FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
History: Fiction or Science?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:40 pm    Post subject: Book of Civilization excerpts Reply with quote

The Book of Civilization PDF that I posted earlier ( http://www.revisedhistory.org/Book%20of%20Civilization.pdf ) is 101-pages of a much longer book (500+ pages). Here are three excerpts that seem to say quite a lot in a few pages:

The bargain struck between the clericals (church) and humanists (renaissance) to recognize each other's ancient-ness

Excerpt from Book of Civilization, pages 69-73 (in the PDF, pages 39-43)

There are no original manuscripts written in Hebrew or Greek scripts
earlier than the 15th century. In the same way there are no Latin manuscripts
prior to the 13th, like there are no originals by Dante and Boccacio in Italy,
by D. Wykliff and R. Bacon in England, F. Bonaventura in France and by
other authors attributed to the 13th century. All supposedly «ancient»
manuscripts are lost, literary works exist only in later copies. And there is
not a single building in Rome built prior to the 15th century but for the
unfinished Colosseum. The surviving architectural monuments of the 13th
— 14th centuries somewhere in Florence and Pisa display striking Byzantine

All this testifies to the total absence of any European culture before the
13th century – it was a part of the Byzantine culture.
None of the West
European cathedrals have golden domes, like in Russia. In Russia great
Andrew Rublev painted icons and decorated churches 100 years before
great Leonardo. Orthodox altar compositions by Rublev and Catholic
«retablo» in Spain made at the same time are compositionally and
functionally uniform – they belong to the same Byzantine culture.

Traditional historiography states that Batu invasion lead to ravage of
Kiev Rus. But is not it strange that immediately after the seizure of Kiev
there began rapid construction of Orthodox churches, there appeared a
bishop (a metropolitan), etc.? And is not it strange that the oldest Orthodox
church of Bosnian Sarayevo (the 15th century) looks like a synagogue
(without a cupola, a belfry, even without a cross) but with nave shelter for
praying women inside – i. e. like a mosque?

No less strange are those sacred edifices of Western Europe which still
preserve the architectural features of the 13th — 14th centuries – like the
baptisteria of Florence and Pisa. These are actually roofed pools divided
into sections and designed for mass baptism. These are functional
structures, not monuments, built in those times when there was a real need
in mass baptism, not individual, like now.

It means that in Western Europe Christianity became the religion of the
masses not in the 4th century but after the 14th century.
In Old Pisa, for
example, besides its defensive walls, there are only four ancient monuments:
the most ancient is the baptisterium mentioned above, the famous falling
bell-tower, the cathedral of St. John and… the Hebrew cemetery functioning
till the present time, made, after the Byzantine fashion, to the left of the
gates outside the city-walls. But ancient Jews performing Byzantine rites
were called Khazars in Russian. As there are no Christian burials in Old
Pisa, it means the city had been actually founded by those same Khazars.
The Khazar creed was in many ways different from orthodox Judaism – it
was rather Judeo-Christian creed. It sounds strange for our religiously
separated world. But it was not strange for the Byzantine Empire, one of its
principle foundations being religious tolerance.

The loss of tolerance was cased by the real, not legendary, institution of
the Papal seat in Rome, which took place only in 1376.
The activities of the
Catholic Church enforcing Latin liturgy and trying to concentrate in its hands
both secular and spiritual authority brought forth a total war in Europe.
Among the episodes of this war were the Battle of Kulikovo (1380), the
Battle of Kossovo (1389), Italian «ciompi»(1378) and W. Tyler (1381)
insurrections, enforced conversion of Lithuania to Catholicism and so on.
The schism (1415–1431) and the failure of the attempt to build a new unity
(the 1439 Unia) caused the religious separation of the Western and Eastern
parts of the Empire, which predetermined the fall of Constantinople in 1453
and appearance of Muslim South.With the loss of this universally recognized
centre of culture and civilization the period of feudal division in Europe began.

After 1415 there appeared the Byzantine refugees, spreading sparkles
of «ancient Greek» and «ancient Hebrew» cultures both to the west and to
the east. In Russia these refugees started monotheistic tradition, transformed
later to Orthodoxy. But Russian history says something quite different: «The
Noble Boyar, Tartar murza so-and-so moved from the Horde to Rus.»

Russia did not break its old ties with the former centre: relations with the
Turkish Sultan remained friendly, till the coming of the Romanovs’ family to
power. Sultan’s janissary bodyguards were all Christians, Istanbul officials
were graduates from Moscow schools.

In Western Europe, which parted with the «infidels», objects of Byzantine
culture became a rarity. There they quickly realized that trade in Byzantine
antiquities and even in their imitations (or fakes) could be profitable. The
most popular Italian author of the 15th century, P. Bracciollini, who was
honoured with a monument in his life-time, writes for «the chosen» in Latin
novels-translations from Greek authors. Their Greek "originals" appeared
, in the 16th century, being translated from Latin into Greek.
A very
precise definition of the novel genre — romantic story, i.e. Greeco-Roman
narrative, because the Greek call themselves Romees). It can be applied
to all primary sources – Herodotus, Plutarch, Thucidides, Titus Livy, etc.

There is one more question: why did the famous Italian author of the
15th century wrote only in Latin? Was not it assumed, that the national
Italian literary language had been created a hundred year before his time
by Dante and Petrarch?
Probably, because there was neither real Italian,
nor the works by Dante and Petrarch before Bracciollini’s time –they would
appear in 50 years or even later. That is also why he never referred to
these authors.

Not only Italian, but all the national literary languages in Western Europe
began to form in the 16th century.
These include «correct» English enforced
by Elizabeth I, the «New French» and «New Greek» languages, the «all-
German» language of Martin Luther’s Bible and so forth. There was no
Spanish language – in Spain itself modern Spanich is still called Castellano.

Enforcement of Latin, and the national languages based on it was
accompanied with the book auto-da-fe: the Inquisition sent all «suspicious»
books into the fire. (The same did Russian Orthodox Church even in the
end of the 18th century.)

The main impulse to the West European publishing activity (first in Latin,
then in Greek) was given by a part of the Byzantine library brought to
Florence by Pletho and his associates in 1438.

Why did they bring those books to Florence, not to Rome? Probably for
that reason that there, not in Rome, was the tax treasury of the former
Empire controlled by the Medici’s family, the hereditary usurers. That very
money served to publish Pletho’s «Utopia» and to maintain his academy.

Florentine book-publishing activities immediately attracted the attention
of Rome. The Papal Seat urgently needed to become more ancient than
flourishing Florence. Immediately the works by the «ancient» Titus Livy
and Cornelius Tacitus were discovered in the Florentine library (directed by
Bracciollini) and published for the first time in 1469-1472 – their aim was to
confirm the antiquity of Rome. By the way, at that time there lived a real
Italian Tito Livio, hired by the English to produce the chronicles of the
Hundred-Year War.

At the same time masterpieces of «ancient» philosophers, dramaturgs
and poets revealed themselves: for example, «Anthology of Ancient Greek
Epigram» was published only in 1494.

The same concerns natural science. Only after the ingenious Leonardo
da Vinci (1452-1519) works by Archimedes become known in Europe
(1544), along with those by the famous inventor Girolamo Cardano (1501–
1576). The legendary biography of Archimedes has much in common with
the life of Cardano. «Archimedes», like most other ancient names, is not a
name at all. In Greek it is «the principle of principles» – more like the title of
a textbook. And the «Principles» by Euclid (in Greek – «the Celebrated
one») are published along with the works by François Viète (1540–1603),
the creator of modern algebra. All astronomical data which can be observed
by human eye is systematized in the works by Nicholas Cusanus and
Nicholas Copernicus. They are the first who cite «ancient» astronomers
Ptolemy and Hipparchus.

These examples illustrate
the substitution of imaginary
«Renaissance» for the real
process of scientific, cultural
and artistic development. The
notion itself was invented in
France only in the 17th
century, in the
Counterreformation period,
when the division of the
heritage of the Byzantine
World Empire had been
accomplished, Reformation
and Counterreformation
being its parts.

The division of the old and the forming of the new
Empires took place on the conditions of ideological
compromise between the "clericals" (adherents of the
Pope) and "humanists" (supporters of secular
authority). The first ones were satisfied by the admission of
the "antiquity" of their church and the institution of Papacy,
the others – by the recognition of the
"renaissance" within the new empires of "ancient
traditions" whence from the pedigrees of all new rulers
were drawn explaining their hereditary rights to enslave
their own peoples.

