Category Archives: Capitalism in Decay

China, the Big Puzzle

The Chinese are NOT sending troops to a country and bombing them back to the stone age. The reality is the Chinese are treating other countries as Sovereign. That means as a Sovereign country, you can do as you wish. If countries do not see a win/win situation, they can choose to walk away. How hard is this to understand? Examples of “smaller” countries dealing with China:

The Illegality of US Sanctions


by John Helmer, Moscow

In 1487, when Edmund Duke of Edinburgh, aka the Black Adder, wanted to strike fear into the English royal court, and also the Spaniards, he called his valet to dress him in his Russian codpiece.

Do I need to tell the young girls and boys in charge of war in Washington, DC, just how big the Russian codpiece was back then? Are they so mesmerized by its size today they believe the law is on their side when they try to strike back? If so, girls and boys, you have an unsavoury surprise coming – and I’m not referring to what will happen if the codpiece comes off.

According to the ruling of the Supreme Court – that’s the highest court in the United Kingdom — last week’s attempt at sanctions on Bank Rossiya, and threats by the US Senate and White House of third-stage sanctions against other Russian banks and corporations, are likely to be ruled unlawful outside the US. If European companies of US corporations attempt to implement them – for example, Visa, Master Card, and Western Union — they are likely to face successful court challenges from London to Frankfurt. They will also trigger strike-outs, damages and penalties for any European government attempting to take orders from the US Treasury.

sumptionThe Supreme Court judgement was issued by a 9-judge panel last June, and written for the majority by Lord Justice Jonathan Sumption (right). The case was on appeal by the Iranian international bank, Bank Mellat, against Her Majesty’s Treasury. Backed by the UK parliament, the Treasury had imposed sanctions to stop the Iranian bank’s business. This was based on American allegations that the bank was assisting the Iranian nuclear programme.

The court said it didn’t doubt there was, as the British Government claimed, a “relevant risk” to the national interests of the UK if Iran was producing nuclear weapons. But the court judged there was no evidence to substantiate that Bank Mellat’s business posed such a risk; that the minority shareholding in the bank by the Iranian government added to the risk; or that sanctioning the bank by cutting off its UK and international business was lawful.

According to the majority of the Supreme Court, “the direction [for sanctions] was irrational in its incidence and disproportionate to any contribution which it could rationally be expected to make to its objective. I conclude that it was unlawful. ..I also consider that the Bank is entitled to succeed on the ground that it received no notice of the Treasury’s intention to make the direction, and therefore had no opportunity to make representations. The duty to give advance notice and an opportunity to be heard to a person against whom a draconian statutory power is to be exercised is one of the oldest principles of what would now be called public law.” – par 27-29.

All that remains in the UK now is for Bank Mellat to obtain a court assessment of the financial damage inflicted over the four years the British sanctions were in place, October 2009 to June 2013. That will be at least $100 million, and maybe, with costs, interest, and penalties, more than $200 million.

Again, according to Sumption, “the object of the direction, as the Treasury acknowledges, was to shut the Bank out of the UK financial sector, and that has been its effect. Before the direction, the Bank had a substantial international business, much of it international trade finance transacted through London. In the year to March 2009, it issued letters of credit with an aggregate value of about US$11 billion, of which about a quarter represents letters of credit in respect of business transacted through the United Kingdom. The Bank ‘s own estimate of its revenue losses is about US$25 million a year. In addition, the Bank has been prevented from drawing on 183 million euros of call and time deposits with its part-owned subsidiary in London. Important banking relationships have been lost to other banks.”

Across the Channel, the European Union (EU) has already ended sanctions against the Iranian bank. It is still attempting an appeal to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg to overturn the ruling of the General Court, which was issued on January 29, 2013.

pelikanovaThe EU’s General Court ruling was written by Czech Irena Pelikánová (right) on behalf of the chief judge, Küllike Jürimäe (Estonia), and Judge Marc van der Woude (The Netherlands).

They have ruled to accept the three submissions of the Iranian bank: “The first plea is a claim of an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, its rights of defence and its right to effective judicial protection. The second plea is a claim of a manifest error of assessment as regards the adoption of restrictive measures against it. The third plea is a claim of an infringement of its right to property and of the principle of proportionality.”

The court threw out every one of the arguments made by the EU, and decided its sanctions had been unlawful. “First, the Council infringed the applicant’s [Bank Mellat] rights of defence and its right to effective judicial protection in that it did not notify the applicant, in good time, of the proposal for the adoption of restrictive measures…Next, the Council did not… comply with the obligation to assess the relevance and the validity of the information and evidence against the applicant submitted to it, with the consequence that those measures are tainted by illegality. Lastly, the Council infringed the obligation to state reasons as regards the second, third, sixth and seventh reasons relied on against the applicant.”

The EU court also condemned the failure of the EU ministers to provide genuine evidence, but instead to issue “mere allegations”.

This summary of the issues now on appeal reveals just how much peril the EU is in if it follows Washington’s demands for sanctions against Russian individuals or institutions when they are, as the General Court has ruled in the Bank Mellat case, “contrary to the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, non-arbitrariness and the requirement that sanctions contain necessary legal safeguards.”

The US Treasury announced last week its reason for imposing sanctions on Bank Rossiya. “The following entity is being designated because it is controlled by, has acted for or on behalf of, or has provided material or other support to, senior Russian government officials. Bank Rossiya (ОАО АБ РОССИЯ) is the personal bank for senior officials of the Russian Federation. Bank Rossiya’s shareholders include members of Putin’s inner circle associated with the Ozero Dacha Cooperative, a housing community in which they live. Bank Rossiya is also controlled by [Yuriy] Kovalchuk, designated today. Bank Rossiya is ranked as the 17th largest bank in Russia with assets of approximately $10 billion, and it maintains numerous correspondent relationships with banks in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere. The bank reports providing a wide range of retail and corporate services, many of which relate to the oil, gas, and energy sectors.”

David CohenIntroducing the new sanctions order he had drafted, David Cohen, the Treasury’s Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, claimed: “With its currency near an all-time low, its stock market down twenty percent this year and a marked rise in interest rates, Russia has already started to bear the economic costs of its unlawful effort to undermine Ukraine’s security, stability, and sovereignty. As President Obama has made clear, we will continue to impose costs in direct response to Russia’s provocative acts.”

