Alternative Genealogy

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Speaking of Genealogy, here’s a miles paper.
Also from that original paper, "Along with Sulla, the Scipios were Cornelii, as were the Lentuli and Rufini. Sulla was a Rufini, meaning red hair. The Scipios were also known to have red hair, being called Rutilus. This may also point us at the Phoenicians, who we know had red hair in some lines. And if this is true, then the story about modern Jews getting the red hair from southern Russia would be shown to be false.
We find yet another rarely mentioned clue: Octavian was adopted by Julius Caesar, but he was from gens Octavia, which gained prominence in around 230BC with Octavius Rufus. Which again means “red”. If all these red Phoenicians were related, this means the Octavii were related to the Cornelii. Which would indicate once again that Julius Caesar was promoting them through marriage and adoption even while defeating them in the Civil War. You also have to remember that the given reason Caesar adopted Octavian was that Octavian's mother was Caesar's niece. This Atia was the daughter of Caesar's sister Julia Minor. So the first emperors of Rome were not just Julians through adoption, they were Julians by blood through Atia."

Richard was very big on ancient red-haired progenitors being the "real players", as I recall, but I believe that he was referring to the theories of the late Nicholas de Vere, in that they were Scythians, not Phoenicians. In Greek mythology, Phoenix, the King and eponym of Phoenicia, and son of King Agenor (Miles Mathis names Agenor as the progenitor of the Phoenicians), could be equated phonetically with "Phenius Pharsa" (many variant spellings), King of Scythia. So perhaps we are again dealing with one "person", under different cultural aliases/identities, part of the premier elite royal family, and can achieve some degree of synchronicity with these disparate origin theories.

Nicholas de Vere, for obvious reasons, promoted the de Veres as the senior royal family, with the Fulks/Foulques Counts of Anjou, the original Plantagenets and ancestors of English Folkes families, as their junior line (Fulks of Anjou were described as red-headed and/or ruddy complexioned). However, it has been suggested that the Fulks/Folkes line was the premier line instead, using the de Veres and other prominent families (such as the later Rothschilds) as a convenient layer of cover for them, and thus remaining in the obscure background, unheard of by the world. In this theory, they descend from the "Phocas" dynasty of Eastern Roman Emperors, and go all the way back to "our" Flavian dynastic family of Vespasian and Titus. "Roman Piso" gives them a Herodian descent, which would lead back to the Scythian/Phoenician ancestry mentioned above. These two Flavian Roman Emperors were either the "Christ" or "Antichirst" (depending upon your point of view), who were responsible for the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. In an apocalyptic sense, they have also been considered to be among the seven "heads" of the "Beast" in Revelation.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
What are your thoughts @Jerry Russell ?
It's always enjoyable to read Miles Mathis's thoughts, and I'm excited that he's turned his attention to one of our favorite periods of history. And it's also intriguing that Mathis claims to have some expertise in Latin and Roman history, dating back to his high school and undergraduate college days.

We have always suspected that the Romans were deeply linked to the Hebrew tribes. Richard traced this through the Trojan foundation of Rome, which he linked to the Greek Danites and the Tribe of Dan. We've also thought that the Phoenicians and Hebrews were one and the same people, and that red hair was a mark of the elite families of that tribe. Mathis supplies a great deal of detail to supplement the overall picture that we've been advocating.

Mathis's demonstration of the direct lineage from Rome's wealthy and powerful founders to Julius Caesar, is far preferable to the view that he came from humble roots and rose as a self-made man. Richard believed that the significance of Caesar's dalliance with the Cilician Pirates, was that this established the means for Mithraism to make its way into the Roman religious system. This could still be the symbolic meaning of the episode, even if (as Mathis claims) it never really happened. And of course, Richard would have been delighted to see Mathis supporting his view that Caesar's assassination was a fake, and that he really must have retired to a hidden resort.