In the 15th century Byzantine utopist Pletho dreamt to restore the
Byzantine Empire as a world state of bien etre generale. At the end of the
same century Machiavelli, the founder of political science, formulated the
thesis, still determining the relations between power and history: «A ruler is
in need of such a history which can help him rule his people more effectively».

Thus, instead of continuous process of development, in the history of
each European state there appeared a period of «ancient bloom», then of
«decline», followed by another «renaissance». Thus the universal Byzantine-
Horde history turned into «the Yoke» for ones, and into «proto-Renaissance»
for others. What has happened in the last 500 years after the division of
Europe – let the reader decide it for hims

Excerpt from Book of Civilization, pages 357-8 (in the PDF, pages 59-60)

Until the 16th century a crescent was solely a military, imperial symbol, not a Muslim one. It became a Muslim Symbol not earlier than 1603, when sultan Ahmed I made Islam the official religion of the Ottoman Empire.
Up to 1685 on the principal catholic cathedral of Vienna (St. Stephen) there
was not a cross but a crescent with a star: the same as on the modern
Turkish flag. Another featuring example is the identity of Poland and Algeria
marine flags of the middle of the 18th century (a bended arm with a lifted
Turkish blade).

Until the 16th century the cross, obviously, was a colonial symbol – the conquered territories and the population surveyed after plague (both the dead and the alive) were marked with it.
Moreover in some places this marking had a literal sense of the word: the newborn were cut a cross on
the forehead. Thus this initial listing meaning of the cross (not the Christian
one) was the origin for the tradition of the illiterate signing with a cross. This
custom has survived up to now.

It is possible, that the "Star of David" originally was not associated with "Jews" but with the record-keepers, scholars. The latter were free of military service and other duties everywhere up to 1453.
On the proof face of the
stamp, ascribed to Moscow prince Ivan Kalita on one side there is the
"Star of David" and on the other — the Buddhist eternity symbol. There is
no symbolic cross at all. On the image face of the stamp there is an old
man blessing with two fingers (forefinger and middle finger) forming the
symbol of wisdom. This symbol was the prototype of modern sign «OK»,
but on the stamp the big finger forms a circle with the ring finger instead of

When I read these lines below, I heard the voice of Borat:
"Henry VIII created his own Anglican Church in 1531. In Moscow the first real own patriarch (Job) appeared in 1589 by efforts of tsar Boris."

First Russian city with a biblical name: 1613 A.D.
First actual record of papal activity in Rome: 1377 A.D.
(after pope arrested in Avignon and multi-papacity began)
Trojans may equal Turks
Excerpt from Book of Civilization, pages 358-361 (in the PDF, pages 60-63)

Moscow (Greek Moscha) in the 15th century was, the most probable,
simulta-neously one of the Christian centers and the «city of Moses»
(legendary Russian patriarch Mosoh) and the main Mosque (Mosca).

The proof for absence of modern
Orthodoxy as official religion in Russia of
the pre-Romanov epoch is the following:
the first city that received a biblical name
was the city of Saint Michael the Archangel,
modern Archangelsk This city got its name
with the help of the Stroganovs in 1613 in
honor of the reign of Michael Romanov.

Before this it was called Novye Kholmogory
(founded in 1597). Village names like
Spasskoye (from «Savior»), Rozhdestvenskoye
(from «Advent»), Voskresenskoye
(from «Ressurection») etc. – are
all more late. Also the names of Catholic
cities in honor of different saints with
prefixes San-, Santa-, Saint- appear only
from the second half of the 16th century
mainly in the New World. (The only
European exclusion — principality San-
Marino said to have held its name from 301
– is artifice. Prefix San- was received not
earlier than in the 15th century).

Religious toleration in the Ottoman
Empire up to the middle of the 17th
century is accepted both by the Catholic
and Orthodox theologists.

The fall of Constantinople in 1453 was
interpreted by Europe as the triumph of
justice and genius of Great Turk – Greek
Sultan, remaining Roman Emperor at the
same time. It is important that right after
the conquest of Constantinople Mehmed
II opened a secular university there. It is
not earlier that in the end of the 17th
century the Turkish conquest of 1453 was
ascribed the massacre of «Moses’
crusaders» over the common people
during their preceding campaign on
Constantinople. In Turkish history this
«Moses’ campaign» was later reflected
as inner war of brothers Musa (= Moses)
and Mehmed (=Mohammed) for the
sultan throne, in which Mehmed having
killed Musa in the battle of 1413 was the

In 1453 Nikolas Cusanus wrote a
treatise «De pace fidei» where he spoke
of the Turkish and Christian faith unity:
«It is not the question of faith change: you
will see the faith is the same everywhere,
one religion — «religia una» is hidden
behind a variety of rituals». In his treatise Mohammed is called a «broken
away Roman cardinal».

Gregory of Trapezondus, one of the most popular writers of the West of
the 16th century along with Aristotle, Agricola and Melanchton, a bright
connoisseur of the world culture and history including the Mohamedan one
calls the mankind to accept Mehmed II, the new Roman Emperor, a regular
Christian as the Head of the Reunited Empire and the Head of the United
Christian Church (tria omnium rerum summa, fidem, ecclesiam, imperium).

In the religious polemics the Mohamedans blame the Catholic Church
for leaving the dogmas of the Christianity (belief not in one God but in the
three – the Trinity, idolatry (icons), God’s son identity with the God).

Generally speaking, Gregory of Trapezondus does not write about the
unity of two religions but of three religions, adding the Judaism to the unity.

The Turks, conquerors of Constantinople, are called Trojans that had
taken back Troy, in the literature of that time.
In France the letter of Mehmed
II to Pope Nicolas V was very famous, in which the Roman Emperor
Mehmet II expressed his surprise at the Italians’ reaction at his reign, for they had
the same Trojan roots as the Turks.

Mehmet II Fatih, Emperor of the Roman empire (there are numerous
coins carrying the appropriate text) gained common respect in Europe
(«dominus magnus teucrus»). Various authors of that time – both Latin and
Greek ascribe him unordinary knowledge and true interest for the antiquity.

In the literature of those days he is called a Trojan, an honored follower
of Alexander’s deeds.

The official language Grand Turko was called Greek, but all the officework
was led in two languages – Slavic and Arabic.

Hysterics in the society related to the supposed «Fall of Constantinople»
in 1453 started not earlier than in the end of the 16th, when a real ecclesiastic
schism occurred and the Reformation began.
(I.P. Medvedev, art. «Fall of Constantinople in Greek-Italian
human journalism of the 15th century» from «Byzantine between
the West and East» SPb, 1999, p. 293).

An actual not legendary papal activity in Rome (Vatican History) takes start only in 1377 after the "pope arrest of Avignon" and the period of multi-papacity. For the first time the question about ecclesiastical schism was raised on the Basel Council of 1431 after Hussites defeat. Moreover there is no mentioning about any preceding schism in the documents of this Council, particularly about the "Great Schism" of 1054. This schism was totally unknown up to the Trident Council (the middle of the 16th) and adoption of the chronology from the Advent (first in Spain in 1556).

Henry VIII created his own Anglican Church in 1531. In Moscow the first
real own patriarch (Job) appeared in 1589 by efforts of tsar Boris.
notion of «orthodox tsar» went into use after 1613 under Romanovs’ reign.
Islam became the official religion of the Ottoman Empire (keeping toleration
towards the other confessions) only in 1603 under the reign of Ahmed I.

A clear example for happy neighboring of crescent, cross, Star of David
even in the end of the 18th century is particularly the Emblem of Ukrainian
city Konotop, confirmed by Catherine II in 1782.

" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:55 pm    Post subject: More excerpts from the Book of Civilization Reply with quote

NOTE: The Book of Civilization PDF of excerpts doesn't have footnotes, though the contents are always interesting. The usual sources cited (if any) are in the text, like dictionaries (for etymology), or old (18th century)Encyclopedia Brittanicas. The PDF doesn't seem to even mention the authors' names. Doing some googling, I found that the book is by Igor Davidenco and Jaroslav Kesler and was published in Moscow in 2001. Somebody posted on another site that they met these two guys at a conference, and they were "professors" but I don't know where.

4 more excerpts from Book of Civilization.

