by and separated from their mothers as children. They both were married at a young age to aloof, intellectual men. Neither woman was intellectual, at all, but each required a great deal of attention. Both were emotionally needy. Both loved children, especially their own children. Both enjoyed helping the poor and were renowned in their lifetime for their charity work. Both loved to dance and had a circle of colorful friends, friends who were not always considered the best of society. They each loved fashion. Both died in their late thirties, leaving two children behind. They both died in Paris, almost in the exact same spot in Paris, certainly in the same neighborhood.” –

    Both are also seen as martyrs for what they believed in and fought for by their supporters and contemporaries. Marie-Antoinette is seen by royalists and traditionalists around the world as an emblem of Catholicism and the “divine right to rule”, a virtuous woman who sacrificed her life for the Bourbon monarchy and the Roman Catholic religion. Diana is viewed by many of her contemporaries and fans as a woman who was martyred for the British people and for her role in the fight for “equal rights” for minorities by the British establishment who allegedly viewed her as a threat to their hegemony ever since she came out with her tell-all book “Diana: Her True Story” and entertained interviews with the mass media describing her tumultuous life as a member of Britain’s royal family. Both began and ended their “lives” on occultic days and were surrounded by controversy and rumors of extramarital affairs and illegitimate children. They even bore strong physical resemblances to each other:×360-princess-diana-640.jpg

    So what we see with “Lady Di” is nothing new. The same was with “Marie-Antoinette” two centuries before “Diana” entered the world. They simply recycled the same script but made a few changes in the making of the Diana hoax.

      1. I, too, have noticed those identical parallels which you’ve astutely pointed out. I am also researching another interesting hypothesis, involving Prince Albert, the consort of Queen Victoria, who, I believe, may also have been Charles Dickens and the man renowned as the godfather of modern freemasonry, Albert Pike, a confederate general and occultist who was also reputed to be the founder of the KKK. Both Dickens and Prince Albert, it is said, harbored sympathies for the working classes and their plight. When reading Pike’s seminal freemasonic tome, Morals and Dogma, one noted identical similarities in the style of prose with Dickens’ works, particularly, with that of Tale of Two Cities and A Christmas Carol. It is also worth mentioning, the legendary stories of Diana and Antoinette have certainly been sources of great long-term profit – from the sale and marketing of books, television, movies – for the ruling families

    1. The “Tale of Two Cities” is a book about the French Revolution, btw. As for Victoria and Albert, I do find your hypothesis about her husband playing Pike and Dickens to be rather very intriguing though not conclusive. No doubt they were actors who played multiple roles throughout their lives and was involved in multiple projects, but I think it was a little different.

      Here’s what I found. You be the judge:

      Queen Victoria & Margaret Fuller:–+chin+difrent+cuz+head+position+–left+woman+fatter+and+older.JPG

      Their signatures:

      Prince Albert & Robert Schumann:

      Their signatures:

      Schumann’s wife looks very similar to Queen Victoria. Both were born in 1819. Even their signatures are similar:

      Here are the Schumanns:

      Here is Victoria and Albert:,h_1496,w_2660,x_0,y_32/f_auto,q_auto,w_1100/v1554923828/shape/mentalfloss/540210-wikimediacommons.jpg

      What do you think?

      1. Thanks, once again, for graciously providing the links, I’ll look these over more extensively, before providing a definitive answer. Regarding Victoria, I’ve always felt there was a strong resemblance with the renowned early occultist, Madame Blavatsky. The official historical details of Prince Albert’s death are – to say the least – very suspect.

      2. Blavatsky is a very interesting character in her own right. She was part of the whole Theosophy project, funded by the Jewish banking elite, to blackwash Christianity and vice versa. She, like Victoria, also came from the royal aristocracy in Russia which was and is closely related to the British upper-classes. Victoria’s grandson, George V, was a close friend of the Romanovs, especially his cousin, Nicholas II. So there is a definite link there between the two women, I am sure.

      3. Blavatsky also played a huge role in the promotion of a one world religion, as well. Sounds familiar to today’s figures and their religious leanings like “Pope Francis”?

  6. Another fake demonstration from France. France has always been a historical epicenter of manufactured dissent and controlled social chaos. They will probably stage yet another fake revolution in that country in the future.

