Session 12 July 2014

Rereading this p art of the session.... hard to think Caesar thought Rome could be fixed, could be a shining light etc.... from what we know of the zeitgeist of Rome, the area etc, that seems quite a bit of wishful thinking on his part.... same as Ron Paul et al today.... it's simply too late in the cycle.
On the temporal displacement of 479 years, if this was started by one of the smaller comet clusters, wouldn't other civilizations not be affected and serve as a temporal template? Later the psychos Justinian and his wife were stopped in their reconquest desires and the invading Turks kept on hold until the disease et al left the area so that the way was safe to conquer Byzantine... Or, when MOther Nature does her cyclical cleansing, she does a good job and leaves little to no crumbs so that the lessons can continue on pace... interesting to reread this and realize the idealist Caesar seems to have been if he thought Rome could change and become a beacon of light... seems a bit silly, same with the American Empire today... it's way too late for any 'fix'.
 
Like to read again older sessions after reading some books, threads on the forum, articles on Sott etc. It is like having new insight, new feeling. Every time I read this particular session the feeling of happiness and astonishing is growing although I already know what is written in it. So, no matter how many times I write - thank you - it is not enough. :hug2:
 
Session Date: July 12th 2014
...

(L) Okay, we're back, Caesar. Let's try again. Let's get ourselves together here... Since time doesn't exist up there, nothing happened. I guess we ought to ask a question. Gaius Julius Caesar, are you there?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Did I pronounce your name correctly?

A: No.

Q: [laughter] (L) Um, well I'm sorry, I don't know how to pronounce it.

A: Pick up high Latin style for clue. [letters come much more slowly]

Q: (L) I don't want to waste time talking about whether I pronounced your name right! Will it help if I pronounce your name right?

A: No.
I would really like to know how to pronouce his name correctly and most importainly is how he called himself.
 
Thank you for your responses, ryu, goyacobol, AzarHyun.

I am not sure how to read "high" Latin. I was only able to find basic Latin.

I think the word Caesar came from the ancient word HER, which is in Slavic and anc. Greek writes similar to "хер" (Cyrillic) meaning tsar, czar, tzar, king, emperor. I think it is the kind of "tsar" who was able to structure himself and space around him and be fair and kind to others, just like Caesar was (please refer to Session July 12th 2014).

The HERo, who was able to overcome personal blockages of all sorts and tried to help others and by doing this achieved transformation and became god-like. The word HRistos/CRistos probably comes from "хер". And Caesar too. Also HeRacles, HeRcules (a good read on this would probably be The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell)

There are many variations of pronunciation of this word (but I think I might be missing many possible variations):
Ter, Tar, Tara meaning "tsar", king. Tartaria means kingdom.
Kaiser, Haiser, Hesar, Kesar, Kser, Kaser, Reks, Sir, Ser, Kir, Sire, Gir, Gher, Kher, Kserks, Kr, Hr, Xr, etc...
And I think many names of cities around the world have this ancient root "хер" in them. And strangely, in many languages the word Hill is closely related to the word "хер". (City on the Hill where god-like "хер" rules)

These are some examples of the usage of the word "хер" on coins.
image00032.jpgDSC01841.JPG6628-1-f.jpg008-0081-8.jpg
 
Last edited:
Q: (Ark) Now, when... When this Caesar thing started, I felt a physical sensation. First, like the right half of my head tingling like with electricity, and I could feel like my hair is moving. Several times I was checking, you know? Is it moving or not? I couldn't find anything. But then, okay. Then here at this place (touches temple) again I was feeling it's moving. It's moving! I

I felt this too, like something was playing with or crawling in my hair on both sides of my head, I kept trying to brush the hair off my temples as Caesar was talking but there was no hair there.
I have been absent from the forum for much time and am trying to construct an explanation as to why, I’m still not sure how to approach it, as I am struggling to understand.
At the moment I’m just re-reading the transcripts to reform a connection to the group from my side.

It is interesting that I had a similar experience to Ark when Caesar was speaking. :)
 
I felt this too, like something was playing with or crawling in my hair on both sides of my head, I kept trying to brush the hair off my temples as Caesar was talking but there was no hair there.
I've been getting this for the past few weeks too, in particular on my right temple. I think there is a bug there or I have an itch. Maybe it's just a goosebump that moves a few hairs though.
 