The idea that Julius Caesar was such a strict homosexual that he never sired any children whatsoever, would surely be disputed by Ralph Ellis, who argues that Caesar was a direct ancestor of King Izas Manu, aka Jesus Christ.

I feel certain that Jerry will disagree with this Miles Mathis excerpt, at least- "For instance, I have shown you that all US Presidents and most Hollywood stars are closely related, and that they all come from the direct line of William the Conqueror and before that from Charlemagne. In many instances, they now admit it or even brag about it, while denying that it is important. They try to tell you everyone living comes from that line, but of course they don't." Miles said it, Jerry, not me.
I agree with Mathis, if he's talking about more or less direct lines of male (patriarchal) descent from ancient kings. Most or all of the women in the line should be drawn from closely related families. If the line includes occasional intrusions of more distant relatives (fourth or fifth cousins) drawn from high nobility, this could also denote "good blood". I suppose, alternatively, a direct and pure maternal line of descent might also be interesting.

On the other hand, nearly everyone living can trace some sort of lineage back to Charlemagne, by way of a meandering path involving commoners continually marrying increasingly distant scions off the trunk.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Richard traced this through the Trojan foundation of Rome, which he linked to the Greek Danites and the Tribe of Dan.
Intriguing that Aeneas is described as a DarDANIAN, and he certainly was a seafarer! Charles N. Pope diverges from Mathis, however, by having Vespasian as a son of Caesarion, and thus the grandson of Julius Caesar. At least this is consistent with a "Preflavian" Caesar being a prototype of "Christ", while the Mathis hypothesis seems much more radical and unlikely to me, in that Caesar was so completely homosexual that he had no inclination to try to father natural heirs for his dynasty and legacy. As noted before, Vespasian was first declared Roman Emperor in Alexandria, which Caesar, Cleopatra, and Caesarion were all previously associated with. This event even occurred in July, the month that was named after Julius Caesar, and now, aided by an Imperial propaganda team that included Josephus, the Roman dynasty of "Caesar's Messiah" had begun, in the East.
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
On the other hand, nearly everyone living can trace some sort of lineage back to Charlemagne, by way of a meandering path involving commoners continually marrying increasingly distant scions off the trunk.
Perhaps my understanding is outdated now, but I thought that everyone living on earth now could be descended from the 18th Dynasty, traditionally starting about 1550 BC, well over 2000 years before Charlemagne, when the Hyksos rulers were finally expelled, and the "New Kingdom" began. Could this have signaled the first major sorting out of the elite royal family, separating the wheat(continuing royalty) from the chaff (subsidiary workers for royalty)?
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Speaking of Genealogy, here’s a miles paper.
We've also thought that the Phoenicians and Hebrews were one and the same people,
I am rereading the Miles Mathis "Rome" paper, looking for clues, and I think that a way to make Dido (Carthaginian/Phoenician) the mother of Ascanius ("Roman") is to involve her sister, Anna Perenna, the Roman goddess whose festival falls on the Ides of March, the very day that Ascanius descendant Julius Caesar was "assassinated". According to Ovid, after the suicide of Dido, Anna was eventually shipwrecked on the coasts of Latium, where she was hosted by Aeneas, but his wife Lavinia became increasingly jealous, so Anna fled, and was transformed into a river nymph after falling into the Numicus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Perenna The river-god Numicus also purified Aeneas after his decease, again according to Ovid, and his body is buried on the banks of that river. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numicus, So in a way they do end up together eternally.

