Which public figures are accused of being conspirators in Fall of the Cabal documentary?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Fall of the Cabal, a multi-part documentary by Janet Ossebaard, paints a wide net of alleged conspirators that it describes as “the Cabal” — a shadowy network of elites said to control politics, finance and media — and names some public figures and groups while also making sweeping accusations about bankers, royals, and political leaders [1] [2] [3]. Reporting on the film shows it blends broad categories of “elite” actors with occasional specific references (for example, Benjamin Netanyahu appears in related episode descriptions and archives), but the available materials do not provide a single, definitive roster of named public conspirators the way a legal indictment would [2] [4] [3].
1. How the film frames “conspirators” — institutions, elites and media moguls
The documentary frames conspirators primarily as institutional and elite actors — bankers, media owners, political leaders and “the 1%” — arguing those groups have manipulated finance, politics and news to consolidate power; this institutional framing is prominent on the project’s own pages and in sympathetic write‑ups that describe the film as investigating “global power structures” and “banking cartels” [1] [3].
2. Specific public figures and national leaders referenced
While much of the film works in categories, at least one named political leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, is explicitly invoked in archived descriptions and transcriptions tied to parts of the series, where commentators discuss his role in geopolitical conflicts and alleged elite networks [2] [4]. Source material archived from public uploads and transcripts also includes references to “kings & queens” and high‑profile politicians more generally, indicating the series implicates senior political figures without always listing a comprehensive set of individual names [4] [2].
3. Allegations against financiers, media owners and “Masonic bankers”
The series repeatedly accuses financiers and banking networks — sometimes characterized as “Masonic bankers” or banking cartels that “fund both sides” of conflicts — of acting as conspirators; those claims appear across the film and ancillary descriptions but are presented as interpretive narrative rather than documented, named indictments of specific, verifiable individuals [2] [3].
4. Claims about child abuse, celebrities and cultural elites
Several parts of the film focus on alleged child trafficking and abuse networks, tying these claims to celebrities, cultural elites and humanitarian events; transcripts and episode titles (e.g., “Childlovers everywhere,” “Children, Art & Pizza”) show the film implicates public figures in entertainment and philanthropy spheres, though the materials available in these sources present allegations as part of the documentary’s narrative rather than as substantiated public prosecutions [4] [1].
5. The film’s use of ethno‑religious language and the risk of antisemitic tropes
Archived excerpts reveal language such as “Cabalist Jews” which explicitly links conspiratorial control to Jewish identity — phrasing that critics and media analysts identify as echoing longstanding antisemitic tropes; the archive copy and feature descriptions include such wording, demonstrating the documentary sometimes personalizes systemic accusations in ways that overlap with discriminatory narratives [2].
6. What independent coverage and critics note about named targets and evidence
External coverage and podcast dissections of the series emphasize that the documentary mixes selective facts, imagery and broad associative claims to implicate both named leaders and vague elite networks, and critics argue the result is conspiratorial storytelling rather than an evidentiary list of conspirators; podcast episodes and critical write‑ups parse the film’s claims and warn that supporters and detractors read its roster of accused figures differently, with supporters seeing exposure and critics seeing unsubstantiated allegations [5] [6] [3].
7. Limits of available sourcing — what cannot be asserted from these materials
The materials provided do not contain a single enumerated, provable list of every public figure the documentary accuses; while the film repeatedly targets “elites,” financiers, media owners, certain politicians (e.g., Benjamin Netanyahu is mentioned in archives) and cultural figures tied to alleged child‑abuse narratives, the available transcripts and promotional pages do not supply a comprehensive, sourced roster of individual conspirators comparable to investigative reporting standards [2] [4] [1].