|
|
The entry
of the Prieure de Sion/Priory of Sion onto the world stage occurred via
the efforts of Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. It all
began rather innocently when Lincoln, a television writer, was on an ordinary
family vacation back in 1969, at which time he stumbled upon a little
mystery that he had no idea was soon going to explode into the mass consciousness
as a result of his curiosity. He writes in Holy
Blood, Holy Grail:
...En route
for a summer holiday in the Cevennes, I made the casual purchase of
a paperback. Le Tresor Maudit (The Accursed Treasure)
by Gerard de Sede was a mystery story - a lightweight, entertaining
blend of historical fact, genuine mystery, and conjecture. It might
have remained consigned to the post-holiday oblivion of all such reading
had I not stumbled upon a curious and glaring omission in its pages.
The "accursed
treasure" of the title had apparently been found in the 1890's
by a village priest through the decipherment of certain cryptic documents
unearthed in his church. Although the purported texts of two of these
documents were reproduced, the "secret messages" said to be
encoded within them were not. The implication was that the deciphered
messages had again been lost. And yet, as I found, a cursory study of
the documents reproduced in the book reveals at least one concealed
message. Surely the author had found it. In working on his book he must
have given the documents more than fleeting attention. He was bound,
therefore, to have found what I had found. Moreover, the message was
exactly the kind of titillating snippet of "proof" that helps
to sell a "pop" paperback. Why had M. de Sede not published
it? [Holy
Blood, Holy Grail, 1982]
Lincoln goes
on to say that this little omission continued to bother him "like
an unfinished crossword puzzle," so he decided to see if he couldn't
get funded to investigate it for a possible television show, thus satisfying
his personal curiosity within the constraints of his work schedule which
did not allow time for the investigation he would have liked to undertake.
The idea
was received favorably by his employers, the BBC, and he was sent to dig
deeper into the mystery so as to make a short film. Lincoln arranged to
meet the author of the book, M. de Sede in Paris in 1970 and there, asked
him the question: "Why didn't you publish the message hidden in the
parchments?"
De Sede's
answer astounded Lincoln: "What message?"
Lincoln writes:
"It
seemed inconceivable to me that he was unaware of this elementary message.
Why was he fencing with me? Suddenly I found myself reluctant to reveal
exactly what I had found. We continued a verbal fencing match for a
few minutes and it became apparent that we were both aware of the message.
I repeated my question: "Why didn't you publish it?" This
time de Sede's answer was calculated. "Because we thought it might
interest someone like you to find it for yourself."
That reply,
as cryptic as the priest's mysterious documents, was the first clear
hint that the mystery of Rennes-le- Chateau was to prove much more than
a simple tale of lost treasure. [Holy
Blood, Holy Grail, 1982]
What kind
of answer was that? "Because we thought it might interest someone
like you to find it for yourself." Was Mr. Lincoln dealing with a
very clever con artist, or some forces that were unknown? After all, nobody
forced him to buy the book and read it; nobody forced him to be curious
about the hidden message; nobody forced him to seek to investigate further.
It was all a series of chance events. Or so it would seem. Nevertheless,
there was the most curious fact that a number of documents, "Secret
Dossiers," had been "published," (i.e. deposited in the
Bibliotheque Nationale of France) several years in advance of Gerard de
Sede's book and Henry Lincoln's curiosity.
The earliest
of these documents, dated August of 1965, is entitled Les
descendants Merovingiens ou l'enigme du Razes Wisigoth, or The
Merovingian descendants, or the enigma of Razes of the Visigoths.
Its purported author is a Madeleine Blancasall, and claims to have been
translated from German by a Vincent Celse-Nazaire, and supposedly published
by the Grande Loge Alpina. The document describes the descent of
the Merovingians from their alleged biblical origin to the 20th century,
by way of the family of Plantard. The genealogy is signed by a Henri Lobineau.
Now, of course,
M. de Sede helpfully informed Henry Lincoln in advance that he must not
look under the name "Lobineau," but instead must look under
the name "Schidlof."
Henry Lincoln
notes:
Madeleine
Blancasall is clearly made up from a reference to Rennes-le-Chateau's
patron saint, Marie-Madeleine, linked with the names of the two rivers,
the Blanque and the Sals which conjoin just to the south of Rennes-le-Bains.
[A town near Rennes-le-Chateau.]
And, of course,
we note that the church of Rennes-les-Bains is dedicated to the two saints
Celse and Nazaire. The Grande Loge Alpina, the main lodge of Swiss
Freemasonry, denies all knowledge of this little work.
Nine months
after the deposit of this curious genealogy, in May of 1966, another document
was deposited in the Bibliotheque Nationale. It also bears the imprint
of the Grande Loge Alpina and the title is Un tresor Merovingien
a Rennes-le-Chateau. The author is Antoine l'Ermite. The grotto
of St. Antony the Hermit is only a short distance from Rennes.
One month
later, June, 1966, another document was deposited in the Bibliotheque
entitled Pierres gravees du Languedoc, and this was a purported
reprint of an earlier book published in 1884 by Austrian historian, Eugene
Stublein. [Stublein DID exist and DID publish a book in 1877 entitled
Description d'un voyage aux establissements thermaux de l'arrondissement
de Limoux. There is, apparently, no known extant REAL copy of
his 1884 book of which the 1966 version purports to be a copy.] Papers
in the Dossiers also suggest that the author of the genealogies,
Lobineau, was a pseudonym for this same Leo Schidlof, who had died in
Switzerland the previous year. Schidlof's daughter has insisted that he
knew nothing of genealogy. So, we find a dead man's name being used to
give credibility to something with which he probably had absolutely no
connection.
Then, in
March of 1967, still another document was deposited/published with the
Bibliotheque Nationale. It was entitled Le
serpent rouge, and this one had three authors: Messieurs de
Koker, Saint-Maxent and Feugere. There is some disagreement over the date
on which, after the necessary red tape had been gone through, the document
was considered to be officially "published." The Depot
legal states March 20th, but Lincoln et al gave it as January
17. This matter was investigated by another researcher, Franck Marie,
who claims to have established the date of February 15. Whatever the date
of deposit, it is a fact that Louis Saint-Maxent and Gaston de Koker were
found hanged on 6 March, and Pierre Feugere the following day.
Were these
three men victims of revenge or a suicide pact as de Sede suggests? Their
respective families all insist that the three were absolutely unaquainted
with one another and that their deaths by hanging, so close to one another
in time, are just horrible coincidence. The obvious conclusion is that
someone found the names of three unrelated persons with suitable deaths
in the French newspapers, put their names on this document, and THEN deposited
it after falsifying the deposition slip and that the date of March 20,
as given by the Bibliotheque Nationale, is the correct date. Again, we
have dead men being made authors of books they probably knew nothing about.
At about
the same time of the publication of Gerard de Sede's book L'or de
Rennes, another document attributed to Henri Lobineau was deposited
with the Bibliotheque Nationale entitled Dossiers secrets.
Lincoln et al say it was:
...a thin,
nondescript volume, a species of folder with stiff covers which contained
a loose assemblage of ostensibly unrelated items - news clippings, letters
pasted to backing-sheets, pamphlets, numerous genealogical trees and
the odd printed page apparently extracted from the body of some other
work. Periodically some of the individual pages would be removed. At
different times other pages would be freshly inserted. On certain pages
additions and corrections would sometimes be made in a miniscule longhand.
At a later date, these pages would be replaced by new ones, printed
and incorporating previous emendations.
The main
thrust of this odd collection of items was the establishing of Pierre
Plantard de St.-Clair as a direct lineal descendant of Dagobert II, who
was assassinated in 679 and was not known to have had any legitimate issue.
It seems that the name "Lobineau," was derived from the Rue
Lobineau near Saint-Sulpice in Paris, the church that plays a significant
part in the story of Berenger Sauniere.
But, before
we proceed, let's just give the story itself a general overview: In 1885,
at the age of 33, Abbe Berenger Sauniere became priest of Rennes-le-Chateau
and employed a young girl named Marie Denarnaud as his housekeeper. She
became his lifetime companion and confidante. The church was terribly
run down and the village was poor and it seemed that Abbe Sauniere faced
a life of penury and obscurity.
However,
he received a serendipitous donation (though the source of this money
varies from researcher to researcher) and decided to upgrade his church
a bit. During the renovation work, he supposedly discovered some mysterious
documents containing a coded message. He then made a trip to Paris and
hung out with some fellows with connections to the Parisian occult world,
purchased copies of an odd selection of paintings from the Louvre, and
returned to Rennes. At this point it is said that his behavior suggested
strange doings. He was reported to have been tramping around the country
side collecting rocks, holing up in the church doing secretive things
at night, and then, ultimately, redecorating the church in a bizarre way.
At some point, he traveled a great deal and it was reported that money
poured in to his housekeeper during his travels, originating, it is said,
from various religious houses around Europe.
Over the
next twenty years, Abbe Sauniere allegedly spent huge amounts of money
on his building projects, entertaining lavishly, living the high life
and other activities.
That's the
basic story. Of course, there were a couple of murders tossed in for good
measure and an on again, off again friendship with another priest who
was equally mysterious and clearly involved in whatever was going on.
The region
already had legends of buried treasure, and now it was thought that Abbe
Sauniere found it or, at least, part of it. And now, the curious story
of the "accursed treasure" of Rennes-le-Chateau was to be brought
to the attention of the world by the BBC through the efforts of Henry
Lincoln.
At his meeting
with Gerard de Sede, Lincoln indicated that he wanted to make this short
television program. De Sede agreed to assist in such a project by digging
up all the information he could and sending it to Lincoln.
First came
the full text of a major encoded message, which spoke of the painters
Poussin and Teniers. This was fascinating. The cipher was unbelievably
complex. We were told it had been broken by experts of the French Army
Cipher Department, using computers. As I studied the convolutions of
the code, I became convinced that this explanation was, to say the least,
suspect. I checked with cipher experts of British Intelligence. They
agreed with me. "The cipher does not present a valid problem for
a computer." The code was unbreakable. Someone, somewhere, must
have the key.
[Laura's
note: in other words, whoever deciphered the documents MUST have also
possessed the key either by virtue of being the author of the documents
AND key, or by having been given same.]
And then
de Sede dropped his second bombshell. A tomb resembling that in Poussin's
famous painting Les Bergeres d'Arcadie had been found.
He would send details as soon as he had them. Some days later the photographs
arrived and it was clear that our short film on a small local mystery
had begun to assume unexpected dimensions. [Lincoln,
Leigh, Baigent, 1982]
This item,
the Poussin painting, The Shepherds of Arcadia, had a strange effect on
me at the time that I was reading the story. There was a reproduction
of it in the article about the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery, but it was a
poor copy. I was thumbing through an art book on my shelves, trying to
find any scholarly commentary, and lo and behold, there was a large, full
page reproduction of it right there. I cut it out of the book and pinned
it to the wall over my desk where I could see it all the time and went
back to studying the matter at hand.
With the
addition of such mysterious developments, Henry Lincoln decided to do
more research and make a longer program. The first screening of The
Lost Treasure of Jerusalem, which was the result of the first
stages of research into the matter, was on February of 1972. Essentially,
the conclusion was that Abbe Sauniere had discovered the Temple Treasure
of the Jews. Supposedly, it had been taken by the Romans and then, when
the Visigoths sacked Rome, they took it and it ended up in Rennes-le-Chateau.
Apparently,
the public was consumed with curiosity about this mystery, so a follow-up
film was planned with more research. In 1974, The Priest, the Painter
and the Devil was screened, and it was an unmitigated hit with
viewers. More research was needed and Mr. Lincoln decided that the many
complexities of the mystery were too much for one man, so Richard Leigh,
a writer with graduate degrees and knowledge of history, philosophy, esoterica,
etc. was brought onboard. Richard brought in Michael Baigent, a photojournalist
and researcher of Templar history. The three of them began to dig into
the problem of Rennes-le-Chateau in a more thorough way and produced another
television special entitled The Shadow of The Templars in
1979. Mr. Lincoln writes:
The work
we did on that film at last brought us face to face with the underlying
foundations upon which the entire mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau had been
built. But the film could only hint at what we were beginning to discern.
Beneath the surface was something more startling, more significant,
and more immediately relevant than we could have believed possible when
we began our work on the "intriguing little mystery" of what
a French priest might have found in a mountain village.
In 1972
I closed my first film with the words, "Something extraordinary
is waiting to be found... and in the not too distant future, it will
be." [Lincoln,
Leigh, Baigent, 1982]
What Lincoln,
Leigh and Baigent claim to have found is the secret that Jesus was a king
in a long line of Priest kings, and that he had been married to Mary Magdalene,
and produced a child, born posthumously (after his crucifixion), and that
this child had been spirited away to France to be the progenitor of the
kings of the Franks, the Merovingian, and that this Holy/Royal Bloodline
is the real secret contained in the mysteries of the "Holy Grail"
stories.
How in the
world did a story about a possible hidden treasure found by an obscure
priest in a remote corner of rural France transmogrify itself into THAT?!
Good question.
It's a complicated story that you will have to read on your own for all
the juicy details. But intimately connected to the "how" of
it, and far more important, is the "who says?"
A group calling
itself Le Prieure de Sion, The Priory of Sion, and its purported
agent, Pierre Plantard.
Messrs..
Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent write in the conclusion of Holy
Blood, Holy Grail,
We were
looking for answers to certain perplexing questions, explanations
for certain historical enigmas. In the process we more or less stumbled
upon something rather greater than we had initially bargained for.
