J. Gentry
Bread Crumb Trail @ START
Wed Oct 22 12:58:06 2003
12.37.44.72

***********

In days of old when kings pretty much ruled the world, it was a mutual-use situation. In other words, the king got to be "top dog," but had certain responsibilities (What exactly were these responsibilities and how did this notion arise?)towards his people and land. He saw to their defense, to civil engineering; he commissioned literary works and music. If you had a case or some special need, you brought it before the king. He was thought to be the heart and soul of the country. If you were fortunate to have a good king, then prosperity and the rule of law abounded. If you were not so fortunate, which was the normal state of affairs, then you lived in some degree of tyranny and the king functioned much like a parasite, feeding off of your substance and labor. Even under good kings, per se, the shadow of the parasite was never quite absent. In 1066 Duke William crossed the English Channel and won the decisive Battle of Hastings, for which the English have never fully forgiven him, despite his subsequent exemplary rule. But little more than a century later, the royal office had fallen into such depravity that the barons rebelled against King John and drew up the Magna Charta (1215); which is a symbolic if not virtual sword to the neck of the monarch. It can be paraphrased: "These are the rules by which we agree to be governed. Step outside of these rules, and you, your family, will perish." This then became the basis of the British Common Law, which is a guarantee of rights to the nobles and commoners alike; which subsequently fueled the fires of independence centuries later when the Colonists declared that these rights were not granted by the king, but by God.

I have had fun challenging super patriot types to show me where in the Bible God granted them inalienable (un-alienable) rights. So far no one has been able to produce Chapter and Verse. Since the Bible is thought by them to be the ultimate authority in all matters whatsoever, that is a significant omission. If the super patriot hangs around long enough after being thus insulted, I will endeavor to explain exactly where those rights do come from. They are derived from our duties and responsibilities to God. And that is worth at least an essay of its own. Our "rights" proceed from our duties, and from such admonitions, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Essentially, we must be free to serve God with our total lives. This is the example we have coming down to us from a Thomas Beckett or a Thomas Moore, who both respectfully declined to accede to the monarch's demands when it conflicted with God's rule over their conscience. Both lost their lives as a result. This attitude is secularized only slightly when the Founders demanded a "rule of law," rather than a "rule of man." So, it follows that a Christian nation; i.e., a nation composed of individuals serving God, could legitimately demand for a government dedicated to each individual's right to follow his (her) conscience. As before with the Magna Charta, the sword would be to the neck of such government; further evidenced by the so-called Bill of Rights; that careful study shows is not a sovereign's grant of rights to the citizenry, but rather an instruction to government not to trespass into such areas. Government is the servant; we are the masters. In essence, it echoes: "These are the rules by which we agree to be governed. Step outside of these rules, and you, your family, will perish." But it goes so far only in the case of Treason, if anybody remembers what that is supposed to be in our contemporary corrupt climate.

In the new American Republic, the lowliest cobbler or blacksmith was a king in his own castle. The only time he lost this sovereign character was when he damaged another party. Then the rule of law intervened and justice was served. Friends in the legal reform movement when taken into custody ask for a "charging instrument," and demand; "Where is the damaged party?" For today, the majority of the laws on the books are statutory, purportedly requiring no damaged party. Or as one man warned, "The State is the damaged party." This is the abrogation of the country's founding documents, the contract with the people, although most fail to see this. It also fortunately violates many provisions of individual State constitutions. It signals the fundamental turning of the tables, as government assumes the crown and sceptre; Thomas Hobbes' reptilian Leviathan rising out of the mirky gloom, the all-powerful State. The tip of the sword is now at each of our throats, figuratively, and sometimes literally. The question remains to be answered: "Who is at the other end of the sword?" If our public servants in government are not serving us, who are they serving? Sun Tsu counsels, "Know thy enemy." Who holds the sword at our throats?

It has been said that Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, far from being an isolated result of his private meditation, is actually based on the Declaration of Arbroath (1320). This document of Scottish Independence of Robert The Bruce and the Scottish Barons asked for the Pope's intervention in the bloody quarrel between the Scots and the English, accusing the English king of "draft dodging" the Crusades by claiming necessity of regional conflicts. The Scots called him on this ruse; and accused him of avoiding his Christian duty (defense of the Christian West--the Pope's mission for the monarchs) to engage in more lucrative plunder/conquest of his Scot neighbors. Arbroath stands as a testament to individual rights; explaining that "we" have kings to defend us, and if he betrays (surrenders to the English king) he will be removed and duly replaced (by the Barons). Quoting (from Arbroath): ". . . for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." Patrick Henry's cry of "Give me liberty or give me death," is pure Scot.