The first three are from a chapter called "THE "BYZANTINE UNO" -- THE GOLDEN HORDE OF PRESBYTER IOANN KALITA-CALIPH" pages 386-396 (in the PDF, pages 79-89), and the fourth one "Parable by Matthew" is from pages 374-375 (in the PDF, pages 76-77) and are about:

1.The Hapsburgs hoaxing their ancientness, because of the shoddy "history of science" professors in Uppsala, SWEDEN (Profs from Uppsala mostly decide the NOBEL PRIZES, by the way) couldn't date properly the GOSPEL written in SILVER


3.The 100 YEARS WAR DID NOT HAPPEN, according to a recent monograph by French historian R. Caratini, because in a time before nation-states, the two apparently opposing French & English rulers belonged to the same Byzantine dynasty: Anjou. IT WAS ONLY A PETTY FAMILY STRIFE THAT LASTED A WEEK. ALSO, JOAN OF ARC DID NOT EXIST.

[NOTE FROM CRAC: Wait, weren't most of the opposing royals in World War ONE cousins , though?...England, Germany, and Russia ??? If I'm recalling correctly, that's mainstream history]

...this shows a clear division of labor, like modern times, work for wages. "It is clear, that in chapter 20 of the Gospel of Matthew the time of hired labour is described. Not servitude. Not serfdom."

Excerpt from Book of Civilzation by Igor Davidenco and Jaroslav Kesler

In the present-day traditional history the «Gothic» script allegedly
disappears in the 10th century, and at that time Gothic Latin comes. In the
18th century En.Br. writes: «…then Latin degenerated into Gothic».

The famous monument of the «Gothic» script, the Gospel, written in
Gothic in the «Greek script» of Wulfila and referred to the 6th century AD,
is noted among other manuscripts by the technology of writing, because
this manuscript was written in silver, that is why it is called the Codex

The Material science and the history of chemistry make it possible to
assert that the only method of silver script is to write a text with the help of
silver nitrate solution with a subsequent reduction of silver by water solution
of formaldehyde under certain conditions. Silver nitrate was first discovered
by an outstanding chemist, Johann Glauber in 1648-1660. He was also the
first to carry out the so-called reaction of «silver mirror» between water
solution of silver nitrate and «formic spirit», i.e. formalin – water solution of
formaldehyde. By the way, nobody knew anything about aldehydes as a
class of chemical combinations at that time, and «formic spirit» was obtained
as infusion from ants. Therefore it is quite normal that the Codex Argenti
was «discovered» by the monk, F.Junius at the Werden Abbey near
Cologne, as it was possible to start its production not earlier than in 1650.
Judging by it all, the name of J.Glauber must be mentioned by right among
the authors of this brilliant artefact now kept at Uppsala (Sweden).

The motives of such unique artefact are also quite understandable: without it the Habsburgs would have been forced to accept that at least in the 5th — 10th centuries their forefathers were not only barbarians, but also Goths-pagans, and not "most Christian Emperors", who had been tracing their clan, according to Cuspinian, from Julius Caesar through Constantine the Great (the first emperor-Christian).

Excerpt from Book of Civilzation by Igor Davidenco and Jaroslav Kesler

Now let us speak about the unique community mentioned in ancient
texts, which until now has preserved a nomadic way of life. These are the
gypsies, than means "Egyptian nomads", cf. also Sp. gitanos. They call
themselves «Romalae», i.e. people who are free in time and in space cf.,
e.g., German Raum «space, Universe», English room, and also hour,
German Uhr, Greek era etc.) — exactly like Romans and Romees (selfname
of the Greeks). Therefore «ancient« Romans, gypsies and Greeks
and Romanians – this is simply a community of free peoples, and not serfs.
The Antae, the traditional history says – is the name of the association
of Slavic tribes who populated the Northern Black Sea Region before the
beginning of the 7th century (i.e. in the same period as the Goths) and
who were farmers. The Antae, Vents, Veneds and Vandals – these are
phonetic variations of the word expressing one and the same notion: people
who manufacture products and go in for commerce (the so called "blue
, unlike «red people» – warriors and «white people, — priests).
The ancient culture (Fr. antique) means literally : the culture of Antae.

The Vandals, just like the Goths destroyed nothing in «Ancient Rome» –
on the contrary, they together with the Arabs built everything that had existed
in Southern Europe before the 14th century.
(By the way, the language of
«the alleged Germans» Vandals, differed very slightly from the presentday
Russian language.) It is namely these people who created Venice,
named after them, just like the semi-legendary «Phoenicia».

The Slavs is the most common designation of people, observing a certain
social way of life, but not savages. These people were such people with
whom you could do business. They were the carriers of the word (the Greek
logos) i.e. spoke all-European language, which served not only as a means
of communication, but also as a means of storage and transfering of
information, i.e. knowledge.

Initially, these people were glorious (i.e. known) namely by the word that
carried knowledge and responsibility for it, and not by military glory won in
battle. The Slavs (i.e. the greater part of Europe’s population, inhabiting it
up to Gibraltar) had to fight seriously later, in the 11th — 14th centuries
with those who were not engaged in productive labour on land, but they
were committing the acts of piracy at sea, rivers along the water ways from
the Don river across the Mediterranean Sea up to the British Isles. The
imprisoned continental inhabitants who spoke the all-European language
(but not Jewish or Hellenic), i.e. the Slavs, were turned into slavery. Hence
come the present-day European words meaning slaves, for instance the
English word «slave» means both «a Slav» and « a serf» (cf. serf which
comes from «Serb», which initially meant «keeper»).

And it is quite understandable why «ancient Romans» allegedly replaced
(ousted, conquered etc.) various «tribes» of southern Europe: the legendary
«Ligurians» (i.e. simply «united»), the Illyrians» (i.e. «not united»), etc.
The «Italics», who gave the name to modern Italy, deserve a special
commentary. This term, at a first glance, contains a certain noble beginning:
cf., for example, German edel, English idle, Greek athlos, hence comes
the word athlete (literally «unbending»), cf. also the nick-name of the leader
of the Huns, a pagan, who was known for his nobleness: Attila. But in fact
this term points to the initial Hebraic-Hellenic idolatry of that community,
i.e. worshipping not God, but an idol. Thus, the Italics are the Hebraic-
Hellenic equivalent of the Aryan idolaters, i.e. the Goths.

So this is how the circle of notions applicable to the communities which
made up the «ancient» (as well as the medieval) population of Europe
closes. It now becomes understandable why, for example, "Germanic"
tribes could be Slavs and Jews at the same time
. And the European word
"barbarian", meaning «a bearded man», came into being not in connection
with medieval «barbarism», but following the invention of razor, and then
scissors, with the help of which it was possible to separate the shaven and
those whose hair was cut (who symbolized technical progress) from the
rest men, because before this invention all men were apriori bearded, i.e.

Moreover, this «Arian», «Baltic» or «Slavic» type of a stranger met by
us is practically indiscernible unless he begins to speak. Thus, it is the
language that first of all determines modern nationals distinctions of the
greater part of the population of Eastern Europe, and citizenship comes

But before the 16th century there were no "nations" and "national states"
at all, and the spoken language all over Europe, except the Mediterranean
Region was practically the same
, therefore present-day Germans,
Lithuanians and Russians constituted one conditionally-«Aryan» or, if you
like, the Baltic-Slavic people together with the Czechs, Poles, Danes,
Swedes etc.

Excerpt from Book of Civilzation by Igor Davidenco and Jaroslav Kesler

The situation, quite similar to the East European, is also observed in the
West European history. For example, also conditional is the division of the
hostile sides as «English» and «French» in the famous «Hundred Years’
War’ of the 14th — 15th centuries. In the recently published monograph
written by R. Caratini, a French historian from Corsica, entitled «Joan of
Arc: from Domremy to Orleans», it is directly asserted that the story of
Joan of Arc, as we know it, has practically nothing in common with historical
In general, nobody besieged Orleans, while the English hired troops
of 5,000 men strong, roamed in the vicinity of the city in search of food,
while in Orleans itself there was not a single French soldier.
The entire
«Hundred Years’ War» went on for not more than a week and was an
ordinary, rather petty family strife, and not a national conflict, because the
rulers of the territories of both modern England and modern France were
relatives, belonging to the same Byzantine dynasty of Angels (Anjou).