We were led to a startling, controversial, and seemingly preposterous
conclusion. ...We were simply trying to determine whether or not our
conclusion was tenable. And exhaustive consideration of biblical material
convinced us that it was. Indeed, we became convinced that our conclusion
was not only tenable, but extremely probable. [Holy
Blood, Holy Grail,
1982]
Note that
they "stumbled upon," and were "led to" this conclusion,
and it was, apparently, the idea that the Priory of Sion wanted them to
believe and publish.
About the
latter they say:
If we
cannot prove our conclusion, however, we have received abundant evidence
- from both their documents and their representatives - that the Prieure
de Sion can. On the basis of their written hints and their personal
conversations with us, we are prepared to believe that Sion does possess
something - something that does in some way amount to "incontrovertible
proof" of the hypothesis we have advanced. [Ibid.]
What do they
think this proof is that is in the possession of the Priory of Sion? They
write:
If our
hypothesis is correct, the Holy Grail would have been at least two things
simultaneously. On the one hand, it would have been Jesus' bloodline
and descendants - the "Sang Raal," the "Real" or
"Royal" blood of which the Templars, created by the Prieure
de Sion were appointed guardians. At the same time the Holy Grail would
have been, quite literally, the receptacle or vessel that received and
contained Jesus' blood. In other words, it would have been the womb
of the Magdalen - and by extension, the Magdalen herself.
...But
it may have been something else as well. In AD 70, during the great
revolt in Judaea, Roman legions under Titus sacked the temple of Jerusalem.
The pillaged treasure of the temple is said to have found its way eventually
to the Pyrenees; and M. Plantard, in his conversation with us, stated
that this treasure was in the hands of the Prieure de Sion today. But
the temple of Jerusalem may have contained more than the treasure plundered
by Titus' centurions. In ancient Judaism religion and politics were
inseparable. The messiah was to be a priest-king whose authority encompassed
spiritual and secular domains alike. It is thus likely, indeed probable,
that the temple housed official records pertaining to Israel's royal
line - the equivalents of the birth certificates, marriage licenses,
and other relevant data concerning any modern royal or aristocratic
family. If Jesus was indeed "king of the Jews," the temple
is almost certain to have contained copious information relating to
him. It may even have contained his body... [Ibid.]
There are
a few problems with this. If M. Plantard claims that the Priory of Sion
holds the Treasure of Solomon's Temple, they must have a pretty empty
treasury and maybe that's why he has been known to do the "Midnight
flit" without paying his rent, (as has been reported by a number
of researchers into his past and background). You see, the Temple of Solomon
was looted by Antiochus Epiphanes NOT Titus. And, of course, this was
AFTER the Temple had been sacked by Rameses in 930 BC, and the Babylonians
in 586 BC
As I have
noted elsewhere, the existence of the original Temple of Solomon is problematical.
There is actually no evidence that it EVER existed - in Israel, that is.
Yet, somehow, the scribe Ezra managed to convince Cyrus, King of Persia,
of the "chosenness" of his people, thereby garnering support
for the return of the Jews to Israel and the "rebuilding of the temple."
I would suggest that this was not a "rebuilding," but an original
building motivated by myths and legends patched together by Ezra, extended
in time by endless faked genealogies designed to deceive. By convincing
Cyrus that the Israelites had been guided and chosen by the One God, he
would naturally think that he would be blessed by Israel's god if he assisted
this project.
According
to the Book of Ezra, there was a whole slew of treasure given to the Jews
by the Persians to put in their new temple. This was done approximately
516 BC And, supposedly, for the next 481 years the treasure of Solomon's
rebuilt temple just hung out there doing what treasure in a temple is
supposed to do. We should note right here that the Ark of the Covenant
disappeared from view and discussion between 750 B.C and 650 B.C., more
than a hundred years before Ezra, who would have, if he had been able
to do so without being caught out at lying, claimed that it was still
present among the treasure.
Over and
over again we read in these Rennes-le-Chateau books a citation from Josephus
that Titus sacked the Temple in Jerusalem and made off with the treasure.
However, that is not quite accurate as I have just noted above. Here is
the relevant excerpt from Josephus about the loss of the treasure of the
Temple:
King Antiochus
... got possession of the city by treachery; at which time he spared
not so much as those that admitted him into it, on account of the riches
that lay in the temple; but, led by his covetous inclination, (for he
saw there was in it a great deal of gold, and many ornaments that had
been dedicated to it of very great value,) and in order to plunder its
wealth, he ventured to break the league he had made. So he left the
temple bare, and took away the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar
[of incense], and table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of burnt-offering];
and did not abstain from even the veils, which were made of fine linen
and scarlet. He also emptied it of its secret treasures, and left nothing
at all remaining; and by this means cast the Jews into great lamentation,
for he forbade them to offer those daily sacrifices which they used
to offer to God, according to the law. [Josephus, The
Jewish Wars,
Emphasis, mine.]
Note that
Josephus clearly says that Antiochus "left the Temple bare."
Not only that, but he also "emptied it of its secret treasure, and
left nothing at all remaining." Those are strong words. And nowhere
does Josephus indicate that the Temple was ever again replenished in terms
of treasure.
The story
is, in the short version, in the year 175 BC, Antiochus IV, also
known as Epiphanes, murdered Seleucus IV and took the throne. In the year
169 BC Antiochus invaded Egypt in an attempt to destroy the Ptolemaic
Dynasty. Soon it was rumored back in Palestine that the king had been
killed in battle. The news of Antiochus' death was false, however, and
when he returned to Jerusalem, he entered the Temple and stole a great
deal of valuable treasure, an act which the pious Jews looked upon as
an abomination before God. The following year (168 BC) Antiochus renewed
his campaign against the Egyptians, but he was stopped by the Roman representative
Popilius Laenus, and was ordered to leave Egypt and never come back. This
so infuriated Antiochus that he came back and took out his frustration
on the city of Jerusalem. He tore down the city walls, slaughtered a great
many of the Jews, ordered the Jewish Scriptures to be destroyed, and he
and his soldiers brought prostitutes into the Temple and there had sex
with them in order to defile the Temple. He also issued orders that
everyone was to worship the Greek gods, and he established the death penalty
for anyone who practiced circumcision, or who observed the Sabbath or
any of the Jewish religious feasts and sacrifices. The cruelty of Antiochus
in enforcing these new laws against the Jews became legendary. The final
outrage for the pious Jews of the land came when Antiochus sacked the
Temple and erected an altar there to the pagan god Zeus. Then, on December
25, 168 BC, Antiochus offered a pig to Zeus on the altar of Jehovah/Yahweh.
Now, if the
treasure was taken by Antiochus in 169 B.C., that is 200 years before
Titus sacked Jerusalem, and during all of this time, Jerusalem was in
an almost constant state of occupation by foreign powers, oppression and/or
revolt, such conditions were definitely not conducive to either assembling
or displaying any treasure of significance, much less keeping any! Josephus
never mentions any "restoration of the treasure" in the temple.
What Antiochus did with it, we can only guess, but the likelihood is that
it was spent wildly and wantonly.
Nevertheless,
one writer on Rennes-le-Chateau claims that confirmation of the existence
of this treasure comes from the discovery of the Copper Scroll in Cave
3, Qumran, in 1952. This turned out to be a list of 64 hiding places in
Jerusalem and surrounding districts, where gold, silver, Temple offerings
and so forth are said to have been deposited. In modern terms, it amounts
to 65 tons of silver and 26 tons of gold.
The experts
are arguing over it, but the consensus of opinion is that the style of
the document, i.e. dry realism, along with the fact that it is recorded
on copper, a valuable metal in its own right which therefore would not
have been used to record a fairy tale, all contribute to the idea that
it describes a REAL treasure.
Now, just
WHAT treasure it was describing is in dispute. Was this the treasure from
the Temple at Jerusalem?
Not very
likely. In the first place, the scroll was found among the Qumran/Essene
documents. The Essenes were dedicated opponents of the Temple at Jerusalem;
so the Essene community would have been a hostile environment for such
a list, to say the least, if it WERE the Temple treasure. Besides that
difficulty, it is not likely that the sack of the Temple was foreseen
so that any treasure, if it had existed by this time, could have been
hidden. And, of course, hidden treasure around the time of the fall of
Jerusalem to Titus contradicts the words of Josephus who has already told
us that it was all plundered by Antiochus.
There are
experts who propose that the treasure listed on the Copper scroll belonged
to the Essenes themselves, which is hard to understand since they were
advocates of poverty, simplicity and were a relatively small community.
So, that
is all that can safely be said about the "proof" of the Copper
scroll. It is certainly suggestive of some group that had a treasure,
but just who or what this group was cannot be determined. Maybe some
of the clues the Cassiopaeans have given will point us in the direction
of this group? But more on that later.
In 35 B.C.,
Herod decided to build a new Temple because, apparently, the old one was
pretty run-down and must have been falling apart. It was this temple that
was sacked by Titus. It is possible that Herod did some decorating and
jazzed things up with a little gold here and there, but it is unlikely
that he had the resources to adorn his temple in the manner of the former
one. Josephus' remarks relating to the Roman sacking of the temple of
Herod are as follows:
Accordingly,
the number of the high priests, from the days of Herod until the day
when Titus took the temple and the City, and burnt them, were in all
twenty-eight; the time also that belonged to them was a hundred and
seven years. [Josephus, The
Jewish Wars]
Notice that
here, Josephus made no mention of Titus making off with the Treasure of
the Temple. Yet, Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln cite a record of this purported
carrying off of the treasure by Titus. And everybody who has researched
in Rennes-le-Chateau since then, has referred back to this "original
research" of Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln which claims that Titus and
the Romans took possession of the Treasure of the Jewish Temple. It has
even been said that the Arch of Titus, built in AD 81 by the Senate at
Rome, is proof of this because it has a bas relief depicting the return
of the triumphant General Titus, the priceless seven-branched candlestick
carried on the shoulders of Jewish prisoners.
If you look
at this bas relief, you see the giant menorah and an object that can only
be a stylized representation of the scroll of the Torah. I have to think
that this "proof" that Titus obtained the treasure of the Temple
at Jerusalem may fall under the category of artistic symbolism. How else
could one express the conquest of the Jews other than depicting their
main religious symbols on a bas relief? And, of course, this menorah taken
by Titus could certainly have been gold. But, it seems clear that the
main treasure, the piles of loot that everyone is looking for, actually
disappeared with Antiochus, and what he did with it is anybody's guess.
But, such
a detail as that doesn't stop the Rennes-le-Chateau crowd! The story continues
that when the Visigoths sacked Rome, Alaric took the Temple treasure of
Jerusalem and it ended up in the Languedoc.
The conclusions
reached by Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent are very well presented, even if
somewhat carelessly researched, and it is much easier to read it as they
originally wrote it than to attempt to summarize all of it, but the main
point should be that the whole thing started with Gerard De Sede's book
Le tresor maudit de Rennes (The Accursed Treasure of Rennes),
which Henry Lincoln read on his vacation in France. And also keep in mind
that most of the "source notes" in the back of the book refer
to the information supplied by the purported Priory of Sion and its
"agents."
The intrepid
threesome were pretty busy. By the time they finish with their investigation,
we have not only the Treasure of the Temple of Solomon hiding at Rennes,
we also have the Treasure of the Templars and the Treasure of the Cathars!
We have all the noble families of the region connected to the Templars
as Guardians of the Grail, we have the Holy Grail and maybe even the Ark
of the Covenant! Heck, all the mysteries of the whole blasted planet are
right there in Rennes-le-Chateau for the enterprising treasure seeker
to discover!
And the Pied
Piper is the Priory of Sion.
The whole
deal about the Priory of Sion boils down to this: Their claim is that
a secret order, (The Priory of Sion), predates the Knights Templar and
that the Templars were actually created as the military and administrative
arm of this other group. Supposedly, the heads of this Prieure de Sion,
Grand Masters as they are called, are nearly all people whose names are
famous through history.
Supposedly,
even though the Templars were dissolved between 1307 and 1314, the Prieure
was untouched by this tragedy, and continues up to the present day, playing
a significant part in contemporary international affairs. And, here's
the clincher: its declared objective is the restoration of the Merovingian
dynasty!!!
Why?
Well, because
they are supposed to be the descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and
the proof is in their long hair! (Just joking!)
The Merovingian
dynasty issued from the Sicambrians, a tribe of the Germanic people
collectively known as the Franks. Between the fifth and seventh centuries
the Merovingians ruled large parts of what are now France and Germany.
The period of their ascendancy coincides with the period of King Arthur
- a period that constitutes the setting for the romances of the Holy
Grail. It is probably the most impenetrable period of what are now called
the Dark Ages. But the Dark Ages, we discovered, had not been truly
dark. On the contrary, it quickly became apparent to us that someone
had deliberately obscured them. To the extent that the Roman Church
exercised a veritable monopoly on learning, and especially on writing,
the records that survived represent certain vested interests. Almost
everything else has been lost - or censored. [Holy
Blood, Holy Grail,
1982]
Lincoln,
Leigh &Baigent (LL&B) say that there are enigmas surrounding the
origins of the Merovingians because they did not find any abrupt transition
or usurpation - that they seemed already to rule over the Franks; that
they were duly acknowledged kings. Not only that, but it seems that there
was something special about the one who gave the name to the dynasty,
Merovee/Merovech/Meroveus. They state that he was a semi-supernatural
figure.