I've been getting this for the past few weeks too, in particular on my right temple. I think there is a bug there or I have an itch. Maybe it's just a goosebump that moves a few hairs though.

I try not to make too much of things and see everything as a sign or some amazing experience from the ‘heavens’ as I’m prone to doing with everything, so I thought it could possibly be because it’s raining and my around the face hair was just moving, curling up tighter…. As I’m typing this though it’s happening again :) especially on the left side.
 
FWIW and as a little refresher on the historical background, here is the very interesting Michael Parenti talk "The assassination of Julius Ceasar" (it has been mentioned on the forum in other threads):

_

At minute 23, he starts talking about JC's policies. Interestingly, he also thinks that JC knew there was an assassination plot against him, but didn't know the exact time and place. Very worth the watch.

Started a cursory read though Parenti's book of the same name to try and get a sense of it.

O, what a fall was there, my countrymen! Then I, and you, and all of us fell down, Whilst bloody treason flourish’d over us. —Julius Caesar Act III, scene 2

Parenti opens with:

Caesar’s sin, I shall argue, was not that he was subverting the Roman constitution—which was an unwritten one—but that he was loosening the oligarchy’s overbearing grip on it. Worse still, he used state power to effect some limited benefits for small farmers, debtors, and urban proletariat, at the expense of the wealthy few. No matter how limited these reforms proved to be, the oligarchs never forgave him. And so Caesar met the same fate as other Roman reformers before him.

My primary interest is not in Julius Caesar as an individual but in the issues of popular struggle and oligarchic power that were being played out decades before he was born, continuing into his life and leading to his death.
[...]
But writing “history from the bottom up” is not an easy task when it comes to the Roman Republic, for there exists no trove of ordinary people’s letters, diaries, and memoirs; no back issues of labor publications and newspapers; no court, police, and government documents of the kind that compose the historical record of more recent centuries. Most of Rome’s written histories, libraries, and archives were lost over time or were deliberately destroyed by the fanatical proselytizers of Christianity who conducted a systematic war of eradication against pagan scholarship and culture after they came to power in the fifth century a.d. In any case, as far as we know, the small farmers, proletarians, and slaves of Rome left no written record to speak of.

In Chapter 5 Parenti titles it 'Cicero’s Witch-hunt,' and as far as can be seen, Parenti has Cicero in most chapters, mentioned 400 plus times. Parenti does not like this guy one bit, and delves into some many accounts

Cicero the slumlord:

Cicero himself owned tenement properties whose rental income he used to maintain his son as a student in Athens. In a letter to a friend, he sounds every bit the speculative slumlord: “[T]wo of my shops have collapsed and the others are showing cracks, so that even the mice have moved else where, to say nothing of the tenants. Other people call this a disaster, I don’t call it even a nuisance.... [T]here is a building scheme under way... which will turn this loss into a source of profit.

Further:
Almost everyone shares that opinion of Cicero. “Contemporary American and British ancient historians are divided between Ciceronians (95 percent) and Caesarians (a mere handful), and the division reflects their current political attitudes,” observes Arthur Kahn, one of the handful. Another of the handful is Friedrich Engels, who called Cicero “the most contemptible scoundrel in history.” {well, the latter is Engels, pen-pal to Marx}
[...]
He regarded the people as worthless groundlings, akin to criminals and degenerates, “the common herd,” the “masses and worst elements... many of them simply out for revolution.” He denounced those of pedestrian occupation, “the artisans and shopkeepers and all that kind of scum” who align themselves with dangerous demagogues, “the wretched half-starved commoners who attend mass meetings and suck the blood of the treasury.”
[...]
Celebrated throughout the ages as a champion of constitutionalism, Cicero actually was quite capable of playing fast with constitutional rights. His role in what became known as “the Catiline conspiracy” affords sorry evidence of this.

Parenti discusses the Catiline matters a fair bit.

From what can be read so far, Parenti seems to have Cicero pegged as if he could be a relative of Sir Francis Galton, or perhaps today an acolyte of Karl Schwab - he might even been like a J. Edger Hoover, though, good at collecting and manufacturing dirt while spinning yarns that have served historians unto this day. That fact that so much historical 'good stuff' was/is attributed to him, his narratives being taken as holy writ, his influence in our times is quite something indeed.

