For decades, Milton Friedman was the rock star of theoretical economics.

Over a period of decades, Friedman’s face became just as recognizable to Americans as those of many Hollywood celebrities.

It could also be said, Friedman’s ubiquitous public appearances while serving up fast food academia to middle America helped to create the concept of television punditry, television personalities which, today, are better known as “experts”.

With numerous television appearances, door stopping publications, and college lectures to his credit, Friedman became the symbolic epitome of free market economics.

But what if, Friedman’s persona was nothing more than a theatrical stage act, a live action cartoon guru backed with nothing more than manufactured academic bona fides to legitimize it?

Recently, a curious piece of footage surfaced, which featured Friedman facing off with a slew of European academics to discuss the validity of his economic theories.

The facial geometry of one those “academics” appeared familiar.

Upon closer scrutiny, this “European academic” turned out to be very familiar indeed.

In fact, the actor portraying the role of this “academic” enjoyed a long career on both British television and on the theatrical stage, before, in the latter stages of his career, moving on to both featured appearances on American television and in award-winning Hollywood cinematic productions.

Of course, upon making this relatively startling discovery, one became suspicious of Friedman as well.

Could it have been possible, as in the case of this “European academic”, Friedman was also a fabricated character scheme?

Not only did “Milton Friedman” turn out to be an award-winning Hollywood actor in disguise, it also turns out, Friedman’s host actor is the hidden father of Marlon Brando (AKA Burt Reynolds).


Have you never sometimes wondered what your favorite actors are doing between movie productions?

Oftentimes, they can be found on television talk shows, making appearances, cast in the disguise of either guests, or, in the case of the video excerpt, displayed above, posing as “academics” and other assorted “experts” from any field of human endeavor.

Everyone will readily observe, the preceding video excerpt features renowned economic theorist “Milton Friedman”, seated to the far right.

Before delving into an analysis of Friedman’s fabricated character scheme, we shall focus our attentions – for the moment – on the theatrical performance of the “academic” seated directly to the left of the Icelandic television host.

What everyone shall observe, is a prime example of Post-Modern Reality Simulation.

After fast forwarding the video and freezing it at exactly 37:33, everyone will be able to better scrutinize – what should be – the recognizable facial geometry and voice characteristics of the “academic” in question.

Surely, everyone will notice, right away, this actor is donned in a very noticeably ridiculous and ill-fitting hair piece.

But, more importantly, while listening to the timbre and cadence of the character’s voice, does it sound familiar?

If not readily apparent, perhaps a comparison analysis with the voice of the featured actor in the following video excerpt – derived from 1991’s Braveheart, which also starred Mel Gibson – will help to stimulate some measure of familiarity.


Or, perhaps, the following vintage clip from this BBC 1967 cult-classic television production will prove to be a better vehicle for comparison.

The Prisoner:

Yes folks, extensive image comparison, ear biometric, facial recognition and voice comparison analysis confirm, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, the arrogant intellectual with the ill-fitting hair piece, is a fabricated character scheme portrayed by an award-winning British/Irish actor of both stage and screen renown, Patrick McGoohan.

Patrick McGoohan:

Olafur Grimsson:

Incidentally, folks, the fabricated character scheme known as “Grimsson” went on to become president of Iceland, and presided over that country’s economic catastrophe during the early 21st century.


According to his official biographical entry at Wikipedia, McGoohan began his career on the British stage. His maiden appearance on the stage – “in a West End production of a play called Serious Charge in the role of a Church of England vicar accused of being homosexual” – caught the eye of, none other than, Orson Welles.

Later, in 1969, Welles said of McGoohan’s performance, “he would now be, I think, one of the big actors of our generation if TV hadn’t grabbed him. He can still make it. He was tremendous as Starbuck”, and “with all the required attributes, looks, intensity, unquestionable acting ability and a twinkle in his eye.”

Certainly, Welles’s forecasting of McGoohan’s career proved highly accurate.

He went on to portray one of the grandest roles of them all – the president of a Crown Temple corporation – Iceland – the host actor behind the masked persona of Olafur Grimsson.

Earlier in his acting career, McGoohan was considered for the role of James Bond, in the film production of 1962’s Dr. No.

Of course, this biographical anecdote comes as no surprise, since, the Bond films were produced by Albert Romolo “Cubby” Broccoli who, it has been proved, was himself a fabricated character scheme portrayed by – wait for it folks – Orson Welles.