LL&B
say that according to both the leading Frankish chronicler and subsequent
tradition, Meroveus was born of two fathers. When already pregnant by
her husband, King Clodio, Merovee's mother supposedly went swimming in
the ocean. In the water she is said to have been seduced or raped by a
"Quinotaur." What a Quinotaur is, we have no clue. Nevertheless,
this creature impregnated her a second time and when Merovee was born,
he supposedly had a dual bloodline.
Yes, it is
true that very often, behind a facade of legend lies a truth. And here
LL&B suggest that the seed of truth behind this one is that there
was an intermarriage of some sort, a pedigree transmitted through the
mother, as in Judaism, for instance. The idea is bruited that this might
indicate a alliance with someone from "beyond the sea."
In any event,
because of this, Merovee was supposed to be a supernatural being and "the
Merovingian dynasty was mantled in an aura of mystery and magic."
According
to tradition Merovingian monarchs were occult adepts, initiates in arcane
sciences, practitioners of esoteric arts - worthy rivals of Merlin...
They were often called the sorcerer kings or thaumaturge-kings. By virtue
of some miraculous property in their blood they could allegedly heal
by the laying on of hands; and according to one account the tassels
at the fringes of their robes were deemed to possess miraculous curative
powers. They were said to be capable of clairvoyant or telepathic communication
with beasts and with the natural world around them and to wear powerful
magical necklaces. They were said to possess an arcane spell that protected
them and granted them phenomenal longevity - which history, incidentally,
does not seem to confirm. And they all supposedly bore a distinctive
birthmark, which distinguished them from all other men, which rendered
them immediately identifiable, and which attested to their semidivine
or sacred blood. This birthmark reputedly took the form of a red cross,
either over the heart - a curious anticipation of the Templar blazon
- or between the shoulder blades.
The Merovingians
were also frequently called the long-haird kings. Like Samson in the
Old Testament, they were loath to cut their hair. Like Samson's their
hair supposedly contained their vertu - the essence and
secret of their power. Whatever the basis for this belief in the puissance
of the Merovingians' hair, it seems to have been taken quite seriously,
and as late as AD 754. When Childeric III was deposed in that year and
imprisoned, his hair was ritually shorn at the Pope's express command.
...The
Merovingians were not regarded as kings in the modern sense of that
word. They were regarded as priest-kings - embodiments of the divine.
...And they seem to have engaged in ritual practices that partook, if
anything, more of priesthood than of kingship. Skulls found of Merovingian
monarchs, for example, bear what appears to be a ritual incision or
hole in the crown. Similar incision can be found in the skulls of high
priests of early Tibetan Buddhism.
...In 1653,
an important Merovingian tomb was found in the Ardennes - the tomb of
king Childeric I, son of merovee and father of Clovis, most famous and
influential of all merovingian rulers. The tome contained arms, treasure,
and regalia such as one would expect to find in a royal tomb. It also
contained items less characteristic of kingship than of magic, sorcery,
and divination - a severed horse's head, for instance, a bull's head
made of gold, and a crystal ball.
One of
the most sacred of Merovingian symbols was the bee, and King Childeric's
tomb contained no less than three hundred miniature bees made of solid
gold. [Holy
Blood, Holy Grail,
1982]
The remark
is made after this that Napoleon not only had the miniature golden bees
affixed to his coronation robes, but that he commissioned a genealogy
report by someone named Abbe Pinchon, the ostensible reason being to determine
if the Merovingian bloodline had survive the fall of the dynasty. And
then we get the clincher for this one: much of the so-called Prieure documents
are genealogies based on those compiled at Napoleon's request!
Now, who
do we have to thank for all of this startling information? Well, the Priory
of Sion, of course. If we look to the back of Holy Blood, Holy Grail where
the reference notes are assembled, we find that the whole story is based
on "a comprehensive body of material is contained in L'Or de
Rennes pour un Napoleon" which is handily made available
by one of Pierre Plantard's close associates, Philippe de Cherisey.
The first
thing we want to look at is the "tradition" of the origins of
the Merovingians. What their chronicler, Gregory of Tours says in book
II.9 of his History
of the Franks is:
Many people
do not even know the name of the first king of the Franks. The Historia
of Sulpicius Alexander [which has been lost, by the way] gives many
details about them, while Valentinus does not name their first King
but says that they were ruled by war-leaders.
Gregory then
quotes directly from the Historia:
"At
that time the Franks invaded the Roman province of Germania under their
leaders Genobaud, Marcomer and Sunno..."
[Sulpicius]
says that these events occurred at a time when the Franks were ruled
by war-leaders. Then he continues: [This is Gregory quoting Sulpicius]
"A few days later there was a short parley with Marcomer and Sunno,
the royal leaders of the Franks." When he says "regales"
or royal leaders, it is not clear if they were kings or if they merely
exercised a kingly function. ...He goes on: "That same year Arbogast,
urged on by tribal hatred, went in search of Sunno and Marcomer, the
kinglets of the Franks. ...He ...crossed the River Rhine and laid waste
the land nearest to the bank, where the Bructeri lived, and the region
occupied by the Chamavi. He did this without meeting any opposition,
except that a few Amsivarii and Chatti showed themselves on the far-distant
ridges of the hills, with Marcomer as their war-leader." A few
pages further on, having given up all talk of "duces"
and "regales," he states clearly that the Franks had a king,
but he forgets to tell us what his name was.
[Gregory
quoting Sulpicius] "The next thing which happened was that the
tyrant Eugenius led a military expedition as far as the frontier marked
by the Rhine. He renewed the old traditional treaties with the kings
of the Alamanni and the Franks, and he paraded his army, which was immense
for that time, before their savage tribesmen."
So much
for the information which this chronicler Sulpicius Alexander has to
give us about the Franks.
As for
Renatus Profuturus Frieridus... when he comes to tell us how Rome was
captured and destroyed by the Goths, he writes: [Gregory quoting Frieridus]
"Meanwhile Goar had gone over to the Romans, and Respendial, the
King of the Alani, therefore withdrew his forces from the Rhine. The
Vandals were hard-pressed in their war against the Franks, their King
Godigisel was killed and about twenty thousand of their front-line troops
had been slaughtered, so that, if the army of the Alani had not come
to their rescue in time, the entire nation of Vandals would have been
wiped out."
[Gregory
is speaking here] It is an extraordinary thing that, although he tells
us about the kings of these various peoples, including the Franks, when
he describes how Constantine, who had become a tyrant, summoned his
son Constans to come from Spain to meet him... [Gregory quoting Frieridus]
"They sent Edobech to contain the people of Germania and they themselves
set out for Gaul, with the Franks, the Alamanni and a whole band of
soldiery... Constantine had been beleaguered for about four months when
messengers arrive all of a sudden from northern Gaul to announce that
Jovinus had assumed the rank of Emperor and was about to attack the
besieging forces with the Burgundes, the Alamanni, the Franks, the Alani
and a large army."
[Gregory
is speaking here] After a few more sentences, Frigeridus goes on: "...The
city of Trier was sacked and burnt by the Franks in a second attack."
He notes
that Asterius was made a patrician by a patent signed by the Emperor
and then he continues: [Gregory quoting Frieridus] "At this time
Castinus, Master of the Imperial Household, was sent to Gaul, as a campaign
had been begun against the Franks."
That concludes
what these two historians have to say about the Franks.
[Gregory
is speaking here] In Book VII of his work, the chronicler Orosius adds
the following information: "Stilicho took command of an army, crushed
the Franks, crossed the Rhine, made his way across Gaul and came finally
to the Pyrenees."
The historians
whose works we still have give us all this information about the Franks,
but they never record the names of their kings. It is commonly said
that the Franks came originally from Pannonia and first colonized the
banks of the Rhine. Then they crossed the river, marched through Thuringia,
and set up in each country district and each city long-haired kings
chosen from the foremost and most noble family of their race. ...We
read in the consular lists that Theudemer, King of the Franks, son of
Richemer, and his mother Ascyla, were executed with the sword. They
also say that Clodio, a man of high birth and marked ability among his
people, was King of the Franks and that he lived in the castle of Duisburg
in Thuringian territory. ...Some say that Merovech, the father of Childeric,
was descended from Clodio.
This particular
race of people seems always to have followed idolatrous practices. ...They
fashioned idols for themselves out of the creatures of the woodlands
and the waters, out of birds and beasts: these they worshipped ...and
to these they made their sacrifices.
Childeric,
King of the Franks, whose private life was one long debauch, began to
seduce the daughters of his subjects. They were so incense about this
that they forced him to give up his throne. He discovered that they
intended to assassinate him and he fled to Thuringia. He left behind
a close friend of his who was able to soothe the minds of his angry
subjects with his honeyed words. Childeric entrusted to him a token
which should indicate when he might return to his homeland. They broke
a gold coin into two equal halves. Childeric took one half with him
and the friend kept the other half. "When I send my half to you,"
said his friend, "and the two halves placed together make a complete
coin, you will know that you may return home safe and sound." Childeric
then set out for Thuringia and took refuge with King Bisinus and his
wife Basina. [After eight years] Childeric's faithful friend succeeded
in pacifying them secretly and he sent messengers to the exile with
the half of the broken coin... By this token Childeric knew for sure
that the Franks wanted him back, indeed that they were clamouring for
him to return. ...Now that Bisinus and Childeric were both kings, Queen
Basina... deserted her husband and joined Childeric. He questioned her
closely as to why she had come from far away to be with him, and she
is said to have answered: "I know that you are a strong man and
I recognize ability when I see it. I have therefore come to live with
you. You can be sure that if I knew anyone else, even far across the
sea, who was more capable than you, I should have sought him out and
gone to live with him instead." This pleased Childeric very much
and he married her. She became pregnant and bore a son whom she called
Clovis. [History
of the Franks, translated by Lewis Thorpe, 1974]
The History
of the Franks,
in the words of one translator, "is spattered with blood and festers
with pus, it re-echoes with the animal screams of men and women being
tortured unto death: yet Gregory never once questions this effective method
of exacting confession, implicating confederates, or simply satisfying
the blood-lust of Queens and Kings. ...Time and time again, usually at
the conclusion of some most serious passage, of some stomach-turning description,
he adds an amusing comment, often a sly quip at himself."
I can assure
you myself that this is not a book for the highly imaginative nor the
squeamish. It's a great read, however. And, what may happen to you by
the time you finish reading it is that you will think: Good Riddance!
What person in their right mind would want those lunatics back in power?
There is definitely something about the Merovingian blood - it is tainted
with madness.
According
to Dr. Ian Wood, author of The
Merovingian Kingdoms,450-751 AD, the Franks were the last
of the invaders of Gaul; and the most successful. In spite of this, their
origins are shrouded in mist. Clovis's father, Childeric I, is the first
of the dynasty who is well attested by legitimate sources and before him,
most of the evidence for a royal dynasty is legend.
The Franks
were reasonably well known to the Roman emperors in the 4th century; but
even they couldn't make up their minds as to who, exactly, they were.
Neverthless, the myths and legends that have been shaped around them may
hold some clues. On the other hand, they may be more red herrings.
Writing
in the mid-seventh century, probably in Burgundy, the chronicler known
as Fredegar recorded the tradition that Priam was the first king of
the Franks. Friga succeeded him. the people then split up, some remaining
in Macedonia, others following Friga to the Danube and the Ocean. There
a further division took place. Some stayed and, ruled by Torcoth, they
became known as Turks, while others followed Francio to the Rhine, where
they became known as Franks. Thereafter, under the leadership of miltary
leaders, duces, they remained undefeated.
Another
version of this Trojan origin legend was written down in 727 by the
[anonymous] author of the Liber Historiae Francorum. According
to him or her, after the fall of Troy Priam and Antenor led twelve thousand
men to the river Tanais, and then to the Maeotic swamps. From there
they moved to Pannonia, where they built a city called Sicambria. Meanwhile
the emperor Valentinian offered remission of tribute for ten years to
any people who could drive the Alans out of the Maeotic swamps. This
the Trojans did, and as a result they were called Franci,
which the author thought was the Attic for "fierce." When
the ten years were over the Romans tried to reimpose tribute on the
Franks, but the latter killed the tax collectors. As a result Valentinian
sent troops against them, but they fought back. In the battle Priam
was killed. The Franks left Sicambria, and moved to the Rhine. There
Sunno, Antenor's son, died, and on the recommendation of Priam's son,
Marchomir, the Franks elected Faramund as their rex crinitus,
of long-haired king.
[Common
to both these stories] are Trojan and migration traditions. The Trojan
story is first recorded in Fredegar, and it seems to have had some vogue
in seventh and eighth century Francia, where other Trojan legends were
preserved.
...Gregory
of Tours seems not to have known about the Trojan origin of the Franks,
but he did know an undeveloped version of their migration legend. He
thought that the Franks came from Pannonia, and that they crossed the
Rhine, and marched through Thuringia... [which makes no sense.] The
peculiar geography involved has disturbed many, who have wanted to emend
Thuringia to Tongres, and emendation already made by a scribe of one
manuscript of Gregory's Histories. ...The fuller versions of the migration,
as preserved in Fredegar's Chronicle and in the Liber Historiae
Francorum, may have been written in response to the origin legends
of the Goths, which had been developed by Cassiodorus. In fact there
is no reason to believe that the Franks were involved in any long-distance
migration: archaeology and history suggest that they originated in the
lands immediately to the east of the Rhine.
