Francis Bacon and Stewarts:
There are some cases where the illegitimates are closely involved in affairs of state and all are aware of it. The issue of Francis Bacon being a rightful heir to the throne because he was the son of Queen Elizabeth who had to keep it quiet or suffer Catholic recriminations is most intriguing. It appears if it was the case; that Francis actually took to his role and competed well enough to be more powerful than the King himself. But that King who made our usual Bible was one mixed up and crazy guy with lots of skeletons in his gay closet. Here is another of that cast of BEES or the Stuart part of the intrigues:
“Brian Moffatt's inspiration for The Devil and King James followed his acquisition of the 16th-century marriage trunk of Francis Stewart, 5th Earl of Bothwell, who was James VI's illegitimate cousin.
James lived in fear of Francis, regarded by the nation's witches as the incarnation of their god. Yet the earl was legitimised by the Pope and by Mary Queen of Scots, while the king appointed him Lord High Admiral of Scotland - and, despite being a shadowy figure virtually written out of the history books, he was within an ace of becoming ruler of both Scotland and England.� (1)
But why would I put this here in this book dealing with Tiahuanaco? I think there is a very real possibility that Francis Bacon and the Stuart Royals were part of the secret trade in the Americas that went way back in time to their Milesian forbears if not before the House of Mallia even began. Their wealth and influence was always something they could replenish despite what they did in Europe or in other intrigues before Culloden signalled the end of a Baronet named Baird who had been in charge of defending the Oak Island Money Pit of Bank. I delve into that part of their history in a book on Oak Island, Nova Scotia where Bacon owned land. Suffice it to say there are others who have noted the sources of Bonnie Prince Charlie’s funding were not available to journalists or historians for the Europeans of his era.
In addition to being the most powerful man in England, Francis had a brother who was a spy like John Dee. Francis was a very capable esotericist like most of The Royal Society that the Stuarts started to advance Rosicrucian interests in uplifting mankind in such ventures and The Enlightenment Experiment including the creation of the United States. Hermeticists and alchemists like Newton, Fludd, Bacon and Rumford did not suddenly rise to the top of bureaucracies or secret agencies in the 17th Century. They have been a vital part of managing the world for their Royal cousins since the time of Melchizedek if not before.

“Fy iaith, fy ngwlad, fy nghenedl Cymru - Cymru am byth! ("My language, my land, my nation of Wales - Wales for ever!"). – Thomas Jefferson.

What has this got to do with old vs. new world? Seems like it should be old world vs older world.

We are taught that the Old World was Europe and all that stuff whereas the New World is America. Of course there were some who knew full well what benefits trade could bring and they kept it secret.

I don't know where you learn all that stuff, but on many points I disagree with you base on my historical knowledge. First, at the time of Francis Bacon, it's the time of the expansion of the English coloinal empire, whose purpose is to set up colonies and ship the goods from the land of the colonies to the British empire. This empire is the empire of greatness, their greatness is stealing resources from around the globe. Francis Bacon, Stuart are all accomplices with the British east india company whose boss in Lord Shelbourne. America revolution is the most important revolution against this empire, this empire of aristocracy where there are a specific heirachy of classes. Many of the founding fathers revolt against this type of system, so they put out the saying, that all man are created equal with unalienable rights. In Britain your are called subjects of the king, in United states you are called citizen.

Here we can identify my UNKNOWN attacker I think - it is (surprise) - ENKI!!! And just as 'she/he/it (guess what for short)' always does - this person does not address the facts presented or know the facts at all. Why not get a book and see all the facts and rreferences I present? Oh - I forgot - on another post you say I hide behind the experts and have no opinion of my own. Sick PUPPY!!

It is not me!!!
Honestly!
You can ask admin. and by IP identification he will calrify to you, that it is not me!

I'll add a few words to the fray, here!

