In practice, politics is the art of deception. The creation of political capital, on the other hand, is deception writ large. The latter scenario implies using whatever tools are at one’s disposal to remain firmly ensconced in office and to keep one’s snout firmly plunged into the public money trough.

The latest MSM news story involving an “attack” on “Paul Pelosi”, the spouse of U.S. House Speaker “Nancy Pelosi”, represents a dramatic illustration as to what shameful depths, even beyond the point of absurdity, to which some “elected” representatives will stoop to maintain a hold on the reins of power.

But before revealing the genuine identity of “Paul Pelosi”, as most may recall from a previously published article, “Nancy Pelosi” is a pseudonym used by a fabricated character scheme portrayed by a European princess (Princess Lee Bouvier Kennedy Radziwill), a sibling of Jaclyn Kennedy Bouvier Onassis (AKA Shirley Temple Black/Marilyn Monroe/Judy Garland/Helen Thomas/Madeleine Albright/Queen Silvia of Sweden) who, over the course of her long career, has been modified into both a Hollywood actress – one related to Henry Fonda (AKA Walt Disney/FDR/Fred Astaire/Jimmy Stewart/Prince Tassilo Egon von Furstenberg) – and a country/western popular music industry star who most recently performed in a promotional spot for Covid-19 “vaccines”.

Below: Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart, Walt Disney, Fred Astaire, Prince Tassilo Egon von Furstenberg

Henry-Fonda[4346]download (2)[4347]

Below from L to R: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda

SEE: Begging the Parton of a Princess

FDR: America’s Royal Hollywood Fraud

Below L to R: Nancy Pelosi, Jane Fonda, Princess Lee Bouvier Radziwill, Dolly Parton

OIP (20)[6211]OIP (21)[6212]OIP (23)[6214]OIP (22)[6213]

As everyone shall soon observe, the narrative details of the MSM’s reports concerning the recent “attack” on “Paul Pelosi” are riven with contradictions, anomalies, and outright absurdities.

Below: Princess Lee Bouvier Kennedy Radziwill, Jane Fonda, Nancy Pelosi


download (3)

In fact, this most recent MSM-promoted story involving “Paul Pelosi” could best be characterized as a melodrama-ridden television production derived from a badly conceived Hollywood movie script.

But none of this is surprising when – upon further investigation – one discovers “Paul Pelosi” – who, according to official biographies was educated at Jesuit-founded Georgetown University and Saint Ignatius Preparatory High School in San Francisco, another Jesuit-founded school located in a city traditionally dominated by Jesuit-trained public officials – is a fabricated character scheme portrayed by a French filmmaker, a former spouse of Hollywood actress “Jane Fonda” (AKA Nancy Pelosi).

In fact – as shall soon be delved into with greater detail – this French filmmaker directed “Barbarella”, the cinema production which helped to make “Jane Fonda” (AKA Nancy Pelosi/Dolly Parton/Princess Lee Bouvier Kennedy Radziwill) into a bankable Hollywood movie star.

OIP (15)[6200]OIP (38)[6197]

OIP (19)[6225]OIP (32)[6210]


If there’s one thing everyone can depend upon – when it comes to promoting high-profile prime-time news narratives – the MSM can never seem to get its story straight. This especially appears to be the case – beyond the level of comical absurdity – with the MSM’s reportage of the recently alleged “attack” on “Paul Pelosi”.

According to Fox News, during an official press conference, a San Francisco police department spokesperson suggested there were more than two people – the alleged assailant David DePape, the alleged victim, “Paul Pelosi” and one other person, unnamed – at the scene of the crime, the Pelosi’s San Francisco residence.

According to several MSM sources, an official San Franscico police department report stated: “When the door was opened, Pelosi and DePape were both holding a hammer with one hand and DePape had his other hand holding onto Pelosi’s forearm. Pelosi greeted the officers. The officers asked them what was going on. DePape responded everything was good.”

Accordingly, an article published at reported, “Officers arrived at the house, knocked on the front door and were let inside by an unknown person.”

However, this was a particular narrative detail which – a mere two days later – the editors at chose to robustly disavow.

