Domain of Man site by Charles N. Pope

Seeker

Well-Known Member
This thread is concerned with exploring the Domain of Man site by Charles N. Pope, who posits that humans have been ruled by what I call an Uber-Elite family, who used an incredible amount of aliases, locations, and faked deaths for their family members to control the rest of us, more far reaching than Ralph Ellis or Roman Piso, to give some examples of other authors of this genre. However, some of their conclusions, along with other authors discussed on Postflaviana (especially those dealing with Egyptian/Jewish interchangeability of persona) can also be partially synthesized with Pope (what an appropriate name!). These Uber-Elite were, above all, because of their incredible wealth, power, and mobility, as compared to the common people, actors who used the world as their stage, with the head of the family as the Great King of the World, and perhaps I should not use the past tense in describing them. Charles N. Pope also has a radically revised historical chronology, such as starting the 1st Egyptian Dynasty after an Extreme Climate Event in 1159 BC. You can personally contact Charles N. Pope, it worked for me, and here is the homepage of his website for any interested readers, because I cannot even begin to scratch the surface of Pope's incredible saga of hidden human history through the ages :

http://www.domainofman.com/

A partial explanation by Charles N. Pope on the origins of this Uber-Elite family:

"Sargon was not the first ruler of the ancient world to have been hidden in a swamp as a child from an older rival. The original source for this motif was the infant Horus, hidden from Seth in a papyrus thicket of the Egyptian Delta by his mother Isis. The great surprise of Archaeology & the Patriarchs is that both Sargon and the Biblical Moses shared a common ancestry. They represented different branches of the same royal family, which through Noah (Mesopotamian Utnapishtim) had genealogical ties to the legendary god-kings. This first royal family was not exclusively native to Egypt or Mesopotamia, but an international ruling elite."

Below is Pope's Chart Comparing Early Patriarchs with Ancient KIng-Lists:

http://www.domainofman.com/book/pdf/chart-02.pdf
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Is Charles N. Pope just stating in another way what Tupper Saussy proposed about "reconciliation" with the NWO in his "Rulers of Evil"? :

"Mankind is adaptable if nothing else. Mankind must adapt to this messed up situation of asteroids, comets, rogue planets, etc., etc. Kingship was a response to our planetary hell. Democracy is probably just a bad idea, and it is debatable whether a functional democracy ever existed on any large scale anyway. Maybe the solution is just a new and improved "system of kingship". One that allows technological progress and a modicum of individual freedom, and has a more humane form of population control than constant war gaming. It's time for us all to face reality before reality erases all of us. It's time to get on the NWO bus, or get thrown under it. We can't stop the NWO, we can only hope to frame its constitution."
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Can Sisyphus get a lollypop?

If mankind is so adaptable, why can't mankind adapt a democratic constitution that is rigged from the beginning for the literal and figurative slaveholders? Instead, the 'Murcans' literally consider their Constitution as a divine instrument, while their fake opposition abet them in this conceit. What happens if we make the fifth columns do all of the work for Sisyphus, and let him enjoy his lollypop?
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Could it be that "mankind" is somewhat complacent as well as adaptable, and considers his "lollypops" to be his Social Security, Medicare, pension, 401k, etc. ?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Here's the source of that quote from Charles N. Pope:

http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=7.0

I think he's being ironic and hoping somebody will argue with him. Just before that he says: "I wish the neo-Tea Party well, and might even join them, but resistance to the New World Order now appears to be futile." I don't think he's really meaning to endorse the NWO or Royalism in any way, he's just fatalistic about the chances for a better system.

Pope's studies are anchored in David Rohl's system of New Chronology, which we've discussed in this thread:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/patterns-of-evidence-exodus.1644/

And I've been impressed by Pope's demonstration of abundant parallels between the Hebrew kings David and Solomon, and their apparent Egyptian dopplegangers: Theban 18th dynasty pharaohs Thutmose III and Amenhotep III, respectively. See:

http://www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/david.html

http://www.domainofman.com/ankhemmaat/solomon.html
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
he hasn't had somebody to argue with him over this since 2010.
Are we arguing? Who is more fatalistic about the chances for a better system, than we are? Sigh....

The forum at Pope's site has been closed to new members, and pretty much dormant, since 2011. See:

http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?topic=74.0

Whereas, as fatalistic as we might be, we're still open for business, at least as of today.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
I was just recently in contact with Charles N. Pope, and he graciously sent me his latest information, including a revised PDF of his now entitled "How to Read Shakespeare Like a Royal", and he also allowed me to share and expand upon all of these revelations. When I asked him if he thought that since the time of "Shakespeare", could the heir to the Habsburg dynasty be considered the de jure "Great King of the World" today, he replied as follows:


"There were no paparazzi in those days, and anyone that understood the "business of names" was a part of the royal culture and could not reveal it. Who would have believed them anyway!