There is a Book... I don't recall the name of the Author, but it's title is "Illuminati". I do know, the Author was once the "Potentate" of the Free Masons, and soon after he wrote the book, he was found Lifeless. The Book, "Named names", Gave Dates and Places, Exposed the Illuminatti Plan. But, the Plan had already been exposed decades before, but the Clan is so crafty, they side stepped the "Bad Press" and continued on with their Goals. The Book is "Out of Print" and I doubt if anyone will ever find a copy of it...... Many Folks have reported Burglaries of their homes and found that only that Book had been stolen. "Robert the Bruce" has represented the facts of that Book very accurately! As, I have a copy of it!

If a person studies the History of America, I seriously doubt they will learn the Truth from Public Schools or Libraries! To get at the Truth, one must Dig for it in the most unusual places! I don't know many people, who claim to have a Bucket full of Degrees in History, who actually knows the Truth about what is really going on in America, or the World, for that matter!

Robert the Bruce hits the nail on the head everytime! Not one of his messages have ever been off the mark. Those who fail to listen are in for a Big Surprise!

There are several Websites that can share their knowledge about the Illuminatti, such as "The Alliance".

Lee

Ezekiel's triad machine is Oghamic and it is inside front cover (with error sentence incomplete) of my book Diverse Druids. Prophecy - hmmm. I am more of the opinion that the manipulation of energy is not prophetic - but manifest.

EA and Ea Anna which once would be phonetically like Hana is the IO Torus and Chaos Science which was around 13,000 years ago and more. The 'I' and 'O' are like the binary Boolean codes of a computer and the Torus is a cascading avalanche of harmonic energy that String Theorists are seeing and have been tested in Paris based studies - covered in my books.

The Mark of Ayin or Cayin (Cain of the Bible) and the ankh are related to the I O part of the mix - and play a part in my manna machine.

Dear Enki

You are welcome - come back a lot more informed - I hope. The answers are out there.

After having written this book and twenty others detailing the ‘travelers’ impact on the world’s cultural evolution I found that the small and troublesome lice confirm my speculations and evidences. There are two types of lice although they look identical. DNA shows they developed separately and diverged from one source at least 100,000 years ago. One time-line in the on-going research speaks to the other end of the evidences I have proposed for the arrival of people (Homo line) in the Americas. This suggests 1.8 million years ago. So the North and South Americas have a distinctive lice and it will be interesting to see if some remains of lice can be found on more recent human remains or mummies.

Desposyni

Martin, Malachi. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church. New York: Bantam, 1983. 30-31.


"A meeting between Silvester and the Jewish Christian (sic) leaders took place in 318....The vital interview was not, as far as we know, recorded, but the issues were very well known, and it is probable the Joses, the oldest of the Christian Jews (sic), spoke on behalf of the desposyni and the rest.

That most hallowed name, desposyni, had been respected by all believers in the first century and a half of Christian history. The word literally meant, in Greek, "belonging to the Lord." It was reserved uniquely for Jesus' blood relatives. Every part of the ancient Jewish Christian church had always been governed by a desposynos, and each of them carried one of the names traditional in Jesus' family---Zachary, Joseph, John, James, Joses, Simeon, Matthias, and so on. But no one was ever called Jesus. Neither Silvester nor any of the thirty-two popes before him, nor those succeeding him, ever emphasized that there were at least three well-known and authentic lines of legitimate blood descent from Jesus' own family. One from Joachim and Anna, Jesus' maternal grandparents. One from Elizabeth, first cousin of Jesus' mother, Mary, and Elizabeth's husband, Zachary. And one from Cleophas and his wife, who also was a first cousin of Mary.

There were, of course, numerous blood descendants of Joseph, Mary's husband, but only those persons in bloodline with Jesus through his mother qualified as desposyni...."

This passage, of course, reflects the Catholic view that Miryam and Yosef had no children. So while Martin exposes the Catholic church, he still promotes its mythology and the myth of some continuity between Paulistic religon and Messianic Yahwism. The desposyni were soon to be dispossessed by Silvester who had his authority from Emperor so much responsible for Christianity as it is today, Constantine.


"Ever since the Emperor Hadrian had conquered Jerusalem in the year 135, all Jews, and that included Jewish Christians, had been forbidden to enter Jerusalem under pain of instant death...."

Gentile Christians then had Jerusalem, that is Aelia Capitolina, as their own.


http://www.ebionite.org/library.htm#despo

Does Society Need a St. Bernard?