What nation did those rulers belong to? To the English? To the French?
To the Greek? To the Turkish? They did not belong to any nation – in the
middle of the 15th century there were simply no nations in the present-day
sense of the word.
The events of the «Hundred Year’s War» were clearly invented later,
while writing the national history of England and France at the beginning of
the 17th century.
This is a vivid example of the fact how the history of
Western Europe was separated from the medieval Byzantine history which
had been general Eurasian. And it is quite characteristic that the «Hundred
Years’ War» ended immediately after the conquest of Constantinople by
Mehmed II in 1453.
It is interesting that F.Bacon, the trail blazer of the English history, turned
out to be more talented than J.Scaliger, the trail blazer of the French history.
F.Bacon managed to picture England as a country forestalling Western
Europe by 150 years in the civilization: modern history of England dates
back to Henry Tudor, and that of France – only to Louis XIII…


Excerpt from Book of Civilzation by Igor Davidenco and Jaroslav Kesler

The parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

1. For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in
the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard.

Early in the morning, most likely, at down. At the times, described by the
Evangelist, it was after twelve. The hired workers were already waiting for
the employer at the labour market.
At those times there was already an unemployment...

2. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day, and sent them into his

The wage was not per hour, but per day. A work-day by the price of a
denarius. The work began at seven o’clock by our time system, or about
the first hour according St. Matthew.

3. About the third hour he went out, and saw others standing in the
marketplace doing nothing.

It is important, that there was a marketplace, i.e. labour exchange. The
people were waiting for hiring. And it was, according to our time system,
nine o’clock in the morning.

4. He told them: you also go and work into my vineyard, and I will give you whatever is right. So they went.
And they went to work, without discussing the wages. Apparently, they
really needed the work…

5. He went out again about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did the same

According to our time system it was twelve a.m., the lord could estimate,
what had been done and what had not. So he decided to hire more workers
at twelve a.m. and again at three p.m.

6. About the eleventh hour he went out, and found still others standing
around. He asked them: Why have you been standing here all the day long doing nothing?

7. Because noone has hired us, they answered. He said to them, You
also go and work into my vineyard; and whatever is right, shall you receive.

According to our time system it was five p.m., but still, there were a lot of
workers, looking for a job, but nobody hired them.
The lord looks like a benefactor…

8. So when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman,
Call the workers, and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones
hired and going on to the first.

Our epoch does not differ much from the times of St. Matthew: the hiring
of the worker even nowdays is the privilege of the lord (director, president),
manager is paying wages and receives petitions. And the evening set at
eighteen o’clock according to our time system, and it was twelve in the
afternoon according to unknown watch of the Evangelist. It is difficult to
work at twilights...

9. The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and received a denarius.

10. So when those who were hired first came, they expected to receive
more, but each of them also received a denarius.

The ancient collective farm (kibbuts) with its work-day-levelling has
offended the workers, employed early in the morning.

11. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner,

12. Saying, These men who were hired worked only one hour, and you
have made them equal to us, who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day

The logic of the employed workers is clear: who has made more, receives
more. We see the first experience of the application for deserved payment
for the made work! That includes the working conditions (burden of the day and the heat)

It is clear, that in chapter 20 of the Gospel of Matthew the time of hired
labour is described. Not servitude. Not serfdom.

There was a place, where the workers were employed (as well as in the
21st century), marketplace, ancient labour exchange.

The Evangelist knew well the tricks of the ancient capitalists for
appropriation of others’ labour, he wrote a manual on exploitation of the
hired labour in conditions of labour surplus.

The question is, when the events, described in the parables, took place?

We know nothing about the tools, which were used by hired workers,
but iron instruments (shovel, mattock, knives…) were necessary.

What watch did the lord of a vineyard use?

According to the the text, there were 24 hours in a day/night, and 12
daylight hours!

But at pre-Peter Moscow times there were 16 hours in a day. Peter I has
introduced the 24-hour day/night system, according to the clock-face of a
spring-type chronometer!

" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:42 am    Post subject: Shakespeare as Historian, Propagandist, and Artist Reply with quote

Shakespeare as Historian, Propagandist, & Artist

Cracrocrates wrote:

[NOTE FROM CRAC: Wait, weren't most of the opposing royals in World War ONE cousins , though?...England, Germany, and Russia ??? If I'm recalling correctly, that's mainstream history]

I may be way off base here, but I've been doing some searching about "Shakespeare as Historian" since his plays are the most widespread English publication outside of the Bible, AND his plays are often produced using a DIFFERENT TIME & PLACE. He lived about a century after the establisment of the nation-state, and at a time of censorship, so he had to make sure Heads of State thought he was furthering their propaganda goals http://hti.math.uh.edu/curriculum/units/2005/09/10/05.09.10.php, while at the same time trying to sell his plays as "education" and amusement to general audiences. An artist always conceals something or it wouldn't be art; most of his plays were originally based on other writers' stories. I guess it was a lot like turning a novel into a "screenplay" now-a-days for motion pictures.

I don't have anything concrete, just suspicion as of yet. So I may ambandon this line of thinking.
But as for the 100 Years War and Petty Family Feuds settled in about a week , my first thoughts, for whatever reason, were of Romeo and Juliet The play is set in VERONA, but the names of the characters imply English (or French?..the kinsman of the prince of Verona is "County Paris") as far as I can tell .

As for the reasons for the feud, nobody remebers:
Feuding- The feuding of the families was the whole reason for the tragedy. They should have reconciled their differences years ago. They didn't even know what they were fighting about.
Stereotypes-Some members of the Capulets and Montagues have never even met and yet they hate each other. Why? Because of a person's last name.

And before Juliet, Romeo had a thing for Rosaline, who was Lord Capulet's niece, but the play doesn't say if its via her mother's marriage or not (which would be less serious) or directly through the male line (like John Capulet's brother's daughter):

Mary Miller notices that Rosaline is related to the Capulets, being
described by Lord Capulet as "my fair niece Rosaline" (1.2.70), and
suggests that "If she is also a Capulet, then she is also a dangerous
choice ... Presumably this means he is already predisposed to forbidden

If Rosaline really was a Capulet, then this would seem a puzzling move
on Shakespeare's part. If Romeo was already in love with a Capulet at
the start of the play, then the shock and horror of a Capulet and a
Montague - sworn enemies - falling in love would be much reduced when
Romeo and Juliet came together, rather spoiling the suspense and
development of the play. Furthermore just about all of Romeo's Montague
relations and allies seem to know all about his attachment to Rosaline,
and seem to accept it (although they laugh at it). If they are so
unconcerned about Romeo falling for Rosaline Capulet, then why would his
love for Juliet Capulet be so controversial and positively dangerous? -
something that must be kept a firm and absolute secret.

The answer, I suspect, lies in the nature of Rosaline's probable
relationship to Capulet. Assuming that she is his niece in modern terms
(and that Capulet isn't using "niece" loosely, in the way that "cousin"
was often used to describe non-blood-relations in the Renaissance) then
she was either the daughter of Lord Capulet's brother, or the daughter
of Lord Capulet's sister. In the former case she would undoubtedly be a
full Capulet, and we can imagine that her father (shall we call him John
Capulet, for convenience?) would be a significant member of the Capulet
family and just as deeply engaged in the Capulet/Montague family feud as
his brother. Since the implications of Romeo's love for Rosaline
Capulet daughter of John Capulet would be virtually identical to the
implications of his love for Juliet Capulet daughter of Lord Capulet,
and would thereby (as suggested above) damage the play, this probably
isn't the relationship that Shakespeare intended.

If Rosaline was the daughter of Lord Capulet's sister, however, things
would be a lot easier to explain. Lord Capulet's sister (let's call her
Mary Capulet) would probably have married a nobleman from outside her
own family (let's call him Richard Noble), and this would have made
Rosaline not a full-blooded Capulet, but a relation by marriage -
Rosaline Noble. As such she would have some Capulet blood, and would be
likely to be invited to the Capulet ball (so that Romeo can be lured
there to meet Juliet - probably Shakespeare's main motivation in giving
Rosaline any connection to the Capulets), but would not necessarily have
taken the Capulet side in the Capulet/Montague feud, since her own
position would be predominantly determined by her father's name and
alliances. It is perfectly possible that Richard Noble (Rosaline's
hypothetical father), like the Duke himself, was related to and held
alliances with both Montague and Capulet families, and was neutral in
the feud. If Rosaline's father was neutral, then Rosaline herself would
officially also be neutral - since her social position in a patriarchal
society was officially determined by her father's and not her mother's
name and position.

