Why is any of this relevant? - part 2, the heritage of the ruling elite - 5000 years old???

I really can't say when exactly it all finally clicked, I think it came in stages.  I do know that my inquiries into 9/11 led me on a long journey, where for every question I found an answer to, 2 more emerged.  My quest to untangle my confusion about so many nagging details led me farther and farther back in history, first to the 90's when Big Oil was busy buying up exploration rights in the Caspian Sea basin while the Neoconservative PNAC (Project for a New American Century) was publishing papers promoting a war mentality, whose overriding theme was how to control those same Caspian basin resources while ousting dictators like Saddam Hussein.

It didn't take too much more digging to find out that in the 80's Saddam Hussein and the US were close allies.   Not only is there a famous photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand, America helped Saddam get his biological weapons program started.  (No wonder the Bush administration was convinced Saddam still had biological weapons - we sold them to him!)

Zbignew Brzezinski
The 80's was also the decade of the Soviet-Afghan war, which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union (which freed-up Caspian basin resources located in the former Soviet block to outside investment) and the rise of future American enemy #1 Osama Bin Laden, originally a CIA asset who helped manage the Soviet-Afghan war for us.  Curiously, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor at the time (Zbignew Brzezinski) admitted in an interview with a French newspaper, Nouvel Observateur, that it was he who toppled the Soviet Union by secretly starting the war that would become Russia's "Vietnam". 

I learned about the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission and the vast influence they wielded together, and I learned that Zbignew Brzezinski and his close friend David Rockefeller had both been directors of one and co-founders of the other.  I learned that the Federal Reserve had been set up by private bankers and their allies and was quite surprised also to learn that the founders of the CFR were for the most part the very same people who set up the FED.  Even the CIA appears to have been the brain-child of these same 'men-behind-the-curtain', for the architects of the agency had all been long-time members of the CFR.

It was starting to look like everything from US government policy (under either party) to the American economy (via ownership of Federal Reserve member banks) was being in large part controlled by a relatively small group of people, a tight-knit club behind the scenes which was just a continuation of tighter-knit clubs of earlier generations.

But I was still fuzzy on many things. 

The internet is overflowing with sites and blogs claiming that there is a Zionist plot afoot, and they quote chapter and verse.  Sometimes the so-called plot is described as Communist in nature.  I once thought that to be a ridiculous accusation, that is until I heard Norman Dodd, once Director of Research of the Reese Committee appointed by Congress in the 50's to investigate the activities of tax-free foundations, quoting then-president of the Ford Foundation Rowan Gaither as having stated that "we will use our grant-making power so to alter life in the US that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union."   - I about fell off my chair, as Norman Dodd also apparently did. 

Usually (as represented in many conspiracy theories presented on-line), Jewish bankers (and co-conspirator media moguls) are credited with running the world.  But sometimes the Freemasons, or the Rosicrusians, or the "Black Pope" get some of the credit.  The Knights Templar get some attention as being related somehow to a global conpiracy on a deeper level, and their role as the first multi-national bankers of the Christian world as well as their part in establishing the dominance of the City of London are highlighted.  Or sometimes the term "the Iluminati" is used to describe the conspirators collectively.   (It should be noted that anything other than circumstantial evidence or supposition backing up any of these charges is usually absent.)

This is all so confusing.

The "Jewish thing" was for so long for me a particularly annoying facet.  I looked into charges that the Rothschild banking family had backed Zionism from the beginning, an accusation I had often heard or read, and I actually spent a lot of energy scouring for information  - and found that the family's early support of the Zionist movement was lukewarm at best.  One Rothschild (I think it was Albert?) complained to Zionist movement founder Theodor Hertzl that his idea sounded too "Jewish", and instead of Palestine, would he take Uganda instead?

Then you have the perplexing fact that the American robber barons of the later 19th century so involved in the hijacking of America who partnered with Jewish bankers like the Rothschilds, the Warburgs and Jacob Schiff were all gentile.  Then after they had all climbed into bed together they (and their offspring) did the craziest thing.   They banded together and financed Hitler's war machine. 

Why???  And why are the present leaders of America and Britain so unwavering in their support of Israel, to the extent that they pass multi-billion dollar aid-packages while looking the other way as Israel commits blatant war crimes against Palestinians and Lebanese?

The easy way around these conundrums is just to take religion out of the equation and rack everything up to greed.   ... Easy, yes, but not very satisfying.  Needless to say, I kept digging.

Finally I discovered connections between some early American tycoons and the British and Dutch East India Companies, and found that many of the wealthy Americans who got involved with the European bankers of their time had made their fortunes the same way the British and Dutch East India companies had -  selling slaves or opium. And I knew that those companies protected their monopolies with the force of their gunships - yet these Americans (Astors, Russells, etc.) were allowed to get in on the rackets!  And that most of the early investors in the British and Dutch companies had been Jewish merchants and Freemasons!!  And that Freemasonry evolved from the banned Templar Knights, the first international bankers!!!  And that the Templars under different names had partnered with Jewish merchants in Spain and Portugal!!!!

Finally I could see why Jews and Freemasons as groups get so much flack in regards to a so-called world-wide conspiracy.   What is actually the case is that early Freemasons and certain Jewish merchants and bankers played a significant role in defining the colonialism of our modern world, but that Normans in control of England (and to some extent Germanic descendents of the Magyar-Huns) were also significant players, and that Freemasonry itself was simply an outgrowth of the Templar knights, whose order was created by Normans.