I meant to point you to the Epilogue of the Shakespeare book. That is where I outlined the associations beyond the Shakespeare Age.

With the rise of the Stewart dynasty, the Habsburg line became collateral. So, I don't think that a presumed heir of the Habsburg line would have any claim as head of the larger royal family, per se. The Stewart line may have continued to refresh the Habsburg line (ala Francis Stephen), but the Stewart/Bourbon itself rapidly morphed into the Hanover/Bourbon dynasty and then into the Hoenzollern.

It was a junior/cadet branch of the Hoenzollern that also gave us the Rothchild dynasty.

Prince Louis Charles of Prussia (5 November 1773 – 28 December 1796), second son of Frederick William II King of Prussia.

Baron Amschel Mayer von Rothschild (12 June 1773 – 6 December 1855)


With the fall of so many royal houses in the last century, the Rothchild banking dynasty came to the forefront. They had intermarried in the same fashion as any other royal line and are for all practical purposes a royal line.

I'm no expert on modern royal standing issues. Familiarity has bred contempt for me. When you realize what they were actually doing, it takes the glamor out of genealogy research!

I can only guess that the heads of the top families do communicate about mutual interests and still use their wealth and influence to shape current affairs and government policies. I call it the "Ouija Board" effect. But, the notion of a Great King or Queen is probably considered passé even by them. For better or for worse, we have moved on to the ("Shell") Corporate Dynasty phase of human development."
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
There is little point in the narrative of the "return of the King" if there are abundant kings about, themselves with an obvious king of kings. Right now a real king of kings is an admitted (by his title) a substitute, i.e. a vicar. Therefore, the unfolding of history they control must necessarily have a period in which the kings and queens are de-graded, or 'submerged' as Jerry phrased it some time ago. Only then, can a new king of kings emerge, like a jack-in-the-box, to save global humanity from itself. Isn't this where we are heading on the global stage, the Globe Theater?

Pope's idea that the Roman elites are just the Ptolemid Greeks is indeed very interesting. As modus operandi it fits in with my notion of the Normans being at least one branch of the same Romans, and of De Vere's claim that they are the real 'players' of the Bible, etc., etc..

The following is consistent with De Vere's thesis, except for the blue eyes, of course:

771

The above taken from the following, which is interesting in the explanation for the 'pollen bags' and the explanation of how the wasp (vespa - Vespasian) is symbiotic with figs and dates. Thus another complementary explanation for Jesus and the barren fig tree. The Roman 'wasp' had not done Jesus good.

 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
There is little point in the narrative of the "return of the King" if there are abundant kings about, themselves with an obvious king of kings. Right now a real king of kings is an admitted (by his title) a substitute, i.e. a vicar. Therefore, the unfolding of history they control must necessarily have a period in which the kings and queens are de-graded, or 'submerged' as Jerry phrased it some time ago. Only then, can a new king of kings emerge, like a jack-in-the-box, to save global humanity from itself. Isn't this where we are heading on the global stage, the Globe Theater?

Pope's idea that the Roman elites are just the Ptolemid Greeks is indeed very interesting. As modus operandi it fits in with my notion of the Normans being at least one branch of the same Romans, and of De Vere's claim that they are the real 'players' of the Bible, etc., etc..
Thank You, Richard, that certainly makes sense and is "logical", Mr. Spock (er, excuse me, Mr. Stanley). I had also asked Charles Pope (appropriate name!) about Norman and Plantagenet origins and he replied thus:

"I did some very high level work on the Roman and Byzantine Periods, but nothing that really approached a true genealogy. It was mainly connecting the dots between the primary royal court and the satellite courts. (For example, I traced such things as how the Angevin/Plantagenets were related to the Byzantine royal family, and how William the Conqueror ended his career as Byzantine Emperor. The principles are of course still the same. In other words, the degree of inbreeding remained constant, but was disguised to varying degrees depending upon public tolerance of it.

Unfortunately, we don't have the equivalent of the Bible or the Shakespeare Plays for every Era!"