Cohen took a university degree in law; clerked for a federal district judge; and spent 16 years in law firms. He claims his specialty was “sanctions compliance advice for a broad range of financial institutions including banks, broker-dealers, insurance companies, mutual funds and hedge funds.”

menendezFor the standard of reason, evidence, proportionality and due process already adopted in the courts of UK and Europe, Cohen is bound to have heard of the judgements in the Bank Mellat case. For the time being he’s ordering US corporations operating outside US jurisdiction to ignore them. Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, is also a lawyer by profession, though recently he has specialized, according to reported FBI investigations, in helping his constituents and friends evade sanctions for their business activities.

In the draft of a fresh round of sanctions against Russia, which Menendez pushed through a committee vote last week, Section 9 of the Bill goes further than any other statute in US history in establishing the US President as Prosecutor-General and Chief Justice of a foreign country. Menendez’s Bill aims at “any official of the Government of the Russian Federation, or a close associate or family member of such an official, that the [US] President determines is responsible for, or complicit in, or responsible for ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, acts of significant corruption in the Russian Federation, including the expropriation of private or public assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, bribery, or the facilitation or transfer of the proceeds of corruption to foreign jurisdictions.”

Where the European Union Gets Its Energy From

For its own consumption, the EU needs energy which is imported from third countries. In 2019, the main imported energy product was petroleum products (including crude oil, which is the main component), accounting for almost two thirds of energy imports into the EU, followed by gas (27 %) and solid fossil fuels (6 %). –

(Click on the image to enlarge)

Pentagon Promotes Socialism to Combat China

Via Sovereign Man

Here’s our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, risks to your prosperity… and on occasion, inspiring poetic justice.

Pentagon Hosts Event Promoting Socialism

The National Defense University (NDU) is a specialty academic institution founded by the US Department of Defense and funded by the US taxpayer.

NDU’s aim is to provide advanced education for senior leaders in the field of national security.

So naturally their big focus now is making the world safer… through Socialism.

Earlier this month, NDU hosted an event called, “Responding to China: The Case For Global Justice and Democratic Socialism.”

During the event, French economist Thomas Piketty who argued that global security requires “promoting a new emancipatory and egalitarian horizon on a global scale, a new form of democratic and participatory, ecological and post-colonial socialism.”

He argued that if the US sticks to its “dated hyper-capitalist model, Western countries may find it extremely difficult to meet the Chinese challenge.”

In other words, Piketty believes the US should prepare itself against China by becoming more like China.

Piketty’s concluding remarks asked, “what about sharing at least a fraction of global tax revenues paid by the world’s most powerful economic actors (multinationals, billionaires) between all countries according to population?”

Global taxation distributed by population…

How interesting that the US has the most wealth to tax, while China has the highest population to distribute it among.

It’s almost like this Pentagon-run college is promoting China’s agenda…

Click here to read the full event description.

US Youth Mortality Rate 2x That of Other Wealthy Nations

A new report by Population Reference Bureau on the disproportionate death rate found that accidents, suicides, and homicides kill twice as many young people in the US as in other wealthy nations.

While youth and infant mortality rates have declined across the developed world, they’ve remained stagnant or even increased in the US, according to a new report by the Population Reference Bureau (PRB), a Washington-based nonprofit. Among older youths, violent death is alarmingly more common in the US than in other developed nations.

A baby born in the US in 2019 was nearly three times as likely to die as a baby born in Japan, Finland, or Slovenia, the report states. The researchers attribute this disparity to the high rate of preterm births in the US, as well as racial and economic inequalities, which affect access to healthcare.

Growing up, other hazards come into play. Unintentional injuries (a category that includes drug overdoses), suicides, and homicides account for about half of all deaths among people aged 10 to 14, and about three quarters of all deaths among those aged 15 to 24.

Several factors significantly increased the likelihood of early death. Males were 134% more likely to die young than females and more than twice as likely to die from homicide or suicide than females, with researchers blaming their tendency toward risk-taking behaviors. Youths living in the American south were also more likely to die, as were black children, children from families with lower education levels, and ones from households without a mother and a father.

Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among 10- to 24-year-olds, and while the PRB’s report used data collected before the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, suicide figures likely increased during the last two years of lockdowns and school closures. Statistics for this period have yet to be published by the National Institute of Mental Health, but depression and substance abuse did increase dramatically during 2020.

Of the nearly 60,000 young people who died in the US in 2019, 7,580 were killed with firearms, with 39% of these deaths suicides and 61% homicides. Almost a third of Americans who died from homicide by firearm in 2019 were under the age of 25.

The PRB recommends a host of policy solutions to lower America’s youth death rate, from hiking welfare payments to funding child care, preschool, housing, nutrition, and health care. Some of these policy solutions would be a difficult sell in Washington, however. For example, the researchers suggest banning so-called “assault weapons,” and setting up a licensing system and a government database of gun-owners. This could prove difficult in a country where firearms ownership is enshrined in the Constitution.

Universal Basic Income vs. Cura Annonae

by Lee Camp

Basic income has been tried successfully countless times. So why the hell isn’t the US government implementing it?

This article was originally published by Scheerpost.

Here’s how the world should operate in simple terms: A certain country or region or city or township or Hobbit hole tries something in order to help their society or group or hovel – if it works, other places then do it. If it doesn’t work, other places don’t do it. It’s like when you were a kid and you saw your brother slide down the banister and rack himself on the newel post – You then thought, “Maybe that activity is not for me.” But if he didn’t nail himself in the jewels, you probably thought, “I think I’ll try that.” 

That’s how the United States government should work, but it doesn’t. For-profit healthcare, corporate personhood, the drug war, funding terrorists overseas that we call “moderate rebels,” etc. – all of these things have been tried, they fu***n’ suck every time, and we keep doing them. The U.S. continually racks itself on the newel post all day long and then responds, “I think I’ll try that again.” 

But the reverse should be true also – if a city or country anywhere in the world tries something and it works great, we should do it. 