Suppose Dido faked her suicide at Carthage, and, using the identity of her sister, was actually Anna with Aeneas in Latium, where she bore Ascanius, but was forced to flee, or really perished upon giving birth to Ascanius there? Aeneas then raised their son Ascanius, and stepmother Lavinia morphed into his actual mother, in the retelling of this story, as a coverup to erase any Carthaginian heritage. Thus, "Anna" could be the "missing link" in this Phoenician origin hypothesis of Rome.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
From another paper found on the Mathis site, not written by him, on page 31- http://mileswmathis.com/phoen3.pdf

"If I were to give a date at which some global pact between top aristocrats was made, I’d say it was somewhere around 1600 BC, when apparently aristocrats from the Levant had achieved, or been given, reign over both Mesopotamia and Egypt. I still don’t know what exactly happened there. I suppose Levantine merchant princes were the initiators, but it was likely not a drive-by takeover as later with the illiterate Europeans. I hypothesize it to be some merger, with all aristocratic parties bringing some tradition to the table: Egyptian and Mesopotamian templars their bureaucracies, and Levantine operators their global reach."

Does this timing not roughly coincide with the accession of the new dynasty founder Ahmose I, who supposedly expelled the Hyksos?

The next paragraph touches on royal identity switching, which is a motif Charles N. Pope, Ralph Ellis, and Roman Piso go more fully into in their own writings-

"These links to Mesopotamia and Egypt may be today downplayed even towards lesser spooklings, judging from Hammurabi’s controversial “rediscovery”, and from the way Gardiner’s harmless transcriptions are buried. But there might be a wealth of archaic scamming practices inherited from those advanced empires: Did you know that Mesopotamian elites early on invented the custom to switch their king for an actor double, called “substitute king” (šar pūḫi), who wouldn’t rule but merely enact the king to the public? As with the Nazir, that actor was serving a fixed term. He was officially of low birth and would later be killed (or fake-killed: deported). Talk about actors who fake their own death. We don’t even need to mention Egyptian rulers, who regularly impersonated gods."
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Mesopotamian elites early on invented the custom to switch their king for an actor double...
In ancient times, such a deception or gambit would be difficult or impossible for anyone outside the inner circle to detect. With modern TV and internet communications, perhaps they need to resort to (slightly) more sophisticated organizational forms? For example, it seems highly likely that Joe Biden is too cognitively impaired to be personally responsible for his actions. He seems to be a pawn or representative of some more powerful person, organization or entity -- but who?? This is the problem with conspiracy theorizing... we can only get so far before losing the trail. And it's tempting, but basically wrong, to jump to conclusions.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
For example, it seems highly likely that Joe Biden is too cognitively impaired to be personally responsible for his actions. He seems to be a pawn or representative of some more powerful person, organization or entity -- but who?? This is the problem with conspiracy theorizing... we can only get so far before losing the trail. And it's tempting, but basically wrong, to jump to conclusions.
Instead I shall jump to a precedent, which I am not saying shall be repeated, the aged Hindenburg with an up-and-coming Hitler behind him, in 1933/34 Germany.
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
While I haven't looked into it, I seem to recall a report that Mr. Biden received 5x the Wall Street donations as Mr. Trump. As to which person(s) spend the most time with their hand on his shoulder, steering him, I could only speculate they/she/he are a DNC insider.

While I think there's no shortage of Republicans with an outward appearance of "fascism," the party seems very disorganized when viewed as a whole. OTOH, the Democratic party - while it appears to have a few outliers, seems to have a high degree of internal "discipline" - or some might call this authoritarianism
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
As to which person(s) spend the most time with their hand on his shoulder, steering him, I could only speculate they/she/he are a DNC insider.
Since Jerry seems to think highly of the Miles Mathis website, let me combine some quotes from his http://mileswmathis.com/barindex2.pdf paper, from pages 54 & 53 - "JFK, Jr. is said to have died in 1999. Let’s look a bit more closely at that date. Is it a coincidence that all three Kennedys died on the eve of a Presidential election? Jack died just before the 1964 election, Bobby just before the 1968 election, and John just before the 2000 election. How old would Bobby have been in 1999, if he had lived? 74. That in itself is highly suggestive, since 1999 would be the expected time for a Prince to come to power. And that is just what happened. I propose that Bobby Kennedy died in hiding in 1999.

