Jupiter, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and the Return of the Mongols

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Wednesday March 10, 2004: Yesterday, we briefly explored the possible origins of the "Long Haired" Franks after noticing that the ancient descriptions of the Khazars were couched in similar terms. Actually, that is true of most of the ancient Aryan tribes; they were fierce with wild, flowing blonde or red hair, and susceptible to a "furor" that came on them accompanied by great heat. That, of course, reminds us of the mitochondria and its function: the powerhouse of the body that works by virtue of its oxygen-capturing enzymes.

The fact that the areas that the Frisians originate from was settled as early as 3500 BC is of some interest as well. The theory that the mastermind behind the attack on Constantinople was Rurik of Novgorod AKA Rorik of Jutland connects us back to the list of place-names compiled in Alexandria by geographer Claudius Ptolameus (Ptolemy) c.150 AD. As we noted, Ptolemy's maps gave the names of the tribes that lived along the North Sea coastal regions, including Jutland where Saxons were found. Next door to the Saxons were the "greater" Chatti, while the "lesser" Chatti lived in East Friesland.

As we noted, depopulation of the Frisian salt-marshes is said to have occurred between 250 and 400 AD due to the rising sea levels and flooding. Later, undoubtedly, the cometary destruction of Europe led to tribes long settled going on the march. Most probably, this is the ultimate reason for the almost total depopulation of the Frisians in North Holland.

As the experts note (though they can't come up with a real reason for it unless they look at the ideas of cometary destruction), this depopulation did not just affect Frisian areas. In the Baltic and northern European coastal regions, the population retreated to the higher areas inland during the second century AD, and certainly were on the move when the comets came. So, either there were two periods of depopulation, or only one and the dating is incorrect.

The experts tell us that where the "archaeological" Frisians went is unknown. After having a look at what Lev Gumilev said about ethnoi, we also realize that names of groups can change in context as well as content. Additionally, language is not always a clue as to origin since languages can be imposed on conquered peoples who then believe that it is their own, or adopted out of necessity.

One example of such a problem is the case of the Finns, Saami (Laplanders), Estonians and Magyars. Their language is called Uralic because such languages are mostly spoken to the east of the Ural Mountains, but obviously, the Finns, Estonians, Saami and Magyars are West of the Ural Mountains. Did they ALL come from the Urals?

No. The Finns and Estonians seem to be almost entirely European, genetically speaking, while the Magyars have a 12 percent Uralic genetic origin. On the other hand, while the Saami are dominantly genetically European, there is still a genetic connection between the Magyars and the Saami.

Additionally, the Finnish population is subject to an unusual collection of genetic diseases that are either very rare or entirely unknown elsewhere. This suggests a bottleneck founder event. The explanation then is that a very small group entered Finland about 2,000 years ago where the Saami population already lived. The Saami retreated to the north, but there was obviously sufficient contact for the Finns to learn the Saami language, while still not intermarrying to any great degree. The reason they would have adopted the Saami language would be because, in a hostile environment, they needed to learn the local dialect of the only people who knew how to survive and get around in Finland's maze of lakes, fjords, and forests.

In short, just because the Finns and Magyars speak a similar language, doesn't mean that they are genetically close. The same is probably true for the tribes of the Middle East who came to be known as "Semitic" after the conquest of Sargon, who came down from the North and was, most probably, from one of the Aryan steppe tribes. The Sumerian peoples were developing writing for their agricultural civilization, and this writing was utilized for the Semitic language of Sargon - the official tongue after the conquest - while the Sumerian language became extinct. The extensive population of Sumerians then came to think of themselves as "Semitic" when, in fact, they weren't - at least not in the terms meant by "Semitic" at that period.

In the truest sense, then, anti-Semitism could be defined as "against Aryan/Indo-Europeans." Of course, if it is true that Abraham was a Hittite, then it could be said that the "Patriarch of the Jews" was truly a Semite, but the tribes who were assimilated to Judaism in those days were not, judging by the paternal affinity between the Separdic Jews and the Palestinians. However, the problem of the Eight Founding Mothers of the Jews adds a twist to the problem and one wonders how and when, and IF those eight women connect to the "daughters of Eve" discussed by Brian Sykes in his book about the Founding mothers of humanity.

Returning to our problem: one clue that strikes me as compelling is the idea that there was a connection between the Frisians of North Holland and a tribe that lived in Kent, England. The current idea is that some of the Frisians may have gone to Kent, but it is equally possible that they CAME from Kent to North Holland, and later traveled further, fleeing to escape destruction and famine. Some of them certainly may have migrated to East Friesland and hooked up with the Chatti to form the Franks around 300 AD. Others of them could just as easily have trekked to the Eurasian steppes.