This brings me to Universal Basic Income: everybody receiving money from a government simply for being a citizen, no questions asked. It’s high time we try it in the US and see whether it works. Oh wait, I just remembered – it’s been tried countless times and worked every damn time. How do I know that? …Reading

As Rutger Bregman details in his book “Utopia For Realists,” UBI has been tried many times — in Canada, Alaska, Africa, the US, Europe, and more. Even backwards lawless lands like North Carolina have experimented with it.

There was a study in Britain where 13 men who had lived on the streets for years were given £3,000 each (about $4,500 at the time). Did they use it for hundreds of pricey almond milk lattes, or giant bags of crack, or maybe just wad it up into balls and wipe themselves with them? Nope, turns out they didn’t do any of those things. Eighteen months after receiving the money, over half were no longer homeless, and all of them had improved their lives significantly.

As Bregman noted, “Even The Economist had to conclude that ‘the most efficient way to spend money on the homeless might be to give it to them.’

No! We can’t possibly do that! We here in the US have to take the money meant to help the homeless and launder it through all kinds of plans and incentives and bureaucratic digestive tracts that result in one out of every 100 people in extreme poverty receiving a gift certificate for a free basket of breadsticks at Arby’s. 

In another program Bregman describes, everybody in a village in Kenya was given $500, about a year’s wages. Several months later, the village had been completely transformed. People had better jobs, sturdier home structures, and healthier kids. “In Namibia figures for malnutrition took a nosedive (from 42% to 10%), as did those for truancy (from 40% to nothing) and crime (down by 42%),” writes Bregman. 

So, basically there’s almost a silver bullet to ending poverty and decreasing crime. Well, we better avoid it like the plague. Let’s go back to giving homeless people a can of soup and a pair of mismatched socks. If they collect enough cans and socks, they can build a house out of them

The point is basic income has been tested numerous times. By 2010, there were income transfer programs for 110 million families in 45 different countries. In North Carolina, in 2001 the Cherokee were getting $6,000 a year per family thanks to a casino they had built. When that started, for most of those families that money took them out of extreme poverty, and the Cherokee children saw drastic changes. Their crime rates, behavioral issues, and alcohol abuse went down significantly. The money literally changed their lives. (And sure, all casinos are based on drunk people spending money they don’t have on machines they don’t know are rigged in hopes of getting money they will never get. But you can’t get mad at the Cherokee because that’s also the basic definition of capitalism: Drunk people spending money we don’t have on machines we don’t know are rigged in hopes of getting money we’ll never get.) 

The University of Manchester summarized many UBI programs in poor African communities. They found, overall, the money was put to good use: Poverty decreased, and while the programs cost less than other so-called solutions, there were myriad long-term benefits that impacted  health and safety. How shocking! The thing we know works seems to work! (Hopefully somebody can study this a little more and find out if it works.)

Bregman then writes of NGO workers, “So why send over to Africa expensive white folks in SUVs when we can simply hand over their salaries to the poor?” Great point. At the very least, let’s give away the SUVs. 

The latest basic income “test” reported-on last month in Fast Company showed that it worked yet again in Hudson, NY. Despite all of these successful trials, people still argue, “We can’t have basic income because the poor will just use it for beer and cigarettes!” Well, first of all – So what? The world’s on fire. Beer and cigarettes sound like just what the doctor ordered. In fact, I think we’re at the point when we can call alcohol and tobacco survival foods. (I am a longtime supporter of Universal Basic Beer and Cigarettes.) 

But perhaps more importantly, as Bregman notes, “A major study by the World Bankdemonstrated that in 82% of all researched cases in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, alcohol and tobacco consumption actually declined.” Declined? Well, then I have to say these poor people have their priorities completely wrong.

Another major argument against UBI is, “It’s not fair. Giving people money for doing nothing simply isn’t fair.” My response to that is twofold. First, it actually is fair because the money would go to literally everyone. Hence the word “universal” in the name. (It would be weird to have something called “Universal Basic Income” that only went to a vintage clothing store clerk named Stanley.) Secondly, who told you fairness mattered in life? Who told you fairness has anything to do with our stupid world? There’s no fairness. In the first three seconds you come out of the womb, life is not fair. You’re covered in blood and mucus, some doctor slaps you on the ass, and you’re told your name is something you’ve never even heard before! Completely unfair. You’re just lying there going, “Chet? My name’s CHET?!” 

Some people are born rich as sh*t.

Some people are born poor as sh*t.

Some people are born hot as sh*t. (I mean, not as a baby but… later. You get the point.) 

Some people are born in wealthy areas with safe streets, good schools and clean water.

Some people are born in poverty with crime-ridden streets, terrible schools, and water that has a crispy film on the top like a cancerous crème brulée.

In our society, on average, men get paid more than women, white people get paid more than Black people and Native people, and most everyone gets paid more than ugly people. (I’m not even kidding – ugly people earn up to 15% less per hour in the workplace.)

Society. Is. Not. Fair. 

So if I say that universal basic income would solve several of society’s problems and someone responds that UBI’s not fair, they’re being completely illogical. It’s like if I said a law against killing endangered species would save the exotic birds, and you retort, “But we can’t do that because it’s not purple.



Cura Annonae (“care of Annona”) was the term used in ancient Rome, in honour of their goddess Annona, to describe the import and distribution of grain to the residents of the cities of Rome and, after its foundation, Constantinople. Rome imported most of the grain consumed by its population, estimated to number one million people by the second century AD. An important part of this was the grain dole or corn dole,[a] a government program which gave out free or subsidized grain, and later bread, to the poorest residents of the city of Rome. The dole was given to about 200,000 people, and is an early and long-lasting example of a social safety net.

A regular and predictable supply of grain and the grain dole were part of the Roman leadership’s strategy of maintaining tranquility among a restive urban population by providing them with what the poet Juvenal sarcastically called “bread and circuses“. In 22 AD, the emperor Tiberius said that the Cura Annonae if neglected would be “the utter ruin of the state”.[1]

The most important sources of the grain, mostly durum wheat, were Roman Egypt, North Africa (21st century Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco), and Sicily. The logistics of moving the grain by sea from those places to Rome required many hundreds of ships, some very large, and an extensive system for collecting the grain and distributing it inside Rome itself. The archaeological records of the grain trade are sparse, due to the perishability of grain which has made its detection difficult for archaeologists.[2]

It is unknown when the Cura Annonae ended. Some form of it may have persisted as late as the 6th century for Rome, but far less grain was shipped compared to earlier periods; in Constantinople, a reduced form of it lasted as late as the 7th century. Tiberius was correct that the Cura Annonae was tied to the health of the city of Rome: the population of the city of Rome declined precipitously during the last years of the Western Roman Empire. After Rome’s decline, no city in Europe would assemble the transportation network required to feed a million inhabitants until the 19th century.