SEE: 007 & The Legend of Tubal-Cane


According to Wikipedia, McGoohan was raised a Roman Catholic, and spent his formative years educated in Roman Catholic institutions: Saint Vincent’s School, La Salle College, and Ratcliffe College, a boarding and day school for upper-class coeds.

Without belaboring the point – as most everyone who frequents this site is aware – the Roman Catholic church is controlled by the Jesuit order or the Society of Jesus, and the Council of Thirteen, which consists of an emissary from each of the ruling elite families.

There is, nevertheless, an interesting anecdote, verified by Wikipedia, concerning the Saint Vincent’s School.

The School was located at a church – in the City of Sheffield, South Yorkshire – which has now fallen into disuse.

However, shortly after its construction, in the mid 19th century, according to Wikipedia, “the chapel was greatly expanded in 1856 by George Goldie, a partner of {Matthew Ellison} Hadfield’s, with the addition of a nave and a chancel…”

To everyone who frequents this site, that word – “chancel” – should ring with some familiarity.

The chancel, in addition to referencing church architecture and the Latin Cross, also relates to the legal structure of the Crown Temple in the City of London, which is divided into two parts, the Round and the Chancel.

SEE: How Crown Temple Rules America

Although, conceptually, they may appear dissimilar, there isn’t much difference between one’s faith in the dogma of Catholicism or the uniform popular consent given over to the prevailing commercial practices of finance or trade.

Both require the payment of indulgences, whether in the form of donations to the church or to the church of finance in the form of taxation or in the form of interest on the principal of a loan.

In that sense, both the adherence to religious dogma and the uniform popular consent demonstrated towards the prevailing economic system(s) – graduated taxation, interest-bearing commercial and merchant banking established and controlled by the Crown Temple and the Vatican bank – are conceptually synonymous.


From the beginning of his career in the public’s eye, “Milton Friedman” was always considered to be at the forefront of modern economic theory. Though this perception may still be the consensus among academic circles and in the eyes of the public, alike, an objective analysis of Friedman’s performance in the video excerpt, displayed above, demonstrates something else entirely,

If listened to closely, the substance of the “discussion” or “debate” between Freidman and his alleged academic colleagues seems remarkably threadbare and even superficial.

The crux of the discussion turns on an age-old dialectical and philosophical struggle: between that of socialism and capitalism, between the redistribution of wealth and the perpetuation of free markets.

Of course, throughout the course of the video, both Friedman and his alleged fellow academic colleagues can be heard spouting a litany of statistics to support their scripted arguments. But as Samuel Clemens (AKA Mark Twain) was once quoted as saying, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

As everyone has readily observed – in the case of the “Covid-19 pandemic” – statistics can be wholly manufactured in service to the successful execution of nefarious psychological operations.

What Friedman and his alleged colleagues never dare to mention is that capitalism is found to be the prevailing system when a new market is established for the economic exploitation of both its human and natural resources.

Socialism or Marxism becomes the prevailing system when that same market defaults on the interest of its principal loans from the central banking subsidiaries of the Crown Temple and, therefore, indebted, is subsequently bled dry of its “wealth”, profits from which are distributed to and legally monopolized by the thirteen, ruling elite Jesuit families.

At around the identical juncture of the video excerpt mentioned earlier – 37:33 – everyone will notice that Friedman and Grimsson become embroiled in a comparison and contrast between the economic systems of China and free market economies, such as those existing in Western Europe and in America.

Despite various statistical analyses bandied about in support of either economic philosophy, Friedman and Grimsson never bother to mention that both China and America were founded as joint stock markets designed to be used as dialectical pawns in a grand game of geopolitical chess.

Friedman and his colleagues also fail to mention that, despite the superficial differences of both prevailing economic philosophies, these are merely smokescreens to hide the hand of their creators, the Jesuit order.

The economic markets of both China and America were established as Jesuit controlled joint stock commercial ventures, front corporations veiling the mercantile global trade (holding company) of the Dutch East India Tea Company.


The following link to the image, displayed below, represents empirical evidence which supports this premise.

The emanations of both the British and the American flags derive from the design of the official corporate logo of the East India Tea Company controlled by the Jesuit order.

Flag of East India Tea Company:


As for Friedman himself, extensive voice analysis reveals vocal tonality, breath frequency, and other aural similarities in common with the following renowned Hollywood actor appearing in the video excerpt, featured below.