In a letter to Lucius Lucceius, who was writing a history of Rome (lost to us), Cicero asked him to use his genius to eulogize the role that he, Cicero, had played in the city’s history “with even more warmth than perhaps you feel, and in that respect to disregard the canons of history” by writing with a partiality that “enhances my merits even to exaggeration in your eyes... even a little more than may be allowed by truth.” This would help bring “the vindication of my claims to everlasting renown.” For “if a man has once transgressed the bounds of modesty, the best he can do is to be shameless out and out.”
Cicero’s tireless rodomontade became the accepted opinion among intellectuals through the ages.

Here is the book if interested in reading.
 
cesar and geller:

i was reading the session of 12 july 2014 because of christ and cesar. at the end, there is a remark by ark, given below:

"Q: (Ark) Now, when... When this Caesar thing started, I felt a physical sensation. First, like the right half of my head tingling like with electricity, and I could feel like my hair is moving. Several times I was checking, you know? Is it moving or not? I couldn't find anything. But then, okay. Then here at this place (touches temple) again I was feeling it's moving. It's moving! I didn't want to say anything. And then, at some point we were talking, and my glasses got bent. They were okay at the beginning. I didn't do anything. Then I had to fix them because they fell down. That never happened before."

this event with the bent glasses, reminds me of uri geller. i searched the forum, but this event is not mentioned.

i also had an event associated with a geller apparition on tv in the 70s. if someone requests me to tell it, i will.
 
The influence of the Carolingians
In this Session 12 July 2014
If there are any villains it would be the Flavians and the Carolingians.
(Perceval) The initial development of Christianity, was it done or made in its initial form - its first development, let's say after Caesar - was that in a response to the deification of Caesar by the people, and his values?

A: Yes.

Q: (Chu) If it was glorified, then...

(Perceval) So that was the start of it.

A: Carotta is very close in his analysis of how language issues affected the transmission and distortions. If there are any villains it would be the Flavians and the Carolingians.

Q: (Pierre) So Carotta was right. The Flavians creating the Christian myth... And then the Carolingians after the collapse of the empire recreating the 2.0 version of Christianity.

(Perceval) Is the time scale that we have for the kind of Dark Ages, fall of Rome, is that more or less correct...?

(L) What do you mean? You mean is our time line...

(Perceval) In terms of our timeline, from the fall of Rome back to Caesar's death... from the cosmic disaster, those 500 years or whatever it is...

A: There were years added so often that it will take some hard work to sort it out!
A search on the Forum reveals many mentions of the Carolingians

In July 2006, Laura wrote about the Franks in the thread, looking for an article about the formation of israel, but there are several posts, also preceding the above, including one from Jul 16, 2006,
The giant Islamic pincer movement across the Pyrenees in the west and across the Caucasus into Eastern Europe was halted at both ends at about the same time. As Charles Martel's Franks saved Gaul and Western Europe, so the Khazars saved the Eastern Roman Empire.
In May 2014, @Drigni and Laura included the topic of the Carolingians in a discussion found, in the thread, Historical Events Database - History regarding the tribes that inhabited Central Europe.
In 2021, Pierre mentioned the Carolingians in the thread Were 460 years added to the official chronology? In early 2022, Laura commented on a post by @Jtucker same thread: Were 460 years added to the official chronology?