History of the grain dole

The city of Rome grew rapidly in the centuries of the Roman Republic and Empire, reaching a population approaching one million in the second century AD.[3]

In the early centuries of the Republic (509-287 BC), the Roman government intervened sporadically to distribute free or subsidized grain to its population. Regular distribution began in 123 BC with a grain law proposed by Gaius Gracchus and approved by the Roman popular assembly. Adult male citizens (over 14 years of age) of Rome were entitled to buy at a below-market price five modii, about 33 kilograms (73 lb), of grain monthly. Approximately 40,000 adult males were eligible for the grain. In 62 and 58 BC the number of Romans eligible for grain was expanded and grain became free to its recipients. The numbers of those receiving free or subsidized grain expanded to an estimated 320,000 before being reduced to 150,000 by Julius Caesar and then set at 200,000 by Augustus Caesar, a number that remained more or less stable until near the end of the Western Roman Empire.[4][5]

In the 3rd century AD, the dole of grain was replaced by bread, probably during the reign of Septimius Severus (193-211 AD). Severus also began providing olive oil to residents of Rome, and later the emperor Aurelian (270-275) ordered the distribution of wineand pork.[6] The doles of bread, olive oil, wine, and pork apparently continued until near the end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, although the decline in the population of the city of Rome reduced the quantities of food required.[7]

The dole in the early Roman Empire is estimated to account for 15 to 33 percent of the total grain imported and consumed in Rome.[8]


By the late 200s BC, grain was being shipped to the city of Rome from Sicily and Sardinia. In the first century BC, the three major sources of wheat were Sardinia, Sicily, and North Africa, i.e. the region centered on the ancient city of Carthage, present day Tunisia. With the incorporation of Egypt into the Roman empire and the rule of the emperor Augustus (27 BC – AD 14), Egypt became the main source of supply of grain for Rome.[9] By the 70s, the historian Josephus was claiming that Africa fed Rome for eight months of the year and Egypt only four. Although that statement may ignore grain from Sicily, and overestimate the importance of Africa, there is little doubt among historians that Africa and Egypt were the most important sources of grain for Rome.[10] To help ensure that the grain supply would be adequate for Rome, in the second century BC, Gracchus settled 6,000 colonists near Carthage, giving them about 25 hectares (62 acres) each to grow grain.[11]

Grain made into bread was, by far, the most important element in the Roman diet. Several scholars have attempted to compute the total amount of grain needed to supply the city of Rome. Rickman estimated that Rome needed 40 million modii (272,000 tonnes) of grain per year to feed its population.[12] Erdkamp estimated that the amount needed would be at least 150,000 tonnes, calculating that each resident of the city consumed 200 kilograms (440 lb) of grain per year.[13] The total population of Rome assumed in calculating these estimates was between 750,000 and one million people. David Mattingly and Gregory Aldrete[14] estimated the amount of imported grain at 237,000 tonnes for 1 million inhabitants;[15] This amount of grain would provide 2,326 calories daily per person not including other foods such as meats, seafood, fruit, legumes, vegetable and dairy. The Historia Augusta, states that Severus left 27 million modii in storage, enough for 800,000 inhabitants at 225 kilograms (496 lb) of bread per person per annum.[16]

Read more here:

Cura Annonae

The Dangerous Alliance of Rothschild and the Vatican of Francis

by F. William Engdahl via William Engdahl

Image: Pope Francis in Colombo Author: Prasanna Welangoda License: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license License Source:

Holy Moly! The most globalist and interventionist Pope since the Crusades of the 12th Century has formalized an alliance with the largest figures in global finance led by none other than that noble banking family, Rothschild. The new alliance is a joint venture they call “Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican.” The venture is one of the more cynical and given the actors, most dangerous frauds being promoted since Davos WEF guru and Henry Kissinger protégé, Klaus Schwab, began to promote the Great Reset of the world capitalist order. What and is behind this so-called Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican?

On their website they proclaim in a typical UN doublespeak, “The Council for Inclusive Capitalism is a movement of the world’s business and public sector leaders who are working to build a more inclusive, sustainable, and trusted economic system that addresses the needs of our people and the planet.” A more sustainable, trusted economic system? Doesn’t that sound like the infamous UN Agenda 21 and its Agenda 2030 daughter, the globalist master plan? They then claim, “Inclusive Capitalism is fundamentally about creating long-term value for all stakeholders – businesses, investors, employees, customers, governments and communities.”

They continue, “Council members make actionable commitments aligned with the World Economic Forum International Business Council’s Pillars for sustainable value creation—People, Planet, Principles of Governance, and Prosperity—and that advance the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”

In announcing the deal with the Vatican, Lynn Forester de Rothschild declared, “This Council will follow the warning from Pope Francis to listen to ‘the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor’ and answer society’s demands for a more equitable and sustainable model of growth.”

Their reference to Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum is no accident. The group is yet another front group in what is becoming a globalist bum’s rush to try to convince a skeptical world that the same people who created the post-1945 model of IMF-led globalization and giga-corporate entities more powerful than governments, destroying traditional agriculture in favor of toxic agribusiness, dismantling living standards in industrialized countries to flee to cheap labor countries like Mexico or China, will now lead the effort to correct all their abuses? We are being naïve if we swallow this.

Rothschild and pals

First off it is useful to see who are the “inclusive” capitalists joining forces with the Pope and Vatican. The founder is a lady who carries the name Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild. She is the wife of the 90-year old retired mega-billionaire head of London’s NM Rothschilds Bank, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. Lady Lynn however is from “commoner” roots, born into a US working class family in New Jersey whose father, as she tells, worked two jobs to put her and her brothers through law and medical schools. She seemed to have had some influential mentors, as she went to Wall Street then to telecoms including Motorola and made reported tens of millions before hooking up with Sir Evelyn and his reported $20 billion in assets. Reports have it that Henry Kissinger played a personal role in encouraging the Transatlantic union of the two.