...The
Franks first appear in historical sources relating to the barbarian
invasions of the third century. There they are already established in
the region of the lower Rhine. ...It is generally thought that they
were a new people only in name, and that they were made up of tribes
such as the Amsivarii, Chattuarii and Chatti, who are mentioned in earlier
sources, but rarely, if at all, in later ones. At the end of the century
the Franks appear in the Latin panygyrics as a maritime people, causing
trouble in the Channel. As such, they were the precursors of the
Saxons, who came to be more and more associated with attacks on
the coasts of northern Gaul and Britain. By the late fourth century,
in fact, the Saxons were said to have been involved in raids which had
previously been ascribed to the Franks.
...In the
fourth century the Franks were also in close contact with the Romans,
as allies and as recruits for the imperial forces. ...One or two even
gained the consulship. ...Sulpicius Alexander recorded conflict in 389
between Arbogast, a Frank who held high military office in the empire,
and two regales, or petty kings, of the franks, Sunno
and Marcomer, and he revealed that the latter was the warleader of the
Amsivarii and the Chatti. The History of Frigeridus covered
events of a slightly later period. From it Gregory learnt about the
activities of the Franks in the first decades of the fifth century,
including their involvement in the civil wars which followed the usurpation
by Constantine III. [The
Merovingian Kingdoms,450-751 AD, Wood, 1994, emphases, mine.]
Gregory could
not understand how the Franks of the late fourth and early fifth centuries
could be related to those led by the Merovingians in the late fifth and
sixth centuries. What distressed him the most was the failure to talk
about the royal lines, the kings. If Gregory had read Ammianus Marcellinus,
as Wood notes, he would have known about a Frankish king called Mallobaudes.
Gregory tried to make Faramund the father of Chlodio. This would have
served to unite the Trojan and Merovingian families. Fredegar, on the
other hand clearly stated the Trojan origin and then, after the death
of Francio just said that they were ruled by duces, or petty
kings. This was his explanation for the lack of a royal family that was
so upsetting to Gregory.
Fredegar
also provided an account of Merovech's birth, which may cast light both
on the origins of the Merovingians and also on the strangeness of the
account by Gregory.
According
to Fredegar, Merovech was conceived when Chlodio's wife went swimming,
and encountered a Quinotaur. Although is is not explicitly stated that
this sea-monster was the father of the eponymous founder of the Merovingian
dynasty, that is clearly the impression which Fredegar intended to give.
The royal dynasty, thus, was thought to have had a supernatural origin.
Gregory may well have known of these claims, and have thought of them
as pagan. Whereas Fredegar relates the tale of the encounter with the
Quinotaur, in the corresponding section of his Histories
the bishop of Tours has an outburst against idolatry.
The origin
legend of the Merovingians as recorded by Fredegar is important not
only for its suggestion that the family claimed to be descended from
a supernatural ancestor, but also for the implications it has for the
rise of the dynasty. [The
Merovingian Kingdoms,450-751 AD, Wood, 1994]
And, it seems
that we have a serious problem here: Chlodio was recorded by Sidonius
Apollinaris as having lost a battle at the vicus Helena
in Artois - an event that took place c. 448 AD. Merovech would then have
to belong to the second half of the fifth century if he was Chlodio's
son. This suggests that the emergence of the family as a power should
also be dated to this same period. At the same time, Faramund, who is
supposed to have been Chlodio's father, is not attested to in any early
source. In other words, the Merovingians were not a significant dynasty
at all before the mid-fifth century. Their origins were separate and
later than those of their people.
In this respect,
we can see that it is possible that Thuringia may have truly been more
significant to the family of Meroveus than to the origins of the Franks
themselves. If we consider the fact that Merovech's son, Childeric, had
close ties to Thuringia (remember the story of Basina!), it is altogether
possible that the Merovingians originated in the east of Frankish territory.
In other words, the "Trojan origin" story of the Franks seems
to belong to the people themselves, and not the family of Merovech. The
family's own stories of its origins are peculiarly supernatural and pagan
and different from the Franks themselves.
I have before
me a book entitled The
Plantagenet Chronicles, which is a compilation of the many
contemporary documents written by various medieval chroniclers regarding
the Angevin dynasty. Most of these writers were monks living in monasteries
or attached to great cathedrals. They were, for the most part, members
of well-established institutions who took great pride in their traditions
and whose agenda was to protect their own properties and independence
within the feudal system. These historians didn't try to produce rational
and detached analyses. Their intent was to demonstrate the power of god
via the presence and activity of the Holy Mother Church. If they could
make an example out of a saint or a king, they did so shamelessly. Nevertheless,
even though they were making "morality lessons" out of their
material, for the most part, they were still reporting facts.
In reading
the Plantagenet Chronicles, we find that the Counts of Anjou
were said to have come from the Devil. Gerald
of Wales refers to the legend that they were descended from the daughter
of Satan, a woman named Melusine, who was the wife of an early Angevin
count. The problem is, this was only promulgated in much later times,
probably by Richard the Lionheart who was quoted as saying: "What
wonder if we lack the natural affections of mankind - we come from the
Devil and must needs go back to the Devil."
My curiosity
is piqued by this story of the origins of the Angevins which is so similar
to the story about the Merovingians. My question is: has this story been
"borrowed?" Or is it common to certain peoples because of some
relationship to strange "beings?"
As to whether
it applied to either group is debatable. Count Fulk Rechin de Anjou (1068-1109),
admitted that he knew nothing of the first three of his line: Ingelgar,
(the first Count of Anjou), Fulk the Red, and Fulk the Good (941-960).
Nevertheless, the 12th century seems to have been a great time of mythmaking
when many noble houses invented pedigrees in order to give themselves
legendary ancestors. And we may discover a reason for this as we go along!
The enormous
volume of literature that has resulted from the story of Berenger Sauniere
suggests to me that the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau is a "staging
area" for a subject that is of great importance to someone! The ideas
reek with the stench of having been "planted" and systematically
released to tease and entice researchers and treasure hunters around the
world. Part of the "aura" of the material rests on the fact
that it is supposed to originate with "highly privileged" sources.
The subjects that are all connected together in this morass of disinformation
include the Cathars, the Templars, the Merovingian kings, the Rosicrucians,
the Masons, the Nazis and, of course, the royal line of Jesus Christ!
But, all of this may be a series of red herrings!
The majority
of the so-called "documentation" of the events of Rennes-le-Chateau
and the Priory of Sion nearly always turns out to be of dubious, if not
untraceable authorship. Names of the dead are regularly "borrowed"
for attribution, and when investigations ensue, inevitably prove to be
false. Addresses of "significance" turn out to not even exist.
Documents seem to appear and disappear within the Bibliotheque Nationale,
appearing first in one form, then another.
The whole
problem seems to stem from the fact that LL&B accepted the claims
and documents of the Priory of Sion mainly due to a series of numerous
"strange coincidences" and anomalous findings during the course
of their research. Whoever was behind these events picked their publicists
well because these events were experienced by people with considerable
ability to influence the thinking of large numbers of people. And they
did. They worked carefully and put their findings together clearly and
eloquently despite a curious blindered optimism that what they were experiencing
HAD to be the truth because, of course, THEY were experiencing it and
it clearly was not being faked because there simply wasn't anybody who
could fake all the "confirmations" and synchronicities they
encountered. It would have been a conspiracy of such vast proportions,
over such long periods of time, that such was incomprehensible.
Well, without
considering the Control System and space/time manipulation capabilities
of 4th density beings, it IS incomprehensible.
We have to
remember something the Cassiopaeans said here:
Beware
of disinformation. It diverts your attention away from reality thus
leaving you open to capture and conquest and even possible destruction.
[...] Disinformation comes from seemingly reliable sources. It is extremely
important for you to not gather false knowledge as it is more damaging
than no knowledge at all. Remember knowledge protects, ignorance endangers.
[What I want to know is who has the power and ability to set up these
kinds of "confirmations" or synchronicities?] Same forces spreading
disinformation: Brotherhood/ Consortium/ Illuminati/ New World Order/
"Antichrist"/ Lizards. ...It is no trouble at all for aforementioned
forces to give seemingly individualized attention to anybody.
Notice the
initial remark about disinformation diverting our attention away from
reality, leaving us open to capture, conquest and even possible destruction!
Nevertheless,
the idea of a royal bloodline of Christ created not only a sensation,
but a veritable industry of books. We are here in the presence of mythology
in the making and it is awesome to witness it! Most people never noticed
that LL&B repeatedly urged caution about accepting the Priory of Sion
as valid and its documents as unimpeachable, even if they, themselves,
tended to "believe." At the end of their second book The
Messianic Legacy, they wrote:
We had
endeavoured to learn more about the Prieure de Sion today. We had sought
to ascertain something definitive about its membership, its power and
resources, its specific objectives. We had hoped at some point to reach
the centre of the labyrinth, not necessarily to slay whatever minotaur
lurked there, but at least to confront it. At the same time, however,
we could not escape the rueful recognition that we were often being
outmanoeuvred by individuals who contrived, with great subtlety and
skill, to remain consistently one step ahead of us.
[...] The
Prieure de Sion is particularly well equipped to put itself forward
as a vehicle for chivalric ideals. It is also particularly well equipped
to put itself forward as something more. Unlike many other social, political
and religious institutions, the Prieure, as we noted... has considerable
psychological sophistication. It understand the depth and magnitude
of humanity's internal needs. It understands how to manipulate archetypes
- archetypal images and themes - in such a way as to invest them with
maximum appeal.
One of
the most resonant of archetypal symbols, for example, is that of the
roi perdu, or lost king - the supernaturally aided monarch
who, having completed his task on earth, does not quite die, but retires
into some other dimension where he bides his time until the need of
his people dictates his return. English-speaking readers are familiar
with this archetype through King Arthur. In Wales, Owen Glendower conforms
to the same pattern, as does Friedrich Barbarossa in Germany. The roi
perdu who figures most prominently in the Prieure de Sion's
mythos is Dagobert II, the last effective Merovingian monarch. Dagobert
is presented by the Prieure in such a fashion that his image becomes
fused in people's minds with that of the supreme lost king, Jesus himself.
On a psychologically symbolic level, quite independent of any question
of a blood descent, Dagobert becomes an extension of Jesus. With
this psychological association established, even if unconsciously, the
idea of a literal and historical blood descent becomes that much easier
to propagate. It is by just such techniques that the mystery attached
to Rennes-le-Chateau has been invested with such magnetic attraction,
not only to us as authors, but to our readers as well.
The Prieure
also understands the intimate relationship between trust and power.
It understands the potency of the religious impulse and knows that this
impulse, if activated and channelled, is potentially as puissant a force
as, say, money - so puissant, indeed, as to represent perhaps an alternative
principle of power. Finally, the Prieure knows how to sell itself, knows
how to purvey an image of itself that accords with its own objectives.
As we said before, it is able to orchestrate and to regulate outsider's
perceptions of itself as an archetypal cabal, if not the supreme archetypal
cabal. Whatever the ultimate authenticity of its pedigree, it can convey
the impression of being what it wishes people to think it is, because
it understands the dynamics whereby such impressions are conveyed.
But psychological
sophistication and an ability to "market" itself are not the
only points the Prieure de Sion has in its favour. In 1979, M. Plantard
had said to us, quite categorically, that the Prieure was in possession
of the treasure of the Temple of Jerusalem, plundered by the Romans
during the revolt of AD 66 and subsequently carried to the south of
France, in the vicinity of Rennes-le-Chateau. The treasure, M. Plantard
stated, would be returned to Israel "when the time is right."
If the Prieure does indeed possess the treasure of the Temple, and could
produce it today, the implications are staggering. ...It would be fraught
with contemporary religious and political repercussions. What, for example,
would be the implications for modern Israel, as well as for both Judaism
and Christianity, if - on the basis of records or other evidence issuing
from the Temple of Jerusalem - Jesus stood revealed as the Messiah?
Not the Messiah of later Christian tradition, but the Messiah expected
by the people of Palestine two thousand years ago - the man, that is,
who was their nation's rightful king, who married, sired children and
perhaps did not die on the Cross at all. Would it not rock the foundations
of two of the world's major religions, and possibly the foundations
of Islam as well? Would it not, at a single stroke, eradicate the
theological differences between Judaism and Christianity, and at least
some of the antipathy of Islam?
In any
case, and quite apart from the treasure of the Temple, the Prieure de
Sion can promulgate a claim which would enjoy considerable currency
even in today's world. On behalf of the families it represents, it can
establish a dynastic succession extending back to the Old Testament
House of David. It can establish, quite definitively and to the satisfaction
of the most fastidious genealogical inquiry, that the Merovingian Dynasty
was the Davidic line - and was formally recognised as being so by the
Carolingians who supplanted them, by other monarchs and by the Roman
church of the period. Aided by the techniques of modern public relations,
modern advertising and modern political packaging, the Prieure could
thus present to the modern world a figure who, by the strictest scriptural
definition of the term, could claim to be a biblical Messiah. It may
seem preposterous. But it is no more preposterous, surely, than the
conviction of tens of thousands of Americans who are prepared to be
"raptured" upwards from their cars at various points on the
freeway between Pasadena and Los Angels.
This does
not mean, of course, that we an expect an imminent press conference
and the media circus which would follow. ...The Prieure de Sion and/or
the Merovingian bloodline could never simply unmask themselves, divulge
their identity and rely on popular fervour to do the rest. There would
be too many sceptics. There would be too many people who were simply
not interested. Even among those prepared to acknowledge the legitimacy
of the Merovingian descent, there would be too many objectors - too
many people who, whatever their religious affiliations, would have no
greater desire to be ruled by a Messiah than by anyone else. And there
would be too many people already in power, or jockeying for it, who
would be hardly disposed to welcome a new challenge on the scene.