And I noticed something else quite interesting ... a constant power struggle seems to have persisted between these groups (collectively) and the Catholic Church. Did you know that the Freemasons do not allow Catholic inductees?   Methodist? No problem. Episcopalian? In ya go. Anglican? Lutheran? Jew? - fine.  Catholic?  Sorry.  In fact the 'Knights of Columbus', a pseudo-"masonic" order separate from Freemasonry, was created specifically to cater to Catholics (who couldn't get in to any real Freemasonic orders).   Another curious footnote, the US has had only one Catholic president in its history ... John F. Kennedy, who didn't last long in that post.

Could it be that at the level of the ruling class non-Catholic Christian families had much more in common with (elite) Jewish families than Catholic ones?   The answer is yes.  When Vatican-aligned Bank of America was established in San Fransisco in the early 20th century John Peirpont Morgan all but declared war on the new upstart bank.  The blood-lines of the ruling elite nearly all trace back to Normans who trace back again to a mix of Vikings and Franks, or to Jewish Germanic families which ultimately trace back to Khazaria. Each of these cultures thrived where the Catholic power of Rome was weakest or non-existant. 

It's not so cut-and-dry, the Germanic Holy Emperors play an important role in the family histories of our modern ruling elite, and they were blessed by Rome ... but they were essentially a mix of Hunnic, Nordic and Khazar families.  Also, among the early crusaders were some noble Frankish families of Aquitaine and Toulouse, but these houses were, I am convinced, Cathar, even if they tried to hide the fact - one of the bloodiest Catholic inquisitions in history was the Albigensian Crusade, an attempt to wipe out the Cathar movement in France.   Catharism was wiped out (following an orgy of blood-letting, torture and mass burnings unequalled in history) among the populace, but the nobles of Aquitaine and Toulouse (centers of Catharism) appear to have continued to embrace the heretic ideology, "courtly love" and all that.  

If you are confused as to what the #%$& I'm talking about (or its significance), in the 8th century the great Frankish king Charlemagne appealed to the Exilarch of Baghdad to send to France "seed" of the royal House of David, and so Rabbi Makhir moved to Narbonne in the south of France where he recieved lands and title.  It was from Makhir's kingdom that Catharism spread.  The noble families of Aquitaine and Toulouse which embraced Catharism got on well with the Vikings who had conquered northern France, and the top families began to intermarry.  Later after the Norman conquest of England the first Crusade was declared and many Dukes of Aquitaine and Counts of Toulouse fought alongside the Normans in the holy land.  Raymond IV of Toulouse, regarded as the first crusader, was a Duke of Narbonne and almost certainly a Cathar (the French Cathar movement started in Narbonne), as was his grandson-in-law, William XI "the troubadour" of Aquitaine, another famous crusader whose granddaughter Eleanor of Aquitaine married King Henry II of England.

But wait, weren't the Crusades called for by the Roman Catholic Church, and weren't the Templar Knights the pope's own militia ???   Yes ... however, there's a twist.

St. Bernard of Clairveaux
At the time the Templars were formed the reigning pope was actually a mole, an insider, pope Innocent II who had been promoted to that post by the patriarch of the Templars themselves, Bernard of Clairveaux.

The 'Clairveaux' in Bernard's name derives from a Cisterian monastery he founded which he named Claire Vallée, in the Champagne district of Normandy.  Some of the original Templar Knights were from this same region, and the name Claire strongly suggests who Bernard really was and where his loyalties lied - for the descendents of Rollo the Viking all took the name Claire, or St. Claire, or in Britain Sinclair.

This is all not as complicated as it might seem - simply, the devil is in the details (no pun intended;).  These details I will try and flush out in other posts here.  The big picture, once one gets a glimpse of it, is quite simple. 

Following the 9th century Viking invasion of northern France, their subsequent mixing with the Franks, and the simultaneous entry of Hunnic and Jewish migrants from Khazaria into Hungary and eastern Europe,  the ruling elite of these various groups began vying for power and conquering territory.  They also formed alliances and intermarried, changing the face of the aristocracy of Europe and Britain forever.  The kicker is, this convergence in Medieval Europe of these peoples could be thought of as a reunion of sorts - for the Vikings, Franks, Magyar-Huns and Kabars all share a common heritage. 

Obviously, blood lines do not run in straight-lines, they bleed all over the place, peoples tend to mix, and cultures tend to change.  However the ruling elite do not marry just anyone, they marry among their own kind, or marriages are arranged to strengthen alliances, and there is good evidence that dragon-culture persisted through the ages among these peoples.  Even more astounding, if you trace them back in history independently they all appear to have split off from the same Ba'al worshipping culture of the northern Levant/northwestern Mesopotamia circa 2500 or 3000 years ago.

It is to this nexus that own modern western elite connect - not just culturally, as evidenced by things such as the 'Cremation of Care' performed yearly at the Bohemian Grove, not just in the plundering pirate-mentality and belief in a special mandate to rule seemingly shared by the top political and business elite in the west, but in many cases by blood.

This whole idea is controversial - so call it a theory, one to which I subscribe.  The rest is all just picking up clues from the real world, from the historical record, from various texts including the writings of Greek historians, the Bible and a multitude of myths, from family crests, and from archeological finds and DNA research, and seeing if they all support such a view.  

In short, they do.

Sumer, the Constellations and Draco the Dragon

Why is any of this relevant??? - part 1,
'Kick-off' 2001

Why is any of this relevant? - part 2,
The heritage of the ruling elite - 5000 Years Old???

Ancestral Roots of the Vikings

The Huns

The Huns: Addendum

The Tribe of Dan

The Franks


Melissena: Addendum