This is a response to the E Magazine criticisms raised by "Wendy Loveless" in regard to my "Who were the Israelites" article. Regrettably, most of my leisure time is spent helping survivors of mind-control projects, consequently this reply is less detailed than the subject matter deserves.
The primary purpose of my article was to inform Israeli students that archaeological evidence clearly refutes the biblical claims that Israel is theirs by divine right. A secondary purpose was the debunking of the elitist and odious claim promulgated by proponents of British Israelism that the Caucasian population of Britain and America is descended from the Davidic bloodline.
Having been engaged in advanced research and development projects for some three decades, I'm well aware of the necessity for researching a subject from first principles. Wendy appears not to have followed this procedure, instead gleaning her information primarily from the books obtainable from the website mentioned in her E. Mail. This is the website of a bookpublisher located in Salt Lake City - a center of Kolob worship; the Mormon Church has a vested interest in promoting British Israelism dogma.
This publisher offers books promoting British Israelism by such authors as the late Colonel J.C. Gawier, Keeper of the Crown Jewlefs under Queen Victoria. The British Israelite movement derived its initial impetus from the attempt by the Crown to improve Victoria's popularity by falsely claiming that she was of the Davidic bloodline.
What British Israelite authors apparently have failed to realize is that archaeological excavations in the Holy Land have clearly demonstrated that the lives and deeds of King David and Solomon, as depicted in the Old Testament, are apochryphal stories written during a much later era, in order to justify the dominance of the Levites over Judean affairs. In a similar manner, much of the Lebor Gabala - an Irish history compiled by Celts and early Christian monks, also is largely apochryphal.
Because apochryphal stories are a means by which oligarchical powers are able to exert influence over the masses, perhaps it behooves us briefly to digress and peruse some major apochryphal tales:
The attack on Pearl Harbor:
This was not a surprise attack by Japan, as popularly believed; it is a matter of record that several weeks prior to the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull informed his journalist friend Joe Lieb, that Japan would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7th., 1941. Lieb leaked the information to the U.P. wire service. Only the Honolulu Advertizer bothered to publish the U,P. news release. The attack was a reprisal for the Rockefeller-instigated cancellation of Japanese oil concessions in China. Fearing that Japan might attack Russia, where the Rockefellers had vested oil and lumber interests, J.P.Morgan's nephew was appointed Ambassador to Japan, in order to induce Japanese warlords to attack the USA instead.
Another related apochryphal story is the supposed date of Rockefeller puppet Franklin D. Roosevelt's death. In actuality, he was assassinated the previous year, his identity being assumed by doubles. In his memoirs, Roosevelt's son, Elliott, stated that Stalin had informed him that his father was assassinated by "the Churchill gang".
The Knights of the Round Table:
The truth behind the legend of King Arthur has been obscured both by political expediency and the mists of time; are the stories of his exploits and his last mysterious boat trip to Avalon true? Did the knights of the Round Table exist, and was there a Merlin - or is it all a romantic fable, swallowed hook, line and sinker, by gullible New Agers?
Early English history followed an oral tradition, and was not committed to writing until several centuries after the alleged birth of Arthur. Unfortunately, key manuscripts, such as the Northern Annals, disappeared in the 13th. century, and are no longer available to historians. Consequently, the two principal sources of the Arthurian legend are the Histories of the Kings of Britain and Chronicles of Scotland, by the mediaeval historians Geoffrey of Monmouth and Hector Boece, respectively.
Arthur purportedly was born circa 475 A.D.; at the time of his birth, Rome had withdrawn its four occupying legions, and the eastern half of Britain was under Anglo-Saxon rule. Geoffrey locates the scene of the Arthurian battles around Camelot Dun (Winchester), which is a chronological problem, since that part of England was already occupied by the Anglo-Saxons by the time of Arthur's alleged birth.
Some historians assert that the battles were fought in Cornwall, which in earlier times was a larger region than at present. This is problematical since the Anglo-Saxons did not lay claim to Cornwall, thus eliminating the potential for armed conflict.
Gerald of Wales (c. 1147-1223) claimed that Glastonbury was the fabled Camelot, and that the grave of Arthur and his queen was opened there, in 1191, but there is no historical record of conflict between Arthur's knights and the Anglo-Saxons domiciled in the Glastonbury region. Gerald was under the patronage of the Benedictine Abbot of Glastonbury; making the spurious claim that Arthur was buried at Glastonbury would not only be good for the lucrative pilgrim trade, but would also discredit his rival, Geoffrey of Monmouth, who was an Augustinian.
The majority of mediaeval manuscript references to Arthur's chief residence, located it in the northern English city of Caerleon (Carlisle). In all probability, this particular Arthur was a minor Romano-Briton border chieftan, who fought his battles locally along the English / Scottish border. He probably would have been buried on St Patrick's Isle, in the Irish Sea, which used to serve as a necropolis.