The languages spoken by many of the tribes of the Eurasian steppes, including the Turkic languages of the Khazars, are also known as Altaic. As a language family, this is still a bit contentious. The Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic families do have strong similarities in many ways, but some linguists suggest these are due to intensive borrowing from long contact. To a some extent, the Altaic-Turkic languages also resemble the Uralic languages already discussed, such as Finnish and Hungarian. As a consequence, a Ural-Altaic superfamily has been suggested: Eurasiatic, in which Indo-European languages would also be included as a "brother" language. This super-family has a parent also which makes a connect to Amerind languages, (!) but we won't go into that just now. The short of it is that we can't rely on language to denote a genetic or ethnic affinity over long periods of time, though it can, sometimes, be a clue.

Returning to the Chatti: obviously, there were/are two types of Aryans as I have demonstrated in my book, Ancient Science where I wrote:

When one tracks back through all of the ancient "matters" and studies the different groups, trying to follow them as they moved from place to place, studying the genetic morphology in order to keep track of who is who, and comparing linguistics and myth and archaeology, one comes to the startling realization that there were significant polarities throughout space and time. I have tentatively identified these polarities as the Circle People and the Triangle - or Pyramid - People. In a general sense, one can see the broad brush of the triangle people in the Southern hemisphere, in the pyramids and related cultures and artifacts. For the most part, their art is primitive and stylistically rigid. In the northern hemisphere, one sees the circle makers, the spirals, the rough megaliths, the art of Lascaux and Chauvet and the many other caves. One can note a clear difference between the perceptions and the response to the environment between the two trends and groups. Of course, there are areas where there was obvious mixture of both cultures and styles, and ideological constructions, but overall, there is a very distinct difference.

Even with these "polarities," again and again we find those "big, blond" types popping up. However, it is not exactly that simple. As the research has proceeded, I have formed hypotheses and tested and discarded them innumerable times. For the moment, the current hypothesis runs as follows:

The issue does not seem to be one of skin color or "race," (which is a ridiculous term as it is currently used). It is more an issue of the difference between human beings who have "something" inside as opposed to those who don't have this "something."

When this "something" is analyzed, it reveals a fundamental difference in "being" that is most easily expressed as those who worship something outside themselves, vs those who don't worship any god or thing outside themselves because they cannot worship outside what is inside.

There are behavioral clues to the different natures of the two polarities, and it seems that the real reason that those who are of the so-called Aryan bloodlines, often "rise to the top" in many cultures for the simple reason that they have more potent "power cells" - mitochondria - that energize their bodily functions, producing greater "heat" and activity. This "rising to the top" can be positive, or it can be negative.

This poses a unique problem: very energetic negatively oriented beings have many advantages in this world over very energetic positive beings due to the fact that the former have no "moral imperative." For them, the material world is all there is: in their core being, they worship the material universe represented by a god who is "outside" of them, and inner reflection and analysis so as to determine if they are conducting themselves in such a way so as to return to the inner "Origin" - or Edenic state - has no real meaning for them.

Many religions have been created that promise salvation or heaven via an intermediary, and these concepts are appealing to the negative orientation, but the deep, internal conviction that this can and must be accomplished by cultivating that divine spark within does not exist for them. They may claim that it does, but their actions do not match their words. Their thinking is "legalistic," and the best way to describe is is that they "strain at gnats and swallow camels."

Again, the important point is: those with the spark of the divine within cannot worship outside what is inside. No matter how hard they may try to "have faith" in this god or that god who has promised to save them, that divine spark within will constantly agitate, asking questions and casting doubts. Such individuals carry the bloodline - the genetic traits - to manifest the Origin - the Hyperboreans.

Just a hypothesis, as I said.

Let's come back to our problem of Gog and Magog.

I have asked: could it be possible that the Frisians came FROM England to the salt marshes of northern Europe? How does this relate to the belief of the ancient Armenians and Georgians that the Khazars were "Gog and Magog."

Yesterday, we looked at the passages from the Bible that mention Gog and Magog (I am excluding repeating genealogical passages).

In Genesis, we read:

10:1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
10:2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
10:3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
10:4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Those of you who have read my series Who Wrote The Bible should know that I'm not really going "Bible Thumper" here, but that I certainly think that there is something to many of the ancient texts that were assembled to create the Bible. But obviously, something was going on in the ancient world that has been recorded in the Bible, and later turned into "Holy Writ." Notice again the remark about "isles of the Gentiles."

In the passage from Ezekiel we notice several of the "sons of Japheth" being named as places:

38:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 38:2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,
38:3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal...

Then later, he mentions the land of Magog is in the same breath with "them that dwell carelessly in the isles..."

39:6 And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles...

Why should people in the "isles of the gentiles" be described as living carelessly? Is that "carelessly" as in "without cares," or is it carelessly as in not taking sufficient care in some way that led to an incident in which such carelessness became a "marker" for these people? Perhaps a famous blunder of some sort?

The only place on the planet that has been called Gog and Magog for any considerable length of time in our history is in England: the Gog Magog hills near Cambridge.

