London Bridge “terrorist” Falls, Gets Back Up?

Is it possible for a fatally wounded “terrorist” to rise from the dead?

Many of you, of course, would scoff at such a farfetched notion.

However, in the parallel world of freemasonic and esoteric ritual, symbolic death and resurrection are all part of the show.

The attack of Usman Khan (masonic play on words/Usman=man used {for a} Khan=Con) was a prime exhibition of conceptual and symbolic masonic/occult duality.

To the majority of the general public – on a purely exoteric level –  the London Bridge event appeared to be a “terrorist attack”.

But on an occult, or esoteric level, what occurred on the London Bridge was a staged masonic ritual or Shakespearean street theater played out before the eyes of the world.

Of course, London’s police commissioner Cressida Dick would prefer the general public choose to believe in the former scenario rather than the latter.

But assuredly, Commissioner Dick would prefer for the general public to remain unaware of a greater, more remarkable fact which, perhaps, remains of greater pertinence: the hidden identity of her royal family, a family connected, not only, to Hollywood but, to the Sandy Hook simulated crisis event of December, 2012.

Turns out, London’s Police Commissioner “Dick” isn’t the only participant in this event with royal connections.



There are several elements regarding the recent London Bridge “terrorist” attack which should immediately attract our attentions. First, the reported date: November 29, 2019. Secondarily, “Usman Khan”, the alleged “terrorist” was reportedly wearing what turned out to be a “fake suicide vest”.

Also, the date is marked with a familiar masonic code (11+29=30/33/high-degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry). The year of the event sums to 21 which, of course, equals the familiar 777 code. The name of the alleged terrorist sums to 102 in English Ordinal gematria which also sums to 3 (EE=33). When considered in tandem with Khan rising from the dead – as evidenced in the video footage at the link, displayed above – after being shot from point blank range by London municipal police, Khan’s “fake” suicide vest is a telltale sign there are several details regarding this alleged attack which become difficult to credulously accept. Khan’s age, at the time of his death, was 28 (2 8’s/aces and eights/mark of the Jesuit order)

Yes folks, they’re telling you it is all a scripted theatrical show, meant for symbolic purposes.


Fishmongers’ Hall, the reported location of the recent London Bridge “terrorist attack” serves as a direct reference to the genuine perpetrators.

The Worshipful Company of Fishmongers is among one of the most ancient of the many livery companies occupying City of London which, of course, is the headquarters of the Lord Mayor and Crown Temple. As many of one’s loyal readers know, City of London and Crown Temple, along with the Vatican and Washington’s District of Columbia, represent the trident of global power and the triad of capitals which centralize the global hegemony of the thirteen, ruling elite Jesuit families.

SEE: How Crown Temple Rules America! (part I)

SEE also: How Crown Temple rules America (part II)

SEE also: How Crown Temple rules America (part III)

But for those who haven’t yet read the series of installments regarding the Crown Temple, here’s a brief historical synopsis.

Many of the 110 livery companies, located in City of London, were founded during the early historical period of the middle ages, in the 13th century and, according to Wikipedia, “comprise London’s ancient and modern trade associations and guilds of every trade, craft, or profession.” In addition to the “Worshipful Company” and their reputation for “charitable-giving” and “networking opportunities”, the liveryman – again, according to Wikipedia and confirmed by other texts on the subject of Crown Temple – “retain voting rights for the senior civic offices, such as the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and City of London Corporation, its ancient municipal authority with extensive local government powers.”

The latter part of the preceding paragraph, describing the role these “Worshipful Company” of Fishmongers play in the civic life outlying City of London Corporation, is indication enough of their enormous power and influence.

While primarily, their interests are commercial in nature, those of the “Worshipful Company” are not above indulging all manner of political chicanery to protect their commercial interests.

In other words, folks, those at the Crown Temple – the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and City of London Corporation – would not shy away from staging a simulated terrorist event, particularly, if they found it expedient to do so.

Politics and the public perceptions which, together, make up the status quo are proximal handmaidens of profitable commerce.

Surely, while the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers’ at City of London’s Crown Temple know this all-too-well, both are often manipulated to reinforce, bolster, and to consolidate such an enormous scope of political and commercial influence.

Regarding the description of the Fishmongers’ and those of their fellow craftsman among the City’s other 109 livery companies as “charitable” givers, as we’ve discovered through past investigations, the concepts of charity and philanthropy are often utilized to cloak the hidden pursuit of commercial profiteering. It should also be noted, the City of London Corporation is symbolically represented by the familiar red cross of the Templar/Masonic/Jesuit triumvirate.

City of London Corporation:


Fishmongers’ Hall, the location of the recent London Bridge terrorist event, also serves as a storage house for many British national treasures, including a 1955 portrait of the sitting British monarch Queen Elizabeth II, vast collections of gold and silver from both the 17th and 18th centuries, a funeral embroidery from the 15th century, and other priceless paintings created by George Romney and Samuel Scott.