Lady Lynn is interesting as well beyond her famous husband. According to the list of names of those who flew on the private jet of convicted child sex trafficker and reported Mossad operative Jeffrey Epstein, one name that appears is “de Rothschild, Lynn Forester.”

It is interesting to note, that the same Lynn Forester in 1991, before she took Sir Evelyn as her husband, generously let a British friend have full use of one of Lynn’s Manhattan apartment properties, following the apparent murder of the woman’s father, British media tycoon and Mossad agent, Robert Maxwell. The British friend of Lynn, Ghislaine Maxwell, today is awaiting trial for complicity in child sex trafficking as the partner of Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell reportedly maintained the Manhattan address of Lady Lynn until very recently to register a bizarre non-profit called Terramar that she and Epstein set up in 2012, allegedly aimed at saving our oceans. When Epstein was arrested she quickly dissolved the non-profit. One of the donors to Ghislaine’s TerraMar was something called the Clinton Foundation, which leads to the next friend.

Lady Lynn has another long-time friend named Hillary Clinton, whose husband, Bill, was also logged on Epstein’s Lolita Express private jet, around two dozen times. Lynn and her new husband, Sir Evelyn, in fact were so close to the Clintons that in 2000 the Rothschild newlyweds spent part of their honeymoon as guests at the White House of Mr and Mrs Clinton. Lady Lynn after that became a major fund-raiser in 2008 and again 2016 for a possible Hillary bid for President, called a “bundler.” She also advised Hillary on her economic program, a free market one based on Adam Smith as she described it in an interview once.

Lady Lynn’s “Guardians”

The Rothschild venture with the Vatican at this point, in addition to co-founder Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, includes hand-picked money moguls and their select foundations who pompously call themselves the “Guardians.” That’s a term sounding more like a South Side Chicago gang or some kind of mafia overlords. They call themselves the moral guardians, together now with their new friends at the Vatican, for reform of capitalism.

The Guardian member list includes Rajiv Shah, the CEO of the Rockefeller Foundation, and former partner of the Gates Foundation’s AGRA scam to introduce GMO seeds in Africa. The Rockefeller Foundation has been involved in promoting a pandemic “lockdown” since 2010, and is a core part of the WEF Great Reset agenda. He just released a Rockefeller report, Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the US Food System.

Rothschild’s Guardians also include Darren Walker the CEO of the Ford Foundation. Those two foundations, Ford and Rockefeller, have done more to shape an imperial American foreign policy than even the US State Department or CIA, including the funding of the failed Green Revolution in India and Mexico, and the creation by Rockefeller funds of GMO crops.

The head of DuPont, a GMO giant and chemicals group is another Guardian as well as scandal-ridden vaccine and drug companies, Merck and Johnson & Johnson. Merck lied about the risks of its arthritis drug Vioxx until more than 55,000 users died of heart attacks. Johnson & Johnson has been involved in numerous frauds in recent years including around negative effects of its anti-psychotic drug Risperdal, illegal presence of cancer-causing asbestos in its baby powder, and potentially thousands of legal actions for its role as a leading supplier of the opioid in Purdue Pharma’s deadly prescription painkiller OxyContin.

Other Guardians include CEOs of Visa, Mastercard, Bank of America, Allianz insurance, BP. In 2016 Visa along with USAID were behind the catastrophic Modi experiment to introduce a cashless economy in India.

Notable also is Guardian Mark Carney, former Bank of England head and also advocate of cashless digital central bank currencies to replace the dollar. Carney is now United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.

Carney is also a Board member of the Davos World Economic Forum, the public promoter of the Global Reset of capitalism to impose the dystopian Agenda 2030 “sustainable” economy. In fact several of Rothschild’s Guardians are on the WEF Board, including billionaire Marc Benioff, founder of cloud computing Salesforce, and OECD head Angel Gurria. And ex-Credit Suisse CEO, Tidjane Thiam is on the International Business Council of the World Economic Forum.

Other Guardians of the inclusive capitalism transformation include the head of Bank of America, which bank was sued by the US Government for fraud connected with the 2008 US subprime mortgage crisis, as well as for laundering money for the deadly Mexican drug cartels and Russian organized crime. The select Guardian list also includes Marcie Frost, the controversial head of CalPERS, the huge fraud-ridden California state pension fund managing over $360 billion.

The head of State Street Corporation, one of the world’s largest asset management companies with US$3.1 trillion under management, is another Guardian. In January 2020 State Street announced it would vote against directors of companies in major stock indices that do not meet targets for environmental, social and governance changes. This is what is called Green Investing, as part of so-called Socially Responsible Investing. The WEF strategy, pushed also by WEF board members like Larry Fink of BlackRock, reward companies that they deem “socially responsible.” This is the key to the inclusive capitalism agenda of not just Rothschild’s inclusive capitalism Guardians, but also the WEF.

Their website claims that the Guardians manage more than $10.5 trillion dollars and control companies that employ 200 million workers. Now a brief look at their new Vatican partner.

Vatican Morals?

Ironically, or maybe not, Pope Francis, the partner chosen to give Rothschild’s group of mega-capitalists “moral” credibility, is himself embroiled in what could be the largest financial scandals, fraud and misuse of church funds in the modern history of the Vatican. That, despite the fact Pope Francis declared as new Pope in 2013, one of his main tasks would be to clean up the scandal-ridden Vatican finances. That has hardly taken place even after more than six years. Some Vatican observers even claim the financial corruption has worsened.

The unravelling scandal revolves around now-disgraced Cardinal Angelo Becciu who until 2018 was de facto chief-of-staff to the Pope and regular confidante. Becciu was Substitute for General Affairs in the Secretariat of State, a key position in the Roman Curia until June, 2018 when the pope elevated him to Cardinal, ironically enough, responsible for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. Becciu, clearly no saint, was able to invest hundreds of millions even billions over years of Church funds, including donations for the poor in Peter’s Pence, into projects he chose with a former banker from Credit Suisse. Projects included €150 million share in a luxury London real estate complex and $1.1 million into a film, Rocketman, about the life of Elton John. That comes to light as the ongoing Vatican child sex scandals caused Pope Francis to defrock Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, the first Cardinal to fall in the Church’s deep sexual abuse charges.