As an example of this sort of relationship at work, we might consider
the royal family trees of England, Scotland, and France in the
Renaissance period.
Henry VIII's sister, Margaret Tudor, was married to
the King of the Scots. Her children, despite the fact that they
retained a claim to the Tudor throne if other branches died out, were
not Tudors but Stuarts. Margaret's son, James V, was not only neutral
towards his Tudor relatives but actually went to war against them,
having been given his own position and pattern of duties and alliances
from his father not his mother.
Margaret's (in)famous granddaughter Mary Stuart married the King of
(another of England's traditional enemies), and was so much at discord
her Tudor relations that she was imprisoned by them and eventually
by her first cousin Elizabeth Tudor.

Shakespeare touches on the difficulties caused by split-loyalties
between marital relations and blood relations in several of his plays, I
seem to remember, but the instance that comes immediately to mind is
Octavius's sister in "Antony and Cleopatra" who is desperately trying to
arrange a peace between her brother Octavius and her husband Antony. As
it turns out, Antony solves the problem for her by abandoning her and
returning to Cleopatra, but had he not done so her loyalty to her
husband would officially have overridden her loyalty to her blood family
(hence the ceremony of a father "giving away" his daughter) if their
interests conflicted, and she would have been expected to take the side
of her husband and live with him during the conflict. Of course, in
real life some people did not behave as tradition suggested that they
should, but tradition remained strong nevertheless.

A Rosaline who was daughter to Capulet's sister, therefore, need not
have been a Capulet herself, and might well have been neutral in the
feud, but still friendly enough with her mother's relatives to be
invited to their ball. Since this solves all the difficulties that
Rosaline's relationship with Capulet sets up within the play, it seems
to me the most likely explanation for this relationship (if Shakespeare
went so far as to think all this out at all).

Thomas Larque.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"

" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
James D

Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 1011

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read this page recently, that Shakespeare was all but illiterate and that it had to have been Francis Bacon in reality who wrote all his attributed works.

by Manly P. Hall

p 165 Bacon, Shakspere, and the Rosicrucians

"It is quite evident that William Shakspere could not, unaided, have produced the immortal writings bearing his name. He did not possess the necessary literary culture, for the town of Stratford where he was reared contained no school capable of imparting the higher forms of learning reflected in the writings ascribed to him. His parents were illiterate, and in his early life he evinced a total disregard for study. There are in existence but six known examples of Shakspere's handwriting. All are signatures, and three of them are in his will. The scrawling, uncertain method of their execution stamps Shakspere as unfamiliar with the use of a pen, and it is obvious either that he copied a signature prepared for him or that his hand was guided while he wrote. No autograph manuscripts of the "Shakespearian" plays or sonnets have been discovered, nor is there even a tradition concerning them other than the fantastic and impossible statement appearing in the foreword of the Great Folio."

But assuming Shakespeare to be Bacon......
It's interesting that he was so involved with the King James version Bible with which so much of this false history starts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James D wrote:
I read this page recently, that Shakespeare was all but illiterate and that it had to have been Francis Bacon in reality who wrote all his attributed works.

by Manly P. Hall

p 165 Bacon, Shakspere, and the Rosicrucians

"It is quite evident that William Shakspere could not, unaided, have produced the immortal writings bearing his name. He did not possess the necessary literary culture, for the town of Stratford where he was reared contained no school capable of imparting the higher forms of learning reflected in the writings ascribed to him. His parents were illiterate, and in his early life he evinced a total disregard for study.

I don't think any of the parents or town part is relevant..(ex.the best math scholar I know came from a small town in SC and he was self-taught, and his dad was either unemployed or a part-time pimp; also even the Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke came from DILLON,SC...that's a one-street town lucky to have an expanding machine tools company AND Nothing Else after that region's Carolina textile companies moved to Mexico or China); but what is the evidence of "a total disregard for study"...that would matter, like if his teachers said he was retarded or something. But sometimes the super-smart are bored with the indoctrination of the fools.

There are in existence but six known examples of Shakspere's handwriting. All are signatures, and three of them are in his will. The scrawling, uncertain method of their execution stamps Shakspere as unfamiliar with the use of a pen, and it is obvious either that he copied a signature prepared for him or that his hand was guided while he wrote. No autograph manuscripts of the "Shakespearian" plays or sonnets have been discovered, nor is there even a tradition concerning them other than the fantastic and impossible statement appearing in the foreword of the Great Folio."

If that's true, that's quite interesting.


But assuming Shakespeare to be Bacon......

I thought the rumors of the "rival" was Ben Jonson ?

But I'm clearly dabbling in Shakespeare, this is not my expertise. I know that there have always been questions about his "true" identity. But even those rumors may be farce or started by a rival.

" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
James D

Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 1011

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry I forgot to give you a reference to that book, it was from sacred texts.com - that great source of old books .-


They have lots of other references to him :-


I don't really know about Shakespeare, but I think Black Adder speaks for all us who were forced to study him:-


Seriously though...

"Never shame to hear what you have nobly done"
Coriolanus, Act ii, Sc.2

"Its not enough to speak, but to speak true"
Mid N Dr, Act v, Sc.1

"Good night, good night ! parting is such sweet sorrow, that I shall say good night till it be morrow"
Rom & Jul, Act ii, Sc.2

He certainly had a way with words.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 731

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:10 pm    Post subject: Bacon & Shakespeare Reply with quote

I've come across this 'Shakespeare/Bacon' thing before,
seems like it's been a long standing suspicion.

...There is also considerable doubt about the facts of Shakespeare's own life. Let us read what Mark Twain had to say about that (From Is Shakespeare Dead? 1909):

He was born on the 23rd of April, 1564.
Of good farmer-class parents who could not read, could not write, could not sign their names.
At Stratford, a small back settlement which in that day was shabby and unclean, and densely illiterate. Of the nineteen important men charged with the government of the town, thirteen had to "make their mark" in attesting important documents, because they could not write their names.
Of the first eighteen years of his life nothing is known. They are a blank.
On the 27th of November (1582) William Shakespeare took out a license to marry Anne Whateley.
Next day William Shakespeare took out a license to marry Anne Hathaway. She was eight years his senior.
William Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway. In a hurry. By grace of a reluctantly granted dispensation there was but one publication of the banns.
Within six months the first child was born.
About two (blank) years followed, during which period nothing at all happened to Shakespeare, so far as anybody knows.
Then came twins--1585. February.
Two blank years follow.
Then--1587--he makes a ten-year visit to London, leaving the family behind.
Five blank years follow. During this period nothing happened to him, as far as anybody actually knows.
Then--1592--there is mention of him as an actor.
Next year--1593--his name appears in the official list of players.
Next year--1594--he played before the queen. A detail of no consequence: other obscurities did it every year of the forty-five of her reign. And remained obscure.
Three pretty full years follow. Full of play-acting. Then.
In 1597 he bought New Place, Stratford.
Thirteen or fourteen busy years follow; years in which he accumulated money, and also reputation as actor and manager.
Meantime his name, liberally and variously spelt, had become associated with a number of great plays and poems, as (ostensibly) author of the same.
Some of these, in these years and later, were pirated, but he made no protest.
Then--1610-11--he returned to Stratford and settled down for good and all, and busied himself in lending money, trading in tithes, trading in land and houses; shirking a debt of forty-one shillings, borrowed by his wife during his long desertion of his family; suing debtors for shillings and coppers; being sued himself for shillings and coppers; and acting as a confederate to a neighbor who tried to rob the town of its rights in a certain common, and did not succeed.
He lived five or six years--till 1616--in the joy of these elevated pursuits. . .
When Shakespeare died in Stratford it was not an event. It made no more stir in England than the death of any other forgotten theatre-actor would have made. Nobody came down from London; there were no lamenting poems, no eulogies, no national tears--there was merely silence, and nothing more. A striking contrast to what happened when Ben Jonson and Francis Bacon, and Spenser, and Raleigh and the other distinguished literary folk of Shakespeare's time passed from life! No praiseful voice was lifted for the lost Bard of Avon; even Ben Jonson waited seven years before he lifted his.
So far as anybody actually knows and can prove, Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon never wrote a play in his life.
So far as anybody knows and can prove he never wrote a letter to anybody in his life.
So far as any one knows, he received only one letter during his life.
So far as anyone can know and can prove,
Shakespeare of Stratford wrote only one poem during his life. This one is authentic. He did write that one--a fact which stands undisputed; he wrote the whole of it; he wrote the whole of it out of his own head. He commanded that this work of art be engraved upon his tomb, and he was obeyed. There it abides to this day. This is it:

Good frend for Iesus sake forbeare
to digg the dust encloased heare!
Blest be ye man yt spares thes stones
And curst be he yt moves my bones.