Curiously, crop circles appeared in a field near to these hills exactly two months before the September 11th attacks on New York.

Historians suggest that the Gog Magog hills got their name because of the innumerable human bones that have been found there; evidence of a battle so fierce that it reminded the locals of Ezekiel's passage about Gog, king of Magog.

The earliest reference to this name for these hills is in a decree of 1574 forbidding students to visit them or be fined. Nowadays, they are still a trysting area. A map dating from the end of the 16th century also depicts the Gogmagog Hills.

There is a small problem here, I think. How did the locals know about the prophecy of Ezekiel?

John Wycliff's hand-written manuscripts in the 1380s were the first complete Bibles in the English language. They were obviously not widely available.

William Tyndale printed the first English NEW Testament in 1525/6. One risked death by burning if caught in mere possession of the forbidden book. Only two complete copies of that first printing are known to have survived. Any Edition printed before 1570 is very rare, most of them were confiscated and burned.

Myles Coverdale and John Rogers, assistants to Tyndale, carried the project forward. The first complete English Bible was printed on October 4, 1535, and is known as the Coverdale Bible.

Considering this timeline, it seems questionable that the locals around the Gogmagog hills should have give such a new name to their hills, or that it would have become commonly known to everyone, such that a decree could be published in less than 40 years regarding same. Considering the fact that having or reading the Bible was a crime for most of those 40 years, it is not likely that the local people would have wanted to reveal their knowledge of the name in this way. One would also think that if ancient battle sites were subject to being renamed in this fashion after the release of the English Bible, many other ancient battle sites would have received Biblical names as well.

Even though there is no proof, it seems to be highly probable that the Gogmagog hills were called that from more ancient times, and for a different reason.

There are two figures of the giants Gog and Magog that strike the hours on a clock at Dunstan-n-the West, Fleet Street, but few people in London seem to know why they are there. Adrian Gilbert writes in his book, The New Jerusalem:

Once more we have to go back to Geoffrey of Monmouth's book, in which there is a story of how, when Brutus and his Trojans arrived in Britain, they found the island sparsley inhabited by a race of giants. One of these, called Gogmagog, wrestled with a Trojan hero called Corineus and was eventually thrown to his death from a cliff- top called in consequense 'Gogmagog's Leap'.

In the 1811 translation into English of Brut Tysilio, a Welsh version of the chronicles translated by the Rev. Peter Roberts, there is a footnote suggesting that Gogmagog is a corrupted form of Cawr-Madog, meaning 'Madog the great' or 'Madog the giant' in Welsh. It would appear that with Gog of Magog, the name of a war leader who the Bible prophesies will lead an invation of the Holy Land at the end of the age.

In another version of the Gogmagog tale, the Recuyell des histories de Troye, Gog and Magog are two seperate giants. In this story they are not killed but brought back as slaves by Brutus to his city of New Troy. Here there were to be employed as gatekeepers, opening and closing the great gates of the palace.

The story of Gog and Magog, the paired giants who worked the gates of London, was very popular in the middle ages and effigies of them were placed on the city gates at least as early as the reign of Henry VI. These were destroyed in the Great Fire of 1666, but so popular were they that new ones were made in 1708 and installed at the Guildhall. This pair of statues was destroyed in 1940 during the Blitz, the third great fire of London, when the roof and much of the interior furnishings of the Guildhall were burnt. A new pair of the statues was carved to replace them when the Guildhall was repaired after the war.

We should note that the dates of Henry VI are from well before the English Bible was available.

The prophecies of Ezekiel date from sometime around 695-690 BC, and we would like to consider the question as to where he heard the term "Gog, Magog" and what terrible battle was fought in the past that was used as a model for Ezekiel's prediction to which this name was attached?

As it happens, there are three terms often associated with archetypal battles: Armageddon, Gog Magog, and the Trojan War. Right away, we notice a homophonic similarity between Megiddo and Magog and it seems that we have a clear connection between Gog, Magog, Troy and Britain.

Those of you who have read Who Wrote the Bible might be interested to know that the untimely death of the hero - King Josiah - of the author of most of the Biblical texts - Jeremiah - died in the valley of Megiddo and that was the end of the story. Note also that this tale is actually a doublet of the story of the death of King Ahab who was of "The House of David."

Megiddo also features in the story of the deaths of the sons of Ahab found in II Kings, chapter 9. This chapter chronicles the death of Jezebel as well. The reason I mention these odd little semi-mythical connections is because I am persuaded that careful examination of Biblical texts compared to many other sources, including hard scientific ones, can assist us in forming at least a vague picture of our true history. Those stories did not come into existence in a vacuum and could not have been foisted on the people if there wasn't something in them of truth.

We now want to ask the question: Do these three wars, Armageddon, Gog Magog, and Troy have anything in common?

Continued...

You are visitor number .