The Dragon Blood-line Options

[Sanders]

We know that the cow and moon relate!

Not just the cow and the moon, the cow (Taurus, with its V shaped horns), the moon (linked to the menstral cycle) the female and/or womb - both represented by a crescent or cow-horn shaped "U" symbology, and the grail itself - the "U" or Chalice, the womb's involvement, and nighttime (when the moon shines) when and only when the grail ritual was practiced.

Our nursery rhymes carry meaning to which we are completely oblivious.

Many come from Charlemagne's mother, Bertrada "the Goose-foot" (a derogatory nickname attached to her for her Jewishness) who told such stories to her son ... she is better known to us, apparently, as "Mother Goose".

(IMG:http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/6088/cowb.jpg)

[Omega892R09]

xx http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMqb_WrnVTc xx

xx http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMqb_WrnVTc xx

Having failed with both of the above I landed here:

UROKO - Connecting the Dots - Full Length

is that your version?

If so small typo at 0.07:30 with '...disatstrous war."'

[Sanders]

Yeah, that's it.

I don't mind the little typo - I mind the GIGANTIC typo where I am swayed by the opinions of John Adams and widespread modern-day opinion and accuse Alexander Hamilton of being a traitor. Hamilton was not the traitor - the Essex Junto and Aaron Burr were the traitors, and Hamilton successfully stopped them on two occasions. He swayed opinion among the Electoral College and prevented Burr from beating Jefferson in the presidential race of 1800, and, later when the junto offered Burr up for the office of NY Governor, Hamilton used his pen again and sufficiently warned the populace of New York State of Burr's character and the machiavellian junto behind him.

Hamilton had one time been the de-facto leader (or public face) of the Essex Junto, in his role as leader of the Federalist party. However once he figured out that they wanted to take New England and New York and secede from the Union, he said no thanks and went his own way. After he published scathing criticisms of Aaron Burr, stopping both Burr's aspirations and the plans of the Essex Junto in their collective tracks, Burr got into a tizzy with Hamilton and the result was the famous duel, in which Aaron Burr shot Hamilton dead.

I had that part of American history totally wrong. Related to that scenario is the 1st National Bank, which Hamilton created. Here again I was influenced by popular "conspiracy-theory" opinion and assumed that the British fought us in 1812 because powerful bankers were angry over the closing of the Bank. The truth is the opposite - the Bank was shut down to hobble our ability to defend ourselves against the British in the war (the War of 1812) that was being planned. The purpose of the war was to conquer America and turn it into a colony again, and the Essex junto Federalists of Boston (and their associates in Connecticut and Rhode Island) helped the British win any way they could.

[Sanders]

Footnote, (again responding to Omega892R09),

I believe the 'disastrous' typo comes in the quote attributed to Nathan Rothschild, "Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war."

I couldn't find a reliable source for that quote (this is much later, after I had published this little movie), and grew suspicious. Nathan Rothschild didn't have the power or influence in London that he would eventually attain back in 1811-12, in fact his insider trading coup didn't come until 1815. His grandson, also Nathan, was the first Rothschild let into the House of Lords after much effort - "Natty" didn't want to take his oath with his hand on a Christian bible, and the British nobility were less than flexible about changing the rules of Parliament to accommodate him. If, a half century after the War of 1812 when the Rothschild family were the undisputed kings of world finance, Nathan II had to struggle for years just to get the Brits to change their decorum respective to the oath of entrance into the House of Lords, how realistic is it to believe that his grandfather, when he was just an upstart banker in London, and a Jewish one at that, wielded influence and power such that he could make such a threat, that is, muster Great Britain into a war with America? - if you really think about it, its ridiculous, and I regret I ever entertained the idea. Whoever first put that "quote" up on the internet must have made it up, and it has been repeated over and over ever since.

I managed to get the most viewed version of my movie taken off the web, it took some effort - those I suppose are the links that you first visited and found removed. (I removed them.)

[23investigator]

Footnote, (again responding to Omega892R09),

I believe the 'disastrous' typo comes in the quote attributed to Nathan Rothschild, "Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war."