“Pro-Trump commentators weighed in online to raise questions about the investigation,” stated after-the-fact, “based on unfounded and false claims. Among those baseless claims, that a third person answered the door when police arrived at the Pelosi home.”

The crux of the preceding statement implies a deliberate effort to greet adherents – albeit fanatical, misguided, and self-deluded – to both left and rightwing political ideologies into heated opposition. This calculatingly dialectical method of population control – along with the phenomenon of Post-Modern Reality Simulation – represents a time-tested hallmark of psychological operations, to the effect that targeted population groups – deliberately segmented, suffering from psychological demoralization while instigated into combatants – will never unite to oppose the hidden perpetrators having led them to such grave misfortune.

Thus far, in the course of investigation, we’ve only arrived at the juncture of the “official” MSM narrative when the alleged assailant either has or has not broken down the door before beginning his “attack” upon the alleged victim – “Paul Pelosi” – and already there are acute problems.

But wait – there are more murky obfuscations and acutely greater narrative contradictions yet to be served up by the always reliably authoritative imbeciles employed by the MSM.

As everyone shall surely surmise, without exception, every “official” statement or commentary made either by directly involved parties – including the alleged “victim” “Paul Pelosi” – or from a corporately owned MSM anchor desk in relation to what appears to have been a theatrically staged, scripted event, are laden with deliberately placed ambiguities, as if to erect for the perpetrating executors of this psychological operation an impenetrable wall of plausible deniability.


The MSM uniformly claimed “Paul Pelosi” didn’t know or wasn’t familiar with his assailant – alleged to have been David DePape.

And yet, the content of the alleged 911 emergency phone call made to the San Francisco police from the scene of the alleged crime at the Pelosi residence stated otherwise.

911 Dispatcher: RP (reporting person) stated that there is a male in the home and that he is going to wait for the wife. RP stated that he doesn’t know who the male is, but he advised that his name is David and that he is a friend.”

The lucid implication made by the 911 dispatcher that the victim may have been familiar with his alleged “attacker” David DePape – clearly referred to as “David”, a “friend” – stands in clean contrast to numerous statements made after-the-fact- by “Paul Pelosi”, which contrarily indicate he had never seen DePape before.

If any or all of the narrative elements thus far mentioned in relation to the MSM’s reportage of what may or may not have occurred at the Pelosi residence at 2 A.M. on Friday evening of October 28 appear to have been derived from a badly conceived movie script, that could be primarily due to the fact “Paul Pelosi” has been identified as a fabricated character scheme portrayed by a French filmmaker, a former spouse of Hollywood actress “Jane Fonda” (AKA Nancy Pelosi).


From the opening frames of the following video excerpt – the link to which has been posted immediately below – which demonstrates an aerial view of the Pelosi residence, everyone will notice a substantial quantity of broken glass strewn on the brick steps of the terraced entrance.

If – as the MSM uniformly contended at the initial stages of its reportage – the alleged assailant David DePape attempted to break into the residence through a window using a hammer, wouldn’t the dispersal of broken glass have mostly fallen on the inside of the residence, rather than strewn on the terraced steps on the outside?

None other than an MSM source – – confirms the validity of this observation. 

“When police arrived on the scene, they saw signs of forced entry, including broken glass.”

The MSM source at also confirms that “Mr. Pelosi” and “the suspect” were both “holding a hammer” when police arrived on the scene Friday evening, and as well confirms that it was “Paul Pelosi” who made an “open-line” 911 call around 2 A.M.

“Our officers observed Mr. Pelosi and the suspect both holding a hammer,” said {San Francisco Police Chief William} Scott. “The suspect pulled the hammer away from Mr. Pelosi and violently assaulted him with it.”

Does the Chief of the San Francisco Police mean to imply his responding officers chose to watch “Paul Pelosi” get assaulted before choosing to act with preventive measures?

Really now?

Nevertheless, therefore, all of this begs two remaining questions, answers to which will no doubt be left unforthcoming by the MSM or anyone speaking on behalf of the Pelosi family: 1.) who – other than “Paul Pelosi” and the victim’s assailant David DePape – was alleged to have been at the Pelosi residence as implied in their initial reportage? 2.) If “Paul Pelosi” was preoccupied fending off his alleged assailant while scuffling for possession of a blunt instrument – a hammer – then how did he manage to successfully dial 911 simultaneously?