How much more simple and rational it is now that we see the truth. Many of us had wanted a King, a Camelot, and we have been granted that wish. The Lady of the Lake came up from Hollywood carrying the sword Excaliber, in the sheath of secrecy, and the Kennedys retreated to the confines of Avalon, ruling us from beneath the waves with a sorcery worthy of Merlin."

In other words, JFK Jr., who would now be 60 years old, has been the hidden ruler of America since his alleged "accident" in 1999, succeeding his Uncle Bobby. The Kennedys may be part of a secret ruling clique that includes the Rockefellers, but Kennedy is the "front man" behind the scenes (I think I just created a paradox), and is most certainly a Democrat (and a Roman Catholic like you), not that it really matters to these Elite.
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
The idea that Julius Caesar was such a strict homosexual that he never sired any children whatsoever, would surely be disputed by Ralph Ellis, who argues that Caesar was a direct ancestor of King Izas Manu, aka Jesus Christ.
It would also be disputed by John the Tribulation Watcher, who claims that Antichrist family member High Priest Caiaphas was the grandson of Julius Caesar. Apparently he draws this conclusion because he thinks the name "Caiaphas" could morph from the Roman "Caepio". Servilia Caepio was the mistress of Julius Caesar, with Caesar being rumored to be both the actual father of her son Brutus, and of her daughter Junia Tertia, who married Cassius. In other words, his "son" and "son-in-law" were the ringleaders of his own assassination! Of course, if his close Elite family were in on it, along with Caesar, the "assassination" could have been a staged event, anyway. Charles N. Pope has Julius Caesar actually going to the East, as he had publicly planned to, although under an alias, and becoming the "Great King of the World" behind the scenes. His son by Cleopatra, Caesarion, follows the same script, is not really killed, and succeeds him, followed by his own sons "Jesus" as Great King, and Vespasian as Roman Emperor, the "public" king. Thus we see Jesus as the male line grandson of Caesar in this scenario, similar to what Ralph Ellis describes, but with greater ramifications for our world.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
High Priest Caiaphas was the grandson of Julius Caesar. Apparently he draws this conclusion because he thinks the name "Caiaphas" could morph from the Roman "Caepio".
Does he say who he thinks was Caiaphus's father? If I'm understanding correctly, the 'official story' is that Caiaphas married into the priesthood, and nothing is known about his parents.

Servilia Caepio was the mistress of Julius Caesar, with Caesar being rumored to be both the actual father of her son Brutus, and of her daughter Junia Tertia, who married Cassius. In other words, his "son" and "son-in-law" were the ringleaders of his own assassination!
This possibility is discussed in an article by N.S. Gill, which traces the idea to Plutarch, about 110 AD.

Charles N. Pope has Julius Caesar actually going to the East, as he had publicly planned to, although under an alias, and becoming the "Great King of the World" behind the scenes. His son by Cleopatra, Caesarion, follows the same script, is not really killed, and succeeds him, followed by his own sons "Jesus" as Great King, and Vespasian as Roman Emperor, the "public" king. Thus we see Jesus as the male line grandson of Caesar in this scenario, similar to what Ralph Ellis describes, but with greater ramifications for our world.
By traditional dating, Caesarion would have been 47 years old when Jesus was born, and 56 at the birth of Vespasian. So, it's a long generation, but possible. Ellis traces Jesus back to Caesar along a maternal line, so he needs an extra generation. His proposal is that Caesar had a daughter with Cleopatra, known as Thea Muse Ourania, who was sent to Parthia where she married King Phraates IV. Their daughter was Helena, aka the Virgin Mary, who may also have been paired with Phraates IV when their son Jesus (Izates Manu) was born.

I was going to say that Pope's theory is not compatible with Ellis. But I suppose if Phraates IV was the same person as Caesarion, it all fits together, albeit with a crippling level of inbreeding.