Nathan II had to struggle for years just to get the Brits to change their decorum respective to the oath of entrance into the House of Lords, how realistic is it to believe that his grandfather, when he was just an upstart banker in London, and a Jewish one at that, wielded influence and power such that he could make such a threat, that is, muster Great Britain into a war with America? - if you really think about it, its ridiculous, and I regret I ever entertained the idea. Whoever first put that "quote" up on the internet must have made it up, and it has been repeated over and over ever since.

I managed to get the most viewed version of my movie taken off the web, it took some effort - those I suppose are the links that you first visited and found removed. (I removed them.)

Dear Sanders

That is why they invented 'chivas regal', to allow us to step back and cool our heels, or sit back, and get "mildly sozzled", which you have admitted to a few times, maybe not with 'chivas', but it is a good way to go.

'Removal ', is to be admired, not a lot can do it, but a little note explaining, saves a lot of confusion.

As the great man said, after a night on, 'chivas', my name is "confusion", edit that "confucius".

Robert S

[elreb]

“Tapping the Admiral” meant surreptitious drinking in Royal Navy slang…

8 January 1815

The morning of 8 January was cold and foggy. Before the sun could burn off the mist that lingered on the fields of Chalmette, a British signal rocket burst in the air and massed columns of English soldiers advanced toward the American lines. The American forces, about 4,000 on the line, opened up with their artillery and followed with a devastating volley of musket and rifle fire. The advance columns of the British army, aimed at the right flank of Line Jackson near the river and the left flank commanded by Major General William Carroll, were shattered and quickly routed. In less than two hours the battle was over. On the field lay about 1,500 dead and wounded British soldiers (another 500 were taken prisoner). American losses amounted to thirteen killed and thirty-nine wounded.

General Pakenham, who just happened to be the brother-in-law to the Duke of Wellington, was also shot and killed on January 8, 1815. To preserve his body, he was packed into a keg of Rum before being shipped back to England.

”The General has returned home in better spirits than he left”...

[elreb]

Sanders,

Now that you have reached over 100,000…I’m going back to “History and the Elite”.

On the one hand you admit to date discrepancies, yet keep selling the bad ones.

Cyrus does not lack of compatibility between two or more facts.

[Sanders]

I was not aware that I was in the habit of selling "the bad ones". I'll try to watch my p's and q's.

But, the dates to me only become critical when looking at specific connections, and I am, in my own mind, quite comfortable with the reality that the Royal Houses of Sumer/Babylon, Egypt, Ugarit and later the Judaic kingdom in Canaan (especially the House of David), were all closely related and, basically, were two or three extended branches of an earlier "dragon" kingship which originated in Scythia. An additional branch fanned out to Greece (specifically Arcadia and Sparta) and the Troad (Troy and areas nearby), obviously from Egypt & Canaan and by way of Crete.

Then you have the migrations from the Troad (after the Trojan War?) - to Ireland and Scotland, to Italy (north and south, but not middle), and to Germania and Scandinavia - and then things get complicated.

I don't see why I should be so interested in Cyrus. A very important figure, I am sure, and he kicked off a huge Persian Empire which was even larger than the Roman Empire in its day. You say Cyrus was Jesus (I think you said that?). I'm not convinced.

That's my position, I guess, on all that, at this point - I've gotten my head immersed in books about other eras, trying to figure stuff out. (Presently my head's in the 19th century - crazy.)

[Sanders]

8 January 1815

The morning of 8 January was cold and foggy. Before the sun could burn off the mist that lingered on the fields of Chalmette, a British signal rocket burst in the air and massed columns of English soldiers advanced toward the American lines. The American forces, about 4,000 on the line, opened up with their artillery and followed with a devastating volley of musket and rifle fire. The advance columns of the British army, aimed at the right flank of Line Jackson near the river and the left flank commanded by Major General William Carroll, were shattered and quickly routed. In less than two hours the battle was over. On the field lay about 1,500 dead and wounded British soldiers (another 500 were taken prisoner). American losses amounted to thirteen killed and thirty-nine wounded.

General Pakenham, who just happened to be the brother-in-law to the Duke of Wellington, was also shot and killed on January 8, 1815. To preserve his body, he was packed into a keg of Rum before being shipped back to England.

”The General has returned home in better spirits than he left”...