[...]For
all these reasons, then, a pedigree cannot be used as a steppingstone
to power. Rather, it is a trump card which can be played only to consolidate
power once power has already been obtained.
[...] We
are wary of the Prieure de Sion. ...The fact remains that any concentration
of power in the hands of a small group of individuals- especially a
group of individuals who function in secret - is potentially dangerous.
[...] And
yet our age appears determined to embrace one or another form of Messianic
myth in order to obtain a sense of meaning. ...We question whether anyone
other than the special effects department of a Hollywood studio can
provide a Messiah of the sort that has come to be erroneously expected.
[The
Messianic Legacy,
1986; emphases, mine.]
Well, let
me suggest someone else who could provide a messiah that will literally
knock the socks off the peoples of the world: 4th density Orion STS.
And from
following this Priory of Sion phenomenon, it looks exactly like this is
the groundwork for just such a coup. How about a little One World Religion
with that New World Order? Will that be "to go?"
This
small sample of details seem like strong evidence for a conspiracy
of multi-national individuals and groups seeking global domination
but if we consider the Hermetic maxim, as above, so below, we have
to see that all these events and movements in our world express a
more inclusive reality - that of a 4th density control system seeking
hegemony; playing the cards over centuries, melding small groups into
larger and larger groups with ever greater expansion and renewal in
the image of "fire and light."
The
new Universalism holds that mankind's gnosis of a universal God
perceived or known as the Fire or Light is central to all religions
and civilizations and explains their growth and decay. [Haggar,
The
Fire and the Stones,
1991]
We are
at the turning point where nations all over the world are discussing
political union as part of a single, universal, world-society. And
it is religion that is seen as the glue to put it all together. The
only problem we have when contemplating this is: who is on first?
There
are many who believe the old lie that "...the boundaries
that focus & protect each 'world' can only be traversed by beings
who are psychically & morally pure." They further promulgate
the idea that "...the orgins of meddlers are local and terrestrial.
More sub-Human than Human. Atavistic. Who would propagate the
conceit that they were from elsewhere, possessing great powers,
and worth fearing: a well-worn bluff and ploy."
This
view is promoted in Nicholas Hagger's book The
Fire and the Stones, where we find the following:
The
spreading of the Fire through religions [is] the motive force
which explains the genesis of civilisations. ...Can there be
a widespread acceptance of the rediscovery of the lost knowledge
of the Fire? ...Truth is now being revealed more widely than
in recent years. The esoteric is becoming exoteric, and there
are signs that what has hitherto been hidden among coteries
is now being made more widely available to those of "the
masses" who are prepared to seek. ...There is evidence
(largely gleaned from New Age conferences) that in our time
the fire is burning in the consciousness of ordinary people.
...The experience of the Fire will become increasingly available
to all mankind as it is always widespread during a civilisation's
growth.
A
movement to remysticise Christendom, and other religions, is
the next stage in this widening of metaphysical consciousness,
and it seems that our time will see a Metaphysical Revolution.
...The deepening and widening of the European Community into
an integrated conglomerate can be expected to be accompanied
by a revival of the metaphysical vision.
...We
have seen that all our dead civilisations have died into
larger groupings; can it be that those larger groupings will
themselves die into one overall larger grouping, one world-wide
(albeit American-created) civilisation. ...All the various cultures
and civilisations spring from one source and flow into one civilisation,
perhaps in our time. Is this the end of the vision of the Fire
- the vision of God - in history: to unify all the world's civilisations
into one?
If
an American-led world-wide civilisation takes place in
the 21st centuy, its renewal of growth will be Fire-led. In
other words, its growth will be created, unified and sustained
by one world-wide Fire (its Central Idea) which will be transmitted
to the world's masses through one religion. ... It would
use the revolution in satellite technology and world
communications to promulgate its message.
...The
"alternative" New Age movement of coteries has been
inspired by the growing American Fire. It has also been inspired
by the vision of the 1776 Illuminati, the heresy which encourages
a drawing together of all world religions. ...The New Age movement
is both the successor to American New Thought and the forerunner
of a coming Universalism... ...The New Age movement is full
of people who have been illumined or who are on the verge of
illumination. They are in New Age groups rather than within
the Christian fold because they have (perhaps prematurely) seceded
from a tradition they regard as having been enfeebled by three
and a half centuries of Humanism and materialism and by the
secularization of the traditional Christian vision of the 14th
century mystics, whom they admire. ...It is as if the New
Age groups are groping towards the idea of an American-led world-wide
religion. In fact, from the point of view of the coming American-led
world-wide civilisation, the New Age groups have been doing
excellent work in preparing for the world-wide culture ahead.
...Out
of their efforts may grow a world-wide religion which will unify
and dominate the American-led world-wide civilisation of the
21st century as early Christianity unified and dominated the
new Roman Christian and Byzantine Empires. Just as Christianity
absorbed elements from the other metaphysical systems - the
Druid Yesu, the Eleusinian grain, the Roman Isis (who became
the Virgin Mary) and so on - so a new American-led Universalist
religion of the Fire, adopted from Europe's syncretsm, may absorb
...Christianity, but blend all systems, devise new forms...
combine practices... [Haggar,
ibid., emphases, mine.]
Thus
we find a completely different perspective; one in which the Illuminati,
which the author has connected to world controlling banking interests
that finance wars and revolutions, are the "good guys"
because, in the end, what is being "evolved" is a Universal
religion and government! He has charted what he calls "The
vision of god in twenty-five civilisations," which he says
is a "Grand Unified Theory of World History and Religion."
He defines 61 stages of civilization and sees, essentially, the
"lies" propagated in the name of religion as acceptable
if they produce "civilizational" results.
In
my own studies, which seem to be more in depth than Mr. Haggar's,
I have come to different conclusions for the very reason that
such "stages" always end in the subsuming of one or
more cultures into another, and this is almost inevitably linked
to genocide. But, Mr. Haggar simply glosses over that fact in
his drive to present the end result as a positive outcome. I wonder
if he is aware that the ultimate subsumation could be into the
force behind his image of "Fire." Experience - through
millennia - has shown us, as LL&B write above:
"...The
fact remains that any concentration of power in the hands of a
small group of individuals- especially a group of individuals
who function in secret - is potentially dangerous."
And
we are again reminded of what the Cassiopaeans have said in regard
to this:
A:
Here is something for you to digest: Why is it that your scientists
have overlooked the obvious when they insist that alien beings
cannot travel to earth from a distant system???
Q: And what is this obvious thing?
A: Even if speed of light travel, or "faster," were not possible,
and it is, of course, there is no reason why an alien race could
not construct a space "ark," living for many generations on
it. They could travel great distances through time and space,
looking for a suitable world for conquest. Upon finding such,
they could then install this ark in a distant orbit, build bases
upon various solid planes in that solar system, and proceed
to patiently manipulate the chosen civilizations to develop
a suitable technological infrastructure. And then, after the
instituting of a long, slow, and grand mind programming project,
simply step in and take it over once the situation was suitable.
[...]Q: (L) Well, since there is so many of us here, why don't
they just move in and take over?
A: That is their intention. That has been their intention for
quite some time. They have been traveling back and forth through
time as you know it, to set things up so that they can absorb
a maximum amount of negative energy with the transference from
third level to fourth level that this planet is going to experience,
in the hopes that they can overtake you on the fourth level
and thereby accomplish several things. 1: retaining their race
as a viable species; 2: increasing their numbers; 3: increasing
their power; 4: expanding their race throughout the realm of
fourth density. To do all of this they have been interfering
with events for what you would measure on your calendar as approximately
74 thousand years. And they have been doing so in a completely
still state of space time traveling backward and forward at
will during this work.
[...]Q: Now, from putting the information about religions together
throughout the centuries, I am coming to a rather difficult
realization that the whole monothiestic idea, which is obviously
the basic concept of the 'sons of the law of One,' is the most
clever and devious and cunning means of control I have ever
encountered in my life. No matter where it comes from, the religionists
say "we have the ONE god, WE are his agents, you pay us your
money, and we'll tell him to be nice to you in the next world!"
A: Clever if one is deceived. Silly truffle if one is not.
Q: Well, I know! But, uncovering this deception, this lie that
the 'power' is 'out there' is unbelievable. So, the Kantekkians
were the 'Sons of Belial,' which is not the negative thing that
I interpreted it as at the time. And the 'Sons of the Law of
One,' was perverted to the monotheistic Judaism, which then
was then transformed into the Christian religious mythos, and
has been an ongoing theme since Atlantean times.
A: Woven of those who portray the lights.
Q: And that is always the way it has been. They appear as 'angels
of light.' And, essentially, everything in history has been
rewritten by this group.
A: Under the influence of others. And whom do you suppose?
Q: Well, the Orion STS.
A: Sending pillars of light and chariots of fire to deliver
the message.
And,
most certainly, this Rennes-le-Chateau business is one of the
clearest examples of such manipulations, as we will soon see.
It is, as Mr. Haggar suggests: "A movement to remysticise
Christendom, and other religions," designed as the infrastructure
of a "one world-wide (albeit American-created) civilisation."
He also astutely points out that "... from the point of view
of the coming American-led world-wide civilisation, the New
Age groups have been doing excellent work in preparing for the
world-wide culture ahead."
It
is extremely interesting that Mr. Haggar suggests that this "New
World Religion" will be "American created" in light
of a remark made by the Cassiopaeans:
Q:
(L) Why are there more abductions by the grays in the United States
than in other countries around the world?
A: Government opened channel. North America, is the "capitol"
of STS, currently.
Yes
indeed, flocks of them will be on the tops of skyscrapers holding
their welcome signs, dancing and celebrating the arrival of their
"saviors;" those coming to "serve mankind."
As the "main course," I should add.
In
the autumn of 1996, the BBC presented another Rennes-le-Chateau
program that essentially "debunked" the whole thing.
They were now saying that the parchments that were supposed to
have been found by Berenger Sauniere were modern forgeries. It
seems that they were forged by a close associate of Pierre Plantard,
the Marquis Philippe de Cherisey. Apparently, they had quarreled
and one ratted on the other. Pierre Plantard was exposed as a
subversive with Nazi connections and extreme right wing political
inclinations. Not only that, but M. Plantard had convictions for
crimes of deception.
The so-called
Secret Dossiers of the Priory of Sion that had been planted in the Bibliotheque
Nationale where shown to be very clever fabrications combining a deep
knowledge of history combined with masterful divergences into fantasy.
And so on.
Apparently,
from the research done for this program, it was learned that Gerard de
Sede knew that the documents were forged either before his first meeting
with Henry Lincoln, or very soon thereafter. Henry Lincoln and his associates
worked for ten years unaware that they were being led down the primrose
path.
Nevertheless,
most of the authors who have written on the subject of Rennes-le-Chateau
have followed the research of LL&B. They all seem to accept the validity
of the Priory of Sion and the Priory documents and Secret Dossiers and
all that.
Nevertheless,
there was SOMETHING going on there in Rennes-le-Chateau that was very
powerful to deceive so many people!
Recently,
a new book was published entitled Web
of Gold by a gentleman named Guy Patton. Mr. Patton contends
that there IS a cabal of some sort surrounding the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery,
and they are associated with Nazi types. He makes a good case for Plantard's
association with such. More interesting is his connection of the politics
of the Abbe Sauniere with certain groups who were involved in the Arktos
myth of Aryan Supremacy. This is a most interesting series of observations
that will have great bearing on our story as we progress. Unfortunately,
Mr. Patton didn't check the sources of his sources and the book is rather
shallow in terms of claiming that the whole issue is the great treasure
of the Temple and that this is what the Nazis and others have been after
for a very long time. It is not that, I can assure you. But, as we will
see, they are definitely after something that they believe will give them
ultimate power over the entire globe. And it may be that the secret to
this is revealed in Rennes-le-Chateau to those astute enough to wade through
the disinformation.
It does seem
pretty clear that there is a strong belief in a treasure of some sort
being hidden in the region, but another book, The
Horse of God, (which suggests by a series of more amazing
coincidences that the treasure is the Ark of the Covenant), indicated
that Abbe Sauniere was being paid by Abbe Boudet. Tracking the spending
habits of Abbe Sauniere does seem to confirm this. He did have a falling
out with Boudet, his friend, and during this time, the flow of money ceased.
Shortly after their reconciliation, the money began to flow again and
Sauniere made some ambitious building plans, but Boudet died rather soon
after, and it was all brought to a halt by Sauniere's death as well. Maybe
one brought about the death of the other and then had to be gotten rid
of himself?
Another recent
book has come along, Rex
Deus, that surpasses all the others in its absurdity and reliance
on the same old assumptions. Only the fraud chronicled in this one is
truly pathetic compared to the work of the Priory of Sion! In Rex
Deus, the "bloodline" is that of the 24 elders of
the Temple of Jerusalem, and the only proponent of the idea is a strange
informant who mysteriously appears to the authors and tells them his story
with great sincerity and conviction. But, unfortunately, he was unable
to provide the documents that he claimed existed because his brother sold
the dresser in which they were hidden! How sad and how convenient! Of
course, the authors claim to be extremely impressed by his manner, his
story, and the subsequent "verification" they found in other
works (most of which were based on the Rennes-le-Chateau business to begin
with). Geez! Didn't they learn anything from LL&B's experiences?!
The only
question I have for Marilyn Hopkins, Graham Simmans and Tim Wallace-Murphy
about their book, mentioned above, is: did you ask your guy to take a
blood test? If he was of the line of the priests of the Temple as he claims,
that means he is a Cohen, and it has been proven scientifically that the
Cohens have a very distinct set of genetic markers.