One copy I have of Arbroath states in passing the identity of the Scots as a lost Tribe of Israel. Another author/translator refers to these claims as "laughable," while failing to include the actual statement in his translation. Obviously this is a bone of contention. It is fashionable to consider those writing in 1320 to be patently ignorant of their heritage, while 700 years later we are apparently all experts. Thereby, history is only history if we agree with it. ??? And the Lost Tribes remain lost, . . . (not really "Lost - Lost, just Blind lost...as in spiritually blind, in that they allow with their blindness , apostate, imposter- Israelies- to heap scorn and ridicule on "Israel - a people not a place -" for talmudic -bad faith, fraud, murder, and immorality, degenerate behaviours and ideas, not to mention talmudvision.)

A friend of mine who generally follows Vendyl Jones and his research has written about how language conceals many truths and clues. For instance, the Britons, . . . everyone has heard of B'nai Brith. Jim Long proposes that the Britons are the "people of the Brith," of the "promise/covenant." He explains that Joseph of Arimathea did extensive trading, and had lead and copper mines in Scotland and Ireland. He relates many other examples of Hebrew in the language and symbols of the Britons, after which, a person begins to seriously wonder what the popularized mainstream version of history is concealing.

The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler, is another work that lifts the curtain on this most intriguing subject; the Khazarian Empire, its pagan heritage and its conversion to Judaism late in the 700's or early 800's. In the history books I studied in school Khazaria got less column space than the Byzantine Empire, which was hardly mentioned. According to Koestler, Kazaria fell to Ghengis Khan, but many of the Kazarian Jews traveled West to Poland; and formed the backbone of European Jewry. Excerpted from the "Kazar Correspondence" of Hasadai Ibn Shaprut:

"I feel the urge to know the truth, whether there is really a place on this earth where harassed Jews can rule itself, where it is subject to nobody. If I were to know that this is indeed the case, I would not hesitate to forsake all honours, to resign my high office, to abandon my family, and to travel over mountains and plains, over land and water, until I arrived at the place where my Lord, the [Jewish] King rules....(There is no evidence that Hasadai did such.). And I also have one more request: to be informed whether you have any knowledge of [the possible date] of the Final Miracle [the coming of the Messiah] which, wandering from country to country, we are awaiting. Dishonoured and humiliated in our dispersion, we have to listen in silence to those who say: "every nation has its own land and you alone possess not even a shadow of a country on this earth."

The Jewish Khazarian King Joseph replied that, indeed, Khazaria was such a place. So for at least a space of time Judaism had its Camelot, although the details of this story have mostly graced the dustbin of history. In Koestler's summary he states:

"The Jewish faith, as shown by 2000 years of tragic history, is nationally and socially self-segregating. It sets the Jew apart and invites his being set apart. It automatically creates physical and cultural ghettoes. It transformed the Jews of the Diaspora into a pseudo-nation without any of the attributes and privileges of nationhood, held together loosely by a system of traditional beliefs based on racial and historical premises which turn out to be illusory. . "

In all fairness, this comment is taken from Koestler's "Dissenting Opinion;" his "look in the mirror" fairness and balanced reporting side, and does not constitute the whole of his conclusion. But it brings up the fact that at least a portion of European Jewry may have lacked the racial claim to the land of Palestine, of ancient Israel. I would clarify that the issue of race is not important to me, unless it is important to the person in question. If that person cannot set the issue of race aside, then however unbiased I am, I must include it in my assessment of that person. I have Jewish friends who describe the experience of being Jewish as a "tribal" experience. You do not say anything that reflects poorly on "the tribe," or any tribal member. This is very deeply rooted in "being Jewish." So, I find myself failing to criticise the Jewsish State for their latest "storm trooper" tactic when among Jewish friends, while it's more than acceptable to criticise American aggression in Iraq. Koestler does bring up the fact that the modern State of Israeli is a "done deal" from the standpoint of international law, and would be conceptually impossible to undo. (not really, copyright enfringement,fraud, and murder spring to mind, Ed.)