Could this be, the Battle of New Orleans?

[Sanders]

To give a really broad (and by nature vulnerable to critique) overview of what we've been talking about here, among the "planters" of Massachusetts and Connecticut who arrived in the colonies early on, were some blue-bloods of England, descended from Normans who fought with William the Conqueror (hence their "blue-blooded-ness - their ancestors had been granted lands and title in England for fighting on the winning side 600 years prior).

These families became rich trading in slaves and opium (in, respectively the West Indies and China). They were closely tied to their relatives in Britain, and to the British East India Company, which let them in on these lucrative markets - because those British East India Company share-holders and their American cousins shared the same goal - stop the American experiment. The more rich and powerful their cousins in America could become, the more likely their success. AND, they almost succeeded (in stopping the American experiment) on numerous occasions!

The war of 1812 was their last attempt at fully-overt victory by military means. They (both the Essex families and the British navy) lost, American will to survive won.

Then they tried to divide America, to split it in half. They did this by taking up the cause of anti-slavery in the North, while promoting secession in the South. They failed in this too, Lincoln won.

So, they agreed that overt aggression would never succeed, that their efforts would be better rewarded if they tried to take over America from the inside and change it to their liking.

So they plotted in the years between Lincoln's assassination and the creation of the Federal Reserve/US entrance into the First World War.

FINALLY!!! - They won. They got control over our money, they got us into that war, and then they started taking over our educational system and our media. WHY????

Because, they came to understand that "might" would not win in conquering America. Only deception would render real results. They decided they needed to control our media and the content of our education (Norman Dodd documents these discussions among the trustees of the tax-exempt foundations in the early part of the century), and they set out to do that, and they accomplished that.

The nub is this - Americans believe they must have CHOICE. If you can get into a position where you can be the guys who provide both of those choices (and let a said American "chose" one of two choices which are both quite preferable to you), then you can get and do what you want, while allowing the average American feel good that he or she has exercised their freedom of choice.

Then, on top of that totally fixed structure, you have the media, controlled by these wanna-be-demi-gods, working day and night through their underlings moulding the opinions of the populace.

I think that's a pretty accurate, albeit abbreviated, history of the US over the last 2 centuries, in my own humble opinion.

[elreb]

Could this be, the Battle of New Orleans?

Yes, the war of 1812 concluded with the Battle of New Orleans.

Andrew Jackson, Sam Houston, Davy Crockett, Isaac Morley, Joe Walker and Joel Walker all fought side by side.

Captain Joseph R. Walker was the first white man to map the Great Basin, the Grand Canyon, Zion National Park, Yosemite, the California Trail, Route 66 and a dozen more place…yet no one have ever heard of him.

[Sanders]

Forgive a stupid question, but when did Cyrus live exactly?

[elreb]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Sanders]

So Cyrus lived a half millenium before Jesus?

Am I correct in my math?

Did Jesus actually live in the 5th century BC, or did Cyrus live at the time of Roman rule over Palestine?

I'm open to many hypothesis - Jesus appears on the world stage (disregarding his birth) when he is about 30 yo. This leaves a lot of time for him to be somewhere else doing other things.

I am completely on board with Cyrus being of Pharaohic royal blood. I am not yet convinced that he and Jesus were one and the same.

Is that what you are proposing? I'm sure I have read that you said that.

[elreb]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Sanders]

Feeling dizzy (!!!)

[elreb]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Sanders]

No, it wasn't the rum (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Sanders]

I'm not posting much lately, I'm reading two books (both for the third time, they are very dense and the information in each is so valuable that I want to really absorb it all... you should see one of them I've been carrying around, it's literally falling apart.)

The books are Henry Lincoln (& associates') 'Holy Blood Holy Grail', and Anton Chaitkin's 'Treason in America'.

The two books, one about the 'Holy Grail', and one about the treasonous activities of noble descendents of Normans in America, primarily the Essex Junto, are about entirely different topics.

But they, unexpectedly, connect - in the activities of the House of Lorraine.