    1. Most recently, if memory serves, the “yellow vest” revolution took place in France. Also, there was another worker’s revolution in England, during Victoria’s reign, allegedly orchestrated by the Chartist movement. The details of that “revolution” are, as well, suspect.
      Most likely, the Chartists were covertly aided, abetted, and even funded and organized by Victoria’s consort, Albert. If history has proved anything, it is that those among the working classes have never possessed the wherewithal, the inclination, or the requisite resources to effectively organize against their oppressors.

      1. Yes, indeed. In fact, the “oppressed” masses even love their “oppressors” and are most uninclined to even think about starting a real revolution, much less taking action. It has always been manufactured by the hidden hand to steer society to a new direction they desire and to give the masses the illusion of change. Just like how the sexual revolution/hippy movement of the 60s and 70s was engineered and led by the establishment to weaken and “neutralize” the antiwar movements that were cutting into the profits of the fake military industrial complex and how the American Revolution was faked by the bloodlines running Britain and her colonies in the Americas to give the American masses the illusion of freedom and change and meanwhile prop up the war machine, the movements in Britain going back to the English Revolution were faked for the same incentives and using the same playbook. They need to give the illusion of something real happening so the masses will never realize that it is all a fraud from the beginning. Plus organized chaos justifies the need for statism or a totalitarian government to be setup, or what many call “order out of chaos.” Similarly, this reminds me of William Stead, a Titanic “victim”, who was involved in protest movements and was allegedly censored for his scandalmongering. He played a role in changing the legal age requirements in the UK after a series of scandals manufactured by Stead and his handlers forced the British government to take action. He also was involved in Theosophy, so that tags him as a “spook”, as Miles Mathis would say.

      2. Conceptually, the notion of social or political “change”, when considering the elite’s maintenance of the status quo, is, I’ve come to believe, itself, an illusion. The attitudes of the ruling families toward the proletariat – whom they have always considered to exist as merely human resources to be used and, then, when no longer useful, discarded – has never changed or altered, though they appear to pretend otherwise. Concerning the Titanic psychological operation, I’ve also come to consider the possibility, the ship never left its birthing or the dock, and may have never sailed on the high seas at all,

      3. This becomes self-evident when you look at the regimen of the French Revolutionaries. Many of them were members of the aristocracy and the clergy, and the revolution was supposedly led by the lower classes against those two powerful entities, which should be incredibly strange for those who believe the official story to be true. That alone completely blows the entire thing to be a sham and confirms the hypothesis of political and social change to be nothing more than an illusion fostered on the mass consciousness by the controllers in order to keep the masses under the state of perpetual deception and mental slavery meanwhile hiding the fascist hegemony that fronts as a “free and democratic society.”

        As for the Titanic herself, it is very possible that the Titanic never sailed on her maiden voyage at all. In fact, it is also likely that the Titanic wasn’t even a real commercial liner, but a movie-prop built by the owners of Harland & Wolff and the White Star Line for the express purpose of presentation. It is also likely that the Titanic was an empty shell, a hull with almost nothing inside. That explains the lack of available photographic evidence of what is alleged to be the Titanic’s interiors. Many of those photos could have been taken in a set built somewhere and passed off as hers. And many of the Titanic photos we are most familiar with were not even taken on the actual Titanic. They were taken on her sister ship, the Olympic, and mislabeled as the Titanic.

        Once they “sunk” her, they simply brought her back to Belfast or sailed her to Hamburg dockyards and refitted her as a new ship. I believe the Imperator or the Britannic are the most likely candidates to been the Titanic.




        Wanna know what they all looked like when they first set water?×350/filters:fixed_height(100,100):origin()/pre09/3de7/th/pre/f/2015/185/3/b/launch_of_the_imperator_by_121199-d8zzfv9.png

        What do you think?