Francis Bacon, the first philosopher of modern science
was also Will Shakespeare, the greatest writer of the English
language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist ??


Anyway, this is all Interesting stuff, thnx Cracrocrates Cool

~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:58 am    Post subject: HI LUDI F. BACONIS NATI TUITI ORBI! Reply with quote

Ah, this indeed doth harken back to mine own college days, knave. I remember this controversy well. (Better than I remember how to use 14th century King's English, apparently.)

Here's what I cannot fathom - does anyone have a theory as to why Bacon supposedly wrote with the psuedonym? If there is one, I'm unaware of it.

Perchance this nigh we could sic Gildenstern and Rosecrans upon the case! Honorificabilitudinitatibus!!!!!

"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:30 pm    Post subject: Re: HI LUDI F. BACONIS NATI TUITI ORBI! Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Here's what I cannot fathom - does anyone have a theory as to why Bacon supposedly wrote with the psuedonym? If there is one, I'm unaware of it.

As far as name,"Shakespeare" was a secondary choice.
Originally, Bacon & Jonson were planning a 2-man travelling vaudeville act. Since Jonson loved doing this roley-poley dance, the two were going to be called "Shake 'N Bake," but they scrapped the whole thing off after being afraid that the censors would throw them in jail for the more risque routines. The anonymous literary "Shakespeare" was far safer. Smile

Oh wait, you want a realistic theory?
Seriously,I read the wikis on Francis Bacon and Ben Jonson.

Forming an anonymous person, with Bacon's legal background may have been easier because of the censors, "just in case" he/they got into trouble. Also, JONSON KILLED TWO MEN IN HIS LIFE, & after one's death in duel, converted to Catholicism to get a lighter sentence, released "by benefit of clergy" so he would have been even more concerned about censors. BACON HAD DEBT PROBLEMS, BUT NOBODY KNOWS WHY.

No matter how well connected Bacon was, he seemed to have persistent debt problems throughout his life. Bacon even turned against Robert Devereux, a guy who gave him free land that Bacon immediately sold for 1800 pounds (240,000 quid in today's money). Devereaux was the "Queen's favorite" at least until a falling out and being executed for Treason....the debt problems lead to fricition with his wife who came from richer stock...she cheated on him, and Bacon cut her out of his will.
At death, Bacon left "assets of about £7,000 and debts to the amount of £22,000."

Bacon had the intellect and historical knowledge, and the Book of Civilization authors thought he was England's version of Scaliger...better even: "It is interesting that F.Bacon, the trail blazer of the English history, turned out to be more talented than J.Scaliger, the trail blazer of the French history. F.Bacon managed to picture England as a country forestalling Western Europe by 150 years in the civilization: modern history of England dates back to Henry Tudor, and that of France – only to Louis XIII..."

"Shakespeare" may have been a tag-team duo. Maybe just rumors, but Bacon may have collaborated with Jonson.

Reports of increasing friction in his marriage to Alice Barnham appeared, with speculation that some of this may have also been due to financial resources not being as readily available to Alice as she was accustomed to having in the past. Alice was reportedly interested in fame and fortune, and when reserves of money were no longer available, there were complaints about where all the money was going. [1] Various authors have written that there were indications that Francis was secretly funding the publishing of materials for the Freemasons, Rosicrucians, "Spear-Shakers", "Knights of the Helmet", as well as publishing (with the assistance of Ben Jonson) a selection of the plays he had written under the pen name of "Shake-Speare" in a "First Folio" in 1623. [2] [3] [4] [5] Francis disinherited her upon discovering her secret romantic relationship with John Underhill. He rewrote his will, which had previously been very generous to her (leaving her lands, goods, and income), to revoke it all.


Now, let's get to the Francis Bacon rumors that are REALLY CRAZY and worthy of National Enquirer / Weekly World News....and insanely happens to relate to one of my threads in The Thinking Zone.

Beginning early in the 20th century in the U.S.A., a number of metaphysical organizations, such as the I AM Activity, [15] The Bridge to Freedom, [16] The Temple of The Presence, [17] and various others [18] began making the claim that Francis Bacon had never died. They claimed that soon after completing the "Shake-Speare" plays, he had feigned his own death on Easter Sunday 1626 and then traveled extensively outside of England, eventually attaining his physical Ascension on May 1, 1684 in the region of the Carpathian Mountains. [19] The belief is that Bacon took on the name "Saint Germain" as an Ascended Master, and is now known as "The Chohan of the Seventh Ray of Freedom" for the Earth and, since May 1, 1954, is the Hierarch for the "Dawning Golden Age" in the current two thousand year cycle of the Age of Aquarius. Under the name "Saint Germain", Bacon is considered a central figure in the "Ascended Master Teachings", and they claim that he teaches about "The One" (a Source that is a "Universal All-Pervading Presence of Life"), the "Individualized I AM Presence" (the "Self-Conscious Immortal Identity" of each person streaming from "The One" to the lower matter planes), and complete "Divine Freedom" from all human limitation. [20]

The weird thing is, I heard about the legend of "Saint Germain" having obtained immortality in a different context just a few months ago.....in my "Frank Zappa/Who was Fulcanelli/Alchemy " thread http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2931&start=0

So I figure Fulcanelli is just some scholar who likes churches, but I find that he's some sort of early 20th century legendary mystic/alchemist


On the Guitar album, Zappa named one of the solos "But Who Was Fulcanelli?". Many Zappa fans have asked the same question; so have countless others. Fulcanelli was, or wasn't, an extremely secretive early 20th-century alchemist. All that can be said for certain is that two books were published in the name of Fulcanelli - Le Mystère des Cathédrales ("Mystery of the Cathedrals") and Les Demeures Philosophales ("The Dwellings of the Philosophers"). These extremely remarkable books are highly regarded among most alchemists, and are some of the most influential and important works of alchemy to surface in the 20th century. Who really wrote them can probably never be determined; theories certainly abound. Fulcanelli himself has been said to have lived unnaturally long, died in several different places, risen from the dead - you name it.

As Patrick Neve points out, from the David Ocker interview under users.cableaz.com/~lantz/, we learn that Zappa was indeed interested in Fulcanelli:

AFFZ: Fulcanelli was the "last of the alchemists" - I believe he was immortal a la Comte St. Germain, and possibly also discovered the philosopher's stone. His true identity is obscure.

AFFZ: There is a little more to this story - Fulcanelli believed that the secrets of Christian hermeticsm were to be found in bas-reliefs throughout Europe's cathedrals - after he bestowed this knowledge upon a trusted disciple in 1920 (whereupon Le Mystère des Cathédrales was published) he disappeared without a trace. Thirty years later he made a single appearance to his disciple, before disappearing again, and, according to his disciple, actually had grown younger by at least 20 years.

DAVID OCKER: I've always wondered who Fulcanelli was since I heard Frank give that name as the answer to the question "Which character from history would you most like to meet?" (At the time I wrote the name down on a post-it note so I wouldn't forget and the post it note still lives in my desk drawer). I don't presume to understand either of the above explanations or whether they might contradict one another or not.

And Ben Jonson's best known play was: The Alchemist !

Benjamin Jonson (c. 11 June 1572 – 6 August 1637) was an English Renaissance dramatist, poet and actor. A contemporary of William Shakespeare, he is best known for his satirical plays, particularly Volpone and The Alchemist which are considered his best, and his lyric poems. A man of vast reading and a seemingly insatiable appetite for controversy, Jonson had an unparalleled breadth of influence on Jacobean and Caroline playwrights and poets.

Which leads to only one obvious answer from the National Enqirer about "Shakespeare":
In a Twilight Zone ...in the invisible mythical city of Oz...visiting Earth from the planet Mars....with Batboy as a sexual companion,

Uh....nevermind Smile

Francis Bacon

Ben Jonson

" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 731

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

does anyone have a theory as to why Bacon supposedly wrote with the psuedonym? If there is one, I'm unaware of it.

