Considering all that has been published here concerning the concept of the actor based reality, an immediate thought occured to the author: can we therefore thoroughly rely on any account recorded as accepted history, or is the nature of history thoroughly subjective, open to radical interpretation?

One has a confession to make.

As some loyal readers may by now have surmised, the author has always harbored an affinity for history. From the time of one’s earliest memories, the epic stories of larger than life characters discovered in history books, whether infamous or benevolent, completely enraptured one’s imagination.

The story of the Battle of Hastings in 1066 contains all the elements utilized to hook the human mind’s fascination for intriguing and even salacious details – sex, romance, political intrigue, and epic displays of confrontational violence – all the elements of a well scripted and epic Hollywood melodrama.

Additionally, the story of the Battle of Hastings seemed comparable to those indelible stories encountered upon the pages of great literature, a wondrous tale inhabited by vividly drawn characters, filled with colorful glimpses of not only what it may have been like to experience another time and place, but perhaps even deeper and dramatic insights into human nature.

However, as impressionable youth advanced into adulthood, one began to increasingly contemplate: did any of these historical accounts, no matter how engaging, truly reflect an objective rendering of the truth?

Or, generally speaking, were the established accounts of human history, and specifically of the Battle of Hastings, merely a consensus of conspitratorial lies among those in positions of so-called authority and those belonging to reputations of scholarly renown?

Better still, are history’s tales of warriors, kings, and nobles maneuvering for power while fighting on blood soaked battlefields merely romantic, fabricated cover stories concealing a deeper truth?

Time and again, like some magical talisman, the Battle of Hastings in 1066, an event most historical scholars agree forever changed the course of European history, has stirred one’s imaginative fascination.

And yet, the details of this event, and the political entanglements that brought it about have always seemed contradictory and even confusing, if not at times thoroughly opaque, as if the truth had been deliberately painted over with a broad and dark mythological brush.

More fascinating still, recent examination of this grandly drawn historical event has further revealed that, not unlike latter day events of similar magnitude, it’s chronicled details display similiar numerolgical coding and esoteric symbolism.

Harold Godwinson

“History is an account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools.”

That is a quote from Ambrose Bierce, American man of letters and Civil War veteran, concerning the nature of the official accounts recorded as history.

Unfortunately, concerning the Battle of Hastings, on October 14, 1066 (gematria sum=37/3 7’s/777 code), there seems to exist no reliable or surviving first hand accounts of what truly occurred other than the surviving and alleged testimonies written on behalf of the battlefield victor, the man subsequently crowned king, William I of Normandy, or William “the Conqueror” as he is more popularly known. Details of the decisive battle that changed the course of English and continental European history are, to this day, still widely disputed by scholarly historians and their conclusions are largely derived from historical speculation.

And yet, what few details historians do seem to have agreed upon regarding the story of what lead to one of history’s most famous events, reveal a dying and childless king, Edward the Confessor, and his feud with a powerful family of Anglo-Saxon landholders – the Godwins.

Historians are now developing a consensus that the perilous political dispute between Edward, England’s sitting monarch and the Godwins, this powerful family of half-Viking nobles, may have been deliberately instigated by one of the king’s most trusted advisors, someone Edward had chose to bring over from Normandy upon his triumphant return to England from brief exile in Normandy, France – the unscrupulous Robert of Jumierges.

From the beginning portion of the video displyed above, there is the following testimony from Professor Alfred P. Smythe of Canterbury Christ Church University, regarding Edward the Confessor’s closest advisor, confidant, and one of Anglo-Saxon England’s first continental Norman churchmen, Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert of Jumierges:

“It is said by a chronicler that Robert of Jumierges had such a hold over Edward the Confessor, that he could point to a crow and say that crow is white and Edward would believe him. This guy was a schemer and a politician.”

Smythe goes onto reveal during the same video segment, he is of the firm opinion that it was indeed the covert maneuvering of Robert of Jumierges served to further fan the flames of discord between Edward and the Godwins.

Does this method of psychological operation – order out of chaos/divide and conquer- sound familiar folks? Like the method of operation utilized by the the Jesuits – maybe?