Interestingly enough, from a totally esoteric viewpoint, a mystical Christian could lay claim to the same heritage and territory. Many of the early Church Fathers spoke of being mystically grafted into the Seed of Abraham by partaking/ingesting the body and blood of Jesus. You can take it as mere flowery rhetoric, but they speak more specifically of the bloodline of David in the same vein. The Jewish converts of the Kazarian Empire had neither this (mystical) advantage/connection, nor a direct bloodline connection to Judaism. What they did have is the Babylonian Talmud.

The Talmud teaches that only Jews are human beings. It teaches that it is no sin to lie, steal, cheat a non-Jew, or precipitate the death of a non-Jew if it is for the protection or cause of Judaism. "Ecumenical" reading of the Talmud by Christian kings was itself a major factor in the expulsion of Jews from Spain, Russia, Italy, later England, France, . . . Under Pope Paul IV the Talmud was publicly burned in Rome. While we today are regaled by the Holocaust-based victimhood of the Jews, the Medieval world resounded with the exposure of a fifth column in their midst, a "nation" of people whose own scripture confirmed their animosity toward their fellow man. One report stated that the Spanish Inquisition was instituted to ferret out Jews that had falsely converted to Roman Catholicism, Marano Jews, who maintained their Jewish allegiances and worked for the downfall of their respective societies; that in fact the Inquisition was simply a last-resort self-defense of an undermined society.

While the American Revolution was proceeding in the Colonies, its counter-type was happening in Bavaria. Meyer Amschel Bauer, the banker, employed the ex-Jesuit Adam Weishaupt to devise a plan for global governance. If the Jew would be driven from every country, then every monarch must be brought down; nations abolished. The Bauer family changed their name to their favorite company emblem and became the Rothschilds. In 1784 a courier was killed by lightning. His packet contained Weishaupt's plan for the French Revolution. The Bavarian Government ordered the raid of Weishaupt's newly-formed lodges of the Grand Orient. All additional evidence convinced authorities that the documents of a group calling themselves the Illuminati were, in fact, genuine; that the Illuminati planned to use wars and revolutions to bring about the downfall of all governments and create a one-world dictatorship. Weishaupt further ordered his Illuminists to infiltrate all secret societies and form circles within circles. Only Masons and others who proved themselves internationalists (willing to work to eradicate nationalism); whose conduct proved they had defected from God, were initiated into the Illuminati. John Robison, a high degree Mason and professor of philosophy at Edinburg faked his way in and obtained Weishaupt's revised conspiracy plan, which he then exposed. But the warning was simply not heeded, and the French Revolution proceeded as planned.

Truthfully, when I first came across works of the Illuminist Conspiracy, such as William Guy Carr's, Pawns In The Game; and Eustace Mullins' Secrets of the Federal Reserve; I was not a believer. It was either too bold a conspiracy, or too facile an answer to many things. I spent much time vacillating between a random view of history, and finding more disturbing corroboration.

To this day, among secret societies in this country, members speak in hushed tones of a secret brotherhood of high souls known only as the Illuminati. Their deception is complete. If they only studied a little history they would know of the blood-stained banner, the red shield, Rothschild, that they erroneously reverence under that title.

The break came when I learned of the Christian Rakovsky Interrogation. This interrogation is given in its entirety in the book, Red Symphony. Rakovsky explained that he was an agent of the Rothschilds; that when Stalin had taken power in lieu of the Rothschilds' man Trotsky, Rakovsky had endeavored to become the Stalinist's Stalinist, but now he had been discovered. Rakovsky informed Stalin that in the view of the Rothschilds Stalin had become a Bonapartist. Apparently, Napoleon was put in power by the Rothschild banking family, only to take the bit in his mouth and run with it. Now Stalin was doing the same. But Rakovsky bargained for his life with information of how to get back in the good graces of the Rothschilds. History reflects that Stalin took the advice, but it did not save Rakovsky. It also proved fatal to Trotsky several continents away. This is not even the Cliff Notes version, but basically it provided enough of a missing piece to the puzzle that I finally had to say, okay, this is real; the Illuminati is real. In fact, nothing else now quite makes sense.

A friend gave me an extraordinary book. The edges are burned black. It had literally been salvaged from the burn pile, where it refused to be consumed; thrown there by the previous owner, who was so disturbed by the book he evidently saw no other recourse. The book is titled: Under The Sign Of The Scorpi

• @ START....continued — J. Gentry, Wed Oct 22 13:11
• More Mentally Ill in Prison Than in Hospitals — lisbet, Wed Oct 22 18:07
• Cultural Hegemony — Simon Jones, Wed Oct 22 13:27