You all know the big dogs that carry rum to save Swiss or alpine skiers caught in a storm or some other trouble. That is not the St. Bernard I am contemplating but you might think this St. Bernard to be an even bigger dog once you get to know him.


“The intellectual and institutional evolution of these reform movements during the almost exactly one thousand years between Benedict of Nursia (who founded the monastery of Monte Cassino in about 529) and Martin Luther (who entered the monastery of the Augustinian Hermits at Erfurt in 1505) is a story of inestimable importance for the history of Europe and of the world. (13) Over and over, it was the primitive model of Christ as Monk, and of the monk as the imitator of the model, that animated these reform movements. There is in some ways a depressing repetition of pattern, as each monastic reform in its turn protests against decline and stagnation in the monasteries, sets up new administrative and disciplinary structures to reverse the downward trend, prevails for a century or two, and then proves itself vulnerable to the same tendencies of stagnation and decline. Benedict of Aniane in the Carolingian period; Odo of Cluny and the Cluniac reform movement a century or so later; about a century after that the monastic reformation that began at Citeaux, which through the powerful life and Christocentric thought of Saint Bernard spread the Cistercian message throughout Europe; then the friars of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in their new dedication to the renewal; and, in reaction to the Protestant Reformation and under the inspiration of an intensified Christ-mysticism in sixteenth-century Spain, the Society of Jesus.� (14)


How much is Pelikan aware of in regards to the Alumbrados, Hibernian (Troubadour), Iona Druidic sell-out and other higher order intrigues within the Luciferian or Heliopolitan through line since Tuthmosis III? I have addressed these things in many ways in other books and this book is going to try to flesh some of it out in greater detail. But clearly the Reformation did not just happen when the anti-Semite Luther saw a problem with popery and the other trappings of power. His image of Christ as monk is more like the far more disciplined Monastic Order of Iona or ‘The Isle of Druids’ which had large operations in the area of Greece as well as Ireland where the likes of St. Columba were taught. Iona maintained this high discipline over four centuries at least and I would not be surprised if it was then co-opted into the Cistercian Order. But John Dominic Crossan points out that Christ was a Cynic and wore the garb of the Cynic. Still one can see the Cynic is like the Druid too. In all cases they are indeed more mystical.


13) From Jesus Through The Centuries, op. cit.{Jaroslav Pelikan of Yale}, pgs. 116-7 we have, The chapters “The Religious Orders� and “Fringe Orders and Anti-Orders� in Richard W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages, vol. 2 of the Pelican History of the Church (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1970). pp. 214-358, occupy nearly half of that small book.

14) Ibid.

I think one needs to read New Atlantis of Sir Francis Bacon, especially the place where he describes the Tricks (Illusion) Chambers (Rooms, Halls) to understand what really goes on this planet. That happens because the crucial majority of people do not have Free Will. I mean that some creatures may choose not to follow the high moral standards of the House of Solomon and may like and get satisfaction from deception and illusion.

I think Robert will fully understand what I mean to say.

Dear Enki

There may indeed be a side of the family of Jesus (Solomon etc.) who are beneficent. However, there is another side that is not; and there is no longer a need for such secret or Synarchistic models. Do you yet know what a Luciferian is? They are the positive aspect of these elites. You would do well to read my books like The Rising Roman Empire and Who is a Jew. You will find my relations like Robert the Bruce are of the exact same inner sanctum that Bacon was whether or not he was a Stuart.

Desposyni

Martin, Malachi. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church. New York: Bantam, 1983. 30-31.


"A meeting between Silvester and the Jewish Christian (sic) leaders took place in 318....The vital interview was not, as far as we know, recorded, but the issues were very well known, and it is probable the Joses, the oldest of the Christian Jews (sic), spoke on behalf of the desposyni and the rest.

That most hallowed name, desposyni, had been respected by all believers in the first century and a half of Christian history. The word literally meant, in Greek, "belonging to the Lord." It was reserved uniquely for Jesus' blood relatives. Every part of the ancient Jewish Christian church had always been governed by a desposynos, and each of them carried one of the names traditional in Jesus' family---Zachary, Joseph, John, James, Joses, Simeon, Matthias, and so on. But no one was ever called Jesus. Neither Silvester nor any of the thirty-two popes before him, nor those succeeding him, ever emphasized that there were at least three well-known and authentic lines of legitimate blood descent from Jesus' own family. One from Joachim and Anna, Jesus' maternal grandparents. One from Elizabeth, first cousin of Jesus' mother, Mary, and Elizabeth's husband, Zachary. And one from Cleophas and his wife, who also was a first cousin of Mary.

There were, of course, numerous blood descendants of Joseph, Mary's husband, but only those persons in bloodline with Jesus through his mother qualified as desposyni...."

This passage, of course, reflects the Catholic view that Miryam and Yosef had no children. So while Martin exposes the Catholic church, he still promotes its mythology and the myth of some continuity between Paulistic religon and Messianic Yahwism. The desposyni were soon to be dispossessed by Silvester who had his authority from Emperor so much responsible for Christianity as it is today, Constantine.


"Ever since the Emperor Hadrian had conquered Jerusalem in the year 135, all Jews, and that included Jewish Christians, had been forbidden to enter Jerusalem under pain of instant death...."

Gentile Christians then had Jerusalem, that is Aelia Capitolina, as their own.


http://www.ebionite.org/library.htm#despo

Do you think there is a root to the word despot here?

AUGSBURG and the Reformation:


We should all know that Nostradamus was a Jesuit and he was most supported by the De Medicis. I am almost certain he was a member of the Alumbrados or Illuminati who founded the Jesuits along with the Borgia (Pope Alexander VI) money to institute the Aquinas legacy we have already covered as their universities became the cornerstone of educating people to a New World Order. David Ovason writes about Nostradamus being a Hibernian and I think his scholarship is the only reasonable work done on the man who probably was adept enough to have made a Philosopher’s Stone. Nostradamus was a Jew and so are the Milesian Stuarts or Bruttii whose history I have documented in books like Who is a Jew. Ovason’s book is The Secrets of Nostradamus and he details an important part of one quatrain dealing with Augsburg. Here is why Augsburg is important according to history and Pelikan from the Rockefeller-Bush institute called Yale.


“In their explanation of how there could be a just war in the light of the unqualified way Jesus had condemned violence and the unequivocal way he had exalted peace, Reformers such as Luther repeated much of the medieval doctrine of Augustine and Aquinas, while adding their own perspectives on the ethical and political meaning of the Gospels. There was, however, one aspect of the treatment of war in medieval theology on which Luther broke radically with his predecessors: the idea of a crusade. As a solution for the moral ambiguity of war that went beyond the tragic necessity implied in the Augustinian idea of a just war, the crusade imprinted the sacred sign of the cross of Jesus on the cause of ‘Holy Peace and Holy War.’ (15) ‘To take the cross’ meant to go off to war against the Turk in Palestine, wearing a cross of red cloth on the shoulder of one’s outer garment. While there is serious inconsistency between the accounts given by our several sources on the sermon preached by Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont on 27 November 1095, it does seem clear that he promised remission of sins and indulgences to those who took the cross. He seems, moreover, to have described the death of those who, after taking the cross, fell in battle against the Turkish infidels as a kind of participation in the sufferings and death of Christ. In the event, as Runciman has put it, this ‘Crusading fervour’ in the name of Jesus ‘always provided an excuse for killing God’s enemies’ and led to pogroms against Jews, it even led to what he calls ‘the great betrayal of Christendom,’ the sack of Christian Constantinople by Christian Crusaders on the Fourth Crusade in 1204, a ‘crime against humanity’ and ‘an act of gigantic political folly,’ as well as a flagrant negation of the teachings of the very One in whose name they had gone forth and whose cross they bore. (16)