According to Wikipedia, “Roger Vadim was a French screenwriter, film director and producer, as well as an author, artist, and occasional actor.”

It turns out, acting is more than an “occasional” past time for Roger Vadim, who also portrays the spouse of US House Speaker, “Nancy Pelosi”.

Regarding Vadim’s career in film direction, “His best-known works are visually lavish films with erotic qualities, such as And God Created Woman (1956), Blood and Roses (1960), Barbarella (1968), and Pretty Maids (1971).” 

Everyone surely noted that Wikipedia characterizes the films of Roger Vadim as having “erotic qualities”.

Could this be why – the CIA/Jesuit-controlled MSM corporate television news networks and mainstream online periodicals –,,, for example – uniformly chose to describe David DePape as a “nudist activist”.

Pathetically, these same MSM sources are also linking DePape’s “nudist” activism with “Q-anon conspiracy theorists” and “racism” in an effort to ramp up the tone of psychological warfare on behalf of their Jesuit masters at the Vatican in Rome.

Be that as it may, but does Wikipedia’s narrative detail concerning Roger Vadim – characterizing his movies as having “erotic qualities” – in relation to David DePape’s “nudist activism” represent a key clue that not only did Jane Fonda’s former spouse fake his death and is still alive – Wikipedia claims Vadim died in 2000 – but that he is still married to US House Speaker “Nancy Pelosi” (AKA Jane Fonda/Dolly Parton/Princess Lee Bouvier Kennedy Radziwill)?      

Could it be, too, Roger Vadim, the former spouse of “Jane Fonda” (AKA US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) composed the script, produced and directed behind the camera, and, as well, acted the lead role in the recently staged “Paul Pelosi” “attack”/socio-political/media-driven psychological operation? 

Below from L to R: Paul Pelosi, Roger Vadim


In 1968, with a reported budget of $4-9 million dollars, Roger Vadim directed Jane Fonda (AKA Nancy Pelosi/Dolly Parton/Princess Lee Bouvier Kennedy Radziwill) while making Barbarella which, Wikipedia reports, was a “science fiction film based on the French comic series of the same name by Jean-Claude Forest.”

Wikipedia further confirms, “The film stars Jane Fonda as the title character, a space-traveler and representative of the United Earth government sent to find scientist Durand Durand, who has created a weapon that could destroy humanity.” 

It should be noted, Duran Duran became the name of an MTV-era pop group which starred “John Taylor”, a fabricated character scheme portrayed by Charles Alden Black Junior (AKA Steven Tyler/Freddie Mercury/David Icke/Antony Blinken/The Edge/Chris Cornell), the son of Shirley Temple Black (AKA Jaclyn Kennedy Bouvier Onassis/Judy Garland/Marilyn Monroe/Helen Thomas/Madeleine Albright/Queen Silvia of Sweden) who is also genealogically related to British actor “Orlando Bloom” (AKA Volodymyr Zelensky/Chester Bennington/Prince Carl Phillip of Sweden), the spouse of American pop star Katy Perry (Princess Sofia, Duchess of Varmland/Olena Zelensky/Talinda Bennington).

SEE: His Highness Hollywood Fraud Zelensky

At approximately 0:40 seconds into the video excerpt posted below, everyone will observe “John Taylor” (AKA Charles Alden Black Junior), with a knowing twinkle in his eye while smirking straight into the camera, say, “It’s interesting to see me – or whoever that guy is who purports to be me.”

Not only that, but – at approximately 1:41 in the same video clip – “John Taylor” confirms the Roger Vadim-directed film Barbarella, which starred Jane Fonda (AKA Nancy Pelosi), was the source of his band’s renowned moniker. 

But that’s not all.

A bit later in the video – at approximately 2:04 – “John Taylor” also mentions a meeting in New York with “Andy Warhol” (AKA Hollywood actor Dennis Hopper/John F. Kennedy/Roger Daltrey), a fabricated character scheme modified from the media image of “assassinated” US president “John F. Kennedy”. 