All of these genealogies, if true, would be very close familial relationships indeed. An entirely different order of magnitude compared to many of us who can trace our relationship to Charlemagne through eight generations of commoners. Jesus was the secret heir to a royal fortune, as well as whatever knowledge passed directly from generation to generation of rulers.

Considering the 'official story' that Jesus was a commoner born in a manger, no wonder the whole story was covered up.

But, covered up successfully! Biblical Jesus is so heavily fictionalized, that any resemblance to Izates Manu has highly plausible deniability.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Does he say who he thinks was Caiaphus's father? If I'm understanding correctly, the 'official story' is that Caiaphas married into the priesthood, and nothing is known about his parents.
You're right Jerry, Caiaphas married into the High Priest line of Annas, and we don't know who his parents were. Using your search engine tip, I found this John quote (hope you like heraldic clues!), "I see it as very feasible that Julius Caesar gave one Junia Caepionis in marriage to the royal Cottians, and this may have been the Junia that furnished Joseph Caiaphas. The Cottian king, Cottius, had a son, Vestalis, and then Wessels/Wastells/GASTells happen to share the garbs of English Josephs and the Comine's. Suddenly, Vestalis becomes suspect from a Vis line of a Wassa-like kind." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottius
By traditional dating, Caesarion would have been 47 years old when Jesus was born, and 56 at the birth of Vespasian. So, it's a long generation, but possible.
Actually, Caesarion would have been 55 at the birth of Vespasian (you skip a year switching from BC to AD, there was no year "0"). Personally, I have no problem with this, as my Grandfather was 61 when my Father was born! ;) So I agree that it is possible. Yes, the average Roman lifespan was much shorter in those days, but Caesarion would not have been an "average" Roman. His cousin (also certainly not average) Augustus lived to the month before his 76th birthday.
Biblical Jesus is so heavily fictionalized, that any resemblance to Izates Manu has highly plausible deniability.
Just from memory, but I believe I was discussing this topic one time with Charles, and he finds it feasible that "Jesus" could have had an Eastern "Izates" identity.
albeit with a crippling level of inbreeding.
Yes, just like the Habsburgs, who could very well be of the male line of "Jesus", as has been alleged.
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
Considering the 'official story' that Jesus was a commoner born in a manger, no wonder the whole story was covered up.

But, covered up successfully! Biblical Jesus is so heavily fictionalized, that any resemblance to Izates Manu has highly plausible deniability.
Hold the phone! I know I had to step out for a minute, but are you telling me that I turned my back and now you subscribe to a historical Jesus of Nazareth (even if not actually from Nazareth)?

Yes, just like the Habsburgs, who could very well be of the male line of "Jesus", as has been alleged.
FWIW, the last "Roman" Emperor was a Habsburg, according to the Holy See

--------------------------------------------
Speaking to a general theme, when it comes to "the secret ruler of the world," I find myself far less interested in the "who" than in the "how." In school, we were taught that the President of the USA is the "leader of the free world," and therefore (presumably), the most powerful person in the world - maybe the most powerful person who ever lived. Any Catholic worth her rosary knows that the Blessed Virgin was the most powerful person who ever lived, however, and made so by her sinless nature. When someone else is proposed, I can't help but wonder at what is the presumed mechanism of power
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hold the phone! .... now you subscribe to a historical Jesus of Nazareth (even if not actually from Nazareth)?
Our position on "historical Jesus" hasn't changed. See Rick Stanley's thread "From Cleopatra to Christ" where we evaluated Ralph Ellis's view that Jesus was Izates Manu IV:

...how can Julius, Augustus, and Titus be Christ from some perspectives and Ellis's Izates be Christ from a different one? This is a common criticism, yet upon consideration it's actually pretty simple to solve.
The answer is that Jesus Christ (of Nazareth) is a literary fabrication, becoming an avatar for not just those specific Romans, but for the entire line of emperors and subsequently the popes. After all, for the latter, the popes are the Vicars of Christ, the 'substitutes' or 'stand-ins' for Christ (until he makes his second Second Coming (Futurist) that is).
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I just saw this posted, what do you think of it?
Strangely, I almost simultaneously received a similar prophecy, from a secular point of view. Mark Crispin Miller predicts that Biden will be falling shortly, because a diary written by his daughter Ashley has just been verified as genuine by the FBI and New York Times. The diary contains Ashley's allegations that she was sexually abused and emotionally manipulated by her father since the age of six.