Italian press reports that the Pope knew about the dubious investments of Becciu and even praised them before the depth of the scandals broke. In November, 2020 Italian police raided the residence of Becciu’s former Vatican accountant and found €600,000 in cash and evidence the Vatican employee received $15 million in fake invoicing over years.

With a background like this, the new Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican of Lynn de Rothschild warrants close scrutiny as they clearly plan big things along with Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum to “reform” the world economy, and it won’t be nice or moral we can be sure.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

US’ Financial Cliff over the Abyss in Numbers

Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,

The emergence and acceptance of Modern Monetary Theory has turned our economic system upside down.Skeptics of its substance and sustainability have been brushed aside temporarily but expect the MMT experiment to collapse and end in ruin. To us that believe in old school economics, debt matters and is tied directly to interest rates and inflation. Central banks across the world claim the lack of inflation is the key force driving their QE policy and permitting it to continue, however, the moment inflation begins to take root much of their flexibility will be lost. This translates into governments being forced to pay higher interest rates on their debt.

With America’s national debt now blowing past 29 trillion dollars, it is important to keep the numbers in perspective. Nothing is as sobering as looking at future budgets. Those of us rooted in the tried and true economics relied upon in the past are worried. For years the argument that “This Time Is Different” has flourished but history shows that periods of rapid credit expansion always end the same way and that is in default. This also underlines the reality that any claims Washington makes about the budget deficit being under control is a total lie.

Click (Here) To View National Debt Clock

America is not alone in spending far more than it takes in and running a deficit. This does not make it right or mean that it is sustainable. Much of our so-called economic growth is the result of government spending feeding into the GDP. This has created a false economic script and like a Ponzi scheme, it has a deep relationship to fraud.

Global debt has surged since 2008, to levels that should frighten any sane investor because debt has always had consequences. Much of the massive debt load hanging above our heads in 2008 has not gone away it has merely been transferred to the public sector where those in charge of such things feel it is more benign. A series of off-book and backdoor transactions by those in charge has transferred the burden of loss from the banks onto the shoulders of the people, however, shifting the liability from one sector to another does not alleviate the problem.

When the 2018 financial year budget was first unveiled it was projected to be $440 billion. An under-reported and unnoticed later report painted a far bleaker picture. The report titled the “Mid-Session Review” forecast the deficit much higher than originally predicted. The newer report predicted the deficit would come in at $890 billion which is more than double what they predicted in March of 2017.

Such a miss should bring up the question of whether the discrepancy in the 2018 budget is an outlier or a sign of incompetence. This is especially troubling because what was projected as a total budget deficit of $526 billion for the 2019 Fiscal Year was later revised to a staggering $1.085 trillion. Not only should the sheer size of these numbers trouble us but we should remember that until recently some Washington optimists were forecasting that deficits would begin to decline in 2020 and that we would even have a small surplus of 16 billion in 2026. Since then, the wild spending those in charge have justified due to Covid-19 has blown the lid off that glimmer of hope and replaced it with more trillion-dollar deficits going forward.

Back then, the summary that began on page one of the Mid-Session Review came across as a promotional piece using terms like MAGAnomicics. It praised and touted the Trump administration for its vision and great work. This is a time when it would be wise to remember numbers don’t lie but the people using them do. That report is an example of how to re-frame a colossal train wreck into something more palatable. The report even went so far as to assure us that the deficit would fall to 1.4 percent of the GDP in 2028, from what was then 4.4 percent.

As a result of the American economy having survived with little effect what was years ago was described as a “financial cliff” the American people have become emboldened and now enjoy a false sense of security. Today instead of dire warnings we hear news from Washington and the media about how the stock market continues to push into new territory and all is well.

In 2019, National Debt Hit 23 Not 12 Trillion dollars

The chart to the right predicted that by 2019 the national debt would top 12 trillion dollars, instead it hit 23 trillion. Projections made by the government or any group predicting budgets based on events that may or may not happen at some future date are simply predictions and not fact. This means that such numbers are totally unreliable. The ugly truth many people ignore is that starting in 2018 entitlements became the driving force that will carry the deficit higher and higher into nosebleed territory. Even though we have seen deficits reach unprecedented levels the deficits in our future will be dramatically worse.

It isvery disturbing that so many people have forgotten or never taken the time to learn recent financial history. By recent, I’m referring to the last fifty to one hundred years. The path that Fed Chairman Paul Volcker set right decades ago has again become unsustainable and many people will be shocked when this reality hits. Do not underestimate the value of insight gained from decades of economic perspective. It tells us the economy of today is far different from the way things have always been.

Back in September of 2012, I wrote an article reflecting on how the economy of today had been greatly shaped by the actions that took place starting around 1979. Interest rates, inflation, and debt do matter and are more significant than most people realize. Rewarding savers and placing a value on the allocation of financial assets is important. It should be noted that many Americans living today were not even born or too young to appreciate the historical importance and ramifications of the events that took place back then. The impact of higher interest rates had a massive positive impact on corralling the growth of both credit and debt. It acted as a crucial reset to the economy which lasted for decades. Below is a copy of that article.

A Time For Action, 1980?

In his book “A Time For Action” written in 1980 William Simon, a former Secretary of the Treasury tells how he was “frightened and angry”. In short, he sounded the trumpet about how he saw the country was heading down the wrong path. William Simon (1927 – 2000) was a businessman and a philanthropist. He became the Secretary of the Treasury on May 8, 1974, during the Nixon administration, and was reappointed by President Ford and served until 1977.

I recently picked up a copy of the book that I had read decades ago and while re-reading it I reflected on and tried to evaluate the events that brought us to today. As often the future is unpredictable, looking back, it is hard to imagine how we have made it this long without finding long-term solutions and addressing the concerns that Simon wrote about so many years ago. Back then it was about billions of dollars of debt, today it is about trillions of dollars. It appears that something has gone very wrong.