The connection between the Franks and the Carolingians is according to the Wiki:
The Carolingian dynasty (/ˌkærəˈlɪndʒiən/ KARR-ə-LIN-jee-ən;[1] known variously as the Carlovingians, Carolingus, Carolings, Karolinger or Karlings) was a Frankish noble family named after Charles Martel and his grandson Charlemagne, descendants of the Arnulfing and Pippinid clans of the 7th century AD.[2] The dynasty consolidated its power in the 8th century, eventually making the offices of mayor of the palace and dux et princeps Francorum hereditary, and becoming the de facto rulers of the Franks as the real powers behind the Merovingian throne. In 751 the Merovingian dynasty which had ruled the Franks was overthrown with the consent of the Papacy and the aristocracy, and Pepin the Short, son of Martel, was crowned King of the Franks. The Carolingian dynasty reached its peak in 800 with the crowning of Charlemagne as the first Emperor of the Romans in the West in over three centuries. Nearly every monarch of France from Charlemagne's son Louis the Pious till the penultimate monarch of France Louis Philippe have been his descendants. His death in 814 began an extended period of fragmentation of the Carolingian Empire and decline that would eventually lead to the evolution of the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire.
For a perspective on the Carolingian contribution, there is from an article: The Clash between Orthodox Patristic Theology and Franco-Latin Tradition By His Eminence Fr. Jeremiah Foundas, Metropolitan of Gortyna and Megalopolis. He begins by saying that the Franks split the Christian unity, and introduced a difference in theology by building on and emphasizing on the views of Saint Augustin.
1. AS AN INTRODUCTION: WHO THE FRANCO-LATINS ARE
To start with, I feel it necessary to write a few words about the Franco-latins, whose theology is completely opposed to ours; this is precisely our topic here [1]. The once united Christian Roman Empire used to be known as a whole under the name of "Romania" [= Land of the Romans] and would be arranged into western and eastern sectors. Rome, the capital of the Empire, belonged to its western sector although it would have been better had it been in the East. For this reason, Constantine the Great transferred the capital to the city of Byzantium and named it New Rome initially; eventually, however, it received his name and became known as "Constantinople" [= Constantine's City].

Both Western and Eastern sectors of the United Christian Roman Empire (i.e. of Romania) faced enemies. For the West, which is of interest to us here, the main enemies were the Franks, barbaric and uncivilised peoples. Eventually, the Franks managed to subjugate the Western sector of the Empire and in order to appear as the true successors of this Roman Empire named themselves Romans; whereas Romans, "Neoromans" [= the Hellenic word “Rhomaios” (m.) or “Rhomaia” (f.), in Latin “Roman”, would also be pronounced as "Rhomios" (m.) and “Rhomia” (f.) transliterated here as “Neoroman”; after the Fall of the Empire, in 1453, the term “Rhomios” and Roman were used interchangebly, exclusively among the populations of the Eastern sector of the fallen Empire] are and should be called as such only we Orthodox. (For this reason we must ensure, with great care, to avoid calling the Franks as "Romans" or, worse, to call their confession as "the Roman Catholic Church"!)​
There is from the Wiki about Names of the Greeks:
By Late Antiquity (c. 3rd–7th centuries), the Greeks referred to themselves as Graikoi (Γραικοί, "Greeks") and Rhomaioi/Romioi (Ῥωμαῖοι/Ῥωμηοί/Ρωμιοί, "Romans") the latter of which was used since virtually all Greeks were Roman citizens after 212 AD.
And the Wiki for Byzantine Greeks has:
The Byzantine Greeks were the Greek-speaking Eastern Romans throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.[1]
[...]
Until the thirteenth century, education within the Byzantine Greek population was more advanced than in the West, particularly at primary school level, resulting in comparatively high literacy rates.
[...]
During most of the Middle Ages, the Byzantine Greeks self-identified as Rhōmaîoi (Ῥωμαῖοι, "Romans", meaning citizens of the Roman Empire), a term which in the Greek language had become synonymous with Christian Greeks.[8][9] The Latinizing term Graikoí (Γραικοί, "Greeks") was also used,[10] though its use was less common, and nonexistent in official Byzantine political correspondence, prior to the Fourth Crusade of 1204.[11] While this Latin term for the ancient Hellenes could be used neutrally, its use by Westerners from the 9th century onwards in order to challenge Byzantine claims to ancient Roman heritage rendered it a derogatory exonym for the Byzantines who barely used it, mostly in contexts relating to the West, such as texts relating to the Council of Florence, to present the Western viewpoint.[12][13] The ancient name Hellenes was synonymous to "pagan" in popular use, but was revived as an ethnonym in the Middle Byzantine period (11th century).[14]