The Hall is also known to hold a dagger which was once given to the City armory and – as legend has it – was used at the end of the 14th century Peasant’s Revolt by Lord Mayor Walworth to kill Wat Tyler, one of the rebellion’s most notable leaders.

Wikipedia claims there exists a consensus among British historians, the Lord Mayor’s use of the dagger to slay Tyler – as we’re finding with the story of Usman Khan – is merely a story which, over the centuries, became built into an iconic historical legend.

The dagger, these historians unanimously claim, was placed in the armory long before the Peasant’s Revolt where it was commonly used in ceremonies to represent the sword of Saint Paul. The sword or dagger is symbolic of martyrdom and Saint Paul’s beheading at the hands of Roman troops in 67AD.


Which brings us to the symbolic nature of the so-called Narwal tusk, claimed to have been used in an attempt to subdue Usman Khan from perpetrating further harm to innocent civilians while on the London Bridge. Considering the recent London Bridge “attack” from the historical context of the 14th century Peasant’s Revolt, it seems the entire affair may have been a theatrically inspired historical reenactment used for grander political purposes, a masonic reenactment of a noteworthy historical event echoed from ages past, starring Usman Khan in the place of the 14th century martyr, Wat Tyler, and slain at the hands of the Lord Mayor of City of London.

Interestingly, the Lord Mayor of City of London Corporation Peter Estlin, formerly of Barclay’s and elected on November 9, 2018, was coming to the end of his one-year term.


It should also be noted, the subject of the 14th century Peasant’s Revolt, according to Wikipedia, “has been widely used in socialist literature, including by the author William Morris, and remains a potent political symbol for the political left, informing the arguments surrounding the introduction of Community Charge (Poll Tax) in the United Kingdom during the 1980’s.”

It would seem – after putting on a public theatrical performance using the London Bridge as a grand Shakespearean stage to play out the symbolic martyrdom of their counter-intelligence agent Usman Khan – the thirteen, ruling elite Jesuit families and their minions at the Crown Temple are attempting to send a clear message to the masses: any and all attempted revolts by the peasant proletariat against their global socialist agenda will be immediately and severely dealt with.


When considering the story of convicted terrorist Usman Khan, the overall objective of the London Bridge attack as a psychological operation isn’t difficult to particularize. According to official accounts, Khan was first convicted on terrorism charges in 2012.  Before that, Khan’s home was reportedly raided by counter-terrorism police in 2008.

Considering the latter detail, Wikipedia as well as other mainstream sources are inferring 2008 was when “Usman Khan” was likely recruited to become an active counter-intelligence asset in an ongoing psychological operation which was planned to culminate eleven years later.

According to official sources, 2008 was also the year Khan was interviewed by the BBC. During that interview, Khan denied any involvement with terrorist activities.

This is a common pattern we’ve seen before.

Prior to the JFK “assassination”, Lee Harvey Oswald was invited to appear on American national television, to discuss his relationship to CIA’s counter-intelligence front, Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

As established through past investigations, the international intelligence octopus, including CIA/MI5/MI6 – on behalf of the thirteen families – has been in complete control of all mainstream television and print media since the post-war period of the mid-twentieth century. Widely promoted television appearances, such as Khan’s with the BBC, are designed to establish a counter-intelligence asset’s bona fides in the eyes of public perception.

Even though, as a trained counter-intelligence asset, Khan was trained to deny any connection to terrorist activities, his intelligence handlers knew his staunch denials would also establish suspicions in the collective subconscious of the general public. These denials were established early on, to be utilized to maximum effectiveness later when Khan was, once again, activated to advance the covert agenda of the programmed operation.

According to Wikipedia, Khan offered the same denials to a periodical in Stoke-on-Trent, using a “false name”.

Most likely, the “false name” scenario meant, at that early juncture of the psychological operation, the biographical sketch for the counter-intelligence asset or character parameters of “Usman Khan” were still in the process of being developed and tweaked.

Thus far, Khan’s official biographies do, in fact, appear to resemble a character cut straight from central casting or American “reality” television.

Procedurally, Khan’s official biography appears to follow the identical narrative paths of other such operatives and is strewn with the telltale earmarks of a high-profile counter-intelligence asset, much like those we have found in common with Lee Harvey Oswald (AKA Peter Sellers) or the former American counter-culture boogeyman Charles Manson (AKA David Geffen).

Both Oswald and Manson have been identified as actors who portrayed scripted roles in widely promoted psychological operations. These operations (JFK assassination/Manson family murders) had grand historical consequences and both assets – like Usman Khan – performed their roles while under the direction of the international intelligence octopus.

Further investigation into Khan’s official biographies presents nothing to dissuade us from this course of analysis.