By the period of the Reformation, the atmosphere had changed drastically; as one historian has put it, albeit with some exaggeration, ‘in the sixteenth century the idea of a Crusade falls into oblivion.’ (17) It is more precise to say, with another scholar, that ‘the idea of the crusade continued to haunt the imagination of western princes until the seventeenth century.’ (1 {And the rhetoric of George Bush in 2004 is certainly reminiscent of the same folly.} What fell into virtual oblivion was the practical possibility of a Crusade to Palestine to free the Holy Land from the infidel, for now the infidel had become a clear and present danger to Christian Europe itself. In 1453, Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine empire, which had been the victim of Western Christian aggression in 1204, fell to the Ottoman Turks, who during the next three-quarters of a century threatened central Europe: Belgrade surrendered to them in 1520, Vienna was in danger, and in 1526 at the battle of Mohacs the army of Hungary and its king, Louis II, fell before the superior might of the Turkish armies. Thanks to the recent invention of printing, a vast propaganda literature on the Turkish peril spread over central Europe, with some calling for compromise and appeasement and others for war and even for a revival of the Crusade—directed this time not against the Turks who had taken Palestine, but against the Turks who had pointed a dagger at the very heart of Western Christendom. All of this came at the very time that the Reformation seemed to be pointing its own dagger at Christendom, dividing the Christian forces just when they needed to unite against the common enemy. The coincidence of the two threats was the occasion for the convoking of the diet of the Holy Roman Empire at Augsburg in 1530, where the Augsburg Confession presented the case for the Lutheran Reformation.


That confession made it the official position of the Reformation party that, since ‘all government in the world and all established rule and laws were instituted and ordained by God,’ {This is the crux of the thesis that there is indeed a plan or conspiracy and if you believe man has not made these nations then you are a dupe.} it was perfectly legitimate for Christians to ‘punish evildoers with the sword’ and to ‘engage in just wars.’ Specifically, it declared that Emperor Charles V, ‘His Imperial Majesty, may in salutary and godly fashion imitate the example of David {The House of David and the House of The Bruce are the people that still do this stuff of men.} in making war on the Turk.’ (19)


But the parallel between the Holy Roman Emperor and the ancient king of Israel did not make the emperor a theocratic ruler, who governed and waged war in the name of Jesus. The reason given for approving war against the Turk was, therefore, not the Crusade ideal of a holy war against the enemy of the cross of Christ; rather it was that, as the ‘incumbent of a royal office.’ Charles V, like King David of Israel, had the right, indeed the obligation, of ‘the defense and protection of [his] subjects.’ Luther’s treatise of 1526 on the Turkish was took the same position. It was mistaken to preach a Crusade and to urge ‘the emperor, as guardian of the church and defender of the faith,’ to take arms against the Turks; on the contrary, taking arms against the Turks would be the duty of the rulers of Europe, ‘whether they themselves were Christians or not,’ in keeping with their calling in the world to govern. (20) {Give this double-speak due consideration.} In its validation of war against the Turks, the mainstream of the Reformation rejected the Crusade ideal but insisted on the just war theory: such a war was legitimate on account of the Jesus who had acknowledged that Pontius Pilate and Caesar possessed an authority that came from God (John 19:11), {If any doubt the ancient Hegelian sophistication; this is an example of their deceit.} not on account of the Jesus whose crucifixion under Pontius Pilate had placed authority into the hands of his disciples and his church (Matt. 28:19-20).� (21)


Philip Melanchthon prepared the Augsburg Confession which is the written system tens of millions of Lutherans are enamoured with. The German nobility at the 1530 Diet asked for some changes to it or rejected it but we need to understand why these nobles are so interested in using religion to gain power over the people in any event. We don’t really need anti-Semites like Luther even if he was right about the Papacy being a thoroughly detestable power-mongering institution. But I ask why did the subsequent Peace of Augsburg that allowed cities to have religious freedom really occur? Why would there ever have been a need to keep people in feudal religious control? Why do the historians not ask who was playing this game in the first place and why do they not see the inner sanctum ‘play both ends against the middle’ and only occasionally see the de-population efforts at work?
Philip of Hesse and his Hesse-Battenbergs who later worked with the Rothschilds saw the impact of the Augsburg Confession would garner greater power for them. They organized a league called Schmalkaldic in Thuringia in December of 1530. History tells us they did this to defend themselves against The Catholic Emperor Charles V. It would be mere speculation to suggest that the Islamic or Turkish threat was part of a larger intrigue wherein the Semite ancestors of Sargon in that part of the world saw fit to work with their friends in Germany as they later did when disallowing the average Jews of Germany to be free to leave Germany. Yes, Hitler offered to do this twice during the war after the gas chambers were already doing their foul deeds. The Rothschild backers of Balfour and the stated need of a State of Israel in Palestine was behind the Holocaust. The Swiss and Turkish Jewish leaders declined the offer unless the State of Israel could be made legal. The average Jew thinks this kind of fact is pure fiction but it is their perception that is fiction. Eichmann tried to create a state of Israel before the war, but I have dealt with these matters in other books and must try to control my rage at this juncture.