While in the West the term "Roman" acquired a new meaning in connection with the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome, the Greek form "Romaioi" remained attached to the Greeks of the Eastern Roman Empire.[15]
The author argues, that the Franks/Carolingians modified the theology:
In order for the Franks to cut off the conquered Romans of the western sector completely from their other Orthodox brethren of the eastern sector, they dragged out of their vocabulary an insulting name which they used to call the eastern Romans with. They called them "Greeks" which [in this usage] means "impostors". And later, they called them "Byzantines". Whereas the old glorious name "Roman" or "Neoroman" (Rhomios), which used to signify the western and eastern Orthodox of the united Empire, the Franks kept for themselves and for those subjugated to them. But the Franks, after subjugating the Western sector of the Empire, realised then that they will have a complete sovereign over the West if somehow they managed to subjugate the Church and to give their own theology to the Christians living in the West. But did the Franks have a theology to give? By the 8th century, the Franks had already received the existing theology of Blessed Augustine, who, as the great Fr. John Romanides tells us, and as we shall prove in our present study, "essentially ignored the Patristic theology and its presuppositions". The Franks managed, in the end, to subjugate the Church of the enslaved Orthodox Christians of the West by the 11th century (AD 1014-1046) and to impose upon them their own Augustinian theology, which however does not express the patristic tradition.
There is more on this conquest of the Franks in several other articles available on their repository. About the role of the Franks:​
The Fundamental Difference Between the "East" and "West"
Professor John Romanides

European and American histories treat the alienation between Eastern and Western Christian Churches as though it were inevitable, because of an alleged separation of the Roman Empire itself into "East" and "West," because of alleged linguistic and cultural differences, and because of an alleged difference between the legal West and the speculative East. [1] Evidence strongly suggests that such attempts to explain the separation between East and West are conditioned by prejudices inherited from the cultural tradition of the Franks, and from the centuries-old propaganda of the Frankish (Germanic dominated) Papacy.

The evidence points clearly to the national, cultural, and even linguistic unity between East and West Romans which survived to the time when the Roman popes were replaced by Franks. Had the Franks not taken over the Papacy, it is very probable that the local synod of the Church of Rome (with the pope as president), elected according to the 769 election decree approved by the Eighth Ecumenical Synod in 879, would have survived, and that there would not have been any significant difference between the papacy and the other four Roman (Orthodox) Patriarchates.

However, things did not turn out that way. The Papacy was alienated from the (Orthodox) East by the Franks, so we now are faced with the history of that alienation when we contemplate the reunion of divided Christians. By the eighth century, we meet for the first time the beginnings of a split in Christianity. In West European sources we find a separation between a "Greek East" and a "Latin West." In Roman sources this same separation constitutes a schism between Franks (a confederation of Germanic Teutonic peoples living on the lower banks of the Rhine who by the sixth century AD conquered most of France, the low countries and what is now Germany. ed) and Romans. One detects in both terminologies an ethnic or racial basis for the schism which may be more profound and important for descriptive analysis than the doctrinal claims of either side.

The Roman Empire was conquered in three stages: by Germanic tribes (the Franks) who became known as "Latin Christianity," by Muslim Arabs, and finally, by Muslim Turks. In contrast to this, the ecclesiastical administration of the Roman Empire disappeared in stages from West Europe, but has survived up to modern times in the "East Roman Empire" the Orthodox Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

The reason for this is that the Germanic - Frankish conquerors of the West Romans (who became known as the "Roman Catholic Church.") used the Church to suppress the Roman nation, whereas under Islam the East Roman nation, the Orthodox Church, survived by means of the Orthodox Church. In each instance of conquest, the bishops became the ethnarchs of the conquered Romans and administered Roman law on behalf of the rulers. As long as the bishops were Roman, the unity of the Roman Church was preserved, in spite of theological conflicts.
Roman Revolutions and the Rise of Frankish Feudalism and Doctrine​
The Franks applied their policy of destroying the unity between the Romans under their rule and the "East Romans," the Orthodox, under the rule of Constantinople. They played one Roman party against the other, took neither side, and finally condemned both the iconoclasts and the Seventh Ecumenical Synod (786/7) at their own Council of Frankfurt in 794,

In the time of Pippin of Herestal (687-715) and Charles Martel (715-741), many of the Franks who replaced Roman bishops were military leaders who, accordingto Saint Boniface, "shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans." [2]

To be continued:
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom