Pensees

On heaven and hell..

 1. It is often thought Heaven is the end-goal. The vision of God in his essence. But in view of the redemption by Jesus Christ it is only resuming the start of Creation as intended by God. Had we not sinned then all of history upto and including our present times would not have been necessary. What we think of our earth, its history and our wish to let it stay as it is, whilst actually destroying its potential to start with men redeemed on its real course, means nothing. Real Creation still has to start. Which is why we can't see Heaven. 

2. Co substantial with God the Father is his idea of men. When he thought of his creation of Adam (and Eve)  He willed this from the start. Which is why 'in the beginning was the Word (logos) and the Word was God and was with God'. Which why Jesus is co-substantial with the Father and God cannot be otherwise.
Jesus is not the messenger, but the self revelation of God, into His creation.  Which is why this reality exists with God outside time from the beginning and God needed to create man, in view of his own essence.

3. Immediately upon conception Gods creates for each human a soul. Ideally both the material/spiritual man and his soul grow together, but in reality that does rarely happen. A healthy soul in a healthy body. If we want to realise our true self, we need to seek the Kingdom of God first. Seek first the Kingdom of God and the rest will be added unto you. Babylon does not want to understand this. It wants it all in the flesh. When we accept the cross in our lives, we nourish the soul so both can grow up to maturity, till the flesh dies and we receive a new body. Then real creation starts. Real Self. 

4. St. Paul did not mean that we have to 'add' to what Jesus Christ suffered on the cross. His death and redemption of man is enough for everybody. But we have to 'add' what is lacking in the suffering of Christ, in our own personal life, namely. the suffering caused by our own failings and mistakes. Only we can do this. Nobody can do this for us. 

5. Therefore. We cannot redeem others and don't have to, only Christ can. There is no pool of sufferings, where we have to contribute to on a daily basis, and if we don't do that other people or the world will go to hell. If you carry your own cross in view of your own life, God will do the rest. Those who don't, let us hope they won't understand it until the last judgement.  God's burden therefor is light. Don't let others bind more onto you than that...

6. I heard someone say. "Hell is necessary for the Elect to live in comfort".  This is soooo wrong! It takes spiritual values as if there is only one limited source of it and you have to somehow take care that you get more of it than others, like for instance money. It turns Christians into Pharisees, with a very limited world view and view of other people. There is enough for everybody in the redemptive act of Jesus Christ. 

The legacy of Esau

 The Legacy of Esau

Isaac loved Esau and Rebecca loved Jacob. We are too used to see only in Jacob God's chosen one. But Esau was as much chosen. They just took different roles. With only looking at Jacob, we remove from site half of the mystery of Gods People.  The heritage which Esau sold to Jacob was the promise of afterlife. And Jacob did inherit a piece of land in the Middle East, but what he bought from Esau was not necessarily that. Jacob became the priesthood. The suffering servant. Perhaps part because of the deception he deployed to acquire his birth right. Here in this painting by Gerrit-Willemszoon Horst (1612-1652) we see Jacob disguising himself as Esau. The priesthood disguised as Royalty. 

Esau moved on to more fruitful environments. Esau did keep in fact the right to Royalty. And he employed it on a global scale. Esau moved to an area south east of Israel, which was called Idomea. They became Edomites. There the descendents of Esau explored kingship in a special form. Elected Royals. After seven such kings the system developed into a form of Dukedom. As was later employed by Venice. The first republic..

Is it speculation to suggest that Edom kings converted to Dukedoms, around the time David was chosen king of Israel. Is also speculation to suspect that through Ruth, who married Boaz, coming from Moab, which is the north of Esau's area, David descended from Esau also. Hence the red hair. And when Royalty was established in Israel (against the very nature of Israel, because they should not have had kings) Edom stopped to have kings and developed into a republic. 

Esau and Jacob reconciled. But not all descendants of Esau followed suit. There was eternal jealousy and resentment in the descendents of Esau. What had really happened?

According to legend the very day Esau sold his birth right to Jacob, he had returned tired from hunting. But it was suggested that very day Esau had killed Nimrod and stolen his (royal) mantle and the clothing of Adam, which had been in posession of Cush. Cush and Canaan had stayed in the area of the middle East, causing a history long fight over this area. Noah had given an area of West Africa to Cush and Canaan, and had given the middle east to descendants of Sem.  In the first breach of 'international' law Cush and Canaan took the Middle East instead of their given domain.

Esau was tired, but also entirely satisfied. He had stolen the mantle of Nimrod. Herewith sealing God's promise of the land to the descendants of Abraham. Esau was to have the right of Royalty. And all kings of the earth are crowned in a large mantle reminding of this mantle of Nimrod. It was also symbolic of the battle between David and Goliath. Because Nimrod was a giant. No wonder Isaac preferred Esau. Jacob beliefs in promises after. Esau takes what is his.

Esau was to receive Isaac's blessing in this mantle. But let us go back to this day where Esau asked Jacob to make a strong potage for him to recover from his fatigue. For Esau he had reached his goal. What was there to be beyond that? Something 'after life'? There is no way he would have sold the very essence of what Esau acquired that day. Huh. Birth right? I have what I have through my very act of murdering Nimrod. There is nothing beyond that. Only later on when Jacob had taken Esau's mantle and received the blessing, Esau realized he had been cheated. Triggering his desire to kill Jacob for it. 

Esau moved on and developed other forms of Royalty. Based not on heritage through a fatherly line. And it is interesting that the principle of Royalty remained with Esau. A son of Eliphaz (son of Esau) named Zepho was to establish this principle of Royalty in Latinum, which would be the basis for the Emperors of Rome. Rome hence is rightly Esau. 

As Esau Rome still claims the birthright of Esau. And ironeously for that very reason claimed the priesthood in the form of the Roman Catholic Church. The right to remember Christ's death on its altars for all eternity. 

War of the Roses (1)

The war of the Roses

There is much to be said that the first public records of Masonic Lodges arose around Benedictine Monestaries. After all the Templars were connected closely to the Benedictine monasteries and building programmes were carried out around Benedictine monasteries. 

The initial vows of the Lodges then arose alongside the vows of the Monastic Orders themselves. And the three vows of Monastic Orders were reflected in the oaths and degrees of the Lodge. 

Also the officials of the Benedictine Monastery and that of the Lodge mirror each other closely. 

1. The Abbot in the Monastery mirrors the Worshipful Master in the Lodge. All brothers (Frater in both and in both receiving new names) listen to him and owe him obedience. 

2. The Cellaler in the Monastery mirrors the Steward in the Lodge. He functions as secretary and is responsible for all the needs of the brethren.

3. The Porter mirrors the Tyler. They receive the new members and check their credentials.

4. The Junior Warden mirrors the Master of the Novices. They instruct and are responsible for the brethren who have not progressed through all degrees yet.

Whereas the Porter remains outside the enclosure the three other officials are always sitting at the head of ceremonies. From there it is not hard to recognise the masonic origin of Protestant Churches. There will be sitting three elders in front of the congregation. Churches then are open Fraternities, whereas a Lodge is closed one. This is even the case with the Mormons.

A closer look at the Roman Catholic Church will show that they also will conform to this model. How then can the apparent conflict between the Roman Catholic Church en Freemasonry be explained?

The conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and Freemasonry is relatively of late origin. Apparently it happened as a response to English Protestantism, which created the modern form of Freemasonry and is quite adamant that this is the beginning of the history of Freemasons around 1717. 

It is no coincidence that when there is record of earlier lodges that they were in one way or another connected to Benedictine Monasteries. Not all Brethren in a Benedictine Monastery were equal. In most cases approx. one third were connected to a lodge connected to the Benedictine Monastery, whereas the other Brethren would not know anything about it. This was even the case within the Templar's. Some will have us believe that within the RC Church only very recently Bishops and Priest have joined Masonry. But it has been the case during the whole period R.C. Church apparently was against Masonry.

Let us not forget that even all symbols associated today with Masonry were during the 13th-17th centuries pack and parcel of Church Religious Paintings. It is only after the 18th Century that the two were separated.

We see here that the Templar's and later with them the Benedictines would have a different idea of the Papacy as had the Papacy itself. We can see that at the symbol of the Papal keys. The Pope was the Porter of his flock which were on their way either to hell or heaven. Peter would decide whether the door of Heaven (the Lodge) would open or not. 

As the Augustine's were really an offshoot of the Benedictines in the 14th century and as such were the carriers and caretakers of Protestantism in Germany it now becomes apparent why the resistance against Papal claims from men like Boniface VIII would have to arise from within the Church itself.

The Jesuits though were very much responsible for carrying through the Ultramontanist claims of the Papacy. This set the Jesuits at foot of war with the creations of the Benedictines and hence with Freemasonry.  

Benedictines, the creators of our Culture

Charlemagne and 
the Benedictines

In the tale of Charlemagne the Benedictines take huge credit for the Education of Charlemagne himself and for Education in the newly created Western Roman Empire. 

And sure! Why not! After all, if anybody can be credited with the creation of the myth of Charlemagne it is the Benedictines. And sure, they are at the roots of the creation of the Roman Empire of the West. 

Only not at the time frame they claim. 

Rest assured! There were no Benedictine Monasteries before Cluny and neither did Cluny reform the Benedictine Order. Cluny was very much the original source for European monasteries. And at that, the Benedictines hence were not spending their lives in silence in Dark Middle Ages writing rooms to preserve for us antique culture. 

The Cluny monasteries were very much part of the influx of Slavs (later called Mongols) in the 12th century and originally were warrior Monks. They were the Rex Dei families creating the first instances of (family) communism with long term political goals. It is they who brought us the magnificent new building works, the Hanze movement, which brought us new cities and commerce at the same time. And even traditional historians wouldn't argue with the fact that the Mongol conquest enabled trade and trade routes more or less at global scale. 

Even in far Asia at this time warrior monks arose.

After 1307 the warrior monks were obsolete in that they became an obstacle for the desired emancipation of the West under a newly created Papacy. Then of course the Monasteries took upon themselves new tasks and became instrumental in the newly discovered art of printing, in education en transmission of a new culture. A new Western Roman culture that is. 

It is here that our Western form of Christianity in the coming 100 years would develop. It is here that first the uniform Latin Vulgate is developed and antique writers which were known (not that many actually. Hardouin for instance only recognised six, amongst whom Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Virgil) were used as source out of which all the others were created. The attentive reader will notice that they were typical Roman writers. But no references to Christianity is to be found in them.

But even all Church Fathers became suspect and Hardouin argued that the Church history of Eusebius, the works of Jerome (and that includes his Latin texts) and Augustine etc. were all written in the 15th-16th century, which could be detected by their writing styles. 

In this sense then the Benedictines of the 15th century can be credited with creating our Western Culture and laying a framework for the newly created Papacy in the West. 

How could this be? Very easy. Nobody had heard of a bible and in so far as a Vulgate existed nobody was allowed to read it apart from the clergy. Nobody would desire to do so, because it would not occur in their minds. 

Christianity was still very much a very diverse movement more Nestorian or Arian and only the Muslims, which were basically a Nestorian offshoot, had scriptures. 

Not even the Jews had them. They shared their traditions within the Saracen culture amongst whom they lived, but they had different traditions. The jews were Jacob, the Muslims were Esau. 

Edwin Johnson writing in the rise of English Culture around 1904 argued that the Jews in Spain created their Torah to provide themselves with a unique identity. 

Once the West after the crusades desired to emancipate and separate from the East, it is only logical that also their Christian Dogma had to separate itself and so big became their aversion of the Nestorian traditions that they needed their own scriptures as well as dogma and the Benedictines built this upon the Jewish traditions of the Synagogues in Spain. 

The Jewish modes in the sacred chants and Psalms became the basis for the Gregorian chants and the Benedictines were entrusted with this heritage. Their Opus Dei became the weekly chant of all Psalms.

Hence, Edwin Johnson would argue, this typical Benedictine tradition could not have developed before the Spanish Jews had developed theirs. 

Further Edwin Johnson argues, the rule of St. Benedict was not modelled to the three gospels of the New Testament. The gospels were written in fashion of the rule of St. Benedict and that is why in some early New Testament texts Jesus' sermon on the mountain was not to be found. Also the figure of Peter was very much modelled after how the Benedictines viewed the Papacy. The gospel of John again had very different source and existed earlier, being fashioned out of the antique writers with their typical distancing from the Jewish people. 

Which explains why amongst the Jewish groups for instance the Essenes are never mentioned in the New Testament, although we are to believe that they were in some respect a model for the later Monasteries but would have been very much still be present in Jesus own days. They aren't mentioned, because there were no Essenes in the 15th century and surely the Benedictines would conceal their own origins, especially their Slavic origins. 

The Epistles of Paul may indeed have been written before any writing of a historical Jesus. But they can't have been written before the 15th century either, as the social economic model, the model of the warrior knight, the idea of nations etc. are typical for the newly arisen world view of the West after the 13th century. 

Wouldn't Paul, had he sat and initiated the stoning of St. Stefan being the Sadducee he was, whilst claiming to be a Pharisee (hence he was lying), really have no physical recollection of the physical existence of Jesus himself? But he didn't because he was not living at that time at all. 

The 'salvation by grace' message was very much developed by Paul Sarpi, a Venetian Monk and assistent to Cardinal Borromeo of the Roman Church, who was instrumental in setting up Protestantism as well as Counter-Reforming Jesuits. Was it he who created the name Paul en Peter and Paul being the base of the Roman Church. The Roman Church then is built accordingly on the theocratic monarchal ideas of Batu and the merchants of Venice. It would explain much of later history. 

According to Edwin Johnson then the Latin Text was finished between 1480-1525. Luther found such a text (may have been made to find it) and hence had never seen one before. 

The Roman Church though was shocked at the realisation that the Reformation and especially English Culture highjacked their project and saw a place for common people in the process. 

Edwin Johnson then goes on to show that the Benedictines in that time set themselves the task to create all Church fathers to give the new texts authority above all other writings especially that of the Jews and the Muslims. And they created all the disputes - really the same disputes over and over allegedly during 1000 years - and many Church councils to shape and authorize their Dogma. By settling the disputes in the past the Roman Church gave itself the authority it desired.

Even the most staunch defender of the Counter Reformation, the Jesuit Jean Hardouin, didn't buy into the writings of the Benedictines. The Roman Church hence would never base their authority on any scripture, but on their own 'tradition'. On other hand they would always hold fast to their idea that it is they who gave the world the Word of God, the Bible. Because they did! But not before the council of Trient. 
  
It seems that above is a very solid view of what really happened in the Western Monasteries. But if Charlemagne and St. Bede (really an allusion to Batu) and even St. Benedict - an allegorical name as is Charlemagne - are not historical, what then is the historical root of Monte Cassino? 

We have before already argued that Batu Khan did not really leave Western Europe in 1242, because he never ever went to the election of the Great Khan Kublai. He only sent a representative. 

But Batu Khan also concealed his existence in Western Europe in the foundations of the Papacy and the Western Roman Empire. In this respect it is most likely that Monte Cassino was his first base camp and that it was a warrior Monastery at that. From here Italian Rome would have been created by the Slavic (Etruscan) Nobles in his entourage. 

There actually is a - negative clue - for this idea. There is very much talk, when relations with the Mongols are described, about Franciscans. But never about Benedictines, although traditional history tells us the Western world would have been full with them. Full with wise learned men at that. And even no traditional historian would argue against the fact that as was Kublai Khan, also Batu Khan was a learned men. A Savage nevertheless.

It is a tell tale, as with Essenes. There was no talk about it, because really the Slavic Culture of Batu Khan was the source for the European Monasteries as well as the Templars. 

And where-ever the Slavic Nobles came, they founded cities (Hanze) and Monasteries to cultivate their new settlements. They became our Princes and Kingly families. Present day history sees them as barbaric. In those days though in Europe they were seen as liberators bringing with them a whole new culture. 

A culture though that in the 16th century stagnated in the efforts by the Roman Catholic church to monopolise all development. 

Charlemagne, Genghis
and the Knights Templar

The notion that Charlemagne  did not really exist is not new or shocking to present day historical ears. It is not exactly known at which time frame it was done, but most images and statues are later than the 16th century and served to underpin the position of Charles V. 

The few images that exist from the 13th century are very interesting indeed and give a clue as to the reason behind it. 

Above image is attributed to be Charlemagne, but a few parts of the image are odd and very interesting to note. 

1. The dress looks rather Slavic and not European.
2. Also the beards look Slavic
3. Charlemagne does not wear a crown but a Tiara.
4. The picture of the Roman Eagle looks both East and Westward.
5. The party met by Charlemagne are kings and one of them appears to be Asian.

The following painting made by Durer claims to come close to Charlemagne's real appearance. Again, notice the Eagle looking Eastward.

If the picture is from the 14th century it may very well in fact be a painting later attributed to Charlemagne. 

The resemblance with another image, which many researchers have dated to this period, but is placed further back in history is the following:

The features are Slavic also. The features can be enhanced somewhat giving a better result. The cloth is ultimately tied up to the Knights Templar, because it was found in possession of descendants of one of the Knights: Geoffrey the Charny, who died at the battle of Poitiers in 1356. But only in 1390 it is exposed to the public. Although the local bishop wrote to the then anti pope Clements VII that it was a fake, it was kept in the region until 1578 when it was moved to Turin. 

Not without co-incidence it ended up in the Cathedral of John the Baptist. 

The Knights Templar were the first order to be exempted and subject to the Pope only. In 1307 the order was accused of heresy:

 "when professing, the brothers were required to deny Christ, to spit on the Cross, and to place three 'obscene kisses' on the lower spine, the navel and the mouth; they were obliged to indulge in carnal relations with other members of the order, if requested; and finally they wore a small belt which had been consecrated by touching a strange idol, with looked like a human head with a long beard."

Strange that such an image was found  in the possession of one of the last Knights, who had been in a position to salvage exactly such an image. The charges are to be spurious though considering the motives of Philip II. 

There is an other record of professing loyalty in front of an image. When the Jochids under Baatu Khan and his general Subutai subdued the Russian princes they were required to prostrate themselves in front of an image of Genghis Khan. 

"When Michael of Chernigov arrived 'he was summoned before Batu and was made to pass between two fires and ordered to prostrate himself before the tablets of Genghis Khan. Michael replied that he did not object to do obeisance to Batu himself but to adore images of dead man was repugnant. As he persisted in his refusal, Batu ordered him to death."

But the one has nothing to do with the other. Apart from Batu Khan having to send away Buri and Guyuk sons of Ogedai Khan, the great Khan at that occasion, because they made fun of him being 'an old woman with a beard' (with Slavic features). Buri as well as Chagatai, who always had objected to the lineage of Jochi, were almost executed, but spared and sent to the far east wing of the empire (Siberia), never playing a role again. But Guyuk was given a second change. In the end though only the lineages of Jochi and Tolui featured in later history and their wives were sisters.

In fact the family of Genghis Khan had for generations married women of Turkic/Tartar descent. Even the wives of Genghis as well as Jochi and Tolui were of that descent. They had done so from the generation of Alan Gua, widow of Dobu Mergen. Her son Bodonchar Munhag was claimed to be conceived miraculously, which is why he is the only person in Genghis Khan's ancestry whose mother is named instead of his father. 

That means for 11 generations this family has married women of Slavic descent. 

The Turkic/tartar family of the Uruankhi brought their sons Subutai and Jelma at an early age to the family of Genghis Khan, which is odd, because 
Hoelan - also as a widow - did not have any appearance of Royalty and Power at the time. To the contrary, the family was almost casst out and only with help from the regions of the Caucasus helped in its ascendancy to power. The brother became the power behind the Khans and were part of a brotherhood of 9 generals. The similarity with the Knights Templar is striking.

These families from the Caucasus, many of which settled in Western Europe after the Mongol Conquest developed into wealthy banker dynasties. 

William of Orange's early ancestor Guilaume de Gelone came with Charlemagne and received territory in France as a liege. 

But Charlemagne is only a fathom figure placed in European history at a later date to conceal the origins of European nobility, but maintain the legacy. 

We also must not forget that the financial elite at the time were the Knights Templar. Admittedly this most powerful military force at the time, did very poorly against the Monguls. But admittedly also, there hardly was a war in Europe. At the moment of victory allegedly the Monguls backed out. The knights of Uryankhi Subutai and Jelme stayed behind, Subutai with a liege in Scotland and Jelme in France. 

William of Ruysbroeck in his account of the Mongols in fact says it in his own words. After explaining that the Khans do what they are told by a group of diviners, who always live opposite their courts: 

They predict lucky and unlucky days for the undertaking of all affairs; and so it is that they never assemble an army nor begin a war without their assent, and long since (the Mo'al) would have gone back to Hungary, but the diviners will not allow it.

The mongols had fulfilled their purpose. Create one domain with free trade, religious tolerance and huge technological and civil advancements. For the common man, who lived virtually as slaves bound to a local lord, this meant a huge step ahead. Not necessarily so for the local noblemen, who didn't keep up with the times. Virtually the whole nobility in a period of 200 hundred years was replaced with new families. It became suddenly very fashionable amongst nobility to have Slavic descent. 

All they had to do now was to erase their tracks. And here we have the main motive for the demise of the Knights Templar. Philip II was a major force in the rewriting of European history. Nationhood came up and France needed a convincing local history, with roots well beyond. 

Which explains why the key facts surrounding Charlemagne are so similar to those of Genghis Khan. 

Jean Hardouin

the peculiar case of 
Jean Hardouin

Our western history is to say the least, very problematic. That notion is not new. Quite a few literate man came after a long career into the subject to this verdict. One of such was Jean Hardouin. 

Jean Hardouin was a Jesuit living in the 17th century, who counted amongst the great church and council historians in France. At the end of an already long an celebrated career he gradually became convinced that most literary Greek items of the Renaissance were faked. 

Of course it is good to understand that at first he had a motive to arrive at such conclusions. The Renaissance was a precursor of the Reformation and a necessity for the Reformation to occur at all. From this point of view any sources which reformers as Luther, Calvin etc. used were by necessity suspect. Even Augustin didn't escape Jean Hardouin's attention merely by the fact that it was Luther's main source. 

Even though any catholic airing such views in his days would run into severe problems with the authorities, Jean Hardouin never had any problems like that, merely through the fact that his dogmatic view was thoroughly catholic and in fact the idea that there was only one source of authority in the Roman Church, namely that of the Pope, sustained his ideas. 

Yet, even though he was the main chronologist of the Church councils of this day, he was of the opinion that the Council of Trient was the first real council the others merely being spurious regional meetings called by civil authorities and not the Pope. 

The source of the fraud, according to Jean Hardioun,  was a small impious crew of manuscript and coin fakers, often in monasteries, under the authority of Frederic II in the 13th century and Philip II in France in the 14 century and later under the influence of the Medici Doges.

'There existed then an understanding of both civil and religious authority to not expose each others tampering with the antiquity of each others jurisdiction'. In other words they were faking the roots and age of their civilisation. 

Would it be possible to undertake such an enterprise? Jean Hardouin was convinced that as a matter of fact the total library of the Church fathers and ancient Greek writers was extremely limited and could very well have been fabricated within one generation. Thorough study of the Church fathers had convinced Jean Hardouin that they were merely repeats of the same subject and he went as far as to say that even the opponents of the Church (Montanists, Arianism etc.) were faked. 

Nevertheless when in the 16th century finally bible reading became a normal practise and precisely because it was previously forbidden was a cool thing to do, from 1300 until 1500 bible reading was limited to sections read in Church ceremonies and it is exactly during this period that the canon became established. The gospels again were more widely known and there were many of them. Knowledge about the old testament though was extremely limited at the time. 

There definitely are markers, which show at precisely which time the bible was written. The gospels for instance convey a society exactly as the new capitalist culture which arose in the 13th-15th century. The idea of nation hood arises frequently in the Old Testament psalms, but the concept was hardly known before 13th-15th century. A. Fomenko has in his 3rd volume of Chronology definitely convincingly calculated the exact horoscopes used in literature, art  of  'antiquity' and the bible and they all lead to the 13th-15th century. His 3rd volume is his most scientific solid book and conveys research already initiated by his parents. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

What motive would Frederic II have had? 
When I read through his biography on Wikipedia I noticed that something essential was missing. Namely exactly during the years that allegedly the Mongols through Batu Khan had brought the whole of Eastern Europe to their knees, Western Europe allegedly occupy themselves with petty quarrels between the Emperor and the Pope and German princes and the Emperor. 

Events become a lot more clear if you investigate the idea that Frederic II was a whole lot more oriented towards the East as is acknowledged. The whole of Europe sees him as a traitor, who 'without fight' during the sixth crusade more or less gets Jerusalem given to him by the Sultan. And it is even related that this Jerusalem didn't have any walls at all. As the new Jerusalem as Frederic II would like it to be. 

The same attitude allegedly Frederic II had shown in exactly the years before towards Batu Khan. There was no fight, but an extremely diplomatic understanding between Batu Khan and Frederic II. 

He would become his falconer.

Moreover during and due to the Mongol conquests there had been a major shift in the upper European Nobility. All modern royal lines vanish into obscurity around this period, with the royal wifes having origins from the North of the Caucasus. These were exactly the families involved in the Renaissance. They took the opportunity of the newly important literature from Byzantium and further East, to rewrite them and conceal their own origins. Moreover by in the late Renaissance giving Europe a whole new Art, including a whole new allegedly Greek Art, they could portrait Europes origins as old and white. But in fact Europe had many colored people up to this period. 

There is of course more. Allegedly Innocent IV had written a letter for the election of a new Great Khan  sending William as Ruysbroeck as his envoy. But this is way too soon and would make the voyage of Carpini and William of Ruysbroeck towards the same election. 

It is obvious that the conflict between Innocent IV and Frederic II is of a later date and there is a shift of approx. 50 years and some popes have been inserted at a later date. All of them living in Northern Italy and not in Rome. We may well assume that Innocent IV and Innocent III were much closer together. And Frederic's relation with Innocent III was better as that with his successor. 

That is of course if Innocent III did not exactly die but left after the foundation of Western Papacy had been set and we are convinced of exactly that. And Frederic II as Batu Khan's falconer had much to with it. 

Then of course a lot of re-writing of historical and genealogical records would have been needed at exactly this time. 

Frederic IIs birth in a
Mongol dome tent under
the banner of the white and blue Horde

And of course it does explain Frederic II's behaviour towards the Church and the Pope in particular. Frederic II then knew very well that the Pope, behind all rhetoric, was not more than a very local Western fief lord, sustained by forces the Pope himself could not exactly have fully understood and largely at odds with the geographical  power structure at exactly this time. The world at large was owned by the East. And Frederic II and a few initiates seemed to have been the only ones to have grasped it. 

Also do note that from this time until 1500s the Roman Emperor had very little to with the city of Rome. The king of the Romans allegedly lived in Germany. As such the weapon of the Eagle looked Westwards. Frederic II then was Emperor of the Western block of the empire and in name the protector of the three Western power blocks England, France and Spain.

Such a division existed also over the large east-west section across Eurasia. Europe, the white and blue Hordes and the Mongol Great Khanate.   

What happened?

13th Century. 
What really happened?

Our western history has quite a few focus points, which it deems as turning points and historical moments in the shaping of our (western) world. It may be the founding of Rome or Greece or the middle ages or the Reformation. But rarely your attention will be brought to the Mongol conquest of Europe. 

And yet to me it seems the most important event world-wide as well the root cause the for Renaissance to happen. It also constituted the first world wide war. 

Borjijid family empire. 'the Firm'

A look at the map shows that in one or two generations time the whole world had changed and not to the advantage of Europe. You may say that the mongols had stood at the borders of Germany, but it seems obvious from the facts that these borders weren't even located at the eastern side what is now Germany. But thanks to the diplomacy of Frederic II the impression was well maintained that something like a Holy German Roman empire was functioning independently within the framework. The borders were well beyond Aachen and at the borders of France. 

In fact it left only Central Italy, Spain, France en England and Whales unconquered, an amazing small region compared to the rest of the Eurasian continent  for the Papacy of those days to claim any sort of Lordship of the whole world. Allegedly that is what history claimed they did at exactly this time. 

And yet we are let to believe that Batu Khan left with his task in the family business - to conquer the region westward -  almost achieved allegedly helping out for the rest of his life his cousins and brothers at the eastside of his Ulus. (domain).

Let us first turn the 'facts' as conveyed by our western interpretation of events.:

1. The great Ogedai Khan, son of Genghis Khan and brother of Jochi Khan Batu Khan's father had died and a successor would be elected as only family members would be eligible. 

2. Subutai of Uriankhi, Batu Khan's general and youth protegee of Ghengis Khan with Turkish family roots - proving the Borjijids' origin was only later safely transported into Mongolia - who was the mastermind behind Batu Khan's campaigns advised Batu Khan to stop and attend the Kuraltai (meeting) en become elected himself.

3. The sons of Ogedai Khan kept postponing the election for a long time especially Guyuk, in order to keep the office in the family of Ogedai Khan, for which reason Batu Khan found himself in a catch 22 situation and out of frustration gave up European plans and made himself useful for the family enterprise later - as did his general - fighting in East Siberia and China.

4. There they established a barbarian Mongol culture inferior to everything that further happened in Europe.

So far so good.. 

1. From the report of Piano Carpini though it appears that Batu Khan was the intermediate stop on the journey of this friar to the election (or self instalment) of Guyuk Khan son of Ogedai. Carpini first visited the Northern Eastern and German princes to investigate their being prepared to detach themselves from tribute to the Great Khan and Batu Khan - apart from being privy to that and doing nothing to stop it - did send him onwards towards the Kuraltai making it very clear he himself had no intention in going. 

2. It was not the sons of Ogedai, but his widow acting as regent, who kept postponing the elections, obviously because of the age of Ogedai's sons. 