      4. I think you’re premise – regarding the Titanic – is sound. Secondly, considering the identity of the perpetrators, this was a relatively easy operation to pull off. The “documentary” filmed by Hollywood’s James Cameron is riddled with post-production CGI

  7. Similarly, the Hindenburg disaster was also a hoax.

    The real Hindenburg was never destroyed. It was a different Zeppelin that was burnt that day. If you study the footage closely, you’ll see that’s not it:

    Nobody died that day. The real Hindenburg was either scrapped or had its design altered and reappeared as a different airship. You see the same pattern with the real Titanic. She never sank, and there is no wreck, either. She became a different ship and enjoyed a long and glorious career as the Imperator/Berengaria.

    And why would they fake this? The zeppelins were big money losers and only wealthy clientele could afford traveling on them. But the wealthy lost favor for the zeppelins and instead promoted and traveled on newer, sleeker aircrafts that were being developed at the time. Possibly the rich people that wanted to disappear were aware that the Second World War will happen and they faked their deaths and embezzled huge monies from the insurance companies, leaving the underwriters to pay for an airship that never even went down. Additionally, the Big Oil industry saw fuel-efficient transportation as a threat to their profit margins so they intentionally destroyed an entire industry of travel-by-airship to make way for petroleum-based transportation:

    So what happened to the real Hindenburg if it never went down? She became another zeppelin, the USS Los Angeles, and was scrapped in 1939:


    Los Angeles:

      1. By the way, you’ll want to be sure to catch my next post, coming very soon. It will, primarily, concern the Director of WHO (World Health Organization). Tedros Adhanom – though it is so claimed by MSM – is not even a doctor. Rather, he’s a well-known actor/news personality with a JFK/Zapruder film connection. He’s also the host actor behind the mask of race pimp Al Sharpton.

    1. I believe I’ve covered the Hindenburg. When examined closely, the popularized news footage has been cut and spliced at several different junctures, much like the Zapradur film. The famous voice over narration – “Oh the humanity” – doesn’t quite sync up with the action. This could have been due to the fact audio overdubbing wasn’t yet an exact technological science.

      1. Good points. And since you covered the Hindenburg sometime ago, is there any article you can link me from your site about that subject? I will be more than happy to view it.

      2. I may not have covered it in depth, but I do recall, identifying the “event” as a hoax which was likely staged by oil conglomerates and those whom, then, held substantial financial interests linked to the burgeoning commercial airline industry.

      3. Fair enough. Hopefully, you may cover it in the next article. See you next time.

    1. The powers-that-be wanted a convenient scapegoat or fall guy to take the blame for everything when things went wrong, and “Marie-Antoinette” was the perfect candidate for such a role because of her reputation for excessive spending. The ancient system of hereditary power and its regressive tax system wasn’t centralized and profitable enough for the international banking elite. So they orchestrated this hoax in order to attack the moral authority of the Ancien Régime and degrade it in the eyes of the French masses and to pave the way for the establishment of a totalitarian secular republic ran by the bankers. The “Affaire du Collier de la Reine” was one of the key psyops which made possible the triumph of the “New World Order” in France and across the European continent and the destruction of the old orders in Europe.

      And, as usual, Hollywood always cover these fakes. In recent history, they made a big-budget PR film. Enjoy.

      1. I believe you’re thesis is astute in identifying the methods of operation. Through exploitation and monopolization of markets, financial debt consolidation, and control of the means of production, the ruling elites maintain their hegemonic power over the proletariat. Fabricating these historical legends of course, is another way they can not only profit – books, movies, television productions, ad revenues, etc. etc. – but bolster and reinforce popular perceptions into a psychological consensus. Any challenge to this manufactured consensus, of course, is labeled “conspiracy theory”.

      2. “Basing his arguments on logic and sound reasoning, Mayer Rothschild pointed out that the financial results obtained as the result of the English Revolution would be as nothing when compared to the financial rewards to be obtained by a French Revolution provided those present agreed to unity of purpose and put into effect his carefully thought out and revised revolutionary plan. The project would be backed by all the power that could be purchased with their pooled resources. This agreement reached, Mayer Rothschild unfolded his revolutionary plan. By clever manipulation of their combined wealth it would be possible to create such adverse economic conditions that the masses would be reduced to a state bordering on starvation by unemployment. By use of cleverly conceived propaganda it would be easy to place the blame for the adverse economic conditions on the King, His Court, the Nobles, the Church, Industrialists, and the employers of labour. Their paid propagandists would arouse feelings of hatred and revenge against the ruling classes by exposing all real and alleged cases of extravagance, licentious conduct, injustice, oppression, and persecution. They, would also invent infamies to bring into disrepute others who might, if left alone, interfere with their over-all plans.

        In order to defame Marie Antoinette, Weishaupt and Mendelssohn thought up the idea of the Diamond Necklace. At the time, the financial resources of France were at their lowest ebb and the government of France was begging the International Money-Barons to grant them further credit. A secret agent of the arch-conspirators ordered a fabulous diamond necklace to be made by the Court Jewellers. The order for this necklace, the estimated value of which was a quarter of a million livres, was placed in the name of the Queen. When the Court Jewellers brought the Diamond Necklace to the Queen for her acceptance she refused to have anything to do with it. She disclaimed all knowledge of the transaction. But the news of the fabulous necklace leaked out as the plotters intended it should. Balsamo put his propaganda machine into operation. Marie Antoinette was deluged with criticism; her character was smeared; her reputation dragged in the mire by a whispering campaign of character assassination. And, as usual, nobody could ever put a finger on the person or persons who started the slanders. After this build-up, Balsamo uncorked his own special master-piece. His printing presses turned out thousands upon thousands of pamphlets which claimed a secret lover of the Queen’s had sent the necklace as a mark of appreciation for her favours.

        But those who operated L’Infamie thought up even more diabolical slanders to circulate regarding the Queen. They wrote a letter to Cardinal Prince de Rohan to which they forged the signature of the Queen. In the letter he was asked to meet her at the Palais Royal about midnight to discuss the matter of the diamond necklace. A prostitute from the Palais Royal was engaged to disguise herself as the Queen, and involve the Cardinal. The incident was played up in newspapers and pamphlets and the foulest innuendoes were circulated involving two of the highest personages of both Church and State.

        History records that after the diamond necklace had served its foul purpose it was taken over to England and taken apart. A Jew named Eliason is said to have retained the majority of the valuable diamonds used in its original composition.” –

    2. And speaking of actors, Marie-Antoinette was renowned for her love of the theater as well as the arts and music. She staged plays at her private theater in the Petit Trianon and at the Royal Opera in the Palace of Versailles and she performed in many of them herself. She certainly had an acumen for acting and that probably paid-off for her role as Maria Fitzherbert (and perhaps other personages of her time yet to be uncloaked) on the world stage.

    1. Thanks for the additional links. It’s becoming very clear, the American and French “revolutions” had nothing to do with the proletariat revolting against the aristocracy. That’s just another bedtime story for the masses. I may have mentioned it before, but my next article will concern Serco, a company with vast global holdings and, as it turns out, they also have a great deal invested towards the end game of the Covid-19 psychological operation. The company’s CEO – perhaps not surprisingly – is a family relation of Winston Churchill (AKA Alistair Crowley)

      1. Indeed. I find it very interesting how, according to the narrative storyline about the “French Revolution”, in the days leading up to the “storming” of the Bastille prison, King Louis XVI sent in 8,000-20,000 soldiers to Paris in order to uphold “law & order” and crack down on the increasing civil disturbances in the capital. Yet the military regiments in the city did nothing or, at the very least, did little to stop the chaos. It appears as though the 7/14 (777 hoax code) event was nothing more than a staged live-action drill involving paid dissenters and co-opted military personnel that was sensationalized by the “radical” Parisian press as a massive, bloody uprising of the working classes against the “despotism” of the royal aristocracy, with the number of casualties all made-up to sell the story as real. We see the same patterns in the Pearl Harbor attacks and the 9/11 event: staged military exercises which the establishment media transformed into bloodbaths of epic porportions in the minds and hearts of the masses. The only difference is the Bastille event was brought to life by the printing press with vivid, colorful descriptions published in the periodicals of the time whereas the more recent hoaxes were brought to life with special effects and staged events that were captured by cameras and broadcasted across the world through telecommunications, but they’re all utilized to service the same agendas: create “problems”, gage the public’s reactions, and then introduce their “solutions” to the “problems”.