From my reading of his "Shakespeare" (like a royal) and his other postings, I am gathering Pope believes that the Byzantine Roman Emperors were a genealogical continuation of the Western Roman Emperors, and that a 10th/11th century branch of them morphed into the Italian and English Norman invaders, the latter to be succeeded by the Angevins/Plantagenets, who created and had alternate identities as Habsburgs in Europe ("officially", we have hints of this, as for example Habsburg ruler Philip II, married to Tudor Queen and Plantagenet granddaughter Mary I, was "jure uxoris" King of England).
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
With the fall of so many royal houses in the last century, the Rothchild banking dynasty came to the forefront. They had intermarried in the same fashion as any other royal line and are for all practical purposes a royal line.
Suppose Hitler really was a "royal" Rothschild, carrying on the Elite family line "underground", or "submerged", as you said Jerry phrased it (below)?

there is little point in the narrative of the "return of the King" if there are abundant kings about, themselves with an obvious king of kings. Right now a real king of kings is an admitted (by his title) a substitute, i.e. a vicar. Therefore, the unfolding of history they control must necessarily have a period in which the kings and queens are de-graded, or 'submerged' as Jerry phrased it some time ago. Only then, can a new king of kings emerge, like a jack-in-the-box, to save global humanity from itself. Isn't this where we are heading on the global stage
The following is on several "occult knowledge" sites, and I have no idea who or what the "Redemptionists" are, but: "The Redemptionists believe that Hitler traveled to the moon in 1954 and met with aliens from Aldebaran, 68 light-years from Earth. The aliens brought Adolf back to Aldebaran with them. But he will come again in the flagship of a vast Aldebarani space armada, to "redeem" Earth. Sort of like a Cosmic Douglas MacArthur."

Or like "Space Jesus" with his "angels"? Just as it does not have to be really "Space Jesus" and his "angels", of course it does not have to really be "Hitler" with his "Aldebarani aliens", either, as long as the Elite put on a good show for Planet Earth, and then, "game over"?

https://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/archive/painting-the-standard-bearer/
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Well, Hitler was made out to be a messiah for the Germans, as I discussed in this thread. And as I've discussed in another, his military approach was doomed to fail, as was whoever launched the revolt in Palestine against the Romans. And many Nazis still revere him as such.

Just last night I watched the following about how 'ignorant' (doomed to fail again?) his economic justification for his war case was:


As discussed in the video, one has to wonder why most regurgitate Hitler's justification rationale as gospel. Is it really that he was a blithering idiot, or was a messianic puppet doomed to fail?
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Most unexpectedly, I just received an email from Charles N. Pope. On his own (I did not ask him), he most generously compiled a genealogy chart for me showing his version of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, in others words, "From Cleopatra to Christ", Pope style. I shall let Charles explain this, as he did to me, and then show the chart after that:

"I went ahead and prepared a similar diagram for the Julio-Claudian dynasty (My Note: Charles had made an earlier chart, showing relationships between the Plantagenets and the Habsburg dynasty, which he has the Plantagenets creating for themselves, as alternate identities). It's not quite as messy, but still makes my head spin. It starts with just two males (Antony and Caesar) and two females (Berenice IV and Cleopatra VII) and ends in a tangled web (haha)!

In that chart, the various royal women are given multiple names, which allows them and their offspring to assume many roles and appear to be a much larger group than they really were. For example, one of Julia the Elder's identities was as Bernice of Jerusalem. Her children are called Herod (of Chalcis), Aristobulus (II), Agrippa and the infamous Herodias. These correspond to Julia's children in Rome, namely Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar and Julia the Younger. Agrippa corresponds to Agrippa Posthumous, better known to us as Claudius. So, it is actually the Herodian genealogy that helps clarify the true parentage of the future Emperor. His mother was not Antonia Minor as commonly held, but the higher ranking Julia the Elder. And, this also explains why his status was sufficient to become the first Herod Agrippa and subsequently Emperor of Rome (despite his disabilities). My Note: This would also help to explain the exalted status of the de Veres, if they truly descend from Roman Emperor Claudius, as Nicholas de Vere stated.

Another one of Julia the Elder's Herodian aliases appears to have been Salampsio. As such, her three sons are instead called Antipater (II), Herod (III) and Alexander.

Of course, it can't be proven what the exact family relationship were, and that was never my intention (and why I haven't previously bothered with constructing genealogies). In fact, I never considered it possible to determine with any confidence. But, we are now getting enough insight into royal culture to make very good predictions!"

http://www.domainofman.com/A Julio-Claudian Genealogy.pdf
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Pope's take on Izates: "If I recall correctly, Izates was simply a name of Jesus (Herodian Aristobulus and Roman (Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus). Ralph Ellis wrote an entire book about this, which I always meant to read it, but never got around to it. And Robert Eisenman also published research on Edessa and Abiabene."
 