SEE: Anatomy of a Hollywood Death Hoax II


According to Wikipedia, Roger Vadim was born with a Russian surname – Plemiannikov. His father, a Russian emigre who later became a French citizen, was a White Russian military officer and professional pianist. Apparently, Vadim’s father also served in the diplomatic services. Regarding this aspect of the professional career of Roger Vadim’s father, Igor, Wikipedia confirms, “He {Igor Plemiannikov} was a vice consul of France to Egypt, stationed in Alexandria, later posting to Mersin, Turkey as a consul.” 

In the context of the international diplomatic services, the rank of vice consul comes with a form of legal immunity, meaning, under the principal of Admiralty Law, those who officially serve as consuls, according to, “are not subject to the jurisdiction of local courts and other authorities for both their official and, to a large extent, their personal activities.”

Due to his father’s position and duties, Wikipedia reports, “Vadim lived as a diplomat’s child in Nothern Africa and the Middle East.” 

Based on the preceding information, is it fair to speculate, therefore, that Roger Vadim – a worldly, cosmopolitan man with vast experience in the Hollywood entertainment movie industry, while acting under the guise of a pseudonym, “Paul Pelosi” – could have recently directed a media-driven hoax in San Francisco and, perhaps more speculatively but still pertinently, did so while legally covered with legal immunity from the US corporate government?


Ear biometric, facial recognition, and image comparison analysis indicates French Filmmaker Roger Vadim and “Paul Pelosi” are one and the same.

In the first pair of images, not only are key facets of the respective facial geometries identically symmetrical, proportional – chins, noses, brows, lips, eyes, nasolabial folds – but the respective epidermal and geometrical contours of the ears also prove conspicuously identical. 

Below from L to R: Paul Pelosi, Roger Vadim

While positioned from alternative angles, the comparatively identical geometrical symmetries and identical proportionalities of the respective chins, jawlines, brows, eyes, noses, and lips, as well as the identical alignments of the respective hairlines demonstrated in the following sets of images are perhaps better and more conspicuously exhibited.

Also, while making ocular comparisons between the following sets of images, everyone will begin to better observe the identical epidermal, proportional symmetries of the respective facial geometries and the identical epidermal contours of the ears

Still thinking everything reported by the blow-dried teleprompter reading CIA/Jesuit-controlled MSM news anchors represents anything close to what constitutes an objective conception of “reality”?

Time to start thinking again because the MSM is serving up Post-Modern Reality Simulation!

Unfortunately, too many mistakenly believe in the simulation and choose to ignore objective reality.

While you’re at it, be sure to visit for t-shirts, coffee mugs, hoodies, and much more.

Why not give the gift of truth to that someone special this holiday season?


19 thoughts on “Pelosi Case Hammered Wide Open

  1. Thanks for your article. Vadim’s wife Brigitte Bardot seems to be a decent woman. Catherine Deneuve had a lot of drama. His sister Françoise Dorléac gone too soon.

    Wait to see…

    1. The point of your inane commentary is what exactly? Precisely what is it you’re waiting to see? My guess is – you’re hiding a genuine identity with a pseudonym picked out of a world Rand McNally and, along with “Christy” – Ms. Princess Diaries – both of you constitute a tandem troll patrol? Prove me wrong. If my intuition is correct, have you never realized – “France”? – you’re working for the very people who are charged with protecting the perpetrators – those with ambitions far beyond the conception of either yourself or those either paying or overseeing you while trolling this site – of global genocide via UN Agenda 2030/2050? Just let that sink in before endeavoring to comment again.

      1. Are you serious? I am fascinated with your work actually obsessed as I sit here and research! I’ve made a family tree to better understand esp those I tell. Poster board & sticky notes. Thanks again!

      2. Very well – glad to hear you’re making a genuine effort to do your own research. As you can well understand, trolls have been known to congregate at this site like homing pigeons. Be advised, ongoing investigation has resulted in pinpointing their identities. I’m also well aware of their tactics. Surely, you can understand, blank-faced icons attached to names which don’t trace to any known accounts online are likely to stimulate one’s suspicions. Nevertheless, as for Agenda 2030/2050, its seventeen sustainability goals and their dire implications for the survival of mankind, yes, indeed, rest assured, one is dead serious – as you should be.