        And that’s assuming anything actually transpired on July 14th, 1789. It is likely nothing happened at all and it (and many others like it in the “French Revolution”) only happened on paper. Perhaps the only thing that was real were the reactions of the public to the story.

        Speaking of numbers, can you please look into the deaths from the “Reign of Terror”? I think you will have a field day with the stories:

      2. It is likely – with paid witnesses from masonic lodges in place – it was just as easy for them to stage such events during that era. Now, with the powerful machinery of a global media completely under their monopolized control, it is even easier. The only elements they need to achieve the desired psychological effect are properly placed witnesses, the power of suggestion and narrative repetition. As you suggest, I’ll look into the “Reign of Terror”. If there’s one thing we can both agree upon, these sociopathic perpetrators certainly love to induce terror.

      3. That’s definitely true. I suspect the number of deaths from “The Terror” was fudged or exaggerated to frighten the masses at the time. After all, if they wanted to quench dissent from the population (since not many real people were actually in favor of the French Revolution) what better way to do that than to wage a campaign of psychological and emotional terror against the people – achieved by weaponizing the printing press to publish horrific, gory stories of massacres and mass executions of “traitors” to the revolution and distribute the propaganda across France and the rest of the European continent to stifle opposition from the grassroots level. We see similar tactics being used in the hoaxes of the ’60s and ’70s that were aimed against the “hippy” movements of the period. I believe the same was probably true for Russia after the “Bolshevik Revolution” where stories were promulgated about Soviet-ran “gulags” and concentration camps housing and executing political and social dissidents to communist rule.

      4. The scholars of mainstream history aren’t even sure when ‘The Terror’ started. Some say it began in mid 1793 around or after Marat’s “assassination” by Charlotte Corday, who would shortly be “executed” for her crime during ‘The Terror’, others say as early as July 1789 with the civil disturbances in Paris and nearby urban areas or the September Massacres in 1792. The lack of precise or logical details backed by concrete evidence alone indicates the whole thing was probably a hoax, just like the events of the American Revolution early into the late 18th century.

    2. They say the number of casualties incurred by ‘The Terror’ was as high as 40,000. Yet the number I got from calculating the numbers offered by Wiki shows it to be about 26,000, twice less than 40,000. It just simply doesn’t add up. I believe (assuming anyone was “executed” at all) only as much as a few hundred were killed in France. The rest was made up to frighten, traumatize, and desensitize the people. We’ve seen how they have faked mass casualty events to scare the masses before, so we must assume they faked the “Reign of Terror”, too. It’s likely the deaths of Marat, Robespierre, Danton, and others were also hoaxed to traumatize the people and to divide French society even further. After all, they faked the deaths of the French Bourbons (Louis XVI, Marie-Antoinette, their children, etc.)

      1. The “event” sold to the American public on September 11, 2001 was nothing more than the controlled demolition of buildings. The “planes”, alleged to have struck the World Trade Center’s twin towers and hijacked by “terrorists”, were the result of CGI morphing during the post-production process. As you’ve pointed out, the proletariat’s fear of death and the uncertainty of an “afterlife” has, for centuries, been used against them. After all, if the people can be made to believe in absurdities, they can also, in turn, be made to justify the committing of further atrocities.

      2. I was actually talking about the “Reign of Terror” in the “French Revolution” and the many absurdities in the story, but yes, the same scenario also applies to 9/11. Fear = control.

      3. Yes, of course. However, having noticed your comment was listed under the heading of the article concerning 9/11, my response was tailored accordingly, and to the larger scope concerning the chief method of operation – the crude induction of fear – which always seems to be utilized when executing psychological operations. This also relates to Machiavelli’s text, which asks a pertinent question regarding this subject: “Is is better for a prince to be feared or loved?” Clearly, the ruling elites – over the centuries – have deployed a combination of both, but, primarily, the strategic application of fear has shown itself to be much more effective in controlling the behaviors and routinely manipulating the mass psychology of large populations.

    1. Yes, and in fact, if one reads the text of the Treaty of Peace (1783) it will become evident the U.S was set up as a corporate subsidiary of the Crown Temple in the City of London. Also, the legal terms and conditions, as expressed, in the Treaty of Verona (1822) are even more revealing.

Leave a Reply