Regarding Usman Khan’s conviction on terrorism charges in 2012, he was subsequently put under “the indeterminate sentence” which, according to Wikipedia and other mainstream sources, meant “Khan would have remained in prison for as long as it was felt necessary to keep the public safe.”

An appeal filed, in 2013, on Khan’s behalf, reversed the court’s decision, and the indeterminate sentence was “quashed”.

According to Lord Justice Leveson, Khan was “wrongly characterized”.

Surely, everyone can see the method of psychological operation on display.

Over the course of more than a decade, a single and high-profile counter-intelligence asset – “Usman Khan” – was strategically utilized to program public perceptions toward the enactment of broader and more stringent anti-terrorist policies, laws, and even greater levels of law enforcement/government surveillance.

But in addition to all of this, there was another objective.

The British corporate government wished to sell the public on the necessity for those suspected of “terrorist” behaviors to attend “Healthy Identity Intervention Program” which, according to Wikipedia, is “now the UK’s principal rehabilitation scheme for terrorism convicts.”

The operative word here is “scheme”, a scheming impetus to draw more tax dollars from the public to institutionalize a vast Orwellian program of mass behavioral modification.


The MSM alleges there were a total of five victims (two killed/three wounded) resulting from Usman Khan’s attack on the London Bridge near Fishmongers’ Hall on the 29th of November.


The MSM also alleges University graduate student Saskia Jones, 23, and 25 year-old Cambridge University student Jack Merritt were among those killed.

Certainly, everyone can readily see the numerological codes:

I.) Five victims: 5 (2 3’s=33/high-degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry

II.) Age of victims: 23, 25 (33/7/Kabbalah Zayin, the mind weapon or the hook)

III.) Date of attack: 29 (2 9’s or 18/666/law of occult mirrored reversal/2 6’s/12/21/777/intelligence joker code)

While examining the official images of Saskia Jones released by the MSM, there were noticeable facial resemblances to a certain member of the Grimaldi royal family of Monaco. While perusing the article available at the link, displayed above, you will readily notice not much is said about “Jones” beyond the expected emotionally evocative and mawkish human interest narrative.

Excerpted from the same article at, there is also the following, which reveals more than it undoubtedly intends:

“Jones family described her as having a ‘great passion for providing invaluable support to victims of criminal injustice, which led her to recently applying for the police graduate recruitment program’.”

Does this sound like the genuine sentiments of a grieving family, or, does it seem more likely this “statement” was pre-scripted and programmed for subsequent release to all MSM outlets?

Quite frankly, the stilted language of the statement resembles nothing more than a scripted advert for UK law enforcement and the UK’s Healthy Identity Intervention Program. Notice too, the family’s official statement incudes the revelation Jones was being used as a “recruiter”.

It seems likely, therefore, the UK’s HIIP was set up as a recruiting grounds on University campuses across the UK to acquire  greater numbers of possible counter-intelligence assets and law enforcement informants.

Turns out, further and more extensive facial recognition analysis of Jones’s official images reveal facial geometric features in common with those of Princess Alexandra of the royal Grimaldi family of Hanover and Monaco.

In terms of facial recognition analysis, the most obvious facial geometrical trait Jones and Alexandra have in common is with the architecture of the cheeks, which are both equally well-defined and prominent. The respective geometrical architectures of their teeth, eyes, and brow ridges are also nearly identical matches.

Given these overwhelming facial similarities, it appears images of the Princess were utilized as a host actor template to create the victim simulation known as “Saskia Jones”.

Saskia Jones:

Princess Alexandra Grimaldi of Hanover/Monaco:

Saskia Jones:

Princess Alexandra of Monaco:

Saskia Jones:

Princess Alexandra of Monaco:

Further and more extensive image examination of the remaining London bridge fatality, Jack Merritt, has revealed he bears a striking resemblance to Princess Alexandra’s long-time boyfriend, Ben Sylvester Trautman. The given name of ‘Jack’ is a reference to the joker hidden within the suit of playing cards. It is also a reference to a ‘false identity’ created by intelligence.

Princess Alexandra of Monaco and Ben Trautman:

Vigils held for London Bridge victims:

Ben Sylvester Trautman:

Jack Merritt:

And, of course, the London Police Commissioner Cressida Dick, is also a royal family member. Genealogically speaking, she belongs to the Swabian/Austro-German royal House of von Furstenberg which, in turn, is related to the British House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Cressida Dick’s host actor also starred in both the Jean Benet Ramsey and Sandy Hook Massacre crisis simulation events.

SEE: The Rockefellers and Their Phony Feminists

Tatiana von Furstenberg:

London Metro Police Commissioner Cressida Dick:








3 thoughts on “London Bridge “terrorist” Falls, Gets Back Up?

Leave a Reply