      3. In retrospect, I find it interesting, rather curious, in fact, to note that when I replied directly to commentary made by “France” it was you who vehemently dismissed my speculations. And another thing – “sticky notes” and “poster boards”? In this digital age?

      4. I am not a troll. I live in France and Brigitte Bardot is so much popular… Your articles are good and interesting but sometimes, the people I don’t know on the articles. But when the article is Roger Vadim, I think automatically to Brigitte.
        Don’t worry about me. I seek the truth.

        I hope in the future I express myself better. I am not stupid. I don’t want hurting anybody.

        I wish you offers to me a bit of confidence. I am honest an I am not satisfying of this “wonderful World” created by this shameless creatures and more.

        Everybody can be digressive or incorrect. So, I am confused.
        I read your articles. A bientôt.

    1. Be forewarned, however – once you begin to see “reality” from a new perspective, interactive social relations with friends, co-workers, even family members may become strained to the breaking point. You may discover delving deeper into the topics discussed on this site is not for everyone. Most don’t want to seek out the truth because it would mean absconding from their psychologically conditioned comfort zones. As well, you may begin to observe that everything they believe is artificial, regurgitated prevarications derived from sophisticated forms of MSM propaganda.

    2. I know what you’re intending with the comment you just made concerning Roger Vadim (AKA Paul Pelosi) at approximately 4:46, afternoon of November 4 in conjunction with the article exposing “Meghan Markle”. It is intended to discredit the author, to give the impression to those readers who encounter it that the identification emanated from your “poster boards” and “sticky notes”. Though you might think such underhanded tactics are clever, rest assured, they’re transparent as glass.

    1. I find your description of the perpetrators of this staged event to be accurate, even apt. This particular psychological operation was executed for ulterior, even sinister motives, none of which will be of any benefit to the American people.

    2. In response to your email, “Charles Manson” was an intelligence created fabricated character scheme portrayed by Hollywood executive David Geffen. As for the alleged “school shooting” at Columbine, that even was an HSLEEP (Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness Exercise) drill stage managed for the purpose of media-driven “gun control” propaganda.

  2. Considering the fact that “Paul Pelosi” appears to assume multiple character roles along with his wife “Nancy”, I doubt he was even inside the house when it was reportedly broke into by the alleged assailant David DePape. No doubt he and his wife scripted and televised – with the assistance of the MSM, of course – the whole charade in complete safety in some remote area near the crime scene.

    I also like to mention the fact that the DePape connection ties us to the January 6th psyop from last year. Hence the references of “Nancy! Where’s Nancy?!” in the deposition papers and of the U.S. Capitol police being absent in both events when they were most needed. All they did was simply rehash key details from previous stories and incorporated them into this one.

    And finally, the cherry on top of the cake: Nancy Pelosi’s CNN interview with Anderson Cooper. You’ll see that throughout the entire episode that despite her attempts to appear emotional in front of the camera, there’s no sign of real pain or grief showing through nor any tears or watery eyes. It’s a rather bland and transparent performance from her at best. Here’s the video:

    To me, it seems that she’s not even trying to be somewhat convincing, knowing that many gullible people will fall for her feigned melodrama and will attack those who see through the scam and call it out for what it is. It’s really pathetic.

    1. Yes, of course, all are salient points. And, indeed, the entire farce demonstrates quite a pathetic attempt to gain political capital. Further research indicates that the address where the incident was alleged to have taken place is not the Pelosi residence.

      1. “Further research indicates that the address where the incident was alleged to have taken place is not the Pelosi residence.”

        I always suspected that the house where this event allegedly took place was probably one of their many props they use for such things or it was rented out. I’m sure the actual Pelosi residence is not even in the neighborhood where this happened. But only time will tell what your research will show on this matter. Take care.

      2. There are indications the Pelosi residence is somewhere on Pacific Avenue but at this time I cannot confirm that. You’re most likely correct – the alleged location of the “assault” was nothing more than a Hollywood-styled prop set.

Leave a Reply