Tyrone McCloskey

Active Member
Just logging in to make sure I'm still connected. The Hitler video bugs me. Forgive me if I keep insisting Hitler is a literary conceit. A fictional character concocted by German and British intelligence, essayed by many actors. He had no agenda. This was an image. A trope. The bankers and the owners of said banks and the bloodlines rule. Pope, Charles. For example. Yes, it will take some time for those tropes to dissolve- Today Germany, tomorrow The World! Right. But the details of the economic "recovery" are the foundation of the Hitler as real person myth, initially. His manufactured "evil" to get the disinterested involved in the manufactured war was a continuation of the op. Like people coming out of hypnotherapy thinking their new found tranquility validates whatever they said unconsciously was "real"- John Mack, I'm looking at you- the idea that Hitler pulled the German economy out of a tailspin proves he was real is just as bogus. M. Norman and Horace Greely Shat and the stock markets did that, not some low birth actor(s) that look like the local butcher with a Chaplinesque mustache. Like nukes, Hitler the sage will be hard to expel. Applying common sense is new to consensus "history" but it is worth taking these tropes for a spin with the real sixth sense. I thank you.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Charles N. Pope appears to be corresponding with me regularly now, here are some of his comments concerning authors that we are familiar with here:

"I have exchanged a few emails with Ralph (Ellis) over the years. We were both inspired by the books of Ahmed Osman. Osman, like Eisenman, sought to find Jesus (James, Paul, etc.) within the framework of royal culture. At some point, I made the leap of realizing that Jesus and Biblical figures in general, simply were the essence of royal culture, i.e., were not minor persons connected to the royal court, but the most significant ones! Ancient history glorified the "dynastic winners." That has completely opened things up. It would have been impossible to trace the "messianic line" through Ptolemaic times into the Roman without having that principle in mind.
Joe (Atwill) had many thrilling insights on the writing of Josephus, but just wasn't interested in expanding his thesis. It was also Joe that got me interested in researching Shakespeare!"
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Just logging in to make sure I'm still connected. The Hitler video bugs me. Forgive me if I keep insisting Hitler is a literary conceit. A fictional character concocted by German and British intelligence, essayed by many actors. He had no agenda. This was an image. A trope. The bankers and the owners of said banks and the bloodlines rule.
Hi Tyrone, good to know you're still around.

As has happened once before, I'm not sure if you are arguing with me or not, but I think you are agreeing with me.

In any case, as my general thesis on other threads regarding Hitler is indeed that he (the guy that shows up in the video and speeches) was indeed a puppet of those same you mention. Because I frequently employ others' work product, I don't always explicitly provide caveats to everything like this. In that specific case, the value to me was in the analysis that the economic rationalization for war made no sense, identically to the military plan. In this regard it matters not who originated the ideas, but I do recognize the confusion it can create with especially passerby readers when I don't qualify such things.

.. Hitler the sage will be hard to expel.
Yes, like gospel Jesus. And with Hitler the 'sage messiah/devil' he was 'created' in real time with the help of the mass media of the day. No need to wait several generations to build the mythos.

BTW, I should have posted that stuff on another apropos page and then linked to it from here.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hello Tyrone, thanks for your comments & support. It seems that we are very much in agreement about the big picture, while perhaps you are even more radically skeptical than ourselves. To wit:

Forgive me if I keep insisting Hitler is a literary conceit. A fictional character concocted by German and British intelligence, essayed by many actors.
This might be true, but I have to ask whether there is any evidence specifically to this effect. That is, what reason do we have to believe that there were multiple actors appearing as Hitler in different venues?

It seems to me that the whole sham would be easier to manage if there was only one 'actor' playing the part of Hitler. Better still, if that person was convinced of his own importance, and didn't understand that he was playing the role of a pawn. A scheme involving multiple actors, each of whom would have been personally aware of the scam, would have been at great risk of a 'wardrobe malfunction'. That is, a moment at which the naked truth would have been unveiled.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Either my eyes and/or my brain skipped over Tyrone's re-mentioning the multiple Hitler scenario. Sorry about that.

While I tend to favor the single H approach, I'm open to the other. Certainly we know that body doubles have been used before, and the H copy(ies) in this case would likely need to have been for mostly visual purposes, albeit that if one H could be trained in hypnotic oratory then maybe others could too.

Also, if WWII was indeed part of a bigger plan of the hidden hand, then what would happen if H had a fatal or debilitating accident or disease before a critical 'stage'? In this case redundancy is mandated, especially given the massive, dualistic christic/antichristic construction around H. There was the H bombing at the bunker meeting that He 'miraculously survived'.
 
Top