Do Not Underestimate The Importance Of The Reset By Paul Volcker In 1980

By the end of the 70s inflation started to soar. Only by taking interest rates to nosebleed levels was then-Fed Chairman Paul Volcker able to bring inflation back under control. Paul Volcker, a Democrat was appointed as Federal Reserve chairmanby President Carter and reappointed by President Reagan. Volcker is widely credited with ending the stagflation crisis where inflation peaked at 13.5% in 1981. He did this by raising the fed fund rate which averaged 11.2% in 1979 to 20% in June of 1981. This caused the prime rate to hit 21.5% and slammed the economy into a brick wall. This also affected and shaped the level of interest rates for decades.

Rates Today Are Ready To Fall Off The Chart!

This action and the increased interest rates in the following years are credited by many to have caused Congress and the President to eventually balance the budget and bring back some sense of fiscal integrity and price stability to America. As the debt from the Vietnam war and soaring oil prices became institutionalized we moved on. Interest rates slowly dropped and the budget came under control. In recent years spending has again started to grow and at the same time taxes have been cut. This has slowly occurred over years and has been ingrained in the system.

In 2012, with our debt at 23 trillion and growing the path has again become unsustainable and many people will be shocked when reality hits. As our debt climbs some Americans feel just as frightened and angry as Simon did so many years ago. America has kicked the can down the road, failing time and time again to face the tough decisions. Part of the problem is the amount of debt has grown so large that we can no longer imagine or put a face on it. Until now, a series of different events have delayed the day of reckoning that will eventually arrive.Many of us see it coming, but the one thing we can bank on is that when it arrives most people will be caught totally off guard.

Summary of the current situation

Today we stand at the abyss, yet no one sees or feels threatened by a “financial cliff.” Insane spending has become the new normal. Who would have thought it would come to this? The updated revisions of the past have been washed away and replaced with more numbers, larger numbers. What we are witnessing today is insane. It is time to revisit the issue of how interest rates, inflation, and debt all come together. While this is not what those in charge want, it will happen. Simply put, there will be a reckoning, this time is not different.

COP26: Greening Earth ? — No, No Green Finance!

by Thierry Meyssan via Voltaire Net

COP26 is an entertaining show, designed to divert the public’s attention from what is going on. The IPCC, the COP’s committee of climate experts, does not predict the apocalypse to deaf governments, but provides them with a discourse to justify their political ambitions. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, who are resolutely hostile to the financial projects of the COPs, have refused to attend, while the big bankers are talking about 100 billion dollars of investment.

James Bond “usually arrives at the climax of his highly lucrative films strapped to a doomsday device, desperately trying to figure out which coloured wire to pull to turn it off, while a red digital clock mercilessly sounds a blast that will end human life as we know it (…) We’re pretty much at the end of the road. ) We are in much the same position, my fellow world leaders, as James Bond is today – except the tragedy is that this is not a film and the doomsday device is real,” Boris Johnson told the COP26 podium with a straight face.

« UN Climate Change Conferences » are always accompanied by apocalyptic rhetoric, but never result in quantifiable and verifiable commitments. They only result in promises signed with great fanfare, but always couched in the conditional.

The conference currently taking place in Glasgow, UK, from October 31 to November 12 2021, is no exception. It began with a spectacular video of a dinosaur announcing the possible extinction of the human species at the UN General Assembly and continued with a keynote speech by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson on what James Bond would do about the climate challenge. The drama continued on the streets with a demonstration led by Greta Thunberg to declare all the world’s governments illegitimate and to denounce the “failure” of the conference which has only just begun.

The political leaders who have called for saving humanity from an imminent end are the same ones who are investing billions of dollars in nuclear weapons capable of wiping human life off the planet [1].

The least we can say is that this conference is quality entertainment for the world’s spectators, not a diplomatic meeting to reduce greenhouse gas production. So what is the reality behind this circus and why are all the UN member states taking part?

The geophysicist Milutin Milanković (1879-1958) thought of climate variations as a function of changes in the earth’s orbit and the planet’s inclination. After being ridiculed during his lifetime, his theory is an authoritative explanation of paleoclimate variations. It could also explain the smaller-scale changes of recent years.


To answer these questions, we first need to get rid of some erroneous beliefs about ’global warming’.

We wrongly ’believe’ that ’global warming’ threatens the survival of our species. The climate has always changed, not in a linear way, but in cycles. The Earth was warmer seven centuries ago than it is today. Here in France, the glaciers in the Alps were smaller than they are today and there were wild camels in Provence. Some of our coasts were further out to sea than they are today, but others were further back, etc.

We have seen that the warming of the climate in Europe corresponds to the industrial revolution. This is why we ’believe’ that the climate changes we are witnessing have been accelerated by the industrial production of greenhouse gases over the last two centuries. This is possible, but concomitance is not causality. There are other hypotheses, including that of the Yougoslavian geophysicist Milutin Milanković based on variations in the Earth’s orbit (eccentricity, obliquity and precession of the equinoxes).

By creating the IPCC, Margaret Thatcher intended to take the lead in a new industrial revolution based on oil and nuclear power. In practice, her policy was to close down much of British industry and to financialise its economy; this led to COP26 and the use of the rhetoric of global warming to justify the indebtedness of the Third World to the City.


Let’s turn to the UN conferences. In 1988, Canadian and British Prime Ministers Brian Mulroney and Margaret Thatcher convinced their partners (the United States, France, Germany and Italy) to fund an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation. Shortly afterwards, Mrs Thatcher claimed that greenhouse gases, the ozone hole and acid rain required intergovernmental responses [2]. This rhetoric masked political objectives. It was, as her advisers would confirm, to put an end to the coal miners’ unions and to promote a new industrial revolution, based on North Sea oil and nuclear power [«Le prétexte climatique», seconde partie : « 1982-1996 : L’écologie de marché », par Thierry Meyssan, Оdnako (Russie) , Réseau Voltaire, 22 avril 2010.]].

The IPCC is not a learned academy of climate scientists at all, but as its name suggests an ’intergovernmental group’. It does not discuss climate science, but climate policy. The vast majority of its members are not scientists, but diplomats. The climate experts who sit on the panel are not there as scientists, but as experts in their government delegation, i.e. as civil servants. All their public interventions are controlled by their government. It is therefore preposterous to speak of a “scientific” consensus when referring to the political consensus that prevails in this assembly. This is not to understand the functioning of intergovernmental institutions.

