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. |
|
|