My reaction: The diary was initially released in October 2020, and even without NYT and FBI confirmation, its provenance seemed credible. In spite of that, the scandalous contents made hardly any ripple. Joe Biden's basic creepiness has been pretty obvious since long before the election, and it hasn't made any difference up until now, so I don't see why this should suddenly become all-important.

The real reason this is making the news now, might be that the PTB are getting ready to make an example out of Project Veritas, in the same way as they've made examples of Assange and Snowden. The NYT article hardly mentioned the diary contents at all, and primarily reads as a hit piece against Project Veritas, who is allegedly being investigated for possible involvement in a burglary of Ashley Biden's personal items.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
the last "Roman" Emperor was a Habsburg, according to the Holy See
The last "Roman" Emperor, Francis II, who became Francis I, Emperor of Austria, was the great-great-grandfather, in turn, of the last Austrian Emperor, "Blessed Karl of Austria", who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 2004. His son Otto renounced all rights to the throne in 1961, in order to reenter Austria, and later relaxed the strict Habsburg dynastic marriage rules, in order for his oldest son and heir, Karl, to marry into a branch of the billionaire industrialist Thyssen family. This marriage ended in separation and divorce (I wonder what the Holy See thinks of that?), with their oldest daughter eventually marrying a now retired race car driver last year (bearing a son named Otto, named after her grandfather, this past October 20, the day before the feast day and wedding anniversary of her great-grandfather Blessed Karl of Austria), plus the son and heir Ferdinand Zvonimir is a race car driver himself.

In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Karl tested positive for the virus. Hapsburg self-isolated at home.[50] He was the first royal person and head of a royal house to contract the virus.[51] Karl von Habsburg was officially declared healthy after almost three weeks of quarantine. After his illness, Karl von Habsburg encouraged everyone to follow the official protective measures strictly, and asked survivors of the disease to donate blood plasma.[52]

As far as any royal Habsburg descendants having any real "power" in the world today, I would have to consider the billionaire banking owner of LGT, and Prince of Leichtenstein, Hans-Adam II, the first cousin, once removed, of Blessed Karl of Austria- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Adam_II,_Prince_of_Liechtenstein
 
Last edited:

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
The last "Roman" Emperor, Francis II, who became Francis I, Emperor of Austria, was the great-great-grandfather, in turn, of the last Austrian Emperor, "Blessed Karl of Austria", who was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 2004.
I was actually thinking of Karl's dad, Franz-Joseph, but apparently, I was wrong in saying that he was recognized as heir to the legitimate line of Roman imperium. In fact, even if my line of reasoning had traced back to the rights of the Holy Roman Empire, I couldn't even say he was the last to be not recognized, seeing as how that was Francisco "The Forgotten Fascist" Franco."

Our position on "historical Jesus" hasn't changed. See Rick Stanley's thread "From Cleopatra to Christ" where we evaluated Ralph Ellis's view that Jesus was Izates Manu IV:
O, to have another conversation asking him to clarify his more unstructured thoughts. But I also don't know that "just one more" conversation with him could have ever been enough :/

I'm reminded of a "listicle" begun on "Five Possible Identities for the Real Jesus." That could easily be a series, but I wonder if it really helps push the conversation in a productive direction. If I don't put out at least one, though, then I'm afraid I do an offense to my volunteer editors.

I'd love to see a chart - maybe even interactive - that has all the roots and how they are proposed to come together - by timeline - into the Jesus of the Gospels that we know today. I don't suppose anything like that exists, though?
 
Top