So we have a framework for the cells of adepts and elites that is evident in many places. Why do historians say we do not know how Rome was founded, or why dont they admit the British (Bruttii) founded it? We see Lucius Brutus is called legendary but probably real by Britannica; but perhaps there is need for me to provide some other sources that are not trying to sell my conspiracy theory of history as some do call it. Here are a few words from the U of T professor emeritus who wrote Rulers and Ruled, recently. The first paper appeared in the Independent Journal on 27 October 1787 and was signed Publius, a signature that all subsequent articles bore, for authorship was secret. Publius, the collective pseudonym employed by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, ultimately produced some 175,000 words in defence of the new federal Constitution. Hamilton chose the pseudonym for what it represented in the history of Rome. Publius Valerius was a Roman hero celebrated for establishing a stable republican government in Rome after Lucius Brutus overthrew Tarquin, the last king of Rome. Plutarch describes Publius as a great lawgiver whose achievements for Rome were equivalent to those of Solon for Greece. (4) This professor is probably from the same intellectual tradition that Marshall McLuhan was to some extent. They both were professors at the U of Toronto. McLuhans recent biographer says McLuhan knew about the secret societies like the Lodges and was not able to write about them freely; as he said if I had control of the media for 15 years I would control the whole of the state. Perhaps his showing the intellectual through-line of Solon to Publius to the Federalists is not the same kind of thing we are talking about in these elite families that the family of Solon and Plato are definitely part and parcel of. If he does not know it and I can not prove it, that does not mean it is not the actual facts of our situation as the Ruled by his Rulers. Consider these things (just a few of the thousand or more, I could demonstrate) that do connect the Semites or Merovingian/Benjaminites from mythos and the ethos of The David part of the Bees who are kin of The Bruce or Bruttii. 1) Plato was said to be immaculately conceived before Jesus. 2) Sargon the Great (2350 BC, a Phoenician whose ancestor Hammurabi codified the chattel status of women) was said to have been born in the bulrushes before Moses who founded the House of David or Judah. 3) The Father of Biblical Archaeology (W. F. Albright) says the Bible is a Phoenician literary legacy. 4) Platos hierarchy is the dominant intellectual thought upon which our top down Machiavellian and Hobbesian ONE PIE paradigm is founded. 5) Rome and the family of Constantine (despite the probability that Constantine the Great wanted to manufacture for himself a more impressive genealogy (5), it would not surprise me if he was an illegitimately conceived offspring of the BEES) who ruled Britain and Rome at the point of expansion of the Holy Roman Empire to replace the republic of Rome, which had to share power with the citizenry, utilized the work of Jesus from the same family to create a theocratic/secular alliance. It is called the Holy Alliance in 1822 at Verona. 6) The Vatican Luciferians (written about by the Vatican Professor Malachi Martin) and the Masonic Luciferians like Pike are manipulating the two arms of social engineering called religion and national sovereignty long before and after the Divine Right of Kings. 7) Valerian is a Roman emperor/consul lineage from 253 60 BC and he has a very similar name to the Valerius mentioned above. That name is Publius Lucinius Valerianus. Is the middle name of all these Bruttii related to being Luciferian light-bringers? 8) Many Danubian emperors still show up in Romes history. I find this interesting because I know the Danube or Old European peoples are the area where the white man began his special journey on earth as well as the fact that little is written about this except for Ptolemy seeking to attach his lineage to the Danaan named Hercules who many later noted looked just like the Antonine Emperors. Here is a little about this from the esteemed historian Michael Grant and his book Roman Emperors. TACITUS (Marcus Claudius) (October or November 275 c. June 276) was of disputed origins: about these, as about his reign, some of the literary sources and not only the Historia Augusta as might be expected, but Eutropius and Victor as well are singularly misleading. The ascription of his birthplace to Interamna in Italy is based on a fable; he probably came from the Danubian area, like so many other emperors in this epoch. The assertion that he claimed a relationship to the historian Tacitus is, once again, unlikely to be well-founded Tacitus was interested in the foundation of a dynasty of his own (6) Solon did an admirable job and it is easy enough to see his descendant of a century of two later, Plato, may have learned that fools would not listen to wise laws and there had to be some real way to manage society that catered to the rich and allowed for less warfare. This excerpt from Plutarch illustrates the issues of fear and the inability of men to act with compassion, which some say is intrinsic to mankind. |