Ordinarily, the exploits of a minor border chieftan would not receive national attention, however, Dubricius, the Archbishop of Carlisle, was purportedly born circa 450 A.D., making him a contemporary neighbor of this border chieftan. On his travels, Dubricious possibly championed the exploits of Arthur over those of rival border warlords. Dubricious may well have been one of a long line of Merlins. "Merlin" is an agnomen - a title, not the name of a person. Merlin is the Old English term for a blackbird., which suggests that the person who was appointed the Merlin was associated with the druidic order known as the Black Man during the lst. century A.D.. The successful candidate for the office of Black Man had to be adept in the esoteric arts, particularly that of rainmaking. The fact that the Merlin is best known for his occult powers, rather than for his religious prowess, implies that Geoffrey of Monmouth may have confused a Black Man of the 1st century with the major Christian evangelist Bishop Dubricious, who lived some three centuries later.
The unpopular and mentally-unbalanced King Henry 2nd. (1133-1189) became alarmed upon learning of an ancient prophecy which claimed that King Arthur did not die, but would return again. Hailing from Anjou, the French center of occultism, Henry had what he claimed was Arthur's grave at Glastonbury excavated, thus 'proving" to a superstitious populous, that Arthur was really dead and therefore could not return to lead a rebellion. A lead cross was recovered from "Arthur's" alleged grave at Glastonbury; the cross was inscribed with a text in debased uncials. However, this type of font was not utilized until after Arthur's purported era.
Apparently dismayed at his propensity for appearing naked in public and chewing straw, King Henry's wife, the very capable Eleanor of Aquitaine, returned to her extensive French domains, where her daughter, Marie de Champagne, commissioned Chretien de Troyes to write an Arthurian romance. Since adultery was a favorite pastme at Marie's court, Chretien, who specialized in writing lurid tales involving rape and mayhem, created a fantasy, in which Queen Guinavere commits adultery with Lancelot. Chretien probably added factual history to his apocryphal romance, for he had access to at least one manuscript from Beauvais Abbey, whose monks were instrumental in reorganizing the administrative structure of Scottish abbeys during the 12th. century.
I believe that the story of the Arthurian legend as we know it today is, in actuality, an apocryphal composite created by mediaeval writers who confused the life of a 5th. century border chieftan with that of the lst. century Pendragon known to the Romans as Caractacus, who bore the tribal appellation "Arwiagus" (Arthur) derived from the British "Arto", meaning "Bear".
A person of high ideals and founder of the first Christian church, whose daughters became the toast of Roman society, Caractacus became famous throughout Europe. Caractacus's half-sister Clarine married the Ban of Benwick and gave birth to a son - Lancelot.
The claim made by Geoffrey of Monmouth that the Arthurian battles were fought in Southern England would not be correct for a north-country border chieftan living in the 5th. century, but would be in conformance with the known military campaigns of Caractacus, during the lst. century A.D.. The legendary Lady of the Lake may have been Caractacus's purported sister Anna, who was married to Aaron Rheged. He bore the appellation "Lychlyn", meaning "Lake". Since the Phoenicians had established colonies in Britain since circa 2900 B.C., the sword Excalibur may represent the Phoenician Sun Cross. This was portrayed on Hittite seals as a human arm holding an upright ankh, symbolizing Divine victory, The myth regarding Arthur withdrawing the sword from the stone may be symbolic of the separation of the inner spiritual light (represented by the sword) from the rock, indicative of the material world.
In founding the first Christian Church at the Palaticum Britannicum in Rome, Caractacus probably realized that the Druidic priesthood had been unable to inspire and unify the British with a spiritual zeal, and therefore attempted to accomplish this task, through the promotion of Christianity, the early British form of which is exalted throughout the Arthurian literary corpus.
There is no historical evidence that the biblical Joseph of Arimathea ever founded the first British church at Glastonbury, as is claimed by writers possessing a Christian bias. It would be unacceptably poor scholarship, however, not to determine whether the legend arose from confusion with another Joseph who may have been associated with the early British form of Christianity. According to the Welsh Triads, Christianity was introduced to Britain in 37 A.D. by Ilid, who founded a church at Inyswitryn, now known as the Isle of Wight. The church's administration and the name 'Inyswitryn' was allegedly transferred to Glastonbury in 63 A.D..
According to one tradition, Ilid was a cousin of Caractacus. Interestingly, Caractacus's Aunt Rhieinwylydd married Bicanys, of Phoenician descent; he was a tin trader. After his retirement, his business affairs were managed by his son Joseph, who purportedly relocated to Arimathea. The biblical Joseph of Arimathea therefore could possibly be British.
All Content © HiddenMysteries - TGS (1998-2005)
HiddenMysteries.com Internet Store ~ HiddenMysteries Information Central
Texas National Press ~ TGS Publishers Dealers Site
All Rights Reserved
Please send bug reports to the Information .