I hope the reader knows by now that Hegel is a neoplatonic philosopher and his refinement of the ‘play both ends against the middle’ use of Fukayama’s ‘absolute religions’ is the main thrust of what ails governance of people and life on earth. Thus we had Nostradamus the Hibernian Jew founding the Jesuits while Protestantism came to the fore. They had all bases covered and were able to keep the attention of people away from themselves for a long time and still are benefiting from all this intrigue. This theme was never more evident than in the 20th Century when certain people funded both Hitler and Stalin who really were part of the Hegelian dialectic and not really so different as it might seem. Here is a very small part of the story in the words of another university professor. The May Day celebrations in the Soviet Union occur on the same fateful day that celebrates the founding of the Adam Weisthaupt Illuminati backed by William of Hesse. I have quoted Yeltsin saying ‘they’ created this experiment. ‘They’ includes Lord Rothschild who openly stated he would replace the Czar. ‘They’ are the upper elite who have to reign in the lesser or ‘tinker parvenu nobility’ (words of HRH Nicholas de Vere) from time to time.


“In a sense, the Peace of Augsburg was a compromise between those who believed in the absolute rule of Rome over all religious matters and those who wanted local congregations to choose between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism. According to this agreement, the ruler of a principality or city determined the religious makeup of the area he ruled. Some of the principalities (those in southern Germany) remained loyal to Rome and some (mainly those in the north) embraced Lutheranism. This kind of church/state relationship became the rule and stayed that way into the twentieth century.� (22)

Enki

You must seek for freedom someday - escape will never work.

From My Dear Friend and fellow member of this forum we have:

From: Eternum1
Message 2 in Discussion

Crusaderism was probably the first example of political spin for the masses. An
early example of posing an ambiguous 'axis of evil' in the middle east. This
established the concept that the elites were protectors of the common people and
were among the first examples of popular wars of conquest. Crusaderism finds
its anthem in the battle hymn of the republic and the use of smallpox {Much more than just smallpox and I have the proof and a confession.} against
aboriginals. It marches outside womans clinics and wears white sheets at cross
burnings. It defends 'traditonal marriage' regardless of the hypocricy in which
its own members defile and divorce themselves from the institution. If Luther
had a complaint about the selling of dispensations by the catholic church he
would be just as appalled at the casual dispensations given to evangelists who
frequent prostitutes and extort money from their own sheeple. Crusaders don't
look beyond the sound bytes co-opted by texas oil barons and sneering
Halliburton CEOs, however. No more then the people who offered up their
children in one of the more twisted crusades, which saw tens of thousands of
children killed or sold into slavery through the first mass example of
paedophilia called the 'childrens crusade'. And just like the first crusades
we still hear the complaint from soldiers on the ground...why don't these people
appreciate us?...we're here to free them?...are they stupid or just
evil?....kill em if they don't bend the knee! Its ironic that Europes darkest
and most venal pogroms against Jews, Turks, Roma, Native Americans and African
pagans are still waged under the banner of the cross by its emigres. Its
ironic that Christ has become a fascist monopoly underwritten by bogus
patriotism. The Florentines and Venetians Robert mentions would fit right in
with the 2 party systems today, each declaring the 'strategic' importance of
their campaigns while crusaderism lies coiled and waiting beneath the surface at
all times. Et

cyberspaceorbit . com/gomerite.html