Doth sedethed it mi'lord, eh... dude,
nay... Lissen mi nuh, mi beg yuh, stap fingle-fingle up di mango dem.

Eh, scrap that.

I don't have a theory as to why, but Twain has an interesting way with
evaulating the evidence in favour of Bacon.

To resume. Next, the young Bacon took up the study of law, and mastered that abstruse science. From that day to
the end of his life he was daily in close contact with lawyers and judges; not as a casual onlooker in intervals
between holding horses in front of a theater, but as a practicing lawyer--a great and successful one, a renowned
one, a Launcelot of the bar, the most formidable lance in the high brotherhood of the legal Table Round; he lived
in the law's atmosphere thenceforth, all his years, and by sheer ability forced his way up its difficult steeps
to its supremest summit, the Lord-Chancellorship, leaving behind him no fellow-craftsman qualified to challenge
his divine right to that majestic place.

When we read the praises bestowed by Lord Penzance and the other illustrious experts upon the legal condition and
legal aptnesses, brilliances, profundities, and felicities so prodigally displayed in the Plays, and try to fit
them to the historyless Stratford stage-manager, they sound wild, strange, incredible, ludicrous; but when we put
them in the mouth of Bacon they do not sound strange, they seem in their natural and rightful place, they seem at
home there. Please turn back and read them again. Attributed to Shakespeare of Stratford they are meaningless, they
are inebriate extravagancies--intemperate admirations of the dark side of the moon, so to speak; attributed to Bacon,
they are admirations of the golden glories of the moon's front side, the moon at the full--and not intemperate, not
overwrought, but sane and right, and justified. "At ever turn and point at which the author required a metaphor,
simile, or illustration, his mind ever turned FIRST to the law; he seems almost to have THOUGHT in legal phrases;
the commonest legal phrases, the commonest of legal expressions, were ever at the end of his pen." That could happen
to no one but a person whose TRADE was the law; it could not happen to a dabbler in it. Veteran mariners fill their
conversation with sailor-phrases and draw all their similes from the ship and the sea and the storm, but no mere
PASSENGER ever does it, be he of Stratford or elsewhere; or could do it with anything resembling accuracy, if he
were hardy enough to try. Please read again what Lord Campbell and the other great authorities have said about Bacon
when they thought they were saying it about Shakespeare of Stratford.


If I had under my superintendence a controversy appointed to decide whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare or not,
I believe I would place before the debaters only the one question, WAS SHAKESPEARE EVER A PRACTICING LAWYER? and
leave everything else out.

From Is Shakespeare Dead??????
By Mark Twain
Chapter IX
Full chapter


Saint Germain, Francis Bacon and Ben Jonson ?
Now your talking Cracrocrates !! Laughing
Weekly World News here we come !!

~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:20 pm    Post subject: Crac(k)-fueled Bible Studies : MLK plagiarism ; Israel Reply with quote

1. MLK's Plagiarism of PhD Dissertation
2. Catholic Church's/NWO Purpose of Statehood for Israel

1. Martin Luther King,Jr.'s plagiarism of Jack Boozer's PhD dissertation: The Real Purpose ???
A few years back, I wondered if the allegations were true, and actually bothered to look at the bloody two dissertations instead of relying on newspapers or believing Boston University's take that MLK occasionally confused his notes with the work of others when writing his paper. My interest bordered on those of an artist: "hey, even if he did plagiarize, maybe he was trying to secretly make a point." Artists pay homage to previous artists, or another take by director Quentin Tarantino is,"Great artists don't pay homage, they steal." MLK is also a complicated figure: hero peace activist who was assassinated by PTB, PTB probably framed his murderer if that book by Dr. (William) Pepper is accurate, husband who cheated on his wife, plagiarizer, and before coming out against Vietnam he was flown on free flights on private jets of Coca-Cola corporation, and was preferred by PTB over Malcolm X's more radical message.

I did not do an in-depth study or anything, but I flipped through the two dissertations a few years ago:
MLK's was A comparison of the conception of God in the thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman(1955) and
Jack S. Boozer's was The Place of Reason in Paul Tillich's Concept of God(1952)

My conclusions:
Even at-a-glance, MLK clearly plagiarized MOST of Boozer's paper...maybe Two-Thirds (66.6% Smile ) of it, with entire passages and sections lifted from the original. But MLK's was also longer, and seemed more complete for whatever reason...maybe because he added onto Boozer's, perhaps? The Table of Contents was often copied verbatim, but some sections had added subsections, like if Boozer's paper had 3 points in the TOC, MLK's paper may have 5 points. And (I think) MLK had concluding sections and some other sections which were added or different. There are quite a few websites out there on MLK's plagiarism like http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/thesis.html , some others filled with vitriol declaring MLK an evil communist, others are university websites giving students examples as to how NOT to write papers and cite sources. The wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#Plagiarism

I also tried to find information/books by JACK S. BOOZER to find out who he was,as well as his opinion on MLK. BOOZER was a CHAPLAIN IN THE MILITARY during WWII who published in 1984 (of all years!) the autobiography EDGE OF MINISTRY...THE CHAPLAIN STORY
detailing his lifetime as a Methodist military chaplain from 1945 to 1980. I don't know if he knew about the plagiarism or not at the time (to my knowledge, Boozer has never commented about plagiarism). I looked for references to MLK in the book, and found that he was mentioned briefly maybe once or twice, but only in a postive manor (maybe praise that MLK was a man of peace?)...but certainly writing nothing negative or even controversial about MLK. I remembered the book was an enjoyable read at the time.

AS FAR AS TO THE CONTENT OF MLK'S DISSERTATION CONCEALING SECRET MESSAGES: I ,uh, found the content to be so MIND-BLOWINGLY BORING and esoteric compared to anything else I had ever read from MLK, that I couldn't get myself to actually read through each dissertation. So, unless Paul Tillich or Henry Wieman have something Earth-shattering in their theological philosophies which I couldn't catch using some web searches years ago or scanning those two dissertations, I'm dumbfounded why such an ambitious, soon-to-be world famous man like MLK wrote...even plagiarized...such a mundane thesis topic.

BUT THEN THE STORY GETS EVEN MORE WEIRD...BECAUSE I read recently that KING'S DISSERTATION ADVISOR WAS ALSO BOOZER'S DISSERTATION ADVISOR http://www.academia.org/store/plagiarism_culture_war.html . So there's no fucking way that the professor who approved the final dissertation DIDN'T KNOW about the plagiarism at the time unless HE DIDN'T EVEN READ ONE OR BOTH OF THEM...and even I could tell by just GLANCING at the two. (Maybe this is why Boston University refused to revoke MLK's PhD because of the even greater scrutiny that BU would have been under, creating an expert panel, and one scholar concluding absurdly that "the practice falls within the tradition of "African-American folk preaching.")
Beginning in the 1980s, questions have been raised regarding the authorship of King's dissertation, other papers, and his speeches. Concerns about his doctoral dissertation at Boston University led to a formal inquiry by university officials, which concluded that approximately a third of it had been plagiarized from a paper written by an earlier graduate student[52], but it was decided not to revoke his degree, since the paper still "makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship." While some have criticized King for his plagiarism, Keith Miller has argued that the practice falls within the tradition of "African-American folk preaching", and should not necessarily be labeled plagiarism. However, as Theodore Pappas points out in his book Plagiarism and the Culture War, King in fact took a class on scholarly standards and plagiarism at Boston University.

So why did King plagiarize, or does the dissertation "seem" plagiarized? Some scenarios:
1.In too much of a hurry to get to Birmingham to aid the movement, which was more important...and he was a lazy "scholar."?

2. MLK was a federally-funded disinfo agent, MLK was using them as well as them using him, & eventually turned on the feds with Vietnam issue, and the PTB then killed him...MLK was a lazy scholar, and the thesis was faked to give MLK a PhD's credentials .

3. NewChron possiblity: The dissertation was an example of the widespread fraud and plagiarism of THE BIBLE & HISTORY ITSELF. Fomenko implies the many parallelisms of characters in the bible, including the possible reasons for fraud in all those LINEAGES, suggesting that the timelines were added to make the Bible stories seem thousands of years older. In "Highlander School" for alleged leftists/communists or in college,any chance King read Morozov or any of the other Russian New Chron authors, with related works or papers?