Historical parallels can be drawn in helping to further define the sort of dynamic relationship that may have existed between King Edward and Robert – resembling the sort of relationship as that historically depicted between Queen Elizabeth I and her Privy Councilor Sir John Dee, Otto von Bismarck and Wilhelm I, or in more modern times, between that of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, LBJ and Secretary of State Robert McNamara, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld – someone upon whom a leader could rely in helping to make executive decisions regarding the effective management of day to day governance.

In retrospect, however, it becomes clearly evident Robert of Jumierges, the Norman churchman, harbored ulterior political motives in attempting to draw a wedge between the powerful Godwin family and King Edward. Eliminating the political influence of the Godwin’s would clear the way for William of Normandy’s unmolested succession to the throne of Anglo-Saxon England in the wake of Edward the Confessor’s death, whose marriage to the Earl of Godwin’s daughter, the sole sister of Harold the heir apparent, had failed to produce a male heir.

Furthermore, this is where greater degrees of historical inconsistencies come into play.

Other scholarly historical sources downplay the all-encompassing political influence the Archbishop of Canterbury held over the king.

As one shall observe, even before the Battle of Hastings commences, there are contradictions regarding characteristics of some of the major figures who may have contributed to causing the political strife and the violent struggle for monarchial succession leading up to the epic Battle of Hastings, figures such as Canterbury’s Archbishop, Robert of Jumierges.

While Professor Smythe may claim Robert of Jumierges was an effective political schemer, sources such as Wikipedia claim otherwise:

“Several medieval chroniclers, including the author of the Life of Saint Edward, felt that the blame for Edward and Godwin’s conflict in 1051-1052 lay squarely with Robert, modern historians tend to see Robert as an ambitious man with little political skill.”

Nonetheless, before his death in 1053, Robert managed to convince Edward to exile two of Earl Godwin’s troublesome sons, Tostig and Swein. Apparently, Tostig, who was gifted lordship over lands in the region of East Anglia, quickly acquired the bad reputation as a drunken wastrel and a psychopathic bully, and had thus grown unpopular, while Swein, the would be King Harold’s other brother, was reputed to be a sex maniac who allegedly kidnapped and enslaved a nun into prostitution.

Given the testimony of Professor Smythe, one could conceivably imagine these rumors of gross misbehavior on the part of Godwin’s sons were either exaggerated or outrightly concocted for the benefit of Edward the Confessor by Canterbury’s scheming Archbishop.

In consideration of scholarly counter claims regarding the lack of Archbishop Robert’s political savvy, further evidence suggests Robert was not acting on behalf of Edward, but rather as a sworn, loyal agent of Papal Rome.

Scholarly documentation more than suggests that long before the Battle of Hastings is alleged to have taken place in 1066, that Pope Alexander II, utilizing Canterbury’s Archbishop Robert of Jumierges as a proxy agent provocateur, coveted the land in Southern England and other fiefdoms held by Earl Godwin and his sons not only for himself, but as a rich and future revenue source for the church.

In light of this, it is quite possible William, Duke of Normandy’s ascension to the throne of England was a fait accompli long before the first alleged blows of battle were struck at Hastings in 1066 (13, summit of masonic pyramid).

Is it truly possible, that Norman Duke William’s one remaining rival for England’s throne after the exile of Tostig and Swein, Harold Godwinson was simply assassinated, or even paid off and like his two brothers, exiled to another kingdom secretly ruled over by Papal Rome?

Could it be, that much like the famous Bayeux Tapestry immortilized the famous battle, tales of King Harold’s tragic chivalry and epic clashes of arms at Hastings were created after the fact and as psychological tools designed to effectively establish William’s fearful reputation as a ruthless conqueror among the people over which he would hold royal dominion on behalf of the Pope in Rome?

The following gematria derived from Wikipedia and esoteric symbolism drawn from the universally agreed account of Harold Godwinson’s death upon the bloody battlefield of Hastings at the hands of Duke William’s archers seems to bear out the aforementioned historical hypothesis.

Papal Mercenaries

The official historical account of events leading up to the decisive battle at Hastings begins with Harold Godwinson defending England from Welsh tribal raiders with what were then considered innovative guerilla tactics rather than the standard military procedure of utilizing pitched infantry and cavalry.