Cohanim (plural
of Cohen) are the priestly family of the Jewish people, members of the
Tribe of Levi. Jewish tradition, based on the Torah, is that all Cohanim
are direct descendants of Aaron, the brother of Moses. The Cohen line
is patrilineal -- passed from father to son without interruption for 3,300
years, or more than 100 generations.
In a study,
as reported in the prestigious British science journal, Nature
(January 2, 1997), 188 Jewish males were asked to contribute some cheek
cells from which their DNA was extracted for study. Participants from
Israel, England and North America were asked to identify whether they
were a Cohen, Levi or Israelite, and to identify their family background.
The results of the analysis of the Y chromosome markers of the Cohanim
and non-Cohanim were indeed significant. A particular marker, (YAP-) was
detected in 98.5 percent of the Cohanim, and in a significantly lower
percentage of non-Cohanim.
In a second
study, Dr. Skorecki and associates gathered more DNA samples and expanded
their selection of Y chromosome markers. Solidifying their hypothesis
of the Cohens' common ancestor, they found that a particular array of
six chromosomal markers was found in 97 of the 106 Cohens tested. This
collection of markers has come to be known as the Cohen Modal Hapoltype
(CMH) -- the standard genetic signature of the Jewish priestly family.
The chances of these findings happening at random is greater than one
in 10,000.
In the absence
of a single shred of evidence to prove the "Rex Deus" claims
of their informant, it wouldn't be too much to ask for this - a few cheek
cells and you've got a case. Without it, you've done nothing but clutter
the market with more of the same old nonsense.
But, getting
back to the repeated incidents of "amazing synchronicities"
and coincidences, and being "led" to this or that amazing discovery,
I think that the authors of The
Tomb of God
, (which claims that the secret is that the body of Jesus is buried
near Rennes), and The
Horse of God, are right up there with LL&B for weirdness!
The experiences described by Martha Neyman, author of the latter work,
prompted an exchange between us that I would like to share here:
From: Laura
Knight-Jadczyk
Date sent: Tue, 3 Nov 1998
Dear Martha,
... I realized a long time ago that this Rennes-le-Chateau "business"
was an "engineered" archetype. Those who have played parts in it have
done so for reasons, though, most often, they did not even realize that
they were being manipulated to say and do what they did by the "hidden
superiors." And, make no mistake about it, these beings DO exist and
all the events of our lives and world are "managed" by them from behind
the scenes. They create and destroy "secret societies" at will, including
Templars, Priory of Sion, Masons, Rosicrucians, etc. These are all "covers"
and "smoke screens." And, they have existed, in a continuous line, for
many thousands of years.
For this
reason, the sequence of events that you have so rationally described,
regarding the main players in this "drama" is most important to me.
It fit with some of my own assessments which I had already made about
Sauniere, Gelis, Boudet and Bigou. There is a "rule" of espionage which
goes: observe the facts, ONLY the facts, and extrapolate backwards to
discover WHO benefits from a given situation, and this will give you
the key to the underlying truth. Well, I have been doing this about
the events of history and geography for most of my adult life, and it
is a most productive exercise no matter what is being assessed.
The world,
in its broadest sense, is a projection, if you will, similar to the
shadows on Plato's cave. We cannot know fully the origins of these "shadow"
images unless we can overcome our fascination with the moving patterns
and leave the cave. But, doing that implies that we must first be aware
that we CAN leave the cave...
As I said,
this business is an "engineered archetype." Rather, it is a holographic
projection of a much larger drama. But, figuring out the small scale
mystery is the key to projecting the template onto a larger landscape.
It does not end, or even begin, in Southern France.
Now, there
are certain "key points" on the planet which I have discovered... with
strange names and numbers... and "temple" characteristics (in the original
sense of the word) that are, apparently, veiled from the awareness of
others thus far. There are symbolic and semiotic and philological connections
of a substrata of "events" that stagger the mind.
The one
thing that few people think about is "WHO IS DOING ALL THIS?" And, connected
to this is: what are their capabilities? And this is most important.
If I, for one instant, underestimate the capabilities of "them," I will
surely be devoured. It is in this lack of realization of who holds the
secrets and the intellect behind it that causes most people to stumble
and fall in their analysis. And since I am convinced it is an EPOCHAL
secret which involves the history of mankind, the moving and changing
of large masses of energy on the planet itself, then I HAVE to think
about the "figures" behind such a thing.
One example
I will mention... you remember what you wrote about St. Anthony's day...
January 17... and the number nine... and all that. It is reasonable
based on what is available ... but there are meanings even older than
that... and they pop up in Mayan constructs... I was in Mexico last
year and came across a figure carved in what was once a bas relief of
a Mayan temple... It was a figure of a man with the flesh removed from
his thighs and skull... but with the rest of his body intact... and
his legs were crossed... I have an excellent photo of it which I have
shared with a few people. I'm sure you recognize the symbol... And there
is the ancient cult of Janus - guardian of the door - to whom January
17 was sacred... and there was the celebration of St. Augustine on the
same day.... and there is the hermit in the grail stories... whose hero
is Perceval... "he who pierces the valley," or "mummy with the long
member," or "pour suivant..." and so on; take your pick.
Ms. Neyman
wrote back to me:
Subject:
Re: The Horse
Date sent: Tue, 24 Nov 1998
Dear Laura,
By now
you might have finished reading my book, I think... As you are so well
experienced in the subject of symbolism and know so much more then I
do, I would appreciate it very much if you could let me have your opinion...
I found it
difficult to try to explain to her that her experiences with all the coincidences,
the insights, the "magical landscape" that showed itself to
her with synchronous and stunning symbols, just MIGHT be a big manipulation,
but I was going to try:
I am impressed
with what you have done, having started with more or less a blank screen.
You have had the unique advantage of "being there," which I have not...
but, yes, there is a LOT I would like to discuss and I have been debating
how open you would be to this "putting two heads together" on the subject.
I know that I am like a mother about anything I write and very sensitive
to what might be construed as "criticism," so I have not wanted to say
anything that would be offensive. But, at the same time, you are THERE
and can answer some questions I have and I think that there are some
things that need further work. If you are ready to have a little dialogue
about this "Rennes etc" business, well, tell me.
What I
want to do is something like what my husband does... you get a theory,
you build the structure, you see how it behaves as a "working hypothesis,"
and if there are problems, you tear it apart and start over. That sort
of thing is what he does. He will have an idea, spend weeks on page
after page of mathematical calculations and then hit a brick wall and
have to start all over again. We sat up one night and analyzed, in a
sort of "hard science" way the evidence of the "phenomenon" of Rennes...
it was an interesting exercise with interesting "conclusions." I was
thinking at the time that it was too bad you weren't with us as there
were a lot of questions we had no answers to because we did not have
the opportunity for personal investigation or observation.
I will
say that some of the things you have found are fascinating and I am
convinced that there is some purpose and reason, and maybe even your
ultimate conclusions are correct - or pretty close... but there are
some big gaps in the symbolic appreciation and historical background
of same. There are many things to be gone over in a sort of "cold" and
analytical way - even including this business of "synchronicity" that
we both have experienced in this matter. This "amazing" confluence of
"clues and artifacts" tends to convince us that our ideas are correct...
but I have found that, often, the matter is much more complicated -
like a chess game. Some of these "synchronous" events are like a move
on the chess board by these "unknowns" and they are waiting to see if
we will see through the ruse... We can either make the mistake of "falling
into the trap" of taking the piece "offered" while we are being set
up for a swift and stunning mate. NEVER underestimate the cleverness
and cunning of the opponent.
Your ideas
are framed in much the same terms as the guys who wrote the Holy Grail
series and the guy who wrote the Tomb of God... in the sense that all
sorts of "synchronous" and "amazing" correspondences were found in response
to the various ideas had by all. This should be taken as a warning that
it can occur to just about anybody. All of you were convinced that you
were "on the right track" because of these things... don't forget that.
They, as sincerely as yourself, were convinced of the "rightness" of
their "path" and conclusions because of the SAME TYPES OF REMARKABLE
SYNCHRONICITIES!!!!
Remember
- NEVER FORGET - that the opponent wants us to come to false conclusions...
And never forget that he/they are so much more clever and practiced
at this deception that we can even imagine. This is NOT a secret of
a couple hundred years duration. It is THOUSANDS of years old...
Remember,
this is all "thinking out loud," so to speak, or on paper. It is just
a "scenario" to be tried and tested. I don't pretend that it is the
"bottom line." So, here goes: On page 4 you talk about the BBC documentary
where the media, which had once "touted" the "mystery," now has pretty
much squashed it. You ask a very good question: Why murder a good story?
Well, perhaps,
at this point in time, they were NOT murdering a good story because
there were already so many adherents to it, that it would be impossible
to do so... it was just more controversy. In fact, this move could have
been designed to make people ask the very question you did... sort of
like the government constantly pooh-poohing UFOs... the more they did,
the more people believed they were hiding something. So, this IS a valid
point considering "double and triple reverse psychology" commonly in
use by the media and whoever runs it. So, I think that your question
goes much deeper than you think.
But, it
also puts light in another area... it seems that, these guys who were
making money off of this business were being manipulated from start
to finish. And making money was, apparently, not the objective - though
for them it might have been a lure. Or it might have started for them
as a lure, or a farce... and grew very serious later. Nevertheless,
we may deduce that the objective of this pronoucement by the BBC was
to do the exact opposite... to breathe new life into the subject by
reverse psychology.
So, question
about this now is: why? Why do they WANT to keep attention on this area?
Why was the attention drawn here to begin with?
Now, let's
skip to page 17 where you list the "facts" which can be substantiated
and back engineer a bit from there. The three "facts"
Documents were found in 1886. We cannot accept this as a fact. It is
only hearsay. No matter about the various arguments for, about, against,
or whatever, no one, NO ONE, outside of persons whose credibility is
in question has EVER SEEN any actual, ancient or even "pretty old" MSS.
They have not been submitted to any kind of professional analysis because
they have never been produced. To say that "The discovery of the manuscripts
is the key to the mystery of Rennes-le- Chateau," is a huge assumption.
So, let's set them aside for the moment. (Don't despair, I am ruthless,
but it is useful, as you will see.)
That Saunier
was digging at night in the cemetery without obvious purpose, aided
by his servant. Now, on this, what verification is there? I am not too
clear from the various stories... but it seems that the primary source
of this information was an old guy who "remembered" all this many years
later... and, considering the circumstances of all the rest... well,
it is hearsay. Not admissable as a fact.
Now, there is
the "fact," that Sauniere spent more money than his income as a village
priest allowed. At last, we are on firm footing. There are ledger books,
you say, with this information recorded that can be considered "hard
evidence." And, there is the evidence of the building projects and so
forth which cost more money than the guy could have made. We have a
FACT. Only one, so far. Remember, our BELIEFS are not important here...
our feelings, our responses to our amazing "synchronicities," and all
that. We have to clear away the fog of emotion.
Now, in
order to know what other "facts" there may be, maybe you can answer
the following questions?
You wrote: In
1892, Sauniere is often absent without permission. What he does and
where he goes, remains a secret... Says WHO? Cite the source.
You wrote: In
1894, together with Marie he makes long walks. They collect stones that
are used to adorn the garden with a grotto. Says WHO? Cite the source.
You wrote: Also
in 1894, aided by his trustworthy helpmate, Marie, he stats to dig in
his cemetery! At night, under the cover of darkness... Says WHO? Cite
the source.
Now, the
tomb of Marie Negre D'Ables, that he is supposed to have destroyed,
but, fantastically, it happened to have been "copied"... are you aware
of the investigation into the "background" of that little book where
it was supposedly reproduced? That it was, very likely, at the hands
of the very same persons who deposited the "Dossiers Secrets" and all
that in the Biblioteque Nationale? This is pretty shaky stuff here.
The very idea that the Abbe was "searching for something" could be all
rumor. But, why? Where could such a rumor come from?
The story
about Marie Denarnaud, (the companion of Abbe Sauniere), in her old
age is highly instructive: I am sure you have a few "old people" in
your family and are familiar with their little "manipulations" and feelings
of "helplessness" as they age. Now, just suppose there WAS some secret
of the Abbe... but it had NOTHING to do with a "treasure" at all...
and whatever it was, died with him as a source of income. But, Marie,
in her old age, desperate to ensure her comfort, knowing that all she
has is this property that is expensive to maintain, and no money coming
in anymore, hints to the people who have undertaken to care for her
that there is a "secret" that she will tell them before she dies...
Obviously, this is to keep her "control" over her life to what little
extent she can. It sounds like the old "if you are nice to me, I'll
remember you in my will," routine so common among old people... From
the descriptions I have heard, the people who were caring for her had
a hard time making ends meet. Do you think that if she had some secret
that would enable access to financial aid, that she would not have acted
upon it herself and thereby enabled herself to PAY for her own care
in old age, rather than having to depend on strangers that she controlled
with the promise of a secret? It is so typical of something an old lady
would do, that I am completely struck by the liklihood of it being so.
But, what
happens? She dies without telling anything! Suppposedly. Well, the guy
spends some time looking for a possible treasure which he hopes is there...
because the old lady told him so... but, no luck... maybe he realizes
that he was duped... and the story you have described, about the hints
to the papers about a treasure to create business for a hotel... well,
the guy was just playing with the cards he was dealt, and I believe
that this is the source of the whole current explosion of the "Rennes-le-Chateau"
cottage industry in "treasure hunting." BUT, that STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN
THE ABBE'S MONEY!