3. Batu Khan's strategy seemed to be to wait and let the situation at the court of the Great Khan deteriorate, but finally after three years did intervene and had the widow poisened. Not to become Great Khan himself. He still - also according to a European source, this time William of Ruysbroeck - was not interested and the only family member not present. Many members of the family as was the mother of Tolui Khan the youngest son of Genghis Khan turned to Batu Khan for a final break through and Tolui Khan and his sons continued the office of Great Khan. His sons and Batu Khan's sons established the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate in the middle east resulting in above dead-lock of Western Europe. 

There is a very good reason why Batu Khan and Subutai his general in these years did not take up their further conquest of Europe. It would have proved not to be a good strategy to do that at this stage. They would only have brought the whole of Europe under the influence of the Great Khan, whereas it was abundantly clear that there was no suitable recognition for themselves. 

Batu Khan knew that as son of Jochi Khan his family clan would never achieve prominence in the eyes of the other side of the family branch. But he himself or Subutai having any further career on the east side of the empire is to put it mildly apocryphal. 

There is also a slight possibility that in this period Batu Khan and his general Subutai, who really could claim most of the credit, had some differences of opinion. 

But I have another theory, which is worthy of exploration. Whilst Batu Khan was waiting and exercised a papal sort of political and spiritual role Subutai did not entirely desist from the expansion of the empire. Subutai then was the identity of the ancestor of Robert the Bruce and with William the conqueror established base in Scotland. William the conqueror then was a shadow crossbreed between the 'norman' Batu and Subutai's brother Jelme of Uryankhi inserted later into British early history 

This left four regions open in Europe Iberia, the central region in Italy, France and the southern part of the British Isles or Avalon (Alban). 

XVI century map of Area between
Black and Caspian Sea

According to the above map the names of these regions were not original European names.  Albania (Alban) is the old name Albion for England. The name England itself came from the last Byzantine Emperors the Angelos, who fled to England. Iberia is next to it. Also Spain derives from Hispania or Chaspian. The name France comes from the Franks which was another name for the Greeks.  The names are copies of the namges of the region from which the Uryankhis (Orange) originated. 

Apparently Batu Khan - with his general Subutai and his own set of motivs - had decided upon a whole different strategy for Europe.  A strategy which gave Batu Khan a chance to turn the table on the prospects of his own family branch, the Jochids. Moreover - and here they proved to be political geniuses - they would postpone judgement on what culture should govern the Golden Horde, by establishing three kinds of dystinct competing regions, all three though under the spiritual direction and authority of the spiritual Vice-King within the Horde, Batu Khan. 

What Subutai and Batu Khan did in their own reserved domain for Western Europe again was a copy what the Great Khan had done with the whole Northern region of the world, dividing it into three sections to be governed by three different sections of the Borjijid family.

Out of Subutai's region would grow the Stewarts, closely related to the Oranges and Anjous in France. Iberia would soon be incorporated into the Holy German Roman empire and compete with the Papacy for political power, whereas France maintained its own typical orthodox jewish/greek form of Catholicism for a long time. 

Batu Khan himself probably from this period towards his death has lived a double role. He changed as easily between a papal role in the West - which did not have any stable seat until after the French Avignon period - and a priestly kingly role as representative of Genghis Khan (vicarius dei) in the East. Batu Khan then was the first real double agent, a role he played to perfection.


"The commandment of the eternal God is, in Heaven there is only one eternal God, and on Earth there is only one lord, Chingis Chan. This is word of the Son of God, Demugin, (or) Chingis 'sound of iron.' "

"This is what is told you. Wherever there be a Mo'al, or a Naiman, or a Merkit or a Musteleman, wherever ears can hear, wherever horses can travel, there let it be heard and known; those who shall have heard my commandments and understood them, and who shall not believe and shall make war against us, shall hear and see that they have eyes and see not; and when they shall want to hold anything they shall be without hands, and when they shall want to walk they shall be without feet: this is the eternal command of God.

"This, through the virtue of the eternal God, through the great world of the Mo'al, is the word of Mangu Chan to the lord of the French, King Louis, and to all the other lords and priests and to all the great realm of the French, that they may understand our words. For the word of the eternal God to Chingis Chan has not reached unto you, either through Chingis Chan or others who have come after him.


He could as easily slip into the role of Innocent III als prester John, whose legacy would live on in the Tibetan Dalai Lama.