Shortly thereafter, his exiled brother Tostig, in a bold bid to regain his lost Anglo-Saxon fiefdoms, aligned himself with Harald Hardrada of Norway, who defeated a contingent of English troops on September 20, 1066 (9/20=2 9’s/66/esoteric mirror reversal or 12/21/777) before advancing to Stamford Bridge near London where they were in turn allegedly defeated and killed five days later on the 25th (3/double e=33/high degree Scottish Rite Freemasonry/9/25=34/7/Zayin/Kabbalah mind weapon) by Harold and his forces. Historians also claim that before facing down the Welsh and his aggrieved brother, Harold had made a pilgrammage to Normandy, where he allegedly swore an oath of allegiance to serve Duke William upon pain of death, which it is further claimed, he broke once returning to England to accept the crown at Westminster Abbey (still other historians claim Harold swore his oath to William while under duress and after being taken prisoner).

Per Wikipedia, and confirmed by various other scholarly, official historical accounts, on that fateful day of October 14, Harold assembled his battle hardened but weary troops 7 miles and 11 kilometers (77/angelic transformation) Northwest of East Sussex, and with their backs defending the castle walls (walls/bricks/Freemasonry) on a hillock’s enbankment near Hastings, faced a battle line of William’s mercenary troops. Before delving into an analysis of the famous battle, it is necessary to divulge further facts not generally found in official history texts regarding the true nature of the Norman Duke that would become known to posterity as the “conqueror.”

Turns out folks, like our old friend Robert, Edward the Confessor’s Archbishop of Canterbury, William was a military agent of Papal Rome, and his troops were hired, professional mercenaries, or security contractors much like those employed by the US corporate government to secure the lucrative commercial interests and bountiful natural resources of Iraq and Afghanistan. During the medieval era, the collection of tithes, or taxes from Papal lands governed by nobles who had sworn loyalty to Rome were a major source of revenue for the church, as well a surefire method of securing its temporal and spiritual hegemony over European kingdoms and fiefdoms.

When it became apparent Harold Godwinson had broken his oath to support Duke William’s claim to the English throne, it fell upon two powerful Papal representatives, Prior Lanfranc of the Abbey of Bec, and Archdeacon Hildebrand, to represent the true political power behind the Papal throne, and ensure these taxes and tithes, called Peter’s Pence, were safely and securely collected on behalf of Rome. This they could only perform successfully if backed by the terrifyimg swords of Duke William.

It was Lanfranc and Hildebrand who had most likely conspired with Robert of Jumierges on behalf of Pope Alexander II to influence Edward the Confessor with stories of misdeeds on the part of Earl Godwin’s sons, since it was they as feudal lords committed the cardinal sin of refusing to pay tribute to Rome.

Within this context, it becomes clear that much like the US military today, working at the behest of the Jesuit controlled Roman papacy as the world’s policeman, Duke William served an identical purpose during the early medieval historical period. You see folks, nothing has changed since 1066 – the world still functions on the concept of commerce, and Rome, along with London’s Crown Temple, has always been the central hub of global finance and commerce, using religion as both a disguise and a grand psychological ploy of political, social, and cultural manipulation.

Per several historical sources, it was Archdeacon Hildebrand who swayed Rome’s college of cardinals to unanimously support Duke William’s English succession, and gained papal approval for the noblewoman who would become his queen, Matilda. This, in turn, persuaded what amounted to almost unanimous support for Normandy’s Duke William from among the other continental noble families of aristocratic Europe.

And all of this, was accomplished long before the first blows were struck at Hastings.

The Epic Battle Begins

Historians agree that the first clash between the forces of Duke William and those of the newly crowned Anglo-Saxon king, Harold Godwinson occured at 9 AM (9/Satan’s number/6 flipped in duality’s mirror=33). Per Wikipedia, although the following figures cannot be historically confirmed, the respective forces of opposition numbered between 7 and 12, 000 for William (4 7’s or 88/symbolic of Freemasonic, Jesuit black sun/occult divination) while Harold had assembled between 5 and 13,000 troops (18 or 666) with which to fend off the determined invaders.

Although weary from previous battles, Harold’s troops held the crest of the hill, eventually repulsing the initial assault from Duke William’s professional mercenaries. Amid the confusion of the Norman force’s hasty retreat, it is claimed rumors of Duke William’s death quickly spread. Allegedly heartened by this bit of good fortune, Harold’s troops broke ranks and gave an equally hasty pursuit.

One does not have to be a graduate of West Point to understand that dividing one’s forces during the heat of battle is a risky, if not perilous gamble. Why however, having proved himself an able military commander, would Harold opt to make such a potentially blunderous decision with the Norman invaders on the run from the field of battle?