Okay, the
guy had some bucks. Not only that, but his bishop had some bucks...
and both were getting paid by another priest, Boudet... and, not only
that, there was a third priest who was murdered.
These FACTS
are of EXTREME interest! The rest is just rumor, smokescreen, hearsay,
and all that.
Now, clearly,
if what you say is true, that the cash flow came from Henri Boudet who
wrote the strange book about language... (and I would very much like
to get my hands on a copy of it complete!), there may, indeed, be a
code in there... but not what anybody thinks I suspect.
Now, on
pages 19, 20 and 21 you give some very interesting facts OUT OF SEQUENCE.
I wonder if it was a subconscious oversight? Because, placing them IN
SEQUENCE makes for very interesting reading: Here they are:
1852,
Sauniere is born.
1878 The abbe
of Rennes, Pons, dies.
1881, Abbe Charles
Mocquin is appointed, but leaves after just a few months. (Any reason
given for his leaving???)
1885, May 5,
Abbe Antoine Croc leaves Rennes... (how long was he there? This is curious.
Any reason given for leaving?)
1885, July 1,
Sauniere is appointed cure at Rennes...
1886, Saunier
receives a "gift of cash from Comtesse de Chambord." (Or was it really
a "first payment" from Boudet? We see that Sauniere isn't going to leave
after just a few months... wonder why? What is there to keep him when
the other two appointees couldn't wait to get out of there or were deemed
"inappropriate" by someone?)
1886, According
to the ledgers, it was at about this time that Abbe Boudet began paying
money to Sauniere. Was this also the time he began paying money to Msr.
Billard in Carcassonne? Any dates on this? The bishop was getting twice
as much as Sauniere according to the figures you gave. Was it for the
same period? The bishop gave most of his to charity. (Was this because
of a guilty conscience?)
1887, July, the
new altar is placed in the church at Rennes. This is curious. Was this
a completely NEW altar, or was it a re-placing of the old one? If the
former, what happened to the OLD one?
1889 Bishop Felix
Billard visits Rennes for the first time... (There may have been some
sort of "meeting" amongst these guys. They discuss who is to get what,
who is to do what, and so on...)
1891, major restoration
is begun on the church... (This does not sound too strange, since there
is obviously some source of money - Sauniere bargained for enough to
make his church the way he wanted. If he is stuck in this out of the
way place, he is gonna enjoy it!)
1891, Sept 21,
entry in Sauniere's diary - "letter from Granes - discovery of a sepulchral
vault, rain in the evening." (Does not sound like anything unusual since
he is doing a major restoration on his church. AND, he does not seem
too interested in it since he did not list it first.)
1892, hearsay
that Sauniere was absent without permission. (unless there are documents
to confirm this)
1894, hearsay,
unless documented, collecting of stones for grotto.
1894, hearsay,
unless documented, digging in graveyard.
1896, restoration
of church mostly finished. Sauniere buys more land.
1897, June 6,
Mgr Billard visits and the garden is unveiled. (Perhaps another "meeting"
between the "guys" takes place now.)
1897, Abbe Gelis
was murdered. Reportedly tortured before his death. Was supposed to
retire the next day. The magistrate found money hidden at various
places in the vicarage... so, he may have been on the "payroll" as well
or... He was an intimate of Sauniere and Boudet and had been there since
1857. How long was Boudet in the region? Was Gelis the "source" of the
money to Boudet? He had been there a long time... he was going to retire...
perhaps take the secret of the source of income with him, or threatened
to do something else at the meeting... or, being retired, he would have
been a threat in some way. This needs more examination.
1898, Sauniere
buys the land on which he builds his villa.
1902, the Bishop
dies.
1902 A new bishop
is appointed who demands that Sauniere give an explanation on the origin
of his wealth... Seems that the old bishop was "protecting" the other
"guys" in some way, so it does not seem that it could be a "secret"
that the "church" wants hidden...
1902, Sauniere
argues with his friend Henri Boudet. The friendly relations between
Sauniere and Boudet are broken off... Funny that this comes right after
the Bishop dies and the new bishop demands explanations for the money
from Sauniere. This is the strangest thing of all. If there is some
secret between them and Sauniere is under pressure to reveal it, it
does not seem very wise for Boudet to break off relations with Sauniere
if Sauniere KNOWS something about Boudet that he could tell. This point
needs some consideration. Something funny here.
1910, July 23,
Sauniere is suspended from his official duties. Seems that if Boudet
was worried that Sauniere would reveal something, he would come to his
rescue. What was happening to Boudet at this time? Was he getting along
just fine, or was he being questioned also?
1915, Boudet
sends a message to Sauniere... shortly after the reconciliation, Boudet
dies. This is funny, that Boudet sends this message... is it documented?
Or, is it documented BY Sauniere? Did he go to visit Boudet uninvited?
How soon after the visit does Boudet die?
1916, Sauniere
decides to build on a REALLY grand scale...
1917, January
22, Sauniere dies suddenly.
Now, of
all the interesting facts above, the two that strike me most forcibly
are the facts that, in the year following the death of Gelis, Sauniere
buys the land on which he plans to build his villa - but holds off the
building for three years; and in the year following the death of Boudet,
Sauniere decides to really go "whole hog" with his building projects.
So, what we have, after getting rid of the story of the parchments,
treasure and all that mess, is a VERY strange story. AND, it seems to
me, that once certain attention had been brought to the area due to
the financial needs of Mr. Corbu and family, there was a DESPERATE need
to confuse the issue - to draw attention away from the situation involving
the priests - and their friendship and their finances.
The question
would be WHY would this be so important at such a remove in time?
Evidence
indicates that it is NOT a secret of the church; the "treasure" idea
is kaput, too, as far as I can see; all the elements of the "Shepherds
of Arcadia" painting as related to this area have pretty much been shown
to be "cooked up." But, there IS something going on!!!
Is there
a connection between the facts that Abbe Gelis was murdered and Sauniere
bought land for his villa soon after? Is there a connection between
the fact that Boudet died "suddenly" and Sauniere made big plans to
build soon after? What could be the REAL source of money being shared
among these guys? Two, possibly THREE priests and a bishop... Was Sauniere's
sudden death natural, considering the funny business around the death's
of the other two? What or who was it that supplied the money? Obviously,
Sauniere had access to it even after Boudet died, but NOT when he and
Boudet were on bad terms... hmmmm? Funny? What was the connection of
Gelis to the money - so that he had to die for it, as it seems? But,
whatever the source, it was NOT accessible to Marie; who used the "secret"
as bait to ensure her well-being until death.
So, having
ripped away all the smokescreen, we are left with a real mystery. But,
that is not to say that there is not some purpose in the smokescreen,
that is another subject altogether. There IS some great mystery about
the Shepherds of Arcadia, but, it may be far wider and more intruging
than just the area around Rennes-le-Chateau.
Well, Ms.
Neyman was NOT happy that I was suggesting that the Ark of the Covenant
may not be the great secret. Most especially, she was not happy that I
suggested that she was being manipulated to "discover" things
to "confuse" the issue. And she most definitely did NOT want
to give up the fairy tale of Rennes-le-Chateau!
From:
Martha Neyman
Subject: Re: The Horse
Date sent: Wed, 25 Nov 1998
Of course I will answer the questions you have and I do not see this
as a criticism of the work I did, because I feel, what I did was good
and not done before by anyone... Even not by the writers of the Tomb
of God... The book they wrote, has at first sight a "certain" resemblance
with my work, but it is totally different and the "Horse of God" is
not a rail-way, that is for sure..!
Dear Laura,
do not be angry with me because I am honest to you and straight to the
point... In a way, I am thinking in the same direction as you... I think,
where you talk about WHY the BBC is "murdering" the story of RLC, you
dig too deep. I can well imagine the US government keeping the truth
about UFO's from the people, but to believe that the respectable BBC
of England is part of a plot to hide the truth of Rennes-le-Chateau
in a sort of double psychology game, I think is going a bit too far.
You asked
me a lot of questions... But... You started to ask questions about the
"Preface" and the "Introduction". Please take "This" information at
"face value"..! This section is not of any importance to the rest of
my book. The information in the introduction is common knowledge, mostly
it came from the locals, and they are used by every book-writer...
LKJ: Yes,
I know that - but, I want to know WHY and HOW such things were generated.
I want to know if anybody ever actually documented any of these things.
And these are questions that DO occur to me for whatever reason. If
the only answer is "the locals said so..." well, that IS the answer.
If there is an old diary where someone wrote about it, that is a different
kind of answer. And, the point is: somehow, for some reason, stimulated
by some "raison," these so-called Priory of Sion fellows played on this
story and the painting (which I believe is important because of the
facts of Poussin's life) got connected to this area... Is it because
there was some sort of "rumor" that floated about in esoteric circles
that this painting was connected to this place? Who came up with the
idea in the first place?
MN: When
you start writing some kind of a book, you have to start somewhere...
I do not have to tell you... I did start with general information. So
readers who are not so well informed, but want to know more about the
whole story Rennes-le-Chateau, can get this general information.
LKJ: Yes,
but you also did some "investigating" on your own. You observed. A lot
of things you mention are not mentioned by other writers, even apart
from your discoveries.
MN: That
is why, in the INTRODUCTION, I wrote: Quote: At the risk of boring those
readers, who know all about the history of Rennes-le-Chateau and its
obstinate priest, I would like to repeat briefly, the "original" version,
for those new to the story... Unquote. Dear Laura, those inverted commas
at the word ORIGINAL were placed there on purpose... To the real initiated
it means the story as it is usually told, as mysterious and uncanny
as possible, without actually having completely checked out, who did
what and why and who saw him doing it... This is just the "common" Rennes-le-Chateau
story, only meant as "proof" that something weird was going on in this
village and that the priest behaved strangely...
LKJ: Yes,
but if none of those things are true... if they only "developed" AFTER
the fact of the initial "rumor" of treasure was started, which I think
you pinpointed in your description of the folks who were caring for
Marie, well, then there is nothing to support the "treasure" hypothesis.
Thus, if the story about treasure, the connection to the painting, which
seems to have evolved from the rumors about treasure, all are "manufactured,"
then one has to start looking in a different way. You are basing
everything you are doing on the painting The Shepherds of
Arcadia, and only because it was connected to the region
by a story that turns out to be a fraud.
MN: Because
as you will find out later, as you read on, you will see that Sauniere's
doings have (very) little impact on the solution I found. ...What I
want you to comment on is symbolism...
LKJ: There
are some significant symbolic images that are far more ancient and "in
your face" in that painting than what you described. Every thing has
multiple layers... question is: which layer do we extract from? An example
is your use of the "knee" as a means of selecting "seven." Well, the
knee has some very deep meanings and is used symbolically in a rather
different way in numerous sources, the oldest I have found being the
Sumerian Texts... And it is not chance that "knee" is from the same
root as "knead as in bread, knight, juga, yogi, conjugal, genes, genetic,
gonads, etc.
Also, the
hand positions... there was in use, at the time of the painting, a "hand
alphabet" which could signify either letters or numbers or both ...
it could also symbolize a mathematical "operation."
MN: I started
to give an explanation of the perceptible and searching for the truth
in the invisible words of symbolism in "Chapter I".So let us start from
this first part... And... Do not forget I only used A SMALL part of
the Christian Church symbolism to explain, sometimes "just enough" to
make clear how I came to my conclusions in a logical way..! Otherwise
for most of the people "absolute unknown" with this material it would
have been much too complicated, long-winded and even boring.
LKJ: Agreed.
But I am still trying to "connect" the painting to the area and it is
difficult. And your entire book and "discovery" is based
on the painting!
MN: This
was only a short reply, because I feel the strong desire to write a
whole day on my second book... Which has nothing to do with symbolism...
It is the true story of the "Shepherds" the real "Shepherds": the church-shepherds..!
THAT is the story of the painting of Poussin... "Popes-Crusades-Templars",
it starts with the Oriental Schism in 1054 ... For the "Latin Church
of Rome" this was a large loss. It ended with a second huge loss: The
reformation in 1618.
LKJ: Well,
if you haven't done so already... look at the King Rene painting reproduced
in the "Tomb of God" book alongside the "Shepherds" painting... just
look at them casually and see what things you note that correspond...
Note the lance and the horse head and compare it to the "horse head"
and shepherd's staff in the Arcadia painting... Note the position of
the sun and the mountain peak in both paintings... note the posture
of the Shepherdess and King Rene... note the ditch and flow of water
exiting from the stone in the two paintings... note the funny leaning
tree in the Rene painting... the funny hand gestures.... Then look at
the Teniers painting and note the shape of the "window" and compare
it to the "chink" in the tomb in the Shepherd's painting... Then, have
a look at Bacchus and Ariadne by Titian... half- close your eyes and
see what you can see... note the funny over-turned vessel on the drapery...
the dog... go back to Teniers and note the vessel in the window... the
bird... In the Shepherds painting, note the drapery of the figures...
the crossed shins, the bared breasts of the figures... count the numbers
of knees, hands displayed... Note the positions... it is not as simple
as the "finger of Jupiter, Venus or whatever..."
The system
of codes being transmitted via hand signals was widespread in both the
Orient and the Occident. There are allusions to it in the writings of
several Greek and Latin writers, such as Plutarch, who attributes these
words to Orontes, son-in-law of King Artaxerxes of Persia: "Just as
in calculating, fingers sometimes have a value of ten thousand and sometimes
of only one, the favorites of kings may be either everything or almost
nothing."