Everyone will take note of the fact, the subject of the interview mentions both the Hollywood cinema classic “On the Waterfront” and Marlon Brando.

This anecdote is not coincidental.

SEE: Marlon Brando: Godfather of Hollywood chameleons?

The actor featured in the video excerpt – Rod Steiger – not only starred with Brando in “On the Waterfront”, he also happens to be the actor’s hidden father.

Further image, facial recognition, and ear biometric comparison analysis confirm that “Milton Friedman” is a fabricated character scheme portrayed by Hollywood actor Rod Steiger.

Milton Friedman:

Rod Steiger:

19 thoughts on “Milton’s Free-For-All Fraud

  1. Hello again, I hope you had an enjoyable summer.

    I don’t know if you mentioned before but I’m fairly sure the Brando is also Ed O’Neill the comedy actor. I think it’s also possible that he plays Leslie Neilsen. Decent comedy chops, as you would expect.

    1. Good to hear from you, once again, and it was a remarkable summer – one of the best in recent memory. Brando, like Sir Alec Guinness, is a man of many faces. There can be no doubt, he is also Burt Reynolds, the former spouse of Lonnie Anderson AKA Sally Field, who also – recently – participated in the George Floyd race hoax, starring as his former grade school teacher. Nielsen, however is an interesting character – worth looking into further. If memory serves, didn’t he star in the Naked Gun – the series of spy spoofs/satires?

      1. That’s good to hear.

        The first two Naked Guns and also Airplane are some of my favourite comedy films. Mostly thanks to Nielsen.

        If you care to look at the recent comedy series, Modern Family, I believe there are a few other members of the Brando family in starring roles.

      2. I will indeed check into that comedy series. It is also interesting to note, Nielsen starred in a Columbo episode as a CIA agent, an assassin. The other star in that very episode was Patrick McGoohan who also portrayed a CIA agent. The CIA, of course, is controlled by the Jesuit order, in Rome. Peter Falk (AKA the Twilight Zone’s Rod Serling) also starred in a Columbo episode with John Cassavetes AKA Anthony Bourdain.

  2. That’s interesting. I’ll keep an eye out for him in future. One other Brando character I forgot to mention is Robert Hunter from Grateful Dead.

    By the way, if you ever need a good laugh search for some Alan Partridge online. His recent works, Mid Morning Matters, Scissored Isle and This Time with Alan Partridge are all brilliant. I think they can be found on Vimeo or YouTube.

      1. They look to be the same person. It seems like there was a media rivallry between the bands, which can sometimes be a giveaway.

        He also bears resemblance to Free guitarist, Paul Kossoff.

      2. I’ve learned that valuable, profit making music industry assets such as Van Halen are used again and again, rebranded into other genres. A prime example of this scenario would be Charles Alden Black, the son of Shirley Temple, who – as you know – has portrayed a number of high-profile rock stars, Freddie Mercury, Steven Tyler, Chris Cornell, and John Taylor of Duran Duran. Another would be, of course, John Lennon (Peter Sellers) AKA Buddy Holly/Mike Nesmith/Steve Perry/Robin Zander. I’ll have to check out Paul Kossoff.

      3. According to the article I just consulted, Kossoff died in London, at the age of 26. Soon after, Van Halen began to emerge as a top-level club act. Between Kossoff and Van Halen, the noses and brow architecture appear similar. Further research is needed. Believe it or not, I’m not familiar with this act – Free. I grew up listening to mostly classical and Jazz, though I have always found a great appreciation for the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd.

      4. I thought the shape of the mouth was similar as well.

        Funny you should mention Jazz, I recently decided to become more familiar with the genre, but don’t know where to start. Do you have any recommendations? I only know Miles Davis and Django Reinhardt.

      5. Yes, the official story of Kossoff’s “death” seems to follow a familiar template. As for your burgeoning interest in Jazz. Both of those artists you mentioned are truly great – especially Miles Davis. He’s an excellent place to start – only because his music also has certain commercial sensibilities. A Kind of Blue – Miles Ahead – those are the recordings I would recommend – to start with – if you’re truly interested. Then, there’s Mingus, Monk, Herb Alpert. Classical – Vivaldi, Bach, Beethoven, Ravel, and, of course, the immortal Mozart – even though he was a 33rd degree Mason. LOL!

      1. I don’t think it was any coincidence an act like the Grateful Dead happened to reach the public’s eye at the same time that large outdoor festivals such as Woodstock were becoming viable commercial venues.

Leave a Reply