Certainly, wouldn’t it have been more advantageous to bide one’s time and fortify one’s stronghold position with fresh reserves, armaments and supplies, especially given that Harold’s frontline troops were already so weary from previous battles? Perilously, however, and having apparently bought into the rumors of William’s death, Harold dashed forth to vanquish the scattering Norman forces.

Dramatically, so historians claim, and just before dusk, William tore off his chain mail face plate, and thus proving he had not yet fallen, exhorted his reserve archers to attack. It was then, Harold was struck through the right eye with a single arrow and killed (covering of right eye/symbolic of one eyed god/Lucifer, the sun/secret Jesuit object of worship/arrow/symbolic of belomancy or occult divination).

The vanquished Harold’s battle weary troops soon began to falter, and with their battle lines substantially thinned by the accurate slings plucked from the bows of William’s archers, the remainder became easy pickings for the subsequent charge from Duke William’s merciless cavalry. As dusk fell over the piles of bloody and rancid corpses, William declared victory, and was officially crowned England’s annointed monarch on Christmas (12/25=37 or 3 7’s/777) of 1066.

Problematic in all of this, other than the historical inconsistencies, contradictions, occult symbolism, and numerological markers, is why, given the Duke appeared to hold all the necessary political cards, and the fact William’s ascension was unanimously sanctioned by Europe’s nobles and the Pope in Rome, would he choose to gamble in expending enormous resources – both human and financial – bothering to attack such a battle hardened and formidable opponent in Harold Godwinson rather than diplomatically choosing to negotiate?

Like today, the undertaking of prosecuting war was an expensive and potentially ruinous proposition, one that certainly in William’s case risked bankrupting not only the coffers of his ducal estates, but risked disgraceful defeat and death at the hands of Harold, who was demonstrated to be a fierce warrior.

Given that historians claim Duke William was both a sly and calculating politician, is it not more likely from the standpoint of objective historical analysis, William’s presence at Hastings represented mere diplomatic formality?Was his meeting with Harold for the express purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of a deal for the crown rather than prosecuting warring hostilities?

Alas, folks, the dry recording of legal negotiations isn’t sexy, and doesn’t sell public school history books. However, epic, romantic and bloodily violent stories filled with larger than life characters keeps the printing presses working overtime.

But after all, with the vast wealth of Papal Rome supporting William, could he not have simply paid Harold a princely and sizable ransom to abdicate, rather than foolishly expending his own resources?

Surely, as a resourceful and clever man, William understood the rudiments of cost – benefit analysis?

Could it be, the marvellously epic stories of William’s triumphant battle at Hastings are just that – stories?

The Bayeux Tapestries

And then, there remain questions as to the validity of the Bayeux Tapestries, alleged to be the only true visual historical record of the famous Battle of Hastings. First referenced from 1746 and listed on the inventory of the Bayeux Cathedral, there are growing murmurs among historians and the public alike that this embroidered cloth nearly 70 meters long (7, Zayin the Kabbalah mind weapon/23 ft./2 3’s/33) and 50 centimeters tall (20 inches/5+2=7/the mind weapon again) that is thought to be from the 11th century (11/masonic pillars of Boaz and Jachin) within a few years of the Battle of Hastings may be nothing more than an example of medieval propaganda: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/france-may-be-sending-us-a-tapestry-of-lies-n3jcp7x6w

Although it has always been believed the tapestry accurately depicts Harold’s demise upon the battlefield, historians admit there is no discernable method available that could definitively determine his identity. Historical accounts also admit, though stating infatically there can be no doubt Harold Godwinson met his demise on the date in question, his body was never reported as having been recovered, and the subject of his burial at Waltham Abbey has now become a subject of growing debate.

Perhaps folks, Ambrose Bierce, the old veteran from America’s alleged Civil War was onto something?

The real legacy of the Battle of Hastings was the expansion of Papal hegemony over England and that of continental Europe, allowing later for the establishment of a centralizing, Pan-European banking and legal institution that came to be known as the Crown Temple.

But, one is willing to bet the entire inventory of golden riches hidden in the bowels of the Vatican, such facts will never be deemed sexy or romantic enough to be published within the pages of public school and university historical texts.

 

 

 

 

 

One thought on “History and the lies agreed upon

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s