4. The BU dissertation advisor is a poor professor who did not read BOOZER's phD dissertation because of his world war II credentials, and gave Boozer an easy pass, and so did not catch MLK's plagiarism when it happened three years later.

5. MLK played a joke on the professor because he heard stories that the advisors never even bother to read their bullshit. (Sci-fi writer Michael Crichton in his autobiography Travels mentions that in college he plagiarized something (an essay or poetry) because he thought the Harvard professor was an asshole who wasn't even well-read in his field..Crichton got away with it...Crichton also says he's seen strange phenomenom like auros and spoon-bending as well though http://www.michaelcrichton.com/qa-travels.html so uh that's unusual for a guy who graduated from Harvard Medical School)

6. The CIA planted Jack Boozer's faked dissertation to discredit MLK after the assassination or in the 1980s. "Boozer" was a military chaplain who spent his entire life with the military supposedly. Boozer has never publicly commented about MLK's plagiarism or the reasons for the plagiarism...so apparently (as far as I know) NO NEWSPAPER BOTHERED TO CONTACT THE MAN WHO MLK SUPPOSEDLY RIPPED OFF ?

Isn't it interesting how PROTECTIVE Coretta King was of her huband's writings and speeches and even drafts in terms of the lawsuit against BU? Is it just money she fought over speech licensing fees, or did she no longer trust BU to handle her husband's works (like if they snuck something in that he didn't write for political purposes)? Maybe the compromise was clearing MLK of plagiarism charges, and BU could keep a copy of the papers? Was Coretta too afraid of speaking out over the decades of the many ways that her husband's name and the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT itself had been misused by the PTB, mentioned by zak247 in this thread http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12660#12660 . I don't know. Coretta died last year, on January 30, 2006.


Mrs. King was not without her detractors, particular concerning the King family's handling of her husband's estate. The licensing of Martin Luther King's speeches has caused concern about the reasoning behind limiting their availability. Mrs. King was also involved in the decision to demand licensing fees before the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity could begin fundraising for its project to build the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial on the National Mall


2. Catholic Church's/NWO Purpose of Modern Statehood for Israel

According to Fomenko, the Catholic Church has faked its ancientness, and "Jerusalem" is actually Istanbul.

The motivation for forming the Modern State of Israel remains an enigma; the mainstream reason is that it was formed by Western Powers because they felt bad for Jews because of the Holocaust. As far as I can tell, the PTB DON'T DO ANYTHING WITH COMPASSION WHEN TOTAL POWER AND CONROL OVER HUMANITY IS THE GOAL, certainly not after World War II, when they truly were and could act as MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE after tens of millions dead. Few Jews want to live in the Middle East..they wanted to escape to freedom to AMERICA instead of sitting like military targets all in one place in an unstable region; the number of "zionists" was relatively small.

I don't believe jewish conspiracy stories about the formation of Israel and its control over the remainder of the world, NOR do I believe that its there just because Western Powers want a really big American client-state there. What's the freaking point of that when they could have just do what they did all over the remainder of the non-communist world after WWII: PUT A HUGE AMERICAN MILITARY BASE IN "PALESTINE." The U.S./PTB have had a monopoly on violence and technology for over 60 years now, and the USSR did not even have nukes yet in 1948 when the State of Israel was created so there wasn't as much concern about Soviet influence trying to turn Palestine into a client-state as an alternative to the West . So, how could there still be reasons for a never-ending instability in the Middle East 60 years after The War to End All Wars, Part II ? Why???

So (thinking like an evil genius) how might the Catholic Church or its controllers possibly solidify its history for all FUTURE MILLENIA.

#1: Create the State of Israel.

#2: Have Israel be a military state that is unstable. People want Peace (its easier), so this will have to be constant effort to destabilize.

#3: The instability and control of the media by just a few corporate sources means that ISRAEL will constantly be in the news over the next 50 to 100 years WORLDWIDE. No one will ever question where "Jerusalem" or "Israel" and "Judea" are in the Bible, nor its chronology, nor the Catholic Church's place in history. Few Christians or Jews had desires to see the city of "Jerusalem" in Palestine before World War II and the Statehood of ISRAEL. Now, the fundy's visit to pay homage to Jesus. ISRAEL'S LOCATION IS NOW A "FACT" THROUGHOUT HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS.

??? Maybe #4: DESTROY ISRAEL. ???
Probably using a faked conflict with a media-created historical "enemy": Muslim states....both of which are puppet states of the West. (Even Chomsky said that America paid Egypt off I think in the 1970s with military "aid." Afterwards, Egypt essentially stopped complaining about Israel's statehood post-Nasser) Destroying Israel (or at the very least Jerusalem) gets rid of even the possibility of questioning existing evidence in the future. (Also, was a destruction of historical sites another reason for the World Wars ? just a thought)

So, on what pre-text could Iran nuke Israel ?
Defense in case of an American invasion?
Israel bombing Iran's nuclear power plants like when they bombed one of Iraq's plans on the pre-text Iraq might make nuclear weapons (like now with Iran)

Here's one crazy scenario, taking out Islam & Israel in one go.

Israel does not brag about its nuclear arsenal, because Israel really does have a strategic use for its bombs. For Israel, and Israel alone, nuclear weapons are part of an operational defensive strategy against any strategically threatening attack across its borders.

I have known about this strategy ever since a specialist in Islamic studies pointed it out to me. This man has a network of informants inside the Middle East. He knew that a major attack was imminent two weeks before 9/11, and said so publicly. He just did not know what it would be or where it would be.

What I am about to say here is never mentioned in public by any government official. This is because it is obvious, once you are told about it. Whenever you discover something that is obvious, but which no one ever discusses in public, you are approaching a highly sensitive matter for all concerned parties.

There is one target with such enormous strategic importance that for it be taken out is so unthinkable that literally everything hinges on it – not just today but permanently. This target is ground zero of a balance of power strategy that has been operational for 1400 years. It is a granite cubicle called the Kaaba. Inside it is a black stone, which Muslims believe was found by Abraham and Ishmael. For hundreds of millions of Muslims, this is the holiest of relics. If these two religious objects inside Mecca were ever obliterated, the survival of Islam might be called into question. On the other hand, it might not – which is the supreme strategic risk.

A nuclear hit would be necessary to guarantee the destruction of the Kaaba. This is today technically possible. It was not in 1948, 1967, and 1973.

Israel is believed to possess several hundred nuclear weapons. But it only needs a half dozen, plus ways to deliver them, in order to be certain that one bomb will reach a specific target, after which the conflict would end, permanently. Maybe.

If you want to see the kind of influence the Catholic Church still has read
A small African nation, Ivory Coast, spent HALF ITS BUDGET DEFICIT (300 million dollars) to build the LARGEST CHURCH IN THE WORLD the Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro, even though only 22% of the nation is Christian, with 60% being Muslim. The Church is mostly empty at mass.

" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:08 am    Post subject: Re: Crac(k)-fueled Bible Studies : MLK plagiarism ; Israel Reply with quote

Cracrocrates wrote:
Is it just money she fought over speech licensing fees, or did she no longer trust BU to handle her husband's works (like if they snuck something in that he didn't write for political purposes)?

Whatever the special motives which might have applied with regards to BU per se, Corretta Scott King had a record of enforcing high-priced copyrights on quotations stolen by her late husband from Boozer which can only be explained by money. Just to take one example, Julian Bond produced an 824-page textbook on civil rights. Four of the documents in this book were from Martin Luther King. The final book price was 65 dollars and between 10 and 15 of these dollars were just the result of fees charged by the King family on those four documents. That type of behavior has to be attributed to money, not concern over FBI sting operations ala COINTELPRO which are real enough. More details are discussed in Theodore Pappas, PLAGIARISM AND THE CULTURE WAR: THE WRITINGS OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., AND OTHER PROMINENT AMERICANS.

There's nothing unusual about this. It's a common pattern throughout history that someone who, whatever his other flaws such as are evidence by the willingness to cheat in school, may devote a part of their life to a social movement is then subsequently followed by relatives who are now willing to sell out and cash in off of the earlier reputation. There's no point in trying to project this all the way to back to King, but it's a fact that his later family members all sold out multiple times over.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 11 of 18

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.