The House of Lorraine was the chief depository of Grail blood in Europe in the middle ages. But the House of Lorraine, according to 'Treason in America', was heavily involved in trying to stop the American experiment. One of their own, Maximillion, was placed at the head of their failed monarchy in Mexico as an attempt to bolster the plan to split America apart with the Civil War and re-institute the concept of rule by the blooded Elite, exactly NOT what the American experiment was about. (Maximilliion was ousted from the Mexican throne after only 3 years, and, of course, Lincoln won and the Union was preserved.)

It looks like, the last "elven" royal House of Europe, the House of Lorraine, was in the camp of families who wanted to stop the concept of Nation-states and "bottom-up" society, in lieu of "top-down" feudalism, as was imposed by the Normans on England.

This news greatly saddened me. This told me that the House of the blood of Jesus and Mary (Lorraine) was in sync with the barbarians, the Vikings and Huns and their descendants, who wanted to control the world, kill the American experiment, and put themselves into the position of global rulers.

Then I learned that Archduke Franz Ferdinand, murdered to start the First World War, was the heir apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and of the House of Lorraine.

Was he killed because his House embodied the legitimate heirs of the Kingship of the World by virtue of their Grail blood?

Or were the elite, who had been planning WWI, pissed off because he married a commoner and relinquished his claim to the throne?

To put it simply, was Archduke Ferdinand chosen to be murdered to start WWI bacause:

A) - it was a shot across the bow (actually into the heart) of the House of Lorraine/Hapsburg - 'We are taking over now, stay out of our way'.

Or, (B) - it was punishment for Franz Ferdinand's act of marrying a commoner and rejecting his duty to inherit his throne and carry on the bloodline.

I'M NOT SURE WHICH IS CORRECT - but it's an interesting point to ponder.

[23investigator]

I'm not posting much lately, I'm reading two books (both for the third time, they are very dense and the information in each is so valuable that I want to really absorb it all... you should see one of them I've been carrying around, it's literally falling apart.)

The books are Henry Lincoln (& associates') 'Holy Blood Holy Grail', and Anton Chaitkin's 'Treason in America'.

The two books, one about the 'Holy Grail', and one about the treasonous activities of noble descendents of Normans in America, primarily the Essex Junto, are about entirely different topics.

But they, unexpectedly, connect - in the activities of the House of Lorraine.

The House of Lorraine was the chief depository of Grail blood in Europe in the middle ages. But the House of Lorraine, according to 'Treason in America', was heavily involved in trying to stop the American experiment. One of their own, Maximillion, was placed at the head of their failed monarchy in Mexico as an attempt to bolster the plan to split America apart with the Civil War and re-institute the concept of rule by the blooded Elite, exactly NOT what the American experiment was about. (Maximilliion was ousted from the Mexican throne after only 3 years, and, of course, Lincoln won and the Union was preserved.)

It looks like, the last "elven" royal House of Europe, the House of Lorraine, was in the camp of families who wanted to stop the concept of Nation-states and "bottom-up" society, in lieu of "top-down" feudalism, as was imposed by the Normans on England.

This news greatly saddened me. This told me that the House of the blood of Jesus and Mary (Lorraine) was in sync with the barbarians, the Vikings and Huns and their descendants, who wanted to control the world, kill the American experiment, and put themselves into the position of global rulers.

Then I learned that Archduke Franz Ferdinand, murdered to start the First World War, was the heir apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and of the House of Lorraine.

Was he killed because his House embodied the legitimate heirs of the Kingship of the World by virtue of their Grail blood?

Or were the elite, who had been planning WWI, pissed off because he married a commoner and relinquished his claim to the throne?

To put it simply, was Archduke Ferdinand chosen to be murdered to start WWI bacause:

A) - it was a shot across the bow (actually into the heart) of the House of Lorraine/Hapsburg - 'We are taking over now, stay out of our way'.

Or, (B) - it was punishment for Franz Ferdinand's act of marrying a commoner and rejecting his duty to inherit his throne and carry on the bloodline.

I'M NOT SURE WHICH IS CORRECT - but it's an interesting point to ponder.

Dear 'Sanders'

Reading is very important, "your writing very interesting", like your "drinking" all that is needed is balance,
'so here's to your dringking'.

"Bloodline of the Holy Grail", Laurence Gardner, is a very absorbing read also.

please keep it up

Robert S