Contrary to what Greta Thunberg thinks, the IPCC does not predict the apocalypse to deaf governments. It faithfully obeys them and, together with climate scientists, develops a rhetoric to justify policy changes that normal people would otherwise refuse.

The work of the IPCC is the basis for an annual ’Conference of the Parties’ (COP) to the ’United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ (UNFCCC). The 26th edition is being held in Glasgow (COP26). In its first report, in 1990, the IPCC considered an unambiguous increase in the greenhouse effect “within the next few decades or more” as “unlikely”. But what was true in 1990 has become heretical in 2021.

The first conferences were devoted to informing and raising public awareness of climate change. It was clear to everyone that some regions would become uninhabitable and that some populations would have to move. It was only over time that people began to say that the changes would become so great that they could threaten the survival of the entire human race. This change in discourse was not due to a sudden scientific discovery that challenged a one-day truth, but to the changing needs of governments.

Consumer society is on the brink: you can’t sell people what they already have. If industries collapse, jobs disappear and governments are toppled. There is only one way to avoid this: for example, in the late 1990s, most Western companies were computerised. It became impossible to sell computers. So the hoax of the century was propagated: the “Y2K bug”. All computers were going to crash on January 1, 2000 at 00:00. Everyone bought computers and software. Of course, no plane crashed, no lift stopped, no computer crashed. But Silicon Valley was saved and people were now going to invest in consumer computers. Today the solution is the “energy transition”. For example: you can’t sell several cars to the same consumer, but you can exchange your petrol car for an electric one. Of course, electricity is usually made with oil and requires batteries that cannot be recycled. In the end, with the energy transition, the planet will be more polluted than before. But this is not something to think about.

The theory of the human origin of global warming ensures the personal wealth of former Vice President Al Gore, who is its main lobbyist. At the end of the 1990s, the same Al Gore created the Y2K hoax. He made Bill Gates’ fortune and developed Silicon Valley.


During President Bill Clinton’s term, the US took control of the IPCC so that it pushed for the Kyoto Protocol (COP3) but never signed it. The Vice President, Al Gore, was in charge of US energy policy. He approved the war in Kosovo in order to build a trans-Balkan pipeline. But while the Protocol was originally intended to limit emissions of five greenhouse gases and three chlorofluorocarbons, he pushed for the creation of CO2 emission rights for industries and forgot about the other gases. After leaving the White House, he founded the Chicago Climate Exchange with bankers from Goldman Sachs and funding from Blackrock. As the US never signed the Kyoto Protocol, it did not work well. So he opened branches on the other four continents, which grew rapidly. Today, he receives a fee for each trade in CO2 emission rights. To develop his business, he became a climate activist and produced the film An Inconvenient Truth. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, although this work is more about advertising his stock exchange than science [3].

For the record, the statutes of the Climate Exchange were drafted by a young, unknown lawyer, Barack Obama. Soon afterwards he entered politics in Chicago and was suddenly elected President of the United States four years later. Once in the White House, Barack Obama would develop a plan to use climate hysteria to reform the global financial system. This is the plan that will be adopted by COP21 in Paris and should be implemented by COP26 in Glasgow.

It is the deal of the century: to implement the COP26 resolutions, states will have to adapt their industry and go into debt. Global warming may be man-made, but the looting of economies is certain.
Global Banking & Finance Review


This one is being organised by the UK with the help of Italy. Four Brits are in charge: two former ministers, Alok Sharma (Economy, Industry and Industrial Strategy) and Anne-Marie Trevelyan (International Development), a former governor of the UK and Canadian banks, Mark Carney, and a lobbyist, Nigel Topping. None of these people know anything about climate science. All of them, however, have plans to reform the Bretton Woods institutions (the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank).

It is because they are opposed to this financial project and not at all to the fight against air pollution that the Russian and Chinese presidents, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, are not participating in this conference.

The COP26 website states:
it is about “Mobilising finance. To meet our targets, developed countries must deliver on their promise to mobilise at least $100 billion in climate finance. The international financial institutions must play their part and we must work to unlock the trillions in private and public sector finance needed to ensure global net zero.

What is expected to be signed off at the end of the conference is the creation of a body comprising

  • the Asian Development Bank
  • the African Development Bank
  • Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
  • the Caribbean Development Bank
  • the European Investment Bank
  • European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  • Inter-American Development and Investment Bank
  • Islamic Development Bank
  • the World Bank
  • and 450 major companies
    to mobilise this money.

It is important to understand that it is no longer possible to indebt poor countries (and therefore to keep them on a leash) because the World Bank and especially the IMF are no longer credible. All governments now know that grants and loans from international institutions come with drastic conditions that make their countries vulnerable; that when the time comes to pay back, they will no longer own anything.

With COP26, the bankers will be able to lend money to save humanity and, in the process, become the owners of the countries whose leaders have trusted them [4]..

Roger Lagassé

[1] « Ils défendent le climat tout en préparant la fin du monde », par Manlio Dinucci, Traduction Marie-Ange Patrizio, Il Manifesto (Italie) , Réseau Voltaire, 2 novembre 2021.

[2] Speech to the Royal Society, Margaret Thatcher, Septembre 27, 1988.

[3] “1997-2010: Financial Ecology”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Оdnako (Russia) , Voltaire Network, 7 December 2015.

[4] « Les nouvelles armes financières de l’Occident », par Manlio Dinucci, Traduction Marie-Ange Patrizio, Il Manifesto (Italie) , Réseau Voltaire, 9 novembre 2021.

9/11: What Planes? Just a Video Composite

Here is the rendering to scale of the Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon:

Smoke billows from the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Photo: AFP / Stephen Jaffe

Below is the result of the impact, Boeing 757’s exit out of the Pentagon’s first row of concrete offices (back of the impact entry point).

Can a Boeing 757, essentially a hollow aluminum tube, cut through massive steel columns, wings and all, without even slowing down? If you haven’t seriously thought about where did the planes disappear,  the answer is: no real planes were involved in 9/11 as Ace Baker convincingly demonstrated in his 2012 film 9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera:


Part 7 – 8:

Part 6 – 8:

For a shorter version, see the 18-minute collation of the most telling excerpts of the series, made by Laurent Guyénot :