Apuleius
married a rich widow named Aemilia Pudentialla and was accused of having
used magic to win her favor. He defended himself before Proconsul Caludius
Maximus in the presence of Emilianus, his main accuser, who had unkindly
said that Aemilia was sixty years old, when she was actually only forty.
Here is the record of how Apuleius addressed his accuser: "How dare
you, Emilianus, increase the real number of Aemilia Pudentilla's age
by half, or even a third? If you had said 'thirty' for 'ten' it might
have been thought that your mistake came from holding your fingers open
when you should have held them curved. But, forty is the easiest number
to indicate since it is expressed with the hand open.."
Saint Jerome
wrote: "Thirty corresponds to marriage, for the conjunction of the fingers
as though in a sweet kiss represents the husband and the wife. [...]
And the gesture for a hundred, transferred from the left hand to the
right, on the same fingers, expresses on the right hand the crown of
virginity."
The Venerable
Bede gives many examples of how the system can be used for silent
communication. In Islamic religions, finger counting and signing was
used extensively (remember the "contamination" of the Templars by Sufism...
which is so similar to what is known of the Cathars that one cannot
help but think that there is a connection... and, also, what is known
of the Druids...) There are a LOT of quotes I can cite about this "finger
and hand" signalling system... but, it would get tedious.
The meanings
of these things were obvious to people of the time, (which may be why
the painting was hidden), and the citations from old MSS so common that
it shows that such allusions were used both in paintings and in written
references... otherwise, the readers could not have been expected to
understand them, but it is very obscure to those of us in the 20th century
who are not familiar with the method, and casually pass over such references
as being "unimportant." Thus, this may be an important consideration
in evaluating the message of this and other paintings.
The mathematical
angles are another thing altogether. At the time, the "Golden Mean"
was a standard of Art... it was taught in all the art schools that a
composition based on this ratio was more aesthetically pleasing... so,
pupils were taught, and masters perfected, the art of compositional
placement on the medium according to the Pythagorean principles. It
meant, essentially, nothing. It can be found in thousands of paintings.
It's presence in art is generally meaningless. However, your finding
of the stone with the ratio figure engraved upon it ... well, that requires
some examination, but not necessarily in the precise terms you define.
On the other hand, it may be meaningless.
This was
the last of the Neyman letters... after this, she wrote and told me she
did not see any point in "discussing" it further as she KNEW the truth
because she had been "led" by "amazing synchronicities" and all that.
She positively did NOT believe in any kind of conspiracy, she did NOT
believe that there were strange beings controlling our world and manipulating
our perceptions, and she most assuredly was convinced that the Catholic
Church was benevolent and were the "True Shepherds." Same song,
different verse.
My point
is: I can see that there is a HUGE thing going on here... and it seems
that everybody has had so amazing a series of "confirmations" of ideas
- one leading to another... and work, work, work on the research and digging
and all that . BUT each one has come to a somewhat different conclusion
and has been led down a somewhat different path. The odd thing about the
whole place is is quality of "self reflection," I think. I would like
to get to the very bottom of the blasted thing! I guess I have a couple
of axioms I live by: one is "get results." The other is: "when all the
lies are stripped away, what remains is the truth."
The important
thing to remember, at this point, is that ALL of the conjecture about
the Poussin painting, The Shepherds of Arcadia, resulted from the "deciphering"
of the mysterious parchments purportedly found by Berenger Sauniere and
reproduced in Gerard de Sede's book. In other words, the "fake"
parchments as described above, were the ones that gave clues that the
painting Shepherds of Arcadia was "significant" in some way.
Additionally, there was the tombstone of a noble lady of the district
that had "disappeared" but was supposed to reproduce the phrase
"Et in Arcadia Ego" on it's face along with other suggestive
symbols and encoded messages.
Out of all
the things I read on the subject of Rennes-le-Chateau, the one thing that
did stand out as interesting, as I mentioned to Ms. Neyman, was the Poussin
painting: The Shepherds of Arcadia. Even if I was of the opinion that
there were "negative forces" at work in this matter, I knew
enough about the ways in which they operated to know that they often used
truth to conceal lies and vice versa. Out of all the mess that was going
on in Rennes-le-Chateau, this painting seemed to be the only thing that
was really "out of place." For some reason, the perpetrators
of the fraud selected this painting and not another. There were any number
of old masters they could have called on to do the job, but they didn't.
Why? Traditionally and experientially, the Control System usually adheres
to "the truth" very closely in their disinformation, diverging
and twisting only certain significant issues so as to lead the seeker
astray. So, what was there of truth in this story? Were they using a painting
that DID include a true clue system, and were they then creating relationships
to distort and obfuscate the clues, or even to cause them to lead to a
completely erroneous conclusion, but a conclusion that was extremely useful
to them?
Painted c.
1640, Les Bergers d'Arcadie did have a remarkable resemblance
to the tomb that was found in the Rennes-le-Chateau countryside, even
if this tomb was later proven to have been a late addition. Art historians
are certain that Poussin NEVER visited the Rennes area and, therefore,
could not have painted this tomb, even if it had existed there at the
time of Poussin.
But, there
IS a link between Poussin and the nearby village of Arques.
According
to research done by Guy Patton, (keep in mind that the sources of the
source have yet to be verified), writing in Web
of Gold,
Poussin spent most of his life in Rome and, during this same time period,
Henrietta-Catherine de Joyeuse and her husband, Charles de Lorraine were
in exile in there at the order of Cardinal de Richelieu. Henrietta-Catherine's
father was Ange de Joyeuse, Marshal Governor of the Languedoc, the area
in which Rennes-le-Chateau is located. Also, Poussin was under the protection
of Sublet de Noyes, the Royal Treasurer and Secretary of State during
one period he was in Paris. This man's father was financial advisor to
the household of the Cardinal de Joyeuse, the uncle of Charles de Lorraine.
Whether or not they ever met with Poussin, we don't know, but it is possible
that a secret was conveyed, and a painting was executed containing clues.
It is my thought that, in later years, the tomb was built deliberately
to lead AWAY from the secret. (We aren't playing with amateurs here!)
In any event,
Poussin's Les Bergers d'Arcadie that we are talking about
is a second version he painted. I know that artists often paint
more than one version of a specific subject, but I have a book full of
Poussin works, and he doesn't seem to have been in the habit of doing
this. So, it IS curious that he did so with this particular subject. Especially
when you look at the painting which is, actually, quite boring!
Nevertheless,
there is another hard fact that comes into play here: Nicolas Fouquet
was the Superintendent of Finances to Louis XIV. He had a brother, Abbe
Louis Fouquet, who visited Poussin in Rome in 1656. The Abbe sent a letter
concerning this meeting to his brother. This letter is in the archives
of the Cosse-Brissac family, and says, in part:
I delivered
to M. Poussin the letter that you did him the honour to write to him;
he evinced all the joy imaginable. You would not believe, Monsieur,
either the pains that he takes in your service, or the affection with
which he takes them, nor the worth and integrity that he brings to all
things.
He and
I have planned certain matters that I could in a little undertake to
the end for you, by which M. Poussin could provide you with advantages
that kings would have great pains to get from him, and that, after him,
perhaps no one in the world could recover in the centuries to come;
and what is more, this could be done without much expense and could
even turn to profit, and these are things so hard to discover that no
one, no matter who, upon this earth today could have better fortune
or even so much...
Well, of
course everybody and his brother immediately jumped to the conclusion
that this must refer to the "accursed treasure" of either the
Temple of Solomon, the Cathars or the Templars. I, on the other hand,
had a quite different reaction to reading this.
You see,
after the months and months of reading alchemical literature, and already
making the connection between Rennes-le-Chateau and the Pyrenees where
the enclave of Alchemists is supposed to exist, I saw nothing in the above
letter but a clear reference to alchemy.
I tried to
think about it in terms of a "treasure," but it just didn't
fit. Kings have often had great treasure or access to same, and, in monetary
terms, one treasure is as good as another. The remark "could even
turn to profit," sort of takes away the idea of treasure, and evokes
a sense of some sort of activity.
Well, I began
to really examine this painting for clues. Have a look at it:
Now, aside
from the fact that I already noted, which is that this is a very boring
piece of work, what do we note about it in particular? I was trying to
look at it in an open-minded way, just taking note of any little thing
that would pop into my mind.
The first
thing that I noted, was all the knee and elbows up front and in your face!
I also noted the crossed shins of the figure on the left, which is a classic
Masonic/Templar clue. Then, there was the tree growing in straight line
with the head of the woman, and that sort of general thing. All of these
are important, but we will get to them later.
I know that
lots of people have undertaken to analyze this painting by measuring angles,
drawing circles, and just generally going around their elbows to get to
their thumbs, but I think I have a couple of things to offer here.
Now, look
at the following closeup images:
The
image on the left is a closeup of the pointing finger. What you see is
that the man with the beard is pointing to the letter "R" in
sequence with "RC" which is, of course, short for "Rose
Cross.
The next
image on the right below is a closeup of the crack, or the "opening"
into the tomb. This struck me as extremely curious because of the other
painting that Berenger Sauniere was purported to have purchased which
was Tenier's "Temptation of St. Anthony," which I have placed
on the left. Have a look:
Doesn't it
just jump out at you that the crack on the painting of the tomb is almost
identical to the "window" opening of St. Anthony's temptation?
Not only that, but the extremely bizarre creatures that are tormenting
the saint may be important. Also note that he is reading a book and that
there is a skull on the table. Not only that, but there is a vase and
a bird in the window to the outside, both of which are interesting symbols
we will come back to later.
Now, this
final close-up is most interesting:
Look
very carefully at the shapes of the man's limbs and then compare them
to the shadow on the tomb - noting particularly that the shadow of the
elbow is just above the crack we have already looked at. Now, does that
shadow look like it matches? Well, there's just no accounting for shadows
sometimes, but this one looks compellingly like a rearing horse. (For some additional information about this See our Forum Discussion)
So,
we have horses, knees and elbows and crossed shins and cracks/windows.
Meanwhile we have three guys and one gal, and some dead person in a
tomb. All three of our guys have staffs, two of them are in a position
that was suggested to me to represent "symbolic beheading."
The other has his staff more on his shoulder, which is imagery related
to the constellation, Cepheus, the consort of Cassiopeia, interestingly.
I
am not even going to pretend to have the answer to this puzzle of the
Poussin painting. But, I will mention that I had a dream about it one
night, that it was a map that needed to be laid over Europe. And, sure
enough, when I matched the bent knee of the kneeling guy to the Rhine
river, all kinds of interesting associations popped up!
I
should also mention that certain hand gestures indicate letters of the
alphabet and numbers, and would have been understood at the time Poussin
painted them. In this case, we have, from left to right, T/19, V/20,
C/3, I/9. Does it mean anything? I don't know.
At about the same time that I was thinking about the Shepherds of Arcadia,
I had been given a set of the Matrix
books, volumes I through III, and was also deeply involved in reading
them. For me, it was an amazing experience to find so many points of
confirmation of the Cassiopaean material. But, at the same time, I was
troubled by the many, many different and conflicting accounts of the
purported alien reality that were all tossed in there together. Some
of this material was so far out that my ability to keep an open mind
was being seriously challenged. It was as though Val Valerian had just
simply gathered everything he could get his hands on from every field
and resource that approached the subjects of conspiracy, UFOs and aliens
and tossed it all in together in an enormous word salad. Every conspiracy
you have ever heard of or could imagine was in the pages of those books.
And, there had been no effort to edit or annotate them so that the reader
was left baffled as to what to think about it all, much less what to
consider as being true.
In
many cases, I was sure that a large segment of this material had been
presented with tongue in cheek; in other cases, I was certain that it
was blatant disinformation. And, as I read through these thousands of
pages of descriptions of agendas, realities, research and pseudo-research,
conspiracies and counter-conspiracies, confirmations and contradictions,
I would turn more and more to the Cassiopaeans to see what THEY would
say about some of these things. I had no idea how weird it was going
to get. It was during this period of time that we learned about "retrieved"
human bodies that were being used for Transdimensional Remolecularization.
It was also during this period that the Cassiopaeans talked about the
"robot" people and other alien types that we have already
discussed.
It
was extremely difficult for all of us to both grasp and accept these
truly bizarre and outlandish descriptions of our reality. Well, that
is not exactly correct; it wasn't our 3rd density reality that was being
described, but the denizens of 4th density. I was beginning to understand
that it must be the reality from which religions and myths were drawn;
the reality of the "Watchers," a world stranger by far than
any descriptions of Alice Through the Looking Glass.
As
we progressed through this period of time, it also became apparent that
there was information the Cassiopaeans were trying to convey at every
opportunity. It seemed that they wanted us to have as full an understanding
of the World of the Secret Masters as possible. I was reminded of William
James' remark:
Our
science is but a drop, our ignorance a sea. Whatever else be certain,
this at least is certain: that the world of our present natural knowledge
is enveloped in a larger world of some sort, of whose residual properties
we at present can frame no positive idea. [James,
1895]
And
it was going to get stranger before it was over.
Chapter
33
FAIR USE NOTICE This site
contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in
our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe
this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your
own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
The owners and publishers
of these pages wish to state that the material presented here that is the product
of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication is offered
with the caveat that the reader ought always to research on their own. We invite
the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical
mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism"
nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in
all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth.
We constantly seek to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either
possible or probable or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind
will benefit, if not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures.
Contact Webmaster at cassiopaea.com
Cassiopaean materials Copyright © 1994-2009 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a
registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become
the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Republication
and re-dissemination of our copyrighted material in any manner is expressly
prohibited without prior written consent.
You are visitor number 869 since April 16, 2009.
|